Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Martinevans123

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

---

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

• Would that be the IP address(es) that you plastered all over the history of the talk page by editing as an IP before creating a username? I'm pretty sure we can't blame Martin for that. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'm assuming you are Special:Contributions/213.124.174.59 and Special:Contributions/89.205.133.144. Every time you edit as an IP you are publishing your IP address, and anyone can look up the location. As far as I can tell Martinevans123 was trying to determine if the second IP was the same editor as the first, which had been blocked earlier the same day for edit warring. This is a legitimate query as blocks apply to the person, not the account and it would have been block evasion. Here, you admit that you have in fact done that. It is also legitimate, if one sees perceives a user as being disruptive at one article, to check their contributions and follow up at a different article. That is not stalking or intimidation. I don't see anything actionable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• This complaint is without merit, and should be closed without action. There is a run-of-the-mill content dispute at the article talk page, about the use of superlatives. Martinevens123 has one position about it. A series of IPs expressed different positions, and then the account making the opening post here was created ([1]), and continued to express the same opinion. Martinevens123 raised the issue of the accounts likely being the same person, per WP:DUCK. And WP:IP edits are not anonymous. The "following to other articles" seems to be only to Ludwig Wittgenstein, which Martin has been editing since long before the new account was created: [2]. This is not stalking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Re-opening (Martinevans123)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The appropriate picture --Tryptofish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Martinevans123, you wrote: 'And then User:Cornelis Dopper miraculously appeared'. Now you're acting as if it was a big surprise when you felt it was necessary to publish the location of my IP-address. I still don't understand what the added value of that was. In combination with the many sarcastic remarks and illogical behavior it came across as an attempt to intimidate someone. And now you're saying that it is a miracle that I created an account to make a few comments on these matters?

In my opinion, the entire discussion began in a ridiculous way, with constant sarcasm from especially Martin; not really a nice attitude to begin a discussion I would say. But this is also what he did at the Wittgenstein article; reverting edits back like a dictator, starting a discussion and then refusing engage in a constructive manner. Not in the least I have the feeling that this discussion is being held with people who have next to no background in philosophy (they're not showing it at least). Cornelis Dopper (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Also: @Ritchie333, you wrote: 'but I note that Martin has left his rationale on the talk page'. Excuse me? I think you can clearly see my arguments with proper sources and all enfolding on the talk pages of both Heidegger & Wittgenstein. How on earth can you say this? And I would very much like to be informed where I can find the so called rationale of Martin; it seems to me it is completely absent. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see them now, but at the time I wrote that post, I couldn't because you'd hadn't written them at that point. Now you have, I have set out a compromise on a talk page that I hope you both can follow. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for a block and rev-del

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special:Contributions/218.250.200.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 5 April in 2020,zh.wiki blocked,please User:El C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Another one bites the stardust. El_C 08:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

IP user 124.104.57.209

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

---

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

Honestly he has broken all of the things above too many times, however I have added some of his violations here. I recommend an administrator to look at all his records if this is not enough. In my opinion a permanent block would be the best solution after everything he has been doing. He has also receives multiple warnings by several editors and been blocked from editing certain pages due to his edit warring. [3] [4]

WP:HARASS against editor Vif, [5], against Vacant [6], against me[7], against Shadow [8], against Ben [9]

Broken WP:3RR several times, refusing to discuss, adding unsourced or WP:OR content and reverting back against multiple editors: [10] (6 times) on that page), [11] (4 times on that page), [12] (4 times on that page), [13] (6 times on that page) and these are just some examples.

WP:POV pushes, unsourced too: [14] (edit denied), [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], and there many many more.

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

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

Ignored [[20]] Shadow4dark (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---

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

Report by Santasa99

GenoV84 has an intractable, long term history of POV pushing, edit-warring ([21], [22], [23], [24]). Being on multiple ANI's for biting, casting aspersions with especially troubling being presentation of false claims in personal attacks (warned [25], [26], here they were called out for false personal attacks [27], [28] by User:LindsayH in this diff reiterated by User:El_C, then for attempt to engineer sanctions for opposing user [29]) over the past and this year, and earlier during the 2018. They showed disregard for community consensus (as reported in this ANI User:GenoV84 and the Kafir_Lives_Matter userbox recreation(s) in the middle of which GenoV84 supposedly retired, but they were warned [30], they were called out for "gaming the system", "bludgeoning", "writing manifesto", "incivility", "hypocrisy", even being "anti-Muslim", all in that ANI by the community of at least half a dozen or more editors, and then on another again here (when they reported opposing editor for removing warnings from their user TP [31], but they themselves were removing all warnings and block notices from their user TP, and explained by User:Justarandomamerican that editors are allowed to do that and warned for not assuming good faith, again, [32], [33] by User:TheDragonFire300 and [34] by User:Bishonen, and again month later they filed a report [35], [36] on the same editor and were warned [37] by User:Fences and windows). They often disregard community standards on issues such as OWN, OR & SYNTH interpretation and usage of sources, the bad faith assumption ([38], [39] report by User:Vaticidalprophet, also noted by [40] User:Apaugasma). From my personal experience - main accusations and false claims: ...if those reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors on his part weren't already enough, Santasa99 seems to (almost) entirely disregard the other editors' opinions and proposals..., by explicitly stating that he doesn't care... i.e. unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content - I posted my raw intent on very specific matters concerning eventual changes in problematic sentence [41], no more no less, I didn't debated, threaten, disregard opinions - "deficiencies and misdemeanors" on my part and "unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content" should be explained; How do you expect to collaborate with other users without providing any evidence that could validate your viewpoint, only we don't require evidence to remove unrefed/unsourced material, and we always expect to collaborate; ...you're not even willing to compromise with them when different solutions and proposals have already been made, not one proposal or solution was offered, only more of the same, and "refusal to get the point" and provide asked ref; Santasa99 has NEVER provided one, single, reliable source that could support his point of view, while simultaneously stuffing himself with words like "substance" or "evidence" and demanding reliable sources which I have provided and cited firsthand multiple times,..., only we don't require reliable source to remove unrefed/unsourced material, they didn't provide ref for contested material; If there is anyone here that should amend for his reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors, that's you, not us. Begging for evidence when the evidence has already been provided with reliable sources and quotes..., they were not, they were just bunch of source, meaningless quotes, non of which contain required ref for contested material or justify accusations; then dismissing the provided evidence by stating the same phrase over and over again (I am not interested in lecturing) with no counterarguments and without refraining from making personal attacks and offensive remarks about other users,..., more evasion and aspersion; I called Santasa99 out on that as inappropriate behaviour twice; instead of refraining from his/her reiterated tendentiousness, personal attacks, and disruption to illustrate his/her point, he/she refuses to take accountability for his/her inappropriate conduct by pointing the finger at other editors repeatedly., they did constantly spread aspersions, and the rest should be easy to prove and justify; I suggested you to try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively, ...no need to behave that way during a dispute resolution, especially ...that this entire discussion and edit war that you started, evasion, untrue due to your reiterated insults, personal attacks, and offensive remarks towards them; for example, by insulting the user VenusFeuerFalle for expressing his own opinion, aspersions w/o evidence? Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, not upset just contesting unrefed material; depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote his/her own point of view without providing any verifiable sources that support their opinion, resorting to insult and attack other users, yet, it was GenoV84 who started to revert and broke 3RR as well, actually first, insults and attack should be easy to prove; I haven't seen any attempt by the user Santasa99 to cool down and behave properly towards other users, neither to check the cited sources, nor to find this mythical reference containing the Strawman designation that he/she seems so desperate to cry for., evidence? he/she continued to explicitly deny the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty despite the fact that all the cited sources state exactly the opposite of what he/she claims, evasion, untrue; Timeline for the TP exchange: GenoV84 reverted me on my first edit on the article in question, with an unprovoked and blunt accusation of censorship and disruption via edit-summary, disregarding good faith, [42], followed with immediate placement of two separate warnings on my TP, [43], [44], with additional comment [45]. VenusFeuerFalle & GenoV84 has established contact via e-mail two weeks ago, 6-7 days before our first encounter, as evident from this exchange on GenoV84 TP [46] between 2-3 Feb.2022; VenusFeuerFalle replaced GenoV84 in reverting me, so I stepped on that mine foolishly. I initiated discussion [47]; GenoV84 responds [48]; I followed [49]; they reply with this evasive post filled with unnecessary references and without offering what I asked [50]+[51]; nevertheless, I checked them and concluded that constructed phrase I was asking reference for is nowhere to be found in them [52]+[53]; now they were starting to get angry at me and to write essays with lots of wikilayering [54]; I tried to explain [55]+[56]; they started with a new round [57]; I asked them to stop with accusations [58]; they started asking in circles [59] and I replied again [60]+[61]; they simply didn't want to get the point and repeated again [62]; I was a bit annoyed at this point [63] but I pinged other two editors and asked [64]; one replied Your edits today on this article have violated WP:3RR. Could you please explain why you have ignored that policy? — Manticore; then the other [65] not exactly clear what they said; I was baffled and responded with [66], I was asked about my proposal but I wasn't sure what [67]; so I said that [68]; editor said they can try to fix English [69]; I wasn't sure why they debating when reference is my main request [70]; they tried again but made thing worse [71]+[72], which isn't the point after all, both editors were simply evading to provide reference which was my main request ! Then, GenoV84 posted essay of 10 thousands bytes [73]! Sorry for the long report, even though it could have been longer.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Response by GenoV84

