Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 394: Line 394:
****I will make a new account, don't worry. Our fight against sick Kremlin propagandists will never end! You are the lowest of all human forms and the entire democratic and developed world is against your sick positions! Facts will win, your propaganda will die, your memory will be disgraced. [[User:H2ppyme|H2ppyme]] ([[User talk:H2ppyme|talk]]) 14:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
****I will make a new account, don't worry. Our fight against sick Kremlin propagandists will never end! You are the lowest of all human forms and the entire democratic and developed world is against your sick positions! Facts will win, your propaganda will die, your memory will be disgraced. [[User:H2ppyme|H2ppyme]] ([[User talk:H2ppyme|talk]]) 14:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
*Rather than simply a topic ban, I think a block is now necessary. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 14:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
*Rather than simply a topic ban, I think a block is now necessary. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 14:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
**All you Russian propagandists should be banned and never allowed to return! Wikipedia is no longer neutral, it has been overtaken by sick Kremlin propagandists! [[User:H2ppyme|H2ppyme]] ([[User talk:H2ppyme|talk]]) 14:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


== Unwarranted block by User:Geschichte ==
== Unwarranted block by User:Geschichte ==

Revision as of 14:31, 24 February 2022

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    User:Martinevans123

    CADWCH YN DDIOGEL A CHADWCH YMLAEN
    (or, in English, "keep calm and carry on") This looks like a vexatious complaint. For edit warring reports, WP:AN3 is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Google Translate, the previous title translated as "Don't produce and pay it." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Now corrected, but it was fun before. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Part 2 - Cornelis Dopper has not edited for 2 days, but I'm sure they can be dealt with if they continue their previous issues. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Part 3 - After being re-opened for no apparent reason, nothing else has happened here apart from CD yet again reiterating the false IP claim and attacking other editors. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK, before any action does have to be taken. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Re-opening (Martinevans123)

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

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

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

    Agree. If there's an edit war between two people only, it seems inappropriate to have applied full protection, blocking everyone else from editing, because of two people. Moreover, demanding just one of those editors to "explain the rationale for your changes", and not the other editor, seems prejudiced. An edit war is an edit war. Both need to explain, get consensus, and stop.—Bagumba (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In this specific instance, nobody else was involved in the dispute. Otherwise partially blocking both editors from the article would have been a suitable alternative. I've left a third opinion on the talk page which I'd suggest the two editors use as a compromise, otherwise they're going to have to seek dispute resolution elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, for you, that would have been an equally unsuitable alternative, per WP:INVOLVED. You should not be the admin on any situation where a wikifriend (like Martinevans) is involved, and should stick solely to commenting. This applies even when your actions are completely impartial, and even more when they seem prejudiced, like Bagumba says right above. Fram (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Fram and Bagumba, I'm sure you can both find something better to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I went and looked at WP:INVOLVED, which defines involvement as "conflicts with an editor... , and disputes on topics...". Not conflicts of an editor one is friendly with, with other editors. As with all such things, this does include gray areas where judgment is required, and so it is possible that actions on behalf of a wiki-friend could cross over into involvement. But when no action (beyond commenting, and asking for discussion by the person who was not discussing) has been taken against the other party (who in this case is getting awfully close to not-here), there is hardly need for a commotion. (This is the comment that is cited above as a problem: seriously?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "it is possible that actions on behalf of a wiki-friend could cross over into involvement." No, really? Fram (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh look, someone else who is buddies with Martinevans and felt the need to close this discussion and now to dismiss claims of involvedness. Shameful behaviour, but I guess you don't have anything better to do. Or at least not a better example to present. Good going. Fram (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not close this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You added to the closing statement twice. Gee, where could this confusion come from? Fram (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where could this confusion come from? An apt question, indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the protection, which was a welcome relief, I must say. For "clear and obvious edit-warring"? If a claim fails verification in the source provided, I've always assumed it's valid to remove it. Similarly, if a source can be removed, as per WP:LEADCITE, I've always assumed it's not valid to simply restore it with a sarcastic edit summary. If this was edit warring, it was done with a polite invitation from me to discuss at the Talk page. With wikifriends like Ritchie, who needs enemies? But I'd better forgive you for not notifying me that you had re-opened this thread. Or was the OP meant to do that? I was getting close to taking Ludwig Wittgenstein (which I've been editing since 2011), off my watchlist, thanks to this. Might save you a job. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The appropriate picture --Tryptofish

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

    Either one would be fine with me. You didn't miss anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny picture? I'd recommend Rabbit–duck. But, just like Ritchie, I'm not sure which is which. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm partial to the Spinning dancer, myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, spinning. British television viewers might be reminded of the title sequence for Tales of the Unexpected... which is what this thread seems to be turning out to be. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry to buzz kill and I'm sorry to pile-on, but Ritchie, after everything that happened with Diannaa (though I don't believe you acted as an admin in that incident), I really do think that, at the very least, you need to maintain some extra-good optics. Speaking for myself, I grant Gerda's RD requests via my talk page all the time (i.e. editing WP:ITN, an admin action). But I do that because those requests are uncontroversial.
    By contrast, once, after I blocked Mathsci (via a report by Fram of all people as I recall, small vwold), I found out he was Gerda's friend, I never acted as an admin in his case again. And I never will. I'm saying all this as someone who isn't friends (but is friendly) with Martinevans123. Though I'd like to be, because he's fuckin' awesome! El_C 00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C, I am deeply touched. Ritchie, the cheque is in the post. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Cornelis Dopper the same IP/SPA as above? This all seems rather silly from Dopper, and given edit summaries like this, I suspect they wont be here much longer. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The first IP was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule; the next IP made a total of 4 edits; after I asked if they were the same person I was told "You know damn well that we’re the same person". And then User:Cornelis Dopper miraculously appeared. I didn't actually ask if they were the same person.... perhaps you'd like to? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If not a buzz kill, then I guess I'm becoming a broken record, but given that the above is true, I feel the need to say again that the concerns about INVOLVED are awfully close to complaining about INVOLVED when the action was something routine like reverting a BLP violation or vandalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry that we don't really have buzz kill here in the UK. But we do have the trusty old wet blanket. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Martinevans123, you wrote: 'And then User:Cornelis Dopper miraculously appeared'. Now you're acting as if it was a big surprise when you felt it was necessary to publish the location of my IP-address. I still don't understand what the added value of that was. In combination with the many sarcastic remarks and illogical behavior it came across as an attempt to intimidate someone. And now you're saying that it is a miracle that I created an account to make a few comments on these matters?
    In my opinion, the entire discussion began in a ridiculous way, with constant sarcasm from especially Martin; not really a nice attitude to begin a discussion I would say. But this is also what he did at the Wittgenstein article; reverting edits back like a dictator, starting a discussion and then refusing engage in a constructive manner. Not in the least I have the feeling that this discussion is being held with people who have next to no background in philosophy (they're not showing it at least). Cornelis Dopper (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: @Ritchie333, you wrote: 'but I note that Martin has left his rationale on the talk page'. Excuse me? I think you can clearly see my arguments with proper sources and all enfolding on the talk pages of both Heidegger & Wittgenstein. How on earth can you say this? And I would very much like to be informed where I can find the so called rationale of Martin; it seems to me it is completely absent. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see them now, but at the time I wrote that post, I couldn't because you'd hadn't written them at that point. Now you have, I have set out a compromise on a talk page that I hope you both can follow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still going on here after 8 days? It seems this sub-thread was re-opened, yet again, without notification? Andrew, yes that's part of the dispute. But most of my arguments, at both of the articles where Cornelis Dopper has edited, concern the need for any statement in the lead section, whatever it's form, to be a fair summary of article content and to be fully sourced by WP:RS sources. Cornelis Dopper seems to think this is optional. And that editors who have more than "next to no background in philosophy" can make general superlative statements like these as they know they are true. Martinevans123 (talk)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

    Looks like a relatively benign IP range. Does this guy have a filing on WP:LTA? Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 09:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No,but this user have a filing on zh:WP:LTA.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 14:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    +Special:Contributions/42.2.168.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 24 April in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please User:El C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    K. El_C 08:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    +Special:Contributions/42.3.189.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 17 October in 2016,please User:El C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:REVDEL: diffs as proof of WP:PAID work

    MCC214, it's possible that the link spammer is providing diffs as proof of WP:PAID work (or maybe they're playing the Google indexing lottery, doesn't matter). Could you compile a list of the affected pages? I'd like to revdel the lot of em. Thanks! El_C 08:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • So many......,
    1. Backpack,FIFA 22,2002 FIFA World Cup (video game),FIFA 16,NBA Live 15
    2. NBA Live 16,FIFA 20,FIFA 15,Davilex Games,Sonic Adventure 2,Sonic Adventure
    3. Sonic 3D Blast,List of Pokémon,Fjällräven,Bag,Dora and Friends: Into the City!
    4. Polly Pocket,Alex Kidd in the Enchanted Castle,Bubble Symphony,Ape Escape 3,Virtua Cop 3
    5. Rampage World Tour,Sonic the Hedgehog 3,UEFA Europa Conference League,The Incredibles (video game),Doll
    6. Dragon Ball Z: Idainaru Dragon Ball Densetsu,Dragon Ball Z: Sagas,Rilakkuma,Spyro the Dragon,Dynasty Warriors 3
    7. Virtua Cop,FIFA 17,2006 FIFA World Cup (video game),Uno (video game),2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil (video game)
    8. 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa (video game),Bomberman Land (PSP),Sonic Heroes
    9. Mario (franchise),Angry Birds Blast,Tourism,Donkey Kong 64,Crazy Taxi (video game)
    10. Super Monkey Ball Touch & Roll,Bomberman World,List of Dora the Explorer episodes,Dynasty Warriors 4,Bust-a-Move DS
    11. FIFA 19,Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (video game),Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga,Thuwaini bin Said,Pro Evolution Soccer 2019
    12. Jewel Master,Pro Evolution Soccer 2014,Bomberman Land (Wii),Lego Duplo,UEFA Europa League
    13. Care Bears,Columns III,Bomberman 64 (2001 video game),Crazy Taxi: Fare Wars,Crack Down
    14. Bomberman Wars,Super Bomberman,Puzzle Bobble 3,Pro Evolution Soccer 2015,Rampage World Tour
    15. Patrick Kong,Sonic Team,Bomb Jack,Tokyo Xtreme Racer: Zero,Metal Slug 4
    16. Sonic & Knuckles,Neo Bomberman,Kids (MGMT song),Jigsaw puzzle,Bomberman 64 (1997 video game)
    17. Diddy Kong Racing,Gran Turismo Sport,FIFA 18,The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 video game),Cars (video game)
    18. Crash Team Racing,Lego Worlds,Sonic the Hedgehog 3,Pro Evolution Soccer 2012,Super Monkey Ball Jr.
    19. Nike Vision,Bomberman Kart,Bomberman Generation,Pro Evolution Soccer 2018,EFootball PES 2020
    20. Gran Turismo 6,Gran Turismo Sport,Gain Ground,The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014 video game),Bust-A-Move Bash!
    21. Ape Escape 2,Ape Escape (video game),Golden Axe,Ristar,2002 FIFA World Cup (video game),Ribbit King
    22. In the Hunt,Crypt Killer,Pro Evolution Soccer 6,Golden Axe II,Sonic Generations
    23. Lego Star Wars: The Video Game,Teddy bear,Winnie-the-Pooh (1969 film),FIFA 21,Puzzle Bobble Plus!,Gran Turismo 4. --MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Manipulation of wikipedia by a French presidential candidate team

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

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

    I've left AMI notices for the accounts that you did not notify.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I forgot one. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This had no tangible effect on English Wikipedia, other than the upload of some rather nice photos, which it will be a shame to see removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you think they are nice is proof that they have achieved their goal (to make him look presidential). M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are in fact nice, high resolution photos that illustrate the subject well. The next best photos of Zemmour we have are over a decade old. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they are "nice". You don't expect his PR people to upload images of him that don't make him look presidential, do you? M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to go do something useful, why don't you clean up Reconquête, which has been extensively edited by Cheep, who is known to have been part of this campaign? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I ever need some useless advice, you'll be the first to know. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see anything wrong with the picture. Additionally, it's buried in the middle of the article. JBchrch talk 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about the picture per se (there is nothing wrong with it), it's about who uploaded it and for what purpose. Leaving it would send a clear signal to all those who want to promote themselves: 1) if you want your "beautiful" image to stick, make sure you hire a professional photographer. 2) It really doesn't matter if you get caught, we accept faits accomplis. M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia Commons allows undisclosed paid affiliations with the subjects of the images that are uploaded on it. It is certainly not appropriate that people associated with the campaign appear to have initially inserted it into the English Wikipedia article. That being said, the current location of that photo in the English Wikipedia article looks appropriate—are there any better photos that you suggest we put there? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a much wider debate than this image, but yes, we do accept fait accompli. I'm not happy about it, but we do. There's no policy that provides for the removal or deletion of content written by COI/UPE editors provided that it complies with the rest of the policies or guidelines. The best we got is WP:DEL-REASON # 14 combined with WP:PROMO, but good luck arguing that at AFD if the article is not-too-bad and the subject is notable. There is of course a broader debate to have about this, but I would argue that this is not a good case to launch that discussion, because the image does improve the encyclopedia, even if it has been uploaded by a campaign member. JBchrch talk 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PROMO is obviously what I've been referring to all along. Even though I'm aware that no single policy can be used to remove the image (wp policies don't usually work in isolation anyway), I was hoping that others may agree, especially now that story is in the newspapers.[5][6][7] M.Bitton (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    @Nil Einne: We cannot admit that there is a COI problem, accept to keep the added content (under whatever pretext) and then pretend that there is no fait accompli. The message we're sending here is loud and clear: throw money at your promotional material (by hiring professional writers, photographers, etc) and you won't even need to declare your conflict of interest, because even if caught, your proportional material will be kept. M.Bitton (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.Bitton: except the promotional material would have been kept even if they had declared the conflict of interest. We would very likely be in the exact same situation if the proper processes had been followed. There is no fait accompli, the exact same thing would have happened. We could trivially remove the image from the article. We aren't failing to remove it because it's too much work or because it's hard to do or anything like that. We won't remove the image because if the editor had said on the talk page, "hey I represent person A, and have uploaded this image which I feel should be added to the article, would that be possible?" we would have very likely done that and would have the same or a very similar result. This doesn't mean it's acceptable for them to do what they do, but we should not punish them for that by causing a worse outcome just because they didn't. That's a clear cut violation of WP:BLP IMO. Regardless of how poorly subjects behave here, we should never, ever do something to punish them in our articles. That's disgusting and unacceptable. And there is absolutely no need to hire professional writers to upload an image, nor to add it to an article or to suggest it is added. (I'd note that as mentioned by others, I'm not sure there's even a reason to think anyone hired professional writers, it's seems likely there's a fair chance that these people were volunteers for the campaign. That doesn't make what they were doing acceptable instead it illustrates why concentrating on the professional part is sort of silly.) Note as I said, in my first post I'm not referring to anything other than the image. As for professional photographers, as I already said we already effectively encourage subjects to get professional photographers to take their photo on occasion, there's nothing forbidden about it's part and parcel of Wikipedia. The problem is not that a professional photographer was used, or that it was uploaded by someone with a COI, both are perfectly allowed in fact in some ways encouraged. The problem is because this COI was not declared, and it was added to the article by someone with a COI. Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Of course there is no need to hire professionals, but it sure wouldn't harm, especially if money is not an issue. As I said right from the start, it's the fact that it was added to the article by someone with a COI that is an issue (the image itself is not a problem). The professional part became a subject when some editors insisted on keeping it under the pretext that "it looks nice" (i.e. professional). Anyway, I think we have to agree to differ on this particular point. M.Bitton (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.Bitton: Actually it could easily harm if you use the wrong professional. Professional writers may use language that is suspicious when adding the image. And I'm reluctant to agree to differ on BLP matters. You seem to agree that the image would have been added to the article if the subject had simply proposed to add it to the article rather than adding it themselves. If you do, then why are you suggesting we remove it simply because they didn't do so but added it directly? If you think it's acceptable to punish subjects in articles, you should not be editing BLPs period. That's in clear violation of BLP. I haven't looked into the French reports, but are we even sure the subject had much involvement in this? Campaigns often have a lot of stuff which is fairly disconnected from the politician. Perhaps you can blame them for the people they let into their campaign etc, but it seems even more wrong to be saying we should punish subjects for stuff they had minimal involvement in and only came about because they were careless who they hired. It makes far, far more sense to do what we're doing at the moment. We're telling everyone involved "look if you'd done things properly, we would be in the exact same situation and instead of you being blocked (which seems likely to happen), you could continue to propose new images you uploaed". Note this also meants it's quite likely there has been no promotional benefit here, instead it's been harmful. We'd be in the exact same situation if they'd done things properly and simply suggested the image on the talk page, except they could continue to edit and make such image suggestions which may be in part promotional which they will no longer be able to do so. (I have no idea what's going to happen on Commons, and it doesn't concern us here.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with @Hemiauchenia with respect to Eric Zemmour. I took a look at this some weeks ago when I attempted a clean-up of the article, and I did not notice any suspicious activity. JBchrch talk 23:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone involved with the Zemmour article I also concur with JBchrch and Hemiauchenia that no activity there over the past few months has seemed like suspicious activity. I stopped watching the page some weeks ago, though, so it is possible I missed something although I trust their word nothing happened recently. I'll add that I see nothing wrong with keeping the images there if they fulfill the license requirements set by Wikipedia. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to be that guy… but is linking accounts to real-world affiliations WP:OUTING or is it OK? There were a lot of suppressed edits at Ketanji Brown Jackson and its talk pages after a report came out regarding someone who edited that page. I’m a bit confused on how the policy is supposed to be applied. Does the literal name of an individual need to be contained in an off-wiki link for it to be considered outing, rather than an affiliation of the specific editor with a third-party? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the French ANI thread and there is no attempt to connect specific accounts with real-world names. I don't see an issue here. For Ketanji Brown Jackson, the suppression was due to the fact that the accounts supposed real-life identity was mentioned in the report. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make sure I have this right: a report that mentions a username and its affiliation with a particular article subject, but not the real-world name, is Kosher? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. This is the only reasonable intepretation of WP:OUTING. Nobody is suggesting that any of these accounts is Zemmour himself, but just part of his campaign. If we couldn't accuse people of having COI's with regard to certain organisations or individuals then WP:COIN would have to be shut down. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, sorry about my broken English. I tried to sum up the story here on meta: m:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Clandestine task force actively promoting Eric Zemmour's presidential campaign at Wikipedia. Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 16:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: NOTHERE block of involved editors

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

    Note: Cheep has now been indeffed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposer. — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for CreativeC, which has not edited since 2019 and has not engaged in disruption on the English Wikipedia (blocks are not punitive, but preventative). Support for Cheep, who has actively edited in a COI manner if press reports are to be believed. I'm not sure about Film sur Léo Major: I can't identify any disruptive edits by the user. I'm unsure about if the user is a sock of Cheep being used to avoid scrutiny, or simply WP:MEAT, but that's best left for SPI. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for Cheep, who has clearly done undisclosed COI work regarding Zemmour on English Wikipedia. Oppose for the others, as they have not edited English Wikipedia about this topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It's important to respond rapidly because Wikipedia is very vulnerable to this sort of coordinated attack from high-profile figures; if there is any perception whatsoever that it produced any positive results, even temporarily, we could expect to see many more. Even for the editors who have not yet edited significantly about this in enwiki, the fact that they have declared or clearly displayed an intent to edit Wikipedia in order to advance a particular politician is sufficient to justify a preventative block per WP:NOTHERE. --Aquillion (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for Cheep but not others per @Hemiauchenia: reasoning. Cinadon36 08:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom; although I agree that blocking accounts with few edits and little time on the project might be unnecessary  :) SN54129 13:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Oppose for all of them, as they have not engaged in disruption on the English Wikipedia.--Emigré55 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I do not see the block as punitive for someone who isn't currently editing. It is about preventing future issues and creating an incentive to not use Wikipedia in this fashion. In this particular situation, it's the proper course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per above. It's a reasonable preventative step to take given the circumstances. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all three as a fully justified step based on their previous edit history, to prevent damage to the English version of the encyclopedia. Let's also recall that this is about presidential politics, and not about angels dancing on the head of a pin. A block is not a WP:BAN; they can be unblocked the day after with an appeal showing why there is no danger of the kind of damage they caused at fr-wiki that led to an explosion of articles in the French press about manipulation of Wikipedia, from being reproduced here. Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mantra "preventative not punitive" supports blocking of editors who are likely to disrupt the English Wikipedia, rather than, as one or two people have claimed, opposing it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the fact that they have been so publicly exposed in in this regard lowers the chances that the accounts, which have not clearly engaged in past disruption on EnWiki, will be used for future Z-related disruption on EnWiki. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support while these accounts may have few edits here, it's clear that they were engaged in a kind of manipulation which isn't acceptable. As a BLPN regular, I appreciate it can sometimes be difficult for subjects to get even fair changes, but this very far from the way to go about getting changes to articles. I think this is one of the few cases where it's okay to block to send a message in part since the block is already justified but in addition the block may make it easier to deal with future meat or sockpuppetry. Edit: for clarity I'm referring to all 3. I'd also support blocking anyone else involved in other Wikipedias if they start to edit any article remotely related without first dealing with their CoI. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC) 07:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block of all three, as the two less-active accounts are de facto meatpuppets of the obviously-needs-to-be-blocked Cheep. oknazevad (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support blocking all three, per Phil Bridger's reasoning. M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support blocks for all 3, to prevent damage; blocks can easily be undone at need. Lectonar (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Laurel Lodged at WP:AN

