Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simulaun (talk | contribs) at 09:34, 8 January 2023 (→‎Persistent SYNTH, IDHT, and NOTHERE issues: Reply). 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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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


    Height/weight vandalism on wrestler articles

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

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

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

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

    Another incident just now from another IP, 121.164.25.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CodeTalker (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This sort of disruption is a long-term common problem, it ebbs and flows. There's an edit-filter that tags them. See [1] DMacks (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact of the matter is that professional wrestling promoters routinely lie about the heights and weights of their performers, to puff them up. It is called "billed height" and "billed weight". Perhaps the best solution is to eliminate height and weight from the pro wrestler infobox, so that the encyclopedia stops spreading this particular kind of lie. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the same goes for nearly everything else about professional wrestling. Isn't it time we applied the basic content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) properly to this topic and only published what is in genuinely reliable sources, rather than the sources we use now that we pretend to be reliable but are actually not? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To your list of P&Gs I would add WP:RS. Many or most "sources" used in pro wrestling articles are just soap opera digests hyping their idiotic kayfabe storylines, which our articles regurgitate as fact. It's incredible, for example, that we still allow childish in-universe garbage such as The Undertaker#Undertaker gimmick, identities and character evolution to embarrass the project. EEng 02:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a member of WP:PW I agree that the in-universe fluff should be brought down significantly per WP:PLOTSUMMARY. It takes up a vast amount of space in a way no other TV show would. Myself and another editor have been trying to cut it down, but unfortunately a lot of the pro wrestling WikiProject operates differently to the rest of Wikipedia, and aims to turn articles into a fan wiki. — Czello 10:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you and I and Phil Bridger and Cullen328 should talk about getting the ball rolling on fixing that. EEng 08:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a perennial problem that's been ongoing for years, now. Sometimes it might be outright vandalism by tweaking something minor to see if they can get away with it (match times are also subject to this), sometimes it might be that the editor heard a different weight announcement on the latest show but haven't got a source to prove it. I'm not sure of the solution, either - removing it entirely doesn't seem adequate to me. — Czello 10:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:GAME of DavidZD97

    User stripped of EC permissions. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    I have revoked extended confirmed permission from the account; however, if any other admin considers this to be wrong or excessive, feel free to reverse it without further reference to me. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I recognise that any system, especially an automated one, will be subject to gaming in some way, but is it possible to exclude at least user space edits from the automatic grant of permissions? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, though that would doubtless require a consensus and a phabricator task. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Papua Conflict, 3rd mediator, Nationalist Agenda.

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

    • It seems to me that Primefac's partial block is probably very helpful, esp. since User:Eustatius Strijder managed 120 edits to the article, with a ton of edit warring, and only 7 to the talk page. In addition, if they respond on their talk page to concerns, they then remove the query and the response soon after, another example of less than collegial behavior. I'm wondering what the best course of action is if they don't stop edit warring, and if they'll take this to other pages now they're blocked from this one. A 1R restriction might be helpful--short of a full block. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they don't stop edit warring, I suspect any pblocks will very quickly turn into full blocks, but that is an issue for at least a week from now (unless they do go warring on other pages). Primefac (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • A request was made at DRN for moderated discussion on 2 January, and Eustatius Strijder was notified of the request. I said, about 48 hours ago, on 2 January, that I would start moderated discussion if the editors would agree to the ground rules, which include no editing of the article. I am still ready to try to mediate the dispute if User:Eustatius Strijder and the other editors will agree to the rules and not to edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:JarrahTree, this is where you make your case, if you want to make one. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          The problem with the start of this Incident, as reported above, insufficient care has been attended to the background:
          1. The talk page of the incident reporter is an excellent introduction as to pervading issues over time - a close reading would show that WP:3RR has been ignored continually
          2. The edit history of the incident reporter gives clear cases of where the rules of WP:3RR are totally ignored on a regular basis
          3. The mission for ... whatever seems to subsume process or even understanding of instructions: -
          • [[2]] Editting consensus, agreement
          Insight as to the understanding of consensus
          Continued persistent reverting after the request to stop editing and reverting was asserted by the mediator
          Copyvio which is apparently not understood as such as editing has continued
          Further diffs are possible if it is not clear enough as to what has been happening.
          I consider that the blocks of Davielit and Merbabu are problematic, where both are long term editors with over total 30 years block free experience who took time and effort to try to consistently communicate and assert wikipedia policies and principles to the incident reporter who has shown little interest in responding or understanding the ramifications of the campaign in the style of a driven WP:SPA with no interest in due process. To place them in the same level of editing and understanding as the incident reporter is a potentially serious misunderstanding of what has been happening to date.
          From where I am watching this, the lack of interest in process, and ongoing ignoring of warnings and procedures are of concern, I do hope a reviewer of this is ready and prepared to read the background and differences to get the understanding of what has been going on JarrahTree 10:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A few comments (from a recently and regrettably involved party)...
    • Eustatius Strijder quotes WP:NPOV and WP:NATIONALIST (a lot), yet from my observations, his understanding of both is tenuous at best. To quote Eustatius from the article talk page: "I will entertain those who are progressives, but not to those who have a Nationalist Agenda as of WP:NATIONALIST." [4]
    • Since 1 January, he has reverted the page 19 (nineteen) times. Over the same time, I've reverted 4 times, and not more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Yes, a balance of 15 "against" Eustatice from other editors. User:Primefac has pblocked both of us. (my first block on wikipedia after 17 years).
    • Eustatius' request yesterday for rollback permission to better "fight edit warring" Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Eustatius_Strijder
    • As for my driver on the issue, far from being a "Nationalist", whatever that means, my main concern was infobox bloat/spam. And if you can indulge my rant, I don't care what "side" the info might support, I see a culture of building giant info box lists of info of dubious relevance - length/bloat for length's sake rather than for usefulness. It's like an alternate wikipedia universe to those (like me) who tend to focus on the written article.
    regards, --Merbabu (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non)Update on This Situation

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

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

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

    I am withdrawing my offer of third-party mediation because User:Eustatius Strijder would not agree not to edit the article while mediation was in progress. I am unfortunately inclined to think that the request for a mediator was made in bad faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for trying, and your time spent on it. --Merbabu (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope I agree on not editting the article for 3 more days, an IP user cannot be judged by the cover. The last time I edit the article was still 4 January 2023. I did not use any sock accounts on the article of Papua Conflict, nothing. I have already talked in the talk page regarding the issue. Eustatius Strijder (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion?

    I have my suspicions that User:Eustatius Strijder‎ is using an IP account to get around his pblock on Papua conflict. I would appreciate any advice or assistance.

