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 Visioncurve (talk | contribs) at 14:00, 10 January 2023 (→Boomerang). 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


    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]
    I've seen these types of edits appear frequently in the edit filter and I suspect that @Czello is right, these are probably editing tests. I certainly wish that it was required to source the height when there is a change, because right now the height and weight categories are the wild west. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 04:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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]
    No, you have to agree not to edit the article for the duration of the mediation. Not just until your page block expires, but potentially for weeks while this is talked out. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP will also need to find a neutral mediator. I have withdrawn my offer of mediation because I am no longer neutral. I made five requests for Eustatius Strijder to agree to my mediation rules, but am no longer neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging from their messages and edits so far, I give it 50:50 odds that the OP simply does not have sufficient command of English to engage in discussion, and had misunderstood most of the messages so far. The other 50 is simply that WP:AGF no longer applies here. Juxlos (talk) 05:58, 10 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]
    Then I suppose we will just have to wait for the ban to expire and then conduct another ANI process then? Juxlos (talk) 16:26, 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]

    Topic-Ban and Partial Block

    I concur with the comment above by User:Juxlos that User:Eustatius Strijder either does not have sufficient competency in English to engage in discussion, or is acting in bad faith. I propose that the minimum sanction is that Eustatius Strijder be indefinitely topic-banned from the Papua conflict topic area and partially blocked from the page to enforce the topic-ban.

    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.

    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: [8] and that in all their time at Wikipedia they haven't communicated: [9]. 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:

    • [10] مهدي جزائري creates a new article with zero references.
    • [11] I proposed deletion per BLDPROD.
    • [12] 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.
    • [13] I removed the table.
    • [14] Hours later مهدي جزائري re-adds the table.
    • [15] مهدي جزائري adds unsourced stats table and more unsourced content.
    • [16] I revert.
    • [17] مهدي جزائري re-adds unsourced content.
    • [18] مهدي جزائري makes unsourced changes and additions including a stats table.
    • [19] @Nehme1499: removes unsourced content.
    • [20] 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. [21] 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]

    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" [22], "@TimothyBlue it’s might be not comfortable, but let’s be neutral no propaganda and historical negationism" [23]  // 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..🤦🏻‍♀️ [24] ... 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 [25] 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 [26][27] 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 [28] failed verification, no consensus, pov synth [29] are about (incidentally, I don't see any "failed verification" and "pov synth" issues here). The discussion Joaziela opened on the talk page [30] 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 @ [31].  // 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 [32]. 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]
      This is just censorship, it was tried to be called in discussion as: minor incident, just a joke or quickly removed. Again Berlin analogy: “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 there are some voices in discussion that is good for Russian propaganda and bad for Ukrainian one, but Wikipedia shouldn’t be about any propaganda, but just write how it was, and it was o huge scandal. WP:NOTCENSORED
      Taking this selfie by such a person is scandal enough, but posting it by parliament just unbelievable villainy. This is HUGE scandal, and it would be on German Federal Minister page, so it should be on Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief.
      Here is just roasting me with Wikipedia jargon and silencing the actual talk, meantime fighting between Kiev and Kjiv and other... Joaziela (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      [33] - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that Joaziela's accusation of "genocide denial" are offensive. Joaziela should aim to restore a cooperative environment here, rather than express her indignation. She should also bear in mind than users may lack her background knowledge about Bandera. However, TimothyBlue's parallelism between Bandera and Thomas Jefferson [34] is preposterous and may explain, though not justify, her harsh accusations. Thomas Jefferson is one of the founding fathers of the US, an advocate of democracy and individual rights who happened to be a slave owner, as many people of his time; being a slave owner is a circumstance of his life and not the reason why he is notable. Stefan Bandera, on the other side, is the leader of a far-right terrorist organisation, the OUN, close to German Nazism and Italian Fascism, which was responsible for a campaign against Polish farmers and Jews resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. One can argue about how relevant it is that a general circulates a photo of Bandera on the Twitter account of the Ukrainian parliament, but the fact that some user finds it very significant and edit the article to include it belongs to the normal editorial process and does not justify two parallel discussions on different noticeboards. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The only way the Jefferson comparison falls short is that being the founder and defender of a slave oligarchy (a far-right terrorist organisation) responsible for the cultural genocide and in some cases physical genocide of African and Native Americans is far more serious matter than anything Bandera was involved in.  // Timothy :: talk  14:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ...and this board is for behavior problems, not content problems. The BLP board is for content problems.  // Timothy :: talk  14:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ... and you cannot be "an advocate of individual rights who happened to be a slave owner" or "an advocate of democracy" when you create and believe in a system where only white male property owners can vote. Nope. Not even if you're President. Being an eloquent writer does not give him a pass.  // Timothy :: talk  14:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You have been editing here for over a year now. It is well past the point where you need to stop complaining about other editors citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines and start understanding those rules. If you have no idea what WP:CIR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT and WP:NPA mean, then it is up to you to click those links, read those pages, and understand your responsibility to abide by relevant guidelines and policies, whether or not you think they clash with your politics. If you are incapable of doing so, you are a poor fit for Wikipedia. Ravenswing 13:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I said sorry for that already my bad, sorry again. But really when you read Jefferson is almost worst than Hitler, 200 000 Poles and Jews genocide is not that serious matter- with this level, when you get silenced it’s hard not to be too emotional, sorry again.
      Never my intention was to attack anybody personally, and I didn’t, if only @TimothyBlue take part in discussion on topic, just straight on topic, not open new threads again about me, we wouldnt be having this discussion in a first place. Also trying to censorship by calling it: minor incident, joke or not a big deal because quickly removed. I’m really, really done with this discussion and going to contemplate on is it still encyclopedia with NPOV or Ukrainian/Russian propaganda and of course about Jefferson, oh my... bye (for some time) WP:DROPTHESTICK Joaziela (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      going to contemplate on is it still encyclopedia with NPOV or Ukrainian/Russian propaganda
      With this statement, I think Jazeiela has crossed into WP:RGW territory, and I think this needs a block. This person is not going to stop with this behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. I reverted this persons edits on [[Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi]] because she says she is being attacked. When I reverted, she called me a troll, even though I do not have plans to be one for the foreseeable future. Simpsonsfan505 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: Above (Simpsonsfan505) is a one day old account - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This revert of a talk page comment bu Simpsonsfan505 [35] was improper per WP:TPO. The removed commment by Joaziela was not harmful and the consequences of this kind of aggressive and intolerant behaviour is that an editor could easily feel surrounded by hostile users and react badly. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack - Australianblackbelt

