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

Ali banu sistani

Ali banu sistani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For too long have I hestitated to report this disruptive user. The last straw came today when I discovered they been bad-mouthing me a few days ago, when I haven't even been in contact with him since June 2022 (!). You'll see the diff for it down below. Back in 7 February 2021, an admin warned him to refrain from harrassing me [1]. I have also warned them on multiple occasions (eg [2] [3]). Looks like they haven't learned.

18 January 2021 why don't the Iranians call the legal right? This was the first time they communicated with me, referring to me as an "Iranian" rather by my username.

7 February 2021 [4] Created a section at WP:AN titled "Iranian provocateur on wikipedia", with the following message; " I don't understand why Iranian contributors roll back legal edits concerning Balochi? Chasing Balochi Articles and rolling back legal edits while making fake edits is complete vandalism by the Iranians!"

7 February 2021 why don't the Parrsi call the legal right? This time referring to me as "Parsi" (Persian).

7 February 2021 "There are alternative explanations for this: you get paid and you just do your job, guarding articles day and night that are in the interests of Persian nationalists. Do what you want, but do not break the rules of Wikipedia, do not spread such false information. your actions suggest that you just want to destroy Baloch history! don't do it please..."

7 February 2021 "pay attention to my answer Historyofiran I just ask them not to spread false information, please do not pass by."

2 April 2021 [5] Randomly reverted me in an area they never edit. In other words; more harrassment.

9 November 2022 "but basically it is the history of the Baloch people, who are not very respectful of the right on Wikipedia from Iran, sort of like a member of Historyofiran."

I think it's high time they learn the consequences of such bad behaviour. Don't even let me get started on their pov-pushing, such as recently here [6], when they tried to make the ludicrous claim that the "Baloch are the heirs of the Parthians." using a unverifiable obscure source (which is their usual go to). Or here, where they removed sourced info with no edit summary [7].

This user has (surprisingly) been here for four years, yet still don't know how to act even half decently. If I may so boldly say the only reason they haven't indeffed yet is because they edit in very obscure articles which are barely seen (let alone edited) by others. Anyhow, if they keep bothering me I will also include a list of their pov edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. Imo, this is a pretty obvious case of WP:HARASSMENT, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Eleven days have passed. Can someone please take a look at this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Are the incomprehensible comments at Talk:Balasagan related to your revert of their edit at Balasagan? Can you briefly explain their point? They have not edited since a few hours before the start of this report and I can't see a knock-out diff that warrants an indef so I won't take action at the moment. However, I am prepared to look at future problems. If they arise, please try to engage the user without a template. Briefly explain to them the problem and ask for a response. After waiting, ping me to the page but I will need a brief explanation focused on one or two problems, no more. They received an ARBIPA sanctions alert in March 2021. Would the issues in this report be covered by WP:ARBIPA? If so, I could update the alert. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a indef (though I certainly wouldn't be against it), I'm asking for just anything really. Since this user simply hasn't learned from all this. Engaging them with or without template is not the issue here, this user lacks simple proper behaviour, and (respectfully) it's not something me nor Wikipedia has to teach them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Solijonovm1996

Solijonovm1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User seems to be on a nationalistic mission to Uzbekify various articles, here's why;

Kara-Khanid Khanate: Edit warring in the article [8] [9] [10], constantly attempting to add the Modern Cyrillic Uzbek transliteration. Neither Uzbek (which didnt exist back then) and especially not the Cyrillic script was used by the khanate. And obviously the article doesn't mention anything about it either.

Samarkand: Removed several non-Uzbek tranliterations [11] and sourced info about its Iranian/Persian/Tajik connection [12]. They were reverted, but then engaged in edit warring [13] [14] [15]

Their talk page is filled with a lot of recent warnings, which clearly haven't helped. They haven't even used the talk page of an article once. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Best we deal with this before it gets out of hand - edits of this nature are of great concern. As most are aware Uzbekistan human rights record is so appalling that the country is considered one of today’s most repressive regimes in the world. Moxy- 15:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

GalantFan POV pushing and retaliatory reverts

On November 7th, I made modifications to recent edits on Battle of the Alamo and Texas Declaration of Independence by this user because there were POV issues and issues with the content being undue for the lede. The editors recent edits are mainly focused on increasing the mention of slavery regarding Texas independence. Yesterday, they proceeded to revert my edits on multiple pages including ones that were completely irrelevant to Texas independence. They reverted some of my edits on Mexican–American War, James K. Polk, where they have already been reverted twice for POV edits, Michael Hayden (general), and the Second Battle of Fallujah, where they restored content from a non-RS. Their edits on the last two pages are clearly retaliatory as those pages are completely unrelated. There are clearly POV issues with their recent reverting of my edits, some seemingly for the sake of it which comes across like WP:Hounding. GreenCows (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Look in the mirror. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GreenCows

You have a persistent history of altering the POV of articles to make USA look better. Then in your China alterations for example, you change the wording to make them look worse.

You are deleting verified facts even when the references are attached just because YOU have a problem with the POV.GalantFan (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggested you open a talk page discussion on Mexican–American War. You did only after reverting me again and instead of discussing content issues about the actual article, you immediately attacked my general editing. All my edits follow Wikipedia's rules.GreenCows (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

They have reverted me again with an uncivil edit summary. GreenCows (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The user was reverted by CaptainEek on the Mexican-American War page and told to seek consensus but they have continued to edit war and make changes without gaining consensus and ignored a suggestion by CaptainEek to self revert. GreenCows (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I didn't ignore CaptainEek, I asked him to provide any references showing the previous text was more accurate than what I wrote.GalantFan (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Now the user has got a final warning and I will notify admins on their talk page if this user does this again. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 03:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

SpyridisioAnnis, I suspect this user may have now engaged in sockpuppetry to revert my contributions again on two pages unrelated to the Mexican-American War. An IP 2607:9880:2D28:A8:6876:D980:8170:6EA2 reverted my edits on Iraq War and Chile–United States relations in quick succession. The edits were done at a similar time to when GalantFan has often previously edited and the edit summaries share similarities with only lower case text and use of the word restore. However, the biggest indicator is that the IP made only two edits, which were both reverts to my previous edits on unrelated pages in a similar manner as GalantFan originally did. GreenCows (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Admins, block the user as fast as you can before they destroy Wikipedia! SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 09:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@SpyridisioAnnis: I think that is a bit of an exaggerated claim. Nobody is destroying Wikipedia here. If there is evidence of sockpuppetry, that should be investigated. But GalantFan has not made any edits for more than 48 hours, and I don't see why you saw the need to give them three escalating warnings (levels 2, 3, and 4) yesterday, since they haven't edited since more than 24 hours before the level 2 warning – which was unspecified, as was your level 3 warning. --bonadea contributions talk 10:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@SpyridisioAnnis: reposting ping as I didn't sign the previous --bonadea contributions talk 10:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I hate to invoke the dreaded WP:VEXBYSTERANG but after having dealt with this user for a bit at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and here, I think there needs to be a discussion regarding WP:CIR and an indef for User:SpyridisioAnnis. They're currently on a 3-day ban for WP:3RR and the more I look through their contributions, the more I find nonsensical arguments and a failure to understand policy. In leu of citing specific examples, this user's contributions are a veritable minefield and speak for themselves. Their unblock requests here demonstrate everything you could do wrong with WP:GAB. There was a prior [16] concern about WP:CIR at ANI. I can see Edit war concerns have already been addressed to some extent by Bonadea but I fear we are just kicking the can down the road rather than dealing with what is becoming a protracted issue. Etrius ( Us) 15:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree regarding SpyridisioAnnis. This user has been popping up in my watchlist and multiple areas the last couple of days and right now they're causing a lot of wasted time. Definitely at this point failing WP:CIR. But lets see what happens after their block. I'm guessing there are now a lot of people watching their edits so I think if they continue their current pattern of what I'd call low level disruption, it'll be handled. Canterbury Tail talk 15:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail Alright, I can agree to that much. That being said, I hope @SpyridisioAnnis is aware that their current behavior is not appropriate and will result in an WP:INDEF should it continue. I personally believe there may be some English comprehension issues since it appears they read a number of things in a plausibly correct way that would be consistent with someone who has a decent but not perfect grasp of the language. This may be why it has been difficult to get points across.

Perhaps they could better serve the Greek Wiki since I can see they claim to be fluent in that language. Etrius ( Us) 18:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on their recent talk-page comments, there's a persistent English competency problem. EEng 05:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

No, for the record, that was not me. I track all my contributions.GalantFan (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Kitchen Knife

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

---

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

Kitchen Knife made a messy copy/paste move at East West Rail. A request was made at WP:RM/TR by Mattdaviesfsic to move the page to its original location. Although there was some move history, it seemed sensible to move the page to its original location before all the move disruption, so I performed a page swap. Kitchen Knife did not like this, demanded I move the page back, and accused me of "vandleising on behalf of a clique. I explained that I made the move in response to a technical move request and suggested they open a WP:RM discussion. They responded with further demands and accusations of vandalism, after which I asked them to desist. They opened a requested move at Talk:East_West_Rail#Requested_move_20_November_2022. Here they appear to simultaneously acknowledge they made a mistake yet continue to accuse us of BSing and bullying. As this is a very serious allegation, I'm reporting here. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You clearly know that having a private chat does not constitute getting a consensus. You had also acknowledged that I'd admitted my fault but you still carried on after that asking for contrition. The first bit constitutes the BS & the second bit the bullying.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said, these are serious accusations. If you are going to continue making them then please provide evidence so the admins can take the appropriate action. Polyamorph (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, the "private chat" mentioned above is this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#East West Rail now the East West Main Line. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I explained that it was public, not private, at User talk:John Maynard Friedman#East West Rail. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

And I explained why you where wrong in that you or anyone else hadn't announced or provided a link to it the group had kept it to itself. Like having a meeting that you claim anyone can attend but only making the people you want to attend aware of the meeting. Then claiming if someone had turnrd up at the meeting they would have been allowed in, so it was public. Even though the chances of someone randomly turning up at some place to see if an unannounced meeting happening were 0.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I also requested that the established title of "East West Rail" be reinstated, but at at WP:RFHM, because repairing a cut-paste move requires a history merge rather than a simple page swap, and this case was complicated by the multiple moves. Certes (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for that info. It appears Sdrqaz performed the history merge prior to my swap. Polyamorph (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Page histories have become screwed up. I have found these:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Main_Line_Old&action=history - starts off with a negative byte count, and then has more than 70,000 removed from that
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Main_Line&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Rail&action=history - contains an edit timed at 22:05, 19 November 2022 showing an increase of +73,210 bytes, yet the diff shows no change at all
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Main_Line_Old&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Main_Line&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Rail&action=history

There may be more problems with these pages, and may be more pages involved. Is somebody able to move the misplaced edits back to their proper histories? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I got the histories sorted out. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe so, Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: I usually find that the easiest way of fixing a cut-and-paste move, provided that it is caught early enough, is to simply revert both the paste and the cut. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks – that's a useful tip for the future, but I think I was too late this time. (The confused history makes it hard to tell.) Certes (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

More nonsense in draftspace too Draft:Move/East West Main Line old2, Draft:Move/East West Main Line. What were they trying to achieve? WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED Polyamorph (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That has also already been explained perhaps you could try keeping up.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Kitchen Knife, you really need to stop this conspiracy theory stuff (talk of a "clique"). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to understand what a conspiracy is, rather than just trot out random phrases.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe TBAN from rail if they can't abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc. in that area. Levivich (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I want nothing to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways or any other clique.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Support indef or siteban after reading through their talk page history. This pattern of incivility and battleground behavior has been going on all year. Levivich (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Can someone block for now? They appear to be continuing their incivility here and completely unaware of the disruption they have / still are causing. Polyamorph (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You really are unbelievable..--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I believe a block would be prudent at this time to "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia". Polyamorph (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree you should be blocked.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

On what basis? Polyamorph (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This editor's tendentious behaviour in the past (look around November 2021, for example) has been a thorn in the side of a number of railway-related editors in good standing. I would definitely support a topic ban following expire of the recently-imposed all-contributions block. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I find Kitchen Knife's attitude here towards literally every user who expresses an opinion completely out of line. Seeing that the user already has several shorter blocks for harassment, a longer block might seem appropriate Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

So being critical of others is not acceptable and pointing out their errors is not acceptable?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Doing so while acting like an arse, such as you're doing here, is not. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Kitchen Knife needs to cut out the talks about cliques and the condescending tone to their posts e.g. "That has also already been explained perhaps you could try keeping up". I could hear the condescension in that post. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Can yu hear it in "More nonsense in draftspace too Draft:Move/East West Main Line old2, Draft:Move/East West Main Line. What were they trying to achieve? WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED Polyamorph"--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't being condescending towards you there. I genuinely can't understand why you would choose to create such a mess. If you are unable to move a page because you don't have the required rights, then ask someone who actually knows what they're doing to assist. Polyamorph (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I would also suggest that they look at WP:BRD. Kitchen Knife made a BOLD change (in a poor way) and it was reverted. Both of which are appropriate actions (if you ignore the method of the move) and the next step would be to start a neutrally worded discussion to gain consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Anybody can make a mistake or misunderstand. I doubt that there is anyone here who has never "corrected an obvious error" only to have to come back to admit to the error of their ways. The problem with this user is that they do not appear to have this facility for self-reflection. They cannot take polite advice but rather just delete it (diff) and respond with a diatribe (diff}. They seem to leap to the conclusion that their cock-ups can only be a conspiracy so they persist in digging themselves deeper into the hole. This incident has absorbed a silly amount of time of multiple editors and administrators. We really don't need this kind of nonsense. ≥I suggest that this user be blocked until they can show that they have achieved a reasonable level of judgement and reflection. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC) extended slightly --00:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And I suggest you learn what a conspiracy is before bandying it around at random people unthinkingly doing things without fully consulting is not a conspiracy. To be a conspiracy people have to know they are doing something underhand and then agree to cooperate together to do that thing and hide it. I have not at any time suggested that they deliberately hide it, they simply talked amongst themselves as cliques do and forgot about the rest of the world. If you think people should be apologising then the people who decided to have a discussion without telling anyone outside of their little group it is going on should also be apologising but that seems to be rather absent. I have admitted it was a mistake, unlike the people who established a consensus without allowing the majority of editors the chance to comment or even know the discussion was happening. It was all calming down I'd admitted my mistake but someone decided to come in and stir it up again, perhaps you should be looking at them notme.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You continue to maintain this aggrievement while studiously ignoring everybody who tells you that the UKRAIL discussion was started after the original no-consensus pagemove occurred, and that it quickly coalesced on an agreement that that the move should be reverted. At no point was there any attempt to conceal the discussion from any other contributor. Your continued refusal to accept that it was you who provoked this problem by turning your simple and easily-understood failure to notice the original move into a brand-new no-consensus move (and a copy-and-paste move to boot) is the root of this entire incident, but all you seem prepared to do is to double-down on insisting that you are the victim of some sly scheme to exclude you from the formation of an imagined and in-any-case-unimportant consensus. XAM2175 ^(T) 00:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned a sly scheme or even intimated that there was one or even any sort of coordination. That seem to be yous and some other's irrational delusion. You seem to have ignored everything that was said in the message you commented on. You seem incapable of simple English comprehension--Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC).

