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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

SoyokoAnis and tagging

SoyokoAnis is a new editor who is overly eager and engaging in areas they lack the competence to edit in, resulting in nothing short of disruption. They have been given ample guidance by admins and experienced editors and ignored advice and direct warnings, even though they've acknowledged them. They don't appear to be interested in actually learning from their mistakes as they continue to make them and double down when called out.

• Following Ferrets final warning to stop inappropriate CSD tags, they tagged this A1, which very clearly does not apply.
• Then we have this lackluster response to an inappropriate page move.
• Tag bombing one minute, two minutes and three minutes after article creation and doubled down after I warned them.
• Tag bombing 2 minutes after creation with a completely inappropriate tag
• Tagging a1/a7 where A1 is clearly not applicable, just minutes after creation and after their tag bombing of maintenance templates just 4 minutes after creation
• tag bombing minutes after creation, while the creator was clearly actively editing and I'd argue this tag isn't even applicable
• disruptive and non-applicable tagging of a stub
• silly tags 4 minutes after creation
• very clearly not a1
• not a1

This isn't to say that the articles they're tagging don't have problems, just that the immediate rush to put tags that are often inappropriate is disruptive and this isn't even a comprehensive list, just a random recent selection. Combined with their responses and continued disruption, I am led to believe that the only option to prevent further disruption is a lengthy block no less than a year or two, if not indefinite as they appear to lack the competence to edit in the areas they do and do not have the maturity to know when they're in over their head. Hopefully a lengthy block will allow them to gain perspective and mature. CUPIDICAE💕 12:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There's also this attempt to circumvent @Billinghurst's good faith undeletion of a page for off-wiki recovery, where she then was preparing to submit the draft again. I support a CIR block at this time. She was also the one who pushed repeatedly on NASCARFan, against and in opposition of the advice of many experienced editors, and caused this. Since then she's made several edits about how she wants to be admin, including red-cat'ing her userpage and messaging others for mentorship. I fear her patrolling/tagging shows that she's read some RFA guide and is trying to tick the boxes. -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There was also this stuff culminating in this. If community remedies are indeed needed, possibly instead a ban on any kind of maintenance/backspace activity (including tagging articles) would be a lesser and possibly acceptable solution? I'm not sure if SoyokoAnis has much interest in writing articles, but if so such a ban might help them develop their editing without causing the above issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I originally was going to suggest a ban but given their inability to take any sort of criticism and reflect on it, I don't see this as a viable option. There is also this request which is problematic because they're really just not reading the room (or the directions.) CUPIDICAE💕 13:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae Should I just stop tagging articles altogether? If so, please listen to what I have to say. What is the point of the New Pages Feed if I am gonna keep getting warned for using it? This is starting to get really annoying, it's in the new pages feed I'm gonna see it and see if it has issues and tag it. Most of the articles you stated still didn't fix their issues. Why do you keep coming after me for using the feed? SoyokoAnis - talk 13:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis Your tone deaf response to the concerns here is precisely why I think you should be blocked and demonstrates your inability to collaborate and listen to constructive criticism. It's pure disruption. CUPIDICAE💕 13:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For the RFA nomination, I just wanted to help someone. I didn't know you had to be on Wikipedia for years and have lots of contributions to help. Either way, if it stops anyone from coming at me for tag warnings then I'll just stop tagging to avoid any more issues. I'm sorry. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The core issue here is that you aren't listening to experienced editors. For that RFA, numerous experienced editors advised you and the RFA Nom not to do it, that it would go badly, and said why, including the tenure and other experience. And you continued to push the editor to agree to the RFA, completely ignoring everyone. Your response to every warning thus far has been the same. People tell you not to do tagging, you continue in the exact same fashion with no change. This is why people keep "coming at you", because you continue to do the same things. -- ferret (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've partially blocked from the article space for 2 weeks, having done so prior to seeing the user's response above, however — which, unfortunately, doesn't inspire too much confidence, though hopefully, that is something which can also be overcome. El_C 13:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, now I remember the incident ferret describes that I was looking for (this).

The core issue here is an editor who is, without doubt, acting in good faith but does not quite understand the communal norms around here. We see this evidenced in this diff, where the editor says they've read the policies and dislike being treat as if they're clueless. The issue, of course, is that being able to apply policy well (or, at least, in the ways that the community wants it applied) is separate from reading policy. I feel like in such a case it's worth the editor asking themselves why they edit. Without an answer to that question, one can end up in the endless hole of policy enforcement without an overarching goal. Which manifests in, for example, the redundant tagging of stubs evidenced by Prax. However, I also see Prax's view that perhaps adequate self-reflection is not possible in this case (per WP:CIR), though I continue to hope that it is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty sad (in the 'upsetting' sense) case for everyone involved. Overzealous tagging/rejection is one of the most damaging things possible on Wikipedia; effectively telling a new user their contributions are unwanted is a way to guarantee that unless they happen to have someone experienced in the project guiding them along (and there are ~3,000 active Wikipedians compared to ~40,000,000 "people who ever made an account", so you tell me the odds...), they will leave and never come back. (Or if you're very lucky come back in a decade.) SoyokoAnis is one of the people who managed to avoid being strangled in the crib, but is hitting another common wall of getting in too deep too early and attracting people's ire. A block for 'a year or two' is a permaban more thoroughly than any actual permaban would ever be -- few people who aren't already 'vested contributors' will sit and wait for that timer to expire rather than go find something else to do -- but there are very severe CIR concerns (competence is required // competence is acquired // but no one can sit around forever to wait for the acquisition) and any given tagbomber is probably a net negative. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion of a year or two was that they will hopefully mature with time. They obviously would have WP:SO too. This doesn't stop them from editing other projects that may be more suitable to their learning ability. I also don't see this (a block) as a detriment to the project if I'm being honest. They've said they don't have an interest in writing articles and thus far they have very few useful contributions. CUPIDICAE💕 14:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a complicated and unfortunate matter. My thought on block duration is that if SoyokoAnis is going to be blocked for a much longer duration than she currently is -- which is a possible outcome -- it might be more honest, if that makes sense, to indef rather than a 1-2 year block. Both have essentially the same outcome (someone either leaves forever or comes back a very long time later, at similar probability), but the indef block is probably more open to appeals and the SO, while an extremely long limited-duration block is an odd mix of "we aren't showing you the door, but we clearly don't want you here". My comment with regards to detriments to the project is more or less agreeing with you; new user retention goes both ways. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"effectively telling a new user their contributions are unwanted" Honestly, some of these articles are uncited stubs, and SoyokoAnis has a point in seeing them as problematic. I am more concerned with why the editor is adding tags to articles that are in the process of being written. No article can be considered up to standard within minutes of its creation. Dimadick (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think this CIR issue may spread to AfD [1]; they've also attempted to sign up at AfC [2]; and they are giving advice at Teahouse [3].  // Timothy :: talk  14:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Second Comment: We have to do something, the temp block below is necessary, but I've been thinking about this and I would really like to see the community find a way to help this editor contribute productively. They clearly want to contribute, I think everything they are doing is in good faith, they just need help. I just don't feel good about this and I don't think anyone else does either. I'm not throwing stones at anyone, but I think many editors were aware of this problem and if some kind of helpful intervention had come sooner, we wouldn't be here. Yes they were warned, yes they should have asked for help, but we all could do better in these types of situations.

I know there is a problem, but I really hope we can find a good solution that hopefully keeps this editor. Again I'm not casting stones, Wikipedia collectively does a shitty job at developing and retaining editors, which is something the community should have a broad discussion about; if we want quality editing, we need to invest in developing quality editors.

SoyokoAnis, would you be open to some kind of mentorship to work on building and creating articles?  // Timothy :: talk  03:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue I urge you to read through the talk page messages she has removed for the full history, if you have not. While maybe not every message left to her was the utmost gentle, she has received nothing but relatively polite handwritten warnings and explanations, somehow avoiding a single templated warning. -- ferret (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

ferret, I know a site ban is justified (even before I saw the history). Perhaps a ban from everything but adding sourced content to existing articles? If they have shown productive editing at the end of a defined period of time, we can leave the ban and let them continue adding sourced content to existing articles. If they are not showing productive editing or if problems continue, the site ban can be implemented. But perhaps I need to be saved from my own good intentions by more experienced editors.  // Timothy :: talk  03:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Block extended, converted to sitewide

In light of these additional concerns from multiple users (involving additional namespaces), I've extended the block to 3 months and converted it to sitewide. Honestly, I'm wary to block for any longer at this time, but other admins should feel free to adjust this block action in any way they see fit (no notification or consultation with me is required). El_C 16:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: probationary mentorship offer

I told Prax earlier that nothing was set in stone about beefing up the sanction, and due to the above concerns, have done so. But I feel it is only fair, in this case, to also do so the other way — nerf if it calls for it. The notion of probationary mentorship, as opposed to one faced by an unsanctioned user, is that the mentor's focus largely fulfils the role of consulting on whether this or that is borderline-sanctionable activity. It doesn't matter that Timothy isn't an admin —they can turn to the noticeboard or me, personally, for any enforcement action— this is something that I feel he is qualified to handle. And he seems, well, not inherently opposed to the idea (direct link). I'm inclined to let both of them refine the formula, bring it back here for discussion, and then we go from there. But my first impulse is that this seems workable; that harmonizing all that energy, without the dissonance, is an undertaking worth pursuing. Thoughts? El_C 12:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: As El C said, I have made an offer to mentor SoyokoAnis with the condition that they focus solely on content improvement and creation and abstain from everything else. You can see the offer and their response in the above link from El C. I should disclose I have not mentored anyone before, I know this will be a challenge.

Since there is a site ban in place, there needs to be a consensus for it to be lifted and a indef topic ban put in its place. If there is a consensus to switch to a topic ban, it should be clear this is a final opportunity and any further disruption or violation of the topic ban will result in a site ban. I am open to any revisions to the conditions stated.

SoyokoAnis if a consensus emerges to replace the site ban with a topic ban you'll be notified and we can begin.  // Timothy :: talk  19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This was not a siteban, but a normal admin action only. That said, I welcome further input into the matter, and see no reason to rush this. El_C 21:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As a random passer-by, this seems like a good proposal. --JBL (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Same, seems like a reasonable way to deal with it. Given the strict "expand articles only" scope, it'd be easy to re-block if the don't stay within those bounds - but I do think she can become a productive editor, just needs more experience. Regardless, it's worth a shot. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd support the mentorship plan if SoyokoAnis is willing to learn. I know TimothyBlue is suited for the mentor role :-) Vikram Vincent 18:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Incidents involving User:Sundayclose

I've been editing Wikipedia for many years, focusing on relatively simple improvements to articles I happened to be reading. Recently I made what I thought was a non-controversial improvement [4] to the Wayne Williams article. User:Sundayclose reverted the edit with no edit summary or discussion on the article talk page [5] and added a warning [6] to my talk page. I tried to discuss the matter with him [7] but his replies were not responsive to my points and almost immediately became abusive [8] [9] [10] and everything has been downhill from there, although after I made a fresh proposal on the talk page [11] and received some reinforcement from User:Anastrophe (with whom I had no prior contact) we did at least achieve a good and apparently stable outcome with that article.

But before and after that result, User:Sundayclose has directed many demands, threats, and insults against me [12] and has gone on a rampage of reverting recent edits of mine [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] in an exhibition of spite, revenge, and sheer vandalism. I believe all five of those reverts were unjustified, particularly in being deliberate violations of WP:NOCITE.

I think if you look through his edit history you will that the vast majority of his edits are constructive, but you will also find many other incidents where he has made harmful edits, mostly unexplained and unjustified reverts like the one with which he first engaged me, including four reverts in two days on the Carl Gugasian article [18] [19] [20] [21] without explaining on the talk page his issues with material he was removing (in this case, my issue with his reverts was that he swept up good-faith contributions by editors who weren't even the actual target of his wrath). He seems to target IP users and is prone to throwing warnings and threats on talk pages even when the user was clearly making good-faith edits. I also found many more examples of his edits that harmed Wikipedia by removing good-faith contributions from other editors, but I did not attempt to correct any more of them once I realized he doesn't respond well to criticism.

I've made a very serious effort to stay polite throughout this whole thing, but User:Sundayclose seems bent on making it impossible for me to contribute to Wikipedia. If I'm in the wrong here, in whole or in part, I welcome the correction, because I want to be a good contributor and not a problem for anyone. But I think User:Sundayclose must be told to cease this pattern of abusive editing. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

67.188.1.213, your edit summary "Want to go for four?" makes clear you're aware you are edit warring. 3RR isn't a right. Also, you followed Sundayclose to Carl Gugasian and then have the chutzpah to accuse them of hounding you. Keep that up and you'll be blocked. If an edit is challenged for not having a source... find a source! You can consider this your final warning, unless another admin would care to block you already.

