Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 166.205.97.48 (talk) at 02:15, 2 December 2022 (→Dynamic ip?: Cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    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)[reply]

    Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Eleven days have passed. Can someone please take a look at this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks pretty stale to me. As user is inactive, a timed block doesn't mean much, and as noted above, it's just about not bad enough to warrant an indef. If the user pops up again and continues the same activity, though, it should be a fairly straightforward trip to WP:AIV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Thanks AirshipJungleman29! --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Solijonovm1996

    UNRELATED INDEF
    User Indeffed for edit warring (non-admin closure) GabberFlasted (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    So far it would seem not. EEng 04:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They've asked what edits I meant, I listed 3 in the last 5 days. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    That may be (I have not looked into the issues to judge for myself), but at the moment there is a fairly fulsome and sincere-seeming (if ever so slightly caveat-peppered) unblock request on their talk page. I've definitely seen worse unblock mea culpas, and if I was mop-enabled, I'd probably have already unblocked, considering the blocking admin's comments above. SnowRise let's rap 09:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheating

    I look through recent changes and I notice that edits to MATLAB show an anon adding test answers [20] and [21] [22] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    That's a new one. Someone should tell them about pastebins. Frogging101 (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it new? I am unconvinced that this is the first time. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The most famous exam cheating related incident is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive507#Admin_misusing_viewdeleted :) —Kusma (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really amusing. There are many other websites out there that they can use. Wikipedia is actually a really bad pastebin, and records are virtually permanent. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Diamond3245

    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.

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

    [23]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Just as i thought another sockpuppet of Diamond3245 appeared EneroFerrari, and SPI Report now created. Chip3004 (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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: [24] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    More unsourced changes on my watchlist: [25] Robby.is.on (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More: [26], [27] This is getting tiresome and frustrating. WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU or not, the editor's editing is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia. Someone please intervene. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman:, @Mattythewhite:, someone…? Robby.is.on (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsure if I can block due to my restrictions, but agree a lenghty block or even indef is merited... GiantSnowman 19:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    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)

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

    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)[reply]

    Disruptive editing, User 27.125.165.16

    Reported editor blocked after a separate report to AIV. --100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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

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

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

    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 [30] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The GA process takes place in the Talk namespace. —Kusma (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @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
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Derailing comment: GA reviews should be restricted to extended confirmed editors. EEng 19:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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

    @SpyridisioAnnis: I believe you are acting in good faith and want to help, but comments about wanting to save Wikipedia will do you few favours. To be blunt: Wikipedia, for all its flaws, does not need saving, and if it did, frankly you would not be the person to do it. That's no bad thing – things would have to be pretty damn disastrous for me to be the best hope of saving Wikipedia either!
    If you want to become a productive Wikipedia contributor, my best advice to you is that you go back to the basics of what Wikipedia is all about – incremental improvements to existing articles. Don't try to create new articles, and don't get involved in backroom stuff – just make small, noncontroversial improvements to existing articles. Fix typos. Add missing information, along with citations to reliable sources which support it. Find some sources to support information already in the article which is missing citations. When you have some experience in the field, then is the time to branch out to more major editing, rewriting large parts of articles or creating new ones. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont want to get back to the basics. In fact, I want to go all the way to creating a lot of Featured Articles that are of course not the basics. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 11:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to create a lot of featured articles (which is a worthy goal!) you need to master the basics first. If you aren't capable of noncontroversial copyediting or adding citations to support claims, then you will not be able to write a Featured Article which requires you to write prose "to a professional standard", and to ensure that all claims are "verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ... supported by inline citations where appropriate". At the time of writing, you have made 70 edits to article space, of which 29 have been reverted. You have made only two relatively large contributions of article text, here and here, and neither of those are Featured Article quality. Mastering the basics may not seem exciting, but if you want to create featured content, it's essential. One of those essential basics is learning to listen to the advice you have been given; you will not get an article to Featured Article if you refuse to follow any of the suggestions of the reviewers. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)@Caeciliusinhorto:, I think SpyridisioAnnis is using a dictionary or online translator that frequently suggests the wrong words. There are verbs in Greek that can mean "help" or "save" in different contexts, and my guess is that an autotranslator got it wrong.
    @SpyridisioAnnis: one large part of the problem you have had with editing Wikipedia is that when people have asked why you made some edit, you have not tried to explain your reasons, instead you have simply said that you are right. The only way forward is for you to work hard on communicating better. Remember that machine translators are often really bad, and until you have improved your own ability to read and write in English, you will have to work very slowly and if somebody asks why you made an edit, you must do your best to explain. When someone reverts an edit you have made, ask them why, but please do not revert without discussion. Wanting to create fantastic articles is good, but nobody can do that unless they know the basics really well first, and has made many, many smaller helpful edits in the way Caeciliusinhorto suggests. --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bonadea: yes, I wondered if one of SpyridisioAnnis' problems is that they speak Greek natively and they are not fluent in English. Unfortunately for them, if they want to do things like create new articles, contribute to featured articles, review good article nominations, and write Wikipedia-space guidelines they do need to be able to communicate well in English. (SpyridisioAnnis: if you are struggling to communicate in English and you are a native speaker of Greek then you might consider contributing to el.wikipedia.org) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be getting it wrong. I don’t use any English dictionaries and I didn’t use a dictionary to write this. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 14:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've indeffed them for their clear statement that they refuse to follow our rules. Done. Canterbury Tail talk 15:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry they've now stated that they are not unwilling, they're just unable. Same deal. Canterbury Tail talk 15:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Side note: Why does Template:Infobox Wikipedia user have an |iq= parameter? (See [32].) Is that, like, a test to see who's clueless enough to fill it in? EEng 21:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You can blame Lcarsdata (great username, shame they're long gone) for that one. Canterbury Tail talk 21:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Non-involved editor viewpoint. This is a content dispute and has not been taken to the talk page of the article at the very least. While not 3RR, there has been 3 reversions of the same material over the past week and Maliner has been templating an editor without trying to discuss it. I disagree with the veracity of Maliner trying to revert the edits. Most of the citations are very poor and the material cited is not found in the resources. If this is dispute is opened on the article talk page, I would be happy to discuss my findings further and how we can improve the troublesome section. Inomyabcs (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Torture in Ukraine: Masebrock, Gitz6666, Volunteer Marek, Elinruby