    BLOCKED
    Blocked, NOTHERE. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    User:0mtwb9gd5wx reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

    Persistent disruptive editing (including promotional edits); spamming. [36] [37] [38] [39] 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

    Per consensus below, Simulaun (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all geographical articles, broadly construed. Any further disruptive editing outside of this ban is also likely to be viewed very dimly by the community, based on the general commentary at this discussion. Regarding the secondary account, in the absence of any concrete behavioural or technical evidence or a subsequent SPI, it will be deemed as a joe-job. Daniel (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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 [40]. 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 [41], [42]) are history-related. —MelbourneStar☆talk 00:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even on the off-chance that the blocked account is a Joe–job, nothing excuses Simulaun's long-term disruptive editing, they cannot continue to ignore the need for consensus, and more so, need to aknowledge the SYNTH issues with their edits. —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:35, 9 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]
      I would disagree with the claim that Lonely Planet, especially their website, is a reliable source, as their verification standards appear to be close to non-existent and their articles are mostly written by freelancers. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 13:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN due to concerns raised above. Gusfriend (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User:Simulaun just added an empty ref to the Melbourne page in this edit with the edit summary CAUTION: Username:MelbourneStar is making false and malicious claims against me on various Wikipedia pages. which caused an error to be displayed on the page. Gusfriend (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gusfriend: additionally, Simulaun is denying Violstoken is their account (see diff, and above). Pinging blocking admin Star Mississippi. I'm considering proposing an indef WP:NOTHERE block at this point. —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Checkuser note: I have run a quick check and, technically speaking, the two accounts appear Red X Unrelated as in editing from two different continents... Salvio 10:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, I wasn't expecting that. Though, I'm curious how Simulaun explains this edit and quick revert to their talk page today, from an account making the same edits as Simulaun. —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possible, as some other users have already noted, that it was somebody impersonating Simulaun in order to discredit them. I don't really know why that would be thought necessary, though. XAM2175 (T) 10:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, that would be pretty convenient. Plus, I think their conduct spoke volumes when there was only one account at play. —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Impersonation seems unlikely, particularly when the reverted comment on the talk page by Violstoken on the 7th casting aspersions on @MelbourneStar is so consistent with the response Simulaun made in this very thread on the 8th. Regardless, Simulaun's responses in this thread indicate their continued unwillingness to take on feedback regarding the edits they are making as they continue to double-down on them. The Logical Positivist (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not unlikely, it’s an extremely common behavior by a certain kind of troll. The “point” is that it gets everyone upset (one side over repetition of behavior they object to, the other side over false accusations of socking) and there are sad, pathetic people who get off on that. You should recalibrate. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant it seemed unlikely in this instance, as Violstoken seemed to preempt so successfully in the reverted comment the responses that Simulaun has subsequently gone on to make in this thread. Even if Violstoken was an impersonator, Simulaun is now vandalising pages by adding empty refs that attack other users due to concerns being raised here, and so some sort of action is clearly needed. The Logical Positivist (talk) 23:17, 8 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]
    @Salvio giuliano: Hey there. It seems like the user ignored the warning and moved on running the bot there. Please action as needed. LuciferianThomas 01:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked to make sure no edits (of the recent spree) broke any tables; thankfully they didn't. Nevertheless, clear violation of the bot policy. DFlhb (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay. Anyway, I have temporarily blocked the user, basically to force him to discuss his edits. As soon as he agrees to do so, he can be unblocked by any administrator. Salvio 08:31, 9 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: [43]