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

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

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

    We cannot comment on this. It was a closed discussion. I saw it before it was closed. I would not have even mentioned it if Solavirum had not himself mentioned it. What I wrote about had emerged from the murky business. It involved another editor outing Solavirum and his activities in violation of Wiki policy. I don't have access to sealed discussions.That's why I did not mention it. But since he himself brought it up, it's fair comment. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In any Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute, Laurel Lodged always unconditionally takes the Armenian side. They can not be regarded as a neutral user in anything Azerbaijani-related. On the other hand, they are not under any topic ban and may comment in these discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: While I am aware they may currently comment in these discussions, I'm sorta concerned about the types of things Laurel Lodged is using them to say about other users (ie. their actions are the result of a conspiracy to use minors to push Azeri propaganda). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it's a bit rich of @MJL: to jump in on comments about neutral users. He himself declares that he has a personal page on Azeri Wiki: [8]. In it he has lots of nice things to say about Azeri proverbs. I don't see the proverb about "Those in glasshouses should not throw stones". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laurel Lodged: Very interesting that you're so busy looking at my azwiki that you somehow managed to completely ignore my enwiki user page which clearly states my pronouns are they/them. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL, RE: pronouns — I think you're being too harsh. You can make that correction absent any of this... extra-stuff. I note that many users who wish to clarify their pronouns, do so in their sigs. Maybe consider also doing so if you find being addressed with the wrong pronoun to be upsetting. Otherwise, good faith mistakes should be expected. I remember a few years back, I called Fæ "she," even though I knew they preferred they. It just slipped for whatever reason (as I recall, I apologized and corrected it a few hours later, which Fæ accepted graciously). Anyway, largely a distraction here, is my point. El_C 16:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    responded on your talk –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel uncomfortable commenting on this. What am I supposed to say? Since @MJL: is the ON, there is an unequal balance of power here. Would it be politic of me to apologise for a perceived slight? Probably. Would such an apology sound like currying favour in the case? Who could be satisfied by such an apology extracted under duress under such circumstances? Why would you assume that I read every last detail on your personal page? That's not reasonable. As it happens, I didn't. On re-reading it, the pronoun thing is actually quite hard to find. Your criticism is too hard, too fast. The default position is AGF. I am entitled to that assumption. I stand by that assumption. Any lingering unease on your part might have been followed by a polite note in my talk page, not a public rebuke or value-laden "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" question at ANI. For the record, I did not read the pronoun note before writing the comment complained of above. For the record, I follow the Golden Rule (i.e. all instances of "he/him" in law are assumed to also mean "she/her"). Lazy, yes. Malicious, no. I will not make a further comment on this matter in this space. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laurel Lodged: Okay, so let me get this straight.
    (1) Not only are you not going to apologize because it might make you look bad or whatever, I actually am in the wrong because my pronouns are not visible enough.
    (2) I am wrong to assume because you read the last section of my user page ("Alternate user pages") that you also read the first ("Pronouns / Nomenclature") because... good faith.
    (3) You couldn't find my pronouns until it was pointed out to you just now despite the fact it is the first thing written in the first section written in a different color and in bold.
    (4) You aren't ever going to correct your misgendering me because actually.. No, you didn't you follow an English common law called the Golden Rule which means actually he/him would be a right pronoun to use for me since you didn't know my actual pronouns (despite the fact you obviously know them now).
    (5) You won't be engaging with me here at all because I hurt your feelings despite the fact all I did was point out you could find a thing I wrote on an entirely separate website as apparent evidence against me but ignored the notice on this website which says my pronouns.. and despite the fact you did ignore it because, as you just said, apparently the pronoun thing is actually quite hard to find.
    (6) I should've gone straight to your talk page instead of asking you a question on here.. even though I have never once asked you a question on here. Everything I have said thus far has been an exact statement about what you have done or my own personal commentary on the same. Not once have I asked you any question.
    (7) And finally, the entire purpose of your original comment was to unreasonably discredit me for openly having an azwiki page. Of course I am going to respond to that absurdity, and I am 100% going to point out when you misgendered me while doing it because that's what happened. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, Laurel Lodged is also busy at Corofin (parish). After an earlier (March 2021) claim that I used Germano-English (I am Dutch), he is was here again provoking. Laurel Lodged is now inventing a new name for this parish. He found this page and know claims that the correct name is "Corofin (Kilnaboy & Rath)". In fact, it states that the name of the parish is Corofin and an amalgamation of the older parishes of Rath and Kilnaboy. I have pointed him at the books used for writing this article. But that failed to convince him. Even this source, which stated that now bishop Ger Nash "From 1996 he was also assistant priest in Corofin. In 2003, he was appointed as resident priest in Corofin (...)". Also on Corofin, County Clare he makes the same mistake. The Banner talk 23:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, my favourite stalker. Hi Banner. Still trying to ignore what the diocesan website says is the name of the parish? Editors should also take a look at Talk:Corofin,_County_Clare#Merger Catholic Parishes. In this instance, The Banner saw an error. Instead of correcting it, he simply reverted it. It remains only partly correct because he has stubbornly refused to use his extensive knowledge of the area to improve the article. In this instance, he seems to be more concerned with making WP:POINTY comments than with improving Wiki IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And more personal attacks! But no, I am not pointy as you, I just try to keep the information correct. The Banner talk 15:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Laurel Lodged, please don't call a user in good standing a "stalker." That's a sanctionable personal attack. Don't even use WP:STALK, generally. Use WP:HOUND. For the record, I didn't quite understand The Banner's complaint or its relevance to this report, though admittedly, I'm writing/reading in haste. El_C 15:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no interest in interacting with LL, so I avoid him when I can. But LL repeatedly started editing pages I have started adding incorrect facts. Correcting them means an editwar. I think that behaviour is here under discussion. The Banner talk 16:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did watch that WP:AN thread, and while I certainly think some of Laurel's remarks were a bit too much, I do agree with him regarding The Banner's WP:POINTY comments. I've only interacted with him once, and that certainly wasn't a positive one [9]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I admit that I got very emotional in my contributions to the two requests from Az editors for unblocking. Although both Solavirum and Grandmaster showed apparent bad behaviour, the language that I used to highlight that bad behaviour could have been softer. I apologise for the intemperate language used. I should have let the facts speak for themselves. I am an Irish national. I don't have any conflict of interest in editing AA articles. I only have tangential interest in Caucasus topics. I suppose as an Irishman, I have a natural affinity to taking the side of the underdog. As a nation, we endured 800 years of occupation by a foreign imperial power, so it's easy for us to empathise with other small nations who have been similarly oppressed. As you'll see from my edit history, I have a wide range of interests: Irish nobility, local Irish geograpghy, central European history, Ancient Rome, Byzantium, church affairs etc. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - MJL, Laurel Lodged if I'm being honest neither of you are uninvolved. MJL, as I stated in AN, you supported Solavirum in virtually every case against them, whether in AN/I, AE, Topic ban appeals, etc. I can provide all the evidence/diffs, but I think it's redundant since all the people/admins involved including yourself know that, and I made sure to check previous noticeboard threads before my statements.
    When it comes to recruitment/canvassing/off-wiki conflict of interest which directly impacts Wikipedia, it's actually rampant in AA, and third party users can confirm this LouisAragon, Kansas Bear. I actually had alot of information gathered from various social media posts/groups with hundreds of thousands of followers (you'd be surprised how shamelessly open everything is and easy to access by simple search), but as I said in my AN statement, I think it isn't appropriate to post it in any of these noticeboards. I made sure to email it to one of the involved admins and archive just in case it gets deleted. There was actually information about Solavirum's off-wiki canvassing and COI as well, so anything Laurel states isn't really far from reality. So this seems to be another lie, but the appeal was withdrawn before an admin could reply. Courtesy pinging Cullen328, El_C. Just my 2 cents. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ZaniGiovanni, this is a subpar comment. First, for the sort of un-evidenced WP:ASPERSION accompanied with I'd provide the evidence, but everyone already knows. Well, I, for one, don't know that MJL leans one way or another in the topic area/s. Maybe instead of pinging me and three other users to confirm, just provide the evidence from the start?
    Second, think about how this looks. You open with: MJL, Laurel Lodged [,] if I'm being honest neither of you are uninvolved — then you proceed to only criticize MJL, who is (or would be, at least) on the opposite camp from you. It comes across as partisan. Also, what's so different about MJL's user page at .az and .hy? I don't understand.
    Finally, where does this "neither of you are uninvolved" framing even coming from? (There's a layer of irony here in that you could have included yourself, too, in that opening sentence.) And even if, say, "involved," so what? Involved how? Neither are admins at .en, was a discussion involved-closed or something by either? As for the allegations being made (possible WP:CHILDPROTECT matter), these are of a very serious nature and they probably should be directed to ARBCOM or WP:T&S (privately). El_C 15:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El C I'll address your concerns. Firstly, I checked previous threads regarding Solavirum, in all of them, MJL was involved: [10], [11], [12], including the appeal yesterday. Secondly, I thought it was already being discussed that Laurel isn't really uninvolved, so I gave my 2 cents regarding MJL and their involvement, which wasn't being discussed.
    To your last point regarding irony, forgive me, but I don't see your point really, because It's not like I'm hiding that I'm involved. I literally stated it myself in AN yesterday. I don't know the age of any of the users involved, but I know the seriousness of this that's why I didn't post anything in any of these noticeboards, and emailed (privately) to an involved admin instead. If you want me to email it to ArbCom as well, I can do that. Finally, I pinged you and the admin who received my email as being involved with the case. Hope I addressed your concerns. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You mostly did not address them, no. I hope to be able to elaborate on why that is later in the day (probably evening), but I thought you should know ahead of time. El_C 16:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El C thanks for letting me know. I'm happy to clear things if I understood you incorrectly. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: I have a user page on az.wiki (but don't on hywiki) because there was this thing where Azwiki has some problems with NPOV. I did things like this and this.. and this.. and this... oh and this. I figured having a user page would help people know I don't actually speak the language despite editing on their wiki (I also use it to keep an Azeri phrasebook handy). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, is your .hy user page refactored from .en, or Meta, or some sort of alternate dimension? El_C 16:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Meta, yeah. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aardwolf68

    Aardwolf68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned that professional wrestling is under general sanctions (WP:GS/PW) after an edit war in October.[13][14] His edits remain unproductive; this one is obviously fake and defamatory,[15] others are dubious and unsourced.[16] It's worth noting that there's a discussion on WT:PW regarding how ineffective these sanctions have been since they were implemented four years ago. This particular case seems like an obvious WP:NOTHERE.LM2000 (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The first one you mentioned was eventually accepted, because Becky had turned heel and every time that I or somebody else mentioned it, it was reverted. The third case you mentioned was confirmed in an interview with Shawn, that’s my mistake however for not sourcing it. The fourth case is literally able to be traced to the Survivor Series page, where Bianca Belair survived a 4-1 disadvantage, why is this not mentioned in her article? It’s mentioned that Orton and Ziegler are the only two people to survive a 3-1 disadvantage, so why isn’t Bianca’s surviving a 4-1 disadvantage notable? And the fact that you’re out here trying to attack my integrity when all I want to do is help genuinely hurts, please, for the love of god, do research before you call me out for making edits that are all true. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm not quite sure what to make if all of this. There's a person out there who absolutely has it out for Aardwolf, and is block evading and IP hopping. But Aardwolf is not entirely innocent either, with some heavy handed editing and a fair amount of reverting. The IP hoping is worse though, in my eyes. But it's a bit hard to follow overall. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not innocent, I know, I've made a lot of issues within Wikipedia even though it wasn't my intention and I accept full responsibility over what had happened, and engaging with this troll again. Thank you for helping me out... although I'm not too sure how I'm gonna be able to handle another situation like this. Thank you, though Aardwolf68 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this can be closed as a final final warning. Aardwolf68 was a victim here but he must know that unproductive edits have to stop. An LTA is apparently after you, please don't give them material to work with.LM2000 (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that i might've done lots of wrong stuff, but right now I Just wanna solve his vandalisms. Following several warnings on his talk page and an even an LTA warning, the user is still doing the "far too heavy handed reverts" and mistakes LM2000, Sergecross73 and Muhandes told him not to do again. Using the same misleading edit summaries he was warned not to use by SNUGGUMS. Look at here--146.241.192.13 (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was pinged, I'd like to call WP:BOOMERANG on the IP above. We all know who they are and they practically admitted it here. They are avoiding the block and should not have talk page editing privileges. --Muhandes (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll second this. WP:BLOCKEVASION is the bigger issue at the moment.LM2000 (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked the IP - as Muhandes mentioned, their comment basically admits block evasion. Which was my suspicion anyways. I believe they are the blocked user "MoriceLibrary". Sergecross73 msg me 11:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And as expected, they immediately hopped IP. I wont bother you with another block request and since I have no opinion on the subject of this ANI I'll sign out before I'm accused of hijacking the discussion. Muhandes (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, they moved my talk page to another name, now known as Aardickk68 in order to mess with me. Idk how they did this when they aren’t an admin, but please check my talk page to see what I’m talking about. Aardwolf68 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They’re known as User:Vrocchio Brocco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf68 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have opened a related SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrocchio Brocco Singularity42 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NadVolum

    Over at Talk:Julian Assange a dispute has arisen over the issue of whether or not something should be included. This user has resorted to WP:BLUDGEON, and mocking when asked to actually explain how this is about the subject of the article [[17]]. This is an ongoing issue and represents pretty much their whole style and attitude on the article. They (to be fair) are not alone in the snark. But it is getting frustrating when they derail their own RFC with it. There is zero attempt at AGF from this user.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The person helps organise a fund for their defence and the central item is a non-fungible token about their incarceration, it sells for $52m. @SPECIFICO: says it is not clear this is a significant fact of his life, and you say oppose as it is just a random factoid that tells us nothing of relevance, how does this add to our understanding of him or his case? That is simply ridiculous nonsense in my book and I think you should read what a biography is about in biography. How am I supposed to communiciate with that level of debate on practically every discussion? I find assuming AGF very difficult to near impossible with the pair of you. NadVolum (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well by not being sarky for a start, I can do it to you, so I fail to see why you are unable to do it to me? But I have now made my report, and I will let others chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way I have now informed SPECIFICO (as you were meant to) as (as it says at the top of this page) pings are not sufficant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Steven, thanks for the notification. Unfortunately I think that, in order to be effective, this complaint would need to link more of NadVolum's many ad hominem and disparaging talk page comments. It would be a lot of work for you, but I think it would benefit the community to see them and make a decision about this editor's conduct. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did put a ping there so you'd know. Well let's see your list and perhaps I can trump it and perhaps you can get another topic ban. I don't think NPOV is consistent with your comment in Archive 25 "There is no doubt that Assange is a notorious criminal. One of the most noted criminals of the past 100 years. On a very widely watched and edited article, "silent consensus" on WP is very strong. Of course, those who favor the change can launch and RfC and test their view". Or how about your call on the NPOV page of all places in Archive 91 "Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. There is an RfC here regarding a Yahoo News article relating to Assange. Prior discussion of the issue is found here in a long thread that gives some background on the issue and the preceding edit war". NadVolum (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    OK some other examples (from the same topic, but not the RFC) [[18]], [[19]] they are not serious violations, but they do represent a general tendency to be dismissive. and a few others [[20]] [[21]]. It goes back further (and indeed I have raised it here before) than this, but they would be stale.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I will add they launched an RFC after only 10 hours of "discussion", rather than actually discussing it (after deciding that this [[22]] was not worth answering [[23]]).Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Was there an earthly chance either you or SPECIFICO would have changed your minds? SPECIFICO insists that just his one objection stops any addition because of the restrictions in force. In the previous RfC which I abandoned because of all the silliness you said "Mmm, that might be a good argument to exclude, we cannot have everything" where a person brought up some case in Australia not involving Julian Assange in any personal way and which wasn't even listed as an important leak and a journalist there described as a bureauratic exercise. Yo helped exclude something that he was personally involved in, has been reported on numerous times since and has been brought up again at his trial and formas a basis for some of the charges against him? You said there "And there is no guideline, policy, or essay that requires us to add any content. Indeed the opposite is (in fact) the case per WP:ONUS, policy says we do not have to add even verifiable material" and yet again supported using WP:SIZE as a reason to exclude practically any additions. NadVolum (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NadVolum:, Link, please, to support your statement, SPECIFICO "insists that just his one objection stops any addition because of the restrictions in force." ? Folks might think you're quoting something I said. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look and I'm pretty certain now I'm wrong about that, sorry. NadVolum (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there was, as I have done before. Hell I did not even oppose, I just said I was unsure. I only opposed when the only reasons was given was A. "Well it was 54 million" and B. "And if you can't see why that is about him I can't tell you why it was". In fact, I note that some of the context from this source [[24]] was explicitly opposed by you, a context that might have made the inclusion of this acceptable (who knows, you offered no compromise it was your way or no way).Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed the above is an admission you made no attempt to try and convince anyone before launching the RFC. You just assumed it would be opposed and gave up before trying.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I said when SPECIFICO found a citation about that "Thanks for contributing by finding that. I don't see anything personally related to Assange but if it gets anywhere it could well be worth putting in some NFT related article and then I think it could be referenced from here. Amazing what people think sometimes!". And later in the RfC I said "Whether NFTs are scammy or not this is supposed to be an ordinary biography, not a hagiography, if it does come out he was involved in a scam somehow I'd have thought that would be another reason for inclusion." As far as I can see you are trying to imply I opposed it on POV grounds which was definitely not the case, I supported putting in a reference to the possible scam if he wasn't involved and it was documented elsewhere and for more in the article if some involvement was shown. As to where I said I saw little point arguing it two others said "Does the significance of gaining $52 million to help your defence need arguing? You either get it or, ...... for some unknown reason, you don't" and "There is no need to convince anyone. Reasonably confident that a large majority of rational people would consider $52 million a significant boost to Assange's defence." NadVolum (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to rehash the talk page. I asked you to make a case that was more than "well it is 52 million", you have still failed to do so, you have still failed to explain what this amount tells us about Julian Assange, your response to that simple question was mockery and incivility.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not seen you show any indication of you thinking anything was worth including in the page, I have not the foggiest what you might consider worthwhile to include, and I do not think I could change your mind, so why should I respond to your demands to waste my time arguing with you? I've seen you contribute to the Elon Musk talk page, what have you thought was worth including there? Is for instance in the lead it says "Musk is the wealthiest person in the world according to both the Bloomberg Billionaires Index and the Forbes real-time billionaires list", or how about that a startup was acquired by Compaq for $307 million in 1999. What do they tell about Elon Musk or would you oppose including them? NadVolum (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This user, NadVolum, has been asked many times to present policy-and-source-based arguments to gain consensus for article content on this and other matters at the Assange article. I'm not sure whether it's a battleground unwillingness to give direct responses or whether it's a competence issue, but unresponsive replies of the sort immediately above, personal disparagement, and snark are a big problem for a newcomer with less than 1000 edits. Some kind of remedy is needed. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [citation needed] and what about this treatment of me as a newcomer by SPECIFICO User_talk:86.20.127.101, If there's to be civilized editing and new people attracted to the article who needs remedies applied? NadVolum (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about Elon Musk, but to answer your question, he is a businessman, so yes information about his business activities is relevant to his biography. Assange is a hacker, so information about his hacking would be too. I have said it before and will say it again, there is way too much stuff that tells us nothing about Assange on that page (which should be about him, and HIS actions). All he did here was put his name on something, this would as irrelevant as saying "and in 2022 Elson musk put his name to "Musk Musk aftershave"".Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So according to you the Elon Musk article should not cover non-business things listed in the lead like "In 2019, he won a defamation trial brought against him by a British caver who advised in the Tham Luang cave rescue. Musk has also been criticized for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and for his other views on such matters as artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, and public transport." Would that be right? And yet I note you contributing to a debate about that paragraph and supporting having a statement in it. And defending against a charge of hacking is not hacking related? This is your understanding of what a biography is about - one decides in advance what the person is mainly known for and then excludes anything else on the grounds they don't tell anything about what they are known for? This is why I pointed you at Biography which doesn't describe anything at all like that.
    Also about your 'way too much', if you will look at WP:BIO it's lead also describes what I've said repeatedly to you about WP:SIZE. You don't chop out important things from a bio to fit a byte count, you set up sub articles on aspects of the life. By the way the Elon Musk article is about the same size as the Assange one. NadVolum (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    NadVolum, this is not the place to push your content views, which are at or within WP:BLUDGEON territory at the article talk page. I think that what's needed is some commitment from you to be more responsively engaged with other editors and a commitment from you to stop making personal remarks and posting disparagement of other editors. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I was asked to explain by someone who seems to have no point of connection with me and I have tried as best I can by using the example of Elon Musk instead. As far as I can see they have come to very different conclusions in what I can make of their reasoning in similar situations. They think Assange just gave his name to the auction and the fact that it is about him and his defence and made a large amount of money are irrelevant because it is not to do with hacking. For Elon Musk his covid-19 misinformation was worth commenting on and saying how it should be phrased even though all that required was a bit of talk and had nothing to do with him being a businessman. So what am I missing that they're seeing that is so important to them? They needn't answer but then I'll not know and won't have a chance of getting on their wavelength to explain how I see things. Perhaps you see things the same way as you gave a very similar rejection - or would it be bludgeoning for me to presume to ask you to explain yourself? You can also of course not answer and just go on about bludgeoning. NadVolum (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Not for the first time, this ridiculous attempt to mischaracterise other editor's actions as improper is a waste of editor and admin time. In my view it ought to result in a BOOMERANG against OP for that very reason.

    The fact that they have resorted to trying to cast such comments as "You'd prefer I waste time arguing with you when you make statements like that and it is obvious from previous statements from you where it is going?" (in response to Slatersteven asking a question to which the answer was obvious in the OP and to which Slatersteven evidently already knew the answer) and "Okay it looks like an RfC is needed then. I'll raise one. after I come back from a bit of normal life." and "Ha ha. No wonder you don't seem to find anything is worth putting into articles!" (truly stinging) as worthy of sanction suggests a desire to WIKILAWYER to have an editor OP has frequently disagreed with sanctioned, so as to have one less voice against their and Specifico’s (frequently absurd) POV.

    In my view the pattern of Specifico's and Slatersteven's editing on the page is so pervasive that its pattern is clear: wasting editor time by opposing even the most minor of changes to make editing the page more difficult. Single sentence additions or removals to the page have been opposed at great length by Slatersteven and Specifico on highly tenuous - in fact frequently absurd - grounds, only to then have yet another landslide RFC in which every editor opposes Specifico's or Slatersteven's fatuous arguments. OP's past willingness to resort to quite egregiously misleading edit summaries when it suits their purpose is far more damaging, in my view, than "Ha ha. No wonder you don't seem to find anything is worth putting into articles!" which at worst looks like the crime of banter.

