Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

PlatinumClipper96 - WP:POVPUSH, edit warring and retaliatory reverts

• PlatinumClipper96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chingford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I today reverted an edit by PlatinumClipper96 at Chingford [1]. The page history here shows that this user has been asserting and re-asserting that bold edit on that page since February 2021 and he has been reverted scores of times by multiple editors. This talk section [2] looks at the matter and shows that there are clear guidelines on the content in question in WP:UKTOWNS and WP:UKCOUNTIES and editor consensus is also established and the information was removed yet again in November. His re-insertion of the material today, without establishing a new consensus in talk, clearly merited reversion in my opinion, and I requested he take it to talk. He did not.

In apparent retaliation the editor has trawled through my edit history over the last month or two, and just reverted my edits on 20 pages, these being:

1. Fulwell, London
2. Goddington
3. Morden
4. Plumstead
5. Hatch End
6. New Addington
7. Kevington, London
8. Newyears Green
9. West Heath, London
10. Harlington, London
11. Bickley
12. Longford, London
13. Sundridge, London
14. Plaistow, Bromley
15. Derry Downs
16. Pratt's Bottom
17. Ramsden, Orpington
18. Kenley
19. Bexleyheath
20. Hayes, Bromley

This is not an isolated behaviour. This editor repeatedly reverts to his preferred wording and this is WP:POVPUSHing. The content issue is that the editor wishes to assert the minority view that historic counties still exist within their original borders and so towns such as Chingford remain in those counties. This is against Wikipedia guidelines at WP:UKCOUNTIES and WP:UKTOWNS. Guidelines say Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries., and there is a whole wikipedia fork at Wikishire [3] set up to push this view. This editor and a couple of others have been pushing this minority view by editing this information into Wikipedia pages over a period of time. This editor edit wars his version in. See also, for instance, edit history at Romford, and the talk page discussion at [4] I have attempted to reason with the editor on article talk pages and in a thread at the London Wikiproject [5]. They do not engage with the issue, have accused me of trawling their edits (I haven’t, but they clearly trawled mine for this mass reversion of my edits).

My view is that this editor is knowledgeable about some aspects of London, and other edits they make are valuable, but this issue is endemic. It is not going to go away, and their method of reverting and not seeking consensus asks questions about whether they are WP:NOTHERE. I wonder whether the community might consider whether a topic ban is called for. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Id personally also like to support this, having seen multiple edit wars by the same user over multiple years over countless articles with tens of users. The tactic appears to be to frustrate users into giving up, as many of the pages involved are low traffic and unlikely to have many contributors at one time. Every time i see this user, their "contributions" are simply reverting edits and pushing political ideologies which are contrary to guidelines as described above. Whats listed above is mostly one days worth of edits, and this happens on a frequent basis - This is not their first edit war, and without intervention it will not be their last. Garfie489 (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I reject the accusations Sirfurboy has made here. Utterly defamatory and lacks important context. I would strongly encourage administrators looking at this discussion to view this talk page discussion at WikiProject London for context (specifically today's contributions).

My edit to Chingford took into account the talk page discussion Sirfurboy cites, and I made a bold edit to the article today with slightly different wording, using LondonEast4's suggestion of including the historic county of Chingford in the second paragraph. Sirfurboy reverted this bold edit 9 minutes later. I made no further edit, and took it to the linked talk page discussion he suggested I take further discussion to after I suggested discussing this dispute on his talk page. Extremely misleading, if not slanderous, to say "I requested he take it to talk. He did not.".

Having made this edit [6] to Croydon last month, Sirfurboy made a number of changes [7], resulting in the only mention of Surrey in the lead being that Croydon "was formerly an ancient parish in the Wallington hundred of Surrey". Guidance at WP:UKTOWNS clearly states that the lead of UK settlement articles should include the place's historic county if different to ceremonial county. I restored my wording, as Croydon ceased to be a parish long before it became part of Greater London in 1965 (when Sirfurboy argues it left the historic county of Surrey). Sirfurboy effectively restored his wording, and I made no further edit to this article.

Sirfurboy then begins to trawl through my edit history, beginning a long series of edits (many of which are reverts to my edits) to historic county wording in articles he had no prior history editing, starting with Romford, Leytonstone, Edmonton, London, Ilford and Stratford, London. He does, however, start a series of discussions across talk pages, some of which I contributed to (including Talk:Woodford,_London#Woodford_is_not_in_Essex. He then begins mass editing Greater London place articles with stable wording, most of which neither of us had ever edited, using, by his own admission, Google Search to find articles that did not include his preferred wording. I outlined my objections to his wording on both his talk page and today at WikiProject London. I have today reverted many of these bold edits, highlighting my objections and pushing for discussion rather than continued mass edits, which Sirfurboy continued with today.

The reverts I made today were not a "retaliation", but a response to a series of similar bold edits he made today at Kenley, Ramsden, Orpington, Pratt's Bottom, Derry Downs, Plaistow, Bromley and Sundridge, London. I made my objections to this new wording in the relevant edit summaries and on the WikiProject London talk page discussion linked in my first line. I then reverted similar bold edits he had previously made, which had not yet been changed. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

To answer some specific points in that response: I already linked to the WikiProject London talk page above. Agree that it provides context. There is also context on my user talk page User talk:Sirfurboy#Counties... where PC96 attempted to raise the content discussion there and I signposted to the Wikiproject London page. The editor has 3 times accused me of trawling his edits, but, on the contrary, it is clear by looking at these 20 reverts listed above, that 19 of them were on pages that PC96 had never edited before reverting my edits. [8]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This dispute is only the latest outburst in a very long and seemingly endless dispute about how best to treat historic counties in the UK, in England especially. The cause is the poorly constructed guidelines from over 20 years ago that allow no room for compromise of any sort. I have intentionally kept out of this current argument. PlatinumClipper96 is not a disruptive editor pushing a point of view without any substance. The guidelines that state We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries are nothing more than opinion. There is unambiguous evidence, in statute law and in quality secondary sources that shows the historic counties have never been altered (in any relevant way), never abolished and never had boundaries changed. The issue is whether they hold any relevance to the point of being notable in today's UK. The guidelines do not cater for that discussion but instead assert a factually incorrect opinion that is of peripheral importance. So finger pointing at an editor for correcting factual errors as best as possible is unhelpful and unfair and I would say contrary to wiki policy. Incidentally, it is also misleading to imply that PlatinumClipper96 is part of a small minority. There have been regular and many very high quality editors who have also questioned the current guidelines going back many years. I regard Sirfurboy also as a quality editor and I am tentatively engaged with him in what seems to be a reasonably open minded discussion about this HC issue. Time will tell if it bears fruit. By way of a general observation, the issue is both simple and complicated, not helped by freely used ambiguous words and phrases, and, IMO, by a cohort of old school editors with entrenched minds (opinions all expressed in good faith of course and no offence intended). Besides that old-school group, there will always be clamoring newbies eager to leap into the fray thrusting daggers into those editors who dare to think outside the square and question established doctrine. In summary, I cannot comment on the technicalities of this presumed edit war, but the subject itself is not about one person pushing an isolated opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Roger, thanks, but ANI is not the place to discuss the content dispute. This report is about editor behaviour. The editor has trawled through my edits and reverted my edits on 20 pages, 19 of which he had never edited before. This is not the only issue either.

PlatinumClipper96 mentions the Croydon page, so to examine that: his bold edit was here,[9], I and Dave Biddulph attempted to adjust the edit - without reversion -to a form of words that did not assert Croydon was in Surrey: [10]. PC96 reverted to his version [11] on 14 Nov, 11:01. I then immediately took this to talk, posting at 11:39: [12] GrindtXX pointed out the established guidelines and Spinney Hill made an edit that resolved the situation [13], consensus established, guidelines implemented. With a clear editor consensus, PC96 did not edit that page again.

After that, and despite it already being clear to this editor what the consensus and guidelines say, PC96 has reverted my edits on other pages at:

Romford [14], and [15], I initiated talk: [16]

Enfield, London [17]

Woodford, London [18] and [19], I initated talk: [20]

Whitechapel [21], I initated talk [22]

Fulwell, London [23], I initated talk: [24]

So in each case the editor does not discuss in talk before editing against a consensus he is aware of (in Romford, his edits removed a comment on the page asking editors to discuss in talk before putting in an edit that says Romford is in Essex). He simply reverts to his preferred version, forcing the case to be re-opened in talk pages time and again. This is a huge time sink, which appears to be a strategy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Not this shit again. Easy resolution - simply block (or topic ban from county related articles) anyone from the co-ordinated little group who continues to push the fringe views about historic counties and refuses to follow the quite reasonable guidelines on this subject. That will sort the problem out until the next account turns up. A typical previous total waste of everyone's time can be seen at a previous ANI here. Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • In fact... if I were not literally about to leave for a few days over Xmas, I would block PlatinumClipper96 for their behaviour here. Going back reverting another's contributions is one thing, doing it in violation of topic guidelines is quite another. PC96 - if you do this once more, I will block you. If any other admin thinks it is deserving of a block anyway, please feel free. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Sirfurboy, yes, I see your point and perhaps I did stray off topic. I was just trying to support someone I saw backed into a corner. But, as I said, I have kept out of this latest dispute and so cannot comment on any detail from either side. Incidentally, I need to thank Black Kite for his most illuminating contribution: informative in many ways. A true ambassador for what makes Wikipedia the institution it has become. I too look forward to that imminent Christmas break: surf, stubbies, slip, slap and slop. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
      • I continue to be befuddled by this back and forth about historic counties and the drama it creates. I agree with Black Kite that TBANs may be needed for those who refuse to drop the stick... firefly ( t · c ) 09:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you are befuddled by the back and forth nature of this (never-ending) dispute is evidence enough that the guidelines need to be clarified. Not referring to the current PC96-SB spat, acting contrary to consensus that contradicts policy is not grounds for a block. Rather, it is grounds for urgently revisiting the guidelines with fresh thinking. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it's grounds for making sure the irredentists who refuse to follow Wikipedia guidelines don't waste any more of our time. This issue has been discussed ad nauseam, so it's time for those on the "losing" side to either accept the result or stop editing Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

And those guidelines seemingly are being addressed through the proper channels, not by reverting edits and edit warring as PC96 has done on multiple occasions. As already mentioned, a discussion about updating guidelines is very much separate to the discussion of edit warring to force ones belief of what guidelines should be. I feel Sirfurboy's put this already much better than i can, but going through an editors history deliberately to undo and war their contributions when said contributions are in line with all relevant guidelines should never be tolerated.

The fact this is just one example in years worth of similar conduct shows something at least needs to be done to prevent future misconduct. This user has been previously reported for bad faith edits according to their talk page by Uakari [[25]] along the same issue last year and seemingly did not learn from this. In fact, PC96 summarises the removal of their previous warning from the talk page as "Removing rubbish" according to the talk page edit history. Maybe after continued edit wars by PC96, its time we take out the trash? Garfie489 (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy - utterly misleading yet again. On Romford, the comment left on the page was "PLEASE GO TO THE TALKPAGE BEFORE CHANGING THIS TO ESSEX". There have been several occasions over the years where editors have replaced "east London" with Essex. This is not something I have ever tried to do, and this comment was irrelevant to whether or not, or what tense, the historic county is included. I removed this comment as my edit introduced wording that clearly distinguished the fact Greater London is the current ceremonial county and that Essex is the historic county. As for the Croydon edits last month, Dave Biddulph did not join you in "attempting to adjust the edit - without reversion -to a form of words that did not assert Croydon was in Surrey" - his edit solely corrected a spelling error [26].

"So in each case the editor does not discuss in talk" - another falsehood, just like your claim that I did not take your Chingford revert to talk. I cannot be expected to have the same discussion about the same topic on each relevant article. I engaged in talk at Talk:Woodford, Talk:Romford, Sirfurboy's talk page, and WikiProject London, amongst others. In the midst of discussion, and without engaging in content discussion with me, you continued mass editing your preferred wording, using Google Search to find articles (most of which neither of us had ever edited) that mentioned historic counties in a way you disapprove (as you admit here [27]).

As you seem to have an issue with me reverting your bold edits, it is worth mentioning again the way you trawled through my edit history. You had never previously edited Ilford, Chingford, Romford, Woodford, Edmonton, London, or Enfield, London, amongst others. My reverts to your bold edits (making the same changes on articles about the same topic) are justified. Your mass edits, which you continued making to dozens of articles despite ongoing discussion, were disruptive.

@Black Kite - Sirfurboy's mass edits were bold and the topic of discussion. He continued carrying out mass edits to stable wording across Greater London articles neither of us had ever edited regardless. I fail to see why I was wrong to undo his most recent bold edits and encourage further discussion. I fail to see why it is acceptable for him to carry out reverts to bold edits having looked at user contributions, but not me.

Many of Sirfurboy's bold edits were in violation of topic guidelines. As I point out on WikiProject London and Sirfurboy's talk page, Sirfurboy removed all mention of historic counties from a range of Greater London place articles. WP:UKTOWNS topic guidelines are crystal clear that the historic county of a UK settlement should be included in the lead where ceremonial county is different. Other bold edits introduced misleading wording claiming places ceased to be in their relevant historic county in 1965, which is factually incorrect. There are no consensus or guidelines stating this is correct or what should be written.

