Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Wikihounding

Okay, I hate bringing things to ANI. Not sure when the last time I did was. However, at this point I seem to have no other choice. Approximately 2-3 months ago, I had a disagreement with another editor, NemesisAT about something which I honestly do not remember what it was over. However, prior to that, I had very little, if any interaction with that editor. Since that time, there have been numerous interactions, the vast majority (if not all) of which are negative reactions to edits I made by this editor, see this report. I’ve asked them to desist in their obvious wikihounding, first in an AfD (which I actually can’t find the diff for), then on their talk page 2 weeks ago, User talk:NemesisAT#Wikihounding. I took their response there in good faith, however, since then, they have continued their behavior, although in a somewhat subdued fashion. The most recent interactions being, OKI Common Lisp, Patrick McDermott (Massachusetts politician), London Buses route 242, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld (2nd nomination), I Am a Lot Like You! Tour. Finally, there was Salem Local Planning Authority, which led me to send it to AfD, where I again asked him to desist. He refused to admit that what he was doing was wikihounding, which you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Local Planning Authority. This was followed up by their interacting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RenderDoc (2nd nomination). Finally, there is the interaction at Changde railway station, where once again, the editor in question had nothing to do with the page until I edited it. And what makes it interesting is that they did not revert my edit, which would have alerted me that they had reverted me, instead doing it in a way to evade letting me know. Same thing with Koonendah railway station, Huaihua railway station, and Nanyang railway station, Even after that, I was hoping they would go away. However, there was this just today, again done in such a way as to not alert me unless it was on my watchlist. At this point I’d like the community to impose an interaction ban on this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems the disagreement started from this - [1] [2]. The interaction timeline is indeed shows a large overlap with many edits being within hours or days of each other. A common pattern is Onel prodding an article and Nemesis removing the prod. Or Onel redirecting an article and Nemesis reverting it. However in Koonendah railway station, Onel redirected the article in 18 August and reverted by Nemesis 12 minutes later. Nemesis had edited the article before in June 30 [3]. Similarly Onel's redirection of Changde railway station in 14 August was reverted by Nemesis an hour later later, with that being their first edit to the article [4]. But Nemesis had edited the talk page in 26 June [5]. At least in these 2 cases it reasonable to believe Nemesis had watchlisted the articles. There are also several cases where Nemesis was the first to edit an article by reverting others' redirects and Onel tagging it for notability in the next edit - [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. This can be explained as Nemesis patrolling prods and new redirects, and Onel tagging for notability and redirecting while doing New page patrol. So I am wondering whether this overlap is simply because the two editors have opposite editing patterns? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, me and Onel did have a disagreement (again, I can't remember what it was over) but if I remember correctly it was a message on WikiProject Trains about deletion discussions regarding bus content that opened my eyes to the amount of content being redirected and deleted here.

I watch a large amount of articles, the railway station ones I was watching the article or watching the talk page of a user notified by Onel. The bus route article was also on my watchlist. I've also been using automated reports and categories to find new PRODs, deletion discussions, and redirects.

In response to Onel, I don't think it would be fair to impose an interaction ban due to the wide number of pages they edit. I am not picking on them, if anything, I feel I'm being bullied here. They asked me why I was editing pages on topics I wasn't interested in, so to see them bring up articles on buses and railway stations (my core interests) is incredibly frustrating. NemesisAT (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I also completely disagree with Onel's suggestions that I was trying to hide my edits, and find it rather hypocritical after they made accusations in an edit summary, and later at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Local Planning Authority, without pinging me. I did not realise using the undo button gave a notification, and am not aware of any guideline requiring reverts to be made using the undo button. To be clear, I do not wish for any action to be taken against Onel. I would simply like them to stop accusing me of wikihounding whenever I edit a page they happen to have edited previously. NemesisAT (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Onel5969 makes PROD nominations frequently – their log indicates that they do this more than once a day. Such activity will naturally attract attention from the same small pool of prod patrollers. And if you nominate a string of topics of the same type, such as railway stations, you will naturally attract attention from editors who watch that sort of topic. The same applies with AfD nominations and draftifications, which Onel5969 often does too. Such actions are not low profile – they are, per WP:BITE, hostile and high-stakes. The recent case of John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld which Onel5969 prodded and NemesisAT deprodded, is a good example as this generated a huge furore which attracted many editors. The outcome indicates that this was not an appropriate topic to prod as the process is just for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". If Onel5969 follows these PROD rules more carefully, this will tend to resolve the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew here. I also contribute to railroad related articles, as you might guess from my username (I have the WP Trains article alerts page watchlisted and frequently comment on the AfD notifications I see there). As two editors who frequently work in the same area, they will frequently encounter each other and that does not mean it is Wikihounding. I participated in several of the most recent AfD threads the filer mentions, not because I had any interest in Wikihounding but because I ran into them on AfD and felt I could comment on them. Editors have the right to object to PROD nominations. The few examples of Nemesis nearly immediately reverting actions other than PRODs that Onel takes are a bit concerning but do not justify an ANI thread. Nemesis should give Onel a bit of berth and should communicate via the talk page instead of reverting when appropriate. Onel should recognize that editors who are interested in a certain topic will likely be interested in PROD nominations on articles on said topic. If the two of you really can't resolve this, I would recommend another form of dispute resolution besides ANI. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying that I Oppose an interaction ban at this point. Nobody needs to get sanctioned here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think NemesisAT has a ways to go in their understanding of GNG, (see their vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-Mockery (2nd nomination)) but they appear to be editing in good faith. Suggest maybe leaving One's PROD's for another user as a temporary solution? Star Mississippi 17:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly more generous than most when it comes to what should have an article. I'm just trying to save as much content as possible, using the guidelines available. I'm happy to give some time before declining Onel's PRODs to allow someone else to do so first. Am not really sure what else I can say or do here. I'm more concerned about reverting redirects, and that I'll be accused of wikihounding if I do so. I believe it is okay to contest the redirection of a page? Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we've reached a point of sanctions being necessary, but it does look to me like there is a degree drive-by deprodding going on. Unlike Onel, I'm not terribly active when it comes to proposed deletions and yet have had all of my PROD's this month contested by NemesisAT. I can only echo Star Mississippi's comments about them adequately understanding applicable notability guidelines. The handful of de-PROD's of theirs that I've seen in subject areas I know well have been made without much regard as to what is and is not significant coverage in that subject area. Perhaps most striking is GiantSnowman's comment on their talk page earlier this month having to explain to them that the rational behind a prod they had contested was taken from the text of a notability guideline. All told I'd say NemesisAT would be well advised to slow down, not just with respect to Onel's PROD, with their deprods in general, and ensure they are aware of the relevant notability guidelines and how they apply to a given subject before involving themselves in the deletion process. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The article in question was Jed Abbey (now deleted, but I'll detail the history here) - a PROD was added by another user stating "Hasn't made a 1st team appearance for a team in the football league", NemesisAT removed the PROD stating "Decline prod, not sure why reason given is grounds for deletion", I took to AFD, the article was deleted. This shows a fundamental and concerning ignorance/misunderstanding of the applicable notability guidelines. GiantSnowman 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Another comment of concern is here - "If I'm reading it correctly, WP:GNG doesn't require coverage to be more than routine". That is, again, fundamentally incorrect - GNG requires "significant coverage", not routine coverage. GiantSnowman 21:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Editors have differing views over what is significant coverage Vs what is routine coverage. You're always welcome to nominate for deletion at WP:AFD if you disagree. I have declined PRODs for various people that have subsequently not been nominated for deletion, or have survived deletion, so I feel what I did was beneficial. I am happy to try and explain my actions better next time. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, GiantSnowman, but you're quite wrong on this point. For the GNG, "significant" is generally synonymous with "non-trivial", not "non-routine". Otherwise most of the many, many biographies of athletes you've created should be deleted, because they're sourced/sourceable only to routine statistical reports, transaction notices, etc. The "non-routine" standard pretty much applies to only two types of articles: under WP:CORP, a variety of routine business-related announcements/reports don't count toward notability; and for some events, like sporting events, coverage of individual competitions doesn't establish individual notability. For the latter, a simple example is that individual NFL games are very, very rarely individually notable, despite widespread detailed coverage. Most notable people live unexceptional personal lives and we base our bios on routine coverage. For most US state judges, for example, our bios are based on routine coverage of their selection and the occasionally newsworthy case they preside over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• NemesisAT, I imagine it's People's Choir of Oakland you're talking about. AfD will settle that as I disagreed that it was notable. If you're going to suggest AfD, I don't really see the point in reverting the redirect to Frederica von Stade. Neither you nor, Onel was wrong in your edits, but discussion is more helpful than reverting one another. Gwen Goldman is one really looking into as it's that and I-Mockery where I think you were incorrect in your argument, but we'll see where consensus shakes out on the former. If PRODs are clearly contentious, someone else will take care of it Star Mississippi 01:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've reverted redirection because I feel discussion should take place prior to a deletion. This is also why I generally dislike PROD for anything but the worst offending articles. There have been multiple times I have restored an article and it either hasn't been contested or survived an AfD. It is easiest to have a discussion by bringing to AfD, as it catches the attention of other editors. NemesisAT (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with discussion, but AfD is so backlogged I don't think we need to add more when the solution could be resolved otherwise. I think if you take your time in finding potential sources and leaving them on the Talk could also be a help. Star Mississippi 01:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• After going through the above, I almost inclined to support this interaction ban. It is frustrating for one editor's work be undermined with determination by another editor. I think NemesisAT has to assume good faith by respecting that One's edits and others' edits are as valid as anyone else's. NemesisAT actions seem to be invalidating others' work based on stringent general beliefs about Prods and redirects. I think NemesisAT should be aware that their judgement is not necessarily keener or better than other editors. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I also have to say that AFD is seriously back logged and the contentious AFDs take more time and energy. AFD is not the golden destination for determining notability. Redirects are a very acceptable form of WP:ATD. PRODs help take the burden off of AFD. I think it is OK to trust an experienced editor's judgement most of the time, that a PRODDED or Redirected article may not fulfill the notability criteria.---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• If a fair %, say 40% or more, of the articles being deprodded aren't sent to AfD or are kept at AfD, I'd say the prods are the problem, not the deprodder. If it's more like 10%, well, it's the other way around. Do we have an easy way to get numbers? I'm not liking the "well, you should trust people to make good prods". The whole point of prodding is to have a lightweight way to delete clearly NN topics. If they aren't getting deleted after deprodding the vast majority of the time, well, the deprods are likely reasonable. Hobit (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have any numbers to hand, but the page John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld which Onel mentioned above is an example of a PROD that proved controversial, and the page was eventually kept. Though I appreciate that (while not necessary) it is good to justify the removal of a PROD in the edit summary, and I will try to explain my intentions better in the future. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support — I remain a little confused as to why the discussion is tilting towards methods of deletions or ATD's when Onel5969's entry is expressly stating they want an IBAN(I presume a one way IBAN preventing the other editor from interacting with them). The diffs does show a pattern that I’m uncomfortable with. Hounding or any form of Wp:Revenge / stalking is unacceptable and within my capacity I try to put a stop to it whenever I encounter editors seemingly doing so. I believe the editors involved can continue to edit and co-exist in peace if the IBAN is implemented. So yes, I’m supporting One1's proposal. He possesses a track record of productivity and (for lack of a more proper term) disturbing high volume productive editors is a disservice to this project. Celestina007 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think it would be fair to implement a one way ban, or any ban at all. Pages that Onel mentioned above, like the bus route and railway station articles, appeared in my watchlist which I usually check frequently. Having to check every page to see if Onel previously edited it would cause me additional stress when editing. Onel can simply ignore my edits, or nominate said pages for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  We've seen evidence that they edit in the same area. We've seen evidence that sometimes one is the first to a given article, sometimes the other. And I'm not sure PRODing articles is something that counts as "productive" any more than dePRODing them is. Hobit (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposal is nonsensical. If anyone has earned an interaction ban, it's Onel5969. Their accuracy rate in AfD nominations lately, per their XFD log, is about 50%, and appears to have been falling over months. For a highly experienced user, a supposedly "high volume productive editor", this is appallingly bad. This is God-awful quality, and it would justify singling out Onel's nominations for particular scrutiny. It is extremely inappropriate for Onel's wikifriends to come here in his defense and smear NemesisAT as a vengeful "stalker" without providing a shred of substantive evidence.It's disgraceful. AFD has become a cesspool of internal politics, and is increasingly dominated by nominators who don't care about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, treating it as a notability game.
  

Short version: Onel's nominations fail at a rough 50% rate. NemesisAT argues effectively against Onel's bad nominations. So Onel wants us to forcibly silence NemesisAT. That is crap. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Hmm... That is correct. Their track record for AfD !votes is a bit better — their total accuracy is about 70% when no consensus closures are included, but they also tend to nominate multiple pages in one day (up to 7 on 3 July 2021). NemesisAT has a so-so !vote record as well (about 60% including no consensus), although they overwhelmingly !vote keep, and from a brief spot-check most of these are not on articles nominated by Onel, unlike with PROD. The evidence presented by Andrew Davidson shows that Onel's recent PROD nominations are hit-and-miss, which is largely consistent with their AfD stats regardless of whether most of the deprods were by Nemesis. Which suggests that the solution is not an interaction ban, but to ban Onel5969 from initiating deletion processes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Utterly ridiculous. I am not one of One's "wikifriends" although I have interacted with them in AfDs and random other ideas. There is zero evidence here for banning anyone from a deletion process. If that was even under consideration, we'd need more than a "hit-and-miss" record, which I'd say most long term editors have since discussion brings new info to light. Star Mississippi 17:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe using the phrase “wiki friends” was also directed at me. If or not is rather immaterial to this discussion and bringing that up is a digression and a major disservice to us all. To bring peace and probably close this discussion altogether, @NemesisAT, From current consensus it is unlikely any IBAN would be implemented. Am I right to say that in summary you want to exist in peace and edit productively with all your co-editors here? If yes, then it is quite easy, moving forward try as much as possible not to overlap with One1 and of course there’s no telling where and when they’d edit but you might find removing them from your watchlist helpful and until some sort of mutual understanding is present avoid de-prodding articles that they prod. It is hard but there’s always a compromise to be made. Furthermore @LaundryPizza03, I believe One1 to be a prolific new page reviewer but as with anything you do quite often you tend to make mistakes and the perfection bar is next to impossible to reach. Lastly @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, calling Onel’s proposal “nonsensical” is impolite, furthermore Wikipedia isn’t a competition, you see, Stats and whatnot distort reality and make Wikipedia appear as though it is black or white, whereas it isn’t so. For example an editor may nominate a non notable entity for deletion and they are correct as the subject of the aforementioned hypothetical AFD fails to meet GNG or the relevant SNG. If the creator of the article strategically campaigns/canvases for !votes off-wiki, the article may end up being “kept” even when the reviewer who made the nomination was correct. I hope this analogy helps, really, the bickering isn’t worth it, it is unfair enough that multiple websites, blogs, podcasts other entities consider us (genuine editors) to be “losers” , we don’t need to wrestle against one another we are on a big mission here, let’s not forget or keep our sight from what the true purpose of Wikipedia is. This back and forth isn’t part of the mission. Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, what a display of bad faith. NemesisAT, says Celestina007, if you don't want to be hassled and having your editing disrupted, then stop disputing Onel's dubious edits. Do you work for Tony Soprano or Michael Corleone? Because that's that's, metaphorically, the kind of threar they make. "Polite" threats are still threats, after all. As for the suggestion that somehow article creators systematically "strategically campaigns/canvases for !votes off-wiki [so that] the article[s] may end up being “kept” -- the absence of evidence in suppot of your silly claim is thunderous. You're claiming that actual evidence like statistics "distort reality" and your fantasized narrative is what matters. Attitudes like this demonstrate why so much of AFD these days is a cesspool; we have a cadre of self-ordained arbiters of notability standards who deny the legitimacy of disagreeing with them and reject the participation of those who do. As for the "true purpose of Wikipedia," it's clear you're one of those editors who reject the "sum of all human knowledge" aspirational principle, and want to limit it, in practice, as much as possible tp "stuff otaku care about". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, hello once again, I’m not particularly sure I understand what the phrase “polite threats” mean because no threats have been made by me, I merely trying to offer a solution here and see that all editors here edit and co-exist in peace, if you don’t understand this which is quite easy to comprehend then I really I’m short of words, once again you have just called my attempt at mitigation/mediation “silly” which I believe I corrected you when you called One1's proposal nonsensical by telling you it’s impolite of you. At this juncture I’m recusing myself from this discussion. Thank you for your input thus far, do have a wonderful week ahead. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - There seem to be some fundamental points being missed here. Onel's redirects/PRODs/AfDs are of articles that have significant problems. The majority of these are from the back end of the NPP queue, and in all probability have been passed over by other NP patrollers, including myself, who have been unsure of the best way of dealing with them. Nemesis seems to be trying to save as many articles as possible from deletion or redirection. I actually have a lot of sympathy with that viewpoint; somebody has put a lot of effort into some of those articles (but in other cases the minimum effort to create an article). However, rescuing a crap article still leaves us with a crap article that may or may not be improved by others. WP is an encyclopaedia with a set of minimum standards, rescuing everything often conflicts with the minimum standard requirements. Restoring articles from redirects can be problematical: WP:BURDEN, and in the case of BLPs, WP:BLP, are applicable to restored content, so just restoring the article isn't acceptable in many cases. In other cases there seems to be lack distinction between something existing and it being notable.