    Refer this IP editor: Special:Contributions/180.252.169.24

    The IP editor has made two edits to the Papua conflict article from which Eustatius is currently blocked...

    1. The first edit was to put a link Biak Massacre as a “See also”. This article was created yesterday by Eustatius, and added it to See Also's here and here. Note the very similar edits by Eustatius and the IP. No other editor has linked to Biak Massacre
    2. The second is the same addition (albeit sans references) as this one made by Eustatius (but later removed by another editor).

    regards, --Merbabu (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Review needed ?

    The failure of any reply or action to the block evasion question above
    The failure of the dispute resolution process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Papua_conflict

    Suggests that there is a need to review actions to date. I believe a close reading of the editing within the scope of this incident might be necessary to resolve some outstanding issues. JarrahTree 23:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I welcome a review of my decision to fail the dispute resolution discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Papua_conflict. I note that the request was made by User:Juxlos on 2 January 2023. I requested that the parties read and agree to the usual rules, which include that no party may edit the article while dispute resolution is in progress. User:Eustatius Strijder agreed that a third mediator (probably meaning a third-party mediator) was needed, but did not agree not to edit the article. They made what appeared to be a request that the mediator not be Indonesian. The Eastern United States is about as far from Indonesia as two regions can be and both be on land on the same planet. I made five requests that the parties agree to the rules for mediation. I failed the dispute resolution after not receiving agreement from User:Eustatius Strijder. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps he meant someone from South America, the antipode
    I had submitted the DRN and all involved editors except Eustatius had agreed to the ground rules. So far, he seemed to have ignore an increasing amount of discussion efforts, only showing up when "threatened".
    Regardless, agreement to not edit seems moot now with the one-week edit block. Juxlos (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree as to the block rendering the agreement not to edit moot. The block expires in three days, and the edit-warring may resume if blocks or bans are not extended. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have agree for a mediation and for a third moderator to "assist" the Papua Conflict article overseeing the edits from a Neutral Point of view WP:NPOV. The IP users editting wasn't me, but was rather an IP user that has tailed my previous edits in Wiki. It is the same as of this person aswell [5] Eustatius Strijder (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Eustatius Strijder says that they agreed to a third-party mediator, but I made preparations to act as that mediator, and they did not agree not to edit the article. I made five requests for them to agree not to edit the article, and other editors agreed, but they did not. Their request for a moderator appears to be a distraction. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert - please understand that your decision was correct in the circumstances. Please, I was not referring to your actions in my comment. The lack of careful scrutiny of the actual incident and where it has evolved from has played out in unfortunate ways, as it has left a very strange mix of quite complex misunderstandings and unfolding array of misinterpretation of what constitutes accepted english terminology understood that is usually accepted in wikipedia. It is long past mediation or moderation. JarrahTree 04:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fram has been advised to change tack and track. While they have been reticent here, they have responded on their pov to most comments here, despite some flaming comments by other editors here – and their attempts to engage with the OP will hopefully be constructive. Handing out the olive branch to them and archiving this. Lourdes 08:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Seek WP:CONTENTDISPUTE help, ANI is not for this. —Alalch E. 15:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They tried this for the Jo Bogaert article, where they requested a 3rd opinion, which didn't agree with them. At Milo Films, they have removed unsourced but easily verifiable entries again and again, while I have since added 6 sources to the article showing that the entries were correct. They seem to insist that it is better to remove uncontroversial, verifiable, relevant content which is unsourced, than to source it or to tag it with CN tags at most. They continue doing this even when I have shown that many of their removals were perfectly fine content. "After a few back-and-forths between us, where each either added references or removed content": they have not found or added any new references, that's all my work. If that is "undoing your work", then I'm proud of it. Fram (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but you should know better than to label it vandalism and use snarky edit summaries. Aircorn (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Aircorn. Returning the non-controversial material and tagging it with "cn" is fine and defensible, but calling the work of someone you are in a dispute with "vandalism" is beyond the pale. Disagreeing with the approach to unreferenced material is not vandalism. They are clearly acting in good faith, and if you Fram also want to be considered to be also acting in good faith, you would do well to avoid using such terminology. For someone that's been around here as long as you have, I find it ridiculous that you need to be reminded of that. Calling good-faith disagreements "vandalism" is the kind of behavior I'd expect of a noob, not of one of the most seasoned editors at Wikipedia. Please stop that. On the nature of the dispute, itself, instead of reverting each-other back-and-forth, stop editing the article, and seek additional dispute resolution. Just because it was sought before on different articles doesn't mean you abandon that process on this article. Ask for outside help, don't scream "vandalism" and revert blindly back and forth. --Jayron32 15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Revirvlkodlaku's edit summaries are little better, tbh. And yes, it does appear that only one side is actually making an attempt to add decent sources. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing correct entries from a list of films because they can't be bothered to look for sources, and doing this again and again even when someone else shows that the entries are verifiable, is vandalism. And getting a disruptive editing warning for my efforts gets met with snark, yes. We are dealing with an editor who routinely WP:BITEs IPs and new editors by reverting them rather mindlessly, even when they add sourced and pertinent information like here. Fram (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not vandalism, and you already know that. What it is is a good-faith disagreement on how to interpret the sourcing requirements for an article. Vandalism, which you already know, is bad-faith editing intending to make Wikipedia worse. This is good faith editing where the two editors have a disagreement on how to interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding sourcing requirements. Just because someone has a different interpretation of policy than you do doesn't mean they are vandalising the article. You know this already Fram, because you've been around here for well over a decade. Your doubling down on this is just willful obtuseness, and there is no excuse for it. --Jayron32 15:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I don't see any "good faith effort" in someone continuing to remove uncontroversial entries from a list when it is very easy to verify and source them, and someone else is busy doing this, I don't agree with you at all. If they had shown any indication of trying to but failing to verift these entries, or if they had provided any reasonable excuse apart from "but unsourced!", I could accept your AGF reasoning. But none of this happened, only obstruction and stubbornness. Fram (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not required to try to verify anything. policies and guidelines allows them to do so as an option, but also allows other courses of action. They have chosen the course they think is the best. On the contrary, policies and guidelines make it clear that sourcing is always the responsibility of the person who wishes to see the text displayed in the article. If someone wants to remove something, they are under no obligation to seek sources to support it's remaining in the text! WP:BURDEN. --Jayron32 16:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While removing is allowed, sourcing (or at most tagging) is encouraged. They have not given any reason why they continue to challenge the material, when it has been shown that at the very least a lot of what they removed is easily verifiable, and none of it has been shown to be unverifiable or even dubious. Being allowed to do something doesn't mean that it can't be seriously disruptive to keep on doing it just because you can, not because it improves Wikipedia in any way. It's like, to take a random example, removing Prods without a reason. It is allowed by policy, but if one were to do it on all prods everyday, they would get warned and blocked (or topic banned) anyway. They have just again removed unsourced entries from the page[6], at the same time removing the refs from some sourced ones (and the English titles from sourced ones despite these official translations just being one click away on the source given), and without bothering to even join the discussion on the talk page which I started yesterday (before this ANI). But yeah, I'm the problem here. Fram (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you seriously believe they are removing content with the actual goal of making Wikipedia worse - as opposed to removing content because they misunderstand or are misguided about what the correct action is or something of the sort - then it's in fact not justifiable to call it vandalism. Intent is a component of vandalism, and it's possible to be unhelpful or disruptive without being a vandal. CharredShorthand (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a difficult case to prove, so you'll want to include some specific diffs. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be better for Revirvlkodlaku to add sources for the material he is removing, but he's also right that unverified material can be removed whenever, and edit-warring to keep it in is something a longtime editor like Fram should absolutely know is not acceptable. Both parties should also stop templating each other and leaving sniping edit summaries. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely don't know this, and this seems to be a very selective reading of the policy:

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

    Just reading the first sentence may seem like it gives an absolute right to do this, but everything following this shows that the challenge of verifiability needs to be based on a real "concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source", and that other steps are usually better (like tagging it, or preferably sourcing it). Blindly removing information just because it is unsourced, but without any actual care about whether it is verifiable and without any effort to actually check it, is usually seen as disruptive (excluding BLPs issues, which are not in play here). Continuing to remove entries when it has been shown that many of their previous removals from the same list had no actual basis in policy (as they were easily verifiable) is disruptive, and hiding behind a very selective policy reading is not helpful. Fram (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument that it is obvious and cut-and-dry how the material must be handled, and is directly contradicted by the text you yourself quoted. The text offers options for how to deal with the information in question, but does not require any one particular course of action, leaving it up to individual editors to assess the requirements on a case by case basis. They "may" do one thing, it "depends on" several factors, asking editors to "consider" doing some things or not, people are "encouraged" to do certain things. There is no requirement that someone MUST add a cn tag or provide their own sources, they are merely allowed to do so among a menu of options, one of which is just "remove the material". There are no hard and fast rules except "don't edit war" and "discuss on the talk page where there is a disagreement" and "seek outside help if you don't agree". Your insistence that, merely because someone else has chosen a different item off of the allowable menu of options than you would have, means they are vandalizing or acting in bad faith, is ridiculous. Don't do that. --Jayron32 16:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the one that initiated discussion at the Jo Bogaert article, I am the one that initiated discussion at the Miso article. 5 Minutes after I started that second discussion, they started this ANI section. "There are no hard and fast rules except "don't edit war" and "discuss on the talk page where there is a disagreement". Please direct your advice where it is needed. Anything else?

    Missing from the above summary is also the article Nissim Amon, where they reverted my BLP correction[7]; and that they started labeling my edits disruptive before realising that actually, they weren't. When I see what happened in the few articles where we interacted and look at things like [this (already linked above), I think we would do better to take a closer look at their edits and their apparent difficulty in letting go and accepting that they might be wrong, instead doubling down again and again and like here escalating things instead of trying to, you know, actually improve enwiki and source content. Fram (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing unsourced material is a form of improvement. Providing sources is also a form of improvement. You're allowed to do either as the situation calls for, and edits that do either should not be called vandalism. --Jayron32 18:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then maybe try accepting that you were wrong to label the edits vandalism, and we can move on to the rest of the issues. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing unsourced material is a form of improvement[citation needed]. No, removing pertinent, harmless, and easily sourceable material is a form of disruption and degradation of encyclopedia quality. Indeed, Fram deserves a {{minnow}} for incorrectly labeling those edits 'vandalism'. Fram, in the future, please use more accurate wording such as 'incompetent', 'disruptive' or 'lazy'. No such user (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is a feature, and not a bug, in the system. There are no rules, just options, as different situations call for different things to do. We want people to talk it out, and get consensus. We don't want people blindly following one rule or another. --Jayron32 18:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There shouldn't be one policy to win all arguments, instead editors should discussion the issue without resorting to name calling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    No idea why you felt the need to template two people with a (rather outdated) DS notice for an already settled dispute about one article, but thanks for trying I guess? Did you really think dropping that note on both our talk pages would actually solve anything at all about this dispute? Or did you just totally miss the gist of this dispute, and took the only thing that looked vaguely threatening and perhaps, somehow, vaguely related? But I'm glad that you consider the list of which films and TV series a production company has produced a "fairly minor and inconsequential detail", it's just the essence of what they do but who cares, as long as we can template some people we feel as if we have achieved something and are useful admins. Keep up the good work! Fram (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That rant was not helpful, Fram. You're giving ammunition to the people who think we'd have been better off if you'd never been unblocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You´re completely right. Ritchie, thank you for giving me a DS warning for an already resolved dispute, not about having an infobox or not, but about which infobox was the best on one single article. Thanks to that DS notice I´ll be able to move on as a much improved editor. And thank you, the hand etc., for making me see the error of my ways and make me remember that the reason I was blocked was for criticizing those in power or their friends, and that I should react gracefully to whatever nonsense admins are willing to say to me. What would I do without you both? Fram (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reporting UPE editor

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

    Blocked indefinitely awaiting their response to this. Bishonen | tålk 07:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    Is that actually evidence? Editors can create articles on a subject because someone mentioned they wanted one. That's how Earyn McGee was created, as one example. And I'm not seeing a promotional article at Draft:Tharun Moorthy. The sources are quite strong and are from major Indian newspapers, with direct coverage of the subject and their works as the topic. SilverserenC 07:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not specifically referring to the Tharun Moorthy article. If you look at the other articles created by this user, you will see that it is likely that they are editing for payment without disclosing it. The nature of their edits supports this conclusion. I have already mentioned that Praxidicae gave a warning to Window369 and that I also gave them two warnings. Despite this, they have not responded to any of the warnings. Akevsharma (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Sabarno Moitra

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

    • WP:SEAOFBLUE - in infobox, article body and especially around soundtracks [8] showing repeatedly linking to the article itself and [9] in soundtracks (there are MANY examples of this in their editing history
    • Misuse of bold, apparently to promote Asha Bhosle [10]
    • Removal of maintenance tags (warned several times about this over past months) [11], article still has one source and still needs more
    • Not following template docs by overlink of major country/language and removing ubl/plainlist templates from longish name lists [12]

    They've been warned about these concerns previously - removing maintenance templates - July 2021 [13], October 2021 [14], November 2022 [15], December 2022 [16] Overlinking - Feb 2022 [17], October 2022 [18] and their response [19] is a bit concerning. I left them a warning message [20] outlining the issues I was seeing and linked to several pages to explain why, and the response was "Whatever I have done is not fully out of rules. It looks even more beautiful. So, please don't disturb me, you have no right to change / delete my work without asking me. If you have not do anything, please don't do anything, but don't try to revert my editing. Don't try to be an oversmart." [21].