    Ok, this has gone on long enough. The article has been put under WP:1RR. Beyond that we have what looks like a content dispute which has reached the point where it is becoming TLDR and little if any additional light is being shed. No further admin action appears to be called for at this time. Further discussion relating to the article and the ongoing content disputes belongs on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:1RR is now applied to Human rights in Ukraine. Further discussion regarding ongoing content disputes should occur on the article talk pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Content dispute due to the possible sourcing misrepresentation, that’s what it is. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Since involved editors are chiming in, here is a sample of the conduct on the talk page from Elinruby [33] and User:Volunteer Marek [34]. This edit to the main article is particularly telling [35]: 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The "wrong tense" was being used to mislead the reader on purpose. It's as if someone is in an abusive, violent, relationship. They leave that relationship. They find a new partner who is not abusive. Yet you want to write "their partner is beating the shit out of them" in present tense in order to make it seem like their current partner is the problem. I'm sorry but this kind of game-playing is simply dishonest and trying to downplay it as "just a matter of tense" only compounds your fault here. Volunteer Marek 04:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "The "wrong tense" was being used to mislead the reader on purpose." If this isn't a violation of WP:GOODFAITH, I don't know what is. Masebrock (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. One only needs to look at the editing history of the creator of the article [36] to see that this was a short-lived WP:SPA that made 27 edits total, all of them with pretty clear intention of POV pushing. Like Adoring nanny said, when a normal person looks at that version of the article one gets the impression that it came straight out of Kremlin propaganda office. But apparently that wasn't your or Gitz6666's impression. That's the problem. Volunteer Marek 05:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Casting aspersions is par for the course by User:Volunteer Marek: [37][38]. Elinruby seems to think you can avoid having to assume good faith simply by peppering their comments with the acronym "AGF":[39][40] Masebrock (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    I'd like to talk about this! In fact, I addressed your concerns right here [41] 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 [42][43][44][45] Please, continue. Let's discuss. Masebrock (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    No, you did not "move quickly to correct" this "simple error" (which involved inserting false claims into the article and pretending that sources supported it), you kept defending it on talk. Gitz6666 did realize that you f'ed up here, went to far, the POV-pushing became a little too over the top and obvious, and swooped in to save your butt, undoing that edit quickly before anyone noticed. Volunteer Marek 04:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally my first response upon your pointing out that the sentence in question referred only to 2022 was "I also didn't notice that references to the War in Donbass had been removed from the lead. Again, easily fixable, no need for hysterics. I will make these edits now." Right here [46] if anyone wants to take a look. In your initial profanity-filled tirade (the one where you say "Fuck you.") you did not mention this critical detail (the year 2022 instead of 2014-2022), so I did not yet notice it.
    I am begging outside observers to take note of what Volunteer Marek is repeatedly doing here. Masebrock (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally my first response upon your pointing out Nope. False again. This is your first response. In which you basically say "well, it's okay if I misrepresented THESE sources because I was just summarizing what the body of the article says and here is some other sources". Except the body of the article said nothing like that. And these other sources were for something different. See how tiring this is? Volunteer Marek 05:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mention that the sentence in question only encompasses 2022 and not 2014-2022 in your "Fuck you" post? No you did not. So my response to that was not my first response to learning the year issue. I'm done here with the bad faith accusations. Go shout at a wall. Masebrock (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The misrepresentation was introduced here[47] 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)[reply]
    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,[48] but Gitz beat me to it.[49]. I have been perfectly open about this mistake since the moment I made it. Masebrock (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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) [50]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Five hours and twelve minutes. That's how long my accidental misrepresentation remained on the page. [51],[52]. Even more, it was deleted by Gitz only 30 minutes after it was brought to our attention (he beat me to it). [53],[54] Masebrock (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    If you say so. For reference, my comment above is about this thread. If I misread it, I misread it, but I don't think I did, and I don't want to argue with *you* about it here. Elinruby (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs are easy to check. [55] Masebrock (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok? I fail to see your point. Mine is that this is what I was talking about. I gave you a link to the entire thread. Do with it as you wish. Elinruby (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are probably articles that we cannot even come close to writing properly due to information problems, this topic screams as such as topic that it is far better to wait until the current war is done, and historians can have their chance to review events so that we can summarize properly and without this type of fighting. There is no requirement that we have to be perfectly up to date on topics (its a nice feature but not required) and there's no deadline for getting it right. Masem (t) 04:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    I think you have the wrong number of negations in your sentence about rape, but also I think you are misrepresenting the discussion of that -- at no point did Gitz argue that rape would not be on-topic or make you defend the position that it would be. (Your comment about rape was cryptic at best; Gitz didn't understand it, and Gitz explained that clearly. Then there was some incredibly tedious personalized huffing and puffing on both sides, but mostly by you. The main takeaway from that exchange is that it would be better if you took the time to express yourself more clearly in the first instance.) 128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure who you are, but sure, I am capable of using the wrong number of negatives. I am not sure which sentence you mean though. What I wanted to know was this: Since apparently we are going with "blow it up and start over", instead of "redirect", because Gitz, has anyone included any of the many instances of rape into the new version? His reply was "How is this not off-topic?" with some extra, untrue, snark for flavor.
    I found this reply extremely offensive and also take personal offense at Gitz' repeated insinuations that I cannot express myself clearly in my native language. I try to avoid and/or rephrase US idiom and cultural references for his benefit, and I get this stuff, not to mention lengthy condescending lectures about French, a language from which I routinely translate here, and that he doesn't even claim to speak himself.
    Peace the hell back out; this is a good illustration of Gitz' combative discussion style, but the substance of the exchange itself is peripheral to the main issue here. In my eyes, the issue here is PoV-pushing and IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which he himself confirms when he says somewhere in this dumpster fire that he has consciously elected not to read any of my posts. Elinruby (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know who you are, either, but I am capable of reading the discussion. The sentence with the wrong number of negatives is How is rape not off-topic in an article about torture?. This kind of sloppy writing is bound to confuse people. You should refresh your memory of WP:AGF, and not engage in personalized ranting when it is not necessary (like here, or there, or pretty much anywhere ever). --JBL (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    hmm perhaps the direct quote would have been better, typed out as "How is [rape] not off-topic?" but this instance of combative "discussion" is still merely that, and in this thread I am here to try to point out the larger pattern. You on the other hand seem to be picking a typographic nit, and sure, ok, fine, in future I will try to avoid indirect quotes in these situations. I already try to avoid ANI dumpster fires when at all possible, though, so the suggestion seems gratuitous. Thank you for the typographical suggestion however, I guess. Elinruby (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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: [56][57][58][59] [60][61][62].
    • 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 [63], 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[64]) 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    When I first came to the article, it looked like it had been written in the Kremlin[65]. 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Yet you keep referring to the original POV version as "decent" and "promising, reasonably sourced text" and tried restoring it multiple times. This despite that it was pointed out repeatedly that the sources didn't say what that version claimed they said.
    And yes, "present tense" IS a big issue, since using present tense to discuss things that happened before 2014 - as if they were true today - was being done in order to falsely pretend that the abuses that the Ukrainians revolted against in 2014 were actually done by them. The text was purposefully written in a misleading way. Again, if you think that this is "no big deal", you really have no business editing this topic.
    The Amnesty and HRW were removed because they were being misrepresented. Here is the Amnesty source. It does say that both sides engaged in torture but it also says that only the pro-Russian forces carried out murders and summary executions. Yet the version of the article you kept restoring claimed that murders and summary executions were carried out by Ukrainians. Again, falsifying what the source actually said.
    And so you finally see these nine editors? Except you initially didn't? The fact that there were nine people disagreeing with you was pointed out to you before, it was obvious from the talk page and ... you, just, now, are, realizing, it? THAT right there is a perfect illustration of your inability to listen to others and your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems that makes any kind of collaborative work with you impossible.
    And we already know Masebrock supported you in these sorry endeavors. Which is why BOTH of you deserve topic bans for restoring or inserting material into the article with false sourcing. And if you going to count the "three editors" who restored some portions of this piece of garbage several months ago, then we can also count all the editors who tried to remove this nonsense several months ago. You're reaching for straws. Volunteer Marek 04:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone writes an article in 2019 using a 2015 source (the openly pro-Maidan Kuzio) on conditions of prisons in Ukraine; obviously they use the present tense, as any inexperienced editor who had not studied the MOS by heart would do. How do you interpret this? done in order to falsely pretend. Congratulations for your ability to AGF. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After doing some spot-checking of Volunteer Marek's list of "editors who support redirecting or rewriting" (interpreted by himself as removal of all content) on the talk page, it doesn't hold up. User:Xx236 made no such comment whatsoever and their inclusion on this list is baffling. The last comment User:Adoring nanny said when Volunteer Marek was mass deleting content was I do not, yet, have an opinion whether the article should exist or not[...] I am going to stay out of the delete/restore wars for now. Meanwhile you fail to mention the fairly sizable number of editors who have expressed preferences for non-redirection of the article in the AfD. No consensus was achieved at the time of your mass deletions, despite your repeated claims. Masebrock (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masebrock:That selective quotation does a remarkable job of creating a misleading impression of my full post.[66] Adoring nanny (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I frankly don't understand. Are you saying your position at the time was that the article should be deleted or redirected, and that I should have known that from your post that begins with "''I do not, yet, have an opinion whether the article should exist or not..."? Masebrock (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am saying that you misrepresented my full post.[67] You further used that misrepresentation above to say that I did not support "redirecting or rewriting." Based on my full post, you should have known that I did support "redirecting or rewriting." The only question was which one. By restoring the version I was objecting to, you were effectively preventing "redirecting or rewriting."Adoring nanny (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The things is, I agree with your sentiment here "...the Restore people need to think about just what they are restoring. The Hahn material should not be restored. I haven't gone through VM's subsequent deletions to see if they shouldn't be restored either. But if you are restoring, it could be a good idea to consider just what you are restoring." Absolute agreement, and indeed the material in question in your post is now removed (as it should be). But also, the "delete people" need to carefully consider what it is they are deleting. The page is not so long that it would be a burdensome task to discuss each section, or even sentence of sourced material, on the talk page before deletion. The page has already gone under significant revision since the initial controversy and is in much better shape than when it started. Masebrock (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop trying to bamboozle people. Adoring nanny and Xx236 can speak for themselves. Here is Adoring nanny saying you introduced misrepresentations into the article. Here is Adoring nanny saying that the version you guys were restoring looks like it was written by the Kremlin [68]. Here is Adoring nanny saying that parts of the version you guys were edit warring to restore pretty much qualified as WP:HOAX [69]. Here is Adoring nanny saying that while they're undecided whether article should be made into a redirect or rewritten, they're sure that big chunks of text (which you kept restoring) need to go [70]. A quick look at Xx236's comments on talk also make it clear they were deeply unsatisfied with the garbage version you two kept restoring.
    And again you're repeating the misleading claim about the AfD. Yes, the article was kept at AfD, but as has been pointed, what half a dozen times now???? almost all the Keep !votes also said it needed to be rewritten. So yes there was consensus for removing all the trash and false claims from it. The fact that you are incapable of recognizing this and keep using these cries of "no consensus! no consensus!" when there clearly was such a consensus (along with your misrepresentations of WP:NOCONSENSUS on talk) again shows why you should be topic banned here. Volunteer Marek 04:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course everyone agrees that we should remove the "trash and false" claims from the article. The entire debate is what the "trash and false claims" are. You can't just mass delete well-sourced content, and then claim that its not up for debate because people agreed the article needs to be rewritten. The debate over content is what rewriting means. I've said all I will on this topic. Masebrock (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently not since both you and Gitz kept restoring “trash and false” claims into the article and defending that version on talk (and Gitz is still doing it here). It. Wasnt. “Well sourced content”. It was trash and false claims. Volunteer Marek 04:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re consensus. In Italian we have a saying, arrampicarsi sugli specchi, "climbing on the mirrors". I believe in English it's "grasping at straws", right? edit warred to restore against the consensus of nine editors. Nine editors against three - wow, what a strong consensus you had behind. And it doesn't really matter that no one explained why this big chunk of text [71] had to be removed from the article. I opened a thread on the part about the secret detention centers and the only one who replied was Elinruby saying TL;DR. Please make a specific proposal about a specific piece of text (the specific proposal was obviously to restore the text I had just posted in the OP); I opened a thread on the part about the volunteer battalions where I proposed to retain just a small piece of it in the article (My proposal: we move the first two paragraphs to Volunteer battalions and Special Tasks Patrol Police, and we keep in this article the third paragraph). The only voices I heard were yours and Elinruby's.
    Yes, other editors had lamented the bias of the article, and rightly so: it was indeed biased; others had raised doubts about Hahn and de Ploeg as sources, which we could have happily removed from the article with no damage (at 22:43, 26 November 2022, I explained I removed all references to De Ploeg. I honestly don't know if he's reliable or not, but I know that we don't need him [72]). Everything could have been easily accommodated without removing the substance of the thing, which was: at least until 2015, reliable sources (Kuzio 2015 quoting the Council of Europe, and Human Rights Encyclopedia 2001) say that torture of detainees was common in Ukrainian prisons, and in 2014-2015 various HR organisations (such as the quoted Amnesty [73][74], HRW [75], OHCHR [76][77], Ukranian NGOs [78]) detailed extensive practices of torture and ill-treatment against POWs and civilian residents by volunteer battalions active in the Donbas area.
    You didn't want this content to appear in the article, ok? actually you didn't want the article on "torture in Ukraine" to exist at all. But I'm sorry, you had no consensus for this. If you want to delete the whole article, AfD is the way to go. If you want to turn it into a redirect or remove 2/3 of the text and there's reasoned and good-faith opposition by editors (initially Alaexis and me), well then you open an RdC and let's have an orderly and inclusive discussion, where sources can be carefully assessed and you can explain how removing all this would be in compliance with WP policies. That's how one builds a consensus in a collaborative project, but that's not your manner. You just edit war again and again, and falsely accuse editors of lying while claiming a consensus that you didn't have. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just see the comment by Fermiboson below. Nine editors were of the opinion that the article should be either redirected or “blanked” or turned into stub, it was so bad. But two editors, you and Masebrock kept restoring that very version that everyone thought should be nuked. You can be snarky and try to make fun of how “only nine editors” (vs two) isn’t consensus… except it actually is. Volunteer Marek 14:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Nine against three is no consensus, especially when the nine have expressed their views on various topics other than "Shall we delete the article?". Re deleting the article, the only WP:consensus was the one that had emerged from the failed AfD. Faced with reasoned opposition, AfD (or RfC to remove 2/3 of the article) were the way to go rather than childish edit warring based on a non existing consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nine against three is no consensus lol 128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear: I prefer a redirect or even wholesale deletion of the article to retaining any portion of whatever trash was there beforehand, and I'm sure others here (if they were not deterred by the borderline bludgeon wall of text above) would concur. Misleading and malicious information, especially in this topic and context, is more harmful than missing information. When I get the time next week, and if this has not already been resolved, I will be doing a rewrite from scratch of the entire article, with Ukrainian involvement, and we can all have an actually productive discussion based on a version not written by a Kremlin propagandist. Fermiboson (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has already been significantly re-written since the start of the controversy. Do not remove well sourced material without first achieving talk page consensus. Section blanking without first achieving consensus will be reverted. Masebrock (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry but it’s not up to you to make that kind of a unilateral decision and this kind of belligerence and threats are just more examples of the WP:BATTLEGROUND problem here. Volunteer Marek 04:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're insisting that you have the right to blank sections of sourced material without consensus, and you're accusing me of "belligerence"? Masebrock (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. See WP:ONUS. And when there's consensus of nine editors vs two, this is nothing but belligerence and battleground from you. And WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Now you're doing exact same thing at the Human rights in Ukraine article [79]. It's clear you're not going to stop. A preventive block is long overdue. Volunteer Marek 16:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the person who started the original thread on this binfire (at least, the one that happened to explode). I will note that I have not looked in detail to the relevant edits by User:Masebrock and User:Gitz6666, mostly because I prefer to leave it to other editors with more time on their hands and experience in POV combatting to ANI them. I also don't have much to add regarding the content dispute that hasn't been said already. That said, from my point of view:
    • I pointed out errors in sourcing, and others noticed more, to the point where nearly the entire article was made up of either unreliable sources oor misquotes of reliable sources;
    • After fully realising the magnitude of the issue, I proposed WP:BOLD blanking the page, to which everyone present at the time agreed.
    • Before I got to blanking the page, however, User:Volunteer Marek deleted and redirected the page. I expressed the sentiment that this may be overdoing it, as there are incidents of torture not related to the 2022 invasion, which the article was redirected to.
    • This dumpster fire, which probably should have been brought to admin attention the moment someone reverted to the original article instead of at minimum stubbing the article, followed.
    It is, therefore, clear that there is a consensus for nearly all of the original article being Russian propaganda.Fermiboson (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyone is going around in circles

    Clearly, everything that needs to be said has been said. I do not think this discussion can get us anywhere before an uninvolved admin starts moderating it (or else it would already have gotten somewhere). User: Masebrock and User:Gitz6666 are insisting that there is no consensus whereas User:Volunteer Marek and others I might have missed are insisting that there is, among other things. I have made clear that I agree with VM; however it is equally clear that nobody is going to convince the other party. Hence, I invite all relevant parties to summarise their points thus far in a paragraph or so below, to avoid extending the already ridiculous length of the wall of text above this post, and to make it convenient for intervening admins to make sense of the situation. Mine can be found in the post directly above this one. Moreover, may someone please get an uninvolved admin to weigh in. Fermiboson (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Masebrock

    Thank you Fermiboson. I do not intend on responding to any of the other four main editors involved in order to keep this from spilling into more clutter. To me, this is primarily now an issue of user conduct:
    • Volunteer Marek's conduct has been wildly uncivil [80] (he struck this afterward, but still). He is not assuming good faith [81][82][83]. He uses very minor problems with a text as an excuse to mass delete well-sourced material, such as in this example [84] where ten sources and >4,000 characters were deleted because he felt it was in the wrong section, and then seven sources again because of a grammar tense issue [85]. On a separate page, he again deleted sourced material because he felt it was in the wrong tense instead of making the easy fix:[86][87]. I would describe his behavior as plainly WP:TENDENTIOUS. On this noticeboard, he is currently saying that I should be topic banned or possibly site banned for making a quickly fixed mistake (thinking that a sentence referred to the 2014-2022 time-span instead of 2022) that I moved to correct as soon as it was brought to my attention [88]. (User:Gitz6666 beat me to the fix, which I thanked them for [89]).
    • Elinruby has not been assuming good faith, and generally behaving on the talk page in an aggressive, unhelpful, and insulting manner [90][91][92] Their most significant contribution to the Torture in Ukraine page so far has been deleting material because the passage of time has now made it in an improper tense [93] (this was not as egregious as Volunteer Marek's deletions as some of this was also unsourced, but still a questionable practice) and unhelpfully adding a highly contentious unsourced claim about the state of pre-2014 Ukraine [94] that has since been removed.
    In my opinion, these two editors are making it difficult to build this encyclopedia. Masebrock (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Such vitriol from someone I have never interacted with outside this article and perhaps not even there. I possibly have never before addressed them either. Gitz6666 (talk · contribs) is who I've been talking about. Well. Thank you for posting those diffs; that saves me a lot of time. Elinruby (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The entire above thread speaks for itself

    My primary contribution to the article has been to ask for help yesterday, actually. In my opinion. The obstruction and misrepresentation and personal attacks on display here are Exhibit A for the problem as I see it. What I most regret is not asking sooner. Had I realized that AfD criteria relate to the notability of the topic, not its content, I might instead have called for it to be blanked, then rewritten.

    This was essentially the conclusion of the AfD: that the article as.it stood should be rewritten. However, since the result was keep, by disregarding that almost universal recommendation, other editors have been able to wave around a "failed RfD" flag, about which, btw, I could not care less. Next time I find a blatant propaganda piece that en.wikipedia has been hosting for seven years, I will know what remedy it is that I wish to seek. Above all, I will not use capital letters on hearing for the tenth or twelfth time that the "failed RfD" constituted consensus somehow for a "stable version" of a "decent and well-sourced article".

    AGF is not a suicide pact. As a matter of fact I did apply it yesterday however, in thinking that WP:BLUE might apply to this article. This too was a mistake, actually; of *course* this was ammunition and fed the trolls, and of *course* the clarifying sentence was removed.

