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

Bad faith editing by User:Andrew Davidson

Concern is regarding an issue (singular) with Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). I'll be short. What the fuck is this [1]? Isn't this as egregious as someone putting a picture of a certain person who says bigly, beside an article titled Mental disorder? I don't go around digging someone's edit history. But I am confident that despite being aware of BLP policies, he made a troll page to provoke others. I have zero intentions of ever communicating with him in the future but I want to ask him here. What's your obsession with Greta (who was then 16)? His version was removed here and here (by User:ජපස and User:Bradv respectively), which means it stayed in public and indexed for more than a year perhaps. - hako9 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"I don't go around digging someone's edit history." - but you've gone around and dug out someone's edit history from 18 months ago? The picture seems fine in the context of that one-line stub. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

you've gone around and dug out someone's edit history from 18 months ago? What? The article has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-anxiety. - hako9 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, but that's not obvious from the diff you provided. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• He's a troll on AfDs as well, mostly centered around accusations that he doesn't believe but which are designed to annoy the target:
  • [2]- accuses User:Ajf773 of racism
  • [3]- more accusations of racism, this one leveled at @Piotrus:
  • [4]- accuses User:Soetermans of shilling for Fandom, Inc.
  • [5]- Further accusations of racism
• Good luck getting AfD closers to acknowledge these personal attacks, but maybe there will be a less unsatisfactory response here at ANI. Reyk _YO! 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• The article in question is currently at AfD, where I have explained some history of the article. It was initially based on this BBC article, which highlighted Greta Thunberg in this context, including the cited quotation of hers. I read that BBC article at the time, noticed that we didn't have a corresponding article and so got one started. Lots of other editors have expanded the article since and I've mostly left them to it. This just seems to be ordinary editing per WP:BOLD. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Would you, for instance, put a picture of Sushant Singh Rajput in an article titled depression, with his quotes (out of context), in the caption. The BBC article doesn't put her picture as the top display. Is this not completely un-encyclopedic? Isn't this enabling and encouraging other editors to inundate this article with her personal life and her mental health, all in the garb of "eco-anxiety"? - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, thanks a lot, for leaving this articles to others. The harm you caused would maybe be more difficult to fix than creating an article from scratch. - hako9 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(after several edit conflicts) No, "his version" was not removed in those edits. He neither created the caption removed by User:ජපස nor the text removed by User:Bradv. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Phil Bridger: for pointing it out to me though, that those weren't "his versions". Striked that word. - hako9 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• The OP is now claiming that I have an "obsession with Greta" and adds some innuendo about her age. But the OP fails to provide evidence of such an obsession. So far as I recall, I have never edited the article about her and it wasn't on my watchlist when I looked at it just now. I don't think I've even read the article before as it was interesting to discover that her second name is Tintin, which I was not previously aware of.

What I have done previously is create some other articles about environmental topics including beach cleaning; back to nature; ammonia pollution; decline in insect populations; plogging; Boyan Slat; sharawadgi. I have also created hundreds of articles on a variety of other topics as I'm not especially obsessed by any particular topic. One such other article was give a dog a bad name and hang him. I don't recall exactly, but suppose that was inspired by some similar proceeding here at ANI. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was it interesting for you to discover her second name is Tintin? - hako9 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• A lot of articles about ecoanxiety mention Greta. She represents worrying about the environment rather well. I don't see this is an insult. Why call it a "mental disorder" when people are worried about the environment? Dream Focus 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Look at this version (before today's nomination)- [6]. Quoting from the article's lead Swedish teenager, Greta Thunberg, is a high-profile example of youth who have been affected and has been pivotal in making climate anxiety more visible around the world. At the age of 11, she became seriously depressed because of her worries about global warming, although her anxiety exacerbated her pre-existing mental health problems. Here is the source (paints a completely different picture imv)The Guardian. Do you find anything wrong? If not then ask yourself, what is this article about. Is it about psychological emotion or about a girl and her personal life. If a line on this and her past was included in her own article, that would've been fine. This isn't. - hako9 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't in the original article he created. Her article has a section for her mental health issues including depression. Greta_Thunberg#Mental_health Dream Focus 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Dream Focus, It wasn't. But I'll repeat, his creation of the article was done with a purpose of enabling and encouraging other editors to inundate the article with her personal life and her mental health, in the garb of "eco-anxiety"? - hako9 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That sounds rather ridiculous. Why would you believe someone would create an article for that devious purpose? How exactly would that even work? You honestly believe he somehow knew others would come and add in more information that you find offensive, despite it being listed in her own article? Dream Focus 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The section on her page distinguishes completely, her past and the issues she overcame, in contrast to her activism later in life. The article portrays that the psychological response in teens is unsubstantiated by way of making her the poster child of people who had issues earlier in life, and who are known for that mere reason. - hako9 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Not seeing an ANI-level issue here. Would need much more evidence to make the case for a tban or some other sort of action. I don't agree with Andrew's editorial decision in that article, but don't think it rises to the level of a behavioral problem. BD2412 suggested a very sensible approach to handling the article(s), and as Reyk's comments show, the longer this stays open the more likely it is to drift into other issues. If something's going to happen with Andrew (or ARS, since that's relevant to this AfD) it's probably not going to happen in the context of this thread. $0.02 — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  maybe there will be a less unsatisfactory response here at ANI- every time I allow myself the least bit of optimism I end up disappointed. Why do I bother? Reyk _YO! 18:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Looks like I stand corrected. Usually bringing up unrelated issues with regard to the subject of an ANI report, when the initial report doesn't have much meat to it, doesn't go anywhere (and IMO weakens those same arguments for when they are relevant down the road), but it looks like perhaps enough is enough [for a warning]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Although the diffs provided by Reyk are much much more serious, can someone please comment on whether an article creation like this is ohk? Am I losing my shit over a paltry issue or does my concern have maybe, an iota of validity? - hako9 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, I understand what you're saying and I guess my passive agressive complaining just now wasn't a good idea. But sometimes you just can't satisfy everyone. If I protest at the AfDs, closers ignore it. If I start an ANI myself people will accuse me of just having an axe to grind. If I attach my concerns to another ANI regarding insinuations against people who don't deserve it that's too off-topic. If I wait for a more AfD-centric discussion I'll get dismissed because the alleged misbehaviour was too long ago. Reyk _YO! 20:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: if you post more bad faith, passive-aggressive speculation about the motives of editors, I will block you for violations of WP:CIVIL. Insinuating that someone is racist or shilling is unacceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Chin up, Reyk! Lev!vich 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse NinjaRobotPirate's warning and urge Andrew Davidson to take it seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• I also endorse NinjaRobotPirate's warning, and will enforce the same if I see uncivil conduct continue. BD2412 T 18:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Adding my support and my endorsement to this as well, please take this seriously. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• It's nearly ten years ago (I did have to check, it wasn't imprinted on my brain) that I blocked Andrew for equating deletionists to Nazis, I really would have hoped that this would have improved since then. It really should. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll mirror both you and NinjaRobotPirate in that this definitely needs to be closed with at least a warning so the next problem can't be just passed off as not actionable again and again. Andrew Davidson needs to take this seriously and that any further actions like this will be sanctioned. I don't know how well a warning will really work given all this time and many warnings from editors, but it's clear the battleground behavior related to AfDs is not stopping. The recent sniping at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skull_Cave was the most recent one that caught my eye before this ANI. Blocks need to be tried to get it to stop at this point. Otherwise, if we start totaling up diffs of WP:TEND behavior that by definition may not be actionable individually, we're looking at needing a topic ban from deletion related topics if this doesn't stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I had thought this complaint was something of an exaggeration until I saw this diff. Here, the user lists three sources that are ostensibly about the topic of eco-anxiety. The problem is that none of the sources are about eco-anxiety. None of them use the term even once. This kind of appalling editorial indiscretion is an enormous red flag. I don't know what to do about it, but it's clear this user is here to use Wikipedia as a venue for his own original research rather than a means to collate what third-party sources say about a topic. This is a really big issue as far as I'm concerned -- especially as the user seems to have sufficient abilities to make it appear as though he is following Wikipedia standards and practices when in fact he is flouting them completely. Something needs to be done. jps (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That diff you link is unfortunately what I've experienced at AfDs where they are involved too. Much of this ANI deals with their battleground behavior issues, but what you're describing is more of a WP:COMPETENCE issue. It functionally becomes a WP:BLUDGEON when Andrew repeatedly does that across AfDs. I hadn't taken the sanction idea as seriously before, but I am drifting more towards a deletion topic ban (whether for competence or battleground issues) being in the cards. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. The OP who couldn't properly link a WP:DIFF aside, I was pinged by Reyk and I do concur that Andrew's behavior in some areas of the project is problematic, in two dimensions. First, an occasional lack of civility is an issue, coupled with a significant amount of POINTless disruption with AfDs. Few examples: 1) an edit summary accusing others of disruptive PROD (I think it is deleted now). 2) in another recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skull Cave Andrew accused the nom (me) of "abuse of our deletion process"; his Keep vote was the only one there and User:Argento Surfer explicitly said 'you should stop tossing around these bad faith criticisms of "abuse"' 4) another recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Byakhee saw where his keep vote was the only dissenting one saw him making yet another personal attack at the nom (me): "The nomination's claims are therefore false.". This has been pointed out by User:GizzyCatBella [7]. 5) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redbird (comics) he accused the nom (me...) of "cookie-cutter" nomination, his post there led to explicit criticism by User:Darkknight2149: [8]; and he used the cookie-cutter in other AdDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miraz's Castle where again his vote was the only dissenting one 6) a pattern of dePRODing articles with an unhelpful rationale, and not participating in the resulting AfDs even when pinged directly (I could link dozens of cases like the recent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamaran or the still ongoing but quite clear Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purdue Outing Club; here's a random one from few months ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Clark - please note that this is not a case of 'once every few weeks', but rather 'several times a week'); this is particularly problematic when the dePRODs are done on content that is unreferenced and later not contested by anyone like the (still ongoing) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wingmen_of_Thanagar. His pattern of dePRODing has been subject to numerous complaints before like this recent one by User:DoubleGrazing: [9]; they are easy to see because Andrew habitually removes such warnings from his talkpage... through some discussions are preserved: User_talk:Andrew_Davidson/deletion_discussions#Mass_prodding_by_Piotrus, few more at User talk:Andrew Davidson/deletion discussions but I think most are not archived and I don't have the time and will to dig through the diffs of his talk page. ANI archives, however, are more stable: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Proposal:_Require_Andrew_Davidson_to_provide_a_rationale_with_each_de-PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Andrew_Davidson_disruptive_editing_in_AfD. I really don't know what to do, since this is not white and black, some of Andrew's dePRODs are valid, and so are some of his AfD comments. But the ratio of bad to good is a problem here. I really don't like the idea of sanctions when an editor is editing in good faith, and even through I disagree with Andrew quite a lot, I am not sure I'd support any topic ban. But one suggestion I do have is a custom sanction that would force him to provide a meaningful rationale with his dePRODs. Check: [10] and remember that it only shows kept articles (or ones nobody bothered to challenge again). But a lot of the stuff he dePRODs with no edit summary, not bothering to comment in AfD, effectively wastes community time (and I repeat - if anyone wants more data points, I can easily list several dozens of articles that Andrew dePRODed with a generic edit summary, that he did not participate in a resulting AfD even after being pinged, and that were uncontroversial deletes). And when he comments in those AfDs, as the diffs show, too often those comments are not constructive nor polite :( PS. To be clear: I don't mind deprods, and I don't want to topic ban Andrew from dePRODs, but what I see is a pattern of mass dePRODing with no BEFORE on his part, as evidenced by mentioned dozens of articles that he PRODed with no rationale, that in turn were AfDed with him being pinged and where he did not participate, and nobody else found any reason to keep an article. When this happens dozens of times each months for years now I think we have a problem. Andrew needs to stop dePRODing on a whim, and when he occasionally participates in a resulting AfDs, he needs to AGF the nom and make his arguments constructive, not battleground-ish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, I did not link a diff because I had a single issue with the user. That of creation of an article with a picture and caption of a person to try to portray that person as maybe an environmental alarmist at best and a person with mental health issues at worst . If no one finds this as an issue of malintent, it would be better that I strike my comments and let others speak. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. - hako9 (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hako9, in my opinion, the matter you brought forward is worthy of attention, and is relevant to the broader discussion, and there is no reason for you to apologize. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 Apologies are under-used here, but yes, this was my mistake - I didn't realize you meant the very first diff. Through next time it wouldn't hurt to make it more clear. I apologize for dismissing the OP's link. This is not a waste of time. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a gracious thing to say, Piotrus. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I... I really wish this wasn't something to thank me for. This project would be in much better shape if people would be more willing to say 'sorry' and 'thank you' more often. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, Oh man. Thanks for saying that. From the beginning of starting this post, I was constantly thinking, Am I assuming the worst in people or have I gone completely insane. I just want to make a final comment. I don't want any action against Andrew (atleast for my complaint of creation of that article. Reyk's and your issue, needs different look). I just want someone to say to Andrew that, Dude, that article, with that picture and that caption, was 100% INSENSITIVE and you just can not do that. - hako9 (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged, I'll say that my interactions with Andrew have probably been disagreements at least as often as not, but I believe he's a net positive for the project. His standards for inclusion are lower than average, but his quality of contribution is higher than average - when he was reviewing a DYK nom for me, he actually bought the book and read it before passing so it wouldn't just be a rubber stamp. Although I can appreciate the sheer volume of deletion noms he wants to oppose is probably overwhelming, I would encourage him to put effort into improving the articles he defends rather than add a bullet pointed list of references to the AfD. That effort will either result in some WP:HEY keeps and people will start giving his opinion more weight, or he'll realize his sources weren't as useful as he believed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There is nothing egregious here. And there is no need for the OP to say, "What the fuck is..." It does not make the argument better, it is distracting. Andrew Davidson has written a great article and many others on the project...that the OP misinterpreted the intentions of Andrew D who used a photograph of a well known environmental voice, is not the fault of Andrew D. This is also quite a dramatic revert by JPS also with a very...uncivil "Fuck no" edit summary. That the truth is offensive to certain editors is not a problem with Andrew D, and now that everyone has been overruled by Bradv's edit we can move on. Or maybe not...JPS also nominated the article for deletion as possible WP:REVENGE and that seems more egregious and disruptive to the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• No need for action here except maybe a boomerang. If there was a valid case to make against another editor it should be possible to do so without use of the f word, calling them a troll or assuming you know what they think. Accusations that include phrases such as "He's a troll on AfDs as well, mostly centered around accusations that he doesn't believe but which are designed to annoy the target". Don't need further investigation - unless accompanied by a diff from the target saying that they hadn't actually meant an accusation but had only done it to annoy. The best way to deal with such attacks is to dismiss them out of hand. ϢereSpielChequers 15:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  WereSpielChequers, because you know that the Colonel's accusations of racism and shilling are indefensible, you seek to dismiss the complaint by quibbling about its wording. Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Reyk _YO! 15:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I doubt they are indefensible, but that isn't the point. Using the F word, calling someone a troll and presuming you know what they think are not some minor typo that could be dismissed as a quibble. If there were valid complaints to make against the Colonel they could have been made without them. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should have tried to dismiss my valid complaints before several administrators in good standing backed them up. Bit late to protect your friend now. Reyk _YO! 16:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• I hope none of our colleagues share whatever moral code led you to conclude that three accusations of racism merit "no need for action" but using the words "fuck" and "troll" merits "maybe a boomerang". Lev!vich 16:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  The combination of the f word and the presumption of knowing what someone thinks means that I am unlikely to find the rest of the case convincing. a set of diffs setting out an allegation of trolling would be worth investigating, but it would be much much stronger without those two minuses. Taking this alleged accusation of racism. I disagree with the Colonel re the notability of Azerbaijani long service awards. Many organisations have ten year, fifteen year and twenty year long service awards. Wikipedia itself has a service award system, and I'm comfortable that it isn't mentioned in our article on Wikipedia. I suppose if I had taken part in that AFD I might have argued for merge rather than delete, if there were an article on Azerbaijani awards or perhaps to the article on the Azerbaijani government; but can't see myself !voting keep on that one. As for whether it is systematic bias or English language bias or indeed racism the Colonel himself doesn't as far as I can see presume to assume other people's motivation. There is a perfectly legitimate minority view among some in this community that our audience is the English speaking world, and that a topic like this might belong on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia but it doesn't really belong here. I don't share that view, not least because there are English speakers practically everywhere but also because our remit is to cover the sum of all knowledge and I'm aware that many of our readers do so via translation tools - our reach is beyond the English speaking world. However I wouldn't assume that someone holding that view was institutionally biased or indeed racist; let alone someone who, like me, wasn't convinced that any organisation's long service award really merits its own article. The Colonel did say some fairly disparaging things about deletionists in that thread, comments that would sink an RFA if he were to run there. But I read him comments as being more polite or less incivil than the person who used the f word and called him a troll. In short I take racism very seriously, I am very sure that the colonel does as well. If he were to accuse someone of racism I am confident that he would do so with good evidence, I don't see him using the word "racism" in that diff. ϢereSpielChequers 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• So mentioning a "system bias" makes you a racist? He comments to someone from New Zealand [11] and someone from Poland [12] how they don't seem to mind if list of shopping malls in their countries don't have sources, but are willing to delete the list of those in Africa. Race was never mentioned nor implied. Just an accusation of a double standard for their own nations perhaps. Not assuming good faith though. Should've been worded differently. Dream Focus 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  Dream Focus, Why did you conveniently leave out this diff, where Andrew, called another user (who nac'd an afd) a "presumptious (sic) non-admin and Nigerian, who needed to be put in their place".

