Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) at 20:44, 9 June 2021 (→Repeated CSD tag deletion, meatpuppetry, et al.: article deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:Triggerhippie4, user:Gidonb, user:SoaringLL

    These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel. Additionally, User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.

    The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement. However, user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."

    User:Gidonb continues to make frivolous requests to fish my ip address.Catchpoke (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I raised a concern that I have on the appropriate page, then detailed it a bit following multiple public requests by multiple fellow WP volunteers (not the folks that happen to be with me in this section header). I did nothing different from the previous times that I reported something that concerned me at WP. I expressed my opinion at the discussion that the complainer initiated, disregarding all concerns, even when pressured at this point, and called names by the person who complains here against me. How awkward! In my opinion, the complainer's uncivil behavior[1][2][3] is not acceptable and, of course, one is always free to take a look at my actions. Policies apply to all. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the TfD itself: beyond incivility, there is too much back and forth. I think that everyone should have their say and opinions should be given some space. It's not a good idea to react to everyone's opinions. gidonb (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At the SPI you started, you were asked for diffs 3,5 days ago [4]. You have not provided one even today [5]. Also, I cannot follow your logic in here: did you go to SPI because of incivility? -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I went to the SPI because of a concern of sockpuppetry that I continue to have (previously I would report a suspected sockpuppet on an admin's page who referred me to that page). I think it is a valid concern. At the very least there are very valid causes for concern. The user decided to attack me on multiple pages, including here, by my interpretation as a sort of defense. That's a strategy I do not approve of but just maybe within the complainer's rights. I hope not. I'm no expert on how these things develop or on all procedures and abbreviations. I'm not going to argue with all that is being said here or with every way my actions are misinterpreted. I do not do that in other discussions either. I mostly edit. All this is extremely time consuming and draining. Even simple discussions where you just want to provide your two cents have become that way. gidonb (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to make this incredibally short but if pressed, I can supply any reasoning required: user:Gidonb, I've included you here because user:SoaringLL is clearly a sock. Your request for a background check at WP:SPI was unwarranted however since you did not supply the required information for such an invasion of privacy. I don't want to comment or involve user:Gidonb further.Catchpoke (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure I acted in good faith. But is it special? All Wikipedians with a constant record of fighting vandalism, sockpuppetry, POV, and excessive nominations on Wikipedia act in good faith. Once in a while we get a barnstar, after 12 years we receive the PumpkinSky Prize, but far more often our pages are vandalized or we are threatened or even dragged to the WP:ANI or other boards. I'm not a Wikipedian for any of these. I'm here because I like to edit and believe in Wikipedia's mission. If you want to edit constructively, start necessary discussions, and report a case of possible sockpuppetry for honest reasons -- that's great! gidonb (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Triggerhippie4 canvassing casting bad faith: [6]. They did not respond but did engage in side-issues [7] 'That's why I notified these users.' (i.e., nothing about the canvassing post).
    Triggerhippie4 entring personal attacks in TfD discussion: [8] 'False. You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even ...', [9] 'Nominator is a newbie', [10] 'You are as competent as the nominator', invoking WP:CIR, 'mindful editors please'.
    Triggerhippie4 was warned about this behaviour by multiple editors: [11] 'chilling effect of attitudes and comments', [12] 'unhelpful', [13] 'for a second time enters PAs'.
    -DePiep (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gidonb expressing PA [14] 'unnecessary procedure, ... You'll just keep precious wasting community time' (sic), a warning was added [15] 'I don't think your judgements on this procedure and on an editor's GF are sound or helpful', which was ignored [16] pretending not understanding.
    Gidonb initiated SOCK claims [17] on 20 May 2021 against two editors he was involved with at the TfD. On 19:25 21st, extra info (diffs supporting their claim) was asked per CU process. Up until this moment, 3,5 days later, Gidonb has not provided a single diff. Still they continued to post otherwise [18] and elsewhere [19][20][21] in the discussion. Finally (so far) after 3,5 days, they withdrew one accusation [22] as a 'weaker case', and adding verbose meandering thoughts again without a single diff [23].
    • All in all, I think Catchpoke has good reason claiming harrassment: here is a list of PAs (in various specific forms) and the spurious still unsourced SOCK accusation. While SPI ideally should be considered independently from other claims, ie by itself, such claims are not free and do have a chilling effect on a discussion. Gidonb must be aware of this, especially since they withdrew one name late (despite being explicitly asked to look at it), and another name is hung in the open still without proof. (I'd expect an earlier throw-out by CU clerck btw). This is gaming the system.
    I have not experienced problematic behaviour with SoaringLL. MEATPUPPETtry could be checked for. I think a block for Triggerhippie4 and Gidonb would be useful, both to stop extending unbased SPI accusations and to keep the TfD discussion healthy & fruitful. -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In their posts and responses here, both Gidonb and Triggerhippie4 do not show awareness of their problematic behaviour. This implies they are not up for changing their behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've believe user:Gidonb engaged in good faith behavior since he is in his rights to accuse me of sockpuppetry but I don't want to comment on his behavior further.Catchpoke (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with a block on user:Triggerhippie4. In addition to the facts stated by User:DePiep and I, he WP:VOTESTACKed and only notified keep voters on their talk pages of a previous and similar discussions.Catchpoke (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is slander. I notified all active users from previous discussions. Point to an active user whom I should've notified but didn't. It's not my "fault" that previous nominations resulted in 'keep'. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See #report wrt Triggerhippie4 above. The diffs there show that you were WP:CANVASSING, made WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS. Also proofs of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, to which we can add later posts. Your questioning is not negating all that — it is ignoring all that (proving the point). I stand by my proposal. -DePiep (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My conduct is nothing in comparison to yours, apparently. I just looked at your block log, and omg, I don't think I need a lecture on civility from someone who was blocked for PAs and harassment multiple times, including one time indefinitely. You are on WP:EDRC for that. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    O.k. Well I found this. Maybe we can move forward from this ANI and User:DePiep and I can discuss these templates further.Catchpoke (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you hiding behind others to justify you own breach of WP guidelines? Quite a non-defence. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Above, #report wrt Gidonb shows in diffs that there is more to it. Multiple personal attacks, multiple users frivolously accused of being a SOCK (as [admitted by Gidonb] themselves), and not responding to serious requests for many days (i.e., keeping the SPI/accusation needlessly open). Whether knowingly or unknowingly: unacceptable behaviour towards other editors. And don't forget: all this disrupted the TfD to the brink. -DePiep (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    >These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel.
    The allegations are baseless, as I don't know those users. I notified Gidonb, because he's major contributor to one of the templates you started the discussion about. And I have nothing to do with SoaringLL.
    >User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.
    I don't consider this ([24]) WP:CANVASS, it was accurate description of your nomination.
    >The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement.
    The intent of your nomination was to delete {{Largest cities of Israel}}, and the overwhelming majority voted to keep.
    >user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."
    I said it in response to your astounding claim "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}", because it was obviously false. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You shouldn't even be making a comment like this when the discussion is ongoing and elsewhere. That certainly was harassment. "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}": Did I do my math wrong? And there were 2 uses until you added it to this article.Catchpoke (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Triggerhippie4, you write: "I don't consider this ... canvas". But IT IS. You are not free to judge yourself, of course. You wrote a personal attack. Now at last, respond to the content, do not ignore it. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Praxidicae

    Hi. This user is stalking my edits which is inhibiting my work (WP:FOLLOWING). Can anyone here ask them to stop doing this, please? I don't want to post this on their talk page. Thanks. Störm (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Störm: You're not allowed to report someone here without notifying them. WP:HOUNDING states that the following must not be "for no overridingly constructive reason". User:Praxidicae may have such a reason, so you must notify them so they can provide it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not stalking your edits, I rightfully noticed your poor editing of BLPs prior to your autopatrolled being revoked and subsequently looked at newer BLPs and noticed the same problems. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And for those unaware, last week I came across another iteration of Ramzi Najjar and noticed after digging that the sources being used were about an entirely different person than they had written about. This is the second iteration of it, which is different from the original one they started and I would encourage any administrator to look and see what I'm talking about. When I asked them, it was removed and they could not answer for where they got the information in a WP:BLP. Today I came across Tarryn Fisher and noticed similar problems, namely the unreliable sources and lack of sourcing to support information about the individual and when asked was told that they were "being bold". It is completely reasonable to look at an editors history after noting such glaring policy violations. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Close this. It's clearly Storm getting their offensive in first, having driven Praxidicae to consider filing here.
    Actually, on consideration, don't close this; Praxidicae can make their case, and the wood that makes their case will also make a boomerang. ——Serial 15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And for the uninitiated, the Ramzi Najjar version I'm talking about was not merely a confusion of sources, it was literally written entirely about someone else and each statement was sourced to papers or links that made no mention of the actual content it was being used for. Including using a book published in 1988 - to source the date of college graduation for someone born in 1978, among other things. I can only imagine Storm wrote out the content based on something and then went through newspapers.com and google books and just searched the name and threw whatever they thought would stick and no one would check. I would be glad to point out many of the other issues with their work, including this unanswered COIN thread from a few weeks ago. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing actionable here. If an experienced editor spots problems with a user's contributions, it's logical and appropriate to review other recent edits to determine if the same problems exist elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty obvious to me that there are legitimate editing concerns with Störm that Praxidicae is working on. It's odd that Störm doesn't want to engage productively to address the issues. -- Dane talk 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This one was created when I had autopatrolled rights and before their notice. I am willing to correct myself and re-read in detail about the WP:BLP policy. Just ask them to stop following me around, if this thing continues with me then I have to leave this place. Störm (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here as I and others noted is that you immediately remove any criticism and are not held accountable for the edits you are making. This is a collaborative environment which also requires you to be accountable for your edits, especially to sensitive subjects like WP:BLPs. Your comments of "noted" among other things while simultaneously still not following policy and adding dubious sources in general to all types of articles is a problem and feeling attacked does not absolve you from one of the core principles of editing Wikipedia, and as long as you insist on creating BLP violations and subpar stubs of dubious notability, any user is free to note as much and expect an answer. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have edited and volunteered my time for so long that I don't want to go that in vain. I am willing to correct myself and not insisting to create subpar stubs. But targeting someone is not a way to correct anybody. I will accept the advice and will incorporate that into my editing. Störm (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not targeting you for fun, I looked at your contributions because I noticed glaring policy violations that you don't seem to understand or be willing to fix based on your responses. Further, since we're looking at edits, two of your most edited articles, Erfan-e-Halgheh, Mohammad Ali Taheri are sourced to content from National Council of Resistance of Iran (and not to mention, pretty heavily whitewashed). BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And that doesn't even touch on the use of your use of predatory publishers as what appears to be the sole source for the aforementioned articles. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? I can see you have plenty of time to target people for fun and always trying to make a WP:POINT. I will answer to someone cooperative. For your information, I am still working on the article and it is a notable topic. Störm (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be missing the point here and for that reason, I'd actually propose a topic ban on BLPs until you understand our policies regarding sourcing better. This is a classic case of it's them, not me!. BEACHIDICAE🌊 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered the idea that responses like this are exactly why we are having this discussion? Or perhaps, when someone brings up an umabiguous policy violation with you, perhaps you should not blow them off and create silly ANI threads but clean up your own mess? Never the less, this does not address the issues of your BLP editing and lack of responsiveness when questioned about it. So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? you are not making a point that I really think you want to be making with this statement... BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I'll note that the unsourced content is still in Tarryn Fisher and your explanation makes no sense - occasionally (even often) biographical data is included in jacket covers of books but I don't see any evidence her birth date is included, so the story that it was "in one of her books" doesn't jive since they also all appear to be fiction. BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After seeing the responses above and the obvious unwillingness to collaborate and correct deficiencies, I would also support a topic ban for Störm from editing BLPs. -- Dane talk 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen things go from benign to extremely complicated, I have witnessed a productive user go from being productive and useful to becoming a banned editor within the span of 72 hours. So @Störm, would you rather accept your faults and be responsible or would you choose to intentionally not hear what is being said to you and face a sanction? Especially one which could easily be avoided? It’s your choice in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Celestina007 thanks for your comment. I am willing to listen to your advice. I am accepting my faults here and promise that I will not repeat them. In case, if I do any major BLP violation from now onwards then I should be banned. At least give me a chance to correct myself and don't waste my six years' credibility by asking for a ban. Thanks. Störm (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Störm, No one is threatening you with a ban and secondly i did not advise you, Praxidicae and the community did, I merely commented on it. Abide your own promise above and go to Praxidicae's tp and affirm that you have seen your errors and accepted their advice. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Störm created two obviously promotional articles for Maltese websites on the German Wikipedia, today and a few weeks ago (I got here because I wondered why an user with 80k edits on enwiki created such articles). --Icodense (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, I too have had concerns about this exact problem both here and crosswiki, Icodense99. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Störm: As far as I can tell, you never answered the question (perma) where you originally got Tarryn Fisher's birth date from. Could you clarify? Thanks. --Blablubbs|talk 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blablubbs, I got help from my friend who shared a copy of her upcoming autobiography. I was unaware of stringent sanctions at that time when I added unsourced information. I have now corrected the information. Thanks. Störm (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Störm, how did your friend get a copy of an unpublished book? --Blablubbs|talk 09:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They are in touch with someone who is connected with the author. Störm (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Störm, so a friend of a friend of the author shared a full copy of an unpublished work with you, someone who is known neither to the friend nor the subject, so that you could include the full date of birth in the Wikipedia article? --Blablubbs|talk 13:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My friend is an avid fan of her books, so she needed help in creating Wikipedia page. I added full date of birth to give it a complete look. The person who shared the unpublished work knows the author. Störm (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Störm, I genuinely struggle to believe that someone with your experience thought that it would be OK to put information from an unpublished book into a BLP. The fact that you're collaborating with people who know the author sounds like you may have a conflict of interest as well. This, alongside the suggestions that you have written promotional articles for websites on DeWiki mentioned above, is extremely troubling.
    Can I just come out and ask you straight - have you ever edited for pay? Have you ever written other articles for people, or on behalf of people who are connected in any way to the subject of the articles? Girth Summit (blether) 15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit I want to make it clear that I never got paid for anything here. Störm (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Störm, thanks, but that isn't quite what I asked. Please would you re-read my post, and answer both of the questions? Girth Summit (blether) 17:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit This was the only article (here) where we can say I had some sort of conflict of interest (although, I tried to write it neutrally). Next, German Wikipedia ones were the drafts given to me by my relative to publish about their web portals. I published them as it is, which was not successful. I have never edited German Wikipedia before this and accept that such spamming is not an acceptable behavior. Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Störm, can I ask you about another on of your recent articles? Eric Kalala has the subject's date of birth, and details about the number of siblings he has. I don't see that information in any of the cited sources - can you explain where this came from please? Girth Summit (blether) 10:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit, Siblings, Eric Kalala birthdate, Tarryn Fisher birthdate. Thanks. Störm (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Störm, I don't know why you're giving my the Tarryn Fisher link, since you've already said you got that from an unpublished autobiography.
    I don't see how the Eric Kalala Facebook page supports the content you wrote in the article about him. You wrote He is the third out of a family of six children. On his Facebook page you just linked to, there are two brothers listed, two cousins, and a brother-in-law.
    I also don't see his birthdate there. The page you linked to tells me where he works, where he was educated, where he lives, where is is originally from, and who he is married to - nothing else.
    Are you able to explain why you are seeing something different from me? Girth Summit (blether) 11:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit It is the same on my side currently as what you're seeing now. I just provided the links from where I got the information. It looks like they have changed their privacy policy. My friend shared the link about her birthdate, so I thought I should share it here for verification. Thanks. Störm (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While we're on this subject, I find it curious that Störm created Galaxy Racer eSports shortly after failed attempts to create the same article by a disclosed paid editor and a blocked UPE sockpuppeteer. Spicy (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 171#Paid Page: Sebastien Lepinoy also seems interesting in that context. And those explanations ("I got help from my friend" and "given to me by my relative") sound like poor excuses to me. --Icodense (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blablubbs, correct. I mixed two people because of their extensive paid publishing. As I found out my mistake, I requested the page deletion and created the article on notable one. Störm (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Störm: So what prompted you to write about the living Ramzi Najjar in the first place? The timing here seems rather strange. I also note that something similar has happened in the past; Icodense99 mentioned Sebastien Lepinoy and the associated COIN thread – you created that page after it was put up on upwork, it got taken to AfD by scope creep and you responded with a G7, essentially killing any further discussion about COI issues. --Blablubbs|talk 12:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blablubbs Sorry for late reply. I was at the site busy with my job. Nothing special prompts me to write about any topic. I write about the topic when I consider it notable. I have written and edited many odd topics here and many many with COI notices which doesn't make a paid editor (infact, I am strictly against paid work and ensures quality of work on Wikipedia to best of my abilities, I've nominated and participated in over 2k AfDs, many with COIs). I believe in Wikimedia Foundation mission and regularly donate to support that mission. Wikipedia has added so much to my knowledge and I tried my best to give that back in last six years by spending my hundred of hours here, improving articles. I am in no position to decide whether I should continue or stop here for good. I am open to suggestions how to improve my editing. I want to end it at good note. Thanks. Störm (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Störm your response just above doesn't explain anything, in fact, it makes this even worse. You wrote an entire article about a living person - sourced entirely to publications about someone who was not that person. So where did the information that you originally wrote even come from? BEACHIDICAE🌊 12:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Störm: What is the exact title of this unpublished book? And how is it that you have so many "friends" who just happen to know the subjects you've chosen to write about? BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, without dilly-dallying there’s a clear conflict of interest here which they failed to disclose. It is impossible for a 6 year old experienced editor not to know to declare a COI. They simply are not not eligible to hold Autopatrol rights, and (IMO)the perm should not be reinstated indefinitely. It is one thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create an article which is not notable, and it is a whole other thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create promotional articles. I should also add that, generally, any explanation that has any statement along the lines of “a friend of a friend who knew a friend that knew the (add whatever falsehood) to be intentional deceptive and fictional. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A Clarification on an Ambiguous Situation