    Let me step carefully around the content dispute that Masebrock (talk · contribs) has tried to bring here. Yes, Ukraine was a client state[1] of Russia under Viktor Yanukovych, "a profoundly corrupt politician...seen as a proxy for Kremlin interests, and generally loyal to the idea of post-Soviet Ukraine as a Russian client state...[2] Also, some guy named Barack Obama reached this conclusion, and he had some pretty good information sources available to him.[3]

    I am with Masem (talk · contribs) on this one: we should not have this article. At least not until somebody weeds out the deepfakes and until, for example, more information exists about whether the specific un-uniformed fighters in a specific incident were Ukrainian citizens fighting in the armed forces of Donbas, Russian recruits, Ukrainian Army personnel, Russia special forces, foreign irregulars in Ukrainian units, figments of Russian disinformation, starving looters or just plain criminals. I still don't think we should be analyzing YouTube videos either.

    The topic is notable, that is true. If we absolutely must have the article, then in matters of content reality I have pretty consistently been agreeing with the other eight editors mentioned above.

    It isn't clear to me whether discretionary standards applied to the article when this thread was opened here. Apparently not, or surely some sanctions would have applied by now (?) The past six months of Gitz' behaviour on Torture in Ukraine, Republics of Russia and War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the various and specious noticeboard posts he has made about them, have certainly posed a threat to *my* mental well-being, and I seriously doubt that I am alone in this.

    TL;DR = Is this the right circus? Cultural reference: The monkeys are following *us* even though we don't want to argue with them, or should I say Energizer bunnies? I have stuff to do; please err on the side of truth, justice and the Wikipedia way. I will answer any questions directed to me, or provide diffs if asked, but if not, I do not plan to comment further. I don't dispute the diffs at all, btw, except to the extent that of course it would have been cooler to repeat myself in lower case letters. But possibly even more ineffective; there is a saying about insanity, after all. I think we are collectively here to speak the truth, no? Elinruby (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References
    1. ^ Merriam Webster
    2. ^ The Guardian
    3. ^ State of the Union Speech

    Adoring nanny

    When I came to the article, it looked like a Kremlin fantasy.[95] Cleaning this up should have been easy. It wasn't. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Volunteer Marek

    Above comments by User:Adoring nanny, User:Elinruby, and User:Fermiboson summarize the issue well. In addition to these 3 users mentioned above and myself there were 5 other users on talk who also agreed with us. The TL;DR version is:

    "article was complete garbage, AfD said "keep but rewrite", nine editors on talk agreed to either make it into redirect or rewrite, but Masebrock and Gitz both started edit warring against any meaningful changes to the article, which included them restoring text which blatantly misrepresented and falsified what sources said"

    In the course of this, Gitz6666 actually referred to the original version, the garbage one that almost everyone at Afd said needed to be rewritten as 'pretty decent' and 'a promising, reasonably sourced text', even though that version had literally false-sourced text in it. Masebrock tried to trivialize any concerns about neturality, made false excuses for their edit warring and just simply refused to listen. They both made false claims of consensus for their behavior (or yelled "no consensus!" to obstruct any meaningful changes) even though it really was 9 vs 2. They both misquoted policy, like WP:NOCONSENSUS to bully their way through on that article. Both of them reached levels of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that usually result in blocks. Masebrock is way past due for a topic ban if not an outright block, especially since they're continuing the exact same behavior at Human rights in Ukraine, [96]. Gitz6666 at the very least needs a warning and needs to step back and really reconsider what a "pretty decent" article actually looks like (hint: one that doesn't lie about what sources say). Volunteer Marek 16:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Human rights in Ukraine

    Now it moved to Human rights in Ukraine where reliably sourced content is being removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That page hasn't been edited by the above concerned parties in 12 hours. As long as a war doesn't spontaneously combust, we shouldn't need to act upon it, no? The discussion closed, let us allow everyone a chance to cooperate. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, well, here we go again GabberFlasted (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    We need admins to give us clear procedural guidelines here. Volunteer Marek is continuing to massively remove long-standing and reliably sourced contents in the area of human rights protection in Ukraine. This is bound to result in edit wars, as editors with an interest in human rights protection cannot accept that this happens with no community discussion/scrutiny. Please share your views here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the diffs of removed content:[97][98][99][100] Again, Volunteer Marek deletes vast chunks of long-standing, stable content without seeking community consensus, and then claims "edit warring" when his bold revisions are reverted.Masebrock (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion. This is *especially* true if the material in question is misrepresenting sources. Having a citation to a reliable source is not enough - the text actually needs to be written in a way which factually reflects the source. This is kind of basic.
    And one more time. I’m not the only one who is objecting to how this text is being inserted, in a manipulative fashion. At Torture in Ukraine article there’s now 10 editors basically agreeing with me here (vs 2, Masebrock and Gitz). At Human Rights article there’s also several editors agreeing (vs. 2, Masebrock and Gitz). … … … the problem here is Masebrock and Gitz and their inability to respect consensus or listen to others. That much has been made crystal clear in this discussion. Volunteer Marek 18:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The material I have rewritten in 2016 [101] and which, I am sure, properly reflects reliable sources it cites was removed today. By you. Without any discussion. It is your responsibility to put it back first and then discuss at the talk page why you think it is not appropriate. It is not my responsibility to see consensus for inclusion of this material in 2022. And you perfectly know this. Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Garvit anand

    Garvit anand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Omniverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A user has repeatedly added article-like content to the page Omniverse, a disambiguation page intended to distinguish different things named "Omniverse". This behavior continued after being told by Leschnei (talk · contribs) at their user talk on November 6 that disambiguation pages are not for article content.

    1. Edits on October 9–10
    2. Edits on October 30
    3. Edit on November 2
    4. Edit on November 5, with edit summary "I fixed the imagination of Illiterate people
    5. Edit on November 7

    The user has no other edits except for creating Draft:Omniverse, which has nearly identical content to the aforementioned edits. This probably would have been posted earlier, had the last revision not been reverted until today. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale. I remember this user. Anyway, they last edited 20 days ago and their total edits are in the single digits (9). So there's not much to do right now. Maybe something will happen, maybe not. Who can say. Cross that bridge, etc. El_C 10:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An IP user 180.188.236.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) restored the same content to the dab page oon November 29: [102]. The first edit in the series has the edit summary: You guys need to read MCU books. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two more reverts by Garvit anand on November 30: [103], [104]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely. Semi-protected for a period of 3 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 01:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Astronomical objects by source of name

    A pair of weeks ago I started a discussion over a category tree, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 14#Astronomical objects by source of name (including the parent category and all the subcategories for "named after literature", "named after places", etc). The discussion has ended and the categories were deleted, but as I manually tagged them I forgot some that were deeper into the category tree. As you can see, the discussion applies to them too, and the only reason they were not listed was a mistake. The categories are:

    Cambalachero (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cambalachero: (Non-administrator comment) I'd recommend opening a new CfD covering these pages. The precedent should carry over from last time. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Weird IP edits

    98.149.220.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is going round changing the version of English used on various articles, using completely incomprehensible edit summaries, and randomly moving templates on pages, flooding watchlists.

    They've been blocked twice before for this behaviour:

    and attempts to communicate with them on their talk page just lead to blanking with more weird edit summaries. Can someone try to tap them with a cluestick? — Trey Maturin has spoken 13:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP has been blocked for 3 hours due to their attempts to remove this post. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    i merely reverted warned/banned tags vandal @getsnoopy who changed mdy to dmy tags, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macaron&diff=prev&oldid=931508324 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Getsnoopy/Archive_1#ENGVAR_warning which @Trey Maturin objected to.

    I reverted his talk page edits as I thought the macaron vandal issue was OVER. I have since apologized/retracted any controversial edits he finds objectionable, and am discussing on talk page with with Trey as he wishes me to. Bold text

    It was a mistaken case of me reverting an already banned vandal (@getsnoopy , that's all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Getsnoopy/Archive_1#ENGVAR_warning

    Thanks for understanding/for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.220.34 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent malformed edits by IPv6 user

    2804:D4B:A387:E400::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) This IPv6, clearly the same user, has made 81 edits since Nov 2, most of them reverted or otherwise corrected. I've been unsure about reporting this, because they seem good faith, but generally wrong in small ways and/or not actually adding any information: incorrect grammar[105] (they are in Brazil, fwiw), removing wikilinks[106], changing article title in the lede[107], broken syntax[108], and introducing minor factual errors[109]. This doesn't meet the AIV criteria; I can't issue a warning because the user's talk page changes every few hours (is there a way around that?). For the same reason it's futile to issue an ANI-notice. I realize I'm stalking somewhat, but I have tried to be helpful in edit summaries and my own talk page. Can they be reached? David Brooks (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess I didn't include a CTA. Can anyone tell me if there's a reliable method of communicating with this user in a way that they might notice? It seems to me that there should be a feature for alerting an anonymous user whose IP falls in a /64 range. Also, is the behavior appropriate for a range block? The edits aren't vandalism, exactly, just a series (now 85) of mistakes and other changes that don't add value. David Brooks (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Four sockpuppet IP accounts

    Earlier this morning I was alerted to this edit on Peter Dinklage referring to him as a "midget" and someone with "embarassin height and stature." Upon reviewing this user's history, I then noticed a similarly bizarre edit on Wilhelm Nowack. I reverted both edits and posted a level one and a level two warning on the user's talk page. A couple things happened after that.

    • About two hours later, a different IP user left a reply to my warnings saying hello, I did not mean to make disruptive edits I am not a vandal even if it seems that way I just started editing a while ago and I am familiarizing myself with everything and thank you for pointing everything out to me.
    • About an hour after that a third and fourth user began blanking out the warnings and reply on the first users page, leaving extremely long and bizarre profanity laced troll edit summaries behind. These edits are here, here and here.

    This edit called out User:Nthep, an adminstrator, by name. This edit called out User:Ohnoitsjamie. The edit summary claims that they are removing "bullshit and vandalism" by these editors, but the IP user is only blanking out their own vandalism.

    • About 37 minutes after that, a fourth IP account started blanking out even more content - here and here and here - with similar long bizarre edit summaries to the ones left previously.
    • I also noticed that the third IP account left an unsourced edit referencing Michael Shermer's height on his page. Considering that the first offending edit this morning was about Peter Dinklage's height. I think it's safe to say they are the same editor.

    The IP accounts are User:2601:5C7:4100:3600:E867:E166:E02B:6518, User:2601:5C7:4100:3600:596B:69C9:2B08:1E92, User:2601:5C7:4100:3600:DD65:6DD7:1D23:79EA and User:2601:5C7:4100:3600:6147:B88:944C:EE44.

    I propose that an administrator speedily block all four of these accounts and any more that came from the same IP address. Warm regards, Kire1975 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Range blocked for three months. Nthep (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a friendly heads-up to Kire1975: if two or more users share the same first four segments of an IPv6 address and seem to be the same person, they probably are. End-user systems regularly randomize the last 64 bits of an address just to fool... well, nobody, really. David Brooks (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the info. Kire1975 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pizzigs and I'm not perfect but I'm almost

    This person reverted my grammatical edits on "Portugal national football team" to an incorrect version. I asked them to stop and they wouldn't listen. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I made changes to the history section and all of them were reverted by this person. I am quite angry that Wikipedia doesn't keep track of grammatical errors like this, and I wish someone would keep track of all my edits so they don't get reverted. (See IronMaximus for example.) Nearly but not perfect (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You come here to complain about the conduct of another user, and immediately refer to them as a moron. Not the best start, I would strike that as it's a clear personal attack. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And is this all seriously about this one single revert where you made a lot of changes and didn't make any edit summary? Canterbury Tail talk 20:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you want an article to be written properly? Pizzigs' version wasn't. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So they made a single revert on you, you warned them, they removed the warning (which they are perfectly entitled to do), you decided for some reason to reinstate that warning and then escalated it immediately to ANI? You're not coming across well here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, just give them one last warning to not revert anything on that specific page anymore, and close this thread already. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Um we're questioning your conduct here and you seriously leave this message? You are aware you do not own that article aren't you? Canterbury Tail talk 20:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You should start a discussion on the article's talk page to work out the issues. Schazjmd (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should you, alone among all editors of Wikipedia, be immune from reversion? As has been said, talk about it on the talk page rather than re-reverting. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt they will notice or want to discuss, even if I leave a discussion on their talk page. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:AGF. I must say I'm incredibly unimpressed by your conduct here and your gross over-reaction to things to what has ultimately been a single, single, interaction and one edit. Canterbury Tail talk 20:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Before you make any more comments to this thread, I strongly urge you to follow Canterbury Tail's recommendation and strike the personal attack you made above. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And please follow WP:REDACT instead of just editing the message so it seems it doesn't say what it originally said. Canterbury Tail talk 20:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly but not Perfect, let me just add to the chorus here: your reaction was way, way over the top here (and continued to be during the pendency of this thread). You can disagree with someone in a civil and collegial manner. This is miles away from that. Dumuzid (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You warned with this message, "Stop editing my grammatical fixes to the Portuguese team's article. They were correct. One more and I'll take this to ANI or an admin." Yet you didn't allow for one more. They only reverted you once. Even after being warned twice from you for the same revert you still brought them to AN/I. This is an extreme over-reaction to a single event that could be resolved on the article talk page. Though the uncivil comment was removed from their talk page it should be noted that telling another editor that they better not revert you is never the correct path to go. I understand being frustrated but that is not a free license to be uncivil. --ARoseWolf 21:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not perfect but I'm almost, I mean the article talk page. That's where edits to the article should be discussed. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor in question has been pushing contentious information to Portugal national football team, including mentions of the failed qualification campaigns and the Olympics (!!!) which is a U23 tournament and has no relation to the senior team. Instead of considering updating the specific page dedicated to the team's history (History of the Portugal national football team), the editor preferred to introduce these materials to the main page, where they're clearly not needed. Instead of discussing their edits, the editor resorted to threats, including accusing me of violating 3RR, which I did not do. Finally, the editor used blatant personal attacks on my talk page, something which is outrageous even by social media standards. My question to the community is whether such behavior should be allowed to go unpunished. Pizzigs (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't follow Olympic football tournaments, and the article previously did mention failed qualifying campaigns. So I removed everything Olympic-related that I used to put and restored proper writing. That's all. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And those personal attacks have already been discussed. I let it go. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly but not perfect, it's big of you to forgive yourself for casting aspersions on another editor, but at this point it's not really up to you whether or not the matter is resolved. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They just left another questionable comment on Pizzig's talk page, although not as egregious as the previous one. You can't just declare the discussion about your misbehavior to be over. It seems like some sort of action is needed. TPOD (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To @I'm not perfect but I'm almost: Please take a few minutes to read the policy on civility. To quote it: editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.. Some of your posts have come short of that.
    @Pizzigs, Wikipedia doesn't punish; restrictions/blocks/bans are issued to prevent disruption to the project.
    The disagreements over specific changes to the article need to be worked out on the article's talk page by both of you (and any other interested editors). Schazjmd (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User engaging in Edit war