Obviously if you send articles to AfD because you think they don't meet notability guidelines then you should expect a high percentage to result in delete. Where notability is marginal then it's not unreasonable to send to AfD to gain a community consensus. In these cases where notability is 50/50, a 50% delete rate shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody.

NP patrollers seem to constantly come under attack, usually over individual articles. I'm sure mistakes have been made (anybody here who claims not to have made mistakes are either deluded or a liar), but I don't think that is applicable in the majority of cases. Id like to issue an invitation to those who think NP patrollers are doing such a poor job to take over the role and show us how it should be done. --John B123 (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

User:The Supermind

The above user falsely accuses me creating "Website spoofing" by saying used for deception to official website in here Talk:Oromia § Original researches while I am trying to explain the issue he/she raised. After user Above deliberately removed sources and content here[12],[13] by replaced by irrelevant source that doesn't reflect Oromia capital at all here [14]. I requested admin to protect Oromia page from Vandalism. Admin protect for a week, expires 12:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)). Now user threatening to vandalize again after protection of page expires here User talk:MfactDr § Oromia. MfactDr (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Again personal attack by Supermind in here User talk:MfactDr § Oromia by calling me "you're are so fool" MfactDr (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to say while I don't think it belongs at ANI in isolation the website spoofing accusation seems clearly false not to mention silly. Supermind is claiming the website was created recently by MfactDr. Except that the link in question is is a 2008 Internet Achive archive of a website. It's clearly not recent and frankly even ignoring the lack of evidence, the suggestion that MfactDr created that website on or before 2008 and for some reason is trying to use it on Wikipedia now is IMO silly enough we can almost dismiss it out of hand. This doesn't mean it's a good source or an official government website. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The Supermind is so much Disrespectful and attack personally here [15] and other editor told supermind not accuse falsely here[16] after first accuse me creating sources that supermind have NO conclusive proof of my involvement with the web site coding[17]. After I let user aware of notice of incident the user response was discourteous here[18] This The archived Ethiopian Government website That Supermind claimed created by me and Newly designed Ethiopia Government portal website have same contents and both are Government Website. MfactDr (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

“Rope to hang yourself with”…

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

---

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

---

I am a victim of childhood sexual abuse and due to that I recently attempted to kill myself at the age of 43. I survived and now I am an advocate for children who were sexually abused. It was brought to my attention that an article on wiki was sugar coating the excessive sexual abuse of a minor, by her sister. I am a long-standing contributor of Wikipedia as well as a donor and I adhere to citation and reference rules when I edit, as I did in this case. Upon attempting to edit the admitted childhood sexual predators page to more correctly demonstrate that the sex abuse shouldn’t be characterized as “exploration” or that it only happened one time (but happened for 11years, per Lena Dunham), editor NorthBySouthBaronof decided to write that they were giving me “Rope to hang myself with.[19] Is this the behavior we want the admins of Wikipedia to be exhibiting? That was the most callous thing anyone has ever said to me about my abused childhood, and literally without any regard for personal feelings or past situations. I was only, continually, asking how to report an admin who I felt was violating my rights to edit when this editor said this to me. How do I escalate this so that I can get some leadership in here to deal with this before I go public with it?MainEditoreditoreditor (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The line itself is a reference to a common Wikipedia essay, WP:ROPE, which is frequently used in internal discussions; the community has a lot of its own jargon. I certainly don't think NorthBySouthBaranof intended to be callous at all, it wouldn't come off that way to most editors, although I can understand why you would have such a visceral reaction. On the other hand, you need to carefully read what the people on your talkpage have written to you, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MainEditoreditoreditor, the link to WP:ROPE is commonly used. It is perhaps an unfortunate analogy, and I am sorry that you have been hurt by the choice of words, but I do not see any reason to think that NorthBySouthBaranof (who is not, FWIW, an administrator) meant it as reference to your own life experiences. I'm looking into what you have been doing at that article recently - I'm not familiar with the case, but on the face of it, it looks like you have been edit warring, and I see that people have accused you of violations of our WP:BLP policies. Please don't edit the article again for the meantime, while I take a look to see what has been going on. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 18:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You are required to notify the editor in question. I have done so for you this time. —El Millo (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The context which is needed: The above user's edits to Lena Dunham amount to false and defamatory statements which are clear and unambiguous BLP violations - describing a person who has neither been charged nor convicted of any crime as a "childhood sexual predator" or as a perpetrator of "sexual abuse" is simply right out. The issue has been extensively discussed on the talk page, sourced statements regarding it appear in this article and Not That Kind of Girl (the book in which the controversial passages are published), and the insertions they are making are unacceptable. With myself and User:Paul Erik having extensively attempted to explain this to the above user, they responded by demanding to be able to "report" the issue. I simply provided them with the link to this page, and with a link to a commonly-read essay exploring what would predictably happen after they reported the issue. No offense was intended.

OP's edit-warring and BLP violations are worthy of administrative attention, as the OP has refused to listen to multiple editors patiently explaining why their edits do not comply with policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Having acknowledged both here and at your talkpage that you had a previous account, which you aren't using because of a forgotten password, please consider identifying it. Grandpallama (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

MainEditoreditoreditor I've reviewed the material in detail, and I agree that your editing at that article was in violation of our BLP policy - your edits were not supported by the cited sources, and was based upon your own interpretation of things described in the subject's autobiography. Again, I am very sorry if your encounters with other editors here have caused you pain, but they have been correctly enforcing our policies. If you are interested in contributing to this project, you need to be much more careful about how write about living people. I'm going to put a notice on your talk page about the discretionary sanctions in place in that topic area. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 19:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s incorrect as I had already admitted to being a childhood sex victim when the editor said these unbelievable and callous statements towards me. The editor knew they were being hurtful and did it without regard for people or feelings.

    I would like to know how to escalate this aspect of my situation to a higher leadership so that we can get eyes on this situation from those who are paid to handle conflicts such as the demeaning of suicide survivors and childhood sex victims. Please let me know how to proceed with my escalation. Thanks.

• A word of advice: Any escalation will end poorly for yourself. Rather than continue to push what will ultimately be a fruitless endeavor, I'd suggest studying Wikipedia policies instead so that you can become a productive editor. Mlb96 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note: OP was indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE by GeneralNotability. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

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

I am not commenting on the specific issue above but I think it may be time for the community to abandon this "rope to hang yourself with" terminology, which I find really creepy and I do not think that I have ever used it myself. Many people find it very cruel. It was commonplace in the earlier days of Wikipedia to admonish people to "don't be a dick" but we have mostly abandoned comparing people to genitalia, and the sexualized adolescent female Wikipe-tan character used to be trotted out much more commonly than it is today. It is time (it has always been that time) for Wikipedia editors to grow up and abandon hurtful and childish memes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as the primary author of that essay, this is not how it is intended to be used. See Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope#Citing this essay. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I've always disliked the use of this violent metaphor. Compare the Optimist's guide to Wikipedia, bullet point 7. Bishonen | tålk 13:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC).

What's a better metaphor? Give em enough runway to crash? It's about allowing people to make choices so we can see if they make bad choices (really the sentiment kind of sucks tho I agree with it) but I struggle to think of a nonviolent/non-entrapment-ish way to express the thought. Levivich 13:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As an expression it may seem insensitive to some, but it is a common phrase used outside wikipedia too, to mean the same thing. I had never considered it insensitive until reading this discussion, and frankly have not changed my mind. "Dont be a richard" is also not considered insensitive, just a well considered description, hereabouts. Please people, dont all be dicks, give us some rope to use. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

People are commonly vulgar and insensitive, it's true, but we can choose better metaphors. Levivich 14:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favour of marking it historical. Even if you can overlook the violent metaphor, this is a bad essay. It advises us that rather than dealing with a problem editor at an early stage when gentle correction might suffice, we should instead not bother trying to fix things and instead wait for the problem to get so bad that kicking them out is the only option left. The fact that the essay likens this to giving an unstable person the tools to kill themselves so that we don't have to get messy ourselves is really just window dressing. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Just as we can reword manned to crewed, we can reword "rope to hang yourself" to many other phrases that would transmit the same meaning. Why traumatize anyone if we have a choice? Just because we are DICKs who have a tradition of using an archaic phrase? Jacona (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't like the phrase, I agree with Cullen that it's unnecessarily graphic and an alternative would be preferable, but I do think the principle itself is a sound one. It is basically akin to giving someone either a last chance (if they're on the verge of a lengthy block) or a fresh chance (if they've already had a lengthy block). The gist being that if someone promises to rectify problematic behaviour, we AGF and give them an opportunity to prove it to us, with the proviso that they'll be blocked immediately if they revert back to the old habits. That's a positive thing IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It will probably not be a popular move, but I've nominated the "rope" essay for deletion. Jacona (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As for alternative metaphors, someone did try to write Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes a few years back. It was kind of doomed from the start (creator was an admin with sockpuppets) but its deletion discussion also has links to some other metaphors you could try. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Along the same lines, I was going to propose WP:Let their actions speak as a violent metaphor-less, more optimistic and AGF-y take. I'm no wordsmith, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Back when all the world and love were new, I was friends with a wise old accordion player who used to say, "if you let people talk, they always tell on themselves." Not sure that's lively or pithy enough, but I thought I'd toss it in the mix. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Reminds me of the celebrated (and often paraphrased) quote by Maya Angelou: "My dear, when people show you who they are, why don't you believe them? Why must you be shown 29 times before you can see who they really are? Why can't you get it the first time?" Rather contrary to the second-chanciness of WP:ROPE, but could easily be given a catchy shortcut like WP:BELIEVE. Generalrelative (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we're missing a great opportunity to come up with a new metaphor here. Give them enough water to let them pee their pants? WP:PEEPANTS Or maybe Give them enough gummy bears to let them develop an upset stomach. WP:GUMMYSTOMACH If enough wikipedians start saying it, it could leak into the real world, and you just might hear someone say Give them enough toilet paper to clog their plumbing. WP:TPCLOG ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Two of those are still problematic (for people affected by real chronic medical conditions of which those things are symptoms) but I'm interested in being able to cite WP:FATBERG. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

So more of a Give them enough baby wipes to ruin their neighborhood's sanitation system. There's also something somewhat related to the original essay, Give them enough snake to run into their own tail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue with all the proposed metaphors is that they all imply that the desired end is for the user to screw up again and be blocked. Yes, some editors are doomed to run afoul, but the messaging shouldn't be implying that they're being set up to fail. Besides the toxicity, WP:ROPE runs counter to the spirit of WP:AGF, because we're giving users the "rope" in bad faith. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That is a good point, Ytoyoda! Robby.is.on (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The first mention of suicide in Special:Contributions/MainEditoreditoreditor comes after the rope metaphor was used. I have trouble seeing the whole episode as anything other than M3ed trying to add weight to their threatened complaint.

Wiktionary doesn't offer any alternatives. Cabayi (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

..."give them their own petard" ? Cabayi (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Just bears mentioning that this is also a violent metaphor, even if cloaked in the Bard's lovely language. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

True, but more "let their carelessness be their undoing" than "let them kill themselves so we don't have to". Also, cloaking an unsavoury process in iambic pentameter would be very Wikipedia. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi is correct that the M3ed's assertion that they were an attempted suicide survivor came after NBSB's allusions to rope. I have no way of knowing whether anything they said about themselves is true, but in their fourth edit the admitted they weren't new here, and in their seventh, having been reverted twice (by different users), they were already asking about how to make a complaint to administrators. It might be genuine, but the whole thing strikes me as being consistent with how someone might behave if they were attempting to manufacture a complaint, and attempting to make it as weighty as possible.

None of which, of course, really speaks to Cullen's point about whether the metaphor is appropriate - while I'm not afraid of colourful language, I tend to agree that we can do better than this, it's probably not helpful to use a violent metaphor, particularly when it's an essay that is often referenced in fraught situations. I think the 'petard' one is quite stylish, but it's not much better from a 'violence' perspective. We might not actually need a metaphor - we can just argue that someone should be 'given a last chance to prove themselves, under close scrutiny'. Write that up as an essay, call it WP:LASTCHANCE (which currently points to WP:ROPE), and we're good. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Something akin to Barnum's "egress" ? Cabayi (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I vote someone write this up as Double Secret Probation! Dumuzid (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I always thought the message to be communicated was, "instead of trying to predict what a user will do after being unblocked, just unblock them and let them prove it one way or another, because the risk of doing so is low and actual data is better than predictions". Levivich 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's like a test at school, "let them re-take the exam"? Because what's happened is someone faced a tricky situation (an edit-war, a bad reversion, a criticism) and they messed up in how they handled it. So we want to see if they've learned from the mistake, or whether they continue to do the same thing. All of us do stupid things from time to time. A willingness to say "oops, my bad, won't do that again" goes a long way. Elemimele (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

A Mulligan? —valereee (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the common operative meaning is: "give them the freedom to be good or bad, and we'll see what they do and they will be treated accordingly" North8000 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No. There’s a presumption that they’ll take the “bad” option, thereby self-harming. That’s why the message in the essay never quite tallied with the saying. DeCausa (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

My previous post plus: Probably often accompanied by "I'm concerned that it may look like I'm being too easy on them by unblocking/not blocking them, and so I'm including a reminder that they will lead themselves to tough consequences if they blow it". North8000 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Using a phrase like "self-harming" is really not helpful here. Also, the essay makes it very clear that the intent is to give blocked users a chance to succeed, or to fail, it does not presume either outcome. The actual goal of this essay is, and always has been, to actually give blocked users a chance. And again, it is not intended to be directed at blocked users at all, as it unfortunately was in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Offer them one last windmill — Ched (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• There are some excellent ideas for alternative metaphors above (I laughed out loud at the plumbing one). But, I don't think this is going to address the problem – whatever realistically happens, there is still going to be the WP:ROPE shortcut hanging around, and it will necessarily continue to lead to a page where some sort of rope metaphor is used. The one chance to make a meaningful difference is to change that one rope metaphor. Surely, hanging yourself isn't the only way you can cock it up with a rope. You can tie yourself to some object using a nasty knot you can't untie, or you can get hopelessly entangled, or – if it's a skipping rope – trip yourself up. There must be other ways, too? – Uanfala (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest we just let the MfD resolve this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with HighInBC: the OP has been appropriately blocked and the "Incident" aspect of this thread is resolved. The discussion on ongoing use of the "rope" terminology is best resolved at the MfD page, where the current viable options are "keep" or "mark historical." Unless anyone has a further current incident to add, suggest closing this thread to centralise conversation over there. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Deleting comments by another editor from an article’s talk page

Good advice from B. Kliban
One apple every 8 hours will keep 3 doctors away -EEng