    We need a commitment from OP and Specifico to put a stop to grossly mischaracterising other editor's statements, and to their refusal to explicate their specious arguments beyond block capital references to guideline section shortcuts not relevant to the topic. They can of course post their shortcut references, but frequent refusals to actually explain their perceived relevance inevitably will result in a quick route to yet another RFC. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    H2ppyme and Estonian POV

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

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

    He also insists on adding information with an Estonian source that doesn't contain the purported information, see [25], [26] and [27]. This is an editor who has been around since 2006, long enough to know about WP policy.--Berig (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They do appear to have a POV, but their edits based on that POV aren't entirely wrong; there appears to be a lack of consensus on whether we should use "Estonia" or "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" for place of birth/death (the only source in that article which provides a place of death uses "Estonia"), while 1940 in art shouldn't use "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" or "Soviet-Occupied Estonia" as both are undue in that article - it should just use "Estonia", in line with the use of "United Kingdom", "United States", and "France". BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of which version should be used (and I am firmly in the 'use the historically accurate name' camp, but this is not really what this issue is about), this editor has a clear POV and has engaged in significant disruptive editing to push the same. GiantSnowman 17:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not very familiar with this editor, my first encounter with them was yesterday when I undid their edit on Geats because it had added content about the Estonian language that did not appear notable enough to warrant being in the article, which I can see that they reverted this morning. Berig then discovered that the source does not even contain what is being added to the article and H2ppy conducted some minor edit warring to keep the content, that in combination with taking a look at the contribution history makes it pretty clear to me there's at least some level of Estonian POV pushing at play here. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be one thing if H2ppyme were involved just in content disputes about Estonia v. Estonian SSR. However, they are also accusing other editors of "pushing age-old Kremlin propaganda", [28][29] and that crosses a different line in my book. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The tone used here is clearly unhelpful. --Soman (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is wrong with having a "POV" that adheres to facts instead of age-old Kremlin propaganda? Why are you pushing the narrative of a systematically lying dictatorship instead of the narrative accepted in mainstream interpretation of historiography and international law? H2ppyme (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I note this editor in question has repeated his nonsensical "pro-Kremlin propaganda" accusations agains other editors in his response here. Very telling. GiantSnowman 18:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, how are they non-sensical if your argument is to copy-paste the narrative of the once Soviet Union and that of modern Russia instead of the mainstream international view and the view of legal scholars and historians? H2ppyme (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Wikipedia is a collaborative environmental, and accusing editors you disagree with of being somehow in cahoots with/supporting a foreign Government you dislike is a) ridiculous and b) WP:UNCIVIL. Are you going to withdraw your accusations and stop your disruptive editing or are we going to have to block you from editing to prevent further disruption? GiantSnowman 10:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanna mention that the editor in question has been engaging in this behavior for years and was already warned and blocked for exactly the same actions. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am sorry, but I find it very hard to assume good faith from editors who provide sources that don't back up their assertions (see [30], [31] and [32]). If I weren't involved in the article, I would be very tempted to enforce a ban.--Berig (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pelmeen10: - Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, please have a read. GiantSnowman 18:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Expanding on that, WP:HOCKEY has been very consistent on how to list place of birth. This looked, at first glance, like a similar case of not understanding the rules. While there is a muddier situation that Pelmeen10 refers to with the Baltic states, that is a content issue, and I don't think that matter should be resolved at ANI. The matter at hand here is the conduct of H2ppyme and the accusations against other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - and this is conduct which they have been warned about/blocked for before (please see diffs above) - although they have not edited in 2 days so the disruption has technically stopped. I suggest their edits are reverted and we monitor from there? GiantSnowman 09:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Long standing edit consensus on Baltic States related articles have been to use only short name, not full political name, as is standard in WP as also noted above by BilledMammal. Even the hockey does it China is listed as just China, not People's Republic of China. He Xin (ice hockey), Ying Rudi etc. I noticed that a user with administrator privileges was reverting the edits. So i went to their page and asked few questions, but all I got was smirky sarcastic FO by WP admininistrator saying that Estonia should be removed and just Soviet Union be left. No explanation, no arguments. That's the level of administration in Wikipedia. what about WP:ADMINCOND? Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. --Klõps (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is because our article is just on China, not People's Republic of China. This is not, despite what you think, a political decision - it is merely reflecting the historical name of the country as confirmed by WP:MOSGEO. GiantSnowman 09:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you trying to tell me? China is the common name, People's Republic of China is full political name of the state. China covers all the culture and history of China, same as Estonia covers all about Estonia including the Soviet period. --Klõps (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Estonian SSR was commonly known as Estonia btw. --Klõps (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    People's Republic of China and China are the same article, whereas we have separate articles on Estonia and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (and Governorate of Estonia) to reflect the changing political nature of the country over time. GiantSnowman 16:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: Per Infobox person Countries should generally not be linked.That's why opening random Chinese hockey players most are China unlinked He Xin (ice hockey), and even Xi Jinping article has Beijing, China (unlinked). That's not a factor, and besides that Article Estonia has section about Estonian SSR. This is not really convincing argument from you. --Klõps (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Klõps: Perceived incivility does not justify obvious incivility. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on. You have higher authority here as a moderator, but instead of moderating you just answered with a sarcastic insult. Nothing to Percieve here. As a moderator you should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. WP:ADMINCOND, what you did was WP:ADMINACCT failure to communicate.
    It's clear whats is going on here. User H2ppyme (talk · contribs) made some good faith edits restoring the articles with what has been a long standing edit consensus of having only Estonia listed as birth/death place in infobox. As seen it is standard to use common name even in WP:HOCKEY biographies (eg China instead of People's Republic of China) He Xin (ice hockey), Ying Rudi etc to take some random articles. What followed is really toxic, he got attacked by a couple of moderators with highly opinionated opposite POV as you and GiantSnowman have clearly stated to support the opposite POV. WP:ADMINCOND if an administrator cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem with poor conduct. administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith. You have both misused the moral highground that you have been given. --Klõps (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea no, I don't think it's that simple at all. As was noted above H2ppyme synthesized ″information″ from a source to include content about Estonia on Geats and then participated in some minor edit warring once that was pointed out, that doesn't seem like good faith editing to me, that seems more like shoehorning Estonian content into where it doesn't belong. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    So now @Klõps: is engaged in the exact same edits as H2ppyme was (same article as well!). Disruptive edits, meat puppetry. GiantSnowman 15:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it time for a sockpuppet investigation?--Berig (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored it to the state before the edit war. I do not know H2ppyme. This is my only account. --Klõps (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If so you would not mind a sockpuppet investigation. It would only prove that you are not the same user.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, what do I have to do? --Klõps (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't anything; requests to prove you are not the same user are not accepted. If Berig believes they have sufficient behavioural evidence, they should submit a request at WP:SPI. BilledMammal (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is sock puppetry, but definitely a small group of editors closing ranks and covering each other's backs. Offline collusion? I couldn't possibly say. GiantSnowman 17:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Klõps, why are you removing in-line citations and valid parameters from infoboxes? GiantSnowman 17:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, given the comments here that removing reference to Estonian SSR is disruptive, please can somebody restore the previous version on Friedrich Karm? GiantSnowman 12:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In agreement, that it should be restored. But, if I restore it? members from WP:ESTONIA might disrupt the ice hockey bios again, particularly Leo Komarov. There's a kinda truce between both WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoodDay: feel free to post at Talk:Friedrich Karm and see if you can persuade @BilledMammal: to change it back... GiantSnowman 18:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't recall ever seeing BilledMammal involved in this topic-in-question, in the past. Would suggest that he back away from it. He seems to have taken the side of the Estonian-POV argument. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic bans for Estonian POV

    There is a very long-standing issue with Estonian editors doing this sort of thing, and when challenged, several of them will turn up to the same discussion to back each other up (exactly as has happened here). Personally I would strongly support a topic ban for anything related to pre-1991 Estonia for these editors, as this has been going on for over a decade. Number 57 17:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That sounds serious, indeed.--Berig (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, broadly construed, for all pre-1991 Estonia related edits for Klõps and H2ppyme (I am personally unaware of any other editors involved in this behaviour). GiantSnowman 17:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. While this is edit warring, the example provided includes edit warring by both "sides" (four reverts by GiantSnowman, three by H2ppyme, two by Klõps, with the status quo being the one supported by H2ppyme and Klõps), and it is not sufficient to warrant a full topic ban, particularly as such a sanction would go far beyond the issues discussed here. Give warnings to all parties, reminding them of WP:BRD and MOS:RETAIN, and if any party attempts to implement a change to the format through edit warring in the future we can return to ANI and consider actual sanctions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would also note that so far the only evidence of Klõps "misbehaving" is two reverts to restore the status quo at a single article - it is not clear why they are grouped with this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they are engaged in the exact same disruptive editing and have been for some time (i.e. removing all mention of Estonian SSR/Soviet Union from appropriate historical context - see this and this and this and many, many more). GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How are those changes disruptive? You obviously are on one "side" of this content dispute, but as there is no global consensus (attempts to find one have always ended in "no consensus") it is appropriate to find local consensuses, and that can include finding such consensuses by editing as it appears they are doing in those examples. BilledMammal (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you look at something like Leo Komarov, you will see that H2ppyme was making the same edit (changing Estonian SSR to Estonia) multiple times between 2014 and yesterday, calling their opponents "Kremlin trolls", every time they were reverted back, and they have, as far as I see, zero edits at the talk page, where the topic has been extensively discussed (and there is either no consensus, or possibly even consensus against H2ppyme). This is massive edit-warring for 8 years, mixed with personal attacks. Irrespectively of who is right and who is wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but that doesn't answer why Klõps is being grouped with H2ppyme - I am not seeing any basis for them being brought here, except for the fact that they are on the same side of the content dispute as H2ppyme.
    H2ppyme does have a case to answer beyond edit warring, but I don't believe that a topic ban is appropriate for them at this point; they've only been blocked once, eight years ago, and aside from this recent discussion no one has attempted to discuss WP:CIVIL with them, or WP:EW since that block eight years ago. In other words, I've seen no evidence that a warning won't work, and I believe we should give it a chance. Specifically, give GiantSnowman, H2ppyme, and maybe Klõps a warning for edit warring, and H2ppyme a warning for personal attacks, and if any of them continue the behaviour we can return here and implement topic bans. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, Klops has retired. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer the question of "why Klõps is being grouped with H2ppyme", it's because they have been part of the small group of editors doing this for years – see the history of Toivo Suursoo, where they made these edits repeatedly. Number 57 22:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. However, that appears to minor (three reverts over a couple of months) and stale (three years ago) edit warring. It would add weight to the notion that we should warn them alongside GiantSnowman and H2ppyme, but I don't see any reason why we need to jump straight to topic bans, or what the issue would be with trying a warning first.BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great another one who has always has had very strong one sided POV on this question. Yes add random diffs without any discussions that were had then. The pattern has been always like it's with Friedrich Karm, for ten years since 2013 it was one way, then in January 2022 some random user changes it and then you guys appear to defend the change. 90% of Estonian biographies are it the way Friedrich Karm was for a decade, it's a small group of editors who for years have been trying to change it. Always the same, some random user changes ca 10 articles, and then your gang appears to defend them, But yeah having a strong POV on this question won't stop you for demanding a ban for someone who isn not supporting your POV. Klõps 46.131.25.212 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're retired, stop editing while logged out. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per above.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There's something kinda odd here, concerning whether one chooses to accept or not, that the Baltic states were a part of the Soviet Union. Why would he or she concentrate on only Estonia? What about Latvia & Lithuania? Are those country names also being pushed in bios, where there's "Latvian SSR" & "Lithuanian SSR"? GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What's odd? We had this discussion already at WP Estonia I said to You that I'm an Estonian, I mostly edit Estonian related content, fix, add sources, update, remove vandalism. Estonian community here is small, there's a lot of really outdated articles, old vandalism from years ago. As I'm a football fan I have created Estonian football league season articles, given them prose content so that their not just tables etc. I have created Kaja Kallas' cabinet, Jüri Ratas' second cabinet, Jüri Ratas' first cabinet, Taavi Rõivas' second cabinet etc all of the existing ones. And as I said, Lithuanian and Latvian community here is much smaller even than Estonian, I have worked on many Latvian articles also if I have seen really low quality articles there that scream for attention, one liners not updated since 2008. --Klõps (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection I have tried to have a civil argument and to find a solution, like here, but got slapped without even a hint of effort to give argumented replay, I tried to make sense at the discussion at WP:Estonia, here, but got insulted that I'm nationalist doing historical revisionism. All I have tried to say is that isn't black and white as Gigantsnowman, C.Fred, Soman are taking the problem. There's a huge gray area. I'm saying everywhere that both are right Estonian SSR existed and Republic of Estonia existed as Soviet occupation was never recognized by the international community. For heavens sake there's loads of articles about it State continuity of the Baltic states read about it get to know the backstory and facts. The solution has been to use just Estonia (without political additions ), As is standard with other modern states. As noted above by BilledMammal, as I have noted about only China being used instead of full political state name People's Republic Of China.
    • Per WP:ADMINCOND GiantSnowman and C.Fred shouldn't even be judging here as they are very heatedly having really strong one sided POV on this question taking part of the edits. As seen in edits and talk like here Talk:Friedrich Karm. They should leave this for impartial admins. This is really low to hand out bans just because someone has different opinion than you do. --Klõps (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic-ban for both of them, a long-standing issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I remember having long discussions about it with you before, you supported really strongly the soviet naming. The long standing issue is that you and I had different opinion. Go on ban my dead account . Thats just bulling to demand someone to be punished because you have different POV. Klõps 46.131.25.212 (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you retired? now you're posting signed out. BTW, you messed up BM's above post. GoodDay (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic ban for H2ppyme as this appears to be a long term issue, the misrepresentaton of a source seemingly in an attempt to shoehorn Estonian content into where it doesn't belong, edit warring and personal attacks makes this seem warranted. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban, support warning given how both sides have engaged in edit-warring and Klops in particular does not seem to have done enough to warrant a topic ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurritoQuesadilla (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you people not understand how you are defending the age-old systematic propaganda of a fundamentally sick warmonger?! To hell with all Russian propagandists on Wikipedia! This is not a neutral encyclopaedia anymore! H2ppyme (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, broadly construed, for all pre-1991 Estonia related edits, especially since this is a discretionary sanctions area, especially with me just reverting an edit of H2ppyme's where his edit summary was "No to Kremlin propaganda, to hell with Russian propagandists!" Obviously this is going to be an especially touchy subject for quite some time to come given Putin's aggression, but we don't need the war played out on Wikipedia: it is plain that H2ppyme is NOTHERE. Enough is bloody enough, and this is coming from someone whose great-grandfather was from Lithuania. Ravenswing 14:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sick Kremlin propagandists should be the ones who get banned. You are the lowest of all human forms, you warmonger apologists! Disgraceful that people like you are even allowed to exist on Wikipedia! This is an encyclopaedia, it should be based on facts, not on the fundamentally sick propaganda of systematically lying hostile dictatorship like Russia! You people make me sick for defending their sick crimes! H2ppyme (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... whereupon H2ppyme immediately reverted [33], with the edit summary "Leave fundamentally sick Russian propaganda out of Wikipedia and stick to international law and mainstream interpretation of history!" At this point, while he isn't (yet) in 3RR territory, given the viciousness of his personal attacks and his plain intent to editwar these changes Wikipedia-wide, I think an immediate block for H2ppyme's in order, and I would willingly support any proposal to indef. Ravenswing 14:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will make a new account, don't worry. Our fight against sick Kremlin propagandists will never end! You are the lowest of all human forms and the entire democratic and developed world is against your sick positions! Facts will win, your propaganda will die, your memory will be disgraced. H2ppyme (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than simply a topic ban, I think a block is now necessary. Mellk (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Unwarranted block by User:Geschichte

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

    Well, this does look like a rather clear WP:INVOLVED violation. Jax0677 creates a template, Geschichte edits it, Jax0677 doesn't agree with those edits, back and forth, and after Jax's 3rd revert, and without any warning (or template talk page discussion), Geschichte blocks them? That is textbook admin tool abuse, unless there is something I miss. Fram (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that 331dot downgraded the block to just the template, thus taking ownership of the block and reducing it to something simple. I agree with Fram that this is a textbook case of WP:INVOLVED. I would like an explanation from Geschichte per WP:ADMINACCT. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping; I would also be interested in an explanation(I didn't have the time to pursue one earlier). 331dot (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The explanation is as follows, the reverts done by Jax were very swift and without a specific reason, other than implied WP:OWNERSHIP. That the block was instituted after three reverts and not more than three reverts can be considered an error on my part. While also noting that the block was not laid down so one party could benefit in the edit-revert cycle, as I laid down a self-abstention on the template in question. Thus the situation cooled down. As for BRD, Jax had attempted to prod certain pages (music albums) and seemingly mask other music albums by the same artist from a navbox. I was actively editing this group of albums and at the time I considered the removal of material from the template as being clearly disruptive. In hindsight, though, it is crystal clear that this should have been solved through a discussion. Geschichte (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    So no comment at all about the WP:INVOLVED part? Never mind that blocking one side from the whole of enwiki, while you takign a voluntarly break from one article, is not equal in any way of course. So no, the block after 3 instead of 4 reverts is the least of the issues here. If you had been uninvolved, that would just have been a minor error (you are actually allowed to stop an edit war even before the 4th revert, though preferably not without warnings); that you were heavily involved here is the main issue and is what makes it admin tool abuse. Fram (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so they remained quiet until pushed by Ritchie333 on their talk page to come here and comment, and they again become silent when it is pointe out that their "explanation" above neatly sidesteps the main issue with their action. Not a good look at all when a simple acknowledgment would initially have been sufficient. Not sure how to deal with this, while it doesn't seem to be part of a pattern of such issues, it gives no confidence that they actually see the issue with their actions (and if they don't see the issue with it, then it's hard to trust their judgment as an admin). Fram (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. WP:INVOLVED + ADMINACCT is the subject of a current Arbcom case. SN54129 14:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - The reverts performed were in accordance with WP:BRD, WP:NAV and WP:WTAF, not WP:OWN. I was restricted from editing almost ALL of Wikipedia while Geschichte chose not to edit Template:Morgana Lefay. "WP:NAV" indicates that a navbox should link existing articles. "WP:BRD" states that if a bold move is reverted, it should then be discussed. I should have been brought to WP:ANI so that an uninvolved administrator can make the decision. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There are a couple of key answers I'd like from Geschichte. I'm not into witch hunts, and Geschichte has already said "it is crystal clear that this should have been solved through a discussion", resolving most of my concerns, so if the answer is "I'm sorry, I didn't realise that was policy, I'll remember that from now on" then I think the matter can be closed.

    1. Why did you block a user you were edit-warring with?
    2. Why did you use rollback on a good faith edit? (Sorry, I know this is a pet bugbear of mine so you can ignore this one if you want)
    3. If you thought you could voluntarily step back from edit-warring, why didn't you think Jax 0677 could?
    4. If you think Jax 0677 was trying to take ownership, do you think Jax 0677 would have reasonable grounds to think you were too?
    5. Why did you block Jax 0677 from the entire site, preventing him from editing several million articles he has never been disruptive on?

    Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wright Stuf and false accusations of vandalism

    I have been unfailingly polite. Begoon 18:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The utterly false accusations of vandalism leveled by Wright Stuf constitute personal attacks that really should be addressed at this noticeboard. For far too long, this editor has been riding a hobby horse while grinding an axe on the subject of colorizing historic black and white photos. I am obviously involved as a participant in the discussion and as one of the recipients of the personal attack. I recommend an indefinite topic ban from the Wright Flyer article and the topic of colorization of photos, broadly construed. Let uninvolved editors decide. Cullen328 (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support a topic ban on Wright Flyer and the colorization of photos. So many walls of text/bludgeoning. I know the idea/practice of colorization of old black and white photos is incredibly controversial and I highly doubt something like a WP:COLORIZED will ever become a policy/guideline, so why continually push for it.♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 02:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support the suggested topic bans as stated. The accusations of bad faith and vandalism against anybody who disagrees with them are not acceptable or remotely credible. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This editor was at ANI one year ago - diff where there was general agreement that the behaviour was problematic but no consensus about sanctions. Please do not let this disruptive behavior slide this time. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    "Perhaps someone here might be able to present a scenario that is consistent with Good Faith. I cannot."
    "Ariadacapo & Ravenpuff, I am giving you that opportunity here and now" [to explain why you had made these edits which degraded the article quality].
    "This same question is being asked of you, BilCat, Ahunt, GraemeLeggett and Cullen328. If the four of you are objecting to Colorization, then why did none of you not simply swap the colorized photo for the historical black&white version? You all are denying anyone who comes here to learn about the Wright Flyer from seeing this image, regardless of form."

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

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

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

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

    "In a whopping grand total of two (2) minutes later, BilCat chooses to vandalize my post. BilCat clobbered the subsection by removing the header of this issue which I was attempting to call attention to." Again with the false vandalism accusation. You've been told before over and over, but please, drop the WP:STICK on this issue. Let. it. go. It's not helping you in the slightest. Your colorized photo isn't going to be on the page. It's not a big deal. Also talking about people "molesting" (what a horrible word choice btw) is major WP:OWNership behavior in addition to another thinly veiled vandalism accusation. Unless it's verboten via talk page policies/rules, people can say whatever they want on article talk pages. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 08:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban as uninvolved editor - frankly, this seems like he's going to a lot of effort to defend something that is ultimately unimportant to the quality of the article. MiasmaEternal☎ 09:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban, this editor is unwilling to have a constructive discussion about content that is mindful of other editors, and learned nothing from his block last year (same article, same topic, same behavior). --Ariadacapo (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to all three above:
    MiasmaEternal, you stated:
    "...frankly, this seems like he's going to a lot of effort to defend something that is ultimately unimportant to the quality of the article."
    What I have been doing here is spending loads of my time in an effort to uphold Consensus. Perhaps Consensus is unimportant to you. But I would not be putting all this effort into it if it was unimportant to me. If you go back to the beginning from one year ago, you can see that I was perfectly fine with letting all of this go. But what changed is that I found an example which had established Consensus on a near-exactly parallel issue way back in 2016.
    Ariadacapo,
    What I did was invite you to explain why you clobbered the image instead of switching to your own b&w version.
    For whatever reason, you've opted to not explain yourself. Yet you will readily mischaracterize me as being "unwilling to have a constructive discussion about content that is mindful of other editors".
    JCW555,
    Here is a dictionary definition of 'molestation':
    "an act or instance of interference with or violence against someone" (ref)
    Quoting you:
    "Your colorized photo isn't going to be on the page." - JCW555
    Ironically, that is an example of YOU acting as though you are the owner of the Wright Flyer article. My arguments have been made on the foundation of well-established Consensus. With the Infobox image, dating back to 2016. With the non-infobox image, dating back to February of 2021. I have never acted as though I own ANYTHING here on Wikipedia. With the exception being the words I post outside of Mainspace. Like right here. If you were to jump in and alter this character string I am typing now, then I would clearly see that as a molestation of my words. Now if you have a problem with that one particular word, let's substitute "violation" instead. I actually AM the owner of the words I type, outside of Mainspace. If I create a Subsection, and any other editor happens to object to me doing that, then they have the option to present to me an argument as to why, and I can change it myself.
    In your previous post, you had stated:
    "I highly doubt something like a WP:COLORIZED will ever become a policy/guideline, so why continually push for it."
    This is yet another mischaracterization of my efforts here. Where have I pushed for it? I have never once gone to any WP and so much as posted a single comment, let alone request any change. Nor creation of anything new. And over on the Wright Flyer article, my main focus, every time this has been raised, has been to identify this lack of policy as being the root problem. I don't recall asking anyone to create any such policy in any of my posts. Others had explained how to go about it. I never took the first step toward pursuing it.
    Here is the exact quote of what I had posted over there on this issue yesterday:
    "Of course, the central issue here in this section on Colorization is the question of Policy, which appears to remain unanswered."
    I hope everyone can agree that identifying the core problem is quite distinct from what you've characterized my effort as being. Another Admin has characterized my posts as Bludgeoning. I replied to that by highlighting that my posts have communicated quite the opposite. I am fully onboard with abiding by Consensus. And if editors collectively feel that Wikipedia is better off with no policy regarding colorization, that's perfectly fine with me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the WP that directly applies: WP:Talk page guidelines: Editing others' comments.
    "The basic rule... is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission."
    The policy goes on to give a laundry list of exceptions. But I scanned that list, and I don't see any exception which fits what BilCat did. --Wright Stuf (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ScottishFinnishRadish, me highlighting how editors and Admins have been mischaracterizing my efforts is "behavior in this thread cinches it". Curious. Or perhaps there is some other thing which I have done here which you find objectionable. Perhaps you are in the camp that any use of the word 'molest' could not possibly be non-sexual. --Wright Stuf (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely, writing hostile replies to every person will show uninvolved users that there are no issues with your editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your assertion that I have been acting hostile here would carry loads more weight if you were to cite specific examples. I myself would be glad to see just one quote. Let alone "replies to every person".
    I see your post to be YET ANOTHER MISCHARACTERIZATION of my inputs. --Wright Stuf (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples of your coming across as hostile in this thread? The formatting change here would be one example. --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, they're doing a solid job of making my point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ScottishFinnishRadish, yet again, you have provided absolutely no support whatsoever for your claim that I am the one being hostile here. I had asked for just one example, when you said I had been hostile to everyone. And you've to date provided zero.
    How bout everyone stop with the gross distortions here. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bonadea, the one single example you cite is from something I had tweaked after ScottishFinnishRadish had asserted the claim. And I would be very interested to know how the bolding, capping, underlining and italicizing of three (3) words is taken to be hostility of any kind. In my edit summary, I very clearly explained the reason why I had done this:
    " Perhaps if I add a touch more emphasis to this bizarre pattern of distortion which has been permeating this thread, people here will start to be more accurate with their assessments."
    I see no hostility whatsoever. Not from me.
    What happened is that I had objected to the persistent pattern of distortion.
    In your post, you chose to become A PART of that distortion, while stating this as your edit summary: "oh the irony".
    Oh the irony, indeed. --Wright Stuf (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not particularly strong when it comes to self-awareness, are you?
    The optimist in me says you should work on that. The realist in me just laughs at any such notion, given the evidence here, and in your history. Begoon 16:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So instead of supporting these baseless assertions, you are now choosing the tack of going fully ad hominem.
    The evidence and history has shown that I am a staunch, steadfast advocate of Wikipedia editors conforming to Wikipedia policy. In particular, the policy regarding CONSENSUS.
    You're certainly free to psychoanalyze me as much as you want.
    Perhaps you'd like to create an entirely new Wikipedia Project: The Wikipedia Couch.
    Alternatively, we could all stay focused on the topic at hand:
    Did I cross any lines? Did I violate any policy?
    Perhaps there will be objective people who might arrive here, and will let everyone know that what is happening is nothing short of Cyberbullying.
    Your post is a prime example. I see no place in Wikipedia whatsoever for a comment like that. And especially not here, where there are supposed to be rational minds making serious decisions. With maturity. Upholding Wikipedia Policy. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to have breakfast. Begoon 16:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I have been unfailingly polite, and you two have been nothing but rude."
    I myself do not disagree with the walrus. Or sea lion.
    So why post a cartoon which voices support for my position here?
    Perhaps an hour from now the reason will dawn on me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    DonFB, the section where that Admin had evaluated me as being the one who was on the wrong side of Consensus Policy is HERE, over on my own User Talk Page. There was no policy, so CantTail cited this essay: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I read through that, and found this quote:
    "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."
    This essay actually supports the position I had taken, and still hold today. That it makes loads of sense for there to be consistency across Wikipedia as a whole. It would be ridiculously wasteful to rehash Consensus discussions in every single article where that issue happens to appear. Regarding the issue of the use of colorized historical images in the infobox, that Consensus was established quite solidly way back in 2016.
    And then with the current image being highlighted now, over on the Wright Flyer page, Consensus was firmly established one year ago, back in February of 2021. I hope we can all agree on the point that use of colorization in the infobox image is a distinct issue from use of colorized images in the body of the article. Here is an exact quote from Archive 1:
    "Nice image. I can imagine a small gallery near the bottom of pages of very historic black-and-white photographs featuring colorized images..." - Randy Kryn (20:29, 15 February 2021)
    This image was presented. And absolutely no one voiced objection to it. The use of it was supported in essentially the manner in which I had added it to the article. --Wright Stuf (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At what point are you likely to accept that basically nobody agrees with what you are doing?
    Oh, never mind, I looked at the history now - ignore my silly question. Begoon 14:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who does a thorough review of how everything has unfolded over at that article can clearly see how I had taken the side of Consensus which had been established by DOZENS of editors YEARS prior to me ever arriving to address this issue.
    And in the most recent image that has been called into question, there were two (2) editors who had expressed their view after that colorized image had been presented. Both were on the side of Using the image. NO ONE expressed any objection whatsoever.
    I have no idea what you looked at ...where you decided to join this discussion just to mock me. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at your editing history. As to "mocking" you - not guilty, or necessary even I were so inclined, which I'm not - you're doing a cracking job of that yourself. Begoon 16:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your previous post (above) was a blatant ad hominem attack.
    And the angle you have chosen down here is likewise way off base.
    The question at hand is whether an editor has crossed the line. And I happen to see you as being WAY ACROSS THAT LINE.
    You have the option to turn this discussion back toward the direction of rational, salient points.
    You also have the option to simply remain silent. And let the discussion continue with maturity, with no further input from you. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's me told then... Begoon 16:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's the children who are wrong.jpg ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