    Hello. I recently reverted a edit of Ісса.А on the Ukrainian People's Republic page and told him if he disagrees with my decision he could bring it to the talk page and reach a consensus first. The user is now engaging in a edit war. May you take a look --Aaron106 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You meant 'edit war', I presume. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes my bad sorry. --Aaron106 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term unexplained removal of categories from a Toronto IP range

    2605:8D80:680::/47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

    During the CfD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_November_28#Category:Fictional_medicines_and_drugs, I discovered that an IP user has been wantonly removing categories for fictional elements without any explanation, causing this category to be depopulated. Sometimes, they will add new categories to articles, which are often redundant or inaccurate. Most of the affected pages are redirects (example from November 25; example from 2021 January 2), but more problematic examples at articles include:

    I believe I have reverted most of the affected pages. The most recent edit where a user in this range removed a fictional element category is at Futmalls on 25 November 2022.

    This is likely a range used by many people, based on anomalous behavioral evidence such as this vandal edit from yesterday. And as the suspect seems to use many different IP addresses in the range, I am not sure which IP address in the range should receive the ANI notice. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:69.127.80.35 threats on talk page of blocked user

    Please look at the talk page, Special:Diff/1124513106, and consider whether or not the threats should be taken seriously and how they should be handled. Also note Category:Requests for unblock on UTRS. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If they are serious about shooting at every editor's house, than they are going to spend at least 3.5 million US dollars on ammo alone, shooting 1 bullet at every house and using the cheapest ammunition available, like .22 LR in Bucket o' Bullets (about 8 cents per cartridge). Pretty huge spending for some blocked IP./lh a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 10:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But anyway, they have retracted their threats. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 10:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They're now asking on their talk page: "Can you please unblock me, considering I didn’t do anything block-worthy." That's pretty bold. They should be lucky we're not reporting this (obviously ridiculous) threat to the police. --RockstoneSend me a message! 04:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Flagging User talk:Ուլտրաբոմբ‎

    blocked and tagged at SPI by Favonian, thanks!(non-admin closure) Andre🚐 08:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User appears to be removing material and inserting unreliable material at Ashkenazi Jews. Andre🚐 06:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I did cite a reliable source: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/jewish-q/about/results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk • contribs) 07:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is just a user-submitted group page on a DNA testing site, and doesn't explain why you removed the content about the Khazar hypothesis being an anti-Semitic associated theory. Andre🚐 07:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just a user-submitted group page. It's the Jewish Q DNA project. https://haplogroup.org/jewish-q-dna-project-weekly-news-3-july-2018/ The Khazar Hypothesis isn't an anti-Semitic associated theory. The people who say it is are just trying to discredit it. Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The text you removed on the Khazar hypothesis was cited to academic and mainstream news sources. If you want to remove apparently well-cited text, you need to explain why, otherwise people will reasonably assume that your edit is not an improvement and are likely to simply revert you. (And justifying your edit by simply asserting that the apparently well-cited text you don't like is wrong without providing any explanation or evidence is unlikely to be persuasive!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No it wasn't. Nothing is cited to mainstream news sources and I didn't remove the text cited to an academic source. Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You did twice [110] [111] Andre🚐 20:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation 195 doesn't say that the Khazar Hypothesis is unsubstantiated by genetics. https://forward.com/israel/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/. Citations 196 and 197 don't say that it's uncorroborated by historical sources and citation 198 is about a study that supports the Khazar Hypothesis!
    The Khazar hypothesis is a known anti-Semitic theory: [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] Andre🚐 21:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those citations aren't in the article! Did you look at citations 195-198? Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article could be improved with better and more extensive citations, but you actually removed sourced material and added unreliable material to lend credence to an anti-Semitic theory. Andre🚐 22:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an anti-Semitic theory. People who are afraid that the Khazar Hypothesis will weaken the Jewish claim to Israel in the eyes of the world just want people to think it is. But, politics and science don't mix. Read citation 198, an article about a study by an Israeli Jew. Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There might be some legitimate proponents of the theory, but what you're doing is removing all discussion of the theory's usage by anti-Semites, which are supported by RS. Andre🚐 22:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation 195 doesn't say that the Khazar Hypothesis is unsubstantiated by genetics. https://forward.com/israel/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/. Citations 196 and 197 don't say that it's uncorroborated by historical sources and citation 198 is about a study that supports the Khazar Hypothesis! I haven't got any opinion on the underlying content dispute, but this is the case you need to make when you remove apparently well-cited text from the article, rather than repeatedly making unexplained removals of content, as you did here and here. I note that Andrevan has now started a talkpage discussion, which is where you should be working out the content dispute. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I submit this user is here to push a POV and should be sanctioned per WP:CIR WP:RGW WP:NPOV WP:EDITWAR Andre🚐 23:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I submit the same about Andrevan. Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please. I am not making any changes or inserting material. Andre🚐 05:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Godofwarfan333, copyvios, and civility

    Resolved
     – Blocked indefinitely by Cullen328

    Can an administrator please investigate this user on the grounds of disruptive and uncivilized behavior across the encyclopedia? Recently, they have been blocked over at Commons for repeated uploading of copyvios imagery, and just now have resumed the same behavior here on enwiki. Looking at their Talk page posts, they appear to be posting in an uncivil manner (see [121] [wth are you smoking] and [122] [...to see you act all sardonic about it is rather hilarious.] as an example). Maybe now is the time for an administrator intervention. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    oh shut up already Godofwarfan333 (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See also here just now. Seasider53 (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    shut the fuck up and block me already you whanker Godofwarfan333 (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked this editor for personal attacks, copyright violations, edit warring and generally not being here to build a collaborative encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond this, just looking over this idjit's talk page, it is plain he has a terrible, highly combative attitude, and this is what, his third block in a fortnight? (Telling Daniel Case, of all people, "You're in big trouble now buddy" in response to his first block wins the Wikipedia Prize for Chutzpah for November 2022.) If there's any admin so crazed as to consider an unblock, this is one of the most worthy cban candidates in recent history. Ravenswing 10:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that was what prompted the response I was later persuaded to redact. Like C.Fred, I officiate high school sports, and that kind of response after a penalty/foul is always enough to get you kicked out of the game, whatever the sport, without any objection from the player's coach.

    In that vein, I was thinking at the time that maybe I should have just revoked his talk page access for that, but I decided not to because to me that looked like a thin-skinned abuse of power. In retrospect maybe that would have spared us this outcome, that frankly to me seemed inevitable at the time. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Inevitable, surely, but I don't think anyone can fault your prudence in not pulling the trigger yourself. Ravenswing 00:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure about PeaceThruPramana26

    Reported editor blocked.

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

    So PeaceThruPramana26 has had quite an adventure in their 450-edit career with their current acount. They came to my attention after they tried several times to add a prominent mention of Jewish people into the lead section of the Middle Passage article. When I first noticed the edits I didn't pay them much attention but they were first reverted by GreenCows as undue weight (not to mention we don't add things to the lead section that aren't mention elsewhere or usually add refs to the lead), and I have reverted this editor several times. I'm concerned that this user might be a sockpuppet but I have no idea who they could be, or at least that they're not here for the right reasons; this was their eighth edit and bumping up a random thread (in which they were otherwise uninvolved) about The Daily Stormer,, an extreme far-right website, is also ... more than a little bizarre, especially for the earliest page of a user's contributions. They previously started a thread here that did not go in their favour, which involved among other things this over-reaction to a warning. I'm not sure that they're really here to contribute to an encyclopedia, but I obviously can't take action directly in this case. Graham87 10:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not familiar with any LTAs to say whether or not this is a sockpuppet but I can put two-and-two together and say they aren't here to build an encyclopedia. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    So...you're just blatantly accusing me of being a sockpuppet for trying to add factual information into an article? That's quite an unusual step in harassment. Allow me to ignore that part since it's done in such poor faith.

    Regarding the accusation on the article of the Middle Passage, there seems to take issue with the factual information I have added into an article. Since your article dispute has ended in an attempt at character assassination (including a thorough digging of my history, for lord knows what that could possibly mean) allow me to read you the source of what I have added into the article:

    "It happened that cash was mostly in the hands of Jews. The buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of this lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices. On the other hand, there was also no competition in the selling of the slaves to the plantation owners and other buyers, and most of them purchased on credit payable at the next harvest in sugar. Profits up to 300 percent of the purchase value were often realized with high interest rates."[1]

    I added the claim because to merely mention "Portuguese" and "Dutch" slave traders seems to miss the point that a good deal of them were Jewish, enough so that it warrants a noteworthy mention alongside those other nationalities as per factual information from a mainstream, scholarly source penned by Jonathan Scorsch, a professor of Jewish studies at Dartmouth University, published by Cambridge University Press. You seem to take issue with him, so I suggest you save your insinuations for him and don't shoot the messenger, as literally nothing I said in my edit contradicts the information provided in the citation. If you have an issue with that edit--I suggest you take it there, as this is really not the place to do it, regardless of whatever opinion you have (which frankly, isn't that important).

    Please save your poor-faith, baseless accusations for someone who actually deserves them, and I'm going to continue going on editing Wikipedia unabated seeing as I have broken no rules here.

    (Good try, though) PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Scorsch, Johnathan (2004). "Jews and their Slaves: Theory and Reality". Jews and Blacks in the Early Modern World. Cambridge University Press. p. 59-60. ISBN 978-0521820219. It happened that cash was mostly in the hands of Jews. The buyers who appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of this lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices. On the other hand, there was also no competition in the selling of the slaves to the plantation owners and other buyers, and most of them purchased on credit payable at the next harvest in sugar. Profits up to 300 percent of the purchase value were often realized with high interest rates. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

    Addendum: can you explain what this comment in the edit history summary means?

    "wow that's an awfully advanced thing for someone with an edit count of 450 to say ..."

    PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You have twisted so many things out of context in your replies and quotations above that I very highly doubt you have enough competence to edit here. Searching the quote (which you had already provided) brought me to the page Jewish views on slavery and particularly the section on the Atlantic slave trade, which I hadn't read before, where your quote is given so much more context. Reading that text makes it abundantly clear that you are indeed not here to write an encyclopedia, only to promote an extreme right-wing agenda and antisemitic canards. (Honestly, I only wish I'd read more into this beforehand). It has become so abundantly obvious that you're not here for the right reasons that I'm going to indefblock you despite my involvement in this dispute, on the basis that any other administrator in possession of all the relevant facts would have come to the same conclusion. This post will serve as a permalink for the block. If any uninvolved admin wants to modify the block, they can do so without consulting me first. Graham87 09:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I support your block, I would have done it myself once going through stuff. Canterbury Tail talk 13:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Blocked user spamming their own talk page

    Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1eetalk 11:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    TPA revoked. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That this user's talk page access wasn't switched off earlier in Nov 2022 would appear to by a mistake on the part of Shirt58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am in the process of having a stern conversation with myself about this. In the interim, could someone please add the "Template:UTRS-unblock-user" UTRS unblock request thingy there? --User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruption at Raghunath Mahato and Chuar Rebellion

    These really do need more eyes. There's long term edit warring at the two articles regarding the role of a freedom fighter, with WP:OR and a recent history of sock puppetry. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Baháʼu'lláh

    Many users keep removing the image of Baháʼu'lláh from the infobox in his article above in question and use the claim that consenus is against it. This has recently been done by User:Cuñado and User:Smkolins. As you can see from [124] and [125].

    However looking at Talk:Baháʼu'lláh, the only real complaint users seem to have is that it offends their religious feelings about not showing it to non-Bahais. This is clear censorship (removal isn't the only form of censorship, although they did remove another image of the subject added by me to the article). And also imposition of a religion's rules on Wikipedia also violates it no matter how much consensus there is. Many users have also called for direct removal of the image on the talk page.

    A comparable situation is when Wikipedia rejected any attempts to remove images of Muhammad. Although it wasn't being asked to be demoted like for Baháʼu'lláh.