  I am speaking for myself here, but I wouldn't like to be talked in that tone ever. IRL or online. If someone called me a presumptuous guy who needed to be put in their place, I frankly wouldn't complain. But why mention a user's nationality? What was the intent there? Notice the mention of nationality after conjunction "and", as if to belittle someone. Am I reaching here? Or Is this the kind of way and tone to speak to someone? - hako9 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  Hako9, actually Davidson is falsely attributing those hateful and racist views to someone else. Reyk _YO! 20:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Reading tea leaves to assign motives or racist intent (I personally do not see it). Too often with written word, editors see what they want. Lightburst (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, How would you classify that projection? Some kind of paternalistic prejudice, to be too polite? - hako9 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've just looked at the diffs supplied by Reyk at the top of the thread and I'm utterly shocked, especially from someone who I have worked with in many positive ways to write and improve the encyclopedia over several years. Andrew, this comment is a personal attack and I'm pleased to see that fellow administrators agree that is completely unacceptable to insult fellow editors like this. Please do not do this again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't read all the diffs above, but I find these types of comments problematic:

• One long accusation of bad faith: [13],
• "where he managed to get the close overturned as the closer was a presumptious non-admin and Nigerian, who needed to be put in their place." [14],
• "What the nay-sayers fail to explain is why we should single out African countries for systemic bias"[15].

The full comments from the above show more problems.   // Timothy :: talk  02:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

In yet another bad-faith accusation today, Andrew Davidson has accused a user who began a discussion of inappropriate forum-shopping (without at all contributing to the discussion as others were, just casting it as "vague"), where in fact the OP was uninvolved in the separate Wikiproject discussion that was largely unanimous and ended more than a month earlier. Reywas92^Talk 18:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Update The AfD for the article in question has now been closed. There were lots of !votes and the score was 13 merge, 8 keep and 2 delete. The conclusion was to merge to an article that does not exist! In the course of the parallel discussion at the fringe noticeboard, someone shrewdly noted that, at last year's discussion of climate psychosis, it was then decided that eco-anxiety was the preferred target. As that happened in August 2019, when the article was much as I had created it, this demonstrates that the article was considered satisfactory rather than outrageous. In December 2019, Piotrus further confirmed this status by destubbing it. The OP's claims that this was a bad faith creation in pursuit of an obsession seem quite mistaken. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

dComment I know this user. He has almost always voted Keep or Merge at AfD. He tends to cite specific policies or attempt to cite sources [16][17][18], often poorly. Of his 131 Keep and Speedy keep votes on closed AfDs, 72 were kept, 20 were deleted, 16 were redirected, 10 were merged, and 13 reached no consensus. Of the 159 AfD votes counted in the matrix, 89 matched the eventual result and 57 did not. That's 61% hit rate if No consensus results are ignored. Combined with the recent personal attacks, I feel like this user is edging on a siteban. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - a thread about a newer user who made a remark like the Nigerian bit cited above, would have been closed with an indeff after the minimum allowable time. We all know that's true. So why is this thread longer than the typical top level US state article? Just asking. John from Idegon (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  John from Idegon, inclusionist celebrities are not subject to the same rules as the rest of us. Reyk _YO! 08:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  Right, there is obviously a correlation between how active you are and what you can get away with. Up to a point anyway. Anyway, I think it woudl be best to close this with some kind of warning regarding civility and/or good faith, so all of this actually produces something constructive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• What an astonishing thread! Many of us have met the Colonel in RL, and know he's a tireless attenders of Wikimedia events to promote diversity. While some of the diffs can be made to look bad if we take parts of quotes out of context , if we look at them carefully, he's clearly on the pro African side. The Colonel is someone I know well in the real world, one of our finest scholars and an British gentleman of impeccable character.

That said, I find myself partly agreeing with Reyk. Very occasionally the Colonel does seem to not AGF, and perhaps he might want to consider taking a few weeks break from AfD every now and then. AfD could try the patience of a literal Saint if frequented too often. So perhaps this could be closed with a reminder to all of the importance for assuming good faith, and being as collegial as possible towards our fellow editors? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick point of order, not everyone will understand that "the Colonel" means Andrew in this context; some may mistakenly think you're referring to a chap dressed in military uniform to demand that ANI threads be instantly stopped because they are too silly.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The thread has indeed been Pythonesque as one surreal sketch segued into another. So far in this two-week run we have had:

1. The Dirty Fork in which extravagant complaints are made about eco-anxiety. The joke here is that the same customers were recommending it in a different debate last year.
2. Four Yorkshireman who reminisce about the distant past, magnifying the horrors and difficulties of those times as they try to shock their audience
3. Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook in which words are twisted and changed so that their meaning is reversed and there is a ranting torrent of abuse
4. Something completely different in which we mustn't talk about the war!
5. Nudge Nudge in which there is much talk of mysterious prodding
6. Argument Clinic in which the point of the argument escapes and turns into being-hit-on-the-head lessons
7. The Colonel arrives and declares that the proceedings have become too silly.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You can try to be the court jester all you want. You should know that people find your references and attitude pathetically unfunny. Contrary to what you may think, people don't have time to waste on frivolous complaints. And I wasn't just being a snowflake with my "extravagant complaint". - hako9 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

• Proposal A - indeff for the highly racist, absolutely indefensible remark about "putting the Nigerian in his place". He's shown no remorse or understanding as to why he absolutely cannot say those things on Wikipedia. As I mentioned above, we all know a new editor wouldn't have gorren away with that. It's certainly much more egregious than things I've seen other senior editors defrocked for. We cannot call an editor with names that imply privileged, as was done immediately above this subheader, and allow said privileged editor to say things like the Nigerian comment. I'm not a big supporter of cancel culture, but indeffs are appealable.

• Proposal B - topic ban from deletion processes. His disruption of deletion processes seems to be infinite. He's been called here multiple times over it, it's eveidenced above that he's still doing it. He's reverted at least 40 prods I've placed over the past eight years, never with any explanation except words that boil down to "because I can". Someone above asserted extremely active editors get away with stuff others don't. That's true, and it's not good. But even given that, there has to be a line in the sand. An admin with a similar start date and considerably more community activity was desysopped about a year ago for essentially sexism for making much less egregious remarks. And he's not that active. In 12 years, he's made about as many edits as I make in a year. And nearly a third of his edits are to Wikispace. (Mr X) Wikispace, you know...where deletion processes are held. Where RfA, another area where he's been disruptive, is.

