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:Armatura

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

---

User:

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

Comment by reporter:

• The user has serious behavioural issues, mostly present in Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war. Constant violations of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS has created quite a toxic environment in the said talk page. I've linked some particular cases below, but it'd be better if an Admin took a look at the overall behaviour of the user. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Particular incidents:

• Accusing a user of bullying and personal attacks when that user asked Armatura to not divert from the discussion topic with other irrelevant topics - diff. Similar behaviour in the same discussion when replying - diff; Armatura was called out for the baseless accusations in this particular discussion by a third-party editor, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI - diff, and Armatura's response to this consisted of judging the commenter, User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI rather than focusing on the comment - diff.

• Accusing me and other editors of denying the Armenian Genocide, out of nowhere, because of our ethnicity - diff and when I reply that I do not deny it, Armatura is surprised and gives "kudoz" to me for "not denying something that is denied by your government" and calls me a "rare exception" - diff.

• Failing to WP:AGF countless times and using weird & irrelevant excuses to justify this behaviour. E.g. they're using the fact that a few Azerbaijani editors were banned for off-wiki coordination in Russian Wikipedia 11 years ago as a reason for why "assumption of good faith is difficult" - diff. They have used this 11-year-old incident in multiple occasions (e.g. in their reply to User:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI which I linked earlier - diff) and have also threatened to report the few users that were involved in that incident to ANI in the English Wikipedia, 11 years later, because, per Armatura's words, they still have the "same zealousness for pushing Azerbaijani POV forward, no change in behaviour" and that this has made "making assumption of good faith practically impossible" for Armatura.

• Armatura was previously reported 2 months ago. Though, as the reporter was, at the time, topic-banned, the report was dismissed, although the closing Admin also suggested concerns with Armatura's edits, including other Admins and Users in the report itself who wrote about Armtatura's problematic editing style and behaviour.

Comments:

• Thanks for an opportunity to reflect on my (yes - sometimes frustrated and angry, apologies) and your behaviour . I'll start with reminding about the rules of complaining here:

• Take a look at these tips:

1. Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page [not done]
2. Or try dispute resolution. [not done]
3. Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly [not done]

1. Consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Be prepared to apologise for anything which you could / should have done better. (If an awful lot of people seem to be getting frustrated with you, the problem may be with you.) [not done]
2. Even if you're offended, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. Until there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that the offense was unintended. ';'[not done]
3. Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil. Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made you feel. Editors are not mind-readers. ("That made me feel..." is much less likely to incite more anger or resentment than "Your post was...") [not done]
4. Ask them to strike through an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally. [not done]
5. No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works; it just makes things worse. Strive to become the editor who can't be baited. [not done]
6. If none of this is working, and the other person is not damaging the project or being uncivil or unkind to other editors, either walk away or request dispute resolution from uninvolved editors. [not done]
7. In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrator "Incidents" noticeboard. Bear in mind the risk of being hoist by your own petard if you yourself are guilty of policy violations. Please also read the ANI Advice first. [the only step done, without any "emergency", skipping everything above]

• As an example of your habitual reverting in general behaviour being scrutinised, I will provide just one example where the only reason you were not blocked was that the admin was kind to offer abstinence from NKR-related articles as an alternative. A search with name "CuriousColden" on noticeboard archives gives so many results it would take a life to post here all diffs of people being unhappy with your edtis, so I won't, admins have better tools of batch-searching then me I believe.

• Now,

1. Could my behaviour been better? - it definitely could, mostly by not taking the bait and not answering the provocations and being less emotional
2. Does CuriousGolden's background of being from Azerbaijan / Turkey / Turcic world / Muslim world matter much? No, because there are other editors from the same background with whom it has been possible to talk and reach consensus, despite some of them having strong points of views and being on the list that caused a scandal on Russian Wikipedia. Even awareness of Azerbaijani Laundromat does not preclude from interacting with Azerbaijani editors constructively. And when a good suggestion is made I don't hesitate to write thank you.
3. Do CuriousGolden actions matter much? Yes, and they make assumption of good faith justifiably difficult - constant edit reverts, arbitrary additions from Azerbaijani/Turkish-only sources, voting to support a "faction" instead of providing sensible explanations and trying to reach a consensus, baiting, intimidating and attacking other editors on Armenia / Azerbaijan / Nagorno Karabakh related articles while remaining formally civil, demonstrating symptoms of ownership of the articles he contributed to significantly, making other editors who disagree with his edits feel frustrated with what the discussion become in the end. There are multiple people unhappy with his behaviour yet instead of reflecting and improving he keeps accusing Wikipedia guidelines and tries to eliminate the others, so he could Azerbaijanify Wikipedia even further.
4. Is CuriousGolden to be blamed for his behaviour? No, he is not alone; it is not a secret Armenophobia is widespread in Azerbaijan, as Armenian Genocide denial is, and formalists shouting AGF better look into these realities carefully.
5. Does CuriousGolden need to be sanctioned for trying to eliminate a user whom he did not like, taking the abovementioned into account? I will leave this to uninvolved admins, but I think the user is not there to build an encyclopedia, but to infiltrate English Wikipedia with Azerbaijani POVs. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
6. What else can help the situation in the Nagorno Karabakh related topics and their talk pages? More admin presence, please.
7. I suggest all editors who may comment below to first state whether they have any conflict of interest / involvement on Armenia-Azerbaijan topics, for transparency. --Armatura (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin notice

There have been many incident reports like this regarding this conflict, and still there is no solution here on Wikipedia. In my view, this has to do with the design of ANI:

• Being aimed at urgent issues, it is geared towards quick fixes rather than actual solutions of the underlying problems.
• Being aimed at behavioral problems, it focusses everybody's attention on individual users rather than issues, contrary to what WP:FOC recommends.

Since there is no rush for this issue, I will therefore put this on hold while I do some research at my own pace and will report back here in about a week. ◅ Sebastian 08:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Reopening the case now. In order to prevent this case from dragging on until it becomes TLDR, I am asking involved editors to refrain from adding more opinions to the case – see hatnote to the next section. ◅ Sebastian 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I am now recusing myself from this case, because (as I learned (from Dreamy Jazz) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Moving towards closure) once I expressed my opinion, I may be regarded as involved. Therefore I'm asking other admins to take over the responsibility for closing this case correctly. ◅ Sebastian 11:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Call for action

It is now two days since I reopened the case, and one day since I asked to be recused, but no admin has stepped in yet. So, I'm calling on other admins to either close the case correctly or let me know what I can change so that it can be closed correctly. I'm aware that the way I structured this case is unusual, but I had reasons for that, and I'm happy to discuss them in the General comments section below or my talk page. ◅ Sebastian 13:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Findings by neutral editors

To avoid the prolonged discussions seen in other ANI cases, this section is reserved for uninvolved editors who impartially investigated the behavior of defendant and plaintiff, as well as for short questions pertinent to these findings. Off-topic remarks, even if phrased as questions, will be removed or replaced with a link to their diff. For any questions or concerns regarding this decision, please use the General comments section below.

SebastianHelm's findings

Previous related AN cases: I'm aware of the following:

• 29 October 2020 at AN/EW: CuriousGolden reported by Գարիկ Ավագյան – Result: agreement that can be described as an informal, short topic ban
• 17 November 2020 at AN: Armatura reported by Mirhasanov – closed with no action because reporter was under AA2 topic ban.
• 26 December 2020 at AN/I: 212.156.71.30 / 37.155.240.129 reported by Armatura – this was the first time I became aware of Armatura. We closed it with no punitive action, but some recommendations, including to “first seek agreement on which sources count as reliable”.
• 26 December 2020 at AN/EW: CuriousGolden reported by User:Armatura – I did not contribute in that case.

Overview of the diffs provided: Because most of the diffs appear on the same page or even in the same section, I am listing them just with their time stamps, so that it will be possible to just display the talk page as of the time this report was filed, and then search for the time stamps (in parentheses). Unless otherwise indicated, the section is “Non-reliable sources”:

from Particular incidents, bullet 1

(19:53, 10 January), (20:42, 10 January), (14:00, 12 January), (18:54, 12 January)

from Particular incidents, bullet 2

(16:00, 10 January), (16:48, 10 January),

from Particular incidents, bullet 3

(19:07, 12 January) in section “Dilgam Asgarov & Shahbaz Guliyev”, (20:42, 10 January) – same diff as above,

from Armatura's reply

None of the links are diffs.

As requested by both parties, I looked at Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war (and some other places) to get an impression of the overall behavior of Armatura and CuriousGolden.

1. The topic that contains most of the evidence provided here, section “Non-reliable sources”, was started by CuriousGolden in compliance with my recommendation (in the IP case of 26 December listed above) to seek agreement on sources first.
2. The discussion about “Non-reliable sources” seemed to have reached a conclusion with Armatura's argument at (14:58, 10 January), but neither side said so. Armatura kept ranting about their pet peeve, and CuriousGolden switched the topic to the still relevant, but different question of whether Armatura's inclusion met WP:UNDUE.
3. Sometimes both sides agree, at least in other discussions on the same page: (00:01, 10 January), (20:29, 6 January), (16:05, 9 January). Those can be seen as good signs that cooperation is at least possible.
4. CuriousGolden, while bringing up the 29 October 2020 case against Armatura, omitted the fact that CuriousGolden, themself, was a defendant in the 29 October 2020 case, where he was issued an informal, short topic ban.
5. The diffs provided by CuriousGolden in their first bullet, and most of the others, do not exhibit behavior that is significantly different from the behavior of other editors in the area, including CuriousGolden.
6. In the “Comment by reporter” section, CuriousGolden accuses Armatura of WP:ASPERSIONS without providing diffs. That itself meets WP:ASPERSIONS in the description given at 22:45, 13 August 2013.
7. The behavior described in CuriousGolden's third bullet refers to disruptive behaviors exceeding that of other editors. This has indeed occurred several times (although the characterization as “countless” is clearly peacock wording). While one should have full sympathy for people traumatized by genocides in their recent history, the repeated off-topic bringing up of this and other pet peeves – as again here on this ANI case – is striking. The effect is similar to the first corollary to Godwin's law: It makes it much harder for the discussion to remain constructive.
8. In one case (12:48, 12 January) Armatura further fans the flames with yet another off topic stab – even as reply to a demand for other [on-topic] arguments.
9. Armatura's reply, at 815 words (excluding signature and headline), is far longer than CuriousGolden's report with 374 words (excluding signature, two usual headlines and the usual “user5” template).
10. Most of Armatura's long reply does not address or explain the points of the report, but either veers off to Armatura's pet peeves (see finding #7 above) or is dedicated to accusing the plaintiff and even casts aspersions (finding #21).
11. Armatura begins with the sentence “Thanks for an opportunity to reflect on my (yes - sometimes frustrated and angry, apologies) and your behaviour.”, which sounds promising. However, the text that follows (see previous and next finding) contains hardly any reflections on Armatura's own behavior, so this doesn't seem to be more than a well chosen polite phrase.
12. Another sentence of Armatura's, the confession in “Now, 1” goes a bit further than the former, but it remains superficial, because (a) by insinuating “provocations” it places at least part of the blame on others, and (b) there is no indication that Armatura actually “reflected” on how to prevent these inappropriate reactions in future.
13. In their reply here, Armatura accuses others of “provocations” without backing that up with diffs. Conversely, in at least one case, (16:00, 10 January), Armatura is the one gratuitously provoking the other editor.
14. About half of Armatura's reply consists of a copy of the lists on top of this page and at Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility, commented with short accusations that CuriousGolden didn't follow them.
15. These two lists are bundled together, without reference for where they each come from, with duplicated numbers so that they are hard to refer to.
16. There is no evidence that Armatura themself considered the aforementioned recommendations either in the situations where they felt provoked nor in Armatura's own report two weeks earlier. (Examples: #1 of the first list #6 of the second.) In some cases, such as #2 and #5 from the second list, CuriousGolden was better than Armatura at following the advice.
17. In view of Armatura's accusations against CuriousGolden for not following these points, it should be said that CuriousGolden just followed Armatua's own request: “If you have problem with my behaviour, raise it on my talk page or the noticeboard of your taste, please” (20:42, 10 January).
18. Taken by itself, it takes little AGF to see the “Kudoz” (16:48, 10 January) as a well-intended concession. The evidence provided here by CuriousGolden contains no indication for assuming otherwise. CuriousGolden therefore failed to AGF when they used that in their second bullet as an Argument against Armatura.
19. However, the “Kudoz” are put into question by Armatura themself later in this report: In bullet #4, Armatura again connects CuriousGolden with “Armenian Genocide denial”, this time even throwing in “Armenophobia” in the same breath. That doesn't sound like Armatura honestly felt anything like “kudos” for CuriousGolden. Conceivably, with much AGF, one could assume that Armatura only was very clumsy when writing bullet #4, but that wouldn't look good for somone who wants to be an editor – see WP:CIR.
20. Armatura wrote that for them “assumption of good faith [is] practically impossible” (21:36, 12 January) based on an incident that has nothing to do with the topic nor with the editors participating in the discussion.
21. In #3 and #5 of the fourth bullet, Armatura accuses CuriousGolden of misbehavior and alleges that CuriousGolden “is not there to build an encyclopedia”, all without evidence. That meets WP:ASPERSIONS in the description given at 22:45, 13 August 2013.
22. In #6 of the fourth bullet, Armatura writes “More admin presence, please”. That was appropriate at that moment, since no admins or uninvolved editors had contributed to the report yet. However, there is a reason for that: In the case Armatura opened on 26 December, Armatura was not satisfied with my attempt at being fair to both sides, and asked “would it be too much to ask for more than one admin to help with this, please?”. Only when luck had it that someone showed up who, in addition to being an admin and uninvolved, also met the standard Armatura demanded of knowing the area, was Armatura satisfied. Later, in the case of 26 December, that other admin apparently wrote something Armatura didn't like, resulting in them now recusing themself.
23. Summing up the above points, it becomes apparent that Armatura creates a lot of drama and need for admin involvement. Chances that Armatura will improve are slim, as the evidence provided here shows no sign of true introspection. In conclusion, I have serious doubts whether that editor is a net benefit for Wikipedia.
24. CuriousGolden is creating problems, too. But there is still hope that CuriousGolden can learn and improve.

◅ Sebastian 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Recommended consequences

1. Armatura needs to stop off-topic remarks that are not conducive to a calm atmosphere. This includes in particular such emotionally charged topics as the Armenian Genocide or the ru.wp incident.
2. Armatura needs to decide whether they can assume good faith or not. If not (as suggested by finding #20), then Armatura needs to stop editing. WP:AGF as a fundamental principle on Wikipedia is not negotiable.
3. CuriousGolden and other editors in this topic area, regardless on which side, also need to make more of an effort to assume good faith. I know that that can be hard especially in conflict areas, which is why I came up with A4GF, which I'll be happy to discuss with any editor who is making an honest effort to try or understand it.
4. Armatura should be subjected to an AA2 topic ban. A 6-month AA2 topic ban could be justified, but I believe that Sanctions against editors should not be punitive and therefore suggest an AA2 topic ban for one month. That should allow Armatura to cool off while editing in a less controversial area, to thoroughly understand their own actions and reactions and to decide whether they still can assume good faith on Wikipedia.
5. CuriousGolden is warned that any repetition of WP:ASPERSIONS, as per finding #6, will be sanctioned with serious consequences.
6. Armatura is warned that any repetition of WP:ASPERSIONS, as per finding #21, will be sanctioned with serious consequences.
7. Armatura is advised to refrain from WP:ADMINSHOP (per finding #22)
8. CuriousGolden is admonished to not use peacock terms, especially when writing anything potentially controversial, such as the term “countless” in their third bullet above. Instead, in discussions, do the homework and count. (One doesn't have to count to an arbitrarily high number; one can easily write e.g. “at least 3 times” and provide 3 diffs.) (In article space, of course, sources are usually needed instead.)
9. CuriousGolden should stop using the expression “Jeez”: As that article explains, it's a minced oath from the word “Jesus”. It therefore is offensive to some Christians. Even if one disregards its religious connotation, it still focusses on emotions, contrary to WP:FOC, and is therefore disruptive.

◅ Sebastian 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

General comments

Thanks Sebastian. This is an example of ideal treatment of conflicts - the parties should really expect to be subject to such treatment, rather that throw mud on each other and hope that something sticks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I can see why it's usually not done this way: All they give us is a mop, and this was just so much mud that it took several days. Nobody, not even the nicest unpaid janitor, enjoys searching through buckets full of mud to find offensive material. I started with this because it reminded me of some mediations I completed many years ago. In those days, I could find some bricks in the mud with which we could build an article, but this time all I found that might be useful for content work was finding #2, for which it isn't even decided whether it can be used at all. ◅ Sebastian 15:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Since I reopened the case two days ago, nobody has contributed in any way except for you, who unfortunately had recused yourself. While involved editors presumably are just following my request for them to not add opinions, for the question why uninvolved editors or in particular admins are not contributing there is no easy answer. Is the reason really what I wrote yesterday here, or were my findings TL;DR? Neither would be an entirely satisfactory explanation; the former should be even more of a reason for a conscientious admin to step in, and the latter should be ruled out by the fact that much longer threads are being closed, when, as Primefac writes at Closing discussions at AN, “As a closer, you're expected to read through the arguments, and (if necessary) any tangential or related discussions that might affect the outcome of the discussion.” (their emphasis). Since I already did the work of summarizing all arguments, that should be much easier here than in those other cases. ◅ Sebastian 13:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think people are just not interested to jump into an area which is known for its high antagonism and for the habits of users on both sides to follow up.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll be honest I did originally have a long comment, but I feel it may not be appropiaten now. I think Sebastian has made some good comments, and his recomandations are sutiable. Regretably, these topic matters will always be controversial, and I am very sure a similar incident will come to this board soon. As Sebastian said, ANI is designed for quick fixes, an IBAN, etc, not having an sysop analyse long discussions and note multiple points in order to help reach a consensus on the action that should be taken. However, this is a very good analysis, and I commend Sebastian for what he has taken the time to write here. Hopefully this issue can be brought to a close, and both parties can settle without conflict. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this topic under discretionary sanctions? Sebastian, doesn't that mean that you don't need anyone to close this, or any discussion at all? If you believe your recommendations above are necessary to reduce disruption, then you're authorized to implement all of them yourself. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sebastian said above that he considers himself involved.

The report could go to WP:AE where an uninvolved admin can review the evidence and enact discretionary sanctions as required. It is generally a more stable venue than ANI, in my experience, for these kinds of cases. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, apologies, I somehow missed that. Sorry for the useless comment. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

To prevent it from arxivation--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Solavirum and Turkic nationalism, denial of Armenian genocide

• Solavirum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Solavirum recently claimed that the Armenian Genocide had "happened because of the Armenian revolts, which happened because of the rising Armenian nationalism". I had first encountered Solavirum when he voted to keep an an article I nominated to delete. The article was an obvious POVFORK that gave genocide denial undue weight, yet Solavirum voted to keep it without any explanation beyond a personal attack: "seems okay. This request is WP:JDLI."

Solavirum mostly edits articles related to conflicts involving Azerbaijan and Turkey, usually related to Armenia. He has frequently been POV pushing in favor of the Azeri/Turkish narrative and often engages in edit wars, for which he was recently temporarily blocked on two separate occasions for 3RR edit warring on July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes and later on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.[7][8]

Recently, User:Saotura was indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for pushing Turkish nationalism and Armenian Genocide denial in articles. Solavirum made a comment in support of the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE edits that Saotura made: "when did someone's personal views became a basis for block?"

Solavirum has also been previously warned about topic bans for Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts (AA2) on at least three separate occasions, first by @LouisAragon:, then by @Cabayi:, and finally by @Addictedtohistory:. --Steverci (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Update I understand most administrators will likely be unfamiliar with this historical topic, so here are some sources to provide some context on why this constitutes genocide denial:

“ One of the key arguments made by genocide deniers is that the deportations, and whatever “unfortunate excesses” occurred during them, were not part of a plan of extermination but rather a response to an Armenian rebellion in the eastern provinces in collaboration with Russia.

This officially distributed educational material reconstructs the history in line with the denial policies of the government portraying the Armenians as backstabbers and betrayers, who are portrayed as a threat to the sovereignty and identity of modern Turkey. The demonization of the Armenians in Turkish education is a prevailing occurrence that is underwritten by the government to reinforce the denial discourse.

The Turkish state and those few historians who reject the notion of genocide have argued that the tragedy was the result of a reasonable and understandable response of a government to a rebellious and seditious population in time of war and mortal danger to the state’s survival... There was no genocide, and the Armenians were to blame for it. They were rebellious, seditious subjects who presented a danger to the empire and got what they deserved... Still—the denialists claim—despite the existential threat posed by the Armenians and their Russian allies to the survival of the empire, there was no intention or effort by the Young Turk regime to eliminate the Armenians as a people.

In the past ten years a more sophisticated neo-denialism has emerged, which elaborates the argument that the Armenians were involved in insurrectionary activity that necessitated a counterinsurgency response from the Young Turk government. A number of authors have worked with Professor M. Hakan Yavuz and published works with the University of Utah Press. While there are differences in emphasis and interpretation among their works, these writers are to a large degree sympathetic to the defensive attitudes of Turkish government and military officials, favor evidence and accounts exculpatory of the Young Turk policies, and emphatically reject the notion of genocidal intention.

”

References

--Steverci (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, this is ridiculous. You're constantly pushing a wrong narrative here. The whole discussion (which Steverci opened in several different pages, and always getting rejected) was that you had no sources for your claims of any relation between Ganja missile strikes and bombardment of Stepanakert. And that's why I presented you the same rhetoric, where, without any sources, I could also present a false viewpoint, relating events with each other and showing a false narrative. Accusing others of pushing a nationalist agenda is a heavy claim, and you need legit grounds for that. Furthermore, I did not voted against it because I denied the genocide. Even if I did, without a doubt, would still have nothing to do with you, or the others. The thing is, the editors' personal opinions are, as given in the name, personal to them, and unless those opinions colides with the editors' published edits, and behavior, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Though, in Saotora's case, it seems that it did, which I realised later. Furthermore, I did not said that Saotora was right on his edits, but I was against his indefinite block, as the user, who had joined Wikipedia in a month or so, probably did not knew the existing guidelines that well. LouisAragon's warnings had came years ago, when I was not quite familiar with the project itself, and citing years old warnings is not relatable to present day and the present situation. For the past blocks in 2020, yet again, I was not familiar with the 3RR rules, and had since grasped them. That's why my last block was several months ago. In the meanwhile, Addictedtohistory's warnings were largely false, as he was constantly, and randomly accusing me of personal attacks. Let me remind you that giving warnings to other users just to make yourself look right, doesn't actually make you right. Unless you have legit grounds of me pushing an agenda, this application is a false flag. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to invite HistoryofIran, who we share topics of interests, to possibly opine here, if I'm pushing a Pan-Turkist agenda here, or not. LouisAragon's thoughts could be useful to, as we had discussed some issues regarding the given topic in the past. In 2018/19, as a young teenager, I had not grasped the WP:RS (as the Azerbaijani historiography provided a whole different narrative, completely stranded from the Western historiography), and had minor conflicts with the two users. But those were three years ago, for Steverci to cite them, it is misusing an editor's rough beginnings. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Finally, though, as you might have guessed, I don't like things personal to me, including my personal opinions, be exposed on Wikipedia, for the record, I do not deny the genocide. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I have interacted with Solavirum on azwiki where we briefly had a dispute. I don't see Solavirum as particularly that nationalist (and has protected the Armenian genocide article in Azeri from denialists).
  I'll further add to what he have responded with this is not a warning. It is explicitly not a warning. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. It's obvious by Solavirum's comments that he does not deny the genocide and what you quoted was him intentionally providing a false view point for comparison. And I'm not sure why so many of you make this mistake, but sanctions alert is not a warn. It's an alert to simply inform users. About that article deletion, it seems to me that he voted to keep it after a large chunk of genocide denial and irrelevant material was already removed from the article. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I can't speak of SolaVirum's actions in the past because I don't remember/don't know, but I currently don't think he is attempting to push a pan-Turkist agenda, and he has been relatively easy working with, at least with me. Sure, there are some things he hasn't completely learned (as he himself just admitted), but at least he is open to learn and is indeed learning. I'm gonna assume WP:GOOD FAITH and don't think he attempted to justify the Armenian genocide, but I can kinda see why Steverci would see it like that. At the end of the day we have to be very careful when speaking of emotional topics like these. This comment is not directed at anyone, just some food for thought; Even if the main reason (or one of the reasons) for the genocide was because of a revolt (I'm not well-versed in this topic, so I apologize in advance), that's still pretty messed up. Imagine if every power (Soviets, British come to mind) attempted to cull/destroy a civilization because some of them revolted, we wouldn't have anything left. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @HistoryofIran: Attributing the genocide to "revolts" is plain and simple genocide denial. --Steverci (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Justification of Genocide, to be precise, which shares common aspects with Denial of Genocide --Armatura (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • You both take that quote out of context when I've clarified why I've published such a comment. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This is WP:WITCHHUNT in my opinion. Solavirum's activity is not similar to Saotura's nationalistic quest. The provided diffs do not show strong, long-term, or undeniable similarity between the two users. Solavirum should be more cautious and neutral especially when dealing with some topics. We don't want wars/dramas between ethnic groups and nationalities on WP. There is zero point in indef-blocking normal users just because they may have done some mistakes or problematic edits. I supported indef-block for Saotura but I oppose this one. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Solavirum's profile on Azerbaijani language version of Wikipedia explicitly denies Armenian Genocide: (https://archive.is/wip/FmOmj page archived today] with İstifadəçi erməni soyqırımı template that says "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim." I think a larger-than-a-specific-user outcome of this discussion would be establishing whether it is allowed to deny established genocides (like Armenian, Jewish, Rwandan, Cambodian, etc) on any Wikipedia / Wikimedia branch. As for the nationalism, there are signs of Turkish nationalism / Panturkism ("This user supports the independence of East Turkestan" "This user demands freedom for South Azerbaijan", "This user is in favor of recognizing the independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", and "This user wants Turkish to be the official language in Iran" although understandably "This user does not recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and considers it Azerbaijani territory". Again, if it is okay anywhere in Wikipedia to openly hold such views and take a reverting approach on the related topics, that is fine. If not, then something needs to be done to prevent this phenomenon Wikipedia-wide, rather than in a specific user. I am talking Wikipedia as a worldwide phenomenon, not just English Wikipedia. --Armatura (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Anyone with any view is allowed to edit Wikipedia, and the use of userboxes to express these views (provided they aren't beyond certain lines, and a genocide-denial userbox, if it existed, would be well over one of those lines) is generally allowed, and can even be seen as a declaration of interest/potential bias, which is actually productive (now if they start spreading political opinions outside of their own user page, then it can start to become a problem). The thing is users are required to edit neutrally regardless of their views (or the expression of same on their userpage). If they can, it doesn't matter what their own personal opinions are. If they can't, they're going to wind up getting sanctioned anyway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for elaborating, The Bushranger. By saying template I meant userbox (a small colored box designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user). This is that userbox: https://az.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Eablon:%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i_erm%C9%99ni_soyq%C4%B1r%C4%B1m%C4%B1, called "İstifadəçi erməni soyqırımı", translated as "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim.", and it is placed on Solavirum's page in Azerbaijani Wikipedia: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i:Solavirum/Haqq%C4%B1mda#Siyasi (second from the left on top) . The other thing that causes a concern Solavirum rejects a denial of Armenian Genocide here by writing "for the record, I do not deny the genocide" 04:16, 19 January 2021 higher up in this discussion, whereas he demonstrates Armenian Genocide Denial userbox on his talkpage, the very userbox he apparently work on https://az.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X%C3%BCsusi:Tarix%C3%A7%C9%99/%C5%9Eablon:%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i_erm%C9%99ni_soyq%C4%B1r%C4%B1m%C4%B1 How to understand this? --Armatura (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, az.wikipedia is its own project, we on en. can't control what goes on there. But, first check and make sure that wasn't placed on their page by some other user (that does happen). Beyond that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to get too involved, but I just want to note that "İstifadəçi erməni soyqırımı" translates to "User Armenian Genocide" and not "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim.". Also, the userbox was added to AzWiki 3 years ago, so the user could've well changed their mind about it in that time, so it's not correct to label what he's saying as a "reject a denial" without proof. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger He added it himself. Moreover, he created that userbox. As for the remark of CuriousGolden (who was keen to interact with Solavirum off Wikipedia during 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War), the userbox "İstifadəçi erməni soyqırımı" says "Bu istifadəçi Erməni soyqırımı iddiasını yalanlayır" which Google page translations defines as "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim" and that userbox is currently featured on his page. There were further worrisome things on Solavirum's talk page in Azerbaijani Wikipedia: the userbox Capitalist was previously saying Nationalist, the userbox Classic Liberal was previously saying Gray Wolf - a banned Turkish neo-fascist organization diff, the user apparently "did not recognize recognise Armenia as a state" and viewed it as "territory of Azerbaijan". Moreover, the details of Solavirum's actions on English Wikipedia interestingly appaear with details in a media article named "Aykhan Zayidzadeh prevented Armenian provocation in Wikipedia" by Azerbaijani nationalist "Qarabağ Media" Facebook page. Citing the fragment from that propaganda piece:

"Armenians defeated on the front are also defeated in the media fight. This time their ugly intentions didn't pay off. Aykhan Zayidzadeh, an active user of ′′ EnViki "- addressed to the managers of the English language section of Wikipedia. Aykhan Zayıdzadeh achieved a week of protection of the article."