Some of these reverts were made because Sirfurboy's version constituted a violation of topic guidance at WP:UKTOWNS. The rest were made because the wording Sirfurboy had introduced was factually incorrect (nothing to do with guidelines) I had never previously edited the majority of these pages, so I was reverting to existing stable wording, not my versions.

The guidance that says "We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries" is in WP:UKCOUNTIES, which is topic guidance for county articles. Saying a place is in a historic county in a town article does not mean historic counties exist "within their former boundaries" or not. I would argue my edits are not in violation of the guidelines, except the line in WP:UKCOUNTIES (guidance for county, not town articles - big difference) saying "use language that asserts past tense". This is currently being discussed, and, as Roger 8 Roger said, these guidelines have been subject to question from a large number of editors. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Garfie489 - That was when Justgravy reported me on the 3RR page for accusing them of edit warring. Here's the report. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Garfie489 Thanks for linking that past discussion. I see that Uakari stated that MRSC had also mooted a topic ban be petitioned for over this. I also note this very pertinent comment from Uakari in that thread: You (PlatinumClipper96) are aware from all the links I and others have provided to guidance, RfCs and ANIs, that the consensus does not align with your belief in the persistence of historic counties, yet you and a small number of other editors have taken it upon yourselves to disregard the consensus and edit your own chosen selection of articles to match your belief anyway. That is bad-faith editing, which is what this comes down to, irrespective of the fact your belief in the persistence of historic counties is false. You realised you weren't going to get your way by discussing, so you decided to change the articles anyway. I don't really have anything more to say to someone who thinks that is an appropriate way to approach editing Wikipedia. I expect administrators will step in from here, to take action regarding your deliberate disregard for consensus and to clear up your vandalism to the London areas articles in particular, which in the end has added nothing of any import and has simply caused a lot of work to rectify. I'll just wait until that process is complete, and do my best to restore the articles at that stage - I'm in no rush!Uakari (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

And incidentally, PC96 is also making this bizarre claim that I am mass editing; even, elsewhere, wikilinking the page WP:MASSEDIT. This page defines mass eddting thus: "Mass editing is editing that occurs when a single editor makes the same change to a large number of articles, typically employing the assistance of a tool such as the AutoWikiBrowser." My changes are bespoke, made over a protracted period to a small number of pages (maybe 25 or so thus far), and are often accompanied by other edits to improve the pages (e.g. [28] ). So like his other accusations of my alleged bad faith, I really don't think this term applies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Garfie489 "going through an editors history deliberately to undo and war their contributions when said contributions are in line with all relevant guidelines should never be tolerated" - the edits were bold and the changes were the same. Previous wording was stable, and had not been edited by me on 19 out of 20 of those pages. Again, the reverts were to address Sirfurboy's new wording that either violated WP:UKTOWNS guidelines by removing the historic county entirely, or introduced factually incorrect information (saying a place was in its historic county until 1965, as if the creation of Greater London in the London Government Act 1963 impacted the set of what are known as historic counties).

Sirfurboy went through my edit history in a similar fashion following my proposed new wording at Croydon he disagreed with, before beginning a series of edits across Greater London articles to implement his preferred wording, rather than engaging with discussion. If the fact I used Sirfurboy's list of contributions to find and revert the same bold edit he made across articles is an issue, why should Sirfurboy's use of my edit history be considered acceptable?

Again, my reverts were to bold edits Sirfurboy made across articles he found using Google Search, about an issue in the midst of discussion. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Sirfurboy went through my edit history. Fifth time you made that accusation. It still isn't true. Demonstration is above. So again, 19 of these 20 retaliatory reverts are to pages you never edited before. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to view your edit history following my edits to Croydon on 14th November. You immediately began making retailatory reverts and edits to articles you had never edited before, including here at Romford [29], here at Enfield [30], and other articles I mention further above.

To address your quote from Uakari, I'd encourage anyone to take a look at the context of this dispute in August 2021 on this talk page. It includes the "consensus" referred to (specifically citing an RfC proposing that county articles primarily be about historic counties, and the guidelines in question). PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That RFC, a 2018 proposal by Roger 8 Roger to change the WP:UKCOUNTIES guideline, was closed with no consensus to adopt any of the proposed changes to the project guideline. Though Roger 8 Roger has repeatedly called the WP:UKTOWNS guideline not fit for purpose and said they would launch an RFC, they have not done so and both guidelines remain. NebY (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks NebY for linking. Roger 8 Roger's RfC specifically proposed making the historic county the default meaning of "county". Consensus against this does not mean consensus is against inclusion of the historic county alongside current ceremonial county in town articles.

Often disputed is the tense of this inclusion. I'd argue present-tense wording does not imply historic counties exist or not. I'd also argue that the WP:UKCOUNTIES guidance that they "no longer exist within their former boundaries" is inaccurate and does not reflect the wikivoice (not sure there is any clear consensus, as this discussion is frequent and loud on both sides), but irrelevant to the issue of mentioning "is in the historic county of" in town articles as "historic county" distinguishes it from current administrative boundaries, and does refer to a specific set of boundaries.

Discussion needs to continue, perhaps here, and an RfC initiated with the aim of updating these guidelines to ensure they reflect consensus. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion needs to continue. Sigh. No, Filibustering with walls of words every time you're challenged needs to stop, and you need to stop editing and edit-warring contrary to guidelines in order to force clumsy text into the first sentence of articles in the pursuit of some bizarre political correctness. and an RfC initiated? Initiate it. NebY (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Support this entirely. It seems ironic that in an investigation over bad faith edits, PC96 is engaging in bad faith edits as their defence. As Sirfurboy states, theyve made the same disproven accusation 5 times - and they appear well aware of the correct procedure's for consensus on their opinions, and Wiki policy.... yet still still choose not to pursue these methods and instead default to edit wars. Unless i have anything to contribute, i will refrain from further comment because its clear filibuster by PC96 will just fill this page to the point its hard to moderate. Garfie489 (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The edit history shows a pattern of WP:NOTHERE. Disruptive editing on a single topic and endless forum shopping. Should be blocked. MRSC (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite, MRSC has reverted my reverts to Sirfurboy's bold edits at Kevington, London, Hatch End, Bexleyheath and New Addington, in which he removed any mention of the historic county.

You said if I were not literally about to leave for a few days over Xmas, I would block PlatinumClipper96 for their behaviour here. Going back reverting another's contributions is one thing, doing it in violation of topic guidelines is quite another. PC96 - if you do this once more, I will block you.

Has MRSC not, by your logic, reverted in violation of topic guidelines, which clearly state the lead should include the historic county if a place's current/ceremonial county is different? PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's very simple really. I was born in Middlesex, but my birthplace, Pinner (where, as it happens, I could see Hatch End from my bedroom window), became part of Greater London two days before my seventh birthday, and it has been so since. At the same time the local authority area became the London Borough of Harrow (yes the London borough). We have given the fringe editors more than enough opportunity to deny the reality as it has stood for more than half a century, so it's time now to get them to accept it, at least as far as editing Wikipedia articles is concerned. If they will not accept it voluntarily then we need to force them to by blocking. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  When I saw the word Middlesex I almost moved this to the "pregnant person" thread. EEng 20:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  The East, South, West and Middle Saxons gave their names to Essex, Sussex, Wessex and Middlesex respectively; but what became of the North Saxons? The answer is that they settled in Nosex, and failed to thrive. Narky Blert (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  If it wasn't the season of goodwill I'd tell you to get your coat. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@user:Phil Bridger, you said, "It's very simple really. I was born in Middlesex, but my birthplace, Pinner (where, as it happens, I could see Hatch End from my bedroom window), became part of Greater London two days before my seventh birthday, and it has been so since." Yes, I agree. So what? What is your point? Forgive me, but this sort of thinking amounts to background clutter from editors who do not really xxxxxx (well, I will leave what I was about to write to your imagination). Comments like this made repeatedly by different editors make me dispair. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Then despair. Regardless of anything else, the edit warring and retaliatory editing of PC96 deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I would accuse Sirfurboy of doing exactly that, but on a much larger scale. It took him 9 minutes to revert my bold edit to Chingford. He went on an editing spree, rummaging through articles I had edited following my initial encounter with him at Croydon, as explained above. Do his reverts and retaliatory editing not constitute edit warring? Sirfurboy has now reverted all my recent reverts to his bold edits. Some of these bold edits violated topic guidelines by removing any mention of the historic county. Just to reiterate Black Kite's comment: Going back reverting another's contributions is one thing, doing it in violation of topic guidelines is quite another. Does this not apply to Sirfurboy? And why doesn't he discuss my objections to his new "until 1965" wording instead of reverting reverts to this new wording (which would be factually incorrect whether historic counties were abolished or not)?

He is now continuing to rummage through Greater London articles, either inserting this new wording (e.g. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]) or removing any mention of the historic county from an article (e.g. [36], [37], [38]). Take a look at Sirfurboy's contributions and see for yourself. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger "yes the London borough", "We have given the fringe editors more than enough opportunity to deny the reality as it has stood for more than half a century, so it's time now to get them to accept it" - of course Pinner is in London, the London Borough of Harrow and Greater London. I would argue Pinner was in London before it became part of Greater London in 1965, when it was, by all means, in Middlesex. I am certainly not one of those editors who try and claim a place is currently in their historic county instead of London or Greater London. I'd just like to see ceremonial counties and historic counties clearly and accurately distinguished. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

And why doesn't he discuss my objections to his new "until 1965" wording a few thoughts here:

1. PC96's claim that the 1965 wording is new is incorrect. The wording was already widely used on pages, and I was seeking wording that had an established consensus, so used that. A couple of examples are at Mill Hill and Edmonton Hundred. PC96 only reverted 20 of my edits, after I reverted one of his. He did not revert any others;
2. PC96 reverted to a form of words he knew was not compliant with the guidelines, rather than making any attempt to improve the wording. This is not new behaviour. In this edit,[39] PC96 reverted back in wording he knew had been challenged, and knew was not compliant with guidelines under the pretext that the challenge removed other information that had not been challenged. The other information was changing the word "northeast" to "north". There was no attempt to improve or find a compromise. Clearly a resonable action would have simply been to change northeast to north again, rather than to edit war in challenged material. Objections are just a smokescreen to cover attempts to re-insert this material. He used the same tactic here,[40] and no doubt other places. Again, this looks like a strategy;
3. This report is not about the content dispute itself, it is about editor behaviour. A long running campaign by an editor to insert wording in many articles for reasons of WP:POVPUSHing that introduces a litany of edit wars (e.g. his 18 attempts to assert the wording over a 20 month period at Chingford, most recently being opposed by LondonEast4 among others). I have quoted Uakari above from previous disputes where he has said That is bad-faith editing, which is what this comes down to, irrespective of the fact your belief in the persistence of historic counties is false. You realised you weren't going to get your way by discussing, so you decided to change the articles anyway.;
4. I note that throughout this case, PC96 has failed to acknowledge an issue or apologise for these actions, but he has doubled down on them by attacking me. I expected that attention, as I brought the ANI case, but there is plenty of evidence above that this editor has warred with very many editors over a very long period. His attempts to ask "what about..." (whataboutism) rather than acknowledge an issue with his own behaviour suggest that the issues raised here are not resolved.

I have never brought an ANI case before, but I believe this issue has been so persistent, and the behaviour sufficiently uncollegiate, that I would like to request the community consider a topic ban. I am at least the third editor (evidenced in this thread) to have made that suggestion. Plenty of others here have argued for a block. I am not looking for an indefinite block of this editor, but I do feel his actions warrant a restriction of some kind upon editing about historic counties.

I am not sure what the process is for requesting a topic ban, but at this point I will address PlatinumClipper96 directly and ask: would you agree to a voluntary topic ban from making edits regarding historic counties, broadly construed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all points made, however i feel a topic ban will just end up with us all being here again before not too long. PC96 has already previously had people accuse them of edit waring, and threatening to open ANI's in years gone past. Yet still their attitude remains, with some articles being warred against multiple contributors over many months as suggested in point 3.

The thing for me is, the defence by PC96 - as bad faith it may be - has demonstrated clear and extensive knowledge for the rules and regulations of editing on Wikipedia. They are aware what they were doing is wrong, and have made no apology for it. This is a clear, deliberate attempt to push a POV into a narrative across potentially hundreds of articles with flagrant disregard for guidelines or consensus. Not only is this attitude highly unlikely to change on a polite request, PC96 has demonstrated in this entire ANI they have no intention to do so - rather accusing others of similar actions and fabricating provably false accusations.

We certainly now need to work towards a resolution. Previous ANI's on the same issues by the same user simply resulted in the page being protected for a limited amount of time, and this clearly shows the amount of contempt PC96 has for admin sympathy. Heres a previous ANI report against PC96, the action of this was to protect the article he was edit warring for 1 month - this was carried out by @EdJohnston on 14th Feb 2021 to the Bexleyheath article [[41]] - and yet on 15th March 2021, near exactly 1 month after we immediately see PC96 revert the article to reflect their POV once again, and @EdJohnston had to protect the article once again 2 days later - and PC96 later went on to do the same actions on the same article months later.