• My preference as nominator would be A, with B second. No action isn't a viable option. John from Idegon (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope you understand the Colonel was actually arguing against that despicable sentiment? So unless you are proposing an indef against the pro deletion editor, which doesnt seem likely, have you perhaps miss read the Nigerian diff? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The Colonel was basically saying "Sandstein reopened that NAC discussion because he thinks Nigerians need to be put in their place". Accusing someone of being a racist when they're not, and you know they're not, just to be hurtful is almost as bad as the racism itself. Reyk _YO! 18:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the general point, but the way I read the diff, I'm close to 99.99% the Colonel didn't mean it against Sandstein (someone I've long said is one of our very best XfD closers). FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Bullshit, FeydHuxtable. Thanks for providing the link. Davidson wrote that, no one else. He wasn't quoting anyone, and flat out stated he did it to "...put the Nigerian in his place. If you're going to support a racist editor, get it right. Sorry, but ANYONE who thinks there is a special place people from certain countries need to be put is not capable of editing here, much less one stupid enough to actually type that unto the en.wiki website. Sorry, but WP:NONAZI applies...minimally, Davidson needs to apogize for that, explain to the community why he needs to apologize and be put on a 0 restriction from ever doing it again. John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) I explained the reference to Nigeria in that discussion. The point was that they were not Azerbajani, as the topic seemed to be dominated by editors from that nation. I haven't gone into it here, as it's a complicated matter and quite irrelevant to the OP's complaint about eco-anxiety. The context of that other discussion was difficult closes of AfD discussions and they are, by definition, difficult. My general point was to explore the full history of that one. The outcome has been to create a Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion board. I wasn't convinced that this was necessary but it can certainly be difficult to unpick the complexities of such a case. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, do you understand why the phrasing you used is inappropriate, period? Remarks like that cannot be explained. Making a denegrating comment at all, in any situation is not acceptable in modern society. Period. If you can indicate any understanding of that, I'll be happy to withdraw my vote to indeff, and withdraw the proposal to block. John from Idegon (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This is comes off as off-topic mudslinging. This ANI is not even related to some of your different claims here. Also I feel you do not understand the context of the comments which you characterize as "highly racist." Perhaps you should provide diffs to these He's reverted at least 40 prods I've placed over the past eight years. (40 prods over 8 years is 0.2 5 prods removed a year?) It sounds like you have a separate issue or grudge completely unrelated to this ANI Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of 40 proposed deletions over eight years is 5 per year. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! You're correction is Mathematically elegant! Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I just browsed User:John from Idegon/PROD log and don't recognise the 40 prods that he talks of -- just the odd case like Linestanding, which still seems to be a reasonable topic. What I do notice is that there are lots of blue links in that PROD log which indicates that I'm not the only person successfully contesting such prods. As the prod process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected", John should be using AfD, not prod. My actions as a prod patroller are quite valid. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Proposal B All the evidence in the discussion above shows that Andrew Davidson' participation has long been a net negative to our deletion processes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose overblown hyperbole - the use of the term "highly racist" is an aspersion and or personal attack and the proposer should strike it. Andrew Davidson has never been disruptive in AfDs and that is why this ANI was going nowhere until this out of left field A B proposal with a strange editorial of: "No action isn't a viable option" The editor does not reflexively !vote with the majority and perhaps that is his crime. There is not a reason place any restrictions. Lightburst (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Not gonna happen. You are threatening me with sanctions for pointing out saying something racist is racist? Do it or drop it, dude. AFAIAC, that puts you in the same frame as him. John from Idegon (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you are carrying forward a grudge against AD. And your proposals are unrelated to the ANI. Your opinions are not objective, they are very subjective. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support proposal B- Enough is enough. He goes out of his way to be odious to other AfD participants at every opportunity. It shouldn't be necessary to insult other people, misrepresent policy, or make bizarre accusations against people in an AfD discussion, yet the Colonel seemingly can't participate without doing one or all of those things. Net negative. Reyk _YO! 18:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose . Even sanction B would interfere with the extensive work the Colonel does helping newbies at wiki training events & other meetups to promote diversity and other good causes. Probably he's not as key now things have moved online, but still a great asset. Also, while he might not be right every time, surely none can deny the Colonel has saved many thousands of policy compliant articles over the years, which would otherwise be lost to us? The XfD process is inherently a source of drama, how can it not be when each XfD is essential a proposal to wipe out peoples hard work, sometimes literally weeks of work in a single AfD? I'm not sure that many of the diffs above show the Colonel causing drama that wasn't already there. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• I am currently attending the monthly UK meetup on Zoom and this ANI matter is an unwelcome distraction from that. I recently attended the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Vaccine_initiative_pilot_editing_event at which I did various event coordination tasks -- welcoming and confirming new editors and creating structural material such as Category: COVID-19 vaccines. The idea that I am not a good-faith editor seems quite unreal. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Out of context. Most understood what he said. He should be more careful to word things in the future to avoid problems with those that have low reading comprehension skills. He is not a racist, he was accusing someone else perhaps of being racist or just bias against that nation. He should not have done that anyway, but no reason to blow things out of bounds over this. Dream Focus 19:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Looks like a great editor to me, and literally cant see anything he has done wrong here2A00:23C4:201:5F00:3126:BB77:6FBB:FC9A (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  Whose sock are you? Reyk _YO! 19:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose There are plenty of other editors who need to be chastised for their incivility far more than Andrew Davidson. I don't see how Andrew Davidson's mild statements presented in the above diffs come even close to justifying such a broad topic ban for a productive editor. Even many of the people in the above thread have been casting aspersions and making personal attacks on Andrew Davidson that are far worse than anything he has given. The proposer himself recently came off an indefinite ban based on a promise to avoid incivility and drama-mongering such as much of the above. Worldlywise (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow I just had a look at the ANI and the block log for John from Idegon. I was perplexed by the PA against Andrew D and the suggestion of what I consider outrageous proposals. Now I see from the block log, there was hostility and incivility by John from Idegon in July 2020 which earned them a few blocks.diff, diff. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• So I've been blocked before. So have you. Go accuse some else of bias, without evidence. Either do it or drop it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support B - not the first time AD has been uncivil in deletion discussions. Or the second. Or the tenth. There are too many previous noticeboard threads and blocks; warnings and prior sanctions are not preventing the disruption here. Lev!vich 23:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Too many blocks? This account has been blocked just once and that was over 6 years ago; the admin that did it was involved and was de-sysopped. Perhaps Levivich is not familiar with this because they started editing less than two years ago. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It's stupid to lie about past Wikipedia activity, especially by omission. Everything is written down and searchable. In this case, the links are in this very thread. "All the evidence in the discussion above shows that Andrew Davidson' participation has long been a net negative to our deletion processes", to quote another !voter, with whom I 100% agree. Also, I don't care how many wiki meetups you go to. I actually think you're a bad influence on some new editors, like Lightburst, setting a negative example that attacking !voters who disagree with you is somehow acceptable, encouraged, or normal. (Compare your responses here with LB's responses here: both of you are attacking voters you disagree with. It's an ARS thing I guess.) The best thing I can say about your AFD participation is that you're not the worst offender, but that's not saying very much, is it? At bottom you just don't care what editors who you disagree with at AFD think or how they feel. It's all a giant game to you, as evidenced by your use of language like "score" to describe AFD votes. And you've apparently remained steadfast about that for 10+ years despite many complaints from your colleagues, which you ignore. Repeatedly accusing editors of voting based on their racial bias? Truly: What the hell is wrong with you, man? That is totally out of bounds. So, I think your taking a break from AFDs will improve the project, and since you won't change voluntarily, I support a tban. Lev!vich 13:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • It's all a giant game to you, as evidenced by your use of language like...That is totally out of bounds Argento Surfer (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In one paragraph Levivich managed to call Andrew Davidson stupid, and a liar while boiling his contributions down to a "net negative" He then managed to take shots at both myself and WP:ARS... then implied there is something wrong with Andrew with "What the hell is wrong with you, man? That is totally out of bounds." I called out the incivility of the proposer who leveled a personal attack against AD calling him "highly racist" The proposer then went on to call out a laundry list of grievances. Then I saw that the proposer was banned for just such attacks and drama. I think if we ask which editor is a net positive to the encyclopedia we will see it is Andrew. Engaging in name calling and drama does nothing to build the encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just so nobody is deceived here, the Colonel has a more extensive block log under an alt account. See here. This block log includes incidents such as threatening someone's real life job for nominating an article at AfD, numerous misbehaviours at and around AfD, and equating people to Nazis. Reyk _YO! 10:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, and KWW was desysopped for some unrelated unpleasantness involving edit filters, five years later, and not for blocking the Colonel's then-undisclosed sock account. More lies. Reyk _YO! 11:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Here's the finding of fact. I could likewise go into the details of the other blocks but going over this ancient history would tend to become wearisome. The summary version is that none of them lasted long because they were due to misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This sounds like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I know Andrew has had outbursts and personally attacked people, but they seem to be very isolated events, and we all get uptight every now and then. For instance, nobody is demanding that JFI be sanctioned for shouting "bullshit" at Feyd. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Nobody is demanding JFI be sanctioned because we're talking about very different orders of magnitude and it should not be used to distract from the long-term issues with Davidson by pointing at something by someone else that generally isn't even sanctionable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support B as the more long-term solution while still giving some WP:ROPE as opposed to a full indef (though no prejudice against if that option is needed). I'm also concerned about the oppose votes here ignoring most of Davidson's behavior as a whole reducing it down to outbursts or isolated incidents. The WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is persistent and far from isolated when you look through their comments and far more than the racist or shilling comments that were already enough for at least 5 admins to warn him that a block was imminent.
  I'm also concerned after seeing Reyk's post that Davidson had a previous account with sanctions, even if it was awhile ago. It does establish though there's an even longer history of battleground behavior going back over 10 years. Considering the above comment and how they still seem to act as if they aren't doing anything wrong, this seems like a more realistic option now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Being active in contentious deletion discussions does not make one a bad person; and there is no evidence of any problem warranting a block or topic ban. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support B per my statement above and the PROD problems cited by John from Idegon (talk · contribs). I wish I could cite specific examples of the latter, but I know there are a few probelematic deprods that led to AfDs for articles about fictional elements. The user is too constructive otherwise for option A, and unsurprisingly no one supports that proposition. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• The supposed PROD problems were not cited by John from Idegon – there were no diffs or other evidence. In deletion discussions, I am usually the person who does the legwork and again, in this case, it was I that provided the one specific example that we have: linestanding. This article was started back in 2007 and was prodded by John in 2019 with the edit summary, "Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD". I spotted this while doing prod patrol and, as it seemed to be a reasonable topic, removed the prod with the edit summary "remove proposed deletion per WP:DEPROD". I use this form of edit summary now for symmetry, so that somone looking at the edit history will see the matching placement and removal, with the corresponding links to the relevant processes. I also updated the article's talk page adding an {{FSS}} template to assist with improvement. If you use this, you can readily see that the topic is notable being discussed in detail in books such as this.

The matter rests there because no-one has started a discussion on the article's talk page or at AfD. No-one else seems to think that the article should be deleted but, if I had not taken that action of removing the prod, the page might well have been deleted without discussion. That's what option B means – pages being silently removed from the project because the person who might investigate and object has been gagged.

Andrew🐉(talk) 05:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed Colonel. A few years back I seem to recall you did more prod patrolling that everyone else put together. The world is changing faster than ever and we need newbies to help with much needed updates required to keep the Encyclopedia relevant. We cant afford too many to be driven off by unwarranted deletion! On the other hand it's also important not to demotivate the quality control crew. There may still be case for you taking the occasional break for a few weeks, so youre refreshed and your normal collegial self. I know folk like yourself, Dream & Lightburst have vastly more mental fortitude than someone like me - but staying perfectly civil when youre on AfD for years with no break, may be beyond even peak human capability. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose at the moment, however I suspect another trip to this board would not reach the same result, so I'd strongly advise AD to rein it in a bit (and the same goes for all of the other "Keep: it's mentioned somewhere on the Internet" AfD crew). Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I could be persuaded to support an editing restriction limiting Andrew Davidson to only deprodding articles he's willing to defend at AfD—but that's it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose rather per Black Kite and others. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly through agreement with Black Kite, as I feel that Andrew provides valuable assistance in deletion areas; like just about anyone who contributes in highly contentious areas he is bound to slip here and there, so I would encourage him to take more care in AFDs and discuss content rather than contributors. BOZ (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We've got WP:ROPE if anything crops up in the future, which I hope it doesn't. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Saturdayopen modifying Vital Article List without consensus

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

I have noticed that the above user is making a huge number of changes (both additions and deletions) at various Vital Article List without any consensus [19], [20], [21], [22]. This seems to have been going on for the last week but picked up drastic pace in last 3 days. The user has already received a Level 2 warning for nonconstructive edits on a talk-page.