    I will try to clarify one matter of ambiguity, in the Wikipedia sense that it would require disambiguation if they were notable. There are two run-of-the-mill authors with the same name. One is living, and one died last year. In my opinion, and it appears that User:Praxidicae agrees with me, neither of them is biographically notable. User:Störm wrote an article on the late author, and she nominated it for deletion, and I !voted to Delete. There is a draft on the living author, which Prax and I have both declined or rejected; Störm has no involvement with that. Whether the article on the deceased author should be kept is a valid content dispute being handled by AFD, and I concur with Prax's action in nominating it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Praxidicae, Störm and Girth Summit, I think störm is trying to attack praxidicae from his ip address see this [[30]].113.21.66.71 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the only edit that 223.223.140.176 has ever made, and reporting it here is the only edit that 113.21.66.71 has ever made. Don't know what's going on there, but it's weird. And the message on Prax's talk page is absolutely loathsome. jp×g 03:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Both IPs are Kolkata-based. The message they left doesn't represent what I stand for. Shame they do such cowardly acts. Störm (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA IP engaging in WP:OR and interpretation of WP:PRIMARY sources despite multiple warnings

    The above has repeatedly, despite warnings, tried to use a WP:PRIMARY source to argue for their preferred point of view. Despite multiple warnings about our policies on original research, our preference for academic, peer-reviewed sources, our strict requirements for opinions to be those of reliable sources, not editors, and multiple reliable sources being shown to them that their selective reading of the primary source they write was lacking context and was inaccurate. @Bakkster Man, Hob Gadling, and Terjen: (editors who have made more than one comment about this subject at the relevant section of the talk page). They've been given warnings about GS/COVID (me being thorough, on the current one just to be sure, although I think I've already given it to them previously), and they are not stopping their disruptive, WP:IDHT-style arguments. I think it's time for some sanctions (recognising that this will likely only be a temporary solution before yet another one shows up). Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The notice above refers to a vivid discussion with user RandomCanadian on the talk page (there was no edit on the main article) on whether there is anymore a scientific consensus on the origin of COVID-19, given a recent letter by the topmost scientific authorities at the Science magazine, where the scientists declare that a lab leak is a viable and serious hypothesis that must be investigated. In contrast, the above user decided to entirely ignore this stance of the elite segment of the scientific community, because in his intepretation the Science letter is a primary source, and as such, the opinion of these scientists does not change the consensus of the community they belong to. In other words, according to the user, the community has a consensus on the matter, despite the fact that the most elite segment of the community disagrees publicly on a consensus. For the rest, as you can also read, the impartial stance the user had on denying the lab leak as a viable hypothesis made it hard to communicate with him. I simply provided my polite and correct contribution on the talk page, and avoided insulting the user by not replying to multiple personal accusations, and his "bossy language". 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Science letter is a primary source, that's not controversial (the footnote to WP:PRIMARY is quite clear and common-sense: "Further examples of primary sources include: [...] editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, [...]") , and it doesn't say anything about what the consensus of the scientific community is (just checked, the words "consensus" or even "majority" do not appear in it), so, yes, as the IP has been told many times, the above is about as clear of a textbook example of WP:OR and POVPUSHING (from an SPA) which is not compatible with what the sources, listed to the IP many times over, say. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would leave to admins decide who is pushing a WP:OR by intepreting the scientific community's consensus as favoring just one hypothesis, despite the public declaration of a major elitary segment of the community that both hypotheses are viable. As you see notice here, too, it is not easy to communicate with the above user as he immediately accuses others of POVPUSHING. 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't require much interpretation when you have sources saying it explicitly, sources which you have deliberately chosen to ignore. AGF isn't a suicide pact, in either case, and all of your edits have been solely to push this POV which is not supported by the sources. I'm done here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    intepreting the scientific community's consensus as favoring just one hypothesis, despite the public declaration of a major elitary segment of the community that both hypotheses are viable. This is the core of the dispute, potentially conflating "viability" with "likelihood". Specifically, can an explanation be "viable, but unlikely" according to mainstream sources, and if so what thresholds do we need to apply to such a determination? The additional policies generally referred to in the discussion include WP:FRINGE/ALT, WP:FRINGELEVEL, and WP:GEVAL, all relating to how we handle mainstream versus minority views.
    I'm too close to the discussion (and it's gone on for so long) to know if this is a case of good-faith discussion surrounding a difficult to communicate topic being contentious, or otherwise, and I'll leave my thoughts on the topic itself out of this section. Ping @Stonkaments, Forich, and Horse Eye's Back: as additional editors who can provide additional context and perspective. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I vote that i) we lecture the accused user with the relevant Wikipolicies; ii) he creates an account; iii) Ask him if he has any motivation to push a POV in this topic; iv) If he acts on good faith, watch his edits so that they are not disruptive; and v) if he becomes obnoxious on talk pages, well, those get archived fast its not a big deal. Maybe advise him to take a break from talk pages. Forich (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant information regarding the user and an account.[31] Bakkster Man (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, there are plenty of secondary reliable sources reporting on the letter in Science that is the core of this dispute, such as the May 13 New York Times article by Carl Zimmer et al: "Researchers urge an open mind, saying lack of evidence leaves theories of natural spillover and laboratory leak both viable." Terjen (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary discussion thread involved, for those looking for a quicker way to view the dispute, is Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Why declare a "consensus" on the origin, given that all options are still open. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen any behavior from IP that I would consider disruptive or worthy of sanctions. Frankly I'm surprised this was brought to ANI; it seems very premature and unnecessary. Until recently, the lab leak hypothesis was being characterized (on WP and elsewhere) as a fringe, racist conspiracy theory. Whether or not the hypothesis turns out to be true, it was clearly wrong to characterize it as a meritless conspiracy theory. I think we should learn from that, and be extra careful not to repeat the same mistake by being too quick to proclaim a scientific consensus. In light of these earlier missteps and premature declarations, some vigorous pushback and defense of the validity of the lab leak theory is understandable, and very welcome in my opinion. It's bound to be a contentious subject, and barring any egregious or blatant disruptive behavior, I believe the discussion will benefit by giving everyone enough WP:ROPE to make their case. Stonkaments (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Other

    How'd you deal with this kind of aspersion casting? I've been personally harassed on my talk page by sockpuppets, meatpuppets and SPAs; I've been the subject of dubious complaints by the same; now this. I'm considering just fucking off, if this is as bad as it's gotten. That or dragging it upstairs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin should take action on this unacceptable comment linked in the diff. It would be a shame to lose RandomCanadian over this. starship.paint (exalt) 01:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 48 hours. That's flat out not acceptable, and a statement needs to be made against it, irrespective of the recently-filed Arbitration case. I welcome a review of the block by the community; I will be away from my computer over the next 12-18 hours, so any administrator is free to alter the block if they wish. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, this post by Tinybubi is very suspicious. An account, created in 23 March 2021 [32] [33], says We have seen many accounts like yours before, and you almost always end up getting banned and never let back, and Tinybubi uses a diff from 1 March 2021 [34]. Smells like a sockpuppet. starship.paint (exalt) 07:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Tinybubi/sandbox is also suspicious, because I've seen that page before (and it's one of their very first edits; showing either that they're the same person; or colluding off-wiki). Now I can't remember (other similar tables pushed by sock-puppets include the first edits of this one) where exactly, but 100% this isn't the first time I've seen this. @Drmies: I might have contacted you previously about something similar (for BEANS reasons). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I got nothing for you, but given the likely amount of meating that doesn't mean much. Daniel, thanks for the block. I think it's time for discretionary sanctions. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My two cent opinion here on this matter, although I do not know the user Tinybubi, and I definitely condemn any type of harassment against the user RandomCanadian, despite our heated exchanges on the article above. On the other hand, RandomCanadian, although you seem to be a knowledgeable editor (and I believe a very fine person) I witnessed that you are rigid in accepting opinions or interpretations that differ from yours (or from what you believe to be the right way) and you aggressively attack newcomers who try to reason an opposing argument, by quickly accusing them as POV-pushers, SPAs, or by trying to end an ongoing discussion with ultimatums "do as I want or I sent you to ANI". Definitely, some of the IPs you have to deal with are likely trolls and perhaps quite annoying, but remember behind the IPs you have many proper human beings that are by no standard inferior in reasoning just because they are not senior WP editors. The world does not have only "good" editors and "annoying" trolls, there are billions of clever and proper individuals outside these two categories. I was once an editor at WP and quitted due to time management issues, but, you have to relax a bit and not take discussions with a hot-blooded attitude. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:FRINGE and WP:BOOMERANG

    While efforts to investigate all hypotheses, and the lab leak hypothesis in particular, are ongoing [35] [36], it is too early to class it as fringe, and Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE policy should not apply here. I recall saying this to Bakkster Man, who I very much respect, in the previous ANI opened by RandomCanadian [37], but he did not respond, and it's not surprising for other editors to bring this up again. As for 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51, I haven't read all their posts, but I would encourage them to register an account again in order to be taken more seriously. As for RandomCanadian, I would caution him against filing further ANIs against other editors on the topic of the lab leak hypothesis with spurious claims of misconduct. This is now the third such ANI after [38] and [39] so WP:Boomerang applies. CutePeach (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My position on WP:FRINGE remains much the same, but I don't think ANI is the right venue to resolve a dispute on the topic. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a difference between "unlikely" and "fringe". But no one editor should feel that keeping Wikipedia NPOV depends upon them only , and possibly RandomCanadian may have pushed too hard and too repeatedly and in too many places on this issue. But I can understand that they may well be feeling frustrated by the apparent inability of many editors to realize that consensus both in the scientific community and the general world opinion can change, especially when it leads them to apparently reject both academic and non-academic source that we normally regard as the very highest quality. I do not think a Boomerang is appropriate here, just a reminder. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, DGG. I am indeed, as you describe, frustrated, which is why I went to ArbCom, seeing that there was no appetite for actual serious action elsewhere, nor too much respect for our usual content policies (when you have to repeat, time and time again, that opinion pieces in newspapers are not acceptable sources for much besides the opinion of their authors, and when you even take the time to provide reliable, peer-reviewed papers which methodically refute some of the claims made in newspapers; you'll understand that this gets incredibly frustrating). Couple that with harassment ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44]), aspersion casting ([45], as a recent example), and proven socking (1; 2), you'll understand why I've totally come to the conclusion that an IP, whose sole dubious edits are on one specific talk page, is suspicious.
      • As for the content dispute, note that recent scientific publications don't seem to show a pattern of a changing consensus (this recent review in Lancet Resp Med glances over the subject as though there were no controversy at all) amongst scientists [unlike the wild swing in media coverage], and that while I've been open to using non-scientific sources for non-scientific matters (compare [46] and [47]), these are not appropriate for actual scientific claims. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RandomCanadian please always WP:AGF and keep up to date with the latest news [48] [49]. CutePeach (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF isn't a suicide pact. No reply to the rest since I'll AGF that you're not using newspapers as sources for serious science, and that any information from these about politics and the like can be proposed for inclusion at the relevant articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending ArbCom case request

    It should be noted that the topic of this AN/I thread is also the subject of a WP:ARB case request here (permalink). jp×g 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    serious WP:HOUNDING by Ravensfire

    For quick overview see this user interaction report and click on timeline for articles described below. (Stoopid Buddy Stoodios,List of massacres in Bihar,Rathore,Dabhi,Bhati,List of Gurjars)

    Ravensfire is constantly following/WP: HOUNDING my edits reverting my edits on content disputes i have with other editors , with clear intention of harassing me and not letting me contribute by constantly reverting me on different articles i have interest in.

    • My edit on Rathore page [50] Raven followed me here and reverted me to ask me to build Consensus although they were never part of the content dispute  [51] [52]
    • When i filed SPI for suspicious behaviour against some editor they followed me here too and commented check edit history

    This is very serious WP:HOUNDING,admins please take action.Ratnahastintalk 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you kidding me? Okay, this needs some WP:BOOMERANG attention. I'll put a more detailed response later, but let's look at the first point - the List of Gurjars article. Evidently Ratnahastin isn't aware that people might have edited this article in the past and would rather assume bad faith. Apparently they are also okay with having unsourced caste claims in articles, which every single name I removed was. This isn't accidental, but a pattern with this user. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am withdrawing this report given your above response. I believe I had to discuss this issue with you before coming here.Ratnahastintalk 15:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't look good when you try to remove stuff as soon as someone mentions WP:BOOMERANG, I'd suggest just letting it play out since it is already here and there is a discussion happening. zchrykng (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ratnahastin attempted to remove this section after I've responded. I've reverted that removal. Given their attitude they've shown towards editors with opposing views, this is not something for my talk page, but here, so their behavior can also be reviewed. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ratnahastin, more often than not, you are not being intentionally targeted nor hounded. Think of it like this, @Ravensfire might have included you to their watchlist, which in no means is hounding, or constitutes hounding, but you are merely in their watchlist and every now and again they check their watchlist, your name pops up, they observe you made a mistake, then they revert you, it’s not necessarily hounding, they may just be cleaning up after you. AGF is also pivotal here. Celestina007 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The core of this dispute is around India caste pushing, specifically Rajputisation. From everything I've read, the Rajput identity is somewhat recent (relative to India's long and rich history), but there is a strong effort to push that timeframe back centuries and cloud any history about the background that doesn't fit a certain narrative. My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles. I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior. This isn't hounding, it's good WP:STEWARDSHIP. It's certainly not ownership (which will probably be the next claim), but trying to keep out POV editing.
    • Their edit on Stoopid Buddy Stoodios was reverted because it put back obvious vandalism (that took me about 10 seconds of checking to verify [53]
    • List of massacres in Bihar edit was a POV edit on an image caption, as very clearly noted in the edit summary [54]. Ratnahastin ignores WP:BRD and reverts calling it censorship, I reverted again asking for discussion. Nothing. Shows Ratnahastin using loaded language towards those that disagree
    • The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives. Note that Ratnahastin has done this on multiple articles [55], [56], [57] - and plenty more.
    He's filed multiple SPI baseless and retalitory SPI reports, eventually being warned by Bishonen.
    • SPI against Heba Aisha [58], lots of back and forth, ultimately found "Unrelated"
    • SPI against Chariotrider555 [59] declined by CU due to lack of evidence
    His attitude towards other can be aggressive and hostile - removing warnings from experienced users as "harassment"[60],
    • WP:ABF towards other editors - "that's a lie" [61] in response to a comment from an editor falsely accused of being a sock when a simple "I think you are mistaken" would have worked AND kept the overall tone calmer. Instead, they chose incindiary language.
    This last series of edits on List of Gurjars, where I've edited it in 2018 and 2019 so it's been on my watchlist for YEARS, I couldn't tell you what Ratnahastin edited on that page, I was focused on the more recent additions and checked those. Probably should double-check all of the names, but honestly was time-constrained. I've pretty much disengaged from them at this point. Way more agressive and hostile than I want to deal with right now, this filing just exemplifies that view. I've asked them to stay off my talk page, I plan on doing the same and will generally ignore them. I think there needs to be some review of their behavior and tone as that makes collaboration in a difficult area nigh-impossible. Anyone wonder why Sitush walked away from caste related articles? Here's an example. Apologies for the disjointed comment, 'tis late, I'm tired and available time sucks. Ravensfire (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Its funny that you're accusing me of not assuming good faith when you're constantly refering to my contributions as POV caste pushing and following my edits to revert my contributions.