Far from calming down, you continued to accuse the community of being a "clique", accused established users of "vandalism", and accused us of "bullying". This is not quietly admitting you were wrong and taking responsibility for your actions which were quite disruptive. You could end this now by accepting responsibility and retracting your wild claims of a conspiracy against you. Polyamorph (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be confusibg two different things. You could end this by stopping spouting nonsense, you again don't seem to know what the word conspiracy means. You continued misrepresentation is more of the bullying I've accused you of and you continue to provide ample proof of it.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Your attitude is appalling and uncooperative. No one is bullying you. Polyamorph (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• That's quite enough, I think. If Kitchen Knife is unable to take part in a collaborative encyclopedia without persistent incivility and rudeness to others (especially as they caused the problem in the first place) then they should not be trying. Last block was 72 hours, this one is a week, and I suspect a future one might be indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I was all set to block them myself until reading this message and seeing it had already been done. I would support an indef block if they learn nothing from this one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Absolutely, to @Black Kite and @Thryduulf, and I do get it, but I do feel we should also note that this editor usually does do a lot of good work – just quiet routine stuff – and if they can avoid these occasional explosions then we should be hoping to retain them. I know it's the Last Chance Saloon and the rest but if you look at their contribs and their Talk page history then those things do paint a rather mixed picture and there is perhaps hope for retaining a productive editor. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

They're still throwing around accusations of bullying on their talk page. Not being able to work collaboratively really outweighs any productive edit history they might have. Such users are high maintenance for all. Polyamorph (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes – their Talk page seems to be turning quite rapidly into a train wreck, no pun intended. Sigh. DBaK (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I hope someday we can steer the culture of Wikipedia away from this old-fashioned notion that people are allowed to be persistently uncivil or combative if they have shown a history of good/decent contributions. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

+1 you cannot be a net-positive contributor to the project with both at-least decent contributions and an ability to work and communicate collaboratively. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can't collaborate with other editors, and chase them away from the project or make them hesitant to be a good editor themselves, then you are not a "productive editor". Civility is a pillar here and it's ignored a lot of times because "Oh they are a good editor". No one is bigger than the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm slightly gobsmacked by some of these replies to me. You did actually read what I said, right? I seem, to me at least, not to have said some of the things for which I am being dismissed-in-summary here. Best to all DBaK (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I did read what you said. My observation was in general, reflecting upon various other apologia I have seen during my years on Wikipedia, where we've repeatedly forgiven transgressions of certain editors - I remember those ArbCom cases quite clearly, but I won't name specific names - because they had a history of excellent contributions. You may not have said those exact words, but it prompted me to reminisce about those days, in the hopes that we've perhaps made some progress since then. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope so too and I was very happy to read this clarification. Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Might be time to remove Talk page access, as they're just removing comments they don't like and edit warring over it. Clearly not going to file an actual unblock request either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Since when is removing comments from your own talk page a problem? Especially when the comments are calling your behavior "assholish"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

KK's behavior was definitely assholish (as perhaps a half-dozen editors, mostly uninvolved in the dispute, have pointed out to them) and my advice to them was sound; but I am a bit surprised that anyone bothered reverting its removal (I wouldn't have). --JBL (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Fundraising banners: imminent clash between enwiki on one side and WMF + Board of Trustees on the other

For those of you who aren't aware, things are getting quite tense at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign, with the Board of Trustees swooping in en masse to, er, discourage us from enacting the results of the RfC. Any input, whatever your opinion about the banners or the parties involved, is welcome to help resolve this situation. Fram (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Still less begging than Wikipedia, come on guys. El_C 09:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Not to question your methods, as I'm sure they're effective (and I don't mean this in a sarcastic way), perhaps some better vocabulary choices than "imminent clash" would be appropriate? The BoT's response also seems pretty decent all things considered. About "enacting the results of the RfC": I think it's clear that it's not in enwiki's mandate to hide those banners using Common.css, although the threat of doing this might be effective, any reasonable closer will find that the proposed "Implementation" clearly fails WP:CONEXCEPT and cannot be implemented. Any admin who actually tries to make a change to Common.css would be exercising extremely poor judgement. Running additional banners as proposed here seems like a slightly more realistic implementation...ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that any time conexcept has been invoked, things have actually turned out well for the WMF. When they wanted to implement or keep some software, project, ... on enwiki and enwiki decided, normally through an Rfc, that it wasn´t wanted on enwiki, the result was alit of huffing, puffing, threatening, ... and in the end the Wmf giving in. The "pretty decent" response from the board already mentions wheel warring as if the issue will be with whoever tries to implement the Rfc results a second time, never mind that the actual problem will be whoever reverses that to do the will of the Wmf. It´s best to keep the discussion at the village pump, this was just meant as a heads up slash invitation to join the discussion there: but if you start from the position that conexcept rules and we can´t overrule this, then you basically tell them to continue doing whatever they like, and to put whatever text they want on our main page with no matter what farfetched justification. Which is of course an acceptable pisition, it just isn´t mine. Fram (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI: your input (admins and non-admins alike) is now welcome at Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022 banners. Fram (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Struggling to see why I shouldn't block an editor, at least from article space, that has been adding unsourced text for years

Latest was atUzzi, 3 days ago this. It's Blanche of King's Lynn (talk · contribs) Doug Weller talk 14:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm struggling too, but it might be worth seeing if the seriousness of the issue becomes apparent to Blanche of King's Lynn, now that it is at ANI? Just my 2¢ — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

So far it would seem not. EEng 04:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

They've asked what edits I meant, I listed 3 in the last 5 days. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Their response on their talk page was argumentative and defensive. They then made an unreferenced, speculative edit to Neuruppin. Accordingly, I have blocked indefinitely, but the block can be lifted if they commit to adding only properly referenced content. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Good block. Long overdue by the look of their talk page. This is not somebody who's interested in researching and writing about a subject, just in telling the world what they "know". The issues have been brought to their attention multiple times over the course of years and the response has always been the same. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by a user

Can any administrator remove all contributions of this flag in info box of various articles by this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inedits. The flag doesn't hold any official status and be removed as such from those articles which are having the use of it in their info boxes.  Debjyoti Gorai  (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

List of pages if anyone's interested. Inedits is spamming retired templates in their userpage and talk page since this ANI section was opened. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Debjyoti Gorai: -The box at the top of the page says: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. Did you do that? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph the editor's page didn't exist earlier, so I mistakenly skipped the step. Sorry for that and now I have rectified it.  Debjyoti Gorai  (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The page has existed since September, but the user keeps blanking it. Thanks for sorting out the notification now. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears User:Angeluser has reverted most of these edits. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

User:BaiulyQz is NOTHERE

BaiulyQz is engaged in racial POVPUSH with clear intent to obfuscate and fabricate content. Made massive changes to Turkic peoples with specific intent to push for the portrayal of Turkic peoples as West Eurasian (Caucasian) rather than East Eurasian (Mongoloid) through deletion, distortion, fabrication, and misrepresentation of material (WP:SYNTH). This can be seen in the history of their User:BaiulyQz/sandbox, where they copy pasted entire sections from this article that they wished to change: [17]. And then methodically pruned the content by removing pre-existing cited material and restructured or completely fabricated material in replacement: [18], [19], [20].

Here they synthed two statements on two separate subjects, Qirghiz/Altaians and Qipchaqs, separated by sources centuries apart, into one descriptive sentence using quoted terms, while simultaneously deleting directly quoted material to the contrary.

Here they completely fabricated the sentence Chinese histories describe the Turks (Tujue or Tüküe) as “mixed barbarians” having a noteworthy frequency of blonde to brown hair and blue or green eyes. and deleted an entire cited paragraph. The "mixed barbarians" was used to describe the Kök Türks while nowhere in the source is the second part on physical features mentioned while the previously quoted content gave the opposite statement.

Here they copy pasted content from Ashina_tribe#Genetics.

At Turkic peoples: [21] After being called out, BaiulyQz immediately went back to sandbox, offloaded more copy paste content from Ashina_tribe#Physical_appearance and proceeded to put them into this article again without comment on their previous behavior: [22], [23]. Here they deleted cited content again without any stated reason similar to their original major edit. Looking at User_talk:BaiulyQz, the way they write, familiarity with style, and focus on genetics right from the start, they do not seem like a new user to me. Qiushufang (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a very unfair and misleading accusation. You seem to actively harass me and follow your own agenda. Everything is sourced. Regarding one of your poits, the Tujue/Göktürks were described as "mixed barbarians" and compared to Wusun, which in turn were described as "blonde, blue eyed barbarians" in Lee and Kuang. The other accusations are misleading and explained here:. Furthermore all these terms YOU use (Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc.) are outdated and scientific racism. YOU include the whole section, as can be confirmed by looking at the edit history of the article. Please do not verbally attack me and accuse me of something while ignoring the talk page and removing citations. Furthermore, out of nowhere you appear and attack me to restore your ideal version. This is not nice, nor did you try to use the talk page. See my talk page section which you ignored but filed this biased accusation here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkic_peoples#Qiushufang). Here the accuser says he is not interested in the talk page discussion and accuses me again (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkic_peoples&diff=1123424498&oldid=1123420869). - BaiulyQz (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The text specifically states the Göktürk were not compared to the Wusun: However, no comparable depiction of the Kök Türks or Tiele is found in the official Chinese histories. (Lee & Kuang p. 202) The part you deleted here. In addition to your premeditated changes in your sandbox, there is no universe of possibility that you do not understand what you are attempting to do. Please do not feign ignorance. Qiushufang (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

What? That is exactly the point! Now explain why you removed sourced content? Simply because it contradicts your biased worldview about Turkic peoples? I copied this from the talk page to prevent wrong understandings:

This was removed while being probably cited:

...however "unlike Chinese historians, who reserved Tujue (Türk in Turkic) for the Kök Türks, Muslim writers used the term Turk broadly to denote not only the Turkic-speaking peoples, but also other non-Turkic peoples", furthermore "Muslim writers later differentiated the Oghuz Turks from other Turks in terms of physiognomy".

The above is directly copied from Lee and Kuang!

Here the more detailed description from Xue Zongzheng, copied from the article Ashina tribe:

According to Chinese scientist Xue Zongzheng, the Göktürks ruling clan, the Ashina tribe, had physical features that were quite different from those of East Asian people. These would include deep eye sockets, prominent noses, and light eye or hair color. However, over time, members of the Ashina tribe intermarried with Chinese nobility, which shifted their physical appearance to a more East Asian one.

Here the paragraph and citation of Emel Esin, also copied from Ashina tribe:

Similarly, Turkish historian Emel Esin noted that the early members of the Ashina tribe, much like the Yenisei Kirghiz, had more Europeoid features, including blonde/red hair and blue/green eyes, but became more East Asian-looking over time, due to intermarriage. She also wrote that members of the Ashina tribe sought to marry Chinese nobles, "perhaps in the hope of finding an occasion to claim rulership over China, or because the high birth of the mother warranted seniority". Esin notes that the later depiction of an Ashina prince, the Bust of Kul Tigin, has an East Asian appearance.

User Qiushufang accuses me of removing content while he deliberately removed sourced content. Why? I solely removed the sentence part "whereas "no comparable depiction of the Kök Türks or Tiele is found in the official Chinese histories". This was taken out of context. Did anyone actually read the paper?

What game are you playing? Accusing me of what you did? I included more information to prevent biased and incomplete information. Everyone can confirm this by looking at the citations. Qiushufang removed sourced content:(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=prev&oldid=1123411477). - BaiulyQz (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

BaiulyQz: Regarding one of your poits, the Tujue/Göktürks were described as "mixed barbarians" and compared to Wusun

Qiushufang: The text specifically states the Göktürk were not compared to the Wusun

BaiulyQz: What? That is exactly the point! Now explain why you removed sourced content?

I hope it is clear why I did not choose to engage in talk discussion with them. Note that this user has not addressed their initial step by step deletions and distortion shown in their sandbox. I do not believe this person is a new user given their familiarity with wiki syntax, non-native English, yet mission driven editing style. Qiushufang (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of BaiulyQz's changes in edit:

Sandbox 1

Before

According to historians Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang, Chinese official histories do not depict Turkic peoples as belonging to a single uniform entity called "Turks". However "Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as typically possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West Eurasian physiognomy" and that "like Chinese historians, Muslim writers in general depict the "Turks" as possessing East Asian physiognomy". According to "fragmentary information on the Xiongnu language that can be found in the Chinese histories, the Xiongnu were Turkic," however historians have been unable to confirm whether or not they were Turkic. Sima Qian's description of their legendary origins suggest their physiognomy was "not too different from that of... Han (漢) Chinese population," but a subset of Xiongnu known as the Jie people were described having "deep-set eyes," "high nose bridges" and "heavy facial hair."

After

Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as possessing both West-Eurasian and East Asian physiognomy, as well as describing them as "mixed barbarians" with "blue/green eyes" and "blonde hair". According to "fragmentary information on the Xiongnu language that can be found in the Chinese histories, the Xiongnu were Turkic," however historians have been unable to confirm whether or not they were Turkic. A subset of Xiongnu known as the Jie people were described as having "deep-set eyes," "high nose bridges" and "heavy facial hair."

No statement supporting this change exists in the source. Quoted passages depicting Turkic speaking peoples as East Eurasian phenotype were removed whereas individual descriptions assigned to specific Turkic peoples were synthed into a general statement on Turks supporting a West Eurasian phenotype.

