Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Unwarranted block by User:Geschichte

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

---

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Indeed. WP:INVOLVED + ADMINACCT is the subject of a current Arbcom case. SN54129 14:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reply - @Serial Number 54129:, which Arbcom case would that be? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

I disagree that we can close the matter if the answer is "I'm sorry, I didn't realise that was policy, I'll remember that from now on". I can't in good conscience believe that an Admin doesn't know not to block someone that they're involved in an edit-war with. I also think Geschicte's problem with Jax0677's WP:PRODding articles is a laughable. If anything, PROD is the least disruptive form of deletion! -- Mike 🗩 16:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the mechanics of the process, but I guess the next step is Arbcom if Geschichte is non-responsive, per a very recent (and similar) case on the AN board? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Geschicte's silence is disquieting. And heck, I think dePRODding is seriously abused generally, but it's also unrestricted and unregulated. Getting mad about how another editor uses them is one thing; administrative action over it is another matter altogether. Ravenswing 10:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Reply - Geschicte might be on vacation, but the user must know about this discussion if they replied to it... --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Geschichte, there has been a disturbing pattern as of late, when admin misuse the tools, they disappear for awhile. As of late, Arb has a new tool called "desysop and suspend case", which has proven to be very effective. I'm disturbed by you blocking someone you were in an edit war with, obviously. It isn't enough to say "oh I didn't know" or whatnot, that is core to having the tools; knowing when you can't use them. The other is WP:ADMINACCT. Now, if I seem like a snippy asshole, it's because I am. At least when it comes to admin ditching once they've been questioned about their tool use. It's been long enough that I'm about to go file at Arb if someone doesn't beat me to it, purely for the lack of accountability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, they've found time to edit Norwegian Wikipedia in the last few days. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• PLEASE NOTE I have filed a report with ArbCom. Suffusion's helpful diffs was enough to push me over the edge and file. Anyone interested in viewing the process may at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Gebagebo

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

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:

• Talk:Badhan, Sanaag
• Category talk:Disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland
• Talk:Khatumo State
• Talk:El Afweyn

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)

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 ([1], [2]). 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 ([3]) and almost five hours after I informed the admin in charge of the case of his continuing addition of OR ([4]). Both users are in regular contact ([5], [6], [7], [8]) including just 15 minutes after his report was filed ([9]). On the AfD about Diiriye Guure Freetrashbox first voted delete ([10]) and then after that suddenly changing his vote to keep ([11]) 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)

• If this is linked to the same topic area as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#Long running original research in Dervish-related content then this needs a wider review at a dedicated venue, such as RFC/DRN. GiantSnowman 15:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I wrote about Gebagebo on this noticeboard because of two successive insincere answers from Gebagebo on Talk:El Afweyn. [12][13] 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)

@Gebagebo: I accepted your suggestion in Talk:El Afweyn. Next time, I hope you will be in good faith even if we don't use the Administrators' noticeboard.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting how Heesxiisolehh mentions this ANI and uses it as rationale for removing a user's post warning about his original research from his talk page ([14], keep in mind this was almost 12 hours before he was pinged by Freetrashbox, not to mention the very similar opinion). There is also no evidence of communication between the two on any talk page regarding this.

This seems to make it more clear to me that this is a retaliatory filing, and might suggest some form of meatpuppery going on. Gebagebo (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I have given notice that I will remove the description by Heesxiisolehh. Why is it that Gebagebo interprets that as me deleting Heesxiisolehh's opponents' opinions?--Freetrashbox (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The description I posted in El Afweyn is statements of the role Puntland and Somaliland played in El Afweyn. I tried to be impartial, but the result is a description that shows that Somaliland put a lot of effort into the administration of this town, while Puntland was just a nuisance for sending militia troops. In contrast, Gebagebo says that the expression "Puntland influence" is "implying that Puntland has influence and some sort of control of the town (which it does not claim), which is POV pushing". In other words, Gebagebo considers any representation of Puntland's activities in the region, no matter what the content, to be distasteful. Honestly, I am annoyed that Gebagebo called this statement a violation of POV. Nevertheless, I have continued to discuss whether the description could be changed to something Gebagebo would find acceptable, in order to make the post more fair. I agreed to change the headline of the article from "Puntland influence" to "Security". I also moved the description from El Afweyn to El Afweyn District, accepting Gebagebo's assertion that the Puntland Constitution is about the District and not the Town. However, as the dialogue progressed, I noticed that Gebagebo did not concede his opinion at all until the other party was bored with the discussion. I think this is a enough reason to report it to the Administrators' noticeboard. (To add to that, it is also very disconcerting that Gebagebo suggests I am Heesxiisolehh's meatpuppet without any evidence. I think Gebagebo is familiar with Wikipedia discussions and knows that the community does not like private connections between POV users.)--Freetrashbox (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of deleting anything on Heesxiisolehh's page. I merely pointed out the fact that this ANI was used as a reason in the edit summary of an edit by him where he deletes a user's warning about original research (this despite the fact that there is no evidence of communication between the both of you regarding this ANI on any talk page). That, along with other things I pointed out points to this being a retaliatory filing with no purpose but to derail my attempts at ridding Somali-related Wikipedia articles of original research. Gebagebo (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been active on English Wikipedia for a short time, but I've been editing Japanese Wikipedia, my home wiki, for more than 10 years. Why would I need to defend a beginner who is suspected of having original research tendencies? On the other hand, my editing in El Afweyn was more about the achievements of the Somaliland government. Nonetheless, you say that my description is a POV-violating description that tries to make the Puntland government look great. From your description above, you are not remorseful about this at all. --Freetrashbox (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Did my explanation above clear up your "linked to the same topic area" doubt?--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with Gebagebo's editing is that he seeks to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to conventionalize the mission statements of Hargeisa-Somaliland, by reorienting Horn African history to become amicable to its constitution, and thereby impulsively opposes disparities or dissimilarities within northern Somalia, and seeks to use Wikipedia's pages to promote a homogenous view in line with Hargeisa-Somaliland. As such, he is on a campaign to use Wikipedia's voice to make any of the state declarations of Hargeisa's government appear historically ubiquitous, such as its claim to being a unitary republic, thereby deleting any cultural or historic currents that interfere with Hargeisa's self-proclaimed status as a centralized all-encompaasing government.

• Geopolitical examples of POV & Original research include stating that Sayid advocates for Somaliland borders in 1910s, whilst sources state Somalis only became aware of Somaliland borders in 1950s (see link). Stating that British Somaliland Protectorate existed in the 1850s, whilst sources state the British protectorate arrived in 1884. stating that the Dervish base was pan-Horn African with uniform "support from across the Horn of Africa" although scholars state otherwise, that its forces were "mostly Dhulbahante". Agains, Dervish scholar Said Samatar (1982) singles out Dhulbahante tribe as central to the Dervishes: make a few observations about the Dulbahante, for it was this clan who formed the core of the Sayyid's following and whose strengths and weaknesses Dervishism as a movement could be said to have reflected. Yet in violation of WP:DUE, in this edit, Gebagebo replaces all Dhulbahante-related in-line text and images with core Somaliland tribes (Isaaq) and individuals, even though scholars state that "Most Isaaq, however, sided with the British against the Dervishes.". In other words, Gebageno is inverting what sources say about Dervish demographics. Stating that Dervish was limited to Somaliland, even though the largest battles like Gumburu and Daratole geolocate to Soomaali Galbeed in Ethiopia, whilst the Dervish intermediary capital Illig, lies in Puntland. In this edit states coastal withdrawal happened in 1913, whilst sources state happened in 1910 "withdrawal be carried out on 15 March 1910"

In this edit states Dervish "operated from local centers such as Aynabo" from 1900 to 1913, although sources state their westermost boundary was Badwein & Tifafleh, both roughly 50 km to the east of Aynabo:

westernmost boundary Badwein & Tifafleh
Borders in 1909: Taariikhdii Daraawiishta, 1976, "if you want peace as I do, remove your party from Bohotle and also remove the horses from Badwein and the Ain Valley, and call back your spies from Jidbali " Borders in 1905: Taariikhdii, 1976, "and from Hudin to Tifafleh" Eastern border in 1915 in Badwein Douglas Jardine sea-coast "through Eil Dur Elan to Badwein at the eastern extremity"

Here Gebagebo removes mentions of Nugal, in another attempt to make Dervishes seem either ubiquitous or homogenized with core Somaliland, although sources consistently mention a Dervish emphasis on Nugal as a territory:

emphasis on Nugaal

Source: WS Clarke - 1992, "Abdullah signed with the Italians ... an agreement of peace and protection which made the "Mad Mullah" the legitimate ruler of the territory of Nogal." Source: Empires at War: 1911-1923, Robert Gerwarth, 2014, p. 47, "Hassan, was given the Nogal valley to rule as he pleased" Note Nugaal called a "country" and Dervishes "rejoiced" for it: LIDWIEN KAPTEIJNS, 1996, p. 1 - 8 [https://org.uib.no/smi/sa/06/6Kapteijns.pdf "Sayyid used this new international recognition to realize some of his state building ambitions ... you say that you will go away from the country, that is, from the Nugaal and Buuhoodleh and their environs. At this we rejoiced greatly" Note Dervish negotiations leading to a Nugaal-based state: Salwe, 1996, p 33, "After heated negotiations an agreement was reached on 5 March 1905 ... The Ilig Treaty recognised Sayid Mahamed as leader of a mini state in the Nugaal Valley" Note how Jaamac Cumar (the foremost native Dervish scholar with 120 peer reviews) singles out emphasising Dervish attachment to Nugaal with strong words of "most desired" and "indispensable" and note usage of "dalka / dalkii" meaning country: Daraawiishi xagga dalka iyo xagga degmadaba Nugaal baa sal u ahayd arladana waa ugu jeclaayeen ... Daraawiishi Nugaal kama maaranto oo waa dhulkay asalka u lahayd waa dalkii loo gartay inay iyagu ka taliyaan For the Dervish, their country and habitation had Nugaal as headquarters, as the land they desired most ... Dervishes viewed Nugaal as indispensable, as their original land, and the country that was known as ruled by them Source: 2005, Jaamc Cumar Ciise, p 259, p. 128, Taariikhdii daraawiishta iyo Sayid Maxamed Cabdulle Xasan Jaamac Cumar states similar in the 1974 book: Weligoodna Daraawiishtu waxay haanka ku hayeen in dhulka loo yaqaan Nugaal iyo dhulka ciidda cas midna inaanay gacantooda ka bixin Since its beginnings, the ultimate objective of Dervish had always been that Nugaal and the reddish soil of 'Iid should forever remain in their firm grip Source: Diiwaanka gabayadii, 1856-1921 - Page 152, Jaamac Cumar Ciise

Gebagebo calls the city of Buuhoodle historically anti-Dervish as "clans of Bohotle being allies of the British", although scholars state "Buuhoodle were among the first and most persistent supporters of the Dervish cause" (source: Borders & Borderlands, Dereje Feyissa, ‎Markus V. Hoehne, 2010), whilst Buuhoodle's constituent tribe (Ali Geri) are likewise described as historiclly the most ardent Dervishes: ("bulk from the Ali Geri").

• Demographic examples of POV / Original research include stating that Deria Gure is of the Habr Je'lo tribe whilst sources state the opposite; that he's of the Dolbahanta tribe. He repeates the misrepresentation of Deria Gure's tribe here without a source. Here he rearranges the infobox to give the appearance Dervishes was an Isaaq-led movement, with 4 Isaaq/core-Somaliland figures displayed, although scholars state "Most Isaaq, however, sided with the British against the Dervishes." Here he proceeds to unilaterally claim Dervish scholar Jama Omar Issa as unreliable, even though he has 120 peer reviews on google scholar, most of which call him an expert on the topic. On this basis Gebagebo/Dabaqbad goes on a mass deletion campaign of Jaamac Cumar Ciise sources as recently as the 4th of March (yesterday). In this edit he violates WP:DUE by dedicating 50 percent of the Dervish paragraph and here 100% of a paragraph to a guy called "sultan Nur", although the most recent major Dervish work, a 248 page book by Roy Irons regards Nur as so insignificant, only 1 sentence mentions him.

In this edit he states that the Dervishes were demographically symmetrical, although scholars state Dervish had demographic majorities:

Actual figures of Dervish demographics

EAR, Omar Mahmood, p. 15, "The Dhulbahante were dominant in both the Dervish movement and under the Barre regime" Source Robert Hess, 1964, p 48, "with the establishment of the Nogal protectorate ... the Dervish followers of Muhammad Abdullah Hassan were for the most part from the Dolbahanta" Roy Irons. 2013, p. 30 "The defiant Sayyid, who from his base among the powerful Dolbahanta clan" Samatar, Said (1982). "Oral Poetry and Somali Nationalism" make a few observations about the Dulbahante, for it was this clan who formed the core of the Sayyid's following and whose strengths and weaknesses Dervishism as a movement could be said to have reflected. This pattern of communizing extends to individuals too, Sudi (a core Somaliland-tribe member) mentioned 4 times whilst Ismail Mire "the most important general of the dervish forces" is removed by Gebagebo from the Dervish page entirely.

Rewrites history with the WP:OR that two core Somaliland tribes (Isaaq Habar-Yunis) "started the Dervish uprising" (link) and (isaaq Habar-Jeclo) "the first to join the Dervish", or "first arose" in an Isaaq city of Burao, although sources are unanimous that the Dervish movement/uprising began with the Ali Gheri clan:

Sources stating Dervishes began with Ali Gheri clan

Genis, Gerhard (1996). Mohammed Abdulle Hassan en sy volgelinge (PDF). Scientia Militaria - South African Journal of Military Studies. p. 81. Die Mullah se eerste volgelinge was die Ali Gheri, sy moedersmense. Laasgenoemde was dee I van die Dolbahanta-stam en die grootste getal van die Derwisj-beweging se volgelinge was uit die stam afkomstig. (english translation) The Mullah's first followers were the Ali Gheri, his mother's kin. The latter is a subtribe of the Dolbahanta tribe and is where largest proportion of the Darwish followers were descended from. Abdi, Abdulqadir (1993). Divine Madness. Zed Books. p. 101. to the Dervish cause, such as the Ali Gheri, the Mullah's maternal kinsmen and his first converts. In fact, Swayne had instructions to fine the Ali Gheri 1000 camels for possible use in the upcoming campaign Bartram, R (1903). The annihilation of Colonel Plunkett's force. The Marion Star. By his marriage he extended his influence from Abyssinia, on the west, to the borders of Italian Somaliland, on the east. The Ali Gheri were his first followers. *Hamilton, Angus (1911). Field Force. Hutchinson & Co. p. 50. it appeared for the nonce as if he were content with the homage paid to his learnings and devotional sincerity by the Ogaden and Dolbahanta tribes. The Ali Gheri were his first followers *Leys, Thomson (1903). The British Sphere. Auckland Star. p. 5. Ali Gheri were his first followers, while these were presently joined by two sections of the Ogaden

So his edits are basically inverting Dervish history, making the historically pro-Dervish tribes seem anti-Dervish, whilst making historically anti-Dervish tribes seem pro-Dervish. I'm guessing he's motivated to do this to dilute any northern Somali dissimilarities in an effort to promote homogenous nativism per Hargeisa-Somaliland's claim to a unitary republic. In conclusion, Dabaqabad/Gebagebo's approach to sourcing are not intended to be "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" as required by WP:DUE, but rather Gebagebo has a predetermined script that wherein he wants sources to state that Hargeisa-Somaliland are the sole powerbrokers in the HoA. Gebagebo does this by rewriting history to suggest the northern HoA has a homogenous historic background where only Hargeisa-Somaliland and its core tribes have ever held influence, and by concocting this unipolar pre-determined script, he seeks to use Wikipedia's pages to promote Hargeisa-Somaliland to the world. As such, his edits depict a Somaliland zealotry for a unitary republic, whilst simultaneously looking for sources that confirm this, whilst obfuscating and detesting references/texts that do not befit this imagery. Another editor has previously pointed out that Dabaqabad/Gebagebo's edits are influenced by "puffing up the Isaaq clan numbers and misrepresenting their proportion in relation to other clans". Heesxiisolehh (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've spent some time looking at the edits above but am finding it very difficult to disentangle behavioural from content issues. Behavioural issues (such as edit-warring and refusal to accept consensus) belong here, but content issues belong on article talk pages. Could anyone raising a behavioural complaint please summarise it in two or three sentences? Otherwise its very difficult for many of us, who, I'm afraid, have little knowledge of this region, to address. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've been somewhat involved in this since the last ANI report, commenting there, at Talk:Dervish movement (Somali)#Removal of original research, and directly with Heesxiisolehh. The only behavioral issues that I've seen are with Heesxiisolehh, who continues to cite outdated sources and primary sources (usually letters) quoted in secondary sources as if they're the opinion of the book/paper author. He just did it above, again, after numerous warnings. (It also appears that he is canvassing to this ANI.) Meanwhile, I've been able to verify every source that Gebagebo has provided—they're the opinion of the scholar, involve no synthesis, etc. Sure, it's entirely possible that Gebagebo is cherry-picking the few scholarly sources that agree with him, or that Heesxiisolehh is correct about the weight of scholarly sources while he cites the worst possible sources available—but I doubt it. I have no opinion on the dispute between Gebagebo and Freetrashbox, except that Freetrashbox has made plenty of assertions about Gebagebo's editing but hasn't included Diffs, which makes it difficult to see if there are actual issues. Woodroar (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Woodroar: Gebagebo reverted some of my edits in the El Afweyn due to POV violations.(my edit, Gebagebo's edit) The context makes it clear that this is not a POV violation intended to make Puntland look favorable. Gebagebo could not explain on Talk:El Afweyn what is the POV violation. Nevertheless, Gebagebo made no compromise and tried to terminate the discussion on the grounds of WP:NOCONSENSUS.([15][16]) Even though it is not a formal decision, Gebagebo=Dabaqabad has been proposed a topic ban by the administrator (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive295#Dabaqabad, [17]), his attitude has not improved in any way.--Freetrashbox (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think those diffs prove what you think they prove. Your edit added a great deal of content that appears to be poorly sourced. Granted, I'm no expert here, but I'm seeing primary sources (a regional government's constitution), unreliable sources (an activist NGO report), and irrelevant claims (someone dug a well). Honestly, I would have reverted as well. What you don't mention above is that Jacob300, a different editor entirely, partially reverted your edit, you restored it, and only then did Gebagebo revert. Gebagebo then started a discussion at the article's Talk page, which is exactly what they were told to do at Arbitration Enforcement. Your comment about his attitude has not improved in any way would make sense if Gebagebo hadn't started a discussion, but that's not the case. As for Gebagebo could not explain on Talk:El Afweyn what is the POV violation, their comments make perfect sense to me. You appear to be pushing a POV at the article, using poor and irrelevant sourcing (in the article) and arguing that sources should be used to support claims that they don't actually make (at the article's talk page).

  If you have better diffs, I'm certainly willing to look again. Until then, I really don't think there's anything actionable between Gebagebo and Freetrashbox beyond a trouting. It would be helpful if everyone involved could provide reliable, secondary sources when making claims—even on talk pages—and strictly confine those claims to what the sources actually say. I feel like this is a situation where the editors posses a great deal of first-hand knowledge and they may be using that knowledge to connect sources in ways that the sources do not. But we can't do that on Wikipedia. If there's a connection, a reliable, secondary source has to make it. If a primary document like a constitution is relevant, a reliable, secondary source has to say that it's relevant. And if a source doesn't say something, we can't use the absence of evidence to prove evidence of absence. Woodroar (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am not going to discuss the content of the article here, but it is clear that the Puntland Constitution, although a primary source, is a recently written document, and that refworld.org references, and that it is not a fake document. I don't see a problem with writing "this is what this document says" instead of what is written here as fact.--Freetrashbox (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that you were using the primary source to set up the claim that the actions of Jama Ali Jama were unjust, per the article's talk page. The source doesn't say anything like this. Wikipedia articles should largely be based on reliable, secondary sources, and we need to let those secondary sources analyze primary sources and draw connections between them. We also need to fairly represent what reliable sources say and balance articles around them. That's the heart of our core content policies, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. So instead of summarizing what reliable sources say about El Afweyn, you were pushing your own POV by stringing together primary and unreliable sources to say something that none of the sources actually said. You need to understand that we can't do that on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  As you can see check my edit in the article ([18], already shown above), I did not write in relation to the Puntland Constitution and the Ali Jama Ali issue. It is simply written in chronological order and not even suggested. However, I explained on the Talk Page that I find it interesting that the president who decided on the constitution acted in relation to it. WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages. --Freetrashbox (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would add that your opinion that "the Puntland Constitution is a primary source" is a new issue that came out on this AN page. Your opinion is clear and if you had said it at Talk:El Afweyn I would have been able to respond. However, Gebagebo was not specific, saying only that I don't see how the non-inclusion of El Afweyn in Puntland's claim is relevant to the article. There is no way to reply when said that a reference clearly labeled "El Afweyn" has "nothing to do with El Afweyn."--Freetrashbox (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Heesxiisolehh: This is not the place to criticize you, but as I noted a bit above, your editing is also problematic. In particular, the alteration of the figure I described on February 22 on your talk page is very problematic. Furthermore, as User:GiantSnowman said, you and Gebagebo have already started discussing Dervishes issue elsewhere, so you should use that.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that is a lot to unload. I thought this discussion was over after me and @Freetrashbox: along with another editor reached a consensus regarding El Afweyn, where after I was convinced by said user I readded the part about the Puntland constitution to the article (making sure to use neutral language and giving it its due weight which isn't a lot). Now normally this discussion would have ended there, with both of us parting our ways (I literally left him to his own devices) but alas it has not. I have carefully followed the restrictions that have been set on me by the arbitration committee, making sure to follow each revert with a message at the article's talk page (even removals of signficant amounts of content added by an editor). What do you mean exactly by "his attitude has not improved in any way" then if I've exercised a lot more patience with you and Heesxiisolehh than should have been exercised to begin with?