I would like help in following: 1. Knowing is this the right place to report such an incident. 2. Experienced User investigating if my claim is right 3. In case it is right, rollback the changes made by the user and appropriately warning them.

Thanks Roller26 (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Roller26, please remember to notify the user whom is being reported on their talk page, as the instructions above in red dictate. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Thanks - Roller26 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Roller26 - I agree that the user's edits removing content is quite concerning, especially given the fact that they're not leaving edit summaries to explain the reason for their changes. Their edits here remove a lot of listed articles, and with no explanation. The edits here - same thing... Changes without explanation. I'm not sure why they reverted Cewbot here. These edits may very well be legitimate, but it's hard to examine and understand due to no explanation. This user needs to start using edit summaries. If they make an edit removing content without explaining why, the edit can be reverted and the user warned and asked to explain using edit summaries. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I've supplemented Valereee's message on the user's talk page with a response here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah Thanks for the guidance and help. Roller26 (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Roller26 - You bet. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I like to point out that most of my deletions were either articles that don't exist, redirects to articles that are already listed, or articles that are listed in different pages. I will admit that I have a problem with not writing justifications. Saturdayopen (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Saturdayopen, it's a good habit to get into. Edit summaries are really just as important to working collaboratively as the edit is to improving content. I have the tool turned on. On edits that are easily understood, you don't have to say much -- "typo" is sufficient if you're just correcting spelling -- but edits without an edit summary cause extra work for other editors, because multiple people will decide they have to check it, and especially when the edit isn't easily understood, multiple people might get pulled in, just like has happened here. There's more information at WP:Edit summary —valereee (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Article creations by Soul Crusher

User:Soul Crusher (SC) has nearly 2500 page creations going way back to 2006. After reducing activity towards the end of 2016, SC has returned with a vengeance since mid-July with approximately 500 new article creations (mostly albums featuring industrial/electronic bands) and well over 1000 new redirects in less than 2 months. There is a growing concern regarding the notability of many of these albums. Sources are severely lacking with many referencing AllMusic listings that don't have reviews. Besides AllMusic, the ones that do have independent coverage come from the likes of http://www.aidabet.com/ and https://sonic-boom.com/. Not long after their return, User:Richard3120 contacted SC on their talk page to express concern about some of these articles. I chimed in a few weeks later regarding the excessive number of redirects that were pointing to targets without any mention of the redirect topic.

• RfDs have taken place on August 22, August 24, and August 29, all resulting in delete.
• Deleted articles via AfD include Sin Factor, Baby Had an Accident, Hypnotic Illusions (the first two of which SC has since tried to recreate).
• I initiated an ANI on September 1 regarding the issue of redirects with general agreement by commenters. SC did begin limiting redirect creations to those having a specific mention in the target article, but I haven't done a deep dive on how appropriate they are.

Ongoing creations of albums with questionable notability caught the attention of User:Ss112 and he tried to discuss the situation with SC on September 4. A week later, it continues. I have been more diligent the past few days by tagging articles for notability and nominating others for deletion. There also appears to be a complete unwillingness to engage in discussion. In the ANI, SC simply stated "I don't see a problem here - redirects are appropriate". SC's only response on their user talk to these concerns was to Ss112, saying only that "They are notable." And in AfD discussions, the most participation has been to today's nominations where SC claims "The page contains links to reliably sources." I'd like suggestions on what could and should be done. Removal of Autopatrolled? A ban on creating new articles or that they can only be approved via the draft process? Is a block warranted for failure to communicate and an unwillingness to co-operate? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with notability or reliability of sources in any of the articles I created. I don't appreciate being brigaded again, I can read your language.Soul Crusher (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The cruxt of the problem is that you don't see a problem. Why not specifically address the concerns? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I have addressed the claims made on the articles' talk pages. I don't deal with slander and falsehoods.Soul Crusher (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"The article contains links to reliable sources" is hardly addressing the claims, especially when it's been repeatedly pointed out that the sources are not reliable ones that pass WP:RS... if they were reliable, the articles wouldn't have been deleted at AfD. It also doesn't explain why you believe you can ignore an AfD consensus and simply recreate the articles. Richard3120 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've redeleted and salted the two recreations; with some minor formatting differences, they were identical to the articles deleted at AFD. I'm also curious about Soul Crusher's accusation of "slander and falsehoods" above. What falsehoods? What slander? I'm considering removing autopatrolled, but would like more feedback from an editor or admin active in NPP. And yes, i think more communication is going to be needed going forward. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, I think pulling Autopatrolled is a minimum step. If an article is deleted at AfD, someone willing to recreate it a week later without any discussion would definitely benefit from having others review their work. I'm doing it now. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  I took a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Drome and then examined the five references in Sin Drome, an article about a rock band. Four of the references are to websites controlled by Alex Kananowicz AKA Alex Kane, the front man of the band. The other is a passing mention on a website of dubious reliability. None of these amount to significant coverage. Not even close. It is very troubling that Soul Crusher has such a poor understanding of what constitutes significant coverage and reliable, independent sources, especially since the editor is cranking out so many poor quality articles. Something has to change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  Cullen328, Floquenbeam - apologies, I'm struggling on this device, the button isn't showing for me. Can one of you pull the Autopatrolled flag? GirthSummit _(blether) 22:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

   Done, although I am not sure that is enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  Soul Crusher has now used a homophobic slur, then claimed that his brother did it. More action is needed. P-K3 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  I've indeffed based on the diff from P-K3. They'll need to address the WP:BROTHER incident as well as the disruption outlined in this thread in order to appeal the block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• The recent articles appear to be related to Kananowicz so I looked in the early history to verify that it wasn't always the case (confirmed). I also noticed the indefinite block. @Soul Crusher: in case you appeal, I would suggest also promising to go through WP:DRAFT space and WP:AFC submissions for future contributions (other than also attempting to convince admins that personal attacks will no longer occur). —PaleoNeonate – 23:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Given the issues with page creation, it would be smart to review previous creations. Is there a way to filter contributions by new articles? I know there's a tag for new redirects, but is there a similar option for articles? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  I used Xtools. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  • There's also Special:Log/create/Soul Crusher, for creations starting in late June 2018. —Cryptic 23:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

    Special:Contributions/Username; open "Search for contributions", check "Only show edits that are page creations" and hit Search. (I'm slowly working my way through a couple of long-gone editors with a taste for NN Bollywood films that way. Record: 9 new articles in 40 minutes. It takes considerably longer to do a WP:BEFORE search than it took the editor to write.) Narky Blert (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't, and won't, defend Soul Crusher's recent actions. It is important to note--to at least state it once--that many of his truly notable early articles were repeatedly tagged for notability by serial taggers, when different tags could and should have been used. That is also a big problem. Caro7200 (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• DannyS712 is working on an automated process to unreview articles by creator name, I think. I'll post about this to WT:NPPR. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, if there is consensus to mass-unreview pages created and add them all to the curation feed I can do that DannyS712 (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• So Soul Crusher says it was their brother vandalising using the computer, and then a neighbor broke in and did the same? I'm not sure whether brother and neighbor were working together, or one after the other. But someone (Soul Crusher, brother, neighbor, whoever) is trolling us here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• I checked their last five, and all of them were products from artists that already have an article. If that's what most of the articles are, I recommend redirecting all the ones of dubious notability to the respective artist articles. That's the accepted ATD and would also save a lot of time and effort. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  They may have created the articles for those artists as well. I think most can pass WP:Band, but it's something to take a look at. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry for commenting here, I don't know if I can express my opinion here, but the above comment by Soul Crusher about his brother proved me that he is a troll who does not belong here. Not only is he creating a load of articles on non-notable bands and albums that we are having a lot of trouble with, neither he provides reliable sources (there aren't actually, that's why), neither he states that the sources are reliable without explaining why he does think so, but he's also making rude comments. We don't need people like him here. I don't know if his old work and behavior is anything like this, but his recent work and behavior is terrible. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Far above, Floquenbeam asked for feedback on the possibility of removing Soul Crusher's autopatrolled privileges. It appears that this has already been done, but allow me to offer my support for this move as an active member of NPP. All his/her new articles should at least go through the formal and organized review process, which will allow fewer deficient articles to slip though until someone stumbles upon them in the unknown future. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Death threats by unregistered editor

MegastarLV seems to have been having trouble with a persistant unregistered editor who keeps reverting to a 12 February 2019 revision of Sevcec.[23][24][25][26] The last two edit summaries by this editor were "If you revert back, I'll kill you MegastarLV!!!!" and "I'll Kill You MegastarLV, I'll KILL YOU!!!", which are both obviously inappropriate. I'm not sure what should be done about this but no editor should nbe the target of summaries like this. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

66.65.12.196 blocked 1 week, article semi'd for a month. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Should the offending death threats be RD3'd? I would seem to think so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Carleboo editing only in user space

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

Since 11/30/17 and 9/11/20, Carleboo was not being here to contribute and build the encyclopedia because I noticed that this user edits only in its own userpage. Carleboo's userpage turns out to be looking like a fake article because it talks about "Simpkins". And Simpkins is not actually a real band. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The page has been deleted under U5. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, but I reported this user before its user page was deleted. Also, Carleboo did not contribute to any other Wikipedia pages but its own user page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment Carleboo has been registered since 2017 and has made zero contributions, instead, the user has used their own user page as a webhost. I strongly believe an indef block should be implemented seeing that there is no benefit in keeping the user around. Jerm (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• The contributions were removed after this user's page was deleted because its page looked like a fake article. Also, if the page you have edited is deleted, the contributions get removed from the deleted page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I already know that. Carleboo made no contributions outside of their user page. I was just making a suggestion rather than a proposal to have the user blocked, but now I'm realizing Carleboo won't cause any trouble seeing how there's no editing from the user. I see no more issues concerning Carleboo. Can someone go ahead and close this as resolved? Jerm (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

67.61.89.32 again

• 67.61.89.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SpaceX Merlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#67.61.89.32

At 12:00, 11 September 2020 the previous ANI report was archived.[27]

At 19:02, 11 September 2020, 67.61.89.32 -- who got the ANI flu the moment he was reported -- miraculously recovered and went back to edit warring his OR into the page.

May we please have a one or two year partial block of 67.61.89.32 from SpaceX Merlin? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that a pointed question has been posted to 67.61.89.32's talk page. It will be interesting to see whether he got a sudden relapse of the ANI flu when I posted this report. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It has been over two days, and once again 67.61.89.32 stopped editing as soon as the ANI report was filed. Should we go another round and see if he is going to resume his disruptive editing as soon as this gets archived, or should we simply apply a lengthy partial block from the particular page he keeps disrupting?