Unfortunately, this is the contempt we will have to deal with if we give PC96 any room to move - they are highly aware of Wiki policy, and extremely willing to exploit it in any way possible to further their POV in these articles. As i said at the top, simply topic banning will end us up back here before not to long - as theres been no attempt to reconcile for the actions that have led to this. Garfie489 (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

1. There is no consensus that the set of counties known as the historic counties changed in 1965. The ceremonial and administrative counties, which formed the main structure of administrative geography, changed. Yes - the example you provided at Mill Hill is an example of the wording you have been adding to dozens of articles across Greater London. The wording is new to those dozens of articles, as you introduced it to those articles. You claim that this wording is used at Edmonton Hundred. It is not. In fact, I would not dispute the wording of this article at all - "Edmonton is one of six hundreds (obsolete subdivisions) of the historic county of Middlesex, England. A rotated L-shape, its area has been in the south and east firmly part of the urban growth of London. Since the 1965 formation of London boroughs (see Greater London) it mainly corresponds to the London Boroughs of Enfield, a negligible portion of Barnet and a narrow majority of Haringey. Its ancient parish of South Mimms (including the later civil parish of Potters Bar) has since 1965 been part of the Hertsmere district in Hertfordshire. - perfectly accurate. Note the use of "is one of six hundreds" - present tense, but still clear it does not persist.

2. The wording I reverted to is perfectly compliant with the guidelines. WP:UKTOWNS, the topic guidelines covering these settlement articles, is clear that historic counties should be included in the lead (which Sirfurboy has repeatedly violated by removing any mention of historic counties from certain articles, and reverting my reverts to these WP:BOLD edits - surely edit warring on his part?). Sirfurboy attacks me for violating guidance at WP:UKCOUNTIES - topic guidance for county articles. This guidance states We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries.. Although I disagree with this guidance, I would argue that wording that says a place "is in the historic county of..." makes a clear distinction between current ceremonial county and historic boundaries, and certainly does not imply that "historic counties still exist with the former boundaries". Just like the present-tense wording at Edmonton Hundred Sirfurboy linked above. I am certainly not the only editor to believe this. @Dr Greg, who restored such wording at Chingford [42], commented that "this sentence isn't about the current boundaries of Essex, it's about the historic boundaries (that's what "historic county" means)". "Was in the historic county of" or "in the historic county of...until 1965" implies the set of counties known as historic, changed, and that the settlement may have moved to another historic county, or that Greater London is a historic county.

3. "a litany of edit wars (e.g. his 18 attempts to assert the wording over a 20 month period at Chingford" - you are aware that this number includes reverts of indef blocked and sock accounts campaigning to remove HC information. I was not the only editor to restore this wording.

4. To reiterate what I said above, I would accuse you of edit warring and retaliatory editing on a much larger scale. I've already made my criticism of you clear. It is perfectly reasonable to question and criticise your behaviour, especially when your behaviour amounts to exactly what you accuse me of. To reiterate, you have accused me of violating guidelines by reverting your WP:BOLD edits, because you felt the existing stable wording you changed on dozens of Greater London articles violated the guidelines. Many of your edits violated WP:UKTOWNS by removing HC information entirely. As you are aware, I reverted some of these, and you reverted these reverts to your WP:BOLD edits. This constitutes reverting in violation of the guidelines - exactly what you have accused me of, except your behaviour was in violation of BRD.

@Sirfurboy, I will leave it up to administrators to decide whether my activity is worthy of a topic ban. My opinion is that it is not - my reverts of your bold edits that led to this ANI are justified. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

So, that entire wall of text is to dig in & insist you are right and everyone else is at fault for not giving in. I expect after the holiday, when more admins are online, we'll see either a topic ban or block for PC96. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No - I was responding to Sirfurboy, directly addressing the assertions made. Refuting accusations is perfectly reasonable at ANI. An utterly unproductive, erroneous remark. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

While we could solve this by going the block and edit restriction route I don't think there is much enthusiasm for doing so. I'd suggest instead that Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements be updated to explictly cover this (probably by saying that the historic county should not be mentioned in the opening sentence but elsewhere in the lede but people can decide). Maybe try and turn it into a formal MOS thing. Until then there edits are technicaly all in line with the current guideline and things are too slow moving for it to really be considered an edit war.©Geni (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The edits are not in line with the guideline, but PC96 decided not to quote that bit in the above. The guideline states: Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. All the edits he fights for assert present tense. All of them. He knows the guideline and he knows the intent of the guideline. But I reiterate what I have said a couple of times above: this is not about the content dispute itself, it is about the editor behaviour in edit warring in text that he knows does not enjoy an editor consensus. A number of editors above have mentioned blocks or topic bans above - I will leave it for admins to decide whether this amounts to "enthusiasm" or otherwise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That is again simply misleading. In fact, I directly cited and quoted it. That guideline is from WP:UKCOUNTIES, which, as I state above, is for articles about the counties themselves. There are no guidelines nor consensus that state that we cannot say "is in the historic county of" in a WP:UKTOWNS article. As I have said above, this wording has been stable on countless articles for years, and I am certainly not the only editor in favour of this wording. It does not imply that the historic counties still exist with their former boundaries or not. Sirfurboy has, as of late, been rummaging through Greater London articles, changing this stable wording, as I explain above - sometimes in violation of WP:UKTOWNS by removing HC information in its entirety. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight: the county guideline says "don't do this," but you're arguing that edits to towns don't fall under that guideline.

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:UKTOWNS is clear; the historic county does not form part of the geographic description and goes with the history, later. PlatinumClipper96 persists in placing it as a geographical descriptor in the first (or sometimes second) sentence of the lead and persists in reverting removals (eg [43][44][45]). As a result, our articles start with a jumble of locators that satisfy PC96's strange political correctness but are contrary to WP:LEAD's cultivates interest in reading on or should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

PC96 has long insisted that their edits are in accordance with the WP:UKTOWNS guidelines on the basis that the guidelines can be read in the order that suits them. For arguing against that, they tell Sirfurboy and me that The double standards you are both displaying are beyond belief.[46] I don't know how they can be persuaded to stop spoiling our articles like this. NebY (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds - these guidelines are for two completely different types of article. The purpose of the guidance at WP:UKCOUNTIES is so county articles focus primarily on ceremonial county, to be mentioned in the present tense, and historic county or other previous ceremonial county boundaries in "language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries". WP:UKTOWNS says that historic county should be included in the lead where different to current/ceremonial county. The phrase historic county makes the distinction clear, and "is in the historic county of" as a supplement to current/ceremonial county in a town article is perfectly acceptable wording which has been stable for years on countless town/settlement articles. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government uses this [47] to describe the historic counties, in present tense, whilst stating that the "Ceremonial counties form the current structure of our counties in England".

@NebY, there is absolutely nothing in the towns lead guidance nor any other part of WP:UKTOWNS that says the historic county cannot be placed in the first sentence, second sentence, or anywhere else in the lead. Nor does it say it "goes with the history, later". Years of stable wording, across UK settlement articles, position HC information in such a manner. The guidelines state that the lead should include the historic county (if in England or Wales and if different from current county) amongst a list of other key information. Those are the guidelines these Greater London articles fall directly under.

In the three diffs you link, I reverted WP:BOLD edits from Sirfurboy that violated those very topic guidelines. I stand by my accusation of double standards - you defend Sirfurboy's reverts to my bold edits ("the removal of your systematic insertions is unobjectionable" [48]), yet attack me for reverting Sirfurboy's bold edits that actually do violate the guidelines by removing HC info ("It is entirely reasonable for another editor to seek out articles that don't comply with our guidelines, having instead a mention of historic county shoehorned in to the detriment of our readers", "If you want to engage constructively, you need to stop reverting those edits" [49]). You are fully aware that Sirfurboy's removal of HC is not just unproductive and disruptive, but against the guidelines. He has made far more HC-related changes than me at this stage. Bearing in mind your anti-HC talk page contributions over the years, alongside those of MRSC and Garfie489, it does not surprise me that you'd want to defend such behaviour.

If you feel inclusion of the historic county in the lead is "shoehorned in to the detriment of our readers", is "spoiling our articles", and has a negative impact on the reader's "interest in reading on", the article's "clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view" and compliance with MoS, I suggest you propose the guidelines be changed. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:UKTOWNS explictly lists Historic county as one of the things that should be included in the lead (if in England or Wales and if different from current county). Get the clarified and if PlatinumClipper96 continues their current behaviour steps can be taken. PlatinumClipper96 are you prepared to pause your historic county editing until a debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements on how best to include such information has taken place?©Geni (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether historic county is part of the description of the location of the town. (Everyone agrees that it should be mentioned as part of the history.) This was changed in this edit six months ago. Currently historic county is listed twice, which is obviously silly. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

In September 2022, PlatinumClipper96 themself restored previous guideline wording, listing historic county as a second-level bullet under History, not under the first bullet Geographic description.[50] That remains the only mention of historic county in WP:UKTOWNS#Lead, but PlatinumClipper96 argues that nothing in the guidelines says "thou shalt not". NebY (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

PlatinumClipper96 partially restored the wording. The complete wording as it had been prior to that edit was as per [51]. The wording read: "current county", in line with the guidance for how to talk about counties (WP:UKCOUNTIES). PC96 set it back to "ceremonial county" instead and omitted the section about historical county being described in a paragraph about history. This decision to not fully restore the wording says a lot about the POV issue - pushing a view that historic counties remain current "historic counties". There is no way to interpret the guideline as it was and is as saying anything but that the lead should say "Y is in the county of Greater London but was in the county of X". He complains that an edit like this was restoring to the guidelines [52] but there is no reasonable way you can interpret an edit that says "Y is in [administrative borough] and historic county X" is compliant with a guideline that says clearly that the current county be named first (Greater London) and then historic county where different. That edit is misleading in the extreme, and is POV piushing. It is also not compliant with MOS:LEAD as the information is not summarising anything on that page, and it is certainly unsourced. Mention of historic county in the lead must still be compliant with the usual sourcing requirements for pages, and on that score, these edits are sorely lacking.

But again, the above whole paragraph is about the content issue. We can discuss content issues and I have been doing so with another editor. That is not an issue for ANI, I think. The issue here is not a difference about the content issue, it is about a clear case of retaliatory editing and a long history of slow burn edit warring. I again note that at no point has PC96 shown any recognition that his editing has been problematic, despite the fact that I am hardly the first editor to raise an issue with it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This pattern of editing is hugely disruptive. I haven't seen any undertaking that it will not continue. MRSC (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Its not hugely disruptive and the easiest way to get it to stop would appear to be to update the guidelines.©Geni (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Behavior of an editor in a catholic-fundamentalist article Miracle of Lanciano

I report the user Rafaelosornio. This is clearly vandalism [53]: several users have commented that almost all the sources in the article are unscientific, manipulative, and based on POV internet sites. This is in full detail on the article's discussion page. I have deleted several fake sources individually, with individual justifications in the change comment. Nevertheless Rafaelosornio reverts all (!) reverts with the reference to a single source, which is nowhere quoted appropriately! The consequence is that a source-free Catholic fundamentalist article in Wikipedia is not changed. A user spoke of fringe-theory, which also meets the facts. Mr. bobby (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mr. bobby: You briefly mentioned at the talk page that they have also pushed pro-Catholic agenda at Padre Pio, and possibly elsewhere. Since you are also familiar with the Padre Pio case, which also involves a third user, can you explain the involvement of Rafaelosornio there? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It will be more effective if you don't use inflammatory language attacking other editors as fundamentalists and if you try to collaboratively edit the article to reflect the questionable nature of these studies rather than just taking them out of the article entirely. If you just take them out, people looking for reliable information about them will be left only with unreliable representations of them found elsewhere. Jahaza (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Things should be called by their names. And unscientific sources should not be allowed in Wikipedia at all. If contents of faith should be reconstructed, it remains central that this is marked as religious faith and not to mix unrecognizably with scientific aspects. It is striking that someone criticizes the designation "fundamentalist", while he tolerates the action that whole passages from ultra-religious internet pages (partly without author!) are patched together and disguised as scientific investigations. Please criticize the important things, not marginalia.Mr. bobby (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jahaza @LaundryPizza03, Mr. bobby has been repeatedly blocked due to edit-warring on religion-related articles (his block log). After looking at the so-called full detail on the article's discussion page here, Mr. bobby basically wants to remove all remotely Catholic sources, which would be a nonsensical thing to do on an article that is very related to Catholicism. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You are inadmissibly distorting what my posts stand for here. I do not want to delete "all" Catholic sources. The point here is that users want to prove the facticity of miracles. They want it to be written naively in Wikipedia! For this purpose they use unscientific internet pages, which serve the veneration of saints. Or the homepage of places of worship (for example of Lanciano). These sides describe endlessly the truth of miracle reports, without sources, without scientific requirement, but all the more surely in the linguistic description. A Catholic source - for example from the Vatican - can be used to prove that someone has been canonized. But also this source could not be used for the fact that miracles took place! One must be able to keep that apart! Mr. bobby (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis: Since most of the removed text was cited to sources that are non-MEDRS or did not support the text, do you believe that Rafaelosornio is also problematic here? There are similar concerns at Talk:Miracle of Lanciano dating back to 2010, and "science cannot explain" from the last paragraph is a contradiction and a favorite mantra of pseudoscientists.