Zefr edited improperly and violated Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines when three times he edited to deleted parts of a discussion and an entire section from an article’s talk page: [20], [21], and [22]. I attempted to restore at least part of the missing content to the talk page, but that was deleted. The talk page as it stands now (Talk:An apple a day keeps the doctor away) has been edited by Zefr to delete comments of another editor (me) and to retain his own comments. This misrepresents the discussion. - Bitwixen (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bitwixen. Are you familiar with WP:NOTAFORUM? Did you really cite Larry Sanger in support of your point of view? Are you aware that Sanger has been consistently incorrect on every aspect of online encyclopedias for the past 19 years? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen, yes, of course, and thanks for noticing my wondering about Sanger, which certainly was not meant to support my point-of-view here, it actually has to do with a different topic, and I think an important topic worth discussing sometime. You may know more about Sanger than I do. - Bitwixen (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't noticed about 19 years. Is there any event or observance planned for next year, to commemorate Sanger being wrong for 20 years? More srsly, it's generally counterproductive to delete other people's talkpage comments unless they're way over the top. If they're just slightly inappropriate (i.e. drifting towards FORUM, which is quite common and usually innocent) and persist, it's better to leave the comments intact but maybe hat or archive the section, and ask the commenters to cut it out. If they don't persist then don't worry about it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User talk:2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99, I see you’re a very new editor, and only began editing in late July. Welcome. (If you don't mind, I’ll refer to you as “2601”?) You’re very tolerant on this particular issue, 2601, when you suggest that there are couple of ways an editor can “delete other people's talkpage comments”, first: If they’re “way over the top”, then it’s okay — just delete. The second way to delete content (according to you) is to weather the objections from other editors, but to “persist”, and if you’re persistent the others should not be bothered. That advice would certainly give editors another tool they can use. However, it doesn’t accord with the policy (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), which is not so tolerant. - Bitwixen (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually Bitwixen, I see contributions from this user on their /64 range going back to May, and if you widen it out to the /48 you'll see they've been active since at least January 2020 (I stopped looking at that point). Now, more importantly, what do you want to happen here? Zefr explained that they were removing content that they believed was not on-topic for the subject of the article. On the face of it, that seems like a sensible thing to do - there was no need for you to clutter up an article talk page with warning templates, for example. Was there anything that was directly related to the content of the article and its sourcing that was removed? Girth Summit _(blether) 13:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Girth Summit — I think the policy question is whether or not deleting comments by another editor from an article’s talk page is acceptable. Perhaps we need a consensus here on that question? It’s been suggested [above] by fellow editor 2601 that it’s okay to delete the comments of another editor if those comments are “way over the top”, and you, Girth, suggest that it might be sensible to delete comments by others if they’re not “on topic”. I personally think the policy that I linked to above should be followed, and the content should be restored, but I’ve restored the content, and it’s been deleted each time. If there’s not a word spoken here to stop it from being deleted again, it’s not just a question of restoring, but of voicing support for the Wikipedia policy. If on this notice board, we support disregarding the Wikipedia policy, and we accept that deleting others’ comments is a useful tool (in order to win consensus, for example), that makes a very strong statement. To respond specifically, Girth, to your point, when you said, “Zefr explained that they were removing content that they believed was not on-topic for the subject of the article. On the face of it, that seems like a sensible thing to do.” In fact, Zefr deleted comments that were on-topic, but claimed they were off-topic. Here’s one example: Zefr deleted this comment: “It is not a bad idea to ask if there is any truth to the saying ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away,’ the article could then point out what various reliable sources say, whether it’s good or bad or whatever. There are a number of reliable sources out there that weigh in on the topic.” And this regarding a source that Zefr deleted from the article: “In removing contentious, unsourced, unverifiable, derogatory comments (in the section just above this one) about Bahram H. Arjmandi — comments made by fellow editor Zefr, I believe I am following the policy found in the article Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons” - Bitwixen (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, WP:TALKOFFTOPIC allows for off-topic content to be moved to a more appropriate location, which I imagine is what Zefr was attempting to do. If a few on-topic comments got moved at the same time, you could just add them back on their own, it's not so big a deal that it needs reporting here. I've just read through the history of that talk page more thoroughly however, and I see you edit warring to remove part of Zefr's statement before any of that happened. You shouldn't have done that. If you have a concern that a statement by another editor is in violation of BLP policies, you should ask them to strike it themselves; if they refuse to do so, your recourse is to report it to WP:BLPN and ask someone else to review.

I also see you edit warring to add content to the article. You added material, based on what appear to be highly dubious sources (do I really see a 'wellness' blog there supporting content covered by MEDRS?); Zefr removed it and explained their concerns about the sourcing. You reinstated it, despite Zefr's explanation on the talk page, and you both then went back and forth a few times. If I'm honest, having read through the whole thing, I think you were the one whose editing led to the problems there.

The disruption has stopped, and I don't think there's anything that admins need to do here, but you should read back through the whole thing and reflect on what you could have done better. You're pretty new here, and you need to learn the ropes - you could learn a lot from an experienced editor like Zefr, if you were willing to listen to them. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Whatever the policies say about it being permissible to clerk other users' comments, Zefr is quite significantly in the wrong here. First, Bitwixen edited a portion of a comment by Zefr as a BLP violation, which they were not (BLP allows discussion of what may be contentious material when it is in the interest of article improvement, within reason) and Zefr reverted, but did so claiming that BLP doesn't apply to talk pages (it does). Bitwixen then tried to start a discussion about that issue, which was definitely related to that page (the incident occurred on that page, and started with a question about the article associated with that talk page), and Zefr just blanked the whole thing, declaring that it didn't belong there, right after having warned Bitwixen (on the talk page, again) not to edit other users' comments. After restoring Bitwixen's discussion on Bitwixen's user talk, Zefr replied to that discussion on the article talk page. Bitwixen tried again to start a discussion and Zefr did the same thing a second time. For one thing, Zefr needs to decide whether users are allowed to modify or relocate other users' comments or not; they can't get upset about a user modifying their comment and then turn around and modify someone else's comment. For what it's worth, I would treat this as BRD: Zefr attempted to redirect a discussion to Bitwixen's talk page, Bitwixen reverted and tried to start a discussion, and everything that happened from that point on very much should not have. I don't think either user behaved spectacularly here but it was Zefr throwing fuel on the fire. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: the way I read the history, Bitwixen's initial query was about whether or not to include specific information on medical plausibility to the article on the "apple a day" proverb, and that is certainly on-topic. There was no reason to move that off the talk page and Zefr shouldn't have tried. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  PEIsquirrel, fair enough - I came away with the impression that Bitwixen was being the more disruptive, but maybe I got lost in the back-and-forth editing of one another's posts. Edit warring is bad on both sides though, so you're right, Zefr wasn't blameless here. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit — you misrepresent the policy found on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which in truth does not allow editors to move content that is pertinent to the article being discussed. You mischaracterize certain comments as "off-topic" — even though the "on-topic" comments were directly quoted in the post just above yours. In your recent post you invent guidelines about how to handle a violation of WP:BLP, which do not agree with the actually guidelines–which in fact say "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." [The bold letters are from the WP:BLP guidelines.] Why have we gone so far off topic, anyway? (I ask that and include your free-ranging and uncalled for personal comments about myself, Girth.) This notification is about policy regarding editors deleting comments from an article's talk page, a practice that appears to have considerable support in this discussion–though not in the actual guidelines or WP policy. Your suggestion that anyone would follow the example of the particular editor you mentioned is, forgive me, way off. If you only knew. Girth, you are mistaken too often. To load up this discussion with a lot of extraneous issues has the effect of bloating and expanding potentially endlessly, and those editors who want to wander off in that way, have the advantage over anyone who would prefer to confine the discussion to the topic at hand. Giving support to rogue practices by editors, and mischaracterizing WP policy, does not support Wikipedia itself. - Bitwixen (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, you surely don't deny that some of the material was off-topic? Like a user page warning template? And commentary about Billy Goat Gruff? I have acknowledged that some of it may have been on-topic, and suggested that that could simply have been reinstated (without needing to come here).

Regarding the BLP policy, you are overlooking this part: Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. In other words - you need to be careful if you're going to get into an edit war citing BLP as an exemption. In my opinion, and that of Ivanvector above, that was not a BLP violation - Zefr was not writing defamatory material about the author of the source, he was criticising the source itself, and explaining why he felt it wasn't reliable. That's allowed. In borderline cases, you should get other opinions at BLPN, rather than refactoring other people's comments and edit warring about it. You were in the wrong there, and I can understand why Zefr appears to have become exasperated with you (while I do not think that entirely excuses their own edit warring afterwards).

I have made no personal comments about you yourself. I have criticised what you have done, and given you advice on how to do better. You were edit warring, and you were using unsuitable sources for the content you were adding, both of which you should not do.

So, if you want to get the discussion back on topic, I'll ask again: what is it that you want to happen here? What outcome are you looking for? You and Zefr engaged in a brief edit war, in which you both improperly refactored one another's talk page comments. It was over nearly two weeks ago. Neither of you are blocked, the talk page isn't protected from editing. What would you like us to do about it? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The topic here is stated by the section heading: “Deleting comments by another editor from an article’s talk page”. The examples I offered include repeated deletions of material that contains comments that are very pertinent to the topic of that article. (No one’s denied that.) I’ve said that I thought it might be good to get some consensus on that practice (of “deleting…” etc) . It appears that some editors here are in favor of the practice and some are not. And no one else seems to want to join in to tip the balance. So, I would say that we’ve gone as far as we can go. Unfortunately this discussion has become so filled with comments that are off-topic and that meander every which way, I think it has the unfortunate effect of discourage a proper discussion. Because it would be reasonable for an editor that might have something to say to look at this mountain of off-topic stuff and say: I’d rather not. It also might be discouraging for an editor to find that this Administrators' Noticeboard has become such a personal back-and-forth. I would not blame anyone for not wanting to step into the middle of something like that. The prior post is been nothing but off-topic rehashing. I know I have been very critical of Girth, and to specifically answer his latest question (which has already been asked and answered), I would say: Let it go — please don’t expect me to encourage any more. Anyone who wants to go off-topic, or have a personal, one-on-one, is welcome to do so on my talk page. - Bitwixen (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, I think that we can all agree that removing on-topic stuff is bad, and that removing off-topic stuff is sometimes permissible, but that people shouldn't edit war about it. I hope that we can all agree that you both did some things that weren't ideal, but that it hasn't risen to the level of needing any administrative intervention, particularly since it was two weeks ago. So yes, I think that letting it go and moving on is the best thing to do.

I'm sorry if you think I derailed whatever you were hoping would happen when you started this thread. As I read back through the discussion, I see myself attempting to answer your question by directing you to TALKOFFTOPIC, and advising you that if any on-topic material was removed, it could be reinstated. I then pointed out to you that edit warring over content in the article and stuff on the talk page was bad, commented on the sourcing you were using, and gave you some advice on how to handle borderline BLP issues better. All of that, while perhaps not directly addressing the question you asked, is relevant in the context of what happened. When users come to ANI with a complaint about another editor (which is what you seemed to be doing), we don't just look at the reported editor - we look at the whole situation. I then see you criticising me for saying what I did, which you're entitled to do, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect me not to respond to that criticism.

So, yeah - happy to let this go. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Dynamic IP introducing errors, copyvio and unsourced edits in Brazil footy-related articles

I'm not sure if this is the right forum and what can be done, but there's a user editing from a range of IP addresses making unconstructive edits on Brazil football-related articles. Here are some of the IP addresses, though I'm sure there are more:

• 2409:4073:4E1E:6EBF:0:0:B549:F913 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:296:4AF5:0:0:29F8:8AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:2E94:915D:0:0:B5C9:2B04 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:28F:D0:0:0:8B7:A8A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:2006:C08E:0:0:1243:80A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:2082:6B:0:0:2691:70AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:19A:E58C:0:0:25E7:8A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:2193:EF8F:0:0:15D:78A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:4D9F:A246:0:0:B549:9601 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:4E04:F7E:0:0:B549:6B13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

They almost exclusively edit the following articles:

• Brazil national football team
• Argentina–Brazil football rivalry
• List of international goals scored by Neymar

And they're blocked on Commons for uploading copyvio photos: Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tittto.

Since they're not editing any other articles, I don't think there's any serious harm done by a range block. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

2409:4073::/33 looks to be the appropriate range. It looks quite busy, perhaps partial rangeblocks from these articles would be better. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Oof, that is pretty busy and I guess article blocks would make sense, though they might be expanding their edits to other footy-related articles (see [23] and [24]). Ytoyoda (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Editing to add one more address from this range, used to vandalize Argentina national football team:
  • 2409:4073:4E80:A9F0:0:0:B509:A703 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Ytoyoda (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Request IP block for part of United Kingdom regarding article Batman: The Adventures Continue

Hi, I would like to request an IP block for part of the United Kingdom for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue

I know an IP block for a large geographical location may seem drastic, but there is an editor who persists on making bad edits to the page. This person appears to have a dynamic IP, all coming out of a general location in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue&action=history

A mix of registered users and IP editors have edited the page, but only the UK IPs are causing problems.

Please help! Thanks! Posters5 (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Diffs please of the problematic edits. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The UK IPs keep trying to add text about DC Comics characters being "introduced" into the continuity started by Batman The Animated Series, despite repeated reversions and information added to the Talk page. However, the UK IPs have ignored the edit reversion summaries and do not participate on the Talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue ). This is a problem going back several months now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1040767244&oldid=1040763591

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1039479309&oldid=1039445257

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1037931437&oldid=1037931225

The one time that the UK IPs provided an "explanation", they claimed that the previous comics were not part of "canon", but this is refuted by both relevant Wikipedia articles as well as the fact that in the introduction to one of the previous comics series, there's an editorial note which explicitly states that the comics are stories that take part in the same timeline as the Animated Series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1027431995&oldid=1027407481

https://i.postimg.cc/GLFCDYjj/Continuity.jpg

More recently, they decided to just copy-and-paste (plagiarize) advertising copy from DC Comics instead of helping write actual plot summaries of the comic book issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1040767296&oldid=1040767244

Thank you. Posters5 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the dispute, but I think I can translate the IP addresses for you. There are only two ranges: 2A00:23C5:5311:FE01::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2A00:23C8:5D00:ED01::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), and they appear to be in completely different parts of the country. I'm going to just ping TheresNoTime as they blocked another IP prominent in the article's history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Not really concerned about the American IP address as again, the problems are being caused by UK IPs (probably one person making edits while commuting or traveling). Posters5 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If the geolocation is correct this is unlikely to be one person as the addresses locate to Penarth in south Wales and Grimsby on the east coast of England. A journey between these places takes at least four hours so no-one is likely to be doing this as a commute. Neiltonks (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I dunno which IP trackers you guys are using, but I've seen any combination from both IP sets being located in Essex to both in the Greater London area. Either way, a UK IP ban isn't going to affect the article's quality. UK editors who are serious about improving Wikipedia will have a registered account already and won't be affected by an IP ban. Posters5 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

There isn't going to be any sort of "UK IP ban", because (a) the IP range of the UK is utterly massive and not even technically possible to block, and (b) it's much easier to semi-protect the article, which is what I have done. By the way, the quality of that article is utterly terrible and most of it is unsourced, so now that IPs are barred from it, that would be the perfect time to fix that problem. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't suggesting banning the entire country, just the two IP ranges that are consistently used. Thank you for the semi-protection.Posters5 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Geolocation in the UK is a crapshoot, the best conclusion you can reasonably derive from UK geolocation is that an address is "in the UK" or that it is "not in the UK". Anything more precise than that is a wild guess and should be taken as a wild guess. We don't have the technical means to block the entire IP space of an entire country (except Nigeria, it has weird allocations) and we would not do so anyway. Semiprotection is a good approach, but did you say there's a copyright violation there? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the UK IP editor copied and pasted advertising blurb from DC Connect in an attempt to replace legit plot summary. Posters5 (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's what the UK IP editor did, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue&oldid=1040763124 :

UK IP editor's summaries for Issues 3 and 4 (notice how he even copied and pasted the curly quotes): "The Hunter or the Hunted" (Issue 3): Batgirl sets off on the warpath after she learns Jimmy “The Jazzman” Peake is free and back out on the streets. She’ll do anything to capture him again especially after what Jazzman did to her father (in the BTAS episode "I Am the Night"), even if it means disobeying Batman. But can she capture the criminal before he’s taken by another mysterious vigilante; the Huntress hitting the scene? Peake played the piano while the Bertinelli family was being murdered, which is why Huntress wants to kill him.