    Regarding the removal of content from Lucas the Spider, I would say that it was just made for revenge. From his talk page I see that Beat Monsters, which was tagged as not english by Victor Schmidt mobil, later deleted by Lectonar as it was merely an arabic translation of Lucas the Spider. So it sums up that, he tried taking revenge by removing content from the English article. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 07:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also what I gather is that he has a habit of using nonsense edit summaries. For example see his contributions on the arab wikipedia. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is somewhat normal to make wrong edits, and I think more opportunity should be given to such users. However, making too many irrelevant edits requires serious caution/reaction. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive language left on talk page by DuanLW87035 (talk)

    (non-admin closure) DuanLW87035 warned by User:TheDragonFire300. Regards, Severestorm28 17:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danners430 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Danners430: (Non-administrator comment) If this is the only instance of a personal attack, can't you just leave {{subst:uw-npa1}} on their talk page instead of dragging them to ANI? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheDragonFire300: I'm genuinely open to options at this point - I've never experienced nor had to deal with any incidents of any nature before, and upon searching for options this was what appeared to be the most sensible option I could find. If I've missed something I should have done, then by all means I'll make the necessary changes. Danners430 (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Danners430: I have left the warning for you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheDragonFire300: Thank you - I'll make sure to keep this in mind for future use, and apologies if this caused any problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danners430 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Re-creation of deleted articles by OE1995

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

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

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

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

    ...Yeah, this is ridiculious. Blocked for two weeks and lets hope this shot across the bow gets the needed attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog

    HANDLED
    Not a bot, just some LTA. Rangeblocked. On a sidenote, while the note is appreciated, six <big> tags is probably about six too many. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. My eyes!! The goggles do nothing!! Fixed. Begoon 14:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Huge backlog at WP:AIV

    information The backlog is present when making posting this message. It may clear out if someone reviews it later. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 10:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Itcouldbepossible: Pretty sure this belongs at WP:AN, not ANI. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 10:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Padgriffin Sorry. Placed it in the wrong place. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 10:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess ANI is extra visibility. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ! Code red (or whatever they say) the bots have taken over. We really should have reviewed them more thoroughly at BRFA.
    (seriously, isn't there a captcha) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...for now, every single one of them that I've seen are either spamming
    Hcb6gyyhyhhhnnmmmmñmmmkkkkkkkko9
    !kjuhggfdsA!!!!?..?.nhbhhhjkm!llll
    or that twice. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    The move warring is over, and the global consensus is we use MR to challenge RM closes, in whole or in part. Arguing about the RM here is a pointless distraction. Levivich 02:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC) (nac)[reply]

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

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

    twsabin 17:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict)I've got a 3-week-old account repeatedly renaming the article "Killing of". Obviously, this requires consensus which does not exist. A bulk move proposal explicitly excluded the Babbit page after it was too controversial, a non-admin cited this to bulk-move the page, and a 3-week old account is now move warring over it. Its certainly not my place to war with an admin/vested over this, but it merits attention. Feoffer (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got 6+ years old account that is repeatedly renaming the article "Shooting of ...", after an RM closer Elli moved the page to "Killing of ..." based on their finding of consensus. Does this 6+ years account know that WP:Process is important? I question your competence. twsabin 17:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Twsabin: WP:PI, that you've cited several times now, is an essay (and not a particularly influential one) and as a result isn't going to form the basis of a convincing argument. Particularly since WP:IAR is policy. I suggest the two of you quit addressing each other directly for a moment and let some editors that are uninvolved weight in (I'm involved BTW). VQuakr (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr: Do you think that, perhaps, I should have started a move review regarding Feoffer's actions, instead of an ANI report? I thought about it, but it seemed like the only thing that can be done in MR (based on instructions there) is challenging a close, and not requesting that the close be upheld. If you think that move review is also a procedurally viable, and better, forum here, I agree to drop this complaint and to go there directly. Maybe WP:IAR can offer guidance in this regard :)
    If an administrator reading this thinks that moving the matter to MR is beneficial, I'll wholeheartedly support the change of venue. But I still think that ANI can resolve this by undoing Feoffer's unilateral action and simply directing them to MR, so that they (instead of me, which makes much more sense, again, according to MR instructions), can start a normal challenge there. twsabin 18:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Twsabin: the move warring was/is a behavioral issue so ANI isn't the wrong venue. Just note WP:BOOMERANG; it takes two to edit war. It isn't fair to push the move review onus onto you, but in this case the close was so obviously questionable (discounting the policy-based reasoning by the majority of participants) that I think the ideal response would be a reversion of the close by an uninvolved admin to allow further discussion (or just change the specific outcome for Babbitt to no consensus since several of the !votes were specific to that article). Whether any uninvolved admin agrees with me, though, is another question. The key thing you should do differently next time is not revert the article movement, at all. Where the article is located in the short term doesn't matter very much, and the move warring is much more disruptive than having the article at the "wrong" location for a while. More generally, I think you're overly fixating on process (which, BTW, isn't that important). VQuakr (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what you've said I should have done nothing, and simply have left the article at it's "Shooting of ..." title, as if the RM had never happened. It would mean that RM was meaningless, and a big waste of time for everyone involved. But it can't be meaningless. It just isn't. There has to be a way to resolve such disputes communally, and I have suggested Move review, but Feoffer did not accept this suggestion and kept doing what they think is right. Someone had to do something. Feoffer can't simply WP:OWN the title of that article. You said what I shouldn't have done but you haven't said what you would have done in my place. (In this regard, I respect that you're involved, and not the ideal editor to pose this question to) twsabin 19:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say you should have done nothing, but in this case the first step you took of reverting the undo of the move shouldn't have been performed. Following up with Feoffer on their talk page and escalating to ANI if necessary were fine. Talking to Feoffer might have even been more effective if you hadn't first reverted the move. With regard to the RM and community time: the Babbitt article should, pretty obviously, have been excluded from the RM closure and that's a likely outcome of a hypothetical move review. It's a more efficient use of community time to just reach a consensus on the article talk page (as should have been done in the first place) than to go through a rubber-stamp move review process that might result in overturning the rest of the moves as collateral, too. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I followed WP:BRD. Elli's close was not a bold action, since they were bound by their finding of consensus to execute the move, as the closer. Feoffer's undoing of said move was the bold edit, and my reversal was a normal revert, and what should have happened is for Feoffer to start a discussion, but I went ahead and started the discussion on their talk page myself. Feoffer should have then discussed this further with me, and I was perfectly willing to discuss it in great detail, but intead they immediately reverted again which was the start of move warring, and as such, it was a disruptive action. Seen in totality, even their first undoing of Elli's move was disruptive, as there had been no place for boldness in face of a closed RM which is generally regarded as a functioning and effectual process, that has it's well-established review venue. I felt entitled then to undo their move seeing it as a typical disruptive edit. Seeing everything in retrospect, I stand by my actions. We can't have a pseudo-RM on the talk page after the actual RM. That is a waste of time as it has no promise of success. There's no consensus that bundled RMs are inappropriate. WP:RMPM envisions bundled RMs. The right venue for Feoffer was MR and that's it. They decided to move war and now they face an ANI report for their disruptive conduct. twsabin 19:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BRD isn't mandatory, and you can't follow BRD if other editors aren't doing so. You're continuing to exhibit hyper-focus on process by litigating who was the B in BRD, which is even more optional than most of our processes. No, you are never "entitled" to a revert. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BRD isn't mandatory but it is excellent, and Feoffer knows it. I did right to follow BRD, as it was an efficient and sensible way to try to resolve the problem, but Feoffer unexpectedly assumed an incredibly recalcitrant attitude, followed by their disruptive behavior. I find your arguments quite bad (RM apparently doesn't matter – clearly wrong; IAR – no real reason provided; no BRD, when it's a useful tool – no reason; semantics of "entitled" – just arguing semantics). I made two actions here which were in line with consensus as found in the RM, and after thinking about your comments, I have decided that I conducted myself alright. I am a firm believer that process is important and I will uphold process in the future. Hopefully the result in this section will have a preventative effect toward Feoffer not to disregard process. In every venture, sticking to process has operating costs, but on the grand scale it saves an immense amount of time. Our specific thread here (between two involved editors) is evidence of poor use of time resulting from no firm structure of resolving disputes. There is such structure on Wikipedia (Move review, for example), but Feoffer decided to disregard it. Now we are all in a worse place. I expect that they will understand not to do so again as it brings no advantage whatsoever. Still, thanks for your comments. twsabin 23:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. The BLP concerns here are weak, so even though both the closure and the "enforcement" of it by the new account are indefensible, so is move warring over the article location. Someone should talk to the closer about leaving contentious closes for an admin, and the original RM close should be reopened to allow further discussion/reclosure. VQuakr (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • About Feoffer's objection—Feoffer said (second diff): "Move proposal withdrawn by nom, generate consensus for this change [34]". This is after an RM has concluded. It seems absurd to say "generate consensus" after an RM where consensus has been found and resulted in a move. If the here reported user has an objection about the closer's reading of consensus they must bring it up at Wikipedia:Move review. They can't overturn move closes themselves. Their other arguments such as "no admin has been involved" (referring to the closer of the RM who is not an admin, as if that makes the close less conclusive) and "wheelwarring by 3 week old account" (referring to myself), are also inappropriate. Further, the actual argument here is that the RM nominator withdrew the proposal to rename the Shooting of Ashli Babbitt article. But they did not withdraw the proposal. They only said they were amenable to someone striking it from the list, and no one did, eventually leading to the bundled RM close being effective for all the listed articles. But even if someone did, it's too late to withdraw, after substantive arguments have been aired on both sides. If someone says, "I'll withdraw", and they don't, and the discussion runs it's full course it's simply too late. twsabin 17:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have move protected (EC) the article for a month while this gets sorted out. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose that it gets sorted out in the following way: Feoffer is directed to start a WP:Move review, in order to challenge Elli's close. If they don't file a challenge there in a month, the title is restored to the one resulting from the RM. twsabin 18:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My two cents : we have been discussing the issue here. I personally support the move per the decision here and for consistency's sake. If we rename all the other pages and not this one, this would pose a neutrality problem. IMO, this conflict is completely unwarranted. Psychloppos (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was involved in the bulk RM. To be fair to both Twsabin and Feoffer, 162 etc.'s comments did leave some ambiguity. Were they committing to withdraw Babbitt from the proposal if certain conditions were met, or were they actually withdrawing. They didn't strike or delete Babbitt from the proposal, and I am inclined to believe that there was consensus to move all the articles. Firefangledfeathers 21:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • An admin should move the page back to the title that has consensus per the last RM ("Killing of..."), please. This article was not pulled from the bulk RM (and the proposer couldn't unilaterally decide that anyway once people started voting). We can't keep having these discussions over and over and over. Consensus is consensus, and Feoffer can go to MR (or start a new RM just for this article, I suppose). Levivich 21:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand behind my close here. Moving back the article contrary to the close is improper, if you believe the close was bad, please take it to WP:MR. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no consensus to move all the articles to "Killing of...", mainly because the Ashley Babbitt one sticks out as being unlike the others. As many of the editors who responded said, they should be done individually (though I suspect that a re-run of the multi-RM without Babbitt would receive consensus). Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: in your opinion is there sufficient consensus here to overturn the RM discussion closure and invite a reclose or would this need to go through MR? The latter strikes me as more process for the sake of process; the close was terrible but the end state is still likely where we'll end up. VQuakr (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's obviously good reasons to overturn the closure, because (sorry Elli) it was a poor closure whih didn't take account of the actual comments (and was actually against consensus). Having said that, I don't see a problem with removing Babbitt from it and re-opening, because I suspect that list of articles would gain consensus. It was a poor idea to include an article where the death of the person was unlike the others. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can accept some criticism of the closure but I do think it should go through a discussion at move review and that overturning it based off of this ANI thread would be out-of-process and inappropriate. I believe that the arguments made in the discussion lead to a pretty clear consensus, but I can accept that others would read that differently, so some unbiased input on it from move review could be helpful. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MR is an unsavory direction since I don't disagree with the end result. These are just unrelated articles that should never have been bundled into a RM. Paired with the fact that the close is an obvious overturn, though, I'm not sure there's much choice since Elli isn't willing to reconsider. I'll give it a couple of days to see if an admin wants to IAR instead, but given the recent history of move warring I can understand if no one wants to go that route, either. VQuakr (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You know I'm here, right, your replies to me don't need to be in the third-person? There's no need to do this "well if an admin would IAR move it back, that would be great, otherwise I'll do a move review even though I don't actually disagree with the result". No, IAR is not applicable, there is a process and no need to go outside of that process. I've explained why I won't reverse the move, nor do I think the close is an "obvious overturn" if you consider the actual arguments in the discussion; most of those against the move were incredibly weak and not based in any policy, guideline, or practice. Closing discussions isn't just counting the !votes. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Protest against deletion of Pallab Bhattacharyya article

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

    The place to go if you think that the close of the discussion was incorrect is firstly to the closer's talk page and then, if you still think there's a problem, WP:DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are obviously a block-evading sockpuppet of User:NeverTry4Me. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    or GeezGod or both, but I of course welcome any established editor to discuss in the section on my Talk. @Bbb23 sorry for the edit conflict in blocking. Star Mississippi 18:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless there are shennanigans going on, I don't see why it would be GeezGod given that their vote was the opposite. Also, look at Tuhirere's userpage before I tagged it, same stuff about "cannot buy my ethics" that the master had. Star Mississippi, it'd be nice if you would re-block reinstating my sock block instead of the current NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the consensus was that NeverTry wasn't socking at all and it was a joe-job per @Blablubbs and @El_C here: #NeverTry4Me_issue? I reverted to your block message. Wasn't sure I could do a sock as a non CU, but happy to. Star Mississippi 18:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    + @Deepfriedokra in case the UTRS queue showed any further insight. Either way this sock is blocked. Star Mississippi 18:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion occurred before this latest account was created. I go with the obvious, but if a checkuser wants to look at it, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    WP:NOTHERE

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

    Block evation 2

    Long term abuse blocked user LefterisApos has again being evading block with new IP [35]. --C messier (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No attribution given in Spanish Wikipedia

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

    @Film Enthusiast: It is likely that attribution is required due to the license we use here, but it is also unlikely that anything will be done from an ANI report on the English Wikipedia. You should try to find an equivalent noticeboard on Spanish Wikipedia to file this report, or a local embassy equivalent if that helps get your message across. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This embassy is where you probably should go for help. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Film Enthusiast: I noticed you've listed es-5 as a Babel box suggesting you have proficiency in Spanish. In that case, maybe leave a message on the talk page of the article to which the mentioned user is copying without attribution? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great suggestion. Why didn't I think of that. Should I just make up my own message, or is there a template I can use in the Spanish Wikipedia regarding attribution? Because I'm not sure what exactly I'm supposed to say. — Film Enthusiast✉ 16:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Film Enthusiast: I searched in es:WP:PAU but there is no template for this specific situation. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can keep it simple... "Material was taken from en.wiki with RevId(s) Xxxx, please see en-wiki Nicole Kidman page for attribution".Slywriter (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    No personal attacks or gross incivility found. Content disputes and less-than-polite comments are par for course here so long as this language doesn't become personal, derogatory, bigoted, or grossly offensive à la George Carlin. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I've removed one of the evidence-free personal attacks Luckystars1981 made in their comment. If Luckystars1981 had pointed to a single diff or quote, rather than accusing me of bad faith without a shred of evidence, that would be one thing. If they had spoken to me on my talk about what they claim is their perception of my article talk page behaviour, that would be another. Given that they've done neither, Luckystars1981's baseless assertions here are grounds for some kind of boomerang.
    As to the only issue slightly relevant to this noticeboard after Luckystars1981's series of personal attacks: in the most recent (of four) comments exchanged between Luckystars1981 and I, I referred them to multiple previous discussions in which other editors have defended this version of the lead, some at far greater length than I, against various very new editors. I maintain that my characterisation of Luckystars1981's proposed change as well outside content policy is a fair one, privileging as it does one source over about fifteen others cited within the lead, along with pushing a quite specific POV.
    Luckystars1981's other accusations are without evidence or merit, and I've therefore warned them against further personal attacks. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I never called anyone pathetic. You're lying. But such is politics. And I have a date tonight ... Piotr Jr. (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm. We can READ your edit summary, you know. Never mind the other insults you levied both in the diff and in the paragraph above ... while we're talking about not taking responsibility for your own actions. You really have rather a long block log to be so casually and publicly tossing around personal attacks. Ravenswing 09:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the culture here keeps me going? Piotr Jr. (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not provide examples because I provided the link and thought that your incivility was pretty self-evident. There are several examples of personal attacks and incivility in our talk page discussion.

    First example: “The reference you added appears to be published by a vanity press; it is not a reliable source. The tiny publisher seems largely to exist as a vehicle for publishing the climate change denial of paid lobbyists.”

    There is no evidence for this whatsoever. Based on further research, you just based it on a Wikipedia article about the publisher, when you have previously stated in another discussion I’ve found that WP is not a reliable source.

    Second example: “The almost non-existent publicity for the book includes an advert by “Scientologists taking Action Against Discrimination” (supposedly the STAND league - presumably no-one thought to teach the Scientologists about spelling - more appropriately the SAAD league)”

    Insulting a group of people without provocation. I can only derive what STAND league is from an internet search, but I have not mentioned them or am not connected to them, so I don’t know why Cambial says that here.

    Third example: “No-one cares whether the Scientology organisation’s lawyers convinced a judge in Uppsala or Guadalajara that it is religious.”

    I don’t know where Uppsala or Gudalajara is, but I certainly did not mention these countries. He said this to be condescending and to undermine the edit that I did, which mentions the United States, Italy, Mexico, etc. What is even then point of saying this but to insult?

    Fourth example: “I’ll not be engaging in an extended discussion over a proposed addition that is so absurdly removed from the content policy of this website that it barely merits a response.”

    Unwillingness to engage in discussion. This is why I had to go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

    I also found another fairly recent similar discussion. Apparently other editors have found the lead to be faulty, but Cambial just refuses to have it changed in any way, shape or form. Please see discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology/Archive_31#Virtually_unexplained_reversion

    Editor Bolddreams also calls his tone very disparaging. Here is excerpt of the discussion:

    Cambial: The notion that the "full recognition" which you speak of extends to “26 countries” lacks credibility; it's closer to 10, though the nature of recognition amongst those is quite variable. None of your sources gave a figure of 26 countries; it's pretty obviously bullshit.
    Response of editor: Hi Cambial. Thank you for your feedback. I would like to first point out that your tone is very disparaging and does not reflect that assumption of “good faith” at all per Wikipedia policy. I would like to cordially work with you in creating a better lead for this article which I think really unfairly represents the article. Look at the Mormon page opening, which is another controversial religion, and nowhere do they mention just the controversies in the first two sentences. The 26 countries, that you said was “bullshit” was the number of countries listed in the Scientology Status by Country Wikipedia page that recognizes Scientology as a religion. Are you saying then that this Wikipedia page is “bullshit?” The references I used were used in this Wikipedia page. Why is it acceptable in that page, but not in the Scientology page?Bolddreams (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    Here are some personal POV reversions that Cambial has made on the Scientology page, where there is no sufficient reason to remove unchallenged content:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=1036781020&oldid=1036778373

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=1026377315&oldid=1026159527

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=1019490204&oldid=1019480721

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=1014840869&oldid=1014654933

    I can look into this further and make some further elaborations. I stand with my position that Cambial should not be allowed to monopolize the Scientology page, evidence is in the Scientology page edit history if you would like more examples. The lead section needs to be improved, and NPOV changes seriously discussed without dismissing any kind of change before it is even truly explored.