intractable, long term history of POV pushing.... Are you serious? Explain what is your definition of decorum preservation, because you have demonstrated to be unable to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, yet you also pretend to have the high ground to judge other users' conduct while claiming to have discussed with them respectfully because of decorum preservation, which can't be found anywhere in the article's Talk page, since you have repeatedly attempted to censor and disrupt sourced, encyclopedic content supported by multiple academic and reliable references in the article through many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries with a presumptuous attitude both towards me and other users (@VenusFeuerFalle: and @Manticore:), despite the fact that in my first reply I suggested you to try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively, because there's absolutely no need to behave that way during a dispute resolution, especially considering the fact that this entire discussion and edit war that you started is about something so innocuous as a wikilink. In my very first reply, I also suggested you to get familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including Behavioral guidelines and Content guidelines, in order to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, and to check out the cited sources before accusing other users of ill intent both through your many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries and messages on the article's Talk page, which is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. You did neither of those things, apparently. You're lucky that the aforementioned editors didn't report you to WP:ANI due to your reiterated insults, personal attacks, and offensive remarks towards them; for example, by insulting the user VenusFeuerFalle for expressing his own opinion and suggestions on the article's Talk page, denigrating him for being a non-native English speaker: I am really struggling to understand what you are writing - I am sorry but, really, I am having a hard time to catch your drift. My English is barely usable, but, boy, to my abilities yours is even worse. But, that being said, I think that my intentions were more than clear, and series of explaining, which I provided in my posts here from the beginning, should suffice for even the weakest user of English, or the finest connoisseur of literary English, if we are to consider both extremes. So far, I haven't seen any attempt by the user Santasa99 to cool down and behave properly towards other users, neither to check the cited sources, nor to find this mythical reference containing the Strawman designation that he/she seems so desperate to cry for. Furthermore, he/she didn't even try to properly cooperate with other users by providing this source in the first place, and continues to avoid doing so. Instead, he/she continued to explicitly deny the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty despite the fact that all the cited sources state exactly the opposite of what he/she claims, resorted to insult and denigrate other users multiple times, and continued to dismiss my explanations for the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty and related Sharia-based legal prescriptions for capital punishments and modes of execution in Sharia-compliant Muslim-majority countries (including crucifixion, beheading, stoning, burning people alive, throwing people off buildings, etc.) paired with citations of multiple academic and reliable references, which he/she asked for (But I am curious still, so please, do tell - what is "Islamic death penalty"? How that thing differs from any other "death penalty", is there a "Western death penalty" or "American death penalty or "Vatican death penalty" or "Atheist death penalty"?) and can be found in the very first paragraph of the article's lead section, by stating the same phrase over and over again: I am not interested in lecturing. Begging for evidence when the evidence has already been provided with reliable sources and quotes, then dismissing the provided evidence by stating the same phrase over and over again (I am not interested in lecturing) with no counterarguments and without refraining from making personal attacks and offensive remarks about other users, is starting to feel like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I called Santasa99 out on that as inappropriate behaviour twice; instead of refraining from his/her reiterated tendentiousness, personal attacks, and disruption to illustrate his/her point, he/she refuses to take accountability for his/her inappropriate conduct by pointing the finger at other editors repeatedly. Meanwhile, user Santasa99 has continued to denigrate the user VenusFeuerFalle on the article's Talk page for being a non-native speaker of English, regardless of good manners and civility: as an additional reason, you are the last editor I would be willing to take her/his word on grammar issues, after this exchange! (the text is highlighted in bold in the original comment on the article's Talk page, not my addition). Moreover, there's obviously no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policy WP:EASTEREGG. It's depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote his/her own point of view, without providing any verifiable sources that support their opinion, resorting to insult and attack other users instead of collaborating with them respectfully. Evidence with reliable sources and diffs that directly indicate your disruptive edits on the article LGBT in Islam, along with your reiterated violation of WP:3RR, have already been provided by me and the user @Manticore:, both here and in the article's Talk page. And no, responding to your incessant, passive-aggressive comments and offensive remarks about me and the editors @VenusFeuerFalle: and @Manticore: in the most polite way possible is not harassment: it's called manners. Did you manage to behave that way and treat other users like trash for 14 years without ever getting blocked or reprimanded by an admin? Impressive.... and depressing. Despite your attempts to repeatedly inflame the dispute resolution with uncivil comments and personal attacks by inciting me and the aforementioned users to push the boundaries even further, as you just did with your latest comment (You really need to hit the brakes a little bit), I'm pretty sure that I have already expressed my opinion far too well, both here and on the article's Talk page, and there's no need for me to restate my argument ad infinitum. I also took the initiative to request a third opinion from users that weren't involved in the dispute resolution in order to find a constructive way to reach consensus together, but so far nothing seems to work. I invited other users and editors to join the discussion and express their own viewpoint both on WP:AN3 and the article's Talk page, if they wish. Your edits were reverted by multiple editors in accordance with policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED, you attempted to apply those changes without consensus in the midst of an ongoing discussion, and you violated the WP:3RR rule multiple times, as user Manticore demonstrated both on the article's Talk page and WP:AN3 ([74]; [75]; [76]; [77]; [78]; [79]). There is still no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED. Me and user VenusFeuerFalle have proposed new solutions by providing and citing multiple verified, neutral, academic, reliable references that contain more encyclopedic, formal, and specific legal terminology that could be used to replace the wikilink without incurring in a violation of the aforementioned WP policies. Unfortunately, user Santasa99 has NEVER provided one, single, reliable source that could support his point of view, while simultaneously stuffing himself with words like "substance" or "evidence" and demanding reliable sources which I have provided and cited firsthand multiple times, all of which meet the requirements Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. If there is anyone here that should amend for his reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors, that's you, not us. Moreover, if those reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors on his part weren't already enough, Santasa99 seems to (almost) entirely disregard the other editors' opinions and proposals regarding the appropriate terminology and solution, by explicitly stating that he doesn't care and will continue to do exactly the same thing that he did before, i.e. unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content without consensus: Ok, here's what I intend to do, based on our core content policies and guidelines: I intend to remove any usage of the phrase "Islamic death penalty" [...] I intend to do this removal by rephrasing two sentences/statements which expressing exactly the same information, using exactly the same wiki-links, and exactly the same references, and are both inserted in the WP:LEDE, only few lines apart. By amending this repetitiveness, I intend to remove usage of constructed controversial phrase "Islamic death penalty"; I am not intending anything differently from what I tried earlier - if anything, this intention is much more substantial in comparison with my earlier edit, which was reduced to removing only one word. How do you expect to collaborate with other users without providing any evidence that could validate your viewpoint, especially if you're not even willing to compromise with them when different solutions and proposals have already been made? As if this entire dispute resolution over a simple, innocuous wikilink wasn't entirely avoidable if only the user that opened this report had tried to engage with me and other editors in a more polite, respectful way from the beginning, in accordance with the policies WP:Civility and WP:KEEPCOOL, as I suggested him many times during the dispute resolution, he disregarded all my advices and continued to behave in the same disturbing, disrespectful way (Oh, sorry Aristotle, i wasn't aware you go digital now.). Furthermore, Santasa99 has blatantly, explicitly DENIED that he was WARNED by the admin EdJohnston just yesterday following the closure of the report on his edit-warring [80], which can still be found at WP:AN3, with the following phrase on the article's Talk page: EdJohnston never said that [81]. GenoV84 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC) After all this mess, who is the one making accusations, insulting other users with personal attacks multiple times, treating them with disrespect and offensive remarks after being asked to stop multiple times, persistent lying despite the provided diffs and evidence with the continuous dismissal of all the diffs and evidence, accusing them of bad faith and WP:NOTHERE? GenoV84 (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC) But the user Santasa99 didn't stop there. He continued to post comments and replies on WP:AN3 after the admin EdJohnston had already closed Manticore's report on him for edit-warring, knowingly (Thanks @EdJohnston:, I am well aware of what I shouldn't do [82]), insinuating that me and editor VenusFeuerFalle had a conversation via email regarding the article LGBT in Islam because I gave them an email address to reach me on my Talk page weeks ago (I was, apparently, up against two editors editing in concert, which I suspect from this short but worrisome exchange User_talk:GenoV84#Discord? between 2 and 3 Feb 2022, and manner in which they took turn in reverting me. [83]). In the same fashion, the user Santasa99 stated on the article's Talk page that he won't let me go while the discussion is still ongoing (Are you now refuse to work with me, do you think that somehow goal is accomplished and now you don't need to explain to me anything? [84]). See and judge for yourselves, who is the editor in bad faith and casting aspersions here (WP:ASPERSIONS: It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.). I wish that I didn't have to do this and write this papyrus above, but if other editors and admins need to see the full story, there it is. For what? A wikilink. GenoV84 (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC) References

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

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

Comment (to break from walls of text)

I was long past content issue problem, and my intention was to present pattern of continuous breach of behavioral policies and guidelines - any editor with a history of bad faith assumption, false representations of other editors' discussions, and willingness to wage a crusade over simplest matter, as apparent from ANI, User:GenoV84 and the Kafir_Lives_Matter userbox recreation(s), case about racist userbox three time deleted by community, three times re-created by GenoV84, or from disruptive editing on the article Criticism of Muhammad edit-warring and discussing over edit-summary [85], which eventually earned them a block; and now, with all this over removal of one word, "Islamic", from absurd, provocative and deceptive phrasal construction "Islamic death penalty", created without references, should be signal that editor is not here to build the project.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I initiated discussion [86]; GenoV84 responds [87]; I followed with a second attempt [88]; they reply with this evasive post filled with unnecessary references[89]+[90] and without offering what I asked exact place in sources; nevertheless, I checked the sources and concluded that constructed phrase I was asking reference for is nowhere to be found [91]+[92]; now they replied with a long post with lots of wikilayering evasive explanations and aspersions [93]; I tried to explain [94]+[95]; they started with a new round [96]; I asked them to stop with accusations [97]; they started asking in circles [98].

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

And, it's not irrelevant that on our first encounter GenoV84 reverted my first edit on the article in question, with an unprovoked and blunt accusation of censorship and disruption via edit-summary, completely disregarding good faith, [99], followed with immediate placement of two separate warnings on my TP, [100], [101], with additional comment [102]. That was really unexpected.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment about DRN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NeverTry4Me issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor Toyota Corolla E140 and uploading images

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block evation

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

---

A user doing LTA has again being evading block [103] with new IP [104]. --C messier (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

User talk:Realjamesh

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

---

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

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

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

Manipulation of wikipedia by a French presidential candidate team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  In other words, in order to avoid suspicion, they used a single purpose account to upload a photo of Zemmour to Commons before adding it to the Reconquête article using their main account (which was used to add the photo that they openly uploaded to other projects[105][106]). To say that I'm disappointed would be an understatement. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:PROMO is obviously what I've been referring to all along. Even though I'm aware that no single policy can be used to remove the image (wp policies don't usually work in isolation anyway), I was hoping that others may agree, especially now that story is in the newspapers.[107][108][109] M.Bitton (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Nil Einne: We cannot admit that there is a COI problem, accept to keep the added content (under whatever pretext) and then pretend that there is no fait accompli. The message we're sending here is loud and clear: throw money at your promotional material (by hiring professional writers, photographers, etc) and you won't even need to declare your conflict of interest, because even if caught, your proportional material will be kept. M.Bitton (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: except the promotional material would have been kept even if they had declared the conflict of interest. We would very likely be in the exact same situation if the proper processes had been followed. There is no fait accompli, the exact same thing would have happened. We could trivially remove the image from the article. We aren't failing to remove it because it's too much work or because it's hard to do or anything like that. We won't remove the image because if the editor had said on the talk page, "hey I represent person A, and have uploaded this image which I feel should be added to the article, would that be possible?" we would have very likely done that and would have the same or a very similar result. This doesn't mean it's acceptable for them to do what they do, but we should not punish them for that by causing a worse outcome just because they didn't. That's a clear cut violation of WP:BLP IMO. Regardless of how poorly subjects behave here, we should never, ever do something to punish them in our articles. That's disgusting and unacceptable. And there is absolutely no need to hire professional writers to upload an image, nor to add it to an article or to suggest it is added. (I'd note that as mentioned by others, I'm not sure there's even a reason to think anyone hired professional writers, it's seems likely there's a fair chance that these people were volunteers for the campaign. That doesn't make what they were doing acceptable instead it illustrates why concentrating on the professional part is sort of silly.) Note as I said, in my first post I'm not referring to anything other than the image. As for professional photographers, as I already said we already effectively encourage subjects to get professional photographers to take their photo on occasion, there's nothing forbidden about it's part and parcel of Wikipedia. The problem is not that a professional photographer was used, or that it was uploaded by someone with a COI, both are perfectly allowed in fact in some ways encouraged. The problem is because this COI was not declared, and it was added to the article by someone with a COI. Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Of course there is no need to hire professionals, but it sure wouldn't harm, especially if money is not an issue. As I said right from the start, it's the fact that it was added to the article by someone with a COI that is an issue (the image itself is not a problem). The professional part became a subject when some editors insisted on keeping it under the pretext that "it looks nice" (i.e. professional). Anyway, I think we have to agree to differ on this particular point. M.Bitton (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Actually it could easily harm if you use the wrong professional. Professional writers may use language that is suspicious when adding the image. And I'm reluctant to agree to differ on BLP matters. You seem to agree that the image would have been added to the article if the subject had simply proposed to add it to the article rather than adding it themselves. If you do, then why are you suggesting we remove it simply because they didn't do so but added it directly? If you think it's acceptable to punish subjects in articles, you should not be editing BLPs period. That's in clear violation of BLP. I haven't looked into the French reports, but are we even sure the subject had much involvement in this? Campaigns often have a lot of stuff which is fairly disconnected from the politician. Perhaps you can blame them for the people they let into their campaign etc, but it seems even more wrong to be saying we should punish subjects for stuff they had minimal involvement in and only came about because they were careless who they hired. It makes far, far more sense to do what we're doing at the moment. We're telling everyone involved "look if you'd done things properly, we would be in the exact same situation and instead of you being blocked (which seems likely to happen), you could continue to propose new images you uploaed". Note this also meants it's quite likely there has been no promotional benefit here, instead it's been harmful. We'd be in the exact same situation if they'd done things properly and simply suggested the image on the talk page, except they could continue to edit and make such image suggestions which may be in part promotional which they will no longer be able to do so. (I have no idea what's going to happen on Commons, and it doesn't concern us here.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: NOTHERE block of involved editors