Sundayclose, IP editors are people too. Please be less confrontational and don't go overboard on the templates and rhetoric when you're in an editing dispute. Fences&Windows 19:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, neither of you edited Talk:Carl Gugasian. You need to stop reverting each other and both making revenge edits, and start talking to each other with respect. Fences&Windows 20:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the original issue at Wayne Williams, the IP's edit was good and well-explained, and I agree with the IP that Sundayclose was aggressive and non-responsive. I had a similar recent experience with Sundayclose: a lot of combativeness and repeated failure to engage with the arguments raised by other editors. (I have not looked more deeply into the present question than reading the IP's talk-page and the original reverted diff.) --JBL (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to have to concur with the people critical of Sundayclose. I myself noticed some problematic contributions. There is this editor by the name of Barbaro Reyes Cho (who may now actually be a sock) who has had the vast majority of their mostly constructive edits reverted by Sundayclose. Thisis just one of them. I almost filed a report myself when I saw Sundayclose open up the editor's talk page with the harshest possible warning, but decided against it when I saw that the other editor in question may be a sock. Now that it appears that they are doing this to other editors, I feel that some action might need to be taken. I haven't seen much of Sundayclose in recent weeks, but I am still sure that I assessed the situation correctly. Please correct me if I am wrong. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Scorpions13256, you may restore constructive edits made by a blocked or banned as you see fit - you take on responsibility for the content. However, mass reversion of block or ban evasion is permitted: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule", see WP:EVASION. Fences&Windows 01:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I'm aware of WP:EVASION. This complaint by the IP just caught me by surprise. I had no idea that Sundayclose was doing this to non-socks. For the record, I don't plan on reverting that Barbaro guy's edits, because I am almost certain that he is a sock. I'm uneasy but tolerant about Sundayclose being aggressive with socks, but I am not okay with what seems like them following other editors around. I am pretty busy, and I don't have time to stick my nose in complicated areas, but I feel that Sundayclose may need to tone down what they are doing. Good night. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, sorry. Sundayclose, please don't jump the gun on reverting before SPI is complete and/or the account is blocked and please read and acknowledge what Scorpions13256 had said here. Fences&Windows 10:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: I acknowledge what has been said here. As a point of information, but not an attempt for an excuse, I will point out for other editors that Cadeken is a prolific sockmaster (one sock is Barbaro Reyes Cho) who has used multiple IPs located in or near Tulare, California. The WP:DUCKTEST is usually obvious. The edits are to the very same articles (usually pertaining to school shootings, mass shooting, and other violent crimes; some to trains and railroads). I have always checked the location of the IPs to confirm. If one of Cadeken's socks is blocked (and sometimes even when they haven't been blocked), the IPs emerge to make the edits. Sometimes in a weak attempt to cover up socking, a Cadeken sock will revert one of the IPs with an edit summary similar to "unsourced" or "block evasion", but then the edit is later reinstated. It's a never-ending process. I even tried to reason with a Cadeken sock to not edit for six months then attempt the WP:Standard offer; that had no effect. Although I will refrain from removing those edits, I think many of them will fall through the cracks because it's understandably difficult at SPI to get a confirmation of socking by an IP. Again, I'm not trying to make any excuses for myself, just pointing out a problem that other editors should be aware of. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2603:9000:FF00:A7:1927:4C3A:3389:CF0B

• 2603:9000:FF00:A7:1927:4C3A:3389:CF0B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit warring, Undid Sourced edits on Abu Mohammad al-Julani and the connected edits on Template:Al-Qaeda Norschweden (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you do somthing about that IP? he is reverting sourced edits, did 3 reverts in a row, and might have political agenda Norschweden (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That guy is getting annoying, he doesn't provide sources, he just revertes sourced edits without any explaination Norschweden (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Mazarin07

This editor has made personal attacks or at least makes no attempt to assume good faith.[22][23][24] JFW | T@lk 18:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverting in bad faith is not a personal attack, of course. However, how would you call deleting important information in medical-related articles - by important information I mean those founded on clinical trials -, thus preventing people suffering of diseases to get the latest information? What are your moral standards, if any? Mazarin07 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF / WP:CIVIL, and particularly read the message on your talk page from Sphilbrick. It is possible someone was mistaken and removed your edits when they weren't actual copyright violations on account of a Wikipedia mirror having the text and making it look like a copyvio; even so, you have to make more effort to resolve the disagreement civilly before accusing editors of bad faith and wrongdoing. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and if you react like that at the first sign of disagreement then it becomes hard to work with you. (People are also less likely to listen to you if you react like that, which makes it harder to be heard even if you have a legitimate complaint.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mazarin07: I am really disappointed by your lack of insight. Being reverted is not a pleasant experience, but that does not mean that a revert was done "in bad faith". I have provided you with an explanation why the content you added was unsuitable for that article (WP:MEDRS in the main). I'd have thought this would have been sufficient to disabuse you of the notion that I reverted you just to annoy you.

Your appeal to morals sounds hollow if you simultaneously resort to abusive language. JFW | T@lk 12:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mazarin07, calling someone a robot is a personal attack and is not appropriate behavior. Neither is making jabs at other editors' moral standards, as in your reply above. If this behavior continues, it will lead to blocks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

redact personal info

Hi! Can someone please have a look at Seema Samridhi and redact the personal info. The editor claims to be the husband of the subject. Vikram Vincent 19:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoa! That was fast! Vikram Vincent 19:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If I'd have a middle name, it'd probably be swift. Anyway, looks like the WP:OS team has now suppressed some of the worse problems. Some credits lost due to a mobile link (fixed!). Grr. El_C 22:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C unfortunate the Swift ain't your last name :D Vikram Vincent 07:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

<Insert $WIFT pun here> El_C 17:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Thedefender35 egregious and continued improper use of warning templates in inappropriate situations

Over the past few days, the user User:Thedefender35 has continually misused warning templates on user talk pages, creating confusion and difficulty for RPCs. Diff:[25] Multiple users have attempted to warn this user, to no avail.

The user has attempted to copy-paste RedWarn templates using the visual editor, resulting in a horrifying amalgamation of wikitext and unsigned warnings. This user appears to not care whether or not the user was previously warned, instead opting to create a new section in the user's talk page with a title saying "STOP RIGHT NOW".

Ordinarily, I might go straight to for this type of thing (I'm confident this would result in speedy action) if it weren't for the fact that I am almost certain the user is operating in good faith. The user has made multiple attempts to request coaching from editors and clearly would like to make a difference against vandalism. I'm not entirely sure where this post belongs so let me know if I need to repost it on a different noticeboard. Catalyzzt (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let this go for a day or two to see if a sincere effort is made to improve. The problem, in a nutshell is that this is a new editor, who doesn't yet have a good appreciation of the basics but wants to lay the law down to others. They may learn, but they need to get on it quickly or it may be a painful learning experience. Deb (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel partially responsible. I saw Thedefender35's edit summary here ("last warning before I report you"), and posted on their talk page about warning on user talk pages instead of in edit summaries. (I also recommended that they find a trainer at WP:CVUA) Thedefender35 then began posting warnings on talk pages inappropriately. I tried to give them some direction (this diff, threads "Question about warning" and "Warning"), but stopped when I felt like my approach was unproductive. Schazjmd (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Since they've been editing for about three days, that seems reasonable, though I have to say someone who comes roaring into any situation and immediately starts telling everyone they come into contact with that they're doing it wrong...possibly this is not a simple inexperience issue. —valereee (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the important thing to note is that the user has expressed *interest* in improving. This is definitely a case of "Good faith, bad approach." Catalyzzt (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This type of behavior, barging around arrogantly dictating to more experienced users,along with instantly becoming a wiki-cop even though they obviously don't know what they are doing needs to be nipped in the bud as quickly as possible. We've had cases in the past where people were lax with a new user behaving like this and they managed to become an incredible timesink for several years before finally being banned. That's not a good outcome for anyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thedefender35 (talk · contribs) Would anyone watching the situation please let me know if there is another problem. I will indefinitely block the user if no one sanctions first. It's fine to mentor people and wait until they reach enlightenment, but time sinks are corrosive to the community. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Will do; I'll be watching this user closely, and I have a feeling they've got the message. Catalyzzt (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thedefender35 hasn't edited since this discussion was open. Can we wait on any action until they've had a chance to engage here? Schazjmd (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Of course. No one is going to sanction the editor unless problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  What John said. I just wanted to be clear that they need to be willing and able to change that behavior upon their return, just saying they are willing to isn't enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, we've gotten a reply of sorts [26]. If somebody nicer than me wants to explain that nobody told them to go away, but rather to slow down and listen to what others ave been trying to tell them, that could be a thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for my idiocy and will hereby leave Wikipedia to the people who know how to use it.Thedefender35 23:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2603:8081:500:F700:0:0:0:0/64 and disruptive redirect requests

• 2603:8081:500:F700:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP range, previously blocked for disruptive AfC review requests, is back at it again with similar requests, this time not just using the AfC draftspace process, but also repeatedly requesting redirects without sources at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. Contribution history may also contain other disruption, however, individual IPs were previously blocked for evading an existing block at 70.114.31.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an IP that also caused similar disruption. Note I've also had one of the IPs in this range attack my Talk page and trigger the filter on my user page as well.

Courtesy ping Cyphoidbomb as previous blocking admin of this range and Yamla as blocking admin for the latter IP. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

IP is continuing the same disruptive requests after this report was made. Just another case of WP:IDHT. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive new user

User:KaimkhaniKamal has made extensive edits in the Kabaddi article space. Most of these are contentious, disruptive, POVPUSH edits. But more importantly even outright WP:HOAXes. There is no singular international kabaddi competition and a lot of kabaddi sports competitions are known as the "World Cup" (based on their playing style standard/circle) but the user has without discussion moved and edited all of them to remove the word "World" from them, in-line in keeping with his disruptive change of an article about the International Kabaddi Federation to the World Kabaddi Federation (WKF) which are completely different organizations. The intention here is to keep only WKF organized events as "the" kabaddi World Cup on Wikipedia which is clearly not the case.

He has also disruptively introduced the term "kabadder" (move/edited pages) to designate kabaddi players, this term is completely unknown in any English publication or otherwise and is an outright hoax. They are known as kabbadi players (as seen in long standing cats which he has also disruptively moved).

Similarly other disruptive edits include the removal of any mention of India from multiple articles: [27], [28], [29].

Clearly the user's intention is not to contribute in any meaningful way, having ignored warning, reverts (silently undoing them repeatedly without discussion) and outright hoaxes. A perma-ban is the need here. Gotitbro (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment). Until 3 March 2021, Kadaddi World Cup was a DAB page - link. Both the articles on that page now redirect to Kabaddi World Cup. In the process, Kabaddi World Cup (Standard style) was blanked by KaimkhaniKamal with the ES "This is an unofficial tournament as IKF is not the official governing body of Kabaddi, The official page of Kabaddi World Cup is organized by World Kabaddi Federation (WKF)." Before blanking, that article looked like this. I share Gotitbro's concerns. Narky Blert (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a week for disruption. Please clean up their "Kabaddi World Cup" and "Kabadder" edits as needed. Fences&Windows 12:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Golitbro and I have restored the three Kabaddi World Cup pages to the status quo ante, and I have posted accordingly on Golitbro's TP. Narky Blert (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Just an observation that more cleanup after this editor is still needed. I tried to track down two or three strings of related disruptive changes and burned out rather quickly. – Athaenara ✉ 08:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Problems with GA & FLs

Dr Salvus has been persistently nominating articles for GA and FL that do not meet the criteria, as well as poor attempts to do a GA review, which has left some GA nominations stranded in limbo. It seems clear to me that they don't have a good understanding of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, and that the user is possibly just interested in Wikipedia:Hat collecting (they have also had a rollback request denied). Problematic issues include:

1. Repeatedly re-nominating the same list for FL, and then withdrawing when they get feedabck: 1, 2, 3
2. Creating GA nominations for lists e.g. Talk:List of international goals scored by Kévin Parsemain/GA1 (and a few more which were reverted immediately). This is despite clear warnings on talkpage here, here, and here
3. Posting support for GA nominations, rather than doing full reviews: here
4. Creating the GA nomination page for their own nomination: here
5. Asking for article to become GA despite failing a review a few months ago: here

Their article space editing is generally acceptable, which is why I am not suggesting a WP:CIR indefinate block. Instead, I would like to propose the following topic ban for Dr Salvus:

1. Dr Salvus is topic banned from nominating articles for Good Article review, and from participating in Good Article nomination discussions
2. Dr Salvus is topic banned from nominating articles for Featured List review, and from participating in Featured List nomination discussions
3. Dr Savlus is topic banned from suggesting that other editors nominate articles for Good Article or Featured List

I hope we can get consensus for this, because it's a generally good faith editor, who is just causing quite a bit of disruption to the GA and FL processes. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I added one more thing. And I think some of the poor GA/FL noms may have been deleted, so if an admin could checked their deleted contribs, that would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The CIR issues seem to extend beyond content review processes: adding gender to another editor’s userpage and this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I won't repeat again. Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Without seeing a pattern of consistently poor editing (poor to the point of being disruptive, that is), I think I'll oppose topic bans and support the user joining the mentoring scheme. The FL/GA stuff is no doubt annoying, but doesn't seem to have caused mass disruption; indeed, from another perspective, it could indicate an eagerness to promote quality-an eagerness which may outstrip their current ability, but not something they should be punished for. At least, not yet.
  What I see here is an editor with potential (their stats are better than mine—no blocks and mostly article space edits. Disallowing them the opportunity to translate their article work into good or featured material is in neither their nor the project's favour (again: at the moment). It's true that their recent flurry (well, three) of adding gender to editors user cats was wrong: but again, good faith might persuade us to see it as misguided rather than malicious. (Indeed, so soon after International Women's Day, it may well have been well-intentioned.) They have not done it since: perhaps that shows another important quality—the ability to stop and learn. If they can be persuaded to do the same in other areas—a role a mentor would excel in, I think—then we have gained a productive editor rather than losing one.
  Ultimately, at this early stage, I think we'd be breaking a butterfly upon a wheel to sanction DrSalvus, although my comments should not be taken by him as a licence to continue as they are: quite the opposite. ——Serial 14:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Escalated warning (direct link) for various WP:CIR issues, several of a provocational nature. Therefore, I'm applying a straight-up WP:DE approach to this. El_C 14:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any topic bans at this time per the clear signals that the user is willing to take on feedback and try to learn from it, e.g. at User:Dr Salvus#Things not to do and Wikipedia:Help desk#WP:VAND and WP:DE (permalink). If the user couldn't be trusted to abide by their word then I would struggle to see how they could be a net positive in any area. So let's give Dr Salvus a chance to learn from their mistakes.
  I would definitely recommend to Dr Salvus: at this time it is not a good idea to be getting involved in GA and FL. Learn more about how to find, identify and reference good sources and how to write professional-quality prose. Put that into practice on articles you have worked on in the past, without nominating them for GA or FL. Making some mistakes is okay, but if you continue to make the same mistakes about GA/FL then you are putting at jeopardy your ability to edit here, which is a lose-lose because we value your football-related contributions. — Bilorv (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Struck per below. — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this editor has a poor understanding of Wikipedia types of content. I said at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Geometry_Dash_levels that he should probably take a break from lists entirely, but that warning has not been heeded. A related issue is basically User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Mike_Patton_quote_removal_edit I'm going to make mistakes, deal with it which is perhaps not the ideal response. Suggest a pause and perhaps a mentor who can walk this editor through Wikipedia, and not hat collecting which all of this reads as. StarM 16:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• As with all (alleged) potential CIR issues, it would likely be a reassurance to hear the editor say in their own words what they understand the community concerns about their editing to be, and how they plan to address these concerns. Any half-decent answers to these two questions would suggest that sanctions are not needed. Also: Somewhat question the value of mentoring, but I suppose with a good mentor one likes/trusts it can work well, as a purely voluntary arrangement though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • True, but given the user ongoing behavior while this thread is open (see User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Following_WP_procedures and courtesy @JohnFromPinckney:) doesn't give me faith he understands where he's lacking in understanding of these processes. StarM 16:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