My comment regarding Heesxiisolehh

It's starting to get clearer and clearer to me that this report was not filed in good faith, but rather to deliver some sort of "gotcha" moment, where Heesxiisolehh can vent out his frustrations after I put a lot of effort into removing his OR and synth on Dervish related topics, something @Woodroar: has been very helpful with. Another thing that makes it even clearer that this is nothing but an attempt at getting back at me is the fact that, as Woodroar mentioned, Heesxiisolehh attempted to canvass (at this point clearly votestacking) by contacting users I've had content disputes with months ago ([19], [20]). Not to mention Heesxiisolehh mentioning and using this ANI as rationale for removing Woodroar's post warning about his original research from his talk page. ([21]). Like I mentioned before, this report was filed just days after my report on Heesxiisolehh was concluded ([22]) and almost five hours after I informed the admin in charge of the case of his continuing addition of OR ([23]). Heesxiisolehh has been adding OR for several months now and I've exercised patience, giving him the benefit of the doubt and making sure to try discuss with him more than ten times! ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] just on top of my head, most likely more cases). Now since @GiantSnowman: is part of this discussion, it would be relevant to point out that Heesxiisolehh once again breached the agreement reached in the last ANI, adding original research that in some cases is completely irrelevant to the article at hand ([34], [35], [36], [37]). Like mentioned before, Heesxiisolehh is continuing to add OR and synth, and is probably using this report as a distraction. An article of his has also been deleted ([38]) due to OR.

Anyways, to get back on-topic, the issue that caused this report (and tbh I don't think this report was warranted due to this being a mere content dispute) has been solved, and thus this report should be closed with further action being taken against Heesxiisolehh for not only continuing to add OR but also canvassing/votestacking twice as shown earlier by both Woodroar and me. Gebagebo (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gebagebo: Your problems with Talk:El Afweyn have already been mentioned above and I have nothing to add. Your problem is well shown in this AN Page. I did not make this notice to help Heesxiisolehh. Heesxiisolehh may be trying to take advantage of this situation, but that is irrelevant to me. (In fact, Heesxiisolehh's message is rather helping you.) Even if you felt that way, it would be sufficient to simply write, "I think this is retaliation against Heesxiisolehh." However, you are trying to steer the discussion so that the relationship between me and Heesxiisolehh is obvious and replace your problem with Heesxiisolehh's problem. Your message "might suggest some form of meatpuppery going on" is also completely unnecessary for a calm discussion.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour

I would like to appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Just to let you know, you now have a nice clean table for you to lay out your appeal  :) SN54129 16:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for hatting. :) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to start off by saying that I totally admit my actions/comments/edits were not up to normal standard and that I should have tried to work on this situation before it ended up getting to here. My actions need to be considered in the full context as reactions too. Firstly it seems a bit of a WP:supervote to classify my behaviour as simply disruptive editing when there was disagreement in the the original case, some think it seems to be behavioural towards another editor and some think it is a content dispute with another editor. If it is either of those then I think a way for the editors to work together should be put in place instead of a blanket ban on a single good-willed editor of the two. With regards to the first point (Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd) these are supported by the source. If another editor thinks the wording is misleading, biased, or unencyclopedic then they should politely offer alternatives. With regards to the second point I have challenged the sentence, which shows it is controversial. It is not for another editor to just discount my challenge and say it is not controversial. The third point shows me trying to engage with the editor on the talkpage. With regards to the sixth point this is clearly a difference of opinion between two editors. Another editor not liking them does not mean I am being disruptive. With regards to the first point (Amber Heard), WP:RSPRIMARY says "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." and WP:SELFSOURCE says to be careful with self-published sources when they are self-serving or exceptional.. The editor admits to this bit leading to constructive moments and then improves the article after realising what I had pointed out. Just because something is sourced it does not mean it is due in the lead. With regards to the third point that is what the source says as per the quote. I admit that the actual information may have ended up being outdated with the information we have now. That is what was available at the time it is not me (whether that be a he or she) misrepresenting what the source says, information can change over time. As can be seen on both article talkpages I have tried to work with the other editor on this. Already pointed out in the original discussion but OK Magazine had not been to RS/N at the time this was brought against me. I can not remember using my edit count to "jerk around" another the editor, especially considering their accounts seems to have been created years before mine. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• You say at the beginning you acknowledge that your "actions/comments/edits were not up to normal standard", but then don't mention that again; the rest of the appeal is based, if I understand correctly, primarily on the idea that the original page blocks were incorrect because you were right on the underlying content issue. Even though 4 admins independently saw your behavior as problematic, and 3 admins explicitly endorsed the page blocks? That approach seems unlikely to result in a successful appeal. I can't speak for the other admins who commented originally, but my own concerns were about you repeatedly reverting without explanation or discussion, and playing WP:SOUP games on the article talk page to stonewall the discussion. Particularly irksome was seeing you revert with the rationale "my version is better", when your version was not in comprehensible English. It's possible that if I had had more time during the original discussion I would have suggested a stern warning to knock it off rather than partial blocks, but the blocks were certainly reasonable, and now that they've been made, I'd want to see those behavioral issues addressed before I would support an appeal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not based on the idea that I am correct or incorrect on the "underlying content issue". If there is a content WP:CONTENTDISPUTE there are other avenues to go rather that claiming an editor has allegedly used the edit count to bully an editor who has an account older than them and to say that is "disruptive editing". As shown on the talkpages I have tried to work with editor and I am sorry for not raising this at one of those venues when it seemed to reach a brickwall against each other. xTools shows me as the the editor who has made the most contributions to article 1 and article 2. I am not sure in what world having done around a fifth and a third of the articles respectively and being the biggest contributor after the other editor is disruptive. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: While Emir does show up on that list as #2, it’s because few editors have shown interest in the article. I have not seen Emir add anything substantial to the article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to be polite, but respectfully you are not the sole arbiter who determines if I have added anything substantial or not. If other editors have thanked me for my edits it shows that they must have though there was some good in them. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 7 days. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion re fora

Hat process wonkery per WP:NOTBURO (non-admin closure) SN54129 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's a block, partial but still a block. Standard practice is to make an WP:UNBLOCK request on your talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 21:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I was blocked because of discussion here. Do I have to use template on my talkpage? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Per Jayron32, and in answer to the OP's question: No, he doesn't have to use the unblock template. (non-admin closure) SN54129 13:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Yes, blocks - even partial blocks as a result of ANI discussion - would still be a request on the user talk page first. It may be possible that the reviewing admin may bring it here for further consensus or not. Singularity42 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC) To create a unblock request: copy and paste this: {{unblock|reason=your reason here}} ~~~~ Remove the "your reason here" with your own reason to be unblocked. If it is not adaquately explained, it may be declined, even if it is a partial block request. Severestorm28 21:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC) That just says it is the preferred way. Will nobody it accept it if I do it here? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC) If you do it on your talk page through the template it will be added to the Open Unblock Requests lists that many admins will monitor. It will not get lost as it can do here. Canterbury Tail talk 21:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) In addition to Canterbury Tail, it will probably not, due to the fact that this is a noticeboard, not a page for appealing blocks. Severestorm28 21:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Would there be another page I could appeal my block other than my talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Is there a particular reason that you're reluctant to use your talk page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Just that I have not been keeping it tidy and would prefer to sort it before I go adding more to it. It is the like the Wikipedia version of an overflowing email inbox. I did not imagine I would be the first person in the history of this project to have preferred to use somewhere else. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (shrugs) User talk pages are where blocks are appealed. I don't think many admins care all that much how "tidy" the page is, or that its tidiness (or lack thereof) has any material effect on your request. In any event, I've certainly seen many talk pages far less tidy than yours. Ravenswing 21:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) There is no other place to appeal your partial block, there is a block notice, and you can appeal it below the block notice. This is how other blocked or partially blocked users do. Severestorm28 21:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I did not mean for the admins, but for myself. I am not under any false delusion that how tidy my page is will affect my request. Totally understand that not wanting to do it my talk page will be interpreted by some as selfish or self-centred, but at least I have asked first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Asking once is neither selfish nor self-centered. Repeated "But will no one take my request anywhere elses?" is less than helpful. Ravenswing 22:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I was asking a question. Someone responded with something I was already of, i.e. the standard way. What I was asking was if there was anything else, i.e. another way. I hold my hands and apologise that I did not explain clearly in my initial request. On a somewhat related note can you request a WP:SELFBLOCK anywhere other than your talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Comment: just would like to point out that even before Emir has applied for the block to be lifted, he has left a message on the Talk page at Amber Heard (the article which he is currently blocked from editing), and another on the article on Johnny Depp, asking people to contribute to Depp v Newsgroup Newspapers (the other article he is blocked from editing).TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I am blocked from the articles (at the moment), not the talkpages. Nice WP:WIKIHOUNDING though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Is there a page besides EoW's talk page where I can decline his unblock request? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Unfortunately, no. Severestorm28 00:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I disagree. If a sanction is a COMMUNITY sanction, no single admin has the authority to oveturn it anywhere. It requires a community discussion. I'm quite lost as to how this discussion is going. Doesn't matter if the community sanction is a block, a ban, whatever, it has be appealed to the same authority (or higher) that imposed it. An admin declining or granting an unblock is against policy, the community outranks them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC) It doesn't appear to be a community sanction. To a report, Floquenbeam said it was behavioral, not a content dispute, Mjroots said how about a WP:PBLOCK, and El C said done. Then Jayron32 endorsed. Just a run-of-the-mill admin block, no? Schazjmd (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Not really run of of the mill, which wouldn't solicit other input (most of our blocks are completely solo), but it really isn't community either. Not that I thought it had a snowball's chance, but the way it was presented led to mistakenly believe there was more community input. Struck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Just to note since this was hinted above, but not directly stated, any appeal even an appeal to the community and no matter where you do it generally needs to give reasons or an explanation. With very few exceptions, failure to do so is likely to lead to failure of the appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia: Adding onto what Nil Einne said above, if you'd like an unblock request to be given serious consideration by an administrator (or the community, assuming broader input is needed), you need to make a point of addressing exactly why you were blocked in the first place, ideally by demonstrating that you understand how your past actions were problematic, and committing yourself to avoiding repetition of the same conduct in the future. Some other things that are generally taken into consideration when an administrator reviews an unblock request include the amount of time that has elapsed since the block was placed, along with your activity in other areas of Wikipedia within that same interval, and your overall editing history. This block was implemented only a few weeks ago, and the main reason for its existence is because your editing of those two articles was tendentious in nature—unencyclopedic wording, misrepresentation of sources (intentional or otherwise), edit warring, and casting aspersions against those with whom you are in a content dispute (e.g. accusations of "censorship" or "trolling"), just to name a few things. Even if this unblock request was made using the proper channels, it is highly unlikely for the block to be lifted by any administrator at this time, as it was in the very recent past and covered a pattern of contributions going back several months. My advice is to continue on as you've been doing, editing other articles for the time being, and then after at least six months or so, you can post an unblock template on your talk page where you make a case for why you should be allowed to resume editing those two articles—or at the very least, why keeping you blocked from editing them is no longer necessary. Kurtis (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The discussion of venue above is entirely incorrect. Everyone commenting is unequivocally wrong that one must use the unblock template to request the removal of a page block/partial block. There are no such requirements, and never have been. Literally, the page WP:PBLOCK states "If editors believe a block has been improperly issued that affects them, they can request a review of that block by following the instructions at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." It does give them the option of using the unblock template, but the first bit of guidance it tells them to go to AN. Since Emir of Wikipedia can request the review here, he's quite allowed to do so. There is not now, nor has there every been, any rule that says that he has to go through the unblock template. They just invented that. That being said, Emir of Wikipedia has not yet given a rationale for removing the partial block, as Nil Einne notes. Emir: Why do you think the block should be removed? --Jayron32 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I agree entirely with Jayron32, both on the procedural question and the merits. A cardinal rule for requesting an unblock is that you have give some kind of rationale--the block was improper, I'm sorry and I've learned my lesson, the cabal (TINC) is out to get me. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I'd like to see a rationale as mentioned by by other editors here. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC) To the extent that I was one of the editors who said it should be a talk page template, I agree that was incorrect. I missed the part in WP:UNBLOCK#Routes to unblock that referred to partial blocks. (I would suggest that that be made clearer in the policy page, but that's a different discussion.) Accept full mea culpa on my part. Singularity42 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC) It's all good, we all make mistakes. Honestly, it helps one to avoid making such mistakes if WP:NOTBURO becomes a guiding principle. Following processes and procedures for their own sake, when there's a perfectly good way to do it otherwise, isn't helpful to anyone. --Jayron32 16:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC) By the way, should we start a new sub-section (or give this its own sub-section) so that Emir of Wikipedia can give reasons for the pblock appeal? :) Singularity42 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)  Done SN54129 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

DWC LR monarchism civil push-pov

DWC LR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is moving Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza against sources, since the guy is not a prince, as you can see in pt-wp: pt:Bertrand de Orléans e Bragança. Monarchists are allways trying to push the "prince", but our brave Awikimate stops them in pt-wp. The en-wp page was stable since 2020, but was moved by a sockpuppet and was corrected recently. Now DWC LR start moves with nonsense summaries:

1. unexplained & undiscussed move

2. Revert undiscussed POV move

3. This is controversial, if you think this should be moved please initiate a Wikipedia:Requested moves and present supporting evidence. Thanks.

After the discussion starts, the civil-push-pov without RS is presented in plain form: [39]. DWC LC states in his user page that he is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, then we can suppose that he knows the sources about the subject, but he not presents them. Please, stop this disruptive behaviour because trying to engage in discussion with this type of user is very tiresome and not productive. Thanks! Ixocactus (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean Monarchism (or possibly Monorchism, though I don't have a source for that...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks AndyTheGrump for correction of my bad english. I changed it. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

... the Monarchists! --JBL (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

(No one born in 1941 is a Brazilian prince, for obvious reasons.) --JBL (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Explain this page, then: Prince of Brazil (Brazil) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the lead section correctly identifies "Prince of Brazil" as a title that existed (please note the past tense) during the Empire of Brazil. Then (as is common for our articles about royal titles) ridiculous monarchists have larded the body with an uncited list of people who definitely were not princes or princesses of the Empire of Brazil, since they were born after the Empire of Brazil had ceased to exist. Does that help? --JBL (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Bloody monarchists! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Like, the article about "an imperial title" has a list labeled "post-monarchy" -- that doesn't raise any red flags for you? --JBL (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes—I was calling it out for having misinformation. Hard to convey sarcasm in text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for missing the point! I've gone ahead and removed the uncited list of "post-monarchy" princes from that page. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles which misrepresent living individuals as 'royalty' due to descent from a defunct monarchy are quite probably a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are lots of these on WP since the media does like calling such people princes and princesses. As they are pretty much absent in other type of sources, and we have no policy regarding claimants (most of which are AfD material, IMHO) you get stuck with the royal claims.Anonimu (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should delete the bio's as fancruft... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: can you give us your wisdom to this question. A Hungarian living in Hungary born female then today said they were male. Legally in Hungary you can’t change gender. So Male or Female? Applying the same logic as you have for this “Prince”, female correct? - dwc lr (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes I bet this discussion will totally benefit from dragging in a totally unrelated, much more inflammatory topic :eyeroll:. What I can very confidently assure you is that if the person in question was born in 1920 or later, they are not a prince or princess of the Austro-Hungarian empire. —JBL (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Good politicians answer your obviously good law abiding citizen ;) but your statement is dangerous and could have far reaching unforeseen consequences on Wikipedia if we are guided by National laws only, as I have highlighted with my example. But really I have nothing else to add to this spurious noticeboard posting you’ll no doubt be pleased here. - dwc lr (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

He does have a point though: he is reverting a previous undiscussed page move and suggested an RM to resolve, so why not take that option? I don't see why this needs to be at ANI which shouldn't be used for a run-of-the-mill page name dispute. Spike 'em (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And the page was not stable without Prince since 2020: it was moved there March 2020 but then moved back in May 2020, having previously had Prince in the title since 2006. Spike 'em (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest page move and created an RM on this. As above and below, the page has had "Prince" in the title for all but 2 months of its history. It was moved as Ixocactus states above in March 2020, but that was reverted 6 weeks later. The current move warring started a week ago with a move away from the previous stable name. Spike 'em (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this serious? @Ixocactus: if you think the page title should be moved open a WP:RM, present your Reliable Sources where a discussion and consensus can be reached rather than start a war, this article isn’t the country of Ukraine and there many reliable sources with an alternative views to yours which I assume are still allowed in Wikipedia. The article title has had “Prince” in it since 2005 when it was created. - dwc lr (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

“this article isn’t the country of Ukraine” Wow, that makes two grossly inappropriate analogies in the length of two short posts —- wtf? —JBL (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I am moving away from the discussion. Civil-push-pov/wikilawering is not my beach and english wiriting is very time consuming. Brazil expelled royalty in 1889 and no one takes monarchists seriously. Thanks to fellow wikipedians for the support. To monarchists, enjoy your "prince" because en-wp is your last bastion. Ixocactus (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You are just as guilty of POV pushing as the person you are accusing. You were also clearly wrong about the stability of the page name. What happens on pt-wp does not override what is decided here. Spike 'em (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"POV-pushing" is not really the problem here: there is (1) the move-war, in which both parties were equally culpable (and that had ended, but that you (Spike 'em) have now extended for no good reason) and (2) the substantive question of what is the right title (and Ixocactus is obviously correct about what the answer is, but now you (Spike 'em) have moved it back to the definitely wrong title). --JBL (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for kind words, Spike 'em. You are invited to rename pt:Bertrand de Orléans e Bragança and fr:Bertrand d'Orléans-Bragance. Ixocactus (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The page title was stable for most of its 16 year history, and the approved way to resolve any disputes over the name is the RM process, not move warring : Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Ixocactus created this farago by making the second move to the princeless title, in contravention of these instructions. If they really are "obviously correct" then someone should state the reasons, including with how it fits into WP:AT at the RM created. (Though I have no idea what this has to do with gender politics in Hungary or the war in Ukraine, so if this is part of some other dispute then it is going over my head). Spike 'em (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what the guidelines are for article titles on other language wikis so I will not be getting involved in either of those. If you want to change article titles on en.wiki then you need to follow the guidelines here. I've started the process off, so make your representations on the move request. Spike 'em (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll this is not new behavior. DWL CR has been making grossly inappropriate comparisons to transgender recognition for years. He even uses the same offensive "example"... JoelleJay (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: ugh gross; "thanks" I guess :-/. Anyhow hopefully people will mosey on over to the RM that Spike 'em started at Talk:Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza. --JBL (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

While this discussion has been going on, the widespread monarchist POV-pushing has continued: see [40] and [41] for example. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

this is harassment now. Completely unrelated to the request move, Luiz of Orleans-Braganza is not up for discussion, his brother is. It may be next but at present it’s not. I added sourced material summarising what *is actually* is the Ottoman article see the list of heirs since 1922 section… - dwc lr (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

DWC LR's repeated edgelord behavior, after warnings

DWL CR is continuing to equate recognizing defunct titles with recognizing transgender identity, and has made some highly uncivil assertions about support !voters at the RfC. Can an admin please address this? JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I have added a section heading because I think this is a sufficiently separate issue to merit it. (Actually I was about to start a separate discussion but luckily I saw your comment first.) To collect the evidence for administrators in one place: in the discussion above, DWC LR made grossly inappropriate comparisons involving their obsessive hobby-horse and transgender identity and the war in Ukraine. As JoelleJay noted above, this uncivil, intentionally offensive behavior has occurred many times in the past (links repeated for convenience: [42] [43] [44] [45]), and it has also continued in the last few days [46] [47], including after explicit warnings above and here that it was offensive and unwelcome. I request an indefinite block to address this chronic nastiness, since it seems likely that DWC LR will ignore anything less. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This comparison offends some peoples sensitives because it either exposes 1) hypocrisy or 2) bigotry of one type or another (class, trans etc) but it has profound and far reaching consequences for Wikipedia. On the one hand someone like JoelleJay says we can’t possibly say a member of a deposed royal family is a Prince or Princess because the *law* of the country says so, they are 100% not a Prince/Princess despite the fact they are called such by the majority of Reliable Sources. So following her logic through because the *law* says you can’t change gender then a female citizen of Hungary for example who said they were now male would still *legally* be female. So by JoelleJay’s logic on Wikipedia if we had an article on this person then they would have to be referred to as female still as that is the *legal* reality. But I completely oppose this bigoted logic of JoelleJay and anyone else who follows this logic. - dwc lr (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

i support the this proposal. If you don't understand how comparing someones rights to a title or how comparing an article to a country at war is uncivil then you shouldn't be here—blindlynx 17:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I have never attacked trans people or disparaged them so frankly I have nothing to answer for, if people dislike a comparison I can’t help it they should perhaps stay off the internet, away from newspapers and indoors if they are so easily offended. Anyway as I say below Wikipedia is not about you or me or our views, if you don’t understand that then I’m sorry but should you be here? Wikipedia is about policy, it’s about what Reliable Sources say, not the personal opinions of Wikipedia Editors on any number of topics. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Given DWC LR's responses doubling down on the comparison here and at the RfC, I support an indef block for disruption and NOTHERE reasons. Although since he's never received an initial formal warning I suspect that will be the outcome. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s obvious I have not disparaged any groups of people, if you are so easily offended how is that my fault? At the end of the day on the issue at the RM it’s irrelevant what you think, or what I think. Wikipedia is about policy, about what is verifiable WP:Verifiability and presenting different points of view WP:Neutral point of view. So the fact the majority of sources still recognise titles for deposed royals is unbelievably easy to verify so this issue will never go away or be suppressed. Is this the true reason behind this spurious ban attempt, to shut down and suppress view points you disagree with. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:DWC LR blocked for two weeks, for the totally inappropriate gender comparisons and the pretty blatant violations of WP:AGF in their most recent comments here. The princely behavior is likewise troubling but, for now, beyond the scope of this ANI post--or beyond my scope at this time. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And now there is this rant, with further accusations of collusion, besides misrepresentation. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

If gender identity isn't comparable to other self-identifications then MOS:IDENTITY shouldn't have "gender identity" as a subheading. If our guidelines say gender identity is a sub-issue of self-identification rather than being in a class of its own then is that not a tangential issue that should be addressed by administrative action? Given that we've established making the comparison is an blockable offence perhaps the heading should be upgraded so we don't have a guideline saying something that goes against the party line. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

In keeping with this I've gone ahead and made the change myself. [48] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

“Against the party line” reassuring when trolling comes so well labeled! —JBL (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced additions in the name of paleontological advocacy

• 98.18.209.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2022 in archosaur paleontology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A week ago, an anonymous editor added a seemingly fictional dinosaur taxon to the page 2022 in archosaur paleontology, without adding a source. Obviously, I reverted it, but then they re-added it, with an edit summary that indicates they are "punishing the lazy paleontologists" who have not made an expedition to the rock formation where the fake dinosaur in question was reportedly found, which I believe to be a broad personal attack and advocacy; they later posted on the talk page of the formation itself demanding that we "need" and expedition there "RIGHT NOW" (caps not mine), which proves the latter point. Despite this, they have continued to add the fake taxon and even invented several others to go along with it.