Source

The Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as typically possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West Eurasian physiognomy. DNA studies corroborate such characterisation of the Turkic peoples. While it is true that insufficient amounts of ancient DNA samples have been studied, one may still infer from the given genetic data that the early and medieval Turkic peoples possessed dissimilar sets of Y-chromosome haplogroups with different representative haplogroups, some of which were of West Eurasian origin. (Lee & Kuang 2017, p. 228)

"Mixed barbarians" was a descriptor applied only to the ancestors of the Gokturks in Pingliang. "Blue/green eyes" applied only to the Kyrgyz and Wusun, who are not confirmed to be Turks, and such descriptions are specifically stated to be absent in description of the Gokturks. "Blonde hair" is not mentioned in the source.

The Suishu recounts that the Kök Türks are descended from ‘the mixed barbarians (za hu 雜胡) of Pingliang (平涼)’11 (Suishu 84.1863). Interestingly, the Zhoushu also relates that the Ashina clan was related to the Qirghiz (Qigu 契骨) (Zhoushu 50.908), who are described in the Xin Tangshu as possessing ‘red hair’ and ‘blue eyes’ (Xin Tangshu 217b.6147). (Lee & Kuang 2017, p. 201)

It should be noted that the seventh-century Tang historian Yan Shigu (顏師古), who added a commentary to the Hanshu (c. 80s AD), describes the Wusun (烏孫) as follows:
The Wusun have the weirdest appearance among all the Rong (戎) of the Western Region (西域). Today’s Hu (胡) people, being blue-eyed and redbearded, and having the appearance of macaques, were originally their progeny.
However, no comparable depiction of the Kök Türks or Tiele is found in the official Chinese histories. (Lee & Kuang 2017, p. 202)

Sanbox 2

Before

According to the Old Book of Tang, Ashina Simo "was not given a high military post by the Ashina rulers because of his Sogdian (huren 胡人) physiognomy." The Tang historian Yan Shigu described the Hu people of his day as "blue-eyed and red bearded" descendants of the Wusun, whereas "no comparable depiction of the Kök Türks or Tiele is found in the official Chinese histories."

After

Chinese histories describe the Turks (Tujue or Tüküe) as “mixed barbarians” having a noteworthy frequency of blonde to brown hair and blue or green eyes. The Tang historian Yan Shigu described them as "blue-eyed and red bearded". According to Xue Zongzheng, the early Turks had physical features that were quite different from those of East Asian people. These would include deep eye sockets, prominent noses, and light eye or hair color.

Nothing in the source supports these changes. "Mixed barbarians" was not applied to a group other than the ancestors of the Gokturks at Pingliang and the Gokturks as a whole are not described as blue or green eyed (Kyrgyz and Wusun). Neither blonde or brown hair are mentioned in the source. Xue is not mentioned in the source and "deep eye sockets, prominent noses" were only applied to Jie of the Xiongnu, who are not confirmed to be Turks. Light eyes and hair color are not mentioned in the source. Again synth and fabrication in service of phenotype povpush.

Source

The Suishu recounts that the Kök Türks are descended from ‘the mixed barbarians (za hu 雜胡) of Pingliang (平涼)’11 (Suishu 84.1863). Interestingly, the Zhoushu also relates that the Ashina clan was related to the Qirghiz (Qigu 契骨) (Zhoushu 50.908), who are described in the Xin Tangshu as possessing ‘red hair’ and ‘blue eyes’ (Xin Tangshu 217b.6147). However, as to their physiognomy, the Kök Türks differed from the Qirghiz. According to the Jiu Tangshu, an Ashina commander named Ashina Simo (阿史那思摩) was not given a high military post by the Ashina rulers because of his Sogdian (huren 胡人) physiognomy (Lee & Kuang 2017, p. 201)

It should be noted that the seventh-century Tang historian Yan Shigu (顏師古), who added a commentary to the Hanshu (c. 80s AD), describes the Wusun (烏孫) as follows:
The Wusun have the weirdest appearance among all the Rong (戎) of the Western Region (西域). Today’s Hu (胡) people, being blue-eyed and redbearded, and having the appearance of macaques, were originally their progeny.
However, no comparable depiction of the Kök Türks or Tiele is found in the official Chinese histories. (Lee & Kuang 2017, p. 202)

However, the Jie (羯), ‘a separate branch of the Xiongnu (匈奴別部)’, who founded the Later Zhao Dynasty (319–351 ad), appear to have possessed West Eurasian physiognomy, that is, ‘deep-set eyes’, ‘high nose bridges’ and ‘heavy facial hair’. (Lee & Kuang 2017, p. 199)

Deleted passages:

Medieval Arab and Persian descriptions of Turks state that they looked strange from their perspective and were extremely physically different from Arabs. Turks were described as "broad faced people with small eyes" and with pink skin, as being "short, with small eyes, nostrils, and mouths" (Sharaf al-Zaman al-Marwazi), as being "full-faced with small eyes" (Al-Tabari), as possessing "a large head (sar-i buzurg), a broad face (rūy-i pahn), narrow eyes (chashmhā-i tang), and a flat nose (bīnī-i pakhch), and unpleasing lips and teeth (lab va dandān na nīkū)" (Keikavus). Medieval Muslim writers noted that Tibetans and Turks resembled each other, and that they often were not able to tell the difference between Turks and Tibetans. On Western Turkic coins "the faces of the governor and governess are clearly Mongoloid (a roundish face, narrow eyes), and the portrait have definite old Türk features (long hair, absence of headdress of the governor, a tricorn headdress of the governess)". In the Ghaznavids' residential palace of Lashkari Bazar, there survives a partially conserved portrait depicting a turbaned and haloed adolescent figure with full cheeks, slanted eyes, and a small, sinuous mouth. The Armenian historian Movses Kaghankatvatsi describes the Turks of the Western Turkic Khaganate as "broad-faced, without eyelashes, and with long flowing hair like women".

According to Gardizi, the Kyrgyz were mixed with "Saqlabs" (Slavs), which explains the red hair and white skin among the Kyrgyz.

Sandbox 3

Copypaste from Ashina_tribe#Genetics

Ashina tribe version:

The reasoning for this assumption is that the Ashina tribe was said to be closely related to the Yenisei Kirghiz people, and also to the Iranian Saka. The modern-day descendants of the Yenisei Kirghiz, the Kyrgyz people, have one of the highest frequencies of haplogroup R1a-Z93.

Copypaste:

The royal Ashina tribe was said to be closely related to the Yenisei Kirghiz people. The modern-day descendants of the Yenisei Kirghiz, the Kyrgyz people, have one of the highest frequencies of haplogroup R1a-Z93.

The user seems to have gone back and forth on deciding which parts of the source to keep once they realized it did not support their content: [24], [25], [26], ultimately settling on their extremely synthed and misrepresented povpush version. After my rv, they copy pasted content from Ashina_tribe#Physical_appearance to their sandbox and used it to continue povpush without mentioning the previous problems: [27], [28], stealth deletion.

There are miscellaneous problems with their editing that could be attributed to WP:COMPETENCE at first: quotations that do not match the source and run on sentences. But taking into account the heavy editorializing and how every change is made with one purpose in mind, their avoidance of addressing these issues before returning with new content copy pasted from another article while stealth deleting previous content, it is not believable that this user is acting in good faith. The problems listed here are eerily similar to a repeat at the article's talk months ago: [29]. Pinging those who have been involved with this user: @Joshua Jonathan: @LouisAragon: @Aoidh: Those pinged by them: @Golden: @Hunan201p: Those who have dealt with similar cases in the past: @Beshogur: @Steve Quinn: Qiushufang (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You keep making up accusations which are not true, I used my talk page to copy the previous wordings, read the references and than edit accordingly to make the paragraphs more balanced. I did not silently remove paragraphs or content or tried to change meaning, but correct blatantly misquoted sentences and biased one sided views, which you defend. I also removed paragraphs already mentioned elsewhere for balance, the whole section is a mess and must be revised by unbiased editors. Race theories should be very carefully habded and not in this biased and aggressive manner. Your aggressive stance is further hardening any mutual understanding. The removed paragraph about Oghuz Turks was explained because it is found in identical amount at the main article, while this section, in my opinion, should chronologically deal with the early Turkic peoples and not randomly selected paragraphs highlighting their "Mongoloidness". This all reads like a 19th century textbook written by the lectures of the Nationalsocialist German workers party! You exaggerated the information talking about Mongoloid looking people, while let out information about Kipchaks, Kyrgyz, Karluk, Mamluk, etc. You hold the information about the Ashina tribe short, and completely remove citations (from the same study you used) which disagree with your worldview about Turkic peoples. You also ignored my talk page discussion where I asked to explain and find a solution, instead you further harassed me and made this escalation. I did neither edit war nor made unconstructive edits. This is a solely conflict of interest on your side. Looking at the edit history of Turkic peoples talk page, you already had fights with other users and insulted one pinged editor (Hunan201p) as well:

"Hunan has already been banned and gotten into multiple incidents on pushing fringe racial theories and edit warring. Disappointing to see him here again. Qiushufang (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)".

This is not acceptable. You can't insult disagreeing users. You follow the same agenda as a blocked user Turukkean as highlighted by Hunan201p:

"They clearly say early Turks were heterogenous, just as Findley did, so why change their conclusion just because they don't explicity state that the Xiongnu were Turkic, even though the Wikipedia article has an entire section for the Xiongnu, who are universally regarded as being linked to Turks? It just smacks of the very anti-West Eurasian bias that WorldCreaterFighter (Turukkaean) is known for pushing in Turkic related articles. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)".

Furthermore you deleted and still did not explain why you removed these inline citations from the section!

...however "unlike Chinese historians, who reserved Tujue (Türk in Turkic) for the Kök Türks, Muslim writers used the term Turk broadly to denote not only the Turkic-speaking peoples, but also other non-Turkic peoples", furthermore "Muslim writers later differentiated the Oghuz Turks from other Turks in terms of physiognomy".

The above is directly copied from Lee and Kuang! You accuse me of removing something, while it's actually YOU who removed citations without explanation! 'I ask you to explain the removal of sourced content below!'

You also said I did change and manipulate content, while in fact I replaced it with more informative wording about the same source, copied from Ashina tribe for neutrality reasons. As said before, you exaggerated information about Mongoloid phenotypes, even including fringe descriptions of statues and coins about Oghuz Turks which claim the coins to show "strong Mongoloid" features... is this the Coon and co club of outdated race theories? Here the more detailed description from Xue Zongzheng, copied from the article Ashina tribe with the inline citation! So you can't not accuse me of manipulating because it is the exact wording of the authors:

According to Chinese scientist Xue Zongzheng, the Göktürks ruling clan, the Ashina tribe, had physical features that were quite different from those of East Asian people. These would include deep eye sockets, prominent noses, and light eye or hair color. However, over time, members of the Ashina tribe intermarried with Chinese nobility, which shifted their physical appearance to a more East Asian one.

As little hint, this for example was completely ignored by you:

"Xue Zongzheng argues that 'looking like a Hu person' was originally the intrinsic feature of the Ashina lineage".

Why? Why you exaggerate fringe concepts linked to Mongoloids while ignoring the rest of the information in the papers? This is cherry picking and biased editing!

Another evidence for your biased edit styles is the removal of the paragraph and citation of Emel Esin, also copied from Ashina tribe:

Similarly, Turkish historian Emel Esin noted that the early members of the Ashina tribe, much like the Yenisei Kirghiz, had more Europeoid features, including blonde/red hair and blue/green eyes, but became more East Asian-looking over time, due to intermarriage. She also wrote that members of the Ashina tribe sought to marry Chinese nobles, "perhaps in the hope of finding an occasion to claim rulership over China, or because the high birth of the mother warranted seniority". Esin notes that the later depiction of an Ashina prince, the Bust of Kul Tigin, has an East Asian appearance.

You removed it without explaining, yet you think it is okay to include something like this 19th century propaganda:

On Western Turkic coins "the faces of the governor and governess are clearly Mongoloid (a roundish face, narrow eyes), and the portrait have definite old Türk features (long hair, absence of headdress of the governor, a tricorn headdress of the governess)". In the Ghaznavids' residential palace of Lashkari Bazar, there survives a partially conserved portrait depicting a turbaned and haloed adolescent figure with full cheeks, slanted eyes, and a small, sinuous mouth. The Armenian historian Movses Kaghankatvatsi describes the Turks of the Western Turkic Khaganate as "broad-faced, without eyelashes, and with long flowing hair like women".

Why these information must be in the article and the opposing or diversity supporting paragraphs get removed? This is biased and agenda motivated. Look in the mirror first before accusing other people and putting bad words into their mouth. I sincerely ask again to stop accusing me and harassing me.

The whole section was included by you and later edited by another blocked user Whuu, he included more Mongoloid supportive paragraphs, you did not care. Now when I try to make it more neutral mentioning both sides and both descriptions, because we must mention all descriptions of Turkic peoples, not only the ones we personally like more, you suddenly escalate and try to erase any opposing information to your worldview about Turkic peoples. User Hunan201p so mentioned that YOU did in fact removed sourced content without explanation, see here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=1123378436&oldid=1123375939. He explained that my wordings were more neutral and balanced than yours and that you deleted a paragraph and a citation without explanation, as you would call it "silent deletion"! (Baiulyqz's summary of the sources is a fairer and more balanced take. Further, previous editor has seemingly taken the liberty of deliberately deleting a source (Jeong et al, 2020) that suggests a much bigger West Eurasian (Iranian) genetic link to the historical Turks, which the adticle needed for WP:BALANCE). So please look at yourself first before insulting others!-BaiulyQz (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You keep making up accusations which are not true, I used my talk page to copy the previous wordings, read the references and than edit accordingly to make the paragraphs more balanced.

I did not silently remove paragraphs or content or tried to change meaning, but correct blatantly misquoted sentences and biased one sided views, which you defend.

[30] [31] [32]

I also removed paragraphs already mentioned elsewhere for balance, the whole section is a mess and must be revised by unbiased editors.

The deleted passage mentioned above does not exist in any other part of Wikipedia.

Race theories should be very carefully habded and not in this biased and aggressive manner. Your aggressive stance is further hardening any mutual understanding. The removed paragraph about Oghuz Turks was explained because it is found in identical amount at the main article, while this section, in my opinion, should chronologically deal with the early Turkic peoples and not randomly selected paragraphs highlighting their "Mongoloidness". This all reads like a 19th century textbook written by the lectures of the Nationalsocialist German workers party!

Selective outrage. The Xue source brought up so often also uses the word Mongoloid.

This all reads like a 19th century textbook written by the lectures of the Nationalsocialist German workers party! You exaggerated the information talking about Mongoloid looking people, while let out information about Kipchaks, Kyrgyz, Karluk, Mamluk, etc.