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

    مهدي جزائري part III

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

    In November (link to November AN/I discussion) I reported that they are still at it: [22] and that in all their time at Wikipedia they haven't communicated: [23]. They edit from mobile and WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU exists but as @Ravenswing: noted that mobile users should not be exempted from having to communicate with other editors. At the time no action was taken.

    The behaviour continues and something needs to be done.

    Diffs from this week:

    • [24] مهدي جزائري creates a new article with zero references.
    • [25] I proposed deletion per BLDPROD.
    • [26] A different user removes the BLDPROD tag adding a database entry as a source. The source does not support most of the article including the career stats table content.
    • [27] I removed the table.
    • [28] Hours later مهدي جزائري re-adds the table.
    • [29] مهدي جزائري adds unsourced stats table and more unsourced content.
    • [30] I revert.
    • [31] مهدي جزائري re-adds unsourced content.
    • [32] مهدي جزائري makes unsourced changes and additions including a stats table.
    • [33] @Nehme1499: removes unsourced content.
    • [34] مهدي جزائري restores their version.

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

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

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

    This particular guy, with a long litany of warnings and requests on his talk page, must have one of the highest non-bot ratios in history of edits to talk page edits: 1575 to zero. [35] Ravenswing 11:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, and I most definitely still endorse action on this one. I've closed some threads like that where things kinda petered out on their own after an isolated incident, but this is a whole different story. This editor needs a block, because competence is required, and communication is required. Sure, mobile communication issues exist, but disruptive is disruptive, regardless of whether they are aware of it or not, and there is no exemption in WP:DE for users who can't use talkpages.
    @Ravenswing: I tried to calculate the decimal value for that ratio. I'd never heard a calculator beg for mercy before. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked them indefinitely, and left a message on their talk page that I'll unblock as soon as they begin communicating with other editors. This has certainly gone on long enough without any engagement. If it's a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue then it's very unfortunate that we may end up losing a possibly productive editor due to interface problems that we can't control. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well ... in THIS case? I have little sympathy for someone whose edits are frequently reverted but who seemingly has no interest in finding out why, as opposed to charging on ahead blindly. That being blocked is the fate befalling a disproportionate number of mobile editors on WP:TCHY grounds is a broader problem, and the apparent indifference of the WMF to addressing it is a very black mark against them. Ravenswing 14:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I have little sympathy for someone whose edits are frequently reverted but who seemingly has no interest in finding out why, as opposed to charging on ahead blindly. That's what has been so frustrating with the blocked editor. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the block, ScottishFinnishRadish. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They're back to their usual business, editing with their IP 154.121.58.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). cc @ScottishFinnishRadish: Robby.is.on (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 72 hours. We'll have to see how static they are. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent vandalism at Kalki