As I was writing this, I noticed they have written on the talk page of another editor who warned him, saying that it's a "crime against humanity" that there are no paleontological expeditions to said formation, which makes me believe they are WP:NOTHERE to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia.

On a tangentially-related note, two other IP addresses geolocating to the same city have edit-warred WP:Original research about the relationships of an unnamed armored dinosaur on the Allen Formation page. However, unless strong evidence can be found linking them to the expedition advocate, I will refrain from formally including them in this report, only mentioning them here for convenience. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I blocked them all for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Atlantis536, that was the most amusing report I've read in a while. I didn't know paleontologists were so ... passionate. Bishonen | tålk 14:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC).

"[...]with an edit summary that indicates they are 'punishing the lazy paleontologists'[...]" i'm dying. 晚安 (トークページ) 15:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyhow, Source-based additions are much more acceptable anyway. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Logo size changes

• BouwMaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Markuss86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Andrzej95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Backlund74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 37.212.10.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The disruption has been going on for some time. All three editors have been changing logo sizes in many pages and in some instances they were undoing each other's edits. The number of same pages edited by all three editors is astonishing per Editor Interaction Analyser. I thought about opening an SPI, but I cannot start connecting the dots if it is the same person. Therefore, I decided to report them here and hope someone will take some action. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh they have to be the same person. Exact same interest and edit patterns in US basketball, British football, men's handball, volleyball, North American soccer AND Indian cricket teams? Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Six distinct highly specific shared interests is highly unlikely and a competent sockpuppet detective should get to work. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically, in my opinion, it might be better to specify a fixed size for each logo so that such problems do not occur. Anyway, your attention to such issues is profitable in order to improve the quality of the article(s). Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

You could probably added Backlund74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to that list as well. Yosemiter (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, there's definitely something going on here. It's quite likely by the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: He appears to be ignoring everyone. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

He's continuing his activities (37.212.10.63) signed out, now. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And so it continues. Doesn't seem as though any administrator's interested in stopping it :( GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Long-term abuser IP sockfarm User:WorldCreaterFighter

It is to bring to your attention that banned LTA User:WorldCreaterFighter seem to be at work again, especially in this article. Uses Austrian IPs/Proxies which seem to be one of the behavioral patterns of the LTA which coincides withh the LTA's interest in genetics. As well as a pro Dravidian/East Eurasian and anti West Eurasian bias. As can be seen here. A look into the various IP edits is a testament of that in the article, not to mention large changes to content without discussion [49] [50].

I would request the admins to protect the Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia (possibly extended since the LTA had created IDs in the past) and take stringent actions against the proxies. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging editors and admins who are familiar with this LTA @Bbb23, RoySmith, Austronesier, and Callanecc:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for a week. I know, that's not much, but it's a start and we can take stronger steps if necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Agreed. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Whether it is bias or sheer incompetence, mostly it is a blatant misreading of sources. My principle is: banned means banned, so don't fix, don't engage in discussions, just revert (it's a bit harder when they use proxies and we can't be sure if it's not someone else just being incompetent in good faith). Note that Peopling of India has been similarly targeted. –Austronesier (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I agree. But they made so many changes, utilizing WP:GHBH tactics while I was gone, that it is kind of difficult. Anyway, I'd try to fix them up this week. Also have a look at these articles [51], [52]. I believe User:Ksgshinobi is also a sock and I wouldn't trust this user either. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith and Austronesier: Another set of articles to bring to your notice. While this IP → [53] [54] seems to be from Austria, the edits/reverts it is making looks more balanced and less of a SE Asian POV unlike the French IP which reverted it [55] but settled for a 'better formulation' here and [56]. Though these two may be different people (only one being the LTA), I wonder if it is a case of WP:GHBH, so as to confuse us with edit wars usin diverse IPs, ultimately settling with a presumed compromise through edit summaries and a better formulation of content in in accordance to the POV of the LTA? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Although this is outside the concerns of ANI: these pages loudly cry out for a TNT-cleanup. They're a big WP:UNDUE-fest like most articles about human haplogroups. Look at Haplogroup P (Y-DNA): it has a blockquote in the lead from a 2015 paper with 13(!) citations until 2022 (according to Nature's own metrics). Whether it's sock edits or GF contributions by both registered and IP editors in good standing, our readers deserve better than just an indiscriminate amassment of just anything that has been written about a specific topic. –Austronesier (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Flybd5

• Flybd5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Flybd5

I'm calling for an indefinite block against User:Flybd5 because they are WP:NOTHERE and have blatantly contravened WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and others. The editor added [57] to A total and unmitigated defeat which seemed on first glance to be irrelevant and, when I saw that their source is a blog, I reverted [58] per WP:RS. The editor went to the article talk page [59] and initiated a discussion which, thus far, complied with WP:BRD. However, before any discussion could get under way, the editor restored [60] the content with an additional piece that is completely out of scope and is from a very dubious source. Restoring without consensus breaches BRD. They then came to my talk page [61] and told me after I had done just one revert with a reason, to "stop blindly reverting my edits" and "avoid starting edit wars". After I read this and looked again at the article, I was reminded of a similar case last year involving User:Westerhaley who was soon proved to be a HarveyCarter sock. While I am aware that the Flybd5 account was opened in October 2006, there have been only 570+ edits in all that time and I wondered if it might be one of Carter's sleepers, so I've opened an SPI to make sure.

I told Flybd5 of the SPI and they posted [62] this, curiously prioritising their account's longevity despite having made only 570-odd edits in all that time. They stuck to this theme [63] in answer to the SPI notice saying that I have been here "a mere three years" against their 15 years. Meanwhile, I had been looking through their past edits and I noticed an ANI case last year which resulted in the editor being told by a sysop to self-revert per BRD. The same thing was happening again and, although I should not have pinged the sysop in question (I'm too used to using the ping template with userids), the sysop did respond [64] and again asked Flybd5 to self-revert. Flybd5's response [65] was a refusal to comply with BRD and seek consensus. In the meantime, I had written a polite reply to the length of service point at Flybd5's page and they answered that [66] by asserting that I am an "editorial fascist" with less capability than "a gaggle of monkeys" and I am suffering "personal grief" because I have reverted their edit and tried to establish if they are connected with Carter. Actually, I am extremely fond of monkeys (and apes, too) – they are incredibly intelligent creatures and we always make a point of visiting them whenever we go to the zoo we support – so, in a way, being compared with them is a compliment, ha!

I haven't mentioned the BLP breach yet because it was way, way back at the end of 2006 when Flybd5 became involved in a dispute over Saddam Hussein and posted [67] this – blatantly insulting President Bush. They should have indef blocked for that edit at the time but somehow it escaped notice and was routinely reverted. They also claimed that the image of Saddam during his trial is "insulting". The image that Flybd5 kept posting has apparently been banned from the site. They kept refusing to confirm the image's source so presumably there was a copyright violation?

Despite making only 570-odd edits in his long membership, Flybd5 has also been involved in various confrontations at Talk:Boricua Popular Army and Talk:Filiberto Ojeda Ríos, here telling [68] User:XLR8TION to "stick to the playground". At the end of 2006, they made their ANI debut which ended [69] with no action, though some of their comments are hardly constructive. A dispute over Pedro Rossello became protracted and Flybd5 posted [70] this at WP:RFI including a personal attack over a spelling mistake. In 2007, there was another drawn-out argument at Talk:ITIL v3. In this, they exhibited WP:OWN and the whole thing ended up at [71] where they were accused of adding autobiographical claims and the closing admin said: "I am amazed at the allegations by Flybd5 about harrassment and stalking". In 2008, they were warned in [72] about adding their own site to articles as a source, thus breaching WP:NPOV and creating COI by advertising. Moving on to April 2021, Flybd5 used the Healthline site [73] as a source in Canola oil. This was reverted [74] by User:Zefr who referred Flybd5 to WP:MEDRS as Healthline is unreliable. This became an edit war, although Zefr tried to forestall it [75] by rightly asserting: "WP:BRD - go to the talk page and make your case to gain consensus, WP:CON; also do not edit war, WP:WAR". Flybd5 ignored this and came to ANI trying to twist the situation but, as mentioned [76] above, was told to self-revert and gain consensus; they didn't.

Flybd5 may or may not be a sock but that is immaterial, really, given their appalling record and I have to request an indefinite block because it is a definite case of WP:NOTHERE. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Take a deep breath and go and do something else. I don't believe there is anything you have raised that should have been brought to ANI. Nobody is going to block anyone for vandalism that took place 16 years ago. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "editorial fascism" was today (allowing for my clock being an hour off ☺). Uncle G (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • And some of the other edits linked above were recent. Mentioning that an editor has a long history of abuse doesn't invalidate the claim. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
    • The recent links aren't that problematic as far as I can see. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I feel like the SPI investigation should run its course before going to ANI? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• The SPI does need to move foreward first. I've left a comment there, after doing some digging. Interesting case, but far from conclusive at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Intriguing. I'm ready to be proven wrong but I saw no commonalities... a 16 year old sleeper sock seems unlikely to me, but I'd like to know what you saw as suspicious. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Email me. I never give too much info in public. It isn't my job to teach them how to be better socks next time. It isn't anything giant, but it is enough to get a CU to poke around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Given that, and what's said about trolling, Churchill, and misrepresenting sources in the case page, I think that this is pertinent to the behavioural evidence.

    The source used in Special:Diff/1075076556 is Langworth 2009 and it is sad that No Great Shaker did not read it, because it's being used to support the exact opposite of itself, as it states outright that Churchill "has often been quoted out of context to suggest that he was an admirer of Hitler". And here's a Wikipedia account (ab)using a source that is arguing against quoting Churchill out of context to do exactly that.

    So yes, I think that you can add purposely misrepresenting a source as the exact opposite of what it directly states to the behavioural evidence. No, not accidentally. This is directly claimed to be "the cited conclusions of a historian", when it is very clearly not upon actually reading it.

    And for goodness' sake, No Great Shaker, read a book some time. Not only could you have read the cited source to find that Langworth says the opposite of what Flybd5 was abusing it for, you could have found Langworth 2017, pp. 115 et seq. from 8 years after the 'blog post, where you'll find Langworth talking about a sentence "used for years to prove that Churchill was pro-Hitler" that was "culled from Churchill's article without context" and that reads very differently in context. Then you wouldn't have written Special:Diff/1075180042, when the source is directly about the speech and only controversial inasmuch as it counters a widespread quote-out-of-context, the very quote-out-of-context in the edit by Flybd5.

    Uncle G (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

    • Langworth, Richard M. (2009-06-25). "Did Churchill Praise Hitler?". Richard Langworth Blog. Retrieved 2022-02-26.
    • Langworth, Richard M. (2017). "Hitler as a 'Great Contemporary'". Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality: What He Actually Did and Said. McFarland. ISBN 9781476628783.
• The SPI evidence is inconclusive. CU data is too old, and while I can see a lot of similarities, I don't have definitive links to make a block. So please take action here, based on behavior, and don't wait for SPI to make the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat by 148.170.140.83

148.170.140.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a clear legal threat in this edit summary: [77] Adakiko (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours by Girth Summit. PhilKnight (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixing a talk page archival

Hello! Apologies if this is the wrong venue, but I'm not quite sure where to go for it. Talk:Film censorship in China was manually archive by moving the entire page to Talk:Film censorship in China/archive 1. Naturally, this is not ideal as it's also moved the entire page history, and it's not among the appropriate methods suggested at WP:ARCHIVE. I'm not certain this necessarily needs specifically an administrator because it's a just round-robin move, but I'm not experienced enough in round-robins to really tell, especially since the now-main talk page has been edited since. I'm wondering if it's possible to get the talk and the archive shuffled so that the bulk of the history is at the correct page. Note: this is not a complaint. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Took a couple of stabs, but I think it's fixed. Ping me if not. I also left a warning on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  I felt it was an honest mistake on their part! I restored the newer discussions that got swallowed in moving around, but other than that and waiting for the bot to eventually come around and archive it properly, it all looks settled. Thanks ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  It probably was, but you shouldn't go around moving pages if you don't know what you are doing, so I felt a warning was due. If in doubt, ask someone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

User: BlueGhast making edits on page of Neonazi group that advocate the group and imply Jews are not human

This user almost exclusively edits Joy of Satan Ministries, a Neonazi group. He has been making edits that cast their views and practices in a more positive light, and has been fighting to force the inclusion of links to hate sites on the page. Recently he edited the page to change a line stating that the leader concluded that Jews were not human to a more universal claim, simply saying "it was concluded" that Jews are in fact the product of reptile aliens. When this was undone and challenged, he changed it back, then quickly made another edit with a false explanation to correct the offending line. While this could be read as an innocent mistake, I am reporting this based on their edit history, as well as their aggressive use of vandalism reports and threats of bans (like the ones they made on my page) when they do not get their way. This page does not even need to exist - the group is not particularly noteworthy. The group does push their hateful message on various social sites, and their leader has in fact specifically called for edits on Wikipedia in their forums, particularly focusing on foreign language pages. I did see the same edits made in English, though they were quickly reversed.Bluefin9 (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• It doesn't look to me like they were promoting the theory, it looks to me to be just a minor grammatical oversight ("Maxime derived the theory [...] after it was concluded" vs. "she concluded") which they rectified in their most recent edit. Endwise (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • While I agree that it generally would be something we would ignore as an oversight, their history and the way they hid the edit is what I find concerning. I don't see why the page should exist at all, anyway. Bluefin9 (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • To add to my point on their lack of notability, the page is made up of stitched together sources that make basic mentions about their surface level beliefs. This is very much a Neo-nazi group, but this is only briefly noted (and for whatever reason the lines pointing this out were changed to National Socialism by a certain user, which while being a synonym is a much softer sounding term). A quick look at the group's forums shows that they are more concerned with antisemitic conspiracy theories (with claims like Putin being Jewish and plotting with Zelensky to start a new World War to kill white people, claims that covid and the covid vaccine are Jewish plots, and many other such nonsensical claims) with a good bit less focus given to Satanism. Even their Satanist beliefs are out there, with discussions going over their belief that Hitler did not die but instead ascended into literal godhood. The group is insignificant - nobody is covering them, and the picture the few sources that do mention them paint is based on their somewhat tamer recruitment messaging, such as the claims on their sites (which this user insists need to be linked on the page). There is no way to accurately and objectively cover this group because of how limited the material is. They are already mentioned in articles about Satanism - why does this insignificant fringe group require its own page? Bluefin9 (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    • This is something for a deletion discussion, not the administrators' noticeboard. Administrators only get to unilaterally decide this in limited circumstances that are not the case here. Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• In fairness, neither of the two of you at Special:Diff/1075484587 has a sound grasp of grammar. One of you hides behind the passive voice and mixes present and past tense. The other of you uses a comma to end a sentence. And the both of you aren't even blinking an eye at the grotesquerie that is "In the early 2000s, began the creation of Joy of Satan Ministries by Maxine Dietrich.". Don't ascribe to malice that which can be explained by inexpert writing skill.

  And where you said that "This user almost exclusively edits Joy of Satan Ministries, a Neonazi group." and "aggressive use of vandalism reports", were you referring to Special:Contributions/Bluefin9, your "Reverted vandalism by user who insists on adding links to hate sites to the page." edits, and your Special:Diff/1075511776 vandalism report? Likewise, you are both single-purpose accounts who mistreat each other as vandals. You both match your description. Should we do to you whatever it is that you want done to another?

  Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  • If that means the Neo-nazi friendly material is removed, go right ahead. Minor point but that text was not written by me. I simply reverted it to the previous language. Bluefin9 (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've posted the mandatory notice of this discussion to BlueGhast's talk page. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• The Joy of Satan Ministries article is a joke. From the beginning, BlueGhast has downplayed the ministry's ties to Neo-Nazis, excluding anything from the History section but finally mentioning some "sympathies" in the Criticism and Controversy section (now Reception). The article was based almost entirely on the ministry's own primary sources, other spiritualist and Satanist sources, fascist publishers like Consul Press, and authors tied to CESNUR (a pro-new religious movement, anti-anti-cult advocacy organization). When I brought the sourcing issues to RSN, the consensus was that these were mostly unreliable. GenoV84 rewrote much of the article based on reliable sources on 24 January (there's too much back and forth for individual diffs, but the history shows the changes) but it was reverted by another SPA who just happened to return after 2 months. And that's a major issue: there are serious core content policy problems with the article—and behavioral issues with editors who whitewash mention of Neo-Nazis—but it's impossible to get consensus because of SPAs. It's clear that some kind of meatpuppetry or off-wiki coordination is going on, but I don't have the time to find it. I did find some threads about Wikipedia on their forums—probably NSFW links, plenty of swastikas, SS symbols, anti-semitism, etc.—but nothing suggesting reverts. This report (and article) could use more attention. Woodroar (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't there already an ANI thread about this (started by BlueGhast)? I commented at that one to keep discussing on the talk page. [78] If I remember correctly, the "fighting to force the inclusion of links to hate sites" was resolved by an RfC (that I started) which decided that linking to the Joy of Satan Ministries website is OK (one of the "hate sites" you wanted removed), and that other external links may also be appropriate. [79] That issue is resolved and you need to drop the WP:STICK. On the other hand, since the last thread, much of the POV-writing in the article has been discussed and removed by other editors. You should consider

What is stopping you from just discussing things on the talk page? Good articles on controversial subjects are made when editors from different viewpoints negotiate neutral wordings on talk pages. I get that you really don't like BlueGhast and that Joy of Satan Ministries is not exactly a paragon of virtue & tolerance. But pretty much everything you're complaining about can be and has been resolved by people discussing content while figuring out alternative wordings. There has never been a serious underlying behavioural issue beyond you two constantly accusing each other of having one.

If you really don't think there can be a good article written on Joy of Satan Ministries due to bad sourcing, bring it to WP:Articles for Deletion. There is a tool called WP:TWINKLE. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, enable it, and you get a tab at the top of the article that'll let you nominate it for deletion pretty easily. Type in your belief that there aren't enough sources to write an article/satisfy WP:NORG and a discussion will happen and resolve this issue. Either the article will get deleted or it won't. You won't be punished if the AfD doesn't go your way.