    However the motive of those editing at Baháʼu'lláh too is imposing one's religious rules. The users also removed another image. Both the images are clearly real and have been acknowledged by the Universal House of Justice [126].

    I request the admins to intervene. Since this is a issue about religious sentiments dictating editing of people, I believe admins need to be asked. People shouldn't get to impose anything on Wikipedia at all over their religious feelings. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also MOS:LEADIMAGE clearly states that the lead image must give visual confirmation and must be an appropriate representation. A house with some architecture that doesn't look distinct cannot be not that. Only obscene or vulgar images are prohobited as offensive per MOS:OMIMG. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The actions to return to the consensus version, because the picture is itself a topic of discussion, was not related to the talk pages observed of many people put complaints. In fact many of us have put the picture *back* when someone deleted it or otherwise tweaked it - to maintain the consensus version. This has a long history, so reading recent talk pages will not be illuminating, nor even the collection of talk histories. But if you go through it you will see contributors supporting the concensus and against the wishes of many and actively telling them to stop that editing. Smkolins (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A biography of a religious leader that does not include a photo of the man in the lead and does not give his birth name in the lead, and refers to the person only by his honorific is more of a religious tract than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. A religious group's taboos should have zero impact on the content of a neutral encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody knows him by his given name. There are definitely improvements to neutrality needed in the article but that is not one of them. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His given name is basic encyclopedic information that should not be downplayed to elevate his honorific. That is a violation of the core content policy, the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first section of the article is "Name, title, and pronunciation" and describes in great detail his given name and why Baha'u'llah came to be the name for which he is exclusively now known. If your complaint is that the given name is not in the first sentence, that was an attempt to declutter. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also the first thing in the infobox. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with User:Roman Reigns Fanboy's characterization of the situation. A lengthy debate years ago (including admins) settled on leaving the photo in the section dedicated to it and not at the top of the article. It is not censorship (it is still in the article), and it would be strange to call it censorship because it is not an offensive image, it is merely preference for Baha'is to avoid viewing it outside of special occasions. Having the image in the body of the article does assist with avoiding the image if someone wants to avoid it, but also the practice of avoiding it is noteworthy enough to get its own section in the article, and it's helpful to have the image next to the text talking about it. While an analogy to the images of Muhammad may come to mind, this is entirely different. There is no rule on Wikipedia saying that a photograph has to go at the top of a biography. WP:LEADIMAGE also says, "Lead images are not required" and "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred."
    User:Roman Reigns Fanboy up to now has not used the talk page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Arbitration Committee concluded Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. Including a photographic portrait of a person (when freely available) is standard operating procedure across this encyclopedia, right? Where is the "shock value" in putting a photo of the person in the lead? The only people who could be shocked are those trying to impose the taboos of this religious group on the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cuñado Can you link to this "lengthy debate years ago (including admins)" which "settled on leaving the photo in the section dedicated to it and not at the top of the article", please, because otherwise the useful encyclopedic image needs to go back in the infobox. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cuñado "it is merely preference for Baha'is to avoid viewing it outside of special occasions." This seems like an attempt to compromise the encyclopedia's mission to placate certain religious sensitivities that have no effect here. What religions like/don't like shouldn't have any effect on how we present an encyclopedic article IMO. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This just seems like content dispute? I mean I have thoughts on whether and how the image should be included, but aren't we at the wrong place to have this discussion? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Cullen328's take on the situation, but agree that this is a content dispute that doesn't really belong on ANI. Ravenswing 00:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the discussion goes a bit beyond a simple content dispute. Is it proper for editors who are adherents of the Baháʼí Faith to create a local talk page consensus that is clearly at odds with project-wide consensus? I do not think that the article talk page where the consensus errors have been made is the best place to evaluate the validity of that claimed consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's where we are at, then I might as well say my piece. WP:NOTCENSORED isn't being violated here. There was a reasonable compromise to make the editorial decision to put the image in a place where it can be properly discussed in context, and that is completely appropriate for a local talk page to reach consensus on. MOS:IMAGELEAD allows for such compromises. I've supported similar measures to this on BLPs before (where I've opposed putting a pre-transition photo of a transgender person in the lead but reluctantly allowed it in the body of an article), and I don't see this controversy as meaningfully different in the grand scheme of things. It's just a content dispute at the end of the day, but no one has even tried the talk page yet. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL, I do not know how on God's green earth a discussion about a pre-transition photo of a transgender person can be used as justification to keep a photo of a religious figure out of the lead of this biography. In my view, it is unwarranted capitulation to the taboos of a religious sect, and therefore a clear-cut violation of the Neutral point of view. As for talk page discussion, we are told by the followers of this religion that there is extensive discussion in the article talk page archives that are too intricate and too detailed for mere mortals to understand. I reject that type of obfuscation. Where are the diffs that establish this so-called consensus? Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: I suggest you read the policy: "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." "Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic." Yes this is censorship where the only reason to keep out an image of the infobox is religious sentiments.
    And using a transgender person's pre-transition image as an example to justify it is really strange to say the least. We don't just keep out the image because it "offends them", it's also a mark of bigotry to reject a person's identity. No such thing is being done here. I'm not seeing any real reason to keep the Baháʼu'lláh image out of the infobox. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo for the decades-old consensus being referred to (again, this is an issue that can be solved by just starting a new discussion on the talk page). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see any consensus in that section User:MJL beyond one user saying non-believers shouldn't be allowed to look upon the image (something that we should not capitulate to). Another user states that if someone deleted the image then it shouldn't be restored. How is this anything similar to what Cuñazo said? And regardless we cannot let Wikipedia be run by any group's feelings. No consensus needs to be had on this issue. Since the Arbitration Committee has already decided a local consensus cannot overrule a global one. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL, I do not see any legitimate consensus there. That is a 57 section talk page archive that consists mostly of followers of the Baháʼí Faith complaining that they do not like the photo because it violates their religious taboos. What does all of that have to do with Wikipedia's core content policies like the Neutral point of view? Are you arguing that capitulation to religious taboos is somehow neutral? I certainly don't accept that argument. Am I missing something? Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also the matter that the archived "Photo" section MJL and the people on the article used to claim consensus is just one person saying the image shouldn't be shown to Non-Bahais over religious sentiments. A user before him said if the image was removed no one should restore it, but they do not say anything about personally supporting or opposing keeping the image out. This isn't even a real consensus. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roman Reigns Fanboy and Cullen328: Look, I just don't see a compelling reason to include that photograph in the lead. That's just my opinion on the content dispute side of this based off my understanding of our policies (including MOS:SHOCKVALUE and MOS:LEADIMAGE). I also don't see the point in placing that specific image there when it's already being used and discussed further down the article in its own dedicated section.
    The Photo subpage was summarizing a vote that happened in 2005 (link). That's why I referred to it as decades-old. It wasn't just Baháʼí users who participated, though (if Geni is Baháʼí, then that's news to me). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a highly inappropriate comment with no legitimate reasoning. The lead image is used to represent a person and give visual aid. That is what MOS:LEADIMAGE is about. The image of Baháʼu'lláh is unique. A house that looks like any modern house won't be immediately recognized by nearly anyone unless you write it out that it's his shrine.
    As for "shock value", I do not see the shock value in the image other than some people trying to impose their religious views. Most people won't bother. The same MOS:SHOCKVALUE says images with shock value are sometimes unavoidable. Not everyone follows Bahai rules. And I don't see how a picture of some person is supposed to cause shock to any rational mind.
    You linked another section titled "Photo" earlier which had no consenus. The option of demoting it received votes for sure on another section called "Vote".
    But all the admins except one named Geni who did not become an admin until December 2021 [127] on that vote supported the third option of leaving the image in the upper corner. There are 9 votes to keep it as it is and 8 to demote it in the article. So I don't see what problem you have with it other than it hurts religious sentiments.
    I'm sorry but this censorship cannot be allowed because you or anyone else doesn't like it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    MJL, how can SHOCKVALUE possibly apply to a routine photo of a man in the 19th century? . There is no gore, there is no nudity and there is no sexual activity. There is literally nothing controversial about the photo to any rational person. It is a simple photo of a man. The only people who could possibly be shocked are those caught up in this religious groups' idiosyncratic taboos. Why should we cater to them? Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The "Vote" section he linked is also in favour of keeping the image in the upper corner than demoting it by 9-8. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can also see that his image does not exist in the article Baháʼí Faith despite the fact that his son's image is there. He's literally the founder of this religion; why is his image not there? Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roman Reigns Fanboy: I'm not a guy. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to have to agree with Cullen on this one--or more specifically, with the clear community consensus and policies he alludes to: we unambiguously have established community principles that we do not tailor factual content purely to cater to groups with particular philosophical or theological sensitivities--no matter how sincerely held, and no matter the exact nature of the particular belief, or how benign its adherents hold it to be. Once we start down that road, the entire enterprise of attempting to present neutral, open, and accurate content (and context in particular), becomes deeply damaged. And yes, absolutely there are principles of established editorial norms which local consensus cannot abrogate: that too is long-established community consensus. And I see enough here about potential concerns with gatekeeping to established this as more than a mere content issue and justify this staying on ANI for at least the moment. SnowRise let's rap 09:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: There's nothing idiosyncratic about the beliefs of a religious minority numbering 5–8 million adherents. It's obviously not just a routine photograph. The only reason we have access to it is because a a Christian missionary wrote an anti-Baháʼí screed trying to discredit its foundations (that characterization is according to an actual review of the book published by the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society lest you think I am being dramatic). So yeah, it may be a bit shocking for members of this faith. Either way, I've said my piece here and do not want to talk about this further. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: MOS:SHOCKVALUE does not cover everything you might get offended or shocked by. The idea of what images can be considered offensive is covered in MOS:OMIMG (MOS:SHOCKVALUE explicitly redirects to that policy). You are also misleading by omitting that image that is the lead isn't from a Christian missionary who wrote an anti-Bahai creed. It's actually from the Baháʼí World Centre itself. [128]. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In case of many religious figures or even other people before photography was invented, it makes sense to not use a portrait or painting as a lead image when there is no accepted position on how that person actually looked and no one is sure of whether it's even accurate to how they were. But that is clearly not the case here. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just noting that the 2005 coverage of the debate has already been posted. To me, as I came in mostly after and or missed the debate, this was a consensus and i supported it by way of restoring the picture when others deleted it outright from the page and the comparative few times people wanted it at the top. Now I'm being accused of deleting the picture when i did not. Hyperbole seems to be winning the day. There is a failing standard of civility in here as there has been in the past. People can take great license to do things with they think they are right that they would not otherwise. I'm just trying to support real, honest, consensus, and the policies of Wikipedia, even if that changes. To me this has nothing to do with religious views. Smkolins (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Smkolins, if "consensus" rejects the inclusion of that image (while using multiple weak arguments that can be found elsewhere), then that consensus can be ignored. Consensus that somehow developed on a talk page many years ago does not override WP:NOTCENSORED. If you visit the article Muhammad, you can clearly see potentially objectionable material; that is how Wikipedia normally operates, we don't remove material because of religious reasons. (I'm not saying you oppose WP:NOTCENSORED.) As for Talk:Baháʼu'lláh, you are welcome to voice your opinion in the latest section on that talk page. Cheers, — Nythar (💬-🎃) 11:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • To present my views clearly, consensus is not required to include that image. WP:NOTCENSORED exists for a reason and shifting that image to a different part of the article is a textbook example of censoring articles for religious reasons. Removing that image is simply disruptive editing. Those removing the image have had policy explained to them numerous times above and are therefore sufficiently informed. (Please note I am not referring to you specifically, Smkolins; I'm speaking generally.) Cheers, — Nythar (💬-🎃) 11:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As i clearly stated above, I restored the picture. Review the history of the article looking for instances of the picture being deleted and you will see myself and Cuñado and others in other periods systematically restoring the picture and acting in good faith to what the avowed experience was as we entered into working in wikipedia and now more than 15 years. All this talk of censorship, deleting the picture, and religious interference is ignoring the point that we ourselves constantly put the picture back and have been using good reliable sources as they have been produced and contributed responsibly. That needs to be well appreciated in this discourse. Smkolins (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Btw MOS:IMAGEQUALITY clearly states "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people." I don't see any argument for keeping the image out. Even the consensus some people keep referring to from 15 years ago was in favour of leaving the image in the upper corner, not demoting it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That is an instruction to not include certain types of images (those with other people), obviously not an insistence that it is *necessary* to include an image. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is right. Case in point, see the article for Muhammad.
    Either way, I think I've said enough. If people here want to go on this crusade to include this image, I've already made my objections known. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Mohammed comparison is invalid because nobody has any idea what he actually looked like, while in this case, we have a photo that shows quite clearly what Baháʼu'lláh looked like. "Crusade" is an inappropriate term with highly charged connotations. Yes, it is clear that you object, MJL, but your objections are not based on Wikipedia's policies, guidelines or long-established best practices. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen, you've placed this comment in a subthread so that it appears that you are defending the (ridiculous) idea that MOS:IMAGEQUALITY mandates including a picture under certain circumstances, when in fact it proscribes including pictures under certain (different) circumstances. However one feels about other arguments in favor or against the picture, I think it would be good to clearly reject the particular bad argument offered at the beginning of this subthread. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to MJL, as can be seen by the fact that I pinged that editor. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @100.36.106.199: The policy clealry states should. So I don't see what circumstances you talk about. The part about "not including other people" is how the lead image should look like when pasting someone's photo. It is how a biography is supposed to begin. Yes it mandates, that's what a manual of style does. Also @MJL: the reason there is no portrait of Muhammad used is because there's no commonly accepted depiction that is considered as his representation [129]. Your anaology is highly flawed. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also MOS:LEADELEMENTS explicitly says the lead image should be relevant. The same MOS:LEADIMAGE is linked regarding what images should be linked where. It's not just for "certain circumstances" unlike what your claiming. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And actually, the Mohammed analogy is flawed in at least two other respects. First off, it is an WP:OTHERSTUFF statement at best, not an a priori argument for whether Baháʼu'lláh comports with policy and community consensus. Second off and more germane--and here I am going to slightly part with your interpretation as well, Cullen--the Mohammad article probably should have a lead image as well, if it were a simple matter of following our guidelines: yes, we don't know for sure what the man may have looked like, but that doesn't stop us from using images on the articles for the vast majority of his contemporaries for which we have historical depictions.
    But I can well imagine why we don't have an image on that article: it would be a source of literally un-ending edit wars and talk page disruption. And, put plainly, it is even possible such edit conflicts on this particular article could raise to the level of threatened violence. Having had only tangential experience with that article in the past, I can only speculate, but I expect that the lack of an image there comes down to a pragmatic call on the part of the local editorial cohort, and probably a little bit of bias resulting from the fact that the number of (good faith) Muslim editors there is probably higher than on most any other article on the project. Let me re-emphasize that that is just a guess, though.
    Now, believe me, I don't like saying that it is probable that some of our editors have likely been intimidated (by knowledge of the possible implications of their actions) away from placing a historical image on any article, even if I can understand and possibly even support that choice in a particular case. Nor do I like the latent implication of that conclusion that Bahá’ís are, in some sense, thus being penalized for having less of a reputation for militant extremism at the fringes of their religious establishment, relative to another religious group in a similarly-situated editorial context. But I like the idea of a spread of the notion of having content on articles discussing spiritual topics curtailed to capitulate to religious censorship even less. So it's really a least-ugly choice situation. Or put otherwise, another day on Wikipedia. SnowRise let's rap 22:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninvolved comment Having read through this lengthy discussion, one thing appears clear: those arguing against the picture in the lead have no valid argument. For all the claims of some old "consensus", no such consensus has been shown (despite repeated requests). Furthermore, the argument advanced simply don't hold up. There is no shock value in this picture whatsoever. It would appear to it all boiling down to "it might hurt religious sensitivities". OK, but that's not a valid argument. Many articles here can hurt people's religious feelings, and that goes for all religions so no bias. We're not here to cater to religious censorship of articles. Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^^^What Jeppiz said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amendment: I rechecked the vote User:MJL linked and I accidentally excluded a vote by HaeB because after reading his oppose vote I thought they was opposing the whole thing about hiding the picture. However while the vote may be 9-9, it is still a tie and not a consensus to hide the image. So the option of demoting the picture to the bottom still didn't have a consensus in its favour and users are clearly picking and choosing what they like instead of following any actual consensus. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MJL has wrongly accused me of misgendering them again in the above comment. I was initially confused but soon realized their claims were wrong. Although I have edited the comment from earlier for correcting the number of votes I counted in the consensus, at no point did I misgender them in the above comment. I only called HaeB a "he" (I do that for anyone whose pronouns I don't know). I did call MJL as "he" earlier when I didn't know their gender, it's a force of habit as I call everyone whose gender I don't know as "he". It's not malevolent in any way. But regarding my latest reply above MJL is accusing me falsely of misgendering them again and made a sarcastic reply when I pointed it out [130]. They seem to be deliberately aggressive and rude. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roman Reigns Fanboy: You should really start a new section about this. It's clearly a separate issue. (involved comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It concerns the same article and your behaviour on it. I don't see a need when it can attract the admins already involved here who can decide what to do. If you continue being more aggressive like you have been here too again [131], then I'd consider. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (uninvolved admin) the spat over misgendering seems like a non-issue. MJL's comments regarding it are well within the bounds of civility, and they acknowledged their error regarding the second alleged instance of misgendering. The belabored explanation regarding your use of "he" as a gender neutral pronoun is not covering you in glory; I would suggest you let this drop. signed, Rosguill talk 20:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to cover myself in glory though but explaining why I used it. And they did accuse me wrongly. I don't see how their comments where they explicitly make the sarcastic comment about checking in with Cullen328 [132] (a dead giveaway that they're mocking that I'll complain), and mocking me earlier with "You're right. You only misgendered me once." [133] is civility. If more admins feel against it, I'll drop it. But MJL is clearly being hostile. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 1 December 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's because I know Cullen328 would've said the same thing as Rosguill. Just because I disagree with him in this thread's context doesn't mean I disrespect him or his opinions. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't predict someone's behaviour. And regardless that would make little sense regarding you making the statement smaller, which is a clear giveaway. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This line of discussion is clearly not productive. Yes, MJL erred in saying you misgendered them twice, and yes, I see no evidence that you did it even the first time in a malicious fashion (although you may want to rethink the practice of using "he" as your default on this project, imo), and yes MJL is being somewhat passive aggressive in how they acknowledged the mistake in the second instance. However, none of this rises anywhere near the level of something that is going to be considered actionable here, and in fact, I don't get the sense MJL is complaining in an obstructive, tendentious fashion. So this is all just muddying the waters on the actual editorial issues/behavioural complaints that might actually be of concern to this thread. And at this point, if you push it any further, you're going to clearly be perceived as the histrionic/unreasonable party here: I suggest you take the advice of un-inolved parties here and drop this matter unless MJL continues to engage upon it, which does not seem to be their intention if you're both on the same page about their preferred gender terms. SnowRise let's rap 21:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Roman Reigns Fanboy: I passed RFA for the (first time) in 2004. What you are reading in the logs is me re-adding autopatrolled (it used to be automatic for admins). This needs to be settled on the article talk page. We're talking about initial events that are so old that they informed later policy. Something that old is very much eligible for re-opening unless perhaps it involves Gdańsk.©Geni (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geni: There is already a consensus going on, on the talk page. The issue unfortunately didn't involve only content dispute, but dictating content solely over religious feelings. At least that's how I see it. Hence I complained. Even the consensus being cited is only a 9-9 tie. If involved admins decide it should be closed, then I have no problem. I'm not trying to endlessly argue. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roman Reigns Fanboy started the ANI post without ever using the article talk page. This thread is pointless at this point and should be closed. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cuñado: I started this thread because the sole reason being used is religious sentiments. Sure not everyone opposing the picture may be Bahai, but they are solely doing it out of respecting the religion and the wishes of its followers. Nothing else. Complaining was appropriate and I do think the behaviour you and MJL have shown deserved banning. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You also refused to use the talk page and answer my concerns beyond saying on my page "it's not censorship" [134] after I contacted you to stop censoring [135]. All that was done beyond it by you and Smolkins was reverting. Had you actually tried a discussion, this would have been avoided and we would have taken this to talk page inevitably. I had asked you how it's not cesnorship after your comment [136], you refused to answer me anywhere. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cuñado, I disagree that this thread is altogether pointless, and I think you should be able to see from the community response above that this is not general impression. Roman Reigns Fanboy didn't exactly fall all over himself exhausting every form of dispute resolution before bringing the matter here, but he did at least reach out to you an explain his position that the image's exclusion is contrary to policy (if not in the most open-minded terms), and I agree with him that your response, which was little more than "Nuh-uh, is not!" is unsatisfactory, so I can understand why he was inclined to feel that talk page engagement might just be met with stonewalling (though he still should have tried, imo). And this impression is further supported by the fact that every uninvolved editor who has looked at the discussions that took place on that talk page previously concerning this matter has reached the conclusion that the assertion of a "consensus" is a false one.
    All of that said... Is there some reason why neither side here has attempted to resolve this via WP:RfC? That would seem to be the obvious solution. SnowRise let's rap 23:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt what was happening needed to be heard by the admins, as it felt like a clear violation of rules to me. WP:CENSORSHIP and WP:NPOV. I agree RfC will be a good choice to finish this dispute. That said another user has already opened up a section to get consensus on the talk page. Should it be shut down with votes discarded or should the votes be factored into the RfC? Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point just let the conversation play out. There will likely be a consensus there, and avoid the need for a full RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is amazing. I reverted his initial change one time and haven't since. I responded to his ridiculous claim of censorship (on my talk page, BTW, not the article page). I civilly shared my preference to keep the status quo. The article has the image on top and I haven't opposed it. User:Roman Reigns Fanboy has been rude and accusatory and mischaracterized my intentions. Why are we still talking about this? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't actually share any of your preference. You just stated that it's not censorship. If what you are doing something I believe falls within something, then I would be naturally accusing you of that. That's not rude. If I think a person is censoring, I will warn them and ask not to. After you replied without any explanation I asked politely for explaining how. I tried talking to you, but you refused to talk. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, not true. You claimed censorship when I was moving an image around on the page. That's not censorship. Censorship would be deleting the image, which happens all the time and I put it back on the page. I never refused to talk after that, you never started a conversation on the article's page, and it was not my revert that caused you to start this ANI. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. Censorship doesn't just mean deletion, although it is the most common definition. It also means to suppress something from public view. You are deliberately ensuring that most of the public won't see it. Also WP:NOTCENSORED redirects to HELP:NOSEE which is against hiding images in any form by editors. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes your revert as well as refusing to talk was one of the causes, hence why I explicitly mentioned your name in the beginning. I knew that attempts at compromise would get stonewalled by you and others reverting as you are doing now. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    AS I'M DOING NOW???? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument has been insistently about maintaing the same position on the photo. That too without offering any reason beyond offense to religious sentiments. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You also claimed nobody knows Bahaullah by his given name which is untrue. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: So what is this thread about? If it's about Cuñado then is there literally any evidence that user was acting in anything but good faith?
    If the question is about whether a local consensus can override a global one, then we already know the answer. If it's about whether there ever was a local consensus at all, then I have to wonder why it matters. I've already presented evidence that one can at least argue there was.
    My impression here is that any party involved in the actual content of the article at least believed there was. If there wasn't actually a local consensus, then what? Does it really matter if everyone involved was acting in good faith?
    So what are we still doing here? What is there for the community to actually decide? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL, this entire thread began as a result of WP:CENSORSHIP and multiple-editor ownership of the article Baháʼu'lláh. (Please note I'm not accusing anyone specifically, so I won't provide evidence; let's just move on.) I think now this thread is becoming irrelevant, though. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 00:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do completely believe in what I've said about censorship, NPOV and Cuñado not caring to discuss, I don't want to throw around more accusations like WP:OWNERSHIP. This thread does seem to be becoming pointless beyond arguments and counter-arguments over who did what and I don't think there's anything coming out of it as no admin is going to act. Better to close it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated case of overlinking