I also found that the most recent iteration of the fringe theory was added by Exanx777 (talk · contribs) on December 4. Given that this also includes text copied verbatim from [54], I'd suggest RD1'ing all of the affected revisions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

If Rafaelosornio is using sources for statements which are actually unsupported by those sources, then that's clearly problematic. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add anything externally, I just translated text from the Italian Wikipedia. If the English article is wrong so the Italian article is Exanx777 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

My report here is based on the Lanciano miracle. Translated f.i. from the German Wikpedia:

"The material, which consists of the remains of a host and five blood clots, is said to have been examined for the first time in 1574 by Archbishop Gaspare Rodriguez. He is said to have found that the total weight of the five clots was exactly equal to the weight of each individual clot, which is why he acknowledged that the blood clots must be miraculous material. This phenomenon is mentioned exclusively on the epitaph erected in 1636. Later experiments could not confirm the alleged observation."

All these alledged facts were written down in the English WP as if it were facts...Mr. bobby (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mr. bobby: You are from Germany and you are the one who has edited the articles in German on Padre Pio and the miracle of Lanciano to your liking, therefore I do not understand why you quote the article in German about the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. If you want to consult more about the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, consult the article in Italian language where said event took place. The article in English was a translation from Italian article and you want to remove a great part of the article and many references of said article. You spent the time eliminating almost all the Catholic sources of the article on Padre Pio and Lanciano's Eucharistic miracle saying that they were not reliable sources and that Padre Pio was a charlatan and that Lanciano's Eucharistic miracle was a fraud.

And by the way, about Giorgio Berlutti, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Mussolini, the article is about Padre Pio, not about Giorgio Berlutti who to begin with you don't say who that guy was in the first place. For that reason I removed that statement about Giorgio Berlutti in the article on Padre Pio. Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC):

You explain very clearly why I reported you here in the case of the article "Miracle of Lanciano" and why your action in the case of the article on Padre Pio is just as scandalous. You lack any awareness of what you are doing here. You want a Wikipedia that presents Catholic POV as scientific truth and proclaims it outright. That's why you have to be stopped. And I will report all your deletions and entries of this kind in the future.Mr. bobby (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Padre Pio

In short: The main actor in the recent fundamentalist changes was Sanctum Rosarium, which made various unsubstantiated changes. Only one inaccurate statement was rightly deleted: in fact, Pio did not own the company. But, and I will insert this soon from Luzatto's book, he kept lists for this company, thus worked for it. This is proven with source. (Pio actually owned a whole hospital - despite vows of poverty).

Rafaelrosornio constantly supported SantiumRosarium. Uch would check all the contributions of Rafaleosorni that have to do with religious things (Marian devotion, new saints, etc.) He even tried to change my entries in the German Wikipdia, but failed completely

Rafaelorsonio deleted arbitrarily:

Brunatto's publisher, Giorgio Berlutti, had been an enthusiastic supporter of Mussolini's March on Rome, and used the biography to raise Pio's profile.

[55]

The statement shows the fascist environment of Padre Pio.

In the article about Padre Pio further problematic:

The whole introduction has been transformed by SanctumRosarium and now sounds as if the Catholic Church is now behind Padre Pio, while it is about the goodwill of John Paul II and the attitude of the Italian Church. Other forces in the Church saw and see Pio as a charlatan. Moreover, outside the Church there is also criticism of Padre Pio, first of all the critical book by Luzzatto, but also other secular and serious scholars.

The better introduction is this one (was already in the article):

Francesco Forgione, OFM Cap., better known as Padre Pio and also Saint Pius of Pietrelcina (Italian: Pio da Pietrelcina; 25 May 1887 – 23 September 1968), was an Italian Franciscan Capuchin friar, priest, stigmatist, and mystic.[1] He is venerated as a saint in the Catholic Church, celebrated on 23 September. Padre Pio joined the Capuchins at fifteen, spending most of his religious life in the convent of San Giovanni Rotondo. He became famous for exhibiting stigmata for most of his life, thereby generating much interest and controversy. He was both beatified in 1999 and canonized in 2002 by Pope John Paul II.[2]

Pio taught himself the stigmata, but according to certain beliefs he received them from God. Now it says in the introduction "his body was marked by stigmata" ... This statement contains subliminally the religious interpretation that God was involved. This must be formulated neutrally and at least leave it open that Pio inflicted the wounds on himself....

The miracles must be clearly stated as "alleged". (Pio is said to have flown through the air, to have been in different places at the same time, etc... all this confused stuff and fringe theory).Mr. bobby (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Reports of religious beliefs are not the same things as fringe theory. "...now sounds as if the Catholic Church is now behind Padre Pio" well, yes, they canonized him, so they are definitely behind him! That doesn't mean criticism of him shouldn't be in the article, but when you argue that in general the article shouldn't reflect the idea that the Catholic Church endorses one of their canonized saints, that's kind of out there. Jahaza (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

All the other popes and all the controversy have to be forgotten in the article introduction? And also criticism of secular opinion? Wikipdia is not a bulletin of John Paul II.Mr. bobby (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You're the one who used the present tense. "the Catholic Church is now behind" [emphasis added]. Jahaza (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is not a monolith. In Germany Pio is almost unknown, in Italy the national saint. The Vatican under John Paul II has canonized Pio. (And it says so in the introduction.) The resistance to this kind of fundamentalist understanding of miracles and this form of Catholicism is enormous within the Church. And outside the church, too, of course. And this fact just belongs to be presented in a WP article. In the case of Pio the believed facts coincide with the development of fringe theory (ability to fly, healer, bilocation - all even in the Catholic framework fringe theory).Mr. bobby (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Religious beliefs are not all fringe, but all claims of miracles are. Any source propagating the idea that miracles are real is deep in fringe theory territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The alleged miracles of Pio clearly belong to the fringe theory: It is claimed that he flew and thus persuaded bomber pilots to turn back. The alleged healings were refuted by the Church (long before John Paul II)! Bilocation denied even Pio himself at the Visitation etc. Mr. bobby (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue is largely definitional... If something can be explained by normal scientific and academic means then it is not a miracle, it must be supernatural in order to be a miracle. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Persistent soapboxing by User:Scimernet

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

---

Scimernet (talk · contribs) appears to have a vendetta against putting a leading decimal on ammunition articles, and has continually inserted the same long-winded paragraph into various talk pages on multiple occasions to further this view. Seeing as this has gone on for half a year at this point (with their edit warring on the matter predating this specific issue), I believe this constitutes disruption. Although I have tried to actually engage in discussion on Talk:.50 BMG, they have shown they are not interested, and just want to copy-paste this same paragraph again and again, to no real end.

[56] [57] [58] [59] [60] Loafiewa (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Read through the content are realize that the information is not correct and, quit bullying. 216.160.0.104 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Nobody is bullying you (or User:Scimernet if that is not you), but just asking that you follow Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research. If you are right then you will have no difficulty finding reliable sources to support what you say. Please do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources are already posted. I myself am a source the scientifically have explained the miss use of the dedimal. Another source that is listed is SAAMI. Your replies are bullying as your are not giving it consideration and making it right. Scimernet (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you are not a source yourself unless what you say has been published by a reliable publisher, just as I am not a reliable source. That's the whole point of our no original research policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I gave Scimernet a final warning on this behavior. Because the user hadn't been specifically warned before for talk page abuse -- their previous blocks were for edit warring, not talk page abuse -- I gave them a warning instead of a block. But any further behavior like this will result in a long-term block.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

These blocks, reversals and comments are bullying. The information given is to correct the wrong information that is presented on these cartridge pages. Your repeated efforts of reversing and bullying undermine the purpose of Wiki. Please take the corrected information and make things right. Scimernet (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

People don't agree with you that it's wrong information, that's the problem. For example, when you say: If one were to say/list ".45 Cal" , this would convert in inches to 0.0045", this is not something people find convincing. —Alalch E. 17:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

"People" have been mislead by information posted here and elsewhere. We are referencing a cartridge in caliber and not a measurement of inches. They are closely related but not stated in the same way. See SAAMI, and definition of Caliber. Scimernet (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand your line of reasoning, but I don't agree, and if someone else had agreed, they'd have said so already, which is why I said "people". There's no support for your idea, and there is opposition, which means that you should not unilaterally make changes based on said idea, because they will get reverted, and nothing will get accomplished. I hope you can see now that when someone is warned about this, it doesn't in any way resemble bullying. —Alalch E. 18:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No Support for what is correct?  SAMMI?  Support is explained bu what is caliber and how it was derived and used, and not referenced directly in measurement of inches when referring to a cartridge.  You are making opinions without being educated.  Scimernet (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

SAMMI uses both, "22 caliber "and 5"0 Ccliber." ~You need to drop it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

What you have is wrong. You need to fix it. quit misleading people. Scimernet (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Scimernet. Replied on your talk page as it's mainly about content. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this has gone on long enough and a topic ban at least from firearms and ammunition broadly construed is in order here. Though considered that Scimernet has only ever edited articles around those topics it's akin to an indef block. They're clearly an SPA on this topic. Canterbury Tail talk 14:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do you have a problem with fixing the content and making it "Completely" correct. Yes it does closely relate to a measurement in inches. It is not written ore represented as inches it is "Caliber " There is no leading decimal. Does not matter how cute you think that is, or what incorrect resources are found, or any consensus or opinions. The correct way is without leading decimal. Scimernet (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Since WP:CONSENSUS is a basic foundational policy of Wikipedia, writing Does not matter ... any consensus is equivalent to writing "I cannot or will not play by the rules, so I should be blocked". --JBL (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If many or most people are wrong about something it does not make it correct. It does not matter how many people agree on something if it in fact incorrect it is incorrect. Scimernet (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually we're based on WP:VERIFIABILITY not truth. It's whatever the most reliable sources state. We write what the majority of reliable sources determine is correct, we do not get to decide what is correct the reliable sources do. Right now it seems you're just ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and our other pillars and the reliable sources and are convinced you are correct. We are not here to promote truth or rightness, only detail what the reliable sources are saying. This mode of thinking is not in keeping with a collaborative project that relies on what reliable sources state. Canterbury Tail talk 18:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How do we know you're right? CambridgeBayWeather engaged with you on your talk page and seems to have put forward a good reason why you may be wrong. You've completely ignored that and haven't replied. in fact, instead you came back here soon after and added your post of 15:48 3 January where you simply assert in a rather arrogant way that you are right: "Does not matter how cute you think that is, or what incorrect resources are found, or any consensus or opinions." The fact is what you say is not being accepted and you have not given anyone any reason to accept what you say. Simply saying you are correct over and over again is just wasting everyone's time, including your own. DeCausa (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• I have just indeffed Scimernet (talk · contribs) for disruption, namely tendentious editing and an inability to drop the stick. There comes a time when you have to accept that consensus is against you and move on. Scimernet (talk · contribs) does not seem capable of doing that... Salvio 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, I was just composing an eloquent reply that came to the same conclusion and got an edit confict. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Right outcome. DeCausa (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  I was going to wait for their next response to the above and then do the deed. I guess no reason to waste the time on what is clearly a foregone conclusion. Canterbury Tail talk 20:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Height/weight vandalism on wrestler articles

In the past few weeks there has been a rash of vandalism on articles about wrestlers, from a variety of IP editors. The pattern is consistent: an IP editor with no or few previous edits will appear and quickly edit 5-10 articles about wrestlers, in each case changing the height and/or weight of the wrestler, with no sources and in contradiction to existing sources.

The number of articles affected is large. This is just a sample. In most cases, each of these articles was vandalized multiple times:
Brian Knobbs, Brody King, Chuck Palumbo, D'Lo Brown, Dexter Lumis, Heath Slater, Jacques Rougeau, Jerry Sags, Mike Bucci, Mo (wrestler), Pierre Carl Ouellet, Omos, Raquel González (wrestler), Raymond Rougeau, Rhyno, Rikishi (wrestler), Scotty 2 Hotty, Spike Dudley, Stevie Richards, T-Bar (wrestler), Taka Michinoku, The Blue Meanie, The Godfather (wrestler), Titus O'Neil.

The edits come from a variety of apparently unrelated IP addresses. Here are a few. In all of these cases you can see that the only activity from each of these editors is to vandalize the wrestler articles, so I don't think diffs are necessary.