The user made his details openly available and I can recognize SolaVirum's signature in those screenshots. Blessings addressed to Aykhan Zayıdzadeh follow. My concern is not Azerbaijani Wikipedia in isolation but the fact that the edits of Solavirum on English Wikipedia are far from being neutral. He is apparently a 16 year old teenager (as openly stated on his Azerbaijani Wikipedia user page and as he mentioned himself in discussions) and tolerance is a generally a good thing but I am afraid too much tolerance can be abused and result in paradox of tolerance --Armatura (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to engage any further since you seem to be making off-topic remarks again (which you just got warned for). By the way, contacting people outside of Wikipedia by emails and by other means to exchange resources/material is common practice. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 23:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Wikipedia is a project of its own. I've previously stated that using years-old stuff as an argument/evidence of misbehaving is not okay to say the least. Two-to-three years have passed since then. My contributions on Wikipedia has proven to be neutral and productive, and my personal beliefs have not collided with my edits. Users are allowed to have political opinions. I shall reiterate that I don't deny the genocide, though, I had in the past. Past, is left in the past. I don't think I've actually made any additions or removed information regarding the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, Armatura, you should keep everything on-wiki, we don't need off-wiki stuff. Going deeper into my personal life wouldn't make your points legit, but actually, wrong. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see how Wikipedia can be improved in any way by having Solavirum skewing topics toward a genocide denial viewpoint, and toward a Turkish nationalist viewpoint. His colleague in such opinions was voted off the island one month ago at Archive1054: User:Saotura and Turkish nationalism, denial of Armenian genocide. Solavirum spoke in favor of Saotura who was nonetheless banned by the community. It must have felt very personal for Solavirum to see that Saotura was banned for essentially the same stuff Solavirum has been doing: adding Turkish nationalism and genocide denial, and posting a foul statement on a userpage. The difference between Saotura and Solavirum is that Solavirum lasted longer because of better English language skills which allowed writing with bias hidden more deeply. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"stuff Solavirum has been doing: adding Turkish nationalism and genocide denial, and posting a foul statement on a userpage", provide links where I've been fueling Turkish nationalism and denialism on Wikipedia articles. And your overall rhetoric is worrying at best. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's factually inaccurate to say that the Armenian Genocide was caused by revolts. The only Armenian revolt that existed when the genocide was ordered (most historians agree in February, March or early April 1915, i.e. before the defense of Van) was in the paranoid imagination of the Young Turk leaders (not unlike how Hitler was convinced that "the Jews" declared war on Germany). The revolts happened as a result of the genocide, rather than the cause of it. Reversing the cause and effect and painting Ottoman Armenians as treacherous or rebellious is a major theme of genocide denial. (I can provide references if necessary). That said, I am not familiar enough with Solavirum's editing to know whether in aggregate it is problematic. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please acknowledge the fact that i presented that as an example of an illogical statement that can given out without any sources. I have to reiterate that such thing does not represent my opinion. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• There is a clear interaction issue between Armatura and Solavirum (eg. this edit and the message it is replying to) and other issues regarding discussing contributors not content ([9]). This wp:battleground approach is likely not solely due to Solavirum (AA2 is a fraught area), but the diffs presented in the opening statement above are concerning, have not been explained, and it is difficult to take sincerely the deflective defence of "as you might have guessed, I don't like things personal to me, including my personal opinions, be exposed on Wikipedia" from an editor who has literally uploaded a photo of themselves to Wikipedia. CMD (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

AzWiki is a different project. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this statement? CMD (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. I don't deny the genocide. Though I did several years ago, when I added that userbox. It is a simple example of me forgetting to remove it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• My 2 cents worth I had many interactions with Solavirum in the past few months around the 2020 Artsakh-Azerbaijan war. They have been characterised by disrespect, ill humour and bullying. He is unquestionably a pan-Turk advocate. I have no evidence of him being an Armenian holocaust denier. I have plenty of evidence of him attempting to whitewash or erase any wiki detail that would suggest or support that large areas of Nagorno Karabakh, either in the the Republic of Artsakh or wider, are now, or ever were, Armenian. His entire agenda is to portray large swathes of territory as being happily under the benign sway of Azerbaijan since forever. Is history erasure the same as holocaust denial? Comes pretty close in my view. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposing a ban: topic or site?

This isn't going to happen. Solavirum is encouraged to email the Oversight team. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay, a lot of folks here are concerned about Solavirum's non-neutral editing behavior. It's time to suggest a ban of some sort, for instance a topic ban from Turkey/Azerbaijan-related articles, or a site ban on English Wikipedia. If we go with a topic ban, it will affect about 99% of Solavirum's editing pattern. So the difference between a site ban and topic ban is small. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC) I've thoroughly explained my position above, though I will make an abstract version of it. I do not deny the genocide. That quote was taken out of context and a simple look at the issue on hand will give the colleague a view of the whole picture. In the meanwhile, yes, I did deny it in the past, about two-to-three years ago. Opinions and views change overtime. I've not even edited the Armenian Genocide article. The off-wiki links provided by the others users are worrying. I've been editing on Wikipedia for about half a decade now, and I've actively participated in attracting other users to the platform, thus, having an off-wiki activity about Wikimedia. I don't choose the headlines either, most of my off-wiki work is concentrated on notifying the public about how the encyclopedia works, such as explaining reliable sources and neutrality. The general "non-neutral behavior" must be proven with diffs. The topic is controversial, and editors with different backgrounds, especially ones from the conflicting parties have different positions. It is best for Rosguill, who was a meditator during most of the war's active phase, to comment on the issue, if my behavior is bannable, or not. Several other editors have opposed my ban above. It is basically a witchhunt to go over and ban an editor just because he/she has a different position than you over a particular issue, which is a daily part of building the encyclopedia, and is delt with achieving a consensus. I've done my part during the said time period, and have been collaborative. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Solavirum, I noticed that you have published articles in several Azerbaijani language journals. Please explain who submited the screenshots of diffs of your edits on English Wikipedia together with your photo and real name to Qarabagh Media - a known anti Armenian / Anti-Artsakh online resource with the hateful text describing "ugly intentions of Armenians" and then Solavirum's "achievement" - 1 week protection of a WP article by admin Woody Regards, --Armatura (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @Armatura: Could you please link to the "Qarabagh Media" post/article you have mentioned? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) CuriousGolden already provided above but providing again https://www.facebook.com/1645797089031224/posts/2825555651055356 --Armatura (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Evidently you're still a genocide denier as of three days ago. Also, I wanted to assume good faith, but if you're going to make baseless witch hunt accusations despite obvious evidence of misconduct, I will point out that at least 2/3 of the "several other editors [that] have opposed my ban" are users you're known to have contact with off-Wikipedia,[10][11] so it's more likely you're WP:Canvassing. --Steverci (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @Steverci: Let me get this right. You're saying both me and HistoryofIran have been canvassed into this discussion? And your reason for that is that we have contacted the user outside of Wikipedia 4 months and a month ago respectively? Want to make sure I understood this right, if I didn't, please feel free to elaborate. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) How else would you describe Solavirum openly pinging HistoryofIran above? In your case, given that you're both apparently Facebook friends and also frequently collaborate on talk page discussions,[12][13][14][15] it's certainly a strong possibility. --Steverci (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC) User:HistoryofIran is known to be a neutral voice on these topics, so it's not hard to figure out. And especially, it's not WP:CANVASSING. I'd suggest reading WP:ASPERSIONS as from what I can understand of your comments, you seem to be accusing me of coordinating with Solavirum outside of Wikipedia without any proper proof other than assumptions, which breaks the aforementioned policy. Your permanent topic ban has only recently been lifted, so I advise to be extra cautious with such accusations. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I doubt Solavirum would've pinged an unrelated user if he didn't think it would benefit him. The policy asks says unless there is evidence. I have not made any accusations, but I've provided proof that Solavirum is canvassing in this discussion, that you both have contact outside Wikipedia, and that you both frequently push for the same resolution on talk pages. All of this is important to be aware of. --Steverci (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I don't think we have same understanding of what "evidence" means. It would be evidence if you had clear proof (e.g. log of chats, going to talk page to request specific comment to be made and etc.) of a canvassing case. What you've said, unfortunately, is only a personal opinion. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Support site ban per WP:BMB: The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. As @Binksternet: pointed out, Solavirum's genocide denial, which he considers "personal views", prevents being able to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. --Steverci (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC) (Note: Voter is same person who opened the report) I said I don't deny it couple times by now. A: "You deny the genocide"; B: "No, I don't"; A: "You deny the genocide". Do you want me to deny it at this point? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Oppose site ban: I have my own differences with Solavirum and despise most of his political opinions, but I still strongly believe that banning someone on account of their personal views is an extreme overstep. This is particularly true regarding political articles where it's near-impossible to find people without an opinion on said issue (and those that do are often those with limited knowledge/understanding of it). I believe any sort of long-term/permanent ban would set a very bad precedent for the Wikipedia community, as it will undoubtedly lead to future (subjective) bans of so-called "biased users". The fact that the user filing this report also seems to have his own personal biases on most Armenian-Azerbaijani articles as well leads me to believe such a ban is less about improving Wikipedia and more about removing the "competition". --Qahramani44 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I want to note that I didn't try to make any insults, and I don't support Armenian Genocide nor any independence claims while respecting to the countries' right of independence, neither any other wrong behavior. I just tried to make analyze and find a solution. I'm trying to be neutral as soon as possible as an uninvolved person on this event (maybe except the same interest on topics, or edited 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War). I tried to understand what is the exact problem. First of all, as far as I see, the first argument was the user voted as "Keep" on a discussion. However, at the same time; another user who is I know with their neutrality (Mccapra), said the same: "All seems fine to me." Again, another person (Peterkingiron), said "Keep": "Keep -- With the Turks denying that there was a genocide, it is probably better to have an article dealing with the controversy, providing a venue for the deniers to vent their theories, in the hope that the main article can be kept clear of such stuff. This is an article about POVs held about the issue. That is quite different from having an article pushing a controversial POV (which is not allowed)." And again, the user who opened deletion discussion, and the user who reported to ANI is same, as a point. A second argument was the user's genocide userbox (which is an understandable concern due to Saotura's userboxes, and these are insultive). As the users said, the user included such unacceptable userboxes (which also I don't accept personally), as "This user denies Armenian Genocide". But that event was months ago (nearly eight months ago), and the user changed his mind. Plus, I and everyone in here should accept that everyone did mistakes in the life and returned from their own mistakes as soon as possible. (like Steverci's sockpuppets, or my 72-hour block due to POV pushing and edit warring.) If someone says "No, the user did a lot disruptions for preventing edits from genocide articles"; then please show evidence with diffs. However, the other claims such as the user supported other areas' independence and therefore should be banned is absurd, that's a personal opinion like "This user supports Kurdistan independence" or "This user supports Catalonian independence"; or "this user supports Armenian nationalism". About wolves, I wish to say that it's generally seen a symbol for nationalism (see Banknotes of Turkey, Grey wolf (mythology) and Asena), and the organization that mentioned only adopted the name (which is Grey Wolves (organization), and has links to MHP, plus even banned in Azerbaijan after 1995, and defined as a terrorist organization). Not every Turkish nationalist (like the similar situations in other countries) does support MHP, or is far-right, or approve their actions; see CHP as an example. About the Facebook coverage, I wish to say that this is that Facebook page's opinion, and does not involve the user's acts. Also, the user never declared his support for that page. Please try to not make personal attacks. About Saotura event, which is I also watched closely due to an article discussion, I agree that the user refused Armenian Genocide and I also accept and support their ban per WP:NOTHERE after looked to their contribs while the discussion is ongoing. Especially after everyone saw the evidences, a lot of people supported this ban or didn't make discussion after evidences. Again, Solavirum claimed that the user is newbie (joined one month ago at that time according to Solavirum), and didn't get enough warnings; and therefore opposed. As my opinion, everyone knows that the people in Turkey and Azerbaijan looks frowned towards Armenians, and vice versa, the people in Armenia looks frowned towards to the people that identify themselves as Turks. (again, I'm against these opinions, - because everyone is human, and nobody deserves being killed (including Hrant Dink and Uğur Mumcu) -, and I thought that's related to mass media, teaching, and propaganda in the countries.) That's my opinions and analyses. I wish to remain as an oppose per WP:AGF, and I wish to say that I couldn't be able to find a strong evidence for banning among conversations. If I missed out something, I'm sorry; because I wrote this in one or two hours. Also sorry if I wasn't able to clarify correctly. Ahmetlii (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Support Site ban as per WP:NATIONALIST, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:BADIDEA The editor, a 16 year old teenager, is just damaged by ethnic hatred to the point of no return, saying this with regret. His social media pages, full of voluminous ultranationalist militarist hateful stuff, are really worrisome, enough for safeguarding team and social services to be involved, if they exist Azerbaijan. This is the user who claims "past is past" and whom his comrades justify saying "it was just a few months ago". Instead of introspection and using the chance for atonement, there is complete denial and attacking those who criticized him. This 'gem' was posted on Solavirum's Twitter page just 10 days ago: [REDACTED] Now, one thing that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia is nacizm, fascism and the likes of those anti-human views. Citing from Wikipedia:No Nazis mentioned above: It is a common perception – based on our claim of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit – that Wikipedia welcomes all editors. There is also a misconception that because maintaining a neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five fundamental principles, administrators would be acting contrary to this if they blocked a racist upon learning of their public self-identification. Because of this, many neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians, and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities[a] – hereafter referred to collectively as racists – believe they are welcome to edit Wikipedia, or that they can use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, so long as they stick to the letter of our policies. This is not true. Racists are not only unwelcome here on Wikipedia, they are usually indefinitely blocked on sight if they express their racist ideas on-wiki. There is direct evidence that the editor publicly denied Armenian Genocide, supported banned Turkish group Grey Wolves, posted hateful speech against Armenians and so on, being careless on his social media and Azerbaijani Wikipedia and being slightly more careful on English Wikipedia, but remaining the same person. Saying "everything was in the past" is an excuse to stay here for longer, just sticking tighter to the letter of WP policies. The best proof of that is that no regret was seen and no apology was offered for that unacceptable behaviour. Unless he has a diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder, when one identity cannot control the other one, he should be banned. He may be given a chance for ban removal in the future, when he becomes an adult, but editing Wikipedia with this much racial hatred in mind is just unacceptable. WP guidelines for junior editors (1, 2) have been grossly ignored. Tolerance should not result in Paradox of tolerance. --Armatura (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC) I have removed the link you posted to external social media. That is completely inappropriate. Nor is it appropriate to wield age like a cudgel, please refrain from doing this. CMD (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Some editors here were worried that the presented evidence so far was mainly about off-EnWiki activities. Here goes the proof that Solavirum is part of a larger nationalist organization that targets English Wikipedia to skew Nagorno Karabakh Related articles. He even received an award from Azerbaijani government for fighting Armenians on English Wikipedia. Open your eyes, my friends, this is a larger issue that you and I thought. --Armatura (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Diaspor Komitəsi və "Karabakh is Azerbaijan" “Vikipediya”da ermənilərə qarşı mübarizə aparan 16 yaşlı Ayxan Zayıdzadəni təltif etdi. Azərbaycan Respublikası Diasporla İş üzrə Dövlət Komitəsi Tovuz hadisələrində və Vətən müharibəsində “Vikipediya”nın ingilis dil bölməsində ermənilərə qarşı mübarizə aparan “Qorqud” Vikipediya Metodik Klubunun eksperti Ayxan Zayıdzadəni "Karabakh iz Azerbaijan” Milli Platforması çərçivəsində informasiya mübarizəsinə verdiyi töhfəyə görə Azərbaycan Respublikası Diasporla İş üzrə Dövlət Komitəsi və “Karabakh iz Azerbaijan” Milli Platformasının rəhbərliyi tərəfindən "Təşəkkürnamə" ilə təltif edilib. Təbrik edirik. The Diaspora Committee and Karabakh is Azerbaijan have awarded 16-year-old Aykhan Zayidzade, who is fighting against Armenians on Wikipedia. The State Committee for Work with the Diaspora of the Republic of Azerbaijan awarded Aykhan Zayidzadeh, an expert of the Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club, who fought against Armenians in the English section of Wikipedia during the Tovuz events and the Patriotic War, for his contribution to the information struggle within the Karabakh iz Azerbaijan National Platform. He was awarded a letter of appreciation by the State Committee and the leadership of the Karabakh iz Azerbaijan National Platform. Congratulations. This is that group https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/ that coordinates the actions of Azerbaijani editors on Wikipedia Elnur Eltürk is Elnut Elturk, head of the Free Encyclopedic Resources department at the Central Scientific Library of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences and the mentor of Aykhan Zayedzade aka Solavirum, the author of Qarabagh media article about heroical action of Solavirum against "ugly intentions of Armenians" in English Wikipedia, posting "Wikipedia is on agenda" TV show featuring Aykhan Zayedzade aka Solavirum https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/permalink/1830678457099406/ and wishing good luck to Aykhan Zayedzade aka Solavirum, ′′ Qorqud ′′ Wikipedia Methodical Club expert, in an interview about that Anti-Armenian history-skewing club (Great successes, thanks to children, the selection raised by precious mothers) https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/permalink/1829163770584208/ . Elnur is an known Azerbaijani lobyyst and denier of Armenian Genocide, published books such as "my heart stayed in Yerevan" https://salamnews.org/az/news/read/171373 where "the tragedies caused by the Armenians to the Turks and their policy of genocide are conveyed to the reader in an artistic form" and contributed to the book "Armenian Psychology" https://musavat.com/news/son-xeber/ermeni-psixologiyasi-kitabi-ishiq-uzu-gordu_230791.html that aimed to "introduce the true identity of Armenians to the world before the 100th anniversary of the so-called "Armenian genocide", to learn the true identity of the Armenians who hated the Turkish community " Solavirums FaceBook page has off-wiki coordination calls. For example, https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/permalink/1742957742538145/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/permalink/1652395918260995/ Hello young people. I have created an article about the bombing of Ganja in English Wikipedia. However, vandalism cases are expected to be many already. That's why it would be nice if others besides me could control this. Only I control the article of Tovuz fights in English Wikipedia as an Azerbaijani. I know it's a volunteer thing, but why not support it? I've been tearing myself up since the 12th, I can say I'm not sleeping. Believe me how many disinformation attempts are. I don't write this for you to thank, it really needs to focus on such things. So far, about 10 thousand readers of the article in Enviki. --Armatura (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Armatura, your tone, rhetoric, and everything else is wrong and gruesome. Everyone here had explained you several times that off-wiki stays off-wiki. Your involvement in my life is worrying, we are here for Wikipedia, not my Facebook, my Twitter, my age, or anything else. a 16 year old teenager, is just damaged by ethnic hatred to the point of no return, saying this with regret, you might as well look at my passport to devalue my contributions on Wikipedia. Your personal level attacks on me shall not go unnoticed. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Oppose bans per Qahramani44, a site ban is a gross overreaction. So would be a ban from all Turkic-related articles. The problematic diffs above relate only to the Armenian genocide (there has been some mentioned problems with the wider topic of Armenians, but not that many diffs). Per my statement above on wp:battleground issues, my preferred remedy would be a commitment to tone down personal insults and battleground mentality. Other potential paths might be interaction bans (which would go both ways) or much smaller topic restrictions (as opposed to full bans). CMD (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC) CMD Solavirum aka Aykhan Zayidzadeh is apparently an expert of the Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club fighting Armenians in the English section of Wikipedia during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and receiving an award for the State for that. It is against the very definition of battleground principle. See my expalnded vote comment. Regards --Armatura (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Oppose bans per Qahramani44 and CMD. This report has taken a dangerous turn and has turned into a competition to find things User:Solavirum has done in their private life or social media to use them against the user in this report. This is unacceptable and breaks WP:HARASSMENT, specifically WP:OUTING. None of the people who support a ban has provided any real reason for this other than the claim that the user denies the genocide, which Solavirum has denied at least 3 times in this report by now. None of the aforementioned users who added that he "promoted Turkish nationalism" have also been able to provide sources for this, amounting to baseless accusations. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Strong Oppose site-ban, weak support IBAN I've been watching this trainwreck for a bit and am surprised at how bad it has got. CMD rightfully notes this is steering into (if not already) becoming a battleground. The almost detective like investigations into an editor in their off-wiki, personal life, is really unacceptable, and disgusts me. I cannot believe anyone would even step as far as to do that. This whole topic area is extremely sensitive and full of conflict; that will never change. However, when looking over these diffs, I, similar to CMD, can only find information relating mainly to the Armenian Genocide. Even suggesting a siteban is stupid, at most this would warrant an IBAN. I weakly support a temporary IBAN (perhaps 3 months or more), but would prefer to find a solution to the broader problem of Armenian-Azerbajani conflicts, to prevent this sort of situation occuring in the future. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Berrely Are you not disgusted by Solavirum aka Aykhan Zayidzadeh being an expert of the Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club fighting against Armenians in the English section of Wikipedia during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and receiving an award for the State for that? That a child is used for state propaganda? It is against the very definition of battleground principle, and many other principles that you would know better than me. See my expanded comment in my vote. --Armatura (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Armatura, apologies if I missed that in the clusterfuck of other clutter that seemed irrelevant. My point stands, however, after looking through a few more of the posts you have linked, and mostly relying on Google Translate, I may be convinced to support a temporary IBAN, however, I need to look over this a bit more. I will also note that you really are bringing irrelevancy into this. Age does not matter, there are 13 year old editors who have brought articles to GA status. Please stop repeatedly using it as an argument. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Berrely you did not miss it, I just expanded my vote comment, to keep my findings in one place. The age, which you think I am using against the editor, is actually a softening factor for the editor in question and can be used in his defence if anything, as in real-life law. But I am really worried about any editor, especially juveniles, being involved in organized racial propaganda to the extent of becoming experts in that fields and being awarded by the State for that, about Wikipedia being skewed and abused for propaganda purposes in a coordinated manner. There is an established "club" for that, publicised and encouraged on Azeri TV and media and even by State, apparently... --Armatura (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC) @Armatura: I recommend giving links whenever you're starting a new thing as it's hard for others to do their own research without it. Could you please give the link to the "Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club" you've mentioned above, I wasn't able to find it on Google. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC) CuriousGolden It is provided already in my vote comment, and as you read Azerbaijani it must be comprehensible to you better then to others here: Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club and Solavirum's award as its expert fighting against Armenians in English Wikipedia https://www.facebook.com/azxeber1/photos/a.639575122745531/3684374598265553/ --Armatura (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Has Solavirum declared onsite their age? If no, that should be redacted as well. And in any case, I don't see what age has to do with anything here. Multiple times above a real name for this editor has been mentioned, has the editor declared their name onwiki, as well as alleged pictures of them and Facebook/Twitter? I'm very suspicious that they have, given some comments have already had to be revdelled here. If no, that should all be removed and private evidence sent to ArbCom directly, not discussed here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader his age, photo, name, life story, all details clearly publicised by the editor in question himself, as you can see im my initial comment and ban vote comment. I dont know what ArbCom is and how to send things to it, can you help with that please? Many thanks. --Armatura (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC) @Armatura: has the editor provided all of these things onwiki themselves, or did you find them by Googling the name that they provided? If the former, please provide diffs of the editor releasing this info themselves. Otherwise this is considered WP:OUTING. Offwiki evidence should be sent to WP:ArbCom by emailing arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Contacting_the_Committee. I can't say whether they will consider any of this actionable, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the email address, ProcrastinatingReader. How do I formulate the email itself though, is there a proforma for emails to ArmCom or something? (what the email is about, what the provided personal details for, what is the suggested outcome, ect). Aykhan Zayedzadeh aka Oyuncu Aykha aka Solavirum did not deny adding those details himself. See the details provided on his Wikimedia commons page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Aykhan_Zayedzadeh and please see the diff of providing these personal details himself on Az Wikipedia: https://az.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i:Solavirum/Haqq%C4%B1mda&diff=5735949&oldid=3973689 and on En Wikipedia too https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Solavirum&oldid=771847647 Regards, --Armatura (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks. At that diff, on the revision prior from 2017, I do see a link to a Facebook but not the Facebooks linked above. Were those linked onwiki, also, as well as their membership in this group? Though note 2017 diff was when the editor was 12/13 years old so I'd say treat that as "not disclosed onwiki" for all practical purposes. My understanding is private info can be sent to ArbCom or any functionary, but whether they deal with this kind of stuff or only in relation to COI I'm not sure. Someone more knowledgeable than I, perhaps an oversighter, could come along and clarify what to do with this info if it's deemed too inappropriate for a public venue (which, imho, technically disclosed or not it is, or at least tows the line quite closely). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion

Placing this here in case people have comments related to Solavirum's onwiki conduct at the English Wikipedia. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just noting that I’ve placed Armatura under a one-way IBAN from Solavirum as a DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• The rationale for doing nothing was what? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • My suggestion was for an iban, and this has been partially enacted. Still, it may reduce tensions. Regarding your comment above, it would be useful to have diffs showing these edits to see if they require action. CMD (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree with the one-way IBAN. As soon as an editor starts investigating another editor off-wiki it just becomes harassment. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting my response to this editor on my talk page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I want to remind to all participants that Arbitration Committee's discretionary santions have been authorized for the Armenia-Azerbaijan topics inder the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbitration case. In general the kind of disputes discussed in this thread are ill-suited for WP:ANI and are much better suited for WP:AE where appropriate requests (including for topic bans, interaction band, page blocks, etc) can be filed. However, prior to filing any AE report regarding a particular user you do need to make sure that the requirements of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts have been satisfied. Nsk92 (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Revoke rollback privilege for Mike Novikoff?