But what will get you punished is just continuing to complain and snipe at BlueGhast without using the processes that Wikipedia has been using for over a decade to constantly resolve issues exactly like the one you're having. Start an RfC, start an AfD, start whatever you want except for more useless ANI threads. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Past ANI discussions: 1, 2, 3. --JBL (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Mahdplus

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

WP:SPA acount who's sole purpose is trying to add "Ahvaz is the capital of the Arabs Iran" to the lede of the Ahvaz article. He's tried this on six occassions so far. No edit summaries, explanations and/or sources.[80]-[81]-[82]-[83]-[84]-[85] They have never bothered to respond to the warnings that were issued either. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

K. El_C 16:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring (and possible sockpuppetry) by Anonymous130112

Anonymous130112 has been edit-warring at Saadi Sultanate since March 1 ([86], [87], [88], [89], [90]), in addition to making problematic edits elsewhere. They have been given multiple warnings on their talk page. Moreover, this account is almost certainly related to multiple other accounts and IPs that have been making the same edit over and over again (reverted every time) on that article since February 25 and intermittently before that (see history). Because of that, a request to semi-protect the article was accepted (report can be found here), but this account seems to have slipped through with just enough edits to be autoconfirmed and is now continuing the exact same edit-war. R Prazeres (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked one week. I see it is already semi protected, but we may have to look at more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Stalking

I’m a longtime Wikipedian, a retired handyman in New Jersey. I’ve written hundreds of articles for 12+ years. I’ve never taken money for my contributions. I've uploaded 3000+ images and declared almost all of them to be public domain. I edit using my real name. I admit I made a few mistakes by editing articles for family members, but I’ve since learned, and have stopped editing those. But editor Melcous has been using my past mistakes as an excuse to stalk everything I do here, claiming that I have a conflict of interest on such subjects as RepresentUs (an anti-corruption organization) or Michele McNally (a deceased NY Times photo editor) or undoing my work on Raynard Kington (an educator) or Molly Secours (a filmmaker) or Boryana Straubel (a deceased tech executive) or Xyla Foxlin (a YouTuber) or restoring notability tags on the nonprofit The Oasis Center for Women and Girls. I have no connection with any of these subjects. Melcous didn’t edit these articles until after I edited them. It’s a consistent pattern of stalking behavior. Please cause Melcous to stop this harassment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm also a fairly long term wikipedian, and I'm happy for someone to look into my editing and let me know if I have crossed any lines. When I notice certain types of formatting/WP:MOS edits that an editor makes I have tended to check other articles recently contributed to see if they have the same issues that can be easily fixed, which I do not consider "stalking" but am open to being told otherwise. I would also note that my greater concern, and encouragement to Tomwsulcer, has been to properly respond to COI concerns raised and disclose them. There have been two threads at WP:COIN (here and here) where concerns have been raised about his edits. As noted by other editors including Wizzito and SVTCobra, both times he has chosen to disappear from editing from a period of time, and reappear after the threads have gone stale and been archived, so the issues have not been resolved. Thank you Melcous (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You've been stalking me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's stalking imho. I think that you should respond to these issues instead of crying 'stalking', 'it's all sourced' (articles can be sourced but still have tone/grammar issues, etc.), and stuff like that. wizzito | say hello! 05:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's nice that you think you need to be "humble" - but in actual fact you were right when you said "I think that you should respond to these issues instead of crying 'stalking'".

Mr. Ulcer needs a block more than help for some imaginary offence. I'm astonished he stuck his head up in this way, but I have confidence in the correct result of this self-destructive posting. Begoon 13:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a very straight forward case of WP:HOUND. @Tomwsulcer: We generally shy away from using the term "stalking" now in reference to editors following each other around onwiki. @Melcous: Don't do what you are doing. If you want to start a new COIN thread, by all means. However, it is very inappropriate to just unilaterally tag all of an editors contributions with COI. WP:HOUNDING is not okay in any situation, and you should instead try to open a dialogue with the respective editors. If that doesn't work, you can escalate to a noticeboard, but don't follow the editor around the project. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow this advice and will bow out from here if possible, but it would be good to at least be honest in what we are talking about. I have not "unilaterally tagged all of an editor's contributions with COI". There were exactly two articles here that I tagged for COI, one out of a discussion at WP:COIN after the editor had inserted promotional wording about the subject into multiple unrelated articles, and the other because it was the first article created after he returned to editing after failing to deal with the WP:COIN thread and I noted this on the talk page. I'm reluctant to start a new COIN thread when it seems that all an editor needs to do is "wait it out" and the issue gets ignored. Melcous (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Melcous: If you started another COIN thread, and Tom just waited it out, then that would be WP:GAMING which you could report here.
Semantics of what you tagged vs. copy-edited aside, these three diffs were all made within minutes of each other. If I was Tom, I'd be rightfully upset about that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A straightforward case of WP:HOUND? Forgive me if I laugh. How much research did you do? Begoon 12:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, more than you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No one in this thread has said what happened wasn't a case of WP:FOLLOWING. The only disagreement was how justified Melcous was in doing so. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, MJL, WP:HOUNDING/WP:FOLLOWING (same thing) describes hounding as being "...with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." So no, you are wrong - if Melcous is justified in their actions, then by definition it is not WP:HOUNDING. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll just add that "Nobody denied the accusation I made" is never a valid justification for an accusation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Boing! on Tour: Okay, in reverse order: (1) Melcous literally admitted to following Tom around: When I notice certain types of formatting/WP:MOS edits that an editor makes I have tended to check other articles recently contributed to see if they have the same issues that can be easily fixed, which I do not consider "stalking" but am open to being told otherwise. That's a straightforward definition of a pattern of behavoir which can be seen as hounding depending on the circumstance. However, instead of being like "Melcous literally admitted to following." (which would've required I get a diff or provide the exact quote for) I said "No one here has contested following has happened." because it would be absolutely ludicrous for anyone to say otherwise when Melcous literally admitted to following.
(2) It is amazing to me that I can say how the only disagreement here is whether Melcous was justified in following Tom around, and for you to tell me I'm wrong because if Melcous is justified in their actions, then by definition it is not WP:HOUNDING. Like, yeah.. I know. While I understand that you feel otherwise, I don't think Melcous was justified in this months-long quest to get Tom to answer for things he did eleven years ago - which is what the original COIN thread was about and the thing Melcous thought was important enough to bring up again in the second COIN thread (ignore my choice of diff; COIN was oversighted). Yeah, sorry, but no. We're almost five months out from the original COIN thread which was based off things which happened 8-11 years ago, and we're a month out since the second COIN thread. That Melcous used those events as the excuse to follow Tom around as recently as two days ago, is not only buck wild, it's borderline obsessive.
(3) Are you really just going to say hounding and following are the same thing? One is negative, and the other is neutral. The policy goes into detail about both. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Make sense? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm obviously not saying that hounding and following (as used in English) are the same thing, I am saying that in Wikispeak WP:HOUNDING and WP:FOLLOWING are links to the same paragraph, which is Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. In this reply you are still using "following" (English) as justification for your accusation of WP:HOUNDING (Wikispeak). And yes, the policy does go into detail as to what is acceptable following and what is not, but that is an explanation of what is and what is not considered hounding. Did you also notice that Melcous got no help in those WP:COIN threads? Melcous did the right thing, but nobody cared, and Tomwsulcer was just allowed to sit it out and carry on his COI editing without hindrance. Is it any wonder Melcous felt alone and saw WP:COIN as a waste of time? That's my big gripe here, that Melcous followed the proper procedures, got absolutely nowhere with them, and then when she tried to address the problems she saw directly (because she was getting no help), she was accused of stalking (and then of WP:HOUNDING and WP:GRUDGE here at ANI where people are supposed to examine issues in a fair and balanced manner). The initial response here was from people piling in without properly examining the whole situtation, the background, and the wider picture. Sadly, that's what ANI is like these days - there are too many here who are ready to jump on any accusation they see without putting in the effort to investigate it properly. And that makes me angry. Thankfully, someone did care enough to investigate properly, and found that the concerns that led Melcous to follow and review Tomwsulcer's edits are well founded. And yes, Melcous was still following and correcting Tomwsulcer's COI violations days ago. That's because they were still happening days ago. It has been going on for years. Frankly, I'm disappointed by your responses and your lack of self-reflection here, MJL, instead just doubling down on your flawed accusations. But I've said enough, and I know I would get nowhere trying to challenge the poisonous atmosphere at ANI. Thank you, at least, for listening. Boing! on Tour (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Definitely a case of WP:GRUDGE. Melcous needs to agree to stop following Tomwsulcer around. ––FormalDude talk 05:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely? In that case I'm sure you can back up that assertion with diffs? Begoon 12:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Tomwsulcer provided seven in their initial comment. ––FormalDude talk 13:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Seven what? There's some external links in that post but I have no idea how that's supposed to be an answer to my question. Can you elaborate? Begoon 13:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Seven diffs. Diffs of Melcous making what appear to be rather superfluous revisions of Tomwsulcer's contributions. One alone might not mean much, but seven separate occasions is a pattern of harassment. ––FormalDude talk 15:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  But did you bother to check them to see if they really were superfluous, look beyond those specific diffs to the wider recent editing of those articles, or check to see if Tomwsulcer does actually have any undeclared connections with any of the subjects before jumping on the accusing bandwagon? No, you didn't, did you? Without making any actual effort to properly check, your "Definitely a case of WP:GRUDGE" comment is just a lazy throwaway accusation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I did check, thank you very much.

  Represent Us - Tagging a COI despite zero proof/evidence from a COIN thread.

  Xyla Foxlin Removing details from references for no reason.

  Amongst the rest, it is at the very least borderline hounding. ––FormalDude talk 16:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  So in your checking, you didn't find the clear COI violation at Molly Secours which Tomwsulcer has since admitted, and the indirect connection with The Oasis Center for Women and Girls? You didn't notice the excessive quoting and the puffery that Melcous was removing? No, your checking was not remotely sufficient for a "Definitely a case of WP:GRUDGE" conclusion. Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and the removal at Xyla Foxlin was not for no reason - Melcous clearly gave a reason in the edit summary. You might not agree with it, but that's a content disagreement and not evidence of WP:GRUDGE. Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm striking my comment in light of the misconduct by Tomwsulcer below. ––FormalDude talk 09:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Tomwsulcer: Do you have any undeclared personal connection to Molly Secours? (I note you said, above, "I have no connection with any of these subjects", but I want to ask you specifically about this one just in case you had forgotten anything). Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I hired her to narrate my audiobook. I paid her. She didn't pay me for a Wikipedia article; I did it on my own on a volunteer basis. So there's no financial connection; there's no conflict of interest. But pretty much everything I write about, and every person I put into Wikipedia, I have some kind of connection with, if you'd like to get philosophical about it. I'm a New Jerseyan; so I'm predisposed to write about New Jersey subjects. I'm an American; I tend to write about Americans and American-type issues. I think everybody here is like me in that way -- we write about what we know. I've never accepted money for anything I do in Wikipedia. My policy is to try to get everybody who qualifies for a wiki-article into Wikipedia. If I met you Boing! on Tour, at a coffee shop, and within a few minutes, if we got to talking, I'd be wondering how I could get you into Wikipedia; if you'd qualify, you'd be there. It's just how I am.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not about being philosophical (which is the line you took last time, if I remember correctly), it's about direct personal connections with the subjects you write about. And COI is not just about financial connections, or about being paid. It's about any connection that might lean an author to writing favourably or unfavourably about a subject, rather than from a neutral point of view. You *do* have a direct personal connection with Molly Secours, and when you said "I have no connection with any of these subjects" that was not the truth. I see also that Molly Secours worked at The Oasis Center for Women and Girls, so can you see how there might appear to be an undisclosed connection there too? How your direct personal connection with Molly Secours might lean you towards writing favourably about that organisation? You want to try to get everybody you know who you think might warrant it an entry into Wikipedia, and that's just the way you are? That is *not* the way Wikipedia is - or, at least, doing it without declaring your connections is not the way Wikipedia is. When you have connections with people you write about (like the very blatant connection with Molly Secours), you *must* declare it. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I have connections with pretty much everybody. And so do you, and so does everybody. We're all connected. For example, take Boryana Straubel. I read about her death in the NY Times. I felt sorry that she died in a bicycle accident. So I put her in Wikipedia. Are you saying that I should *declare* my 'connection' with this subject? It's a good article. Do you think I need to *declare* my 'relationship' with her, that I felt sorry that she died? If we make that a requirement, then I think everybody here in Wikipedia will spend half of their time declaring their associations, and they won't have any time left to build this great encyclopedia. Straubel belongs in Wikipedia. Or take Molly Secours; everything I wrote is referenced; she belongs here too. Is the article fair? Take a look. I simply said what the sources were saying. I agree about close family members; even though I write using my real name, I should have been more forthcoming that Frederick D. Sulcer was my late father. So I question the assumption that *any* connection that any of us has to anything here in Wikipedia invariably brings about bias or unfair coverage, and that simply is not the case. Why? Because of the requirements for notability and sourcing and the biography guidelines. We can't just say *anything* about anybody we want to. There are rules. I follow the rules. That's why very few, if any, of my hundreds and hundreds of articles I've written here ever been deleted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh come on Tom, don't be so disingenuous. No, if you had no personal connection with Boryana Straubel then of course you don't have to declare any interest. But you *do* have a direct personal connection with Molly Secours, and you dishonestly told us here in this very discussion that you did not. And it has got *nothing to do* with the quality of what you write or whether it is sourced - WP:COI does not have an "unless you write good stuff that's well referenced" clause. The Molly Secours article as you left it was packed with excessive quotes, laced with puffery, and read to me as though it was written to show her in as favourable a light as possible. Melcous improved it considerably with some warranted pruning, and ended up being accused of stalking as a result. You can disagree with WP:COI policy as it is written, but unless you can get it changed then you *must* follow it. Boing! on Tour (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to add... WP:COI is not about "Man, I'm at one with the universe, and I have a connection with everything..." waffle. No, it is quite specific, and you should read it. Its very first sentence says "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". Tom, you have a clear employer/client financial relationship with Molly Secours, and you dishonestly denied it. I can envisage someone suggesting sanctions against you (maybe some sort of BLP restriction) unless you can show you understand and accept that, and that you will adhere carefully to WP:COI policy in the future. Boing! on Tour (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell us now, without fear of contradiction, that you have never used your editing privileges to enhance your family members on wikipedia, or to post stuff that would make your friends look better? Begoon 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see my previous comment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Which previous comment?

Is there a reason you can't just answer my question? I didn't think it was hard.

I'm confused now. Begoon 14:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try to adhere to the WP:COI policy in the future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This almost doesn't need to be said since you already pledged to better adhere to WP:COI for the future, but having any financial relationship with someone (past or present) generally means you have a COI with them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think my main issue with Molly Secours is why the opening sentence of "...is a Nashville-based filmmaker, author, and activist" requires six citations after it. Anyway, I haven't investigated the problems with Tomwsulcer, but I just want to mention to Melcous that edits like this that put {{cn}} tags into an article but are disguised by the edit summary "copyedit" are unhelpful. In this instance, I would recommend doing the tagging in a separate edit with a summary like "cannot find a source for this" or "the given source does not state the claim specifically, need another one" or something like that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That looks like genuinely good copy editing to me - and did you see the peacock drivel it removed? It might indeed be better to do the {{cn}} changes separately with a separate edit summary, but I think suggesting it was "disguised" is a poor choice of words as it implies deliberate obfuscation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and I did - it was just a suggestion. As for Tomwsulcer, I would suggest they have ownership issues and need to stop giving slippery and evasive answers to questions, or hoping difficult questions will just disappear as it will probably end up with a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to comment here because I've already had one unpleasant encounter with Tomwsulcer but I think my experience may help illustrate the issues. On Raynard S. Kington, I removed a statement that was not supported by the source given. Tomwsulcer re-added it with additional sources but none that supported the specific claim. I started a discussion on the talk page but Tomwsulcer did not participate. Instead, he posted on the talk page of gay men, asking "Do gay men endure discrimination in Wikipedia?" which suggested that I, a gay woman, was removing his edits because I am homophobic. I asked an experienced user for advice and they posted a message to Tomwsulcer's talk page. It was removed unanswered. I assume that Tomwsulcer is trying, in his own way, to improve Wikipedia, but it is frustrating to work with someone who will not communicate and/or is passive aggressively attacking you. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's quite troubling. Tomwsulcer, what was your intention with that edit on an unrelated talk page? Were you canvassing for help or genuinely accusing Polycarpa of being homophobic for removing an unsupported statement? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure @Tomwsulcer will be along to shed light on that shortly, but in case they missed it I've taken the liberty of adding a courtesy 'ping'. I do hope it's received - but I have faith because we're all connected to everyone, after all... Begoon 10:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

He has stated that he is no longer editing, so I doubt he will be here. This is not the first time he has cast aspersions on an editor for trying to uphold WP's notability guidelines. This didn't seem to get picked up before. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not the first time he's tried to duck repercussions by disappearing either, only to reappear when he thinks the heat might have died down. Just my opinion, but I really think it would be a very good idea, by now, to make that tactic less easy. Begoon 11:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of proposing a topic ban (probably on BLPs) for Tomwsulcer, but didn't know enough about the situation to suggest which sanction, if any, was appropriate. Do you think we should proceed with suggesting such a thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd propose a site ban, personally, because I don't think the bad editing, refusal to respond to criticism, puerile dismissal of concerns and outright "I do what I want" attitude is likely to be solved by a limited "Tban". But I'll leave it to others because I'm loathe to commit the sort of time that would obviously be necessary, given the bizarre, shallow, knee-jerk 'defences' above, and also I'm no longer a "regular" so tend to consider such a proposal a bit outside my current remit. Wikipedia is very bad at removing bad actors like this. That's one of the reasons I don't participate much any more. Begoon 12:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Begoon speaks for me on this matter. SN54129 12:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of stalking or hounding cannot be a defense against misconduct if Wikipedia is to function, and dealing with another editors' mistakes and issues cannot be considered stalking. There's abundant evidence above and in his contributions Tomwsulcer "doesn't get" COI policies, willfully or deliberately, and if this thread is to be closed it should be with restrictions against him, not Melcous. Simply because this thread is just a repetition of existing patterns and Tom's editing has been problematic for years (his image contributions are promotional at best, copyright violations at worst), I would recommend a site ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal : Site ban

Okay, let's formally propose that Tomwsulcer is banned from Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban after six months, and if unsuccessful, every subsequent year thereafter. Comments, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question I'm a bit confused here. I've had my run ins with Tomwsculcer and I'm sure we are both certain the other editor was a civil POV pusher. But Tom has a clean block log and while they were violating COI I can probably see how one might think, absent reading the policy, that they didn't have a COI etc. Is a site block really the least intrusive way we can protect Wikipedia in this case? Would it be better to issue a clear warning with a stated escalation plan? Springee (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was envisioning a restriction on BLP edits, perhaps with new articles submitted via AFC and a clear commitment to adhere to WP:COI policy (rather than just "I'll try"). But no, Tom is editing in good faith despite his chronic policy failures (and, yes, his original dishonesty in this discussion), and I think a site ban would be excessive at this point. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Ban is not warranted in my opinion. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 06:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, not only for the issues pointed out above (including the "original dishonesty") and the disappearing to avoid sanctions tactic, but also because of the worrying discussion with Begoon above: Begoon asks then "Can you tell us now, without fear of contradiction, that you have never used your editing privileges to enhance your family members on wikipedia, or to post stuff that would make your friends look better?", to which they only can answer "Please see my previous comment" (which, as Begoon points out, doesn't seem to be an answer), and then "Fair enough. I'll try to adhere to the WP:COI policy in the future." which again doesn't answer the question, leaving me with the impression that they have used their editing to make friends and family look better here, but that they are not willing to admit it or to indicate where they did this. No thanks, we don't need people here who use these tactics and don't even want to make amends when it is (again and again) pointed out that such editing is not acceptable, but instead attack the ones trying to uphold our policies. Fram (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am puzzled about this because I feel like the opening statement does address the question: I admit I made a few mistakes by editing articles for family members, but I’ve since learned, and have stopped editing those. --JBL (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  This was last month. This, admittedly is a little older, but, quite honestly, wtf? Begoon 13:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I get it, I'm just saying "didn't address the question" doesn't seem to be the problem. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, obviously, given my comments above. I don't believe that "Tom is editing in good faith", Boing, I'm sorry but I just don't. Good faith would be demonstrated by owning the issues, some sadly absent honesty, and showing some real understanding of why they were wrong, with a meaningful, credible commitment to avoid such issues going forwards. None of that is in evidence. An indefinite block, rather than site ban, might serve to enforce that, but limited "Tbans" really don't seem sufficient here. I'd also ask anyone closing this thread to note a couple of the comments above this "formal proposal" which seem to support it (and, of course, those which don't). Begoon 11:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, fair points there. I was thinking good faith in that I think he genuinely wants to write nice stuff about people, whether has has a COI or not. But as for good faith regarding Wikipedia standards, no, he has clearly been deliberately trying to circumvent them. I recall a similar problem with his approach to copyright at Commons, where he essentially argued that we should ignore copyright law because everybody else was doing so. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Quite. I'm sure Tom's a lovely chap, the type who, if I lent him my lawnmower, would scrupulously clean and oil it before handing it back. We're not discussing that here though - we're considering whether he's a good fit for, or a continual detriment to wikipedia, and whether his bad editing, refusal to respond to criticism, puerile dismissal of concerns and outright "I do what I want" attitude is likely to be solved by a limited "Tban". I don't think it is, but if he turned up and said something that genuinely addressed those concerns in a credible and convincing way I'd rescind my support for a ban in a heartbeat. Begoon 14:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Tom has edited about family members and friends and this has been mentioned in a previous COIN report. These were around ten years ago and I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt that he misunderstood COI policy wrt the more recent articles where he had a COI. I believe a block can be avoided if he takes time to read and understand the relevant policies. I do have additional concerns about his conduct in defending these articles. I am recusing myself from an actual support or oppose !vote as it occurred to me that I myself had written an article on a family member some time ago... I have reported myself to COIN. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I also "believe a block can be avoided if he takes time to read and understand the relevant policies" - and commits properly to adhere to them in future. I just don't see any evidence of that time being taken, genuine understanding or any commitment. Begoon 11:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment/reply: As the initial subject of this report, I will also recuse myself from supporting or opposing. But I would note Catfish Jim and the soapdish that the editing of articles about his family members is not just "about ten years ago", but has continued on as recently as the last few months. See 1 and 2 for some fairly blatant examples. Thanks Melcous (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, yes, looking at those examples (along with the others I've seen), I think the main problem is that Tomwsulcer's writing has been relentlessly hagiographic in style. It might not be a particularly bad human fault to want to pour gushing praise on others, but obviously completely inappropriate here. Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is true... it does significantly erode the case for giving him the benefit of doubt. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - This seems to be more a case of a user whose writing style isn't a good fit for Wikipedia, not someone who was intentionally violating COIN to promote a third party. Per their talk page, the user has already quit, and I don't see any benefit to a ban here. We've managed to drive them off from the Wiki already, no need to twist the knife. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Serial derogatory redirects

IvanCrives (talk · contribs) has created derogatory redirects to a couple of Sri Lankan ruling party politicians including the president. Eg. Gommanpila, Gonta. In Sinhalese, the word "Gona" refers to Buffalo, when it refers to a person it is very offensive and means a low intelligent person. The user has been warned previously for creating a similar English term redirects, Dumby. Another article the user created, Slumdogland was deleted by @Drmies: by saying "G10: Attack page: racist swinery". Kindly take the necessary steps to rectify the situation. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked IvanCrives indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil for your swift actions. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Atsme

Over the last month and a half there has been a dispute between Atsme (talk · contribs) and I centred around the articles Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Bull and terrier. It been discussed at length at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Merger proposal: Bull and terrier (which was first proposed in June 20221), Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Article’s neutrality, WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 85#Staffordshire Bull Terrier, WP: Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Sources for the former names of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Talk:Bull and terrier#Continuing from where we were on the fringe theories noticeboard. and WP:Good article reassessment/Staffordshire Bull Terrier/1.