    My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles.

    Thats not first interaction the first interaction was here when i removed some content with well explained summary  it was reverted by you to build the Consensus although you never participate in the dispute on the talkpage.

    I've removed that content on rathore because of the sources dont support the claims the sources were actually WP: SYNTHESIS of multiple non WP:RELEVANT citations I have explained reason for removing almost 3times on the talkpage of talk:Rathore the others who dispute it dont have any answers to issues raised by me, but you never took part in the dispute on the talkpage, my edits were based on wiki guidelines but still You've accused me of POV and caste pushing isn't that lack of WP:ASG on your side from the very first interaction i had with you? 

    I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior.

    Thanks for accepting that you follow my edits from the very first interaction i had with you. because you consider my edits as pov pushing without any evidence or participation in those content disputes.

    The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives.

    Please participate in the relevant discussions about content disputes on the talkpage of Talk:Rathore , i've explained my removal many times as WP: SYNTHESIS of multiple citations if you bother to verify the citations intead of reverting you would have not refered those sources on Rathore as facts. And stop these WP: ASPERSIONS please, and how is that  WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTHESIS of multiple citations WP:NPOV ? Since you have reverted me there the WP:BURDEN falls upon you to prove that those citations are not synthesis or violating any policies,but you haven't participated in those disputes, instead You're following my edits on multiple pages which, you yourself accepted, this proves that im being hounded, it appears that you have content disputes with my edits i request you instead of following my edits you participate in the content disputes please.Ratnahastintalk 06:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits and attack on established editors by Ratnahastin
    This report is frivolous as were other against me and other editors like LukeEmily and Chariotrider555. The reviewing admins please note, Ratnahastin had been involved in attacking caste editors of wikipedia, ever since they have joined in order to do their POV edits on Rajput caste related pages. I have been observing that using loopholes in wiki policies, they have opened various cases against established editors in past. I was drawn into a sockpuppet investigation case, and editors, whom i mentioned above were drawn respectively in WP:UAA and WP:SPI on frivolous ground. Interestingly, all cases were closed as they lacked solid proof. But,the user was successful in making this place unfavorable for us. This report more probably is motivated by same intent. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As mentioned by Ravensfire above, all such reports were baseless, but were problematic enough to send us to inactivity for some period of time. Recent report against Chariotrider555 also resulted in sending him to inactivity. As those who face it, gets exhausted by it naturally. After doing this Ratnahastin tried to remove this content from Rajput, on the ground that it is repetition. Similar attempt were made to remove, what he considers "derogatory" from all Rajput caste related pages. On the talk page of Rajput, he often showed how non neutral point of view for Rajput caste through this comment. It is better to ban him from editing all Rajput related pages to stop wasting the forums for retaliatory actions against editors who donot share their view. This comment shows that they have some affiliation with Rajput caste and interestingly all the reports and dispute in which he is involved is related to Rajput related pages only. It is an issue of WP:COI, if you tell me to sum up my words explicitly. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ratnahastin, formerly known as User:Sikandar khan67, has been filing reports here and there against established editors in the South Asian caste field. Back when the user was called Sikandar khan67, I did begin to worry about this user's caste promotion, but I went on a Wikibreak for unrelated reasons, and now that I've been partially awoken from my break, I see that I was rightly so concerned. From the edits I've seen and interacted with this user, Ratnahastin seems to be trying to promote the Rajput caste through various means, whether it be removing content that the user finds "derogatory", or going after editors with which he has content disputes with. This kind of behavior is common on South Asian caste articles, where users and ips try to promote castes on the daily. whether by hook or crook. This kind of constant aggressive behavior from caste-promoters in general requires daily reverts and constant vigilance. But coming back to User:Ratnahastin, this user seems to be trying to eliminate established editors in the field as well as promote the Rajput caste, and these kinds of frivolous reports are disruptive to an editor's state of mind. (Side note, while User:Ratnahastin has removed information that they find derogatory about Rajputs, they have no problem readding information about other castes that their own caste promoters have deleted on similar grounds as Ratnahastin [62].) I agree that some sort of action is needed by an admin against User:Rantahastin due to their disruptive behavior and attempts at caste promotion. Also I would like to remind ourselves that there is no cabal. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Glorification of Rajput caste by removal of sourced content: I have noticed one thing about edit of Ratnahastin that, they will edit other articles and suddenly jump into any Rajput caste related article to remove that content they found derogatory like here and here This has happened with various castes. They have habit of engaging reverters on talk page with frivolous wiki policies that actually donot apply there and thereafter opening any case page against those editors who held opposite view. It is necessary to apply "topic ban" on them from all Rajput related pages, as serious WP:COI issue is out there. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just checked the OP's most recent article which they created 3 days ago: Jadaun Rajputs. It is full of unreliable Raj-era sources and multiple other unacceptable sources. It also contains extreme claims, e.g. the God "Krishna was born in this clan"! There are a few acceptable sources, but they are mostly misrepresented. It is so bad that it should be TNT'd. If this is how they are contributing to the caste-related articles then we need to stop them. BTW, we use only modern, scholarly sources for history/caste-related articles – see WP:HISTRS and WP:RAJ for the relevant details and discussion links. Note that caste-related articles come under general sanctions: WP:GS/CASTE. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This caste-related edit was made by them today and it also cites the unreliable Raj-era sources from the 19th century. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't got a chance yet to look at their general pattern of sourcing and content addition. Please keep this thread open for at least a couple of days. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of James Tod as a source, especially without any attribution in the text or NPOV mention about the significant issues and concerns is highly troubling. Ratnahastin's use of him as a source when they know about those issues is beyond troubling.
    Admins - there hasn't been a response on this yet. Ratnahastin has bee given notice of the General Sanctions relate to Caste and of the Discretionary sanctions around India. This needs some review and attention from administrators. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor who can not stop edit warring

    Alex Mili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The user's been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. I would think if this continues after a block from the article itself may need to be issued. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by user Köscher

    SOCK
    Indeffed as a sock (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 16:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Here is the link.[69][70] Please block him. This is probably a user that is harassing me also on Turkish Wikipedia. Also please remove the edit from my page history and protect my user page.--V. E. (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no real opinion, but I would like to point out this and the fact that all of the user's edits are on talk pages. aeschylus (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be a sockpuppet of Tarik289 Tarik298 Kizilokwave Kiziloksea and Hezars which are globally locked accounts. Because the user harassed me after I had made 2 sockpuppet accounts related to Tarik289 blocked in Turkish Wikipedia.--V. E. (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Visnelma, the user just got CheckUser blocked, which means that they were misusing multiple accounts. So yes, you may be right. Pinging ST47 as they may have more information on this. aeschylus (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not. I just opened my account. I don't even know who were they, I just saw this user's biased edits on some Turkish history-related pages. Can't I write what I feel about the other users? There is any bad words, harassment etc. He is complying with no logical reasons. I want this case to be dismissed. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kölscher (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if you were CheckUser blocked, you must have some pretty big evidence of ties towards those other accounts on your head, hm? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Casting aspersions

    Hi. Dani33Para and I have been working on Alin Stoica in the last couple of days and for the most part collaboration went fine. They seemed to feel the article was overly critical of the footballer which I understand to some extent. I tried to make sure content is in line with our guidelines and policies.

    We discussed a few bits at their Talk page, User talk:Dani33Para. Unfortunately, Dani33Para couldn't do without repeated casting of aspersions and baseless accusations:

    • Wikipedia is not a gossip website to denigrate a person like this. (3 June)
    • I am sorry i cannot let you turnish or minimalize his achievements. (4 June)
    • If you want your name to appear last on this article go ahead (5 June)

    I've found these parts of our interactions really disappointing and they have made the last couple of days of editing much less enjoyable for me. I'd like an administrator to let Dani33Para know these kind of comments are out of line. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an admin please deal with this? I tried to keep my report concise and to the point, it shouldn't take long to review. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi

    INNOCENT, IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE
    IP has been invited to their talk page for assistance. This wrong venue report can therefore be closed. (non-admin closure) Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I want to create a article on actor please help i left a comment last time but i think it was removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.196.72 (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Query answered in "Article creation" section. FloorMadeOuttaFloor (Leave me a message•Changes I have made) 15:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank u but i tried to create article but it doesn't work it doesn't let me create one page help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.196.72 (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Responded on the IP talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Not here (but in the Philippines)

    The IP 112.206.101.69 has only been active for a few days. Their edits are, however, following a disruptive pattern that goes back some months. The edits are mostly removals of smaller or often larger chunks of content, often connected to flags, most often with the disingenious edit summary scobedos (which I have not managed to discover the meaning of). Earlier IPs in the same range and with the same edit pattern are:

    ultimately going back to the named accounts

    both of which are globally locked for disruptive editing (as is also one of the IPs). Today, the "new" account Jurisdrew2003 surfaced, completing the circle.

    Looking at the history of the latest IP, it seems that they are gradually widening the scope of their disruptions to more articles, even targeting pages in User space. I think this needs to be stopped some way or other.

    There is a wider problem beneath this. Looking at the global contributions of both the named accounts and the IPs, I see that they are targeting an increasing number of Wikis in other languages, mostly rather small languages where they may go unnoticed, but they are also trying to disrupt Commons and Wikidata. I am not familiar with the workings of global Wiki, so any help with or advice about how to report this globally would be appreciated. Regards! --T*U (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion all the IPs listed above are the same guy, most likely the same person as User:Jurisdrew. I could not find a rangeblock that would do much. The best plan may be to block individual IPs who are recently active for at least two weeks, maybe longer. A place to request global locks is meta:Steward_requests/Global. You could also get an opinion from one of the stewards who did the other global locks such as m:User:Wiki13 or m:User:Ruslik0. Since User:ToBeFree issued some blocks, he might know something about this case. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Courtesy link to IP range: 112.206.96.0/20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Notice that most are dominated by the first IP, 112.206.101.69, with most other edits likely being unrelated. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from the edits from the IPs mentioned in my report (112.206.101.69 and three older with just a few edits), the 0/20 range seems to contain clean edits, so nothing more to achieve here. I'll try to keep an eye on the range, in case there are more disruptive 'scobedos' edits. --T*U (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Undisclosed Paid Editing by Nnadigoodluck