    Luckystars1981 (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the quotes you provide are in any way uncivil towards you or any other editor. The word "bullshit" was used in reference to a claim inserted by another editor, unmentioned in any source provided. Two other editors broadly agreed with that assessment of the claim. The diffs to which you link are entirely justified removals of the remnants of organised POV editing by the group's members, including removal of sources long established as unreliable. Your continuing ridiculous personal attacks here, such as He said this to be condescending and to undermine the edit that I did - a nonsensical assertion (how can I undermine your edit?) drawn from your imagination to buttress your empty claims - are now reaching the point where a sanction against you is appropriate.
    As to not wanting to have a long discussion about inserting thinly-sourced POV-pushing claims in the second sentence of the article: several days ago I pointed you to the previous quite extensive discussions indicating a consensus about the opening sentences. You are free to try to demonstrate that consensus has changed and would now support your edit. Given the tendentious nature of the content you proposed, in my view that's unlikely in the extreme.
    Your repeated insertions of tendentious material sourced from generally unreliable sources, into the lead and elsewhere [36][37], have been reverted by multiple editors[38][39] and increasingly look like WP:ADVOCACY. I and other editors have explained in some detail why your additions are not neutral or appropriate on this website. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    Onel5969 recent behaviour includes:

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

    The situation started when I spotted a dubious claim on the article Kayako Saeki and asked for verification on the talk page: [40]. For whatever reason, Onel5969 responded by redirecting and slapping notability templates on as many poorly-written Ringu and Ju-On articles as he could find (compilation). The edit summaries weren't clear to me whether he was following WP:ARTN and several of the articles he templated/redirected were questionable at best. A few examples include the original Ringu novel, the protagonist of the original Ring, and even Kayako Saeki (Kayako and Sadako are the two biggest J-horror icons). He also admitted here to not following ARTN and that some of the articles can be fixed with rewrites.

    I reverted most of them so that he would gain consensus (WP:ATD-R) and also replied to him on the talk page: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]

    The next day, Onel5969 signed into his account and reinstated several of the templates and redirects: [53], [54], [55], [56]. I reverted him again, advising him to take the matter to WP:AFD ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61]). I also took the discussion to his talk page: [62]. He responded by claiming that all of his templates and redirects were backed by WP:BURDEN and made another round of reverts: [63], [64], [65]. There are a couple of problems with his reasoning here:

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

    I reverted him again ([66], [67], [68]) and he reinstated his edits again ([69], [70], [71], [72]). At this point, I dropped an edit warring warning on his talk page ([73], [74]).

    Someone else opened a third talk page discussion to encourage discussion and curve the edit war: [75]. However, Onel5969 showed up simply to make spurious allegations and claim that he wasn't really edit warring because his edits are correct ([76]). I responded to the thread and told him he had a single day to engage in dispute resolution or I would report him for edit warring. He instead kept responding (or rather, not responding) by repeating the same point about WP:BURDEN over and over without saying anything new, no matter how many times it was refuted. I could say literally anything and Onel5969 would go right back to Point #1.

    The following day, Onel5969 decided to canvass his peers at the unrelated WP:NPPR to gain supporters, with a notification that wasn't even neutral: [77]. It's likely that he engaged in stealth-canvassing even before that, because the only previous support he got was from two other NPPR reviewers who simply repeated his claim without actually responding to the counterpoints anything: [78], [79]. One of them is actually a frequent collaborator of Onel5969's who engaged in obvious tag-team behaviour, including filibustering of his own, accusing me of Onel5969's canvassing ([80]), replying with generalised (sometimes non-sequitur) platitudes instead of responding to what I actually said, and trolling to goad me to keep replying.

    Additionally:

    This was resolved when another user intervened on the Kayako page ([86]), and I stopped replying to the stonewalling and simply demonstrated what I was saying about WP:BURDEN (while adding a new section for good measure): [87], [88]

    I left an additional warning on Onel's talk page about engaging in disruption in the future and was prepared to let the situation be. However, he wasted no time making personal attacks and continuing the exact same behaviour elsewhere: [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]

    Darkknight2149 02:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Onel pretty clearly violated WP:ATD-R by reinstating the contested BLARs instead of going to AfD. They said that there is an exception for "wholly unsourced" articles, but I'm not seeing this alleged exception in the policy. Regarding the dispute about WP:BURDEN, I'm inclined to agree with the OP. The articles were sourced to the book which the characters are from, which should be enough to satisfy verifiability (although not notability) per WP:ABOUTSELF. And WP:BURDEN has literally nothing to do with templates, so I don't know why that was getting brought up in response to the OP's objections. Reading through the talk page discussion at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, it does feel like everyone is completely ignoring what the OP is saying. Either way, Onel should have brought the articles to AfD after being reverted. And reading through Onel's talk page, violations of WP:ATD-R seems to be a recurring theme which they refuse to address even after being notified about it multiple times. I do appreciate the irony of them calling the OP "ignorant" and an "utter fool" (nice personal attacks, by the way) when they themselves are a serial policy violator, though. I recommend some sort of sanction on Onel for edit warring, personal attacks, and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behavior. Either that, or an apology for the personal attacks and a commitment to no longer reinstate contested redirects without consensus. Mlb96 (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC) I should clarify that the initial redirects were fine. It's the subsequent ones after they were contested that were not. Mlb96 (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's self-contradictory to say that someone "violated alternatives to deletion" by not nominating something for deletion and enacting one of the alternatives instead.

        And "sourced to the book" (actually a movie in this case) is not the case for content like "Yoichi is very independent and quiet for a boy of his age", "The only person he seems to have a close relationship with is his maternal grandfather", "Yoichi is very similar to his father in looks, behaviour and feelings; both are aloof and suppress their feelings. Despite their estrangement, they appear to have a special connection, in which they can sense when they are both in danger. He clearly loves both his parents,". This is character analysis, being performed by Wikipedia editors directly in Wikipedia, based upon what is "clear" and what "seems" and "appears" to them. It isn't summary. "Sourced to the book/movie/television show" is not a wholesale escape clause for articles about fiction.

        This sort of squirming around the Wikipedia:no original research policy is how these disputes arise, time and again. We could avoid the disputes in the first place by actually writing character analysis that is verifiable. How a character appears to a Wikipedia editor watching a movie is not a verifiable thing.

        Uncle G (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        • But Onel did not simply remove the parts which they alleged were unverifiable, they alleged that the entire article was unverifiable (which is patently false) and then BLARed it. BLAR has the same effect as deletion: the material is no longer on the page. No editor can unilaterally delete an article unless a CSD applies. The purpose of the sentence at WP:ATD-R is to require consensus to redirect articles. It essentially makes BLAR the same as PROD. If the redirect is challenged, it has the same effect as challenging a PROD: send the article to AfD. Everything else is secondary, NPPers are not given the ability to unilaterally delete articles without a CSD applying. Not even admins may do that. It doesn't matter how bad the article is, if the redirect is contested, it must go to AfD for consensus. Or at the very least, it should go to the talk page, which did not occur until after Onel had already reinstated the redirect twice more. Mlb96 (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    @Darkknight2149, you have also made serious accusations against editors other than Onel. As far as I can see, you have not even pinged them. Please leave talk page notices for all editors you are accusing of misconduct. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This report specifically pertains to Onel5969. That being said, I did point out that John B123 engaged in dishonest tag-teaming with Onel5969, who is now pinged. Darkknight2149 07:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the versions that Onel turned into redirects, they all appear to be violations of WP:OR, which states Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. It seems that Onel's actions were appropriate, and should not have been reverted without the addition of non-primary sources; when that was finally done, it appears Onel stopped turning the articles into redirects. BilledMammal (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think most editors are aware that articles require secondary coverage. However, that in itself isn't a deletion criteria or something that supersedes WP:ATD-R, the dispute resolution process, or the deletion process. There also isn't an edit warring exemption for it. Edit warring (instead of taking it to WP:AFD, as he was advised to do) was not appropriate. Frankly, neither were the several other cases of disruptive behaviour mentioned aside from the redirecting. Darkknight2149 07:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If Onel was edit warring, so were you - and while being right is not a defence, edit warring to restore content that violates core policies across multiple articles is very disruptive. It would be inappropriate to sanction Onel without sanctioning the editor whose behaviour was more disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Uncle G and BilledMammal here. An article about a topic with a plot sourced only to some random Wikipedia editor's plot summary is a piece of crap that really ought to be removed from the encyclopedia post haste. That argument implies that any topic with a plot deserves a Wikipedia article if only some editor coughs up an plot summary. The fact of the matter is that countless works with a plot are not notable, including various science fiction short stories that I wrote in the 1970s and photocopied and distributed to my friends. Any competent editor can ensure that such an article will be kept by adding references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. If such articles cannot be properly referenced, then they should be deleted. On my own user page, I list hundreds of articles that I have expanded and improved and in many cases, saved at AfD. I take great pride in these articles. But I would take no pride in fighting to save an article that clearly does not meet our notability guidelines, despite the efforts of good faith editors to find proper sourcing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we put our soapboxes away and only look at policy, then Onel5969 was unambiguously in the wrong. The deletion process is how we determine what topics are notable and what aren't. The policies are clear that if you redirect an article and someone disputes that redirect, then you have to seek consensus instead of continuing to reinstate the redirect. Do reliable sources on the topic exists? An WP:AFD can easily determine that.
    But let's not lose the plot: Onel5969 is also guilty of canvassing (that alone is worthy of a block), personal attacks, template warring, and filibustering, and has continued to do so elsewhere. In terms of "You were edit warring too", I attempted talk page discussion with Onel5969 multiple times including on his talk page and (per WP:ATD-R, WP:BRD, and others), my reversions are in the clear. Darkknight2149 08:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Let's not lose the plot?" You've been involved at ANI, one way or another, often enough to know full well that the actions of the OP are as subject to scrutiny as any other. You no more get to place your own actions beyond question than you're justified in dissing editors who disagree with your POV. While we're talking about whacking with sausages. Ravenswing 08:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand. "Let's not lose the plot" means "Let's not talk as though this is only about the redirects." Hence my following sentence. Darkknight2149 09:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no deadline. I've seen some pretty egregiously bad articles at AfD, Will it carbonate? being one of my personal favorites. That article was PRODed and then dePRODed by the creator. Should the PROD have been reapplied despite the creator's objection? Or better yet, if the PRODer was an admin, should they have simply deleted the article themselves without a discussion? No, the article should be taken to AfD where a consensus can form so quickly that the article is SNOW deleted before 7 days have elapsed. What exactly is the downside to this approach that makes so many users shudder at the thought of it? Because I don't see any. Mlb96 (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the downside? I can think of one big one: AfD is a large waste of editor time when it can often be avoided (why PROD was invented in the first place). Every editor involved spends a decent amount of time reading the article, checking the sources, and doing a WP:BEFORE. That's a lot of time that can end up being eaten up with each discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 13:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering that, apart from other policies and guidelines, the article actions of Onel are in line with WP:V and the actions of DarkKnight (e.g. here) are directly opposed to what WP:V states (e.g. "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.", I think that at least for this aspect a boomerang trout for Darkknight is warranted. I haven't looked at other behavioural aspects by the different people involved here. Fram (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been addressed numerous times, but the articles in question were mostly plot summary cited by WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCE. I removed any bits and pieces that can be construed as WP:OR in this edit and this edit and the majority of those articles are still intact. My alternative proposal is that the next person to bring up WP:BURDEN and WP:V without saying anything new should be wacked in the head with a sausage :/ Darkknight2149 08:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked to Kazuyuki Asakawa, where you make numerous claims about different versions of the character, all without any source whatsoever. This includes claims like "The filmmakers felt a female character would be more appealing at the box-office for the more maternal job of going to great lengths to protect her son. It also enabled a more intimate relationship between Asakawa and Takayama." Your constant dismissal of these concerns is problematic. Fram (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Until this and this, I hadn't seen that part because of Onel5969 edit warring on so many articles. There's a reason it didn't get restored with the other two (because that already-short article would become a stub). That being said, Onel5969 should have removed the original research specifically, instead of blanking multiple whole articles and refusing attempts at discussion. Darkknight2149
    It doesn't really matter how bad the articles were, because WP:ATD-R does not make an exception for bad articles. The reason for this should be obvious: what may seem bad to one user might not to another. One of the reasons that violations of WP:ATD-R is one of my biggest pet peeves is that it happened to an article I wrote once, and when I finally convinced the user to bring the article to AfD, the result was a unanimous keep. So we don't make exceptions for when a user really truly believes that they are right, we require them to get consensus no matter how bad the article may seem to them. This is completely normal for a contested PROD, so why would a contested BLAR be any different? Mlb96 (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that those articles about public housing estates are also sourced entirely to primary sources, which means that Onel's actions here are also attempts to bring the articles in compliance with core policy. To do it twice on four articles doesn't appear to be out of line, particularly when the objection is as obscure as "Redirect not obvious". BilledMammal (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection does not have an exemption that allows editors to blank-and-redirect a second time Hong Kong public housing estate articles that are sourced to government sources. Cunard (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And Wikipedia:Edit warring does not have an exemption putting the creation of redirects under 0RR; four singular reverts is consistent with seeking a consensus through editing, and not an issue worth discussing on ANI, particularly when those reverts were attempts to bring articles into compliance with core policy. BilledMammal (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that reverting four times while refusing to discuss isn't an edit war? That's the very definition of an edit war. And while WP:EW may not impose 0RR on redirects, WP:ATD-R actually does. You're avoiding the subject with all these arguments about the quality of the articles. The fact is that Onel violated policy, engaged in an edit war, and then attacked the individual who tried to point it out. And this isn't an isolated incident; judging by Onel's talk page, this is a pattern which they have refused to address. It is appalling to me that so many users are defending Onel's behavior. Mlb96 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I should have been clearer. Four different articles, with one revert each - I believe this is appropriate as an attempt to obtain consensus by editing, and certainly not worth bringing to ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with you if not for the fact that Onel appears to have reinstated the challenged redirects multiple times and acted rude and condescending when informed that they shouldn't do that. It is not unreasonable to request that Onel no longer do this and to apologize for the rudeness. Mlb96 (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC) My apologies, I misunderstood what you were referring to. It does appear that Onel only reinstated those particular redirects a single time. However, even this is still a violation of WP:ATD-R, and while it may not have been worth bringing to ANI by itself, it does establish a pattern in combination with the instances the OP brought up. Mlb96 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO part of the problem is you're using terms in inaccurate ways. There's no 0RR for all redirections, WP:0RR does not mention any such thing and WP:ATD-R does not establish such a thing. 0RR is a hard limit like 3RR where the only exemptions are WP:3RRNO. (The only 0RR cases not arising from general sanctions or arbcom including the discretionary, would be one imposed on an editor as an unblocking condition or by the community. Or maybe by the community on some specific article or topic although I'm not aware we've ever done that without general sanctions.) Like 3RR, 0RR also only technically applies for 24 hours unless an admin has set another period although again like 3RR editors may still get in deep trouble if they edit war too much beyond 24 hours especially if it's just after or if it's happened over multiple days. I mean ATD-R doesn't even try to establish such a limit it says "an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again" (emphasis mine) rather than "consensus must be reached before". I'd also note that 0RR means all reverts (again excepting 3RRNO) are forbidden so applies to the editor who reverted back to the pre-redirect so actually what ATD-R says is closed to enforced BRD than it is 0RR. Further what ATD-R says is really not that different from what Wikipedia:Consensus itself says or WP:BURDEN+WP:ONUS and yeah the essay WP:BRD. Yet no one will suggest this means we actually have 0RR or 1RR or imposed BRD or whatever. So all ATD-R is really saying we handle it like we do with most disputes. For a variety of reasons in most cases we have a hard limit of 3 reverts in 24 hours but also forbid edit warring in general. If someone makes a change and it's disputed, generally they need to try an address the objections and so modify their changes (which probabyl isn't possible with a redirect) or discuss and try to achieve consensus. Note I specifically didn't say "start", since a lot of the time the person who disputed ideally should have started the discussion anyway. But while these are what happen in an ideal situation we recognise that it can get complicated and so explicitly do not block editors just because they don't follow the process although may block them depending on precisely what they did, how many times they did it etc. If it's a back and forth between two editors especially if it's on multiple articles and there's no bright line broken by either, both editors may very well find themselves blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems to be a content dispute between people who think every patch of land that ever had a house on it needs an article, and those who think street directories and real estate brochures based on primary sources should be deprecated. IMO Onel is correct on the policy question and, although some of his language has been less than optimal, I think getting exasperated is a natural response to endless meddlesome obstructionism. Reyk YO! 22:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the correct take from this. For example, let's look at some of the articles that DarkKnight2149 repeatedly edit-warred to restore. I've only picked two, but there are more - this one, edit-warring to restore an article with nothing but primary sources, but wait ... this one, edit-warring to restore a version with no sources whatsoever. As User:Cullen328 said above, "An article about a topic with a plot sourced only to some random Wikipedia editor's plot summary is a piece of crap that really ought to be removed from the encyclopedia post haste.". Meanwhile, this is relevant. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang

    I came close to bringing this to ANI myself after Darkknight2149's totally unfounded insinuations of canvassing by email[95]. However, as in Darkknight2149's last reinstatements of the articles they had added sources, obviously trying to conform with WP:BURDEN, I thought that the whole issue would die a death naturally and there was no point in rekindling the flames. Despite warning from myself[96] and Insertcleverphrasehere[97] that going to ANI may boomerang, the OP refuses to drop the stick.

    This all started with an IP redirecting Yoichi Asakawa, Kazuyuki Asakawa, Reiko Asakawa and Kayako Saeki. The OP claims above that the IP was Onel5969. I can see no evidence to support this claim, and looking at the edit summaries of the IP and Onel5969 I would say they were not the same person. That aside, the redirections were reverted by the OP in violation of WP:BURDEN. There then followed a round of redirecting and reversions. The OP's justification of WP:PRIMARY and WP:ALLPLOT simply don't hold water, as commented by other editors above.

    Onel5969 raised the subject at NPP in a neutral tone and with a link to the discussion[98]. This seems to be an appropriate notification and calling this canvassing is incorrect. Although the post linked to the discussion on the article talk page, the OP took this as an opportunity for a further venue to attack Onel5969[99].

    The OP refuses to WP:AGF on the part of other editors. When myself and Buidhe posted our views we were accused of not actually read through the exchange above or clicked through the diffs[100].

    If 3 experienced editors told you that you were wrong, most people would either look again at what they thought, or even if they still thought they were right, would accept consensus. Not so with the OP, who simply dismisses this as tag-teaming.

    The OP has made much of a 'template war' at Kayako Saeki. The OP reasoning for removing the notability tag is 'there are already talk page discussions open'. WP:WNTRMT is clear: You should not remove maintenance templates if ...... there is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue

    I could bring up a lot more but I'm sure everybody else is as bored of this as I am. I am offended that my integrity has been brought into doubt when trying to give an opinion of policy as an uninvolved editor at that time.

    Whilst I'd hoped the matter would die a death, it's clear that isn't going to happen. What's happened has happened and I'm not sure that everybody's time is well spent dissecting the details. Suffice to say people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. Moving forward, something needs be done to stop the vendetta by Darkknight2149 against Onel5969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John B123 (talk • contribs)

    • Response: John B123 got a few things wrong I would like to address.

    as in Darkknight2149's last reinstatements of the articles they had added sources, obviously trying to conform with WP:BURDEN

    This is factually incorrect. As you can see here and here, the only sources I added were to a brand new section (created by me) that wasn't previously there. Everything I re-added is still only backed by WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCE.

    I thought that the whole issue would die a death naturally

    So did I, until Onel5969 continued the same behaviour elsewhere ([101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]). I didn't want to have to file this report.

    The OPs justification of WP:PRIMARY and WP:ALLPLOT simply don't hold water, as commented by other editors above.

    So far, I haven't seen any policy-based rationale for this. Neither have some of the other editors who have commented above. Onel5969's reversions go against WP:ATD-R, WP:Deletion process, WP:3RRNO, WP:DELREASON, and WP:SOURCE. One user pointed to a sentence from WP:OR that says that articles require secondary sources. However, even this doesn't justify Onel's behaviour. Policy consistently says that if editing can be done to improve a page, editing should be done to improve a page. If the concern was WP:BURDEN, then he should have removed the specific bits of original research instead of continuing to blank the whole page.

    Onel5969 raised the subject at NPP in a neutral tone and with a link to the discussion[107]. This seems to be an appropriate notification and calling this canvassing is incorrect.

    This is frankly dishonest. The canvassing wasn't neutral at all, Onel's exact words were "Interesting pseudo-discussion I've had over at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, regarding these two policies. Thought reviewers might benefit from checking it out." Onel was then advised to take the dispute to WP:AFD per WP:BLAR ([108]) and his response was equally dismissive ([109]). The dispute was also 100% unrelated to WP:NPPR. Onel was attempting to canvass his editing group for supporters, which is a form of vote-stacking.

    When myself and Buidhe posted our views we were accused of not actually read through the exchange above or clicked through the diffs

    This wasn't an accusation, I suggested that the two of you may not have read through everything. The reason for this is that, after Onel continued filibustering by simply repeating the same point over and over (without responding to anything I was saying), you and Buidhe replied the next day simply to repeat his one already-addressed point ([110], [111]). Other editors above have noted this: "Reading through the talk page discussion at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, it does feel like everyone is completely ignoring what the OP is saying" and I myself pointed this out to you several times at WP:NPPR. See also: [112], [113] (which you didn't reply to).

    would accept consensus

    Wikipedia is not a vote. Two editors repeating a pre-addressed point without responding to anything isn't a consensus. Onel5969 was also advised by other editors to stop edit warring and discuss here, to open an AFD here, and his template warring at Kayako Saeki was reverted here.

    Not so with the OP, who simply dismisses this as tag-teaming.

    John, I didn't accuse Buidhe of tag-teaming. I accused you of tag-teaming and only after your actions had demonstrated that. You showed up to Onel5969's canvassing at NPPR specifically to accuse me of his forum shopping ([114]) and your responses after that weren't constructive either: replying with vague generalised platitudes, nonsequitor accusations, trolling to goad me to keep responding, ETC. Your claim that Onel's canvassing at WP:NPPR was "neutral" is even more evidence of that. The User Interaction tool also revealed that you are a frequent collaborator of Onel5969's, which normally wouldn't mean anything by itself. But coupled with everything else.

    Meanwhile, this is relevant.

    Based on the canvassing, tag-teaming, you and Buidhe being part of Onel's user group at WP:NPPR, and your responses at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that stealth-canvassing may have taken place. However, I'm not going to outright claim that without proof. You mistake a question for an accusation.

    I could bring up a lot more but I'm sure everybody else is as bored of this as I am.