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

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

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

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

• Oppose for all of them, as they have not engaged in disruption on the English Wikipedia.--Emigré55 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I do not see the block as punitive for someone who isn't currently editing. It is about preventing future issues and creating an incentive to not use Wikipedia in this fashion. In this particular situation, it's the proper course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. It's a reasonable preventative step to take given the circumstances. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support all three as a fully justified step based on their previous edit history, to prevent damage to the English version of the encyclopedia. Let's also recall that this is about presidential politics, and not about angels dancing on the head of a pin. A block is not a WP:BAN; they can be unblocked the day after with an appeal showing why there is no danger of the kind of damage they caused at fr-wiki that led to an explosion of articles in the French press about manipulation of Wikipedia, from being reproduced here. Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• The mantra "preventative not punitive" supports blocking of editors who are likely to disrupt the English Wikipedia, rather than, as one or two people have claimed, opposing it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the fact that they have been so publicly exposed in in this regard lowers the chances that the accounts, which have not clearly engaged in past disruption on EnWiki, will be used for future Z-related disruption on EnWiki. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    • These accounts, mayhaps. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support while these accounts may have few edits here, it's clear that they were engaged in a kind of manipulation which isn't acceptable. As a BLPN regular, I appreciate it can sometimes be difficult for subjects to get even fair changes, but this very far from the way to go about getting changes to articles. I think this is one of the few cases where it's okay to block to send a message in part since the block is already justified but in addition the block may make it easier to deal with future meat or sockpuppetry. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support block of all three, as the two less-active accounts are de facto meatpuppets of the obviously-needs-to-be-blocked Cheep. oknazevad (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support blocking all three, per Phil Bridger's reasoning. M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

LTA back with two new /64 ranges

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

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

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

This vandal is still active at this very moment: [110] --Sable232 (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Urgent help needed

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

---

Could you please delete this [111] history? HeeraDrishti (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---

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

1. NPX Capital, draftified after acceptance through the AfC process. [112]
2. Draft:State Institute of Design, draftified 8 year old article with several contributors. [113]
3. Draft:Times Business School, draftified a nearly decade old article with several contributors. [114]
4. Draft:Jaro Institute of Technology, Management and Research, draftified accepted AfC submission.[115]
5. Institute of Advanced Research, draftified a 3 year old article from 2017. [116]
6. Draft:Times and Trends Academy, draftified already accepted AfC submission. [117]
7. Indorama Corporation, draftified 8 year old article.[118]
8. Draft:Badruka College, draftified article from 2007(!).[119] Article was previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badruka College in 2009.
9. Draft:Ahmedabad Management Association, draftified article from 2006 with many contributors. [120]
10. Draft:Shradha Sharma, draftified article from 2016, with several contributors that was already kept as notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shradha Sharma. [121]
11. Draft:RattanIndia Amravati Thermal Power Project, draftified article from 2014. [122]
12. Draft:RattanIndia Nashik Thermal Power Station, draftified article from 2014. [123]
13. Draft:OCTAVE Business School, draftified article from 2011 with many different editors. [124]

Hatchens has been made aware their draftification behaviour is inappropriate before. In November of 2021 in reference to the Indorama Corporation article, Paul 012 informed them that unilateral draftification is usually inappropriate "for articles which have existed in for eight years".[125] They likely saw this as they edited the article after Paul. [126] They are also currently blocked for 24 hours by Bbb23 for improper speedy deletion tagging of schools under WP:A7.[127]
Looking at User:Hatchens/Draftify log, they have draftified 54 articles since October 2021. This means they have an erroneous draftification rate of around 24% (13/54) since October. This is far too high for someone who is a new page reviewer. [128] I am therefore asking that Hatchens have their new page reviewer rights revoked and be indefinitely banned from moving any more articles from mainspace to draft. They are either disregarding the norms around draftification or they are not properly reviewing the page history before performing draftifications. Either way, they clearly should not be allowed to review pages if they cannot properly use a key component of the new page patroller toolkit. They should also not be allowed to draftify any more articles. I would also ask that an administrator consider reviewing Hatchens' past draftifications that have been G13'd to see if they were appropriate, or at the very least WP:REFUND them so others can do so. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Paul 012 Thank you for the ping.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Competence issues regarding User:CycoMa1

A couple of weeks back, the Furry fandom article came to my attention via a post at WP:BLP/N. The specific issue was sorted quickly enough, but a closer look at the article showed several issues. There were problems with sourcing, and with neutrality, but those could probably be dealt with in the normal manner. More fundamentally though, the article was simply incoherent in places, and a bloated, unstructured mess of almost random and contradictory malformed and ungrammatical sentences almost everywhere. Inspection of the article history revealed that back in August last year, this was then what appeared to be a reasonably-written article, by Wikipedia standards. Not without issues, but at least as it stood a readable exposition of its subject matter. The article has been transformed from that state to its current one almost entirely due to the efforts of a single contributor, CycoMa1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has over that period made over 1000 edits. I have, on the article talk page, tried engaging with CycoMa1, but got absolutely nowhere in getting this contributor to even acknowledge the underlying issues. To be blunt, I simply don't think that CycoMa1 is competent to deal with articles of such complexity, and having tried, and failed, to get anywhere my patience has now run out. Accordingly, I reverted the article to the state it was in as of late August last year, indicating that my reasoning was given on the talk page. [129] CycoMa1 then immediately reverted back to their preferred version, with an edit summary stating "There was no consensus Undid revision 1072697860" [130]

I had considered starting an RfC on the issue, but given CycoMa1's apparent inability to understand the need for articles to be properly structured and written in comprehensible encyclopaedic English, as demonstrated repeatedly on the article talk page, [131] it now seems to me that such a course of action would risk merely shifting the problem elsewhere. Accordingly, I would ask people to take a quick look at the two versions of the article as linked below (a complete reading is hardly necessary to amply demonstrate the problem), and then consider what the best course of action would be. I have no reason to doubt that CycoMa1 is acting in good faith, but in my opinion that is not enough. Not when 'good faith' turns encyclopaedic content into a confused word-salad of random things cherry-picked from questionably-sourced articles about furries. It seems evident that CycoMa1's level of literacy is simply inadequate for the task. Possibly a topic ban from 'furry'-related articles might be the solution, though as I note, this seems to be a fundamental competence issue, and that risks moving the problem to other articles. Perhaps mentoring might be a solution, that that would require a volunteer, and an acknowledgement from CycoMa1 that there is actually a serious problem. Failing that, I'm not quite sure what to suggest, beyond noting that as a last resort Wikipedia can and does block contributors for a lack of competence on occasion. Not a pleasant thing to do, but sometimes necessary for the good of a project that aspires to be an encyclopaedia.

Furry fandom article as edited by CycoMa1: [132]

Furry fandom article as restored to earlier state by me: [133]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've not really commented on CycoMa1's edits elsewhere on Wikipedia, but since it has come up, I'll note that I have noticed similar problems elsewhere, even after only a brief search. See e.g. these recent edits to Vampire lifestyle, [134] which clearly isn't an accurate representation of the source. [135] Being able to find sources isn't sufficient, one also needs to be able to understand, and accurately summarise, what they say. And not use them to imply things they don't say, which also seems to be a common trend: see e.g. the stub article Candelaria fibrosa, created by CycoMa1, which contains a statement that this fungi species "has been found in Buncombe county in North Carolina". This appears to be true. It cites a source that says so. It is however a complete red herring, since the fungi has apparently been found throughout much of the eastern United States and elsewhere, making its occurrence in Buncombe county of no significance at all. [136] Assembling random statements into articles like this may look superficially convincing, but it isn't encyclopaedic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admin User:CaptainEek accepted my AfC one time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Warned. CycoMa1, just make proposals for major changes on the article talk. Proposals which perhaps other contributors could help better refine. This is the thing: Wikipedia is meant to be based on scholarly standards. Standards which, unfortunately, your additions fall short of at this time. Good luck! El_C 08:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

EnlightenmentNow1792 is NOTHERE to build an encylopedia

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

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

His latest, extremely POINTy edit has prompted this filing.[137]

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

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

I would welcome an interaction ban, because he has already hounded my contributions to Center for American Progress in order to revert my BRD edit while accusing me of unspecified bad intentions.[138] We don't edit in the same areas, thank god. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support given my interaction with EnlightenmentNow1792 at Uyghur genocide yesterday/today after they tried to introduce a lot of information into the lead which was not supported by the given sources or in the article as well as remove some that was [139][140][141][142][143]. Instead of opening an article talk page discussion or joining the one in progress EnlightenmentNow1792 instead chose to open a discussion on my talk page [144] and chose to edit war with grandiose and error ridden edit summaries "here, will you allow those simple terminological corrections/explications to stand for clarity's sake? Or will I be subject to a third round of ludicrous accusations regarding my person?"[145] "Undid revision 1072620669 by Horse Eye's Back (talk) i thought your behavior was gonna end up at this level eventually. You're either (a) deliberately keeping imprecises terminology in the lede; or (b) rv for no other reason than just to act out at strangers from your keyboard. whichever it is, it's not helpful. I suggest you take a break."[146] before their inaccurate additions were finally reverted by @Mhawk10:. These sorts of personal attacks are out of line, especially when EnlightenmentNow1792 should be expecting some pushback on significant changes to the lead of a controversial article (including the first line, which is the subject of an open RFC). I had assumed that their behavior otherwise was ok, I now realize that I was getting their *good side* and that the bad is bad enough to warrant not editing anymore. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding a few diffs to this wall of text:

• The two previous ANI filings (I think this was withdrawn tho) and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#EnlightenmentNow1792
• My statement to another editor that EnlightenmentNow1792 seemed to me to be motivated by his own political POV is not an accusation of being a rightist, but of having a political POV sharply at odds with Escobar.
• Diff of my revert. Obviously, the same or similar material could be re-added but text in Wikipedia's voice would need to respect "WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT" as my edit summary said.
• The Libya story from 2011 that EN1792 claims doesn't exist is online at Asia Times; possibly Maldon republished it? Searching for its title got a bunch of results including Wikileaks, where the young intelligence ops who got leaked were passing it around, together with other stories by Escobar.[147]
• Escobar's story warning about bin Laden is often mentioned because of its date: August 30, 2001. EN1792 repeatedly removed or tagged with scare tags information about the geographical areas where Escobar has worked.[148][149]
• Many fringe outlets re-publish Escobar's work, with his permission. The bio quotes his explanation, that he wants to extend his "audience." Al Mayadeen has republished one (1) of his stories in English, (about prison labor, from 2021), and republishes regularly his monthly article in Spanish for a Venezuelan pub called Mision Verdad.
• The claims of insider knowledge about Escobar, plus the animosity, suggest COI. A topic ban would be good.
• My Wikipedia preferences specify masculine pronouns. HouseOfChange HouseOfChange (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