Provide diffs where I "exaggerated the information talking about Mongoloid looking people, let out information about Kipchaks, Kyrgyz, Karluk, Mamluk, etc."

Looking at the edit history of Turkic peoples talk page, you already had fights with other users and insulted one pinged editor (Hunan201p) as well:

"Hunan has already been banned and gotten into multiple incidents on pushing fringe racial theories and edit warring. Disappointing to see him here again. Qiushufang (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)".

Hunan was banned for three months and he was involved in edit warring and pushing fringe racial theories: [33]. It was disappointing to see him again arguing over the same subject area.

This is not acceptable. You can't insult disagreeing users. You follow the same agenda as a blocked user Turukkean as highlighted by Hunan201p:
"They clearly say early Turks were heterogenous, just as Findley did, so why change their conclusion just because they don't explicity state that the Xiongnu were Turkic, even though the Wikipedia article has an entire section for the Xiongnu, who are universally regarded as being linked to Turks? It just smacks of the very anti-West Eurasian bias that WorldCreaterFighter (Turukkaean) is known for pushing in Turkic related articles. - Hunan201p (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)".

I do not know who Turukkean is. As for the heterogenous part, I added that in: [34] [35]. The Xiongnu being linked to Turkic peoples could mean many things. Chinese are linked to Koreans who are linked to Japanese. That does not mean they are the same people or worth mentioning. The Xiongnu article has multiple sections on origin theories and their relationship with several peoples.

You hold the information about the Ashina tribe short, and completely remove citations (from the same study you used) which disagree with your worldview about Turkic peoples.

You also said I did change and manipulate content, while in fact I replaced it with more informative wording about the same source, copied from Ashina tribe for neutrality reasons. As said before, you exaggerated information about Mongoloid phenotypes, even including fringe descriptions of statues and coins about Oghuz Turks which claim the coins to show "strong Mongoloid" features... is this the Coon and co club of outdated race theories? Here the more detailed description from Xue Zongzheng, copied from the article Ashina tribe with the inline citation! So you can't not accuse me of manipulating because it is the exact wording of the authors:

According to Chinese scientist Xue Zongzheng, the Göktürks ruling clan, the Ashina tribe, had physical features that were quite different from those of East Asian people. These would include deep eye sockets, prominent noses, and light eye or hair color. However, over time, members of the Ashina tribe intermarried with Chinese nobility, which shifted their physical appearance to a more East Asian one.

The same source is cited twice. It is not the "exact wording." Nowhere in the source does it mention Xue Zongzheng is a scientist and nothing confirming that can be found online. None of the physical descriptors are mentioned in the cited pages. On p. 188 "deep eye sockets" are mentioned but only applied to non-Turks such as the Yuezhi and Shiwei. Noses are mentioned on p. 191 but not in relation to Turks. Only Qağan Muhan's eyes were described as "like colored glazes" and then "this kind of racial descriptions suspended in the biographical or ethnographic accounts of the Turkic rulers in Chinese sources." (p. 190) Hair color is mentioned on p. 191 in an argument claiming the descriptor "yellow" is equivalent to blond hair, but the descriptor is never applied to the Ashina or the Gokturks, only the Shiwei and Yugur or Uyghurs.

As little hint, this for example was completely ignored by you: "Xue Zongzheng argues that 'looking like a Hu person' was originally the intrinsic feature of the Ashina lineage". Why? Why you exaggerate fringe concepts linked to Mongoloids while ignoring the rest of the information in the papers? This is cherry picking and biased editing!

I did not ignore that quotation because it was not featured in the prose. The final version of your additions did not incorporate it into the prose nor was it part of a quotation in the citation. Nor was it part of the prose in your later additions in which you deleted half the sentence on the Wusun, making it completely irrelevant to the article as the Wusun are not confirmed to be Turkic. Xue's views were already part of the prose prior to your additions, which you could have chosen to expand on rather than putting them under Lee & Kuang, which does not mention Xue at all. Later you copy pasted content from Ashina tribe and cited the same source twice without checking the validity of the material, resulting in the above WP:OR. "Fringe concepts linked to Mongoloids" does not seem like something someone concerned about the usage of the term "Mongoloid" would say. Could you provide any sources that the sources you removed are fringe?

Another evidence for your biased edit styles is the removal of the paragraph and citation of Emel Esin, also copied from Ashina tribe:

You removed it without explaining, yet you think it is okay to include something like this 19th century propaganda:

It was a blanket rv given that you copy pasted content, which requires attribution as you have been told, and you did not address the previous problems of WP:SYNTH, distortion, and completely fabricated content above. None of the sources provided in that passage are dated to the 19th century.

The whole section was included by you and later edited by another blocked user Whuu, he included more Mongoloid supportive paragraphs, you did not care.

Why would I care? Does it infringe on Wikipedia policies? Note the repeated focus on WP:SYNTH, distortion, or misreprenting of sources.

e explained that my wordings were more neutral and balanced than yours and that you deleted a paragraph and a citation without explanation, as you would call it "silent deletion"! (Baiulyqz's summary of the sources is a fairer and more balanced take. Further, previous editor has seemingly taken the liberty of deliberately deleting a source (Jeong et al, 2020) that suggests a much bigger West Eurasian (Iranian) genetic link to the historical Turks, which the adticle needed for WP:BALANCE). So please look at yourself first before insulting others!

You left out the first part of the edit summary. Qiushufang (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not true. You present wrong accusations and ignore my previous explanation, while making weak excuses to remove sourced content to defend your "Mongoloid supremacy" agenda here. The most little evidence for "Mongoloid" phenotypes are mentioned and "cited", including coins, while inline citations get removed for dubious reasons. Than you claim the citation I presented was not part of my edit! A bold lie. Anyone can confirm by seeing the changes. If you are not able to do here the change which clearly included the relevant inline citations which support my wording:

"...however "unlike Chinese historians, who reserved Tujue (Türk in Turkic) for the Kök Türks, Muslim writers used the term Turk broadly to denote not only the Turkic-speaking peoples, but also other non-Turkic peoples", furthermore "Muslim writers later differentiated the Oghuz Turks from other Turks in terms of physiognomy".

You removed it without any reason, no comment nothing, other than your accusations. Next one, the citation which you just claimed to not exist in my edit, better to look again:

"Wang, Penglin (2018). Linguistic Mysteries of Ethnonyms in Inner Asia. Lanham: Lexington. pp. 189–190. ISBN 1498535283. "According to Xue Zongzheng (1992:80), the emergence of less-Caucasoid features in the Turkic ruling class was probably due to the intermarriage with the Chinese imperial families from generation to generation. Consequently, up to the Qagan's eighth generation descendant, Ashina Simo, his racial features remained unchanged to the extent in which he was described as looking like a Hu (Sogdian) person, not akin to Turkic, and suspected to be not of Ashina genealogical strain, and henceforth was unfortunately not trusted for military commandership (JTS 194.5163). Xue Zongzheng argues that 'looking like a Hu person' was originally the intrinsic feature of the Ashina lineage, then became presented as a sign of impure blood as a result of the qualitative change occurred in the hybrid physical features combining both Mongoloid and Caucasoid physical traits."

You ignored this citation. Why? Let's continue: You removed the paragraph and citations of Emel Esin, stil give no valid reason and also did not care to clarify. You deleted it because it does not serve your agenda. My last edit removed only one sentence part, which would have been easy to restore by you when this was the only reason, but you decided to completely remove information and citations, while accusing me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&type=revision&diff=1123411477&oldid=1123410407.

You claim that it's Hunan who is biased, yet you defend content created by sock accounts blocked for exactly the agenda you are now nurturing, see Hunan already noted that you follow the same pattern as previously blocked sock accounts and also had disputes with you. Your strange behavior to make this report instead of discussing it at the talk page section I made is further strange! I did not even edited the article after your accusations and warning at my talk page, instead I tried to use the talk to get concensus, but you choose to escalate.

The section you created is obviously biased, the removal of more balanced content by you is even more biased. You basically included information and pieces of evidence highlighting the "Mongoloid" features of certain Turkic peoples, while ignored the information about other Turkic peoples, or the fact that Muslim writers used the term Türk to refer also to other Central Asian Steppe groups they encountered (Mongols, Tang Chinese, etc.)! There is no valid explanation for you the remove the above cited data and also explained at the talk page, which you ignored and commented that you are not interested in discussions. This is NOTHERE!BaiulyQz (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

References

I'm pretty sure no one has any idea what this thread is about

^ EEng 05:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

To keep it short, I am saying User:BaiulyQz engaged in deliberate WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to POVPUSH. The beginning of their editing history also suggests this is not their first account. Qiushufang (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. You simply want to protect your section and view about this, therefore you accuse disagreeing users, not only me as we have seen. You also deliberately ignore the inline citations and did not try yourself to improve the section. In the meantime you continue your obsession with Turkic physical appearance, not surprisingly it was you who created the section and you together with a blocked user edited it. It should be no surprise that it needs to look at. As anyone can see above, my edits did not include misleading content. You still accuse me although I explained what I did. In short: I removed a paragraph which is identically found in the article Oghuz Turks, included more inline citations from the given references, which give some more balanced view on this (more heterogeneity; Muslim writers also referred to non-Turkic speakers; more information about the Ashina, shortening extensive exaggerations about "Mongoloid" looks about coins, descriptions, statues, which are all very subjective. I repeat I have created a talk page, but the accuser is not interested in it.BaiulyQz (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: It seems like more content dispute, rather than a behavioral one. The two didn't even talk for long at Talk:Turkic peoples page. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Please look at their sandbox activity in preparation for their content additions at Turkic peoples: [36] [37] [38] [39]. If I had believed this was a content dispute problem I would have engaged in talk discussion as I had done previously in that article's talk with another user: [40]. This user methodically introduced WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in their sandbox prior to their additions as I outline above in blockquotes. They ignored the issues I raised in the edit summaries and continued to edit introducing stealth deletions before going to talk. Behavior such as sandbox use, step by step changes, and avoidance lead me to believe this was more behavioral rather than a content dispute. Qiushufang (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: The BaiulyQz latest edits at Turkic peoples might have been WP:TENDENTIOUS but thankfully anyone can revert them and take discussion to an appropriate talk page. I'm not convinced that they were WP:PUSHing a point in a series of edits and in a manner that warrants Admins' attention.
…Behavior such as sandbox use, step by step changes, and avoidance… Nothing is criminal in preparing their edits changes in the sandbox. If the contributed edits don't match the source, use {{failed verification}} template or revert & discuss by pointing out at the cited source's mismatches on the article talk page. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I should have outlined the instances of OR and SYNTH in talk first. This was probably premature but I maintain that there are too many behavioral ticks for me to consider BaiulyQz a good faith actor. The reason why I mentioned the sandbox usage was due to assuming some aspect of WP:COMPETENCE at first. But upon further inspection of their edits, such as restoring changed content before reverting back to their version ([41] [42] [43]) followed by continued editing without any reference to my reverts or issues brought up, it became apparent they were aware of their actions. That's probably not enough for an admin to act. Qiushufang (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I do have a limited idea, and really, the length of this thread is in no way proportionate to the significance of the issue. While BaiulyQz might have been slightly more WP:TENDENTIOUS than Qiushufang, this is just a content dispute at its core. As a side note, both editors could use a read of guidelines: I would recommend WP:PLAGFORM, WP:CWW, and, without question, WP:DTS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Cheating

I look through recent changes and I notice that edits to MATLAB show an anon adding test answers [44] and [45] [46] then removing test answers. Is there way to delete these edits so that dishonest students cannot use them to cheat? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it as our problem (and they're probably going to get caught anyways because that's a dumb way to cheat). We should just block Special:Contributions/2001:1470:FFF0:1203:55DF:2543:C6F:7268/64 as WP:NOTHERE and move on. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a new one. Someone should tell them about pastebins. Frogging101 (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it new? I am unconvinced that this is the first time. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The most famous exam cheating related incident is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive507#Admin_misusing_viewdeleted :) —Kusma (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Tiginbeg

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

---

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

This "brand new" user Tiginbeg started editing on 21 November 2022. Their first edit was complaining about mention of the Armenian genocide at the talk page of Turkish War of Independence [47]. What brand new user knows of WP:NPOV and WP:VD right off the bat? Anyways, he goes on to complain about lack of sources in x and y. Yet he ironically later makes this article Gilles Veinstein with the unsourced statement; "Veinstein, drew the reaction of the Armenian diaspora by stating that the Armenian Genocide could not be defined as genocide and that it was instigated by Armenian militias. As a result, Veinstein received death threats and his career was jeopardised."

They also went on to add the category Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide at three different articles which doesn't really confirm it [48] [49] [50].

They also attempted twice to remove the description of what a denier of the Armenian genocide is at Category:Deniers of the Armenian genocide [51] [52].

Their third edit was at their userpage [53], where they notably added the template "This user supports mandatory registration." What brand new user knows of such template let alone has an opinion on it?

Some classic WP:NPA made by Tiginbeg towards one of our editors because they were reverted by him; You do not have to believe the propaganda imposed on you by the Armenian government.

Tiginbeg might be related to the massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia [54], whose members were shamelessly denying the Armenian genocide as seen in the thread. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems absurd. I knew those people denied the Armenian genocide. I may be wrong, but that doesn't mean you have to blame me. WP:BITE

"What brand new user knows of WP:NPOV and WP:VD right at the bat?"

It is possible to learn how to use Wikipedia on the Internet. Tiginbeg (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Tiginbeg's first contribution is a comment on Talk:Turkish_War_of_Independence#Violation_of_neutral_point_of_view, saying that the mention of Armenian genocide in the lead is intended for "vandalism", something that's supported by dozens of WP:RS [55]. Other things include putting Armenian genocide denial in "quotes", claiming that Turkey's denialist policy is "unsourced, serious claim", then when pointed to the sources in the article, calling RS like historian Taner Akçam "infamous charlatan". Their personal attack against me (I haven't even talked to this user) solidifies the above, "You do not have to believe the propaganda imposed on you by the Armenian government". They also edit warred and removed text from the genocide deniers category with "WP:NPOV" and "WP:VD". I believe this user isn't here to build an encyclopedia as evident by their denialist pov push and personal attacks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's strange that you didn't mention the personal attack on me by user 331dot. "I don't know, and don't need to know, if you are Turkish or not, but if you are, consider if you are content to believe what your government wants you to believe." "Please understand that the Turkish government educates its citizens with its preferred narrative."