    If you are looking for a boomerang sanction, I would recommend doing that. Darkknight2149 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darkknight2149: I note you haven't responded about your claim that the IP who originally redirected the articles is the same person as Onel. Please share you evidence to substantiate your claim. --John B123 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll note a disturbing behavior by Darkknight that I noticed just before this ANI was filed (and mentioned on their talk page), regarding his intentions to stalk Onel for more ammunition to use against him. Darknight removed the section in this diff from their talk page (and strangely decided to answer our criticism in the edit summary where they deleted the comments, instead of simply drafting a reply for us to read). If I were a cynical man, and I am, I'd assume that this was an attempt to avoid having negative comments on their talk page (that might draw scrutiny) just before posting on ANI (deleting the section was the last thing he did before posting here)... I'm seeing a lot of Wikilawyering out of @Darkknight2149, who doesn't seem to understand why Onel has done what he has done (the deficiency of plot summary articles sourced only to primary sources), and doesn't seem to realize how disruptive their own edits have been and the phenomenal waste of time that this has been to everyone involved.
    I will say this now: redirection is NOT directly comparable to deletion, both of the complainants seem to be justifying everything on the basis that his redirection represents summary deletion. It doesn't. All the info is still there in the redirect history for anyone to find and build on. The correct response is to find sources for unsourced articles, and rebuild the article, not to revert the redirect and just claim that an article sourced purely to primary sources is A-OK, then try to Wikilawyer your way out of restoring an article that clearly fails what Wikipedia is not.
    Do I think Onel could have been a bit more circumspect in his edits? Perhaps. Do I think he is the one causing the disruption here? No. At worst I'd give Onel a slap on the wrist for not communicating more clearly why he has done what he has done (in the case of the Hong Kong articles anyway). As for @Darkknight2149, well, he has shown a remarkable ability to stonewall everyone who has explained that what he is doing is not productive. I even showed him the way forward, by putting the effort to add some sources to one of the articles, which allowed the removal of the notability tag. I recommended that Darknight take that approach, adding sources and actually improving the articles, rather than simply complaining and making threats. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 01:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    if you think someone is a disruptive editor in one area, they're likely going to be disruptive editors in other areas. Many times I have encountered vandalism, checked the user's contribution's history, and found far more to revert. Not saying they wouldn't be hounding if they stalked Onel's contributions and mass-reverted a bunch of them, but sanctioning someone for merely saying that they're going to watch someone's contribs for disruption doesn't seem like a good interpretation of WP:HOUNDING. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess, note that I said that "I suggest that the behaviour stop immediately before it progresses into WP:HOUNDING territory." OP has clearly and repeatedly indicated that being right and proving Onel wrong is more important to him than actually improving the articles in question (which is disruptive). See especially the long edit he left on Onel's talk page (the "you're so lucky I didn't take you to ANI" comment linked above) that reads like a threat. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 11:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, you would support a boomerang sanction because I:
    • Removed a question from my talk page and answered it in an edit summary.
    • Said I would keep a cursory glance on Onel5969 to make sure he doesn't engage in this behaviour again elsewhere (which he immediately did: [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120]).
    • "Wiki-lawyered" by citing policies correctly.
    • "Stonewalled" by addressing all of Onel5969's points, even as he kept repeating the same thing over and over no matter what (without responding to anything I said). Something that others here have also pointed out.
    • "Edit warred" by attempting talk page discussion multiple times.
    • Simply complained and made threats instead of... Taking the matter to WP:ANI?
    With all due respect, your reasoning is odd and the things you are saying don't reflect how policy works. For instance, how am I "lawyering" these policies? By following them literally and complying with the spirit of the deletion process and dispute resolution?
    Per WP:ATD-R:

    A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.[1]

    Per WP:Dispute resolution:

    When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page. To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war.

    Per WP:ATD:

    If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles.

    Per WP:Edit warring:

    An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

    Pertinent
    Per WP:PRIMARY:

    A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

    The policy WP:OR does say "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." But per everything else I just cited, that isn't a reason to repeatedly restore a redirect after it has been disputed. What it does warrant is a rewrite, templating, or (in this case) even an WP:AFD. These are the policies I was adhering to in my interactions with Onel5969. WP:DELREASON and WP:3RRNO are also relevant. Darkknight2149 06:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Insertcleverphrasehere point on deletion is a good one and one I was thinking from early on in this thread. We do not treat turning an article the same as deletion because they are not the same. Deletion prevents anyone except admins from seeing the history or restoring the same version. (If you have a copy of the article before deletion you can technically restore the article but unless you're the only substantive contributor doing so would be a WP:COPYVIO and likely to me something you'll be blocked over if you keep doing it regardless of the merits of restoring the content.) If two admins got into multiple wars deleting and undeleting an article, we'd have a WP:WHEELWAR and possibly be contentemplating an arbcom case to consider whether to desysoping them both.

    There's also no requirement redirection must be discussed via XfD. Even if there's a dispute, while it's one possible venue, it's disliked by some if that's the attention and discussion on an article talk page with or without an RfC is another possibility. Sometimes an XfD is even closed with a suggestion to continue discussion on turning it into a redirect on the talk page.

    In the same vein while a WP:PROD is a one time thing and completely overriden by objection (including future objection) or previous deletion discussion, it's a lot more complicated for redirections. For example, if an editor turns an article into a redirect, someone objects and then no one bothers to do anything further then 15 years later with the article still in a sorry state and perhaps whatever changes in notability 15 and some new editor turns it into a redirect, merges with proper attribution and adds new content into the target, the editor is unlikely to have done anything wrong, indeed people will probably be thanking them. (The earlier editor or some other editor could still object and it will need to be discussed but if the editor takes part in the discussion and doesn't edit war, anyone who complains about their behaviour is going to get short shrift even if they find 100 times it happened.) If an editor prods an article and someone objects, 15 years later someone prods it again any admin should reject the prod and if they don't people will (generally) rightfully say they shouldn't have done that even if most agree we shouldn't have an article. If someone find an admin did it 100 times, again we may be considering an arbcom case or at least a strong reminder to the admin.

    Likewise if an article is delete under PROD, 15 years later someone asks for it to be undeleted, this will generally happen and if someone wants to delete the article they will have to take it to AfD (I'm assuming in all cases there's no CSD) and non consensus means we keep the article. By comparison if someone turns an article into a redirect and 15 years later someone overturns it, the status quo ante is likely to be considered the redirect and so a no consensus outcome is generally going to mean we keep the redirect etc.

    You can come up with many other ways deletion and turning an article into a redirect are different, suffice to say if you treat them same you're distracting from possible real issues with what an editor did.

    Nil Einne (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nil Einne: Please see the policies quoted above, which are pretty clear about reinstating disputed redirects. Darkknight2149 06:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darkknight2149: I did and nothing in them disputes what I said. For example, ATD-R explicitly say you can use a talk page just like I said, something which isn't possible for an actual deletion. And there's nothing in it or any other page which can be taken to suggest that if an editor turns an article into a redirect and it's reverted, then 15 years later another editor turns it into a redirect while merging and expanding the content in the target then they've done anything wrong. WP:PROD explicitly says that a PROD is a one time thing so implicitly makes it clear this is not possible with a PROD, and so if an article has been prodded (or discussed for deletion), you cannot PROD it again and no admin should honour such a request. You just need technical experience to know that as a non admin, I cannot see Nitharwal or Daisuke Nakamaki but unless they were actually deleted, I can see everything Onel5969 has turned into a redirect regardless of the current state. Note I never disputed that an editor should generally discuss before restoring redirects, simply that it's not the same as deletion, and any such comparisons are rightfully criticised as inaccurate. Nil Einne (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darkknight2149 WP:ATD-R doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean 0RR. It never did. Read the vast majority of comments on this thread by very experienced policy gurus and stop parroting the same point as if it somehow will make you right this time. I agree that WP:ATD-R should be written more clearly, so as not to create confusion like this, but please take other's comments on board. This is the sort of thing I was alluding to when mentioning lawyering before. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 10:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Negative. WP:ATD-R makes it clear that the onus is on the person who redirected the article to gain consensus, instead of edit warring to restore the redirect. Nothing about that is ambiguous. Darkknight2149 11:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See the long comment by @Nil Einne in the section above explaining why WP:ATD-R is not WP:0RR. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 12:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support some form of boomerang or sanction, e.g. a ban on reverting a redirect without providing a good secondary source. Their attempts to justify their reinstatements of unsourced plot summary only articles (often tagged as unsourced for years) are completely unconvincing and go against the basic elements of what enwiki articles should be. Going on an on about "but it's a disputed redirect" completely ignores "why" it has been turned into a redirect and why reinstating such articles is very poor practice. If someone was creating such articles now, they would end up with a topic ban (after enough discussions of course), no matter how much they wikilawyered. So why would it be more acceptable if someone is reinstating such articles even though issues with them have tagged for years? It seems that no discussion here can convince the editor that these articles are not welcome, so some other approach to make this clear may be needed. Fram (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot of soapboxing in this thread about how policies should work and the way things should be. However, if we're going by actual policy, then Onel5969 was unambiguously in the wrong. Citing policies correctly isn't "Wiki-lawyering", regardless of how much you disagree with the content. "It seems that no discussion here can convince the editor that these articles are not welcome" So far, nobody has argued that all-plot articles are "welcome" or acceptable in their current state. The concern is that Onel needed to open an WP:AFD and gain consensus, instead of unilaterally redirecting an article and edit warring to keep it there (even after attempts at talk page discussion). I hope the closing administrator keeps actual policy in mind when closing this thread, because I have a feeling it's going to have to go to ArbCom next. Darkknight2149 09:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did cite policy in my first comment here, WP:V, which you violated with your reverts. Fram (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:Dispute resolution and WP:ATD-R, you don't blank an entire article just to remove some original research, and WP:SOURCE is part of WP:V anyway. Onel5969 should have removed the original research instead of repeatedly blanking the page. My primary concern was reverting the redirects and restoring the articles themselves, not restoring the few claims in each one that weren't backed by primary source. Darkknight2149 10:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just reread Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, and I see the same Wp:ICANTHEARYOU displayed by you there, dismissing all comments which tell you that you are wrong (citing policies which explain why you are wrong) which statements like "I don't think either of you actually read through the exchange above", "both of them seem to have skimmed through the thread without reading through everything", " I don't mean any disrespect, but this is actually why I suggested that a couple of other editors may have skimmed through the thread.", "Because you haven't said anything of substance or addressed any of the points raised.". People not agreeing with you or people seeing other issues, other policy violations by you, as more important or the core issue, is not the same as people not reading your points, never mind not saying "anything of substance". WP:V makes it clear that you shouldn't reinstate unsourced statements, and WP:PRIMARY makes it clear that you shouldn't have plot-summary-only articles. Your constant repetitions of "but for a plot summary, primary sources are allowed" doesn't overrule or counter these arguments at all. In our myriad of policies, there are often aspects which contradict and can be cherry-picked to counter the necessary cleanup someone else is doing. Simply repeating these bits and ignoring what by now quite a few people have explained, is not helpful at all. In the end, we have one editor getting rid of years-old, long-tagged, policy-violating articles by turning them into redirects (which doesn't restrict anyone from actually writing a policy-compliant article instead of the redirect), and another editor reinstating the policy-violating articles because not all ts have been crossed during the cleanup. I believe that an editor using policies to improve the actual reader-facing part of enwiki clearly trumps an editor using policies to keep a worse state of the reader-facing part. Fram (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There was no WP:ICANTHEARYOU at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, because I responded to and addressed everything that was said there. Even though all of my points were ignored (mostly by Onel himself, who was the only person to consistently respond there). You are arguably engaging in ICANTHEARYOU right now, because you are ignoring the overwhelming number of policies that have been presented to you and are (almost self-admittedly) cherry-picking.
    • WP:ATD and WP:HANDLE make it clear that if editing can be done to improve a page, editing should be done instead of scrapping it.
    • WP:ATD-R makes it clear that once a redirect has been disputed, you need to gain consensus instead of repeatedly restoring the redirect.
    • WP:DR makes it clear that you don't delete salvageable content just to get rid of some original research.
    • WP:DELREASON gives a list of deletion criteria, and there is an entire deletion process and a dispute resolution process that you are overlooking.
    Flaws in articles that can be solved through rewrites (such as being WP:ALLPLOT) are not solved by deletion or getting blanked. Getting consensus at WP:AFD could have determined if the topics are notable, if sources exist, if they are worthy of deletion, or it could have encouraged rewrites. The system exists for a reason. Onel's actions were not backed by "overwhelming policies", the only ones you've been able to point to are WP:V and WP:BURDEN. As I said before, "Per every [policy], this isn't a reason to repeatedly restore a redirect after it has been disputed. What it does warrant is a rewrite, templating, or (in this case) even an WP:AFD. These are the policies I was adhering to in my interactions with Onel5969." Darkknight2149 11:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the above (and the repeated "per every policy", even though this has been shown again and again to be false), and per the very similar reply to Insertcleverphrasehere below, I rest my case. Fram (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only policies you have named are WP:BURDEN and WP:V, both of which have been addressed many times by now. Do I need to list some of them again for you?
    Restatement of policy analysis collapsed for readability Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Per WP:ATD-R:

    A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.[2]

    Per WP:Dispute resolution:

    When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page. To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war.

    Per WP:ATD:

    If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles.

    Per WP:Edit warring:

    An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

    Pertinent
    Per WP:PRIMARY:

    A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

    The policy WP:OR does say "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." But per everything else I just cited, that isn't a reason to repeatedly restore a redirect after it has been disputed. What it does warrant is a rewrite, templating, or (in this case) even an WP:AFD. These are the policies I was adhering to in my interactions with Onel5969. WP:DELREASON and WP:3RRNO are also relevant.
    Darkknight2149 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine... I'll be explicit about your points.
    Per ATD-R: I've explained ATD-R repeatedly, he explained in his edit summary of the revert, he didn't re-revert, there is no edit war (3RR).
    Per DR: an explanation in an edit summary may be sufficient, provided there is room, again, he didn't start an edit war, he reverted once. As per deleting salvageable text, other policies say that it is fine to delete unsourced material, so this is just advice that may apply.
    Per ATD: Does not apply, redirection is not deletion, the content still exists in the edit history. In any case it says that it "may" be reduced to a stub, or may be sent to AFD, not that it has to be. Discussion via an edit summary may have been sufficient if you hadn't been such an obstructionist, in which case it would have saved a whole lot of his time (and other editor's time; AfD is a phenomenal waste of man-hours when overused, ANI moreso).
    Per WP:Edit warring: There is no edit warring. He did 1RR, not 3RR. Does not apply.
    Per WP:PRIMARY: May, not should and certainly not "a whole article based on". In fact you specifically cite the passage from WP:OR in your next paragraph that makes this explicit.
    You seem to justify your actions of restoring improper content with procedural nitpicking. I would define this as disruptive editing, and, to a lesser extent, wikilawyering. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 12:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And restoring the article, which violates WP:NOT is fine because... Why? The main question is why you disputed in the first place. If you are so knowledgeable on the policies that you know that it should be stubified, then why didn't you? Why dispute something, and when you are in the wrong, bring it to ANI to say "but he broke the procedural rules". I've said before that Onel could have explained better why he was doing what he was doing. Stubification would have been my preferred action as well, but Onel choosing to use an edit summary to explain why when reverting can be interpreted as an "attempt to gain consensus" per ATD-R (as others have pointed out). If he had reverted without saying anything in the edit summary, or reverted multiple times, I might agree with you. Most of the time, other editors will read his edit summary and say to themselves "oh... that's why, well, let me add some sources and restore to prove him wrong". Instead you did the opposite, reverted on procedural grounds regardless of whether the article met WP:V; hell some of those articles had no sources at all! You cite WP:HANDLE, but have a look at the next section below that one (WP:DON'T PRESERVE). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 11:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Insertcleverphrasehere: Onel choosing to use an edit summary to explain why when reverting can be interpreted as an "attempt to gain consensus" per ATD-R That is preposterous. If one editor asserts that the policy requires X and another editor asserts that the policy requires Y, then simply repeating X and Y at each other does not achieve consensus, and no one could reasonably claim that it will ever result in a consensus. If two editors disagree, then the correct course of action is to obtain community consensus, either via AfD or an RfC or some other method, and WP:ATD-R puts the burden of obtaining consensus on the user seeking redirection. Onel did not make any attempt whatsoever to establish a consensus, they simply edit warred the redirect back in and then lobbed personal attacks at the OP. There is no universe in which Onel did not violate WP:ATD-R, no matter how you interpret that policy.
    And by the way, obtaining consensus to redirect an article is a permissible use of AfD, so AfD would be an appropriate venue for the discussion. Mlb96 (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that simply repeating X and Y at each other would not be productive. Onel is a prolific editor, that deals with massive numbers of articles. Doing a single revert with an edit summary explaining why restoring the material was improper is a short cut intended to save time. I'll agree that it isn't best practice, and I've said previously that Onel could have communicated better (particularly with the Hong Kong articles, he and others actually had a very long discussion with Darkknight, he just didn't want to listen). As others have said though, ATD-R has never been interpreted as 0RR; it's main point is that you must try to gain consensus. On the other hand, what DarkKnight has done (restoring unreferenced material repeatedly and without justification other than "Because I can") is ridiculous and disruptive. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 14:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darkknight2149, Onel didn't take these to AfD because AfD would be the incorrect venue. AfD is for deleting stuff that isn't notable. Onel didn't think that these were non-notable, otherwise he would have taken them to AfD. Deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and redirection is not deletion. He did a WP:BEFORE search, found that they were probably notable, but that the current article violated WP:NOT and made them a redirect until such time someone decided to come along and write an article that didn't violate WP:NOT.
    We don't AfD topics that are likely notable, but we also don't keep around articles that are written and sourced so poorly that they violate Wikipedia's core policies. Redirect was a correct action here, though WP:STUBIFY may have been another option. I note that you say "Onel5969 should have removed the original research instead of repeatedly blanking the page", which is essentially describing stubification. This is ok advice actually. However, in your actions you ignored your own advice and just reverted Onel's redirect rather than restoring just a stub of verifiable material, in the process restoring the article that violated WP:NOT. This has actually been explained multiple times. The core issue here is the restoration of violating material; if you had just restored the article as a stub with a source or two, Onel would not have objected. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 11:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:ATD-R and WP:RCD, the onus would have been on Onel to stupefy the article (or remove the bits of original research) instead of redirecting, if his concern was WP:V. Darkknight2149 11:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two wrongs don't make a right. Even if, for the sake of argument, I agreed that procedurally the correct action is stubification, how does this justify your reversion? On procedural grounds alone? Because you can? That's disruptive editing.
    On a side note: whether stubification is the best option is actually something I've seen heavily debated at NPP in cases like this, as a redirect can often be more useful since it leads back to a main article where better quality info about the subject already exists (is it better to have a one line stub, or is it better to link to the main article where a paragraph already exists about the character and the reader can find more related info about the series?). — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 12:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, any editor can contest a redirect. Darkknight2149 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to agree with @Reyk's comment above "getting exasperated is a natural response to endless meddlesome obstructionism", and bow out from here. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 12:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ The current wording is from January 2020. The suitability of AfD was clarified in a June 2018 RfC.
    2. ^ The current wording is from January 2020. The suitability of AfD was clarified in a June 2018 RfC.

    Disruptive editing by relatively new User:Pridemanty

    Seems like nothing else needs to be done here. Severestorm28 23:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Pridemanty registered in December 2021 and most of their edits are in an area which a newbie is not expected to work in. They are very disruptive - tagging, moving articles for no reason. There was a pause in their editing and became active yesterday. Possibly a sock. 23.84.96.19 (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reason to believe that this is a malicious report - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ddjjo. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree. Seems a case of 'the pot calling the kettle black'. Both registered editors have since been blocked for sockpuppetry. Nothing more to be done here. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attack by Kingsif

    THIS IS ABOUT PLAYED OUT
    Please don't call people jerks. No admin action is likely to be forthcoming, so in the interest of starving the drama-god, lets just call this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Kingsif (talk · contribs)

    We've had a minor content dispute, LAME in hindsight, now resolved as a compromise has been reached for the article in question. Good. Less good is that he has just called me a "jerk" - can somebody please remind them about CIVIL? GiantSnowman 11:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I leave a friendly suggestion at your talkpage, acknowledging your good faith, you then decide to reply without context at my talkpage, and then accuse me of "concerning tendencies" and WP:OWN (both visible in the reversion you helpfully linked), seemingly based on your own wilful ignorance (you ask for confirmation of content, I say check the sources in the article, and you just don't, then bludgeon me about it) - am I not allowed to say that's being a jerk? Because it is. You need the CIVIL warning, realistically, especially adding four messages continuing to respond on my talkpage after I say to reply in the original thread. Kingsif (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted four times on your talk page after you told me to reply on my own talk page?! Diffs or it didn't happen. I literally left one message over two edits after you suggested to "keep it in one place" (excluding the mandatory ANI notification). GiantSnowman 11:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was four in total, my mistake, a simple counting error that you don't need to get haughty(?!) about. Kingsif (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a simple mistake when you make accusations. Please retract. GiantSnowman 11:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retracted. It was a simple mistake, so I have retracted it. Kingsif (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I've now noticed the header claims "jerk" was a personal attack, jeez, it was a reference to WP:JERK. I've learnt my lesson about using WP:DICK, but I guess I'll have to remember to link it every single time. Kingsif (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense, backtracking. GiantSnowman 11:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entitled to your completely wrong opinion. I am of the opinion that dragging someone to ANI over one word that even in the worst case isn't a personal attack is a massive over-escalation. Kingsif (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time I post on your talk page you revert, and your attitude towards me is crummy. ANI was the only recourse. GiantSnowman 11:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt your attitude was, as you say, crummy. That's what WP:JERK is about, by the way. FYI, I hadn't seen this response when I just started a new thread on your talkpage (suggesting that Template:uw-npa or a new thread at my talkpage reminding me yourself would have been more appropriate for how, as you say, lame this was). For completeness of reply to this: I removed the messages at my talkpage for the reasons I already gave in those removals: 1. always reply in the original thread so there is context, unless starting a new topic. 2. (only implied, but) I felt I had already given satisfactory responses and the repeated messages were unnecessary anyway. A third reason could be that the messages were being added to the bottom of a different section, but then I could have added a header myself if I thought there was a point to leaving them. Kingsif (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not being hostile at all. I simply want an acknowledgment from you that what you said was wrong, an apology, and for you to stop posting messages like this that come across as bad faith and trolling. GiantSnowman 12:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    GiantSnowman, why do you return to Kingsif's talk page after they removed your comment there, asking that the discussion remain in one place (diff)? Kingsif, obviously you called GiantSnowman a "jerk" (and no bad faith needed, jerk — diff), not acting like a jerk or WP:JERK (whatever that is).