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

    I was going to leave this until the ongoing RFA was complete but I figured this was quite urgent and needed addressing. The editor Nnadigoodluck was first nabbed by Yunshui in 2019, where Nnadigoodluck was advertising their Wiki-services on Twitter, in a tweet that was swiftly deleted and Yunshui immediately revoked their Autopatrol rights for possible paid editing see here. It was later reinstated by Rosguill who assumed good faith two months after. Fast forward to yesterday when @DGG nominated one of their most recent articles for deletion see here. I was pinged to the discussion by Alexandermcnabb as a nudge to investigate possible undisclosed paid editing and whilst I found the ping to be mischievous, it turned out to be of great help to the collaborative project. Immediately digging into the history of this editor, i immediately discovered this article: Alex Nwankwo which had the image in it as his “own work” After leaving UPE template warnings on their userpage, which I should not have done since they were an experienced editor here. I decided to sort this out by discussing this with them not as a robot but as person to person, i went to their tp to ask how they obtained the image, they implied that it was in an award ceremony and by chance they took a picture of him see here, I found it to be too convenient but was fairly okay with the response, but then again I came across the article on a non notable businessman; Godwin Maduka with the image in it as it’s “own work” this time it was a major red flag as the picture was shot/taken up close, they again implied that it was a “by chance photo” at this point, I know this is covert upe. I do a thorough digging and I uncovered a mixture of creating good articles and including UPE articles every now and again. I unearthed a plethora of articles on very non notable “businessmen” “Entrepreneurs” “Philanthropists” most of which are currently at AFD with delete !votes. See here, here here and here for example, there are a plethora I’m still unearthing. Their two most recent articles where so dubious, @DGG had to come confirm the notability status of the articles of which I frankly told them that both articles were non notable possible covert UPE written by a brilliant editor who knew the art of WP:ADMASQ'ing. For full transparency I have suspected them of UPE in the past and shared my concerns with Drmies and MER-C but chiefly hadn’t acted because I have been in and out of hospitals. It is either they are not competent enough as per notability(GNG) policy wise, to hold Autopatrol rights or they are engaging in undisclosed paid editing of which they should be indefinitely blocked for either way they aren’t eligible to hold Autopatrol and by extension should not hold NPR rights. During our discussion they made a blunder by going “off topic”(classic deflection technique) and said I had an agenda to chase away Nigerian editors, which wasn’t true because I am a Nigerian and secondly is a brazen lie. This is me yesterday literally begging an editor to join WP:NIGERIA. Nnadigoodluck has asked me not to ping them ever again and I have respected that. Lastly perhaps a lexical error on their part, here they say they have “tolerated me all these years” which I find rather strange, perhaps just an error or an indication of a prior account. Should a Checkuser be optimized? Perhaps unnecessary, why I think they can’t hold the Autopatrol rights and should be removed is not necessarily because they create articles on non notable persons but because they are Promotional in nature, so what we have here is an editor with Autopatrol who creates articles for non notable “businessmen” and “entrepreneurs” had DGG not put it upon himself to patrol the works of editors with Autopatrol we would have a covert UPE editor roaming free. I am hereby proposing both the immediate removal of their Autopatrol rights and NPR rights, because if you can’t yourself tell “promotional non notable” from “notable” you shouldn’t be patrolling the works of others, or in the very least, an indefinite T-BAN from creating BLP’s. Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, you are proposing to have User:Nnadigoodluck's Autopatrol/NPR rights removed? Why isn't this a WP:COIN matter? BD2412 T 23:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412, yes indeed I am proposing that, I’m sorry if this is wrong venue, I was unsure of what venue and had that discussion here, is it possible for me to still move it to COIN at this juncture? I am willing to. Celestina007 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that this is a wrong venue per se, just that COIN is specialized to deal with this sort of thing. BD2412 T 02:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412, thank you, I haven’t much experience in the appropriate venue when it comes to reporting an “established editor” engaging in UPE, but now that I know better I would be keeping that in mind moving forward. Thanks for the clarification. Celestina007 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear I am proposing that both Autopatrol and NPR rights be revoked until they can demonstrate they understand WP:GNG and are competent enough to tell notable from non notable, allow me also say once more that if they were just creating articles on non notable individuals I wouldn’t be too bothered, but what is happening here is they are creating promotional articles for non notable businessmen and entrepreneurs which is the archetypal modus operandi of an undisclosed paid editor thus I am bothered they aren’t eligible to hold both aforementioned perms. Celestina007 (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the comment that SamHolt6 dropped here. In my early days of editing i.e from August 2019 when I joined Wikipedia for the first time, every article I create, I'll announce it on Twitter. See this Archive link. That was how Yunshui removed my autopatrolled rights because he saw the Twitter posts and assumed I was advertising, but instead I was elated for finding out that someone can really edit Wikipedia even from Nigeria, while also sharing my Wikipedia experiences on both Facebook and Twitter. I created for Alex Nwankwo whom I have met prior in an event even without knowing what Conflict of Interest was and also announced on my Twitter page as usual. He commented on the Twitter post and suggested some names that might be notable. Among the 5 names that he suggested, it was Krystal Okeke that looks like she was notable and I created the article three months after. I'm just seeing the Modern Ghana post for the first time today. If he claimed that he was the one that got the article to be setup, it might be because he was the one who suggested the names for me. I didn't receive any payment or compensation for the article on Krystal Okeke or have I ever received any payment for all the articles I've created. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 04:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn’t explain a whole lot of concerns raised, you have not explained in a plausible manner how you have an up close photo of Godwin Maduka as your “own work” neither have you explained the reason for creating promotional articles for non notable entities? as recent as 7 days ago, What part of GNG or what part of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT do you not understand? Of course, you understand GNG because I have seen you create very decent articles, showing a clear grasp of GNG, making covert UPE the only plausible reason for creating promotional articles on non notable businessmen, that you are intentionally being deceptive and insulting our intelligence here isn’t doing you any favors. Celestina007 (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already answered the question as regards taking Godwin Maduka's photo in an award ceremony here. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 06:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nnadigoodluck: Out of curiosity, do you have an uncropped version of that photo? jp×g 21:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    JPxG, Thanks for asking. It's been quite long I took the picture and sadly, I don't have the uncropped version anymore. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, the answers appear to be too convenient. You haven’t still explained how two of your last four articles are promotional articles do you not understand what is written in WP:NOT? and for one with Autopatrol it is a serous concern. Celestina007 (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    JPxG There's a less cropped version of the image available at www.nairaland.com/5266349/phil-robert-juliet-ekehs-wedding, but it's from an event several months before the date on Nnadigoodluck's picture so there must be some mistake. Pack My Box (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any relation between the OP of this thread and Nnadigoodluck? jp×g 05:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pack My Box That was the event in Abuja, Nigeria I was talking about. I was the one that took most of the pictures in the occasion. As I said above, I've known Alex Nwankwo prior to joining Wikipedia and didn't really know what conflict of interest was at that time, since I created the article just around 4 months after joining Wikipedia. And the date on the picture was the date I uploaded the picture and also the date I cropped it. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nnadigoodluck: I'm confused here. Above you said "I created for Alex Nwankwo whom I have met prior in an event". So you first met Alex Nwankwo at this wedding? How come you were also the one who took the photos at the wedding which Alexreports aka Alex Nwankwo used in the PR post? Did Alex Nwankwo pay you so they could use your photos in their PR piece after this chance meeting? Finally, you say you "didn't really know what conflict of interest was at that time". But you should have known COI for a while by now. When did you first declare your conflict of interest? Because from what I see only ~2 days ago a bit before this ANI, in the discussion you linked above [71] that all you said was "Celestina007, Of course, I took the photo in an event I attended and he was present too" which doesn't seem to make clear you became friends after this chance meeting at that event, sufficient that you let them use your photos in their PR piece and he suggested articles for you to create via Twitter. Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne, Thanks for asking. I've known Alex Nwankwo for a while, before the event and the meeting was not by chance and yes, I sent some of the pictures I took to them. And of course, I didn't really know what COI was at that time and didn't declare any. My mistake was I didn't declare the connection later when I knew. The prior in an event was a wrong English, what I meant to say was I've known him before the event and not just on that event, which is prior to an event and I did clarify above when I said I've known Alex Nwankwo prior to joining Wikipedia. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 09:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nnadigoodluck I'm sorry but I am very confused by this. The picture of Alex Nwanko was taken at a wedding in June 2019 and posted to nairaland.com on 26 June 2019. The picture you uploaded to Commons (File:Alex Nwankwo 156907.jpg) has metadata which says it was taken 12 December 2019. How could your photo be taken 6 months after the event? Pack My Box (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pack My Box, I cropped the photo before posting it. It's possible it recorded the date of the cropping. I don't really know how it works. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 17:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pack My Box: I think your looking for the wrong image. AFAICT, User:JPxG was asking for less cropped version of File:Godwin Maduka in 2019.jpg, but I don't see that image anywhere on the page you linked to. There is another version of File:Alex Nwankwo 156907.jpg. Nil Einne (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne, Yes, you're right. The picture in question, is that of Godwin Maduka. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne Whilst there explanations seem to be contradictory and improbable & even if they were able to explain “away” how they got the images as their own work (they definitely have not thus far), how come they have been creating articles (very recently) on non notable persons, for example the one on Jennifer Etito which DGG nominated of deletion on June 3) I have asked that them that question and they seem to be evasive about it. To say it’s failure of comprehending WP:GNG is also improbable as Xtools show they know very much how to create good articles, the only plausible rationale appears to be covert upe. Which i can’t decide and only the community can. Celestina007 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While Jennifer Etito's article should likely be deleted for failing WP:GNG, I don't actually see it as a particularly egregious article to have started - she has been written about by major Nigerian publications, there may even be a single article there that passes WP:GNG, someone who would think interviews count towards WP:GNG may have thought the subject notable, and it's not so bad to be WP:G11 eligible. The biggest red flag to me is the tweet, but that's long since been dealt with. Basically, it's possible, but I can't support this at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer — A prerogative I very much respect, in fact precisely why I created WP:DBY. The problem is it’s Not so much the Jennifer Etito article, but in entirety, it’s the history of the article creator, and their articles, Yunshui made a case of possible UPE in 2019 and in 2021, the edit pattern is still a major concern. Mixing shady articles with very decent ones, is bad faith gaming and the most problematic is creating promotional articles for non notable businessmen a subject area flooded with undisclosed paid editing in Nigeria. Thank you for your concern and input. Celestina007 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Celestina007: I think one of the biggest issues here has to do with the reliability of Nigerian sources. For instance I've used Vanguard a lot in the past to support football articles, where reliability really shouldn't be an issue. The Vanguard article cited at Olakunle Jamiu Azeez is clearly promotional as it's reprinted word for word in other papers - that's probably the clearest "worst" article I've reviewed listed here. My concern really stems from the fact that some Nigerian businesspeople will be notable - Etito's actually a very interesting example, because she's not notable, but I also like to view notability as a sliding scale, and she's not clearly non-notable, not to a point where sanctions would be necessary. She's an example because I thin she'd be similarly sourced to a notable businessperson. That being said, the fact there have been some recent notability misses do demonstrate a need to remove auto-patrol, even without needing to make a determination on UPE. SportingFlyer T·C 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned about the editing without regard to discrepancies in the dates of the photos. It can be difficult to distinguish at first between a UPE and a non-coi volunteer who writes promotional articles because that's what they see here and assume is our general style, and because of personal interests writes on borderline subjects. Usually the good faith editor improves once their errors in style are pointed out to them, and they are guided towards more clearly notable subjects. Usually the UPE does not improve much, because they have to work on the topics they are being paid for, most people who are willing to pay for articles are. at best of borderline notability, and the type of article they are willing to pay for is invariably promotional. I cannot by myself easily distinguish in many fields between people from Nigeria who are or are not notable, because I am only beginning to become familiar with the reliability of the sources there. It is very important that we have skilled editors from that country, such as Celestina007 who do know the fields of interest and do know the sources, and are willing to work here on the endless task of keeping spam out of the encyclopedia. The indications of promotional editing by Nnadigoodluck are so great that I would normally unhesitatingly remove autopatrolled and NPR, and also page mover, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker, except that other admins have removed and then restored the rights before. A number --perhaps most--of that editor's articles have been listed at AfD, and it seems from the !votes there, that they are going to be deleted. It is not just a question of the article on Jennifer Etito. Unless there's objections from another admin, I'm going to remove those rights, on the basis of low quality promotional editing. Possibly the user should also be blocked as a UPE. but that's just a little harder to determine. If another admin thinks the evidence sufficient, I certainly have no objections. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than an objection, I support DGG's planned course of action. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, I'm willing to accept the admins decision on this matter and thank you for your worthy input. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal on TBAN for User:Nnadigoodluck on creating BLPs, removal of my Autopatrolled, Page Movers, New Page Reviewers, Pending Changes Reviewers and Rollbackers rights

    I don't know if this proposal will be accepted by the general community, but I'll give it a try. I've accepted my mistakes in my early editing days, creating an article for Alex Nwankwo that I'm close with and not declaring a COI and even failing to disclose the COI after I have known what it means, for creating promotional articles on some subjects. From henceforth, I'm proposing a TBAN upon myself from creating BLPs broadly construed, subject to review after a period of one year. My Autopatrolled, Page Movers, New Page Reviewers, Pending Changes Reviewers and Rollbackers rights should be removed as I don't need it to demonstrate that I can be trusted again. I don't need to leave Wikipedia as my experience over the years will really be needed in Nigerian related contents which still need lots of work. Pinging Celestina007, BD2412, SportingFlyer, Nil Einne, JPxG, 78.26, DGG, Nil Einne and Pack My Box who previously commented on this thread. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support As proposer. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This seems like a reasonable solution that addresses the primary concerns brought up (the advanced rights and questionable notability of BLPs), while allowing Nnadigoodluck to edit in other areas to demonstrate over time that community concerns have been taken onboard. Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support if the TBAN is extended to editing BLPs. Whether this editor is engaged in COIN editing is unclear on the evidence presented, but a total ban on BLP editing for a year would prevent shenanigans in that area. BD2412 T 23:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — Possessing Autopatrol and creating promotional articles for non notable entities is a major red flag. Furthermore, and for clarity purposes, let the record reflect that, this is not about Nnadigoodluck’s “early days” of editing as they are trying to put the narrative as such neither is it because of the Alex Nwankwo article, this is about their very recent articles being promotional and on non notable entities. Celestina007 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support provided it is also broadened to include articles on organizations, andf provided w do not rule out the possibility of further action if it becomes possible to show they are in fact a UPE, or engaged in sockpuppetttry. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with the restrictions mentioned by BD2412 and DGG above. While the voluntary ban is likely being requested to avoid scrutiny, the editor seems nonetheless capable of positive contribution outside of the COI issues mentioned here. jp×g 05:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I do not think a full ban on editing BLPs or organisations is necessary. Even if you take a cynical view, this proposal shows self-awareness and Nnadigoodluck will certainly know that any promotional editing will end up back here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Stalking

    User:Shencypeter (talk) has begun stalking my edits and also repeatedly restored a vandal's post that I deleted from my talk page. We've had many conflicts on Boeing 737 MAX groundings, but he is now engaging in stalking behavior on unrelated articles that I edit where he has no previous history of edits.

    An IP vandal posted on my talk page: Special:Diff/1020635400

    I deleted the post, but User:Shencypeter (talk) restored it, twice:

    Special:Diff/1022580414

    Special:Diff/1022609989

    The IP vandal was blocked: Special:Diff/1020835243

    I made an edit to Rent-seeking: Special:Diff/1024818249

    User:Shencypeter (talk) reverted it: Special:Diff/1025509978

    I made an edit to Space Shuttle Challenger: Special:Diff/1027111131

    User:Shencypeter (talk) reverted it: Special:Diff/1027115593

    He has no previous history of editing those articles. Our history at the Groundings article is poor, but this kind of stalking behavior must stop. DonFB (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, DonFB rejects my changes using the same editing summary. [[72]]Shencypeter (Special:Diff/1025512140) (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DonFB's messages on my Talk hasn't been the friendliest either. [[73]] (Special:Diff/1025742883) Shencypeter (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Before the conflicts, I had little interest in checking his contribs, [74], which to me clearly shows a pattern of habitually reverting work by other editors with smug editing remarks, or forcing discussion for an article that has not been edited in several months. His contribution puts undue weight of the Challenger's demise, where it is already discussed in detail in paragraph 4 and has its own article. Its this kind of judgement DonFB imposes on others, particularly for lead sections. Now he is calling me out as edit-stalking when he is unable to cope with his work being undone on Wikipedia. Shencypeter (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Shencypeter's talk page comment to DonFB's ANI notification ("Doesn't feel good to have your painstaking keystrokes, actual contributions so brutally invalidated and revered, does it. I mirrored your judgements of my contributions and you're obviously not taking it well.") seems to admit making retaliatory reverts. And there is no justification for Shencypeter reverting DonFB's removal of a post from DonFB's own talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retracted. I will refrain from making changes to his Talk page, but the editing disputes remain valid.Shencypeter (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Insufficient. Your remarks make it clear what was already obvious: you made childish tit-for-tat reverts. This is both hounding and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and it needs to stop immediately and permanently if you wish to remain welcome to edit here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange spammer

    IP blocked by zzuuzz for 24 hours. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An IP is spamming user talk pages with the word kids. 198.14.208.131 please block. --78.79.188.97 (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A request

    No action required, SMcCandlish acted appropriately. Daniel (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Greetings,

    In Jan 2021 on occasion of 20 Yrs anniversary year of Wikipedia I did open a discussion @ Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) questioning continued use of honorifics in many cases being kind of compromising Wikimedia's policy of neutrality.

    Many users gave many excuses, most of them logically refutable but let us keep that disagreement and debate aside for a while here.

    A User:SMcCandlish, who was participant in the discussion abruptly gave non–administrative closure discussion. I don't know rules if a discussion participant can close discussion or not, I did not understand need of closing discussion which was not categorized by me as RfC.

    Interestingly though I did not declare it as RfC; still User:SMcCandlish not only closed the discussion but on his own put words in my mouth, by co–relating some other RfC of mine, on his own! and awkwardly enough selectively mentioned closure text from other RfC elsewhere, effectively other reader will get dissuaded from reading the discussion again any time in future.

    I remember I did promptly protest on his talk page but he did not change his closure statement.

    The fact remains if I would have started VP Policy discussion (which was supposed to be coinciding occasion of 20 Yrs of Wikipedia) after my other RfC elsewhere still discussion started by me would have remained relevant.

    Now the problem is I want to discuss some aspect of that discussion again at MoS Honorifics talk, but systemically biased and discomforting awkward closure putting words in my mouth is very much dissuading to any likely reader of the discussion. Why I am discussing six month old issue is I sincerely feel I need to take ahead incomplete discussions on relevant WP discussion pages again at some point of time.

    My request is, either remove unrelated statement mentioning RfC of elsewhere made by User:SMcCandlish from his closure statement from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 162#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity if Wikipedia rules and customs allow WP admins to do that.

    If not, please bear with me whenever I restart the incomplete discussions. I do not know procedures for restarting same but incomplete discussion on policy VP leaves me pained within my mind and heart whenever policy VP comes on my watch list.

    I am not sending separate notice to User:SMcCandlish talk page since I am not personalizing the issue nor I am expecting any personal action against the user User:SMcCandlish, but I am expecting simple unbiased closure to previous discussion or freedom to start discussion whenever I wish to take up the incomplete discussion again.

    Thanks and warm regards to all the admins

    Bookku (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bookku: You are required to notify SMcCandlish about this discussion on his talk page since you are discussing him at length in this post. DanCherek (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @DanCherek:, Thanks, as suggested by you notified @ User talk:SMcCandlish#A request @ WP:ANI.

    Rgds Bookku (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you really need to name them five times if you weren't personalising? The discussion you linked seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING in part. Most of your discussion seems like more of a vent than actually proposing anything actionable, and you even linked the discussion to your RfC in this discussion. In Stanton's close he mentions it is a procedural close as the original discussion now has an end. I'm not sure what you want here, as you mention that the RfC was unrelated, but you specifically mention it. If you have further comments to make on something, then feel free to do so, but don't be surprised if the results of an RfC are brought up if the discussion is too similar to the original topic.
    I see nothing actionable here, and I would recommend (in general) keeping things a bit brief and concise if you start a topic - it makes it easier for old guys like me to read through! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not often that I am completely baffled, but here it is. What is SMcCandlish supposed to have done, besides repeating the words from an earlier closure? As SMcCandlish notes, "My closure note says nothing about you at all." Bookku this is starting to look a lot like badgering. Your lengthy and verbose complaints were addressed in the RfC, and you were asked to move on; you didn't, and for some reason you aim your displeasure at SMcCandlish. I am going to let this ride for a while to see if there's some other responses, but I warn you that this thread may result in sanctions for you, like a one-way interaction ban. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bookku: what do you actually want to discuss that wasn't dealt with in the RfC? To be clear by RfC I mean Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#RfC about whether to allow use of honorofic 'Allama' with the names or not? not the discussion you started on VPP. And why is SMcCandlish's closure of your discussion stopping you from starting a discussion on these issues? It seems to me if you have some new issue which wasn't dealt with at the RfC there's nothing stopping you starting a discussion. There is no reason why it has to be part of the closed VPP discussion, which is after all almost 6 months old and also doesn't seem to clearly raise an issue not dealt with in the RfC. Actually a new focused discussion, where you clearly articulate whatever issue you feel wasn't dealt with at the RfC with a brief explanation why it wasn't dealt with at the RfC would be far better than trying to revive that old VPP discussion. As others have said, SMcCandlish did not comment on you in their closure which largely duplicated the RfC closure. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to all the above responses. May be for people like me who fail to do Phd in rules and customs of Wikipedia, and fail in better self representation, Wikipedia need to have advocate services. I will prefer avail any such service than approaching here directly without knowing all nuances of each and every rule out there.

    1) If I Wrote user's name 4 times then 2 out of that I wrote to explain there is nothing personal, So again I request please do not count those. If you feel I am absolutely wrong then I am absolutely sorry.

    2) RfC discussion on honorifics 'Allama' was entirely different than VP policy discussion raised by me about words Swami, Mahatma, Mother and many more honorifics in usage, rather I made every attempt to dissociate other issues.

    Even when 'Allama' discussion did not take place still I would have raised issue of continued usage of some honorifics which personally I find very inconsistent. Still If you feel I am absolutely wrong then I am absolutely sorry.

    3) When I say 2 things are not directly related then why we can not request to apply good faith on our side too. As explained in point 2 I fellt troubled, I was not expecting somebody else presuming something on their own without even giving fair opportunity to me and using something on my behalf. But I did not ask any remedy against any user. I kept my request to the minimum that closure of discussion be simpler without comment or comment can be shifted below if your rules and custom permit. If even finding out possibility non personalized redress is an absolute crime then I am absolute sorry.