Issue 4: After a body washes ashore at the Gotham docks, Batman hunts for a mysterious mercenary known simply as the Muscle. But can the Dark Knight protect the assassin’s next target: Detective Renee Montoya?

DC Connect #13, https://www.dccomics.com/comics/dc-connect-2020/dc-connect-13 Batgirl sets off on the warpath after she learns Jimmy “The Jazzman” Peake is free and back out on the streets. She’ll do anything to capture him again especially after what Jazzman did to her father, even if it means disobeying Batman. But can she capture the criminal before he’s taken by another mysterious vigilante hitting the scene?

DC Connect #14, https://www.dccomics.com/comics/dc-connect-2020/dc-connect-14 After a body washes ashore at the Gotham docks, Batman hunts for a mysterious mercenary known simply as the Muscle. But can the Dark Knight protect the assassin’s next target: Detective Renee Montoya? Posters5 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about Userboxes?

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

---

As someone that has had relatives murdered by this vile ideology known as Communism I am much dismayed to discover that this place seemingly permits users to endorse and support such ideologies of mass murder. I can't help but notice a definite double standard at play here. It bans support for ISIS, Nazism and Al Qaeda among others which is what you would expect but strangely it permits visible support for the ideologies also responsible for tens of millions of murderers - Communism and Maoism?

Why does Wikipedia permit people to visibly endorse such murderous ideologies via userboxes? I thought the policy on user boxes were they were not meant to be divisive? So how is visible support for an ideology of mass murder in which 100 million were slaughtered last century "not divisive". The co founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger has recently claimed that Wikipedia has a distinct left wing bias and with bullcrap like this allowed to go on who can blame him?

Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions states: Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

Surely users putting on their user pages their love of Communism, Maoism and other extremist ideologies is a direct contradiction of these rules?

Here are some of the highly offensive user boxes:

This user is a Communist.

This user identifies as a Maoist.

This user identifies as a Titoist

This user is a Communist.

This user is a Communist.
Workers of the world, unite!

This user is NOT communist, but instead supports communism.

I suggest those user boxes be removed as they promote nothing but division and revulsion among many users and clearly do not belong on an encyclopedia that is meant to be welcoming to all. Also I noticed no one has ever complained about my username despite it obviously lending support to a political party responsible for millions of murders. I chose it deliberately as a test to see if anyone would care, but apparently not. Its fine to name yourself after a political responsible for millions of deaths on here. Says a lot about bias on here...

OldBolshevik (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Does it really need to be pointed out that support for an economic system is not the same as support for authoritarianism? Number 57 18:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hint: quoting Larry Sanger is guaranteed not to advance your cause, even if you're not taking the piss. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The topic starter is best blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably connected to Leroy08. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; OldBolshevik (talk · contribs) indeffed, and Leroy08 (talk · contribs) tagged as a sock of OB (given that the OB account is older). GiantSnowman 18:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, GS. Aside from the socking, summarizing OP's 13 contribs, in order: #1 questions whether Gender pay gap is real; #2 PRODs WP:NONAZIS; #3-4 objects to calling it Migration Period instead of "Barbarian Invasions"; #5: calls Wikipedia biased; #6-7: complains of left-wing bias at Gab (social network); #8: corrects the color of the Nazi SD (Sicherheitsdienst) uniforms from "green" to "toxic green"; #9: creates user page with anti-communist userboxes; #10-13: this ANI. Good block. Levivich 18:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OldBolshevik, as an interesting thought experiment, imagine someone had posted this exact comment, but instead linked to these user boxes: 1, 2, 3, 4. One might say that any number of individuals from certain groups (1 2 3 4 5) would be equally upset about mass murders (1 2 3 4 5 6 7) perpetrated by various people (1 2 3 4) associated with the words in those userboxes throughout history. However, many on this wiki recognize that the ideas involved in the aforementioned userboxes are not inherently linked to the aforementioned massacres. This is, however, not true of Nazism or white nationalism, which are inherently linked to and necessitate atrocities against others (1 2 3 4). Do you, perhaps, see the difference?— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As a bystander, I do agree that userboxes declaring the support of Communism (the economic system) are allowed under the current userbox system. However, I do agree with OldBolshevik on one thing, and that's my concern with the maoist userbox. unlike the other boxes, this one specifically espouses support for a brutal dictator's ideology, economic or otherwise. in my opinion this box is more deserving of deletion. Feel free to respond or disagree. Sanix (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Mao has a controversial legacy at worst. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

At best. At worst he has a very dark legacy that goes beyond "controversial". — Czello 14:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but there others that are weirdly fetishising totalitarian regimes. There's some that paint a rewriting of history, 123 or outright opposing democratic movements and calling for the restoration of dictatorships, 4. There's also this one, which I'm guessing is trying to paint over the more reprehensible parts of Guevara's legacy. — Czello 14:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I predicted it & now it's coming to pass. Currently there's an attempt to delete some pride infoboxes (that MoD was closed, but a few editors who disagreed with the closure judgement, had the MoD re-opened) & now this. I'm hoping, monarchists don't begin an MoD, to demand 'pro-republic' messages be deleted from user pages. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Report regarding the RfC Talk:Persecution of Christians#RFC:Should the following be included

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

---

I report a situation that occurred at this RFC. I don't name anyone, because things seem to go smoothly now. I am reporting it, because I promised to the editors that was participating in the RfC that I will move it to a dispute resolution and because the problem might still be there, just silent for now. After spending some thought on it, I don't want to move it to a dispute resolution, because in my opinion it will be a waste of time for those people at this notice board. It will be way better if every body goes with the almost perfect consensus that exists. So, at this stage, I do not request any action, only your attention on this matter. I hope it's a good approach. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As the person not being named, I am unsure what this is for. This is not the place to seek a close of an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

[25]. this after 9 days of discussion about the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

And this [[26]] dismissal of my opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Category adder

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

---

Category adder (talk · contribs · count)

CA has been running amuck with adding genres he preferers. No sources, no discussions. Countless warnings/discussions on his talk. Someone with some time to look through his 'tribs. He causing a lot of work for editors cleaning up behind him. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked, which in this case does not mean "infinite"; simply acknowledging and explaining how to address the numerous concerns people have raised will suffice. The flippant comment in response to the last warning is what pushed me over the edge. If that happens, I have no problem with a unilateral unblock. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights Can his contributions be massed rolled back, please. Thanx - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 03:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Since mass rollback is a rather blunt tool, no objection to anyone restoring any individual category. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Visnelma allegedly violating WP:HARASSMENT

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

---

I was accused of harassment with this single edit. I want to know opinions of other editors on whether it violated WP:HARASSMENT. If you share your opinion, please explain how it violated the policy and why; feedback without reasoning is unuseful for me as I won't learn anything out of it. If you think there is another problem with this edit other than harassment, please share you opinion on my talk page instead of ANI. Thank you.

My thought on why it doesn't violate: Harassment policy clearly states that behaviour needs to be repetitive, including in "What harassment is not". I strongly think it needs to fit in the definition in the policy, as otherwise it would possibly cause users being false accused of harassment.--V. E. (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

P. S. If you say don't dispute issues related to other projects on English Wikipedia, I absolutely get that and don't object to that. My concern is to learn whether it violates harassment, and if yes, why. Because if it is a harrasment, and there is a reason for that, I don't want to repeat a similar thing in the future. Thank you.--V. E. (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Don't drag disputes from other projects onto this one. Whether it meets the policy definition of harassment or not is irrelevant, it's simply not acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Notified Dr. Coal on your behalf, as while they are not the direct subject of this notice, they are very closely related to it. Incidentally, I will say as an uninvolved and inexperienced editor, that I cannot see any positive resulting for you from bringing this matter here; less formal forums may be better suited for future discussions of this nature. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

• I'll say it explicitly, since the message does not seem to be getting through: yes, your edit was harassment. Note in the policy where it says "appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person" and "the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated". There is no constructive reason whatsoever for you to have followed the admin to an entirely different website and posted a diatribe against that user in an entirely different language, to advertise your dissatisfaction with that user to an audience who can do nothing about your issue. If you had any interest at all in a constructive resolution to a problem you're having on the Turkish Wikipedia, you would have attempted a resolution on the Turkish Wikipedia. If you keep this up, you will quickly find yourself with a problem on all of the Wikipedias. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

User RepublicanJones1952 WP:NOTHERE

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

---

RepublicanJones1952 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account's history consists entirely of rants about Wikipedia's supposed bias [27][28][29], nonviable edit proposals [30] [31][32] and removal of well-sourced content [33]. Their most recent comment [34] again complains about "leftist propaganda" and "DemocRATS", citing the NY Post even after being warned not to. Several editors including myself have reached out on their talk page with no response. Even if they do have a legitimate grievance, they're either unwilling or unable to work within our policies and guidelines. I think a block is in order here. –dlthewave ☎ 18:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, that "DemocRATS" line was enough for me. Indef'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

YeshuaAdoni is NOTHERE and promoting fringe content

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

On Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, they are insisting on promoting various "magnet" conspiracies [35]. They also appear to be promoting some Russian who claims to be creating anti-gravity devices [36]. The username also has clear religious themes. I think the user clearly is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I was not promoting magnet conspiracy theories. I posted recent news to the talk page and asked if it was relevant to the Wikipedia page. I made no edits to the page.

On Podkletnov's page, I posted peer a reviewed paper as a reference for content that had been on Wikipedia for decades. The peer reviewed paper was later cited by 21 other papers from different authors. The page in question is the author of the paper (and not a specific topic).

I have not made any edits regarding religion, or made any edits to Wikipedia religious pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YeshuaAdoni (talk • contribs)

I have not made any edits regarding religion, or made any edits to Wikipedia religious pages. [37] doesn't count? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I forgot I edited that page. Although a moderation thanked me for the edit.unsigned comment added by YeshuaAdoni

Here is another diff re: magnetism pseudoscience [38]. Just to add to this, the user has also been combative on their talk page, perceiving all DS/alerts and welcome templates as warnings/accusations about their conduct, even when carefully explained [39][40]. They firmly believe anti-gravity devices are not fringe. They have also introduced weasel wording into other antigravity articles to insert their POV [41]. I think this user needs a warning/clarification about what wikipedia is for.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I second the complaint regarding Eugene Podkletnov. The user seems to have no undertsanding of Wikipedia rules about our article content. The fact that a piece of pseudoscience based on primary sources sat in wikipedia unnoticed for decades does not mean it must be kept forever. However at the first glance the user made some reasonable edits as well. In any case, his edit history must be thoroughly reviewed because of what I said. The user is strongly recommended to review our policies about WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY , WP:FRINGE. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This all started after I pointing out new information on a Covid talk page (ie: Bell's palsy now listed as a warning in Canada) . After that it was like shaking a wasp nest. I did not even make a change to the page, it was just talk discussion.

I will stop editing Wikipedia, and spend my time and energy elsewhere.unsigned comment added by YeshuaAdoni

Legal threat at Talk:Bulgars

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

---

A new account has made a legal threat, because of your apparent refusal to accept other scientific data and opinions and to present them fairly in this site an official signal to the Prosecutor's office of Republic of Bulgaria has been made.[42] They are also being generally disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Clear legal threat, but I wonder what the Bulgarian Prosecutor's signal looks like? Does it light up the skies of Sofia? Dumuzid (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I wonder what Брус Уейн would make of that? Anyway, blocked for the threat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was probably a wicked sick drum line that carries over the Balkan mountains. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Valor Christian High School

Page protection and blocks requested--persistent attempts to remove sourced content, whitewashing. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

IP gets invited to all the parties now! El_C 11:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Faster than Thunder and WP:CIR

I have some competency concerns about the user Faster than Thunder.

• Cartoon Network and CBS - - pretty obviously unlikely that the two entities would be confused with each other
• Sitar - [43] - this is the most common use of "sitar"
• Glossary of Carnatic music - [44] - unnecessary pronunciation guides; Wiktionary serves this purpose just fine

User has also created Template:Inappropriate and added it to Double penetration dildo ([45]) in violation of WP:NODISCLAIMERS.

I get that this user is trying to help, but sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. Does this user's activity fall under WP:CIR? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

They've been here for 2 days, and have only made 15 edits. WP:Bite seems to apply here - I can't see anyone discussing these issues with the editor on their talk page but they've been dragged to ANI for a block? New editors are expected to make the occasional bad edit, it's when they don't listen to advice that it becomes problematic. As an aside their edit to Sitar looks completely correct to me, I don't understand why that was reverted. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:The Grand Delusion, did I miss where you discussed this with the editor? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that WP:BITE is the relevant guideline here. It is currently way too premature to consider any kind of WP:CIR action, and I also agree there was nothing wrong with the edit to Sitar. As far as I can tell, this is a new editor making new editor mistakes. Mz7 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd go further, and say that the edit to Sitar was excellent, and also showed advanced knowledge of guidelines. See MOS:HATNOTE#Linking to a disambiguation page (there isn't even a shortcut for that). Narky Blert (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This edit was obviously incorrect. There is something ineffably strange about this editor's pattern and relatively advanced knowledge of Wikipedia templates, etc. They're certainly worth keeping an eye on. Graham87 05:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. "Cutting" and "copying" are very different things in that context. Narky Blert (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean the template they made was a message box with some text in it, sorted into the incorrect category (which isn't noinclude'd out so the category will be added to articles too) which was a recreation of a template that has been repeatedly deleted over and over per WP:NODISCLAIMERS. I wouldn't exactly call that an "advanced knowledge of templates". Based on their userpage I assume that this is a younger editor making the common mistake of trying to move into technical and policy areas too quickly - it happens all the time. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That contributions list whiffs of dirty socks. Izno (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 2601:C8:281:8BB0:98:6E19:E26E:D546

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

---

2601:C8:281:8BB0:98:6E19:E26E:D546 (talk · contribs)

Keep adding unsourced content [46] [47] and also edit warring in the article Michigan Boy Boat [48] [49]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I just find out that the editor has a history of editing warring using range 2601:C8:281:8BB0:0:0:0:0/64, which was blocked six months ago. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably still allocated to the same person. Re-blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User:The Banner mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism

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

---

User:The Banner has reverted several of my edits, falsely describing them as vandalism. I have found that I am not the only person they have attacked in this way; here are some illustrations of their behaviour, two relating to my edits, the third to someone else's:

1. List of countries named after people
   1. [50] I removed an entry which incorrectly suggested that an actual historical person was a legendary figure
   2. [51] The Banner undid the edit without leaving an informative edit summary
   3. [52] The Banner accused me of vandalism
2. Aidy Boothroyd
   1. [53], [54], [55] I removed some recently-added unencyclopaedic text, changed a word to reflect a neutral point of view, and rewrote some ungrammatical text which lacked an encyclopaedic tone.
   2. [56] The Banner undid the edit with the summary "Revert vandalism"
   3. [57] The Banner further accused me of vandalism
3. Steaua București
   1. [58] User:8Dodo8 added some text to a disambiguation page.
   2. [59] The Banner undid their edit with the summary "Revert vandalism"
   3. [60] 8Dodo8 left a message for The Banner asking why they had been accused of vandalism
   4. [61] The Banner replied "Because it was"

I left the template {{uw-notvand}} on their talk page; they responded by saying "Hope you overcome your grief shortly". I commented on their incorrect claim of vandalism against User:8Dodo8 and said I would report any further instances that I saw of false claims of vandalism; they removed that message, and then shortly afterwards re-reverted several of my edits with further false claims of vandalism. So, as it seems to be a pattern of behaviour that they are doubling down on, I think it's necessary to report it here. Could the user please be strongly reminded that describing good-faith edits as vandalism is not acceptable? Thank you. 46.208.152.48 (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

A highly aggressive editor with edits that are at least questionable, like removing sources. This IP is clearly not a newbie, seeing how quick (s)he found its way to this page. The Banner talk 09:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

For example: here and here. The Banner talk 09:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You may disagree with my edits; you may not describe them as vandalism. Are you familiar with WP:VAND and WP:NOTVAND? 46.208.152.48 (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You know your abbreviations. But I can help to notice that you keep reverting. The Banner talk 10:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

He was already warned after calling me a vandal on Talk:Steaua București, I hope he changes his behaviour (and that also includes salty, arrogant remarks). Nothing else to say on this matter.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 10:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