@ZaniGiovanni mate, I tag you and show you the sources but you don't even reply. :/

These two people always think they're right. And classically they write:

-rv, sock)

-rv, disruption by obvious sock

All I see are 2 people attacking me with ridiculous allegations. Tiginbeg (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not a report of either of those two. Also, ZaniGiovanni didn't even say something that could remotely be interpreted as rude in that diff, thus making your attack against him even more ridiculous.

These two people always think they're right. And classically they write

How do you know that? Weren't you new here?

It is possible to learn how to use Wikipedia on the Internet.

It is indeed, especially if you have used another account before. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"How do you know that? Weren't you new here?"

I can see that from your editing history.

"It is indeed, especially if you have used another account before."

I think your next objection will go something like this: How do you know how to use a keyboard? Tiginbeg (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

So you went on to investigate the editing history of both ZaniGiovanni and me, both who have been here for years? Was that on your previous account or this one? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Please keep your ridiculous questions to yourself. You're being ridiculous.

Then let me ask you something like this:

Why are you undoing my edits? Or have you been following me from the moment I registered? Tiginbeg (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't called you anything. I reverted you two times, that's the limit of my interaction with you. From above, I'm inclined to believe that you're a sockpuppet because of remarks such as these, especially given that I haven't even talked to you prior to this ANI; "These two people always think they're right. And classically they write: rv, sock...". What I do strongly believe though is that you're an WP:SPA with denialist tropes and editing pattern, topped with personal attack. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

what you wrote looks like this: I think he's a puppet because he's breathing. (omg) Tiginbeg (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tiginbeg: I'm not involved and I'm not claiming you're a sockpuppet. But I'd like you to explain the meaning of this edit. I'd also appreciate it if you can tell me what "propaganda imposed on you by the Armenian government" means. Please be aware that users may be sanctioned for such edits as they are not constructive. Nythar (💬-🎃) 12:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what it means

"I don't know, and don't need to know, if you are Turkish or not, but if you are, consider if you are content to believe what your government wants you to believe." "Please understand that the Turkish government educates its citizens with its preferred narrative."

A rage against user 331dot. I wrote something like that because I was angry with him. But I don't see anyone warning user 331dot? Are the rules only for me? Tiginbeg (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

In the discussions [56], [57], you were saying that Armenian genocide being in the article is "vandalism" despite it having dozens of WP:RS [58]. You were also saying there is no state level denialist policy in Turkey, claiming there are no sources for it, which is just false. There is an entire section in the Armenian genocide denial regarding Turkey. Later when it was shown to you that it is sourced, you called an RS and historian Taner Akçam, whom you presumably don't like, an "infamous charlatan". How are you comparing this to your personal attack against me when I haven't even interacted with you prior to this? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

What you're saying sounds like nonsense. You can't always be right. You need to realise that. Tiginbeg (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

• We really don't need to spend any more time with this user. I've indeffed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Editor refusing to communicate

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

---

Angryskies is engaging in a slow edit war and refusing to communicate. Case in being Deloitte where editor has reinstated his post fives times in a month:

• 21 October
• 27 October
• 4 November
• 11 November
• 21 November

Not technically a breach of WP:3RR, hence I have not taken to that noticeboard.

Multiple attempts to communicate with the editor both through the edit summary and their own talk page with the editor just deleting without responding and then reinstating their post.

I did bring this issue here 10 days ago. Was advised that I should make a further attempt to communicate. This was done and reverted without response.

Editor has decided to describe his edits as Reverat vanadalism. After being being blocked in 2021, editor was warned against falsely accusing other editors of vandalism, something that has fallen on deaf ears. Zoumestein (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

While not a violation of 3RR, it is still WP:edit warring, and you should therefore file a report at WP:EWNB,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 07:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It may require a block, to get Angryskies' attention. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, this is not one of the attention-getting cases, since Angryskies is editing their talkpage to blank it (and have indeed posted on it previously, e.g. to appeal a block). They know they have it - this is active refusal to communicate. In view of that, plus the edit warring, and also their continued aggressive referring to content disputes as "vandalism" after Bbb23's warning here, I have blocked for a month. Bishonen | tålk 08:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC). PS, and I think you posted in the right place, Zoumestein, since there was more to unpack than the edit warring. Bishonen | tålk 08:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC).

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

User:Diamond3245

• Diamond3245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Diamond3245 Diamond3245 has been disruptive editing over many WWE articles Mainly Hell in a Cell (2019), Roadblock: End of the Line, Hell in a Cell (2016), WWE Clash at the Castle, Crown Jewel (2022), even changes wrestler names like from Kacy Catanzaro to Katana Chance, Also violated WP:3RR on Hell in a Cell (2019), Roadblock: End of the Line, Hell in a Cell (2016), WWE Clash at the Castle, Crown Jewel (2022). This has been going on since November 20th, Diamond3245 Recieved Multiple warnings and was even blocked for 31 hours back on November 22nd and now is doing the same thing again. Right below is the articles that Diamond3245 is edit warring on. Diamond3245 does not use his talk page and does not use edit summeries as well.

• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit
• This Edit

Take a look at his Contributions since this been going on since November 20

[59]

Please indef block User:Diamond3245, he continues to add to much text to Hell in a Cell (2019) Chip3004 (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Chip3004 (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Although this report is poorly formed, a quick review of Diamond3245's contributions shows that he persists in edit warring, and to date has never used a talk page. However, his ability to use fully formatted citations - example - suggests that he's an experienced user. It's been years, but there was another regular editor of wrestling articles, User:TJ Spyke, who was adamant about using piped links instead of redirects, to the point that he was eventually indeffed for outright refusing to stop.

Anyway, Diamond3245 needs to be blocked, and as you can see from the edit history of NXT Halloween Havoc (2022), User:StrangerMan123 needs instruction about what edit warring is and how to deal with problems like Diamond's edits. 184.15.234.122 (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I would have taken action if I could see where a decent attempt to engage the user occurred. Some of the diffs above concern alleged edit warring at Hell in a Cell (2019) however that article's talk has not had a substantive edit since January 2020. Please focus on one issue and try to nicely engage the user. Then ping me if there is no satisfactory response. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked from article space with the hope of forcing communication. They have over 700 edits, have been reached out to on their talk page, and have been blocked for the behavior they're continuing and they have never responded, except to continue their editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just want to clarify that I didn't want to get into an edit warring, I just removed meaningless and unnecessary things that user Diamond3245 put in, he also changed the current name of wrestlers to the old ones for example, that's all, just wanted to clarify yourself, i wouldn't keep removing content if it weren't for that. StrangerMan123 (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

We understand your head was in the right place, I'm just letting you know there are more efficient ways of dealing with editors like Diamond. If they are persistent, per WP:3RR it's better to report them at WP:AN/3 than edit warring with them. If it's the type of bad editing a non-wrestling fan would understand (and deliberately changing to the wrong names might do it) there's also WP:AIV. 184.15.234.122 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor on several IPs mass reverting articles

@2402:3A80:65E:5710:AC4A:CE9:B3DA:F1D9

@42.106.237.168

@2402:3a80:4190:56c4:5cec:fa4f:2353:88f8

Repeatedly deleting all content from articles Esho Maa Lakshmi, Phoolmoni, Bene Bou here and redirecting them to Zee Bangla

Deleting Meera (2015 TV series) and redirecting to Colors Bangla

Removing references and wikilinks in mass here

Deleting talk pages here not sure if link will work after I fix so before after

Removing citations and then flagging the article as unreferenced. here

I'm sure I've missed some but this is beyond disruptive. Marleeashton (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding more redirected pages: Roilo Pherar Nimontron, Mukhosh Manush Tumi Ele Taai

Adding more IPs @2402:3A80:69D:880B:5CEC:FA4F:2353:88F8 Marleeashton (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

They appear to be providing reasoning for their edits, being concerns on notability grounds. They're definitely right in the case of WP:BLPs that have no referencing. Have you tried discussing the issue? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve left many notes on talk pages - no response to anything. They’re basically deleting articles without any consensus or feedback from others. So these articles don’t get a chance to be improved or given references. And in some cases deleting the references one day and then the next day justifying the redirect by saying ‘no references’ (which I linked above) Marleeashton (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

KetchupSalt and accusation in censure of the Holocaust

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

KetchupSalt is not autoconfirmed, but they insist on being able to edit and even edit-war in articles related to Russian-Ukrainian war broadly construed [60]. When I gave them a Ds alert and explained that they might not edit the article because of the general sanctions community imposed on the topic area, they called this "defending fascists" and "censure of the Holocaust" [61]. These are not accusations I take lightly, from any users. Could something be done about these accusation please. Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think everyone should censure the Holocaust. EEng 12:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe Ymblanter meant to say the user is not extended confirmed. I don't think you were actually accused of censoring the Holocaust, Ymblanter, but it's bad enough as it is. Blocked for two weeks. But I wasn't sure what best to do here — no prejudice to another admin changing the duration, or to changing the sitewide block to some other scope. Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC).

Thank you. Indeed, not extended confirmed (this is what I also correctly communicated to them). Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 is not here to build an encyclopaedia

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

---

Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is, in principle, a matter for arbitration enforcement, but I am really busy in real life, and it is difficult for me to find an hour to find the diffs needed for a good report. May be we could solve the problem here easier. The user has essentially zero useful contributions out of 400+ they have made here. On their user page (which is on Meyta, because keeping this here would be a policy violation) they say they are a blocked sock - claiming of course this was a mistake of a blocking administrator. They have been featured at this very noticeboard yesterday. What they are doing right now is edit-warring at Kryvyi Rih, claiming that Kryvyi Rih, the Russian romanization of the name, is a "former name". I see seven reverts in the last 10 days, this is the last one. They are not extended-confirmed, and the community prohibited non-extended-confirmed users to edit articles related to the Russian-Ukrainian war. The user was made aware of this, but they do not seem to care. They claim there is consensus. There is indeed a RM at the talk page, which is ongoing, and the "consensus" they claim to exist is their agreement with another blocked sock. At the very least, the edit-warring must stop, but Wikipedia would not lose anything if this user gets an indefinite block. Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Also here, 10 minutes ago, a different article, nothing even close to consensus. Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring with an administrator diff should make it a deal. Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @ToBeFree: Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hm. At 488 edits, the current reason for the block is comparatively weak. I'm not sure if my action has actually shortened a tedious discussion or complicated everything. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Of their 488 edits, the first few were in the area, so it's not like they did 487 approved ones and then slipped up. Nor was it a case of 488 good faith edits, one of their last ones was to delete much of a page without explanation. I think you were correct. CT55555(talk) 12:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• See also this on AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Active vandal is destroying the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 page

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

---

• Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an IP vandal actively vandalizing the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 page. I am already working on reverting their disruptive edits. Admin intervention may be necessary. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Phew, the matter seems to have been handled for now, thanks to JCW555. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:AIV is that way, buddy. For the next time this happens. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 21:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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

User:مهدي جزائري part II

In September مهدي جزائري (talk · contribs) was blocked for one week for making unsourced changes to BLP articles: link to AN/I discussion They are still at it: [62] and in all their time at Wikipedia, they haven't communicated: contributions to Talk pages. As @Spiderone: noted in the previous AN/I report, There could be a language barrier here but it could also be WP:CIR or WP:NOTLISTENING. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, most (if not all) of their edits were made on mobile, so this might be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

As may be, but mobile users should not be exempted from having to communicate with other editors because the WMF can't write sound software. When enough of them are blocked for failure to do so, perhaps the WMF will get off their collective asses. Ravenswing 04:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

More unsourced changes on my watchlist: [63] Robby.is.on (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks Uncivil behavior from AndyTheGrump

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

---

• Previous AN/I report filed by ZLEA on AndyTheGrump 21 days ago

User:AndyTheGrump, who has engaged in a series of long content disputes over Gustave Whitehead and Whitehead No. 21, and has been warned for personal attacks earlier this month, has recently resumed attacking uncivil behavior targeted at myself and User:Steelpillow. Here, Andy said And no, before you ask, I'm not the reincarnation of Wilber Wright., a veiled attack on our intelligence. Furthermore, when I asked him to retract the attack uncivil comment, he told me less politely to get stuffed. And finally, to add literal insult to injury, he wrote a less-than-flattering message on his user page, with yet another attack uncivil comment in the edit summary. It should be noted that Andy was blocked numerous times in the early 2010s for incivility and personal attacks. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ZLEA, you kicked that off by accusing AndyTheGrump of having a conflict of interest with zero evidence. Baiting somebody and then heading to ANI is poor form. MrOllie (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I had little time to read over the Smithsonian article, so I easily mistook Andy’s poorly worded userpage edit for admission of a COI. I’m not proud of my mistake, but in no way did I intend to bait Andy for a personal attack. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, that's right. I stated that I'm not the reincarnation of Wilber Right. Or Orville. Because I'm not. Or at least, if I am, I'm not aware of it. As for why I felt it necessary to make this statement, see the context: I'd been accused, by two different contributors, of having a 'conflict of interest' in regards to events which occurred (or more likely, didn't) in 1901. The entire thread is an exercise in absurdity, as the two go to increasing lengths to avoid addressing the substantive issues regarding Wikipedia's coverage of Whitehead. And note that the thread started with User:Steelpillow calling me a "PoV edit warrior" [64]. Like the previous ANI thread, [65] ZLEA is engaging in blatant partisanship, accusing me of incivility while ignoring that of others.