    4) In one of above comment some one said I can discuss points that have further scope on respective forums and thanks for that. Please correct me if I read it wrong. If reading wrong is absolute mistake then I am absolute sorry.

    5) My lengthy appeal wasted valuable time of very valuable people then too absolute sorry.

    Thanks and regards

    Bookku (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is WP:LAME. Wikipedia is not a bureacuracy. Anyone can close any discussion as long as they do so sensibly. And any non-admin can revert another non-admin's closure. This is not a WP:AN matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ciyasto

    WATCHING
    We'll keep an eye on their contributions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    How to know your conceive date. Seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Not sure if obvious enough for WP:ANV. I suspect it's just a play on the "How is babby formed" meme. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Alexis Jazz: I don't see anything in that message along that is suspect. Any indication that this is harassment of the targeted user? —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeing anything here that justifies admin action, other than a few eyes on their future contributions. I have given the user a welcome and added their talk page to my watchlist.
    This might be someone having fun, or it could just be someone going to the wrong page to ask a sincere question. The wikipedia interface is confusing to new users, and this is not that ignorant of a question like the heading suggests. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    C.Fred, not harassment, it just seems like nonsense to me. Anyone who registers here to ask a random user medical questions is either pulling their leg (WP:NOTHERE) or needs help from professionals (in what field would be TBD), which we are not. I'm okay with HighInBC's suggestion so I'll close this thread. For what it's worth, I'll change the title. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How is babby formed? jp×g 08:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    RevDel needed

    A revdel is needed under RD2: [1]. lomrjyo(talk•contrib•Ping with {{u|Lomrjyo}}) 00:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also: [75]. lomrjyo(talk•contrib•Ping with {{u|Lomrjyo}}) 00:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't even see what this is, sorry, due to the giant red text. I've reverted in the interim. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a long list of places in Taiwan, without any spaces between them. It's extremely disruptive (and makes it nearly impossible to view the revision history) because it's enclosed in one hundred and sixty <big> tags, but the content itself doesn't seem that bad. jp×g 06:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah don't see how this fall's under RD2. Unattributed internal copying maybe. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 07:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) editing as unregistered (IP) after having their account blocked for harassment

    Above IPs most likely evading a block of one or more of these accounts: JilleeLean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Janjakim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or LilleeJeanCloutChasingFraud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs: [76] [77] [78]

    Context: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Harassed

    Background: Recently there was a dispute at Nicholas L. Bissell Jr. regarding whether certain content should or should not be included in that article. Since it seemed that a number of users had registered accounts just to participate, I had them checked at SPI. The check revealed that they were different users, although still engaging in meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry.

    However, the users continued to harass the editor(s) on the opposite side of the dispute, and were blocked for that reason.

    The new users seem to have learned that they can just edit unregistered and not be subject to an account block. They are most likely evading an account block by not logging in but continuing to harass.

    A block is requested on each of these IPs for the harassment and likely block evasion. A range block may be needed since some of the IPs may be the same user.

    ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 04:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional context: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MasDeku/Archive - the three accounts are unrelated from a technical point of view (although that might likely be MEAT, if their claims about off-wiki activities have even a remote basis in reality). This, however, is not acceptable (both as WP:ASPERSIONS and as, maybe technically, WP:OUTING), and combined with the previous harassment by Special:Contributions/Janjakim and Special:Contributions/JilleeLean, is rather obvious who they are. I'll go do some clean-up at the thread if it hasn't been archived yet, while I suggest an admin range-block the IPs for continued harassment and likely block evasion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's even more context: During a botched jewelry store robbery 25 years ago, a woman was shot and killed by her own husband while he was scuffling with one of the robbers and she was trying to intervene. Some relatives think the husband murdered his wife but the legal authorities concluded that it was accidental. The district attorney was corrupt and killed himself shortly afterwards. The two sides have been feuding ever since and the dispute has spilled over onto Wikipedia. I have blocked User: Cha20raca from editing Nicholas L. Bissell Jr., the current locus of the dispute, and I hope that will bring the dispute to an end, on Wikipedia at least. Hope springs eternal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No actually this is not a relative. This is a woman from twitter, who has nothing to do with my sister's murder. She has stalked my then 17 year old daughter for 3 years. We don't know how she tracks us, but anything we do on any platform she starts problems. This is an example. She has nothing to do with us, she doesn't know us, she is a troll that one day we woke up to and has ever since attempted to ruin my daughters name and reputation. This was not a fight spilled over. She literally came in and continued on purpose making edits. On two other cites she has vandalized and put up disgusting content. It has gone beyond a troll, she is a full on fatal attraction. On the other end, I do apologize, I read some more on your rules, and I meant nobody to get upset. I did not realize someone else has to write the wiki. It is a notable case, and one even to this day quite written about. I appreciate all your help and I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you. Cha20raca (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Article ownership etc.

    Heads up, there's an edit war looming at De Berardinis; not quite three reverts yet but expected imminently. The page is (was) a surname dab, which someone (*) insists on turning into a family history, calling efforts to prevent that vandalism, etc. Moreover, the family history is at best poorly sourced, and likely POV OR. I've reverted the latest such addition, and issued warnings RE article ownership and harassment, but don't really want to wade deeper into the matter in case I've got this wrong somehow.

    (*) There are two registered editors with similar names (De Berardinis M and Mark de Berardinis) involved, and two similar IPs; all are SPAs involved in only this article. How many humans are behind these, I've no idea, but my guess is fewer than four. (I'm not saying there's necessarily any puppetry involved, though; could be just account issues.)

    Not quite sure what I'm asking for here, or whether this even warrants an ANI, but here I am all the same. Any advice or suggestions? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to be the same person. The time period between the edits are two years off which could mean they lost their password and created a new account or something like that. VV 07:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The De Berardinis M account has retaliated by reverting 4 of my recent edits on unrelated articles, seemingly at random. Wire723 (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:S 0524 pushing a political agenda, clumsily merging many pages without discussion

    I have done a fair bit of work beefing up the history of various Hong Kong immigration control points. User:S 0524 merging the articles on the Hong Kong border facilities into those in mainland China, example. The problem is that all the content (e.g. the history) is written with the context in mind. The article doesn't make much sense after the Hong Kong historical content has been plopped into an article about a Chinese subject. I have asked them to discuss first before making such mass changes but they have refused. Lastly, this mass merging campaign seems to be motivated by a political agenda (e.g. merging Hong Kong into China). This user's other recent edits revolve around asserting Chinese soverignty over Hong Kong (example), while they also maintain a bizarre user page in which they list the British as "colonizers that all learned their lessons or disappeared by 2000", China as a "tech innovator", and the USA as having a "dominance syndrome". WP:NOTHERE. Citobun (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not pushing for anything! This user has misunderstood! I asked the user to look into WP:MERGE and WP:CONTENTFORKING. It doesn't make sense to have 2 different pages for the same border checkpoint. Many such pages have already been merged between other jurisdictions. And I asked the used to discuss before reverting my constructive edits! My personal sandbox has nothing to do with it! Please also look at my talk page. Thank you. S 0524 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't have multiple articles for the same facility. Each border crossing should have one article with information about two jurisdictions sharing it. A border crossing is A BORDER CROSSING, not two to have two pages. A border crossing has a history, not two histories. Look at List of Mexico–United States border crossings, San Ysidro Port of Entry, Malaysia–Singapore border, Johor–Singapore Causeway, Malaysia–Singapore Second Link, etc. This is why I merged Lo Wu Control Point into Luohu Port as one article for example. and similarly I have merged all mainland China-Hong Kong SAR checkpoints to one article for each border crossing. And not to have two separate articles for each side of the border crossing. My edits are indeed constructive and by WP:MERGE and WP:CONTENTFORKING, Thank you. S 0524 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hong Kong and mainland Chinese facilities have different histories and completely different names from one another. They are not synonymous. And as I mentioned, the "merging" has been done in a very sloppy manner that has created a huge mess with tons of factual errors (e.g. the statement that "Huanggang Port" was built as part of the "New Territories Circular Road project"). All I have asked is that you discuss first (e.g. at WikiProject Hong Kong) before making such a dramatic change. And preferably not use Wikipedia to push a political agenda. Citobun (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why don't you start discussing and help edit/enhance these articles? Instead of wasting time here on admin-noticeboards? Please stard discussing and editing. However like I've repeated it a thousand times, look at all other border crossing articles - each border crossing has one article, not two. The same goes for mainland China-Hong Kong border crossings - one crossing = once article. In the article the contents would include the official names from both sides and each border crossing has A HISTORY, not two histories = so one article for one border crossing. Please check WP:MERGE and WP:CONTENTFORKING. Goog luck, looking forward to editing with you in a constructive manner. S 0524 (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruption

    Recently, A weird pattern in recent changes caught my eyes. An IP-switching user has been vandalizing pages related to hurricanes (mainly Hurricane Dean) and persistently undoing reverts made by other users (see here). Examples: [79], [80], [81]. Necctaylor (chat) 17:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP's in your examples, including the /64 range 2600:1700:eff0:61f0::/64, for a few days, but I'm afraid that'll hardly cover all the bases. Hoping there's a smarter admin out there, who can do something smarter. Bishonen | tålk 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

    Spam in edit summary

    (non-admin closure) Issue apparently resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    These two edits — [82], [83] — appear to have been made only to promote an email address in their edit summaries.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You may have mispasted, as your diffs are both to the same edit. I think I found the other one, though. I've revision deleted the edit summaries. Thank you, NapoliRoma. Bishonen | tålk 19:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    Oops -- thanks for sorting out my goof.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Feeling intimidated by User:Rocknrollmancer

    I had a message left on my talk page left by User Rocknrollmancer and it was as quoted:

    "Echoing some of the sentiment above, please read this and try to understand what is explained in the second paragraph. You crossed the line here (in the third sentence) - I saw this a few days ago but hung-back to see if anyone would pick you up on it. I had that Talk page on my watchlist but will take off. There is a piped-link already provided there (in the second paragraph) which in turn links to the same aspect as I quoted above. You've already been soft-warned for disruptive editing when you went after Joe Roe, and I see you also went after Nick Moyes, so just hope no admin sees this .--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)"

    Now I do admit I did feel personally attacked by users Joe Roe and Nick Moyes for their views and contributions on the Heavy Woollen District and discussion on using the song It's Grim Up North by KLF to reference places in the song mentioned. Although they have apologized for what they said and I did too when I knew I was in the wrong. I felt this was unnecessary to be put on my talk page by user @Rocknrollmancer:. User @PamD: already explained what I was doing wrong and I have done my best to improve my editing but I have never personally attacked anyone and I feel this is WP:Hounding me on Rocknrollmancer's behalf as stated. He has had my page on his watchlist expecting someone to pick me up on it but he has not responded to me when I responded to him. So I did remove it but remembered wanting to ask for Admin to look. I do agree I have been sort of Canvass on Wiki a few times I am not innocent and pretending to be. But I feel this was uncalled for and my other edits have helped to add content to wiki with new station pages on the Brecon and Merthyr Junction Railway, Merthyr, Tredegar and Abergavenny Railway and Borough of Middlesbrough.

    I admit my disability does sometimes hinder my ability to be accurate in my editing but if I mess up. I always ask for help...I also want to add my reply to Rocknrollmancer below:

    ":@Rocknrollmancer: I have to be honest, I have no idea about the part you mention about Joe Roe and Nick Moyes...I did not go after any of them...I only mentioned to admin that I felt Joe Roe was misinterpreting my discussion on the Heavy Wollen District talk and assuming I was trying to make it my favour when that is far from the truth. Nick Moyes on the otherhand, spoke out of line in terms of accusing me of being on wiki for disruptiveness over me mentioning the KLF song, Grim up North in music tabs for each town and city mentioned in it. He fairplay to him admitted he got a little over annoyed and apologised and I said I accepted it. He and me have not had any issues. Joe Roe apologised as well and I accepted it. Rocknrollmancer as I echoed to PamD."

    "I don't come on here to disrupt or anger offend troll anything. I want to help create articles for stations, boroughs and anything to do with north england. Wales and Midlands, South england every so often. I do make sometimes errors like I did with Talgarth station and I agreed to make sure to follow PamD advise on the rules. Also me and Crouch aren't in cahoots or trying to overrule things but Crouch is an experienced wikipedian and has like Eopsid, you and other more insight. I ask him as he has helped me and I ask for his input. My whole hopefully comment was in regards to the Borough of Middlesbrough had been nominated for deletion and we discussed it on the Wikigeography page to keep it. But a AfD went ahead because of no improvements."

    "I am sorry but the article can't be more improved on if it passes wikiscope and other checks. I make articles with sources. They pass they stay, they merge or get deleted. I accept the concensus but the one for recent AfD was keep and one merge. So to finish your points you mention were resolved civilly and without disruption. Nick Moyes and Joe Roe are valid editors and have helped me when I asked them to. So we all want to improve Wiki so lets not pick faults with past things. I have accepted my faults and won't do them again. But I am far from a disruptive editor you and me have spoken a few times and agreed to disagreed civilly...its perks of facts, questions and opinions...regards RailwayJG (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)"

    Now I want to link my posts to both Joe Roe and Nick Moyes below too:

    Joe Roe on the Heavy Wollen District Deletion Category Discussion:

    "Where did i say it doesn't exist? You need to re-read the whole comment. I said and I quote "why do we need a category for Heavy Woollen when the towns and villages are already categorised. I seriously think Wikipedia is in danger of misleading readers into believing it's a district like a city or town when it is in fact not and that is a true fact. It is a coined local term. Not a government recognised district of towns or villages". It is a local term not a government one and so the categories aren't needed. It isn't being denied to be existent and I never said it doesn't so your misinformed on that one and two the term applies to a cloth making district. Its not a district like Wakefield or Selby district. That's my point a district is two things. Either a government recognised district like Selby Wakefield Hambleton etc or a part of a town or district like Meadowhall in Sheffield or Batley Carr in Kirklees. That's is a district term for UK use and this was for a cloth that was made with some towns. As I've said which you missed I'm not against the district article being kept but it shouldn't have categories too and it says North Kirklees area in it then actually mentioning Wakefield and Leeds so that is misinformed and the article up until now was lazily written and half dead links.

    I think editors like you and a few others have gotten personal towards me by calling my comments vile condescending and someone with bad geography and history. I find those comments offensive but don't say nothing for fear of being banned for being personal towards editors so I bite my tongue and as someone who is disabled I feel vulnerable when people attack me for my edits articles and the challenges I bring up like I had with the whole Built up areas and Middlesbrough Borough authentications. They were challenged and still are being. So I don't know. I'm contributing but it seems I'm not needed to be even though I fix mistakes made or ask for reliability on things. Sorry I'm offensive and a terrible editor. As a Batley lad I'll take my cloth and leave this discussion...RailwayJG (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

    Got nothing to add (talk)? Exactly don't misinterpret my comments as your own assumption and use falseness because you clearly did."

    "I don't have anything personal against you. I appreciate the work you are doing on the geography of Yorkshire and elsewhere. But please remember that when you propose that an article, category, etc. should be deleted, that is someone's work too. There's a fair expectation that you do some research before suggesting that another editor's contributions be undone. In the case of the AfD, that's looking for sources; for this CfD, it's familiarising yourself with our categorisation guidelines. At the AfD and elsewhere, many have people have pointed out to you that this is a notable concept (I quoted the part of your comment I was responding to before—"if it exists"—so apologies if I misunderstood that but I don't think it needs repeating). Here and elsewhere, many people have told you that our categories don't have to follow official classifications, and that there is no problem with parallel, overlapping categorisation schemes. When someone repeats the same points after being made aware that they're not accurate or relevant, it can be seen as disruptive behaviour. I understand that it's not pleasant to hear that, or generally have people opposing your nominations, but please understand that it is motivated by a good faith instinct to preserve other editor's work, not any malice directed at you personally. – Joe (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)"

    I did not respond but hold no grudge with Joe Roe or anything nor does he...