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

    User:Joaziela and personal attacks

    Editor Joaziela attacks on other editors: "Once again to emphasize enough ... and any try of silence it is genocide denial and historical negationism" [36], "@TimothyBlue it’s might be not comfortable, but let’s be neutral no propaganda and historical negationism" [37]  // Timothy :: talk  18:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This month blocked twice on Polish Wikipedia and already once here. They might need a serious warning or another block (regrettably 😔), mostly for editing in a non neutral manner but also personal attacks (?) (not sure if those were PA’s) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Non of it was targeted to be any personal attack, it was only used as figurative speech.
    Again @TimothyBlue in not taking part in discussion, first he removed without any reason well sourced information, than he didn’t took place in discussion. I don’t want to be involved in editing war and want to discuss the issue, I’m only attacked by him and @GizzyCatBella the meritorious discussion i try to start here Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada but then also again been attacked here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#User:Joaziela I’m all the time bullied and no argument about the discussion is put on Joaziela (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joaziela 🤦🏻‍♀️ How were you attacked? How are you bullied? another reason to be blocked. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, for openers, let's cut out the bloody flag-waving, shall we? Looking at the edit summaries, TimothyBlue did, in fact, give reasons for removal. Joaziela, you might not *like* his reasons, but making stuff up does not help your argument. Reading over the talk page, like GizzyCatBella, I'm failing to see where you've been "attacked" or "bullied." Do you have any diffs to proffer? Ravenswing 19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These words are not figurative: "...it is genocide denial and historical negationism". As far as discussion goes, I've discussed your editing and behavior on many pages, so have other editors and admins and I've warned you twice about personal attacks.  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t attack you personal, you taking it from context, it was just figurative that this kind of censorship would be denial-like, but it was not about you, and I explain in main article Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada where you not at all discuss on issues but just delete and report me to another and another discussion page about me. I write that I don’t mean anything personal and ask what part you find offensive Joaziela (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional discussion to review User talk:Joaziela#January 2023  // Timothy :: talk  19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue why again you want to discuss me, not a topic in Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada but again you create a topic with my name Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#User:Joaziela and here, the previous discussion also was not about the topic but just was deleted without any reason, it’s really look like censorship Joaziela (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joaziela because now (here) it’s about you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look Joaziela, you really need to calm down, take a few steps back and study your conduct. I suggest doing it now before posting any more comments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    so maybe some backup? oh..🤦🏻‍♀️ [38] ... anyway. We have a passionate new editor making mistakes one after another. I give up but please keep in mind they are new around here, with time they might learn. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    huge calm and propriety, but why it’s so easy to discuss on subject of me, not on why you claiming that Bandera is not responsible for genocide. Or maybe you don’t because you didn’t respond in discussion on subject. Both of you created two new topics about me and research about me, but why you can’t discuss in subject, in subject that you delete without saying a word, don’t give any other sources and say that someone published a photo with war criminal not for long it’s okay. Just discuss on matter not go around Joaziela (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The last thin bit of AGF I had left in this editor just evaporated with this [39] and the above reply  // Timothy :: talk  19:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While this is a content issue not relevant to ANI, Wikipedia is not an advocacy organization one way or another, and is entirely and utterly neutral on the propriety (or lack thereof) of someone having taken a picture with Stepan Bandera. As to Bandera's life and actions, they are extensively covered in Bandera's own article ... and since you haven't seemed to have edited in that article, I'm unclear as to the relevance of bringing it up. In any event, whether (or not) any editor believes that Bandera committed genocide (or not) is likewise irrelevant to ANI. We are discussing your conduct, not your political beliefs. Ravenswing 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My take is Joaziela lacks sufficient English proficiency to contribute to enwiki and that's probably what's driving the other problems (incivility, apparent inability to understand what other editors are telling them about editing processes, etc.). I know we AGF, but a person who apparently can't compose a grammatically-correct sentence in discussions will not be able to contribute prose productively to articles about controversial topics. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Joaziela's edits [40][41] were well-sourced and written in a decent English. Arguably they were WP:UNDUE, but there's room for reasonable disagreement on this kind of things, and having a talk page discussion may be the best way to settle it. The edits were reverted with the usual incomprehensible Wiki-jargon and Joaziela, who has made 866 edits overall, may well not undestand what pov, weight, non-encyclopedic wording and [42] failed verification, no consensus, pov synth [43] are about (incidentally, I don't see any "failed verification" and "pov synth" issues here). The discussion Joaziela opened on the talk page [44] was not at all productive. TimothyBlue didn't reply and GizzyCatBella made the unhelpful suggestion You can try to create a new article about the incident if you want. Then TimothyBlue opened a thread at BLP/N for no reason at all since Joaziela's edit was neither poorly-sourced nor gratuitously offensive and the discussion on the talk page had just started. At BLP/N TimothyBlue gave their reasons: I think above mentioned article contributions are poorly or unsourced additions of serious claims to a highly visible page. I think Joaziela's replies also contain poor or unsourced material about a LP and their replies show a strong POV. GizzyCatBella rightly highlighted: Material is sourced (it did happen). Yes, materials is verifiable: General Zaluzhnyi and the tweeter account of the Ukrainian parliament have shared a photo that could result offensive (and therefore a significant view) to certain audiances, especially in Poland and Israel, where the news was reported. So it's easy to assume Joaziela's good faith when they claimed they were being censored. Had they just used the jargon, "WP:NOTCENSORED", nobody would have objected; instead they used their own words to express the same concept (try of silence it is genocide denial and historical negationism ... let’s be neutral no propaganda and historical negationism) and here we are. But there was no personal attack. Joaziela was making an emphatic parallelism to express the notion that events related to the extermination of Jews and Poles during WW2 are always significant and deserve inclusion.
    I think editors overreacted to a possibly WP:UNDUE but good-faithed edit and that this series of threads at two different noticeboards is unwarranted and over the top. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: WP:CANVASS @ [45].  // Timothy :: talk  22:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again you oversensitive. I just trying to get help, how to communicate with people not so sensitive on this matters. And really if you just focus all that energy that you put on me instead in the topic discussion. You didn’t bring here not even one argument Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada meantime I just provide 4 new RS. It’s all started because you been removing without any reason and not participating in discussion about topic, but instead bullying me on other sites not connected to topic but focus on grilling me Joaziela (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Other editors have mentioned that this editor may have a WP:CIR issue. This is Joaziela's latest suggestion [46]. Its a mess, but I think the clear intent here is to equate the BLP Zaluzhnyi with the crimes of the Nazis; this absurdity would be comparable to saying someone supports slavery and Native American genocide because they visited the Jefferson memorial. This is in addition to their personal attacks.  // Timothy :: talk  02:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    reductio ad absurdum very cheap one. Not someone, but here we had commander-in-chief and official statement on country parliament account. I used a German analogy when “Official Bundestag Twitter post a Mein Kampf quotes with photo of Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany) posing with Adolf Hitler portrait, with strong reaction of Israel state authorities” the same happened to Ukraine and Poland.
    And just in case if the same as @GizzyCatBella you going to say “Hitler and Bandera are not even close”, or that it doesn’t matter because it was “quickly removed”. As Hitler had the Holocaust, as same as Bandera had Volhynia genocide and is involved in killing Jews and Poles at Volhynia. It’s not competition how is “greatest genocider by numbers”! Some will say that Hitler is also not even close by numbers to Mao Zedong- but genocide is genocide, not a competition.
    You focus too much on roasting me personally and starting new threads, so there are so many topics about me, but you couldn’t participate in Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada talk on subject Joaziela (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. @Joaziela. Here you accused another WP contributor (Danilmay) of "forcing Nazi Ukraine historical negationism". Why? Do you think he/she has anything to do with Nazi Ukraine? My very best wishes (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That was another example of delete content without discussion in talk, even deleting talk. Yeah, so if this not censorship then what. So as unexpired editor and not knowing jargon, I didn’t know I should suggest WP:NOTCENSORED. Too emotional woman and my bad, sorry now I know. Also thanks to @TimothyBlue @GizzyCatBella I know I could start personal crusade with starting new treads to roast the person (joking of course, I hope it’s also funny for others that those 2 users, put maybe 20 words together in topics talk, don’t respond, but create 2 treads and write 200 sentences about me). So in conclusion, stupid me, now I know, my bad, sorry! Joaziela (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And also question why in article Stepan Bandera the word „genocide” didn’t happen in text not even once (sic! zero, zilch, null), but in titles of sourced it is 11 times. One again: 11 quoted article are titled “genocide” and in text itself genocide didn’t happen once. 11 works with “genocide” in title are in use, but genocide didn’t happen once in text. How other that historical negationism or genocide denial would you call it? Unfortunate coincidence? Joaziela (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Please see WP:AGF: speculating on the motives of other editors is inappropriate and corrosive to collegial editing. Do you agree to stop attacking (or otherwise making personal comments about) other editors? JBL (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (Please also note that discussion about the content of the article is continuing at Talk:Valerii_Zaluzhnyi#Bandera_and_Verkhovna_Rada, as it should -- no one here at WP:ANI is going to settle the content dispute, because this page is for behavioral disputes, not content.) --JBL (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Looking at Joaziela's contributions today, I think WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, WP:PA are an obvious problem; the accusations of genocide denial are particularly offensive.  // Timothy :: talk  22:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack - Australianblackbelt