Mike Novikoff has used his rollback rights to undo edits that didn't constitute "vandalism". 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
Actually, one can say that the user used his rollback privilege to gain advantage in an edit war. Cause Stephen MUFC was mostly just putting back the stress marks that Mike Novikoff had removed earlier (1, 2, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9, 12).

P.S. Read this for the background story:

• User talk:Mike Novikoff#Stress marks in Russian
• User talk:Mike Novikoff#WP:Stress marks in Russian words
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Mike Novikoff
• User talk:Mike Novikoff#Stresses in Russian

--Moscow Connection (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Another problem with Mike Novikoff is that when reverting other people's edits he keeps referring to his own essay as if it were one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. In my opinion, that's a very dishonest behavior, so something should be done about this user. Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any rollback misuse here because in each case he is adding an explanatory edit summary. WP:ROLLBACKUSE says, The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting.-- P-K3 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree Note that his explanatory edit summaries are highly misleading as I explained above. P.S. Read more here. Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thank you for the explanation.
I still hope something can be done to stop the user from removing stress marks from everywhere. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how they are misleading, he's pointing to his essay to justify his edits. This seems to be a content dispute which should be sorted out at WT:MOS. But I don't think it's grounds for revoking his rollback right, which is what you came here proposing. P-K3 (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree Does it mean I can write my own essay (which would state exactly the opposite) and then use it as a justification for reverting other people's edits? P.S. I didn't ask to revoke his rollback right; Moscow Connection did. What I'm saying is that the user's behavior is highly dishonest and something should be done about it. Taurus Littrow (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You could write your own essay and use it as an explanation for your edits, yes. Any good-faith edit is justified. If they want to write a WP:ALPHABETSOUP to link to explain those edits, then I fail to see the problem with that. (Now if they were challenged on it and they then point to it as if it were a guideline, that would be an entirely different matter.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger Now if they were challenged on it and they then point to it as if it were a guideline, that would be an entirely different matter. – This is exactly what Mike Novikoff has been doing for some time (read the links above), and I find this behavior totally inacceptable. Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In the links above, Stephen_MUFC didn't challenge my edits, he was editing with no summaries at all. Neither he did use an undo function, so I've got no notices of his edits. I've found them accidentally, ten days later. And I've never said that WP:RUSTRESS is a guideline, I just asked him to read and discuss it. (Sometimes people think that any shortcut leads to a guideline or a policy, but is that my fault?) — Mike Novikoff 07:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

* Don't know about Stephen_MUFC (I wasn't talking about him), but another user, Moscow Connection, did challenge your edits some time ago, and he specifically asked you not to revert other people's edits. He also had strong objections against your highly biased essay. Nevertheless, you ignored his requests and continued removing stresses and making reference to your essay (maybe not as a guideline, as you say, but you did it all the same, which was kind of misleading in my opinion). Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

* @Mike Novikoff and Moscow Connection: To put an end to this conflict, I suggest a solution: Mike Novikoff moves his essay somewhere else (as suggested by many users) and stops removing the stress marks. Now, since there's obviously nothing wrong in using stress marks in encyclopedias for guidance purposes, if anyone wants to use them (in Cyrillic forms), that will be fine. But it does not mean they should be used on a mandatory basis, so there's no need to add them to every article either. That would be desirable (in my opinion), but not strictly necessary. To sum it up: If you see stress marks in an article, leave them as is; and if you don't see them, you can add them if you want (but you don't have to). Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Many users" who want to destroy my essay are just you and Moscow_Connection. You essentially suggest that I simply surrender and give up on what I've been doing for a couple of years already, just because you don't like it. — Mike Novikoff 08:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No, Johnuniq also had issues with your essay: read here. "Everyone should work on this essay (since it is in Wikipedia space). It looks like there is a significant disagreement so an RfC will be required. Or, if the essay is considered undesirable, it should be discussed at WP:MFD where one possible result might be "userfy", that is, move to the creator's user space." Really, I tried to propose an amiable settlement, but you continue to act in a highly unconstructive manner (the bad practice so common to Russian forums) and victimize yourself ("You want to destroy [sic] my essay!") Also, you continually misintrepret and ridicule other people's arguments. I have not the slightest desire to discuss with you anymore; we are not on a Russian forum. Hopefully, someone intervenes and stops you. P.S. One more thing: Note that this is not your personal blog, and you can't do something which doesn't enjoy a large consensus. Of course I don't like it. You seem to be on a crusade to remove stress marks from Cyrillic forms in every article (for several years, as you just said), even if using stresses is an old and common practice in Russian encyclopedias, so there's nothing wrong in it. I wonder why nobody stopped you long ago. Have a nice day. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I do actually want to challenge Novikoff's edits but, frankly, recently haven't had the time or managed to summon the energy to do so. Stephen MUFC (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Stephen MUFC Moscow Connection You can do it here. Taurus Littrow (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In reply to the discussion of "Many users", I think in this case the word “user” should also include readers, not just editors. So, allow me to chime in as a mere user, whose Russian does not exceed the level of a summer course at what was then still called the Ленинградский государственный университет, and who therefore has not enough knowledge to act as editor in such matters. But I appeal to everyone to think of the average reader; you, who may have grown up with Russian, may find those marks annoying. But as a simple reader, I find much use in the stress marks, since with them, Cyrillic gives me all information I need at one glance. (Even if a name is spelled out using IPA, which I am a big fan of, I prefer to read the Cyrillic for a number of reasons, and may skip the IPA because Cyrillic expresses Russian pronunciation consistently enough for me to be understood.) ◅ Sebastian 13:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

A fundamental question is whether the correct spelling should be sacrificed to a pronunciation hints. Most of casual readers won't even realize the latter, they'll think it's a part of the Russian orthography, much like in Czech or Spanish. They really do: I often see Russian words with unnecessary stresses in various discussions across the Internet, and each time it turns out that the words are simply copied from Wikipedia. — Mike Novikoff 20:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, you should put this question to the Russian linguists as well, since they use accents in all major encyclopedias and dictionaries (have been doing so for like 200 years and still do: see the Great Russian Encyclopedia, published only recently, between 2004 and 2017, by the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences), as well as in books for Russian children and in those for foreigners. Just imagine: small Russian children are made to believe that using accents in Russian is OK, and so do foreign students that learn Russian! Horrible. I still have nightmares with the books I used to read as a little kid in the kindergarten: they all had stress marks in them! Taurus Littrow (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's really a nightmare, and exactly a kindergarten one. "Ма́-ма мы́-ла О-мо́-на Ра́". I have this nightmare every time I try to read ruwiki, so I've almost ceased looking there. (The ruwikian nightmare is accompanied with wikilinked dates and so-called "flagification" in most of the articles, to make sure that no article will go without an annoyance.) In my 45, I don't want to be in kindergarten anymore. — Mike Novikoff 21:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we both (especially you) suffer from the Post-Stressed Disorder (PSD), and something should be done about it before it's too late. Do you know if there is some medical institution that treats this condition? Or maybe they have a mutual aid fellowship, like Alcoholics Anonymous? Let me know if you find one, I'll truly appreciate it. Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Novikoff has used a link to his essay to attack his opponents in the Russian Wikipedia (or maybe even Russian Wikipedia editors as a whole): [16]. (The edit summary says: "And look at WP:RUSTRESS, dedicated to you, my dears.") --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Outrageous. Mike Novikoff is acting as if Wikipedia (both English and Russian) were his personal blog or something, as I already pointed out above. How long are we supposed to tolerate this behavior? Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what ruwiki has to do with this topic. If anything, I had abandoned it two years ago and I'm almost inactive there ever since. But while we are at it, doesn't this comment constitute an incivility and a personal attack against me? Note that Taurus Littrow is already indeffed in two wikis, both indefs being for incivility and aggression, and he continues it here even after my warning. — Mike Novikoff 13:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Affairs of other Wikis" are not en.wiki's concern, either way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

But it might the the title of a provocative novel. EEng 06:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Just one comment: since Mr. Novikoff has clearly been treating English Wikipedia as his personal blog, I wonder why he is so aghast at supposed personal attacks against him. To badly misquote an English proverb, "you sow what you reap". :-) Taurus Littrow (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be funny? I don't think it is; and WP:NPA does not have a reaping--sowing exception. --JBL (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

JayBeeEll It's called sarcasm. I'm just annoyed that Novikoff has been misusing enwiki for so long, grossly misinterpreting and distorting the facts well-known to every native Russian speaker. I am greatly surprised that nobody stopped him before. The user has been pretending that the use of stress marks in Russian is a tremendously outdated custom, followed by a couple of obscure encyclopedias in the past, and today only used by a bunch of half-illiterates. The reality is exactly the opposite (read the links). One way or another, I obviously realize that personal attacks are not allowed no matter the circumstances. It's just difficult to keep your head cool when your opponent is obviously treating you like an idiot. Thanks. Taurus Littrow (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

How many more times shall I see such rudeness from Taurus Littrow? — Mike Novikoff 11:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The basic structure of sarcasm is that involves irony or satire; what you're doing in this branch of the discussion is much more like whining. Since you are frustrated and repeating yourself, you've probably reached the point where you should disengage and let uninvolved editors examine the situation. --JBL (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Novikoff has said today [17] that he is not going to stop and will go on with removing stress marks when the discussions are over and everything is quiet again. I told him it would be disruptive and he would then be blocked for disruptive editing. But I must be honest and say that I don't really know what the admins would do. It seems to me that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS covers this situation ("[an editor] continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors"), doesn't it?
I'm really tired of all this and I want to proceed with other things, such as writing an article. So I think I should just forget about this for now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Conclude", as seen in a dictionary, does not only mean "be over", but also "come to the conclusion". And you either present some convincing arguments that persuade people in the discussion, or you don't. On that will depend what the conclusion will be. Trying to frighten me one more time, and doing so in advance, instead of speaking to the point, is not constructive and not convincing at all.

I also tend to agree with those who say that we might need an even broader discussion than the current one. Maybe an RfC or the like. WT:MOS is a good place too. And it's up to you whether you will participate. Just please stop inventing the pretexts to {get me punished, the essay deleted and be done with it}.

Please also read carefully what WP:DISRUPTSIGNS starts with: This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. See also point four: [an editor] repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits – does it remind you of anything? — Mike Novikoff 08:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

At last, I've followed the popular request and opened a topic at WT:MOS. — Mike Novikoff 13:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Mike Novikoff is now edit warring at Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian over a link to his essay. ([18], [19], [20]). (He put a link to his essay there and was reverted. But he wants to put it back.) This is really annoying. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A very unconstructive behavior. Novikoff is clearly asking for a block. This is an encyclopedia, not his personal blog. Taurus Littrow (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• He appears to be using Rollback with a script that allows you to use edit summaries, so it's no different from using the undo button. I do not consider this to be an actionable abuse of Rollback. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Quite. The non-content issue for this board is that this editor has not been misusing rollback, so there is nothing to do here. Everything else above is a content dispute that doesn't belong here. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries

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

User is leaving hostile and uncivil edit summaries and comments. Diffs: [21], edit summaries at [22], [23], [24], [25], and generally at [26] See recent edit summaries re:John Park Lambert

This type of conduct is one reason good and experienced editors leave Wikipedia.

Second issue is with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz signature. It violates WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and is cumbersome for editors using screen readers and magnification software, so there is an accessibility issue.

 // Timothy :: talk  13:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I will be the first to admit that in a few of these cases I was too hasty in moving people from Category:Living people to Category:Possibly living people. On of the incidents may come from my strong aversion to using the unreliable IMBd at all. I have resolved to try and show more restraint in this matter. For example in the case of Bernard Cecil Cohen I am not sure I found any clear indication of his still being alive. However I figure someone in his position would have their death reported, and my initial search did not show up anything along those lines, so I left him in Category:Living people. The approach used by the editor in question here to this matter has been singularly unhelpful. The edit summary langauge clearly constitutes attacks on me. The fact that he then doubled-down and claimed "You've already been responsible for one of Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments". The tenor and tone of these comments is just not called for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait a moment, I had not even realized the edit summary that is #78 above existed. So I moved someone into the possibly living person category, and it turns out they actually are dead. And for doing this I get insulted for it. That does not seem right at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: An admin also needs look at the userbox at the top of their userpage.  // Timothy :: talk  15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  My goodness, you don't say. Their talk page is also ten times the recommended length and is in serious need of archival. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  There is no policy requiring archiving of user talk pages due to length. Beyond My Ken (talk)

  For God's sake no one click here. 71.184.139.127 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• To note: HW is under a community-imposed sanction "...Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block." See here. It dates from 2016, but has never been revoked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that the sanction is still relevant, see these. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also in addition to its overlength it appears HW still has that WP:POLEMIC-violating signature line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Let me make a few points clear at the outset:
  • I believe John Pack Lambert lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia.
  • I believe John Pack Lambert's editing practices are unacceptably lazy.
  • I believe John Pack Lambert does not behave honestly in disputes

• And there is strong evidence supporting my beliefs. There is no point in euphemizing. Civility policy does not prohibit making statements like these unless they cannot be supported by evidence. And the evidence here is clear and substantial.

About eight years ago, John Pack Lambert was responsible for what is probably Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments, covered in The New York Times and The New York Review of Books, resulting in criticism from prominent American writers like Joyce Carol Oates and Amy Tan, ending up with sustained public criticism of Wikipedia sexism. James Gleick, "an American author and historian of science whose work has chronicled the cultural impact of modern technology . . . [and] has been called 'one of the great science writers of all time'", wrote a piece entitled "Wikipedia’s Women Problem", where he concluded that "[A] single editor brought on the crisis: a thirty-two-year-old named John Pack Lambert living in the Detroit suburbs. He’s a seven-year veteran of Wikipedia and something of an obsessive when it comes to categories".

When I referred to these events yesterday, Lambert accused me of telling "outright lies" and "attacking lies", claiming or insinuating I'd made statements which I plainly hadn't. He also falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. It's rather petty, but Lambert has a pattern of using spelling errors to indicate. He waged a lengthy vendetta against novelist Amanda Filipacchi (who had criticized sexism on Wikipedia in a New York Times op ed), incorrectly spelling her name over and over. See, for example, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly. Lambert refuses to discuss any of the substantive issues related to the deficiencies of his editing [27]. That's a greater breach of civility than I'm accused of, as well as a substantive violation of editing policy. It's far more destructive than occasional sharp language, at least to people who care about the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, as opposed to those who see themselves as hall monitors in a gigantic RPG.

Let's talk about the substantive issues. This dispute centers on BLP editing and categorization. BLP policy states that "Editors must take particular care" while editing BLPs. Lambert doesn't take "particular" care. He barely takes any care at all. He's on a jihad to reduce the number of BLPS on Wikipedia [28]. There's no policy reason for doing this, and Lambert's pattern, once again, is rapid fait accompli editing, behavior that Arbcom has recognized as disruptive. See also the last paragraph here [29].

Rather than taking particular care, Lambert was blazing through BLPs (selected by birth year), spending only seconds on each. He wanted to find excuses to remove the "Living people" category, without regard to whether there was any real reason to alter the tag. The standard is that the tag should not be changed unless there is some "documentation" that the person was alive in the last decade. Lambert, however, has invented his own, narrower standard, that the article itself include a sourced statement that the subject had done something notable in the past decade. This is utterly groundless, and functions to make Wikipedia less accurate. As I responded to Lambert yesterday, "Any documentation that indicates the subject has been alive within the last decade prevents application. It doesn't have to be in the article, or even be related to something notable enough to be in the article. A photo of them at their 75th high school reunion in their local paper would be good enough. It would be time- and effort-wasting to require that editors prove that elderly article subjects have done something noteworthy at an advanced age to prevent them from being classified as only possibly alive". Lambert has refused to discuss the issue.

Let's take a look at just some of the articles involved:

• Ann Turner Cook - Evidence that Lambert is taking no care at all. The first page of a simple Google search turns up five press reports of the subject's birthday celebration in November 2020. Another editor beat me to reverting this.
• Christian Azzi - Google search turns up an obituary on page 1.
• Gene Barge - IMDB listing, already in article, shows multiple credits in recent years. Google search shows 2018 newspaper interview as well as several recent video interviews.
• Robert Basmann - Simple Google search turns up active university faculty listing as well as a 2017 birthday festschrift.
• Giotto Bizzarrini - Qualifying source already in article.
• Albert Brenner - Simple Google search turns up 2018 Variety profile on page 1.
• Peter Whittle - Source in article includes a 2017 video interview.

Looking at articles with primarily English-language sources, my sampling indicates that John Pack Lambert has an error rate of about 50% in reviewing these articles. That's unacceptable in any context, but especially in editing BLPs. It's obvious from the minuscule time he spends on each BLP and the ease with which the appropriate documentation can be found that he's making no effort whatever to reach an accurate result. That's disruptive behavior and should be sanctioned.

So that's my position. Lambert is deliberately trying to reduce the accuracy of biographical articles because of his peculiar belief that most biographies don't belong in an encyclopedia. And the diabolical Mr Wolfowitz says that this is evidence that he really isn't competent to edit here. But, you know, WOLFOWITZ BAD is one of the Secret Pillars of Wikipedia.

I'd also note that this dispute was escalated immediately to ANI without ant attempt to discuss with me, after Johnpacklambert had expressly refused to participate in my attempts to discuss the substantive issues. Under standing principles, that would bring him under direct scrutiny. But, hey, we're going to bring up the same complaints about The Big Bad Wolfowitz that have been rejected over and over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal (re:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

Based on:

• The diffs in the original post
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's respose above which doubles down on insulting/uncivil attacks against another editor while attempting to justify their behavior and showing no understanding of the problem.
• Additional reports of problematic behavior since community imposed sanctions were applied (examples provided above by BMK).

Comment: This is an outright falsehood. BMK identified no such "examples". BMK simply posted a search for my username over the drama boards, regardless of date, regardless of substance, regardless of outcome. It literally picks up every comment I have ever made to these boards, every 3RR report I filed, every time I was pinged to add a comment. A similar search for BMK's username produces more than twice as many results. Now tell me why I should afford good faith to this falsehood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose that the indefinitely imposed community sanctions warning (recorded here) be applied, "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block."

I also propose that their signature be changed per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and WP:POLEMIC and that an admin remove the threatening userbox at the top of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's userpage.

 // Timothy :: talk  07:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. HW may be right about JPL (I've had my own concerns in the past), but that doesn't excuse his behavior here, or his steadily increasingly Not compatible with a collaborative project behavior overall, laced with assumptions of bad faith and casting of aspersions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we need our editors to act like it is one. And the below...thank you for neatly proving my point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You have a very strange idea of what collaboration involves. Johnpacklambert refused to discuss the substantive issues after I set my position out. Johnpacklambert has explicitly called me a liar multiple times, on multiple pages, over the last few days, without providing one shred of legitimate evidence -- and that is far more uncivil than anything I've said. And I haven't assumed bad faith in this dispute. I've inferred it from patterns of behavior. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. You don't deny, and you can't deny, that Johnpacklambert's BLP editing is so far below policy standards as to be incompetent. However, you insist that it is uncivil to call an incompetent editor incompetent. It is, however, acceptable for Johnpacklambert to falsely accuse me of lying, because false accusations of dishonesty are civil. You disgrace yourself. You disgrace this project. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support warning — I'm tired of mean editors, and our community's long-term tolerance for them. A formal warning is better than nothing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: Sorry, reading this again, I see I may have misread the proposal. I thought "that the ... warning ... be applied" meant that we log such a warning, not that the editor be blocked. I don't support a block. Given that this logged warning was years ago, I support another logged warning. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Per proposal, without reservation. The restriction previously imposed was unambiguous. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC) edited 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - HW has been a disruptive influence for quite a while. Personally I would classify him as a net negative to the project. My support for this proposal has nothing to do with his userbox (per El_C), and my !vote does not include approval of the suggestion to remove it. His response to my providing raw data for other editors to consider, and his lashing out at me, are, I'm afraid, entirely typical of this uncivil, non-collaborative person, who (as far as I can tell), never admits to being wrong. I have not looked into HW's wall-of-text complaint about JPL, but even if it's entirely true, it doesn't in any way justify HW's behavior. His sig is a violation of the spirit of WP:POLEMIC and is -- I believe deliberately -- disruptive.
  I suggest that these cumulative factors justify a block of a significant duration, i.e. days, and not hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "He may be right". No he is right as a cursory look at JPL's editing over even a small period shows. If you look at it over a longer period it just gets worse. JPL is either incompetent and/or lazy in an area where we are required to take extra care. There is plenty of evidence for that. The alternative is that they are not incompetent or lazy and are deliberately flouting various policies and guidelines despite knowing full well what they are. Feel free to pick, because the AGF option here is that they lack the required competence or effort. Levivich it is not mean to tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess. After repeated messes, you waste less time mouthing pointless niceties. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know what you're reading but tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess is not what happened here. There is much more up above. For example, in this thread, HW wrote that JPL falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. Accusing someone of intentionally inserting misspellings into quotations in order to make you look bad, is seriously paranoid. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  JPL routinely deliberately mis-spells for their own purposes. The alternative is that they are writing out a quotation by hand rather than using copy-paste as normal people do, and inserting their own mis-spellings that they seemingly have no problem spelling at other times. I think the more common explanation is that when people take these petty actions they do it because they are a common troll who likes to be a dick to people. But unlike HW, I am not the target of said petty niggling, so I have a less personal opinion on it. The idea that JPL is accidentally mispelling is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Gotta agree with Levivich -- people do all sorts of weird things (personal favorite example), and retyping quotations by hand seems totally plausible. Like, does JPL not make typos in their own writing, only when quoting other people? I think it would be better to stick to criticisms grounded in actual evidence. --JBL (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Oppose - Frustration over sloppy editing and calling this out does not justify a block. Not a fan of an indefinite sanction warning over civility from ~5 years ago given the amount of tolerance for other users on this noticeboard. Support shortening link to user page given accessibility concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: This does not appear to be a situation where one of them is in the right, and the other is in the wrong. We are faced here with two editors, each problematic in their own way, being problematic against each other. BD2412 T 02:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, and if JBL JPL is problematic, someone should open a report on them and make a proposal, but their disruptiveness doesn't make HW any less uncivil or disruptive in his own right, and is not -- in fact -- a legitimate justification for an "Oppose" !vote. The closing admin should ignore any !vote that does not carry with it proper justification. Nor is this a one-time situation regarding HW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It is not my intention to suggest in the least that HW's conduct is pardonable. BD2412 T 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You cant even be bothered by your own admission to take the time to do any investigating into HW's complant, so your !vote is meaningless. I look forward to when someone raises a complaint about you and people take the same approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Beyond My Ken: Leave me out of this, please ;). --JBL (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) (not JPL)
      • Ooops! Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A fate worse than death...