    I doubt this user is here to build an encyclopedia if all they're here to do is repeatedly violate WP:OVERLINK, even as I've sent them multiple Talk messages not to do so. Can an administrator please step in on this case? Jalen Folf (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    He started editing today, you left him a generic warning today, and you're opening an ANI thread today??? EEng 23:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly a WP:CIR case. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng New blood joins this earth... and quickly he's subdued X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 04:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to decide whether I should invoke WP:EMERGENCY now. EEng 04:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we ought to notify the President. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Unexplained and unverified edits

    I've kind of had it with User:WEEROR, who is making hundreds of small factual edits (related to politics, elections, etc.) to dozens of articles but without explaining what they are doing, and without adding proper verification. I asked them to leave edit summaries (in English, of course), twice, and their response was this: "I had done my edit, so there is no necessary to inform in edit summaries". A week later, after more of that, blocked them for that disruption, for 31 hours, and they seemed not to understand then why that was: "I think this decision is unfair to me, sometimes there is no time to update since the current suitation is too dynamic in Malaysia. If you want me to leave an edit summary, I will try my best, thanks." Well, yes, I wanted that, and they didn't.

    Fast forward, and they still don't get it now. Their lack of edit summaries is obvious from their contributions, and here are the stats. They seem to not care about sourcing either, and I picked one at random from among many: this one, which adds election results from 2022, without a source, and there is no source already in the article that might contain that information. Here is another one--same problem. Go see for yourself: the verification is not there for these tons of edits.

    I don't consider this a minor thing. We need to explain what we are doing, we need to make sure that the information is verified. I know there is a language issue here too, but explaining and verifying are just very basic things for our project. I am inclined to block again, but what I would rather see is this editor reformed--it is clear that whatever I was trying is not working. Your input is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "I will try my best?" No. Either accept the request to leave proper edit summaries or, well, wind up at ANI. This is not a difficult thing, and proper sourcing is not an optional thing. If this guy chronically cannot be bothered to do so, he can have an indefinite vacation until such time as he can. Ravenswing 00:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE by Gunner555

    Gunner555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user is back after two years and has already resumed their anti-Iranian and anti-Armenian behaviour, violating WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA, WP:HARASSMENT and even WP:BLP. They have already been warned several times to refrain from attacking other users (eg [137] [138] [139]). They have already been blocked for personal attacks before [140] .