Until very recently Atsme is someone I considered a friend on Wikipedia, we have exchanged pleasantries both on and off wiki, she nominated me for my ETOW award [91] and as recently as December she thanked me for my contributions here [92]. I have collaborated with her and, like many others, appreciate much of the work she has done and particularly the photographs she has brought to the project.

But as many who know Atsme's history can attest, she has an extraordinary ability to launch crusades, and in so doing she tries to discredit reliable sources, adopts outlandish positions, filibusters discussions and misinterprets policy. Previous discussions of this include:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Vandal-like disruption, aspersions and PAs at WP:AVDUCK
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 103#Amendment request: American politics 2 (June 2018)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 112#Amendment request: American politics 2 (December 2019)

Similar examples in this dispute can be found at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier#Article's neutrality where she dismisses clearly stated statements in seventeen sources as anecdotal accounts whilst inappropriately linking policy WP:SHORTcuts [93][94], or WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 85#Staffordshire Bull Terrier where she dismisses many of the same sources as original research [95].

The thing I have found most disturbing throughout this ordeal has been her nastiness after I disagreed with her. She has attempted to hound me, first trying to disrupt an article I recently elevated to a GA [96] and later tagging another I rewrote with page issues [97] (this was very clearly retaliatory, in the month after this dispute commenced Atsme made only three edits to dog related articles or TPs outside of those connected to this dispute). She attempted to derail an SPI that would harm her cause [98] and now she has opened a sockpuppet investigation into me because I am an Australian [99] (I welcome a CU check [100]).

In my opinion her most egregious action was her false claim that she had verified the contents of a source she had cited. In the two pages of the dispute she cited a source:

• [101] added it was a hybrid cross between the now extinct [[Old English Bulldog]] and [[Old English Terrier]].<ref name="Fleig, D. 1996">Fleig, D. (1996). ''Fighting Dog Breeds''. T.F.H. Publications. {{ISBN|0-7938-0499-X}}</ref><ref>Shaw, Vero (1879–1881). ''The Classic Encyclopedia of the Dog''. {{ISBN|0-517-43282-X}}</ref>
• [102] added It is believed that bull and terriers were crossbred primarily from the [[Bulldog]] and one or more varieties of [[Old English Terrier]]s.<ref name="Fleig-1996">Fleig, D. (1996:86). ''Fighting Dog Breeds''. T.F.H. Publications. {{ISBN|0-7938-0499-X}}</ref>

I repeatedly requested she verify the contents of the source [103][104]. She eventually added the number 86 to the year [105][106] and explained it was the page number whilst giving an outlandish story about her access to the source [107] (whilst still failing to verify the source's contents). Having found a photo of the book's contents page on the internet here I further questioned her about it [108], but she subsequently maintained her story [109]. My local library has obtained scans of the relevant chapters of the source and I can verify that the cited page makes no mention of the cited content whatsoever (I am happy to email this to any impartial admin for verification) and further that the source does not support the cited claims at all. When I put this to Atsme she instead said that in fact she had copied the contents and source from page 18 of this thesis [110], but even it does not attribute the content she cited to it. It should also be noted that the Vero Shaw source does not support the cited content either.

Finally, I find Atsme's inferences that this dispute is somehow gender based to be utterly offensive [111], this dispute is entirely about content and, as outlined above, conduct.

I appreciate that throughout this dispute I have allowed my frustration at this situation to manifest on a number of occasions. But it is completely unacceptable to dismiss all of the sources listed here as anecdotal and branding attempts to cite them as original research whilst simultaneously not offering sources that articulate a meaningful counter-narrative with any weight. Cavalryman (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC).

I filed a SPI against him before I take my case to T&S, so I imagine this is retaliation, as is the fact that he hasn't gotten his way after tag-bombing a GA, reverting and wikihounding me. This dates back to 2019 when he didn't get his way then, and now after a year of trying, he still failed to get consensus. My final comment about his attempts to merge important articles and add a flat-earth theory to a GA is here - it includes his apology for doing the same thing to me back in 2019 that he's doing now. I will not respond again to his unwarranted allegations. Thank you and good night. Atsme 💬 📧 06:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I find Atsme's inferences that this dispute is somehow gender based to be utterly offensive – did you link to the wrong diff there? I see no such implication in the diff you linked to. --bonadea contributions talk 08:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume I'm tired of having to deal with grown men who throw temper tantrums and bully editors when they don't get their way is what they were referring to, but to go from that to "this dispute [is] gender based" is a very large leap. I highly doubt that's what Atsme meant. Endwise (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we could all leave gender out of this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea, Endwise - you've both made excellent points. His sentence comprehension issues are part of the reason he filed this case, along with DIDNTHEARTHAT. It's the reason he's been wasting editors' valuable time with OCD-like persistent behavior. Perhaps now that I've received email verification from The Kennel Club that supports my position, and draws further attention to his sentence comprehension issues, I'm hoping it will be the end of this ridiculous fiasco. His wall of text above is nothing but a play by play history of his own relentlessness, bullying and demands. He failed to gain consensus for his proposed merge, rewrite of the article, and NPOV tag - he has forum-shopped, and created mountains of disruption while abusing me with PAs and misinformation as with the Fleig citation, and has gotten away with edit warring. Horse Eye's Back is spot-on with his suggestion of a boomerang. And btw, his PA about the Fleig citation is pure nonsense as evidenced here, and more of the same bullying/interrogation because he didn't get his way. I grew weary of his aspersions a while back, and simply removed the citation, but even that didn't satisfy him - he kept on and on and on and on - and as you can see above, he won't let it go. I work hard to get articles up to GA/FA standards as evidenced by 8 FAs & 19 GAs that I've either promoted or reviewed, and a rerun main page FA that first ran in 2014 and has withstood the test of time. It's no fun being bullied, interrogated and pounded on over and over and over again as what Cavalryman has done. Anyway, thank you for noticing the sentence issue and drawing attention to what's really going on. Atsme 💬 📧 13:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And please keep OCD out of this. I know several people with OCD and they behave no worse than people without. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, Phil Bridger - it was a bad choice of words on my part. I also have a friend with OCD, and it's involuntary. I struck the term. Atsme 💬 📧 16:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm also tired of dealing with Cavalryman's broken record behavior at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier, where I have tried, tried again, and again, and again, to mediate this dispute. I generally have an aversion to taking things to drama-filled noticeboards, but, here we are yet again. The broken record I hear Cavalryman playing is a tune that goes something like this. The bull and terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier are the SAME dog (Cavalryman proposed merging those two articles). The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ORIGINAL bull-and-terrier which was genetically engineered to maximize its aggressiveness – and its performance in dog fights when pitted against other dogs. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the original pit bull – it's still the same dog that fought in the Staffordshire dog-fighting pits. Now, perhaps that's as far as Cavalryman goes with this. But the conclusion I'm led to by this POV is that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a dangerous dog. A dog that can't be safely left alone in a room with an unfamiliar dog – or human. A dog that may require legislation to regulate its existence at best, or outright banning of the breed at worst. Other breeds such as the Bull Terrier are OK because they are not original bull-and-terriers. These derivative breeds have been crossbred with less aggressive dogs to make them safe around humans. I expect a minimal response to this at best, before I'm steered back to being asked again, "what sources exist that state the Bull and Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier are different?" – wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You cant mediate between someone who uses sources to back up an argument and someone who blatantly falsifies sourcing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058, I am going to push back pretty hard against these accusations, when have I ever even suggested anything approaching the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a dangerous dog that can't be safely left alone in a room with an unfamiliar dog – or human? Cavalryman (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

Cavalryman, no as I said you haven't said that. What I'm saying is that others may be hearing "dog whistles". Perhaps you're not intentionally blowing such whistles, and can't hear them yourself, but you're wearing ear plugs when I try to explain the issue to you – you're rejecting all attempts to tone down the certainty of the specific wording that's blowing dog whistles. I won't go so far as Atsme as to call some of your sources "fringe", but I think these sources are targeting a non-expert audience and, in an attempt at brevity, over-simplify things. This topic area may not have the high standards of medicine, which rejects such writing for the general public in favor of writing for medical journals (WP:MEDRS), but a willingness to compromise on that could help break out of this jam. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So you heavily implied an editor is editing from a POV without any evidence whatsoever, nor has been brought up in any previous discussion on the topic, while completely ignoring the accusations of falsification of sourcing (with relevant diffs). Thanks for your useful contribution that in no one addresses the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A section has been opened at RSN, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#German hard cover to ePub. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• From the 45 minutes I just spent down that rabbit hole and will never get back I think a boomerang is in order for Cavalryman. The only question for me at this point is whether a topic or full ban would be more appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'll start by saying that I'm wiki-friends with Atsme, and that I've had some limited interactions with Cavalryman that were entirely pleasant. This thing started as a content dispute, and has escalated to where it is a real mess. In the RSN RfC, I went and looked at most of the disputed sources, and it looked to me like a case of some sources say one thing, and other sources say the other thing. I want to refer to the comment I made in that RfC, that "I'd agree with some of the other editors here that the best resolution of the ongoing dispute is to acknowledge both sides, with attribution, and not to come down strongly one way or the other in Wikipedia's voice." But clearly both editors believe so strongly in their respective readings of the source material, and feel so strongly about it, that it's become personal and splitting the difference is never going to happen voluntarily. There's not enough here to justify admin action against Atsme, and there's not enough here to justify a boomerang against Cavalryman. And any kind of mutual TBAN or IBAN would be far too blunt a tool. I note that Atsme says that she has taken this to T&S, and it may be best to defer admin action here until T&S does whatever T&S will or will not do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I just re-read Atsme's comment, and I realize that she is planning to contact T&S, not that she has already done so. Woops. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm sure after I take T&S' new upcoming mandatory administrator training, I'll know exactly how to resolve this one with ease. LOL wbm1058 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
      • You mean their mandatory re-education? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Now, now. Have faith in the Affections Committee. They do stuff and advance things, I'm sure! El_C 20:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

While a lot of this revolves around a content dispute, there are serious behavioral concerns raised in Cavalryman's post, and they deserve a less flippant admin response than they've received here to date.

• WP:HOUNDing: following their dispute about bull terriers, Atsme went to golden retriever—an article which Cavalryman had recently gotten promoted to GA, and which Atsme had never edited before—to incorrectly accuse Cavalryman of a copyvio (thread).
• Vexatious litigation: in this SPI report filed by Atsme against Cavalryman, the evidence is literally just... that two editors live in the same country of 25 million people and agree about something. This is an utterly frivolous and unsubstantiated report which weaponizes site process to tax Cavalryman's time.
• Most seriously, Cavalryman alleges, with supporting diffs, that Atsme either falsified sourcing or (in the most charitable interpretation) evinced a completely cavalier disregard for the verifiability and accuracy of cited material.

I'll leave it to someone with less prior negative experience with Atsme to determine the seriousness of those issues, but Cavalryman is a long-term productive editor in good standing with a clean block log and a strong contribution record, so he deserves the courtesy of having his concerns discussed seriously. Separately, the invocation of T&S is another example of weaponizing process to bully and intimidate an opponent in a content dispute; nothing described by Atsme here rises to a level that would warrant their involvement, and these threats therefore seem intended to have a chilling effect. MastCell ^Talk 01:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

In which MastCell and the ill-disposed have an argument

Maybe just leave her alone. You seem to pop up any time she is talked about anywhere. PackMecEng (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Holy shit! Seconded. El_C 03:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC) There are few things that will bring MastCell out of his low activity, but a chance to attack Atsme is one of them. This is a very poor look for you. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC) She's one of his worst sorts of people. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, I think we all agree that I suck. My point is that you all seem determined to do anything but examine the merits of Cavalryman's complaint, a point which you're underlining here. He deserves better. MastCell Talk 18:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC) To be fair, I'm ignoring hundreds of possibly fine complaints here, I was just sucked up into a nasty confluence of you people again. You all deserve nicer colleagues. Stop harassing yourselves! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC) I know this is piling on, but I feel a need to do so. As I hope MastCell knows, I've long been friendly with him and have a lot of respect for him. But he and Atsme just push one another's buttons. Having personally commented at the SPI, I'm a bit offended by MastCell's dismissive treatment of it. WP:BEANS, but let's just let the process play out. As I said earlier in this thread, there isn't enough here to justify admin action against either Atsme or Cavalryman, nor for that matter, against MastCell (not that that was ever on the table). I agree with the Hulk that we all should be nicer. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi folks, I've collapsed the above. It was singularly unhelpful all-around, and it's too easy for ANI to get derailed by these third-party discussions. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. Anyway, main idea is a content dispute that went wrong. Any views on that, preferably from people who don't have a history with either party? Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There was a clear, well organized view on that. You collapsed it along with the rest of it. —-Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Refactor as you feel appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And have the usual suspects launch into me with personal insults that I'm out to get Atsme? No, you're the uninvolved admin. If you think that it is appropriate to hide someone's directly on-topic comments because other people attacked the person making the comments, then we've all learned a valuable ANI debating tactic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Who was attacking whom is very much in the eye of the beholder here. Kudos to those with a semblance of institutional memory wrt this matter. El_C 15:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This is something of a bravura performance, even for ANI. I hat a thread because it was completely derailed by discussion of a third party. Not helpful to anyone. You turn up and immediately make it about yourself. My idea was that someone who doesn't have a history with either of the two parties should try to comment. Surely there are such users out there, perhaps ones who won't engage in self-pitying snark, though that's probably hoping for too much. Someone else can hat this thread, also off-topic and completely unhelpful, at the appropriate time. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your hatting was sensible, I felt, Mackensen (though the collapsed summary, not so much). Your comment directly above even more so. I echo your exasperation. El_C 15:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

MastCell's initial comment should stand, as it was not off-topic, only the responses were. Now it looks as though no-one has supported Cavalryman's position at all.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone with less prior negative experience with Atsme — key word, Pawnkingthree: pattern. El_C 15:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

MastCell was upfront about his bias, yes. People comment all the time at ANI about editors with whom they have previously been in dispute. I don't see why we can't weigh the value of the comment ourselves.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess we'll go through the (same?) motions next time Atsme is criticized on a conduct board and MastCell unsurprisingly shows up to opine, unsurprisingly against her. See you then. El_C 16:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll take Mackensen up on their suggestion. I've uncollapsed the part that should not have been collapsed. I've no objection if this part stays uncollapsed, or is collapsed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floquenbeam (talk • contribs) --15:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So uncollapse the comment from person whom you support in this matter, collapse those whom you oppose. Okay! El_C 16:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, so let me get this straight. I and other editors who commented in the section that was collapsed are "ill-disposed", and then there is a post-collapse argument about the collapse, that is longer than the collapsed part. Maybe someone should simply close this entire mess, because it has clearly stopped being about the original complaint. Excuse me now, because I'm feeling ill-disposed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't read through the above, and all the diffs, in detail, but one particular comment stands out to me: She attempted to derail an SPI that would harm her cause. I handled the SPI case in question. Atsme made one comment there, to the effect that she wasn't persuaded that Platonk was a sock of Normal Op. She made no complaint when I came to the opposite conclusion. I do not believe that making a single comment, then immediately accepting the outcome, can reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to derail anything. I also don't believe for a moment that, if Atsme had actually believed that it was a Normal Op sock, she would have spoken up to enable their continued socking (given the history). I'm quite certain that this was simply Atsme not being persuaded by the behavioural evidence, and I think that the OP should withdraw that part of their complaint here. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• OK, I'd invite an uninvolved party to evaluate just one of Cavalryman's complaints. Just one, so the quantity of information isn't overwhelming. Start with the easiest and most obvious. Cavalryman and Atsme are in a content dispute at one page. Atsme goes to Talk:Golden Retriever, an article and talk page she has never been to before, recently promoted to GA, and runs an Earwig tool copyvio check on it, and asks Cavalryman about his apparent copyright violation. The only possible explanation in the universe for doing this is looking for dirt on someone she's having a dispute with. This is textbook hounding. When others explain to her that it isn't a copyright violation, and instead the other website copied Wikipedia, she does not apologize. Instead, she says Cavalryman is obligated by WP policy to complain to the other website that they reused his content without permission. This also somehow proves he should be looking at his own contributions instead of disagreeing with Atsme. This shows a complete lack of understanding of copyright and of WP policy. Atsme is an OTRS volunteer (before you think this is unrelated, Atsme is the one who brought it up), and thinks this is how copyright and WP policy work. Before we move on to the SPI, can anyone uninvolved provide a believable non-hounding explanation for running Earwig's tool on one of Cavalryman's GA's? Can anyone uninvolved provide a believable non-CIR explanation for her confusion about editors' obligation to complain about a 3rd party's unattributed reuse of WP text? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  The only possible explanation in the universe for doing this is looking for dirt on someone she's having a dispute with If you are starting your comment in bad faith, you can only expect others will treat it as such. But let me try to assume good faith and offer an explanation, and you can see if there is small section of the universe where it may be accepted. Atsme is a content editor interested in dogs, that should be obviously clear. She has also contributed to many GA's and FA's (indeed there is a thread on Atsme's talk page about an upcoming TFA which she contributed to), and likely interested in the quality of content for topics she's interested in. She had a concern about potential copyvio's, it was answered that the other source likely copied it from Wikipedia, and then she linked to a letter which is "meant to be sent to web sites (and their service providers) in order to explain the requirements of the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and to urge compliance." An editor responded that there is no requirement for editors to act on possible off-wiki copyvios, another editor linked to a helpful essay, and Atsme seemingly accepted the explanation and dropped the topic. Why would she need to apologize for asking why the Earwig tool returned a high possibility of copy vio? It did return a high possibility, and then her concerns were addressed. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  This type of reply is frustrating (by design). A fantasy rationale where it just happened by coincidence to be Cavalryman's GA she checked is a bad faith insult to the reader's intelligence. If we're required to just swallow this as an actual possibility then all hope is lost. In that case, you really can obfuscate almost anything reported to ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I believe both editors to be good productive editors, but I do have a worry about Atsme suddenly arriving at a GA that Cavalryman had recently had promoted, and, well this thread is the result. Mr Ernie's defence above doesn't appear to address the elephant in the room. Certain other editors, supporting both "sides", don't appear to have come well out of this discussion either. So what do we do? Two-way IBAN? Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • (Certain other editors??) Maybe a 2-way IBAN really would be the best path to getting back to productive editing. But there is the potential for locking both of them out of dog articles, so I think there would have to be some additional guidance over "who got there first". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Urgent attention to end harassment campaign

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

---

Will an administrator, please put a stop to User:JayBeeEll’s campaign of harassment against me, borderline canvassing admins to try and get me blocked and attempted censorship of reliably sourced material they do not like. I have done nothing wrong other than engage in robust discussion on a bizarrely highly contentious request move, introduce into the discussion a question whether Wikipedia is *solely* restricted to reflecting national laws on any number of topics as implied by multiple editors. My words have subsequently been misconstrued (I will assume good faith and not say deliberately). This all derives from a controversial undiscussed move request I contested by politely asking for a Request Move where the user (who was not JBL) could present the evidence, I subsequently got reported to ANI. I will not support a ban but this needs to end, I fear if I add a harassment warning to JBL’s talk page that would be viewed as inflammatory so this urgently requires admin intervention. Thank you. - dwc lr (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE by Hsynylmztr

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

---

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

It seems that this user is on a WP:TENDENTIOUS mission to Turkify articles in Wikipedia. Before I even had contact with this user, he wrote this WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS comment on the talk page of the article as a reply to someone whom I reverted; Same, user HistoryofIran keeps deleting other edits. Obvious vandalism and edit warring. He deleted the research of Cambridge University without giving any reason at all.. This suggests that he may have edited here on another account.