    Both of you: why is this MOS dispute even escalating like this, DYK? Anyway, Avraham Tamir is very well known in Israel. The way the nickname is mentioned in אברהם טמיר (in parenthesis), that seems sensible to me. El_C 13:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a difference between somebody saying 'keep the discussion in one place' and 'don't post on my talk page'. But glad to see me trying to communicate with an editor is considered as bad as that editor calling me a jerk! GiantSnowman 14:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I think that you're both being oversensitive over what is minor tiff, but feel free to seek whatever intervention you think is warranted here nonetheless. I won't stand in the way. El_C 14:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody reminding Kingsif not to insult other editors (and also not to then pretend they weren't doing so) will be enough. GiantSnowman 14:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I already did that, above, did I not? El_C 15:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. You only confirm what we all know (that they deliberately called me a jerk) but I see nobody telling them not to repeat it...but it's fine, I've got more important things to do than worry about basic civility being enforced here! GiantSnowman 15:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ((edit conflict) because I forgot to hit save; I have read the comments since) Beats me. A compromise was reached before the first message. That's all I have to say, except it was of course a massive timesink and I won't trust engagement with Snowman again (ANI on a hair trigger, calling me a troll for genuine suggestions, etc.), so that sucks for WP. Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You could have saved the situation by a) not calling me a jerk b) not pretending you didn't c) not reverting all of my talk page posts d) not posting on my talk page accusing me of liking opening ANI threads. Those are the actions of somebody having a laugh. This is on you. GiantSnowman 14:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    GiantSnowman didn't call you a "troll," Kingsif, he said you were trolling. Just like you didn't actually say they were being a jerk, but flat out called him that. This is a minor tiff, but best to not minimize what you said to him; just like he shouldn't exaggerate the gravity of your misconduct. Probably best that both of you just move on, methinks. El_C 15:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I acknowledge the sentiment (and reject it of my own conduct), I do think an admin threatening bans for what at worst would call for an IBAN is uncalled for and inappropriate, Mj. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong hammer! El_C 17:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @ScottishFinnishRadish and El C: Sorry to reopen this but I had this message overnight, clearly linked to this discussion - likely a mysterious individual with a false flag attack, but still...can somebody please do a quick SPI to rule Kingsif out? GiantSnowman 10:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. GiantSnowman, we don't ordinarily use CU to rule somebody out (especially when they've only made one edit in total). CU is WP:NOTFISHING expedition. That said, any user in good standing is entitled to file an SPI, so I'd imagine it'd be left for you to pursue. HTH. El_C 12:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP violation by Venkat TL

    Venkat TL is frequently referring an individual who died recently as a 'terrorist'[121] even though the person in the question never engaged in any 'terrorist' activity. This comes even after he was notified of his misconduct [122] and was asked to strike the BLP violation he is doing on the talk page,[123] but he is clearly doubling down[124] thus proving his inability to edit this subject in a neutral manner.

    Note: this user was already informally warned for disruption in this area on ARE this month.[125] Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    CapnJackSp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    The sole purpose of existence of this account is to file false cases against me on admin boards, in addition to copyright violations here and there. This guy will not stop till he is blocked or banned from admin boards.
    Before posting on ANI, CapnJackSp did not discuss the matter with me on my talk page.
    No terrrorist word was added into the article. He is putting diffs of talk page discussion thread, Talk:2022_Karnataka_hijab_row#Violence_section and this has been in news already.
    "CIA declares VHP, Bajrang Dal as terrorist organisations". www.thenews.com.pk.
    "Bajrang Dal activist killed in Shivamogga a 'terrorist', says foreign journalist; Karnataka DGP reacts". India Today. 21 February 2022. Venkat TL (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never filed a report before. Your first source does not mention Shivamogga (or the person in question), and you have been already told here that CIA once called Bajrang Dal a religious militant, not terrorist. They have a different category for terrorists. CIA removed the mention of Bajrang Dal ages ago. To say that a tweet from a 'foreign journalist' justifies your BLP violation shows your utter ignorance of Wiki policies. I am sorry but your comprehension issues are not salvageable at this stage. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are proving my point that this is a fake report. Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG.Venkat TL (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am unconvinced that the OP is WP:HERE. Looking at their contribs, they are practically all either in contentious areas or contentious themselves. There are ten notices on their userpage about concerns with their editing, and they've only been contributing since 10 January. Even if half of them are unfounded, that probably gives you an idea of their modus operandi. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been contributing since December 2021, and have made more than 600 edits. I have got only 2 valid "notices" but nevertheless I have taken care to ensure that my contributions are unbiased and constructive. I hope you comment on the cited BLP violation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dismiss: The diffs concern a (needless) qualifier in an otherwise-valid argument on content at the talk-page. NPOV etc. does not apply in its strictest sense at talk-pages and we allow a fair degree of liberty to editors. I am not convinced that this is a BLPVIO either. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • CapnJackSp you said that Venkat is not being neutral, but I really don't see you being neutral either on the talk page of that article. Per TrangaBellam, this looks like a content dispute more than a behavioral issue. When content disputes get heated, otherwise good users make mistakes.VR talk 06:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    For starters, BLP applies to talk pages as well as article space. Per WP:BLPSTYLE we do not label people with contentious labels like Terrorist (unless it is a common label in sources, and even then use attribution), so this is a BLP violation. However, it appears to be currently limited to the one discussion section, so I'm not sure that anything other more serious than a warning that calling someone a terrorist is not acceptable per BLP is warranted at this time. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • You know, Venkat TL has faced a lot of BS from editors in this area and I'm not entirely convinced the OP is WP:HERE. But at the same time, the OP is right. Venkat, you can't call a living person a terrorist without a citation. That is probably one of the most WP:contentious labels there is in the English language. It implies criminality, it implies being dangerously violent, it invokes connotations of terrorist attacks, and so much more. WP:BLP is clear on this, "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". You didn't source your contentious claim and that's a BLP violation. The first cite about the organization is WP:SYNTH, as it needs to actually call the person in question a terrorist. Just because someone is a member of a designated terrorist organization doesn't mean we can call them terrorists. The United States Armed Forces are a designated terrorist organization by Iran. I can't use this to call individual people in the US military "terrorists". The second cite is better, but you should've provided it at the start.
    Even if this wasn't a BLP violation, calling someone a "terrorist" contributed nothing to the discussion. At no point did you actually propose including information about this person allegedly being a terrorist in the article. All invoking that word did was inflame an already heated discussion. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess, I understand your point. The actual dispute was not about adding the word terrorist into the article. So I did not add a reference then. I did when asked. This was a non issue, over my comment. If someone would have asked me to remove the word, I would have removed the word. No one brought this issue to my talk page. But OP thought it was a good chance to try some sniping at ANI. Venkat TL (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Plutonical

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

    Could someone please look at the contributions of this account, especially their attempts at getting involved in administrative areas and their interactions with blocked users? There's a distinct pattern of disruption and general lack of WP:COMPETENCE that is causing a lot of time wasting.

    Going through some potentially problematic edits in reverse chronological order

    • 18th Feb - They show up at the talk page of a user that was CU blocked for joe jobbing, demanding to see the SPI that lead to the CU block [126]. There is of course no requirement for an SPI to be held for the use of checkuser tools. They follow this up with the ridiculous statment Remember, the duck test is not grounds for a CU-block. [127].
    • 15th Feb - They show up at the ANI discussion regarding a user who was blocked for genocide denialism POV pushing saying that they hope they get a second chance to edit here [128]. Drmies points out that the user isn't listening [129], which obviously means they are not a candidate for an unblock.
    • 8th Feb - They start a poorly thought out RFC proposing that we bulk delete all userboxes related to DS topic areas [130]. This is naturally heading towards a snow oppose [131]
    • 7th Feb - A user brings a case to ANI regarding misuse and misrepresentation of sources. Plutonical jumps in incorrectly declaring this to be a content dispute [132] then gives out two completley innapropriate trouts [133] [134].
    • 6th Feb - A poorly thought out bot proposal that would have spammed users with warnings about battleground behaviour if they used certain words [135].
    • 3rd Feb - They show up at the talk page of an obviously upset user that had just lost some user rights at ANI (and received a short block for being uncivil in response) to warn them that content on their talk page may be inappropriate [136]. The warning itself isn't wrong, but it was completely unnecessary "pouring fuel onto the fire" when dealing with an already obviously upset and annoyed user.
    • 31st Jan - they show up at the talk page of a user banned for copyvios, advising them to use synonyms and swap the order of words around (i.e. engage in WP:Close paraphrasing, a form of copyvio). They also state that they should use earwig to ensure they've moved the text around just enough to avoid detection. [137]. They return a few days later to state that they had "No idea" that using automated tools in this manner was not a good idea [138].
    • 31st Jan - an attempt to join a community ban discussion after the discussion had already been closed with a largely unhelpful comment that was mostly unrelated to their editing on Wikipedia [139].
    • 28th Jan - During this MFD [140] Plutonical decides that they like the page, and they attempt to unilaterally move it to their userspace - this predictably makes a mess. Once the page is put back where it's supposed to be they perform a cut and paste move of the content, resulting in a copyvio [141].

    Having gone through their last 200 edits I'm going to stop, Hopefully this demonstrates the recurring problem. They do seem to have their heart in the right place and their article space work seems to be fine, but their involvement in administrative areas, especially their interactions with blocked editors, is problematic. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have no dispute with this. If an administrator sees it right to issue sanctions and it's best for the encyclopedia, then so be it. It's unfortunate, but I can see that I have made many mistakes over the course of my editing career and that I might have WP:CIR issues. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 20:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Plutonical: I don't think that a complete ban is required, as I said your article space editing looks to be mostly fine. The issue is that you're trying to "run before you can walk" as they say, and are getting involved in behind the scenes areas that I don't think you have the experience or knowledge to be in. A more refined restriction should be possible here, but I'm not sure what form that might take. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that the user already acknowledges that have room to improve, would a Wikipedia mentor be helpful in terms of navigating the more administrative areas in a way that isn't disruptive? If the work in the article space is good and the only issue is the more arcane areas, I feel like this would be more narrowly tailored towards prevention than a block. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the best navigation advice that can be given at this time is to steer clear for a while. Plutonical has been extraordinarily active in projectspace, and especially at ANI, for someone with their level of experience (as I write this comment, 37% of their undeleted edits were to the Wikipedia namespace, and about 10% of their undeleted edits – 84 out of 830 – were to this board). I don't think venturing into the internal workings of the project early in an editing career is a bad thing per se, but it can lead to friction when it's too much too early, and I agree with the OP that that unfortunately seems to be the case here. However, the fact that they seem to be open to working on the issue makes me hopeful that this can be resolved without severe sanctions. Plutonical, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I would strongly recommend that you focus on mainspace editing for a few months and steer clear of policy debates, unblock requests, ANI and similar areas, unless you absolutely must comment because an issue directly involves you. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had previously given a friendly warning to Plutonical about high activity in ANI-space and attempting to reach conclusions in ANI discussions that aren't warranted by the evidence, precedence or policy on Wikipedia. Such ill-directed contributions, although made in good faith, can inflame tempers of already-degrading situations and further drag out the conflict in a manner that requires more time and effort for an admin to clean up. As I said before, I'm not going to be throwing stones on this since I also have a high level of project and Wiki-space contributions. I think Plutonical generally means well and that they ought to focus on other areas of Wikipedia that don't require a very high level of experience and understanding of Wiki-culture. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism on Rajen Sharma page by Onel5969

    OP is a CU-confirmed sock Girth Summit (blether) 11:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Admins, please take action. Edamyb (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Edamyb: What vandalism? —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He has targeted me and trying to delete my contributions. Edamyb (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, given this OP's (lack of) editing history and the sock activity in Rajen Sharma's history, I'm going to go ahead and block as a sock. signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: I see that in the history now and endorse your action. —C.Fred (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Edamyb: There is no way that Onel5969 ever vandalized Rajen Sharma, his 2 Edits on Rajen Sharma are not Vandalism . Chip3004 (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Gebagebo

    Gebagebo is a user formerly editing under the name Dabaqabad.

    Gebagebo received a one-week AE block for violating the March 4 prohibition in August 2021. From his comment to me in December 2021, Gebagebo seems to think this block was "because edited without indicating the source."

    And in October 2021, Gebagebo's editorial policy was criticized by several people at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive295#Dabaqabad, including myself, but no particular conclusion was reached at that time.

    There are a number of problems between Gebagebo and me. Most of them involve Gebagebo reverting my edits and pushing his own policy on the grounds of WP:NOCONSENSUS. I try not to force my edits until we reach an agreement, not just in dialogue with Gebagebo. Gebagebo probably knows this, and thinks that if he (she) shows a "no agreement" attitude, he can settle for editing to his liking.

    Some of the pages that Gebagebo and I have discussed include the following:

    Although Gebagebo's argument seems plausible at first glance, I think he actually has the intention to write in favor of Somaliland and is searching for rules or sources to do so, rather than having the attitude of writing based on Wikipedia's rules and sources. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why Gebagebo only writes in favor of Somaliland in his editing of this complex situation in the region.

    The latest trouble is occurring in Talk:El Afweyn. I have tried to include information about El Afweyn in this article, but Gebagebo won't let me post it as it is "irrelevant". When I asked why it was irrelevant, Gebagebo would not respond. (Except to explain that it is "irrelevant" and "no agreement.")

    I expect Gebagebo to edit neutrally, and to adopt an editorial attitude that aims for consensus rather than mere argument.--Freetrashbox (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried my absolute best to reach a consensus with Freetrashbox, however it is very hard to do so when they are being uncooperative, including threatening to re-add disputed content on two occasions despite that not being allowed by WP:NOCONSENSUS ([142], [143]). His accusation is completely unfounded and uncalled for.
    Another interesting thing to note is the timing of this report. This report was filed just days after my report on Heesxiisolehh was concluded ([144]) and almost five hours after I informed the admin in charge of the case of his continuing addition of OR ([145]). Both users are in regular contact ([146], [147], [148], [149]) including just 15 minutes after his report was filed ([150]). On the AfD about Diiriye Guure Freetrashbox first voted delete ([151]) and then after that suddenly changing his vote to keep ([152]) after a poor explanation made by Heesxiisolehh that another editor refuted (Freetrashbox didn't even bother changing his original explanation for his previous delete vote, instead just changing the vote itself) . This indicates to me that this report was not filed in good-faith and kinda feels like tag-teaming.
    Then is the fact that this would fit better as an RfC or WP:DRN given that this is a content dispute and a Third Opinion has previously failed to solve it due to no one showing up. Gebagebo (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is my point exactly; this is a content dispute that has so far not been resolved. Therefore it should be discussed in the right venue, like RFC and DRN. Gebagebo (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything I wrote in User talk:Heesxiisolehh are requests for improvement in Heesxiisolehh's editing attitude. Heesxiisolehh has not answered my questions many times and I think there is some problems with his attitude. And I have more stringent requirements in User talk:Heesxiisolehh#Your uploaded figure. If I were to defend Heesxiisolehh, I would defend it directly on the discussion page where Heesxiisolehh is being criticized, not in this roundabout way.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the thing; you have a history of contacting the user on multiple occasions, and the criticism you give him is lackluster. In addition you changed your vote on an AfD concerning an article he added massive amounts of original research to to "keep" due to his rather lackluster and unconvincing explanation that was refuted by another edit, not even bothering to change the reasoning behind your original vote to reflect you changing your stance, in addition to using WP:WHATABOUTX to argue for the deletion of Deria Arale (which is backed up by reliable sources).
    That and the timing is too close (I mean really, five hours after I contacted GiantSnowman regarding Heesxiisolehh's continued OR?) to be a coincidence. Either way I proposed a compromise on the El Afweyn talk page, I'd suggest you take a look at it. Gebagebo (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I wrote about Gebagebo on this noticeboard because of two successive insincere answers from Gebagebo on Talk:El Afweyn. [153][154] Gebagebo was dishonest in his dialogue with me at Talk:El Afweyn, even though he could afford to contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia. The time between Gebagebo's second response and my posting on this noticeboard is two hours.

    I have only interacted with Heesxiisolehh within Wikipedia, and that relationship is available for anyone to see. I don't know why Gebagebo thought that there was a special relationship between me and Heesxiisolehh. Gebagebo seems to think that they and Heesxiisolehh are opposites, but from my point of view, both attitudes are very similar. It's just that the subject who want to argue for is different.

    I thought that by talking to Gebagebo, he would realize the true appeal of Wikipedia, but as it turns out, Gebagebo is only interested in describing the wonders of Somaliland on Wikipedia, and for him Wikipedia's rules and sources are just a means to that end. I think everyone can see that from his short description above.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alpaps, copyvio and promotional editing

    Alpaps, who has said that they are one of the advisors of Fikile Mbalula, keeps re-adding copyright text copied from Mbalula's government biography, which is so promotionally written that it wouldn't be acceptable for Wikipedia even if it was compatibly licensed. I have repeatedly tried to indicate the issues on Alpaps' talk page – this was my most recent message to them on February 9, but they have largely ignored these messages and re-added the text five days ago. DanCherek (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Djm-leighpark, and User:Onel5969 editing

    Either a frivolous or misfiled report. For genuine instances of suspected sockpuppetry, WP:SPI is thataway..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have dubt, though not confirmed, that Onel and Djm-leighpark are same person. FYI and FYD, I landed in pages as my 'General Conflict of Interest' but never edited any of such pages BFW I can be blamed. I must appeal against their hierarchy privileges' and Onel as well where they both are only here to delete page of Asian interest though they both are not from any Asian countries. --Wichan The Lost Guy (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPI is the place to be, although in this case, don't bother, as these two clearly aren't the same person. And no, they are not "only here to delete page of Asian interest", they edit across a wide range of topics, probably including pages with an Asian interest: this is not reserved for people from Asia, everyone may edit everything here. In general, when you come here to discuss editors, you should include diffs, i.e. links which provide some evidence of your claims. You have a complaint, you should provide evidence. Without it, this section will be closed without any action (or at worst action might be taken against you for making unfounded accusations). Fram (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and you must drop a note at the talk page of these two editors to inform them of this discussion. Fram (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it Specious Accusations Against Onel5969 Week again already? signed, Rosguill talk 11:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wichan The Lost Guy your account is very new, so perhaps you don't realise this, but in making claims of this nature without providing any evidence you are in contravention of our policy on personal attacks. What possible reason do you have for thinking that these two experienced editors, with such diverse interests, are either the same person, or interested in deleting Asian-related content? Girth Summit (blether) 11:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd sooner believe that Wichan The Lost Guy is the pot calling the kettle black. Rabnebanadijodi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left a very odd message on WTLG's talk page, and their contrib history is very short and the account was created on the same day. Perhaps another in a line of GeezGod socks? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Zabbix / Afd for Zabbix

    While following a spam trail, I encountered the article Zabbix. The article was, in the form that I encountered it, a rather promotional piece with no independent sourcing of significance. The next day I decided to revisit (noticed an IP edit upating version history) and went through the history. There I noticed several accounts & IPs with a conflict of interest (probably the reason for the promotional content), and SPAs (including IPs geolocating to the Riga, Latvia area where the subject is from). A quick google search showed mainly results from zabbix.com and various blogs and no obvious material that could be used for sourcing. I AfD'd the article and tagged it with various tags. (I considered to stub it down, but with the COI editing going on I was expecting that to be countered and I sometimes find AfD then a more suitable point of reference to get something done about an article with specialist input - I do not necessarily disagree that the subject is notable but would like to see significant evidence of that).

    The AfD was countered with some pretty strong points. I did not apply WP:BEFORE, etc. etc. People suggest a list of books, where the first two were (co-)written by people with a direct connection to Zabbix (even if that was denied later). Other part of the arguments are WP:WHATABOUTX ('Zabbix is more popular than Nagios and is also open-source').

    They were quickly followed by Hlovdal (talk · contribs) (note that it was their first edit after 3 years), 5GZPPwkICWU (talk · contribs) (new editor solely for the AfD), larcorba (talk · contribs) (new editor solely for the AfD and the article). A quick search on internet gives this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/zabbix/comments/swoyid/the_wikipedia_article_for_zabbix_is_up_for/ (note that the opening statement was different when I found it, it has since been adapted), by u/riffic. riffic (talk · contribs) is one of the first commenters in the AfD. One of the commenters on Reddit on that thread goes by u/larcorba, whereas u/Pseudocoder3 on Reddit says they changed the article. Later Trikke76 (talk · contribs) follows as a new user, and they self identified as writer of one of the books. The Zabbix book by this writer that I encountered had Rihards Olups as co-author, who worked for Zabbix according to the biography connected to the book (note Rihards Olups (talk · contribs) is a regular on the article).