(S)He is nicely fanning the flames on a discussion that had already died down. The Banner talk 10:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• On balance I agree with the IP here. Regarding St. Lucy, the debate seems to be whether a person who actually existed but whose life and accomplishments are mostly religious accounts of miracles should be considered a legendary figure or a historical one. That's a content dispute, not vandalism. Regarding Aidy Boothroyd, the IP's edits have generally reduced the amount of pretentious sports writer cliches (though I still dislike terms like "many pundits" and similar) and the major contention seems to be the sourced sentence labelling Boothroyd "Aidy Hoofroyd". Again, this is a content dispute and not vandalism. For Steau Bucharest, I generally agree that the disputed material is too much detail for a disambig page but the issue is being argued over by several other editors. Once again, a content dispute and not vandalism. Basically, you can't just go around labelling any edit you don't like as vandalism, because not one of these actually was. Reyk _YO! 10:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  That said, the IP does seem to be at 4RR on the Hoofroyd article, which I also don't approve of. Reyk _YO! 10:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  My edit was reverted without an explanation using rollback by User:Randykitty. I think it very likely that they saw User:The Banner's false accusation of vandalism and took it at face value. That just illustrates the damage that such bad-faith accusations can cause. Like I say, anyone is welcome to disagree with my edits, but nobody is welcome to describe good-faith edits as vandalism. Neither User:Randykitty nor User:The Banner has provided any sensible reason to undo my edits. 46.208.152.48 (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've restored my original edits three times, not four, by the way. 46.208.152.48 (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• I have to say that the IPs edits to Aidy Boothroyd are an improvement. The disparaging nickname for him, for example, was sourced to a local newspaper website that is 404 anyway, and an opinion column. They certainly weren't vandalism. I can't comment on Grote Reber as the IP doesn't make it clear why the paragraph they removed as "false" is actually false. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Edit: And the IP edits to List of countries named after people look correct as well - Saint Lucy is not unequivocally a legendary figure. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• The Banner clearly has no intention of changing voluntarily, so sanctions are needed here. Our community is hugely biased against unregistered contributors, but here we have one who is completely correct. It takes two to edit war, and neither of them should be doing so, but only one of the participants was acting constructively. From their talk page archives, The Banner seems to have a consistent astonishingly poor tone. Responses like this show the user is not interested in volunteering in a place with a collaborative atmosphere. Their accusations that the IP is "clearly not a newbie" is irrelevant, as volunteers are completely allowed to edit in the long-term without an account (and there are many good reasons for doing so).
  I support an indefinite block for The Banner for persistent incivility. They've been subject to an i-ban and blocked for edit warring in the past and yet they clearly continue engaging in regular edit wars (this is just the latest—look at their talk page archives). The block should be retracted as soon as The Banner makes (generously construed) a genuine apology for past incivility and explains what they will meaningfully do differently in the future. (Indefinite is not infinite. The Banner can be an excellent contributor, but only if they stop disrupting other volunteers who are acting in good faith.) — Bilorv (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not deny that in the past I had mental depressions causing me to loose self-control, what you can see in my block log. But since 2015 I had just one (1) fully warranted partial block, falling in the period that my mother was dying. I am working on myself but that the past now comes hunting me down is a bit sour. Note: this is not an excuse, but an explanation. The Banner talk 12:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry about your personal circumstances. My comments are related to things that have happened since 2020 (so definitely post-2015), including the i-ban, the diff I linked and your talk page archives; we can discount the partial block if you want but there's still a pattern of rude comments and being warned for edit warring. I am glad that you are taking my comment seriously, and that you are working on yourself. That's a major step to what I was hoping a block could achieve, but I think you can go a bit further. Complaints are being made about edits you made literally today, and I can't see you acknowledging a problem with your conduct.

If I can speculate a bit, what I'm getting the impression of is that you are seeing a lot of sockpuppetry, bad faith behaviour and trolling, and this is making you have your guards a bit too high when it comes to good faith behaviour and particularly to IPs and people approaching you with criticisms of your behaviour. A lot of editors are in that position (I have been, definitely), but it really causes problems for other people when you act that way. — Bilorv (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Banner, please fix this. Retract the warnings you shouldn't have issued, restore the edits you shouldn't have reverted, show the community you understand the difference between vandalism and WP:NOTVAND and that a sanction isn't necessary here. Levivich 12:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • My reverts on articles edited by the IP have all been reverted. My warnings at his/her talk page are also removed (as being trolling). Please advice me what should be done too. The Banner talk 13:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE by Zamuel2000m

Zamuel2000m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This new user seems to be here on a mission of Azerbaijanification, rather than here to build an encyclopedia.

He makes baseless interpretations of (mostly) primary sources, which he then spams on various talk pages;

[62] [63] [64] [65]

Inserts unsourced additions or Azerbaijani transliterations into articles;

[66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a possible sockpuppet of EljanM, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EljanM/Archive. Pushing Azerbaijani names and POV, very similar behavior. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I encountered this user before, but an AIV report I filed was closed as stale. The one behavior I notice for them is that they insist on using Latin instead of Arabic script for pre-1929 Azerbaijani-language translations (example diff). At their own talk page, they responded to a level-2 vandalism warning with similar OR and a few personal attacks accusing enwiki users like HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) of historical negationism. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians

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

---

There is an open Rfc [73] about the addition of content that it turns out was already in the article (since before 2020). That means, in my understanding, that the discussion must be about content removal, not addition, and the Rfc as it is stated is incorrectly stated and should be closed. I posted a diff showing that [74], but the author of the Rfc, Slatersteven (talk · contribs), refuses [75], and instead says I suggest you ask for a formal close at the appropriate venue. So that's what I am doing.

Discussion of this has been going on since 12 August [76] with consensus being reached and ignored. That is not the primary issue here, but perhaps it is still relevant to your decision. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

3Kingdoms

• 3Kingdoms (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• I. F. Stone
• Black genocide

I was edit-warring against 3Kingdoms, I admit it, but I will stop now. 3Kingdoms came into my view when they made some misrepresentations at Black genocide. I looked at other contributions and the same pattern emerged: removing text supporting legal abortion and adding text against abortion, to push the article out of balance. 3Kingdoms is very active in Catholic topics, and appears to use Wikipedia to push the Catholic viewpoint against abortion.

Outside of the abortion issue, at the biography page I. F. Stone, 3Kingdoms cited a primary source PDF from marxist.org which does not mention Stone at all. 3Kingdoms also cited the prize-winning book A Conspiracy So Immense by David Oshinsky who lists the name of Stone one time in passing, offering no in-depth discussion of Stone's knowledge or motivation. With these two very thin sources, 3Kingdoms pinned on Stone the false accusation that Stone knew about the Great Purge and other Soviet crimes before Stone signed a letter of support for better relations between USA–USSR.

We're both over the line of 3RR. I will stop reverting to restore peace. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

While I was reporting 3Kingdoms here, they were reporting me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Binksternet_reported_by_User:3Kingdoms_(Result:_). FYI. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of violating 3RR, when you were warned on multiple occasion to stop and I reverted your disruptive edits. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms: you clearly violated 3RR [77][78][79][80]. Binksternet’s edits don’t appear to be disruptive, although taken as a whole the same would be hard to say about your own edits... I think you need to do some soul searching here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Binksternet decided to just follow 3Kingdoms around and revert them on several pages. From what I can tell both broke 3RR on that one page which is not ideal to be sure. No one looks great. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I’m seeing just one page that it looks like they followed 3Kingdoms to. What do you see? Neither is an innocent party, I was expecting them both to earn a block from their little edit war but a merciful admin decided to protect the page instead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

So Black genocide, John Krol, We Charge Genocide, and I. F. Stone. PackMecEng (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You would appear to be right, from the subject matter this would however appear to fall under the correct uses of another editor’s edit history per WP:FOLLOWING specifically "correcting related problems on multiple articles.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking through the edits of 3Kingdoms to see whether they were pushing the same POV elsewhere, which turned out to be the case. WP:Hounding is the intent to cause "irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." My intent is to keep Wikipedia neutral by removing POV. The hounding guideline says, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That's what I was doing. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your POV is not necessary Wikipedia's POV. It is a stretch to say your views, that their POV is a problem, is an unambiguous violation of policy. So yes, you meet the definition of hounding it appears. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, WP:HOUNDING carves out exemptions for noticing a single editor has firm policy violations and noticing where else they violate that policy. That is, to my understanding, completely permitted, as long as the community agrees they were actual policy violations. In fact it's exactly what we do when an editor gets blocked for something like this: we go through their edits and figure out where else they violated that policy. I;'ve done it with plenty of SPAs. Not saying this user is an SPA, just saying it's not necessarily WP:HOUNDING. To be HOUNDING, it needs to involve harassment.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms, I'm baffled that you would make four reverts at I. F. Stone in the space of 20 minutes and then proceed to report your opponent (also at four reverts) at the edit warring noticeboard. I did consider blocking you only, and not Binksternet, since you are the one with substantial form for edit warring. You have four blocks for it in the past nine months, while Binksternet has not been blocked, for anything, since 2015. In the event, I protected the article and blocked nobody. But what were you thinking? Another admin could easily have made a different call. Bishonen | tålk 16:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC).

I thought that reverting edits is not breaking 3rr, clearly not the case, my bad. Regarding the other statement, Horse eye, what you think is legit comes across to me as "hounding" [81], maybe not the case, but that is what it comes across to me. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:39, 28 August 202

@Bishonen: ok, I was coming here to note their block records also. I probably would have made a different call. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms:, consider yourself very lucky. I'd have reached for this. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms please could you explain what you mean by I thought that reverting edits is not breaking 3rr - I'm scratching my head a bit. What did you think 3RR was? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I remember either reading or someone telling saying that restoring content that had been up for a while did not count, although likely they meant that more in the context of vandalism, so that was my bad. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverting clear cutobvious vandalism is indeed an exemption as explained in the policy page. This is why by now you need to actually read the policy and not just rely on something you half remember from what someone told you who might not even be right. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

(EC) 3Kingdoms, we give some latitude to new editors not understanding the rules but as mentioned by Bishonen you've already been blocked four times (well I'd say 3 since one was a modification) for it. Ignorance is no longer an acceptable excuse, you need to take responsibility for learning the rules especially around edit warring.

While there's clearly no excuse for Binksternet violating 3RR, they at least acknowledged they were wrong without any 'but' or whatever above. By comparison, instead of acknowleding you too were at fault above, you just said Binksternet shouldn't complain about you. As mentioned by Bishonen you even went as far as to complain about Binksternet to ANEW, and didn't mention you'd done the same thing.

At ANEW you've offered the silly excuse "I thought that reverting someone who broke 3rr did not count as myself breaking 3rr" [82]. This is coming about 3 days after someone warned you because you'd reached 3 reverts and you said "my latest edit that removed a part of the sentence for a different reason, with my previous revert. I do not consider that to be doing the same thing." [83]. I assume you didn't cross the bright-line after that, but it's still very concerning comment especially considering 3 reverts is not an entitlement.

The big red box in WP:3RR clearly says 'An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.' It makes it clear there are only some specific exemptions and none of these are for reverting someone who broke 3RR. If for some reason reading that still leads you to think that "removed a part of the sentence for a different reason" does not count as another revert or that "reverting someone who broke 3rr" is okay, seek clarification somewhere beforehand.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Well in that case I'm just gonna stop reverting all together. Clearly I've been headstrong and in the wrong even when others have been, no point in me getting into anymore and wasting people's time. My bad to all. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for 3Kingdoms: 0RR restriction for 6 months

3Kingdoms has offered to just stop reverting all together. I think that should be a formalized restriction. In this series of comments from last December, 3Kingdom was unblocked after committing not to edit war and confirming that they read and understood the edit warring policy. Since then, they were indef TBANned in March from the Arab–Israeli conflict area for edit warring, and blocked for a month in June for edit warring an American politics article. Their ArbE appeal of their TBAN in July failed because they had been edit warring in other areas and making comments that demonstrated further misunderstanding of the edit-warring policy. I have no reason to doubt their voluntary self-restriction, but I think it's important that the community hold this editor accountable for that commitment. I am hopeful to see more collaborative editing when reversion is off the table. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support 0RR. Yes, accountability is important here. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Honestly, I don't think that this gets to the roots of 3K's problems. They aren't particularly adept at handling controversial topic areas (which I mean, fair, there is a reason they get like that). If 3K focused their efforts on improving coverage of the nuts-and-bolts regarding theology and liturgy (stuff like this), rather than the intersection of Faith and politics, they certainly would have an easier time here. I know Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity could use the help! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • MJL, I don't know what the roots of the problems are, but edit warring does seem to be the stand out symptom. I am neutral for now on the idea of a more restrictive remedy, if that's what you're implying. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Firefangledfeathers: More like I want to see 3Kingdoms to voluntarily step out of such controversial areas. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying. I would advise the same. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: 3Kingdom's just reverted again at Black genocide with this edit, re-adding content that is disputed by other editors. There is ongoing discussion and it is clear that 3Kingdom's does not have consensus for inclusion. Part of me is thinking that ArbE would be a better venue for this discussion, but the problematic editing is happening across multiple DS topic areas. I would appreciate some guidance. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  My assumption is that 3Kingdom’s will once again claim not to realize that their edit counted as a revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  3Kingdom's recently self-reverted the above-mentioned edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: block 3Kingdoms

Proposal: block 3Kingdoms for the following set of events/claims:

• December 2020, Chetsford, in discussing unblocking 3Kingdoms, said: would you be willing to absolutely refrain from edit warring in the future if unblocked, as opposed to just trying to refrain? 3K responded: Yes I would refraim entirely. Chetsford then asked: can you verify your familiarity with the edit warring policy by linking to the applicable page in reply to this message? 3K responded: Yes here is the link. [84] I understand the three reverts rule applies in general. I thought it only applied if you were warned before.

• 3Kingdoms has said the following above: Do not accuse me of violating 3RR, when you were warned on multiple occasion to stop and I reverted your disruptive edits, I thought that reverting someone who broke 3rr did not count as myself breaking 3rr, I remember either reading or someone telling saying that restoring content that had been up for a while did not count, although likely they meant that more in the context of vandalism, so that was my bad, and finally on 28 August I'm just gonna stop reverting all together. Clearly I've been headstrong and in the wrong even when others have been, no point in me getting into anymore and wasting people's time. My bad to all.

• As Firefangledfeathers notes above, on 30 August, after saying all of the above, 3Kingdoms reverted again in this edit, re-adding content that is still disputed by other editors.

I feel as though the community is being taken for a ride here. And has been taken for a ride in the past by this user. If WP:NOTHERE does not apply (gaming the system), and the user really does have these broad and numerous misunderstandings of WP:3RR and WP:EW, even after repeatedly being notified about it and even asked to link to it to verify they have read it, then I believe WP:CIR applies.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Rasa husseyni

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

---

Rasa husseyni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user is vandalising countless articles by adding gibberish. All of his edits have been reverted by different users.

Some examples;

[85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90]

Clearly WP:NOTHERE.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition to vandalising existing pages he is also pointlessly making new ones such as [91] and made two more additional pages. His edits don't make any sense. Kailanmapper (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Anti-Greek chauvinism

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

---

User Jingiby is making anti-Greek edits, edit wars, and intimidating me—a new user. See Xanthi. This is abnormal! Napoleon Sumpter (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You've barely been on Wikipedia for 24 hrs. How do you know so quickly, about WP:ANI, reverting, etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

And... gone. El_C 18:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

NickWilson1964

NickWilson1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user added several copyright-violating images (now nominated for deletion on Commons) to articles. I reverted them as copyright violations, and now the user is spamming random discussions on my user talk page with personal attacks ([92], [93]). User is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --Sable232 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You reverted my own images of my own vehicles saying copyright violations. Just how did you yourself determine I violated copyright on my own pictures of my own cars???? Those are MY pictures of MY cars and I have posted them plenty of times on the internet. NickWilson1964 08/28/2021

So how did you determine the pictures were supposedly copyright violation? Did you just assume without contacting me the contributor?