• Oppose The problem here is that the category:Living people is fundamentally unverifiable because people may die at any moment and sources about their living status will always be dated. It is logically equivalent to the category:Possibly living people whose name better reflects the inevitable uncertainty about this. Either the two categories should be merged or both deleted. The bickering and busywork will then be reduced and we can focus better on definite facts instead. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support- Even if HW is right about JPL's editing (and I think he's exaggerating for dramatic effect) that doesn't excuse the name-calling. But since it's an inclusionist doing the name calling it is impossible that anything will be done about it. Reyk _YO! 10:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. Leaving an uncivil edit summary when another editor decides that a living person is only "possibly living" with no evidence is, if not justifiable, at least understandable. If calling someone's life into question isn't likely offensive to that person, what is? --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the opposition here is basically trying to give HW a pass on [30] because they do not like JPL's edits. It is possible to disagree strongly with someone's edits without being uncivil; its normal to be civil with people you agree with, civility becomes an issue when you disagree and the stronger the disagreement the more need to pay attention to civility. Hopefully this [31] is not ignored.  // Timothy :: talk  08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The sanction that is indefinite should only be the interaction ban. The warning is a warning and should not mean that HW has been indefinite probation for nearly 5 years. I understand there should be a shorter leash. However, if I gave a final warning template to someone ~5 years ago, I do not expect an admin to block afterwards after I report them for a similar incident today. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If HW has been behaving below CIVIL towards multiple editors recently, that would be justification and those still needs diffs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That, and he didn't just make a random personal attack. He made the uncivil comment while undoing JPLs edit, which makes for mitigating circumstances. I personally see there is some difference between someone saying bad words in general, and Joe Bloggs, firefighter, saying bad things about the person who set the fire that they are currently putting out at this very moment. --GRuban (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The fireman's job is to put out the fire. If there are things to be said about the supposed perpetrator of the fire, they should be said in a different context, and in the proper manner. Someone just called me a "bozo" in an edit summary. The fact is that I made a minor error, and I has happy to see the error fixed, but not very happy to be called a "bozo" while it was being fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• JPL's edits are problematic and may warrant all kinds of sanctions or whatever, but it doesn't mean they get to be a target for incivility. Wolfowitz is problematic in their own ways; they modified their signature a little bit, but I've always thought that claim incredibly whiny and just totally off-putting. I cannot judge if their incivility was bad enough to be blocked, but I do believe that their signature is disruptive and they should change it. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Insurrectionists' gallows

Let me preface this by saying that, at the time of writing this, I have only glanced at this complaint. That I am not familiar with the main participants or their respective histories (I mean: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and John Pack Lambert — I, of course, know and am fond of TimothyBlue). I have less than a passing familiarity with this dispute (seemingly over categories, one of the things I know least about on the project), and I am not committing to reviewing it further by virtue of this comment. So, with that out of the way, here we go. Above, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticized that the top of their user page features Image:Tombstone courthouse gallows.jpg, with the caption: This user believes that Donald Trump gives aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. I'd like to strongly disagree with anyone (TimothyBlue?) who wishes to censor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz from displaying this custom userbox, for whatever reason. Don't want to be associated with a gallows? Don't have your most ardent supporters build an actual gallows in the midst of an insurrection which you are accused of inciting (Mr. Trump). I don't feel that this is an unreasonable position to adopt. It is not incitement, on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz part, nor is it a BLP violation against Trump himself — who, btw, I'd love to see sue Wikipedia over something like this, even though the likelihood of that happening pretty much approaches zero. Anyway, the point is that I believe this is still within the bounds of acceptable userpage political expression (for the times). I realize the very notion of userpage political expression itself is something many find distasteful, even anathema —my own userpage (last meaningful change circa 2008) included— but I would ventrue to remind participants that it is still very much an allowed practice. Jeez, sorry for the length of this. I imagined this much shorter in my head. El_C 15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, on closer look, it looks like AHullaballoo Wolfowitz actually added that userbox in 2018 (diff)! Which makes them some sort of a prophet...? El_C 15:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh maybe Wolfo only has 25 Minutes to Go...! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I wondered why that was being brought up myself; concur with El_C on this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I confess to being quite perturbed by that argument. It is one thing to put "this user supports the Democratic/Republican Party" or "this user believes that Reagan/FDR was our lord and saviour" etc, but it is another thing entirely to have a set of gallows next to an accusation of treachery directed to a politician. It seems very much to be a veiled death threat and perhaps analogous to a userbox calling Bush Jr. or Obama a war criminal with a noose next to their photo. Carte blanche should not be given for such inflammatory content on userpages. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to include material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, well, I, for one, argue that it is more likely to bring the project into disrepute if we were to censor it. At this moment in time, I find it an arguably relevant political statement rather than a veiled death threat — though, oddly, I would not have thought this to be so in 2018. Talk about unintended consequences! Anyway, the reason for that, again, is because of the actual Capitol gallows, whose significance should not be understated. It makes the usage of a gallows fair game when it comes to Trump "giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States." Because that could be understood in the sense of him having incited insurrectionists to overthrow a branch of the US government. Insurrectionists who also built a gallows on-site. Hope that makes sense. El_C 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I am aware of the new context behind the photo. But given that (as you pointed out) the userbox was added some years ago, that doesn't make it retroactively okay. As far as I'm aware (of course feel free to correct me) there is no grandfather clause for such material on userpages. The soapbox requirement applies to user pages too. Political statements, however relevant, should be confined to Twitter and Facebook than here on Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, I think you got it backward. Unless I fix my broken time machine, we can't go back to the past to remove it then. But it's fine now. As for political statements, in general, that is a wider policy matter. It may be frowned upon by many, but it is still generally allowed. Where the line is drawn there is, of course, subject to debate, as it always has been. El_C 22:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Our interpretations of the guidelines and that userbox obviously differ. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, it's all good. Thank you for sharing your perspective. El_C 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User Durdyfiv1 talk page behavior

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

---

• Durdyfiv1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello,

There is an ongoing discussion at The Holocaust talk page about rewording the opening sentence; some (including me) find it a little clunky and awkward. Unfortunately, Durdyfiv1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is bludgeoning the process and launching cruel personal attacks. They have accused me of trivializing the genocide and being too incompetent to understand basic grammar, calling Watchlonly a "Jew-hating troll or incredibly ignorant" and accusing them of believing that "those who perished in the Holocaust shouldn't be considered united in their collective suffering". I told them to behave more civilly and stop using personal attacks, to which they then again insulted my competence, and justified their attacking me by saying "Don't worry, I attacked him too". I responded that their behavior is unacceptable, noted that attacks aren't justified by even more attacks, and tried to redirect the conversation to rewording the opening sentence. They again accused me of POV pushing, which I had earlier called them out for.

I understand that major historical events, especially ones as horrific as The Holocaust, are very personal and important for a lot of people (including me), but that is still no excuse for this user's behavior. Through their multiple responses they've demonstrated they're not interested in having a productive conversation. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my only concern with the current version of the Holocaust article is that it makes an unnecessary WP:SEAOFBLUE between links in the lede, which is what I intended to change. Of course I didn't want to minimize this genocide, in which two of my grandmother's sisters perished when the Nazis invaded Rovno. I honestly don't understand where that ridiculous accusation came from.--Watchlonly (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Watchlonly: thank you for responding! I did not mean to misrepresent your argument for rewording the sentence, my apologies if it seemed that way. Jonmaxras (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Is there an admin available to look into this? Thanks. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have given Durdyfiv1 a final warning on their talk page for incivility. If this persists, any admin may block them. Fences&Windows 12:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

BulgeUwU and mass POV changes

• BulgeUwU (talk · contribs)

I don't think BulgeUwU is an unpleasant editor at all, nor do I object to covering interesting Cold War era topics like the Information Research Department. However, when one editor is revamping Wikipedia's coverage of British Cold War topics POV-wise on a mass scale, extra eyes would be good.

I noticed BulgeUwU on my watchlist last year after he described Stanford historian Robert Conquest as an "IRD propagandist"[32] and English geographer Halford Mackinder as a "serial killer"[33]. In April 2020, I dropped some constructive criticism on his talkpage and he reacted quite positively in my opinion: User talk:BulgeUwU#Neutral point of view.

A while ago he again edited Robert Conquest to say that his work is controversial in the historiography of the USSR due to the discovery that he had worked as an agent for the secret British Cold War propaganda agency, the Information Research Department (IRD), and that he had committed plagiarism by publishing unattributed IRD material as though it were his own independent research[34]. I contested the material on the talkpage and reverted. He also modified The Great Terror to say that much of the material used to create The Great Terror had been plagiarised from documents belonging to the IRD, a secret British Cold War propaganda department of which Conquest had been an agent[35]. Conquest's book was published by the Oxford University Press so these are quite heavy claims. I downloaded the book used as a source for this claim, and the only part about Conquest reads: "More IRD books followed in the 1950s and 1960s, including Robert Conquest’s The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties, which drew heavily from IRD files." Nothing about plagiarism, controversy or agents. It seems like distortion to me.

Now, the reason I'm posting this to AN/I is because BulgeUwU has posted these IRD "health warnings" to dozens of articles, which seems like tendentious POV-pushing to me. He only has edited the lead sections to say, almost verbatim, that the people or works have been sponsored by the IRD which published disinformation, pro colonial, and anti-communist propaganda. Examples: Darkness at Noon[36], Orwell's list[37], Richard Crossman[38], Denis Healey[39], Victor Kravchenko [40], Douglas Hyde[41], I Chose Freedom[42], Vic Feather[43], Carlton House Terrace[44], Fredric Warburg[45], Guy Burgess[46], Sonia Orwell[47],Will Lawther[48], Brian Crozier[49].

I don't know what "pro colonial propaganda" and "misinformation" has to do with an Ukrainian defector writing about the Holodomor, other than that the edit is supposed to discredit to author for whatever reason. I don't like that this is done semi-automatic style and mass-scale in lead sections. I'm not going to revert something like this in 25 articles, so I would appreciate if someone could review this and tell me if I'm only seeing ghosts. --Pudeo (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is not what I expected to see from a user called BulgeUwU.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Pudeo - you're right, this is ridiculously blatant POV-pushing. I don't think you're seeing ghosts here at all. MJL - seems like there really is a place for everyone on the internet, including the weird, weird intersection between furries and Cold War history POV-pushers...--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for getting to me Pudeo (talk · contribs). You aren't seeing ghosts and I have been making large edits to British Cold War wiki pages, but I can very easily explain your questions.

The Wiki page for the Information Research Department(IRD)was in a very sorry state when I found it, so I spent the last month building it up. For one of the most culturally influential propaganda departments in British history, it was very bizarre that it received such little attention from any other editors. I can confidently say that 80% of the IRD page's content was created by me, I beefed up the summary and all the headings, tripled the citations and used only the highest quality academic works I could find, notably from the works of Rana Mitter, John Jenks, Andrew Defty, Paul Lashmar, and other specialists. I have never made this big a change to any wiki before, but I'm very proud of what it has become. Once I had finished the bulk of the work, I then spread out into the wiki pages of people, places, and events related to the IRD and started adding information about the department into these pages, using my knowledge and the sources I had already accumulated to benefit similar pages. The wiki pages featuring topics heavily featured in the historiography of the IRD such as Brian Crozier, Darkness at Noon, Robert Conquest, and Sonia Orwell, despite being heavily represented in the literature surrounding the IRD, had little to zero mention of the department's involvement. Sonia Orwell, for example, collaborated very closely with the IRD, and it was her involvement and sale of the foreign distribution and translation rights to Orwell's works which allowed the creation of books, distribution, cartoons, the animated film Animal Farm (1954 film), and the translation of Orwell's works into at least 16 languages by the IRD. She is a very important figure in the study of culture during the Cold War, yet before I edited her page there was only a single sentence mentioning her involvement in these important events. It was the same for many other people, some of which owe their careers to the IRD and worked within the department for many years, even publishing their works through IRD fronts (Ampersand, Background Books, etc), yet their wiki pages contained almost zero mention of their involvement with the department. I then went through many of these pages and made edits mentioning their importance to the historiography of the IRD and Cold War propaganda.

The edits are very similar because on most of these pages I am using the same sources and citing historians whose works I am already familiar with. I rarely stray from topics I'm not already strongly familiar with, which is why most of my activity on Wikipedia is centred around the British Empire, the Cold War, and colonialism.

You also said in reference to my edits in I Chose Freedom that I don't know what "pro colonial propaganda" and "misinformation" has to do with an Ukrainian defector writing about the Holodomor, other than that the edit is supposed to discredit to author for whatever reason, so let me explain my reasoning. Thalidomide was developed as an HIV treatment, yet much of its wiki is dedicated to the birth defects it caused and the following political fallout. Similarly, Zyklon B was developed as a pesticide, yet the wiki page is entirely dedicated to its use by the Nazis in concentration camps. The use and history of any specific subject is relevant and it belongs on Wikipedia. Similarly, I Chose Freedom by Viktor Kravchenko, was originally intended solely as an exposure of Soviet crimes, yet it was taken and used by the IRD which specialises in using propaganda to counter pro-colonial uprisings in countries such as Kenya, Cyprus, Malaya, and others. The main targets of IRD propaganda/material were the middle-classes of third world countries which the British Empire had an interest in, and the books they distributed were intended to act as propaganda weapons to achieve whichever geopolitical goal the IRD wished. For example, works critical of the communism were distributed by the IRD in India to intensify the fight against China during the Sino-Indian War, and works by Soviet defectors were republished throughout Asia and Africa for a number of geopolitical goals including defeating communists during the Malayan Emergency, dissuading nationalists from seeking Soviet support during the Mau Mau Uprising, and in the case of the Cyprus Emergency and many other conflicts to garner American support for Britain's counterinsurgencies. Maybe I should have emphasised that my edits weren't intended to rubbish the author, but rather to highlight the IRD's role in its distribution, republication, translation, and promotion, because the IRD played an important and central role in all of these factors. Some of the books whose pages I have edited have been translated by the IRD into over a dozen languages, and their distribution can be tracked through British embassies, all of which are facts I believe are strongly relevant for an encyclopedia.

As for Halford Mackinder and Robert Conquest. I named Mackinder as a serial killer because of his direct involvement in the murder of several African porters. I didn't think this was controversial, but some people disagreed with this because even though historians agree that he was party to the killings, there is no 100% definitive proof he pulled the triggers of the guns which shot the porters, and he may have instead ordered somebody else to do so. I would still describe him as a serial killer, but I haven't touched that page in over 10 months and I left the decision to more experienced editors. It's the same issue on the Robert Conquest wiki, he took IRD material which somebody else created and included them within his own published works without acknowledging the source. He falsely presented somebody else's work as though it was his own independent research. Even though the word plagiarism is not used, I don't know how else to accurately describe his actions. There are many more researchers who have also said this of Conquest, including History Professor Ronald Grigor Suny, an authority on Soviet history who said of Conquest:"Conquest edited seven volumes of material from IRD on Soviet politics, without acknowledgement that the books' source was a secret government agency" Next time I will do a better job of including better sources and also linking to google books so that you don't have to go hunting for the source material. Robert Conquest was a highly influential figure within the inner-circle of a secret government propaganda department which practised weaponised disinformation against pro-independence movements in the British Empire (Malaya, Cyprus, Ireland, Kenya and others), a job he held for nearly a decade. With this in mind, I do not think it is an overstatement to call him a propagandist, and I find it extremely bizarre that such a long and influential career in propaganda only warranted two sentences on his wiki page, so I made multiple edits to further highlight his IRD career. The fact that Conquest's work was published by Oxford University Press isn't much of a defence to his works, because the same propaganda department he worked for also infiltrated that particular publisher and used their influence to make Oxford University Press publish works friendly to the department's goals. As great as Oxford University Press is in terms of quality and reputation, a man with a long career in a secret government propaganda department choosing to publish his work within an organisation the IRD was known to use for publishing propaganda, is not a defence of Conquest.

Because these topics are so niche I rarely get any feedback, so it's a relief to see somebody paying my edits attention and giving constructive criticism. I only recently passed my 500th edit, so I'm still not as experienced as many of the regular editors and I need the occasional help. What I will try to do to remedy this is I will become more active in the talk pages of larger pages such as Robert Conquest, and do more to invite fellow editors to review my work. Also for -MJL-, my name "BulgeUwU" was a reference to the Battle of the Bulge. BulgeUwU (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

BulgeUwU's statement indicates that he believes it is appropriate to label individuals as "propagandists," "serial killers," and "plagiarists" based on his own original research, even if there are no sources to support such labels (although he is willing to deceptively cite sources that fail verification in order to push his edits through). Furthermore, his style of almost exclusively making mass edits to the ledes of various articles that he has not otherwise contributed to in order to "tar" the individuals in question by way of an "association" with British intelligence is symptomatic of POV editing. Like many single-purpose accounts, BulgeUwU sees everything through a distorted prism (in this case, of the IRD) and that causes him to lose all sense of encyclopedic perspective. Given that the lede of any article is merely supposed to summarize the body, it's doubtful that such mass lede edits have merit, although I would hope that the dedicated watchers of each page would be vigilant enough to resist blatant POV-pushing. Certainly, every accusation of "plagiarism" that is unsourced or fails verification needs to be removed as soon as possible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I labelled an agent of a secret government propaganda department a "propagandist", a man who murdered 8 people as a "serial killer", and an academic who committed plagiarism as a "plagiarist". These facts aren't contested by any of the historians I cited, it's simply just an issue of semantics. I did not think this would be so controversial when I made my edits but I have always responded to any criticism people have made and been happy to change my behaviour accordingly, just see for proof. If you don't think I do enough to communicate to my fellow editors before I make major changes then take a look here. I do however object to you calling my style "exclusively making mass edits to the ledes of various articles". Not only am I active in creating new pages such as Oxford Spanish Civil War memorial and I Did a Thing, but I'm also the primary editor of the Information Research Department and the Malayan Emergency, and a contributor to wikimedia, whose edits includes subjects as varied from landmarks to youtubers. If you still think my edits are original research then I don't believe you have seen the edits that Pudeo refers to, nor have you properly read the above paragraphs. I also don't think it's fair of you to judge me as a single-purpose account based solely on my edits in the past week, and not on my contributions as a whole.

Finally I'd like to point out that no fellow editors of any of the pages I made changes to in the past week have expressed any concerns about my inclusion of IRD activity summaries, with one exception which was removed without explanation.

BulgeUwU (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I should also point out that labelling IRD agents such Robert Conquest and the people they worked with as "propagandists", is not only an acceptable term used in the historiography of the department, but even members of other branches of the Foreign Office referred to the IRD as "propagandists". In this instance, I have not used any language that wasn't already accepted by professional historians, and it's certainly not original research. BulgeUwU (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@BulgeUwU: I liked your reply, but don't you see that it is inappropriate to use the word "plagiarism" if it's not mentioned by the source? You are doing WP:SYNTHESIS by reading something and then saying it is plagiarism because you think it fits the definition. Plagiarism is serious academic misconduct and it would require action from the publisher too. Simply using Foreign Office material is not necessarily plagiarism. We have to stick to what the sources directly say, of course without close-paraphrasing. Conquest + plagiarism yields zero results elsewhere, but you would plant that in the article's lede here -- is that due weight? The other fact is that Conquest worked for the IRD in the late 1940s, but he was primarily an academic historian. Calling him a "propagandist" because some IRD personnel were called propagandists, is inappropriate, again unless reliable sources actually call him a propagandist. You are making small but harmful misinterpretations that are extremely negative to the subjects, then amplify it by inserting them drive-by style in the lede sections of a lot of articles where they don't improve the article in any way other than to supposedly discredit the subject. --Pudeo (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose when you explain it like that Pudeo (talk · contribs), a lot of my edits may have been guilty of WP:SYNTHESIS. BulgeUwU (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I did notice something that gave me cause for a little concern about NPOV here on I Chose Freedom with this edit. BulgeUwU, you are obviously very knowledgable about the subject and I think your explanation of IRD role in pushing works like I Chose Freedom is perfectly reasonable, but in this edit you chose to add that he was writing about the broader Soviet famine of 1932–33 and not add or specify the Holodomor, which is a hugely controversial subject that your average Marxist-Leninist will dismiss as nazi propaganda against the USSR, but it is a thing and it shouldn't be intentionally omitted in a subject like this and doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about NPOV. If he literally didn't write about the famine in Ukraine in the book then that's fine but I doubt it. Battleofalma (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• ”Not explicitly contradicted by historians” and “supported by historians” are two very different things. Serial killing is a technical term which should only be applied to a biography with the support of a reliable source. Being responsible for the deaths of eight people might make you a jerk, a regular criminal, a war criminal, or any other set of things, but this is not always the case, and so it does not automatically make you a serial killer either. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• In BulgeUwU's defence, whenever they've popped up on my watchlist so far it has always been for informative and well-cited contributions. Similarly, if someone like Robert Conquest worked for the IRD, that's relevant biographical information! Extua (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• If this editor took a line in a book reading More IRD books followed in the 1950s and 1960s, including Robert Conquest’s The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties, which drew heavily from IRD files and used that as a source to add a sentence saying His work is controversial in the historiography of the USSR due to the discovery that he had worked as an agent for the secret British Cold War propaganda agency, the Information Research Department (IRD), and that he had committed plagiarism by publishing unattributed IRD material as though it were his own independent research, then they should not be editing on this topic. Whether deliberate falsification or just incompetence, misrepresenting a source like that is very serious. Their explanation isn't reassuring either, because the other source still doesn't support those claims. After that, how can you trust anything they add to any article? Edit-warring to add detailed sections about IRD to the leads of articles that don't even mention it in the body is also not good. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I edited Information Research Department to remove improper synthesis about British atrocities in Cyprus that the sources did not connect to the IRD and to revise the section on "plagiarism" noted by Red Rock Canyon to better match what the sources say. BulgeUwU, you absolutely must stick to what reliable sources say and not present your own interpretations, especially as one of those you labelled as a plagiarist (and whose surname you misspelled) is alive and WP:BLP applies. Fences&Windows 22:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• BulgeUwU is still at it, removing unreliable source tags from the Daily Mirror^{edit:Morning Star} without explanation. [50]. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

RaiderAspect I don't use the Daily Mirror so perhaps you mean the trade union newspaper the Morning Star? Whose links I replaced with BBC and Oxford Mail links where appropriate? The same page where you are repeatedly undoing Extua's citations? Everyone please have a look at Oxford Spanish Civil War memorial BulgeUwU (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I beg your pardon BulgeUwU, you're completely right that I meant the Morning Star. No idea where I got the Mirror from. You might want to recheck the diff I posted though; you have not removed any of Morning Star links (they're still in the article). What you removed was the tags. Also I haven't edited that page at all. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Edit-warring anon spoofing IP addresses

How to deal with a stubborn anon? Change article protection? Details are at Talk:Holodomor genocide question#Serbyn quotation. Thanks. —Michael Z. 15:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Holodomor has permanent {{pp-protect}}. Holodomor genocide question is protected until 31 January 2021. IMO both articles should have the same level and duration of protection. Writing as someone with no axe to grind, the whole topic is an activist/apologist magnet. Narky Blert (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, just googling "holodmor information" into google brings up countless nasty searches blaming the famine on "Jewish-Communists". Not only that but there are some extreme differences between the historiography of the famine before and after the reeopening of Soviet archives, making it a topic that only an experienced editor should be touching. I have even seen photographs of Russia's Civil War in the 1920s which were uploaded to wikipedia, then reuploaded to other websites by activists who tried to claim they were actually taken during the Soviet Famine 1932-33. The better protection those articles are given, the better. BulgeUwU (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

CloudBubble2026 ‎

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

---

CloudBubble2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user who is too over-eager in reverting IPs and calling good-faith edits vandalism. They have reverted my warning on their talk page, and made this inappropriate revert at Iwo Jima of fixing a grammatical error. Can someone please address their behavior. 97.125.232.133 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I too have expressed my concern. We shall see. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Other editors have expressed concerns with competence on user's talk page, including spelling errors, pointless reverts and failure to communicate. I have partially blocked from article space for one week and asked them to discuss here. Any admin can modify or remove the block at their discretion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• This editor's account has been globally locked as an LTA; based on the logs and username they were presumably a sock of CloudBubble26. 97.125.232.133 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Possibly paid editing on W. Mark Lanier's page

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

---

• W. Mark Lanier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Laniermark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• GreenC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

As there was already a lot of COI concerns about W. Mark Lanier's page. I reverted edits done by User:GreenC because all the issues were not addressed. They removed all the COI tags, education info and more. The same things which some IPs and users were trying to do from a long time. Just after reverting the edits a User:Laniermark appears and removes all the potential tags from the page. But soon their edits got reverted by User:Ashleyyoursmile as they didn't resolve the issues and didn't provided explanation for their edits. User:Laniermark again tried to remove the tags but I reverted them this time. They tried once more but got reverted by User:Ashleyyoursmile with a warning. The User:Laniermark got stopped there. But after sometime the User:GreenC appears again and removes all the tags from page again. I feel like there is some COI involved which should be addressed. Admins attention will be highly appreciated here. Sliekid (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You must notify editors you are reporting here as mentioned in the huge yellow banner at the top of the edit page. I've done so; please remember in the future to do so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I see you had notified GreenC, upon a refresh, but you didn't notifiy Laniermark or Ashleyyoursmile. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I was trying to do so. Sliekid (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Can anyone please remove those tags and education section if possible? I don't want them to display on my page. I don't have time for all this. Already hired an agency named WikiProfessionalsINC.com and wasted money to fix these issues. They talked big that they have old experienced editors but seemed like they weren't able to do what they said. That's why I have fixed issues myself. I hope it's ok to do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laniermark (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Laniermark (1) It is not "your page", it is a Wikipedia article about you. You do not own it, and you do not have control over what appears in it. You should not be editing it at all, which is a violation of WP:COI. If you have suggestions about how you think the article can be improved, post a comment on Talk:W. Mark Lanier, and if other editors agree that it's a worthwhile change, they will edit the article accordingly.

(2) Paid editing is not allowed on Wikipedia, so whatever money you've given to WikiProfessionalsINC.com has been thrown away. Any edits which appear to have been paid for will be deleted by editors patrolling the article. We are not a promotional medium. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to what User Sliekid has said, a quick look through the talk page shows that the page has a long history of COI editing. My reason for reverting the edits made by User Laniermark is that they removed the maintenance templates and chunks of sourced content from the page without any explanation: [51] and [52], for which I have warned them on their talk page. Ashleyyoursmile! 06:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Laniermark, you really shouldn't be directly editing an article about yourself as it is considered a conflict of interest, which will reflect poorly on you. You should never give money to people who claim they can get an article posted on Wikipedia for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand

Proposal

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

---

Considering the statement made by user Laniermark above, that they are the subject of the article W. Mark Lanier, and that they have paid an agency to edit the article to their specificatins, Laniermark is partially blocked from editing W. Mark Lanier. They are permitted to post suggested changes on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support a partial block from the article only for Laniermark and an indef-block from the whole project for the mercenar(y/ies) who took the job. We should not be making paid editors' jobs anything less than impossible, especially if undisclosed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 07:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Done. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal 2

WP:AOBF. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The one side of the issue is fixed but as there are both parties involved in the project. I propose that a partial or indef block should also be initiated on User:GreenC. As stated by Laniermark that they paid WikiProfessionalsINC.com to remove the tags from the page but they were failed in doing so. As per seeing the contributions of GreenC to the Lanier's page, it's clear that they are fully or partially compensated for the job. As can be seen on the talk page despite getting warning or advice by admin User:Smartse they didn't care to listen. It's a simple & direct violation of Wikipedia rules. Sliekid (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Support as proposer. Sliekid (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Oppose. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that GreenC is being paid or has a COI. SmartSE (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Comment: This is a blatantly obvious attempt by Sliekid to deal with a content dispute by trying to get me blocked as a COI editor, an accusation I won't even honor with a response. Furthermore, the personal information removed is completely unsourced and a violation of BLP and V. Sliekid, I posted on your talk page yesterday that I will be working with you, every day. I will be there responding to your talk page posts. We will become familiar with one another over the following days, weeks and months to come. I suggest you start assuming Good Faith and work with me on this article. -- GreenC 15:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Oppose. GreenC has been here for more than ten years and has more than 100,000 edits; it is insulting to suggest that his edits were anything other than normal article maintenance. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Additional note regarding recent edits to Wikipedia page for W. Mark Lanier

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

---

User:GreenC, User:MelanieN, User:The Bushranger, User:CaptainEek, User:Tenryuu, User:Beyond My Ken, and other interested parties, I’ve had a chance to read the discussion from the past few days and hope I can add some clarity. I represent Mark Lanier and have stated my COI in the past. Anytime we have an edit we would like incorporated into the page, we post on Mark’s talk page and request that experienced editors review and implement the edits themselves. We have spoken to Mark regarding the activity on the W. Mark Lanier article over the past few days and confirm that neither he nor I have relationships with any of the editors of this page. Whoever is making these edits under his name is not Mark. We don’t know who is using the Laniermark username, but it’s no one affiliated with Mark Lanier or the Lanier Law Firm.