• I felt that EnlightenmentNow1792's comments in the Persian Gulf Rfc were a little too wordy to be helpful, so I asked them on their talk page to try to be more concise and to hat a part of it [150]. Instead of replying on their talk, they responded to this with more text in the RfC itself [151], needlessly personalizing and complaining that editors are trolling because they don't spend enough time reading. Another editor hatted part of the earlier comment but was reverted [152]. Despite all of this feedback, the bludgeoning continues [153].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• December @ Iraqi Turkmen
  • Edit warring: Special:Diff/1058847857, Special:Diff/1058850513, Special:Diff/1059598139, Special:Diff/1060882657, Special:Diff/1061490079
  • For context/completeness, see Talk:Iraqi Turkmen#Needs serious attention from a neutral expert and subsequent threads on that page
• January-February @ Pepe Escobar
  • Edit warring: Special:Diff/1067065058, Special:Diff/1069856873 (note the edit summary mentioning "NOTRESUME")
  • This BLP "hit job": Special:Diff/1072698327 (note the addition of a resume, of sorts)
  • Disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepe Escobar, already discussed here
• February @ Uyghur genocide
  • For context/completeness, their talk page posts in the RFC on Feb 7: Special:Diff/1070365725, Special:Diff/1070369302, Special:Diff/1070491891
  • Special:Diff/1072359973: Adding a {cn} for "Islamophobia" as a motive in the infobox (though it's cited in the body of the article, search for the word) and for "political dissent" (YGTBKM)
  • Special:Diff/1072380941: A few hours later, removing "Islamophobia" from the infobox claiming "can't find any RS in the body that mentions Islamophobia" (again, searching the page for "Islamophobia" yields "Scholars such as Sean Roberts and David Tobin have described Islamophobia and fear of terrorism as discourses that have been used within China to justify repressive policies targeting Uyghurs..." cited to Geopolitics)
  • Edit warring to remove "religious minorities" or "ethnic and religious minorities": Special:Diff/1072352155, Special:Diff/1072381314, Special:Diff/1072566751, Special:Diff/1072651269
  • Special:Diff/1072383082: Removing "independent NGOs, human rights experts" from the lead with the edit summary "not aware of any great number of "independent NGOs", nor "human rights experts" proclaiming it genocide in RSs", although the page, in the body, includes the line "Over two-dozen NGOs that focus on the rights of Uyghurs were involved in organizing the protests" cited to The Nikkei, and the body has an entire section called "Non-governmental organizations and research institutions", and the line "In 2018, UCL human rights scholar Kate Cronin-Furman argued in 2018 that the Chinese state policies constituted cultural genocide" cited to two sources: Foreign Policy, one of the four sources posted to the talk page in the previous bullet point, and Terrorism and Political Violence
  • Special:Diff/1072350870: In this list of four sources on the talk page Feb 17, what is described in the edit summary as "academic journal article" is not an academic journal, it's a think tank publication (Center for Strategic and International Studies), and the European Financial Review link is an op-ed (from what appears to be a non-RS because there is no masthead that I can find)
• The recent unblock requests at User talk:EnlightenmentNow1792#February 2022 and subsequent threads on that page are all denial and WP:NOTTHEM, no acknowledgment
• Note the uncollegial and personal edit summaries, aimed at multiple editors on multiple pages: [154]

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

IP vandalism on Lia Thomas

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

---

We’re going to have to protect Lia Thomas from non-registered users (auto-confirmed if they make new accounts). In just the last few minutes: [155] [156] [157] [158]. Three different IPs (in different locations; Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Texas), four edits, all almost instantly reverted. Yes, in all cases we have put appropriate notices on their talk pages. SkylabField (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArgentineMartin changing figures despite warnings

ArgentineMartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a standard edit summary, "Added the real percentage of white people in Argentina" and has done little more than changing figures, mostly at White Latin Americans and White Brazilians, since December. They have been reverted and warned on their talk page by several editors, including a final warning by me[159]. Their last edits: [160] and [161]. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Eggishorn

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

---

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

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

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

WP:NOTHERE by Harry19000

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[162] [163] 18 February 2022 - Replaced "Tajik" with "Pashtun".

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

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

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

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

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

User: Djciejboab and unsourced edits

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

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

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

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

Projects IP sockpuppets

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

Examples:

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

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

Sockpuppet accounts flocking at Philip II of Macedon

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

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

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

111.92.72.127 - block needs to be extended

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he keeps on doing it. I've just reverted a few, with such lovely edit summaries as "Maybe it’s right. Idk", "When it was recorded. I think ‘94.". and "When it was recorded had to be in the early 90s, late 80s.". —Wasell^(T) 14:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Put a mask on mate!

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

---

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

This user Put a mask on mate! had reverted my removal of my edits three times. His first revert was with a false edit summary "Alphabetized users", but it was reverting my edit, second and third reverts were without any summary. Also removing the edit warring [164] the warning from his profile with a personal attack How about you put on a mask mate! not sure what he's trying to say. This spa with less than hundred edits, engaging in edit wars in another articles and similar edit summaries.

Also other reverts on his own talkpage.

1. [165]
2. [166]

reverts

1. [167]
2. [168]
3. [169]

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

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

Block evasion from Ohio – country music and TV shows

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

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

This person larded up the List of Soul Train episodes with 250kb of unreferenced text. They have been doing much the same thing at Austin City Limits[170] and a bunch of other articles about TV shows. One of their tell-tale quirks is the addition of future "TBA" episodes.[171]

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

User:Reflectivesurface521 posted inappropriate on my talk page

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

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

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

Laurel Lodged at WP:AN

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that it's a bit rich of @MJL: to jump in on comments about neutral users. He himself declares that he has a personal page on Azeri Wiki: [172]. In it he has lots of nice things to say about Azeri proverbs. I don't see the proverb about "Those in glasshouses should not throw stones". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did watch that WP:AN thread, and while I certainly think some of Laurel's remarks were a bit too much, I do agree with him regarding The Banner's WP:POINTY comments. I've only interacted with him once, and that certainly wasn't a positive one [173]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

El C I'll address your concerns. Firstly, I checked previous threads regarding Solavirum, in all of them, MJL was involved: [174], [175], [176], including the appeal yesterday. Secondly, I thought it was already being discussed that Laurel isn't really uninvolved, so I gave my 2 cents regarding MJL and their involvement, which wasn't being discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horse Eye's Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's more than pot-stirring, it seems to be an deliberate attempt to get Horse Eye's Back in trouble/banned as revenge for leaving them a warning about using poor sources [177]. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Propose trout

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

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

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

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

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

Not really a discussion to be had, "There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation." and we know that China has an active propaganda *and* disinformation campaign about the Olympics[178]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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

TartarTorte and Dirkbb

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

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

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

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

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

User:Levixius and tendentious editing

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

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

• Special:Diff/1070020306, same as above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Troublesome new editor

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Dwest25 - Vandalism and BLP vios

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

Over the last few months this account seems to have been on a slow burning spree of vandalism, adding the descriptor "propagandist" to articles on conservative American media figures. Some examples: [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]. More generally this user seems to have issues with adding unsourced or poorly sourced content to BLP's, they have seven years of warnings about this on their talk page yet are still continuing with the same behaviour, e.g. [185]. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Aardwolf68

Aardwolf68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned that professional wrestling is under general sanctions (WP:GS/PW) after an edit war in October.[186][187] His edits remain unproductive; this one is obviously fake and defamatory,[188] others are dubious and unsourced.[189] It's worth noting that there's a discussion on WT:PW regarding how ineffective these sanctions have been since they were implemented four years ago. This particular case seems like an obvious WP:NOTHERE.LM2000 (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

• There is an edit-warring report against Aardwolf68 filed by a brand new user at WP:AN3#User:Aardwolf68 reported by User:Mr. Crabx (Result: ).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Mr. Crabx as an LTA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what to make if all of this. There's a person out there who absolutely has it out for Aardwolf, and is block evading and IP hopping. But Aardwolf is not entirely innocent either, with some heavy handed editing and a fair amount of reverting. The IP hoping is worse though, in my eyes. But it's a bit hard to follow overall. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not innocent, I know, I've made a lot of issues within Wikipedia even though it wasn't my intention and I accept full responsibility over what had happened, and engaging with this troll again. Thank you for helping me out... although I'm not too sure how I'm gonna be able to handle another situation like this. Thank you, though Aardwolf68 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this can be closed as a final final warning. Aardwolf68 was a victim here but he must know that unproductive edits have to stop. An LTA is apparently after you, please don't give them material to work with.LM2000 (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Rangeblocked for three months. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

User:NadVolum

Over at Talk:Julian Assange a dispute has arisen over the issue of whether or not something should be included. This user has resorted to WP:BLUDGEON, and mocking when asked to actually explain how this is about the subject of the article [[190]]. This is an ongoing issue and represents pretty much their whole style and attitude on the article. They (to be fair) are not alone in the snark. But it is getting frustrating when they derail their own RFC with it. There is zero attempt at AGF from this user.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

OK some other examples (from the same topic, but not the RFC) [[191]], [[192]] they are not serious violations, but they do represent a general tendency to be dismissive. and a few others [[193]] [[194]]. It goes back further (and indeed I have raised it here before) than this, but they would be stale.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I will add they launched an RFC after only 10 hours of "discussion", rather than actually discussing it (after deciding that this [[195]] was not worth answering [[196]]).Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes there was, as I have done before. Hell I did not even oppose, I just said I was unsure. I only opposed when the only reasons was given was A. "Well it was 54 million" and B. "And if you can't see why that is about him I can't tell you why it was". In fact, I note that some of the context from this source [[197]] was explicitly opposed by you, a context that might have made the inclusion of this acceptable (who knows, you offered no compromise it was your way or no way).Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

This is what I said when SPECIFICO found a citation about that "Thanks for contributing by finding that. I don't see anything personally related to Assange but if it gets anywhere it could well be worth putting in some NFT related article and then I think it could be referenced from here. Amazing what people think sometimes!". And later in the RfC I said "Whether NFTs are scammy or not this is supposed to be an ordinary biography, not a hagiography, if it does come out he was involved in a scam somehow I'd have thought that would be another reason for inclusion." As far as I can see you are trying to imply I opposed it on POV grounds which was definitely not the case, I supported putting in a reference to the possible scam if he wasn't involved and it was documented elsewhere and for more in the article if some involvement was shown. As to where I said I saw little point arguing it two others said "Does the significance of gaining $52 million to help your defence need arguing? You either get it or, ...... for some unknown reason, you don't" and "There is no need to convince anyone. Reasonably confident that a large majority of rational people would consider $52 million a significant boost to Assange's defence." NadVolum (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place to rehash the talk page. I asked you to make a case that was more than "well it is 52 million", you have still failed to do so, you have still failed to explain what this amount tells us about Julian Assange, your response to that simple question was mockery and incivility.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have not seen you show any indication of you thinking anything was worth including in the page, I have not the foggiest what you might consider worthwhile to include, and I do not think I could change your mind, so why should I respond to your demands to waste my time arguing with you? I've seen you contribute to the Elon Musk talk page, what have you thought was worth including there? Is for instance in the lead it says "Musk is the wealthiest person in the world according to both the Bloomberg Billionaires Index and the Forbes real-time billionaires list", or how about that a startup was acquired by Compaq for $307 million in 1999. What do they tell about Elon Musk or would you oppose including them? NadVolum (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This user, NadVolum, has been asked many times to present policy-and-source-based arguments to gain consensus for article content on this and other matters at the Assange article. I'm not sure whether it's a battleground unwillingness to give direct responses or whether it's a competence issue, but unresponsive replies of the sort immediately above, personal disparagement, and snark are a big problem for a newcomer with less than 1000 edits. Some kind of remedy is needed. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