Ping EdJohnston. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I gave the IP a final warning here. If he reverts again, let me know. Not everybody likes partial blocks. I'd prefer to issue a regular block if the behavior resumes, since the person has had plenty of warning. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: the user has reverted again. Themillofkeytone (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The IP is now blocked one week per the above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced and copied content

And creation of multiple unsourced articles of non notable subjects by TechnoBladeSPX (talk · contribs), per the prod messages today on their talk page. [28] appears to have been copied from another Wiki; [29] unsourced lists; content copied and rev/deleted [30]. Judging from responses, WP:CIR may be an issue. In the meantime, a fresh look at the recently copied text and unsourced additions will be appreciated. I can't edit at Ash Ketchum. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I encountered this user. Their creation of 4 micro-stubs about badges in Pokémon is particularly egregious: The Cascade Badge is the 2nd badge in Cerulean City, a fictional city in the TV show Pokemon, which is needed to participate in the Kanto League. (The link at the end points to Indigo League, another creation of theirs.) I've warned them again about copyright violations at Goh (Pokémon) (history). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"Judging from responses, WP:CIR may be an issue." Not much of a surprise there. TechnoBladeSPX is a relatively new editor who has been active since July 2020. His familiarity with Wikipedia's rules on sourcing and notability is apparently lacking at this point. Dimadick (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Infringement of caution against attacks and of topic-ban by XIIIfromTokyo

Reports and answers

Accusation of "xenophobic behaviour"

If understand well the story, XIIIfromTOKYO has been accusing another user of anti-Semitism and homophobia and made legal threat against him and, as a consequence, has been "cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants" by Wikipedia English administrators. He had only one edit in 2020 on Wikipedia English but is now telling me "happy ?", that I "try to start a discussion" that it is not "very mature" and that administrators on Wikipedia English have a "xenophobic behaviour" because he received remarks from them about his level of English (but he wrote in the same edit "I openned").

Context: there is a Sockpuppet investigation created by a one-purpose account on me (because I did not remove sources in an article, I would be the same user that put these relevant sources and that has been banned for sockpuppets use). I am not sure why, but XIIIfromTOKYO is using the comment section to give me links about a user on Wikipedia French with whom he had a content dispute and talking about his thousands of edits on Wikipedia French.

--Delfield (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI the whole message is here. Feel free to read it first, and to see if Delfield's presentation is honest or not.

WP:NPA is clear about that : "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex (...) ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor [are never acceptable]". Targeting a non-native speaker on his few grammatical errors in order to avoid talking about the main topic, and/or in order to exclude him from the discussions is xenophobic. Period. I didn't claim "that administrators on Wikipedia English have a "xenophobic behaviour"", but, form my experience, some of them clearly need to be educated on that issue. Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.

Back in 2015 FR.Wiki had to face Droas82, an SPA targeting two rivals colleges in France : Sciences Po, and University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas. The first one was always belittled, and the second one always praised. I noticed the the same person, using a different account, Launebee was now targeting EN.Wiki in the very same way. It was very easy to see that it was the same person : same targets, same way to cherrypick, use unreliable sources and/or misuse sources. On top of that, Droas82 was created at 14:29, 1 December 2015, and Launebee was created at 15:16, 1 December 2015. From the start, that person intended to target both FR.Wiki and EN.Wiki, and to avoid being easily tracked. It shows that this person has a very good knowledge about how wiki works, and how to work around its weaknesses.

So, for 6 months I tried to warn EN.Wiki about these sockpuppets. I was topic baned because of that. In 2018 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee finaly came to the conclusion that, indeed, there was a large mise-use of suckpuppet by Launebee. This user didn't stop after being caught, and these days sockpuppet investigation has been initiated against Delfield. This request at AN is just a counterfire to avoid answering at the sockpuppet investigation.

Feel free to have a deeper look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Launebee and the connected articles : Sciences Po, University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas...

I have been an active user for more than 10 years, and as of today have more than 110'000 edits. You have a crosswiki povpushing/sockpuppet issue. The person behind it knows Wiki weaknesses, and how to exploit them. This problem won't go away if you don't look at it. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This answered question is perhaps useful to the discussion on whether Wikipedia administrators have a xenophobic behavior problem when they say XIIIfromTokyo have a language problem. --Delfield (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Aggressivity

XIIIfromTokyo now says that I "attacked him".

I opened a Suckpuppets investigation request too.

--Delfield (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: As the quote was mine, I have edited Delfield's previous message and provided the full version of my quote. Delfield cut it in a misleading way, and was originally only "XIIIfromTokyo now says that I "attacked him".

Delfield attacked me on my editcount, and them on a grammatical mistake. I have remained factual.

Delfield, you are not allowed to change my messages, or to cut them in a way that could alter their meanings. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

XIIIfromTokyo is now, in the same edit, changing the text I wrote and signed and telling me that I should not do this exact thing he just did ("change his messages"). I put my original text back. The edit summary is quite aggressive too in my opinion. --Delfield (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Topic-ban infringement

XIIIfromTokyo edited an article on a French agency rating French academic institutions. It was part of his feud with the other user he was topic-banned with (we see that in the talk page). --Delfield (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary

To summarize, the links the administrators would want to look at: [[31][[32][[33][[34][[35][36]. --Delfield (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

user Anjana Malhotra and COI

SPA editing various articles relating to Star India TV channels. User has ignored two Talk Page requests for COI disclosure and continues to edit on the topic. COI requests, recent contributions.

Thanks, 1292simon (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

• Sushant Singh Rajput (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If someone could take a look, that'd be great. Here. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if we need DS at this point for Sushant Singh Rajput and all of the conspiracy theorists that are trying to hijack that article and associated ones. User blocked for the legal threat, and just plain WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RickinBaltimore! And yes, not a bad idea.. I had three in 1 hour try. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, I'm not sure new DS are needed. In my opinion, disruption relating to Rajput can be handled using WP:NEWBLPBAN or even WP:ARBIPA. Salvio 13:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPDS is sufficient I think. I'm just surprised it isn't used more often, especially since we say BLP problems are terrible & not being solved. Seen multiple cases where admins aren't aware it exists. It's got a very broad scope, more than sufficient for these issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

On another note, Sushant Singh Rajput has attracted some of the most bizarre (line 78 + see YouTube source), loopy (way too much rope, esp for BLPs) stuff. Shocking BLP violations, some of the edits around. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The main issue with using DS here is that most of these editors are drive-bys, and whatever ones aren't are (usually) ÆCE (talk · contribs) sockpuppets. DS is irrelevant to the former (and they wouldn't understand enough of how Wikipedia works to appreciate the sanction anyway) and the latter is already strikeout-banned. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

With that being said, while most of the attention is presently on the SSR article (due to it saying it was suicide in the infobox, due to an RfC), the scope of all this is SSR, Death of Sushant Singh Rajput (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (a fork of the original article), and Rhea Chakraborty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (One of the major targets for "they killed him" conspiracy theories). All three are presently under 500/30 protection until mid-October, and frankly I don't see things calming down by then given the trial by media with regards to the case and the unwillingness of these drive-bys to even bother reading what's on the page (most of the edit requests have been about the exact same thing, and have been declined for pretty much the exact same reasons). More eyes on those pages and talk pages would definitely help. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Mespar20

Mespar20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I recently deleted E. Javier Loya per WP:G11 / WP:G12 as a particularly egregious case of paid advocacy. The creator, Mespar20 contacted me on my talk, [37] clearly vexed that a client won't pay out for a deleted article. Since I didn't respond immediately, but was out with friends until late, he contacted me again (note that I made no edits between the two messages, because I wasn't at a computer terminal). Looking through his contributions, I see vandalism such as this and this, accompanied by a whole bunch of warnings. I don't think this guy is a net positive and should be blocked indefinitely. Who agrees? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting case, in that he has evolved from being a small-time vandal to being a paid editor. There is a lesson about the stupidity of some corporate clients who engage paid editors in that they apparently hired an editor whose experience including being a vandal. It says more (or less) about corporate clients than about Mespar20. I suggest that you wait and see whether he replies. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I, uh, hate to be that person, and definitely not defending Mespar20's actions, but be aware that at least in this country, fraudulent trading can be punishable by up to twelve months' imprisonment feels like a veiled legal threat to me? Like, I don't think you're actually threatening to pursue legal action against this person, but it does seem to have a similar implication. Would you mind striking that bit? I think the onwiki case is strong enough without it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, though the point I was making was that bad paid editing can (and should) have serious ramifications. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That's fair, and thanks for removing it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello there, I would like to point out most of my vandals were from 2016 and were from time periods when I was in college and was still ignorant towards the idea of Wikipedia. From the perspective I’m coming from there was no fraudulent trading as I was attempting to correct a minor SEO issue with Google’s Knowledge panel that shows my clients name and photo but pulls up information. I explained to my client my inexperience of Wikipedia from the beginning but I would attempt to fix the error by creating a Wikipedia Page to pull information from. So, there were no intentions. They provided me the copy and any links to create the article. However, I should have looked further into it. I only ask for forgiveness now and have not malicious intentions. If I can be welcomed into the community and be given a chance to prove my worth by moving the information, I spend hours assembling into a draft and working towards making it a credible article. I would appreciate that.

Mespar20 (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block This editor started out as a vandal in 2016, spamming his own name and his friend's names into the encyclopedia. At one point, he falsely claimed to be a member of the rock band Panic! at the Disco by adding his name to that article. Then, he got into the pest control business, and spammed his own blog posts into the encyclopedia. Now, he is doing reputation management for Javier Loya, a wealthy guy who, according to the Financial Times, is embroiled in a nasty lawsuit. To that end, this editor created a highly promotional biography that included copyright violations. This editor has never made a constructive edit to this encyclopedia, as far as I can see, and is certainly a net negative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  The editor claims they've changed and will now try write encyclopaedically. I can't tell if they mean in general, or just for their customer, so: I think if the editor writes an article in a volunteer capacity (not including writing about person they're paid to write for), or contributes substantially to an existing one, and said edits are productive, then they've sufficiently backed the assertion that their 2016 self is not their 2020 self. And this gives them the welcome and second chance they've requested. If, however, they're only willing to write about the person they're paid to write for, I think past and current behaviour is sufficient to support an indef - it's not worth anyone's time to have to clean up after messy paid edits with prior vandalism. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, personally. I am willing to write about the law suit included in the biography. I have changed and willing to participate in the community. I understand my issues in the past were careless and reckless, however that was 4 years ago. I am not writing to promote the character, however to identify him online. So, I am more than willing to include details of the law suit and supported information. As for the copywritten material, I was simply placing the copy and photos provided by the clients. I am willing to rewrite the article from a non-bias point of view by including the good and the ugly. I never had any malicious attention upon rejoining and was looking throughout the rules to try to fix this error within Wikipedia. Such as including specific tags and citing all references towards all the facts I gave. I am asking for forgiveness for my prior vandalisms from 4 years ago and a chance to contribute to Wikipedia, not just on the behalf of myself. But for future edits too. I am not trying to preform reputation management for E Javier Loya, however just correct a simple error on Google’s knowledge panel that pulls up the data from Javier Loya when attempting to search for him. I am not trying to boost his reputation and willing to fully research and include the details of the client. Mespar20 (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

IP 174.126.7.230

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

I’m not sure if it’s commonly done, but perhaps some admin can revoke the talk page access for this IP. The latest posts/edit summaries are rather offensive and might even need to be REVDEL; so, I didn’t think it was wise to post any diffs. The IP has already been blocked multiple times and the fact they even know about UTRS might indicate LTA; so, it seems that the latest block of 1 month is not going accomplish much. FWIW, I didn’t bother notifying the IP of this ANI discussion per WP:DENY because it seemed likely to only create more drama. The last admin who blocked the account is offline at the moment; otherwise, I would’ve brought this directly to their attention. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz turned talk page access off; I revdeleted the obscenities. Our double act in the Bournemouth Winter Gardens is postponed until next summer because of the pandemic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There are still two edit summaries with obscenities (slightly masked by character substitutions) -- could you (or another admin with rights) take care of those as well?Citing (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That step was done a while ago as well.— Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandal adding hoax info to video-game articles

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

---

93.107.29.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest IP of a user adding fake information to video game articles. Primarily, the fake information they add is along the lines of this, adding fake platform releases. Other IPs iclude 109.77.84.52, 37.11.248.17, but there are really so many. I've also noticed something regarding this vandal: They often do their vandalism, and then undo it, example here -- note the +200 in one edit followed by another -200 in the next. User @Ferret: may know more as they seem to have caught one of their earlier IPs and labelled them as LTA here. Eik Corell (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 Note: That first link appears to be a rollback link that was mistakenly included. What they probably meant was this. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 19:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Long term vandal, refrequently makes up fake releases or cancelled platforms of video games, or claims such as a game released on only one platform during the sixth generation of consoles was "cancelled" for all other consoles in that generation, so on and so forth. Geolocate is in Ireland. Have blocked them repeatedly over the years. -- ferret (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Editing by Bar Fruit on Gulfstream Park