NickWilson1964, first of all, you have made clear and unambiguous personal attacks against Sable232, which may still result in your account being blocked. Now, is there any reason why you have uploaded pictures which were very obviously created by photographing a computer screen? If they were your own pictures, why didn't you upload the original files? Girth Summit _(blether) 19:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Having said that, many of the pictures to appear to have been taken in the same physical location. The personal attacks are clearly completely unacceptable, and I don't blame Sable232 for their actions at all, but I would like to hear NW's explanation for the pics - there might be something in it. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

NickWilson1964, you were contacted on your talk page at Wikimedia Commons, which is where you uploaded the photos. If you have previously uploaded the photos to copyright restricted websites, then you have created a problem with their free licensing on Commons and Wikipedia. You should straighten things out at Commons where many of your photos have been nominated for deletion and several have already been deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 I do not have a clue how to navigate this stuff. I don't know how to get to the commons place to defend my own pictures and I am not sure it worth all the stress and frustration it's causing me because i wanted to share and add to a couple of post using my pictures of my cars. I am at a loss here and very stressed because sable assumed something without first verifying it as fact. and now I am the bad guy. How do I get to where you said to go???? I am not sure if any of my comments are posting anywhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NickWilson1964 (talk • contribs)

I've given NW a link to their commons talk page over on their talk page here, alongside a warning and some words of advice. I think this is a new user who is perplexed by our systems, and who got frustrated to discover that all their uploads were being deleted, and lashed out. I've warned them for the personal attacks, and advised them to engage on Commons. I'm not ready to block as NOTHERE - I think this is someone trying to help, and I actually buy their story about the images. Sable232, I appreciate that you were wronged by the abusive messages, but would you be willing to allow that to flow under the bridge? Girth Summit _(blether) 19:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@NickWilson1964: The Commons discussions should be linked at commons:User_talk:NickWilson1964, where there's an open discussion for the deletion of the images. I will say, for the record, that this is obviously a photo of a computer screen displaying a photo. Knowing where the original photo came from would be helpful. (And I don't blame you for not being able to figure out the Commons thing; it's a huge pain in the ass and isn't very intuitive). jp×g 19:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit - After seeing the explanation on Nick's user talk page, I agree that this does appear after all to be good-faith editing behind a lot of misunderstanding of Wikipedia/Commons. A succinct apology wouldn't go un-noticed, but regardless of that I'll consider the personal attacks to be past. --Sable232 (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that Sable232, thanks for taking that approach. I'm going to close this, but I hope that NW will be big enough to apologise for getting frustrated and insulting you. If it helps in any way, I was utterly daunted the first few times I tried to upload stuff on Commons - I can understand someone not knowing how to go about doing it properly, and getting frustrated when their stuff gets undone. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 20:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Undoing my close. I thought we were getting somewhere, but NW then decided to create a userpage which insulted Sable, and to continue haranguing Sable on their talk page. I've blocked for 31 hours, and deleted the userpage as G10. I won't reclose this myself, someone else can decide if this is over. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I was prepared to give a further explanation on NW's talk page about what I did and why, but I think in this case it would be more likely to fan the flames than extinguish them, at least at present. --Sable232 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sable232: I think it might warrant mentioning that, for at least one of the images, it seems to be pretty obviously his own photo, so the accusation (or even implication) of deliberate copyright violation would be completely untrue. I'm not sure how to interpret your comment here; as far as I can tell, he felt quite insulted by this specific thing, so I don't see how offering an apology for it would put more fuel on the fire. jp×g 20:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

profanity and hate speech from a new seldom used account

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Ida&diff=prev&oldid=1041141341&diffmode=source Can you just read what this person posted. They aren't here to build an encyclopedia. They have four edits total. One which got reverted in another article, one minor edit, the posting of this, and then reverting it a minute after posting it. Obviously some would check the history to see changes and see this though. Hate speech in it, so can someone erase the edit from public viewing? Dream Focus 22:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a ban evading editor, to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, do you have a particular editor in mind? I was thinking about a 4im warning, but if you have specific evidence of ban evasion I'd be willing to consider it. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No one in particular. Just intuition. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Confirmed to globally locked account, DunstanPuffin8502. I'll go block. --Yamla (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

And on through to Jrdyhrberg. --Yamla (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

15+ years on the 'pedia. I can very much see'em a mile away. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Revision deleted per WP:RD3. Miniapolis 23:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

NOTBROKEN or NOTHERE

Catchpoke (talk · contribs) appears to be playing by their own rules. At 2021-08-24T03:47:09, I reverted an edit and clearly pointed at WP:NOTBROKEN. Certes (talk · contribs) left a note at on the editor's talk page 2021-08-24 09:23:05 and explained the situation. Catchpoke's first edit back after the warning was not to acknowledge the error and seek clarifcation, but was to revert me. I reverted because of NOTBROKEN and left a second note on the editor's talk page. Catchpoke started Talk:Canadians#100, where it's clear the editor has no interest in acknowledging NOTBROKEN and believes that they are right in doing so. The editor then nominated the redirect for deletion and the rest of their edits have been to ignore NOTBROKEN and continue to remove the redirects. And now Meters (talk · contribs) has been drawn into the discussion because of Catchpoke's lack of civility toward me. The editor appears to be showing a general pattern of disruptive behaviour, treating editing as a battleground, has shown little or no interest in working collaboratively, and so is WP:NOTHERE to build an encylopedia. I'll let Meters address the incivility if they wish to comment.

I also see @Drmies: and others dealt with the editor in July. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's time to show that fellow the door. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Several of us have attempted to collaborate politely with this editor, mainly in now-blanked revisions of User talk:Catchpoke. Sadly, we don't seem to be succeeding. Certes (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I see why this thread was started. There has been a few more posts at Talk:Canadians that I didn't realize appeared.

My first reversion of walter's edit had the edit summary "the canadian lists are the only ones that list 100 in the name. this is meant to match other lists.". He reverted me next with an edit summary starting with "Not the point. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN and stop fisx ing redirects." so naturally, he was not specific so i did not understand the reason for the revision. I started a talk page discussion where I reiterated "the canadian lists were the only series of lists that listed 100 in their titles." Further paraphrasing myself: "It is true not all links to redirects need to be fixed ... This isn't the case for these links. For example, it is ok to leave the link for the binomial name of dog in instances where the scientific name is discussed." I also made another comment stating: But hovering over the link will reveal the "true" target for the page... which was responded with Not the point. The link is NOTBROKEN. If you get that changed, you may change this link. so it did not help clear my confusion. On my talk page walter suggests that i take the redirect to WP:RFD. I think this is a case of miscommunication. Catchpoke (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's be practical here. So far you've been out-numbered on this topic & so it's unlikely you're going to get your own way. So what's the point of doing edits, that'll be repeatedly reverted by different editors? GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

And the reluctance to actually read NOTHERE? Possibly more correctly, not acknowledging any of the points in it. And arguing against complying with it? Or the action of nominating the redirect for deletion? Or "fixing" all of the redirects earlier today? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I don't really see the benefits to your edits either? NOTBROKEN isn't a blanket reason to revert. Let them know about it for the future but unless reverting actually makes things better, it's pointless and leads to unnecessary conflict.

From NOTBROKEN: It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading and Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect. - considering that the redirect is an inaccurate title for the page, it could arguably be bypassed under both of these. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the may be reasons, but when the link is piped and the reader cannot see it, there's no reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: did you read what I quoted you? A reader can hover over the link to see the page that is linked to - and if that is misleading, it can be appropriate to bypass the redirect. This has been written at WP:NOTBROKEN for a while, and this looks like one of those cases to me. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I did read it, but not valid here, because it is not misleading in any of the cases here. Feel free how the link is more accurate when changing from [[List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada|major urban centres]] to [[List of census metropolitan areas and agglomerations in Canada|major urban centres]] as was done here or changing [[List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population|12th]] to [[List of the largest municipalities in Canada by population|12th]] as was done here and other edits this over the past several hours? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

One title accurately describes the linked article, the other does not. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion. So to be clear, which is more accurate: list of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population or list of the largest municipalities in Canada by population? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned about Catchpoke's behaviour. This seems to be the same sort of WP:IDHT (or rather "I don't agree with that, so everyone else is wrong and I'm going to do what I want") behaviour that resulted in the restriction from any edits relating to etymology enacted at ANI on July 23 by user:Drmies in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#User:Catchpoke. Since being made aware of other editor's concerns over his removal of redirects Catchpoke has attempted to get the redirect in question (List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada) deleted, and has made something like 70 additional removals of that redirect. That's WP:POINTY to the point of disruption.

My involvement in this was simply to warn Catchpoke for personal attacks made on Talk:Canadians [94] [95] [96] [97]. Catchpoke immediately blanked their talk page and asked me which comments I was referring to. Not much more I can say than I did on my talk page (Your last four edits to Talk:Canadians. You accused user:Walter Görlitz of being disingenuous and of WIKILAWYERING, and now you have progressed to calling him a troll and a hypocrite. You are well into personal attack territory now.) and on the article's talk page where Catchpoke's edits were being discussed (Already warned Catchpoke for personal attacks. User immediately deleted warning and showed up on my talk page to ask which comments... I would say there's some irony in calling someone else "disingenuous" too.) I find it very difficult to WP:AGF here. Meters (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you User:Elli for pointing out that "It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading" per WP:BRINT as I wasn't aware of this part of the WP:REDIRECT policy! Catchpoke (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I am honestly surprised that you still do not accept that your behaviour may just stray into the problematic, and instead cling to the word may in one editor's response to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess the problem is my using "bypass redirect" instead of "WP:BRINT" in the edit summary. Catchpoke (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRINT certainly justifies the three template edits. I support them; they're the sort of change I make myself whilst editing a navbox for other reasons. A perfect editor might cite BRINT in the edit summary but most of us don't bother, and I would never criticise anyone for failing to do. However, most of this thread is about article edits, to which WP:BRINT doesn't apply. Certes (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw that Catchpoke made an change to a link in a see also section, and I did not revert because it was in-line with BRINT. We could eventually commission a bot to convert all links in see also sections to {{annotated link}}, and most redirects do not have a {{short description}} to list there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify my previous comment. BRINT presumably stands for "Bypass Redirects In Navigational Templates", a navbox-only exception. But the section to which WP:BRINT redirects also recommends bypassing certain redirects in articles, such as some "See also"s and those with misleading hover text. The latter could well cover the "100 largest" changes. However, it would have been helpful to cite this guideline earlier, rather than making terse replies such as "hypocrite". It's also fair to say that we usually seek consensus before making a bulk change verging on WP:COSMETICBOT. Certes (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I was unfortunately igrnorant of WP:BRINT. However, if Walter was aware of BRINT, why didn't he explain that to me instead of saying "Not the point. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN and stop fisx ing redirects."? Is this an attempt to decieve and feign ignorance? Catchpoke (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• My psychiatrist says Wikipedia might not be a project to which Catchpoke can effectively contribute at his or her current level of maturity. EEng 16:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not every Wikipedia task is accessible to all of us, but I've suggested a few activities which may be suited to editors who focus on link improvement. Certes (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't appreciate User:EEng's sarcasm. He's been reported before for condoning murder.Catchpoke (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  And that, dear friends, is everything you need to know about this situation. (Be sure to click on murder in Catchpoke's post -- good times! -- and see the definitions of the word rebuttle elsewhere on the linked page.) EEng 19:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  I kind of like the MOS: pseudo-namespace tho... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Describing that brouhaha as "condoning murder" is either egregious bad faith or a stunning lack of familiarity with commonplace idioms. Just for the record, it makes me doubt everything else such an editor might say. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Well murder and suicide are very serious. I find this banter between the 3 of you very selfish. Catchpoke (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You're doing an excellent job of convincing me that I don't need to care about your opinions. I don't say this to be mean or insulting; I think the fact that persuasion is how Wikipedia works often gets lost. You could have made your point without a mischaracterization like "condoning murder," which has now made everything you say seem suspect to me. Do you see what I mean? Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, you shouldn't be telling other editors to gets lost! But you're right, if he hadn't made a fool of himself on the question of whether I condone murder, we could instead be concentrating on the more important question of whether I should go see a psychiatrist. EEng 20:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I felt WP:HOUNDED and the vitriol you wrote and admitted by saying that you are inherently unforgiving and vicious exhausted my patience.Catchpoke (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I do vaguely remember saying that. Any chance you could provide a diff for context? EEng 05:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

-EEng (with thanks to Atsme)

@Catchpoke: Besides the fact that I take both of those things seriously (and don't appreciate the accusation that I don't), I also take the topic of mental health seriously. I was not impressed when I saw how you told EEng to "go see a psychiatrist" here. As someone who actually does see a psychiatrist, I found that very offensive. If you have a problem with EEng, that's fine (take a number there lol). Making this about the status his mental health is where I draw a line. If you had said that to me, then I guarantee you that I wouldn't be taking it as lightly as EEng has. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Well ya know, it's all a matter of what you're used to. If I had a buck for every time someone told me I should see a psychiatrist, I'd have a million dollars -- which would then go into the pocket of my psyciatrist. So you really just can't win. EEng 12:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

[98] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the argument that in some cases (such as an {{R from misnomer}}), a working redirect linked in articles should be replaced. As the target page here isn't a list of 100 things, having a better link could be better. There are also other working redirects which for various reasons should probably be fixed (I note the frequently-targeted Her Majesty's Government).
That said: YOU MUST FIND CONSENSUS BEFORE DOING MASS CHANGES. This is not negotiable. There's a good chance Catchpoke gets a block here, but this must be a final warning. Some form of bot request or WikiProject discussion or policy discussion regarding when redirects should be fixed is the way forward. Doing more of these mass-changes as WP:Fait accompli is unacceptable, and an immediate block is necessary if it continues without discussion or against the consensus of a discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: medium term block for Catchpoke

As a totally uninvolved non-admin user, I propose a medium term block for Catchpoke for WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA as documented above. Length perhaps a week to a month? User has never been blocked before, but has been brought to ANI in the past (where he was given a restriction against editing the word "etymology"), and has committed many policy violations above despite warnings, in fact flagrantly in spite of warnings. This is despite having only been a registered user since March 2021 [99]. Interestingly, their second ever edit was to CSD another user's page [100]. That makes me suspect an SPI/CU may be in order... But I don't personally have the time or energy to file a case. If anyone else would like to, be my guest.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC) (edited 20:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC))

Thanks for the warning, and yes, I thought block evasion was a possibility. At the very least, it's an alternate account for this editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:NOTHERE applies. It seems to me that Catchpoke is making these edits in good faith, because they think they're improving the encyclopedia. And multiple editors have actually agreed with the edit under discussion (namely: Elli, above; Tavix, at the RfD; and me - I chimed in at Talk:Canadians#100). Their approach to dispute resolution has not been ideal, but I do think they're WP:HERE. Colin M (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

At that RfD, User:EurekaLott, an admin, states "but we should also tag it as a {{r from incorrect name}} and replace all incoming mainspace links". Catchpoke (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the provinces had this link but someone removed the links in agreement. Catchpoke (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's rare for a proposal like this (medium term block) to be enacted because we don't do punishment. Catchpoke needs to change to reduce the amount of disagreement with other editors (even if everyone else were wrong, you would still need to collaborate). If Catchpoke performs any further mass changes without prior consensus or violations of WP:NOTBROKEN, a number of admins including myself would be prepared to issue an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block that could be lifted after a convincing explanation is given about how they would avoid further problems. Debating whether NOTHERE is technically the correct term is not relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, It's rare for a proposal like this (medium term block) to be enacted because we don't do punishment. I guess I was hoping for it to be preventative so that they wouldn't be indef'd down the road. Because I would hate for Catchpoke not to get a chance to correct their behavior. But I do understand what you're saying (if there's gonna be a block for stuff like this, just indef), and I think El_C's indef with a theoretical unblock if/when firm and substantial assurances there will not be a repeat makes sense. It also matches the severity of the NPAs. I think in the future I'll just say "block" when it's clearly to the level of a block, and not propose any durations in situations like this. Thanks for the explanation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I blocked indef. There are too many personal attacks coupled with little awareness (still) of there being too many personal attacks. Will need some major assurances that this behaviour will not be repeated. "Condoning murder" — wow. El_C 09:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Numerous Issues

I'm having several, ongoing issues with two users. Joshuarshah is going around reverting people's correct edits on multiple pages, including Rogers Wireless. He edits the pages and either provides no sources supporting his edits, or the sources he provides are not reliable (such as forum posts). He also removes any attempts to discuss this issue on the article's talk page or his user talk page, and makes personal attacks. Some examples of this behavior: [101], [102].