There are serious issues involved in this dispute, involving multiple articles. I'm not entirely sure as the best way to resolve it. Or even if Wikipedia is capable of resolving it. I would however suggest that a contributor who attempts to stifle discussion by proposing "a voluntary topic ban" for me, [66] might do more for the benefit of the project, and for the benefit of aviation history, if they were to consider taking their own advice. Along with their sidekick who seems to have a convenient habit of turning up whenever the discussion lacks new absurdities or misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The WP:CIR issues evident in this report and at Talk:Whitehead No. 21 make me suspect that topic bans for a couple of the participants are needed. The misreading of AndyTheGrump's user page text is sufficiently breathtaking, but the follow-up of drawing attention to the fiasco by making this report shows some action is needed to protect Wikipedia from enthusiasts who are unable to see anything other than their desired outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq I have already provided an explanation for misreading his userpage. Do you believe a single incident of being short on time is a competence issue. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have now realized the depth of the problem, why have you not requested that this report be closed? By the way, you seem to be implying that I was not capable of finding your explanation. Is that civil? Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Because this isn't about an isolated personal attack. Andy has a long history of abrasiveness, incivility, and personal attacks. This is just the latest in a long chain of uncivil behavior which has found its way to AN/I more times than I care to count. Andy has proven time and time again over the last decade that he is quick to jump to incivility, and it needs to end. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If you cared to count, you'd soon realise that counting my entire posting history to the admin noticeboards isn't a good metric for how often I've been reported for incivility. Or for anything else much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack, self-admitted incivility, repeated uncivil behaviour and personal attacks, "highly abusive" language, "severe" personal attack, "gross incivility", more incivility, shall I continue? - ZLEA _T\^C 04:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Disinterested participants in this thread may wish to look at the dates. Along with the closing statements... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The point of listing the previous AN/I discussions is not to show their outcomes, but to show Andy's less-than-civil history. I don't believe all of those users who reported you were on the right side of their respective disputes, but it clearly shows a pattern of incivility (sometimes in response to incivility, which is still no excuse). - ZLEA _T\^C 04:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Other people may consider 'outcomes' of relevance, even if you don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• I don't work for the Smithsonian. I've never been to the Smithsonian. I've never been on the same continent as the Smithsonian. And no, before you ask, I'm not the reincarnation of Wilber Wright. Or Orville... -- the last line reads to me as a joke, apparently meant to highlight what AndyTheGrump thought was the absurdity of the COI accusation, not meant as an insult to anyone's intelligence. So I don't see the problem with that. "Less politely get stuffed" and "I'd clearly overestimated the common sense of at least two contributors" are not perfect, but it would be remiss not to acknowledge the timeline/context here, which is editors pushing fringe claims, attacking AndyTheGrump for pushing back on those claims, and then AndyTheGrump responding in a grumpy (ha) fashion only after these discussions became about him personally rather than the content at issue. Most people would get frustrated enough to walk away from battleground behaviour like this, but if you do stick around, you're going get annoyed. I'd really rather we didn't reward this behaviour where you poke and prod at someone and get them annoyed enough to say "less politely get stuffed" so you can get them sanctioned and win your little content war. Endwise (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

My accusation of a COI was based on an (admittedly flawed and rushed) interpretation of his userpage edit. It was an isolated, good faith assumption made during a time which I had less than a minute to check my watchlist and respond to Andy. Also, no one is pushing the fringe claims that Whitehead's machine flew. Please read the discussions at Talk:Whitehead No. 21, you'll notice that despite Andy's claims, no fringe theories are being pushed. The discussion is a matter of NPOV regarding the inclusion of the replica of the Whitehead No.21, which is hardly fringe. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

(ec) If "no one is pushing the fringe claims that Whitehead's machine flew", why did SteelPillow feel it necessary to link to his own personal blog, (see this edit [67]) which does exactly that? A blog which promotes a recurring theme amongst Whitehead supporters, concerning the Smithsonian being the bad guys, supressing the 'truth' supposedly because of an agreement made in 1948. The only reason being associated with the Smithsonian would involve a CoI, even if I was (I'm not) would be if there was anything of substance to this dubious assertion. Whitehead's claims aren't rejected by 'the Smithsonian', they are rejected by mainstream aviation historians, regardless of who they work for - this whole 'CoI' thing is itself based around a fringe conspiracy theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I can't see it because it goes against my sidekick nature, but can you please quote the part which states that Whitehead flew before the Wrights? Steelpillow's website makes no fringe claims, and reporting facts (I don't think anyone is questioning the existence of the 1948 Smithsonian-Wright contract) which are used by supporters of the fringe claims is not itself fringe. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To quote directly from SteelPillow's blog The evidence these sources present on the No. 21 and No. 22 would in any normal circumstance be enough to establish a viable claim to flight. By far the greater part of it supports the suggestion that the No. 21 aeroplane did indeed perform as claimed. In particular I would draw attention to the large number of photographs of the No.21 on the ground while in broad daylight. No other Whitehead machine was so attractive to photographers, nor his posing with friends and family alongside it, and one has to ask why. The most reasonable explanation is that it was special, it achieved something that its twenty predecessors had not – it flew. And note that the whole blog is built around the premise that it is the Smithsonian, and not a broader consensus, that prevents Whitehead being recognised. Just look at the title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong about that one. (Note that this does not change my opinion on Andy's uncivil behavior.) - ZLEA _T\^C 04:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that you've already been wrong once already, with your rushed 'CoI' claim, perhaps you should slow down a little. And maybe think about how well you would have responded to such an entirely unwarranted claim about you. In a thread that began with accusations of being a 'POV warrior'. Accusations that I note you still have failed to make any comment on regarding their 'civility'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll make a comment on Steelpillow's actions when you show me that there is a pattern of disruptive and/or uncivil behavior. I haven't seen any attempts from you to address his incivility. In fact, you seem to only bring up his behavior when you want to turn the attention away from your own behavior. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The pattern I'm more concerned about is the persistent misuse of Wikipedia to promote fringe claims concerning Whitehead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• I have concerns about this edit by Steelpillow: [68], where they write: Read here how critical I am of his archly confessed former employer, and understand his relentless attacks on me! (Steelpillow is apparently referring to AndyTheGrump and the Smithsonian, respectively, and links to his blog https://www.steelpillow.com/aerospace/whitehead.html). They then write that Andy's (erstwhile?) running dog is honouring their contract with the Wrights, alleging some sort of a conspiracy between Andy, Wikipedia, and the Smithsonian. This just seems bizarre and over the top, quite apart from the "PoV pusher" accusations and such. Perhaps a topic ban for Steelpillow is in order? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  @K.e.coffman: The putative contract with the Wrights is the famed binding clause that the Smithsonian Institution will never challenge their claim to primacy, on pain of having to return their Wright Flyer. This clause effectively forbids them from acknowledging the Whitehead source material as valid. They have publicly admitted the COI this creates for an institution dedicated to historical fact. A book, "History by Contract" has been written on the subject and the controversy over it all is well documented. All those involved in the conversation knew that perfectly well. Please do not read conspiracy-level hidden meanings into my remarks, or you may find yourself to be the one who is "bizarre and over the top". I respond more deeply to your other concerns below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• "Get stuffed" is far from the most civil reaction, but to construe that Wilbur statement by AndyTheGrump as a "personal attack" denotes a level of touchiness venturing into trout slap country, honestly, and a number of us might react to such an absurd provocation less civilly than Andy did. I would, myself, question the common sense of an editor doing so, let alone going to ANI over it. Picking fights over such threadbare grounds is not what I'd myself call civil, and ZLEA would be very well advised to drop the stick and back off before someone suggests a tban for them as a way to resolve things. Ravenswing 04:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I regrettably overreacted by calling the behavior a "personal attack". I have fixed the original post accordingly. I'll also back away from the discussion for now. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ZLEA began this thread with an accusasation of a personal attack. That has now been changed to an accusation of uncivil behavior. I am sorry, ZLEA, but And no, before you ask, I'm not the reincarnation of Wilber Wright is neither of those two things. Please reconsider your approach. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, is that not obfuscating what the original report was about? An admission of mistake was correct but is not editing the original post making it more confusing for someone who just stumbled across this thread? X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 05:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

So far, this discussion seems to only have concerned the thread on Talk:Whitehead No. 21. Given that ZLEA also mentioned the Whitehead biography in their first post, people may also want to take into consideration Talk:Gustave Whitehead, and in particular, the thread on 'neutrality', [69] for further evidence of what I've been encountering. Apparently, being "unable to recognise" pure speculation about entirely undocumented who-knows-whats are sufficient grounds for ZLEA to question my ability to "contribute neutrally to this topic". [70] And note further incivility from SteelPillow further in the thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Steelpillow here. I seem to be getting a lot of column inches in this discussion. For what it's worth, in this long-running dispute AndyTheGrump was the first to bring my website into it; he hinted a couple of times that he could expose me as a PoV editor before eventually posting a link. I can dig out the diffs if you all feel the need. Yes I have a minority opinion on the matter, but I am well aware of the pitfalls of being an WP:EXPERT editor as well as of the benefits. I do not bring my tentative opinion on the facts to Wikipedia's articles, I bring the salient facts as reported in RS. Note too that my essay primarily concerns the conduct of the parties involved, it is not a deep advocacy of either position. It concludes with a call on both sides to clean up their act. What I do find invidious is the obsessive and uncivilly-expressed claim here that I am pushing a fringe claim in its own right. I am not, I am documenting a nasty dispute in which neither side emerges with any credit. So now let us turn to my edits here. Check the article histories and you will see that I am trying to clean up the articles and remove both fringe and pseudosceptic rhetorc in equal measure. I am also trying to prevent the deletion of perfectly valid content documenting relevant aspects of the controversy, as reported by RS. AndyTheGruump appears to believe that suppressing NPOV balance is a good thing, and has taken grave and uncivil exception to attempts to maintain it. He has carried this campaign across half a dozen discussions, all to no effect; making a false accusation a hundred times over does not make it true, and the majority of editors understand that. He has openly declared that he is quite prepared to be disruptive if it is the only way of making his lone voice heard. That is not what consensus is about. His accusations of fringe activity are belied by his abysmal failure to garner support in these endless discussions, and anybody here who wishes to swallow his baseless charges whole really does need to read through them all, and join in to bring enough new voices to reverse the emerging consensus. Again, I can post links if they are needed. The Smithsonian has openly admitted that it has a COI in the matter, and anybody who supports its position needs to recognise the dangers of pushing that COI bias here. All this perhaps explains why I too jumped to the wrong conclusion about Andy's personal (lack of) COI, for which I now apologise unreservedly. It would be helpful if he could do the same for his wholly unsupported accusations of fringe PoV-pushing and avowed intent to ignore editorial consensus. But we are here, for a second time within a week or two, because he persists. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, diffs are needed. Making accusations without diffs is tantamount to a personal attack. But be careful that your diffs actually support the accusations being made. Those that have been cited by ZLEA have turned out to be wrong, and they have admitted to making errors three times in this discussion, so they have essentially lost any credibility they came in with. AndyTheGrump's citation from Steelpillow's blog, on the other hand, directly supports the claim that he made about ZLEA's attitude towards Whitehead's machine. Pending all the diffs that Steelpillow is going to provide, I think Johnuniq is correct in saying that some topic bans need to be dealt out, even for editors who are self-professed "experts". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• I would probably have said "fuck off" rather than "get stuffed", and that would have been justified. ZLEA and Steelpillow seem intent on introducing a false balance into articles whereby a fringe conspiracy theory (the Smithsonian has obviously persuaded almost all real experts to peddle a falsehood) is given equal weight. At the very least a topic ban is called for from anything to do with Whitehead or the Wright brothers. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

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

‎User:99.245.174.5

Continued disruptive editing over several articles by a blocked user, ‎User:Cobretti1, who is ip evading under ‎User:99.245.174.5. Filed SPI[71] and AIV[72]. User now resorts to personal attacks.[73][74] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the IP for a month but a longer duration may also be warranted given the IP seems to be used only by that person. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Robin6221

Disruptive edits with accusative edit summaries made by an unregistered user with a dynamic IP adress, (diffs: [75] [76] [77]) resulted in the page being protected. A newly registered users (Robin6221) returns to the same protected page and continues same disruptive edits with the accusative edit summaries. Diff [78]. Edit summaries made in Turkish include, "you are lying" and "you can't hide it". Ecrusized (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: As stated at the top of this page and when you edit this page, you must notify the user you are reporting. In addition, although the user has little experience (nor do you), they created their account and started editing in February 2021.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to do that, I did it now although a bit late. Ecrusized (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced changes by Rayane 77 (here we go again)

Rayane 77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first ANI was archived after six days with no reaction from any admin, but meanwhile this editor has once again edited in the same manner as described below ([79]), so I bring this matter back here once more. What I write below is exactly the same as I did two weeks ago (see [80]), and it is still valid as of now.

Despite the two warnings I have issued, this editor has kept changing or adding content, and never provides any sources to back up their changes. Examples: [81], [82], [83], [84], etc. All of their edits, basically. Even though this is the English-language Wikipedia, sometimes they edit in French for some reason: [85]. Since they have never communicated with other editors, nor tried to change their behaviour, I think it's time to block them in order to prevent more disruption, and maybe get them to finally communicate. BilletsMauves^€500 10:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I added a final warning of my own. If anyone believes that additional action is warranted at this time don't let my warning deter you. Rlendog (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Fringe editing by user Smefs

Could I get some more eyes on this?
Smefs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing is fringe / pseudoscience.

• Removed that Disclose.tv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a fake-news website. There are four citations supporting that.

1. 10:21, 27 November 2022 ES: "This edit is to ensure neutrality. There are very few unbiased sources that support the article's narrative. The text of the article has been edited to more fall in line with the information provided by the cited sources."
2. 10:40, 27 November 2022 ES: "Reverted"
3. 11:18, 27 November 2022 ES: "Undid revision 1124107233 by Adakiko (talk): not adhering to neutral point of view"
4. 11:29, 27 November 2022 ES: Undid revision 1124112044 by Adakiko (talk): not adhering to neutral point of view" (Current state of article as of now)

• On Protests against responses to the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), removed "and other measures have also been driven by COVID-19 misinformation, conspiracy theories, far-right and other extremist groups and individuals." 10:21, 27 November 2022 ES: "Grammatical errors and ensuring neutrality".
• On Responsible Future (Iceland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) refactored "party that promotes COVID-19 misinformation and misinformation around vaccines" replacing it with "generally vaccine-skeptical party, campaigning primarily on this issue" 21:00, 3 November 2022 ES: "Ensuring neutrality."

• DS-ps notice: 11:03, 27 November 2022 - reverted by Smefs and replaced with a {{Ds/aware|ps}}
• EW notice: 11:24, 27 November 2022 - reverted by Smefs
• Some discussion took place on Smefs' talk page with some spill-over on mine. Also, Smefs was kind enough to leave me an
  • EW notice: 11:27, 27 November 2022
  • DS-ps notice: 11:06, 27 November 2022 which Smefs immediately removed.