• 1.239.177.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 39.7.57.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.84.146.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.242.31.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 175.211.224.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.222.2.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 183.97.240.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 218.52.15.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what solution is appropriate. Given the large number of IPs involved, I don't know if this is one editor IP-hopping or if there is some off-wiki coordination going on. Blocking these IPs might just result in new IPs appearing and doing the same thing. And it's a large number of pages to protect. But I wanted to bring this to wider attention in case someone has any ideas for handling this beyond the current whack-a-mole game I and other editors are playing to notice and revert these as they happen. I have notified each of the above IPs on their talk pages. CodeTalker (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Another incident just now from another IP, 121.164.25.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CodeTalker (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This sort of disruption is a long-term common problem, it ebbs and flows. There's an edit-filter that tags them. See [61] DMacks (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that professional wrestling promoters routinely lie about the heights and weights of their performers, to puff them up. It is called "billed height" and "billed weight". Perhaps the best solution is to eliminate height and weight from the pro wrestler infobox, so that the encyclopedia stops spreading this particular kind of lie. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the same goes for nearly everything else about professional wrestling. Isn't it time we applied the basic content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) properly to this topic and only published what is in genuinely reliable sources, rather than the sources we use now that we pretend to be reliable but are actually not? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

To your list of P&Gs I would add WP:RS. Many or most "sources" used in pro wrestling articles are just soap opera digests hyping their idiotic kayfabe storylines, which our articles regurgitate as fact. It's incredible, for example, that we still allow childish in-universe garbage such as The Undertaker#Undertaker gimmick, identities and character evolution to embarrass the project. EEng 02:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As a member of WP:PW I agree that the in-universe fluff should be brought down significantly per WP:PLOTSUMMARY. It takes up a vast amount of space in a way no other TV show would. Myself and another editor have been trying to cut it down, but unfortunately a lot of the pro wrestling WikiProject operates differently to the rest of Wikipedia, and aims to turn articles into a fan wiki. — Czello 10:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem that's been ongoing for years, now. Sometimes it might be outright vandalism by tweaking something minor to see if they can get away with it (match times are also subject to this), sometimes it might be that the editor heard a different weight announcement on the latest show but haven't got a source to prove it. I'm not sure of the solution, either - removing it entirely doesn't seem adequate to me. — Czello 10:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

User adding irrelevant copyvio to random talk pages

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

---

User:Yamihle Mali's contributions show a pattern of nothing but editing irrelevant/general discussion text in various talk pages, such as this edit to Talk:New York City.

I was curious, so I found from a search that two recent examples of this are copied (albeit with introduced spelling and other errors) straight from various sources.

Two examples:

edit, source (Ctrl+F for "the new world of work")

edit, source (article is paywalled, but the first sentence is an exact match in a way that doesn't happen by accident)

I expect this is true of almost all their contribs, though I haven't checked all the rest.

I think blockable for WP:NOTHERE, but if the copyvio is a concern then revdel may be needed on likely almost all their edits. CharredShorthand (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a single constructive edit, and not even an attempt, just as you say random pasting of copyrighted text. Indeffed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Even more unsourced changes by Rayane 77

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

---

Link to the previous ANI: [62]

Despite a short block, Rayane 77 still does not understand the basic principles of how sources work. They have kept making unsourced changes, even when several cited sources backed up the original content: [63][64][65]. At this point I would argue that they are WP:NOTHERE, or at least that there is a big WP:CIR issue with them. BilletsMauves^€500 20:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I have indeffed them. If they can reply with a reasoning in their unblock and show they understand what they are doing, I'd be willing to unblock. Right now though, this has to stop. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by GigachadGigachad

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

---

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

I posted this a few days ago and no one replied. I've been having issues with GigachadGigachad for months and months, as have numerous other users, and they continue to ignore these warnings. Their edits frequently consist of false or misleading edit summaries – for which they were blocked a few months ago – as well as unjustified removal of content, and replacing well written material with terribly worded prose. In recent months, GigachadGigachad has refused to even respond to most editors who have raised these issues. One example is this edit in which they used the edit summary "added link", despite not adding a link and instead removing an entire sentence with notable content. They also continue to add unsourced self-described "trivia" despite multiple editors warning them not to. I recommend scrolling through their talk page to see all the difs that various editors have pointed out (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and I could keep going). At this point, it's a clear WP:CIR issue. Cpotisch (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This guy does have a vast number of warnings and issues for the relatively short time he's been on Wikipedia, and I agree at some point one has to ask whether it's indeed that he's not competent to edit, or that he just doesn't give a damn. Ravenswing 21:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or is this a duplicate of this topic? Daniel (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Note the "I posted this a few days ago and no one replied". Cpotisch (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally you don't recreate a second thread on the same noticeboard less than 48 hours after the last one - just let people organically look after the original report. Daniel (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. My apologies. Cpotisch (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that the links you posted above are not actually diffs, they are just links to sections of this user's talk page. Actual diffs of their specific disruptive edits would be better. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear: those sections have the diffs in question with context about the issues. Cpotisch (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, so let me start over. I more thoroughly reviewed their contributions again, and it's actually even worse than I thought. There is that multitude of unsourced, unnoteworthy, and/or flat out wrong edits include this one, this one, this one, this one, this, this, this, this, and this. But then there are really egregious examples that are much more alarming.

He has continued to lie in numerous edit summaries (despite that being the main reason for the last block) including here, here, here, and here, where he inexplicably removed entire sections/paragraphs without acknowledging it. And in this edit (and a few other ones), he removed a large amount of content, describing it as "incorrect trivia", without giving a justification of why he thought it was wrong. This is a really bad and consistent pattern, and now that it's all laid out, I really hope this can be dealt with soon. (pinging @Scottywong: and @Daniel:) Cpotisch (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

One of the major problems I note with this user's "trivia" additions to articles is that they never provide a source, so that their material virtually always get reverted. If nothing else, the user needs to be admonished to stop adding unsourced information. If they continue, this may be a case of CIR as noted above. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The user already has been admonished for this numerous times. And like I said, that's not even the biggest problem here. The bigger problem is lying in edit summaries (which he PROMISED he would stop doing months ago after getting blocked) while doing wholesale removal of existing content. Even though I've been following this user closely over the past few days, it still took me until tonight to discover this fact because I trusted their summaries. I don't see how GG has earned any further chances to act appropriately. Cpotisch (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User:ManyVersions is WP:ICHY and WP:NOTHERE + possible sockpuppetry

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

---

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

This user has been involved in poor behaviour after I declined their draft Draft:DarkViperAU [66]. They then removed my decline [67] and after experienced editor @Theroadislong: restored it [68], they removed it again [69]. There is some back and forth on my talk page where they also said that 'this isn't my only account' (sockpuppetry?) and accused me, Theroadislong and another involved editor @Bonadea: of 'incorrectly and carelessly declining drafts' [70]. There is more on Draft talk: DarkViperAU which I won't go into because I wasn't involved in that conversation.

For an editor with only 95 edits on their known account, they think that they can talk down to editors far more experienced than them, as shown in the above links. I didn't want to go to AN/I, but the refusal of the editor to WP:AGF and just cool down has forced me to go here. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

And now they have said that I have an 'incredibly huge ego' on my talk page [71], after I notified them of this discussion. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Response from ManyVersions

This user is continually harassing and tampering with a project that I have been creating. They declined a draft request with an incorrect reason which clearly meant that the user spent no or very little time reading an accessing the draft. I publicly disagreed with their decision and the user continued to ignore and delete any comment that I wrote. I have attempted to reason with this individual, however they have resulted in poor behaviour and began accusations which are entirely false. JML1148 also continues to take comments of mine out of context in an attempt to disrupt my account for their own satisfaction. This can be found on talk pages and the draft This needs to be looked into closely and the right actions need to be made. If a fair result is not made, I will be taking this further.

And again this user has replied to this post, harassing me. Please take the right measurements to ensure that this does not continue to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManyVersions (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

-ManyVersions — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManyVersions (talk • contribs) 00:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

ManyVersions, Bonadea quite clearly explained to you on Draft talk:DarkViperAU why it had been declined. I am going to merge the two cases, as they are directly related to each other. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

ManyVersions, do not be editing while logged out, OK? Drmies (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Teflon Christ

There is a user that has been on my radar for months, and I had the misfortune to have a personal run-in with recently. The behavior that concerns me is:

Unbalanced diatribes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Woovee&diff=prev&oldid=1112787102

Whatever this is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spirituals_(Santigold_album)&diff=prev&oldid=1112787859

Insults: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spirituals_(Santigold_album)&diff=prev&oldid=1112777546 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spirituals_(Santigold_album)&diff=prev&oldid=1112786189

Changing an editor's post title: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teflon_Peter_Christ&diff=next&oldid=1087061487

The user originally had some misguided but valid opinions for the Heathers page regarding synthesis, which has now evolved to being about whether or not a part of the lede was supported by the sources (which I agree with, it should be labeled original research or the language regarding the nature of the polls should be changed), but the issue there wasn't the content, it was the emotionality in the edit summaries that were disturbing (e.g. making deliberate synthesizing edits to protest allegations of synthesis on the page). My pointing this out seemed to be a triggering point, and was possibly interpreted as referring to their questions of synthesis/original research (which was not the point). Just trying to be open-and-honest about the altercation we had, but as this is very insignificant compared to altercations I've seen involving this account for some time, I thought it should be discussed. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely from that article for disrupting it to make a point, and from your talk page for personal attacks, however their wider behaviour needs to be examined. They seem to edit generally constructively but respond to conflict with hostility, especially it seems since this past August, but they have also been blocked eight times for personal attacks and/or edit warring, with no sign of improving. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Brettdsteele and the Ann E. Rondeau article

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

---

• Brettdsteele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Diff of user admitting COI
• Ann E. Rondeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can some experienced admins step in to provide either guidance or correction, as warranted, to this user? To summarize the situation as evidenced at the article in question and the user's talk page, the editor was the plaintiff in an unsuccessful lawsuit that has received no coverage in mainstream reliable sources (but appears to have gotten some coverage in law journals). Although the article subject was not the defendant of the case and does not appear to be mentioned in the rulings, the editor persists in adding a section or paragraph about "the Steele Affair" to her article. I have removed this as an obvious violation of WP:BLP and a blatant conflict of interest. Despite repeated advice on their talk page and at WP:COI/N against adding this material, the user continues to readd. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like he added similar screeds on Amit Mehta and Sri Srinivasan. 2601:199:447F:B960:BC91:801D:5895:596 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed the vandalism from Sri Srinivasan, but Amit Mehta is semi'ed so I can't fix it. 2601:199:447F:B960:BC91:801D:5895:596 (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have repeatedly revised this paragraph on Rondeau according to C.Fred's advice. And yet she keeps coming up with new reasons why it needs to be cut. She has even gone so far as to now declare that only "mainstream" sources suffice, even though she permits plenty of internet sources that are not from the "mainstream" media that are favorable to Rondeau, including an interview of her. Because of these double standards I therefore accuse her of having a vested interest in censoring any controversial material on Rondeau's wikipedia page. As far as my having a conflict of interest is concerned, my user name reveals that I'm Brett D. Steele for the world to see, unlike C.Paul. Thus anyone is welcome to edit any particular sentence I write to ensure its objectivity. Finally, my personal legal history is not the issue here. The central issue is that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals made a substantial ruling about one of Admiral Rondeau's command decisions at NDU. Wikipedia certainly permits relevant legal rulings to be reported in thousands of biographies including those on Clinto and Trump. Brettdsteele (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Brettdsteele Just a FYI, C.Fred's pronouns are he/him. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Brettdsteele was indeffed by Bbb23 per WP:NOTHERE. Closing the discussion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Blocked IP using talk page for personal attacks against administrator

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

---

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

The IP editor 95.181.164.59, who was blocked back in November, has been misusing their talk page to create nonsensical personal attack manifesto against administrator Bbb23. It should be pretty apparent that their talk page access should be revoked. ShadowCyclone talk 06:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

TPA revoked by Cullen328. Closing. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:GAME of DavidZD97

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

---

DavidZD97 (talk · contribs) This user's edits are all on their sandbox, now the sandbox was found as a webhost and deleted. They got autoconfirmed and extended confirmed by using this method. This is against WP:PGAME. Lemonaka (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have revoked extended confirmed permission from the account; however, if any other admin considers this to be wrong or excessive, feel free to reverse it without further reference to me. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I recognise that any system, especially an automated one, will be subject to gaming in some way, but is it possible to exclude at least user space edits from the automatic grant of permissions? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It is, though that would doubtless require a consensus and a phabricator task. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Papua Conflict, 3rd mediator, Nationalist Agenda.

In the Papua Conflict, in the revision page of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Papua_conflict&action=history there seems to be a Nationalist Agenda involving a couple of Indonesian users in it, reverting countries that have supported for West Papuan self-determination and removing the several commanders and leaders that have participated in the past and present conflict respectively. Can we have a third mediator, to discuss neutrality regarding the article as of WP:NPOV and keep the page protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eustatius Strijder (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• It seems to me that Primefac's partial block is probably very helpful, esp. since User:Eustatius Strijder managed 120 edits to the article, with a ton of edit warring, and only 7 to the talk page. In addition, if they respond on their talk page to concerns, they then remove the query and the response soon after, another example of less than collegial behavior. I'm wondering what the best course of action is if they don't stop edit warring, and if they'll take this to other pages now they're blocked from this one. A 1R restriction might be helpful--short of a full block. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • If they don't stop edit warring, I suspect any pblocks will very quickly turn into full blocks, but that is an issue for at least a week from now (unless they do go warring on other pages). Primefac (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    • A request was made at DRN for moderated discussion on 2 January, and Eustatius Strijder was notified of the request. I said, about 48 hours ago, on 2 January, that I would start moderated discussion if the editors would agree to the ground rules, which include no editing of the article. I am still ready to try to mediate the dispute if User:Eustatius Strijder and the other editors will agree to the rules and not to edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    • User:JarrahTree, this is where you make your case, if you want to make one. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

      The problem with the start of this Incident, as reported above, insufficient care has been attended to the background:

      1. The talk page of the incident reporter is an excellent introduction as to pervading issues over time - a close reading would show that WP:3RR has been ignored continually
      2. The edit history of the incident reporter gives clear cases of where the rules of WP:3RR are totally ignored on a regular basis
      3. The mission for ... whatever seems to subsume process or even understanding of instructions: -

      • [[72]] Editting consensus, agreement

      Insight as to the understanding of consensus

      • Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Papua_conflict

      Continued persistent reverting after the request to stop editing and reverting was asserted by the mediator

      • [[73]]

      Copyvio which is apparently not understood as such as editing has continued

      Further diffs are possible if it is not clear enough as to what has been happening.