Some diffs of his edits;

Added "Turkic-speaking" to the lede, completely disregarding the vast amount of sources in the article disputing this

Made several attempts to remove "Turkish claim", disrupting the neutrality of the article

Attempted several times to add the Turkic origin of this figure into the lede, even though it is already mentioned. He is essentially sacrificing the quality of an article to mention "insert something Turkic here" twice.

Some more of his personal attacks/aspersions;

You are the only liar here. Turkish people kicked your colonial genocidal country out of Anatolia. And your unjust occupation ended. Nothing will change this fact.

You keep being malevolent....

It seems like what did you not like here is the word 'Turkoman', since you do not want to acknowledge the Turkoman roots of the Iran Empires.

Every non-biased people can clearly see that both of you are one-sided rather than being honestly neutral. I mentioned a quote from Ali Kemal and I cited his newspaper from 1921. How come this source is not reliable because it is from 1921, it is the date when he wrote these sentences to his newspaper. What should we do then, ask Ali Kemal to write the same thing today ?? And none of the books are outdated, all of them are from either the 90s or 2000s. How is it outdated? I don't know if you believe in karma but this black propaganda you do on the internet will seriously backfire one day.

Some of his WP:FORUM/WP:SOAPBOX comments, which clearly shows his mindset (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and whatnot), considering everything "100% Turkic" and completely disregarding the huge amount of WP:RS;

Persian influence in the empire doesn't change the national identity of the country. Just like British Empire had an Indian population, Turkic Seljuks had a Persian population. Seljuks are Turkic.

According to anyone that has common sense. Western Göktürks --> Oghuz Yabgu --> Seljuks --> Ottomans --> Turkey. It would be absurd to think that a shariah law country(Iran) can have a decent, neutral history education. Iran was ruled by Turks for 1000 years. Wikipedia is not a neutral place, at least for now, so all these information are the result of edit warring and vandalism. Persian people don't want to admit that they were ruled by Turks for 1000 years and their 'heroes' were Turks. Safavids, Afsharids, Seljuks and many more were Turkic Empires. Tuğrul and Çağrı beys founded Seljuks, Alp Arslan and Kılıç Arslan were most famous rulers, just by their name, one can say the were completely Turkic. But of course, shariah says otherwise doesn't it?

Based on all this, I would say that Hsynylmztr is WP:NOTHERE. Countless users have been banned for less. His talk page is full of warnings [112]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I support all these edits. If you check the previous edits you can see these users attacked me previously. Allowing different opinions is the main idea of Wikipedia. Remember it is the internet, not sharia court.Hsynylmztr (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• "I support all these edits. (...) Allowing different opinions is the main idea of Wikipedia. Remember it is the internet, not sharia court. "

Thanks for admitting:

1. Hsynylmztr: "Turkish people kicked your colonial genocidal country out of Anatolia. And your unjust occupation ended.")[113]
2. Hsynylmztr: ""You are the only liar here""[114]

Looking at the compelling evidence, it is safe to say that user:Hsynylmztr is not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I have issued a WP:AC/DS awareness notification for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan primarily for this edit EvergreenFir (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Hsynylmztr. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Promotion of User:Vicentiu D. Radulescu

Dear sysops, sorry for interruption. Recently Vicentiu D. Radulescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps promoting himself by writing autobiography on his userpage, sandbox and draft page or some stuff like that. Although several users try to tell him to come to tea house for help, he seemed to ignore them all the way and still writing autobiography without communicating with others.

I have reported him twice on WP:VIP, but he is still not blocked till now. Anyway, could any sysop have a look on this case? Much thanks. Pavlov2 (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just going to point out, they likely meet WP:NACADEMIC and you are currently asking for a ban because of work in a sandbox. With that said, a soft block for username pending verification may be appropriate.Slywriter (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Then, if permitted, what should i do the next step? Pavlov2 (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have left a message on their talk page asking them to email VTR. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Should a soft ban administered on this user for now? Pavlov2 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User: Neha.thakur75

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

---

• Neha.thakur75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Raghuvamshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What had started with a simple edit-warring issue has gone completely off the rails. User has a concern about the spelling of Raghuvamshi, and the edit-warred to attempt to change the article. Requests for English sources with their preferred spelling were stonewalled; the best response we got was to Google it, which one of the other users involved had.

User has repeatedly shown bad faith, calling other editors vandals. I woke this morning to a message that included a mention of "report[ing] this Indian cultural vandalisation to Indian organisation".[115] I left as neutral and good-faith a non-templated message I could, expressing my concerns that this could be viewed as a threat of off-wiki action.(my message) Their response accused me of supporting "vandalisation" [sic].[116] I find myself feeling that this user no longer represents a net positive to the Wikipedia community, but the personal attacks directed at me leave me too involved to take further action. —C.Fred (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• What started as a simple edit of misspelled changes has become very complicated because of C.Fred. Tired to make this user understand that this is such a common word in India and Indian culture that even simple google results will give you the evidence. But C.Fred instead of the understanding the problem and recommending a proper way to solve it went on blocking me to edit the content on the page. I have explained this user to understand that I have merely join wikipedia user to correct the spelling because I cannot let people miscommunicate my surname and my lineage. How would C.Fred feel if I change his name spelling? Neha.thakur75 (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "I have explained this user to understand that I have merely join wikipedia user to correct the spelling because I cannot let people miscommunicate my surname and my lineage." I'd read up on WP:COIEDIT. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Neha.thakur75 originally started a separate section with their complaint about C. Fred. This was merged into a single section. Neha.thakur75 tried to undo that, which was reverted. Singularity42 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• To be honest, I think that we can do without a single-purpose account that behaves like this. C.Fred has of course chosen the prior status quo in an edit war as The Wrong Version, and (as usual) become the target for the disputer. I'm not seeing anything wrong with C.Fred's actions, as, as xe said, xe has stayed out of the content dispute

  As to the content dispute, the vague handwaves at Google search results are ridiculous, as is the citing of the spelling in a 1832 book that was written in Latin. It's well known that Google searches are a stupid idea for deciding how something is correctly spelled. As I said, we can do without this.

  I leave you with a professor of history in a 2011 IUP book, an a 1933 letter from the maharajah of Alwar, both spelling it "Raghuvanshi".

  Uncle G (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @MrOllie Neha.thakur75 (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Rawat, Ramnarayan S. (2011). Reconsidering Untouchability: Chamars and Dalit History in North India. Contemporary Indian studies. Indiana University Press. p. 123. ISBN 9780253222626. The author was a lawyer in Aligarh […] and by choosing the surname of Raghuvanshi, he sought to underscore his learned status.
  • Copland, Ian (2002). The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947. Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 9780521894364. Alwar […] believed that 'My family is descended from the Suriya […] Dynasty […], coming down to Raghu, after whom the dynasty is called Raghuvanshi […]'

• I'd just like to note that it is incredibly common for south Asian names to have multiple variant spellings when rendered in Latin characters and our job is to name the corresponding article about the most common one and to also note others common spellings, making redirects when appropriate. It is not our job to arbitrate the "correctness" of these spellings or to pander to anybody who believes that their spelling trumps a more common one. Nobody is trying to denigrate any particular person's surname or perceived lineage because that is simply not something we even care about. As far as I can tell, the (rather confusing and uninformative) article is about legendary figures rather than historical ones anyway making this dispute even more inexplicable. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Two points:
  • Conduct/admin issue: Neha.thakur75's edit-warring and aggressive talkpage conduct has been subpar, to put it mildly, and C.Fred actions (including the page block) have been completely appropriate. I'll drop Neha a note on their talkpage but unless their conduct improves they are looking at a block; fwiw I don't consider C.Fred too INVOLVED or conflicted to take such action.
  • Content issue: the transliteration issue is debatable (rather than being plain right/wrong) and ideally should have been debated before Getsnoopy moved Raghuvanshi and {{Suryavansha}} to their preferred transliterations on Feb 19. This can be discussed further on the article talk page and perhaps the status quo ante restored while the discussion takes place (I am fine either way).

Abecedare (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• I see Abecedare has posted most of what I'd say while I was researching this, so I'll be brief. Transliteration is complicated; determining the best transliteration to use on en.wikipedia should be done through careful consultation of sources. Neha.thakur75 has also been belligerent and rude, and hasn't listened to advice. This could be resolved by them simply committing to being civil and to resolving this via talk page discussion. Absent such a commitment, I would recommend an indefininite block, which I would be willing to place myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Abecedare Thanks a lot, This is all I wanted to revert the change to its original form. I joined wikipedia to correct those changes, I am not familiar with ways of working of wiki. I have only heard about people vandalising content over wikipedia. C.Fred Gave a very bad impression and his actions of blocking my edits made me think he is one of those vandalising entity. I appreciate your action. Thanks !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha.thakur75 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Update. User returned from his partial block and immediately reverted the article, inserting a broken move template in the process. On the fourth revert, I partial blocked the user again, this time for two weeks. —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it time for an indefinite block?

In this message, Neka.thakur75 said, "I dont know what is edit warred. I also dont care what other user are editing or updating. I just care about the wrong changes done on suryavanshi and raghuvanshi pages by getsnoopy. My only scope is to get theser changes corrected. I am not a wikipedia editor nor I intend to be. After I get this miscorrection fixed I am not going to login to wikipedia."

This certainly explains some things, like the user's inconsistent signing of posts. I am also wondering if they're just here to right great wrongs or for some similar reason which is not being here to build an encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well is getting the wrong thing fixed is not a right thing to do ? Do you think it is not a contribution ?

It might be a very small contribution, but nobody devote there time and energy so much to get the things fixed. It is definitely important to me. Neha.thakur75 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I can only update about things where I have knowledge like every other volunteer. Some users get paid for their contribution or propaganda on wikipedia. Other contribute when they have time or when they have knowledge. I am contributing because someone vandalised something that relates to me.

And here is C.Fred continuous blocking my attempts to fix it. Neha.thakur75 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "fix" is neither supported by the community nor by reliable sources. You've already been informed by this thread to drop it; you refused, and thus you have been partially blocked twice. You really need to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass already. You are absolutely not going to force it by edit warring, especially immediately after your block has ended.

Also, I don't know how C.Fred would think, but I would recommend that you do not use signatures to ping editors, unless they have said that it is fine. Use the {{ping}} template instead, which is the standard way of notifying editors of a reply. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The edit warring, lack of consensus building, general attitude, and lack of English proficiency make them a poor fit for the project. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef. If all they're interested in is to bludgeon their own version of a transliteration that is not supported by sources nor the community, and calling everything against their belief "vandalism", then I don't see how they could possibly be here to build an encyclopedia. Couple that with very poor talk page posts with a somewhat battleground mentality, pitting them and their "correct" version versus everyone else's "wrong" version that we simply enforce because we take a personal dislike against it, rather than consensus and sources being against, and we've got one perfect storm for non-constructiveness. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:NOTHERE. ––FormalDude talk 04:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. User has stated they will continue to ignore consensus. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Indef block applied. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Mickie-Mickie‎ and intractable personal attacks

• User:Mickie-Mickie is treating the article 1987 Lieyu massacre‎ as their personal property. Their conduct is becoming increasing disruptive and has now escalated to edit warring paired with a blanket refusal to engage on the talk page. There is an odd obsession here with "sabotage" and suspected political enemies. Attacks primarily occur in edit summaries but also user and article talk pages. Issue is most egregious at 1987 Lieyu massacre but is also present on other pages such as Capture of the Tuapse. I first tried addressing the ownership issue in 2020[117], didn't get through apparently.
• October 2020 edit summary "1) Recover last sabotage removal of non-deprecated ref; 2) Add late footage on 3rd/last crime scene of Wall in 2019; 3) Add localized notes & references"[118]
• October 2020 edit summary "Revert the repeated abusive offense of (talk) as Gen. Zhao's resume reference is well-known originated from the official archive of Nanhwa Couty, Yunan, PRC, not fit in the deprecation category" [119]
• October 2020 edit summary "Revert the sabotage without even explanation for a reason on which part is the untruth. Please exam the referred content before making judgement." [120]
• October 2020 talk page comment "Dear HorseEye's Back, Wikipedia is an open resource, hence nobody claims the ownership on any article here. Please don't put your words on other people's mouths as in your talk page, or in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion before. The entire process of research and edits are to seek the truth whereas the public has the right to know, particularly when the evidences were systematically destroyed and the witnesses were silenced as dead people can't talk with 30 years of denial, ignorance and lies to forge a fake hero prestige covering fascism and protecting privileges till the military literature award still cheating the public last autumn... Every clue of intelligence and forensics is open to exam, and you are surely welcome to join in filling the missing link in history at any time of your preference. However dictating a simplified "gold rule" to eliminate reference unprofessionally against the freedom of media with a hidden agenda in another 30 years will not be possible. We were nobody but little servicemen simply let people know what happened to prevent the history repeating by any excuse again. Thanks for your attention, and hope you have a good day!"[121]
• March 2021 edit summary "Malicious Sabotage of mass deletion"[122]
• March 2021 edit summary "Malicious Sabotage of mass deletion - these legal references are for those still refusing to recognize the international laws and continuously defending the cause as legitimate." [123]
• March 2021 edit summary "See Also section here displayed for the related legal references for the concerned readers due to serious argument till today. Wikipedia is not the place for espionage warfare. Respect yourself."[124]
• March 2021 user talk page comment " 1. The legal references were listed for the concerned officials and population who still refuse to recognize the responsibility and international laws, then continuously defend the causes of operations as legitimate as per the serious arguments till today. 2. Edit war is disruptive with the mass deletion manipulated for the further operation. Wikipedia is not the place for espionage warfare, especially started with an anonymous account to launch a cover-up operation. 3. It appears that more alt accounts will be set up to proceed further cover-up operation. It's really low to cheat the public by cutting off the legal references and evidences even with the belief as justifiable as per your ideology."[125]
• March 2021 edit summary "Malicious sabotage of mass deletion"[126]
• March 2022 edit summary "Reverted the groundless accusation - lease read clearly the sources before hasty conclusion, and put questions in the Discussion page"[127]
• March 2022 edit summary "Reverted the sabotage before the 35 memorial anniversary"[128]
• March 2022 edit summary "Reverted the sabotage and the cover-up operation"[129]
• March 2022 edit summary "Removed the malicious judgment by a disputed Chinese nationalist on media"
• March 2022 talk page heading "Stop sabotaging the historical page of 1987 Lieyu massacre"[130]
• March 2022 edit summary "Undid revision 1075777201 by Horse Eye's Back (talk) whose radical ideology of advocating Chinese nationalism on Taiwan in Wikipedia forums leaving no room to comment anymore."[131]
• March 2022 edit summary "self-named "deep green" wouldn't quarrel ROC and Taiwan as the same in Wiki forums, and revokes over 80 international laws on this Taiwanese subject for political warfare sabotage purposes."[132]
• March 2022 edit summary "Removed the malicious personal attack"[133]
• March 2022 edit summary "Removed a direct attack and manipulated description"[134]
• March 2022 edit summary "Removed a political-motivated sabotage action"[135]
• March 2022 talk page comment "Wow, bravo! you surely got the great talent to mis-use "We don't seek the truth" gold rule to cover up then justify the evil doings. Dr. Tunchi Chang is the truth investigation committee member of the DDP government being assigned to the re-investigate this case, and the interviews with the witnesses at scene are revealed. Second-lieutenant Wenhsiao Liu is a secondary witness himself, who has followed this case for 35 years but still got unanswered but only being insulted. Their open statements are far more creditable than your mind attempt, and now you are putting your own words in other people's mouths again. Nobody ever owns the page, but stop sabotaging the collection of historical statements either."[136]

• PS this user is highly reminiscent of an LTA I remember from 2019 or so (particularly insisting that among other things Taiwan has tested a nuclear weapon) but I can't find the LTA case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week: User_talk:Mickie-Mickie#Block. El_C 20:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Do this user's contributions need to be checked for neutrality? He recently wrote Capture of the Tuapse, which does not present the Taiwanese side of this incident at all, and many of the most controversial claims are sourced to (mainland) Chinese and Russian sources, making me concerned about accuracy. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 10:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sun worshipers

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

---

This claim at [137] that most of us are Sun worshipers is highly offensive. Please give them time to rethink their position. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• facepalm* SN54129 19:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Reminds me of some dimly-remembered conversations from my freshman dorm. I'm happy to call it silly nonsense, but I don't believe it deserves a sanction of any kind. Just a non-admin opinion! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

silly nonsense seems to be their specialism, judging by their user page and their own talk page. See e.g. User:Jaredscribe#Sun and the Moon: Signs of the Times and Seasons and The article ignores the primary sources - the prophets entirely. Other than Moses/the pentateuch, there is not a single hebrew prophet quoted inline. Of the 102 footnotes, not a single one cites any of the hebrew prophets or Jewish sages. There's nothing wrong with an article on the pagan pantheon, or on Wellhausen's discredited documentary hypothesis, but they shouldn't masquerade as an article on the Jewish God. This article should be deprecated and merged with the articles on baal, ashtoreth, biblical minimalism, the documentary hypothesis, and anti-jewish propaganda. It doesn't even bother to quote a Jewish source post Moses as a minority opinion on the Jewish God. It is not encyclopedic - it is IGNORANCE. Jews will recognize this immediately and avoid the article, but the typical gentile reader will be confused, and our readers deserve better. at User:Jaredscribe#Current Content Disputes.

And Of course, there is a separate article God in Judaism, as I recently discovered, covering the post-exilic and patriarchal conception of God. Although the disambiguation link described as a "Modern theological discussion" in yet another denial of Jewish history and text, coming from wikipedia's systemic anti-Jewish bias. I changed that to "post-exilic and primordial", and added mention of Noah, Adam, and Eve - whom Torah law and Judaism hold to be universal human ancestors. Heavy on Maimonides .. I credited Aristotle. Needs more on the Prophets' conception of God.

Since they are the sole editor of their own user page, I don't need to provide diffs for the two quotes. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu, I think you really need to (1) notify the user of this conversation; and (2) specify exactly what it is you are seeking, because it seems quite unclear to me. Dumuzid (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I want them to stop their rants from being published at Wikipedia. I did notify them, see [138]. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for my obliviousness! Dumuzid (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Burn the heretic! AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't belong to any religion. Yet I do not like to be called "Sun worshiper" together with some billions people.

Most Christians get called "Sun worshipers", and Muslims are no longer "Moon worshipers" but "Sun worshipers". tgeorgescu (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you drunk? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm telling what they mean. Dumuzid agrees that they spew out nonsense. They mean that everyone who follows a Sun-based calendar is a Sun worshiper. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you substantively here, but quite disagree with bringing it here. Until they are tendentiously forcing these opinions somewhere other than their talk page, I don't understand seeking some sort of official sanction. While it's probably a bit off the way talk pages are meant to be used, I would suggest withdrawing this unless and until there are problems elsewhere. As ever, just my opinion. Dumuzid (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of Sun worship, anti-jewish propaganda, and wikipedia's systemic anti-Jewish bias must stop. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you been sitting in the sun too long? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you say the same about Dumuzid? Since Dumuzid substantively agrees with me, as told above.

For Christ's sake: I did not write those claims, the reported user did. If I am making this up block me. If I read them correctly, then block them. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be asking for someone to be blocked for being wrong on the internet. I don't think that is against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

They are not only wrong, their are proffering insults like "Sun worshiper" towards billions people who have never worshiped the Sun. And they basically say that the article Yahweh This article should be deprecated and merged as anti-jewish propaganda. And they claim that Wikipedia has a systemic anti-Jewish bias. Well, that means that Wikipedia is antisemitic, and that I am also antisemitic. It is not just wrong, but offensive.