Further, it has come to our knowledge that User:Akronowner, who nominated the page for deletion, subsequently contacted Mark Lanier via email and asked for money to keep the page from deletion. No renumeration was made and we view this as a case of extortion and encourage the Wikipedia community to look into this matter.

At this time, I would also ask for the following protection of this page by a qualified admin.

W. Mark Lanier

• W. Mark Lanier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Full-protection: High level of IP vandalism and unauthorized edits or deletions.

WriteJames (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I repeat here what I said at Talk:W. Mark Lanier, and I'm pinging @WriteJames: in this one:

Declined. I only see one edit by an IP in the last year and change. I do not see disruption of a pervasive enough nature that full protection is required—or even semi-protection.

Also, I think your allegations about off-Wikipedia actions by an editor would best be handled in an email exchange, rather than in an open and logged discussion. I would start by emailing the Volunteer Response Team (see WP:VRT for instructions); they can either assist or refer you to the party at the Wikimedia Foundation who handles such issues. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruption at Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene

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

---

• Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

The page is getting a steady stream of posts by WP:SPA editors who insist that Marjorie Taylor Greene is not a conspiracy theorist despite multiple reliable sources that link to her blog posts and videos alleging that Democratic party leaders were running pedophilia ring out of a local pizza parlor, that the Parkland High School shooting was a "false flag" and that the children were paid actors, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is knowingly spreading Covid among House members, that that the deaths at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville were an "inside job" to "further the agenda of the elites"... the list goes on and on.

I suspect an off-wiki campaign by QAnon. What would be the best way to deal with this? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect full page protection would be a good idea, but this is not really the place to ask for that. Other than that its hard to see what can be done to one-shot drive byers.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note I have informed Lukan27 about this ANI, as whilst he is not named he is clearly a party to this situation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

In fairness to editors opposed to this label, even DJT doesn't have conspiracy theorist in the lede and multiple RS definitely characterize him as such. Jdphenix (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be a reason to add it to his, not remove it from hers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I point out DJT specifically because it is a protracted discussion of a politician with similar views. It seems settled on not having conspiracy theorist in the lede. I'm only intending to point this out, not engage in a similarly protracted discussion. Thanks! Jdphenix (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If you had to make a list of the top three most important things about Donald Trump, "conspiracy theorist" wouldn't make the list because he was the president of the United States. Meanwhile Greene is a new congresswoman who wasn't notable until 15 minutes ago, give or take. There is nothing useful to be learned from the comparison. --JBL (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue seems clear that putting "conspiracy theorist" right alongside "politician" and "businesswoman" or "U.S. Representative" as a career definition in the very first line of the lede. It's not that the term doesn't apply, but that's not a profession or any means of neutrally or impartially describing a person in the first sentence of an article as demanded by BLP. The term clearly needs to be in the lede somewhere but just not there in the first sentence. --Masem (t) 15:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I know that however this goes, the label is going to stay or not at the end of the day. I'm not commenting on content per se, I'm commenting on the protracted discussion that's going to occur.

I'm more or less in the same boat as Lukan27. Long dormant account, decides to start editing again because I want to FIX WHAT'S WRONG (my thoughts) like a SPA, then someone pointed me out to a very good read. I'm still making mistakes and am learning the easy way why Hipal recommends avoid controversial topics as a new editor. Lukan27 et. al. are learning the hard way.

I'm just saying maybe we should try a "hello and here's some advice" before labeling an editor as a SPA. My behavior is at least as annoying as Lukan's and at the risk of WP:BOOMERANG, I'm not topic banned or blocked. No one's even warned me. Jdphenix (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that I purposely did not single out you, Lukan27, or anyone else. (And BTW, being an SPA is not a blockable offense. We have many productive SPA editors.) I asked an honest question, There is always the possibility that the answer will be "Guy Macon is the problem", allowing me to correct whatever I am doing wrong.

I completely reject the opinion seen in many ANI threads that editors are not allowed to ask "I don't know what to do" questions and must name one or more individuals and ask for sanctions. I resent the implication that this is what I did here.

I honestly don't know what to do in this situation. It could have been that the answer I got was "Ignore it" or "your reactions are the problem". It could have been some sort of protection with an added unprotected talk page for those who can't post. It could have been a topic ban for some individuals. It could have been informing me that I am wrong and there is no problem to be solved. Or it could be some solution that I didn't think of. Please don't attempt to force me to limit the range of possible solutions. It really is OK to simply describe a problem and ask for advice on how to deal with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Never meant to imply you did. Just my observations of the process. I don't intend (or pretend to be able to) limit options for how this is resolved. Jdphenix (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon How about letting people take up the discussion instead of denying it, merely because someone challenges the status quo with reasonable argumentation? Just a thought. Lukan27 (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I like to know why on earth the section in question has been closed. The reason given is "exhausting volunteer resources". I simply don't buy it. It's merely an excuse to block out discussion. No one's saying you must join the discussion right here and now, and if you don't do that in the next few hours, we'll change it all (not that us "new users" and "dormant accounts" even can). I find this to merely be an attempt to block out fair discussion, and it's staggering. I will indeed dispute this, and suggest everyone else to do the same. Lukan27 (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I have instructed participants (especially new users and/or dormant accounts) to engage in formal dispute resolution procedure, if need be, because the current discussion is proving to be a drain on volunteer resources. El_C 15:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC) I removed the (curly braces)od(curly braces), I think it fubar'ed up a bit, please edit if you intended to point something out. Lukan27 (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like it's dying down. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, my account is not a single-purpose account and I've had this account for over a decade. It is true that I havn't made a lot of edits, but if one examines my history, then indeed one will find that I have made contributions outside of the talk on M. Greene and similar political subjects. And I can inform you that I've recently regained an interest in being active on Wikipedia, and I so happened to stumble upon M. Greene's page a few days ago and found the labelling of her, like many others, to be unfair and against Wikipedia's very own policies. I've always found Wikipedia's uncritical use of the term "conspiracy theory" to be bad and unfair. However, I don't intend to only contribute on these points in the future, quite the opposite actually. Although, I'd argue that there is much bigger need to address this blatant (anti-candidate) political bias and uncritical use of terms like "conspiracy theory" in general on Wikipedia, than to write about trivial stuff. Lukan27 (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lukan27:, please note that I purposely did not single you out by name. I was simply asking what to do about a situation, not reporting you or any other individual. But thanks for the "I don't intend to only contribute on these points in the future" above. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Call for close as withdrawn

It appears that Lukan27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to stop disrupting the Marjorie Taylor Greene talk page and is instead focusing their efforts on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#"Conspiracy theory" is a value-laden contentious label (plus a few edits on Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol making similar arguments). In my opinion the specific problem that let to this report has been resolved and thus someone uninvolved should close this as withdrawn. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User: 1.43.105.99

• 1.43.105.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user has been asked multiple times to leave comments for a majority of their/adds deletes to numerous articles (of which a lot are BLP). They have changed birthdays and deaths without cites.

List of their contributions

Users talk page with warnings.

Thank you. 2600:387:C:6D10:0:0:0:B (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, are you able to cite a specific diff of any violations? At a glance, their latest contribution involves the addition of a birth date to the infobox of James Wright (doctor) — but the information contained therein aligns with the birth date that is already noted in the opening sentence, which is sourced. Also, you have failed to inform the editor about this report, as is required. I will do this for you. El_C 18:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: - I did inform them of the ANI somehow it got put at the top of their talk page. This is [one example]. They changed a date of birth, cited a book but gave no link. I’ve also noticed they are really good at creating info boxes and inserting “per policy, this does not go here” “per policy, this....” I think you get the point. Possible sock evasion? The biggest part is they’ve been warned about this previously not just by me but other editors too. They got quiet for a week or so when I first brought it up then they started again. This is also [another one] where none of the cited sources say she is no longer acting. It was reverted and they reinstated it. Another one where they said the article stated she started her career at 11, but did not cite it nor going through the four references was it seen (two of them take you to the main web sites so the links are dead). [here is that one]. Thanks 2600:387:C:6D10:0:0:0:B (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, those are all from a few weeks ago or so, so perhaps they've heeded the warnings since...? As for Diana Coupland (bioline reads: "actress and singer"), their changes seem legitimate enough. For years active, the 1953 date is for acting, whereas the 1943 date is for music. I think both are okay and are within editorial discretion. El_C 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you for your comments above. However, shouldn’t that be cited? Rona Coleman was only 4 days ago they made those edits, so I’m confused as to why you say “a few weeks ago or so.” I know it’s not technically required, but they seem to use the edit history when they want, but on big changes I don’t see as much.” They haven’t acknowledged any of the warnings listed except the vandalism of the revert which wasn’t listed by me but someone else. If you don’t feel this should go anywhere, then that is fine. Perhaps you could inform them as well. Thanks 02:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, the Coleman edit was 10 days ago, on Jan 16 (diff). Anyway, for this kind of misconduct, I can't really act without confirming any immediate violations. If the need to re-list arises again, by all means, I encourage you to do so. This noticeboard remains at your disposal, as am I. El_C 02:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. This is Wayward Vagabond, so I'm glad they're in good enough health to still be editing. I'll send them a note when I get home from work. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Namcokid47: Ongoing vandalism

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

---

Namcokid47 (Redacted) always edits out my list of anime distributed by Bandai Visual that was clearly sourced from Japanese Wikipedia. Please block him immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joecrusher (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Joecrusher, what leads you to believe that a Wikipedia in another language is a reliable source for use on English Wikipedia? It isn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, Joecrusher, why are you attacking other editors? Even if the editor was doing blatant vandalism, you do not engage in personal attacks. Your report is filled with them. Steve M (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, Joecrusher, you failed to notify Namcokid47 of this discussion, which you are required to do. I have done so instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see from looking at the contributions, there's a WP:BOOMERANG lurking for Joecrusher if he doesn't redact the personal attacks, and zero wrongdoing on the part of Namcokid47 as far as I can see. From looking at the relevant articles Bandai Visual and Bandai Namco Arts, Namcokid47 removed unsourced material which can be challenged and removed - there was no claim it was sourced to the Japanese Wikipedia by Joecrusher nor the IPs involved, and even if it was, that's not reliable sourcing. It was reverted once on each page by an IP with no description in the edit summary days after the changes were made, and Namcokid then reverted back. Joecrusher then started a new page for it, and Namcokid47 sent it to AFD. No attempt by Joecrusher was made to reach out to Namcokid47 or start a discussion; ergo this report is absolutely frivolous. I will allow another admin to take action if they choose, however, as I have collaborated with Namcokid47 in the past and don't want to conflict with WP:INVOLVED. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I nominated the page because it failed WP:LISTN, since zero sources exist that talk about Bandai Visual productions as a group, which I explained in the discussion that it was due to Bandai Visual not being a legitimate production studio, ala Sunrise or Gainax. They have not created any of these series, they merely acted as a sponsor/distributor, so this extensive list has no real reason to exist and is better suited as a category. Joecrusher made no attempt to contact me before starting this absolutely frivolous ANI. They have also never initiated a talk page discussion, never challenged any of my edits, and never participated in the ongoing AfD. To me, this sounds like a case of WP:OWN where they think they hold ownership of the page, when in reality nobody holds any kind of ownership for any article of any kind. Nothing I have done here can be considered vandalism and does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies. ANI is not a tool that editors can use to swing around when they don't get their way. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Namcokid47, Joecrusher did participate in the AfD, in the sense they removed the AfD tag from the list. That was promptly reverted. As an uninvolved administrator, I am going to temporarily block Joecrusher for disruptive editing, with a firm warning against similar behavior going forward. Please feel free to alert me of any future problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Tarik289: persistent POV-pushin and disruptive edits

User:Tarik289 is making edits and deleting sourced content with reasons and edit summaries that imply that he just didn't like it [53][54][55]
And adding uncivil forum-style talk page discussions, filling them with name calling and assuming bad faith; [56][57][58] [59]even once calling an editor 'fascist', user current engaged in persistent deletion in ‎Nâzım Hikmet ‎and when asked to explain had this to say[60]
his contributions also have the same sense of WP:NOTHERE to them. - Kevo327 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Kevo327 Source was Greek State newspaper from 1955 and thats it. İrrendetism part of your nonsense argument was you literally claimed Turks are occupier at Talk:Western_Armenia and it was deffinetly sided and you know that inside of you. And even in this case can you complain about me? 'edit summaries that imply that he just didn't like it' What a lie man, what a lie.

can you provide a diff of me arguing or even writing on Talk:Western_Armenia? because I didn't (Question for more knowledgeable users, does this count as Aspersions per policy?) - Kevo327 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please look at this report? - Kevo327 (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC) User still continues this behaviour. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Fuzheade

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

---

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

---

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

---

Not quite sure where to go for this (would AIV have fit?) but Fuzheade looks like an impersonation of (the very well-known admin) Fuzheado. Looks like an immediate block and cleanup of their rapid-fire AfD closures and other edits is needed. — Bilorv (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Steve M also discovered the user while I was writing this, but we'll need an admin to block. — Bilorv (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Definitely an impersonator, if this diff of deliberately using Fuzheado's name is any indication. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv and Tenryuu:, Upon further investigation, this is likely a sock of User:Dunny124a, who Fuzheado blocked for sock puppetry. Now, he edits the same articled and impersonates Fuzheado. I reverted all their edits. Steve M (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've gone and notified Fuzheado on their talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Are they blocked yet? There's a note on the user page but nothing in the block log and they just reverted my reversion. Igarnish (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Igarnish, I suggest we just keep reverting until they are blocked. This is an obvious sock and impersonator, and is exempt from 3RR and WP:IAR.

Blocked now! Igarnish (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

This thread has been closed prematurely. Yes, the sock has been blocked several pages definitely need to be semi-protected. In particular, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden has been targeted both today and yesteday. Nsk92 (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies and El C: The user is back as User:Fuzheada, can someone block them? Steve M (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

And, more importantly, can somebody please semi-protect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden? And some of the other AfDs that this sock has been targeting. Nsk92 (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I asked for a protection on that talk page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden. Can an admin put it in place after blocking him? Elijahandskip (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There's also User:Fuzheado again now. Igarnish (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Longhair: The impersonator is back ! Steve M (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Longhair: Just created: User:Fuzheodo Igarnish (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Igarnish: how did you catch the account before it edited? Steve M (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Steve M: Recent changes filtered to include logged actions by new users. I never bothered removing that filter and it finally came in handy. Igarnish (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that I closed the Afd (Non-admin closure) since the article no longer exists and was merged before the Afd was closed. Vandalism shouldn't happen anymore. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Haha! Looks like I totally jinxed it! Did a round of brief protections — please let me know if I missed any. El_C 02:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, forgot to <noinclude> everything...¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Urgent - mass disruptive editing on AfDs

User:Jasen Rees - Just registered, first edits are to copy the content of fellow user User:Jason Rees user page and talk page to the first accounts respective pages, and is now trying to mass close AfDs as delete. SK2242 (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that closing discussions with a clear consensus to delete isn't disruption. 10:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC) - preceding comment from Jasen Rees

Also User:Camper126 another newly registered user has now tried to reclose one of the AfDs. Clear sockpuppetry going on here. SK2242 (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation, and closing AfDs early (and sockpuppetry). And messing with the opening statement of this section to change the link to Jasen Rees to one to Jason Rees... Should be blocked indeed. Fram (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Both blocked. Not sure which of our LTA it is but they have been active recently. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't opened a SPI yet since both accounts have been blocked indef. but User Jasen Rees is a sock of Bankboy1221, both have same editing pattern- disruptive SPIs, userpages. Bankboy1221 was also blocked indef. recently. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, there’s plenty more... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• P.S. See also #Fuzheade just above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, so there are quite a few sock accounts. Ashleyyoursmile! 10:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

IP edit had been trying to add unreferenced information to Anna Wilding article, now issued a legal threat to me

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

---

Can see legal threat here. Was going to give them one more chance before reporting for warring too before that comment. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume here but appears to be WP:QUACK. Account NewsEditor2008 appears just after IP has been warned here and reverted again by another user, then there first edit is on Anna Wilding page with similar edit summary. Appears to be an attempt to keep warring and to get around possible ban. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 72h--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter, do I have to raise a WP:SOCK for the other account now or just leave it to see if they try and continue it too? I have asked for page protection and am actually going to raise the article in the BLP noticeboard too.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say if they continue they must be blocked indef as an obvious sock per WP:LEGAL. However, with just one edit, if they do not continue, I would drop it.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

user:Bhaskarbhagawati - Indefinitely topic banned from editing articles related to Kamrupi dialects has been editing Kamrupi people

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

---

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

User:Bhaskarbhagawati has started editing Kamrupi people (the first this year: [61], and the latest: [62] even as he was indefinitely topic banned by EdJohnston from editing articles related to Assamese language and articles associated with Kamrupi dialect etc. [63], [64] about a year ago.

user:Bhaskarbhagawati is pretty much a WP:SPA, who has very strong opinions on issues related to Kamarupa/Kamrup. It has been noted in the ban notice—Nobody is allowed to keep reverting indefinitely on the same topic. The person should obtain consensus for changes that are known to be controversial; if they don't get consensus they should let it go. You can see from the recent edits of Bhaskar on Early Assamese that this is a continuation of the dispute that was said to be successfully resolved in the DRN. Since 2012 there has been a great deal of process around Bhaskarbhagawati's concerns and lots of discussion. At some point this has to stop. The recent edits from Bhaskarbhagawati is a continuation of the same behavior that resulted in his ban. I request more restrictions to stop this behavior.

(Mea culpa: I did revert some of Bhaskarbhagawati's recent edits, which may be construed as edit-warring. I did it to initiate a discussion on the edits before questionable material is inserted into Wikipedia. I have since stopped editing the page. I did alert Bhaskarbhagawati that his recent edits violates the topic ban [65] and he will be reported if he persists [66])

Notifying those who participated in the original ANI ([67]) and the ban: Abecedare, EdJohnston, Aeusoes1, Bhaskarbhagawati.

Chaipau (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. AE action. El_C 15:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Alexbrn biased cryonics article

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

---

The cryonics article is highly biased, but any attempt to fix this goes nowhere. User Alexbrn reverts any changes. Many users have attempted to try and solve it on the talk page, but Alexbrn dismisses every arguments, and uses language that indicated his own dislike for cryonics. Can anyone solve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaViNgT (talk • contribs) 11:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

HaViNgT You are required to notify any user you are discussing here of the existence of this discussion. Administrators do not settle content disputes. If discussion fails to resolve your concerns, you may use dispute resolution processes. It is true, however, that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not our personal views. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

We only solve things that need solving. There is nothing to solve. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 11:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears the OP has been edit warring and possibly adding fringe content in wiki voice / removing properly sourced content which doesn’t adhere to their POV. A boomerang may apply. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Boomeranged: OP blocked 31 hours. I did consider a longer partial block from just the articles they have been disrupting, but there are a lot of other cryonics-related articles, see Category:Cryonics — far more than the ten a partial block can cover. Bishonen | tålk 14:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC).
• Just seen this. Must say I'm in favour of ANI reports that get resolved before one even knows about them. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thought about maybe upgrading my indef semi of Cryonics to ECP, but at a glance, it looks like it has mostly been serving its purpose. If other related pages also need to be semi'd, please let me know. El_C 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and aggressive editorial behavior by CyclonicallyDeranged

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

---

CyclonicallyDeranged has been rather aggressive in almost every discussion he enters. He accused Jason Rees of lying multiple times and for canvassing in other editors without any kind of evidence. It is frowned upon to make unfounded aspersions. [68] [69] [70]

Some other statements that were inappropriate for the discussions: [71] [72] [73]

He was warned about making statements like this and simply dismissed them as having no merit. He goes on to taunt the warning user. [74] [75]

I am inviting @Jason Rees and Destroyeraa: to comment here as they have dealt with this user more. Noah^Talk 12:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Another ANI was opened in the past for similar concerns. Noah^Talk 13:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok to put into context. These comments began when Hurricanehink replies to my thoughts that gauge me into believing he is right. here, then here. These replies I felt were pushy and what he says are in fact the same stories and they must go in line with all cases. Then it was when I wrote he was trying to be pushy by replying repeatedly to my comments with “opinionated”. Then this was when Jason Rees said he wouldn’t call it an opinion, then showed two sources, and claimed it was sheer fact. This was when I was not pleased and said to him not to make false statements about the matter being a fact rather than opinion. I didn’t believe it. Basically how the argument started.—CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Noo, not mobile diffs — the bane of my existence! Anyway, as far as personal attacks go, they're not really, and even if we stretch the definition, definitely on the milder end of things. That said, CyclonicallyDeranged, please tone it down from this point going forward. I find your claim that you were provoked toward acting aggressively to be without basis. This is a collaborative project, so you need to be able to handle content disagreements dispassionately. Also, no accusations without actual proof, either, please. El_C 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I strongly believe that CyclonicallyDeranged is too arrogant (at this time) to continue editing here. The user has made very snide remarks here, as if taking warnings and genuine advice as a joke. In addition, here, they have made more snide and arrogant remarks, saying that LightandDark2000 is "provoking" them to make more attacks. It's a personality and behavioral problem here. No one is provoking you to make any attacks. It's just because you're too arrogant enough to take in advice and to actually cooperate with your fellow users, CyclonicallyDeranged. I'm not saying Cyclonically should be locked out of his account indefinitely, though I do sincerely believe that this type of behavior needs to stop immediately and a short block should be in place. @Hurricanehink: should reply too. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 16:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Negative. Sanctions are not due at this time, most certainly not anything as severe as an indefinite block. El_C 17:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

IP edits

• 2603:8081:1608:1C03:AC52:141:43D4:93F2 (talk · contribs)
• 2603:8081:1606:19E3:A553:11F4:4176:884B (talk · contribs)

Hi all - I recently reverted the first user's mass changes, and left a note on their talk page not to do this without discussion. They have not responded, and the second IP (same location it seems) has begun to continue and re-do these changes. How can this be addressed? ɱ (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ɱ - Looking at the contributions from the range 2603:8081:1600::/44, it seems like the user is continually these changes to similar articles (States in the United States). Are there things wrong with these edits? Do they need to be reverted? If so, what's the issue? I just need to know context before I proceed to make any judgment calls or consider any action here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So this is something that does need to be reverted, and definitely needs more discussion before the mass changes. Nevertheless, the IP did not see or ignored my message. Another editor began a WikiProject New York state discussion on the matter between the two rounds of IP editing. As I note there, the maps added we're often very duplicative of existing maps in articles, and use an outdated, antiquated mapmaking technique. If we are to update all maps on New York municipality articles, we should do it properly, and with agreement among editors of how to do so. ɱ (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I added that so people who are not from the US would be able to pinpoint the location2603:8081:1606:19E3:349D:677E:3C52:FA76 (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can very well see that. Nevertheless, it requires discussion, and there is ongoing discussion on the matter. Please contribute at WikiProject New York (state), but in the mean-time, your edits have to be reverted, and you cannot continue adding this. ɱ (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This user proceeds to make these edits, even given the stern warning on their user page, and in this AN/I and ongoing WikiProject discussion. It is clear they do not wish to follow Wikipedia's process for discussion and consensus. I need help reverting, with possible blocks, to stop further damage. ɱ (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Promotion in draftspace by Some dude person guy

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

---

• Some dude person guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 68.8.148.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:The Adventures of YungJJ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since 23 January, this user, even while logged out, has persistently recreated this promotional draft of a non-notable subject. All recreations, bar today's attempt, have been promotional in nature, mostly written as vanity without any sources by other outlets. No attempt at discussion has been made by the user, save for contested deletions of this and other drafts. I have previously tried to report this user at AIV as promo-only/vandal only (see also deleted contribs), but the report has since been removed as stale. I'm thinking borderline WP:NOTHERE in this case, given the nature of edits, even in mainspace. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, JalenFolf. I've given the IP and account final warnings. If either vandalises or creates a hoax again, I'll block as NOTHERE, as you suggested. Fences&Windows 23:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Since this report was made, Some dude person guy has for a fifth time attempted to recreate this draft. I went ahead and pointed them to WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Cyberpunk 2029 (again)

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

---

Cyberpunk 2029 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously blocked for 72 hours for failing to correct behavior or communicate with other editors when problems arrive as described at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Cyberpunk_2029. Since then this editor as persisted in adding unsourced content as shown [here], [here], and [here]. His/her talk page and contributions show no attempt has been made to communicate with other editors or to explain actions. Per WP:CIR "competance" requires "...the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus." Blue Riband► 18:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

As a previously involved editor who last reported this user here, I second this. It's time for this user to start communicating. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not encouraging that the user does not have a single talk page edit despite all the messages left on the talk page and the previous ANI, and I'm not seeing meaningful attempts to explain their actions in summaries. Also, my understanding is that this user is the same person as the blocked IP 98.169.172.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).Ytoyoda (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree they're heading to another block, but they've not edited since the final warning. Fences&Windows 23:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

True but Cyberpunk 2029 tends to edit every 2-3 days. User:Oshwah (who has been offline since Jan 21st) put on a 72hr block on Dec 29th and the next edit appeared right after the block was due to expire on Jan 1st. It's possible that the editor wasn't aware of the block, or the block didn't convince them to change their behavior. Their contributions don't show participation in any discussions anywhere. If one had their edits constantly getting reverted one would think they would at least want to know why.Blue Riband► 00:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If this user continues adding unreferenced content to articles with no explanation, I think a longer block is justified... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I gave a more detailed response on your talk page Oshwah, but Cyberpunk 2029 just created a new article with zero citations here (since redirected). This editor will not communicate and won't acknowledge that there are problems with his/her editing. Yes, those who care can follow and check up on this editor's work but it is hardly a productive use of time. Blue Riband► 18:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Red link User:Encyclopedia45 insists upon disrupting the "personal life" sections of popular women by claiming that they are not notable because they aren't men or something nonsensical like that

Encyclopedia45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This single purpose account (I won't go as far as to call them a sockpuppet without evidence but some edits are suspicious in my opinion) keeps going on articles like Angelina Jolie, Gigi Hadid, etc. and removing sourced information with the edit summary [She] isn't a man. We don't name siblings or children unless notable in their own right. Who is to say that notability is conferred by a man when these articles are about women? The only man this user seems to care about (obsessed with) is actor Garrett Hedlund. Even if names of children of famous people were to be removed for so-called lack of notability, this sexist nonsense has no place on Wikipedia and without consequences they're going to keep disrupting. Trillfendi (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, there's some guidance at WP:BLPNAME. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There are two issues in play here. First is the removal of children's name from articles when the children are not themselves notable. That's covered in WP:BLPNAME as noted above.