    A history of this pattern (just some examples, doesnt include every diff):

    1. 11 July 2017 Massagetae was not Iranian. This is pan-Iranist propoganda.
    2. 11 July 2017 What kind of privileges you own? That you warn me with ill-intention? I edited Tomris page providing proper explanation as well as references. If you continue applying double standards towards my edits I will officially complain about your attitude. You seem to be heavily influenced by pan--Iranists. I demand reverting my edits, which were substantiated.
    3. 11 July 2017 There is ill-intentioned Iranina progopanda trying to associate sakas, massagetaes and many other proto-turkic nations to Iran.
    4. 23 August 2020 This is unfortunately another "persian cultural historical propoganda on Wikipedia".
    5. 23 August 2020 The article is bombarded with claims of pro-persian users who do all to link Samanids to Iran and persians.
    6. 26 August 2020 Do even ready my words? I said I opened new sections on pages and then got attacked by pro-persian users. Ready carefully. I add opinion (!) in Talk pages with questions, viewpoints and doubts. Then guys come up either reply with nationlist ungrounded ideas OR delete my section. And you do nothing about them. This means you are biased.
    7. 23 August 2020 No room for persian chauvinism.
    8. 16 October 2020 I fight rigged Wikipedia full of persian and armenian nationalists
    9. 29 November 2022 Again you. You are deliberately fulfilling pan-persianist agenda on Wikipedia. It is crossing boundaries.
    10. 29 November 2022 So, spreading the Iranist/Persianist agenda by calling historical people Persian/Iranian who wrote in Persian or lived close to it.
    11. 29 November 2022 your problem is that you can't fathom historical facts. In your mind, everything must be Persian/Iranian in this region. You do only harm to Wikipedia.
    12. 30 November 2022 - You bring references from naturally biased Armenian and Iranian authors about Azerbaijanian's identity? Why are Armenian and Iranian historians "naturally biased"? This was what he called the authors whose cited work were published by Iran and the Caucasus (Brill Publishers), Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Publishers) and Taylor & Francis.
    13. 30 November 2022 HistoryofIran is very political on Wikipedia... ...It is clear that HistoryofIran relies on his administrative privilages only.

    To no surprise, when I asked Gunner555 if they had proof for his persistent asperions/attacks towards me, he had none, not even a single diff. This was their reply; It is enough to look at changes, deletion, reporting of arguments that I have brought on here. Even your tone. They consider this constant mix of attacks, aspersions and hounding part of this platforms "free speech" [141].

    Can we please indef this hateful anti-Iranian and anti-Armenian WP:NOTHERE user? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing and hostility by Uinko

    I reported this a couple of weeks ago, but it was closed, in my opinion, far too quickly. Since then, the user has made dozens more edits, the overwhelming majority of which contain problems that I and other observers have already brought up with them numerous times.

    Here are just a few of their recent disruptive and ungrammatical edits: This one, this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one.

    Furthermore, in the following edits, Uinko removed content without giving an explanation. here, here, here, and here.

    There are countless instances of this, and they comprise the overwhelming majority of Uinko’s contributions. This user tends to make a large number of small edits to each article at a time, which has helped to mask the cumulative damage being done, but the result has been that entire paragraphs have been stripped of information and replaced with awkward prose that badly needs to be copy-edited.

    Uinko has been notified of this repeatedly, more than a dozen times, and I invite you to look over their talkpage to see how many times they have been reminded of this and offered guidance, only to either ignore it or respond with undisguised hostility, and even personal attacks on a few occasions. As such, Uinko is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and should receive a formal warning from an admin or lose editing privileges. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Cpotisch, I reviewed all those "here and here and here" edits that you linked to. Frankly, they might not be the best edits but I do not see them as so terrible that this editor really needs to be dragged here to ANI. Your examples fall far short of showing that entire paragraphs have been stripped of information and replaced with awkward prose that badly needs to be copy-edited. Perhaps you should have selected more informative diffs, or perhaps the problems are not as serious as you are claiming. Which is it? Cullen328 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll review the diffs again and see if there are many better examples of what I was talking about, and will review the ones I linked to. I was pretty sure that all the ones that I claimed had grammar issues did, but it's obviously possible I misread. Again, as I noted, I am far from the first person to take issue with their edits, so it's plausible that my own perception was clouded by that track record. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Cullen, and "ungrammatical" is just not correct, not for all of them anyway. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have gone through the diffs that the OP provided. I can find nothing objectionable with any of them. Sure, there may be some good faith disagreement over the best way to organize information, whether to combine two sentences into one, or to use a proper name rather than a pronoun, the entire set of "this one, this one" links provided by the OP is stuff like that. Maybe the edits improved the readability, or maybe they didn't, but it isn't clear cut and is going to be a matter of opinion. That's NOT a reason to report someone to ANI to demand sanctions. Secondly, the "here", "here" removals are not a problem. Every one of those was uncited, which can be removed by anyone, at any time, for no reason at all other than they were statements of fact that lacked any clear source. Also several of them were bordering on trivial, which even if they had sources doesn't mean it is wrong to remove them. Other than the minor issue of not using edit summaries; which isn't strictly something blockable given that all of these removals are obviously and unambiguously within guidelines and policies, isn't an issue for me. At best a gentle reminder for Uinko to use edit summaries would be in order. On the charge of personal attacks, the OP has provided no diffs regarding that. I make no statement in that regard; however NONE of the diffs they provided account for ANY reason to sanction or even warn Uinko for anything. --Jayron32 13:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User not going to deletion review after AfD decision he didn't agree with

    ‎Kasper2006 (talk · contribs) has reverted twice [142] and [143] a redirect for Italian Winter Throwing Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that was an outcome of the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Winter Throwing Championships. I advised Kasper2006 to take this to WP:DRV with this edit.LibStar (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    But of course I agree with a community decision. I reverted, and explained it, because the decision was a "mere mistake" since a vote against deletion and a vote for redirect could not have decided for the latter. --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe it was a mistake, take it to deletion review.LibStar (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lib, as I wrote in the revert, thank you for the advice but I don't know how to do it because I've never done it. I took a look and it seems complicated to me, if you give me some help we'll put the redirect back and go do it. --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put the redirect back. An alternative to using DRV might be to create a Draft:Italian_Winter_Throwing_Championships which doesn't have the problems that the original did (that it was basically a results listing with primary sources). Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic user SkyGeek123

    SkyGeek123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor is a single purpose account which for the last several months has only edited Josh Cahill, at which it has added biased and promotional text and reverted any edit which improves the neutrality of the article, often with false claims of vandalism. Pretty sure we can all guess who is operating the account, although they have denied any connection. I wonder if they need to be prevented from editing that article, as their edits are not intended to be neutral or encyclopaedic. 185.104.136.21 (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    All statements are well sourced, 185.104.136.21 has been vandalising the article before and got blocked as a result. He can't explain his changes on the page either and continues to vandalise. He admitted that he doesn't like the individual and therefor continues to edit without providing explanation or changes without giving a single source. Admins approved the page numerous times before and warned 185.104.136.21 for his actions which resulted in a block. SkyGeek123 (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP isn't vandalising (as they said, you have a habit of making false claims of vandalism). You've been blocked previously for edit warring PoV into the article and not writing in a neutral manner. Before we go back down the edit warring route, I recommend you discuss the disputed edits on the talk page. — Czello 10:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you go through previous edits of 185.104.136.21, 86.187.163.51, 86.187.169.250, 62.30.195.57 (which are all the same person) you can clearly see that sourced sections have been removed. Reasons giving "rubbish" by which you can tell that he vandalises the article. Also the Award section was removed which was also clearly sourced and based on facts. If he provides sources or explains his reasoning in the talk page, as we tried with the individual in question, it would have been reasonable. But once again his lack of trying to engage shows his only motive. SkyGeek123 (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF. A section being sourced doesn't immediately justify inclusion. The IP has given reasonable reasons for removal. Just because you disagree with them it doesn't make them vandalism. — Czello 11:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even after that last post by Czello, SkyGeek123 is still referring to other people's edits as vandalism (they aren't). The previous block of SkyGeek for edit warring with the IP was to reinsert some pretty obvious puffery (which they were still trying to edit-war in after the block ended). And this, of course, is without considering the possible COI implications. My inclination would simply be to block SkyGeek123 from the article (leaving the talk page open for them). Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Black Kite. I have instituted the page block. Skygeek123 is still free to edit all other pages at Wikipedia, as well as make suggestions at the article talk page. --Jayron32 16:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Forza bruta

    Forza bruta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The above contributor has just posted this on my talk page: Stop your propaganda for communist dictators. You remove word "dictator" for communist criminals: Castro and Lenin were criminals. Forza bruta (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC) [144] This is in response to me reverting several of their posts, which consisted of removing the words 'dictator' and 'dictatorship' from the article on Fransesco Franco [145], and of adding it to articles on Vladimir Lenin [146] and Fidel Castro. [147] No attempt to justify the edits, no consideration of the broader context, just addition or removal of a few words. Nothing substantive as an edit summary. Just raw assertion regarding who is or isn't a 'dictator'. In articles that all discuss the nuances of such questions in considerably more detail.

    I note that this is seems to be something of a pattern for Forza bruta, who back in September started a thread on WP:ANI [148] regarding a dispute over whether Josip Broz Tito should be described as a 'dictator' - a dispute where Forza bruta characterised another contributor as a 'stalker' and a 'hypocrite'. And again, showing what appears to be some sort of point-scoring or retaliation involving the removal of the term 'dictator' from an article on Mussolini. [149] It seems to me that Forza bruta regards Wikipedia as some sort of arena for playground political article-tagging games, rather than an (attempted) encyclopaedia, and given their refusal to engage in substantive debate on such matters, it might well prove wise to consider topic-banning Forza bruta from articles concerning real or alleged dictators, real or alleged dictatorships , and probably politics of the last hundred years or so in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dictator is a commonly abused subjective label that should never be used in wikivoice, as established with the precedent for removing several incarnations of List of dictators and Category:Dictators. Based on this precedent, Forza bruta's labeling of certain heads of state as dictators is already problematic in itself, but their refusal to label Francisco Franco as a dictator suggests an ideological slant as well. Though, Franco's article shouldn't use the term dictator in wikivoice, as it currently does 10 times for Franco and 6 times for other governments. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a reasonable argument, though there are other perspectives on the matter. It has certainly been argued that (at least in his early years in power) Franco was a 'dictator' in formal legalistic terms, in a way that neither Stalin or even Hitler were, making it more than a 'subjective label'. That's a discussion for article talk pages though, and my objection to Forza bruta is based around an apparent refusal to use such things, or to admit the possibility that other people's opinions may be based on more subtle matters than their position on a political spectrum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - You called him a dictator, can't you be polite!? - I was being polite, that's why I added the "tator"! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I made ANI because an user labeled me as "hypocrite". Regarding word "dictator" I request neutral POV in related introductions of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza bruta (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are better ways to 'request neutral POV' than by accusing people of making 'propaganda for communist dictators'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Shajure

    • Shajure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Deleting content from an article talk page and being threating.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasider53 (talk • contribs)
    • I've blocked Shajure for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As against that, in dealing with an editor who has at the top of his talk page "If you are an admin and feel an overwhelming urge to warn me about something, please proceed to block as I don't plan to change my behaviour. At all," I expect this will ratchet up to an indef soon enough. Ravenswing 01:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      In addition, "If you have some overwhelming urge to post here, please don't" and "If you are an annoying busybody (very common among heavy WP users, even very useful and effective ones), especially: STAY THE FLOCK OFF MY PAGE!" aren't terribly collegial or collaborative. This person's been editing for 12 years and has a little over 2,000 edits. I haven't looked at the quality of those contributions, but I can't imagine it would be any great loss if they were to some day run into a NOTHERE indef. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      a non-admin comment: I did look at Shajure's contributions, and while the editor may be somewhat grumpy, their edit-summaries are exemplary and I do think they'd be a loss. Also, the comment they removed from a talk page was far from an AGF edit on Seasider53's part. I get the distinct impression there are two sides to this argument. Maybe worth a more careful look? Elemimele (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose the "nonsense" part was a little strong on my part, but that was coming from my struggling to see beyond the odd wording the user was insisting on using in Fred Rogers' article (and my being emboldened by another editor validating my concern). I was fine with Shajure returning to the project after their time-out, but that was before their talk-page header diatribe was pointed out above. Seasider53 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Block and redaction needed

    User:67.84.79.89 and this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I redacted the comment. I will leave it to someone else to decide if they need to be blocked. So far they have made only two edits. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And blocked. They’re pursuing a racist theme. Acroterion (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that adminstrators are not supposed to block IPs indefinitely. But I do not understand why we do not block stone cold racists for much longer than 72 hours. I would have gone for two months in the hope that this despicable person would lose interest and go away forever. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An IP address does not correlate to a person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of vandals of this kind are casual visitors who will find something else to do if they can’t come back the next day. That was the origin of the 31 hour block term. With the advent of edit filters it takes a little more determination to vandalize, so nowadays I usually go longer, but it’s still unusual for them to return. If they do, they’ll get blocked for a month or three. Acroterion (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Truly static IP addresses are rare and becoming more rare by the day. Wikipedia started establishing best practices around blocking IPs back when IPv4 with static IP addresses was the norm. That world doesn't exist anymore. Whether IPv4 or IPv6, assuming any IP address is "static" is currently not a good bet to make. You should always start with the default assumption that any IP you block will be a highly dynamic IP unless and until you have clear evidence that the same person is using it over a long period of time. --Jayron32 14:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor 212.243.61.50 Block needed

    This editor is disruptive, edit warring and distruptive editing on the Yevgeni Ponasenkov, breaking WP:NPOV by trying to assert which is against consensus. Can somebody take a look. They've had multiple warnings. scope_creepTalk 08:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    They have been edit warring and are now past the 3RR limit. I can't go any further in reverting. Can somebody take a look. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a request for semi-protection, which will give the IP some cool-off time if granted. ValarianB (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible sleeper account