Persistant addition of original research, consisting of commentary on YouTube videos (Diffs: [38],[39]) and unsourced material, citing the fact that this information can be obtained by a public access request, which is original research (Diffs: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]). I have already discussed the issue with this user, on my talk page, however, this user has refused to stop, and has accused me of harassing them on their talk page. Account Mocrumbo has also made one edit to this page and is clearly the same person. Dylsss (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Chronic, intractable behavior of User:Vaselineeeeeeee on my wiki Page John Alite

→ Moved to WP:BLPN

Follow up on a Split proposal

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – WP:ANRFC would be a better place to post this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi admins,

I like to raise awareness of a seemingly-concluded split proposal which I am the nominator and more than 2 weeks has passed. Is it appropriate to ask admins here to make a judgement and maybe consider the appropriate follow up actions? Thank you! Apologize in advance if ANI is not the the right place to raise such questions. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Temporary change to email address for Oversight

The OTRS system is going to undergo major upgrades starting in a few hours, and lasting 2-3 days. In the interim, to ensure that Oversight is still available to the community, the email address has temporarily been changed to oversight-llists.wikimedia.org, which is usually the private, non-archiving mailing list used by oversighters to discuss requests. Additional moderators will be on duty during this time. The email address attached to User:Oversight has been changed over, and people are urged to use that method for making oversight requests. Other pages that contain the email address will also be modified. Risker (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Risker: Thank you for letting us know about this. WP:ANI is generally not the default community noticeboard. But sometimes it is the default community noticeboard. I'm pretty sure any number of editors would agree with my opinion here. Thank you again. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

2604:3d08:6f7f:f5d0:b56a:61cf:26ae:1cd repeated vandalism

• ipvandal 2604:3d08:6f7f:f5d0:b56a:61cf:26ae:1cd (talk · contribs · WHOIS) repeated vandalism on Alexander Zverev after 3rd/4th warning. I can't post on WP:AIV due to the edit filter blocking my edit. 172.254.96.122 (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@172.254.96.122: I reported the IP for you. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 02:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Racist bilge at Theo Peckham

Sorry, but I have no patience for this. Please rev/delete and block the IPs. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: Because this was the first offense for both of them, I gave them both a warning. If they continue to vandalise, I will report them. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 02:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Understood. But for racist edits we can break protocol, as administrators have noted in discussions here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I handled the revdel, it fell within RD2. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, The Blade of the Northern Lights. And thanks to Acroterion for the blocks. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Flagrantly racist edits are pretty much block-on-sight - people don't need to be warned that they're obviously being obnoxious, they already know that. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I could use some help for a reverse situation at Chink. The filters won't allow me to restore a sourced slur. And someone please block the vandal at that page. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Should be all set. Thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

User:DogExpert

As I'm involved here, I'm seeking outside attention. There has been a long running issue at the article on St. Bernard (dog), where for literally more than a decade people have pushed a ludicrous and either unsourced or poorly sourced claim about a St. Bernard alternately named Benedictine or Benedictine Daily Double being the largest dog in history. The discussion on this was settled in early 2011, the talkpage archives are littered with discussions affirming it's unsuitable for inclusion, and the article has a comment warning editors not to add this. Despite all of this and multiple warnings, every few months DogExpert continues to try to force this "fact" into the article, the latest efforts are here, here, here, and here. Would someone removed from this situation take a look here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: - would an edit notice be appropriate here? Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In any case, I've issued a final warning not to re-add the information. Sourcing is dubious at best. Should reliable sourcing be found, the issue needs to be discussed at talk and consensus reached before the info is added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

An editnotice might be useful, yes. Worth a shot. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: - Edit notice created at Template:Editnotices/Page/St. Bernard (dog). Let me know if any change in wording is desired. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Independently of the specific article, I'd consider a WP:CIR indef block on User:DogExpert. I've gone through their edits over the last two years, and quite literally every single one of them was disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: - let's see what happens next. Mjroots (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is started at Talk:St. Bernard (dog) if anyone is interested. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editor (from 2 years ago)

I realize that most cases brought here are for truly outrageous things, but I think my case deserves some action, not so much to redress any grievance I might have, but mainly to put into check an editor who routinely violates policy (even to the point of saying outright he doesn’t have to follow Wikipedia's rules) and is, frankly, a bully. There is no telling how many other people he has mistreated in the past (I shudder to think of the number) but if we can at least reign him in somewhat, maybe he’ll learn not to keep doing it in the future.

My case is slightly different from most, since what happened between us took place two years ago. At that time I didn’t have ready access to the Internet, and since I couldn’t guarantee being able to promptly respond every day to a dispute resolution I just tabled the idea, never dreaming it would take so long for me to get to the point of restoring my Internet. Now that I’m back online I’d like to pursue this, assuming that someone is willing to handle it. I don’t think the 2 year time span is a problem, since everything is documented, and it should be an open and shut case in my favor.

I’m not mentioning any names yet, at least not until I’m sure I’ll get a hearing and I can properly notify the other person. Thanks in advance for any consideration, I remain, __Plato's Stepchild (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Plato's Stepchild. The main issue here is whether or not the bullying and disregard for Wikipedia's policies that you describe is ongoing, or if the editor is inactive, or has mended their ways in the last two years. No adminstrative action will be taken against an editor who retired two years ago, but if bullying is continuing, adminstrators are ready, willing and able to evaluate that behavior and take whatever action is appropriate. So, please mention the username here, and provide diffs of the worst recent examples, or at the very least, provide the exact date and time of the most problematic edits. You also have the option of emailing an administrator (such as myself) to get a preliminary assessment if you are concerned about your privacy. Genuine ongoing bullying will not be tolerated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Echoing a key part of Cullen328's comment, there is no point discussing the alleged misbehaviour of an editor who has not edited since February [50]. (The only thing that could be relevant would be looking into problematic edits that may need to be reverted.) A further word of advice, when you open an ANI thread, expect your actions [51] to come under scrutiny as well. Do remember that the way to resolve WP:Content disputes and I'm including the inclusion of large amounts of hidden text in that, is to discuss it on the article talk page and try and reach WP:consensus. And you should focus on your proposed change to the page and not any alleged misbehaviour of the other editor/s involved Talk:M*A*S*H (season 10). Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Having found what I found, but not linking so as not to reveal the IP, I don't see bullying. I see a disagreement and a request not to edit in a particular manner AWA an ANI thread. Oh, I see Nil has reached the same conclusion as I. No concerns noted on user's talk page. Has not edited in a while. Not seeing anything addressable --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Plato's Stepchild, I'll just point out that when you reinstate your preferred contested material, using the edit summary "I corrected the typographical error of a hyphen in the wrong place" is misleading at best. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• (giggling) Ayeah, that was more than a hyphen. I thought edit warring over the MOS was bad, but over hidden text? Oh, my. And while OP c/o bullying, I see incivility from the IP that wanted things the same way as the OP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  From User:Plato's Stepchild, I think we can take all the posts by the IP on Talk:M*A*S*H (season 10) as being from the OP without even having to rely on obviousness/WP:DUCK. I guess this [52] is a sign they've recognised the need to calm things down a bit, unfortunately they still seem more interested in faulting others rather than convincing them of the merit of their changes or the need for 7 copies or whatever of the same very long hidden text in one page. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've added links to these three posts for background:HERE and HERE and HERE. What I see is a certain inability, after years, to let things go. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It is refreshing to see such admirable collegiality in this ANI. Good advice given. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, thank you for the response. I want to clear up some misconceptions, which is due to the vagueness of my first post.

Cullen328: For one thing, I may have used the word “bully” in a way you all don’t use it. I was thinking of the schoolyard type, the kind that doesn’t make physical threats, but who simply tries to intimidate others. I was thinking in terms of reverting Good Faith Edits without cause, by refusing to discuss matters and threatening to block them from editing without justification (all of which is in violation of policy). That might not qualify as being a bully to you all, but it does to me. Sorry if I was mistaken in my meaning, I didn’t mean to confuse anyone.

And since User:Deepfriedokra cited the discussion here I’m more than happy to discuss it, since it clearly shows I’m right, and might clear up some misconceptions you have over the facts of the matter.

On 6 April 2019, I corrected the page in question and then that other editor reverted it back to its erroneous state, even though she knew that she was reverting my corrected version to it’s previous erroneous state. Now how can that be justified? If any of you can justify her action, please do so, because I want to hear it.

Boing! said Zebedee , you wrote above, “… when you reinstate[d] your preferred contested material, using the edit summary ‘I corrected the typographical error of a hyphen in the wrong place’ is misleading at best.” Would you please explain the part in bold, as I don’t understand it.

Deepfriedokra , you wrote above, “What I see is a certain inability, after years, to let things go.” Well, why should I “let things go” as you put it, with someone who refused to follow policy regarding good faith edits, the requirement on collaboration, and knowingly and deliberately leaving a page on Wikipedia riddled with errors. Why should anyone just let it go? Are you interested in Wikipedia being the best it can be? Aren’t you to enforce the rules and punish people who knowingly violate them? Have I come to the wrong place? __Plato's Stepchild (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Plato's Stepchild, I know precisely what a bully is on Wikipedia because as an administrator, I have blocked a thousand trolls, racists, profane vandals and other types of bullies. When you wrote in your edit summary "I corrected the typographical error of a hyphen", that was a lie intended to avoid scrutiny. Please tell the truth from now on. Your comments to the other editor invite creation of a new acronym TLTRBIHTA: "Too Long To Read But I Had To Anyway". Not at all a good look. No, administrators do not "punish" editors. Instead, blocks and other sanctions are for the purpose of preventing disruption of the encyclopedia. It is hard for me to see the risk of disruption from an editor who disappeared in February. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Plato's Stepchild: When I say your edit summary is misleading at best, I mean it is not a full summary of what you did, it conceals the main effect of your edit, it is not open and honest about the extent of your change, it does not document your edit in a way that enables others to decide whether to check it, it is avoiding scrutiny, it is hiding the true nature of your motivation, it conceals the fact that you are continuing a slow edit war, it is deceptive, it does not cooperate with the reason we use edit summaries, it conceals your failure to seek consensus, it does not engender trust... are you getting my meaning now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Plato's Stepchild: if you think that discussion shows you're right, that seems to be part of the problem. I looked at the discussion you linked to, as well as the discussion on the article talk page and I did not see any indication of a real WP:consensus for your edits, especially the large amounts of hidden text. In addition you brought up "refusing to discuss matters" but this also gets into the problems with your approach. When I looked at the article talk page and the other discussions, it's very hard to understand the reasons for your edits because instead of focusing on that, you seem to have focused on how wrong other editor's behaviour has allegedly been. If you want to convince people of the merits of your edit, you should be concentrating on that. Why would people want to discuss things with you when instead of explaining why you want a change, you spend all your time telling the editor how evil they are? Of course as others have indicated your misleading edit summary is also a big problem, not least because it leads editors with no explanation for a big part of your edit. Especially in article talk pages where behavioural stuff is largely off-topic. BTW although this clearly involved behavioural issues on your part since it's also in part a content dispute, I'm not sure there if there is any great wish to go into details about the rights and wrongs of your edits, however I strongly suggest you need to reflect on what you've done here. And also bear in my what I said earlier about your behaviour coming under scrutiny in any complaint, especially and no one has specifically mentioned this yet I think, the dreaded WP:boomerang. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

User:F.Alexsandr

User:F.Alexsandr is rejecting The New York Times as a reference. Without references he is claimning that Russian state sponsored Wagner Group is "private company without state affiliation" removing NYT references that states otherwise in the process. [53] [54] [55] 3RR is also breached. I can't stand this honestly. 176.88.142.57 (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Either that or you're engaging in WP:SYN. But it's not clear, and you're both edit warring, so I have protected the wrong version and you can both take it to Talk. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Renatoaferreira21

User's sole activity is creating articles bordering on G1, see Siren Ambulance Japan and Police Siren Japan. I request an admin evaluate WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

+1. Not quite a vandalism-only account, but getting close. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I came here from the AfD. I wanted to look into the subject matter but the article was G1. Regarding this ANI I can only see one article created by the editor. Also WP:DONTBITE the account is new - and the editor likely needs guidance. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing from IP range

Following on from this discussion a week or so ago, the disruptive editor has returned yet again using multiple IPs in the 2606:A000:4508:A00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) the range. As has been the case for roughly two months now, this user continues to engage in two types of disruptive editing...adding spurious sister city pairings to various city pages and incorrectly adding or removing listings of networks for various kids shows. The IP range is already blocked from editing Raleigh, North Carolina where some of the disruptive editing occurred, but given that the behavior has encompassed quite a few pages, I'd like to request a broader block. The user has also used 98.122.148.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to make similar edits, although the last such edit was 10 days ago. --WildCowboy (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. The 98.122 IP hasn't edit recently. If it does, I can block it for evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --WildCowboy (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Zsick

Regarding User:Zsick I find myself out unusually low on patience right now. Realizing my actions are as subject to review, would someone please take a look at the edit history of Virginia, Minnesota, and the talk page therein. This editor is not passing the smell-test for me, but my sniffer may be off.