If you don't think that's an insult, I can assure you that for rank-and-file monotheists it is highly insulting. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

In order to be insulted by something, one has to be aware of it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's akin to calling ethnic or religious groups dogs and bitches. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a competition in obscurity? The obscurity of the insult v. the obscurity of the offence taken. I feel I should be outraged. Could someone tell me what I should be outraged by? DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You are right: their writing style is highly obscurantist, so it's hard to parse those words. And I guess that my own style is not much better. At least Dumuzid understood what I mean and agreed with me substantively. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I'm one of the most fundamentalist Christians who regularly edits Wikipedia, and I at most find being called a "sun worshipper" mildly amusing. I'm willing to wager that his criticisms of how Jewish sources are used in articles on Old Testament topics are essentially correct, although I'm sure it's a systemic bias issue rather than a deliberate NPOV one. A quick glance at his contribution suggests that he is a constructive, if perhaps sometimes a tad eccentric, editor. Perhaps instead of calling for a block over a one-off slight, we should with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bear with one another in love (Ephesians 4:2)? I mean, did you even discuss this with him before bringing it here? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• This edit is two weeks old, and I don't see any evidence of further disruption or any discussion of this prior to bringing it to ANI. I don't think this warrants any admin action. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock needed on Italian IPs... block evasion

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

---

• 109.52.240.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

For the past 11 months, every single edit from the range Special:Contributions/109.52.240.0/21 has been performed by User:Giubbotto non ortodosso evading his block. The situation has devolved to personal attacks.[139] Can we get a lengthy rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

EvergreenFir: Political suppression of productive discussion on Talk page

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

---

A discussion that was advancing forward in a civil manner was locked at a depth of four by EvergreenFir here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EvergreenFir#Political_suppression_of_discussion_of_racial_politics

I see no justification for this other than attempting to suppress discussion to preserve a political outlook on the site. There were substantive points being made and differing viewpoints being clarified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8697:7300:D43D:DF69:30B1:AD1 (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The justification is however there, and is perfectly valid: This is not a forum for users to express their personal views on who can(not) play in certain roles--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The discussion in question is at Talk:Whitewashing_in_film#Article_has_anti-white_progressive_racist_bias. Ping me if there are questions. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-mobile diff of EF's close. Looks like a good close to me. I doubt the opener would ever have led to productive, article-improving discussion. By the time it was closed, it was definitely getting into forum-style discussion about the racial politics of casting. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 21:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close, no action needed. I also don't see how the discussion was aimed at improving the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close This IP claims I have an anti-white bias. I don't consider that WP:CIVIL. This thread was not going anywhere constructive. Godwin's law likely to be invoked within a few posts. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think Russian State TV might have out-Godwin'd Godwin: Joe Biden is a Nazi. Nazi European Union. EU leaders are Nazis. The German chancellor is a Nazi. https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-state-tv-just-blew-up-putins-nazi-ukraine-bullshit The age in which we weave. El_C 22:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close per WP:NOTAFORUM. Cullen328 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close to quote a wise man I once knew, ayuh. Dumuzid (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse The "discussion" seemed more like virtue signaling than anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment from OP The above comments misinterpret the discussion. There were no opinions expressed about whether certain actors should or should not play certain parts. The dispute is that cross-race casting is interpreted differently and framed differently on wikipedia depending on whether the actor is white or non-white. That shows a racial bias that is consistental with some contemporary political outlooks and should at least be highlighted as such or removed and more neutral language used — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8697:7300:34C9:D531:3076:3450 (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  You can try to do this, the article is not protected. Remember about WP:RS though.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I also note that the article is specifically on the subject of casting white actors in non-white roles. There are separate articles on color-blind casting and racebending, which cover casting roles outside of the race in a broader sense; the former article has blackwashing as an inbound redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. Seems like someone wanting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment from OP Thank-you for the wide feedback and suggestions. I will consider how to propose edits to improve the neutrality of the articles / possibly propose they are merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8697:7300:34C9:D531:3076:3450 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User:PublicEnemy54321 making bizarre edits to inflate the edit count

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

---

I noticed PublicEnemy54321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making bizarre tiny edits in a way similar to TheLanchKellfruit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in order to increase their edit count. For example, they are changing "Thachokhali" to "Thayokhali" [140], then reverting themselves [141]. They are also editing in the sandbox by putting in a phrase [142], then removing letters one at a time [143] [144]. They have also edit-warred at Valimai [145] [146] [147], and have been warned for this [148]. Subsequently, they removed words from the warning, one at a time, [149] [150] [151]. Given the nature of the edits, and the extended confirmed protection put on the article following the severe edit war, this could be attempting to game the system in order to edit Valimai. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:90E3:A5E9:8A16:9196 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've revoked their EC user right, to start with. El_C 04:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've warned them about the revoking of EC. Given that it is an ECGAMING issue, we'll probably need all admins on deck to scrutinize their edits more closely, and block, if necessary. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:90E3:A5E9:8A16:9196 (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac, ProcrastinatingReader, and Drmies: Pinging people who have dealt with ECGAMING in the past. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:90E3:A5E9:8A16:9196 (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright then, it would be helpful if you could reset "those" edits so that I can know the actual number. After all, you have no other job. @El_C.

(PublicEnemy54321 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC))

You should be lucky you weren't flat-out blocked. Trying to game AC or XC is generally itself grounds for an indef, especially XC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 06:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

(pinged reply) Unfortunately, because your edits were to Wikipedia- and mainspace pages, we cannot delete your contributions like if you had edited your own sandbox. However, if you choose to make legitimate and helpful edits going forward, it should not be an issue to demonstrate that you can have the right back. Primefac (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. PublicEnemy54321 has been edit warring while logged out quite extensively, and when they don't get their way, they make violent, misogynistic threats. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

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

IP user creates inappropriate draft

There is an IP user, their username is 202.124.178.186 and they are creating a draft called Khiran Srikrishnamenan. The draft itself looks inappropriate and is opinion-based. What should we do with this draft? Meltdown reverter (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've G10'd the page. It should be deleted quickly.2601:647:5800:1A1F:90E3:A5E9:8A16:9196 (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I got it. I dropped WP:EMERGENCY a line since the word "kill" was used, but as I've noted to them (like I have many times in the past), it's probably just high-schoolers messing about. In any case, IP blocked one week with everything disabled. El_C 05:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverting my edits for no reason

Chipmunkdavis has recently made random reverts without apparent reason on some of my edits 1, 2, most of which are me dealing with WP:COI accounts. However, these include cleaning up vandalism/original research from IPs 3, 4 and 5 as well as a COIN report 6. I haven't reverted them back, as I'm not entirely sure as to what their intentions were.

Digging further I realized that they are under the assumption that I am a sock account and had reported me to SPI of a sockmaster. Based on them, they stated that it stems from my previous "feuds" or "support" in relation to a bunch of IPs. I'm not sure as to what these IPs even connect to me to that account, as it was the result of random, routine anti-vandalism work from a few months ago. Even so, the examples seems broad and hardly tangential too; they even bought up me reverting an actual blocked sockmaster which just makes this all too confusing.

Nevertheless, could an admin or a checkuser expedite their report because I feel like I can't really continue making contributions until that is over. Thanks. Razali Osman (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well this is a new tactic. Anyway, could some admins please semi the articles that are part of the current vandalism spree such as these ones. And I assume there will be more. CMD (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

OP  Blocked without tags per the evidence presented at Special:Permalink/1075851570#07 March 2022. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 7

Special:Contributions/1.36.236.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 1 August in 2020 (only 1.36.236.68 is not),please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Also,please protect Bomberman Kart,start at 2 August in last year,spam and DE.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

False claims of "weasel wording"

There have been a number of editors recently (including at least one admin) who are making claims of "weasel wording" in the use of the word "claims", e.g. "Bill Gates claims". They insist on using the wording which instead states what the person BELIEVES, even though this can rarely be proven. The false assumption these editors are making is that if a person says they believe something then this is proof that they believe that thing. This is not a safe assumption, given that these exists such a thing as "lying". Please can this issue (possibly a systemic issue) be addressed?

Recent reverts in the name of undoing weasel wording have been occurring at the article Uğur Şahin - diffs to appear shortly. --Rebroad (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Who or what is this about? Page links and diffs would be helpful. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you forum shopping and running to ANI instead of attempting a discussion with editors? This seems pre-mature at best. Discussion also at BLPN.Slywriter (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what "forum shopping" or "BLPN" is, and I have attempted discussion with the other editors. Rebroad (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Uğur Şahin is the same issue. And rather than allow that conversation to occur, you have run to ANI with a vague accusation.Slywriter (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As one of the editors who reverted Rebroad, I claim that I have not been notified of this discussion. – ².O.^Boxing 14:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

1) You need to inform the people when you open an ANI claim against them, I have not received any such notification. 2) Here is an example the main diff of concern where the OP insists on putting "claims" in from of what someone stated in an interview to believe in. The OP "claims" seem to be based on the possibility that what someone says they believe in may not be the truth and is therefore unverifiable and needs to be "claimed". Perhaps weasel words is not the right term, but there is a definite attempt to elicit doubt where no evidence or reliable sources of such doubt exists. They've been warned to stop it, and they keep doubling down. Additionally the OP was the subject of an ANI thread recently on this exact behaviour. Casting doubt and removing sourced definites to be slightly more ambiguous seems to be a pattern with this user from a cursory look through their edit list. Such as altering "conspiracy theorist" to "conspiracy analyst". What are we going to do, clarify that every time someone says something they are simply "claiming" it, because we have no way of knowing if they are lying or not? Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I am the admin concerned, and have also not been informed of this ANI filing. Rebroad also decided to template me for reverting him, despite the fact that what he's inserting is clearly weasel wording - we don't say that someone "claims" something unless there is a doubt or contentiousness about what they are saying. In this case there is not - the subject clearly said what he said, and it is uncontentious anyway. Rebroad has inserted the "claim" three times in the last 24 hours, five times in total, and has been reverted by four different editors. If I had not been involved here I would be considering a partial block on this article for persistent edit-warring. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Isn't MOS:CLAIM supposed to deal with this? M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes that's the one. Whatever word you wish to use for it, casting doubt on someone's statements with no reason to do so is disruptive. To insist on doing it repeatedly is over a line. To make the claim that we can't trust what anyone says, is WP:NOTHERE. Canterbury Tail talk 15:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is basic common sense. On a side note, the March 2021 source doesn't appear to support the disputed statement: Şahin is against compulsory vaccination and emphasizes the voluntary nature of the vaccination. "Vaccination will be voluntary, no vaccination is planned" is all he said back then. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The source isn't great on this, completely agreed. If it's removed then so be it, I don't have a horse in that game and only saw this due to the last ANI report on them. The issue here is the behaviour of the OP, not necessarily the content. Canterbury Tail talk 15:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI - I've replaced the source with one where he definitely states his opposition. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 16:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - I didn't have time to look as I was at work. So the only thing we're left with now is the behaviour of the OP. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Really not sure this is an improvement. The edit appears to still be around trying to instill doubt in the readers mind with awkward wording. And they're continuing to template regulars with not providing reliable sources for removing their "claims" wording. Canterbury Tail talk 20:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

After reading the original reference I had my doubts, which is why I found a different one. In that interview he is asked outright if he is against compulsory vaccination and replies that he is. At this point User:Rebroad behaviour appears to be a WP:IDHT issue. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Rebroad from editing Uğur Şahin for one week. They can still try to make their case on the talk page and WP:BLPN. If the disruption continues further sanctions may be needed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No one was notified of this ANI because this ANI is not about users edits. It's about the chronic misapplication of Wikipedia policy. The false claim of "weasel wording" was how it started, but now it also seems to be the false application of the "edit warring" policy - i.e. failing to recognise the exemption for removing unsourced (or original research) for articles on living persons. And, a failure to recognise "original research" (which a primary source is). Rebroad (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You still must notify any editors whom you are discussing when you open a discussion here. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

POV-push edit by Kangkungkap

User Kangkungkap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making disruptive editing (esp. POV-push edit and removal of sourced content) since his early days in WP. And by now, almost all of his edit is reverted. Some editor tried to warn him on his talk page, but it seems he is not willing to listen. Articles that mostly affected by his edit are Silat, Baju kurung, tekpi. Based on his edit history, it seems that it was clear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Ckfasdf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

samples of his edit.

• tekpi1
• tekpi2
• nasi goreng
• tempoyak1
• silat
• his statement on other user talk page
• songket
• tempoyak2

Do you have any actual diffs to present to us to support your case? Ravenswing 19:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt mentioned that on my previous post.. I will list some of his recent edit, his previous edits also have similar tones. Please find it above. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Revdel

This, please and thanks. – ².O.^Boxing 18:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, and blocked. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hamkar 99

User Hamkar 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the text with sources from the article List of Hazara tribes and continues the edit war. I have added information (on the identity of the Behsud and Besud tribes) verified by reliable sources, including secondary sources. Calls for consensus on talk page were unsuccessful. The talk page is currently being ignored by him. During the discussion, he described the sources I added as follows: "So the information is poor and needs to be edited and deleted". To a request for a more reasonable argument, I received the following answer: "This is my own conclusion." I suggested that he stop deleting sources and, in order to comply with the WP:NPV I invited him to add his sources. In response, he added a source in Persian (which I can't verify yet) and removed the sources and information I added earlier. Now he reverted (diff) my edit with the following description: incorrect and pan-Mongolism edits. I think such accusations are WP:DE and a violation of the rules prescribed in WP:CONS, WP:NPV. Also the accusation of pan-Mongolism is a direct violation of Godwin's Law (I think such accusations are unacceptable on Wikipedia). I ask you to take action and warn the user about the need to comply with the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me add here that previously both users asked me to do something with their opponent, and I really think what is happening in the article is not ok. It can certainly benefit from an administrator looking at it.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User TolWol56 left a note on my user page accusing me of "unconstructive edits"?

I have no idea who TolWol56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is or what they are talking about. They appear to have participated in "flame wars" in the past, according to notices left on their profile. Please advise? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meteoritekid (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Meteoritekid, why haven't you asked TolWol56 why they put that template on your talk page? You could ping them to your talk page, where they left the template, to discuss it, or you could have gone to their talk page to ask about it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems they reverted my edits on Russian National Unity and then left the note on my profile instead of adding something to the relevant talk page. I believe their edits are propagandistic and their flagging my profile goes against normal Wikipedia policy. Not sure what do do from here. I would probably start a discussion on the talk page there and then flag their profile for the same conduct they accused me of? Meteoritekid (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You should start a discussion at Talk:Russian National Unity about the content that is in dispute and ping TolWol56 to join the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have done this. What should I do about my user page? Meteoritekid (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. You're free to remove any message. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: And I suggest rewording what you wrote at Talk:Russian National Unity. Article talk pages are not for discussion of user behavior; that's what this page is for. :-) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Please help? There are strange things afoot over here. I think the person is using alternate accounts to avoid the 3 reversion / edit war rule. Meteoritekid (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I have done this. I would also note that TolWol56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has several similar issues noted on their user talk page. Meteoritekid (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Meteoritekid started out with clear-cut misrepresentation of source to whitewash this unregistered Neo-Nazi fringe group,[152] then made unexplained revert,[153] continued whitewashing,[154][155] and is now misrepresenting primary sources (vk.com) by creating his own conclusions in violation of WP:OR.[156] His editing reeks of WP:NONAZI. Block the incompetent user and save time from being wasted. TolWol56 (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  The claims you've made regarding the RNU are demonstrably false -- the 2013 Canadian governmental report on the organization goes against the edits you made to the page, to the talk page, and here. I went through the trouble of making a stable web archived link to the vk.com profile with images of RNU militia members on armored vehicles and in front of a destroyed building in Donetsk, dated June 2021, and posted by the leader of the organization. There's no "misinterpretation" there. You are pushing misinformation. I would appreciate if an admin could step in and have a look at the page and talk page before this would be classified as a flame war or something similar. Meteoritekid (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

They don't contradict me at all. No one is disagreeing that the fringe neo-nazi group you are whitewashing has gone underground after getting banned, but that is not uncommon. You prove my point when you are upholding what is "posted by the leader of the organization" instead of finding reliable source. You have been already told that every group likes to hype their achievements but you are supposed to find reliable source for the information before you promote them.

The only thing admins can do is they can ban you from whitewashing this fringe Neo-Nazi group because you are continuing the whitewashing and making unexplained reverts to restore your whitewashing.[157] TolWol56 (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The leader of the organization is a public figure, Alexander Barkashov. I believe social media posts by a public figure are acceptable references. If not, the other sources and edits made to the History section of the page by other users still confirm that the RNU was active in the Donbas War as recently as 2014. Your edits are still misleading. You can keep calling them a "fringe" group. I have not claimed otherwise. They still exist. You are attempting to claim that they do not exist, which is not true. If anyone is whitewashing here, I would say it is you. Meteoritekid (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. You are the one whitewashing this group by showing it as some largely unbanned registered and dominant organization when the reality is completely opposite. With your problematic belief that I believe social media posts by a public figure are acceptable references, I can only recommend you to should better focus on editing non-political subjects and learn and familiarize yourself WP:OR, WP:RS before you edit these pages. TolWol56 (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

>Don't put words in my mouth. You are the one whitewashing this group by showing it as some largely unbanned registered and dominant organization

It has been banned in 4 cities -- in a country with over 20,000 municipalities. You're the one claiming it is 'banned across Russia.' That is misleading. I have not claimed that it is "dominant," only that it exists and has participated in recent conflicts (irrefutable fact).

I agree that as long as neither of us can prove that it is "registered" or "unregistered" across the majority of Russia, any mention of that should not be included in the article. At this point, you are claiming that it is not a legal organization and cannot be registered in Russia, which does not appear to be true, and which you have not substantiated.

>With your problematic belief that I believe social media posts by a public figure are acceptable references

If I am wrong about that one reference, I concede that. I would still point out that you appear to be intentionally mischaracterizing the contents of the Canadian government report and that your edits suggest that the RNU has not existed since 2003, which is still patently false, as corroborated by the rest of the article and many other articles on Wikipedia, such as Russian separatist forces in Donbas and others.

I believe you are editing the article in order to give it a pro-Russia slant, in order to make it appear as though Russia does not contain any active fascist groups, and that those groups are not participating in the current conflict. I would appreciate if an admin would step in at some point.. Meteoritekid (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hold the phone. My edits to the page have been reverted three times, now -- and by three users that all have significant edit histories on Indian / Hindu pages. I've never seen anything like that before and I believe that TolWol56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using multiple accounts. Am I crazy? Meteoritekid (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

banned in 4 cities -- in a country with over 20,000 municipalities But it was never registered in the first place that's why your wild dream of it being registered across Russia looks nothing more than online whitewashing of this Neo-nazi group or trolling.

We write what sources say per WP:RS. But you are not understanding what is WP:OR or WP:RS even after so many of my attempts to teach you about it.

I am not baffled at your incompetence and personal attacks and I stand by my initial suggestion that you should be blocked for your whitewashing and misrepresentation of sources. TolWol56 (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The 2013 Canadian government report states that the RNU was a registered organization in at least some of the 4 municipalities in which it was banned, prior to being banned. If you are going to claim that the group is not currently formally registered anywhere in Russia, and you wish to add that to the article, you would presumably need to cite evidence that supports that claim. Since the group has not been banned in 90%+ of Russia, assuming that it is not a registered organization in any municipality...is a bad assumption. Now, I don't speak Russian and am not certain how to look up registrations of political organizations in various Russian municipalities. So --

The article should not claim that the RNU is registered or unregistered across Russia without solid evidence either way. The edits I proposed on the talk page removed direct mentions of the group being currently registered or unregistered, which solved that problem.

You disagreed and have now edited the page to suggest that the RNU is not registered anywhere in Russia, and has not been since 2003. You have not justified those claims in any way. No justification isn't WP:OR or WP:RS. It's nothing. Maybe there's a formal Wikipedia term for it I am not familiar with. I do not know.

Wikipedia defines whitewashing as "the act of glossing over or covering up vices, crimes or scandals or exonerating by means of a perfunctory investigation or biased presentation of data." By using misleading language to suggest that the RNU ceased to exist in Russia in 2003, you are whitewashing.

Again, I will refrain from editing the page until some admins can review...all of this. Including what I believe to be your use of alternate accounts to get around the 3 revert rule Meteoritekid (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: if you have some evidence of sockpuppetry I suggest you open a WP:SPI rather than make allegations here since it appears you're accusing several semi established editors of a violation. I'd note you will likely need better evidence than 3 editors editing a single page. There doesn't seem anything that surprising about the editing patterns to me. You opened an ANI thread where you named an editor, and notified them on their talk page as you were required to do. This in itself is likely to attract the attention of other editors familiar with the editor you are naming like those who regularly edit similar pages. These editors may not comment here, but they may get involved in the underlying content dispute if they feel they can be helpful. Further timing-wise, this issue seems to have blown up at a time when most Europeans are asleep and many Americans are heading that way. And I'd note one of the editors involved first edited the article before you anyway. And please stop talking about a content dispute here, it's not something we can resolve, nor is it something admins will review. As it stands, the article is fully protected so all of you are forced to discuss any changes on the article talk page. Please do so and try and come to some WP:consensus using WP:dispute resolution as needed. If you start the WP:edit warring again when the article is unprotected, don't be surprised if blocks are next. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually I see you didn't notify the editor despite the big boxes telling you to. However one of the editors who commented here did so the end result is mostly the same. In future, please ensure you do notify editors if you're going to bring them here, as your required to per the big boxes. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I will open a WP:SPI. While I have contributed to some pages, I am not intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policies and rules. I appreciate your patience.