H2ppyme and Estonian POV

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

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

He also insists on adding information with an Estonian source that doesn't contain the purported information, see [198], [199] and [200]. This is an editor who has been around since 2006, long enough to know about WP policy.--Berig (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

It would be one thing if H2ppyme were involved just in content disputes about Estonia v. Estonian SSR. However, they are also accusing other editors of "pushing age-old Kremlin propaganda", [201][202] and that crosses a different line in my book. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Because Wikipedia is a collaborative environmental, and accusing editors you disagree with of being somehow in cahoots with/supporting a foreign Government you dislike is a) ridiculous and b) WP:UNCIVIL. Are you going to withdraw your accusations and stop your disruptive editing or are we going to have to block you from editing to prevent further disruption? GiantSnowman 10:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

State continuity of the Baltic states, please have a read. I'm pretty sure H2ppyme acts in good faith, unless the user broke the 3RR. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I find it very hard to assume good faith from editors who provide sources that don't back up their assertions (see [203], [204] and [205]). If I weren't involved in the article, I would be very tempted to enforce a ban.--Berig (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: - Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, please have a read. GiantSnowman 18:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't covered what's been going on at non-ice hockey articles. But, I do know it's frustrating for us WP:HOCKEY members, to have to continue to revert such PoV edits on ice hockey (particularly player bios) articles, from time to time. Regrettably, if such PoV edits continue to be pushed on those articles-in-question? I fear that eventually, Arbcom may have to step in. This is no longer an issue of content dispute, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Expanding on that, WP:HOCKEY has been very consistent on how to list place of birth. This looked, at first glance, like a similar case of not understanding the rules. While there is a muddier situation that Pelmeen10 refers to with the Baltic states, that is a content issue, and I don't think that matter should be resolved at ANI. The matter at hand here is the conduct of H2ppyme and the accusations against other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Rileyplop11 and copyright violations

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

Rileyplop11 has added copyright text to Dartmouth Steam Railway [206] at least four times; the text was removed and revision-deleted after each addition. They were temporarily blocked on 9 February for copyright violations, and their first edits after the expiration of the block were to re-add the infringing text to the article [207]. DanCherek (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• User:Rileyplop11, your next edit needs to be here, in this thread, and it needs to say that you (now) understand copyright policy, and that you will never do it again. Otherwise I see no option but an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I endorse this request by Drmies and the outcome if a response is not forthcoming promptly. Cullen328 (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Questionable disruptive edits, possible NOTHERE

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

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

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

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

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

Due to previous interactions with this user ([208]), I was hesitant to post a warning, but felt the level of severity made it necessary. See interaction here: [209]

Following the notice, they came to my talk page accusing me of "bad faith policing". Interaction here: [210]

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

These edits are not indicative of an intent to edit productively either [211] [212] [213] [214]. I had been thinking of blocking for a week for personal attacks, but after looking at their history, I'm blocking indef as NOTHERE. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

User: PianoDan

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

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

• I'll wait for comments from an admin, to be sure I'm following procedure correctly. For the time being, I'll just point out that the required notice was NOT added to my talk page. PianoDan (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Cross-wiki Spammer Joilson Melo

I'm autopatrolled on ptwiki but lower level here, so please let me know if I'm not where I should be. I'm writing to report about a cross wiki spammer who's been wasting editor time across at least en, simple, fr, pt and de wikis. He's been trying to post an autobiographic article based entirely on paid content that fails any notoriety test - apparently he wants to use a different wiki as definitive proof of his notoriety and almost succeeded at one point. He currently has two drafts here in en that he alternates for submissions in hopes one of them will catch. He has three rejections in one and two in the other, pending the third review: Draft:Joilson Melo (review pending) and Draft:Joilson Junior de Melo (dormant for now). He has an article currently up at simple, pending deleting request, and IIRC he's had it deleted there three times before. He's has three deletions at frwiki. He has too many deletions to count at ptwiki, with at least four name variations for article name and four or five accounts already blocked (there's no IP editing in pt, so he had to create multiple accounts and got them all banned so far). Between rejections in en and deletions elsewhere, he's already above 20 deletions and multiple bans, but keeps trying and wasting editors time. My suggestion would be to remove both his drafts here and protect both from being recreated. Doing the same in simple wiki would also be welcome. This level of disrespect can't go on forever. Thanks for your time and let me know if I can be of further assistance. Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Unwarranted block by User:Geschichte

I was recently blocked from all of Wikipedia by User:Geschichte. On February 19, 2022, I only did 3 reverts to Template:Morgana Lefay. WP:3R states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period". I made a mistake with one of my reverts, but the overall impact came out in essence to only 3 reverts within the 24 hour period. Additionally, I feel that it is a conflict of interest for the person who reverted my edits to institute the block. Furthermore, Geschichte who reverted my edits did so in violation of WP:BRD. The reversions that I did were "16:54, 19 February 2022", "17:00, 19 February 2022" and "17:55, 19 February 2022" [the reversions at "17:54, 19 February 2022" were in error, and "rm * Symphony of the Damned (1990) * Sanctified (1995)" was done because I added those back by mistake]. My block was reduced to restrict me from only editing Template:Morgana Lefay, which would serve the purpose of a 48 hour cooling off period involving editing that very template. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, this does look like a rather clear WP:INVOLVED violation. Jax0677 creates a template, Geschichte edits it, Jax0677 doesn't agree with those edits, back and forth, and after Jax's 3rd revert, and without any warning (or template talk page discussion), Geschichte blocks them? That is textbook admin tool abuse, unless there is something I miss. Fram (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I notice that 331dot downgraded the block to just the template, thus taking ownership of the block and reducing it to something simple. I agree with Fram that this is a textbook case of WP:INVOLVED. I would like an explanation from Geschichte per WP:ADMINACCT. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I would also be interested in an explanation(I didn't have the time to pursue one earlier). 331dot (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Cslatter999, vandalism and BLP violations

Editor Cslatter999 (talk · contribs) has made multiple questionable at best edits, and been warned for it up to a level four. After recieving their final warning for making unsourced edits they made this edit to Jake Paul with no sources making it a complete BLP violation. Then there are also cases like this and this with the incorrect information added in combination with the edit summaries making for pretty obvious cases of vandalism. Overall I doubt this user is here with the goal in mind to build the encyclopedia, and if they are I think they unfortunately lack the competence required to do so at the moment, seemingly not listening to any of the warnings issued to them. I pondered posting this at AIV but since the latest edit was not obvious vandalism but a BLP violation, I decided to post it here. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Wright Stuf and false accusations of vandalism

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

---

User:Wright Stuf has made false accusations of vandalism towards myself, User:Ariadacapo, User:Ravenpuff, User:Ahunt, User:GraemeLeggett, and User:Cullen328. The primary diff is here. When I told the user that this was a content dispute, not vandlism, and asked to have the accusations struck, he doubled down, dismissing my comments and warning as a Talk:Wright Flyer "threat". The comments came in response to a long-running dispute on the talk page about the use of "restored" and "colorized" images on the Wright Flyer article, which images were made by amateur photography enthusiasts, including by the user himself. Those arguments are beyond the scope of this noticeboard, but might be brought up anyway. I'd like the user to retract his accusations of vandalism, and promise not to do so in the future. Regards. BilCat (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The utterly false accusations of vandalism leveled by Wright Stuf constitute personal attacks that really should be addressed at this noticeboard. For far too long, this editor has been riding a hobby horse while grinding an axe on the subject of colorizing historic black and white photos. I am obviously involved as a participant in the discussion and as one of the recipients of the personal attack. I recommend an indefinite topic ban from the Wright Flyer article and the topic of colorization of photos, broadly construed. Let uninvolved editors decide. Cullen328 (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban on Wright Flyer and the colorization of photos. So many walls of text/bludgeoning. I know the idea/practice of colorization of old black and white photos is incredibly controversial and I highly doubt something like a WP:COLORIZED will ever become a policy/guideline, so why continually push for it.♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 02:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Support the suggested topic bans as stated. The accusations of bad faith and vandalism against anybody who disagrees with them are not acceptable or remotely credible. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment This editor was at ANI one year ago - diff where there was general agreement that the behaviour was problematic but no consensus about sanctions. Please do not let this disruptive behavior slide this time. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

JCW555,
You have characterized my latest posts as me wielding some kind of bludgeon. Let's all be clear as to what bludgeoning is:

"...the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view..."

Anyone who takes the time to actually read what I have posted will find quite the opposite. Here are exact quotes from my Talk Page post today:

"Perhaps someone here might be able to present a scenario that is consistent with Good Faith. I cannot."

"Ariadacapo & Ravenpuff, I am giving you that opportunity here and now" [to explain why you had made these edits which degraded the article quality].

"This same question is being asked of you, BilCat, Ahunt, GraemeLeggett and Cullen328. If the four of you are objecting to Colorization, then why did none of you not simply swap the colorized photo for the historical black&white version? You all are denying anyone who comes here to learn about the Wright Flyer from seeing this image, regardless of form."

This is me expressing that I am TOTALLY OPEN to consider any alternative explanation that these cited cases are not examples of deliberately inflicted damage. So Acroterion, if you read the words I had posted there, I hope it is clear to you that this is not a case of having a problem with "anybody who disagrees with them". It was me presenting an invitation for all of these editors to explain their actions. Here is a nutshell paraphrase of my message:

Here are two examples which I see to have degraded the quality of our article. I am highlighting this issue as vandalism, because I am at a loss for explaining this as anything other than intentional damage.

In a whopping grand total of two (2) minutes later, BilCat chooses to vandalize my post. BilCat clobbered the subsection by removing the header of this issue which I was attempting to call attention to.

I had highlighted the issue of vandalism back in February of 2021, when my Talk Page posts were repeatedly being molested (see Archive 1 of that article's Talk). It is happening again now. And far worse, this issue of deliberate degradation (perhaps there's a better term than Vandalism) is now impacting Mainspace. --Wright Stuf (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"In a whopping grand total of two (2) minutes later, BilCat chooses to vandalize my post. BilCat clobbered the subsection by removing the header of this issue which I was attempting to call attention to." Again with the false vandalism accusation. You've been told before over and over, but please, drop the WP:STICK on this issue. Let. it. go. It's not helping you in the slightest. Your colorized photo isn't going to be on the page. It's not a big deal. Also talking about people "molesting" (what a horrible word choice btw) is major WP:OWNership behavior in addition to another thinly veiled vandalism accusation. Unless it's verboten via talk page policies/rules, people can say whatever they want on article talk pages. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 08:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Support topic ban as uninvolved editor - frankly, this seems like he's going to a lot of effort to defend something that is ultimately unimportant to the quality of the article. MiasmaEternal☎ 09:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Support topic ban, this editor is unwilling to have a constructive discussion about content that is mindful of other editors, and learned nothing from his block last year (same article, same topic, same behavior). --Ariadacapo (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply to all three above:

MiasmaEternal, you stated:

"...frankly, this seems like he's going to a lot of effort to defend something that is ultimately unimportant to the quality of the article."

What I have been doing here is spending loads of my time in an effort to uphold Consensus. Perhaps Consensus is unimportant to you. But I would not be putting all this effort into it if it was unimportant to me. If you go back to the beginning from one year ago, you can see that I was perfectly fine with letting all of this go. But what changed is that I found an example which had established Consensus on a near-exactly parallel issue way back in 2016.

Ariadacapo,

What I did was invite you to explain why you clobbered the image instead of switching to your own b&w version.

For whatever reason, you've opted to not explain yourself. Yet you will readily mischaracterize me as being "unwilling to have a constructive discussion about content that is mindful of other editors".