      I consider that the blocks of Davielit and Merbabu are problematic, where both are long term editors with over total 30 years block free experience who took time and effort to try to consistently communicate and assert wikipedia policies and principles to the incident reporter who has shown little interest in responding or understanding the ramifications of the campaign in the style of a driven WP:SPA with no interest in due process. To place them in the same level of editing and understanding as the incident reporter is a potentially serious misunderstanding of what has been happening to date.

      From where I am watching this, the lack of interest in process, and ongoing ignoring of warnings and procedures are of concern, I do hope a reviewer of this is ready and prepared to read the background and differences to get the understanding of what has been going on JarrahTree 10:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A few comments (from a recently and regrettably involved party)...

• Eustatius Strijder quotes WP:NPOV and WP:NATIONALIST (a lot), yet from my observations, his understanding of both is tenuous at best. To quote Eustatius from the article talk page: "I will entertain those who are progressives, but not to those who have a Nationalist Agenda as of WP:NATIONALIST." [74]
• Since 1 January, he has reverted the page 19 (nineteen) times. Over the same time, I've reverted 4 times, and not more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Yes, a balance of 15 "against" Eustatice from other editors. User:Primefac has pblocked both of us. (my first block on wikipedia after 17 years).
• Eustatius' request yesterday for rollback permission to better "fight edit warring" Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Eustatius_Strijder
• As for my driver on the issue, far from being a "Nationalist", whatever that means, my main concern was infobox bloat/spam. And if you can indulge my rant, I don't care what "side" the info might support, I see a culture of building giant info box lists of info of dubious relevance - length/bloat for length's sake rather than for usefulness. It's like an alternate wikipedia universe to those (like me) who tend to focus on the written article.

regards, --Merbabu (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've had a look at the material that would be added by Eustatius Strijder to the infobox. The edits are clearly contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and are largely not WP:VER. I note that there are DSs authorised (Civility in infobox discussions), though in this case, the issue is edit warring over the addition of unsourced material - an issue not specifically covered by infobox probation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinderella157 (talk • contribs)

(Non)Update on This Situation

More than 48 hours ago, User:Eustatius Strijder filed this report requesting a third mediator (presumably meaning a third-party mediator). I had already said, at DRN, that I was ready to begin mediation, if the parties would make statements agreeing to the ground rules, which include no editing of the article during mediation. Two editors have made statements agreeing to the rules, but not User:Eustatius Strijder. I am still ready to begin mediation, but am still waiting for agreement. The editor in question is partially blocked from the page in question for five remaining days, but that is not a substitute for agreement not to edit the page, because mediation often lasts two or three weeks (during which time the block will expire).

I also note that some editors have said that the partial blocks of Merbabu and Davielit are problematic. I don't want to comment, so that I can stay uninvolved in order to mediate, if there is to be mediation.

Both User:Juxlos and User:Eustatius Strijder have requested mediation, but Eustatius Strijder doesn't seem to want to agree not to edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Fram appears to be on a crusade to undo my work

On January 2, 2023, a dispute arose between myself and User:Fram over edits at Jo Bogaert. This was eventually resolved, but in the meantime, Fram took it upon themselves to challenge my edits at Ane Brun (also since resolved), and now they are flagrantly undoing my work at Miso Film. The issue is that I removed some unreferenced content, and they replaced it. I went further, overhauling the article and removing all unreferenced content. After a few back-and-forths between us, where each either added references or removed content, now we are at a stage where I have had to fix sloppy work on their part, which contained typographical and markup errors, and they are simply reverting me for no clear reason. I left a disruptive editing warning on their talk page, but they simply deleted it. Please review the edit histories and advise. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Seek WP:CONTENTDISPUTE help, ANI is not for this. —Alalch E. 15:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

They tried this for the Jo Bogaert article, where they requested a 3rd opinion, which didn't agree with them. At Milo Films, they have removed unsourced but easily verifiable entries again and again, while I have since added 6 sources to the article showing that the entries were correct. They seem to insist that it is better to remove uncontroversial, verifiable, relevant content which is unsourced, than to source it or to tag it with CN tags at most. They continue doing this even when I have shown that many of their removals were perfectly fine content. "After a few back-and-forths between us, where each either added references or removed content": they have not found or added any new references, that's all my work. If that is "undoing your work", then I'm proud of it. Fram (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but you should know better than to label it vandalism and use snarky edit summaries. Aircorn (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Aircorn. Returning the non-controversial material and tagging it with "cn" is fine and defensible, but calling the work of someone you are in a dispute with "vandalism" is beyond the pale. Disagreeing with the approach to unreferenced material is not vandalism. They are clearly acting in good faith, and if you Fram also want to be considered to be also acting in good faith, you would do well to avoid using such terminology. For someone that's been around here as long as you have, I find it ridiculous that you need to be reminded of that. Calling good-faith disagreements "vandalism" is the kind of behavior I'd expect of a noob, not of one of the most seasoned editors at Wikipedia. Please stop that. On the nature of the dispute, itself, instead of reverting each-other back-and-forth, stop editing the article, and seek additional dispute resolution. Just because it was sought before on different articles doesn't mean you abandon that process on this article. Ask for outside help, don't scream "vandalism" and revert blindly back and forth. --Jayron32 15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku's edit summaries are little better, tbh. And yes, it does appear that only one side is actually making an attempt to add decent sources. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing correct entries from a list of films because they can't be bothered to look for sources, and doing this again and again even when someone else shows that the entries are verifiable, is vandalism. And getting a disruptive editing warning for my efforts gets met with snark, yes. We are dealing with an editor who routinely WP:BITEs IPs and new editors by reverting them rather mindlessly, even when they add sourced and pertinent information like here. Fram (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, and you already know that. What it is is a good-faith disagreement on how to interpret the sourcing requirements for an article. Vandalism, which you already know, is bad-faith editing intending to make Wikipedia worse. This is good faith editing where the two editors have a disagreement on how to interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding sourcing requirements. Just because someone has a different interpretation of policy than you do doesn't mean they are vandalising the article. You know this already Fram, because you've been around here for well over a decade. Your doubling down on this is just willful obtuseness, and there is no excuse for it. --Jayron32 15:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

As I don't see any "good faith effort" in someone continuing to remove uncontroversial entries from a list when it is very easy to verify and source them, and someone else is busy doing this, I don't agree with you at all. If they had shown any indication of trying to but failing to verift these entries, or if they had provided any reasonable excuse apart from "but unsourced!", I could accept your AGF reasoning. But none of this happened, only obstruction and stubbornness. Fram (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

They are not required to try to verify anything. policies and guidelines allows them to do so as an option, but also allows other courses of action. They have chosen the course they think is the best. On the contrary, policies and guidelines make it clear that sourcing is always the responsibility of the person who wishes to see the text displayed in the article. If someone wants to remove something, they are under no obligation to seek sources to support it's remaining in the text! WP:BURDEN. --Jayron32 16:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

While removing is allowed, sourcing (or at most tagging) is encouraged. They have not given any reason why they continue to challenge the material, when it has been shown that at the very least a lot of what they removed is easily verifiable, and none of it has been shown to be unverifiable or even dubious. Being allowed to do something doesn't mean that it can't be seriously disruptive to keep on doing it just because you can, not because it improves Wikipedia in any way. It's like, to take a random example, removing Prods without a reason. It is allowed by policy, but if one were to do it on all prods everyday, they would get warned and blocked (or topic banned) anyway. They have just again removed unsourced entries from the page[75], at the same time removing the refs from some sourced ones (and the English titles from sourced ones despite these official translations just being one click away on the source given), and without bothering to even join the discussion on the talk page which I started yesterday (before this ANI). But yeah, I'm the problem here. Fram (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless you seriously believe they are removing content with the actual goal of making Wikipedia worse - as opposed to removing content because they misunderstand or are misguided about what the correct action is or something of the sort - then it's in fact not justifiable to call it vandalism. Intent is a component of vandalism, and it's possible to be unhelpful or disruptive without being a vandal. CharredShorthand (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You have a difficult case to prove, so you'll want to include some specific diffs. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be better for Revirvlkodlaku to add sources for the material he is removing, but he's also right that unverified material can be removed whenever, and edit-warring to keep it in is something a longtime editor like Fram should absolutely know is not acceptable. Both parties should also stop templating each other and leaving sniping edit summaries. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely don't know this, and this seems to be a very selective reading of the policy:

"Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[4] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[5] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

Just reading the first sentence may seem like it gives an absolute right to do this, but everything following this shows that the challenge of verifiability needs to be based on a real "concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source", and that other steps are usually better (like tagging it, or preferably sourcing it). Blindly removing information just because it is unsourced, but without any actual care about whether it is verifiable and without any effort to actually check it, is usually seen as disruptive (excluding BLPs issues, which are not in play here). Continuing to remove entries when it has been shown that many of their previous removals from the same list had no actual basis in policy (as they were easily verifiable) is disruptive, and hiding behind a very selective policy reading is not helpful. Fram (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Your argument that it is obvious and cut-and-dry how the material must be handled, and is directly contradicted by the text you yourself quoted. The text offers options for how to deal with the information in question, but does not require any one particular course of action, leaving it up to individual editors to assess the requirements on a case by case basis. They "may" do one thing, it "depends on" several factors, asking editors to "consider" doing some things or not, people are "encouraged" to do certain things. There is no requirement that someone MUST add a cn tag or provide their own sources, they are merely allowed to do so among a menu of options, one of which is just "remove the material". There are no hard and fast rules except "don't edit war" and "discuss on the talk page where there is a disagreement" and "seek outside help if you don't agree". Your insistence that, merely because someone else has chosen a different item off of the allowable menu of options than you would have, means they are vandalizing or acting in bad faith, is ridiculous. Don't do that. --Jayron32 16:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I am the one that initiated discussion at the Jo Bogaert article, I am the one that initiated discussion at the Miso article. 5 Minutes after I started that second discussion, they started this ANI section. "There are no hard and fast rules except "don't edit war" and "discuss on the talk page where there is a disagreement". Please direct your advice where it is needed. Anything else?

Missing from the above summary is also the article Nissim Amon, where they reverted my BLP correction[76]; and that they started labeling my edits disruptive before realising that actually, they weren't. When I see what happened in the few articles where we interacted and look at things like [this (already linked above), I think we would do better to take a closer look at their edits and their apparent difficulty in letting go and accepting that they might be wrong, instead doubling down again and again and like here escalating things instead of trying to, you know, actually improve enwiki and source content. Fram (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material is a form of improvement. Providing sources is also a form of improvement. You're allowed to do either as the situation calls for, and edits that do either should not be called vandalism. --Jayron32 18:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Then maybe try accepting that you were wrong to label the edits vandalism, and we can move on to the rest of the issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material is a form of improvement. No, removing pertinent, harmless, and easily sourceable material is a form of disruption and degradation of encyclopedia quality. Indeed, Fram deserves a {{minnow}} for incorrectly labeling those edits 'vandalism'. Fram, in the future, please use more accurate wording such as 'incompetent', 'disruptive' or 'lazy'. No such user (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

( every time I point out that Wikipedia's policies and guidance are contradictory on the great debate: "delete-uncited-on-sight" versus "if-it's-probably-true-it's-disruptive-to-delete" I get yelled at. Last time I pointed out that this leads to endless fights at ANI, both sides told me there wasn't a problem. Elemimele (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC) )

This is a feature, and not a bug, in the system. There are no rules, just options, as different situations call for different things to do. We want people to talk it out, and get consensus. We don't want people blindly following one rule or another. --Jayron32 18:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

There shouldn't be one policy to win all arguments, instead editors should discussion the issue without resorting to name calling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• I just found myself reverting an edit by Revirvlkodlaku at Shaolin Monastery, the do appear to be engaging in disruptive editing. I don't think that Fram is the issue here. Suggest a boomerang might be in order. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's not an either/or matter. Merely because Revirvlkodlaku did something wrong doesn't mean that Fram did anything right. --05:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs)

  I hope you mean "everything", not "anything"? Fram (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  This edit by the filer, which Horse Eye's Back identified as disruptive, seems to be based on an erroneous belief that text-source integrity is achieved by placing a reference after each period, and that if a sentence doesn't end with a citation, we are dealing with uncited material. —Alalch E. 10:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Looks to be in the same competence related boat as what got them into this ANI problem in the first place (asserting blindly that band founders aren't band members and then edit warring over that erroneous belief). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh my word. This is a content dispute over fairly minor and inconsequential details like infobox fields, external links, and miscellaneous list items. As I consider this to be an inflammatory argument involving infoboxes, I have given a discretionary sanctions notice to Fram and Revirvlkodlaku. I think the pair should simply avoid each other from now on, and Fram should read WP:VANDALISM carefully. Seriously, let's not have to do anything else, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No idea why you felt the need to template two people with a (rather outdated) DS notice for an already settled dispute about one article, but thanks for trying I guess? Did you really think dropping that note on both our talk pages would actually solve anything at all about this dispute? Or did you just totally miss the gist of this dispute, and took the only thing that looked vaguely threatening and perhaps, somehow, vaguely related? But I'm glad that you consider the list of which films and TV series a production company has produced a "fairly minor and inconsequential detail", it's just the essence of what they do but who cares, as long as we can template some people we feel as if we have achieved something and are useful admins. Keep up the good work! Fram (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That rant was not helpful, Fram. You're giving ammunition to the people who think we'd have been better off if you'd never been unblocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You´re completely right. Ritchie, thank you for giving me a DS warning for an already resolved dispute, not about having an infobox or not, but about which infobox was the best on one single article. Thanks to that DS notice I´ll be able to move on as a much improved editor. And thank you, the hand etc., for making me see the error of my ways and make me remember that the reason I was blocked was for criticizing those in power or their friends, and that I should react gracefully to whatever nonsense admins are willing to say to me. What would I do without you both? Fram (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• In any content dispute between two people, where only one person is adding reliable sources, that person is in the right. This is henceforth to be known as Marshall's Third Law.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  What are the first and second laws? — Czello 19:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  User:Raul654/Raul's laws, #300 and #301.—S Marshall T/C 20:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Note that Fram has apologised to Revirvlkodlaku, resolving this issue somewhat. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Reporting UPE editor

I am reporting user Window369 for paid editing. They recently attempted to create an article for Indian film director Tharun Moorthy. I am confident that this is a paid article because Tharun Moorthy recently posted through his Instagram story asking if anyone could help him create a Wikipedia article. The article in question was created within a week of this post. I have moved the article to draft space and Praxidicae has previously given a warning to Window369 prior to me, but they have not responded to both warnings. You can view the article creation history for more context at the following link: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Window369. Akevsharma (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely awaiting their response to this. Bishonen | tålk 07:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC).