Also, MrOllie is doing the same edit reverting on multiple pages, and is engaging in personal attacks in his edit descriptions. He is even editing other users' talk pages to remove items in discussion. Some examples of this: [103], [104], [105], [106]. As you can see, this user has a long history of vandalism, edit warring, and even blanking other users' talk pages. 2601:140:501:29D7:8CEA:D9E4:3507:8F79 (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, you have admitted that you have previously been blocked. What was that account or IP? Do you now have an active account? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 - Yes, it was a 7 day IP range block by NinjaRobotPirate. I do not have an account, and was unable to create one during the IP ban. When I previously contacted the admins about this, I was told that this was an IP address range that was shared with other users, and another IP address in the range had broken a rule, so the entire IP range was blocked to prevent vandalism. However, my issue here is with these two users reverting edits and making personal attacks. 2601:140:501:29D7:8CEA:D9E4:3507:8F79 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any personal attacks by MrOllie. Please quote the worst personal attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 - The primary issue with him is the edit warring and reverting of every edit I've made. He is also editing another user's talk page while we were trying to have an ongoing discussion. See here. He said that I was "harassing" and "block evading", likely confusing me with the other IP address that was banned. 2601:140:501:29D7:8CEA:D9E4:3507:8F79 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking at NinjaRobotPirate's rangblock here, which is clearly the range block in question, there appears to be a tremendous amount of information left out of the description above. There are multiple IPs in that range which are continuing the disruptive edits of the indefinitely blocked accounts Dnywlsh, Dv42202 and Dv4200. I appreciate that you're claiming to be someone else, but that dog just won't hunt. I was going to say that I've re-blocked that range as obvious block evasion, but Mr. Ninja beat me to it. Kuru (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

So that's the end of that. Thanks, Kuru. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Good morning everyone. I can confirm that 2601:140:501:29D7:8CEA:D9E4:3507:8F79 is Dnywlsh as this IP Address is currently bothering me on my talk page speaking on Dnywlsh's behalf Joshua Shah (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I also have not attacked anyone. Joshua Shah (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

• Goddess Helvetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Muhajir people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Muhajir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A user with the intention of replacing Muhajir (a common ethnic designator in Pakistan and even in other Muslim countries) and with the uncommon "Urdu-speaking" has disruptively edited multiple articles, to this end the user has disruptively moved pages repeatedly (e.g. 1, 2, 3) despite being reverted by different editors (the disruptive moves are not limited to this space either), created new cats to replace long-standing Muhajir ones; among other disruptions which clearly show WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Not a single reply or comment comes through the user explaining or wanting to discuss their edits.

The user should be topic banned from this space and moving rights be rescinded until they are willing to discuss their edits and an attempt at resolving/discussing the issues is shown, because the user does not seem to have any intention of doing that till now. Gotitbro (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a big notice at the top of the page requiring you to inform the user, {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~. You know where the {{trout}} are kept. Cabayi (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That was sloppy of me, thanks for handling that. Gotitbro (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, this is apparently about User:Goddess Helvetica. They moved a large number of pages recently, they do not leave any edit summary and they have not responded to complaints on their user talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

We have an article Urdu-speaking people about a term which seems exceptionally easy for almost all English speaking people to understand. The article Muhajir is about a far broader concept and is a term I never heard of until five minutes ago. How can it be disruptive to use a term that is widely understood as opposed to an ambiguous specialist term? Why bring this routine content dispute to ANI before trying other forms of dispute resolution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute but about editor behavior (see below). That Urdu-speaking people article is itself a contentious one, created fairly recently. Muhajir is a subtopic of and shouldn't be conflated. But that isn't the issue here, the issue is about the disruptive editing of the user. Gotitbro (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

An RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan might be a good place to resolve this dispute affecting many pages.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Arguments about what editors are familiar with or think is more apt is not the contention/issue here. This incident is about the specific editor's unwillingness to respond and discuss moves (including cut and paste cat moves) and repeatedly reinserting their edits and reverting editors without explaining the same or anything at all, i.e., no edit summaries, comments (even on their own talk page), or any explanations at all. This is basic WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour if any. Gotitbro (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. The recent edit/page move history of Muhajir people makes sorry reading. I knew at once that GH was the subject of this thread, because I'd reviewed their edits earlier today as a follow-up to Talk:Acre#Page move. Narky Blert (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: as far as not leaving edit summary is concerned, they seem sock of User:Dawood.XV as one of the sock of them Dawood.XV like User:Prince of Azerbaijan also did the same thing if you look theiir contributions similar edits and SPI is also opened where same reason is raised.59.103.203.239 (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Dragovit violating topic ban

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

---

User:Dragovit was indefinitely topic banned by the Wikipedia community from editing "in the areas of flags, coats of arms, and other national symbols, broadly construed" back in May, and yet barely 5 months later (before they were even eligible to appeal the topic ban), Dragovit is back to combing through Wikipedia articles at will, editing coats of arms and flags as if this entire discussion had never taken place.

What's more, after being invited to do so, Dragovit is now voting in a new RfC on the status of what flag should be used in the infobox for Austria-Hungary, despite being topic banned from the issue at hand. White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for one month for obvious topic ban violations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: What about the editor that invited Dragovit to participate? Is that actionable? Mjroots (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, is there any evidence that editor knew about the topic ban, as opposed to knowing of their interest in flags? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: - I'm going to assume that there isn't. Maybe worth a general warning re canvassing though. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, the summary of the policy is When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. In this case, the notification was complety neutral and it was sent to six editors. I do not know enough about flag controversies to conclude that these six were selected for biased reasons, so I am not going to warn this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Multiple IPs making possible unconstructive edits (second round)

A couple of IP users, some of which have been blocked for two times (e.g. this one), including IP ranges (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) (probably used by the same person), have repeatedly made unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Some edits have clearly violated the RfC consensus. (like this one and this one) and others include unexplained removal of content (like this one and this one). Moreover, the IP user is simply unwilling to stop despite warning messages on the talk page.

P.S. This is the ANI archive regarding the IP user just two months ago. --HypVol (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Off topic diversion

Note https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=History_of_Asia&users=Drill+it&users=Safari+web&users=HypVol&server=enwiki & https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Hong_Kong&users=Drill+it&users=Safari+web&users=HypVol&server=enwiki. He may use sock puppets to avoid directly participating in editing wars.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC) You are not a check user and these are only groundless speculations. --HypVol (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Add another https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=Democracy_movements_of_China&users=Drill+it&users=Safari+web&users=HypVol&server=enwiki The participating sock puppets are Special:Contributions/Safari_web and Special:Contributions/Safari_web--61.224.26.142 (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Let me make it clear, I have never and will never use any sock puppets on Wikipedia. And your groundless accusations have nothing to do with my complaint of the Taiwanese IP here. --HypVol (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Isn't it obvious? Those sock puppets help you avoid 3RR.From my point of view, because two accounts have been blocked, it will be obvious to use other sock puppets, so you use your account for editing wars.In addition, I want to make another point. I’ll be back later, I want to find the link first.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC) If you are confident about your groundless accusations, take it to WP:SPI and let the Checkuser decide, instead of IP users like you. --HypVol (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Safari_web Special:Contributions/Safari_web registered at 15:12, 2 August 2021.After that, Special:Contributions/Safari_web began to actively participate in the editing war, and Special:Contributions/HypVol also appeared at this time and made more than 100 edits within 2 days(08:08, 3 August 2021 to 05:37, 4 August 2021) .--61.224.26.142 (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Take it to WP:SPI, please. --HypVol (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Coincidentally, the same phenomenon occurred on another date, which is 30 June 2021.And this happened to be the time when Special:Contributions/Drill_it assisted Special:Contributions/HypVol in editing the war. After that, Special:Contributions/HypVol edited more than 100 times (11:26, 29 June 2021 to 16:51, 30 June 2021).Why does Socks help him in the editing war, Special:Contributions/HypVol's editors always increase so fast?I am very interested in this.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC) The bulletin board above clearly state: To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.. So take it to WP:SPI. --HypVol (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Then I want to raise another topic. After reading your early edits, I found that you seem to be keen to eliminate traditional Chinese or increase the priority of simplified Chinese, and your talk page history also has related records. You even did similar things in different wiki projects. Because you will delete my message on your talk page, I will directly question you here.Another thing to question is why you are keen to delete the Hong Kong-related classification and replace it with the Chinese classification. The two are not incompatible.I found that if no one questions you or initiates a discussion, you will start an editing war. It seems that this is one of your editing habits.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Then I want to raise another topic. You haven't take your sock accusations to SPI, which is the right place to go. Why?--HypVol (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC) From my point of view, you want to delete the content of this page like your talk page to avoid being noticed by too many users that there may be sock puppets intervening in your editing wars.Because you deleted most of the discussions on your talk page, I think only this page will make you more serious reply.In addition, I do not have the authorization to edit SPI.So if you ask me to edit SPI, I don’t have the ability to do it.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC) WP:BLANKING, a content guideline that editors should attempt to follow, explicitly state that Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages and There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. Since I have read your accusations, it is definitely OK for me to removal messages on MY OWN talk page. And you have done exactly the SAME thing for two times. (first and second) Please stop applying double standard. Moreover, you may register an account to open an investigation on WP:SPI. This is not a valid excuse.--HypVol (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC) I found that you did not respond to the point, but you copied the content on our talk page here.You don't have the right to ask me to register (you can suggest), just as you don't have the right to delete the comments here.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC) You also don't have the right to dictate what I comment here. And I didn't ask you to register an account, please note I used the word may, which means suggestion. --HypVol (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You refused to respond to my queries and repeatedly raised your needs.Since our communication is invalid, these contents are left to other administrators to judge.Hope there will be no sock puppets or you remove these discussions.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't note { { cob } } here.--61.224.26.142 (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If there's an editor who needs a block here it's HypVol for a persistent pattern of disruptive editing and POV pushing with respect to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. Some examples:

• Replacing neutrally worded 'see also' notes with ridiculous 'Hong Kong belongs to China' POV pushing in templates: [107] [108]
• Replacing the flag of Hong Kong with the flag of china in a list of universities, next to the university of Hong Kong: [109]
• Systematically whitewashing articles to remove all mention of the Special Administrative Region status of Hong Kong: [110]
• Sorting a huge number of articles on various things in Hong Kong into "China foo" categories: [111] [112] [113]
• Removing Portal:Hong Kong from Category:Portals by country because "Hong Kong isn't a country": [114]
• Recategorising people from Hong Kong into the categories for mainland china: [115]
• Across a huge number of templates removing all mentions of Hong Kong being a SAR and merging their topics into the sections on mainland china: [116] [117]
• Changing a huge number of "Hong Kong Foo" categories from being "Foo by nationality" categories to being subcategories of "China Foo": [118] [119] [120]

Taken together the sum total of their contributions show a distinct pattern of POV pushing that makes it clear that this editor is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopaedia. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: OP's diffs are not depicting the IP contravening RFC consensus, if this is the RFC OP is referring to. It ended in no consensus, case by case basis in April 2020. Also worth saying, while some of the diffs provided by OP here are indeed problematic (particularly this one from IP [121]), I am even more troubled by the diffs the IP has provided of HypVol, which do appear to systematically represent Hong Kong as a purely Chinese entity not separate or autonomous, which it still very much is. A fully fledged government with its own passports and currency and culture. We must be careful to represent Hong Kong as an independent entity, but one that is still a part of China, as that is the established consensus on the relevant talk pages.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: just to be clear, I (the IP that provided the diffs) am not the same editor that HypVol brought here. I came across this editor a couple of times in template space, most recently today when they removed History of the United Kingdom from Template:History of Hong Kong, claiming that it wasn't relevant because "UK no longer Hong Kong's suzerain state" [122]. I also want to be clear that I only provided a small number of problematic diffs - if you look through their contributions basically their entire edit history here has been POV pushing. Some more diffs for those who are interested:

• Describing the flag of Macau as a "regional flag": [123]
• Modifying the location of Macau to imply it's uncontroversialy a part of mainland china: [124]
• Adding some rather POV-pushy leads to a couple of articles on Taiwan's international relations, stating how country X does not recognise Taiwan, it's part of china: [125] [126]
• Adding two countries reactions that supported the Xinjiang internment camps then tagging nearly every entry in the list of people there as needing a citation (which can be found by visiting the articles): [127] [128] [129]
• Removing see also links on controversies from china related articles [130]

Again this isn't an exhaustive list, but taken together they show a distinct pattern of POV pushing. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. It is sometimes difficult to tell with IP addresses. But I see now that you are indeed a different range. Thanks for the reminder. Keep in mind that many editors do not distinguish, since it is so easy to use novel proxies or masking services to jump around on different IP addresses. Companies make them faster than wikipedia can block them. Another reason why you might want to consider making an account! :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

spooky IP editor

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

---

Perhaps this is nothing, but I was spooked, so I wanted to get some guidance.

Today, 109.79.160.61 (talk · contribs) came to my talk page to discuss an edit I made (this isn't about our discussion per se). I rarely encounter IP editors who are so verbose, and after a couple of back-and-forth replies, I checked their contributions out of curiosity and saw a lot of purple links there. In the single day they've been editing, the IP editor hit a lot of the same pages I do. It weirded me out, and so I checked what our recommended process was for something like this. WP:HOUND pointed me towards this tool where I found that in a single day, that IP has overlapped at least six pages I've edited in the last two months (not including—for examine—where I edited WUKY and they then edited the talk page). Furthermore, this apparently experienced IP editor just appeared from the æther and began following my edits? In addition to the prima facie unsettling nature, I wonder if I've upset or annoyed an otherwise registered editor who's logged out to unnerve me and/or create a "second voice" to agree about their original grievance.

In the meantime, I'm going to stop interacting with the editor at my page because I don't want to introduce confusion by having two (albeit wholly different) discussions with/about them. I'd really appreciate any assistance offered. Thanks! (I'll drop the {{ANI-notice}} after saving this page.) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. For what it's worth, given the IP editor's reply below, I just want to reiterate that I'm not here about our discussion regarding my edits; that has no need for an administrator that I can see. I'm just asking for input regarding the eerie confluence between pages I've edited and an IP editor with less than three hours of contributory history. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a banned evading editor. Otherwise, how could he/she learn so much about the project, in less the 24 hrs. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have encountered Fourthords before, yes. I've also edited the Popeye (film) article before, and a lot of other film articles and recently Star Trek articles. He has made a mistake, one that could have been easily avoided if he had read the article before deleting.[131] There was also a previous note on his talk page that questioned his deletes. My comments were critical of his actions, his deletes. I can understand his frustration at text not being properly verified and his reluctance to use {{citation needed}} tags but asking him to read the article before deleting is not asking much. Maybe I could have handled it differently and let it go but the response from Fourthords was as if he did not see he had made any kind of a mistake, pointing to the specifics of the rules rather than the principle of trying to improve the article.

If you believe I'm a banned editor you should report me, but I am just a user who chooses to edit anonymously and I have done so for a long time. Sometimes I get annoyed by editors not following the rules, or in this case interpreting them in way that does not seem to be about making the articles better. I have tried to follow the rules and I have tried to be polite. Perhaps there are some rules I am not aware of or should reread but I don't think it was unreasonable to criticize a large delete that could have easily been avoided. I don't think there is an need to escalate this further. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay (talk · contribs) just made a huge revert to Popeye (film) without even an edit summary to explain why.[132] This reverted back to and repeated the big unnecessary deletes that Fourthords had made. Please explain. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Because your edits weren't necessary & you still haven't told us who you are or were. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I explained each of my edits with an edit summary I hope was clear enough. The edits seemed necessary to improve the sourcing and address the issues that prompted Fourthords to delete those paragraphs, rightly or wrongly.