JCW555,

Here is a dictionary definition of 'molestation':

"an act or instance of interference with or violence against someone" (ref)

Quoting you:

"Your colorized photo isn't going to be on the page." - JCW555

Ironically, that is an example of YOU acting as though you are the owner of the Wright Flyer article. My arguments have been made on the foundation of well-established Consensus. With the Infobox image, dating back to 2016. With the non-infobox image, dating back to February of 2021. I have never acted as though I own ANYTHING here on Wikipedia. With the exception being the words I post outside of Mainspace. Like right here. If you were to jump in and alter this character string I am typing now, then I would clearly see that as a molestation of my words. Now if you have a problem with that one particular word, let's substitute "violation" instead. I actually AM the owner of the words I type, outside of Mainspace. If I create a Subsection, and any other editor happens to object to me doing that, then they have the option to present to me an argument as to why, and I can change it myself.

In your previous post, you had stated:

"I highly doubt something like a WP:COLORIZED will ever become a policy/guideline, so why continually push for it."

This is yet another mischaracterization of my efforts here. Where have I pushed for it? I have never once gone to any WP and so much as posted a single comment, let alone request any change. Nor creation of anything new. And over on the Wright Flyer article, my main focus, every time this has been raised, has been to identify this lack of policy as being the root problem. I don't recall asking anyone to create any such policy in any of my posts. Others had explained how to go about it. I never took the first step toward pursuing it.

Here is the exact quote of what I had posted over there on this issue yesterday:

"Of course, the central issue here in this section on Colorization is the question of Policy, which appears to remain unanswered."

I hope everyone can agree that identifying the core problem is quite distinct from what you've characterized my effort as being. Another Admin has characterized my posts as Bludgeoning. I replied to that by highlighting that my posts have communicated quite the opposite. I am fully onboard with abiding by Consensus. And if editors collectively feel that Wikipedia is better off with no policy regarding colorization, that's perfectly fine with me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the WP that directly applies: WP:Talk page guidelines: Editing others' comments.

"The basic rule... is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission."

The policy goes on to give a laundry list of exceptions. But I scanned that list, and I don't see any exception which fits what BilCat did. --Wright Stuf (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The PAs are enough, but their behavior in this thread cinches it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, me highlighting how editors and Admins have been mischaracterizing my efforts is "behavior in this thread cinches it". Curious. Or perhaps there is some other thing which I have done here which you find objectionable. Perhaps you are in the camp that any use of the word 'molest' could not possibly be non-sexual. --Wright Stuf (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Surely, writing hostile replies to every person will show uninvolved users that there are no issues with your editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Your assertion that I have been acting hostile here would carry loads more weight if you were to cite specific examples. I myself would be glad to see just one quote. Let alone "replies to every person".

I see your post to be YET ANOTHER MISCHARACTERIZATION of my inputs. --Wright Stuf (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Examples of your coming across as hostile in this thread? The formatting change here would be one example. --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, they're doing a solid job of making my point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, yet again, you have provided absolutely no support whatsoever for your claim that I am the one being hostile here. I had asked for just one example, when you said I had been hostile to everyone. And you've to date provided zero.

How bout everyone stop with the gross distortions here. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, the one single example you cite is from something I had tweaked after ScottishFinnishRadish had asserted the claim. And I would be very interested to know how the bolding, capping, underlining and italicizing of three (3) words is taken to be hostility of any kind. In my edit summary, I very clearly explained the reason why I had done this:

" Perhaps if I add a touch more emphasis to this bizarre pattern of distortion which has been permeating this thread, people here will start to be more accurate with their assessments."

I see no hostility whatsoever. Not from me.

What happened is that I had objected to the persistent pattern of distortion.

In your post, you chose to become A PART of that distortion, while stating this as your edit summary: "oh the irony".

Oh the irony, indeed. --Wright Stuf (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You're not particularly strong when it comes to self-awareness, are you?

The optimist in me says you should work on that. The realist in me just laughs at any such notion, given the evidence here, and in your history. Begoon 16:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

So instead of supporting these baseless assertions, you are now choosing the tack of going fully ad hominem.

The evidence and history has shown that I am a staunch, steadfast advocate of Wikipedia editors conforming to Wikipedia policy. In particular, the policy regarding CONSENSUS.

You're certainly free to psychoanalyze me as much as you want.

Perhaps you'd like to create an entirely new Wikipedia Project: The Wikipedia Couch.

Alternatively, we could all stay focused on the topic at hand:

Did I cross any lines? Did I violate any policy?

Perhaps there will be objective people who might arrive here, and will let everyone know that what is happening is nothing short of Cyberbullying.

Your post is a prime example. I see no place in Wikipedia whatsoever for a comment like that. And especially not here, where there are supposed to be rational minds making serious decisions. With maturity. Upholding Wikipedia Policy. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to have breakfast. Begoon 16:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"I have been unfailingly polite, and you two have been nothing but rude."

I myself do not disagree with the walrus. Or sea lion.

So why post a cartoon which voices support for my position here?

Perhaps an hour from now the reason will dawn on me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Above, Wright Stuf wrote: "I am fully onboard with abiding by Consensus." The only problem is that WS is on board with consensus in a different unrelated article and has been behaving as if that consensus negates the unequivocal consensus against using the colorized photo in the Wright articles. As administrator Canterbury Tail told WS in February 2021: "You keep talking about this consensus but I have still not seen any such consensus, the only consensus on the talk page is to NOT use a colorized image." That bears repeating: "the only consensus on the talk page is to NOT use a colorized image." It's true Wikipedia has no explicit policy on colorization. WS is free to propose such a policy at the Village Pump, or to issue a Request for Comment on a Wright article talk page about using the colorized photo. It's pretty clear, though, that WS should not be free to make false accusations of vandalism or disruptively flout clear consensus in the article at issue. DonFB (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

DonFB, the section where that Admin had evaluated me as being the one who was on the wrong side of Consensus Policy is HERE, over on my own User Talk Page. There was no policy, so CantTail cited this essay: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I read through that, and found this quote:

"These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."

This essay actually supports the position I had taken, and still hold today. That it makes loads of sense for there to be consistency across Wikipedia as a whole. It would be ridiculously wasteful to rehash Consensus discussions in every single article where that issue happens to appear. Regarding the issue of the use of colorized historical images in the infobox, that Consensus was established quite solidly way back in 2016.

And then with the current image being highlighted now, over on the Wright Flyer page, Consensus was firmly established one year ago, back in February of 2021. I hope we can all agree on the point that use of colorization in the infobox image is a distinct issue from use of colorized images in the body of the article. Here is an exact quote from Archive 1:

"Nice image. I can imagine a small gallery near the bottom of pages of very historic black-and-white photographs featuring colorized images..." - Randy Kryn (20:29, 15 February 2021)

This image was presented. And absolutely no one voiced objection to it. The use of it was supported in essentially the manner in which I had added it to the article. --Wright Stuf (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

At what point are you likely to accept that basically nobody agrees with what you are doing?

Oh, never mind, I looked at the history now - ignore my silly question. Begoon 14:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who does a thorough review of how everything has unfolded over at that article can clearly see how I had taken the side of Consensus which had been established by DOZENS of editors YEARS prior to me ever arriving to address this issue.

And in the most recent image that has been called into question, there were two (2) editors who had expressed their view after that colorized image had been presented. Both were on the side of Using the image. NO ONE expressed any objection whatsoever.

I have no idea what you looked at ...where you decided to join this discussion just to mock me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked at your editing history. As to "mocking" you - not guilty, or necessary even I were so inclined, which I'm not - you're doing a cracking job of that yourself. Begoon 16:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Your previous post (above) was a blatant ad hominem attack.

And the angle you have chosen down here is likewise way off base.

The question at hand is whether an editor has crossed the line. And I happen to see you as being WAY ACROSS THAT LINE.

You have the option to turn this discussion back toward the direction of rational, salient points.

You also have the option to simply remain silent. And let the discussion continue with maturity, with no further input from you. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's me told then... Begoon 16:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it's the children who are wrong.jpg ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic bans on Wright Flyer and the colorization of photos since that is what has been proposed, however the behaviors demonstrated on Wright Flyer would not be acceptable anywhere on the project, and Wright Stuf needs to change their approach to editing. The repeated accusations of vandalism and deliberate damage on Talk:Wright Flyer are both personal attacks and false; the refusal to recognize that the disagreements on images are not vandalism indicate a lack of competence. The battleground approach to discussions is unproductive and inappropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely. I have blocked Wright Stuf indefinitely for sealioning, Gish gallop, persistent personal attacks, and unreasonableness, as seen in this discussion as well as all over Talk:Wright Flyer. Bishonen | tålk 17:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC).

  Thank you. I was just formulating my proposal for an indef. Saved me a lot of trouble. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  And thanks from me. I just tried to save a long screed detailing all the reasons why this editor should be blocked but edit conflicted with you, and then with ScottishFinnishRadish with this comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks from me as well, as the topic ban just didn't seem sufficient to address the behavioral issues. Schazjmd (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks, Bishonen. I was going to support a topic ban, and then I started thinking of writing a siteban proposal, and then they cancelled all the buses because of the heavy snow so I got other things to think about... --bonadea contributions talk 18:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Very well. We shall resume in an hour. Begoon 18:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  Problem solved. Thanks, Bishonen. Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Eggsafertoareo- nonsense edits/summaries, vandalism, disruptive editing, etc.

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

User in question seems likely WP:NOTHERE, just even from quickly looking at their edit history:

• Whole bunch of vandalism/unexplained content removal, most notably on Lucas the Spider
• All of their edit summaries are a bunch of nonsense/random gibberish ("I'm super girls and mum batgirl"? "Yhrd"? "Oagbe hoa"? etc.)
• Whole bunch of their edits are straight up disruptive/vandalism with gibberish as well, including the "Oagbe hoa" edit linked above, as well as various other edits of theirs
• They originally created List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic in December 2021, which was moved to draftspace later that month. Despite the moving to draft (as well as previous deletions and two previous discussions), the user decided to recreate it earlier this month, with 0 improvements.

Got a feeling the user is very much NOTHERE, and all their edits should do the telling. Would also suggest Draft:Cn tubers be deleted as well, draft created by the user with a whole other language in it. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of content from Lucas the Spider, I would say that it was just made for revenge. From his talk page I see that Beat Monsters, which was tagged as not english by Victor Schmidt mobil, later deleted by Lectonar as it was merely an arabic translation of Lucas the Spider. So it sums up that, he tried taking revenge by removing content from the English article. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Also what I gather is that he has a habit of using nonsense edit summaries. For example see his contributions on the arab wikipedia. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Abusive language left on talk page by DuanLW87035 (talk)

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

---

This is to report an edit by user DuanLW87035 (talk) on my talk page, using (mildly) abusive language against myself.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danners430 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Danners430: (Non-administrator comment) If this is the only instance of a personal attack, can't you just leave {{subst:uw-npa1}} on their talk page instead of dragging them to ANI? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: I'm genuinely open to options at this point - I've never experienced nor had to deal with any incidents of any nature before, and upon searching for options this was what appeared to be the most sensible option I could find. If I've missed something I should have done, then by all means I'll make the necessary changes. Danners430 (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Danners430: I have left the warning for you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: Thank you - I'll make sure to keep this in mind for future use, and apologies if this caused any problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danners430 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive article creation by OE1995

• OE1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

OE1995 has been disruptively creating previously deleting articles with no regard to community consensus and notability guidelines.