    What StarM said. His Awareness dial is stuck at the notch between stubborn/oblivious and his Focus setting is at do-the-next-thing-no-matter what. I have given up trying to explain to him what the actual procedures are at PR (and I've stopped reverting his activities). Perhaps if he notices in two months that nobody's reacted on his manually created Peer Review page, he'll realize that he maybe did something wrong. This user desparately needs somebody to hold his hand and (forcibly) guide him, but I'm not that person, and I hope he finds a willing mentor. Soon. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Next issue with same editor; creating (rather poor) translations of non-enwiki articles, without attribution. Saint-Colomban Sportive Locminé, created yesterday evening, is a partial translation of fr:Saint-Colomban Sportive Locminé, but omitting redlinks completely (thus mangling phrases). In itself not a major issue, but it seems that every single thing this editor does is problematic in some way, and the learning curve very, very steep. Their previous article creation from yesterday, Giorgio Marchetti, similarly was an unattributed translation of it:Giorgio Marchetti. The talk page of that article indicates that Dr. Salvus is (or claims to be) a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which seems like a very bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Fram, I just deleted the latter as G4, although it was also a worse version of the one AfDed last fall. El_C, as you've been in discussion with him, any sense on what/if anything should be done to resolve? StarM 16:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, dunno — indef, I guess...? I'm still not sure to what extent their positive contributions offset the problematic ones. Probably action is needed here. Am open to proposals on what it should be. El_C 16:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El C, I honestly don't see an area where they're editing without issues. Part of me wonders whether it's a language issue, although it doesn't appear to be one. At absolute minimum I'd say a topic ban from featured content areas and that he must use AfC due to problematic creations (attribution, etc.) Thoughts? Courtesy @Bilorv and Serial Number 54129: StarM 16:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've assumed since the start that it's young age, can email the broad factors that make me think this if you want. I could well be wrong, particularly if it is language (style of writing would usually be a tip-off). As for the translations, is the issue just lack of attribution? Couldn't you then fix the attribution (on the talk page) rather than deleting? Or was there more to it? — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bilorv, I deleted as a G4 separate from the attribution. There was no new sourcing since the AfD concluded and nothing in the article indicated any of the factors of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgio Marchetti had changed. StarM 19:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on any participation in GA, peer review, GOCE, FA and FL because this edit indicates to me that Dr Salvus has not understood why editors are concerned about their behavior, and is not improving their behavior at a fast enough rate. I was going to support a restriction to AfC for further creations, but I don't see what good that would do if the issues are copyright, poor prose etc.—it takes up editor time whether it's at NPP or AfC. I'm not convinced indef blocking is justified at this stage but Dr Salvus really needs to dial back their contributions and study the feedback they have been given in great detail, from start to finish. Referencing, prose quality, attribution when copying within Wikipedia and following notability guidelines are topics to look at. Dr Salvus: you are rapidly spending all the goodwill we are giving you and if the supply runs out, you will not be able to contribute here any more. — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced content at Mr. Big (American band)

• Jupiter 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly editing the Mr. Big article without providing a WP:RS. He/she repeatedly adds their original drummer (who is deceased) to the current members section and claims the band hasn't broken up yet, but continues to not provide a reliable source, or proof/evidence, supporting this fact. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.by El_C --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) per usual... Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 16:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Jupiter 1999 reported by User:MetalDiablo666

Jupiter 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding unsourced information over at Mr. Big-related articles, including Pat Torpey, as well as adding members in the incorrect order. I've repeatedly asked the user to provide a source for his/her changes, but has refused to do so. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• El C blocked him from editing one article for a week a day ago, so I'm pinging him since he is already familiar with the case. I wouldn't seem that the limited block did the trick, but I will leave that in his capable hands. Often times, MetalDiablo666, when an admin has recently sanctioned an editor and they need another look, it's faster just to go to the admin's page, or ping the admin in the report. You aren't required to, it's just usually faster since that admin knows the backstory. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dennis, but in hindsight, this block may have been too narrow. But, also, maybe not...? MetalDiablo666, they did end up providing a source in the end (diff), so are we not good now? El_C 14:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well then, based on what Dennis Brown and El_C just said, I guess the case is closed. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• I take it you're happy with the source and all is otherwise well now, then? El_C 15:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Lets play 2bwu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly Jupiter 1999, editing the same way as that user, and obviously creating multiple accounts as an excuse to evade a block after El_C prevented him/her from editing the Mr. Big article. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Still no answer to my question about their source, though, MetalDiablo666 — why is that? I need you to answer that directly, or I'm just gonna default to lifting both the protection and block. El_C 15:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: The reasons Jupiter 1999/Lets play 2bwu has refused to cite a source are he/she keeps adding Pat Torpey, who is deceased and technically a former member, and he/she said the break up was unsourced, when it actually is. The user obviously isn't coming to his/her senses. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• MetalDiablo666, ah, gotcha. Now I understand and am up to speed. Thanks. El_C 17:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Nakita Kelley reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Expletive-laden personal attack on User talk:Alex 21. [30] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Alex 21 could be less bitey in this edit summary. Please use please when directing other users. It goes a log way to not generate frustrated outbursts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, because I said "don't revert again", that gives them reason to call me an "asshole" and a "son of a bitch"? Is that really what you're saying? "If Alex was this instead of this" is textbook victim-blaming. Shame. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody's right when everybody's wrong. @Nakita Kelley:. Please do not call other users foul names. Lot's of room for improvement. Two, no four magic words: "please", "thank you", & "I'm sorry". I see Nakita never responded here --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO a fair answer FWIW. Narky Blert (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

And here is Nakita apologizing. Before Alex responded here? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It should never have happened; Nakita Kelley apologized after the report, only because they were so prompted to. In your first response, you never said "please" to me, does that give me the right to egregious insults, and then if I apologize, we can act as if nothing happened? Cool. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Obviously Nakita Kelley acted inappropriately here, and certainly no one has the "right" to make egregious insults as long as they apologize later. However, in this case, because they are a relatively new editor, have been warned for their misconduct, and have since apologized, and because blocking is preventative, not punitive, no block appears to be necessary at this time. Mz7 (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Next sure, I'll be sure to say "please don't use fan art". -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:BlueGhast

Once again, user BlueGhast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) resumed to his/her reiterated disruptive editing and unjustified removal of content on the article Theistic Satanism (Diff 1, Diff 2) after being warned multiple times for similar disruptive behavior a few months ago on the same article. BlueGhast removed −2,831 of text from sourced content because, according to his/her own explanation in the edit summary, he/she personally deemed it a "Reference with irrelevant information" (Diff 1). Since the last discussion about this user, in which I was involved, I assumed good faith (as other editors suggested) about his/her behavior, I explained in the edit summary why his/her latest edit qualifies as disruptive, reverted it, and warned him/her on his/her Talk page (Diff 3). He/She ignored the warning, deleted it and reverted both my edits (Diff 2, Diff 4), then I proceeded to report him/her to the WP:AIV, and finally to the WP:ANI as the admin Spencer suggested.

BlueGhast's goal on Wikipedia seems entirely devoted to write about Joy of Satan Ministries on every article that pertains to Satanism (mainly, Theistic Satanism) in the most positive/grandiose way, disregarding other editors' contributions; more precisely, my contributions, since I had to notice him/her twice that copying within Wikipedia requires attribution to other editors' contributions on his/her Talk page; as always, he/she disregarded my messages and deleted them (Diff 5, Diff 6). Honestly, I think that BlueGhast doesn't really care about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, since he/she doesn't seem interested in getting familiar with them, nor with collaborating with other users (despite all the warnings and suggestions to do otherwise, which he/she just ignored and deleted). Instead, he/she continues with his/her erratic, careless behavior, ignoring other editors' messages and warnings about it, unresponsive to communications.

In my opinion, BlueGhast's disregard of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, careless behavior towards other editors, narrow self-interest and promotion of Joy of Satan Ministries, along with his/her latest edits, qualify as WP:Disruptive editing, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and possibly WP:NOTHERE.--GenoV84 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I made the removal as I felt the editors reference format wasn't suitable and out of place, so I simply changed it into source link for the article. The editor could've simply added the contents to the section, even though I'm uncertain if the material is even relevant to the article subject, otherwise editor is writing more than what is necessary for something that seams unrelated. Content should be elsewhere in my opinion, such as in the NSM article.

User was warned of AGF violation for false accusations, and evidently seams to continue doing so. I'm open minded to whatever information but the editor here seams to have different intentions. I was going to bring our issue for debate on the talk page, but I figured it would've ended up being escalated to Admin notice anyway. I also provided reasons for the changes.

The "spiritual Satanist" topic is currently one of my main projects, but not the only one. BlueGhast (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC) BlueGhast

This is a content dispute and not vandalism, GenoV84. Users are allowed to remove notices on their own talk page, as you were informed last time you posted here about them (it's not a good look to repeat the complaint, see WP:IDHT). For allegations of COPYVIO and POV pushing, please provide diffs. Please follow dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 02:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Windsor Lines

I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk · contribs) repeatedly creates the article Windsor Lines (Waterloo to Reading, Windsor and Hounslow loop) [31] which effectively is an incoherent copy of three existing articles (Waterloo–Reading line, Hounslow Loop Line and Staines–Windsor line). This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Windsor Lines and there is no consensus for combining these articles into one. --PhiH (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

PhiH (talk · contribs)I did because in the rail industry they are treated as a combined network.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the article which can be argued out at the existing project talk page, I have blocked the user for one week from article space for repeated unattributed copying and pasting from other articles to create the one under discussion. They have had more than one warning, including one from me earlier today yet they have insisted on repeating the copy in twice since then. Nthep (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Bad move by JsfasdF252

JsfasdF252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First, please undo this move: [32]. So that the infobox is in Template space, named Template:Infobox actinium isotopes has the content. I.e., move [back] over Redirect.

The edit breaks stable infobox setup (as used in 100+ similar templates Category:Infobox element isotopes templates). Once mainspace articles are unbroken, we can fix minor edits & collateral. Maybe consider restrictions on the editor, to prevent more such edits. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

DePiep, moves reverted. Home Lander (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Home Lander. Consider solved. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Arty Zifferelli reported by User:BarrelProof

Arty Zifferelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account created 9 days ago that has 14 edits. The majority of these edits have had problems and have been reverted. One fundamental issue is that the user keeps saying "Fixed typo" for the edit summary, when the edits are clearly not the correction of typos. In one other case "Fixed grammar" was also used in a similarly misleading way. Ten of the 14 edits have been these "Fixed typo" and "Fixed grammar" edits. Another strong pattern is that three of the edits ([33], [34], [35]) have been to change section headings to "Trivia", which seems somewhat WP:POINTy. Their user talk page has been accumulating warnings, but the editor does not respond to the warnings and does not alter the behavior. A temporary block might get their attention. Some of the edits are constructive. Some of them show familiarity with concepts such as templates and reliable sources and Talk page discussions (including signing comments), so the user seems somewhat familiar with Wikipedia. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. This may be one of those situations where they are not seeing talk page notices, in which case only a block will stop them. If it continues, they can be blocked. Fences&Windows 13:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The elements of this have all been discussed pretty extensively. Those are default edit summaries provided by the app. They aren't communicating with you because...the app doesn't tell them you're trying to communicate. They won't get a block notification, either, so their first indication will be 'you have been blocked from editing' when they actually do, for reasons that will make absolutely no sense to them -- and indeed should make no sense to any reasonable editor who knows about the utter disaster that is the mobile app. (Imagine how someone would feel to be blocked after, as far as they know, doing everything right and acting exactly how they've been told to.) A block is much less likely to "get their attention" than it is to drive them away in confusion and anger, and hold a grudge against Wikipedia for blocking them for no apparent reason. So far as anyone can tell, the only way to communicate with app users is via personalized edit filters. Pinging @Suffusion of Yellow, who I worry is sick of this topic, but can rant on it with the best of them. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Mobile app users don't get notified of comments on their user talk pages? Really? The need to be able to communicate with users seems like a pretty fundamental requirement to me. It might be better not to have a mobile app than to have one that is missing that capability. (After all, people could use a browser instead. Do mobile web edits behave the same way? I've previously noticed trouble getting to talk pages from mobile web editing, but does that also affect user talk pages?) — BarrelProof (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The need to be able to communicate with users seems like a pretty fundamental requirement to me -- it does, doesn't it? The last ANI thread on the disaster that is the app is here, if you want some further reading. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