Editor is edit warring in order to ensure that the world knows what a dangerous place Virginia, Minnesota is. I find their sources to be of dubious reliability, and when I requested more detailed information regarding the fbi source, nothing was accomplished. Another editor and I agree that crime statistics are fine to include in the article, but that it does not define the topic. Attempts to communicate have been met with accusations of COI and what I might interpret as a persecution complex. My recommendation would be a topic block for Virginia, Minnesota.

A few pertinent diffs [56], [57], [58], [59].

I have notified them on their talk page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

As a new editor, I appreciate you involving third parties rather than continue making abrasive remarks on my talk page. I am unusually busy right now and have not had time to inform myself fully on how to resolve a dispute. I assumed that if you were, in fact, honest in your criticism of my contribution (everyone seemed entirely focused on me, which I thought violated WP), then you would eventually take the appropriate step for doing that.

I again apologize for anything I have done to contribute to your misperception of my motives, but I would point to your repeated insults in this very post as something of a defense (e.g., suggesting I stink, or that I have a "persecution complex"). I hope you will refrain from personal insults moving forward, as I have already asked multiple times. I assure you that your "sniffer is off," and I look forward to resolving this with a neutral third party. I can provide validation of my academic credentials if needed. When you say that "nothing was accomplished" by asking for more detailed information about the FBI statistics, I must assume that means you did not understand my response, so I am also happy to discuss statistics and data analysis with anyone who understands them. But it is the FBI. They are credible, I assure you. I can also provide whatever links or citations to support my contributions that are considered most credible or appropriate by the Wikipedia editor community.

To me, this is the kind of information that makes Wikipedia valuable and unique. While mainstream media focuses on crime in Minneapolis, Portland, Chicago, and other major metropolitan areas, the reality is that the crime RATE matters more to the average citizen than the number of crimes committed in the city limits, which depends on population size. In other words, a larger percentage of people living in Virginia, Minnesota will be the victims of crime each year than people living in large cities. If this information was more readily available, all anyone would have to do is Google their town to cut past the spin and hyperbole that fills other media sources. This is why I find it odd that people want to delete or bury the information.

Again, I appreciate you bringing this to the attention of the larger community, who I hope will see things from my perspective and help put a stop to the apparent attempt to deprive the public of information they would want to know, as evidenced by the crime stories filling every newspaper. When a town of 8000 people has one of the highest crime rates in the country, I believe it belongs in the article lead. If neutral parties see it another way, I am happy to abide by the policies and norms of the community. If my past behavior violated one or the other, I will improve moving forward. I look forward to becoming an active and productive member of the Wikipedia community, especially after this experience. Zsick (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@78.26: and Zsick - this seems like a content dispute to me. A city having the highest crime rate in the country is certainly information that should be in the article, subject to reliable sourcing. It may even merit being in the lede too. Suggest you open a discussion on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In a discussion here this editor was cautioned about appropriate topics for the lead section, as well as my concern about them being a single-purpose editor. I also cautioned them about this here and here. Their edit summaries on this article describe it being their "hometown", and how this information about the crime rate needs to be posted before the next election. I offered a compromise here (and then made the edit). This editor would have none of it, and reverted the edit (along with an extensive cleanup of the article). Magnolia677 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@ Mjroots Thank you. I agree it is a content dispute, and there is a discussion on the talk page, where I have provided all of my reasoning. Instead of commenting on the content, the other editors have repeatedly attacked me and my credibility, as Magnolia's post here shows. They appear to be citing WP in an attempt to bully me into taking down content they don't like for some reason. Zsick (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@78.26:, Magnolia677 and Zsick - I've added my thoughts at the talk page. This means that a full discussion (RFC?) needs to take place before the info is re-added. Zsick, find some high quality sources to back your claims and you'll have a better chance of having the information included. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What would you consider "high quality" sources? I have provided three separate sources (one of which was literally the FBI data cited in the other analysis). The information is valid. As I have said repeatedly, I will provide a citation to whatever source will satisfy your concerns with the content, but you have to state them. Zsick (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If you've got three good quality reliable sources you need to list them on the article talk page where experienced editors can assess whether they meet our requirements, which are listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That's where the discussion needs to take place from here.— Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The editor has 34 total edits and is already displaying some WP:NOTTHERE behavior. Reverted one of my edits on ANI for no particular reason and with no edit summary. Lightburst (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • They've already apologised for that— Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

NOTHERE behavior by KevinBartholomew

KevinBartholomew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just created an attack page on what is pursued to be one of their classmates. Looking at their contribs, it's clear that they are WP:NOTHERE. Goose^(Talk!) 19:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see the now deleted article so can't comment on that, but I've looked at their other contributions and I don't think I'd call them NOTHERE. They appear to be making good faith edits in general, but seem to be unaware of our sourcing and notability requirements. They haven't edited since being warned about the attack page. It's possible that it was a one-off mistake. I think we should wait to see if they respond. You were also supposed to notify them of this discussion. I've gone ahead and done that. P-K3 (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Promotional account and linkspam, continuing after block is lifted

Ec21imc (talk · contribs), who is refreshingly candid re: their purpose here [60]. Requesting rollback of all recent edits designed to drum up tourism, and an indefinite block. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user's recent edits on September 14 couldn't be more obvious. He/she is externally linking to a tourist website and adding tourist information in an advertising-like fashion. I have blocked the account indefinitely; it's clear that their purpose here is not to build an encyclopedia. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

You bet! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced Vandalism

So this user name 76.66.141.232 has putting up random things for no reason such as random people on a movie page and putting up a random movie he or she didn't appear in. He's been doing for it non-stop. He's on Level 3 right now. So please I need you to block user 76.66.141.232 or else he or she might do it again. And also I don't even know how to block people on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.31.94 (talk) 02:11:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! A couple of things: First of all, don't worry that you don't know how to block other users. This is a function that only administrators can perform. :-) Second, I note that this user has only been warned twice for their edits. This doesn't amount to me as sufficient in most cases where applying a block is justified. Third, I spot-checked their latest contributions, and while the edits are unreferenced, I don't see any obvious red flags. What "random things" are you referring to exactly? Can you provide any diff links with explanations so that we know what you're referring to specifically? On top of this, the IP user hasn't edited in about 24 hours. Blocking the user would be inappropriate in this case and as of the time of this writing, unless a pattern of high amounts of vandalism or abuse, or that are highly severe can be pointed out. If you could provide some additional information, it would be helpful. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• I checked the last few edits that user made and it's true, that user made at least two edits that make no sense. I checked IMDB as well (full cast & crew) and saw no mention of these names that were inserted in the articles. [61] [62] Normal Op (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Normal Op - Ah, then we need to revert those edits and warn the user. If they're adding illegitimate content, then I agree that this is a problem. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I just made a small excursion to the thread above the one I posted; thought I'd help out. But I have other to-do lists to take care of. I have no time to check every single edit the user did. And if the user is disruptive, there may be no point in reverting all their edits until they're blocked. Then you have a finite list to "fix", rather than chasing a forever lengthening list. Normal Op (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I just went through all the contributions, since 27 August (They were barely even trying with "Dark Night"[63]-just using the same names) every single one is pretty blatantly improbable even before comparing them with IMDB,...random "MIT students" in an apparently imaginary castlist for a fantasy series [64]; again, same actors, using variations on their real life names. Trent Reznor composes for a medical documentary,[65] and again, some of those same actors appear as "presenters". They have all been reverted, but it does seem a big waste of time for everyone. Curdle (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Mariolovr

Mariolovr (talk · contribs) has had an account for just four days and has been disruptive ever since. His edit history shows his first edit was to create a user page, then made an obvious-mistake edit to a page and reverted it (never returning to that article). They launched into a series of aggressive pro-animal rights edits to 22+ articles, including inserting images, and when reverted he immediately edit warred (on multiple pages). He has participated in discussions on 13 of these article's Talk pages, and 6 editors have already cautioned him on his User talk page. [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] I believe he's not a new user, perhaps a resurrection after a block. He has already received a 48 hour partial-block [71] [72] for 3 specific pages, but it hasn't stopped his edit warring behavior which has continued on other pages. I encountered him when he edited a page that is on my WatchList. I researched several of his edits, discovered the edit warring, and I removed some of the FRINGE material he was inserting, after which he started to edit war with me and argue on Talk page. I believe he may be connected with GaultierA and wikimedia user Shpernik088.

Notifying other editors who Mariolovr has butted with in the last 4 days: @Eric Herboso: @Flyer22 Frozen: @Escape Orbit: @Praxidicae: @Primefac: @Sdio7: @MrOllie:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal Op (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the reported user's contributions, it's clear that they have a POV regarding animal rights, and their edits to articles reflect that very clearly. From adding the {{censor}} template to the talk pages of articles that this user has edited (1, 2, 3) to edit warring (see history, see warning) in order to revert content that is pro-animal right biased (1, 2). Other edits add obvious POV to animal-rights related articles (1, 2, and many others). This is clearly a bigger problem than edit warring; it's a POV that's obviously spilling onto multiple articles, and likely won't stop until action is taken. Is a topic ban appropriate here? Or do we move straight to an indefinite block? Input and opinions would be appreciated. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a topic ban would do it, because he's editing article unrelated to animal rights and inserting a pro animal rights viewpoint into them... such as Murder, Beef, Dog food, Live export, Smithfield Foods. In the Horse meat article he inserted a series of gruesome images. Reading the edit-history of some other articles, other editors have been deleting images he was inserting. Normal Op (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not how topic bans work. if someone is topic banned from animal rights they cannot add or edit animal-rights-related material on any page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that "gruesome image" I added to the Horse Meat article was an image of a fresh horse carcass, not a random image of gruesomeness. Normal Op also took issue with me adding images of horse slaughter the previously imageless Horse Slaughter article, so take that as you will. Mariolovr (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't expect this level of opposition, but I guess I now need to explain myself. First of all, I don't have a pro-animal rights POV. I actually disagree with most of what I include, but I understand my bias, which makes me an excellent person to talk about such matters. If you look at the edits I make, you'll see that they're all pretty neutral. I either change wikipedia's stance from a pro-industry perspective to a neutral one or when I add a AR perspective, I make sure to clarify that it isn't wikipedia's position. I'll admit I'm not perfect, and I have made some mistakes. It's just really hard to be neutral. However, most of the opposition I've received hasn't been over those mistakes, but it has been from editors who confuse a neutral perspective with a pro-animal rights perspective.