    Nick Moyes on my talk page:

    "Just following up on your post at the Teahouse. You were right - my amazement and sarcasm - having seen the edits your were asking about - did lead me to to go too far and I'd like to repeat my apology for coming across as rude and/or insulting to you. We all of us make bigger and smaller contributions here (I hadn't checked your other contributions, either). Some of our edits others inevitably regard as valuable - and 'thankworthy', whilst others are deemed quite unnecessary. My view on the pointlessness and irrelevancy of those particular edit still stands, but it was not fair of me to denigrate your contributions or how you spend your time. Sorry again, Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

    Apology accepted...thank you...RailwayJG (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)"

    So I do admit my wording can look a bit insulting but there was no personal attacks to these two editors...I just question reliability and ask for help. Something gets deleted, merged, kept or discussed. I always take part and have helped with all due respect to complete many of the missing Great Central Main Line, South Yorkshire Junction Railway and Swansea Vale Railway stations and halts. I also have helped make the articles for Aliens: Fireteam, Almighty: Kill Your Gods, Override Mech City Brawl, M.A.S.S Builder and Borough of Chesterfield to name a few more...I am not asking for recognition god no...just that I want to prove I am far from a troll or disruptive editor. I have made mistakes since being on here and crossed swords with some editors and developed a working editorship with some...I just want to ask Admin on here to have a look at Rocknrollmancer text above and tell me if this is hounding? RailwayJG (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is not WP:HOUNDING, but a civil-enough expression of opinion that you are welcome to engage with (or not) to whatever extent you wish, on your or their talk page. I suggest not trying to drama-monger this up. BTW, you are required to notify Rocknrollmancer as per the fat red message on top of the page; please do so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elmidae: with all due respect, there was no just cause reason for them to put this on my page and accuse me of personal attacking two editors...surely Wikipedia does not allow Intimidating of editors? Also I have put it on their talk page the link to here. RailwayJG (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As always, it's better if editors focus the discussions with other WPedians on specific issues, rather than on their general pattern of behavior. It helps both maintain good relations, and make progress in resolving problems. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have tried those steps but I still get accused of being disruptive and i guess cynical. It is hard as one of many with a disability to tell the difference between good and bad intentions...it felt intimidating in the term "hope no admin see this". It makes me feel one admin sees it and instant ban or block...I am sure you can see my pov? RailwayJG (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    DrKay and Abbyjjjj96

    Everybody please stop picking at scabs. Any remaining content issues can be worked out on article talk pages. Best for everyone to just walk away, dissatisfied but intact. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Reporting DrKay (talk · contribs) for harassment. They commented on my talk page after I made it clear I didn't want them to and had even told them that I viewed them continuing to as harassment. Brief context is that we disagreed whether their comments on my talk page are misrepresentations (I say they are, they say they aren't). It was just going back and forth and became clear we weren't going to agree and I wanted to end the conversation, so I told them if they continued I would revert (at the end of my comment, diff). They replied (diff), I reverted (diff), they replied (diff), I reverted and made explicitly clear that I didn't want them to reply and viewed it as harassment by this point (diff), and they replied again (diff). (In that final diff, their reply ends with "If you do not wish me to respond here, do not ping me in edit summaries or make comments that require a response", 1) I was not pinging them (since when does reverting someone without removing their username (which is automatically generated) ping them? I have never received a ping alert when I've been reverted), and 2) "do not [...] make comments that require a response" speaks for itself.

    I see this as harassment per WP:NOBAN. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I stopped posting to your talk page after you asked me not to. Since then, it's been you posting to my talk page[84][85] and pinging me to discussions at noticeboards.[86] As I said to you, if you want me to stop responding, don't ping me to discussions and make comments that require a response.[87] DrKay (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you replied again after I made it clear I didn't want you to and regarded it as harassment, as I have shown in the diffs above. The last diff I linked above was your last reply on my page. I reverted that (diff) and, because you were accusing me of pinging you, I responded at your talk page (as you linked, diff) instead of in the edit summary to explicitly ask you to leave me alone (to which you replied with more misrepresentations, just as you are doing here). When reporting a user here, you are required to notify them on their talk page, and I was under the impression you are supposed to link to them in your report. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just about to say that this was a tempest in a teacup, and that I was confident DrKay wouldn't post to Abby's talk page anymore, but this response by DrKay is disingenuous. Abby, it's poor form to revert people with parting shots in the edit summaries like that. DrKay, it's poor form to post on someone's talk page when you know you're not welcome, whether or not they're taking parting shots at you, and misrepresenting it as "requiring a response". It's also misrepresentation to say you stopped posting to their talk page when they asked you to; "I'll revert you if you post to my talk page" is telling you not to post there. It's also misrepresentation to equate your posts with their posts to your talk page, one of which actually is required by policy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck. DrKay (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. In that case, I'd say this is resolved; both users are highly unlikely to post to each others' talk pages now, or ping each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all that happens when you harass someone? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't DrKay an admin? I find that concerning given that they also repeatedly made misrepresentations. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, "harass" is a strong word for something that is (IMHO) 60% DrKay's fault and 40% yours. They posted 2-3 times to your talk page after you said not to in a rude way. That's not really harassment. They won't post there anymore. Are you looking to not have to deal with them on this issue anymore, or are you looking for them to get in trouble? And I'll pay you 43 quatloos not to use the word "misrepresentation" for the next 24 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOBAN links to WP:HARASSMENT. I have never reported a user for harassment before, and am discouraged that the response is just 'okay, you won't do it anymore? All is well then!', especially given they repeatedly gaslit me with their denials on my talk page. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically, it says "Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior." The repeatedly part isn't there, but I would still push for an "I shouldn'ta done that" for the one post. I don't think most experienced users polled would feel that the automatic ping that happens when someone uses the Undo button is an invitation to further discussion, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note: there is no "automatic ping" with the use of the undo button unless the editor has checked that box in the "Notifications" section of "Preferences". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I can't remember checking that box and just assumed it was the default. My bad. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I'm now not able to warn Abbyjjjj96 a second time about edit-warring on their talk page, I shall instead point out here that even though Abbyjjjj96 is no longer edit-warring at Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, that doesn't mean that it is OK to do so at his sister's article: 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert, 5th revert. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That was accidental. The first 2 reverts were for different users violating a guideline, and then the 3rd was because the second user claimed consensus had been reached on the talk page when a discussion was still taking place. With the 4th and 5th, a user had removed material citing original synthesis, and I reworded it thinking that resolved the issue. However, they reverted me saying it was still original synthesis, and so I replaced the sources with a better one. They sent me a thanks notification for that edit. It did not occur to me that those two edits were reverts; after checking over WP:3RR before replying here, I see that they count as partial reverts. WP:3RR says I should revert myself if I've mistakenly violated it, but that material was later removed by another user (diff). If I'm to receive a block or some other action is to be taken, I do not trust DrKay to be impartial given my recent encounters with them and it should be decided by another admin. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sixth revert, reverting [88]. DrKay (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Our initial dispute at Archie Mountbatten-Windsor involved DrKay reverting me and reincluding the middle name in the infobox's name parameter even though Template:Infobox person says not to and I had informed them of this (diff, diff). I explained it again on my talk page afterwards (diff, which they saw because they responded (diff)). Despite clearly now being aware of the style guideline, they added the middle name to that parameter at Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor (diff). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You call this disruptive editing. Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing over time on many articles. All you've shown is a single edit, since corrected by another over 4 hours ago[89]. Perhaps you would care to provide a diff of me re-adding the middle name at Archie's article, or any other article in addition to Lili's, since our discussion? DrKay (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Amended 14:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much agree with what Floq says above. I also saw the reverts and PBlocked Abbyjjjj96 from the article for a couple days hoping it would provide some breathing room. Could the two of you just step away from the bickering, maybe even avoid each other for a while. There are plenty of other things to be accomplished out there, and I really hate IBans. — Ched (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected the sub-heading of this section to more accurately reflect the situation. I am happy to cease all contact, if such a stoppage is reciprocated. DrKay (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Making an edit which violates a guideline you were just repeatedly informed of is disruptive, even if it is occurring on a different article. I was going to step away after my last comment here but find that them repositioning this as two-way harassment misleading and offensive. It's appalling that an admin is being given a pass on this kind of behaviour. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is completely inappropriate for a user who has been reported for harassment to change the sub-heading to two-way harassment, so I set it back. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am being harassed. I want it stopped. DrKay (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Animalworlds314

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) Animalworlds314 indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 for personal attacks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Animalworlds314 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

    Editor got into various troubles adding un-/badly sourced entries to various Lists of mammals by location - to stick with the main theaters, List of mammals of Iran, List of mammals of Turkey, List of mammals of Syria, and List of mammals of Israel. These were mostly sorted out by BhagyaMani with a little help from me. The result was some edit summaries that need to be seen to be believed ([90][91][92]...) and a few even more colourful talk page productions, e.g. [93]. A related discussion at Wikiproject Mammals, to which I invited them, was badgered with cheerful lack of coherence, then led to a dramatic departure in purple prose. That lasted for all of two days. Returning today, we get more of the same editing issues and some new expletives and execrations - oh, and I see I've earned some as well as I'm typing.

    By my estimate there's about 5 years of socialization lacking before this (presumably pretty young) editor can function to any degree on Wikipedia. I would be obliged if they could be made to take some of that time. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It was clear that a block was necessary. The only issue was how long. I decided on indefinite based on the egregiousness of the personal attacks (against two editors), plus the disruption caused by their edits, plus more than a dash of incompetence.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your fast action!!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Binary0101

    TPA REVOKED
    Nothing more to be done here. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 11:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    Closure request

    CLOSED
    (non-admin closure) Discussion closed by Mzajac for WP:NOTFORUM. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Would someone please close the discussion at Talk:Azov Battalion#POV pushing edit-a-thon by Azov members as WP:NOTAFORUM, before it gets completely out of hand? Not discussing the article, just acting as an attractor to get editors worked up while an RFC is in progress. Thanks. —Michael Z. 06:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have gone ahead and done this myself. —Michael Z. 13:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Jamesmchel7‎

    Talk page access revoked. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Mr Happy Shoes

    I am closing this down for several reasons 1) Though it did not start this way, this has become yet another venue for Mr. Happy Shoes to re-litigate his case. Per WP:FORUMSHOP, it is best to keep this discussion in one place, which is already underway at both WP:BLPN and WP:RSN, and we don't need a third venue for this. 2) Mr. Happy Shoes is reminded to let the matter drop, as there is a strong consensus in all discussions to this point that The Sun and The Daily Mail are not reliable sources for controversial or contentious information, that this case does not represent any exception to that policy, and if an actual reliable source cannot be found, the material will not appear in any Wikipedia article. Otherwise, this matter should be considered closed. --Jayron32 15:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: Mr. Happy Shoes blocked as a sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mr Happy Shoes is posting long diatribes on how The Sun and Daily Mail should be used for sourcing pedophilia accusations. In his latest post he has attacked me ("your prejudice", "your sordid mind") and Wikipedia editors at large ("amorphous blob that is the Wikipedia editors"). Can someone stop this please?VikingDrummer (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And can someone ask this person to be factually accurate in their reports. I am categorically not asking for the Sun/Mail to "be used for sourcing pedophilia accusations", that was no doubt framed that way to trigger the very prejudices I am speaking about. I am asking for one specific exemption for use of two very obviously true reports of a mostly dry factual legal reporting flavour, which detail an actual criminal conviction, with quotes, not an accusation, and which have only a slight smattering of quite understandable tabloid style empotery on top. And yet which, on a point of fact, don't even mention the word pedophilia. That is indeed the sordid invention of VD.
    There is a clear choice here for Wikipedia's amorphous blob of editors, which has admittedly thus far shown remarkable unanimity in their wish to hold the line and maintain the prejudice. Doesn't mean they are right. It can mean they have simply chosen not to acknowledge basic facts. It is very simple. Wikipedia can either let its anti-tabloid prejudices get in the way of protecting children, or not. There are no sound, logical or even remotely well thought out reasons to otherwise believe these reports are false, and believe me, I have given everyone enough opportunity to demonstrate they exist. Some of the arguments given have literary been absurd. Amanda Knox is guilty apparently, that is a tabloid report. An obvious lie, it was up for all of two minutes, but who cares, right? Nobody can provide any other examples, but who cares, right? It is straight up prejudice. That is the essence of my "diatribe", as briefly as it can be stated.
    I would appreciate genuine engagement on the facts, not bluster and distortion to hide the fact that this is a prejudice. If asking these question is considered disruptive to Wikipedia, then so be it. If it goes south, in ways I have outlined elsewhere, do not say you weren't given ample opportunity to adequately explain the editorial decisions of the Wikipedia community. You need to own your decisions, just as I must now share blame for probably putting children at risk by not foreseeing how Wikipedia would prioritise their prejudice over other concerns. That biography is a lie, by omission. If that is a deliberate editorial choice, made on the facts, then you need to own it. Every single part of it. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    VikingDrummer, I would advise you to simply ignore this SPA who tries to sound clever by writing long, complex sentences where they are unable to convey the right message through their quintuple negatives: "No credible reason is being offered as to why these specific reports, especially given the lack of any contradictory information, cannot be assumed to be inaccurate." (first line of their very first message). Policy is to exclude negative BLP claims made only in unreliable sources, and no amount of convoluted reasonings and demands by "new" editors will change this. Fram (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy is to consider context and circumstances in all cases, and no amount of blind assertion will change that. You are free to believe that withholding a negative in this scenario adds up to a positive for Wikipedia. If you have arrived at that conclusion without examining the facts and circumstances, then welcome to the unintended consequences of prejudice. Do not assume that just because you might be able to get away with treating me with such obvious disrespect, that I am not the sort of utter bastard who might take that very, very, personally. I helped to correct your obvious mistake of believing Mark Kukula was not notable according to your definition. I did so without knowing Wikipedia had this much of a blind prejudice against tabloids, such that the result would be a wholly misleading "biography". If you mean to repay that kindness with overt disrespect like this, then I for damn sure will make you pay for it. If there is anyone here who has any proof these reports are actually very likely to be false, show it now. Not blind assertion, not strongly held personal opinion, actual proof. A well constructed, evidence based, context specific argument. If there is anyone here who wants to take the chance that nobody out there, tabloids or broadsheets, never mind governments, will see your reluctance to do so for what it is, and will therefore appreciate the small but not negligeable risk to children your overt prejudice has created in this specific scenario, speak up now. Don't be acting later like you didn't have any idea I wasn't just some random mook who didn't know what he was talking about and was just randomly annoyed about some random scenario for some unfathomable reason. I can read a Wikipedia policy. I can construct an argument. I can pose relevant questions that do warrant an actual answer. And I can tell when people are bullshitting me. Don't test me. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's "dry and factual", then you can certainly find better sources than the Daily Fail. If the Daily Fail is the only one reporting on it, then both it's general unreliability, WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS suggest we don't use it. No amount of long diatribes is going to change it. End of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Daily Fail" aren't the only newspaper to report it, and other than this bogus idea that it might be wrong because it's in the tabloids (the two most widely read newspapers in Britain), if it were in a "reliable" source as you define it, even if it was word for word, you're actually not going to find any other Wikipedia policy that says not to include this highly pertinent information in this man's biography. I have looked. I am not stoooopid. But thank your for opening with a derogatory term like Daily Fail, and thus showing you have paid no real attention to the context beforehand, so as to determine which policies and principles might and might not be relevant. That helps a lot in showing that the roadblock here really is just simple prejudice against the tabloids. For some reason, the word Mail just triggers people here. Defies explanation, certainly in important edge cases like this, where they don't actually seem to have any evidence or experience to justify it either. Other than the obviously ridiculous Amanda Knox example. I mean, really. That was an example of people here thinking outsiders really are just that stoooooopid. I've asked for a specific explanation, all I am getting is this endless restatement of the underlying prejudice, like I somehow didn't get it the fifty previous times. Bizarre. But I guess that's what prejudice is. A thoughtless reactionary dogmatic response to certain trigger words. Simple as. A simple thing, for simple people, perhaps. I am for example, guessing that not one person I have spoken to here yet, is an actual honest to goodness trained journalist. And I am happy to define that as broadhseet journalist here, if it makes my meaning clearer. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And threats are even less likely to have any success here: "If you mean to repay that kindness with overt disrespect like this, then I for damn sure will make you pay for it.", coupled with the governments "will see your reluctance to do so for what it is, and will therefore appreciate the small but not negligeable risk to children your overt prejudice has created", comes very close to legal threats (as usual with such, hollow ones of course). Fram (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No legal threats issued, or intended. Feel free to carry on picking and choosing which parts of my statements you take issue with though, while ignoring the rest. That will improve my inclination greatly. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, not only is there the RS/N comments, but also one at BLP/N, and while those are not in the realm of attacking editors, yet, it contributes to the overall problem. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Marek Kukula. (Short issue is that we have a BLP that (assuming true) has been convicted on pedophila charges, something we'd absolutely include with RS sourcing, but no sources beyond the UK Daily Mail and Sun have reported on it. No one has found anything else, though we can see the impact of the charges through non-usable sources (no longer listed at the Royal Observatory, etc.), so its unlikely they fabricated it, but they are still fully unusable sources for BLP) --Masem (t) 14:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than unlikely, it's downright preposterous. I have asked and asked for any concrete proof that this belief might be in error, given the circumstances. Any proof at all that British tabloids would act in this way, in this context. The silence speaks volumes. Tabloids just do not fabricate stories and quotes when it comes to basic and serious court reporting like this. You're talking about them knowingly fabricating the words of an actual criminal court judge, speaking about a man who held a high profile role in a beloved institution, and you're actually seriously asking people to believe the editors of the Sun or the Mail would not only see that as a profitable business model, that they would both do it together, using the same made up quotes. Beyond ridiculous. It would be suicide. It defies belief. Wikipedia editors are supposed to have brains. They're supposed to be able to figure out complex scenarios like this, and come to a sensible conclusion. Policies are advisory, and cannot cover every situation. The principle of not doing something stupid overrides them all. Instead, I have been met with nothing but the same rehashed and repeated prejudice, peppered with irrelevant issues, as if anyone here is really talking about celebrity tittle tattle, or mere "accusations". It's insulting. This is a report of a conviction. A factual report in the main, only slightly seasoned with emotive tabloidease. It either happened, or it didn't, and you don't need to be a mathematician to work out the probabilities involved, given the complete and total lack of any contrary indications. There is not a single one. This is an ugly parody of what an encyclopedia would and should do, when making editorial decisions. You wouldn't see this level of cut your nose off to spite your face sheer idiocy, even in an actual tabloid newsroom. All of you should be ashamed. It says a lot that not one of you are. Not one. You're actually bizarrely proud, some of you. Pretty sick. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No connection here at all. Emotionally speaking, I feel sadness that I may have inadvertently helped Wikipedia pose a threat to children, anger that nobody else here seems to give a crap that this is a possible outcome of this ridiculous prejudice it wants to hold against tabloids despite all reason and their embarrassing inability to admit that the circumstances and context here certainly don't warrant it, and downright hatred of someone like Fram, for his open disrespect, like I'm just some know nothing idiot whose opinion doesn't count. Who the hell does he think he is, seriously. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy shoes have many socks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy shoes hide many tears! Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the many words that have been spent on this the issue is really very simple. Nobody has found any reliable sources that confirm or deny that the person in question here was convicted of an offence and received a 21-week suspended sentence, so Wikipedia should neither confirm nor deny it. It is perfectly normal for Wikipedia not to include information about crimes that attract such minor sentences, even if (or especially if) the nature of the crime disgusts many people. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously you don't really understand the law here. The most serious part of the sentence, was the seven year control order. But also, if you want to claim that being told that for the next 21 weeks, if you do X, y or az, you will be sent straight to prison, and presumably into solitary confinement for your own safety, is a minor sentence, that's your lookout. People can see that level of reason for what it is. Traffic offence, this was not. A career ending crime, it was. With the surprise reveal that it actually occurred before the main part of his career, the part he said he loves because he gets to work with children. If it is perfectly normal for Wikipedia not to document the conviction that presumably ends a person's chosen career, especially in cases where they have not got one single iota of proof thet this isn't what has happened, and especially when it was a highly pertinent conviction, then you won't have any trouble for example, furnishing a few examples? Or even one, perhaps. This is just more of the same absurdity dressed up as logic. An actual biographer wouldn't omit this detail, and Wikipedia is as close to this man will ever get to having a biography, for which I am now profoundly sorry to him, because it is going to look to some as if this obvious whitewash is somehow his doing. You are the public record of his life. You and those tabloid reports. That's everything Google knows about this man, and it is front and centre. So that should be your actual starting point of any debate about whether you think Wikipedia should actually acknowledge their existence or not. Many more words can be written about this, and none of them paint Wikipedia in a very good light at all. This is irresponsibility, couched as responsibility. An almost perfect example of why Wikipedia might need professional editorial oversight, at least for special cases like this. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This is Sanjay from Bangkok