After I submitted this report, the user has made three more edits. All of them use "Fixed typo" as their edit summary. None of them are typo fixes. All of them change section headings to "Trivia". I personally believe we cannot just let this kind of behaviour continue, even if our ability to discourage it is hindered by a bad app. Users who continue to perform unhelpful editing and don't respond to warnings should be blocked. The app may provide a convenient UI for when an editor is temporarily not using a laptop, and may be somewhat OK for editors who make clearly helpful contributions, but if a majority of an editor's contributions are being reverted, they should not be allowed to just continue doing that indefinitely. — BarrelProof (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: If they are blocked, they won't get a custom block message either, at least until they switch to the mobile browser. But how will they know to do that? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the predictability of their edits, could one of the edit filter wizards set up something temporarily to get their attention? I know SoY has already been pinged. The alternative is going to be a block and any chance of retaining the editor. Slywriter (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slywriter: I'm willing to try, but see User:Suffusion of Yellow/Mobile communication bugs. The IOS app will just display the title of the edit filter message, but not the message. So there's no way to make clickable links. Someone who uses the iOS app will need to create a message like "click on this menu, blah blah blah, then click on 'talk' and blah blah blah." Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I also note a further annoyance: all of the user's article-space edits are being marked as minor. — BarrelProof (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder about that. Can an iOS user please check how the app handles minor edits? How is the option presented to the user? I have a sneaking suspicion that the app "helpfully" remembers your selection from the last edit. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: I just made an edit to an article and marked it as minor. When I went to make another edit, the "minor" button was not activated, so it doesn't seem as if the app remembers the setting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. So it looks like they are selecting it every time. Now if only we could tell them not to do that... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I do 99% of my editing on Android smartphones, using the desktop site, which is 100% fully functional on modern mobile devices. The only time I sit down at a desktop computer is to work on large image files. We would all be better off if the WMF shut down all these poor quality smartphone/mobile apps, which are an impediment to collaborative editing. I cannot imagine the amount of money that has been wasted on these crappy apps over the years, but "small fortune" comes to mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, Hard Agree. The Timeless skin is amazing and responsive, and everyone should switch to it anyway. Jorm (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

IP editor persistently adding "Decisive" to battle infoboxes

The use of "Decisive" to describes the result of a battle is deprecated per the instructions at Template:Infobox military conflict. Despite being informed of this, 65.255.138.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persists in adding it, and is pretty much all they have ever done since their first edit in 2019, except for a few minor improvements. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Clearly a static IP, and no communication at all despite warnings; maybe this will finally have the desired effect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not very... decisive. --Izno (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Odd... even today's featured article used that term, 'decisive'. enjoyer|talk 01:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a very well-followed guideline. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Prolific IP vandal at CSD

Resolved

Please have a look at my recent deletion logs Special:Log/Maile66. We have an IP rapid fire creation of nonsense pages. So far, I've deleted about 30 as IPs, and a talk page (possibly same vandal) who created only a talk page that is an obscenity repeated over and over. Can this be halted? — Maile (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

At the moment, there seems to be a pause in the activity, but I'm leaving this open in case the vandal gets a second wind. — Maile (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops ... they have returned. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66: Could you be a bit more specific with example IPs? I looked through some of your deletion log, but they were all old pages, being nominated by the one (established) user. It looks like someone is having a clear-out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Ah ... I see ... it's more one nominator. My error. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Continued spamming, lack of communication and general NOTHERE behaviour from User:Ahmaddler

Despite a plethora of warnings from a large number of editors and a number of speedy deletions, User:Ahmaddler has persisted with creating the same article Halkawt zaher again and again and again. Each incarnation is exactly the same and the issues of promotion and notability are not addressed. There is likely some significant WP:COI/WP:UPE but they have made no declaration at all of that anywhere. They have already been blocked from editing Halkawt zaher but, annoyingly, this doesn't stop them from creating the article. Since they have recreated the spam article a further three times since the initial admin sanction and they have still not made any constructive edits since joining, I believe that a tougher sanction is needed. Thanks. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

(non admin comment) Agree with Spiderone, also possible SPI case here (to be raised in a few minutes at SPI) with a newly created account adding to Draft:Halkawt zaher to get around partial block it looks like to me. JW 1961 Talk 20:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that that definitely needs investigating. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Those with evidence to present may wish to contribute to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmaddler where two of us spotted different potential candidates in (currently) separate reports Fiddle Faddle 20:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated to what the SPI outputs, their edit filter log is concerning. IMO they are WP:NOTHERE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this has continued again today, see Halkawt Zaher and Draft:Halkawt Zaher. Still no declaration of paid editing nor attempt to communicate. I agree with Victor that the user is WP:NOTHERE, especially because of their use of socks as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I have spent a deal of time today chasing down more (many more) putative members of the sock drawer. 100% are NOTHERE

Paradoxically, HZ might even be notable, but I am not minded to create an attics eon him since I suspect paid editing. I've also tracked down a full set of uploads on Commons, and flagged them all for deletion. or a similar process Fiddle Faddle 18:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Range of Greek IPs: false music certifications

• 2A02:587:7176:8000:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody using Greek IPs has been changing music articles to have inflated sales figures and certifications. They do things such as change 183,000 to 200,000,[36] and change 1× Platinum to 3× Platinum.[37] None of these edits are supported by sources.

I linked to a /40 range above, but the range might be narrowed by someone searching the contributions of this person. Many of the contributions are single edits from one IP, for instance the one from Special:Contributions/2A02:587:7109:FE00:6D19:BADC:C1C7:EC82 in August 2020. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

They are still active, for instance this false certifcation level of 3× Platinum, which breaks the template and causes a red font warning. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the /40 range for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Range issues with IPv6 editor on ViacomCBS-related articles

• 2603:9008:1C80:BA76:E8F0:7C4C:DEFD:6802/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Karrotfan22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last several months, the above Spectrum IPv6 range has been propagating unsourced and overall incorrect information across a wide range of articles dealing with the topics of ViacomCBS, which has been a longtime sore spot here on the 'pedia thanks to the existence of Nickelodeon and Viacom's other cable networks and their programming lists and the vandalism which comes with them. Their vandalism even dates back to articles such as Warner-Amex Satellite Entertainment (which was never touched by VCBS or the first merged Viacom/CBS company), which has been in a revert/restore war for months as this range asserts WP:OWN behavior with its topics. I only became aware of it through the deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nickelodeon Networks, which the named account asserts is a real division, but is actually a creation out of whole cloth using a number of sources (and I suspect may be a sock of the Spectrum range; they've been crufting ViacomCBS infoboxes and templates themselves). @IceWelder: was the one to bring this issue to me since they deal with this type of vandalism more than I do, but didn't have time to build a case about it. I'm asking for someone to look this over; IW suspects that the damage to these articles may be so great, that a WP:TNT approach to before November 2020 for reversion may need to be taken. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(Also @Trivialist:, who looking at contribs has been dealing with them also.) Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. I would advocate a block to give us ample time to sort out the mess that the user made. Karrotfan22 might or might not be related (should be CheckUser'd) but has performed similar edits. IceWelder [✉] 16:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverting Trina Saha everytime by User:DasSoumik

Please help to stop DasSoumik from reverting contents of Trina Saha to back redirect. I have expanded to a full article from a redirect that was created in 2018 and reviewed by Onel5969. I declare that I have no conflict of interest and not paid to create the article. She is a well established actress from India and satisfies WP:ENT and passes WP:GNG. Also, no WP:PROMOTIONAL content is added. I have discussed with the user but he does not seems to listen and starts reverting. I have also requested for move protection at WP:RFPP as per [38]. Please help. Thank you 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. (Have you considered registering an account?) This isn't quite appropriate for this board -- you should go to WP:DRN instead, which is where we handle content disputes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: For some reasons I have decided not to create an account now as I am not a regular contributor. DasSoumik is not listening and he/she thinks anonymous editors means WP:COI or WP:UPE which is incorrect. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

DasSoumik has started to WP:VANDAL page Trina Saha and moving to draftspace etc. Please see the page log here. Already final warned and reported at WP:AIV. Please help to stop vandalism by DasSoumik. Thank you. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Please help Vaticidalprophet WhoAteMyButter or any admin. The user is keep reverting every time 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

So, DasSoumik isn't vandalizing Wikipedia under Wikipedia's definition of the term ("vandalism" on Wikipedia requires intent to disrupt). However, it does seem to me that DasSoumik should stop reverting/moving to draftspace and instead start a deletion discussion if they believe that the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. It's pretty late in the night for me right now, so I'm a little too tired to untangle the page histories, but it looks like there is also a cut-and-paste move that needs to be fixed between Draft:Trina Saha and Trina Saha. For now, I've gone ahead an left a message on DasSoumik's talk page asking them to stop reverting. Mz7 (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mz7: Can you apply move protection to avoid further disruption. Thank you. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's necessary. Currently, there already exists a page at Draft:Trina Saha, so even if the user wanted to move the article, they would not have the technical ability to overwrite the existing page history there. I've also left them a message on their user talk page asking them to stop, so I suspect they will simply stop after reading that message. Mz7 (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mz7: Also what is the rationale of saying This is article is promoting by an unregistered person, and this is clear that the parson os doing promotional work. So I am reverting back per [39]. It looks the editor is lacking WP:CIR. The user-page also says the editor is in class 12 and can be below of 18 years of age. So, WP:MINORS can apply. Thank you. 2402:3A80:6DB:4DF2:7C17:B23:2910:D8FC (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's take a step back here and wait for DasSoumik to respond to discussion. This is not an urgent issue by any means. They're also a relatively new editor, so I think we should cut them some slack. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, especially when they're new (on the other hand, you seem like you know a lot about Wikipedia's rules... out of curiosity, have you ever had an account in the past?). As far as the user page goes, there are no rules against minors editing Wikipedia (the essay you cited refers to articles about minors, not editors who are minors), so I don't think any direct action is needed as a result of that. Mz7 (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

WhoAteMyButter Thanks for the help. Mz7 thank you for resolving the issue with the author. I think this has resolved and this thread can closed. 2402:3A80:113B:6861:8851:BDC1:F0D2:56CC (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Something very odd is going on here, because all of the article's history prior to today appears to have been removed. Could someone who understands these things investigate and restore? RolandR (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have merged the history of Draft:Trina Saha into Trina Saha and deleted the draft which is now not performing any useful purpose. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Defamatory content at Darren Moulding

Requesting rev/deletion. And a user block, of course. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Same vandalism at least as far back as December 2019. History of WP:BLP violations that may merit rev/deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Out of interest, I looked to see if that stuff was flagged by a filter. It was (log-only). The same filter (189 (hist · log)) catches edits like special:Diff/1012172971, special:Diff/1012167292 and special:Diff/1012200340, and particularly stuff like special:Contributions/2600:1010:B110:980D:F101:2F52:FAC2:88D9 (amongst lots of others). Probably need to do a better job at denying/deleting BLP vandalism/libel, somehow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

REVDELs done and blp has been semi protected. Email me any diffs that still need attention/REVDEL and I'll take a look. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There may be a little residue from earlier that December 7, but it looks like you got almost all of it, EvergreenFir. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-stop sock farming, meatpuppetry and long-term abuse by User:Karakeçi24

Please take a look at this SPI and its archive:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karakeçi24

There are also similar SPI cases and users which are WP:MEATPUPPET of Karakeçi24 in my opinion:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071 (strong similarity)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smokva26 (targets similar topics (see my report) plus the other articles; e.g. take a look at revision history of Subutai)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PapazaTaklaAttıranİmam
• Blocked accounts like HistoryOfTurkic, WikiTyrcaen, HistoriaTurce, Metehan_Uygur7, and some others

In my opinion, this a non-stop organized nationalistic quest. It seems these users work together via social media, internet forums, and chat rooms. Is there any solution to stop them? Is IP range block effective against them? Can we prevent them from sock farming and creating dozens of new accounts? Seriously their activity has become frustrating. e.g. see the revision history of Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681). They target and attack other editors. They post personal attacks and forum-like stuff on talk pages. How we should deal with them? Wario-Man ^talk 06:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be easier to prevent new users editing the relevant articles, although I realise that may also be trying to hit a moving target. Deb (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

IPv6 spams Talk pages with diatribes about a WWI general

Possible range block needed. 2003:CF:BF2E:CB93:C57A:B1D9:F615:FA24‎ (talk · contribs) appears to be someone with a monomania about Romanian WWI general Aristide Razu, and spams unrelated talk pages with diatribes about Romania, Communism, and especially Aristide Razu, and signs as "AristideRazu" or similar. He first popped up on my watchlist with this edit at Talk:French Army, and has 13 other TP edits of identical size to other unrelated Talk pages today, which I've reverted. Yesterday he had this edit at Talk:Italy and this at Talk:Romania under a different IPv6. From December 10-12, he had a run of several dozen of these, under ‎2003:cf:bf12:d8d5:4dc4:16ff:818f:8d36 (talk · contribs) and 2003:cf:bf12:d849:9bb:e9c8:eb1f:948c (talk · contribs) and 2003:cf:bf12:d89d:6564:8747:4710:8449 (talk · contribs). I've followed him back to mid-September, and it seems to be spammy turtles all the way down: Special:Contributions/2003:CF:BF2E:CB93:C57A:B1D9:F615:FA24/36. This Talkspace search turns up a few more such pages, from 2018. The spamming IP self-identifies as a descendant of the general, in Talk:Aristide Razu/Archive 1 from 2010, where almost every discussion on the page is by the spammer. I'll notify at 2003...FA24. Mathglot (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This is apparently indeffed Aristiderazu (talk · contribs). Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @JBW: because of this edit, removing TPA of this user in June 2020. Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for now but that's not a long-term solution. Deb (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That range apparently includes some collateral: User talk:2003:CF:BF19:4380:20C7:556D:3A0C:61B3. Could we tighten the range and/or use an edit filter? Fences&Windows 10:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if we're going to range-block, there are definitely other users in the range I linked; that was my "discovery-range" link. If filters are possible, the search term is at least clear, and rare, which is good. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

All collateral damage from IP blocks is, of course, undesirable. However, I do not take the view that any risk at all of collateral damage is always a total bar on an IP block; the test is not "will this block cause any collateral damage?" but rather "will this block cause an amount of collateral damage anywhere near the same order of magnitude as the amount of unacceptable editing it will prevent?" It is unambiguously clear that this editor has been responsible for almost all editing from the stated IP range at least since June 2020, and a significant amount of it since at least as far back as 2018. There has been far more editing over that period from this person than from anyone else. My personal view is that in that situation a block for several years would be fully justified, standing to stop far more harmful editing than useful editing. However, I know from past experience that a significant proportion of editors disagree with that, holding the view that if there is any significant likelihood of any collateral damage at all IP blocks should at the most be made for a time much shorter than the time scale over which the disruptive editing has taken place. I have therefore made a compromise by blocking for six months, which is significantly less than the time scale over which the substantial majority of editing from the range has been from that one editor. Furthermore, a significant number of edits which may not have been by this editor have been unconstructive in various ways, so the likely ratio of collateral damage to benefit from the block is even lower.