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

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

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

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

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

    Note: they've interacted with Canterbury Tail here, here and a Happy New Year greeting. They're making a personal attack 4 days after wishing Canterbury Tail a Happy New Year? Hmm. Sarrail (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Before you go and shoot me down let me just say I write about martial artists these are the pages I've created, I have been doing some great work Sum Nung Yuen Chai-wan Tran Thuc Tien Pan Nam Anthony Arnett Terry Lim Eric Oram Deleted and rewrote from scratch => William Cheung The reason for my poke at Canterbury is he has said the latin australian times was just a newsletter and the stories were written by the subjects mother which are both lies. I forgot about being woke any joke even about the world cup rivalry can be taken as offensive Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Australianblackbelt: It's not about being "woke". Everyone has to remember that, when communicating with text, other people can't see your facial expression, hear the tone of your voice or notice any of the other things that would normally indicate that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Remember, because humans are not telepathic, other people might not read your words the way you typed them. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I should have used the word jealous instead of racist. Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    He did more than challenge the validity, first he deleted them all from my article Felix Leong then without my knowledge had it deleted after the sources were gone. Later he states the source is not valid. Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just block my ip anyone can see canterbuy is a psycho look at how far he's gone, he's probably going to stalk Maurice Novoa and it will be my fault 180.150.37.157 (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    UTC)

    Thanks for the reply. Someone legitimately questioning your sources doesn't give you permission to call them offensive names. The better way to resolve a dispute over the reliability of a source is to post evidence that it meets the conditions spelt out WP:RS, including having an acceptable level of editorial oversight and fact-checking, and genuine independence from the topic they're being used with. Facebook posts obviously don't meet these criteria, and there are often questions over the fact-checking or authorship pf articles by small community newspapers or magazines.
    A sourcing question shouldn't be taken personally; it's a necessary part of the Wikipedia editorial process. Personal attacks aren't ever necessary here, and if they're repeated they'll usually lead to blocks. I note the personal attack has already been redacted (by someone else, not you). I suggest the best way forward is to agree to respond to sourcing questions via the policy I've linked above, and to avoid making comments about individual contributors. I also agree with some earlier posters that you may have a conflict of interest with some of the article subjects you're writing about. If so please declare it on your userpage or talkpage so other editors are aware. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have mentioned my conflict of interest on my talk page as you suggested but won't be continuing to write about Maurice Novoa, I will leave it up to someone else. Thanks Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, a bit to unpack here. I was about to raise a an ANI report against this user and their constant COI editing and attempts to use Wikipedia to promote their friends and families. I hadn't gotten around to it just yet, but this has been raised so I guess it's as good a time as any. As for the personal attack, it's not the worst one they've levelled. Almost exactly two years ago they during the initial AfD they suggested that us Wikipedia editors should take out a hit on Maurice Novoa (a person that they either are or have a very close COI relationship with, more on that later) because we want to delete the article on this non-notable person (these comments are in the now deleted Talk:Maurice Novoa.) So may we well get into the meat and potatoes of this. It is my very strong belief that User:Australianblackbelt is Wp:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. I believe they are instead here to to use Wikipedia to promote either themselves or at the very least their close friends, families and acquaintances. There is just too much evidence to support this. Firstly is their obsession with Maurice Novoa (who Australianblackbelt either is or is incredibly close to.)

    • One they created the article on this person. Okay not an indication, but it's the sources and the way the article was integrated into Wikipedia that is the smoking gun here.
    • A lot of the sources they used on the article were articles written by the subject's mother and published in the Latin American Times (again more on that later), but the interesting one is the fact that they pointed as references both for this article and others to unlisted/non-indexed files on the subjects personal website. Almost every reference was to these personal files on the site that no one could have come across unless they knew the subject and were told where the files were (or uploaded them.) The fact is anyway that these files were nearly all copyright violations of various local feel good newspaper stories from non-notable and non-reliable news sources. Even the Miss Globe Australia article had reference links to such private files on Maurice Novoa's personal web hosting.
    • They would link to this Maurice Novoa in the most promotional shoehorned way all across the encyclopaedia. If he turned up to an event one day, he was somehow mentioned in an article. For instance apparently he worked as a security guard at an Australian Grand Prix which resulted in this as probably the single most blatant and bizarre example of it I've ever seen.
    • They have VTRS approved permission access to so many personal photos and documents of the subject it stretches makes it hard to honestly believe that these are being done by someone with no connection. Here is their 21st birthday portrait as one example. And the one from the Australian Grand Prix even has exif data attached to it. Every photo they upload has a VRT number against it, but since I don't have access to that system I can't check the tickets but it's incredibly suspicious when someone had access to these files and doesn't have a COI. There was a dispute over one of the images on the permissions, and I don't know if the same applies to any other of their files, again I cannot check without the access.
    • Another example of them re-adding more photos of Maurice Novoa as part of their push.

    They source almost everything for their articles to a practically unknown and now long dead local community newspaper called the Latin American Times, which had almost zero footprint presence and seemed to just be a local community paper that did the kind of story local community papers did. Any other references are almost always fluff pieces for local community affiliates of news stations and newspapers, the kind of feel good story they use to pad out pages not anything with any significant coverage. The latest article of theirs that got deleted Paul Sera also has the same hallmarks. Local news non-notable mention references, photos uploaded with VRT permission tickets. Again it's pretty clear that this is all non-notable promotion at best, COI editing at worst. And their Deleted Contributions is full of this and this obviously doesn't cover the individual edits to articles that have just been reverted or removed.

    • They are also unable to understand copyright and continually link to copyrighted material, mysteriously come across copyrighted material hidden in COI people's websites and have numerous warnings for it over the years that have either been ignored or simply they don't or refuse to get. Even Diannaa has warned them about it and tried to explain it to them on several occassions.

    It is my belief that Australianblackbelt has a mass of undeclared COI and is solely using Wikipedia as a means to promote either himself or if not then friends, close acquaintances and their families for whom they have extremely close access to personal files as mentioned. At the most generous they're using Wikipedia to build and promote articles on non-notable people that turn up in local interest stories and have no further notability. This has been going on for years and multiple editors have expressed concerns, but it's not been taken anywhere as yet. I've had other users randomly drop messages to me about suspicions (though in looking this later user has now been blocked as a sock.) P.S. I'm not English, and if you know of my origins you'd know that's actually a pretty bad thing to say. But still, all in a days work, I've been called much worse. Canterbury Tail talk 14:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    More evidence of the COI editing/promotional editing (I don't have enough evidence to say it's UPE, but the now deleted Paul Sera article was one of the most blatant promotional pieces I've seen them write), is the type of photo that they are uploading. They're not regular photos, they're clearly photos of photos, some clearly a photo of a photo in a frame, which implies a close contact to the subject. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 all with valid OTRS permissions (it's great to see these permissions, but I cannot validate them myself and I find it suspicious to have so many across so many people but that could just be me.) Canterbury Tail talk 15:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Canterbury Tail: thanks for the posts. Do you have a proposal for how these issues should be addressed? And @Australianblackbelt: do you have a response to the above? -- Euryalus (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Canterbury has been stalking me for two year after he had felix Leong deleted without my knowledge and deleting the sources before the AFD, he looks at every single edit I do one here. Just block me for his sack put his mind to rest. I'm leaving the editing to someone else I'm done here and I don't appreciate the pack mentality either. 180.150.37.157 (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just block my ip anyone can see canterbuy is a psycho look at how far he's gone, he's probably going to stalk Maurice Novoa and it will be my fault 180.150.37.157 (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:0mtwb9gd5wx reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