Is that actually evidence? Editors can create articles on a subject because someone mentioned they wanted one. That's how Earyn McGee was created, as one example. And I'm not seeing a promotional article at Draft:Tharun Moorthy. The sources are quite strong and are from major Indian newspapers, with direct coverage of the subject and their works as the topic. Silverseren^C 07:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not specifically referring to the Tharun Moorthy article. If you look at the other articles created by this user, you will see that it is likely that they are editing for payment without disclosing it. The nature of their edits supports this conclusion. I have already mentioned that Praxidicae gave a warning to Window369 and that I also gave them two warnings. Despite this, they have not responded to any of the warnings. Akevsharma (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion

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

---

Gefarlicharchitekt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a block evasion of Sakincalimimar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) see dewiki administrator's noticeboard discussion [77] („Gefarlicharchitekt“ is a German translation of „Sakincalimimar“ + both were editing the same (deleted) articles in dewiki). Looking at the enwiki drafts created by Gefarlicharchitekt the behaviour has not changed since his block. Johannnes89 (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This should have been brought to WP:SPI, but I've blocked the new account as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 sorry I thought this was such an obvious case that SPI wouldn't be needed. In hindsight I might have been wrong as dewiki CU found two more sockpuppets [78] --Johannnes89 (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I have run a quick check as well and blocked Ichheissearchitelt (talk · contribs) as a confirmed sock. Garbis.95 (talk · contribs) has never edited on en.wiki. Salvio 18:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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

BoronRadin

User:Podawful hasn't edited in over a year, but new account BoronRadin has created a rather nasty attack page about a living person at that user page. As an anon editor I can't blank the user page or tag it for speedy deletion. 2A01:4C8:A0:75C2:A4F5:773D:1575:D94D (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

BoronRadin also threatens vandalism if a new page is draftified, in this edit summary. 2A01:4C8:A0:75C2:A4F5:773D:1575:D94D (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have speedied the page, thank you for reporting it. Salvio 11:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Here. Apparently created an account just for this. Kleuske (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NLT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You would think lawyers would actually understand what laws apply to Wikipedia. And it's also quite clear that they're misinterpreting the "Diritto all'oblio" law. Canterbury Tail talk 16:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You'd be surprised; many lawyers can become quite "siloed" within their practice areas. The good ones realize this. Sadly, not all lawyers are good ones. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What Dumuzid said. The profession likes for laymen to believe that lawyers are omnicompetent, but there are many, many practice areas. There's no more reason to think that a hack who spends his time drawing up wills and trusts is competent in civil privacy litigation than that any of you are qualified computer programmers just because you took 9th and 10th grade math in high school. Ravenswing 17:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Sabarno Moitra

I'm having an issue with Sabarno Moitra (talk · contribs) and some relatively minor but widespread disruptive editing. It looks like they're doing some cleanup on older Indian film articles, which is needed, but they're ignoring concerns about removing maintenance tags, overlinking and formatting.

• WP:SEAOFBLUE - in infobox, article body and especially around soundtracks [79] showing repeatedly linking to the article itself and [80] in soundtracks (there are MANY examples of this in their editing history
• Misuse of bold, apparently to promote Asha Bhosle [81]
• Removal of maintenance tags (warned several times about this over past months) [82], article still has one source and still needs more
• Not following template docs by overlink of major country/language and removing ubl/plainlist templates from longish name lists [83]

They've been warned about these concerns previously - removing maintenance templates - July 2021 [84], October 2021 [85], November 2022 [86], December 2022 [87] Overlinking - Feb 2022 [88], October 2022 [89] and their response [90] is a bit concerning. I left them a warning message [91] outlining the issues I was seeing and linked to several pages to explain why, and the response was "Whatever I have done is not fully out of rules. It looks even more beautiful. So, please don't disturb me, you have no right to change / delete my work without asking me. If you have not do anything, please don't do anything, but don't try to revert my editing. Don't try to be an oversmart." [92].

While minor, Sabarno Moitra has made a large number of edits and there's a fair amount of cleanup. I'd like to see them agree to follow the community norms but I think this needs admin intervention at this point. They've been warned enough and from their response, clearly don't intend to change their ways. Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

suppression of Baloch pages

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

---

attack on the Balochi page of the Sutyarashi vandals https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sutyarashi

Participant harassment is unwanted behavior that may be perceived as actions with the primary purpose of causing negative emotions in the participant or participants at whom they are directed. Such behavior may be an attempt to make the work on Wikipedia unpleasant for the targets of persecution, to humiliate or intimidate them in any way, to force them to either be distracted from improving Wikipedia, or to leave it altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.186.190 (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this is regarding Principality of Kalmat, which raises the question of whether the IP is a sockpuppet of blocked user Ali banu sistani —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning yes on that regard but not blocking the IP yet to facilitate discussion here. However, I note that Ali banu sistani was blocked for "using Wikipedia as a battleground for incivility and personal attacks". —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User:TruthfulLightSeeker at Gurumayi Chidvilasananda

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

---

• TruthfulLightSeeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gurumayi Chidvilasananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User TLS appears to have an axe to grind regarding this article, making repeated claims that the subject has apparently died without any evidence to back this up, as well as other WP:BLP violations. TLS has clearly violated WP:3RR on this page (as has TheRingess, but that user stopped editing after their problematic edits were pointed out). The history of the Gurumayi Chidvilasananda biography is very muddled by recent edits, but this series of edits shows the basic nature of TLS' "accusations" against Chidvilasananda. While it is entirely possible that some of these edits are legitimate, the nature of TLS' edit summaries, and refusal to take up at discussion of the matter, lead one to believe that TLS is WP:NOTHERE. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As expected, TruthfulLightSeeker and MaltiMilk are socks of each other. I agree the accounts are being quite disruptive. The article probably needs a closer examination, for both neutrality and to scrub any BLP violations, but I need to sleep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Long term sockpuppetry campaign on Jenna Ortega and Talk:Jenna Ortega

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

---

There has been a sockpuppetry campaign on the Wikipedia page of Jenna Ortega. Someone or multiple people have consistently spammed “fan messages” on the talk and and article itself. Today it was done again, by a sock-puppeteer I assume locking it to advanced users.

It has been going on for a while and I believe that someone is intentionally doing this, either as an obsession with the actress or as a means of “trolling”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:325:FFAE:19E5:334E:D0B2:5C7A (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Both the article and article talk page have been extended confirmed protected by Sdrqaz for 3 days. Let's see if that works. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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

مهدي جزائري part III

In September مهدي جزائري (talk · contribs) was blocked for one week for making unsourced changes to BLP articles: link to September AN/I discussion.

In November (link to November AN/I discussion) I reported that they are still at it: [93] and that in all their time at Wikipedia they haven't communicated: [94]. They edit from mobile and WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU exists but as @Ravenswing: noted that mobile users should not be exempted from having to communicate with other editors. At the time no action was taken.

The behaviour continues and something needs to be done.

Diffs from this week:

• Fahd Al-Hamdan:

• [95] مهدي جزائري creates a new article with zero references.
• [96] I proposed deletion per BLDPROD.
• [97] A different user removes the BLDPROD tag adding a database entry as a source. The source does not support most of the article including the career stats table content.
• [98] I removed the table.
• [99] Hours later مهدي جزائري re-adds the table.

• Moussa N'Daw:

• [100] مهدي جزائري adds unsourced stats table and more unsourced content.
• [101] I revert.
• [102] مهدي جزائري re-adds unsourced content.

• Mohamed Abdelrahman (footballer, born 1993):

• [103] مهدي جزائري makes unsourced changes and additions including a stats table.
• [104] @Nehme1499: removes unsourced content.
• [105] مهدي جزائري restores their version.

I haven't gone through all their edits but I see no reason to assume their editing elsewhere complies with our policies and guidelines.

Pinging @Mako001: who endorsed action in November. Pinging @GiantSnowman:, @Mattythewhite: and @Sir Sputnik: as admins who edit football articles. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Haven't changed my mind on the subject. Mobile users are still not exempted from the requirements to communicate with other editors, and if they chronically make problematic edits for which they chronically will not talk, they should be chronically indeffed. If the WMF doesn't like it, they can get off their collective asses and provide mobile software that corrects this chronic issue.

This particular guy, with a long litany of warnings and requests on his talk page, must have one of the highest non-bot ratios in history of edits to talk page edits: 1575 to zero. [106] Ravenswing 11:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, and I most definitely still endorse action on this one. I've closed some threads like that where things kinda petered out on their own after an isolated incident, but this is a whole different story. This editor needs a block, because competence is required, and communication is required. Sure, mobile communication issues exist, but disruptive is disruptive, regardless of whether they are aware of it or not, and there is no exemption in WP:DE for users who can't use talkpages.

@Ravenswing: I tried to calculate the decimal value for that ratio. I'd never heard a calculator beg for mercy before. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely, and left a message on their talk page that I'll unblock as soon as they begin communicating with other editors. This has certainly gone on long enough without any engagement. If it's a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue then it's very unfortunate that we may end up losing a possibly productive editor due to interface problems that we can't control. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Well ... in THIS case? I have little sympathy for someone whose edits are frequently reverted but who seemingly has no interest in finding out why, as opposed to charging on ahead blindly. That being blocked is the fate befalling a disproportionate number of mobile editors on WP:TCHY grounds is a broader problem, and the apparent indifference of the WMF to addressing it is a very black mark against them. Ravenswing 14:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I have little sympathy for someone whose edits are frequently reverted but who seemingly has no interest in finding out why, as opposed to charging on ahead blindly. That's what has been so frustrating with the blocked editor. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, ScottishFinnishRadish. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism at Kalki

Rather than simply request protection, I'm asking for more eyes to discern the existence of residual vandalism over the past few months. Then lock. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism in Moroccan diaspora page

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

---

I seek the help of an admin because of multiple vandalism incidents in the Moroccan diaspora page i warm editors multiple times with no effect I précise my source (they are more recents) so can someone please deal with that ? Thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.0.74 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Dealt with. IP/OP blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Joaziela and personal attacks

Editor Joaziela attacks on other editors: "Once again to emphasize enough ... and any try of silence it is genocide denial and historical negationism" [107], "@TimothyBlue it’s might be not comfortable, but let’s be neutral no propaganda and historical negationism" [108]  // Timothy :: talk  18:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This month blocked twice on Polish Wikipedia and already once here. They might need a serious warning or another block (regrettably 😔), mostly for editing in a non neutral manner but also personal attacks (?) (not sure if those were PA’s) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Non of it was targeted to be any personal attack, it was only used as figurative speech.