I was not under the impression that there was any requirement to disclose who I am, and you did not ask. More importantly I cannot disprove a negative, if you believe I am a sock puppet and I point to one account it will not prove anything, you will just think I have some other hidden account. 109.79.160.61 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You've only been on Wikipedia for less the 24 hrs. There's no possible way you would have learned the project's inner workings, so quickly. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: 109.79 has made it clear that they have not been on Wikipedia for less than 24 hours.^[133][134] In fact, I took a look at their range and saw hundreds of edits just from this month.
What we have here is a medium-term experienced anonymous user checking the contributions of a longer-term experienced user because the anonymous user saw the longer-term user made a few of the same mistakes.
@Fourthords: You're fine. This is just a case of an anonymous user acting just like a user with an account, and you probably aren't as used to that? They are on a dynamic range, so if you want to see what the rest of their contributions were (which go back at least a few months from what I can tell), you have to visit Special:Contributions/109.79.160.61/16 (it'd be /64 for an IPv6 address - to oversimplify things). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Something is amiss & it's only going to get worst, until it's corrected or the IP reveals his/her registered account. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I really doubt they have one. There's too much activity on their range that is obviously coming from a single individual (like somewhere near 500 edits in a single month.. that's quite a lot). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My intuition about these things, are rarely wrong. Meanwhile, suggest somebody encourage the individual to create an account, if we're assuming he/she doesn't already have one. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Fourthords inserted a P.S. note above (after I made my reply) so I will try to explain further. I do not think you can separate the actions from the problem here. I was responding to the deleting the good faith work of other editors without due care.
I was looking at pages I had edited before and I looked at Popeye and noticed a big delete. The deleted text seemed to be probably correct but the was not a reference at the end of every paragraph but it could have been clearer and from even a brief skim read it seemed like the book references were the source.[135] Reading the article more again more carefully it was clear the books were the source.[136] I reverted and made improvements, I worked on the article for about an hour, improving other sources too. I considered if it was worth saying anything on Fourthords talk page. I edited some other things too. Then I looked at Fourthords recent edit history for other large deletes, there were a few, and I saw a complaint on his talk page about deletes. It looked like a pattern and it did not look like he was being careful. I decided that the editor was not taking a reasonable amount of care and that it was appropriate to point out that his delete was a mistake.
I had hoped I would not need to escalate this any further or accuse him of careless disruptive editing. I had hoped he might acknowledge that a mistake was made, people are tired, mistakes happen. I had hoped that in future he might read the text of an article and when the things on balance look like they are probably true, use a {{citation needed}} tag next time instead.
Deleting things is very easy, too easy probably. Improving articles is a lot harder. I don't think it is asking much for editors to take care before making large deletes. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. IP blocked for hounding using a suspect account. El_C 17:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/109.79.160.61

Moved from User talk:El C

I just commented at AN/I, but I only now just noticed you blocked 109.79. I think this was a misunderstanding because from what I can tell since 109.79 is actually an experienced user (not a sockpuppet) who had a pretty legitimate reason for doing what they did (certainly weren't ever warned against it at least). I really don't think blocking them was the right call here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say they were a sock. But if they are an experienced user, how do you justify their logged out editing that hounds another user? El_C 17:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

MJL, please feel free to refactor this exchange onto the ANI thread. Probably better we discuss it in that wider forum than split the discussion over here. El_C 17:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) All of their experience is logged out editing. They've been editing Star Trek articles for at least more than a month (it's all on their range)

(2) editorinteract.py showed me two diffs: [137] and [138]. Besides the explicit mention of Talk:WUKY, those were the only examples I could find of following.

(3) All three show the same exact pattern of 109.79 simply trying to restore removed text, and I can't see in that as anything nefarious. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked with apologies. Again, sorry, IP, for having misread the situation. Thanks for being quick on the draw, MJL. El_C 17:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. But, it's in administrators hands, not mine. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, as I noted on my talk page, when in doubt, I'd rather err on the side of good faith (i.e. before going the WP:PACT route). El_C 18:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may be worth having a brief read of these essays. There has been no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that the IP user is anything other than simply an IP user. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 18:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, this isn't the first time in the last few days that you've assumed an IP was a sock without any reason. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. But you've got no proof, as you're not a CU. This time, you reverted them and actually made the article worse. I'd strongly suggest you actually look at the edit you're actually making first, and not assume that an IP is automatically wrong - or perhaps, y'know, leave it to the administrators to sort out. This is even worse in this case because you don't appear to understand how IP ranges work. ("You've only been on Wikipedia for less the 24 hrs. There's no possible way you would have learned the project's inner workings, so quickly.") We have blocked editors in the past for such repeated displays of bad faith. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I've not repeated 'said' revert, since & sincerely hope I'm incorrect about the IP's identity. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Black Kite is referring to these reverts: [139][140] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I was/am aware of that. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to take the block personally, I expected that I'd have to pause until this was talked out. As an anon IP user I accept that I am frequently going to be judged with suspicion, but frankly named editors should be judged with skepticism too. After editing this way for years I prefer editing as anon and it think it helps put the focus on the edits and not a person. (You might note that I've an old comment on the Popeye article talk from 2017 as I have long standing concerns about Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic making it look like reviews for the film were mixed, but I've only recently managed to find decent source making it clear it was panned after I went reading more about Robert Altman instead of trying to directly find sources about the film.)
I accept I could have handled this better and done more to to avoid even the appearance of WP:HOUND but again I don't think you can separate my actions from the careless deletes that prompted them. I hope others will admit their mistakes and be more careful before deleting in future. If we weren't living in plague times I'd make more of an effort to go outside and do something else instead.
Note to user GoodDay, maybe you know this already but if you add /16 after an IP address Special:Contributions/109.79.160.61/16 you can see other edits from people in the same range, and quite a lot of them are mine, especially the one that attempt to provide clear edit summaries explaining what they are trying to do. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@109.79: I'm just glad you're in good enough spirits and have not let this deter you from continuing to contribute. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

People carelessly deleting the good faith efforts of other editors is more likely to discourage me than people calling me out for making a mistake or administrators trying to keep order and enforce the rules. I didn't quit the Wikipedia habit even after I quit having an account, it has been many years since then. I edit only sporadically anyway, it might be tomorrow, it might be next week. I will try to check this thread again tomorrow in case there are any follow-up questions from administrators, or any advice about how I might have better dealt with the disruptive deletes. We disagreed, we discussed, we go on. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Somebody should either close or archive this report. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User:2804:D4B:9AEF:A700:F89B:BBDB:AD9E:F22B

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

---

2804:D4B:9AEF:A700:F89B:BBDB:AD9E:F22B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Despite warnings on their talk page and a series of reverts of their edits, this user continues to make unsourced edits to Personnel sections at Beatles song articles. The edits make no sense – eg crediting drummer Ringo Starr as contributing on various saxophones or as a lead guitarist and string and brass player – and appear purely disruptive. I'd put this down to a case of WP:NOTHERE. JG66 (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:JG66 and thank them for reporting the issue here. This IP started on the 27th and has not made any constructive edits. What is also very concerning is they remove references. S0091 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 17:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Copyright violating external links by Ethanchandlershaw

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

---

Ethanchandlershaw has been repeatedly, for months, adding links to external websites hosting what appears to be copyright-violating copies of film and television works. For example, from the several done today, this edit, which (in addition to several copy edits, including one incorrect introduction of fact) provided a link to an archive.org page that appears to have the full content of two Walt Disney theatrical releases, with the claim that they are "by Ethan Shaw, Walt Disney" and that they have been released under a Creative Commons license. It doesn't take much knowledge of the Walt Disney Corporation to assume that they are not actually releasing full theatrical animated films under such a license. He has been warned about this activity in February by VictorTorres2002, and in May, and June by myself. (I also posted a warning earlier today before realizing he'd had enough warnings in the past.) Other such examples from today on three articles on Sesame Street specials. I recommend a block. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 17:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Uncooperative behavior and revert war of Pisarz12345 (talk · contribs)

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

---

A while ago the juser created a page about a rare Slavic name Jaczemir. Apparently this person is a big fan of The Witcher. I (und user:Nikkimaria) cleaned the article of inappropriate content, but this person keeps reverting to the text of their liking, without responding neither in article talk, not in user talk pages. I didn't pay attention before, but today I noticed that the user was already warned about this kind of behavior multiple times and even blocked twice. IMO time to escalate the blocks. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. They also keep removing my warnings from their user talk, meaning they are aware of the issue, but prefer to disregard it. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Partial block. El_C 21:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, Witcher 3 was so much fun (gotta replay it one of these days), but I think it killed my video card at the time, which was a quite formidable card. So, had to get a new card midway through the game (of the same specs, but instead of 2 fans, it had 3). Anyway... El_C 22:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Fanman01

• Fanman01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Closing Time (Semisonic song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Fanman01 has been introducing uncited information to Closing Time (Semisonic song) for some time now, most notably that it is Semisonic's signature song. I have left them multiple warnings on their talk page that they need to cite the information they introduce to the article, but this user is unwilling to respond and continues to make these disruptive edits. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 21:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

ResolutionsPerMinute, please take a look at List of signature songs which includes a reference to a source verifying this claim. A quick Google search produced half a dozen other sources as well. Verifiabilty says a claim must be verifiable (which it is), not verified now. Instead of placing those warnings and writing an ANI report, why not just add a reference and move on? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

After reading the editor's talk page, I see that you have accused them of vandalism. Adding correct but unreferenced content is not vandalism. Please do not make false accusations of vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Sheredeccan and disruption

Sheredeccan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been here for about a month and nearly all of their contributions are disruptive usually involving original research and disregard for reliable sources. Despite multiple warnings and explanatory messages they have neither changed their behavior nor engaged in communication. They also seem to be solely dedicated to the topic area of Hyderabad State, maybe some form of Pakistani nationalist pov pushing? Some diffs are as follows but honestly if one clicks any of their edits it'd stand as an example, date and time are in IST.

• 00:48, 31 July 2021 Removal based on original research on the article of Mir Osman Ali Khan.
• 23:20, 16 August 2021 Plain disruption on Deccan. I think they were trying to create a fork of Deccan Plateau but gave up?
• 02:38, 17 August 2021 Same as first on Ravi Narayana Reddy. There are a lot of other similar ones.
• 01:47, 30 August 2021 Addition of Template:Pakistani cuisine on the page of Hyderabadi cuisine, an IP added the Hyderabadi cuisine to the template on 01:45, 30 August 2021. Pretty much original research, note that there is no reference of Pakistan on the page, the region is not even disputed territory.
• 02:05, 30 August 2021 Addition of three lines; one unsourced, one fails verification and a poorly sourced one on Telangana Rebellion. There are persistent with this one, I left multiple messages on their talk page but they didn't bother to respond.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the edits might result from confusion between Hyderabad, Telangana (southeast India, pop. 6.8M) and Hyderabad, Sindh (south Pakistan, pop. 1.7M); both regional capitals, but 853 mi (1,373 km) apart. It's not an uncommon mistake, and I've made a note to check the WP:PTOPIC for bad bluelinks. Narky Blert (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert against consensus

• [141]

User:ATS, is clearly not happy that their preferred version does not appear on the page. ATS posted about the close on my talk page. I responded on their talk page and they shifted through their comments to apparently try to create a straw man argument in order to justify reverting the close result.

If the community would like to examine the closure, I'm fine with that, but reverting a close for one's preferred version is simple WP:DE. - jc37 05:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Response by ATS

1: the claimed "consensus" is false—see article talk;

2: editor's change is an effective revert to the first unstable version that led to the discussion—article was stable with the exception of minor changes from 2 March to 13 March, well after attaining GA status, and the false assertion of a BLPLEAD vio by the editor who then insisted on further disruption.

As such, there was no straw man, only a complete error on the reporting editor's part that he appears unwilling to accept. —ATS (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment jc37 I can't actually see where there is a "weak consensus" to call her an actress. If there is a consensus, it's for "C", which is "actor and singer" (even more so, as one of the "B/D" voters was indeffed before the end of the discussion). Might you want to revisit this close? Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Black Kite, it's tempting to also discount the other one, which literally says B maybe eventually A, depending ... or D maybe eventually C, depending .... 🤣 —ATS (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Persistent self-citing at Amara Sulya Freedom Movement of 1837

• Amara Sulya Freedom Movement of 1837 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anindith Gowda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2409:4071:4d88:535d:a21:814:52d:8832 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2409:4071:4d88:535d:90d1:150e:8ec8:476c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent WP:SELFCITEing, beginning with [142]; [143]. After receiving warnings, Anindith Gowda switched to IPs, [144], and restored the same links to his independent research, but learned to be more surreptitious in self promotion [145]; [146]; [147]; [148]; [149]. I'm dubious as to whether any of these are acceptable sources, but they all appear to represent a single purpose: a new user's determination to spam their research here. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The ES "‎Independent study by Anindith Gowda Kochi Baarike" doesn't inspire confidence, even if they've also made good minor improvements to ill-written English in other edits (along with the WP:SELFCITEs). Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The entire 'activism' section is composed of references to or events attended by Anindith Gowda. This was transparent in the earlier version, where he plastered his name on the heading as well as throughout the section. The same sources are still used; he's just made his presence more surreptitious. There are two dovetailing issues, COI and quality of the sources. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing after warnings and blocks

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

---

Special:Contributions/2402:8100:3840:0:0:0:0:0/42 is continuously adding disruptive material. Most of their edits bear the Reverted tag. Many of them bear ClueBot NG's warnings on their pages. There is already a partial block in place. It is a huge IP range but some form of block is required here. 2405:201:4013:80F3:B98D:9B26:5DD9:CBBB (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Really, there's no limit--personal attacks in Morse Code

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

---

80.233.44.43 (talk · contribs) is reverting a series of edits by Roger 8 Roger (talk · contribs). Their edit summaries are all in Morse Code, and translate to vulgar attacks on the editor. In addition to the inevitable block, requesting rev/deletion of personal attacks in edit summaries. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Been taken care of--thanks, Primefac. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Though we still need to revoke editing privilege at their own talk page....2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User:USER19339393993

• USER19339393993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user really is up to no good if you ask me. I reported the user on AIAV, but I find their contribs highly suspect. Who is clearly bugging the hell out of Egghead06. Govvy (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• USER19339393995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has shifted to a diff username, really need an admin to sort this out. Govvy (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Nehme 1499 and Dr Salvus - they make disruptive editing removing information, I restore it and they threatened to block me

I would like to report that the users Nehme 1499 and Dr Salvus, who have threatened to block me and accused me of disruptive editing while I have restored information on the Italy national team page that they both removed without discussing it before on the talk page or providing any kind of reason or source for their removal of stable information. The information removed by these two users is concerning the injured players that have been recently called up; this kind of information has is normally reported on ALL the national football team pages on Wikipedia. Their behavior is not fair and acceptable.--Bergenoslo (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's funny how, instead of actually addressing Dr Salvus and I's comments on Talk:Italy national football team, you decided to open an ANI discussion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bergenoslo, I must agree with Nehme1499. There's also a concensus who says that injuries should not be reported Dr Salvus 18:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, stalking and harassment

User is stalking my edits following an earlier exchange on my talk page. Granted, I should have used a softer tone in that discussion.

After a lengthy discussion at Talk:List of Jeopardy! contestants#Matt Amodio where two editors agreed to hide an existing section and only update it when the contestant loses, user then repeatedly created a duplicate, empty placeholder section. Later in the talk page discussion, the user WP:IDHT ignores requests not to create duplicate sections and to use cite templates per WP:REFB and WP:INTREF3.

During the edit issues at Talk:List of Jeopardy! contestants, the user engaged in another discussion on my talk page.

Now, with that backstory, following resolution of the Jeopardy! contestants article 13 August, the user has continued to stalk my edits, immediately editing an article the user has never touched following my previous edit. The user has continued to harass and threaten me on my talk page. The user has a lengthy block log, having been blocked four times for personal harassment. Wikipedia:Editing restrictions has three indefinite bans for user, one of which is harassment related for another user's talk page.[150] and [151] User is also indefinitely banned from AN and AN/I at WP:EDR.

User did not acknowledge my questions on his talk page about his stalking activity, instead simply archiving the discussion without acknowledging it. User again stalked my edits at RFD, replying as the next edit after mine. A fourth example is this edit to my talk page today, harassing me about my revert of content earlier added to The Mary Tyler Moore Show about dead actors, and again posting on my talk page after I've repeatedly asked to be left alone.

See also 174.244.243.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who may be a meat or sock of user, based upon three related edits user made.

At what point is action taken for an editor who has been given chance after chance following repeated blocks for stalking, and who continues that same behavior? AldezD (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)