    Persistent disruptive editing (including promotional edits); spamming. [47] [48] [49] [50] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mvcg66b3r keeps removing information about streaming content over the internet from ALL PBS & npr organizations that broadcast in radio frequencies. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you might want to have a talk with @Sammi Brie:. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent SYNTH, IDHT, and NOTHERE issues

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

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

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

    Simulaun's edits being challenged by the community:

    Simulaun outright ignoring the community, or bludgeoning the same point over and over (and still ignoring the message):

    • Apr. 24: The Logical Positivist asked Simlaun to stop adding original research to the Rottnest Island article. No response. On the article's talk page, Mitch Ames had even previously asked Simulaun to stop adding factual errors/OR to article [51]. No response.
    • Apr. 25: I cautioned Simulaun for removal of content on Melbourne and to gain consensus for their edits. No response.
    • Jul. 7: Padgriffin warned Simulaun for adding original research to Sydney. Simulaun defended adding original research and has continued to add OR.
    • Sept. 20: I asked Simulaun to provide diffs of where on Talk:Melbourne consensus exists for their content change as they incorrectly claimed. They did not provide those diffs as can be seen.
    • Sept. 25: Poketama too, told Simulaun that their content changes to Melbourne contained SYNTH.
    • Oct. 15: I cautioned Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response.
    • Oct. 19: I warned Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response.
    • Nov. 2: I gave a final warning to Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response. Since then, they've continuously added the same SYNTH bypassing the need for consensus here and here, having been reverted by Gracchus250 and Meters, respectively, citing the same issues in their edit summaries.

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

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

    First thing I noticed with the most recent diff is that the link for Lonely Planet throws up a 404 error and isn't archived in the Wayback Machine, which leaves some question of how Simulaun accessed it today. This is the correct URL, and it's archived. Looking at the source, it says nothing about Melbourne. The source has this to say about dual-naming: Naming entire cities, such as Sydney, which did not exist as a single entity prior to British colonization, means a name had to be chosen that doesn’t always represent the whole geographical footprint. That's word-for-word, except for removing the part about Sydney, and amounts to a copyright violation. Mackensen (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, they even copied the American English spelling of "colonisation". Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since another TBAN of an editor making similar edits, Simulaun is now basically on their own in this view. The persistent failure to WP:GETTHEPOINT is really quite disruptive.
    There is also a problem when an editor is also apparently unaware of WP:ENGVAR, regarding the use of "colonization". (Australian English uses "colonisation". Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC) edited 07:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, you can't get more WP:IDHT than to respond to valid objections by saying: Does anyone have a valid objection to the proposed information regarding 'Narrm'? If so, speak now or for ever hold your peace. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support TBAN I'm surprised this wasn't done the last time they were at ANI. It's clear that they aren't willing to budge on this so this is really the best option to minimize further disruption going forward. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 13:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support TBAN. There is a clear pattern of disruptive editing and an unwillingness to change their approach despite multiple editors having attempted to engage with them constructively. The Logical Positivist (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support TBAN. Well, reading through all of that's ten minutes of my life burned away. Ooof. I agree that Simulaun has a IDHT problem, we shouldn't have to be back here again, and anything less than a TBAN will result in having to do so. Ravenswing 17:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support TBAN, per The Logical Positivist and Ravenswing. XAM2175 (T) 20:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I note the this user has clearly created a new account as @User:Violstoken and has gone on a spree making the same disruptive edits as they had previously and that are under discussion here. Special:Contributions/Violstoken. The Logical Positivist (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And as the article on Australian frontier wars is now being edited by this user to include changes that have had to be removed repeatedly from the Rottnest article, perhaps the propsed TBAN should extend beyond just geography to include Australian history as well? The Logical Positivist (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Featuring: responding to talk page comments using the wrong account. XAM2175 (T) 23:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this has obviously gone beyond a mere TBAN. I've reverted all of Violstoken's edits that weren't already reverted by others. At this point, a block on both accounts for socking is appropriate. Ravenswing 00:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you confident it's not a joe-job? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support TBAN as proposer. As I initially stated, we were here less than two months ago, and not only has Simulaun's behaviour not changed, but as this discussion has happened: they've created a new account to make the same disputed edits. I agree with The Logical Positivist that the TBAN should encompass both Australian geography and history broadly construed, considering new SYNTH/disruptive edits made by Simulaun (through their new account Violstoken [52], [53]) are history-related. —MelbourneStar☆talk 00:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeffed second account, Violstoken is not editing in good faith regardless of whether it's a potential joe-job as alluded to above. Star Mississippi 03:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The recent edit 'Naming entire cities that did not exist as a single entity prior to British colonization means a name has to be chosen that doesn’t always represent the whole geographical footprint.' is a valid contribution to Wikipedia. The statement is logical, relevant (generally and particularly for WP:Melbourne), and sourced (Lonelyplanet). It is neither SYNTH nor word-for-word. I invited Discussion/Talk for a long time (in the context of improving a section of the Melbourne Wikipedia page that is lacking in several ways) but only a single editor voiced an objection, albeit an invalid one (username:MelbourneStar continues to claim that it is SYNTH, which it is definitly not). The disruptive editing is, therefore, by username:MelbourneStar, who continues to delete valid, relevant, and sourced edits based on their false notion of SYNTH. Simulaun (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Warned Simulaun for socking with Violstoken per comparisons on contributions page for main account with the alt account. As for the content you're reinstating, the text you're adding are cited by an unreliable source (Lonelyplanet), WP:SYNTH, and even an outright copyright violation/plagiarism. 2001:448A:3047:3CFD:80A8:EBDC:12A:D468 (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that Lonelyplanet is used by millions of tourists around the world for reliable travel/geographical information very much contradicts your claim that its is an unreliable source (particulalry in the context of geographical names/locations). Also please note that SYNTH and copyright violation/plagiarism are generally mutually exclusive, so you are double-wrong in that regard too. Lastly, please stop making the entirely false/fabricated claim that username:Violstoken is an alt account of mine. Simulaun (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN due to concerns raised above. Gusfriend (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jbcauthe reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

    Closing for now, per Sammie Brie. She has requested to deal with this. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



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

    @Mvcg66b3r, with all due respect, dragging a newcomer straight to ANI is an unproductive waste of everyone's time. I'd like to handle this myself. Users that come from media outlets don't often know our policies and guidelines or why pages are titled like they are in our field. This requires explanation, not throwing a newcomer into the deep end of Wikipedia dispute resolution. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalism on Louis Conradt Wikipedia page.