(Incidentally, contrary to what for some reason some people tend to assume, I do know what it is like to suffer a collateral block. Many years ago I was prevented from editing due to a block on the IP address I was using, which was due to disruptive editing nothing to do with me. I did not at the time take the view that preventing me from editing because of someone else's disruption was a gross miscarriage of justice; I took the view that it was an unfortunate but necessary consequence of the need to prevent damage. It was an inconvenience, but I created an account, and I have never again suffered from any IP block, although there have certainly been occasions when I have edited from IP addresses subject to anon-only blocks. Over the 14 years and seven months since then I have observed numerous events which have confirmed and strengthened the view of the matter that I held then, and none which have given me any reason to move away from that view. Any other innocent would-be editor in the same situation in which I found myself can deal with it in the same way that I did. Nevertheless, since I firmly believe in following consensus even when one personally disagrees with it, I compromise by blocking for shorter periods than I think are justified.) JBW (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of edit note for grave personal attack and 4 letter words

Severe personal attacks in edit note and swear words: [40]. -89.15.237.233 (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's out of order, but I recommend you use the article Talk page to discuss the improvements rather than getting into an edit war. Deb (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem is: He is absolutely not interested in the article and the problems at all! - I wrote a lot of stuff in French that would be very helpful for an expert (which in the first place was the reason for the template "expert needed"). -89.15.237.233 (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Deb has warned Bueller 007 for incivility.

89.15.237.233, the extensive notes in French on the talk page are not helpful because we need to discuss Descartes' work using secondary sources, not provide our own commentary on or analyses of his original writing. Some secondary sources in French were also provided in the talk page section "Form and Purpose of the Discourse", but no suggestion was given on precisely how this should affect the article itself. We can use French sources, but we prefer English when available. Rather than edit warring over the page notice, please explain in a new talk page section what additions or changes you are proposing and what sources you are basing this on. Fences&Windows 13:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:GIUTEDESCHI

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

---

I have recently been editing Order of Prince Danilo I as it falls under my interest in orders and decorations. I removed many of the parts of it that were uncited, or were only cited from original research or interested parties. The page has been a victim of editing from sockpuppets of banned editors. Today I received the following message on my talk page that in my mind is a very clear legal threat. I have bolded the relevant part of the message.

"you have deleted authentic and truthful information. Dear Sir with the pseudonym Ortolan57, I am writing about your intervention that deleted all the news relating to the recipients of the Royal Order of Danilo I of the Royal House of Montenegro, and other news relating to the order and roles of the Royal House on the page news that you have deleted is news that comes from a source authorized to confirm. And not only is this Source authorized to confirm but it is the only one who can. In fact, I am the official representative of the royal house of Montenegro together with the diplomatic adviser of Prince Nicola Petrovich-Njegos, and only we own and manage the roles of all the orders of the royal house. His speech therefore showed that you are unaware of the current situation of the royal house. We therefore ask you to restore the correct information. I also remind you that the roles of the royal houses are private and are never published but are verifiable at the royal houses themselves, so demanding a link that confirms your claims is nothing short of a gross error. in bringing these changes I did not hide behind a pseudonym as you have but I put my name and surname and therefore I am an official source. Publications in the groups dedicated to the royal house are also available on social networks that report public photographs of the contributions you have canceled and therefore you want to deny the evidence of the facts that is visible in published photographs. If you persist in spreading erroneous news by deleting and not restoring the news posted by the royal house, the royal house of Montenegro will take legal action. Regards. GIUTEDESCHI"

Ortolan57 (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Incivility

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

---

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

See this edit summray and this one, for which there was a prior warning on their TP. MB 14:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Banned user blame and Shock blame

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

---

Hi All I am a new editor written a Draft Ignite India I have been continuously blamed by another editor that I am a banned user . I want to state that I am not a banned user and shock . I have written article purely on information proposal . It’s not a paid article. This is purely based on my own research. Please admin remove delegation tag and approve this article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omsaipower2021 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/EditorF - MrOllie (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Would someone please settle this by create protecting the article and Draft versions of Ignite India‎ and Ignite India‎ Education, (and Draft:IGNITE INDIA EDUCATION if this is case sensitive). Repeated recreation of these is the focus of these socks. - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Bonus points for vandalizing the salt tag on their way out. Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Creation protected indefinitely. El_C 22:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent Vandalism on List of West Coast hip hop artists

This has been going on for six weeks: an unregistered user keeps adding artists from elsewhere in the United States, particularly New Orleans, to the List of West Coast hip hop artists. These edits are routinely reverted. user:Malcolmxl5 was good enough to protect the page for one week, but shortly after that time was up, the vandal reappeared. Is it possible to protect this page again, perhaps for a longer period this time? Instant Comma (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected for one month. The user is evading a block at 174.215.160.0/20 so a further block will be appropriate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV, disruptive editing and conduct from User:Usagidot

Usagidot (talk · contribs) has edited several pages related to the WWII comfort women to remove references to sexual slavery in favor of voluntary prostitution. For example here [41], here [42] and here [43]. I and other editors have engaged in long discussions with him about neutral point of view and verifiability, mostly on his talk page and the Ianfu talk page. He refuses to listen, instead reverting and posting statements like "You have to show me completely perfect evicence. Where is it?" and "If you have any complaints to me, you must remove that page, because he doesn't understand Japanese language at all. He seems like he just want to insult Japan and its people without any compelling evidence. I am asking where the evidence is. But he has no evidence. Do wikipedia and you accept false page?".

To me this seems like an editor who is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia; rather, he's here to Right Great Wrongs and will not be convinced otherwise. Knuthove (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Knuthove I have been asking where the evidence is. However, you seem like you don't have it, right? That is why, you snitch on me on wikipedia. I am telling you that former comfort women sued Japan in 1991 for their unpaid balances. And I HAVE the complaint. Moon ok-ju demanded over $110,000 . And Ianfu means prostitutes in Japanese. Comfort women was translated from Ianfu. Of course, job posts in Korean and Japanese still exist. Why is it so difficult showing your compelling evidence to me? You shouldn't create uncertain page. Usagidot (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)usagidot

Looks like Usagidot is now blocked, so I guess this is resolved. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please stop preempting me! I've blocked Usagidot indefinitely for promoting historical fabrications, which appear to be part of a discreditable (whitewashing) WP:FRINGE advocacy effort employing original research. El_C 18:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I assume this is related to the recent paper published by a Harvard Law School professor making those same claims. [44] Definitely a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, Harvard prof or not. (Then again, this guy is a Harvard Law professor as well, and he advocates that the US should become a Catholic theocratic state.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Then again again, this guy is also a Harvard Law professor, and he's, ya know, a real piece of work. I had a friend, a Harvard official, who used to say that Harvard keeps Dershowitz around because they need an ego big enough to act as a yardstick against which all the other Harvard egos can be measured. EEng 08:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you mean a Harvard Yard-stick. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

user LSPWRDMAFIA

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

---

• LSPWRDMAFIA (talk · contribs)

New editor with three edits total:

1. [45] Making a defamatory statement against the subject of an article.
2. [46] Argues that Anything I have stated is public knowledge ...
3. [47] Threatening I’m going to report you for harassment and star a page for you and Wikipedia on social media to show how you operate.

Seems like WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLE to me. --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Long-term disruption from Zerolandteam385

Zerolandteam385 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefblocked in September 2020 for CIR issues. Since then, the user has continued editing through a wide array of presumably-dynamic IPs and a steady stream of sockpuppets.

These IPs inlcude:

• 2A02:587:DC29:4D00:6D79:5DD7:B1CC:23E9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2A02:587:DC29:4D00:F932:5756:97D7:C8CF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2A02:587:DC0D:7F00:68CF:C937:8C0C:7D1A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2A02:587:DC0D:7F00:8DD7:336F:451A:43D5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:dc0a:c200:5040:92e:54de:6bf (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:dc0d:7f00:7948:cc6b:1165:b419 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2A02:587:DC63:A00:B098:3D30:89CD:D19D (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2A02:587:DC63:A00:D888:846F:A6E2:231A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:dc07:e100:9547:ebb8:2e8d:858e (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:dc07:e100:909:7be1:585c:7c6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2a02:587:dc2d:9900:4c21:1957:f744:37f6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Those are just from the past couple months and I'm sure there are some that I missed. All resolve to Trikala, Greece.

Is there any possibility of a rangeblock to alleviate the disruption? --Sable232 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

2a02:587:dc00::/41 looks as though it would do the job - I assume the block evader is the one obsessed with vehicles. Would another admin check this out please? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Support range block, FWIW. In general, I believe it would be a good idea to require editors to sign up after five edits from any IP. Currently I would say that about half of my editing time is spent dealing with vandalism or confused IP edits; requiring registration would enable me to at least attempt communicating with these editors.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by User:Julia Domna Ba'al

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

---

Previous WALLOFTEXT by same user

Users User:JJNito197 and User:Onceinawhile continuous disruptive editing and major rework of article Arab Christians User:JJNito197 is failing to see the violations of Wikipedia policies WP:DISRUPTSIGNSand WP:OR that he has been committing for the last 2 1/2 months in his major rework on the article Arab Christians in the opened discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab_Christians#Same_issues_keep_being_brought_back_into_the_article_without_consensus_after_long_discussions_in_the_past. User User:Onceinawhile seems to his main supporter and the duo is exhibiting Tag Team and Meatpuppet behaviors as per WP:MEATPUPPET and WP:TAGTEAM as you can see in the newly open discussion Both User:JJNito197 and Onceinawhile decided to ignore the previous open discussion on the issues here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab_Christians/Archive_8 and instead embarked in their major unsourced rework of the article for the last two months violating WP:HANDLE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and skipping their attempt to build consensus through the open discussion. You can see all the unsourced additions and violations of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR that JJNito197 has done in his rework and which User Onceinawhile came pretty quickly to his rescue and reverted back here- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Christians&diff=1011781686&oldid=1011780064 and user JJNito197 also just chose to delete the message I left him in is talk page reminding him of Wikipedia policies he is violating as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JJNito197&diff=1011797103&oldid=1011796851 The following is just a more detailed elaboration of their 3 main WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR violations. You can skip reading them if you prefer just to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Christians&diff=1011781686&oldid=1011780064 1) Both users seem to have formed a duo to change the definition given by academic and reliable sources of what an Arab Christian is and means and claim that being an Arab is JUST an identity without providing any source for such a claim. Onceinawhile also decided to just removed original source the article had which is https://web.archive.org/web/20041105161338/http://www.arabicbible.com/christian/intro_arab_christians.htm citing the "author has extremist views" as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Christians&diff=1012225745&oldid=1012176300) violating WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR When provided them more academic sources with the accepted definition of what Arab Christian is such as: https://teachmideast.org/articles/arab-middle-eastern-and-muslim-whats-the-difference/ , https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1974/04/discovery/who-is-an-arab?lang=eng As well as the sources included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_identity#Categories, they are just choosing to keep ignoring them claiming that they lead to racial essentialism and that being Arab is JUST an identity unrelated to race and ascendance. 2) As part of JJNito197 and Onceinawhile's ultimate goal to make the readers believe that all Lebanese Melkites and Orthodox identify as Arab, including those of the diaspora, they have been adding personalities and added a cute table of political personalities they claim identify as Arab here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians#Diaspora. One example of their unsourced additions is Nassim Nicholas Taleb when Nicholas Taleb has himself proclaimed to be completely hardcore Anti-Arab and identifies with the Levantine-Phoenician pre-Arab identity as can be read here http://coevolutionist.com/muse/anti-arab-bigotry-ahistorical/. JJNito197 even added Nicholas Taleb to his little collage that he keeps reworking here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians#/media/File:Arab_Christians_alternative_collage.jpg again violating WP:OR 3) JJNito197 then created another cute table here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians#Affiliated_communities where he adds all the numbers of the adherents of those religious communities, including the adherents of those Christian denominations IN THE DIASPORA AS WELL (which are not genetically descendants of Arabs nor speak Arabic and are not culturally Arab) and have not added a single source for all those numbers for EACH of his YES, NO, MIXED inventions he added violating WP:OR once again I am here to advocate for full reversal of all the rework that this two disruptive users have done in the last two months and banning both of them from editing in this article. Onceinawhile is a very old editor and after 10 years in Wikipedia should know and adhere to Wikipedia's policies and set an example, which is definitely not what he is doing in this article and lately seems to be gaining a reputation inside and outside of Wikipedia for reworking articles, removing sourced content and adding unsourced content as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onceinawhile#Final_warning and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onceinawhile#Have_you_seen_this? . JJNito197 seems to be his devout tag meat and meatpuppet as of lately from what it looks like.Chris O' Hare (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC) This WP:WALLOFTEXT is unlikely to result in any kind of action. Might want to try making a short, to-the-point post instead. But this really looks like an editing dispute, not a policy violation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC) I have condensed the text. This is not a content dispute. I am here to report two disruptive user committing a major rework of the article Arab Christians full of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR violations with the intent to push their Arabism agendas.Chris O' Hare (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Julia Domna Ba'al is going around cherry picking sources violating WP:CHERRYPICKING and distorting what the sources that he/she adds to cite her disruptive edits actually say, violating WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:OR, in order to push her Arabist/Arabism agenda and get away with her cultural appropriation of ancient personalities of Syro-Phoenician descent/origin to make it seem as if it is an ethnically Arab legacy. In almost of all the "citations" the user does, the user doesnt link the source so that it can be verified easily and the disruptive editing less easily seen and reported.