1. OE1995 created Faria Abdullah which was previously deleted via an AfD. It was speedily deleted under G4 but OE1995 recreated the same article again as Faria Abdullah (actress) within 4 hours with no improvement. Same is the case with G4-deleted Sree Leela which was recreated as Sree Leela (actress) within hours.
2. OE1995 copy-pasted content from Draft:Pathan (film) to create Pathan(2022) and later Pathan (film) without complying to any copyright attribution requirements.
3. Earlier in December, OE1995 attempted to create Kabzaa (2022 film) directly in the mainspace by copying the content from a draft awaiting AFC review, thus trying to bypass the AFC process. The article was subsequently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabzaa (2022 film).
4. Despite having several notices, OE1995 has made a grand total of three edits to talk pages, which include: 1. Trying to create an article at talk, 2. moving draft talk, and 3. accepting their own AfC on user talk. This indicates the editor's lack of willingness or inability to communicate with the community.

All these actions simply waste the valuable time of other editors which can be better spent than CSD-ing and AfD-ing their disruptively created articles. Propose to block OE1995 from article creation until they display their ability to communicate and understand notability guidelines. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Black Kite for deleting and protecting the Sree Leela pages. Also note WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pathan (film): a history merge will be needed, and a few other pages need to be cleaned up. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Backlog

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

---

Huge backlog at WP:AIV

 The backlog is present when making posting this message. It may clear out if someone reviews it later. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Pretty sure this belongs at WP:AN, not ANI. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Padgriffin Sorry. Placed it in the wrong place. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 10:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess ANI is extra visibility. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

! Code red (or whatever they say) the bots have taken over. We really should have reviewed them more thoroughly at BRFA.

(seriously, isn't there a captcha) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

...for now, every single one of them that I've seen are either spamming

Hcb6gyyhyhhhnnmmmmñmmmkkkkkkkko9

!kjuhggfdsA!!!!?..?.nhbhhhjkm!llll

or that twice. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Move warring at Killing of Ashli Babbitt (/ Shooting of Ashli Babbitt)

• User:Feoffer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Twsabin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Feoffer is move warring by repeatedly changing the title of Killing of Ashli Babbitt back to Shooting of Ashli Babbitt, counter to the RM result, despite being informed of the possibility of requesting a move review based on their objection. Relevant diffs:

• original move by the RM closer Elli
• out of process reversal by Feoffer
• doubling down
• tripling down
• removing the old move template from the talk page, in an apparent effort to unilaterally anull the RM close

tw^sabin 17:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I've got a 3-week-old account repeatedly renaming the article "Killing of". Obviously, this requires consensus which does not exist. A bulk move proposal explicitly excluded the Babbit page after it was too controversial, a non-admin cited this to bulk-move the page, and a 3-week old account is now move warring over it. Its certainly not my place to war with an admin/vested over this, but it merits attention. Feoffer (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I've got 6+ years old account that is repeatedly renaming the article "Shooting of ...", after an RM closer Elli moved the page to "Killing of ..." based on their finding of consensus. Does this 6+ years account know that WP:Process is important? I question your competence. tw^sabin 17:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: WP:PI, that you've cited several times now, is an essay (and not a particularly influential one) and as a result isn't going to form the basis of a convincing argument. Particularly since WP:IAR is policy. I suggest the two of you quit addressing each other directly for a moment and let some editors that are uninvolved weight in (I'm involved BTW). VQuakr (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Do you think that, perhaps, I should have started a move review regarding Feoffer's actions, instead of an ANI report? I thought about it, but it seemed like the only thing that can be done in MR (based on instructions there) is challenging a close, and not requesting that the close be upheld. If you think that move review is also a procedurally viable, and better, forum here, I agree to drop this complaint and to go there directly. Maybe WP:IAR can offer guidance in this regard :)

If an administrator reading this thinks that moving the matter to MR is beneficial, I'll wholeheartedly support the change of venue. But I still think that ANI can resolve this by undoing Feoffer's unilateral action and simply directing them to MR, so that they (instead of me, which makes much more sense, again, according to MR instructions), can start a normal challenge there. tw^sabin 18:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: the move warring was/is a behavioral issue so ANI isn't the wrong venue. Just note WP:BOOMERANG; it takes two to edit war. It isn't fair to push the move review onus onto you, but in this case the close was so obviously questionable (discounting the policy-based reasoning by the majority of participants) that I think the ideal response would be a reversion of the close by an uninvolved admin to allow further discussion (or just change the specific outcome for Babbitt to no consensus since several of the !votes were specific to that article). Whether any uninvolved admin agrees with me, though, is another question. The key thing you should do differently next time is not revert the article movement, at all. Where the article is located in the short term doesn't matter very much, and the move warring is much more disruptive than having the article at the "wrong" location for a while. More generally, I think you're overly fixating on process (which, BTW, isn't that important). VQuakr (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on what you've said I should have done nothing, and simply have left the article at it's "Shooting of ..." title, as if the RM had never happened. It would mean that RM was meaningless, and a big waste of time for everyone involved. But it can't be meaningless. It just isn't. There has to be a way to resolve such disputes communally, and I have suggested Move review, but Feoffer did not accept this suggestion and kept doing what they think is right. Someone had to do something. Feoffer can't simply WP:OWN the title of that article. You said what I shouldn't have done but you haven't said what you would have done in my place. (In this regard, I respect that you're involved, and not the ideal editor to pose this question to) tw^sabin 19:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not say you should have done nothing, but in this case the first step you took of reverting the undo of the move shouldn't have been performed. Following up with Feoffer on their talk page and escalating to ANI if necessary were fine. Talking to Feoffer might have even been more effective if you hadn't first reverted the move. With regard to the RM and community time: the Babbitt article should, pretty obviously, have been excluded from the RM closure and that's a likely outcome of a hypothetical move review. It's a more efficient use of community time to just reach a consensus on the article talk page (as should have been done in the first place) than to go through a rubber-stamp move review process that might result in overturning the rest of the moves as collateral, too. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I followed WP:BRD. Elli's close was not a bold action, since they were bound by their finding of consensus to execute the move, as the closer. Feoffer's undoing of said move was the bold edit, and my reversal was a normal revert, and what should have happened is for Feoffer to start a discussion, but I went ahead and started the discussion on their talk page myself. Feoffer should have then discussed this further with me, and I was perfectly willing to discuss it in great detail, but intead they immediately reverted again which was the start of move warring, and as such, it was a disruptive action. Seen in totality, even their first undoing of Elli's move was disruptive, as there had been no place for boldness in face of a closed RM which is generally regarded as a functioning and effectual process, that has it's well-established review venue. I felt entitled then to undo their move seeing it as a typical disruptive edit. Seeing everything in retrospect, I stand by my actions. We can't have a pseudo-RM on the talk page after the actual RM. That is a waste of time as it has no promise of success. There's no consensus that bundled RMs are inappropriate. WP:RMPM envisions bundled RMs. The right venue for Feoffer was MR and that's it. They decided to move war and now they face an ANI report for their disruptive conduct. tw^sabin 19:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

BRD isn't mandatory, and you can't follow BRD if other editors aren't doing so. You're continuing to exhibit hyper-focus on process by litigating who was the B in BRD, which is even more optional than most of our processes. No, you are never "entitled" to a revert. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

BRD isn't mandatory but it is excellent, and Feoffer knows it. I did right to follow BRD, as it was an efficient and sensible way to try to resolve the problem, but Feoffer unexpectedly assumed an incredibly recalcitrant attitude, followed by their disruptive behavior. I find your arguments quite bad (RM apparently doesn't matter – clearly wrong; IAR – no real reason provided; no BRD, when it's a useful tool – no reason; semantics of "entitled" – just arguing semantics). I made two actions here which were in line with consensus as found in the RM, and after thinking about your comments, I have decided that I conducted myself alright. I am a firm believer that process is important and I will uphold process in the future. Hopefully the result in this section will have a preventative effect toward Feoffer not to disregard process. In every venture, sticking to process has operating costs, but on the grand scale it saves an immense amount of time. Our specific thread here (between two involved editors) is evidence of poor use of time resulting from no firm structure of resolving disputes. There is such structure on Wikipedia (Move review, for example), but Feoffer decided to disregard it. Now we are all in a worse place. I expect that they will understand not to do so again as it brings no advantage whatsoever. Still, thanks for your comments. tw^sabin 23:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Meh. The BLP concerns here are weak, so even though both the closure and the "enforcement" of it by the new account are indefensible, so is move warring over the article location. Someone should talk to the closer about leaving contentious closes for an admin, and the original RM close should be reopened to allow further discussion/reclosure. VQuakr (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• About Feoffer's objection—Feoffer said (second diff): "Move proposal withdrawn by nom, generate consensus for this change [215]". This is after an RM has concluded. It seems absurd to say "generate consensus" after an RM where consensus has been found and resulted in a move. If the here reported user has an objection about the closer's reading of consensus they must bring it up at Wikipedia:Move review. They can't overturn move closes themselves. Their other arguments such as "no admin has been involved" (referring to the closer of the RM who is not an admin, as if that makes the close less conclusive) and "wheelwarring by 3 week old account" (referring to myself), are also inappropriate. Further, the actual argument here is that the RM nominator withdrew the proposal to rename the Shooting of Ashli Babbitt article. But they did not withdraw the proposal. They only said they were amenable to someone striking it from the list, and no one did, eventually leading to the bundled RM close being effective for all the listed articles. But even if someone did, it's too late to withdraw, after substantive arguments have been aired on both sides. If someone says, "I'll withdraw", and they don't, and the discussion runs it's full course it's simply too late. tw^sabin 17:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• I have move protected (EC) the article for a month while this gets sorted out. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose that it gets sorted out in the following way: Feoffer is directed to start a WP:Move review, in order to challenge Elli's close. If they don't file a challenge there in a month, the title is restored to the one resulting from the RM. tw^sabin 18:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• My two cents : we have been discussing the issue here. I personally support the move per the decision here and for consistency's sake. If we rename all the other pages and not this one, this would pose a neutrality problem. IMO, this conflict is completely unwarranted. Psychloppos (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• I was involved in the bulk RM. To be fair to both Twsabin and Feoffer, 162 etc.'s comments did leave some ambiguity. Were they committing to withdraw Babbitt from the proposal if certain conditions were met, or were they actually withdrawing. They didn't strike or delete Babbitt from the proposal, and I am inclined to believe that there was consensus to move all the articles. Firefangledfeathers 21:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• An admin should move the page back to the title that has consensus per the last RM ("Killing of..."), please. This article was not pulled from the bulk RM (and the proposer couldn't unilaterally decide that anyway once people started voting). We can't keep having these discussions over and over and over. Consensus is consensus, and Feoffer can go to MR (or start a new RM just for this article, I suppose). Levivich 21:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• I stand behind my close here. Moving back the article contrary to the close is improper, if you believe the close was bad, please take it to WP:MR. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Protest against deletion of Pallab Bhattacharyya article

Admins were too bias. Need revision on police article notability. Tuhirere (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The place to go if you think that the close of the discussion was incorrect is firstly to the closer's talk page and then, if you still think there's a problem, WP:DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

And you are obviously a block-evading sockpuppet of User:NeverTry4Me. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

or GeezGod or both, but I of course welcome any established editor to discuss in the section on my Talk. @Bbb23 sorry for the edit conflict in blocking. Star Mississippi 18:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless there are shennanigans going on, I don't see why it would be GeezGod given that their vote was the opposite. Also, look at Tuhirere's userpage before I tagged it, same stuff about "cannot buy my ethics" that the master had. Star Mississippi, it'd be nice if you would re-block reinstating my sock block instead of the current NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was that NeverTry wasn't socking at all and it was a joe-job per @Blablubbs and @El_C here: #NeverTry4Me_issue? I reverted to your block message. Wasn't sure I could do a sock as a non CU, but happy to. Star Mississippi 18:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