Again @TimothyBlue in not taking part in discussion, first he removed without any reason well sourced information, than he didn’t took place in discussion. I don’t want to be involved in editing war and want to discuss the issue, I’m only attacked by him and @GizzyCatBella the meritorious discussion i try to start here Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada but then also again been attacked here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#User:Joaziela I’m all the time bullied and no argument about the discussion is put on Joaziela (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joaziela 🤦🏻‍♀️ How were you attacked? How are you bullied? another reason to be blocked. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, for openers, let's cut out the bloody flag-waving, shall we? Looking at the edit summaries, TimothyBlue did, in fact, give reasons for removal. Joaziela, you might not *like* his reasons, but making stuff up does not help your argument. Reading over the talk page, like GizzyCatBella, I'm failing to see where you've been "attacked" or "bullied." Do you have any diffs to proffer? Ravenswing 19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

These words are not figurative: "...it is genocide denial and historical negationism". As far as discussion goes, I've discussed your editing and behavior on many pages, so have other editors and admins and I've warned you twice about personal attacks.  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t attack you personal, you taking it from context, it was just figurative that this kind of censorship would be denial-like, but it was not about you, and I explain in main article Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada where you not at all discuss on issues but just delete and report me to another and another discussion page about me. I write that I don’t mean anything personal and ask what part you find offensive Joaziela (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional discussion to review User talk:Joaziela#January 2023  // Timothy :: talk  19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue why again you want to discuss me, not a topic in Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada but again you create a topic with my name Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#User:Joaziela and here, the previous discussion also was not about the topic but just was deleted without any reason, it’s really look like censorship Joaziela (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joaziela because now (here) it’s about you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Look Joaziela, you really need to calm down, take a few steps back and study your conduct. I suggest doing it now before posting any more comments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

so maybe some backup? oh..🤦🏻‍♀️ [109] ... anyway. We have a passionate new editor making mistakes one after another. I give up but please keep in mind they are new around here, with time they might learn. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

huge calm and propriety, but why it’s so easy to discuss on subject of me, not on why you claiming that Bandera is not responsible for genocide. Or maybe you don’t because you didn’t respond in discussion on subject. Both of you created two new topics about me and research about me, but why you can’t discuss in subject, in subject that you delete without saying a word, don’t give any other sources and say that someone published a photo with war criminal not for long it’s okay. Just discuss on matter not go around Joaziela (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The last thin bit of AGF I had left in this editor just evaporated with this [110] and the above reply  // Timothy :: talk  19:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

While this is a content issue not relevant to ANI, Wikipedia is not an advocacy organization one way or another, and is entirely and utterly neutral on the propriety (or lack thereof) of someone having taken a picture with Stepan Bandera. As to Bandera's life and actions, they are extensively covered in Bandera's own article ... and since you haven't seemed to have edited in that article, I'm unclear as to the relevance of bringing it up. In any event, whether (or not) any editor believes that Bandera committed genocide (or not) is likewise irrelevant to ANI. We are discussing your conduct, not your political beliefs. Ravenswing 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

My take is Joaziela lacks sufficient English proficiency to contribute to enwiki and that's probably what's driving the other problems (incivility, apparent inability to understand what other editors are telling them about editing processes, etc.). I know we AGF, but a person who apparently can't compose a grammatically-correct sentence in discussions will not be able to contribute prose productively to articles about controversial topics. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Joaziela's edits [111][112] were well-sourced and written in a decent English. Arguably they were WP:UNDUE, but there's room for reasonable disagreement on this kind of things, and having a talk page discussion may be the best way to settle it. The edits were reverted with the usual incomprehensible Wiki-jargon and Joaziela, who has made 866 edits overall, may well not undestand what pov, weight, non-encyclopedic wording and [113] failed verification, no consensus, pov synth [114] are about (incidentally, I don't see any "failed verification" and "pov synth" issues here). The discussion Joaziela opened on the talk page [115] was not at all productive. TimothyBlue didn't reply and GizzyCatBella made the unhelpful suggestion You can try to create a new article about the incident if you want. Then TimothyBlue opened a thread at BLP/N for no reason at all since Joaziela's edit was neither poorly-sourced nor gratuitously offensive and the discussion on the talk page had just started. At BLP/N TimothyBlue gave their reasons: I think above mentioned article contributions are poorly or unsourced additions of serious claims to a highly visible page. I think Joaziela's replies also contain poor or unsourced material about a LP and their replies show a strong POV. GizzyCatBella rightly highlighted: Material is sourced (it did happen). Yes, materials is verifiable: General Zaluzhnyi and the tweeter account of the Ukrainian parliament have shared a photo that could result offensive (and therefore a significant view) to certain audiances, especially in Poland and Israel, where the news was reported. So it's easy to assume Joaziela's good faith when they claimed they were being censored. Had they just used the jargon, "WP:NOTCENSORED", nobody would have objected; instead they used their own words to express the same concept (try of silence it is genocide denial and historical negationism ... let’s be neutral no propaganda and historical negationism) and here we are. But there was no personal attack. Joaziela was making an emphatic parallelism to express the notion that events related to the extermination of Jews and Poles during WW2 are always significant and deserve inclusion.

I think editors overreacted to a possibly WP:UNDUE but good-faithed edit and that this series of threads at two different noticeboards is unwarranted and over the top. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: WP:CANVASS @ [116].  // Timothy :: talk  22:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Again you oversensitive. I just trying to get help, how to communicate with people not so sensitive on this matters. And really if you just focus all that energy that you put on me instead in the topic discussion. You didn’t bring here not even one argument Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada meantime I just provide 4 new RS. It’s all started because you been removing without any reason and not participating in discussion about topic, but instead bullying me on other sites not connected to topic but focus on grilling me Joaziela (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Other editors have mentioned that this editor may have a WP:CIR issue. This is Joaziela's latest suggestion [117]. Its a mess, but I think the clear intent here is to equate the BLP Zaluzhnyi with the crimes of the Nazis; this absurdity would be comparable to saying someone supports slavery and Native American genocide because they visited the Jefferson memorial. This is in addition to their personal attacks.  // Timothy :: talk  02:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Question. @Joaziela. Here you accused another WP contributor (Danilmay) of "forcing Nazi Ukraine historical negationism". Why? Do you think he/she has anything to do with Nazi Ukraine? My very best wishes (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack - Australianblackbelt

• Australianblackbelt (talk · contribs)

Hi all, I am probably not involved and could take administrative action - but to be safe as the discussion was occurring on my talk page, bringing here for further review.

In this edit, Australianblackbelt writes "Canterbury sounds English you are clearly racist and Uruguay beat England in the brazil cup and the first cup. LoL".

In my opinion, this is a clear personal attack against Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs), an experienced editor (and administrator). Accusing someone of being racist when they clearly aren't, is beyond the pale.

There is probably a bigger discussion to be had regarding this editor, but in the first instance, asking for the community to review the above.

Thanks
Daniel (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: they've interacted with Canterbury Tail here, here and a Happy New Year greeting. They're making a personal attack 4 days after wishing Canterbury Tail a Happy New Year? Hmm. Sarrail (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Before you go and shoot me down let me just say I write about martial artists these are the pages I've created, I have been doing some great work Sum Nung Yuen Chai-wan Tran Thuc Tien Pan Nam Anthony Arnett Terry Lim Eric Oram Deleted and rewrote from scratch => William Cheung The reason for my poke at Canterbury is he has said the latin australian times was just a newsletter and the stories were written by the subjects mother which are both lies. I forgot about being woke any joke even about the world cup rivalry can be taken as offensive Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone challenges the validity of a source and your response is to call them a racist. This suggests you haven't read WP:NPA. In future please restrict your comments to being about article content, not contributors. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

He did more than challenge the validity, first he deleted them all from my article Felix Leong then without my knowledge had it deleted after the sources were gone. Later he states the source is not valid. Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Someone legitimately questioning your sources doesn't give you permission to call them offensive names. The better way to resolve a dispute over the reliability of a source is to post evidence that it meets the conditions spelt out WP:RS, including having an acceptable level of editorial oversight and fact-checking, and genuine independence from the topic they're being used with. Facebook posts obviously don't meet these criteria, and there are often questions over the fact-checking or authorship pf articles by small community newspapers or magazines.

A sourcing question shouldn't be taken personally; it's a necessary part of the Wikipedia editorial process. Personal attacks aren't ever necessary here, and if they're repeated they'll usually lead to blocks. I note the personal attack has already been redacted (by someone else, not you). I suggest the best way forward is to agree to respond to sourcing questions via the policy I've linked above, and to avoid making comments about individual contributors. I also agree with some earlier posters that you may have a conflict of interest with some of the article subjects you're writing about. If so please declare it on your userpage or talkpage so other editors are aware. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I have mentioned my conflict of interest on my talk page as you suggested but won't be continuing to write about Maurice Novoa, I will leave it up to someone else. Thanks Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

User:0mtwb9gd5wx reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Persistent disruptive editing (including promotional edits); spamming. [118] [119] [120] [121] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Persistent SYNTH, IDHT, and NOTHERE issues

• Simulaun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Despite a November 2022 AN/I discussion about Simulaun's repeated synthesis additions to Melbourne/other geographical articles re their indigenous names, and their failure to listen to other editors, Simulaun is still engaging in the same disruptive editing.

For background, since April 2022, Simulaun has been engaged in what can only be described as a narrow-focused campaign to either remove or muddy the waters re the Indigenous Australian names of cities in Australia, particularly Melbourne. I don't know their motivations, but it's pretty clear to anyone that they are removing content that they just don't like and replacing it with poorly sourced -- or outright synthesis of published material. Ironically, a section on Talk:Melbourne entitled "wikipedia:Activist attempts to rename Australian towns and cities" might offer a little bit of an explanation behind Simulaun's editing (seeing as they do not seem keen on expanding when challenged), particularly their comment: "The same cultural appropriation is taking place for the city of Perth, which is now being referred to by some groups as "Big Swamp" in Noongar language." (diff).

Simulaun's long-term fixation has been adding SYNTH material to Melbourne re its Indigenous name, ignoring the need for consensus. The user will replace an existing passage with a synthesis of a LonelyPlanet source and others, making the misleading claim that the source is speaking for Melbourne (it's not). The editor has been warned about this, repeatedly, on their talk page and article talk pages. When challenged, the editor has repeatedly chosen to outright ignore or defend their edits (and then proceed to do the exact same thing they've been accused of doing).

Diffs provided in November 2022 AN/I discussion (April–November 2022)

Simulaun's edits being challenged by the community: Sept. 20 (reverted) – SYNTH, WP:COPYVIO, ignores consensus Sept. 26 (reverted) – SYNTH, COPYVIO, ignores consensus Oct. 15 (reverted) – SYNTH, unreliable source per WP:RSP, ignores consensus Oct. 17 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus Oct. 18 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus Nov. 2 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus Nov. 5 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus Nov. 9 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus Nov. 10 (reverted) – removal of sourced content Simulaun outright ignoring the community, or bludgeoning the same point over and over (and still ignoring the message): Apr. 24: The Logical Positivist asked Simlaun to stop adding original research to the Rottnest Island article. No response. On the article's talk page, Mitch Ames had even previously asked Simulaun to stop adding factual errors/OR to article [122]. No response. Apr. 25: I cautioned Simulaun for removal of content on Melbourne and to gain consensus for their edits. No response. Jul. 7: Padgriffin warned Simulaun for adding original research to Sydney. Simulaun defended adding original research and has continued to add OR. Sept. 20: I asked Simulaun to provide diffs of where on Talk:Melbourne consensus exists for their content change as they incorrectly claimed. They did not provide those diffs as can be seen. Sept. 25: Poketama too, told Simulaun that their content changes to Melbourne contained SYNTH. Oct. 15: I cautioned Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response. Oct. 19: I warned Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response. Nov. 2: I gave a final warning to Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response. Since then, they've continuously added the same SYNTH bypassing the need for consensus here and here, having been reverted by Gracchus250 and Meters, respectively, citing the same issues in their edit summaries.

There is absolutely no suggestion that Simulaun has taken onboard feedback from the November 2022 AN/I discussion (wherein TBANs were advocated by multiple editors). Since then:

• Nov. 19-Dec. 16: Simulaun argues that their edits weren't SYNTH with myself, and the discussion goes in circles as Simulaun isn't listening.
• Dec 10: repeats the same nonsense on the Melbourne talk page about Melbourne's indigenous name Narrm. JTdale objects on WP:FALSEBALANCE grounds, I object too given it's the same SYNTH additions. Simulaun's response? Dec. 30: "Does anyone have a valid objection to the proposed information regarding 'Narrm'? If so, speak now or for ever hold your peace."
• Jan 6. 2023: Simulaun proceeds to add the same disputed material to Melbourne article, despite objections (and the same SYNTH issues as before). Gracchus250 undoes Simulaun's edit on the basis of "Ongoing disruptive POV editing".

At the very least, I propose Simulaun be the subject of a broadly construed topic ban on geographical articles. Personally, I don't think they are here to edit constructively given their failure to heed any warnings or listen to other editors, but I am open to what others have to say. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

First thing I noticed with the most recent diff is that the link for Lonely Planet throws up a 404 error and isn't archived in the Wayback Machine, which leaves some question of how Simulaun accessed it today. This is the correct URL, and it's archived. Looking at the source, it says nothing about Melbourne. The source has this to say about dual-naming: Naming entire cities, such as Sydney, which did not exist as a single entity prior to British colonization, means a name had to be chosen that doesn’t always represent the whole geographical footprint. That's word-for-word, except for removing the part about Sydney, and amounts to a copyright violation. Mackensen (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Since another TBAN of an editor making similar edits, Simulaun is now basically on their own in this view. The persistent failure to WP:GETTHEPOINT is really quite disruptive.

There is also a problem when an editor is also apparently unaware of WP:ENGVAR, regarding the use of "colonization". (Australian English uses "colonisation". Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Jbcauthe reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Only two edits thus far, both on KAET. Wants "Arizona PBS" as the display title when it should be listed under the call sign. Also adding promotional content. May be conflict of interest. Pinging @Sammi Brie: Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r, with all due respect, dragging a newcomer straight to ANI is an unproductive waste of everyone's time. I'd like to handle this myself. Users that come from media outlets don't often know our policies and guidelines or why pages are titled like they are in our field. This requires explanation, not throwing a newcomer into the deep end of Wikipedia dispute resolution. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)