One example of User:Julia Domna Ba'al disruptive editing is what I have reported here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philip_the_Arab#None_of_the_sources_cited_really_say_Philip_the_Arab_was_an_%22ethnic_arab%22_and_the_disruptive_edits_on_ancient_personalities_of_Syro-Phoenician_descent_will_be_reported

User:Julia Domna Ba'al and other meat puppet editors and tag teammates of this user have done the same on a lot of the personalities of Phoenician/Syro-Phoenician descent from Hellenized Phoenicia and Roman Syria/Roman Phoenicia for quite a while now by taking away their Syro-Phoenician ancestry from their Wikipages and/or adding that they were "Arab", "ethnic Arab", "Nabatean" or "Syrian" (while linking it to todays Syrians which is not the same as Syro-Phoenician) while adding "sources" that supposedly say that as can be seen as well many many of their edits.

All the personalities from Hellenized or Roman Phoenicia and of Phoenician, Punic, Sabian (which has been established they were originally from Mount Lebanon and Baalbeck by plenty of authors) on which this is being done are also being listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrians#Notable_people and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrians#Leaders_and_politicians as if their ancient Syro-Phoenician ancestry is the same as todays Syrians which is incorrect and disruptive editing to steal the ancient Syro-Phoenician legacy and achievements for their Arab and today's Syrians friends.

This disruptive editing on these ancient personalities Wikipages have been going on for quite a while now by User:Julia Domna Ba'al and her/his meat puppet teammates.Chris O' Hare (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Chris O' Hare, not be abrasive, but how many of these DISRUPTSIGNS reports should we be expecting from you today? El_C 23:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the Chris's definition of "meat puppets" here is "editors who agree with each other but not with me". Furthermore, I can only see one editor likely to be sanctioned here with repeated personal attacks on others like this one of many long-winded rants ("And perhaps your tag mate and meat puppet JJNito197 will become a celebrity too like you. Team tagging and meat puppetry, good for your international celebrity status?" I also notice that User:Julia Domna Ba'al hsn't edited for ten days and no discussion seems to have been attempted. This is a collaborative encylopedia. Please treat it like one. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think its disrespectful and discriminatory to certain background/nationalities that Wikipedia is not doing anything about the issue at hand.

Is this persistent disruptive mislabeling of ethnicities not being stopped here in Wikipedia because Lebanon and the Levant are semitic non-western countries/area so it “it doesnt matter that much” whats what? If a trend carried on by a number of editors of mislabeling Italian over Swiss for example was being doing consistently here in Wikipedia would that be stopped in a heartbeat? Most likely

My report built into a walloftext because I want to make the noticeboard more aware of an issue that has been going on for a while and is getting worse and worse and will likely continue doing so since nothing is being done about it. I hoped that giving details of how this disruptive are taking place and being done will help the noticeboard see things better.Chris O' Hare (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C: Instead of making short demeaning questions to someone that is actually taking the time to provide evidence of disruption to improve the very same website you come to for information, you should be praising and thanking me for my contribution. Its actually people like you that should be put down for their useless comments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris O' Hare (talk • contribs)

Well, that escalated quickly. No, I won't thank you. These walls of text are a bit of a DISRUPSIGN, themselves, in case you weren't aware... El_C 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Black Kite About User:Onceinawhile I clearly said that at the beginning of the report that he is EXHIBTING meat puppet and tag team behaviors because of how he came to revert for JJNito197 (perhaps to cincumvent the 3 revert rule together? as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Christians&offset=20210313030406%7C1011835845&action=history) and takes over my discussion with him so quickly and is so invested. He and JJNito197 both failed to engage in the previous open discussion for consensus again exhibiting more tag team behaviors as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tag_team#Tag_team_characteristics So If he is acting like one he leaves me no choice but to call him one

I see you are also pointing out my "personal attacks" without mentioning that it was Onceinawhile that first stated with his passive aggressive attack "I will say one thing. A number of your comments appear to be underpinned by your own experience as "as [a] member of the [Lebanese Christian] diaspora from 1880-1920", when Im not even a religious person. He is the one that first started the attack to dismiss and discredit me calling him and JJNito297 on their disruption as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?

Saying he has become a celebrity outside of Wikipedia is not an attack but a fact as seen here https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/project-wiki-exposes-how-wikipedia-is-breeding-armies-of-anti-semites/2021/01/01/ and only accusations of behavior that lack evidence are considered attacks as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?

How come I see you warning me of personal attack when they are not according to the policy but I dont see you warning any of the editors I have reported after all the disruptive unsourced editing and violations they have been breaching? I find your behavior one-sided which makes you less credible as a mediator in this dispute. Because you are not showing independent judgment and not enforcing warnings equally you are exhibiting tag-teamish and meat-puppet like behavior in this dispute and I will be reporting you on this if you continue to do so.Chris O' Hare (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Black Kite: "editors who agree with each other but not with me" not even that. No one has ever argued with me while I discussed matters against 5+ people (mostly sockpuppets), until an admin comes in and bans them. Unless OP thinks I'm a sock for an admin account? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen you before and we never interacted and I don't think we ever even edited the same article. Meanwhile the last two "discussions" I had were with someone notorious for edit warring and sockpuppetry (see). So you calling me out of the blue and saying roughly the same things as the other did while engaging in the same activities (Nationalistic POV pushing, edit warring, filling your edit history with generic gnome-like, hack n slap, edits), and changing your name right when the other socks got banned, is very suspicious. Do I know you? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"In almost of all the "citations" the user does, the user doesnt link the source so that it can be verified easily and the disruptive editing less easily seen and reported."

This 100% false statement can get you warned or banned you know. Don't lie and accuse other people of being exactly the opposite of what they are. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

According to User:Julia Domna Ba'al no one has ever argued with her about the issue which could not be further from the truth and keeps showing more of her disruptive ways. Here you can see an an "exchange" I had with her three months ago on another ancient personality she assigned "ethnic Nabatean" to his wikibio https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollodorus_of_Damascus&diff=993492534&oldid=991770378. She went ahead an reverted it obviously https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollodorus_of_Damascus&diff=993567415&oldid=993492898

Here you can see an example of all the editors that constantly argue with Julia Domma over her disruptive edits that she continues to get away with and nobody is sanctioning her for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollodorus_of_Damascus&action=history And this is just one of the numerous personalities that she has decided to disrupt and WP:HANDLE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR

Seeing what she comments in the edit history of the articles she disrupts and how she constantly denigrates users when she disruptively reverse their edits, I had not decided to engage in any sort of consensus building with her in any talk page since she clearly lacks the willingness and the ability to do so.

Since right away she resorts to personal attacks without any evidence whatsoever as you can see in her last reply here and in the Philip the Arab page, I have just decided to create an example of her chronic disruptive editing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philip_the_Arab#None_of_the_sources_cited_really_say_Philip_the_Arab_was_an_%22ethnic_arab%22_and_the_disruptive_edits_on_ancient_personalities_of_Syro-Phoenician_descent_will_be_reported and just report her.

Again, I have not called Julia Domma a meat puppet, I said that there seems to be a group of editors (IP and registered) editing on the same kind of articles and adding the same ethnic labels and identities. Whether they are colluding and acting together as meat puppets/tag teammates or separately is sometimes difficult to differentiate.Chris O' Hare (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You're wasting everyone's time with this. I had two arguments with your friends on talk pages and in each time admins came in and banned all other users. Example 1, Example 2. I didn't remember our interaction from 3 months ago because you didn't send it to the talk page. What was wrong with it anyway? The source EXPLICITLY calls him Nabataean. Other than this source, the Director of the Italian Institute of Culture in Damascus, quoted in a book written by the head of Antiques in Syria, said his style stemmed from his cultural roots as a Nabataean. You deny all this and you didn't go to the talk page, instead harboring some vendetta to unleash months later? You were the one who lied about me, claiming I don't source my claims. You call me names and accuse me of things and call me out in articles. You should relax and try to be objective. If you are a nationalist who is here to prop up their (perceived) ethnicity, that doesn't mean everyone else is the same. This place has rules and you're better off learning them. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

An addendum: one Sidoc appeared about the time this discussion was resolved, making a statement that he was a sock puppet of the sanctioned editor. No other edits have been made from this account. A checkuser was requested, but declined; I am not the only person who draws this conclusion. (If not a sock puppet, then this account was pretending to be someone else with the intent of being disruptive.) For this reason I have indefinitely blocked this account. -- llywrch (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

‎Wikinformadora at Counting On‎

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

---

• Counting On‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:‎Wikinformadora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

‎Wikinformadora insists on adding unsourced and poorly sourced names and dates of birth (among other claims) at Counting On‎. A similar issue was discussed at BLPN (where the article was mentioned) and the consensus was to remove this content as WP:BLP and WP:MOS violations. I've pointed Wikinformadora to that discussion, notified them about discretionary sanctions, issued two warnings, and discussed the issues at their talk page. I've also reverted their edits 3 times today per BLP, so I'm bringing this issue here. (I won't be reverting further, of course.) BubbaJoe123456 removed the content again while I was typing this out, so we're good there. Still, I'm not sure that Wikinformadora should be editing any biographical articles until they understand our policies. Woodroar (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Perennial problem. Protection upgraded to WP:ECP. El_C 02:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Removal of references

At The Maxwellians several book reviews have been removed and a "no references" tag attached to the article. Request for explanation at Talk not answered. Rgdboer (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So, firstly, you have not advised Omnipaedista of this discussion per the large red banner at the top of the page; I have done so for you. Second, have you attempted to message Omnipaedista on their talk page? Not everyone watchlists every article they edit, and some people edit from mobile or turn pings off, so you cannot necessarily assume that people will see pings. It's entirely possible they simply have not seen the message. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted Omnipaedista's edits for the moment, because the reviews cited seem appropriate and there's a substantial number of them, so WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't seem like it's relevant. However, I don't hold a strong opinion about that, just strong enough to restore the article's status quo ante so that Rgdboer and Omnipaedista can discuss the dispute on the article's talk page and see if they can come to some consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE user, no luck at AIV

WVT96 (talk · contribs), primarily disruptive. I asked for a block last night at AIV, to no avail. AIV tends to be a graveyard at night. Maybe we'll fare better here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Alarm bells

1x00x666x893 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• (1) New user, account created today
• (2) Almost all of their 20 article edits have been reverted, by multiple editors; only 2 remain un-reverted [48]
• (3) Said edits are a combination of semi-vandalism, poor writing, good fixes, and Marxist PoV
• (4) Two warnings have been placed on their talk page already, in 3 hours of editing, [49], [50]
• (5) Both warnings have been deleted by the editor [51], [52]

Don't wanna WP:BITE, but to me, this adds up to nothing good. Your mileage may vary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. I recommend an indef block. pandakekok9 (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Support WP:INDEF block. We give wide latitude for new editors making mistakes, both technical and policy mistakes, however this person exercises incredibly poor judgment, by focusing solely on one topic (socialist movements/thinkers), with a WP:POV agenda and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Their vendetta to mark Kautsky as revisionist strongly indicates to me WP:NOTHERE, and their blanking of any feedback on their talk page, without engaging suggests WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. ~ Shushugah (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked the use for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Good block (commie-approved). Shushugah, if I may OT somewhat, this is common to a vulgar analysis of communist theory. Because, according to modern, 20th Century Anti-revisionism, Kaustky certainly was deemed a key revisionist by Soviet (and later Chinese) authorities. But during the 19th Century, he could also be seen as a key anti-revisionist in the sense of standing against the advent of Bernstein's evolutionary socialism, re-affirming his own stance in favour of a revolutionary path. So, when this editor writes that: In 1880 he joined a group of German revisionist socialists — that is an historical fabrication, which I don't understand the reason for. This, at the height of Kautsky's correspondence with Marx and Engels, no less! I also remember reading somewhere that, at one point, Lenin called Kautsky the "Pope of Marxism." Kudos goes to the Britannica's https://www.britannica.com/topic/revisionism-Marxism which actually navigates some of these nuances rather well for three brief paragraphs (room for improvement, but still pretty good). El_C 12:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

173.68.165.114's edits

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

---

I am reporting myself here, as some Wikipedian considered my edits to 2021 North China sandstorm vandalism. My edit was reverted and I was warned not to make edit to that articles. I am not sure how and whether that's considered a vandalism so I report myself here. If that is I may stop editing that article. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Newbie who is a Looshpah

What do you think of [53]? Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Spidey senses definitely tingling, though the WP:SERVICE component of this is trivial (and you should not have removed it from their userpage). I guess we'll wait and see about whether it develops from WP:TE into WP:NOTHERE, outright (again, likely). El_C 12:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 and repeated personal attacks

At Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran Wikieditor19920 has repeatedly personalized disputes and attacked me for saying the apparently outrageous statement that RFCs run for 30 days and people should calm down. After I responded to this personal attack filled screed with I will not be responding to personal attacks the editor responded with You are not here to improve the article and continued personal attacks. Wikieditor has been personalizing disputes across a range of articles, and has been repeatedly been warned across topic areas, most recently with a logged warning for ARBPIA for similar behavior. I am not sure what it will take for Wikieditor to follow the basic principle of discuss content and not editors, but I for one am sick of this editor repeatedly making this a player v player battle that I have no interest in engaging in. Across any number of disputes discussions are derailed because he continues to focus on editors and "winning". I personally dont think this editor is well suited for this website, but if something short of a ban gets the point across yippee. In the meantime though, can somebody explain to him that if he needs to write another username over and over it probably does not belong on an article talk page? nableezy - 13:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attack he didn't violated WP:NPA as he clearly talked about editing not about the person. You brought only two diffs and even if there was some real violations it clearly not "repeated". Its look to me like another attempt to remove opponent of opposite POV--Shrike (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Saying I am disingenuous and not there to improve an article is not a personal attack is talking about editing and not a person? That comment is not one that is another attempt to back up a like-minded editor? Jesus christ. nableezy - 13:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any significant personal attacks from Wikieditor19920, I do see multiple personal attacks and disrespect from Nableezy that I will present below with a proposal.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"You are not here to improve the article, you are here to stir the pot" is clearly a personal, not an editing comment. Also from the couple of days - "Selfstudier is so obviously focused on creating simple disruption" [54], "you engage in the same disruptive behavior as Nableezy and Selfstudier", "pathologically unable to accept a discussion result that doesn't go their way. This is childish tantrumming at its worst." [55], "your explicit misuse of this forum to spout your personal opinions is a waste of time and characters", [56] and these are in an area for which they were warned less than a month ago to dial it back. They were previously topic-banned from AP2 as well; I seriously wonder if the intersection between Wikieditor19920 and contentious topics simply isn't a good fit. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, What do you think about nableezy comments linked here do you think such comments are acceptable? --Shrike (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy is antagonizing other users at a talk page of an article they have not made a single edit to. I do not believe I have "attacked" Nableezy, but forgive me if I seem to lose patience with their approach. Someone who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones at ANI. Examples of what that "approach" consists of (most of which are directed at me, a few of which are not).