The second issue is the "isn't a man"/"Since when does a man make a person notable?" edit summaries. I have concerns about that, but it also looks like Encyclopedia45 wasn't the first editor to go there in the edit sequence at Emma Roberts. I hate to open the can of worms, but we'd need to ask Tenryuu what they meant by an earlier edit summary (diff). —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Not intending to speak on Tenryuu's behalf, but the edit summary makes sense when looking at what was reverted. Encyclopedia45 had added the phrases Roberts pays tribute to his aunt and Roberts in November 2020 revealed in an interview that he suffers. So when reverting these edits, Tenryuu must have been referring to the incorrect pronouns. However then Encyclopedia45 jumped to the conclusion that Tenryuu meant only men were notable and that Tenryuu reverted his edits for that reason. NJD-DE (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) C.Fred, the issue was referring to Roberts as "he" (and Roberts hasn't identified as transgender to the best of my knowledge, and the sources definitely refer to Roberts as a woman), which another user raised at the talk page. Compounded with WP:BLPNAME, I thought it easier to revert the user's edits wholesale. Thanks for explaining my reasoning, Njd-de. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The "isn't a man" edits and edit summaries were WP:POINT violations, taking revenge for what Tenryuu did in removing the child's name. I've warned Encyclopedia45 that they'll be blocked if they repeat this. Fences&Windows 23:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I've let them know their mistake in interpreting Tenryuu's edit summary and opened a discussion at Talk:Emma Roberts#Her child's name. Fences&Windows 23:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Elijahandskip again proposing text prohibited by DeWine RFC

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

---

After several AfD, RfD, and RFC, User:Elijahandskip (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has again initiated yet another so-called "discussion" trying to re-insert prohibited text.

Elijahandskip has previously been reported by administrators to have been soliciting support on an external blog and via twitter.

Also, IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION AGAINST OHIO GOVERNOR MIKE DEWINE {UNOFFICIAL WIKI} remains.

The RFC result was clear: "The consensus is that the event is not worthy of noting here. [...] There does not appear to be opposition to inclusion should an impeachment resolution pass."

No impeachment resolution has passed.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

End it. It was a simple proposal that had 0 backlash or harmful intent. Admin told the reporting user to drop the whole deal about getting me banned and told me to not argue. I made 1 simple proposal and instantly, he wants me banned. Can we just ban him for a short time for a stupid report.... Elijahandskip (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, please note that I have made 4 attempts to communicated on User talk:William Allen Simpson with only 1 reply of "Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Quoting previous admin: "I'm happy to warn both of you. William Allen Simpson, please adhere to our policies re: civility. There's no need to call high school seniors, some of whom are actually adults, "school children". IMO that's an obvious attempt to denigrate and tweak. Elijahandskip, you appear to have a fairly strong bias in the area of race in the US that may make you likely to push certain points of view. I suggest you default to using the Walt Street Journal as your reality check on whether or not race is pertinent in a given article. If WSJ is noting someone's race, you can be assured that is not "creating a version of racism." It's acknowledging the racial element in the story. And both of you stop spamming discussions. That's disruptive." Elijahandskip (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Editor(s) reported by 2402:7500:4D0:30CE:0:0:925F:2333

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

Repeatedly use strange reasons to delete a large number of content, and its edits are related to accounts with very low edit times. (Up to 200 edits)

It affects many pages like Inner Mongolia, Democracy movements of China, Donggar Township, 2011 Chinese pro-democracy protests, Template:China and China-related Identity and Travel Documents, Template:Chinese democracy movement .

Related users are Special:Contributions/156.146.62.35 , Special:Contributions/PunishedSnake95, Special:Contributions/181.40.18.61 , Special:Contributions/Akshaysmit , Special:CentralAuth/Sharontse121the common feature is China, the number of edits is very small (up to 200 edits), and some are related to Special:Contributions/CaradhrasAiguo.

He seems to be good at using multiple accounts and PROXY, and he also knows how to create accounts with high editing rights.

He also knows how to use multiple accounts and high editing permissions to protect his editing, such as [76] , [77].

Other communication see history of [78].

@ToBeFree: Thanks.2402:7500:4D0:30CE:0:0:925F:2333 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please create a report at WP:SPI. I'm afraid you'll need more specific evidence when doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree:

All the content edited by him is deleting and restoring. There is no other new editing, and the reference source is also deleted on some pages. It will also imitate the opinions of other users and declare that this is NPV.

But if you want me to prove that he is a socks, I can only use more evidence of his behavior, that is, he caused more damage, but if socks learn how to avoid being used as socks, you will find a lot of unnecessary editing and monotony Repeated editing, this is what the account is doing.

He will avoid creating more accounts, avoid using other account editors, maybe he will make more meaningless and harmless edits, and he is using the opinions of other users as his own opinions without more powerful claims.

At this stage, I think this page of Inner Mongolia has been destroyed because one chapter and multiple references have been erased, and this erasure lasted for 3 months, and the reason for erasure was NPOV. I can't think of anything other than Chinese ideology Besides, who would claim that it is NPOV.

I would like to add other comments. He declared on other user pages that I have a registered account. I guess he is based on his experience, which means that he has other registered accounts and uses IP for a long time. Those IPs can also be found in the page history. In fact, it’s just a bunch of PROXY

Since he has few edits and no other meaningful edits on his own user page, he originally regarded this account as a one-time consumable, and there may be other spares. At least I see that in the existing account, Special:Contributions/PunishedSnake95 should be one of that spare.2402:7500:4CE:C267:0:0:66D:9E8D (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified this: All sockpuppetry concerns are probably better voiced at WP:SPI. For the concerns unrelated to sockpuppetry, you're in the right place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree:Let me mention an idea. When I look back at the very beginning, the editing of 156.146.62.35 seems to be the beginning. And subsequent single-purpose accounts, such as BenkovacZrinjski and 台湾永远都是中国, are just a continuation of the editing behavior of 156.146.62.35. I think this speculation should be close to the facts.

But I still can't understand why156.146.62.35 used proxy at the beginning, and then started to register several accounts. And what is his reason for using proxy? Does he want to hide something? --2402:7500:5D5:B468:0:0:3B4C:FBA (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that he copied the posts of other accounts and used them in practice, which caused him to appear two signatures, which are almost the same as the behavioral patterns I speculated above.See [[79]].2402:7500:5D0:D16F:0:0:3C13:D3D (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Slovakia—TFA subject to ongoing vandalism

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

---

• The Holocaust in Slovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please, will an admin protect this article? It has been repeatedly vandalized. (t · c) buidhe 07:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User: 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A's disruptive behaviour

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

---

User talk:2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A came onto the 2021 page and began [editing] to remove an importance tag placed on Tommy Lasorda in spite of the fact that discussions about whether or not Lasorda merited a place on the 2021 page had commenced by User:Deb on [the 10th of January] and began (initially under different IP addresses such as 2001:8003:5022:5E01:7D39:997E:B26D:A1E0 and 2001:8003:5022:5E01:57A:16F1:DA4F:E5A7) to revert edits to remove the importance tag. On the 26th, this user [came onto the Talk section] and briefly gave his two cents in favour of Lasorda's inclusion, adding news links to back up his claim. By the time the user commented, discussions were focused instead on Hank Aaron's inclusion, which was ultimately resolved in favour. Although one comment made by User:Jim Michael during that time was [directed] towards Aaron, the arguments used were just as applicable towards Lasorda and demonstrated that there was no consensus reached in support of Lasorda.

However, after less than 24 hours, with no users yet to directly respond to the user's comment in favour of Lasorda, said user began to [go ahead] and again begin to remove the importance tag for Lasorda. This was not enough time given for users to respond, particularly when most of the comments indicated apprehension towards his inclusion at best. After I came in and began to revert the user's reversions, the user began to [comment] on my Talk section and asking me to "leave it" because Lasorda had basic news coverage from a couple of countries. My basic point was that no consensus in favour of Lasorda's inclusion had been reached; that the user had already given his two cents; and it was best for everyone that the importance tag be left until a consensus is reached and to back off until more users had contributed. The user continuously and disrupting carried on in my Talk page long after I made my basic point clear, and in the meantime engaged in a small edit war on the 2021 page as they kept removing the importance tag. Finally, I decided to respond to the user's original comment on the Talk:2021 page to give my two cents as well as to criticise them over their edit warring behaviour and their disruptive behaviour on my Talk page. However, in my attempt to post my original response, the user went ahead and deleted his original comment and started a new section to do specifically with Lasorda. When I [attempted] to post with the edits done in the meantime, I ended up accidentally deleting the new section which I had been unaware of and lost the original draft of my comment - which has led to subsequent claims by the user of "censorship" on my part.

It was at this time that the user began to [accuse me] of disruptive editing and preventing consensus, even though all I had done was revert the user's attempts to remove the importance tag when others had not yet had the opportunity to respond yet, and to allow people to contribute so that a clear consensus could be reached. I gave [my response] giving my two cents on the Lasorda issue and my view on whether or not he should be included - a view I was perfectly entitled to, just as the user was also entitled to, and everyone else. I also called the user out on the edit warring on the 2021 page, and the user going onto my Talk page - all of which were behaviour that I characterised then, as I do now, as "disruptive, aggressive.... and a refusal to accept the basic protocol of waiting for a consensus before making such edits". This led to a chain of disruptive back-and-forth (still visible on the talk section) that saw the user claim that I'm insulting sport by referring to ESPN as a "niche" source, and accusations made against me of a personal bias against Lasorda. There were also further back-and-forths on the 2021 page which ended with the user adding at least three sources on Lasorda's entry (in spite of the fact that literally every other entry has only one news source on it), only finally leaving the importance tag on with the (so far) current edit.

Ultimately I went ahead and chose to [report] the user for vandalism and disruptive behaviour, which only saw further back-and-forths after the user insisted on directly replying to my report. Which I initially attempted to delete because it was not the appropriate forum to have those sorts of further arguments, and explicitly said in my edit summary that if the user had an issue with my report, that the user either back off or file a separate report briefly summarising the user's grievances as per the guidelines. The further back-and-forths saw all complaints dismissed by the admins, who suggested to make a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - which I [went ahead and did].... only for that page to also get derailed and spammed by severely disruptive back-and-forths - just as how virtually every other page 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A [contributed to] ended up as.

At this stage, after four-odd hours of this, I have no choice but to bring up this issue here, and see if this can be resolved. Otherwise further disruptive behaviour by this user will only continue. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Holly walls of text (not just here, but in this dispute, in general). Also, several of the links cited above don't work (those which do are old revisions rather than diffs, but that's okayish, I guess). Anyway, looks like a content dispute where both users are accusing one another of being disruptive. Probably best to try some other avenues of WP:DR before escalating here... Finally, the latest edits by the IP's /64 range all seem to indicate a single user (not seeing any immediate issues on that front, since that seem to have been hinted). El_C 08:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There is indeed a good argument for including Lasorda, which is why I hadn't deleted it myself. However, the anon was wrong to accuse you of bad faith. We get a lot of anon contributions on Year and DOTY pages, many of them clearly coming from the same small group of individuals who add the same unreferenced entries or simply revert other people's work - but I don't think this anon is one of those people. Being involved in the discussion, I don't plan to attempt any kind of disciplinary action at this point, but there is certainly an issue here. Deb (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, Deb... I mean, I also actually don't really know, but the RfPP entry (where I noticed this by virtue of the report directly above this — how it all comes full circle!) read: High level of IP vandalism and disruptive editing (bold is my emphasis). My immediate impulse is that this doesn't quite sit right with me. El_C 08:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Over-excitement, possibly? Deb (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely on my part! El_C 08:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll be brief here. El C is right and has picked off a very important point which, @Deb:, justifies my view that Thescrubbythug is acting in bad faith. His insistence that I was vandalising the page, and consequently the report page that was closed through his deletions trying to stop me from defending myself. Daniel Case told him he was out of line there, and yet Thescrubbythug claims (totally without foundation) that Daniel was talking to me. The censoring of me on the report page is utterly consistent with his censoring of me initially on the talk page, which is why I don't believe his claim that it was an accident. Deb, I'm happy for you to disagree with me on this. It's my opinion and we all have opinions that will differ. All I can do is explain why I feel that way and I have done so. El C is also right calling this a content dispute, and at the core of it is his flat out refusal to accept sources that clearly show international presence of Tommy Lasorda in Australia, the United Kingdom and Japan (at least - I haven't looked further). Thescrubbythug should just consider the thing done, wait for others to comment on the talk page of 2021 in that section - and if no one comes in the argument I believe is that Lasorda should stay on the basis of the sources provided. That's all I need to say I think. I will consider this closed and will wait as said. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Going to try and avoid treading ground already covered and keep this as brief as possible. Daniel Case and the admin team rejected *all* complaints by myself and you, and they were rejected because we were going back and forth at an inappropriate place for it - which I tried to warn you by saying that your reply was not appropriate and that if you had anything to say, file a separate report. Which up to now you have completely failed to acknowledge. Deb is correct with what she said regarding me - I attempted to delete your responses on the report section at first because as I said, it was the wrong place for it and the admins would end up dismissing it all, which was precisely what the outcome turned out to be. I’ve given you my reasoning, yet you continue to suggest that I also did precisely the same on the Talk:2021 page, when I’ve already explained that it was an accident. Believe me, I would strongly make it clear if it were otherwise. My flat out refusal was towards your continued attempts to remove the importance tag - the sources I disagreed with in the sense that I don’t think it justified the addition of Lasoda, and with the death entries of everyone on the yearly pages, only one source is ever added for each person. But ultimately the sources wasn’t the heart of the issue at all, and I’ve already explained what the main issues are, particularly with your conduct - and I will not drop this so long as you not only continue with your line of behaviour, but also your continued and baseless accusations against me of bad faith. Thescrubbythug (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C:, I think we should close this as the wrong forum. I've made comments on the article Talk page and we may hope for some consensus to be achieved there. In the meantime, the anon must avoid accusing others of bad faith. Deb (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Pinecar

• Pinecar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tamil Brahmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Pinecar added Kamala Harris is a brahmin on 21 January with no citation in Tamil Brahmin [[80]]. User:Arjayay undid it [[81]] and said there is no mention of brahmin or a source which says her as a brahmin. Pinecar later adds it with a citation and a quote which does not prove it. Ms. Harris’s mother also figures in another tale told less often: of India’s small and successful Tamil Brahmin diaspora.[[82]]. I undid it on 25 Jan [[83]] becasue she is a Baptist. Pinecar undid it with no explanation. [[84]]. Pinecar later added a fake citation from mercurynews that has nothing about brahmin.[[85]]. I undid it and removed content with zero citation. [[86]][[87]]. Pinecar again undos with no explanation. [[88]][[89]]. The worst thing is he added page protection without permission from an admin.[[90]]. Pinecar is adding casteism and must be blocked .2409:4072:9E:A472:F737:710F:DB95:44E1 (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's almost 6:30 in the morning so can't dig into this myself overall, but wanted to clarify one thing: The worst thing is he added page protection without permission from an admin. No, he didn't. He added the template that says it is, which is simple vandalism, no more, no less. No protection was actually added. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've notified the user in question of this thread. I.P you should have done so by posting on the talk page of Pinecar. Regarding the article, i've replaced Harris' entry with that of her mother; RS seem to support this. The POV edit warring over Harris' inclusion does raise concerns. Zindor (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So, this seem mostly like a content dispute, with a side-order of edit warring and improper use of templates. Pinecar: BLP applies to all articles. Do not add assertions along the lines of 'Person X is a Y' without reliable sources confirming the assertion about Person X. Sources about their family members, which would require 'and therefore so is Person X'-type reasoning, are not sufficient. Do not add protection templates to unprotected articles - you do not have the technical capability to protect articles, if you want them to be protected you need to ask at WP:RFPP. If you find yourself disagreeing with an editor, whether that be with a registered account or an IP, head to the talk page. Please confirm that you have understood; ask any questions you need to below if any of this is not clear. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

FlutterDash344

• FlutterDash344 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user continues to think that every animated show is made with flash, but it isn't always true. Even the show was made with flash, it doesn't need to be in the lead section. He needs to follow WP:LEAD and WP:CRYSTAL.

Collaborations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FlutterDash344

I think he is doing a WP:NOTHERE issue.

BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Jings - you weren't joking, that's a whole lot of identical, bot-like, unsourced edits. I've blocked temporarily, and will review in more depth. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This was a very strange bit of editing: precisely 250 near-identical unsourced edits (a remarkably round number), none of them with edit summaries, in a four-hour window. I did quite a few spot checks on the edits, and precisely zero of the articles I checked contained a sourced assertion in the body of the article to say that they were created using Flash. I've reverted the edits and left some guidance on their talk page, but it looks remarkably like a bot rather than a human at work. They all say they're visual edits - are there any scripts you can run in Visual Editor to make identical changes like that? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The editor FutterDash is a nice guy, but according to his user page, he is retired. Last editing the page by the very end of 2020. It is very possible that his account was controlled by a spam bot. Not 100% sure, but his recent edits by looking at the contributions, I don't think it was him, and it might have been a bot controlling his account. I don't use the Visual Editor, but man, the FutterDash account has been very disruptive with the editor. Glad his account is taken care of at this time, and I will give you credit for blocking it. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

BaldiBasicsFan, I'm not sure I quite buy the idea that it was controlled by a spam bot, but certainly something strange was going on there. I saw that they had put the retired notice on their userpage, but yesterday they were making normal-looking edits with reasonable edit summaries; the weird MEATBOT stuff started at exactly 06:00 today, and ended at 10:00. I'll see whether they respond on talk over the next day or two. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I hope he would respond if he was doing it or not. If his account was controlled by a bot, will try to make his account more secure just in case if the issue happens again. If it was him, I would be very disappointed. Sure, he had problems in the past, but at least he actually learns from them, hence the warnings that came to him before 2021. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Nimmmad

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

Football/soccer is a popular sport, and many editors edit football articles, including match statistics in player infoboxes. However, they are required to update the date of the update at the same time, to prevent errors and confusion (e.g. a player plays a game. An editor updates the game but not the date. Another editor comes along and, seeing the date is 'old', adds another game into the stats in good faith. The stats are now incorrect). This happens all the time and is a major problem - we even have a warning template for it (which I can't remember!) and the guide at {{Infobox football biography}} says the relevant parameter is "A timestamp at which the player's infobox club statistics are unambiguously correct. The bare date of the last match played should not be used because this is not unambiguous. Dates should use the same format as the rest of the article; use five tildes (17:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)) to generate the current date/time in dmy format, or 17:25, January 27, 2021 (UTC) for mdy format. The parameter is not needed if the player has retired."

So, on to Nimmmad (talk · contribs), a user with a long and ongoing history of not doing the bare minimum of updating the timestamp, causing errors and confusion across multiple articles. They have been warned multiple times - including as far back as February 2014 - about the need to do so. I blocked them recently for this, and they have returned and just carried on.

This is now a clear WP:CIR issue - and I propose an indefinite block. GiantSnowman 17:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

They are editing from mobile so maybe they are just not seeing the warnings and other messages on their Talk page. But close to all of their edits are disruptive in the way GS described above and it can't continue.

The template GS referred to Template:Footyiu, I believe. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

They are editing from mobile so maybe they are just not seeing the warnings and other messages on their Talk page No maybe about it. Notices simply don't appear on (most?) mobile Wikipedia clients, so it is literally impossible to warn, or even communicate, with users who edit using them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "they might not have seen any of the multiple warnings over the last 7 years, or reacted to the block" is going to cut it... GiantSnowman 10:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

While that's true, you could strike "might" and replace it with "have". It's a major problem and one that desperately needs to be fixed, lest we have to block mobile editing entirely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No what I mean is I refuse to believe this editor has never logged in/edited from a desktop and/or seen any of the multiple warnings in 7 years. Either way are we going to allow them to continue the disruption? GiantSnowman 12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

EljanM canvassing

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

---

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

EljanM is not only openly pinging editors he thinks will support them, but is even telling them what to support (Guys we should add "Irevan" to this page.)[91][92][93]

EljanM was previously blocked two weeks for canvassing by Ymblanter and has also been given a discretionary sanctions alert for Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts (AA2) topic bans by Jr8825. --Steverci (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Guys I deleted my all canvases. There is no problem. If you dont believe me, please check talk page of Iravan/Yerevan EljanM (TALK) 17:54, 27 January 2021

@Steverci: You came to the discussion of the Yerevan page as a result of canvas, and you are complaining to me here. Your friend Archives908 is also canvassing. You should complain him too. EljanM (TALK) 18:03, 27 January 2021

I just called Anton Samuel, Curious Golden and Solavirum. They are neutral users. Stop slandering me. There is important discussion going in talk page of Iravan/Yerevan. Your friend dont delete his canvassing yet. EljanM (TALK) 18:19, 27 January 2021

• Without commenting on the conduct of anyone else in that discussion (those who responded to the canvassing by weighing in, or those who responded to the canvassing by pinging more users), EljanM's pings at the start of that discussion are the clearest case of canvassing that I can remember seeing - given that they have just come off a two-week block for exactly the same thing, I have blocked for one month. Ymblanter - at the last ANI thread you suggested that if they continued canvassing after your block expired, we should consider an AE TBan. Is this necessary now in your judgment? (I'm not volunteering to implement it - Arbitration Enforcement isn't my forte, but I'll be happy to watch and learn.) GirthSummit _(blether) 19:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think they need a topic-ben indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Though the topicstarter has been themselves canvassed by their party into the discussion they are now complaining about.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I can't see any history of Archives908 having been warned about canvassing before, so I have given them a warning. As for the canvasees (is that a word?), almost all of the contributions to the discussion were made by people who were canvassed one way or another, not sure we can put the toothpaste back in the tube... GirthSummit _(blether) 09:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No, we do not need to block or topic ban everybody. My point is that Steverci, who themselves has been for several years after the AE topic ban, is of course not interested in having the discussion to find consensus. They are interested in removing as many people as possible from the oppose party, and to bring there as many people from their own party, so that after several screens would have been written, no reasonably impartial user could join, and the discussion is doomed to be closed as not done. Or possibly not even closed, just archived at some point. This is the tactics used pretty much in all these discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was doomed to go nowhere because the same discussion has been repeatedly made on the Yerevan article for over a decade. And how did I "bring there as many people from" my "own party"? --Steverci (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've warned and reported EljanM for canvassing before for exclusively pinging like-minded users on their talk pages in order to influence move discussions in a certain manner. Regarding this case, to be fair, there was a previous discussion on the Shusha talk page where he brought up the issue of Yerevan. The users he pinged on the discussion on the Yerevan talk page took part in the discussion on the Shusha talk page (except for Parishan) - including me, and in which I disagreed with EljanM. That he pinged me as well this time, was something I viewed as a small possible improvement in his behavior, in that he didn't only include like-minded editors, so I thought that I'd look into the matter and contribute with my view, and as he is a newer editor, try to explain Wikipedia's guidelines relating to the matter to EljanM, however the discussion was less than fruitful as my previous discussions with him have been unfortunately, and I suggested that he'd ping an admin or start an RfC if he wanted to pursue the matter as arguments were repeated over and over and it was starting to turn pretty messy. If it was a poor choice of mine to take part in the discussion regardless, I'll take it into consideration and I'll be more careful in the future. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Unsourced WP:SYNTH ethnicity changes by IP

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

---

• 67.175.195.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

A look through their edit history reveals plenty of edits of a similar character, mostly concerning persons with family origins either in Asia or the Indian subcontinent, but not born there and not having any other link with these places than through their family. They're clearly not contributing anything constructive otherwise and practically all of their edits have been reverted. I don't know if any further action would be premature, but clearly it is the same person continuing with the same kind of disruptive edits targeting the same pages since December 2020. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours for repeatedly adding unsourced content to articles. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Consensus vs. Reviewer

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

---

• Alextwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Lana Del Rey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was directed to file a concern here after originally posting on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. There has been hefty discussion at Talk: Lana Del Rey regarding the inclusion of Del Rey's political comments on social media and the controversy widely reported by reliable media sources. The matter was resolved by a community-wide RfC, with overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS to include. Two days ago, disgruntled editors reverted agreed-upon content repeatedly, an action also taken by @Alextwa during their edits and left a message on their talk page. After I explained their reversion of consensus, they offered their services as a reviewer, to which I reiterated the dispute and consensus, to which they insisted on reviewing the dispute, which I thanked them for to uphold politeness. They conducted an extensive, self-initiated review that opposed the consensus, and proceeded to make edits to Lana Del Rey as such. After asking five times if as a reviewer, they had the authority to violate user consensus, they refused to give a direct answer, and reverted subsequent attempts to restore consensus.