I posted here initially because I received an email & scary-looking notification from TolWol56 on my talk page suggesting that my initial edits to Russian National Unity were vandalism. That user did not edit the talk page for the article; they simply accused me of vandalism and reverted the edits I had made. I wasn't sure what I should do about it, and there was a link to this page in the notification; I came here and asked what I should do.

As I said on the talk page, I am not going to edit the article again before others are able to comment.

I'm not sure what a formal "big box" notification would be as you describe it, but I did leave a notice on TolWol56's talk page, which was subsequently blanked. Meteoritekid (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: The notice when you edit this page as well as the header of this page clearly says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" but left no such notice as can be seen in the edit history. The compulsory notification was given by Suffusion of Yellow [158]. After said editor had given the compulsory notification you left two pointless templated warnings [159] (+ [160]) and [161].

The harassment one in some circumstances perhaps it can be useful for an experienced editor however it's pointless when you had already opened this ANI. This ANI was warning enough that you weren't happy with their comments. And a template like that is clearly no way to seek clarification from TolWol56 as was suggested at the beginning of this thread.

The edit warring one, personally I'm in the camp of such warnings always being pointless for experienced editors. But even if we put that aside, it came ~40 minutes after TolWol56 had given you an edit warring warning [162]. An editor who has just warned you can be assume to be well aware of our edit warring policy, there is absolutely no reason to warn them. If you need to take them to WP:ANEW and feel you need to show a warning, just show them warning you. (Tit for tat warnings are generally pretty dumb. Even discretionary sanctions strongly discourages tit for tat notifications.)

Normally I wouldn't comment on such things but you claim you gave notice when you didn't. Instead you only gave those pointless warnings but failed to give the notification which actually mattered when you opened this thread. As for the rest, if you don't already know about SPI, it's IMO a really bad idea to actually open an SPI, but whatever it's your funeral.

Also as another editor already said, really you should have just asked TolWol56 for clarification on the notice or if that didn't work, asked at WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse rather than coming here. But this isn't a big deal for a one time thing. More important is that whatever the merits of starting this thread, you proceeded to discuss content issues here when it's not the place. Again keep that discussion on the article talk page, which is where you need to resolve the content dispute without further edit warring.

Just to repeat, you cannot edit the article right now, it is impossible because you are not an admin. The protection is going to last 7 days assuming it isn't unprotected earlier, which really seems more than enough time to resolve this dispute provided you actually make an effort. To be clear, you are the one who needs to make an effort by discussing on the article talk page etc. There's a good chance no one else is going to do it for you so if you want to get something changed then you can't just sit back and expect it to be magically resolved.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple conflicts of interest?

Bringbag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) received a notice about their edits seeming to be promoting the Cleveland Review of Books in December 2021. I am now finding that their edits have also included articles from various websites authored by Brianna Di Monda.[163][164][165][166][167][168] Bringbag said on their talk page that they do not have a COI with what I wrote about on Kristen Stewart's page, but the WP:COI seems pretty clear to me. Would love this noticeboard's watchers' thoughts. KyleJoan^talk 04:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow. That's very striking, KyleJoan. I have warned the user on their page that they need to self-declare or be blocked for undisclosed COI, alternatively undeclared violations of WP:PAID. If they comply, I hope they will also have a good explanation for denying a COI in the case of their edit to Kristen Stewart when you asked about it. Btw, there's a problem with the link the user added in Kristen Stewart; I only get "We couldn't find your page" when I click on it. Were you able to access it? Not that that is so important, since the form of the reference itself names Brianna Di Monda, just as with all your other diffs. Bishonen | tålk 11:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

I had no issue accessing that link. If you'd like to verify the ref's author for yourself, its archive link can be found here. Thanks, Bishonen! KyleJoan^talk 13:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Strange about the link — I had no problem with any of the other links. Maybe a geographical issue, as I'm in Europe. Well, never mind, the whole internet thing is a riddle wrapped in a mystery AFAIC. And thank you for noticing and reporting this sneaky promotion, KyleJoan. Bishonen | tålk 14:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

There's off-wiki evidence that there's a COI regarding Bringbag and Brianna Di Monda. With respect to WP:OUTING, I'll leave it at that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please do, there's no need to out anybody, especially as I've found something else. Bringbag was warned about promoting the Cleveland Review of Books in December.[169] Guess what? It turns out Brianna Di Monda is a "contributing editor" to the Cleveland Review of Books.[170] Promotion of this individual appears to be Bringbag's main, not to say, only, purpose on Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to wait very long before I block, frankly. Bishonen | tålk 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC).

User:Qhalidal15 consistently uploading unattributed images and not engaging

Qhalidal15 (talk · contribs) has been uploading a lot of unattributed images such as most recently noted at [171]. Their talk page lists about 20 of these image notifications, all subsequently deleted. Another issue, is their failure to engage. Qhalidal15 always marks all edits as minor and never uses an edit summary. I've given several warnings with no response [172], [173], [174] yet they continue in the same path of editing. Not providing edit summaries is not the biggest offence but failing to engage/respond to others isn't in the spirit of WP. The consistent uploading of non attributed images is also a concern.LibStar (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Dicklyon

• Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Discussion at WT:TENNIS re capitalization

Reporting User:Dicklyon for continued disruptive editing on hundreds and hundreds of articles. It took me hours yesterday to undo only some of his 100s of edits, of which he was warned. A discussion was opened about this right here because another editor disagreed with his changing 100s to 1000s of articles. While discussing, of which I see no consensus and where he pinged another editor with the same pet peeve he has, he starts doing it again tonight. After 2+ days of discussion! He has done this multiple times at Tennis Project articles where some of us have to revert all his edits. He never does just one. While a couple of us vehemently disagree with his view, we had discussed changing the header to something different that could work for all. Instead, he goes and claim consensus and 100s more have been changed.

This has to stop. I'm not sure Tennis Project has ever been busier in fixing these trivial items than we are the past month. We don't have time now for vandalism and sockpuppets and sourcing as we are too busy with reverts. If this was the first time he has done this it might be handled differently but this is blatant in our faces disruptive editing and he should absolutely be required to revert all his edits until the Tennis project figures out how best to handle its chart columns and rows. This is urgent because he is changing so many articles even now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The tennis articles are indeed very busy in fixing trivial over-capitalization issues, since there are so many of them and since they're pretty easy to fix with JWB. But you've chosen to pick on one particular fix for reasons that are hard to understand and have been roundly rejected at the discussion you linked at WikiProject Tennis; more days won't change that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Where do you get 2+ days of roundly rejected by the same crew that always follows you around. One of which you invited KNOWING how they feel. It is not consensus, you were warned as such, it's under discussion, and yet still you change 1000 articles. The Project will very likely change this to something else like W–L if a heavy consensus ever forms to that odd pairing you want. You are blatantly misusing JWB for the umpteenth time and it must stop. I would be inclined to take that gadget away from you it's gotten so bad. That is why we are here; your disregard for the situation, and the discussion. And this has happened before very recently. You should know better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I did ping the editor who had done similar changes there before; his edits were not objected to. As for blatantly misusing JWB, I don't know what you're referring to; are there accusations some place? I generally use it only for uncontroversial simple pattern fixes, such as downcasing per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

They have been controversial and you know they have been controversial. This is an item that will affect every single tennis bio in existence. Countless thousands or 10s of thousands. If there is something you don't like about a chart, the TennisProject may change things to make it more palatable. A handful of your buddies should not be able to change every tennis bio.... that requires a massive consensus. And 2+ days of talk and changing a thousand articles after being told not to is DISRUPTIVE EDITING. You should know that in your 16 years of editing as it's been told to you recently. It was also told to you in discussion that it's not clear with W–L|(16–7) and Win–Loss|(16–7) that MOSCAPS applies. You said yourself that W–L is functional, not W–l. But this is not the place to discuss it. This is the place to discuss your blatant disruptive editing in the midst of 2+ day discussion that has no consensus, where you went and changed 1000 articles to your way of thinking that now MUST be changed back. That is wrong and will always be wrong and you need to be reprimanded for doing it yet again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"Countless thousands or tens of thousands"? No. There are 1397 tennis biographies with the table row header "Win–loss". This is the only recent place where you and Sportsfan have objected to using sentence case and prefer to use title case; but the consensus (5–2) at the discussion was that we should just go with what MOS:CAPS says. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I was about to raise the issue of Dicklyon's recent edits with JWB here at ANI as well. I am the editor that Fyunck(click) refers to above who "disagreed with [Dicklyon] changing 100s to 1000s of articles". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The main issue with their editing is that they are already making hundreds of edits to implement what they voted for in a discussion that is still active. It may very well be the case that their personal preference wins the discussion, but whether or not it does is not the issue here. The issue is that they are basically WP:SNOW-closing their own discussion after three days. Before they made their recent batch of edits, I suggested an alternate option that only Dicklyon is against, but most others haven't commented on yet because it wasn't part of the original post that started the discussion. To me, it's pretty well-accepted at Wikipedia that if there's an active discussion going on (and especially if you have already been reverted), you don't make changes to implement your option until after the discussion is over. That goes against WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that Dicklyon has been blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPET-ing before on issues related to MOS:CAPS (see here). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A third thing to note is that Dicklyon did the exact same thing last month in which they rushed through a change affecting dozens of articles after leaving that discussion open for not even two days (see here). I warned them against doing that earlier in this new discussion here, yet they still ignored it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The TennisProject had the same thing happen several months ago with a different user Ruling party for prematurely changing the names of dozens of Davis Cup articles while a discussion was still going on and they were blocked for it (see here). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And that's the big thing. This is becoming habitual with Dicklyon. He has admitted having a "Pet Peeve" about capitalization with no room for any other views or flexibility. I can guarantee this will not be the last time he does this unless something is done, and I'm really getting tired of doing 100s of reverts ALL because of him. Editor Wolbo is now doing a bunch of reverts of Dicklyon that he shouldn't have to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked Dicklyon to make those edits based on what I thought was consensus (all the newest tennis season article use a certain format, so I thought it reasonable to apply the same format to older season articles). User:Wolbo has expressed his preference for the older format and reverted the changes. As those edits by Dicklyon were based on my apparent misapprehension of the consensus, they should not factor into anybody here's conclusions about Dicklyon. Letcord (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wolbo: No, the changes I did at Letcord's request at User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task are not the ones at issue here (not clear why Sportsfan is throwing in this distractor, or why Fy is using it as somehow supporting his issue that he came here about; there was no contention or disruption, but a little reverting since I took your request as representing something the project wanted, which wasn't right). I took those to discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Another downcasing task, and undid some of them, but we didn't undo the case fixes; nobody objected to lowercase "draw". Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia will not suffer if some letters are Not To Everyone's Taste. However, Wikipedia will suffer if remarkably persistent users continue to irritate those who maintain articles. Unless there is a discussion showing a consensus for the recent changes, I support an indefinite topic ban for Dicklyon to prevent changing the case of letters and to prevent the discussion of changing the case of letters. A harmonious community is the most important asset we have. If necessary, I'll later dig up a few of the previous battles about this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fy already linked the discussion showing consensus for "Win–loss", and MOS:CAPS has broad consensus. Of my last 20,000 or so case-fixing edits of the last month or so, there's this one little item that he and Sportsfan are the only ones objectig to. They're still sore they lost their beloved over-capitalization of Men's Singles and such, but the consensus from the RM discussion Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed_doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Are_"Men's_Singles"_and_"Women's_Doubles",_etc.,_proper_names? waw clear: tennis is not so special as to have their own capitalization style. Nobody has objected to the same changes in other sports. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is a blatant lie. Consensus was not reached in 2+ days. I'm not sure how you figure these things. To change every single tennis bio takes a lot more than a couple of friends agreeing with you. They are always the same couple plus you called one over in canvassing. With discussions like these an alternative may find a place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of Wikipedia having a long consensus about how to capitalize. Article titles, section headings and table headings are in sentence case. A local consensus does not outweigh a Wikipedia wide guideline. Yes, while this is being discussed, such edits should stop, but there's no reason for reverting good guideline-following edits and continuing to argue against long-standing consensus. SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This also happened at New York City Subway, Dicklyon attempted to ram through a page move to "New York City subway", subtly changed section headers of user's responses to the page move, accused the relister of "canvassing" and then immediately opened a move review (also failed) when the outcome wasn't in his favor. As such I also support an Indef topic ban. Cards84664 16:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As for subtly changing the section heading, I was reverting to the original heading that I created in this edit, which someone else had subtly changed without my consent. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I used the proper RM and MR processes there. How is this "ramming through"? Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The closing notes of the review specify that there should be "no rush to renew the discussion". Cards84664 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. It was a 10-year interval before the previous re-opening, and I don't expect to bring it up again in this decade. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the interval between this re-opening and the review. Cards84664 17:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The move review followed shortly after the RM discussion close. That's standard. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would advise Dicklyon against determining consensus so soon into a discussion, but the strength of consensus after a few days makes his edits reasonable to me. I oppose any warnings/sanctions against Dicklyon based on the evidence so far, which shows a bigger problem of a small group of editors trying to invalidate project-wide consensus at a WikiProject talk page. Bigger, but still not that big, as this issue is barely noticeable by readers. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Advice received. I do get impatient when people like Fyunck and Sportsfan throw delays into routine work. It took November through February to fix the overcapitalization in "Men's Singles" and such over their objections, but we got it done, including bot approval for thousands of moves. Sometimes a lot of process is needed, but not in the current case. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  And we get angry when you skirt the system and implement a thousand changes without consensus that we have to fix. And since this happens over and over your "advice received" rings hollow. You need to change your tactics from now on or this will happen again and again. Have you changed back all your edits... I sure don't see it yet! Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  There's no need to get angry. WP:BRD serves us well. I do a lot of bold changes, and about 99% of them never provoke a comment. For the ones that do, we discuss. Did I jump too soon when I thought the consensus of MOS:CAPS was clearly re-affirmed for "Win–Loss"? Perhaps so. Otherwise, my "tactics" are mostly effective and uncontroversial. I've changed the case of about 200,000 letters in recent months, and you're picking on a tiny slice of that, while others are thanking (including 6 in the last few days) and supporting me in moving WP toward better consistency with our WP:MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  As for changing back all my edits, of course not. If you mean particularly the downcasing of "Loss" for row header "Win–loss", I've prepared a JWB settings, preparsed, and counted the 1397 tennis bios that that would apply to. I don't want to undo them without consensus, as I'll probably end up re-fixing them again if I do. It's about an hour in each direction. Let's settle it back at the project discussion if there's more to decide, not here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the comment by Johnuniq above. I completely understand why people would prefer uniform enforcement of capitalization preferences, and all other things being equal so would I, but there comes a point where the significance of upper- or lower-casing a single letter in a group of thousands of articles is minimal, and fighting an enforcement campaign in that context is not worth the demoralization of other editors that results. (See also my vote comment here.) Deapitalization campaigns, pursued to extremes, have demoralized editors in other topic-areas in the past (the birds project is one example that comes quickly to mind). I see absolutely no value to doing that, and I would urge that editors desist from that sort of behavior. As for Dicklyon specifically, I first recall encountering him in this absurd AfD about 15 years ago. I was unimpressed by his hyper-rules-oriented approach then, and I see little evidence that it has changed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User:TheFinalMigration incivility and WP:GREATWRONGS issues but more important is the underlying issue of concern

As seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse&diff=1076085630&oldid=1075974325 this user is making grotesque accusations against me and project contributors in general due to not acquiescing to their unilateral demands to remove all images of the sexual abuse of prisoners at this institution by US military personnel. This is WP:GREATWRONGS and I obviously can’t do this because it’s above my metaphorical pay grade. They outright admitted they were violating conduct codes and would probably be blocked, though I’d like to clarify I don’t honestly care and normally would’ve just redacted the more gratuitous bits with a “(Personal attack removed)” tag.

But more importantly I’d like to raise the concern over whether the underlying issue of the legality and ethics of the images is valid. These are serious accusations that go beyond the usual Virgin Killer-type nonsense. Thank you, Dronebogus (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Dmford13

• Dmford13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I get some help at Washington, D.C. with User:Dmford13. They are new and not aware that tthe mass addition of unsource text as per WP:Burden . mass addition of images as per WP:SANDWICH and WP:GALLERY...mass linking of catagories is not what we are looking for . Put it simply an FA level article is not the place to learn the WIki ways. Think threy are trying their best....but seem not willing to read over the MOS etc. Dont want a block trheem yet ... just need them to understand the additions our causeing verifiability problems and mass addition of images causing accessibility problems.--Moxy- 16:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have spent many hours over the past few weeks deeply improving the article on Washington, DC. I have already told Moxy that I will get rid of the duplications (which were not that many and were a minority of what I was actually adding to the page). I will also decrease the amount of images, if that is preferred. But I see other articles of large cities that have a very high level of images, and I think this should be the case for Washington DC. But, again, I can get rid of several of those if it's best. Dmford13 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say but what you've done on the article has not improved it, the whole article in honesty looks a complete mess. Images everywhere, stuff squashed, far too many photos most of which are better served on specific topic articles. It's a complete cacophony of noise. Although in absolute fairness to yourself, this has been done over a month and other editors didn't mention anything earlier. However you have to stop reverting. Canterbury Tail talk 17:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

pls review WP:BRD ..Moxy- 16:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Moxy has now opened a report at WP:AN3. Since this dispute seems to be a plain old edit warring case, I suggest that any discussion continue over there. It is not necessary to have two reports of the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Was hoping they would not just keep reverting...but no luck Still just editing away during ongoing tlak page talks.Moxy- 17:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Dmford13 I strongly, strongly, urge you to go and discuss this on the talk page of the article instead of continuing to edit on the article. You may be wasting your time and it seems that a complete reversion of your edits may actually be the most likely and beneficial course of action. Canterbury Tail talk 17:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly, I almost just reverted back to the last good before I saw this thread and I'm still tempted to. It's nearly unreadable at this point. Why do we even need a picture of Wolf Blitzer reporting with a DC backdrop? These images add nothing of value to the article and most of the text even less so. CUPIDICAE💕 17:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, nothing exemplifies Washington D.C. like Wolf Blitzer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Or a clusterfuck of nonsense jammed into one small area. :) CUPIDICAE💕 18:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyone have a clue why they removed thisa? We need some intervention here.Moxy- 18:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• After another attempt to read through the article and fix it up, I've come to the conclusion that it was better before and if Dmford13 thinks anything should be added back, they should probably discuss it first. I of course have no authority or power to enforce this but I WP:BRD'd because of its utter unreadability and undersourcing/lack of sourcing. Obviously if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert me. CUPIDICAE💕 18:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Welp. they've gone back in and partially restored their preferred edits to a featured article. CUPIDICAE💕 18:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Given their combative behavior on their talk page, I'd suggest a pblock from the article until they understand what we expect from editors and how to collaborate. CUPIDICAE💕 18:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So can we get an actual resolution here?

In the long discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#H2ppyme_and_Estonian_POV, there was a clear consensus both to indef block AND topic ban User:H2ppyme for disruptive editing, edit warring, and his outrageous conduct at ANI. His temporary block expired several days ago, this discussion is two weeks old, and there've been several calls to close the discussion and impose the sanctions upon which the community agreed. Unfortunately, the discussion was archived automatically without this being done. Might there be a kindly admin who'll go through with it? Many thanks in advance. Ravenswing 16:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Johann Hari

• 167.98.45.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MedianJoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johann Hari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There seems to be a concerted effort on the Johann Hari article to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by editing the WP article to manipulate Google rankings, as stated here by SPA (as of 2022) 167.98.45.36, and here by SPA MedianJoe. As WP editors, we are not here to right the great wrongs of Google algorithms and Google search results, and I find it troubling that both editors are openly using WP to manipulate search results for a hot-issue subject. As as an aside, I've been editing almost 9 years and hadn't even read the Johann Hari article until last week (to my knowledge), yet was accused of engaging in "reputation management" by MedianJoe (same post as linked above). As stated on the talk page, having 13 top-level categories on a page is unwieldy and doesn't flow well; to add subsections helps the article flow better, which was my original intent.

For full transparency, not sure if this is the best forum for this concern, but I believe it does need to be addressed, as openly trying to manipulate Google results does not seem like editors are editing in good faith. I am more than happy to hear other perspectives. --Kbabej (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If they're using external links to manipulate Google results, they're wasting their time. Wikipedia uses nofollow, which tells search engines that respect robots.txt - such as Google - to disregard outgoing links. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not links; they want the plagiarism issues in the first paragraph so they show up in search result snippets and knowledge graphs. Schazjmd (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that makes more sense. I've put in a request at RPP for the page proper, but the named user should likely be dealt with as WP:NOTHERE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User:331dot rejecting an unblock request and ignoring the basis stated

I have been blocked for edit warring, even though my edits come under an exemption from this policy (removing unsourced edits for living persons). My unblock request was denied without the exemption being addressed, and then even after giving the admin an additional opportunity on their talk page, they again failed to address the basis of my unblock request. I would like a review of this admin behaviour, as the admin seems to be neglecting their duties as an admin, and instead choosing to focus on taking my feedback personally rather than performing their admin role. Rebroad (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)