• I suggest you review common sense. Saying something happens here there and everywhere else is just dumb.
• Crickets. At least silence is better than making things up.
• There really should be a basic understanding of English to edit these pages. (In a section titled "POV editing" at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy, which violates WP:TPG.)
• The addition adds nothing besides poor writing. I will remove it.
• And as evidence of how little of your own sources you read
• This is the dumbest thing Ive seen on this page.
• Just as a demonstration of how silly this is, see if you can answer this question.
• You want to call that my fundamental assumption you can but you just look silly when you do so.
• if you say so lol. I dont quite get how one takes offense at a comment directed a third person, but its a whole new world in 2021.
• And a random person on the internet's (you) personal politics should not factor into how Wikipedia treats that, as a reliable source, at all.
• A random Wikipedia editor doesnt get to challenge actual scholarship based on their feelings.
• To be more blunt than I probably should be, in my honest opinion, any user saying no here is waving a giant WP:NOTHERE flag and should be shown the door
• before you made the unfortunate discovery of Wikipedia
• I am not obliged to watch you turn article after article to shit just because Ive already reverted you previously. When I see shit edits to articles in my watchlist I revert them.

This is a small, small sampling. As for why Nableezy has shown up to ANI this time, I think this exchange sums it up (this was in reference to me):

So this is the latest in an unfortunate campaign by Nableezy to remove an editor they disagree with from a topic area rather than work with them. I think Nableezy is a talented and passionate editor, even though I often vehemently disagree with some of their points. I wish Nableezy would acknowledge the same about editors they disagree with rather than calling their edits shit. Because the above is a major obstacle to working with them. I hope that can change so that we might collaborate and not get caught in any more argument loops. I'll accept responsibility for my part in that as well. Hopefully that will allow us to move forward. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, Black Kite has taken a select few of my edits out for critiquing. And I won't object. He's right. I shouldn't have taken the tone I did in those diffs. I've also made a sincere effort to collaborate with Nableezy and other editors I mentioned in other posts not provided. Everything is a two-way street, but comments from Nableezy like those I linked above have made that very difficult. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I was honest with you on my user talk page after you, again, accused me of following you to an article that I have been editing for a decade after you indeed turned the lead to trash. Ive refrained from such honesty on article talk pages, which are after all used to discuss articles. You continue to personalize things at article talk pages, even when I havent even opposed your view. And yes, you indeed straight up made things up at Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada, something you have not once even pretended to acknowledge. That was as close to purposely lying about content as I have seen here in some time, and you just skip on past. nableezy - 14:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I "purposely lied," "turned the lead to trash," and "straight up made things up." Thanks. Glad we're moving forward. Please just stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, 100%. Anybody who sees what is written here will see that. This comment was 100% bluster, a total fabrication. nableezy - 14:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, beyond the many personal attacks by you, telling Wikieditor19920 (and then Steamboat2020) to "Relax" three times is direspectful to the extreme and is an attack when addressing a grown person. This is text book baiting and can not be tolerated.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Telling somebody agitating over an edit being discussed in an RFC opened a week ago to relax and wait for the RFC to finish is not disrespectful to the extreme though that type of hyperbole does remind me of some past accounts, hmmm. nableezy - 14:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The "RfC" you are referring to was a WP:SNOW situation where 7-1 editors opposed maintaining an article-wide tag, and you insisted it was necessary to "wait" and the other user demanded a "formal close." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you had asked me I would have agreed that things were obviously trending in a certain direction. My point was you could wait for it to get there. I wasnt in dispute with you there and you attacked me repeatedly. For reasons I guess. nableezy - 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

and I explained to you (nableezy) that @selfstudier wouldn't cease with endless proposals and discussions and yet you insisted on protecting him and attacking @wikieditor19920--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I didnt attack anybody there. The only thing I said, literally the only thing I said, was let the process play out. You had the numbers, the discussion was going in one way. So chill and let it happen. What is the point in attacking me there? nableezy - 15:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: telling anyone to "Relax" ([57][58][59]) is as disrespectful as one can be. This is language you use at a toddler, not grownups. And this when consensus of editors was obvious.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You have a very curious understanding of disrespect. nableezy - 14:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Shared by Bustle, The Week, and Elite Daily. "Relax" is an attacking put down.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh and you wont believe the ten things that you should say instead! Click for details! This isnt a personal relationship advice page, Wikieditor is neither my boyfriend or my girlfriend, and I have no idea why I am engaging with you. nableezy - 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You can mock them for it, but they are pointing out to you why repeatedly telling another editor to "Relax" and dismissing their concerns can be taken the wrong way. I found it antagonistic, and others did, too. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Relax" is not something you say to adults. Trying to justify your repeated "Relax" injunctions demonstrates that Nableezy lacks the social competence to collaborate here. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It is something you say when people repeatedly jump the gun on RFCs. Such as here. You want to pretend that "relax" is a demonstration of lacking the social competence but an outright attack "You are not here to improve the article, you are here to stir the pot" is not lol? Wonder why people who edit on the same side of an ideological divide as WE here have this view. nableezy - 15:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You still aren't getting it. "Relax" is hurtful, particularly when directed at women. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you maybe pick one place to post the same comment instead of doing it over and over? That would make it a little easier to follow. nableezy - 15:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy: Repeated personal attacks, disrespect, and harassment

Nableezy's edits in this dispute from the last few days are alarming:

• [60] "rvv" = "revert vandalism". The edit reverted was not vandalism in any sense.
• [61] "before you once again decided to trash another talk page by babbling about unrelated things." Disrespect and personal attack.
• [62][63] accusing Wikieditor19920 of being incompetent, eighth-grade level.
• [64] "making such silly pronouncements" - disrespectful, personal attack.
• [65] "That you should double down on something silly?" Silly again.
• [66] Telling Wikieditor19920 to "Relax". Disrespectful and personal attack.
• [67] Telling Wikieditor19920 to "Relax", yet again.
• [68] when queried by Steamboat2020 on "Relax", tripling down with "Yes indeedy, relax".

--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

1. the user repeatedly reverted my own edit on a talk page, so yes I called it vandalism.
2. the user again derailed a discussion on an unrelated topic by bringing up what was being discussed separately in an RFC. The user has repeatedly bludgeoned discussions to death and I was frustrated by the repeated derailment
3. That is about the english being used in an article, and yes it was 8th grade level
4. Yes, silly.
5. Yes, again silly. I hadnt even made a comment about the discussion. I just asked people to go through the process. For that I was accused of all sorts of things that are in fact silly.
6. Relax is a personal attack lol?
7. Again?
8. Again?

nableezy - 14:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Telling someone to "Relax" is the epitome of disrespect, and is baiting:

• 5 Reasons Why Telling A Woman To Relax Is Pretty Much A Death Sentence, Elite Daily.
• Don't tell me to relax, The Week: "Of all of these expressions, this is my most hated....", ""Relax" is inherently self-serving, in that case. It cuts you to the quick, putting the blame on the person who is "not relaxed." "
• 6 Ways To Respond When Someone Tells You To "Calm Down", Bustle: "Never mind that telling someone to "calm down" or "relax" or that they're taking things "too personally," or that they're being "too emotional" is a surefire way to relay to them that their opinions aren't valid, something women are far more likely to experience than men. Here are some tips on how to handle this particularly grating saying."

"Relax" is not used in civil discourse.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This has to be the first time Elite Daily's relationship advice has been used as evidence at ANI. nableezy - 14:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Relax" is not something you say to adults. Trying to justify your repeated "Relax" injunctions demonstrates that Nableezy lacks the social competence to collaborate here. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, you see an editor calling somebody disingenuous and not there to improve an article as totally fine, but relax shows that I lack the social competence? Thats a very interesting sliding scale you got there. nableezy - 15:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you think calling another editors entire contributions to an area shit is just being frank, presumably you can handle when someone points out your approach of telling someone to "relax" and talking to them like an infant doesn't come across as a sincere olive branch. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I very much did not talk to you like an infant, and Im glad somebody has given you this new justification for your lashing out, but I did not in any way attack you at that talk page and your attacks were entirely unprovoked. I certainly have responded to you harshly, but this was definitely not one of those times. I was not personalizing anything there, you were. nableezy - 16:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You still aren't getting it. "Relax" is hurtful, particularly when directed at women. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase is condescending. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure? What does the advice not to tell a woman who is crying about something "relax" have anything to do with this though? And if I am reading the pop up right, WE is a man? As though this matters somehow? nableezy - 15:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

With the possible exception of a mental health professional addressing his patient, "Relax" would be extremely inappropriate "advice". This repeated failure to listen and use of this hurtful language is not collaborative, Nableezy. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but calling somebody disingenuous is totally collaborative, Silly me. But relax, thats outrageously hurtful and only to be used by a trained psychiatrist. nableezy - 16:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So now you are telling me to "Relax"? This is out of line, a personal attack right here in the thread. You are demonstrating your inability o listen and collaborate right here. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Little bit of a hair trigger there lol, thats not what I said. I was remarking on the curious scale in which "relax" is outrageously hurtful, but outright personal attacks are just fine, totally cool. nableezy - 16:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Relax, outside of a yoga studio, basically means that you're dismissing what the other person is saying as completely irrelevant. Which, if you can't see why telling someone their point and concerns have no validity is hurtful, well not sure how we can help you there. Canterbury Tail talk 17:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the thousands of times that "relax" has been used at ANI (including by some of our most respected editors oh another one in a closing statement) were people dismissing what the other person said and that their points have no validity and was so clearly uncivil that all of those thousands of times "relax" has been used resulted in a block. Cmon now. Somebody jumped the gun, after having just jumped the gun. So I said relax and wait the RFC out. nableezy - 17:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Nableezy meant here. Regardless, there's agreement that Nableezy's "relax" schtick was inappropriate, and it was what I was specifically referring to as antagonistic in my above post. When I called it disingenuous and stirring the pot and asked him to stop, he opened this ANI. So I think that right there tells you how frivolous this all is. "Relax" was the least of my concerns, though, and obviously the other comments I had an issue with are now coming to light. Unfortunately, everyone pays a price with these kinds of reports. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Propose: Nableezy topic banned from Arab-Israeli conflict

I propose Nableezy be topic banned from all pages and edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I will note that Nableezy has tried to drag WE19920 to ANI before here in what appeared to be a questionable report, and WE19920 narrowly escaped a community site ban on an unrelated matter here. Can't be bothered to dig through this currently to figure out which, but it's likely one of the two parties here are problematic in the topic area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Then there's also Wikieditor19920's recent (March 4) bogus report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060#WP:STALK_behavior_by_User:Nableezy. El_C 14:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Given Wikieditors history, I'm surprised the above NAC of the ANI report was allowed to happen.  // Timothy :: talk  14:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Indeed. Whilst there's clearly a protracted conflict between these two parties, I imagine an IBAN is unlikely to be helpful not only due to the overlap in editing interest, but because I don't think an interpersonal conflict is the crux of the issue here. Plus, WE19920 has had these same issues with other editors (eg Bacondrum) before. Though, at least in the diffs cited here, Nableezy ends up looking worse (at least in PAs), but neither party is really shining. So, as far as I can see, there's sustained and protracted disruption in the PIA topic area due to their conflict, but neither party is doing their best, and (presumably) both parties have something to offer to the content area, but appear unable to remedy themselves without external assistance. So what's the way forward in a case like this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

For example, in Talk:Palestinian_political_violence#ok_so_everywhere I think both parties have a point, and I see what they're both getting at but it seems they both default to ABF and arguing over trivalities (like the section header) rather than listening to the other person's points. I get the feeling WE made a better attempt to discuss content than Nableezy did, however (after immediately telling an editor their writing is poor and implying they don't get something basic, well, one cannot expect the discussion to head somewhere productive). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I admit I respond poorly when I feel that somebody is refusing to get the point and continues to ignore any argument against their position. Like I never said that the word internationally shouldnt be used, I was against a specific formulation. That was repeatedly ignored with such things as dictionary definitions of internationally being brought as though that was in dispute. So yes I was overly harsh. But its been months of IDHT across a range of pages and yes I reacted harshly and poorly. Was not my finest moment, though I was the one to make an edit that ended that specific dispute. nableezy - 15:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I must disagree, if you look at where it is now, there is a failed verification tag added by WE to a reference that was added by himself! Nor has said reference anything to with the sentence it is supposedly citing. This was done after I had supplied a separate reference in response to his complaint that the one sitting there for years was insufficient. It is hard to avoid the impression that the intention is only to provoke.Selfstudier (talk)

Please note @nableezy was defending @selfstudier when the alleged violations by @nableezy occured so any comments made here by @selfstudier should be read with that in mind.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Diff I posted this to Wikieditor's talk page a few days ago. He deleted it. Although I did not specify them, this was in relation to a number of IP area articles. This morning, when I looked in at the article being discussed above (an IP area only in a very broad sense) and Wikieditor's editing/comments, I made the decision to disengage from any further involvement there Diff, it is not worth the candle to have to deal with that sort of thing.Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note @nableezy was defending @selfstudier when the alleged violations by @nableezy occured so any comments made here by @selfstudier should be read with that in mind.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is even a little curious when somebody's very first edits to ANI are asking for a topic ban? Nobody? nableezy - 14:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You make these repeated insinuations against editors you disagree with, like on Kenosha Forever's page yesterday. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I usually ask that when I have suspicions. Like when somebody's first edits in over six months are to ANI, their very first edits to ANI as a matter of fact. Kinda screams out sleeper sock. Then I file an SPI report. That a problem? nableezy - 15:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I am very concerned at Geshem Bracha's pattern of editing. I was editing wikipedia for a decade before I knew this place existed, I'm not even sure how it works now. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• TBAN Nableezy. In light of repeated personal attacks by Nableezy brought up above, including: "This is the dumbest thing Ive seen on this page" and "seem so confident in making such silly pronouncements". Conduct at this thread continues attacking other editors, and not listening. Telling editors to "Relax" and then repeating it over and over and then arguing at ANI that "Relax" is somehow civil demonstrates a lack of required social competence. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  Wikieditor19920 could have behaved better, but in light of the blatant baiting by Nableezy, his behaviour is excusable. "Relax" is a statement that boils the blood, to which most adults would respond harshly. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Topic ban both This area is hard enough to work in and these two are only making it harder, without any doubt driving away other editors that do not want to deal witht this type of environment. I agree with PR that an iban isn't going to help.