The content in question is essentially a summary of Del Rey's comments regarding former Present Trump as well as her social media remarks about her new album cover, both widely reported in the media for starting controversy - nothing in the text suggests wrongdoing, it's a mere summary of the comments followed by "this incited commentary" etc. etc. relevant to her public image, as again, established by previous consensus. While I admit to have reverted more than nessacary due to my own misunderstanding - Alextwa refuses to listen to requests about consensus and continues to implement their own idea of their own accord. Regardless of my opinion, majority consensous has already been established. Is Alextwa truly within his rights as a reviewer to repeatedly ignore user consensus and insert themselves into a resolved matter? Thank you and have a wonderful week.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• RfCs are typically open for 30 days and advertised to the community via {{rfc}}. As far as I can see the “RfC about the inclusion of political commentary and controversy in relation to Del Rey's page” section was opened on 19 Jan, and last comment a few days later, and I don’t see it tagged. If there’s a different RfC you’re talking about, link? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) adding: That having been said, there is no such thing as a super-user in content decisions, or some kind of “reviewer”. Alextwa does not appear to be acting as an uninvolved closer, and the current talk page consensus seems to be to include the content, although I haven’t reviewed the discussion beyond a skim. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader I closed the discussion per WP:RFCEND "the question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly)." after comments stalled for a forty-eight hour period, I'm happy to reopen it if policy precludes such a move - thank you for letting me know. Nonwithstanding, I still believe I have valid concerns regarding self-initiated review implementations vs. editor consensus deliberations.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  A few support votes within a few days isn’t the kind of snowing consensus appropriate for withdrawing an RfC, especially not by the poster (because someone else could not unreasonably argue the poster chose a convenient time to end it). It’s generally best to let it run for the full duration and request uninvolved closure. However, consensus does not have to be an RfC, and as far as regular talk page discussion goes there does appear to be consensus for inclusion, I agree. For future reference, edit warring against consensus can generally be reported to WP:ANEW (not relevant now as you’re here already). Also agree that Alextwa is edit warring, and possibly confused with what their WP:PCR user group entails, or misrepresenting such. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, thank you for informing me - I'll familiarize myself with these protocols and use them accordingly in the future, but consensus appears to have been established, as you said. I agree, Alextwa appears to be exercising their "pending changes" reviewer-ship (according to their talk page) in a situation where it's not inherently applicable. --Bettydaisies (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note that Alextwa was blocked and given final warnings for edit warring about women musicians in 2006, 2007, and 2009, then stopped editing in 2010. They're now back after more than 10 years, warning editors about edit warring and claiming they can overrule consensus while edit warring about a woman musician. Woodroar (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've not delved into the wider issue, but the claim that having the reviewer right gave them some sort of special authority was egregiously ridiculous enough that I have summarily revoked it. I don't believe they asked for it to begin with, the admin who granted it went on a campaign during the great Pending Changes Debates of the early 2010s to just give it to everyone based on edit count. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking steps to prevent further claims of this assertion. @ Woodroar I agree, this user’s edits and conflicts appear to primarily revolve around that subcategory. It’s also in line with a previous identification of themselves to be a member of The Recording Academy in 2009.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• TheGreatMix and MusicAndArtFan are  Confirmed sock puppets of Alextwa. They're all blocked now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Marisa Ingemi

• Marisa Ingemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A spate of recent WP:BLP violations, with an AFD that looks like it was opened in similar bad faith. More eyes and rev/deletion if needed, thanks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Appears to be a concerted attack; see some history at [94]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I've semiprotected the page for three days; HickoryOughtShirt?4 beat me to deleting the AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • While I am also concerned about Ingemi's notability (although, with the recent events she may pass GNG now) I have deleted the (improperly) formatted AfD by a completely new user. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • My thanks to you, HickoryOughtShirt?4 and The Bushranger. No problem with a credible AFD, but not coordinated with a wave of personal attacks. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Some rev/deletion of the defamatory content may still be wise. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I'll do some research but I may have to wait a bit for this wave to calm down lest we get canvassed. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• I've revdelled those edits. Fences&Windows 12:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a range block from Huntington Beach, California

• 2603:8000:7045:5400:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs)
• 75.83.151.96 (talk · contribs)

WP:LTA. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The IPv6 range has been blocked. The IPv4 user hasn't edited in a few days, and the range for the IPv4 is much too wide to block. Instead, I've protected both articles that the user has edited for one week. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Louis000123

• Louis000123 (talk · contribs)

Could someone block this account, it is a sock. Details--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Louisivan00012 (talk · contribs)

Also this one, and semi-protect the articles involved, or we will be going round in circles on this as we have done in the past.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Louisborromeo1234 (talk · contribs)

And another. This is now a serious vandalism spree.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that Louisborromeo1234, Louisivan00012, Louis000123, Louiscaong0012 and Louisbot12 are now blocked. The autoblock should kick in for a while, but CU probably won't be able to hold them at bay for too long. Apart from these, I haven't seen them a around for a little while though. Still, semi-protection (and move protection) should be looked at. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170

• Not yet blocked ip. e.g. (there are more ip meat but these two are most fitted to the disruption category)

220.246.55.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

14.0.236.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Already blocked range/ip. e.g.

124.217.188.0/23 (talk · contribs · 124.217.188.0/23 WHOIS)

219.76.16.0/20 (talk · contribs · 219.76.16.0/20 WHOIS)

218.102.122.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

218.255.11.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Set one: country related

• Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of countries without armed forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (vote stacking and revive decade old thread)
• List of lighthouses in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (vote stacking)
• Military of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (vote stacking)

Set two: cat spamming

• Category:Ma Tau Chung
• Ma Tau Chung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sung Wong Toi Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Family Planning Association of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Admin already blocked 3 ip ranges but it seems it is not enough / not effective, as new ip POV edit from new ip range emerged yet again . Some admin suggests a soft block to HK ISPs (including mobile network ) would be a solution, some suggests protect articles one by one. But really how to deal with these POV pushing edit: revive 100 years old obsolete place name Ma Tau Chung. Or piece by piece try to change Hong Kong or Country definition to slip pieces belong to dependent territory to Country-related article one by one? Or just vote stacking in talk page? Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Forget to mention, some of the meat not really willing to provide any reliable source and some involved in personal attack. Matthew hk (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The issues are simple. First, Matthew hk does not appear to be a speaker of the English language and is struggling on one hand to express his thoughts and ideas in a clear and organised manner, and on the other to comprehend what others put forward to him in their edits and especially in the talk pages (the meaning of "produce" in "produce the evidence", e.g.), when people give in to his insistence of his own points of view over the entries he has tried hard to own (such as, most notably, that Ma Tau Chung has died as a topographic name to refer to the neighbourhood). Second, he relies on Cantonese-language sources to argue his cases and defend his positions, and provides no or little translations and even he does so translations that are hardly comprehensible, while at the same time disregards English-language sources presented to him. Third, he fails to understand that according to its conventional meaning the English word "country" is used to refer to both sovereign states and dependent territories (of course, the inhabited ones with organised governments). This conventional meaning has been supported by an Australian federal court in September 1997 in Tjhe Kwet Koe and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (FCA 912), which is cited by Country and in some of the talk page discussions which he took part in. This meaning is the norm in many reputable publications such as the Economist, TIME, and is also the mainstream usage on Wikipedia. Even among those who adopt a "narrower" meaning these countries are often listed with the other countries side by side rather than presented as and alongside ordinary first-tier subdivisions. Fourth, he asserts again and again that a, the Country article has been targeted (quite the contrary, if anyone bothers to check its page history), and b, there are sock- or meatpuppets and off-site canvassing around a handful of pages - but he has never been able to present any concrete evidence. The relevant investigations had been inconclusive (at one point he even argued that there are open proxies and requested for investigations, but he had presumably backed down for the time being). Hong Kong editors got genuine concern that their edit histories may easily be tracked down by the authorities, with the recent legislations and raids a grave matter of concern, to the extent that multinationals are relocating[95] or censured/inquisited,[96] and have refrained to edit from permanent accounts until there are good solutions agreed upon by the community. He has come across about this in the talk pages but has appeared to be indifferent or to have failed to comprehend what's actually happening. Fifth, he got a strong tendency to label any IP addresses he comes across as sock- or meatpuppets and refuses to accepts his view is indeed marginal or peripheral among Hongkongers and indeed Wikipedians in general whose main medium of discussions and contributions is the English language.   As for this section, it has actually been his general pattern of going to different pages in search of echo chambers. This might not be an abuse but certainly isn't something meaningful for admins to spend their time and effort on. And afterall there are better, more helpful things for him to spend his effort on. Professional support is usually necessary for people who tend to make things up, for example, somebody who asserted that, for instance, Talk:List of countries without armed forces got "vote stacking", when there's apparently none - There's never been any vote lately to talk with, or that Hong Kong's population is 99% Chinese. 223.197.192.15 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is to confirm that the problem is real, and the IP edits are mostly disruptive, but I do not know what the best solution would be.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Francis Schonken edit-warring

• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Eight Short Preludes and Fugues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Francis Schonken has been edit-warring at Eight Short Preludes and Fugues and many, many other articles (see recent contribs) about the addition of Authority control templates by Tom.Reding. These are generally added without incident, and as far as I have seen are usually considered mostly harmless. I note that this user has a rather long block log for edit-warring, with the most recent block being for a year; perhaps the next one should be permanent. Graham87 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is worth noting that Tom's edits, in addition to adding {{Authority control}}, are conforming these articles to best practices on a lot of other minor points (using spaces instead of underscores in piped links, eliminated stray spaces after paragraphs, direct links to template titles and parameter names, etc.). Reverting these additions often means reverting these common fixes. BD2412 T 15:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There's also this comment by Francis Schonken (which was made while I was filing this ANI), which provides more context, for what it's worth. Graham87 15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Authority control templates in general are dubious, and in these cases, where they link to Muscbrainz, a wiki which repeats Wikipedia and sometimes has user-added text as well, are silly at best (and sometimes simply wrong). E.g. Francis Schonken removed this addition of AC, which linked to here instead of her. This is a relatively minor error, I have seen worse, as we rely on an external wiki (Wikidata) with minimal correctness and vandalism control (even compared to enwiki) to add these links to another external wiki (Musicbrainz), and then hope that they are correct anyway. Edit warring over them is rather fruitless and pointless though, as the AC lobby has won and these templates are added everywhere, no matter how useful they are, no matter what's in them. Fram (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with Fram. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • FWIW I've fixed it on the Wikidata end (though I'll leave its addition here to somebody else if they so desire), but I'll admit that Wikidata can certainly have problems (see my comment there). Graham87 16:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• While I don't agree with FS's reverts (thank you to those restoring my edits), I am respecting them & blacklisting those pages so as not to accidentally add {{Authority control}} in the future. Also, Fram is anti-Wikidata in general, so grain of salt, etc., etc.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  What part of Fram's statement do you take issue with, @Tom.Reding:? Tiderolls 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @Tom.Reding: Re. "I am respecting [FS's reverts] & blacklisting those pages so as not to accidentally add {{Authority control}} in the future." – apparently not, on the same article:
    1. 15:31, 27 January 2021 ("+{{Authority control}} ...")
    2. After my revert, 21:12, 28 January 2021 ("+{{Authority control}} ..."

  Sorry, you don't do what you promise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: actually, I do, if you care about nuance.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: no, you didn't keep your promise, neither with nor without nuance. Don't add where I'm a major editor, if that is indeed the nuance you're trying to make, and if you say you don't redo after a revert, then don't redo after a revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just looking at the first mentioned article: the template provides useful links to the French and German National libraries, and WorldCat. One questionable link among them seems no good reason to revert. Is there project guidance about the topic? Tom.Reding, if you see articles without the template where I am a major editor, please add it, - thank you for those where you did! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: will do! Also, I've made relevant suggestions re: "questionable links" @ Talk:Eight Short Preludes and Fugues.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I started editing this page in 2008. I saw Graham87 on my watchlist: there were plans for BWV 1 to be promoted to a WP:FA, which Gerda Arendt and I planned to do by restructuring the discography, which risked never being promoted (because of tags). For Eight Short Preludes and Fugues, I have almost doubled the content of the article. It was improperly sourced so I added WP:RS using the 2003 book of Peter Williams on Bach's organ works and the 2004 book of Joel Speerstra on clavicords (the prel. In my experience, almost daily I have seen notifications about "authority control" from Tom.Reding for various articles that I have edited, e.g. Orgelbüchlein, Clavier-Übung III, Concerti grossi, Op. 6 (Handel). These are harmless and I have not paid any attention. The article Eight Little Preludes and Fugues has been copy-edited by User:Graham87 and I will continue editing the snippets about each short preludea and fugue. I had hoped to add a creative-commons clavichord audio file, but regrettably it is labelled "non-commerical use". Mathsci (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  New day: I think it's not a good idea that principal authorship of controls whether our readers receive the information or not. What do others think?

  Francis removed it BWV and others today. I understand that denying readers access to information by a principal editor in "control" of an article is a practice supported by some, but I'd like to see that examined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  For clarity, I don't like the idea of editors "controlling" a Wikipedia article. Not at all. The idea disgusts me, it is more often than not an impediment to sound development of an article. If there's a point on whether or not to include a template in an article, take it to the talk page, and try to reach WP:CONSENSUS there. For the article mentioned in the OP, this seems to work now, in the talk page section I initiated. For the diff Gerda quotes for the BWV article: the "Authority control" box for that article shows only a single identifier, and really a bad one ([97]). Its short intro is a mirror of Wikipedia, and the WP:USERGENERATED list itself is incomplete, doesn't distinguish properly between differences in the several editions of the BWV catalogue, haphazardly names a few "artists" connected to some of the works (not by far the most memorable performers of these works), and lags behind on recent information: in short, it is quite inferior to what Wikipedia has on the subject. BTW, not providing a direct link is not "denying" readers access to whatever: two clicks from Wikipedia's BWV page (instead of one) brings you to the same MusicBrainz page. We don't link to whatever information the internet is churning out, that's an editorial choice, not "denying access" too loads of low-quality material. As an identifier for multiple versions of the BWV, MusicBrainz's "(series/)d977f7fd-96c9-4e3e-83b5-eb484a9e6582" identifier is "exotic" (as in: not commonly used anywhere else). Further, the "External links" section of the BWV article already contains an "Authority file" entry, which makes an additional authority control system completely redundant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining, only: I don't have the time to look at each individual article. The normal place where I - as a reader - would look for authority control is where the template is, not within the other external links. I guess readers are educated enough to judge whether to follow any link in it or not. I suggest to use the ac template and remove the other to avoid duplication. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  Re. "I don't have the time to look at each individual article" – nor do I. Maybe trust my judgement for the few I looked at for this aspect, and updated accordingly? Thanks. Saves you the trouble to look at it (for which you don't have time anyway). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

About Authority Control

• Unrelated-related: as I queried elsewhere, Wikidata — who here understands what it actually is? And can you spare a few brain cells? El_C 16:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It is a WMF project that is effectively a large queryable interconnected database that stores information on the encyclopedic topics and their various "properties" (for example, the "composer" of "Symphony No. 9" is the encyclopedic topic "Ludwig von Beethoven" from which other properties can be looked up) This database can be used by various scripts and tools across WMF projects to generate human-readable output based on the encyclopedic topic (such as this authority control template), as well as for external tools that help with the semantic web. It is meant to run parallel to how we editors here prepare information in places like infoboxes and elsewhere into human-readable organized forms. --Masem (t) 16:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • To add specific to this, part of the Wikidata for songs include the details of entries for those songs/compositions in major world music catalogs (alphanumeric codes or URL links) which is how the authority control template is populated by pulling the relevant data and formating the proper URL callouts for each catalog. --Masem (t) 16:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Masem. That should be in the article! Next rabbit hole: Semantic Web (new concept for me); wondering if the robot in-charge will want to be my friend...? El_C 16:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
        • If you go to Google and search "Symphony No. 9", Google pulls some of our data to fill that box to the right to tell you who composed it and when. That's part of the external features. But you could also do, in Google or possibly your local home assistant (Siri or Alexa) "Who wrote Symphony No. 9?" and that's where the semantic web comes in, the backend systems using natural language processigng to figure out that you are looking for 1) the song "Symphony No. 9" 2) that by "wrote" for a song, you mean "composer" and 3) using Wikidata tools to identify the composer as Beethoven. Perhaps a simplified example, but the idea is there. And as Tom Reding points out below, the idea is to make this all centralized rather than project-by-project. --Masem (t) 16:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
        • El_C, I've tried out half a dozen non-WMF wikis that used the WMF software, or a derivation of it.

One wiki I spent some time on was a Darpa project, focussed around counter-terrorism. It used an extension of the WMF software, where ever wikilink could specify the relationship between the current article and the linked-to article. So the article on Lief Ericson would say something like:

Explorer Lief Ericson's father [[Son-of::Eric the Red]], the Norse explorer discovered [[Geo-place::Greenland]]. Ericson, would, in turn explore the coast of [[Geo-place::Labrador]] in [[Geo-place::North America]].

The metadata before the "::" was the relationship between the two articles. So, they didn't need a separate project to support semantic links.

Related articles with a semantic-link to the current article could be listed at the end of the article, sorted by the relationship.

I stopped testing that one out about 8 years ago, because, while they supported this cool extension, they didn't support essential core templates, like {{cite}}. I'm afraid, at this particular moment, I can't even recall the name of that wiki, I do recall it was a weird name. Geo Swan (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• • @El C: TL;DR of WD: it's a unified, cross-language database on every^(ideally) page on all wikis. If the information contained therein about a subject changes or is added (like a new {{Authority control}} ID), anyone from any language can effectively update all wikis, instead of having to do so one-by-one.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• With the flipside of course that this way, you can just as easily vandalize all wikis, instead of having to do so one-by-one. Or not vandalize, just by mistake introduce errors which get duplicated all over Wikipedia, without most editors noticing this in recent changes, without appearing in page histories, ... That vandal and error control at Wikidata are dramatic is their problem: which, if any, entries to allow in AC, and which pages need or want an AC, is our problem and not an issue with Wikidata in itself (they offer it, we are free to accept or reject it). AC adds wikis, adds databases with no use at all for most pages it is on, and adds some good info as well. Look at e.g. Jan_van_Eyck: not only has it a MusisBrainz link[98] of absolutely no value at all, it is also very dubious that anyone on Enwiki will be helped at all by this, this, this, this, this, this, this (not available), this, this, this, ... All these are probably perfect for Wikidata, and this is not a plea to change this over there: none of these are of any use on enwiki, and duplicating all these authority control links is not using Wikidata for its strengths, but diluting it.

Authority control, just like lots of things Wikidata is used for on enwiki, is essentially lazy editing, adding heaps of stuff automatically without care whether it is useful, wanted, needed. It's available, so we use it. It should be either trimmed to keep only the essential ones (essential for enwiki that is), and/or it should be replaced with more tailored templates: for artists it would include RKD, for people from or with a link to Japan the Japanese national library, for subjects with a link to Czechia the Czech one, and so on. That might turn it into a useful template with a lot less objections, a lot less clutter. What we have now, ugh, no. Fram (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I tend to ignore everything in/past the "External links" section. Tends to become a dump of misc stuff much of which is of dubious usefulness to an article. Authority control is one of those things, the things on the right about "X project may have more" is another, and navboxes, many of which are just mass-added and tend to not be tailored for usefulness or relevance. TfD decides to delete subset navboxes (smaller ones which may be useful) as "duplicates" or "redundant". There are some articles where it's carefully curated to be useful, eg Coronavirus_disease_2019#External_links, but most articles it's a mess. It can be difficult to tame stuff down, because many people believe in "mostly harmless" / "WP:NOTPAPER", or other suspect arguments which advocate clogging an article up with everything possible. And it's simply not worth spending time over arguing over stuff on that part of a page, imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! I learned tons about this branch of science. I am fascinated by this ongoing debate (a much as I am able to parse its various components), though am not confident enough to opine in any way at this time. I might gently note that I wish the Wikidata article itself could provide the clarity that a few brief comments here were able to — yes, there's simple:Wikidata, but it's quite spartan. Anyway, carry on! El_C 17:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As an example, I have created Template:ACArt (and the accompanying module), a tailored authority control template for visual arts. I have now added it to Jan Van Eyck, reducing the 35 or so AC links to 15 ones, discarding the superfluous, useless (for enwiki), tenuous or redundant ones. The list of what to include or exclude obviously needs further refinement, this is a rough first version, but it gives the idea. Of course, if we start using this, we no longer can blindly add authority control to all pages... The same could be done for all kinds of groups of subjects, wherever wanted. A separate group could be created not based on the subject matter, but on the country of origin for example, so that e.g. the national library of Croatia doesn't appear for subjects with a tenuous link to Croatia. Fram (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a good direction, but I am not an expert on the issue, and we should hear from librarians, pinging some I know about: @DGG, Megalibrarygirl, and Phoebe: could you comment on the general Authority Control or the new {{ACArt}}? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fram: tried it & like it! Thanks, looks like we might be getting somewhere after all with this protracted issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Guadeloupe amazon—Today's TFA subject to ongoing vandalism

• Guadeloupe amazon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After it was posted as Today Featured article (TFA), this is repeatedly vandalized by multiple IP and new users. Admin, please protecting the article. Yesterday, The Holocaust in Slovakia is protected because vandalism on TFA, but im afraid that posting an article as TFA would be resulted in high level of IP Vandalism. Even ClueBot NG repeatedly reverted TFA edits that are possible vandalism. Thanks. 110.137.185.201 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done - semi-protected for 3 days. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought TFAs were by default protected? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

TFA's default protected yes only for move, but for editing is not. This is an evidence that any article that posted as TFA may be suspectible to IP vandalism which will become more persistent in the next 24 hours. The TFA's has given editnotice not to vandalize it but many IPs ignore that guidance so it need to discuss in TFA's talk page whether TFA should be semi-protected to prevent vandalism for example Meghan Trainor which is TFA and also semi-protected. 110.137.117.75 (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Rkerver's unsourced, fringe, and political editing

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

---

• Rkerver (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Rkerver's most recent active editing period began on Jan 10 on the page Anocracy in which they cited a difficult-to-verify and possibly fringe source to claim the United States had become downgraded from a democracy. This was then inserted into the results section of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol infobox. This was reverted.

Their edits to Anocracy were reverted on Jan 21 by Jared.h.wood, however the user quickly reverted Wood's reversion. Wood has began a talk page discussion informing them of problems with their edits.

The following day on Jan 22, I was initially asked to look into Rkerver by Wood based on a pattern of editing they found problematic but did not know how to deal with. After Wood's request, I looked into the matter. On Jan 22, I reverted Rkerver's edits at Anocracy and posted appropriate warning templates on Rkerver's usertalk page

However the user continued to reinstate their edits multiple times (1/2/3) up to today, Jan 28. The edit-warring aside, Rkerver took to the article talk page for the first time today saying things which violate claiming they themselves were a reliable source and calling those who reverted them insolent. Additionally they filed a claim at DRN which was closed by Nightenbelle whose comment on my talk page motivated me to file this report.

Looking through Rkerver's contribs, I've found other concerning behavioral patterns in their long but sparse history here on the wiki:

• 2020 Unsourced, political editing on Reptilian conspiracy theory
• 2016 Unsourced, BLP edits (marked as minor) on Pelé
• 2015 Problematic comments on User talk:Jason Rees
• A lot of unsourced fictional work plot edits

This behavior is concerning. Additionally, the user often improperly marks edits as minor and doesn't properly sign comments. As such, I believe this conduct unbecoming of an editor and that intervention is required. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 17:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Note: While I was writing the above, the user posted to my talk page claiming I was edit warring and in violation. I would like to point out that multiple users and even ip editors have reverted them, not just me. Regardless, improperly or uncited content may be challenged and removed by any editor at any time. This strikes me as odd, but I digress. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 17:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Patrick Mcdermott25

• Patrick Mcdermott25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user as the habit of making edits that are outright wrong, superfluous, overblown or POV. His talkpage is one big list of warnings and requests to do better (especially souring and neutrality). One of the edits is [this one, where he tries to present a fictional person as a life long speaker of Hiberno-Irish.

@Mutt Lunker: added him to a category of suspected sockpuppets. An action I support.

This is absolutely going nowhere and I request help. The Banner talk 19:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Some recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The Banner talk 20:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Having wasted considerable time unpicking the prolific, dubious, unsupported POVy workings of this individual's current sock a few months back I was less than delighted to see they had recently returned to the fray. I haven't summed up the energy to have more than a cursory look at their latest efforts but it is clear that their previous MO has sustained. It's not worth the effort to pick out any scant wheat as the chaff is so dominant. A blanket revert of their edits and a ban is warranted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If Hiberno-English doesn't include fictional characters? Then Miles O'Brien's addition (assuming it's meant to be Star Trek TNG/DS9's Chief O'Brien), is borderline WP:CIR territory. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If either of you want to write up a pro-forma SPI, you can--I blocked the editor indefinitely, not just for the socking but also for the edit warring, the incompetence, the disruption, the lack of proper communication, and a huge amount of logged-out editing in the same articles the account was editing. Also CU-blocked are Sporky25 and SecretagentFrog12. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

SPI-case filed, Sir. The Banner talk 19:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Nabilah Patel

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

---

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

I blocked Nabilah Patel user 21:48, 27 January 2021 on the Commons for repeatedly recreating copyvios, and indeed the same copyvio. Since that time, the following has occurred:

• 09:17, 28 January 2021 - File:XZM sAjojpg.jpeg uploaded
• 10:05, 28 January 2021 - File:Hazel Grace jpg.jpeg uploaded
• 10:17, 28 January 2021 - File:Haze grace.jpg uploaded
• 12:59, 28 January 2021 - File:Aia png.png uploaded
• 13:01, 28 January 2021 - File:Hazel Grace jpg.jpeg deleted
• 13:01, 28 January 2021 - File:Haze grace.jpg deleted
• 13:01, 28 January 2021 - File:Aia png.png deleted
• 13:29, 28 January 2021 - File:XZM sAjojpg.jpeg deleted
• 14:02, 28 January 2021 - File:Haze grace.jpg recreated
• 14:15, 28 January 2021 - File:Haze grace.jpg deleted
• 14:21, 28 January 2021 - File:Haze grace.jpg recreated
• 14:40, 28 January 2021 - File:Haze grace.jpg deleted
• 14:44, 28 January 2021 - File:Haze grace.jpg recreated

All images copyvios (indeed, most the same copyvio) with no source, license, or NFCC rationale. The de-evolution to recreation warring parallels edit warring to retain NFCC-violating image use on User:Nabilah Patel/sandbox (itself a WP:N issue). Commons history and en.wiki behaviour since suggest user is entirely disinterested in engaging with policy or altering behaviour. Seems well past time for admin intervention. Эlcobbola _talk 21:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - This is about as direct a warning as there is to stop using non-free content in their sandbox but that didn't stop the behaviour. The editor has not responded to any notes, messages, or warnings left on their talk page. Instead, they continued to upload copyrighted images and use non-free content in their user sandbox. -- Whpq (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Broad-based spam adding non-notable people

AN report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Script_for_dealing_with_the_current_wave_of_BLP_violations

Starting this morning there has been a very broad effort to add non-notables to articles for places (see this edit, here, here and here, among many others for examples). Not sure what's driving this but the number of articles and editors is very widespread. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like a bunch of schoolkids doing what schoolkids traditionally do on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The addition of non-notable people to articles is quite common, especially on DAB pages for names and 'notable people' sections. Edit filters can't solve the problem, so just revert on sight and leave a nice note on the user's TP. Pahunkat (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Very often it's schoolkids, but not always. Pahunkat (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This one is huge. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely concur with Magnolia677. We are well aware of how to revert and we've been editing long enough to know that this isn't a handful of kids in a classroom. Treating this as a non-issue will perpetuate the problem, even if there is no systematic / automated way to solve it. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The only real way to solve this is what is essentially WP:RBI. They hit and run, and almost certainly won't see any message sent their way. So revert on sight and deny recognition. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I know why this is happening. You might want to keep an eye on this comment section. Don't draw too much attention their way though, that would almost certainly make the situation worse. Perhaps a new edit filter that detects new additions to "Notable people" sections is the way to go. --C o r t e x ^💬talk 22:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Cortex128, what is it that you're seeing there? By not saying it, the only way to find out is by clicking the link, which will counter your “Don't draw too much attention their way” notice. Or, given the update below, it might be best to strike your message. ◅ Sebastian 00:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The video has since been privated. It's probably best to just strike it --C o r t e x ^💬talk 02:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right. That's the reason.