Adakiko (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. I'd be happy to give a more accurate read on this if anyone is interested. Smefs (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Smefs: Put it below this line. Adakiko (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Also, read WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE. On Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean what you think it means. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, User 27.125.165.16

User 27.125.165.16 has been making disruptive changes to aircraft and aircraft engine articles for the past two weeks. Four warnings have been given, has been reverted by at least three editors. Does not engage in conversation through their talk page or anywhere else, no edit summaries provided. Editing pattern includes edit warring, vandalism or incompetence (adding a non-existent image file path). No sign of heeding the warnings. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

27.125.165.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Easy links for reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Qara Jasaq (talk · contribs) personal attacks

After being blocked due to edit warring, he came back edit warring at Taspar Qaghan article. Here I explained that the source is actually incorrect, he still uses a citation from a facebook page. When I reverted him, [86] he calls me You biased ignorant stop disrupting other peoples edits. You are not one only one educated person. If you do not other languages stop deleting their edits. You are clearly Iranian propagandist or Turkish islamist sectant, neither you are cancer to world. Beshogur (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Block Qara Jasaq for personal attack. Admin(s) can determine length of block.--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

After being blocked (for a second time) for edit-warring in August, they waited three months and did exactly the same thing again. Add in the unpleasant personal attack, and I think you can safely say they are NOTHERE. Indefinitely blocked. Black Kite (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

User: SpyridisioAnnis, multiple edit wars, disruptive editing, and WP:CIR

User: SpyridisioAnnis has demonstrated serious WP:CIR issues, and despite an incredibly patient community attempting to correct his behavior, he has demonstrated that he is WP:NOTHERE. A quick review of the talk page indicates a number of edit wars, disruptive editing, and a general failure to understand policy. My experience with this user is primarily driven by my experiences at WP:GA where this user has been told multiple times they were nominating/review GAs incorrectly, and demonstrated a overall failure to understand GA criteria. This discussion can be found here and is supplemented by a failure to communicate here. He was temporarily banned twice for disruptive editing and WP:EWing. User has shown a lack of understanding of what they did wrong and immediately returned to their disruptive behavior here, here, and here. In fact, if you read the discussion following that ban appeals, you will find that the user specifically stated they planned to edit war with any of the perceived 'vandalism' to their work once the ban expired.

Here and [87] it was discussed at ANI that this user has WP:CIR issues and likely some English comprehension issues. That being said, the user has shown some ability to engage in constructive editing, which leads me think his behavior is intentional. At this point, this user has been warned ad nauseam and has been informed that continued behavior would result in an indef. At the very least, we need to WP:TBAN from AFD and GA.

I'll link this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations in case anyone there wants to chime in. Etrius ( Us) 16:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the admins who've previous blocked him, and who issued the final warning today to which you refer, this is fairly obviously someone who wants to help rather than being intentionally disruptive (albeit stuff like this is veering into CIR territory). His recent talkpage history is a big heap of warnings, and he does appear to have toned it down since. Either he'll carry on being disruptive and be blocked, or the warnings will hit home and there won't be further issues; I don't see how dragging him into the ritual humiliation of ANI benefits anyone. Please, consider withdrawing this. ‑ Iridescent 17:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually wonder if a topic ban from Good Article, article grading and the like for a short while may allow them to become established as an editor and start picking up on our policies. They've jumped into an area that they're clearly not experienced enough for. I've been watching the editor and it seems this is the bulk of their issues. Canterbury Tail talk 17:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know whether a ban from the entire Wikipedia namespace is an option, as that would rule out the GA, XfD, and PR processes. They need to learn the editing ropes they think they know, but really, really don't. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The GA process takes place in the Talk namespace. —Kusma (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iridescent I am not an admin, therefore any recourse I take has to go through ANI. Despite multiple warnings, SpyridisioAnnis still Edit warred through a GA nomination immediately after being unblocked and performed a drive by nomination despite being told explicitly not to. This comes after repeated attempts to explain to him that this behavior is inappropriate and would result in an indef. There is also the matter of disruptive speedy deletion noms and the cluster that is Wikipedia:IP vandalism. He may be a good faith editor, SpyridisioAnnis is the only one who can say for certain, but I would argue he hasn't toned it down since in any meaningful way. 2-3 last chance warnings in about 36 hours is quite a bit and their conduct at MfD has left something to be desired.

Boarders on willful disregard

-EEng

I applaud your patience but we can't keep giving him second chances. We're seeing a pattern of behavior that boarders on willful disregard of policy (or an inability to understand it). If this was just the AFC issues, I would understand and sympathize with your stance, but you can only link WP:EW so many times before it raises eyebrows. I can agree to avoiding an indef (barring further disruption by SpyridisioAnnis) but there does need to be a rather broad WP:TBAN since they've continued to disrupt WP:GA and WP:AFD despite a litany of warnings. That is also contingent on them not causing issues on the main-space.

I don't mean to be a prick about it, it has just become increasingly frustrating cleaning up the same issues over and over despite repeated attempts by multiple editors to explain the issues with his edits. Etrius ( Us) 18:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Either he screws up again (whether intentionally or unintentionally doesn't matter) and gets indeffed, or he doesn't and doesn't. I'm really not sure what there is here that needs to be discussed. ‑ Iridescent 18:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm particularly worried about a 'kick-the-can-down-the-road" mentality. We tried it once and it clearly didn't work. I previously agreed to not pursue it further here unless the behavior persisted (this was during their last block). We are clearly past that point and need to consider some level of protective action. This is especially salient since this user has received multiple last chances and still managed to evade being blocked. I don't like dragging people to ANI, but there is little evidence that this user won't continue to disrupt GA and AFD. Unless you, or someone else here wants to commit to reviewing their activity edit-by-edit, I don't see any reason to prematurely close this discussion. Etrius ( Us) 18:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It was reasonable to bring this to ANI, but we can afford to wait for the reaction to Iri's warning before taking further action. —Kusma (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Iridescent and @Kusma I see Iri's message on User talk:SpyridisioAnnis. I agree that this will be sufficient since it is unambiguously clear. We can go ahead and close this matter see their response. Etrius ( Us) 19:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I've been watching their conduct since this whole saga began. At this point, I would absolutely support a TBAN from the GAN process. This user needs to demonstrate they're willing to learn, stop acting like they know everything and everyone else is always wrong, and above all stop the edit warring and other disruption. Removing them from GAN might allow them to demonstrate the ability to work productively. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The competence issue is universal. Instead of fine tuning restrictions, let us wait for the reaction to Iri's final warning. If the user still doesn't get it, we should just indef and save us further pain everywhere, not just at GAN. —Kusma (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Derailing comment: GA reviews should be restricted to extended confirmed editors. EEng 19:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  I can't say that I agree. For instance, there are a few IPs who participate in the GAN process without problems. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  This is a controversial take, and I have mixed feelings about it. Yes, there are A Lot of bad GA nominations put forth by new users but there is the occasional gem. One editor I know got their first GA at only total 78 edits. Another put forth 4 GAs at only ~350 edits. There are some very skilled new users and we should applaud their efforts. Everyone's first time being a GA reviewer is going to be rough, its the nature of learning. Etrius ( Us) 20:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Kusma that any issue with competence is not restricted to one or two areas. If this editor does not respond well to the advice that has been given then a ban from everything would be in order. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I want to save Wikipedia, but I don’t know how I am doing the opposite. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 03:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Barelvi

Repeated removal of well sourced relevant content by User:SalamAlayka from Barelvi despite several talk page warnings. Maliner (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

For those investigating the matter, I would suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114 where I explained the entire situation. Maliner clearly lacks a basic understanding of how Wikipedia works, and is resorting to petty behaviour to keep non-verifiable and unrelated content on an article. SalamAlayka (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Torture in Ukraine

Posting here as an uninvolved user. Torture in Ukraine and its talk page are currently the subject of edit warring and unproductive argument. User:Masebrock, User:Gitz6666, and User:Volunteer Marek have been undoing one another's edits between November 22 and today. Masebrock and Gitz appear to be having WP:LISTEN issues regarding the consensus on the article's scope and sourcing. Volunteer Marek has been engaging in severely inappropriate conduct on the talk page for several days. This has also caused spillover warring at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I suspect that this extends to sanctions enforcement for one or more involved users, but I do not feel that I'm qualified to make that decision or initiate such a proceeding. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Russia also has this spillover. Those of us that somewhat watch over the page are simply waiting for it to be over so we can move forward on other aspects that need review. Moxy- 19:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute due to the possible sourcing misrepresentation, that’s what it is. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz feels that the article should not mention any torture by Russians. That's a lot more than a "content dispute." 22:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat involved editor here. I am the one who screamed for help at NPOVN. I have not been doing any reverting, but I have definitely expressed an opinion, several times. I will confine myself to saying a quick couple of things, then I will let other people talk.

Only yesterday I had to instruct Gitz in WP:ONUS. It was not the first time and I do not think it will be the last. He seems to simply disregard what other editors tell him, and the current talk page contains several instances of him asking other editors to explain their objections to something as a reply to original posts where they do exactly that. I cannot articulate a reason for this, but I have been watching this happen over and over again to one editor after another since at least June, when he argued with me about a point of French grammar which is... simply a fact. Walls of text are a given. He very "courteously" patronized me on my talk page until I asked him to stay off of it.

I do not think that "waiting until it is over" is the answer. It is never over. After a lengthy and painful insistence at the reliable sources noticeboard that the Russian constitution was the best source for Russia's jurisdiction over the Donbas he moved on to the torture in Ukraine article, where he has been advocating removal of all mentions of torture by Russians, and yesterday asked me to explain how rape would not be off-topic in an article about torture.

It is unfortunate that VM allowed himself to be goaded into the crossed-out outburst, but frankly he speaks for all of us who had a consensus to redirect the article (nine editors). VM was trying to defend the principles of Wikipedia, which Gitz has repeatedly questioned, complaining here of personal attacks when he did not like the answers. Multiple good editors are on wikibreaks from the article because of Gitz. This was all going on at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine before this.

I realize that such statements require diffs, and I will edit them in over the next day or so, but I need to deal urgently with a RL situation due to weather, and almost all of this is right on the talk page of the above article, and what is there is imho sufficient to illustrate what I just said. When I come back with diffs, I will start with the ones that are on other pages. Gotta go for now but TL;DR imho VM is correct; in a very real sense he would not have had to comb through all that harrowing material if Gitz had not reverted a redirect of what consensus said was a really terrible and disingenuous bit of disinformation. Elinruby (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby Yeah, I have notice the same - (PS - VM promptly struck his outburst without anybody asking them to do it) Hats down to the rest of you for keeping cool in those conditions 👍) (a little involved) - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Since involved editors are chiming in, here is a sample of the conduct on the talk page from Elinruby [88] and User:Volunteer Marek [89]. This edit to the main article is particularly telling [90]: Seven sources and 3,000 characters of text were blanked because it was in the "wrong tense". Masebrock (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This is completely false and in fact quite illustrative of the WP:TEND and WP:GAME attitude that Masebrock and Gitz6666 have brought to this article. The text was not blanked just because it was "wrong tense". It was removed because the text falsely pretended that what was true in 2014 is still true today and was blatantly misrepresenting the sources. I don't know how to else explain it to Masebrock - if the source does not say what the text claims it says then that text can and should be removed. Restoring such text, AFTER it's been explained that the source is being lied about - is extremely disruptive and frankly should be met with a straight up ban. How can we trust editors who routinely misrepresent sources? Volunteer Marek 01:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary is there for everyone to see. I will quote in its entirety: "hmm, how about you get the tense right and stop pretending that this is current practice and maybe something about this can be included". If you meant to object for some other reason, perhaps you should have written that reason instead. Would love to discuss questions of misrepresentation of sources on the talk page, please make sure to provide current (that is, not already resolved) examples. Masebrock (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, please stop describing edits that you don't think perfectly summarize the source (such as having the wrong tense) as "lies", and editors who make these errors as "pretending". Masebrock (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Casting aspersions is par for the course by User:Volunteer Marek: [91][92]. Elinruby seems to think you can avoid having to assume good faith simply by peppering their comments with the acronym "AGF":[93][94] Masebrock (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Masebrock Yeah, that's the burst that was immediately struck by the person who posted it. But I'm more curious in what you have to say about the troubling sources instead. Why do they seem not to express what’s written into the article? (refer to details on talk page). - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to talk about this! In fact, I addressed your concerns right here [95] but I'm still waiting for your response. I would indeed love an elaboration and discussion on how the sentence "During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Russian forces have been documented" is being falsified by these sources [96][97][98][99] Please, continue. Let's discuss. Masebrock (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Masebrock, you know very well that that wasn't the argument. Those sources DO support THAT text. The problem was with you pretending that these sources support this text: "" numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Ukrainian (forces) have been documented" which you added here. NONE of these sources say ANYTHING about Ukrainians doing this. ALL of these sources are about Russians doing this. This is indeed straight up misrepresenting sources and pretending they say what they don't say at all.

There was another instance in the article where "Russians committed murder" (which is what sources said) was sneakily replaced by "Ukrainians committed murder" (what the sources did not say). The whole article was a piece of junk with this kind of falsehoods. And that was the version you and Gitz6666 were edit warring to restore. Despite objections of at least 9 editors. You deserve at very least a topic ban if not a site ban for these kinds of hi-jinks. Volunteer Marek 01:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"Pretending"? I was not "pretending". I made a small, simple error (thinking that the sentence in question referred to 2014-2022 instead of 2022 alone) that I quickly moved to correct. Do you really want to continue casting aspersions at me on the Administrators' noticeboard? Masebrock (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The misrepresentation was introduced here[100] by Masebrock. The phrase "both Ukrainian and" was inserted into the lead and is not supported by any of the four cited sources.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That's correct. I inadvertently added this misrepresentation yesterday in an attempt to restore the stable version of the lead, not realizing that the paragraph had become bifurcated into separately describing the torture in the War in Donbass and the 2022 conflict, instead of combining them as one as it had done since 2019. I didn't catch that the sentence in question referred to only 2022 conflict instead of the 2014-2022 conflict. So I accidentally misrepresented the sources, saying that Ukraine had been committing torture in 2022 (which was not supported by the sources) instead of during the broader 2014-2022 conflict (which was). When this was brought to my attention I quickly moved to correct it,[101] but Gitz beat me to it.[102]. I have been perfectly open about this mistake since the moment I made it. Masebrock (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Beat you to it huh? While at that time you falsely claiming you were just "modifying the lead to match the body of the text" (there's absolutely nothing in the body about this) [103]

Sources say "Russians committed torture and murder". Four of them. Which go into disturbing detail. Anyone who at least bothered clicking on the sources would know this.

You come along and change it to "Russians AND Ukrainians committed torture and murder". Even though not a single source present says that.