+ @Deepfriedokra in case the UTRS queue showed any further insight. Either way this sock is blocked. Star Mississippi 18:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That discussion occurred before this latest account was created. I go with the obvious, but if a checkuser wants to look at it, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)( Bloody ec ate my reply. ) I declined UTRS appeal #54957 (1701UTC) shortly before Tuhirere came along (1748UTC). I had advised NeverTry4Me against creating a sock puppet. The characteristic user page edit summaries are trademarks. Bluntly, NeverTry4Me is dense enough to have created those posts, though the lack of verbiage is not their characteristic. Not good at dropping the stick. (They did harangue El C ever so curtly.) Which leads into this. That they did not go on to rant about the unfairness of their block, and the "harassment by GeezGod," and the missing-dif's-they-never-found argues against this being NC4M. Could be a joe job ala GeezGod, but what for? NeverTry4Me is already blocked. (FWIW, I'm glad GeezGod got blocked, because they had gone out of their way to provoke NeverTry4Me.) Tuhirere could just be an LTA amusing themselves. Only your CU would know, only not for sure. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks both @Bbb23 and Deepfriedokra:. Whichever one it is, glad the disruption is sorted for the day. I'd filed it for paperwork ahead of this thread, so maybe we'll get the mystery solved. If not, I'm sure we'll see them again soon. Have a good day! Star Mississippi 21:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• For posterity, joe job. I'm sure we haven't seen the last of them. Star Mississippi 02:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

what a jerk. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry I'm late, I was 🍕 in the head by a man who didn't say anything. El_C 05:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE

Raquelmetal is undisclosed paid editing (somewhat disclosed on now deleted userpage) and despite having been warned about their COI editing they went on to create a draft which has been declined at AFC. I think that blocking them from the Draftspace and keeping an eye on them in case they try to get auroconfirmed and go straight to main space for the creation. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Block evation 2

Long term abuse blocked user LefterisApos has again being evading block with new IP [216]. --C messier (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No attribution given in Spanish Wikipedia

I have a concern regarding some of my edits. Specifically, those made at Nicole Kidman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). A Spanish Wikipedia user has been copying and placing some of the edits I've made to this article from the English Wikipedia to the Spanish Wikipedia's version of the article. I understand that it's required for editors to provide attribution, but the user has not been doing that. Does it also apply to Spanish Wikipedia, and particularly in cases like these where it's occurring between the English and Spanish Wikipedia? I have no problem with having those edits copied and pasted to the Spanish article, as a lot of them are primarily composed of quotes. But I was wondering if this was permissible, and if not, is there something that must be done to address this issue? Pardon me if this is not the right place to bring this (this is my first ANI report, so I'm not very familiar with the criteria). I tried to warn the user with a "No attribution given" template, but I couldn't find one at the Spanish Wikipedia. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 00:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Film Enthusiast: It is likely that attribution is required due to the license we use here, but it is also unlikely that anything will be done from an ANI report on the English Wikipedia. You should try to find an equivalent noticeboard on Spanish Wikipedia to file this report, or a local embassy equivalent if that helps get your message across. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This embassy is where you probably should go for help. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Film Enthusiast: I noticed you've listed es-5 as a Babel box suggesting you have proficiency in Spanish. In that case, maybe leave a message on the talk page of the article to which the mentioned user is copying without attribution? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Continuous reversion, unwillingness to discuss and incivility on Scientology Talk Page

It appears that there is a concerted effort to keep any editor from making changes to the lead section of the Scientology page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology#Lede . Cambial, while accusing me of not adhering to NPOV, has been condescending, (Personal attack removed), insulting and interpreting what I’ve said out of context. I’ve answered his arguments point by point while he haphazardly insults and dismisses mine. He does not like being challenged and I feel discriminated against for having a different opinion. I see that Cambial is very active in this page (mostly reversions) and will not allow almost any change. He is the self-appointed gatekeeper of the page and refuses to discuss any changes. The change that I am trying to make is completely NPOV, and it gives the complete story of Scientology in that it is recognized in certain countries as a religion while being considered a cult in others. The repetition of the word “movement” and the term “associated movement” makes no sense. He still has not explained what “associated movement” means and what it does to enrich the lead. Although I stuck to RS and sent him reliable sources to back up the recognition claims, he ignored them and showed that they didn’t matter. “Guadalajara” is not the United States or Netherlands. This editor needs to be held responsible for uncivil editing, and I also request for my edit change to be closely and seriously considered. There is no reason for anybody to have a monopoly on the content of this page.01:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckystars1981 (talk • contribs)

I've removed one of the evidence-free personal attacks Luckystars1981 made in their comment. If Luckystars1981 had pointed to a single diff or quote, rather than accusing me of bad faith without a shred of evidence, that would be one thing. If they had spoken to me on my talk about what they claim is their perception of my article talk page behaviour, that would be another. Given that they've done neither, Luckystars1981's baseless assertions here are grounds for some kind of boomerang.

As to the only issue slightly relevant to this noticeboard after Luckystars1981's series of personal attacks: in the most recent (of four) comments exchanged between Luckystars1981 and I, I referred them to multiple previous discussions in which other editors have defended this version of the lead, some at far greater length than I, against various very new editors. I maintain that my characterisation of Luckystars1981's proposed change as well outside content policy is a fair one, privileging as it does one source over about fifteen others cited within the lead, along with pushing a quite specific POV.

Luckystars1981's other accusations are without evidence or merit, and I've therefore warned them against further personal attacks. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - merely on the basis of my sole recent encounter with the person right above me: bad apple; very toxic and cynical; would do better as a publicist or an entertainment lawyer; resorts to smear tactics and takes no responsibility for their actions, if not suffering from their own self-deception. I genuinely feel hurt by this man 👨 😞 😔 Piotr Jr. (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • In that discussion it appears that you were the one making the ad hominems and personal attacks, calling people "pathetic" in edit summaries, and "you're clearly a know-it-all", and "to preserve your original edit, or maybe just your ego". And indeed, your very statement here continues in that vein. Uncle G (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring, canvassing, filibustering, and personal attacks from Onel5969

• 2001:4455:364:A800:69ED:98AE:B3B4:FB90 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Onel5969 recent behaviour includes:

• Personal attacks and incivility.
• Mass templating and redirecting articles for self-admitted reasons that conflict with WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, and WP:ATD.
• Edit warring across multiple articles to keep redirects in place after they have been disputed (WP:ATD-R).
• Switching his reasoning in the second or third revert as an excuse to keep edit warring.
• Edit warring to keep notability templates in place after they have disputed and ignoring attempts at talk page discussion.
• Even in discussions, filibustering by repeating the same claim over and over without saying anything new, even after it has been addressed numerous times (WP:STONEWALL).
• Canvassing (campaigning and vote-stacking) by alerting his fellow New Page patrollers to a wholly unrelated dispute to gain supporters (in a notification that wasn't even neutral).

The situation started when I spotted a dubious claim on the article Kayako Saeki and asked for verification on the talk page: [217]. For whatever reason, Onel5969 responded by redirecting and slapping notability templates on as many poorly-written Ringu and Ju-On articles as he could find (compilation). The edit summaries weren't clear to me whether he was following WP:ARTN and several of the articles he templated/redirected were questionable at best. A few examples include the original Ringu novel, the protagonist of the original Ring, and even Kayako Saeki (Kayako and Sadako are the two biggest J-horror icons). He also admitted here to not following ARTN and that some of the articles can be fixed with rewrites.

I reverted most of them so that he would gain consensus (WP:ATD-R) and also replied to him on the talk page: [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229]

The next day, Onel5969 signed into his account and reinstated several of the templates and redirects: [230], [231], [232], [233]. I reverted him again, advising him to take the matter to WP:AFD ([234], [235], [236], [237], [238]). I also took the discussion to his talk page: [239]. He responded by claiming that all of his templates and redirects were backed by WP:BURDEN and made another round of reverts: [240], [241], [242]. There are a couple of problems with his reasoning here:

1. His claim that the articles he redirected are "wholly unsourced" is actually false. The redirected articles consisted mostly of straight plot summary backed by primary sources (WP:SOURCE and WP:PRIMARY).
2. WP:BURDEN says nothing about reinstating templates and ignoring talk page discussion. Additionally, no exemption exists at WP:3RRNO.

I reverted him again ([243], [244], [245]) and he reinstated his edits again ([246], [247], [248], [249]). At this point, I dropped an edit warring warning on his talk page ([250], [251]).

Someone else opened a third talk page discussion to encourage discussion and curve the edit war: [252]. However, Onel5969 showed up simply to make spurious allegations and claim that he wasn't really edit warring because his edits are correct ([253]). I responded to the thread and told him he had a single day to engage in dispute resolution or I would report him for edit warring. He instead kept responding (or rather, not responding) by repeating the same point about WP:BURDEN over and over without saying anything new, no matter how many times it was refuted. I could say literally anything and Onel5969 would go right back to Point #1.

The following day, Onel5969 decided to canvass his peers at the unrelated WP:NPPR to gain supporters, with a notification that wasn't even neutral: [254]. It's likely that he engaged in stealth-canvassing even before that, because the only previous support he got was from two other NPPR reviewers who simply repeated his claim without actually responding to the counterpoints anything: [255], [256]. One of them is actually a frequent collaborator of Onel5969's who engaged in obvious tag-team behaviour, including filibustering of his own, accusing me of Onel5969's canvassing ([257]), replying with generalised (sometimes non-sequitur) platitudes instead of responding to what I actually said, and trolling to goad me to keep replying.

Additionally:

• Evidence of weird policy gymnastics: [258], [259], [260]
• Onel5969 ignoring more advice to open an AFD per WP:BLAR: [261], [262]

This was resolved when another user intervened on the Kayako page ([263]), and I stopped replying to the stonewalling and simply demonstrated what I was saying about WP:BURDEN (while adding a new section for good measure): [264], [265]

I left an additional warning on Onel's talk page about engaging in disruption in the future and was prepared to let the situation be. However, he wasted no time making personal attacks and continuing the exact same behaviour elsewhere: [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271]

Darkknight2149 02:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Onel pretty clearly violated WP:ATD-R by reinstating the contested BLARs instead of going to AfD. They said that there is an exception for "wholly unsourced" articles, but I'm not seeing this alleged exception in the policy. Regarding the dispute about WP:BURDEN, I'm inclined to agree with the OP. The articles were sourced to the book which the characters are from, which should be enough to satisfy verifiability (although not notability) per WP:ABOUTSELF. And WP:BURDEN has literally nothing to do with templates, so I don't know why that was getting brought up in response to the OP's objections. Reading through the talk page discussion at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, it does feel like everyone is completely ignoring what the OP is saying. Either way, Onel should have brought the articles to AfD after being reverted. And reading through Onel's talk page, violations of WP:ATD-R seems to be a recurring theme which they refuse to address even after being notified about it multiple times. Mlb96 (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• The redirected articles consisted mostly of straight plot summary […]

  If people actually wrote the encyclopaedia articles being hidden behind the Wikipedia-editor-made plot descriptions, the lists of fictional mentions, and the lyrics dumps, you all wouldn't get into these disputes in the first place, you know. Time and again this has happened over 20 years, and time and again it has been the case that writing an actual encyclopaedia article ameliorates the dispute. I've done it more than once myself, and the world isn't short of expert sources for movie, television, music, and literary criticism that discusses both character and plot. It really is time to learn. Uncle G (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)