    Dear Wiki Friends,

    I am new to Wikipedia. Learning. I love Wikipedia and trying to make best use of it. I have done nothing wrong except not providing enough published references. Unfortunately your personalized comments about contributors is quiet aggressive. I am willing to talk further on this issue. Please let me know a convenient way to discuss this further.

    Many thanks.

    Sanjay Kumar Bangkok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjayunv (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This refers to this incident, now archived, in which it was complained that Sanjayunv was repeatedly adding unsourced information to articles after being requested on their talk page not to. An admin placed another warning of the talk page in response to the complaint.[94]
    I do not see anything particularly WP:BITEy about the initial warnings or the admin's warning, nor are they "aggressive". They merely point out that adding unsourced information to articles is not allowed, and that if the editor continues to add unsourced information they could be blocked for doing so.
    I fail to see what there is to discuss. Sanjayunv should simply stop adding unsourced information to articles and familiarize themselves with WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE by AzərbaycanTürküAze

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

    This user does nothing more than fill talk pages with ethno-nationalistic rants and pseudo theories. Clearly WP:NOTHERE.

    [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104]

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    London IPs targeting me with reversions

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) IP range blocked by zzuuzz. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    For the past few weeks I have been the target of someone in Greater London who always reverts a handful of my edits, no matter what those edits were. Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/51.9.50.0/21? Other involved IPs include 86.187.166.173, 86.187.224.172, 86.187.230.211, 86.187.224.68, 143.159.171.74 and 143.159.171.46.

    The problem started on 12 May with 143.159.171.127 reverting Bbb23, JalenFolf and myself, quickly getting blocked by Ponyo.

    The targeting is so obvious that Notfrompedro came to my talk page to ask what this person was on about. I can't identify the original conflict. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    D3FAULTX8 and non-notable BLPs (among other things)

    D3FAULTX8 has created about 23 pages in mainspace, 17 of which (73.9%) have been deleted either via AFD or speedy deletion for a lack of notability and often promotional content. Currently, there are 3 remaining articles of which two are at AFD and a third is tagged for speedy deletion. I'm mulling nominating yet another (Jean Marie (DJ)) as well. It is evident to me that no amount of discussing or warnings to this user will get the point across - it's evident by the sheer number of deletions that they do not understand inclusion criteria, this was the talk page before it was blanked and their current talk page includes a number of discussions on this matter as well as deletion notices. They claim to "only write" about notable musicians here at this AFD and demonstrate a pretty spectacular ignorance of what sources say and what our policies say (specifically, xyz is signed to UMG, which is demonstrably untrue.) So I am bringing this here as I think the off and on disruption needs to come to an end, whether that's by a community imposed sanction such as a requirement to go through AFC, a block from namespace entirely (my preference, given they hijacked a redirect to promote a non-notable artist) or an outright block. And for clarity, I've included a list of the deletions below:


    BEACHIDICAE🌊 17:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    D3FAULTX8: Hi, I personally think you are professional Wikipedia admin and are aware of most or all rules, but as far I could understand, you are clearly not aware of most information externally of Wikipedia. On the page of 'MARMO', What I've mentioned is pretty accurate and researched. About the signing of artist in Universal Music Group, I could clearly understand that you are not aware of the contracts. I have attached 2 links as a proof that Marmo is working with Universal Music (co-produced an album). Can you clarify what really you meant by "Hijacking" a page? I have no idea what are you talking about and I just wrote a page normally as I usually do, but you just removed it and marked it as I'm hijacking a page. As per my opinions, I'm not requesting you to review pages which you're not aware about, or I'd suggest you should do a clear research about the article before you even mark it for deletion faster than other mods. At this moment, I'm not disagreeing with some of your decisions on the pages I wrote, but when you really mark it for deletion without any proper research, It's quite bad.

    As you know, I currently only contribute to Wikipedia Music Categories, so I'm well aware of the WPMusicBio. On the recent article (MARMO), The artist meets 5+ criteria, but Prax says he is non-notable, which doesn't make any sense. I review before I write to check if the artist meets the criteria or not.

    Prax has to assign or leave the page review to the particular mods who are aware of the article. At this case of mine, The pages I wrote (Guz Hardy & J Luke, MARMO), has been deleted without figuring about the artists' criteria deeply.

    For other admins: I have been giving proofs about what I write to Prax on Talk Page, He leaves it without reviewing it properly. He clearly wants me to understand his policies but refuses to hear my citings and words. I've been waiting for his response on both of the page which got into AfD until now...FYI, Those pages were already approved by other moderators and also added fixes, categories etc. Later, Prax chooses to put it to deletion.

    Most pages of mine which have been into AfD has been reviewed by 1 or 2 mods including Prax's opinion on the deletion.

    + Most pages I've wrote about is about famous brands or musicians..eg: Viswabharathy is a famous school in Neyyatinkara, JackEL is a vey famous artist in Las Vegas and is verified on instagram including he has awards, 22Bullets has released albums, lots of releases on major labels including Sony, Jonas Aden is a very famous artist in music industry, so is EQRIC. FamPay is another famous company in India. This is actually weird cuz my pages have been rejected for the reasons of non-notability. He doesn't review it properly as u can see from my reports.

    Dear Mods & Admins, I'm requesting you to take a look at the MARMO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marmo_(musician)) and Guz Hardy & J Luke's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guz_Hardy_%26_J_Luke)....becuase Prax thinks those are fake information I've provided. If you guys need more proofs on what I write, you can put a notification on the talk pages too.

    I'm also requesting Prax again to check it. D3FAULTX8 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Another t-ban violation by IP 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40

    As far as I understand, IP 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 is still topic banned from Race & Intelligence for pushing a conspiracy theory related to the topic area (per [106]). Their continued pushing of this conspiracy theory was discussed here last October, though apparently no additional action was taken: [107].

    This IP user has now reappeared once again, pushing the same conspiracy theory over at a user talk page, with the apparent approval of other like-minded editors. Some of the chatter on that talk page is clearly inappropriate (aspersions, etc.), but the only actionable item I'm going to suggest at this point is a longer-term range block for the IP to enforce the t-ban. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to request that an admin action this request, and broadly. The R&I subject area was a terrible quagmire until an ArbCom case cleaned it up somewhat, but if sanctions are not enforced, it's likely to become one again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a large range with a large number of edits. Previous blocks were partial page blocks - the Race & Intelligence page and an Arbcom page. What is being proposed here, and can we have a few more diffs? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant background diffs are in the two discussions I linked above, here and here, and then the most recent t-ban violation is here. With regard to the best way to handle the situation, I will defer to others, though I certainly agree with what Beyond My Ken has stated above. It seems to me that there should be some way to enforce a well-earned topic ban. Generalrelative (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only give you my observations the way I see it. There's some diffs from the previous year, and thousands of edits from the range since (presumably many different people, but obvious collateral), and who knows how many legitimate account creations. This doesn't look like a productive full block situation to me. Maybe a partial block against the one user's talk page? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The conspiracy theory being discussed at that talk page is ridiculous beyond belief: the earliest reference I can recall off the top of my head (and I guarantee I could find earlier ones if I looked into it) to there being an establishment of scientific racism within psychometry was in a letter written by Richard Lewontin in 1970. Somehow, I don't think he was inspired by some trolling at RationaWiki in 2018. I know for a fact that in the late 90's, people were discussing it in the context of The Bell Curve and it's failings.
    Honestly, I truly believe anyone at that talk page involved in that discussion could benefit from a TBAN, because the simple fact that they're taking those claims seriously evinces a grave lack of competence to work in this subject. In at least one case, this would be the re-imposition of such a ban. As for the IP, TonyBallioni said it in the discussion in which the IP's topic ban was imposed: range blocks on these IPs usually have very low collateral damage. I say go for it, and if anyone else in that range wants to edit, they can create an account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that -- as opposed to range full blocks -- range topic bans, in the form of partial blocks, have much less chance of collateral damage and would seem to be a good way to handle the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not what I had in mind, but yes, page blocks from the talk pages of the involved editors, as well as the article in question would likely get the job done. Honestly, I'm still unfamiliar with the concept of partial blocks. It seems alien and strange and I want to squint at it and tell it to pull up its pants and get a real job, then go mutter about kids not knowing what respect is to myself while I sit on my porch in a rocking chair and whittle. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:103.134.130.144 refusing to adhere to guidelines.

    GoodDay,
    just wanted to bring this to the attention of Admins.
    I am not sure if this belongs here or on WP:AN3
    WP:ANI notification has been done on User_talk:103.134.130.144

    IP USER User:103.134.130.144 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) first edited the page Shinde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by adding uncited additions[1] and [2] and removing wikilink to the page Dalit, which looked pretty prejudicial to me.
    I then re added the wikilink for Dalit and also added Template:Citation_needed to the additions in 1,2 above - [3]. Following this User:103.134.130.144 again removed the aforementioned wikilink and used an old citation (which was used elsewhere on the Shinde page in lieu of the Template:Citation needed) [4].
    However If you check the citation used - it points to a publication on google, which has a search function and by searching for the terms in question (Patil,deshmukh) [1] - it turns up blank, these terms are nowhere mentioned in the cited publications. So I reverted these changes, with an explanation[5]. I also left him a message on his talk page User_talk:103.134.130.144 and on Talk:Shinde.
    Following this USER:103.134.130.144 once again repeated the same edits as [4] ->here [6]. User:103.134.130.144 also used a wikipedia article as reference to remove another Template:Citation needed in contravention to WP:CIRC. This again I reverted with advice that Wikipedia articles should not be used as a reference especially articles which themselves are tagged as in need of references[7], simultaneously leaving a message on User_talk:103.134.130.144.
    User:103.134.130.144 has again gone ahead and removed the Template:Citation_needed and added citations to Wikipedia articles[8] which do not provide references to the additions initially made by said USER.

    I have already done 3 reverts on the page and do not wish to continue anymore, lest I be penalized. I leave the rest to the knowledge and decision of the admins. STC1 (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user edit warring, aspersions, refusing to discuss, reinstating problematic material at Genetic Studies and the Khazar Hypothesis

    Three editors, User:Þjarkur, User:Onel5969, and myself so far have concluded that the newly-created page Genetic Studies and the Khazar Hypothesis is better replaced by a redirect to the more substantial and better-sourced parent article Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. The newer smaller article (which seems to be a possible WP:POVFORK) consists of a source already in the parent article, in addition to several problematic/problematically used sources: a controversial source misleadingly used, a non-WP:RS source also used misleadingly, and a source whose inclusion/use is WP:OR (since it does not at all mention the subject of Khazars).

    We each have replaced the article with a redirect to the parent article. But after each edit by the other editors, an IP user (2603:8000:9E3F:FFF1:EC43:F0CC:270D:C902 [[108]]) calls said edit vandalism, threatens to file a vandalism report, and restores the disputed material. After one of my edits, the IP stated that the article contained information not in the parent article (though some of my previous edits had explained why most of those sources were problematic). After the IP reverted my edit, I started a topic on the Talk page but the IP did not engage there and instead has kept edit warring (against User:Onel5969 whom the IP continued to ignore and threaten) without properly explaining their reasons for restoring the contested material.

    Here ([[109]] is the topic on the article's Talk page where I tried to explain the problems with the material in the page, explaining various Wikipedia policies (in case the IP user was not aware of them). It may be significant that, some of the material the IP favors, as I explain there in the Talk page, is identical to material added by the blocked User:Ultrabomb and periodically re-added by their many socks over time.

    Recently, after Onel5969 asked the IP to use the Talkpage and left a link explaining WP:BRD. The IP simply reverted Onel5969 and reported them for vandalism (ignoring their link, their and my edit summaries, and refusing to engage).

    The IP continues to edit war and refuse to engage/explain their edits despite attempts by myself User:Onel5969 to get them to stop edit warring and engage in Talk.

    Here is the article's edit history for reference:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Genetic_Studies_and_the_Khazar_Hypothesis


    Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have partial-blocked the IP-range for 48 hours for edit warring. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Legal threat by 106.203.145.225

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) IP blocked by Ymblanter. Looks like the IP needs to look up what the word condensed means. MarnetteD|Talk 12:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Diff. I think this is self-explanatory. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked for 31h, though most likely this is a dynamic IP which would never come back.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello. I want to know where i can declare proxies and VPN.

    OP found their way to WP:WPOP, handled there – no credible signs of proxy use found. --Blablubbs|talk 10:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I found some proxies vpn ip who do vandalism. user:193.228.99.5 193.228.99.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/193.228.99.5

    user:213.162.73.160 213.162.73.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/213.162.73.160

    user:213.162.80.225 213.162.80.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/213.162.80.225

    Where can i declare these proxies?. Thank you. --112.172.112.143 (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Repeated CSD tag deletion, meatpuppetry, et al.