• Wikieditor has been here too many times with different editors for this to be ignored. I'm surprised the last ANI El C mentioned above was allowed to be NAC without any action or even a warning.
• BlackKites comment about Wikieditor having a perpetual problem in controversial areas is spot on. They seem drawn to these areas, only interested in these areas, and is not a net positive in any of these areas. I seriously question if they are here to build the encyclopedia or are here for just for combat.
• The diffs of nableezy PAs/uncivil are way over the line; given Wikieditor's history I'm surprised their reaction wasn't worse. I have a strong suspicion nableezy was trying to provoke a response to return to ANI, but even if this wasn't the case their PA/uncivil comments need to be addressed. This cannot be ignored, especially in this area.
• Both editors are displaying battleground attitudes. nableezy's is more obvious, but Wikieditor's is clearly present.
• Both editors have an POV agenda and it is clearly disrupting this topic area. Again nableezy's is more obvious from the above, but it doesn't take much looking to see Wikieditor's is clearly present and just as significant and problematic.
• Both are aware is DS apply to this area. This should put any editor on their best behavior, but it doesn't seem to have helped here.

I think they have both earned a topic ban, even if this wasn't a DS area.  // Timothy :: talk  15:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• TBAN both Wikieditor and Nableezy per TimothyBlue. Even the conduct within this ANI report is extremely antagonistic. Two wrongs don't make a right. Shushugah (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Tban for Wikieditor19920, this user is just skipping from one hot-button topic area to the next, leaving carnage in their wake, like they're looking for arguments. Nableezy needs to work on not being baited and losing their cool in discussions, but their contributions to the topic area (again, one that Wikieditor19920 is a latecomer) outweigh the negatives. For now. ValarianB (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin, so I've no idea if this has any value, but Tban for Wikieditor19920. Looks like consistent breach of WP and POV pushing, Nableezy could have handled it better, but I don't see anything exceptionally out there in his/her responses. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  No need to be an admin. Admins enact community imposed sanctions on top of their own discretion. All that is required is adherence to Wikipedia policy and compelling arguments, which are you are providing. Shushugah (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• TBAN both Either TBAN both to stop this or no one --Shrike (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To be totally frank, I admit Ive been an asshole for longer than should be allowed and there are certainly comments linked above that demonstrate that and if yall feel that a topic ban of a defined or indefinite length is necessary then I dont really have much of a defense to offer here. Ive been editing in this topic area for a long time, and there are definitely ebbs and flows in how jaded or irritable that can make somebody. And I should be more calm, and yes more relaxed, when editing here. But as I have said over and over, the root cause of the civility issues is always, is always, the disregard of the content policies by others. Yes, I get pissed when an editor makes things up and is able to just keep on skipping down the proverbial block to the next article. I get less civil when an editor repeatedly dismisses reliable sources as "biased" when they say things they dont like. And the prior WP:COMPETENCE ANI was my attempt to deal with that root cause. In my opinion, if you can deal with the editors who are very much waving a NOTHERE flag (and I 100% stand by that comment) while doing so with some veneer of civility the toxicity in some topic areas will melt away. nableezy - 16:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• I will say personally, as someone who has proposed a site ban on WE before, I'm struggling to be able to justify supporting sanctions solely for WE (or Nableezy) in this particular dispute. I'm also struggling to justify this ANI being closed with no action, given this dispute has hit ANI too many times and is causing disruption in a fraught topic area (Israel-Palestine) and probably driving other editors away. Timothy's arguments are compelling. I guess, given all the aforementioned, the only reasonable option here is to TBAN both. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• TBAN both but it should not be left with only one ban. This area could use less toxicity, not more. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Don't TBAN either of them -- both proposals were vindictive--Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• It seems to me that there is a qualitative difference in the two cases and whatever is decided should reflect that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment I write this reluctantly. Geshem Bracha, Shrike, 11Fox11, Sir Joseph, Shushugah and perhaps even TimothyBlue are saying predictable things - editors either too deeply involved in these articles, or having no knowledge of the topic area. What follows may be read as a mechanical defense of Nableezy by another of the usual suspects. I'd far prefer it in these venues if the two people involved argued before admins without any of this external disturbance (including mine) That said

I can see where this is going to go. A huge ballast of ‘stuff’ is dumped down for editors to digest. Most of the articles and historical contexts are ignored as content disputes (and that is where, however, highly exasperating behavior like WP:Bludgeon WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT emerges, if the onlooker has a minimal grasp of sources), - too much bother to go slowly through the relevant evidence, and a Solomonic judgment will be delivered to rid the area of both editors, ex aequo. The differences are annuled. Nableezy is often curt but focused: the list given up top by Wikipediaeditor can hardly constitute a serious case for parity of unwiki behaviour. When telling an editor to ‘relax’ is spun as on the same level of what wikieditor does, this tit-for-tat impressionistic ‘balancing’ of charge sheets become ridiculous, apart from unreadable.

I misclicked a few days ago and found myself thrown into the usual website that is campaigning and recruiting editors to save wikipedia from the cabal of 'vicious Israel-haters'. I was rather annoyed when I saw Nableezy had been promoted to the second most toxic editor at my expense, now that it downclasses me to a 4th level threat. Apparently, Nableezy is as 'threatening to wikipedia as Hamas is to the peace process.' Urgent action is required because they indict him for having outed 60 ‘pro-Israeli’ sockpuppets, all with the connivance of disattentive checkusers.

This is no grounds for ignoring Nableezy's sometimes (not usual) exasperated remarks. I am not excusing those. All kinds of measures can adequately cope with desultory evidence of loose language. But the I/P area would not be minimally functional if his expertise in ridding it of chronic abuse by sockpuppets were chucked out for a few piddling intemperate asides with a notoriously bludgeoning editor.

I’ll deal with only one core piece of dispute to show the glaring difference in editing approaches. If you compare Wikieditor’s lead edit to Al Aqsa which Nableezy contests here, with what the actual section dealing with the onset of the violence states (it’s only a paragraph: read it) the distortion by WE is graphic - finding one source to crush the evidence of dozens. If you examine Nableezy’s talk page explanation (detailed, involving close source examination) and compare it with one single off the top of the head rejoinder, then you grasp why in all of the basic diffs, the clash is not dismissible as a POV difference. The working methods are totally different. At Palestinian enclaves over 60 RS were read by several editors: the talk page by contrast became a huge argufying screed where Wikieditor disclaimed any obligation to read those sources- books and scholarly articles, and harped on just one: a New York Times article as crucially important. This behavior - hairsplitting repetitive argufying without wide or close attention to the historical record - is the hallmark of Wikieditor’s hyperactive editing in that area, and is intensely annoying. Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nishidani you state I am probably saying predictable thingss. Why is my comment predictable?  // Timothy :: talk  18:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

See your talk page.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you :) all is good.  // Timothy :: talk  20:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, obviously. Clear and disruptive attempt to remove an ideological opponent from the area. Again. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

topic ban both of them - as per the well reasoned arguments of Timothy Alaskan wildlife fan (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat

Galactica Mapping was soft-blocked for their username. After submitting an unblock request and not getting a timely response, they have threatened to sue. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I've obviously declined the unblock request they had posted. While I get the frustration that it's been a few weeks before it was reviewed, there's no reason to go that route. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I've also responded with their path forward. Canterbury Tail talk 18:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack

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

---

I feel the latest discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography under the built up tab started on there is a personal attack on me and my contributions. I feel the editor of that discussion has made an unfair comment about my editing and as I am disabled. I feel they are attacking my editing and writing. I know it can be seen as constructive criticism but they haven't clarified if they are being personal or not.

I have no issue with census or anything but I feel they have done nothing but critic me and as a disabled person. I feel it is a personal attack. Please could someone have a look into it.

@RailwayJG: your concern is being addressed at WP:AN. Please do not post in multiple forums. Tiderolls 15:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

David Schafer Ga Rep Party bio

Never done this before but the Wash. post published a retraction of a Pres. Trump story on 3/15.. Find the votes quote was never stated.. please correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.132.23 (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and behaviour by Lenchmobbin

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

---

Lenchmobbin (talk · contribs) has been editing mostly articles related to African Americans since October 2020. These edits are very often deceptive deletions of content with the edit summary "Fixed typo" or "Added content". For example here [69], here [70], here [71], here [72] and here [73]. When confronted with this in the past Lenchmobbin has responded with profanity and personal attacks. For example here [74], here [75] and here [76].

Lenchmobbin has been warned about this behavior several times, and was previously blocked for 31 hours with the explanation "Possibly not here to build an encyclopedia. Maybe this will get their attention." [77]. All the edits linked above come after this block, so it seems it did not get their attention, and that Lenchmobbin is not here to build an encyclopedia. Knuthove (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

And in all that time, nobody questioned this person's username? The Moose 19:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by a SPA at Talk:Proud Boys

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

---

User:Burgs2016 has been making repeated personal attacks at Talk:Proud Boys, for which I and another editor have already warned them. They are now continuing to make attacks despite both a level 4 and 4im warning. They have also been insisting that the article must be written following their own beliefs about "writing standards", despite the fact that these contradict Wikipedia policy.

• "I think this conversation here shows clearly that some people here are Antifa terrorists." 13:18, 16 March 2021
• "clearly you prefer biased writing" 14:11, 16 March 2021
• "You are sensitive. It's not a personal attack. It's true." 14:23, 16 March 2021
• "You guys have a clear agenda here... It's clear that writing standards of declined in the last few years, but this conversation is a disgrace." 14:35, 16 March 2021
• "Instead of crying about a perceived insult, it would be nice if people actually discussed my main concern, which is writing standards." 14:38, 16 March 2021
• "The word "integrity" is certainly not in some people's vocabulary." 16:10, 16 March 2021
• "Personally, I think everyone is radical at this point, bu this has nothing to do with the poor writing standards." 16:51, 16 March 2021

As for the continued insistence that the article be written according to their personal "writing standards" rather than Wikipedia policy, you can peruse basically any of that conversation, but you'll see it in "You guys are arguing based on Wikipedia rules, but I'm arguing solely based on writing standards." ([78]), "Secondary sources are not reliable sources. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. It has everything to do with poor writing skills." ([79]), etc.

The warnings are at User talk:Burgs2016#March 2021, and they've also been alerted to AP DS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I placed a 48-hour block for PAs past my warning before I saw this discussion. If they resume, the next block will be indefinite. This is a regular admin action for disruptive behavior and personal attacks on a talkpage that is plagued with SPAs making accusations of bad-faith edits against experienced editors, not to mention a steady stream of drive-by griping about the way the media treats the Proud Boys. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User has continued to lash out on their talk page.[80][81] — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

User is adding legal threats [82] Nightenbelle (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I revoked his talk page access for the duration of the block. --Jayron32 18:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

2600:1702:760:1680:5d9b:9e2b:243:5749 and English variants

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

---

• 2600:1702:760:1680:5d9b:9e2b:243:5749 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've recently noticed this user making unnecessary changes between English variants, most commonly from British to American, in various articles, seemingly showing no respect for a global encyclopedia. No effort to discuss when contested has been made, ever; this IP seems to have never used a Talk page. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this person is a problem. They reorganized Child singer into two groups: American and Foreign, which is ridiculously US-centric. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of a week. The /64 has a prior block for vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user- false block summaries/warnings, disruptiveness/edit warring over files

RabbitFanon2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Honestly not sure what should be done here, but seemingly WP:NOTHERE and/or doesn't understand what they are doing is wrong.

False block summaries/warnings:

It quite clear this user is not an administrator and cannot block, yet posts block messages as if they are the ones who blocked someone, or are just randomly posting block messages on talk pages of those not blocked.

• [83]
• [84]
• User talk:2607:FEA8:B460:5D6B:990C:D94E:3E52:C86

They are also copying/pasting warning messages of other users, such as here.

Disruptive/file edit warring:

Just look at any of the recent files they've uploaded and it should be pretty clear, especially through the edit histories- such as here. When files of theirs are listed for deletion, they simply remove the deletion notice and add hidden notes asking to not delete it, even when it's a bot adding the tags.

Seems like a block or stern warning may be needed for this, I'm not quite sure what else can be done for this. Magitroopa (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, see their filter log. Magitroopa (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, blocking now. Any unblock will have to address all the myriad issues you've raised. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Talk page access may need to be revoked. See this. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I took care of it, TPA removed and the page reverted