Second, I'm sorry for edit warring. I didn't realize it was that big of a deal and thought that was just how editors communicated. I'm still getting used to the rules here, which are different from other wikis I've edited. I was also frustrated that some people (most of those tagged here) kept reverting all of my work without explanation. You can see I've started using the talk page more now. Also, I'm not those other editors. Seems like a strange thing to care about though. Mariolovr (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mariolovr - First of all, I highly appreciate your apology in regards to edit warring, and I acknowledge it. However, I still have concerns in regards to your edits. Though you say here that you don't have a point of view on this topic area, your edits show differently. I understand that you're saying that you have an opposing viewpoint than what you're actually editing, but even that "opposing viewpoint" represents a point of view that isn't neutral. To summarize, it's not your words, but your edits that show great concern. When I (or anyone else) investigate someone for their underlying issues on the project, we take everything into account - it's not just the edits you make that manually add content to articles, but also your behaviors (such as edit warring), any reverts you make restoring content, any comments you make in discussions, and any other edits that you've made to the project. Remember that you're responsible for all content that you add to an article, whether it be a manual edit, a revert with the use of the "undo" button, or any other method. In the short time that you've been an editor here, you've demonstrated with your edits and behavior that there is need for concern in regards to the animal rights topic area. What other topics on Wikipedia have you edited or contributed to? My point is that I think that you should spend some time reviewing and actually understanding Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, including Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Editors should edit articles, subjects, and topics with the mindset that they're neutral with the topic that they're modifying. Otherwise, you'll insert non-neutral points of view to those articles, and your edits won't be in compliance with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. How can one edit an article and expect to comply with these policies if they don't have a neutral mindset and opinion themselves? You have to understand that the concerns expressed here are legitimate, and your edits clearly support these concerns. I highly recommend and encourage you to edit in topics elsewhere, and build your experience on Wikipedia using articles and page where these concerns won't interfere. Otherwise, you may be facing sanctions if these problems continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm only interested in animal rights. It didn't realize there was an issue with only contributing to a certain topic. But to put your mind at ease, I don't have any conflicts of interest, and like I said, I do aim to be neutral. That's what's gotten me into this mess (and the edit warring). Mariolovr (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mariolovr - I understand, and I appreciate the explanation. It's often that new users trip into pitfalls and learn things the hard way. I certainly have! Have you considered going through and completing the new user tutorial? I think it'll help you a lot... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that I see how badly things can go wrong from a misunderstanding of the rules, I should probably check that out. Mariolovr (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mariolovr - Please do! I really want to see you successful here. I hope that what you're saying is correct, and that this is a big misunderstanding. It's your actions following this discussion that will show just that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, while I have your attention, I'd just like to let you know that I've noticed Smithfield foods seems to be edited by a lot of day-old IPs that only write it in a good light. You might want to look into that. Mariolovr (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• The most interesting edit I see he did are these two reverts [73] [74] where Mariolovr undid two edits by CommonsDelinker from 2020-08-16 [75] [76] which were to remove the use of two images that had been deleted. These two images [77] and [78] were both created on 2016-12-28 by Shpernik088 and this year went through some sort of automated copyright issue, followed by an OTRS ticket on 2020-08-26 and the claim was removed on 9/1, 9/8 and 9/14. (I'm unfamiliar with OTRS and image copyright claim procedures, so I don't know how to interpret the three "removed claims".) The editor who put these images into Avian influenza was GaultierA on 2020-02-15. GaultierA (SPA) only edited for 3 days in February 2020, but on very similar topics: animal rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal Op (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that I reverted all of the edits made by CommonsDelinker regarding shpernik's images, not just gultierA's. I started there because I had just made a edit regarding culling, which is one of my main interests, and then noticed the error after perusing the article's history. Mariolovr (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick technical correction: Above, Normal_Op attempted to notify other editors who @Mariolovr had "butted with in the last 4 days" (@Eric Herboso: @Flyer22 Frozen: @Escape Orbit: @Praxidicae: @Primefac: @Sdio7: @MrOllie:). However, the ping failed because the edit was not immediately signed. This is a known bug listed on Help:Notifications#Known_bugs. I'm therefore pinging them now on Normal_Op's behalf. — Eric Herboso 08:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I wondered why no one showed up. Normal Op (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Just looking in to say I think Mariolovr is misguided, rather than being deliberately disruptive. If they accept the suggestions offered above, and learn not to be quite so insistent about getting their edits into an article against all opposition, they may yet prove to be a productive contributor. The indications are good. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that Mariolovr should disclose their previous accounts. Take a look at their five hour burst of editing on September 10 that constituted the first edits by this account. It strains credulity to think that this is the work of a brand new editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean like a COI? I've already talked about that. I have no COI. This is my first Wikipedia account. I do have experience editing other wikis though, and I also found the visual editor very intuitive. That's probably why it seems like I'm more familiar with the markup/syntax than other new users. Mariolovr (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've had enough of Mariolovr! After he came here to this ANI and expressed contrition and promised to read policy and be better, I started to direct him to policy and explain things to him. Instead, he has continued being argumentative, aggressive, constantly debates policy, and has insulted me several times. His earlier aggressive edit warring has morphed into incessant arguments on Talk pages. If you'd like to see examples, here are three threads.
  • Talk:Animal Liberation Front#ARM content
  • Talk:Murder#‎Animal rights FRINGE
  • Talk:Horse slaughter#‎Removal of images

Mariolovr has expressed several times that he is an animal rights advocate and his actions show that (ADVOCACY, ACTIVIST). I'm done giving the newbie leeway. Holy cow, has it only been 24 hours since this ANI was started? I could have sworn three days had passed! Normal Op (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

So first this person reports me for not using the talk page, and then they report me for using it? Where is the logic in that? They then lie about me saying I have "insulted them" and "expressed several times that I am an animal rights advocate" without any proof. This person is clearly just trying to abuse the reporting system to censor me. Mariolovr (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

History of promotional edits and copyright violation at American Land Title Association

Requesting rev/deletion as far back as necessary, which I think is just to August of this year. At least some of the promotional content from the large edit appears to have been copied from the association website. And a user block, too, of course. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Correction. The copyright problems go back at least to May 2015, with this [79] apparently copied from [80]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Targeting of users by User:Graham87

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

---

I am having concerns about User:Graham87. He is targeting members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Kenya such as User:Waweruboy for claims of WP:SOCK because of behavioral edits. There is no evidence of WP:SOCK. User:Graham87 targeted User:Waweruboy after edits on 1, 2 and 3 all which fall under Category:WikiProject Kenya members. I do not know what issues he has with those people, pages or persons but this is not based on WP:HSOCK. User:Graham87 described this as a block evasion after edits on three pages which were not promotional as per this or involved in any activity that does not meet WP:N. There is no evidence of WP:MEAT except targets by User:Graham87 after the said edit.According to User:Graham87 any edit on the said pages that meets WP:N is automatic WP:EVASION with absolutely no verifiable evidence.There is need for WP:CON to be very clear with the claimed evidence of WP:EVASION. No normal person can report User:Graham87 when they are in violation of WP:PG. I do not know what personal issues he has but there is need to follow on this keenly to achieve clear WP:CON of his activities that are founded clearly on grudges for things we don't know about.

I am not involved in any WP:EVASION related activities of these accounts. I am Njoroge from Nairobi, I am not paid by anyone and i am not involved in any violations of WP:PG but i feel there is need for this to be clearly, and openly addressed. As per this those account are for two different individuals with absolutely no connection except alleged behaviours of User:Graham87 because of edits on pages which are not promotional as per this. These blanket targeting of Category:WikiProject Kenya members is not WP:CIV. These are clearly normal people who are targeted without any form of WP:CIV.Njor22344668 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

...Says a new account with no edits besodes this one. Something is fishy here... Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

. I have created new account as per policy to protect my identity to address this because User:Graham87 involves targeting activities which are not addressed in WP:CIVNjor22344668 (talk)

@Njor22344668, I’m not sure what it is, but I think there’s a fundamental problem with the diffs you are providing. You might need to double check those. Celestina007 10:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. OP blocked. Graham87 11:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm tempted to remove this section as block evasion or archive it, but I'll leave that to somebody else to decide whether that's appropriate. I've also taken the liberty of fixing the links above; they had extra slashes on them. Graham87 11:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

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

• I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that even a blind man could see those were socks. EEng 05:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Lol! Graham87 05:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Telsho introducing errors, attacks against other editors

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapture&diff=prev&oldid=978510536 I reverted an IP editor who introduced a blatant error to Rapture. Rapture applies to Christian believers, not "all "good" people". Sources in article say this, also the cliff notes at Britannica say this.

I was therefore immensely surprised when User:Telsho not only reverted me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rapture&diff=978510862&oldid=978510536 but also had the gall to place a vandalism notice on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maria_Gemmi&oldid=978510891. I attempted to discuss this with User:Telsho on their talk page, showing them the facts and expressing my outrage at their behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Telsho&diff=978511548&oldid=978464033, when then placed a " Harassment of other users" warning on my page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maria_Gemmi&diff=978512248&oldid=978510891 .

As discussion with User:Telsho is fruitless, and since they are introducing blatant errors to Wikipedia articles and attacking me personally, I request that a moderator dispense justice upon User:Telsho's misdeeds.Maria Gemmi (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Um, when did I attacked you personally? You're getting this worked up over 2 template notices? Telsho (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

YOU Telsho, placed a blatant ERROR in Rapture, STRIKE ONE. YOU Telsho, then placed a template accusing me of being a vandal, STRIKE TWO. YOU Telsho, after I complained about YOUR ERROR and YOUR ATTACK against me, accused me of harassment on my talk page, STRIKE THREE. And still no apology. Either you are careless in your reverts and "templates", or you are deliberately targeting me. Either way, moderators should stop this.Maria Gemmi (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I can see nowhere that Telsho has accused you of being a vandal. You are severely overreacting and I suggest you calm down. Next time, when you revert other editors please provide a clear reason in the edit summary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

MSGJ In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maria_Gemmi&oldid=978510891 it says my contributions to Rapture do " do not conform to our policies" and at the bottom it says "Template:uw-vandalism1". That is an accusation of vandalism. My edit not only was not vandalism, but it corrected a gross error. Maria Gemmi (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay I see that now. In that case I would say it was an incorrect revert by Telsho but not something to get worked up about. Please use the edit summary as advised previously and this kind of situation will be much less likely to occur. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Maria Gemmi: that was a very mild message by Telsho, which even included a friendly welcome message. The advice to be careful about how you communicate with other editors, seems to be warranted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A welcome message along with an accusation that I committed vandalism. If there is vandalism here, it is by Telsho - [81]. Talking with them over this gets me another template. Still no apology by Telsho. Still no taking back their FALSE ACCUSATION. I came here to the moderators after I attempted to talk to them calmly.Maria Gemmi (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is this the "attack" you are complaining about? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Both messages placed on my talk page by Telsho are attacks that have no basis in reality.Maria Gemmi (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Maria Gemmi I'm sorry you received those messages, they were not appropriate. Telsho - you need to be more careful with templated messages, and with communication in general. If you give someone a vandalism template and they come to your talk page to demand an explanation, you should engage with them. Blanking their message and giving them a harassment template is not appropriate. If you aren't willing to explain your actions when people ask you to, perhaps you shouldn't be using templates like that in the first place. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Maria Gemmi is overreacting just a bit, but Telsho started this mess by leaving those templates. Telsho, WP:vandalism is ONLY edits which are designed to undermine the encyclopedia. Not things you disagree with, not things with errors, but only things that are intentionally trying to undermine the accuracy of the encyclopedia. Tagging an edit you disagree with (but is arguably a good faith edit) as vandalism is uncivil, don't do that. For that matter, use your own words instead of templates, and WP:Assume good faith in other's edits when it clearly isn't vandalism. Now lets go back to editing articles... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Range block for Missouri vandals

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

---

See, for instance, Webb City High School, Seneca High School (Missouri) and associated articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the vandalism is coming from a relatively small range (32 addresses); blocked 104.219.186.32/27 for 6 months. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Discography vandalism

Tornadoguy (talk · contribs) has been making several low quality edits. Their modus operandi is to use unreliable sources to claim that random songs are singles, despite no evidence in the source that the song actually is a single. When reverted, they immediately smash the undo button. Attempts to warn the user on their talk page have been completely fruitless. Their editing patterns smack of WP:NOTHERE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Bump; user is at it again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Edit warring, disruptive editing, has never communicated or used an edit summary; blocked indefinitely until those issues are addressed. Black Kite (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

IP adding unsourced additions to NFL articles

IP User talk:2600:1700:7714:2200:515E:68C4:DBB4:6113 has only made large, unsourced additions to NFL player articles while also not adhering to basic formatting. The IP has completely ignored all four warnings as well as an additional message. Recommending a short block so the IP acknowledges warnings about unsourced additions to BLPs. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)