    So User:Rza835 has created the pages Emil Shahin and Emil Şahin like 5 times at this point. There was an AfD regarding the first (here's the link). The article has since been nominated and deleted for CSD under G4 since it's essentially exact same copies. Where the issue comes in, however, is the after the CSD nomination occurs. A group of different IP ranges, those being 77.244.124.118 and 213.172.93.77, have come out of the woodwork when the articles are CSD nom'd and start delete the CSD tag. Most recently, this happened about 40 minutes before the writing of this ANI, but as User:DoubleGrazing noted in the original AfD from over 2 weeks ago, the tag deletion happened then too.

    It's to my understanding that the IPs and Rza are different people. I'm judging this based off of the constant usage of the words us and we and our ([110] [111] [112]). Regardless this is a blatant meatpuppetry if that is the case.

    And as Rza noted on my talk page ([113]), "our composer asked us to create an article for him and he is sent to be deleted every time", which also means this has a good chance to be undisclosed paid editing too.

    This cabal has also created the same exact article on the same subject in both the Azerbaijani ([114]) and Russian ([115]) Wikipedias.

    (Additionally pinging User:twotwofourtysix since they've posted on his talk page as well.)

    Curbon7 (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    213.172.93.77} and Rza835 I forget to log in when I log in from different browsers. Please help to create my Emil Shahin article. We created it with a wrong title before. As Emil Şahin, we have now edited it so that it is titled Emil Shahin. help me now I'm not a bot or spam I just want my article to be published on wikipedia. If you can help me, we won't have any problems again.Rza835 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They declared that the information on the article was "provided by the person himself." [116] Probably some conflict of interest going on. Also, while the articles may heve changed since the AfD, it seems to me that most of the references just point to external sites of galleries and likely don't verify the information or indicate notability of the subject. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 12:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Then could you please tell me what to do? Because the informations (references) are all true and came from reliable sources. Rza835 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm unable to speak to the other incarnations of this article, but the one I AfD'd 2+ weeks ago was virtually unreferenced, as mentioned in the nom.
    I also can't help noting, WP:AGF etc. notwithstanding, that forgetting to log in when deleting speedy tags seems fortunate, if that's what's being offered as the explanation.
    Finally, Rza835's contributions on Commons, all uploaded as 'own work', do strongly suggest COI (or else copyvio — something I queried on their talk page, but never received a response). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    DoubleGrazing The pictures are mine, what can I do for you to confirm it? help me with this. You're all making comments like I've committed a major crime instead of helpingRza835 (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, what you could have done was respond when I asked about this earlier. But now that you have, you've also confirmed that you have a conflict of interest, because to have copyright of such photos clearly means you have a relationship of some sort with the article subject. A notice was posted by Deb on your talk page on 19 May asking you to declare and/or otherwise deal with this, but I'm not aware that you have? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    DoubleGrazing ok then help us to deal with our problems and let's deal with it. There's no point in raising small problems. We were new to Wikipedia, these problems happened, now we are working to fix it.Rza835 (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rza835 - Who is the "we" you keep talking about? Are you aware that a Wikipedia ID cannot be owned by a group or organisation? Deb (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    DebWhen I say we, I keep myself on hand. I am not an Englishman, so there may be mistakes in my speech and writing.Rza835 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted the latest instance of the article pursuant to G4, and have left a note at User talk:Rza835. UninvitedCompany 20:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User now indeffed by RickinBaltimore for WP:NPA issues. Nothing more to do here. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 14:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Here [117], from Salim567. Asking an admin to do what an admin should do. I put this at AIV earlier today, but it's been removed by a bot for being stale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've indef'd them for that. There's no call for that at all and even not a legal threat, that's a direct threat to you itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unsourced OR additions by IP user

    This IP user is constantly adding their own OR measurements from Google Earth, even changing data if it was supported by RS. Despite warnings on the talk page and clear instructions in the edit summary, this IP user just doesn't respond or alter their editing practices. A ban seems in order. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an expert on this, obvs, but: could it be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? It seems the user in question is editing mainly/only on mobile (aka 'cellphone' to our American friends, I believe). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting page protection for Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

    Recently the result of an AN discussion was to semi-protect the Talk:COVID-19 misinformation talk page, in order to minimize the drain on editor resources handling talk page disruptions from editors who were prevented from editing the article directly by existing page protections. The primary concern was increased disruption around COVID origins.

    The Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 page has also, in roughly the last week, also gotten significantly more IP-based unproductive edits on the topic, possibly a result of those edits having moved from the misinformation talk page to the investigations talk page. Particularly egregious examples of the disruption include low quality accusations, or requests/criticisms suggesting the article was not carefully read by the user. An additional sampling of IP edits from the last week:

    • Content replacement vandalism [118]
    • Unhelpful theorizing [119]
    • An aggressive presumption of bad faith/shilling [120]
    • Anonymous IP with "all my PhD friends" WP:OR [121]
    • An existing ANI and ArbCom discussion regarding a protracted debate involving an IP editor (who has preferred not to use a previous account or create a new one, making conversation and identifying which IPv6 user is being replied to in a threaded conversation difficult)

    Naturally, all of this is disruptive, and a drain on editor time to address. Would protection of this talk page fall under existing WP:GS/COVID19 towards focusing discussions on improving the article and reducing disruption? Particularly in the context of having precedent, and I'd suggest evidence that the protection mostly fulfilled the intended goal. The previous AN requested extended protect, but I tend to agree with the closing comment's justification for semi-protect solving most of the issue and leaving the option for escalation later.

    Ping previous contributing admins @El C and ToBeFree: Thank you. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protection would be a huge help - the situation is out of control [122]. -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, my intention is not to suggest that you are uniquely suited for the task, only to receive feedback like this. And this give me the impression that, as has been argued elsewhere (including the ArbCom case above and past ANI discussions), GS aren't getting enforced at a level to be effective. Not necessarily because individual admins are doing anything wrong, but because the effort and backlash are too high to result in action, and there's not enough motivation to solve those root issues to produce effective policing. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in parallel to the ArbCom case. It is too early to have this discussion. When the case request has been answered (and the case, if accepted, has been resolved), please have a look at the situation again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see today that the current proposal includes a change in the method of sanctions, so I agree that a delay would make sense. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as policy goes, I'd think it's covered under the GS which allows admins to take measures they deem appropriate. Although talk page protection is still very uncommon, and thus clear consensus at ANI is better I think. But given the recent discussion at ANI that found a consensus in favour of EC/semi-protection on another page in the topic but on this exact issue, the community seems to have already made its position clear on this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Two users engaged in a slow edit war

    NAC:Nguyenquochieu2107 indeffed and Lukewon warned by ToBeFree. We are done here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Lukewon (talk · contribs) and Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk · contribs) have been engaged in a slow edit war since March at Miss_Universe_2017. While neither has hit the 3rr, there have been 39 edits and reversions by these two since March- arguing over who won most photogenic- and if a source from Indonesia is reliable. Nguyenquochieu calls Lukewon's edits vandalism, [[123]] repeatedly [[124]] [[125]] while Lukewon inserts a directive to not remove their change [[126]] repeatedly ..... [[127]] [[128]] and then Lukewon decides Nguyenquochieu is biased [[129]] and Lukewon accuses Nguyenquochieu of being a sock- but never bothers to report them as such [[130]]. Other users tried to engage them on the talk page to end this to no avail. [[131]]. The issue was then brought to the DRN where I closed it since no discussion had taken place between the involved editors on the talk page- only in menacing edit summaries. [[132]]. I advised both there and on the miss Universe talk page that they needed to quit edit warring and start working towards a compromise. Another DRN Volunteer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) did the same The result was another post from Lukewon making more accusations towards Nguyenquochieu [[133]]. In all of this Nguyenquochieu has continued editing other pages but has refused to engage with other editors at all. Their editing history shows very niche editing and a ton of reverting with questionable WP:AGF [[134]]. I am proposing either both editors step in, appologize, and start working together- or admins impose a break from editing anything Miss Universe related- broadly construed (maybe 30 days?). Nightenbelle (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting this subject is under general sanctions: WP:GS/PAGEANT - Bri.public (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really in the way other subjects are. There is no {{GS/alert}} for this area either. The article is already extended-confirmed protected in response to sockpuppetry, and this protection already goes beyond the general sanction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the report.
    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Issue with an account that is possibly a factory of propaganda editor(s)

    Moved to ANI from AN.

    The account is [User:Jingiby]. If you see the account edit history you will see that he (they) edit for 10 or more hours non stop each day. Last 24 hours alone, they made 40 edits. Going on like this, each day, for years. Something borderline impossible for a single human to do. So the suspect is they are a collective account, possibly paid for this. Second they have an agenda. It is a hitman account aimed exclusively at Macedonia related pages. With occasional article edits about nationalist issues with other Bulgarian neighbours. Editing them towards a Bulgarian propaganda worldview. And this is in plain sight. Even from their main page the Bulgarian nationalist narrative is clear (photo of Bulgarian warriors). We have had issues with this account for years. He/they were already banned before. You can read at comments from Macedonian reddit about this from today. Everyone finds this account suspiscious and problematic. https://www.reddit.com/r/mkd/comments/nvs8t7/англиски_артикли_на_википедија_за_македонија/ This account is well known to all Macedonian wikipedia editors and even on the Macedonian language wikipedia page. Most od the mods there know about this issue, you can ask for confirmation. It is a constant plague. We are against an organised and paid structure, so it is exausting for "hobby" editors to keep track and re-do the damage, only for them to re-do it some time down the line.

    250k euros each year were exposed that the Bulgarian Gov, and under supervision of the ultranationalist Karakachanov, were allocated for "promotion of Bulgarian propaganda, especially in relation to Macedonia" https://www.svobodnaevropa.bg/a/30967858.html https://english.republika.mk/news/macedonia/karakachanovs-institute-uses-government-money-to-expose-the-bulgarian-character-of-macedonia/ And though this does not count as evidence, it is very possible and likely that part of this money goes to some structured team of editors under this account. As someone suggested in the article, many of the sources linked by them quote some obscure google drive scanned files, that are not commonly available and accessible on the internet, and are by the same research institute "MNI" https://www.reddit.com/r/mkd/comments/nvs8t7/англиски_артикли_на_википедија_за_македонија/h15rhp1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

    Can can someone help us? Can something be done about this? thank you FrankSupra (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to add to the issue that most if not all the main Macedonia-related articles are dominated by Jingby edits(!) You see this name all ove the place.

    History of edits on North Macedonia, Macedonian language, Macedonians (ethnic_group), History of North Macedonia, Macedonian nationalism, Macedonian alphabet, Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria, Macedonians in Albania.. up to bogus propaganda articles like this Historiography in North Macedonia that the account created and 99% od the contributes is only theirs. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of the extent of the edits of this single account. This in itself is a red flag, if one account manages to tailor edit all the main pages of an entire country. Foreigner to the country none the least. FrankSupra (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe FrankSupra's comments constitute an over-the-top personal attack, which is unsupported by any on-wiki evidence (I really don't care what Reddit users think about much of anything, let alone Wikipedia activity) that is not wholly speculative, e.g., Jingiby makes too many edits to be just one person. There are many editors who make far more edits than Jingiby. I recommend an indefinite block of FrankSupra.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your suggestion. Ban me if I did something bannable. I am not using personal attacks. I am aware I have no real hard evidence. My request is for the Admins to look into this matter. Perhaps they have some tools that would provide evidence. Like check if there are multiple IP's this account logs from simultaneously. Or other ways to check and verify this. Or if there are some policies on this kind of "focused" editors. FrankSupra (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • To accuse an editor of something without evidence is a personal attack. It is disingenuous for you to pretend otherwise. Nor will Wikipedia investigate a user based on unsupported allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @FrankSupra: even if you don't have hard evidence for proving socking, your primary complaint is that they are a "propaganda editor" and "hitman account". What are the edits that show this? If they are substantiated that would suffice for a block, and should be provable through no more than on-wiki evidence, but must be supplied or would count indeed count as personal attacks Nosebagbear (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Nosebagbear: I can link every single edit of this account and point that it is from an undoubtedly pro-bulgarian narrative. That would account as "propaganda". The fact alone that is a monothematic Macedonia obsessed account makes it a "hitman". On top of that there is the 10 hour daily edits, 24/7/365. If this things are not problematic, or are issues that only I am seeing, and are permitted by Wikipedia guidelines, I apologise. That was the main point, for me to ask if there are some issues here worth looking into. I cannot prove socking, Admins can check with IP and other tools. Thank you FrankSupra (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Bbb23, Sorry to pester you again so soon after my comment on your talk page, but I took a very quick look at Special:Contributions/FrankSupra and I wholeheartedly concur with a WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW based indef, for whatever my opinion is worth. Even if they do prove their complaints, getting this account blocked is their sole purpose here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Bbb23: You have used personal attacks against me. No need to. All I am saying is look into this account. If there is something problematic there or not. Me not editing much on wikipedia is not a crime. Last edit there were also issues with user Jungby. He posted fake news articles as evidence on Macedonia related pages (as usual). I asked an admin support and his edits were reverted. FrankSupra (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I empathize with a sense of frustration one might feel if they believe state funds are being appropriated to retain undisclosed paid editors to push a specific worldview, per Bbb23's point, the mere existence of such an effort is not proof that any specific editor is party to it. We should self-police our accusations against other editors in the absence of clear evidence. That someone doesn't have much in the way of hobbies or interests outside WP is not, itself, evidence of paid editing. If it were, we'd have to block all the WP:TROP regulars. Chetsford (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sri Lankan Civil War Dispute (again)

    Sri Lankan Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    This is another topic area that is the subject of battleground editing because it was a real battleground. The issue appears to be a dispute about how many people were killed. (One answer is too many, but that is obvious and says nothing.) Another dispute has been filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sri_Lankan_Civil_War But it appears to be a re-litigating of a dispute that User:Nightenbelle appeared to have resolved successfully in March 2021, in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_205#Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

    Jayingeneva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Oz346 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Obi2canibe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    84.209.141.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    At this point, I think that we have either or both of two alternatives:

    • We can topic-ban some or all of the users. I haven't reviewed the case in enough detail to know who is the problem, and am inclined to the draconian solution of banning them all.
    • We can impose Community General Sanctions for the topic of the Sri Lankan Civil War, which doesn't fall within the scope of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (because Sri Lanka is not one of the nations listed).

    Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    just a comment- this exact issue was solved, agreed on, the sixth version of a paragraph that we debated every nuance of for almost a month was inserted in the article and in 24 hours the involved editors threw the agreement out and went back to editing and reverting and arguing. This was “solved” for 24 hours and is a battle that has been raging for 4-5 months at this point. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the previous WP:DRN: "At this point- I'm going to throw the infobox out of this disagreement- because you have changed your mind twice now. So- ya'll will need to discuss that back at the talk page, this DRN was about the paragraph, and that is the only topic I am going to agree to mediate at this point. Does anyone have any further problems with the paragraph or are we good to close? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)"
    • The second WP:DRN is only regarding the Infobox. Namely, can Oz346, Obi2canibe and 84.209.141.236 please provide a WP:RS to support their edits/reverts listed below that claim 276,000 casualties? Like last time, the discussion has descended into accusations/incivility and stalled. Can the WP:DRN process please elicit WP:RS to support their text in the Infobox?
    • @84.209.141.236: Finally on 3rd Jun 2021, the user made edit 1026680246, however the source states 54,053 casualties. Not the claimed 276,000 casualties.
    WP:Verifiability clearly states, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Are these the only users that are disputing? If they are, I'd say topic ban them. General sanctions seem too extreme so far for something that appears localised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Grave accusations

    I would like to report grave accusations, aggressive tone and insults on behalf of user Gandharraj towards several editors (me included) during a normal discussion at Talk:Hanna_Jaff. A handful of editors have been involved in the clean up of what appeared to be a PR piece, Hanna Jaff, which is now finally taking shape. Gandharraj joined in a day or so ago and began attempting to reverse the changes that were made by consensus over several months (all which were discussed in the talk page in question). We continued reviewing the sources presented by user Gandharraj, and after finding many had already been dismissed as unreliable, Gandharraj accused @Anachronist:, @Solid Reign: and myself of having ulterior motives, as well as being "sexists racists editors", when in fact we know neither the race or the gender of the editor, nor does the editor know ours. @Anachronist:, @Solid Reign: and myself have kept a strict encyclopaedic tone and pragmatic approach, unlike editor Gandharraj, who continues to take all of this extremely personal. I question the editor's COI in the subject at hand. I would like to continue a respectful dialogue until we reach a consensus on the article in question, but do not tolerate serious insults and grave, unfounded accusations during this process. A.Val.sol (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1027758743"