    Administrative action not required - no vandalism (as the term is defined here) has occurred. There seems to be general agreement that the article has been improved, and is now at the correct title; if any further discussion on that question is needed, it should take place at the new article's talk page. Girth Summit (blether) 16:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Persistent Vandalism by Fourthords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User Fourthords is going around changing Wikipedia Personal Profile Pages by re-directing them to self made Wikipedia Articles, and deleting the main Wikipedia Personal Information Page. I'd like for him to explain himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.234.195 (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You need inform them about the ANI posting.
    By way of additional information, the pages are Suicide of Louis Conradt and old version of Louis Conradt]. Fourthords created the new page Suicide of Louis Conradt at "07:48, 7 January 2023" and then added a redirect to the Louis Conradt page at "07:49, 7 January 2023" with the edit summary "redirection of BLP to fuller article about whole event". Gusfriend (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I can read. My question is why? "Redirection of BLP to Fuller Article about whole event" Whole event of what? Personal Information on Louis Conradt isn't an event. He has changed a Biography page into a self-written, self-made "article". I'm asking why they did this? 64.231.234.195 (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say they are correct. It doesn't appear that Conradt was notable himself per WP:BIO - he would almost certainly fail WP:BLP1E - however the wider event of his death is notable, and the article is correctly named. You will find a lot of articles named "Death of ..." or "Murder of ..." where the victim was similarly not notable, but the crime was. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree with the redirect. The target article (created by User:Fourthords yesterday) is far better, meets the WP:GNG, has better sourcing, and contains a background section on his life, which is more comprehensive than the equivalent content in his BLP. I also don't understand how a single redirect, which was not reverted, could be considered "persistent vandalism". DFlhb (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both incorrect. If Louis Conradt wasn't notable, he wouldn't have had a Wikipedia Biography created for over ten years, untouched until this moment, where-in a bunch of other malicious edits were done within the same exact period, of this malicious edit. Additionally, you both are not Fourthords, nor are you Administrators. This isn't a discussion board, to excuse what's going on with hearsay, I do not know why you are replying. 64.231.234.195 (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're missing the point. Louis Conradt did have "a Wikipedia Biography created for over ten years", but 90% of that biography was about the sting operation and his death (there are only a couple of sentences about his life before that, and none of those provided any real notability per BIO). I am sure that if that article had been only that section and nominated for deletion, it would have been deleted. Thus, his notability lies purely in the manner of his death, and that is what we now have. Incidentally, I am an Administrator actually, though that doesn't make me any more authoritatve than any other editor - it merely means I have access to additional buttons allowing me to do things that most editors can't. However, since there is clearly nothing which requires an administrator to do here, I am speaking as a regular editor. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Conradt himself, a biography thereof, doesn't meet the notability threshold of WP:NBIO. He's only notable in the context of the sting operation that led to his suicide, and that sting is only notable because of the suicide. That's why I wrote the article around the suicide and the background, context, and ramifications therefrom as recommended by WP:BIO1E and explained by others here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Potential violation of WP:BOTPOL by Liruqi

    User:Liruqi seems to be making large amounts of edits via an automated script that is not manually monitored. It can also be seen that Liruqi does not seem to be aware of issues unless other users report such issues on their talk page. The user is currently blocked for one week for breaking wikitables with said script along with a BOTPOL block notice from a sysop on zhwiki. Please review if such edits comply with WP:BOTPOL, especially WP:ASSISTED, and to me it seems like a violation where the script has almost no human involvement according to my quick read and seems to have no support by discussion. Thanks with regards, LuciferianThomas 10:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, obviously running an unapproved bot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially thought the rate of editing was compatible with manual review; but it's unlikely there was human oversight of each edit, since Liruqi seems to be using a Python script, and these errors should have been caught by manual review.
    However, despite Liruqi being linked to the bot policy, it appears they were never explicitly warned about the need for bot approval; I let them know on their talk page. I don't believe a block is warranted (even temp) as of now; given that there is no indicating of knowingly circumventing policy. DFlhb (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With unapproved bots that are causing damage, we've got to block to limit the harm to the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 15:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and was about to block; however, this user hasn't edited in five hours, so there is not imminent harm. As such, I'll give him the chance of explaining himself here. Salvio 15:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nein, I doubt that they do not understand such policy, they have been warned of violating the bot policy in Chinese Wikipedia already (and is currently being blocked due to it). LuciferianThomas 15:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack from 209.58.196.114

    209.58.196.114 decided to resort to personal attacks because they disagree with an edit I made.

    For context, with my edit, I attempted to follow WP:NPOV by listing neither Russia nor Ukraine as the country this administrative entity is in in the first sentence of the article.

    Relevant diff: [54]

    Michael60634 (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael60634, in your previous edit summary, you accused Volunteer Marek of politically motivated vandalism. That is a grave accusation of severe misconduct. Please provide persuasive evidence, or withdraw the accusation. Cullen328 (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 I apologized in the AE request response. I'm not sure how or where I can withdraw something in a changeset comment as I can't modify those. Michael60634 (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Michael60634, I do not know whether or not you are aware of this simple fact, but when you come to WP:ANI with an accusation that another editor has engaged in misconduct, your own conduct will also come under scrutiny. I also did not know that you were involved in an ongoing discussion at WP:AE. There, I learned that after being previously warned against this specific type of misconduct, you have engaged in at least 12 false accusations of vandalism in recent days. So, what sort of sanctions do you think that administrators should impose on you for your repeated personal attacks after being warned to refrain from this type of misconduct? Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 I think you're missing context. The editor who I (wrongly) accused of has a long history of edit warring and personal attacks against other people, including myself. Did that make what I my changeset comments right? No. But context is important. And you seem to have missed that I apologized in the AE response. I'm not sure what more I am supposed to do to remedy this. If you have any suggestions, by all means let me know. Michael60634 (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Link to relevant AE discussion [55]. Volunteer Marek 08:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not relevant to this specific ANI comment, but fine, there it is for anyone that wants to look. Michael60634 (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1132323125"