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

    This account was created in 2016 and made its first edit on March 13, only eight months ago. There are two problems here: (1) their username is not acceptable because of its violent nature and (2) all 157 of their edits have been to their sandbox, repeatedly and erasing content, which clearly shows they are WP:NOTHERE. Nythar (💬-🎃) 10:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    So basically someone isn’t bothering anybody or being disruptive, you haven’t tried to communicate with them at all, and you think it would be a good idea to have a thread about that on a drama board? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    100.36.106.199, this user should have been blocked for their username months ago. That's why I didn't bother communicating with them (they've already received a warning for their username in September and didn't even reply). Also, users who make hundreds of edits to their userspace (in this case, usually copy-pasting infoboxes) with no edits to the mainspace are usually WP:NOTHERE. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 12:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don’t you do something useful with your time? Go make breakfast, maybe? Knit a scarf? Maybe make a substantive edit to an article? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, it's getting late. Anyway, I've presented the evidence; I'll just wait for an administrator's input. Cheers, — Nythar (💬-🎃) 12:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP user is trolling multiple ANI discussions, just ignore them. This was a valid issue to raise. ValarianB (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor appears to be using Wikipedia for alternative history nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reported at WP:UNFAA. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Sam Walton (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA apparently citing his own self-published works on Iran famines

    Mohammad Gholi Majd is an Iranian author with a PhD in agricultural economics who has published several books on various Iranian famines through a print on demand model, including (among others) The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran: 1917-1919 (2013), Iran Under Allied Occupation in World War II: The Bridge to Victory & a Land of Famine (2016), and A Victorian Holocaust: Iran in the Great Famine of 1869–1873 (2017). These books were published under the now-defunct University Press of America (UPA) label and its successor Hamilton Books, after "UPA was renamed Hamilton Books in 2017" according to Moretonian, a single-purpose account who claims to know intimate details about the publication process that only the author could know. Both UPA and Hamilton Books are nominally imprints of respected publisher Rowman & Littlefield that were expressly designed to allow authors to publish as soon as an order is made, without the editorial oversight or fact-checking of traditional publishing models.

    To be clear, Majd's books make extraordinary WP:REDFLAG claims that Iran suffered more than any other country during World War I and World War II and suffered consecutive British-led genocides far surpassing the Holocaust, among other dubious assertions not found in any mainstream scholarship, often based on shaky numbers and selective use of primary sources. Academic experts who have paid any attention to Majd's writings have been almost uniformly critical.

    Unfortunately, Moretonian (whose top-edited article is Mohammad Gholi Majd and who has made no edits unrelated to Majd out of just 135 edits total) has rewritten the articles on the Persian famine of 1870–1872, the Persian famine of 1917–1919, and the Iranian famine of 1942–1943 to reflect Majd's WP:FRINGE viewpoint, either citing Majd directly or citing identical sources/making identical arguments to Majd. Moretonian is now continuing that behavior at Persian campaign (World War I), where it is very clear that Moretonian is simply republishing Majd's arguments in great detail.

    • Moretonian (diff): "In a report entitled 'The Situation in Persia,' submitted by the Iranian delegation to the General Assembly of the League of Nations, dated December 6, 1920, the following is stated: 'At the beginning of the war of 1914-1918, the Persian Government, anxious to maintain its historic traditions, solemnly declared its neutrality ... Despite its neutrality, Persia has been a battlefield during the world cataclysm ... It is with deep emotion that we mention the the [sic] high figure of our loss in man-power—a cruel loss of 300,000 men, massacred by the sword of the invader.' The full report is given in U.S. diplomatic archives."
      • Majd, Mohammad Gholi. The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran. UPA (2013). Kindle Edition. Pages 2-3: "In a report submitted by the Iranian Delegation to the General Assembly of the League of Nations, dated December 6, 1920, the following is stated: 'At the beginning of the war of 1914-1918, the Persian Government, anxious to continue its historic traditions, solemnly declared its neutrality ... Despite her neutrality, Persia has been a battlefield during the world cataclysm. ... It is with deep emotion that we mention the high figure of our loss in man-power—a cruel loss of 300,000 men, massacred by the sword of the invader."
    • Moretonian (diff): "Commenting on the devastation of Iran in World War I, Miroshnikov wrote: 'Looking back, even now it is difficult to say how Iran might have suffered less ... It was impossible to defend national sovereignty from encroachments by the Great Powers, each of whom considered Iran a prize in the struggle for new colonies and spheres of influence.'"
      • Majd, Mohammad Gholi. The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran. UPA (2013). Kindle Edition. Page 1: "Discussing the devastation of Iran, the Soviet historian Lev Miroshnikov wrote ... 'Looking back it is even now difficult to say how Iran might have suffered less ... It was impossible to defend national sovereignty from encroachments by the Great Powers, each of whom considered Iran a prize in the struggle for new colonies and spheres of influence.'"

    I don't have the time to do this for all of Moretonian's edits, but the patten is clear: All of Moretonian's edits either cite Majd directly or they cite the same sources/make identical arguments to Majd. In one edit, Moretonian even accused Ervand Abrahamian (a leading historian of modern Iran) of making "false and defamatory claims against Majd," writing in wikivoice that "Abrahamian's accusation is completely false ... As noted above, Abrahamian's claim is completely baseless" with no sourcing whatsoever. Indeed, User talk:Moretonian has several messages asking about an apparent WP:COI, which Moretonian has thus far been unwilling to acknowledge. My question is two-fold:

    • 1.) Is it possible to reach a consensus that Majd's books published through a print on demand model via UPA/Hamilton Books are generally unreliable?
    • 2.) Can anything be done to prevent Moretonian, who—if we are being honest—obviously appears to have an affiliation with Majd, from making conflicted edits if he refuses to disclose the conflict?

    I'm looking forward to any feedback from administrators about this sensitive matter. While I am willing to transpose the first part of this thread at WP:RSN if that is ultimately determined to be a more appropriate venue/not considered to be forum-shopping, in my view there are deeper behavioral concerns here about Moretonian's conduct that may rise to the level of requiring administrative attention. (Note that Moretonian received a 48-hour block for edit warring following an WP:AN3 complaint about one year ago but has since been largely successful in brute-forcing contested content into article space.) Thank you for reading,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    AndyTheGrump personal attacks and refuse to discuss

    After making edits with a Bloomsbury published book, AndyTheGrump started reverting all of them and while we have continued to discuss them on talk pages like here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paraphilia#Edit_warring_about_prevalence_of_paraphilias here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump#Dispute_resolution and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoophilia, he has told me to "get lost" and "get a fucking clue" and now threatened me with ANI for "being incompetent" while saying he is done discussing it with me. A few hours ago he told me to wait some time and let others get involved in the discussion. User User:Hist9600 has seen his extreme behavior excluding users and refusing consensus.Foorgood (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue concerns edits like diff at Paraphilia and diff at Zoophilia. It appears that Foorgood is on a mission to tell the world that there are around eight million zoophiles in the United States. Please start an WP:RFC on the talk page of one article and thrash out the issue regarding whether a 70-year old source is usable and whether the claim is WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Andythegrump approves use of the Kinsey report but only for percentages not it's total estimate. I agree on going to RFC he's the one that made personal attacks, refused to discuss after saying "let's discuss" and threatened ANI.Foorgood (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Yes, I was uncivil. I suspect most people would be, given the complete and utter inability of Foorgood to understand that (amongst many, many other issues), Alfred Kinsey's research is over seventy years old, and has been the subject of considerable debate since, and accordingly Wikipedia should not be citing it as if it represents current understanding regarding the prevalence of zoophilia. Having failed to get their way on one article, Foorgood has resorted to spamming the same material, citing the same source, over multiple articles. A source which it soon became apparent that Foorgood hadn't even read properly. For reasons which Foorgood has entirely failed to explain, despite being asked multiple times, they seem to be utterly obsessed with citing a specific figure from this particular source - an estimated eight million zoophiles amongst the U.S. population - as if it was both authoritative, and current. It clearly isn't either. Kinsey's research is over seventy years old. And note that this isn't cited to Kinsey. It is cited to a source that Foorgood seems absolutely obsessed with using, after I pointed out that adding a link to what appears to be a copyright-violating link to a download of it in an edit summary [150] is inadvisable. If it weren't for the fact that Foorgood clearly hadn't read the source properly, and likewise clearly doesn't have a clue about the subject matter, I'd assume some sort of conflict of interest.
    It should be noted that this thread has clearly been started in response to a post where I informed Foorgood that I myself intended to start a thread here in the next 24 hours, asking that they be topic-banned from all articles concerning human sexuality, on competence grounds. [151] Such a proposal clearly requires evidence though, and probably a cool head. Which is why I didn't start it immediately. I will provide the evidence when I'm able, but meanwhile, anyone who wants to know what this is about could read Foorgood's contribution history since 21:30, 30 November 2022. An endless going-round-in-circles exercise in pig-headedness, refusal to answer a simple question (why does a questionable seventy-year-old number matter so much?), and a litany of failures to give a reasoned response to my objections. This is a competence issue. A severe one. Quite possibly not adequately remedied through a topic ban, since Google-mining sources you don't understand is harmful to the project, regardless of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again personal attacks while he uses a double standard. He allows the Kinsey report for percentages but not for total estimates.Foorgood (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this like, the third AN/I report we've had of Andy in like a week? I would be pretty frustrated too if I kept getting dragged here. (Non-administrator comment) casualdejekyll 01:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading through the discussion at Talk:History_of_zoophilia, I'm inclined to side with Andy here. Foorgood has repeatedly put words in Andy's mouth, ignored relevant questions about their editing, and displayed a general lack of sense about how to use sources. While there are some breaches of civility in the edit summaries in particular, if we're going to take issue with failure to discuss I see more of a problem with Foorgood not addressing why they want to include an outdated source. signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been the one to continue discussing NONSTOP while has said about 3 times that's it I'm done discussing this! Andy has allowed the percentages for the Kinsey source here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Extent_of_occurrence but he is not allowing the total estimates.Foorgood (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been doing a lot of discussing, but it hasn't been useful discussion for the most part. My advice to you if you want this to end well for you is that you should pick one zoophilia-related article, and make a positive case for why your desired source and/or content is important to be included. If there's still disagreement after that, an RfC may be appropriate if it's not a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY situation. signed, Rosguill talk 01:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok i will do that but haven't me and Andy done alot of discussing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoophilia. We're in desperate need of more people to comment.Foorgood (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia discussions can be slow. I see a lot of active discussion just today, with Crossroads making pertinent points as well. Relax and take a step back from the article. signed, Rosguill talk 01:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right thank you Foorgood (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For evidence that Foorgood's lack of competence extends beyond an inability to understand the context of Kinsey's research, see the second part of this edit, to the Paraphilia article. [152] Foorgood writes The American Psychiatric Association estimated that the prevalence of pedophilia among American males may be approximately 3 to 5 percent.. The source cited starts the paragraph being cited with an observation that Regarding pedophilia, the population is unknown. It goes on to quote from DSM-5, which said that "The highest possible prevalence for pedophilic disorder in the male population is approximately 3% to 5%" the authors of the work being cited then note that the basis for this assertion is unknown. Citing a source that argues that verifiable data is "unknown" for numbers on such data is absurd. More so when "approximately" is substituted for "highest possible prevalence" - that is simply, unarguably, wrong, since it is contrary to what the source actually says. Probably unintended, but further evidence of a lack of competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, welcome back to the ANI Cafe. Would you like your usual table? Drink? Amuse-bouche?
    Foorgood, going through your very voluminous postings all over the place, arguing with practically everybody, being warned about it, and still doing it anyway, I'm forming a view that topic bans aren't likely to address a pattern of battleground conduct wherever you go. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you say that when here Andy said "Go away and get a fucking clue"?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndyTheGrump#Dispute_resolution You ignore his history of doing this?! I just stated above I was going to proceed to request for comment Foorgood (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For context for that particular thread on my talk page, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Zoophilia. An abortive exercise in not reading the instructions prominently posted at the top of the noticeboard. I'd have to suggest that lack of clue was pretty well self-evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But calling other editors "children" is quite alright? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 01:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can say that after looking at your conduct at RSN and DRN, your behavior on Drmies and Æo's talkpages, your accusations of vandalism against editors who disagree with you, your advocacy of marginal or disputed sourcing across a broad range of topics even after other editors have explained why they are problematic ... I see a lot of wasted time, a lot of WP:IDHT, and a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUND that has exasperated almost anybody you've interacted with. If I see you try to win discussions with "top publishing house source" again, I might use profanity too. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I acted uncivilized there myself I was warned and took ownership but I have refrained from making personal attacks against Andy when he cursed me out. I make sure to use top sources as is expected but I will pursue request for comment on this matter civily. If majority vote against my edit, I will accept it. Foorgood (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't do majority votes on edits here. This is ANI. Where we discuss behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that would occur at request for comment not here. Foorgood (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but you said it in response to Acroterion's comments about your behaviour. Which from what has been said here seems to be a matter of concern regarding more than your differences with me. Such concerns are unlikely to be resolved by starting an RfC on one issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dynamic ip?

    New to the dynamic ip part, but 76.66.104.156 looks like it is one if I'm not mistaken, yet it has two recent edits. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IPs are allowed to make edits, if that is the concern. 166.205.97.48 (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1125076960"