Tons and tons of these on the place articles on my watchlist today; just caught some more. Antandrus (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[

Yup, this is way beyond the normal level of such edits. There's definitely something driving it. Meters (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of them are referencing TikTok, so -- yes. Antandrus (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: I noticed when looking over the comment section that someone has brought this issue up with the video creator, and they appear to have privated the video. These edits are probably going to slow down a bit, but still keep an eye out, as the damage has already been done, and I doubt these edits will be stopping entirely. --C o r t e x ^💬talk 23:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Update 2: Someone's already uploaded another version of the video. See here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortex128 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, there's a flood of these right now. Antandrus (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

For those of use that wouldn't touch Tiktok with a fifty foot pole, could some-one please fill us in on what we're supposed to be looking for? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Filter recent changes for anon-only (and/or new accounts) and article space only, and look for additions of non-notable people to articles on places, often to the "notable people" section. This edit is typical. They're coming in a couple per minute. Earlier there were more, but it's still kind of a flood. Antandrus (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Cortex128, In future requested edit filters should go to WP:EF/R. I've tried requesting one before but there's nothing we can do in terms of looking for no-notable entries through redlinks. However, in this case an edit filter might be able to catch references to tiktok, albeit with probable a few false positives, providing a short-term solution. Would that work? Pahunkat (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, While this would definitely catch some of these edits, not all of them specifically reference tiktok. It's better than nothing, though. --C o r t e x ^💬talk 11:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) *Sigh*. I can't think of an easy solution. Serious editors pay attention to templates like {{alumni}} and {{cleanup list}}, but vanity posters don't. The only crumb I can offer is that me-me-me links to DAB pages are unlikely to survive more than about two months before being booted into Row Z of the stands (often, accompanied by redlinks and bad bluelinks on the same page). Monitoring WP:TDD#Today's highlights for new links to {{hndis}} pages would be unutterably tedious; most such links are failures to WP:TESTLINK or technical WP:INTDAB errors. Narky Blert (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

See filter 1111 (hist · log). Just a log of redlinks added by non-confirmed editors. Not sure if that will be useful here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That will catch a bunch of them.

It's started up again tonight, unsurprisingly, in kind of a big way (Friday night, winter, kids can't go out because pandemic, etc. etc.) Antandrus (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Also 1112 (hist · log). --C o r t e x ^💬talk 08:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

So a filter was possible in the end, thanks Suffusion of Yellow. Pahunkat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Lots of false positives though, but it seems to be picking up all of these edits. --C o r t e x ^💬talk 15:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Antandrus, Cortex128, and Pahunkat: 1112 should be more refined now. Leaving 1111 on for now to see what 1112 is missing, but it might be a bit expensive to leave on forever. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Suffusion of Yellow -- appreciate it. At its peak that was pretty crazy. Reminds me a little of the "Stephen Colbert Elephants" scene of many years ago. Antandrus (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I notice some seem to be (in their minds, at least) getting "smarter" - one had a corporate-sounding username and others are making edits that look like run-of-the-mill vandalism before hitting the tiktok stuff. EDIT: And they've started making Draftspace "articles" for the names they're trying to stick into the pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Antandrus, Cortex128, Pahunkat, and The Bushranger: I'm tired of posting in two places, but see latest updates at WP:EFN § Filter to detect new additions to "Notable people" sections. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I just saw this one. Could it be related? Adam9007 (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Attention all children

Can someone point to me exactly what TikTok users are seeing before they try this crap? Is it just the video linked above ([99])? Or is there something more going on? I'd like to create a custom message for the filter, but it would help to know what they think they are trying to do first. Thanks! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The original video was essentially just the same as the one I linked in update 2, but with a different person standing under the text. You're not missing much by it being deleted. The last time I checked before it got deleted I think the original had about 110,000 views. --C o r t e x ^💬talk 16:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the ideas behind such videos may also be shared by social media, rather than only through that video. I'd therefore recommend having a message which also encompasses this as opposed to a message which focuses on the video. Pahunkat (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right Pahunkat - a key part of the culture of Tiktok is for users to remix/copy/respond to each others videos with their own videos on a similar theme. So there are probably hundreds if not thousands of variants of this video. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

And don't make the mistake of believing all the people doing it are children, they most assuredly are not. Canterbury Tail talk 02:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Best thing to do is to revert as a BJP violation. Steve M (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

When their actions are indistinguishable from... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This is accelerating

The last 1000 hits to 1112 (hist · log) (430 unique users) only go back about 3.5 hours. Not sure what's going on here. This can't be just one video, can it? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple Users are uploading similar versions of that original video, which accelerates the outreach. This issue is affecting the deWP as well (see de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Anfragen#Persönlichkeiten_/_Ehrenbürger_in_Ortsartikeln). --Johannnes89 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we don't call it "going viral" for nothing. Not much we can do but ride it out, it'll die down eventually and tiktok will find something else to waste their time with. Seems like the edit filters are working as intended. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Swarm, yeah. At one time, huggle was showing 20 reverts per minute. That is ridiculous. Steve M (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, the video has 83,000+ views. Steve M (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Any idea when this will die down? Pahunkat (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

When is TikTok being banned? It's going to be a function of how popular the meme is, who's sharing it, whether it gets deleted, etc. The last TikTok meme took one month to reach reasonable levels, and about six months to die completely. Given the traffic seen here, I'd estimate it might be a bit longer, but any way there's probably still a few weeks left in it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, did you see this thread? I know you've been blocking and reverting a ton of stuff. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Drmies, thank you very much for the ping. I had seen it after it was kindly linked from WP:AN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, I saw you were dealing with this bullshit this morning already, and I appreciate you. I was just looking at AIV, for reports placed by DatBot, but is there a more direct way? What do you look at that you see them so quickly? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I use https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=1112, open "details" and "contribs" (or the IP link) and then use the script announced at WP:AN. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SoY, may want to look at Special:Contributions/62.255.152.163 & ef log. Strange false positive? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The filter as designed seems to match any small-ish unsourced text addition in an article that contains a "Notable [whatever]" section, even if the edit affects another section entirely. Not sure of a great way to work around that. Could check the section comment in the edit summary, but that may be unreliable. — The Earwig ^talk 02:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Sorry, but looks difficult to avoid FPs like that. Hence my shouty message in the notes and my snippiness the other day about WP:EF/FP being protected. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-plug: User:Enterprisey/live-reload shows new filter hits as they come in. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

SPA adds their name to mayor positions

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

---

User:Adrianna muise has been adding their names to mayoral positions. I stopped reverting after the 3rd time as I didn't want to edit-war and break 3RR. I reverted as it was unsourced and likely to be challenged (WP:BLP). Did I make a dumb mistake, or am I right? Steve M (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Pure vandalism and they should be blocked since I checked at the person they replaced is the actual mayor. I also noticed after being reverted by a different editor an IP, 142.134.187.131, readded the false claim of mayorship so is obviously the same person. I think a block and some form of protection is required.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The original editor is now blocked but the IP I mentioned still needs to be dealt with.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@65.92.160.124: I think this trend rose from this stupid Tiktok video. Good thing I stay away from Tiktok. In the meanwhile, I've filed an SPI on this matter. Steve M (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

[Adding to closed report because the closing template hates urls:] BTW, never seen a TikTok video before directly (as opposed to indirectly like here, bruh!). Boy do they ever suck! What, there's just a volume button that you can't lower? Just either mute or have at full blast? That is so dumb. El_C 04:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Regarding TikTok vandals

Right now, there is a major trend of (mostly) teenage vandals hopping on Wikipedia and adding themselves to (most likely) their hometown. This campaign has actually been going on since yesterday, but most people aren't even aware of it thanks to the filters. Shinyedit^bonjour. 21:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, there's a section above about this. But leave this section here. If you didn't notice it, other people are missing it too. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Well that finally explains this. I'll be sure to add all 161 towns in CT to my watchlist. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Are we allowed to issue 4im warnings on the spot for this, or do we still have to go from level 1/2? Pahunkat (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, even if the page in question has seen a succession of similar disruptive edits by a number of users (so you know it's part of that wave), it's still probably better to start at 2 (my preference), or 1 (more gentle souls) — futile as it may seem. Note that any page experiencing more than a single disruptive user, may as well be reported to WP:RfPP right away. El_C 22:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick solution might be to update Cluebot to be super paranoid on Town articles in which there is an IP editor or newly created account. Des Vallee (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat:, before the edit filter was set to stop, I was treating most named accounts appearing to do this as VOAs, call it canvassed, meatbotting, or whatever you want to call "off-wiki vandalism campaign", and blocking on the spot. A few had drafts that actually showed, if not about notable people, intent to do something beyond a drive-by ha-ha-ing, got a welcome-unconstructive, sometimes with a custom note explaining (politely) about various relevant policies. Once the filter (1112, right?) was stopping the edits from going through, I just let them go from that point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on a BLP getting a bit tetchy

• Talk:Michael Shellenberger (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

This is not a suggestion that anyone is guilty of anything, but I believe it would be good if any administrator would glance at this talk page thread. A person is editing the article and explaining that he is the article's subject but this doesn't seem to have been verified. Seems to be getting heated. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Only glanced at the aforementioned, but I did semi the article for 2 weeks on BLP/COI grounds. El_C 23:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This should be semi-protected Powell, Ohio

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

---

• Powell, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There already is an immense amount of vandalism going on this page. I think we should semi-protect it for roughly a month. It doesn't take much time to revert but it seems like a TikTok user has decided to declare war on Wikipedia or something, encouraging their followers to vandalize Wikipedia pages. If an admin sees this I would semi-protect the page for about a month and if vandalism keeps up it could be extended further. It's a massive waste of time to revert obvious vandals. Des Vallee (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User Ladislav Mecir and Bitcoin Cash again

Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) Article: Bitcoin Cash

We have ongoing WP:TE issues on the Bitcoin Cash article. This user was previously discussed on ANI related to the same article and the same content here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Next_cryptocurrency_topicban. The user avoided a TBAN but WP:GS/Crypto did result from this discussion of the user.

In this case the user continues to oppose the article' nickname (or altname maybe) and repeatedly uses RFCs to WP:BATTLE in what Hidden Lemon referred to as a "ridiculous and unproductive game" and David Gerard referred to as a "behavioural problem." On January 14th 2021, the user created this Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#RfC:_Does_the_IBT_article_dated_22_August_2017_confirm_the_claim_that_Bitcoin_Cash_is_sometimes_also_referred_to_as_Bcash? then January 25th the user created a second RFC on the same subject Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#RfC:_Does_the_TechCrunch_article_dated_10_August_2018_confirm_the_claim_that_Bitcoin_Cash_is_sometimes_also_referred_to_as_Bcash? (almost immediately closed by another editor), and then yesterday substantially revised the January 14th RFC, changing the goalposts which appears to game the RFC system. Note the RFCs of the 14th and 25th of January represent the 5th and 6th RFCs on the same article nickname (or altame) issue. In this audio interview the editor in question [100] he makes a statement that sounded to me like getting paid to edit and I recall there was an ANI or discussion raised as a COI on this issue by I recall jytdog (who I think doesnt edit anymore or was banned), but I cannot find it right now in my search of the ANIs. Another weird event, I left a GSCRYPTO notice here this edit on Mazdamiata200's talk page (a SPA that showed up around the time of the first RFC), and Ladislav then commented on the talk page within a few hours, making me wonder if there is some off wikipedia coordination going on. I suppose it was possible that Ladislav was also following my edits, but to my knowledge he couldn't have been following the Mazdamiata200 talk page (since my edit created it) correct? Made me wonder if this was off wikipedia coordination as it tends to look like WP:FOWLPLAY. Anyhow, regardless it would be helpful for more uninvolved editors to have a look at the Bitcoin Cash article. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I hope you do not mind me reacting to the above WP:BATTLE contribution by Jtbobwaysf in the reverse order:

• Re "Another weird event, I left a GSCRYPTO notice here this edit on Mazdamiata200's talk page (a SPA that showed up around the time of the first RFC), and Ladislav then commented on the talk page within a few hours, making me wonder if there is some off wikipedia coordination going on. I suppose it was possible that Ladislav was also following my edits, but to my knowledge he couldn't have been following the Mazdamiata200 talk page (since my edit created it) correct? Made me wonder if this was off wikipedia coordination as it tends to look like WP:FOWLPLAY." - No, Jtbobwaysf, I neither had an off wikipedia conversation with Mazdamiata200, nor did I follow your edits. What I did was much simpler: I observed that there was a new editor, i.e. an editor without a talk page coming to discuss the issues at the Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Having seen that, I decided to welcome him, but was a bit slow, finding out that you did welcome him to Wikipedia before I got to that. Nevertheless (I apologize if that is a violation of some Wikipedia policy.), I left yet another welcome message for him in there as well. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Re "In this audio interview the editor in question [101] he makes a statement that sounded to me like getting paid to edit" - This is another WP:BATTLE contribution by Jtbobwaysf. Unfortunately, his memory betrayed him as this and this edit document. I would like to make some additional comments, but, unfortunately, I am getting short of time now. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing on the link and my comment. I have struck that comment relating to paid edits, as I can now read in my note to you that I did listen to the podcast at the time and clearly I felt you were not being paid. I apologize for that. Thanks and apologies again! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• This has been a perennial issue that Ladislav_Mecir keeps bringing up, and filing formal RFCs as his first response to people disagreeing with him on the talk page. His recent RFCs have also had multiple SPAs, who have never edited anywhere else, show up to agree with him. In one case, he argued the SPA in question should not be notified of the GS/Crypto sanctions in the area. I would suggest Ladislav_Mecir be barred from filing further RFCs on the topic of cryptocurrency, broadly construed - this is something that can be actioned by any uninvolved admin under WP:GS/Crypto - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I support this suggestion by David especially in light of the fact that it allows Ladislav to continue editing, as generally speaking his inputs are valuable and useful (excluding the propensity to RFC, especially on Bitcoin Cash matters). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Deceptive use of minor edit flags by GizzyCatBella

User:GizzyCatBella (contribs) has been deceptively marking edits as minor while making non-minor changes, this deception hides her edits from other editors who do not watch minor edits. GizzyCatBella has been employing this deception for a long time: 25 Jan, 7 Jan, 23 December, most of her uses of the minor flag are deceptive uses and are not minor.

On Monday I warned her about this (which she reverted).

Yet she continues: today and yesterday, while pushing an alternative viewpoint that the USSR was an Axis powers ally.

I am requesting admin attention to stop this deceptive editing.--Astral Leap (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like all five edits you've mentioned there are Twinkle reverts. I've gone back through her contribs and no other edits appear to be marked minor except for these, so this may be a technical issue. It appears to happen for me as well, i.e. [102]. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This would appear to be the rollback (VANDAL) option, as opposed to a regular rollback in Twinkle. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 10:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The ones of mine that were marked minor were simply regular rollback (often activated from my watchlist - hover over diff, see it's unhelpful, roll it back). I think I've hardly ever used the "VANDAL" option. Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I now went through her last 500 edits, manually because I don't know how to filter only minor edits (I only know how to hide), I counted eleven minor edits. Almost all of them were not minor and were not vandalism. Maybe two or three of them were legitimate minor edits. If GizzyCatBella is using rollback (VANDAL) on non-vandalism edits, then that only makes matters worse as this isn't only deception but also treating non-vandal editors as vandals.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why it matters what Twinkle wants to call the feature used unless it causes a problem visible on Wikipedia. All of the 5 edits you highlighted above include custom edit summaries, and none of them said anything about vandalism. I assume there was no warning of vandalism on the editor's talk page otherwise you would have brought it up. Incorrectly marking the edits as minor is a problem. However it's unclear to me how wide spread the problem is. 7-8 out of 11 seems quite a high error rate, on the other hand it's also out of 500 edits in total so isn't that bad. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It is three in the last week ([103][104][105]) and three more last week ([106][107][108]). None of those six is legit. The last two are after GizzyCatBella was warned. I often look at my watchlist with minor and bot edits hidden, as if they are correctly marked I don't need to bother myself with them. Other editors do that too. GizzyCatBella is making large edits, moving the USSR from the Allied side to the Axis, and these are marked as minor. These aren't small mistakes, there is no way any of those edits could be seen as minor, and the only point of marking them as minor is to hide, to deceive.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the way in which the edits were delivered (minor, etc.), but this edit itself, for example, seems on the questionable end of the spectrum. GizzyCatBella, maybe engage in discussion (till the end) before attempting such significant changes for such a fraught topic area — I mean, you just came off of a topic ban about World War II history of Poland and here you are making really far-reaching edits concerning World War II history of Poland in other pages without discussion with a clear consensus result. As one of the most ardent supporters of seeing your topic ban lifted, I gotta admit that this gives me pause. Perhaps a less WP:BOLD approach would serve you (and everyone else) better...? El_C 14:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi El_C, this edits[109] will not appear questionable if you look at this entire discussion[110]. (I know, it's a total mess :() We are still talking about if we should include the Soviet Union in the infobox or not. Here is my plea to the reverted user[111], and here is the answer of the editor that was reverted[112]. We have no agreement for removal yet; that's why the revert. It's all good here. El_C, you know that Astral Leap is the same user who filed this[113], right? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, yes, Astral Leap, a content opponent — I am aware. I intend to have a word with them about the reoccurring ad-hoc prosecutions. And, yes, I did see that discussion, but it did not strike me as having even a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. That's my point. El_C 15:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is being worked to remove not to include. The info is still there until an agreement is reached. Also, El_C, this line of Astral Leap - quote: "Yet she continues: today and yesterday, while pushing an alternative viewpoint that the USSR was an Axis powers ally." is a total fabrication (and I'm not afraid to use this word) I never claimed that USSR was a part of AXIS powers. Astral Leap is trying to deceive you guys into something I NEVER claimed. Please take a note of that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, I'm not immediately seeing what you're seeing. Maybe you can provide the noticeboard with some diffs that demonstrate what is the contending versus longstanding version. I, at least, am having difficulties easily parsing it for this extremely convoluted infobox. Anyway, I have instructed Astral Leap to cease from the ad-hoc prosectuions — hope that helps! El_C 16:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

That discussion is a jumble now; I know El_C, when I come back, I'll explain everything here, or on your talk page, so you don't have to go through all that mess. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I move pages also, and for some reason, the moves are always marked as "minor". This is also the same for my rollback edits. I don't now why these edits are always marked as "minor". Jerm (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Jerm, I think rollback was always marked minor — it was in the early days when it was the sole domain of users with the sysop flag enabled. El_C 15:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Well even now, per WP:Rollback due to the lack of an appropriate edit summary; in the general case rollback should only be used for vandalism or other cases where the reason for reversion is obvious, edits by blocked or banned editors, or by leaving an explanation somewhere else. So the minor flag seems reasonable. (Roll back can also be used for your own edits or on your user space.) Twinkle probably marks reversions via the vandalism function as minor for the same reason. That would be a reason not to misuse it, but the mere fact it's called vandalism in Twinkle IMO remains irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

To give a related example, someone could make a script which replaces the undo button with a 'fix idiocy' button. That would be a terrible unconstructive thing to do but if the script is client side and not something they tell anyone about, I don't think we should do anything about it even if they one day accidentally show it in a screenshot or editathon or something. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't care what the excuse is: adding the USSR to the Axis side [114][115], where we also find Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Vichy France, etc., is not minor, and is disruptive. -Darouet (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Darouet, again, I wouldn't fret too much about Twinkle marking reverts as minor. If that can't be adjusted, a manual edit will be expected. Not a big deal. Anyway, I would focus more on the nature of the edit/s themselves than on that (fairly minor — pun intended!) facet of it. El_C 16:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

In the alternative timeline in which USSR was an Axis power, the allied forces of Japan and USA invaded and conquered Australia and India. Narky Blert (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: - an accident caused by Twinkle is understandable, but trying to game the USSR onto the other side of the WWII equation is not. -Darouet (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Darouet, no doubt. El_C 18:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Guys, I have to leave now and will not be available until late. When I come back, I'll study and learn why Twinkle marks some of my edits as "minor”. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't view addressing that as a priority by any stretch, GizzyCatBella. The key focus ought to be on the nature of the edit/s themselves. The Twinkle component of this can be attended to in due time. El_C 16:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The cynic in me says that the "minor edits" issue being brought up by an editor who has prevously reported GizzyCatBella at WP:AE is something of a (deliberate) red herring, and I would therefore now be tempted to close this as a content dispute. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, right, see my warning here: User_talk:Astral_Leap#GizzyCatBella_ad-hoc_prosecutions. I don't mind you closing this so much, but there is likely an underlying problem (of an WP:ACDS nature), which I am hoping gets addressed (somewhere). El_C 19:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• this report is not well founded and barely justified concerning the Axis/Allies articles, see my recent edits here ([116]) and ([117]). I am following the events and take part of the discussions (which became so complicated that any outsider may easily be misleaded). I reset now it both page the last stable versions, and draw the attention to everybody without explicit consensus on the talk no further abuse should be done. Actually Gizzy really did not harm any rule in these two articles, she did both instances a (one occasion a longer) rollback, which - as I explained as well in the edit logs - did not violate anything. I am sorry this was missed by many, but surely it's because of the rapid and mass material of article's intermediary edits and talk page discussions (don't worry anyone though I'll check recurrently the events as a watchdog and won't let things to escalate).(KIENGIR (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

Persistent disruptive editing from User:Social25062

This [118] is the latest of a set of disruptive edits made by Social25062 (talk · contribs), either logged in or logged out, that even introduced comments in the mainspace [119]. In the last days this user made a number of attempts to remove sourced information from Flag carrier, plus added unsourced entries [120] as well which were promptly reverted [121]. More disruptive behaviour came from the addition of a protection template to a non-protected article [122]. To me, this user does not understand WP:CCPOL and their edits are time consuming to other editors [123] in order to fix them.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

On a second thought, 2400:4050:2501:EC00:41FE:2543:749D:20C (talk · contribs) does not seem to edit on behalf of Social25062 (talk · contribs), but my other comments stand.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Pyramid of Nyuserre —Today's TFA subject to persistent vandalism

• Pyramid of Nyuserre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is 29 January, when the day Pyramid of Nyuserre posted as Today's feature article (TFA). But unforurnately, it also become an subject to ongoing vandalism from multiple IP users, which i don't believe if ClueBot NG will be involved for reverting edits as "possible vandalism". Please protected this article because every article has posted as TFA, there are high level of IP vandalism and user reverts than usual which threaten its stability of the article. Thanks. 110.137.117.75 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User:FRIGB

User:

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

Editor FRIGB has been POV editing and edit warring at China.

• FRIGB edits have been objected to multiple times by multiple editors as either POV or problematic.

See talk page discussion at Talk:China#POV issues.

• FRIGB has been asked multiple times to stop making mass changes to the article in a single edit, but they continue. ([124], [125], [126], [127], more in article history here: [128]).

Diffs of editors objecting to mass changes in a single edit (more on talk page discussion noted above): [129], [130]

• FRIGB has removed information about COVID multiple times and has been asked by numerous editors to stop but continues.

Diffs: [131], [132], [133], [], and [134].

I think removing the information about COVID is the main purpose, and believe the mass edits are a method to distract from this.  // Timothy :: talk  18:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Civil War edit

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

---

Hi could an admin please intervene on the Sri Lankan Civil War page. I have tried to reason with Dilshanheimler in the talk page, but I cannot get through to him. The bone of contention is regarding a reference from a FBI article which makes a preposterous claim. Despite me providing valid sources to counter the claim, the user keeps on removing my content. Any help will be greatly appreaciated. Thank you.Oz346 (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

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

70.112.215.130 and American English

70.112.215.130 (talk · contribs) has been adding the {{American English}} to subjects where English is, either, not a national language (i.e. Slovenia), English is a national language but there is no recognized dialect (i.e. Ethiopia), or there are two varieties of English (i.e. Niagara Falls). The reason is that according to them, WP:ENGVAR requires that the articles without national ties need to use the "1st poststub edit" regardless of the subsequent changes.[135][136][137][138][139]

The problem is that ENGVAR doesn't say this, it says (MOS:RETAIN): "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary [...] When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety". In other words, the "1st poststub edit" is a tie-breaker ("Article" currently uses one style, but people want the second style and there is no consensus to use either? Let's see the "1st poststub edit" to determine it). In none of the articles where the template was added a conflict has aroused. But the addition of this template opens the door to create conflicts where there are no conflicts, for example at Niagara Falls, the Artic, the Indo-Pacific, culture, Age of Enlightenment or Christmas.

As this is not a recent issue (see the several Engvar-related warns on the talk page), I'm bringing this here. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I used "1st poststub edit" per policy for all of this articles, or if usage hadn't been established yet, TIES to countries (America or Canada); for example, Niagara's 1st poststub edit used "meters" multiple times. Iceland the country was literally entirely written in American English 1st (aluminum, center-right, etc) and Iceland's government minstries use American English "centers" too. As well multiple articles like "beer" and "covid 19" whose talk pages have complaints about the british editnotices that violate 1st poststub, ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beer "Variety of English Why is this article in British English now, when it was so very obviously started in American English? " and had British users put up giant editnotices to rub in the engvar violation.

This user kept reverting it saying "local usage must predominate" even though I proved (showed links from government ministries) that local usage per government minsitries literally is "center," that'a their official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.215.130 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC) If we went off of "local usage" like he said, none of the pages in East Asia would have any british english per their own usage, Myanmar literally calls their "ministry of defense" https://myanmar.gov.mm/en/ministries among their "organizations" and "programs," so that's hypocrisy

And you insist to skip the clause above "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue", which discussion(s) have occurred that you need to put that "Indo-Pacific", for example, needs American English. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

None of the articles I mentioned earlier that other users infamously violated policy (unlike me) had any "discussion," (go check the edit history like I did if you don't believe me) so i assumed/did the same. Based on observation, unless there's an engvar dispute, people just insert it without talking first (ex: by script like Ohconfucius did at "rose colored map" which is Portuguese) If discussion's that big of a deal to you, you should've told me via message before you reported me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.215.130 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)