    User riffic has since admitted that they are the writer of the Reddit thread, and has since adapted the thread to what it currently reads (which, to me, reads as a veiled threat). I would like to request some independent opinions on this situation, and suggestions on how to proceed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just for the record, I left Zabbix 6+ years ago. In my edits before joining, during the time there, and after, I tried to be as factual as possible, and for the past 6 years my edits should be neutral (and not too frequent, too). If there are specific edits that are of a concern, please let me know. In any case, a suggestion to delete the article seems to be way over the top. --Rihards Olups (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you try to be verifiable though? This is the point that people miss. However true something is, if it hasn't been already reported in good sources outwith Wikipedia it cannot be written in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a good point, thank you for mentioning that. I did try to be verifiable, but, as I was not directed/paid to make any edits, it was a "best effort" level. This is a good learning experience as well, will keep this in mind for any future edits, thank you again for the reminders and explanations. --Rihards Olups (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Rihards Olups: You were editing this article in 2013, 2014, 2015 (6+ years ago) while you were working for the company, without having disclosed that you were working for this company. At the least you were editing in contrast to the suggestions of WP:COI, if not in violation of m:Terms of Use, however neutral the edits were. And those edits continued in exactly the same way way after 6+ years ago (until about 4 years ago at least). I did a rather wide analysis of the editors on Zabbix, the COI connections go wider than what is appropriate to discuss here on ANI, but full disclosure of the accounts that do have that connection (any connection) would be appreciated. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has been subjected to promotional editing for years, including edits such as this one where the editor who's comment appears immediately above mine listed his book on the article, with external link to the publisher's store page for easy purchase. The AFD, like a lot of AFDs that have been the target of canvassing, is full of arguments that have little or nothing to do with policy, including assertions that there's nothing wrong with the COI editing. I strongly feel this should be at minimum draftified (if not WP:TNTed), but I suppose that is a matter for the AFD. At the very least the canvassed editors should be reined in and promotional editing on the article should be curtailed going forward. MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • New editors canvass all the time. We haven't sanctioned new editors in the past for inadvertently breaking WP:CANVASS policies and I don't see why we should start now. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    riffic has again changed the statement on Reddit, still missing the point however. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think perhaps "The sources exist to keep this article alive but the work has to be done and should be done by Zabbix LLC." is the most amusing of the totally wrongheaded novice comments. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for the correction @Uncle G. As you maybe have seen my account is still wearing the "this is a new user" badge. I'm genuinely sorry that I have said something which was counter productive and is considered a beginner mistake. Would you like to clarify what makes my behavior amusing and wrongheaded so I can learn from it? GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GavriilaDmitriev: you were welcomed on the 2nd of February on your talkpage, that welcome contains the sentence "Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest." When you then edit anyway and do not declare that you have a conflict of interest then it becomes a violation of our m:Terms of Use. Wikipedia is high on search results, and showing off your product/company here still helps. And the problem with the trainwreck that the article was, was that Zabbix LLC (and I suspect some IPs to be of a consultancy company that was doing the same) was editing the article, as well as people who still profit indirectly from having a promotional article on Zabbix. Also I see the (unintended) irony in your remark. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We most definitely do not want articles to be owned by commercial interests. This is an encyclopaedia, not a free advertising billboard. We need articles to be neutral, verifiable, and free from original research; and by and large commercial interests instead want sanitized promotional content based upon press releases, only their own statements, and stuff that isn't actually properly documented outwith Wikipedia in the first place. It's very tempting for commercial interests to come here and abuse Wikipedia as a free WWW hosting service for their own companies/products/people, but this is strongly rejected by the community of people who are here to actually write an encyclopaedia whenever we come across it. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Alerted to this on my talk page, full disclosure: I am GavriilaDmitriev's mentor (see claim) and adopter.
      I'm slightly concerned that we're making the (subtle) allegation that Dmitriev has a conflict of interest based on one edit to the article (adding reasons why you shouldn't install the software rather than the contrary) and the AfD comments. I think no one has noticed so far and Dmitriev didn't make it obvious so I'll say it here: English is not their strong suit. No wonder their comment, "I would keep the pressure on Zabbix LLC to improve the article by themselves. The sources exist to keep this article alive but the work has to be done and should be done by Zabbix LLC.", has been misinterpreted as a statement from Zabbix LLC and not themself. Since I did have a way to contact them directly through IRC, I took it upon myself to ask them their original intent when writing that sentence, and they've said this with regards to Zabbix's COI editing of the article: "I was thinking that Zabbix messed it up and they should fix the article in time or it get's deleted." (and yes, I asked for consent before quoting that here). In case you're still confused, Dmitriev intended in the AfD comment that Zabbix LLC fix the article since their COI editors were involved in skewing its point of view (something that I've now told Dmitriev is frowned upon by the community and disallowed by the ToS). This fully confirmed my suspicion that the language barrier had caused a misunderstanding between editors (which I had already assumed after being alerted to this thread). Dmitriev has been editing within FOSS-space articles for a while now, and have told me that it is their preferred space of editing, so this doesn't come off as suspicious to me in the slightest. FOSS editors will edit FOSS topics, and especially given that article alerts are present on WP:FOSS, there's no mystery here as to how Dmitriev would have found the AfD discussion (in fact, Dmitriev had asked me yesterday how the article alerts system worked).
      I'm not a fan of drama, so let's try to put the pitchforks down for now and consider their non-native English and rookie experience in policy (of which they are still learning) before marking them as a paid editor. Chlod (say hi!) 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Chlod: I did not consider GavriilaDmitriev as having a conflict of interest with Zabbix, and have no reason to think so. I fully understood it as you here now explain. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beetstra: I didn't mean you specifically, but rather Doug Weller in their talk page message to me ("They seem to be a paid editor"). Although I did read your message and at first thought it may be an accusation, I thought that maybe the subject of the "you" being talked about had changed mid-message from Dmitriev to a theoretical person, so I didn't mention it directly. Chlod (say hi!) 14:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    NemesisAT disruptive editing

    This editor is following me about. It is relation to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring, canvassing, filibustering, and personal attacks from Onel5969, the same behaviour from the same group. Editor User:NemesisAT seems to be following me about and is reflective of that groups efforts to try and subvert the WP:NPP and WP:AFC process. The article J. Albert "Tripp" Smith was reviewed at NPP several weeks ago and reverted to a redirect. There is not a single reference there that supports a BLP. Another editor reverted it, I had a conversation with then they reverted again today. I think they are likely a UPE but a seperate issue. User:NemesisAT came along an reverted it back to the article, even though is a pile of junk, they is no other way to describe. The whole thing is this one group, desperate to get articles into Afd so they can be saved via a pile on. It is the same group that hassling onel above and me. I can't work as a NPP reviewer with editor following me about. The worst of it, the editor doesn't about the quality of the article, which is the most egregious aspect this problem. They've written any kind of high quality article that I can say for sure that they have level of judgements. It is all political with an agenda. scope_creepTalk 14:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm unsure how the ANI thread shared relates to this issue.
    As we've spoken before, I have Scope creep's talk page on my watchlist and that's how I came across this article. I find the issue of stealth redirecting frustrating, which is why I also got involved in the Hong Kong housing redirects involving Onel above. I find it funny that Scope creep accuses me of following them when they have retalliated against me after I removed their PRODs in the past.
    The redirect should not have been restored per WP:BLAR. NemesisAT (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironic that we got rid of the Scientology discretionary sanctions as unnecessary, but I note that the page protections remain. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But what connection does User:NemesisAT have with scientology? As far as I can tell neither that editor nor User:Scope creep edited that section or the talk page section in question, so why was it brought up? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the wrong link. I will fix it. scope_creepTalk 17:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the link. scope_creepTalk 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thinking @Scope creep: may have meant Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring,_canvassing,_filibustering,_and_personal_attacks_from_Onel5969 given it's also about redirects. I don't think Nemesis' !votes are always made in policy (worthy of an article, routine doesn't apply to biographies, Young player at the start of this career so likely to receive more coverage in the future.), but nor do I think they're in bad faith. There's definitely an issue with AfD wars back lately, but at least in the ones I've closed, Nemesis is more indicative of a the symptom of the issue and not the problem. Star Mississippi 17:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmmm. Seven minutes after writing here, Scope creep commented on an AfD that appears in the first page of my recent contributions. Talk about following people around. NemesisAT (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to hear NemesisAT's good faith explanation as to how the J. Albert "Tripp" Smith article they restored meets our policies and guidelines (like NOTRESUME and NBIO). Levivich 18:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The Sky News article and the Wall Street Journal article both have WP:SIGCOV on the subject and as searching brought up further coverage, I thought there was a good chance the subject could pass notability guidelines. However, no matter how non-notable you believe a subject to be, the last thing you should do is revert again with an unhelpful edit summary. NemesisAT (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the quick answer. I don't have access to WSJ. Personally I wouldn't consider the Sky Sports article to be SIGCOV, but that's a debate for AFD. In my view, there's at least enough in the Sky Sports article such that an editor could argue it's SIGCOV without that argument being totally frivolous or in bad faith--I wouldn't agree with it, but that doesn't make it a completely BS argument, it's still a good-faith argument in my view. (And if the WSJ article has similar or more content about Smith, which I AGF it does, then that would strengthen the argument further.) I might have voted to delete it, but it doesn't strike me, for example, as a CSD candidate. So I don't think it was disruptive to expand the redirect into an article with those sources. Anyone wanting to can take it to AFD, but re-redirecting it strikes me as edit warring. NPP and AFC have no special standing -- I for one don't think twice before "overruling" those content review processes (pulling a rejected draft out of draftspace, or nominating an approved draft for deletion, for example) if I think the reviewer got it wrong. We have processes for resolving these sorts of disputes, and those processes should be followed, as long as they're followed in good faith (which seems to be the case here). Bottom line: there's nothing wrong with expanding a redirect into an article, but there is something wrong with edit warring to re-redirect an article instead of taking it to AFD. And "It is all political with an agenda", without evidence, strikes me as an aspersion. Levivich 21:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No problem. The article has now been nominated for deletion by scope creep. I'm not going to vote, as I don't feel strongly about this particular article. I'm happy though that there is now discussion and sources being raised that would not have happened otherwise. NemesisAT (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    2001:16A2:C000::/40

    2001:16A2:C000::/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

    Serial vandalism by an IP user from Riyadh, which hasn't stopped despite multiple previous blocks. Typical edits include: [155], [156], and [157]. An AIV report was closed without action as stale. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm slightly hesitant to make a range block, since I don't have a good feel for ranges, especially IPv6 ranges. But after a fairly painstaking review of the contributions from this range, I don't see *any* legit edits in the last 2 months from this range (not that I found earlier legit edits, i just stopped looking). And it's continuing even after this report. So I'll take a risk that I'm not blocking a whole country or anything, and block this range for 1 month. Anyone more knowledgeable than me should feel free to increase/reduce the duration or expand/contract the range. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I didn't realize how often this same range had been blocked in the past. Block duration changed to 2 years. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Events DC

    Single purpose account Arickford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes these changes delete references, adds unsourced and possibly copywrite protected text, and includes language that is promotional and unencyclopedic ("the venue is great", "a premier event experience"), has not engaged on talk. Bangabandhu (talk)

    I just protected separately from this report as I saw the reverting back and forth on my watch list and then saw this report in your conitribs, @Bangabandhu: . I have not explored the merit of Arickford's edits, but will do so now and take action if needed. Star Mississippi 20:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have deleted the revisions that infringe on copyright and think they probably need to be partially blocked from the page. Thanks for flagging this. Star Mississippi 20:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Bangabandhu (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tagishsimon

    Just under a month ago, I left a message on the above user's talk page due the editor following me around the website (WP:HOUND) (sometimes their only edit of the day is to revert or edit something I've recently done). I've just posted, at the above link, a snapshot of eight recent examples of such occurrences, most of which have occurred within six hours of my creating the article. Not sure what else I can do, having given them two warnings before posting this. Seasider53 (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The coordinates edit was two days after the article was created. How many pages of "new" articles would that be, roughly? Seasider53 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Tolu io

    Hello, over the last two days Tolu io (talk · contribs) has gone through hundreds of Nigerian pages adding a single source at random in the introduction. While most of these references are reliable, the vast majority are not relevant or reliable to the places the user puts them. I have attempted to communicate this on their talk page but they have been combative and kept on alluding to someone instructing them to do these edits which has confused me. They have also claimed that the edits were needed to prove that the "individuals exist" which doesn't make any sense. I would really appreciate swift action here because the rapid pace of these lazy edits means that dozens of pages are being changed every few hours.

    Examples of questionable edits: In the Abdullahi Balarabe Salame page, the user put a source for him killing an intruder on a sentence that describes his time as house of assembly speaker and acting governor. On the Musa Sarkin-Adar page, they put a source of a group calling on Sarkin-Adar to support a candidate in 2019 on a sentence talking about his life before politics in the mid-2000s. On the Abdullahi Idris Garba page, the user again added a political article from 2019 to a sentence talking about his life before politics. On the Julius Ihonvbere, the user put a recent article about sports policy to a sentence about his educational history. None of these are needed and it is likely that the user just searches up a name, picks any random article, and places it in any random place in the page without care for the people who might need a relevant source or those that will have to remove the problem edits.

    I first entered this on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but was recommended to put it here. Thanks you. Watercheetah99 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Another issue is their oddly targeted messages at me, including a new email stating "If you take down my account cos of your greed, Heaven will punish you and everything you exist for. spoken to you as calm as possible but because you get paid to write articles, you don't want me to just update wiki pages. i'm not gettin paid, neither will i reply you again but if anything happens to my credible contribution cos you're looking for fellow blocked individuals for your misfortune, heaven will always block your progress." Watercheetah99 (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    I noticed they are using the edit summary "#1lib1ref". I have seen similar edits from other editors using the same summary, often adding sources almost at random to articles. This is a Wikimedia project, which probably needs some much better guidance for participants. Number 57 22:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Number 57: The edit summaries are so you can use the Wikimedia hashtag search tool to find all the edits from this project. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Exterminating Angel

    Following on from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#Completely lost and in need of help regarding the use of parameters in bibliographic sources in articles against antagonistic editors who try to undo those improvements, The Exterminating Angel (talk · contribs) has been told repeatedly and often not to add journal editors or other irrelevant parameters to cite templates. He has consistently and repeatedly refused to stop doing so, e.g. [158][159][160]. I now ask for an indefinite block for persistent and intransigent disruptive behavior. DrKay (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded, to get the editor to stop doing this with citations. The Exterminating Angel received a polite note with explanation from Rjensen on 8 October that his use of all available parameters in journal citation templates was inappropriate. On 17 October he raised the above-linked complaint here, in which multiple editors again attempted to explain to him that not all parameters are to be used in every citation, and he repeatedly objected to the information: if some parameters in a source are not to be used, why are there on the first place; If editors, publishers, places of publication, and others, are not to be used that means some parameters we can't use, and if that is the case, why and what are said parameters?; Also, if attempting to use the parameters made available by Wikipedia is "detrimental" then why are they even there? Shouldn't they be eliminated? The discussion also brought out factual errors in his work. After the edit containing that third quote, he did not edit again until 21 January, when his edit summary was Added new sources, cleaned up the text which was full of assumptions (such as that MBS prefers to kill people rather than locking them up because it's more convenient, which might well be true but it's personal conclusion from whoever wrote this originally) and updated the existing sources with missing parameters, and that first edit adds editors and place of publication for Al Jazeera. He also responded to DrKay's warning (in a section started by Nil Einne reminding him of what was said in October, and making specific points): I'm sorry buddy, I had no idea I was forbidden from using the parameters that are available for anyone to use and which are described in the official Wikipedia guide for sources templates. The note of condescension may be caused by language problems, but this is bald WP:IDHT. He's causing a mess that needs clean-up, and isn't stopping even after this statement; see his most recent edit, to Old Major on 22 February. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done my best to assume good faith throughout this whole business, though I never shook the idea that he might be someone's bad-hand sockpuppet. Either way, I think we've about run our course here? Mackensen (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Civil POV pusher on Peter Dinklage

    For the past few weeks, there has been an editor who appears to not have a static IP address who has been repeatedly adding the same "Controversy" section on Peter Dinklage over a comment that the actor made about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs on a podcast last month. As documented on the talk page here, the IP user is a WP:SPA that has been Sealioning and intentionally ignoring - a la WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - reasons that other editors - mostly User:Escape_Orbit, User:BriefEdits and myself - have for why the section isn't necessary or appropriate. The IP user repeatedly posts non-RSS sources and pretends like they weren't repeatedly shown WP:RSS, WP:USERGENERATED, WP:CPP, WP:UNDUE and any other policy page. They don't sign comments despite being asked. The user does indicate that they have modified other wikipedia pages and celebrities. It's possible those are related to this issue but since their username changes every day I haven't been able to find those edits or tell if they are part of this agenda. The tendentious editing has been pursued through several different accounts including 151.18.86.170, 151.18.39.109, 151.44.95.125, 151.46.89.30, 151.82.185.222, 151.36.80.46, 151.38.93.88 and 151.36.186.84. The user just continues to claim they are right no matter what, today declaring "why should I stop?" This indicates a determination to pursue the POV pushing no matter what the consensus will ever be. I don't know how static IP's work, but whoever they are, I am recommending that they, and any other sockpuppets they create, be blocked from Peter Dinklage at minimum and possibly other pages related to the issue as well. Kire1975 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the user doesn't have a talk page, someone will need to explain how to give proper notice of this incident to them. Kire1975 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they are actively reading the talk page, we can link this section there in a comment? — BriefEdits (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I'm not sure if there is a template to use or what. Kire1975 (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm not sure if this is a vote, but I agree with this summary and assessment. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There wasn't any need to protect the page! Should have never been this discussion or arguing! I think I was right when I said I was victim of a hypocritical bias! I followed all the instructions, the objections, the reasons of the objections, I always edited and edited, removed and removed, added sources and added sources to validate and confirm the reliabilty of the content, omitted sources and omitted sources (following the list I was given), always slightly modified phraaes because apparently didn't sound neutral enough (facts or not facts, source or not source), always trying to (uselessly) satisfy the users (I won't name any for my own security) but it was never enough and there was always a reason to erase and revert all my work indiscriminately and now even request to block the page...and it was blocked! It's clear there's something personal here or something special about the article in question, 'cause I've never had problems like this before for similar articles! It's absolutely ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.36.18.130 (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:TENDENTIOUS campaign by IP 37.111.219.223

    1. IP tried to remove the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam (the standard reference work in the field of Islamic studies) from the Badi al-Din article, to add Islamic honorifics in violation of MOS:ISLAMHON, and to add the deprecated "shattariya.blogspot". Edit summary: "last reliable version"[161]
    2. IP tried to revert XlinkBot at the Badi al-Din article, in an attempt to restore the same edit. Edit sumary: "last reliable version"[162]
    3. IP tried to remove Brill/EI3 referencess from the Badi al-Din article, calling it "link spam" and "reverting paid link promotion" in their edit summary[163]-[164]-[165]
    4. More attempts by said IP at restoring doing the same material at the Badi al-Din article.[166]
    5. Comment by IP at my talk page "I see you are promoting, paid link from Brill online, can you please stop it<, because paid link are usually not cited as reference. Since Wikipedia is not the vehicle for promotion. Thank you. "[167]
    6. Comments IP left at Talk:Badi al-Din, in reference to Brill sources "I see someone spamming paid link from Brill online, can you please stop it?" and "Since most of the content is based on Brill online, I am restoring it to last stable revision"[168]
    7. Issued IP warnings on several occassions[169]

    It appears said IP is on a WP:SPA campaign to remove well-sourced content provided by the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam through structural violations of WP:WAR and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said IP's editorial pattern is marked by WP:CIR at least as far as editing goes (removing proper WP:RS, reverting Wiki bots, etc.). - LouisAragon (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    More: It is interesting note that IP 37.111.218.109,[170] which is clearly operated by the same user, tried to add the exact same "shattariya.blogspot"[171] to the Badi al-Din article, but was likewise reverted by XlinkBot[172]. The same user then, used another IP to revert XlinkBot yet again.[173] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More2: Now they've started to use even more IP socks as we speak[174] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This editor (seems to be paid editor) never tried to discuss the issues at the article's talk page, rather he/ she has reverted back to back to his/ her preferred version, anyways I am trying to address the concerns of Honorifics and Original Research, by going against paid and excessive promotion of Brill Online. Thank you. 37.111.217.215 (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note 2 The Link which this user is adding is only accessible to paid members/ or need special access which is against Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. 37.111.217.215 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's only for the external links section. Citations that are supporting article content are allowed to be behind a paywall, see WP:PAYWALL. You should not be reverting these. - MrOllie (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is terrible that the editor or his/ her sock/ meat[1] do not wait even few minutes to revert, even though the article was tagged with inuse, it clearly explain their COI. I will again remove that paid link and will try to add better source relevant to Sayed Badiuddin, against Wikipedia:Spam 37.111.217.215 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, thanks for responding here. There is nothing wrong with using sources that are behind a pay wall, provided they are reliable. Brill is a respectable academic publisher, I see no problem with that source. Please stop attempting to remove it - your changes are contested by multiple editors. Girth Summit (blether) 07:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit:, I think both the user who have reverted me possibly the same person, can you please refer to Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kansas_Bear. 37.111.218.223 (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brill Publishers is the single most high-quality publishing house for anything related to Middle Eastern history, as well as classics and some other disciplines. The Encyclopaedia of Islam is the standard reference work in the field, and as reliable as it gets for an encyclopedia. Anyone who would think that adding references to this is unduly promoting Brill has a very serious competency issue. Being confronted with such editors is rather daily grind on WP, but when combined by such a severe lack of AGF as seen here, it really gets aggravating. On top of all this, the IP is clearly not a new user, so it's not like we could regard WP as a place for them to learn about Brill et al. I recommend a temporary range block, to be extended when necessary. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ "Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Kansas Bear", Wikipedia, 2022-02-24, retrieved 2022-02-24
    HistoryofIran Most likely and is most likely in a public building like a school or library, somewhere in Dhaka, Bangladesh. I also concur with Apaugasma about Brill. The individual behind the IP is obviously not a new editor and has been switching from device to device but is still under the same network 37.111. I think a range block should be implemented. Jerm (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Administrator must note that the User:LouisAragon, has past history of abusing multiple accounts, can check their Block log 37.111.217.56 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can say the same thing about you IP hopper. Jerm (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not my problem, that my IP changes frequently, it might be the provider issues. 37.111.217.56 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Historiantruth WP:NOTHERE

    Almost all of this user's edits consist of removing well-sourced information they don't like with edit summaries such as:

    • [178] "Why is Non Samaale descendants im assuming Daroods always try to lie on Samaale lineage? Hawiye and Dir elder agrees that they are descendant from Samaale who also was descendant from Ham the son of Prophet Noah!"
    • [179] "Fixed the misinformation"

    More recently they started to remove sources without explanation [180] [181] or with rather more aggravating edit summaries such as:

    • [182] "Theres a source white man saying Daroods were pagans"
    • [183] "Wlh if this Fiqishini edit doesnt stop i’ll post a colonial sources were they were saying daroods were pagans and etc since i know for a fact its darood editing this! Wlh stop whilst you can. I am Fiqishini and we are Hawiye, Habar Gidir Cayr.. what a confused white man saod is irrelevant. Its me now saying Dhulbahante sub Cali Gerri is Duduble even tho there is a source from the white man! Like i said this false narrative better stop before i go ape shit and start posting L..."
    • [184] "Source that Fiqishini are HG, lets not fucking edit otherwise or bs wlh some of yall are mentally tapped"

    There's also a legal threat: [185] "Wallahi yall have agenda on Samaale and Hawiye lineage! Im literally in Somalia and asked Hawiye traditional elders and said they never claimed arab and that they are not! Wlh legal actions will be soon taken if this propaganda edit will not stop! Lying about lineage and origin of my people will not be tolerated!"

    They seem to have a specific issue with the idea that Somali clan genealogies generally claim origins among early (Arab) Muslims, a fact about which scholars are univocal. They have repeatedly inserted or restored a line ([186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193]) instead claiming that Somali genealogy "dates back to their Cushitic ancestors 5000 YBP", in blatant contradiction with what the source cited after the line actually says (Ioan Lewis, pp. 11-12 here).

    Most recently they have taken to editing logged out on Dir (clan) and Garre (note the nice edit summaries).

    I believe there's nothing to be hoped for here, so indef is probably a good idea. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the wording of the rule of accounts with Truth in their name? Anyway, another proof. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 31.15.188.144, Russian POV pushing and disruptive editing.

    A quick look at the contributions of 31.15.188.144 (talk · contribs) will show that this IP is almost exclusively used to make edits on Ukraine/Russian related articles, usually changing subjects nationalities from Ukranian/other Soviet related nationalities to Russian. This includes changing categories as well, if they do not change it outright, they will make an edit claiming (without any sources) that the subject is of Russian descent. The edit summaries used are extremely vague, usually ″Fixed error″ or something along those lines. Sometimes they are completely inaccurate such as with these edits: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and 8. Another editor also pointed out the erasure of a group of people as well as the lack of sources here. The edits coming from this IP can more or less be summarized as ″everyone is Russian, other former soviet ethnic groups don't exist″. This IP was blocked for the same behaviour back in November, and has been on a spree since getting unblocked. I'd recommend a longer block this time as this is in my view a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Highly embarrassing rename request of article about ongoing Russian invasion

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Requested_move_24_February_2022 seems very obvious close that would allow to remove embarrassing rename template. Originally proposed at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests under "if it appears unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move"

    At the very least user completely misjudged situation. Given that they just renamed from "Nastyasholr927" and have few edits I suspect that is not just a bad judgment Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Go outside and touch grass instead of getting defensive over an article with a name that literally nobody uses (besides for the conflict that began today) Wikiman92783 (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I do not think this is a good response for somebody who has less than 100 edits and has just opened a RM likely to be snow closed as completely inappropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Spamming autobio across multiple wikis

    I'll be brief: this man Draft:Joilson Melo and Draft:Joilson Junior de Melo has been spamming multiple wikis with his autobio. He's been banned using several accounts in Portuguese wiki (there's no IP editing there) and he's been trying to get an article up somewhere else to be able to use interwiki for a notoriety claim. He's had over 20 articles deleted in Portuguese, in French and in Simple English (there's one there right now pending elimination). In Portuguese he's tried at least 4 different article names with slight variations. All of his sources are paid promo pieces. The mere fact that he has not one but two drafts up in here should be enough to show you what he's about. Please remove the drafts and ban these articles from being created, lest he continues spending precious editors time around the world. Thanks! Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    We love you Wikipedia

    Please protect all Ukraine related articles. Humble request from Ukrainian — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanOther (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1073774662"