Oh yeah, then you tried to claim there were "OTHER" sources that supported it. Except all the sources provided were from 2016, whereas here we're discussing events of 2022. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You're literally just reiterating what I wrote myself in the previous comment, but in a snarky way that implies I was acting bad faith. Masebrock (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And at any rate the error has been fixed, and all parties agree it has been resolved, so further talk of "misrepresenting sources" needs to find something else to point to. Masebrock (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes but it took a couple days, numerous comments and threat of sanctions for restoring falsely sourced info for you guys to budge even a little. Volunteer Marek 01:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Five hours and twelve minutes. That's how long my accidental misrepresentation remained on the page. [104],[105]. Even more, it was deleted by Gitz only 30 minutes after it was brought to our attention (he beat me to it). [106],[107] Masebrock (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I promised to let other people talk, but I have a couple of minutes here while I am waiting for the cab, so please bear with me. Re: "wrong tense", a book published in 2015 was being used to source a statement that in 2022 Ukrainian forces are torturing people. UNDUE when an effort is afoot to remove from the article mentions of the Russians doing so, and definitely anachronistic for the statement. Re the VM snippet, Masebrock fails to mention that VM struck the outburst immediately afterwards, according to GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs) above, without prompting. This seems like a pertinent fact which has been misrepresented right here. Re my snippet: I said what I said and I stand by it, unless someone tells me I made an error of fact, in which case I will reassess. Note that much is also made of a Brigade Tornado supposedly torturing people. I am an agnostic on this point, but according to Xx236 (talk · contribs), I believe, the brigade was disbanded in 2015, therefore the unit is not as a unit doing anything at all in 2022 let alone torturing people. Peace out. Elinruby (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting that the deleted text about the Tornado brigade explicitly said that is was disbanded in 2015 and did not in anyway suggest that it was actively torturing people. Deleting it on grounds of it "not doing anything at all in 2022" is just baffling. Masebrock (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice, content dispute spills over here now. Maybe it’s better to continue on the related talk pages instead? What do you folks say? - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This is about way more than a content dispute. The problem as I see it is that we cannot believe what Gitz6666 says, and *he* doesn't care what the policy says. And is exceedingly tone-deaf. How is rape not off-topic in an article about torture? YaySUS. There is a pattern of editing here that is very problematic. This is the first time I've encountered Masebrock, mind you, but to my mind it isn't looking good. Elinruby (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Look on the bright side. Now a responding admin need not even click away from ANI before seeing that a few users need a polite nudge in the right direction. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• With regard to the numerous acts of torture of civilians and numerous acts of torture of prisoners of war by Ukrainian (forces) have been documented, the point has already been clarified ad nauseam. Masebrock made a mistake that they immediately acknowledged on the article talk page; as soon as I noticed the mistake, I removed it form the article (my third revert in 24 h yesterday) and Masebrock thanked me for that. A momentary inattention is not worth of community discussion.
• However, Volunteer Marek's repeated claims that this piece of shit article was straight up lying, whoever put the original text in simply lied, there's outright lying, removing outright lies and misrepresentations of sources, outright lying, and so on and so on - these claims are themselves a misrepresentation of sources, and deserve community discussion.
• The main issue with the article has always been WP:BALANCE, but in terms of verifiability and sources it was decent. Yes, there were a few issues - mistakes or, if one wants, "lies" - that could have been easily fixed and that were actually fixed also by myself: e.g. the sentence Ukrainian civil society prefers to ignore, which is actually very bed - I tagged it and then removed it; a reference to mass murders of prisoners, that VM rightly removed; a reference to neo-nazi, that I removed; past tense/present tense, which is a matter of MOS rather than lies, and could be easily fixed; "Tornado" as infamous example, which was not sourced but could have been easily sourced with this "scandalous battalion" (Скандальний батальйон) or simply removed; two WP:BIASED but not unreliable sources (Hahn and De Ploeg), which nonetheless quoted reliable sources (Amnesty, HRW, Der Spiegel) and could be replaced or supplemented with them.
• The point worth discussing is the following. We had a promising, reasonably sourced text, which was based on Amnesty, HRW and on a courageous report by three Ukrainian HR organisations (this one), plus The Times, Der Spiegel, Vox of America, the pro-Maidan Kuzio and the anti-Maidan Hahn and De Ploeg. And VM repeatedly removed that text claiming that it was "full of lies" and that he enjoyed a strong consensus while intense discussions were going on on the talk: [108][109][110][111] [112][113][114].
• The text was not full of lies and the few errors that were there could be easily corrected and were quickly corrected. But VM did not want to correct the errors, he wanted to delete the article completely: am I wrong Volunteer Marek? I know I'm not wrong. So if you want to delete an article, AfD is the right way to go. I really wonder why you think you can behave like this.
• Another point that maybe requires discussion is Elinruby's disgraceful behaviour towards me. I asked him many times to refrain from personal attacks (two amongst many: If there is some sort of language or medical issue here I am happy to help [115], I don't know why you, some random lawyer in Italy, choose to devote all this time to Those Poor Misunderstood Russians, but seriously dude, you are embarrassing yourself[116]) but he never obliged, he always replied with arrogance and defiance, so much so that to protect myself from stress, yesterday I decided not to read his comments any more, wherever they are posted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

am I wrong Volunteer Marek? Yes. You are completely wrong. Anyone who thinks that this version of the article was "pretty decent" or that it was "a promising, reasonably sourced text" has no business editing this topic area (or for that matter an encyclopedia). Yes, that version, which you edit warred to restore against the consensus of nine editors (while of course claiming false consensus yourself), was indeed full of lies and source misrepresentation. I already explained this to you half a dozen times. I provided the diffs. I provided the diffs of where I provide diffs (here). Yet you keep repeating the same false claims. This is such a textbook case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that it's driving not just me but as can be seen from the above discussion multiple other editors up the wall.

There was consensus to redirect the article. Or clean it up by rewriting it completely. Nine editors. You restored that messed up version and had the audacity to claim repeatedly that because the article survived an AfD the version that was full of POV and source misrepresentation was "stable" and must be kept. It was pointed out to you multiple times, even by the editors who voted "keep" that the keep !votes also recommended "keep but rewrite" (here is the AfD). Yet you kept repeating the line that because it survived an AfD the original version must be kept. This is even more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

This is why this whole thing blew up. You and Masebrock kept restoring an old messed up version of the article and insisting it must be kept "cuz it's stable" and you were doing so against consensus on talk page and when various editors tried to explain to you the problems with that version you just kept ignorin' and edit warrin' and repeating same false claims ad nauseum. Volunteer Marek 03:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And I'm getting really tired of repeating the same thing because you simply refuse to listen, but in this diff I list the editors who supported redirecting/rewriting the article. The users wereMichael Z, User:Adoring nanny, User:Xx236, User:Elinruby, User:GizzyCatBella, User:Lute88, User:Fermiboson, User:Cambial Yellowing and myself. You and Masebrock *ignored* this consensus and kept edit warring while obfuscating on talk. The edit warring by both of you involved either restoring false sourcing or even adding false text to the article. You both deserve topic bans at minimum here, both for violating content guidelines (WP:V, WP:NPOV) and behavioral guidelines (WP:BATTLEGROUND). Volunteer Marek 03:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

When I first came to the article, it looked like it had been written in the Kremlin[117]. It was also stable in the same state for the entire month of September, and some time before and after. VM's comments are justified in substance, though it would not hurt to tone them down. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yet you kept repeating the line that because it survived an AfD the original version must be kept. No, I've never said this. Where did I say so? My very first comment in the talk page starts with This article needs improvement.
• I already explained this to you half a dozen times. I provided the diffs. I provided the diffs of where I provide diffs. Unfortunately our fellow editors may not have time to go through your diffs and see that they don't lead to anything new than what I have already said here. One is about "Tornado" as infamous example - duly noted and mentioned above, and anyway they were pretty infamous, since they forced their prisoners to sodomise each other and systematically subjected them to electroshock. One is about Russian militias in Donbass who murdered prisoners - idem, see here above, re "mass murders"; that was a mistake (or a lie) that needed to be fixed, and was easily fixable. One is about de Ploeg - non reliable; you say so, AFIK he's biased but reliable, but we don't needed him anyway, I agreed on removing him and use Der Spiegel instead. One is about the present tense issue: big issue eh. One is Kuzio: for some reason you didn't want me to say "in 2015" to contextualize his claim but instead you wanted to say "before the Revolution of Dignity": what's the difference? And on the basis of these easily amendable trifles you remove Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the Ukrainian HR ONGs?!? It doesn't make sense: you just didn't want the article online, that's it. The Ukrainian people and their government need to be one and the same thing in a time of war: no dark spots are tolerable.
• the consensus of nine editors. Are you sure they were nine? Please, their usernames. ButI know that I was not alone in reverting your massive removals, also two experienced editors agreed (Alaexis and Masebrock), and other three editors had already reverted similar removals of text in recent times.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• With immediate effect Torture in Ukraine is indefinitely subject to WP:1RR per WP:ACDS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole accusing me of being disruptive

I'm currently in a heated dispute at Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting over what pronouns to refer to the shooter with and whether to include their birth name in the article. Throughout this discussion, User:Locke Cole has accused me of being disruptive, [118][119] "pushing an agenda" after I asked them to bring up their concerns here rather than the talk page, [120] [121] and of violating WP:Competence is required. [122] In the past, User:Locke Cole has been warned by several editors on their talk page about concerns with civility [123] [124] [125], has been warned at WP:AN3 for civility by an admin acting officially, [126], blocked for NPA, [127] and was brought here a few months ago over civility concerns. [128]
Now, I argued in some of these threads for much longer than I should have, and I do feel passionately about my own position (I will likely take a break from that article for a while), so I'm not the best judge of my own behaviour. I respect Locke Cole's long history of contributing to the project, but I believe these comments at that discussion crossed the line. They should not be allowed to use other editors of being incompetent or disruptive on article talk pages. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've notified Locke Cole [129] about this discussion and SPECIFICO [130] as SPECIFICO is involved in two of the diffs (the warnings) that I've posted here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that after asking if I wanted to report them or if I wanted them to report me (which was apparently their response to being called out for being disruptive), they apparently decided to take it upon themselves. Personally, I was going to head to WP:AN/AE, but we can start here I suppose. Chess apparently takes issue with having people disagree with them. Instead of engaging in anything resembling productive discussion, they routinely misrepresent (or misunderstand) MOS:GENDERID and, without citing any significant sources, push the idea that their way is the only way to deal with gender at Colorado Springs nightclub shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Colin had previously warned Chess that the types of comments Chess makes regarding gender issues are an easy way to earn a topic ban (I've notified Colin of this discussion). And I agree. See here, where Chess says it's misgendering someone against the consensus of reliable sources is definitely not a good look even though the discussion is about including the perpetrators previous name that was changed many years prior to the mass shooting, a shooting that occurred prior to the primary source (the perpetrator's lawyer) claiming they are non-binary. One does not simply get to engage in mass murder, then scream "I'm non-binary" to somehow make it so reports on them have to hide their prior history of who they were. Most people at the talk page seem to get that, but Chess keeps pushing a strict reading of a guideline to try and overcome policy requirements. Accusing another editor of "misgendering" subjects of our articles is a bold claim given the reliable sources on this matter. Chess also stated [a]ll mass shooting articles shouldn't assume suspect gender per WP:BLPCRIME, in reply to a discussion they weren't previously involved in, making a claim that is demonstrably false (that BLPCRIME speaks about gender identity; it doesn't).

Chess is, at best, engaging in a severe WP:IDHT on the talk page, or at worst, displaying a clear lack of competency about the subject they seem to be heavily invested in. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Instead of engaging in anything resembling productive discussion, they routinely misrepresent (or misunderstand) MOS:GENDERID and, without citing any significant sources, push the idea that their way is the only way to deal with gender at Colorado Springs nightclub shooting. I disagree with you on the interpretation of that policy, and others have agreed with me. That's how a discussion works and we're having an RfC on it, the result of which I'm planning on respecting. I cited WP:DEADNAME, which says that prior names of non-binary individuals should not be included in an article unless those are names that the individual is notable under. I believe an expansive reading of that policy is a good thing and that we should err on the side of caution and apply the policy to all names that could potentially be deadnames. I can see why you might disagree with me, but I don't see how that's being disruptive. Even if I'm wrong, that still doesn't give you the right to insult me.

In response to Colin had previously warned Chess that the types of comments Chess makes regarding gender issues are an easy way to earn a topic ban (I've notified Colin of this discussion)., I struck the comment accusing Colin of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS a few days ago. [131] I've also apologized for that comment to Colin, again a few days ago (before this ANI thread or any new threats of action against me). [132] While that was (and still is) a heated RfC on WP:RSN, it was inappropriate for me to link the policy on WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and I again apologize for that.

In response to your claim that One does not simply get to engage in mass murder, then scream "I'm non-binary" to somehow make it so reports on them have to hide their prior history of who they were. Most people at the talk page seem to get that, but Chess keeps pushing a strict reading of a guideline to try and overcome policy requirements. Accusing another editor of "misgendering" subjects of our articles is a bold claim given the reliable sources on this matter. That's fundamentally a content dispute. Yes, I think you're wrong. I've provided several sources that describe the suspect as non-binary and use they/them pronouns. [133] I don't think it's a good look for Wikipedia to use he/him when reliable sources use they/them, and when the suspect identifies with they/them. Me disagreeing with you does not earn me a topic ban.

In terms of "all mass shooting articles shouldn't assume suspect gender per WP:BLPCRIME", I had a longer comment that was cut off. I apologize for that, as what I said was not very clear. That was my mistake--I should be ensuring that my comments are clear from the start and review my comments after I make them. That is why I clarified it in a follow-up [134] where I said The point I'm making is that in any cases where the shooter is arrested, we should not assume the shooter's gender because it's almost always assuming that the shooter's gender matches the suspect. Gender-neutral terms should be used in all of these cases. I've explained that I've previously made this type of edit before on other pages in less controversial circumstances, where I removed the pronoun "he" from Stoneman Douglas High School shooting because it implied Cruz was the shooter before he was actually convicted. [135] Your response was to accuse me of pushing an agenda. [136]

Your argument boils down to the claim that I'm disruptive for disagreeing with you in an RfC, which is an acceptable place for disagreeing with other editors. And yes, my response to being "called out" on an article talk page is to ask if you want to report me to WP:ANI. The article talk page is not an appropriate place to discuss editor conduct. If there's one person who apparently takes issue with having people disagree with them, it would be you, who thinks that I should be topic-banned from the gender area because I'm on the wrong side in a relatively minor WP:content dispute. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)