    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]
    It probably helps if you don't make claims about other editor misbehaviour without evidence when your apologising about making claims of misbehaviour where you admit your claims were false so there is no evidence. Since you've now accused Volunteer Malek of "long history of edit warring and personal attacks against other people, including myself" but provided zero evidence. Perhaps we can take their block log as evidence of a those general problems, but the one personal attack related block since you started editing in 2019 does not seem to be related to you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Link to relevant AE discussion [44]. 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]
    It is relevant because, as Cullen328 states, the conduct of any principal at ANI comes under scrutiny. Past ANI complaints, block logs, talk page warnings going back years can and are mentioned. With that, did you trouble yourself to look at the top of this page, which states "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" ... ? Your diff reflects a single personal attack, however objectionable, for which you've taken none of the steps you should be taking prior to an ANI complaint. You didn't warn the IP against such conduct. You certainly didn't take into account that as the only edit the IP's made within the last year, it wasn't all that likely to be a "chronic, intractable" issue. If you wanted the edit summary stricken or the edit revdel'd (which would be a reasonable request), finding an admin to do so didn't need ANI. Ravenswing 13:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Porn videos

    Closing this one as it is a matter for Commons. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 15:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



    I was not aware that there were many videos available on Wikipedia. As I checked the topic relating to female anatomy turns out there were videos. I got an eyeful of what later left me feeling quite discussed with myself and just never new this kind of material would be harbored inside Wikipedia outside all the browser filtering.

    As a financially supporting member could you please remove this video content:

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_of_penile-vaginal_intercourse

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_of_penile-anal_intercourse_(female_and_male) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkhb01 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We are not responsible on the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) for, and can do nothing about, what is hosted at Commons (commons.wikimedia.org). You will have to ask there. If you go there claiming special privileges as being "financially supporting" you will probably get short shrift there. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Zkhb01, that would be a question for Commons a different though related website with it's own admins. In general, the view is probably that porn can on occasion be acceptable content. Out of curiosity, I checked the first 3 ones in your first link to see where they appeared on WP. The first one, from 1915 (A Free Ride, WP:GA and everything), does appear on several WP:s of different languages, but the second 2 had no current en-WP use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Removing of referenced content

    Closing as neither editor is vandalising and no admin action is going to take place. This is a content dispute and discussion is occurring at Talk:Ibn al-Banna' al-Marrakushi. If it can't be resolved then Wikipedia:Dispute resolution needs to be consulted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 16:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    M.Bitton is removing reliable content from the article Ibn al-Banna' al-Marrakushi while not basing his claims on any sources, when I reverted him he sent me an edit warring message and reverted me again. The article is based on authoritative sources on the matter like (Encyclopaedia of Islam 2nd and 3rd eds, etc). I hope that someone can take a look at this. -Suratrat (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Suratrat has been around (using different accounts) since at least 2016 and yet, they insist on describing as vandalism what clearly is not without even bothering to address the explanation that I left on the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually abiding by the WP:VALIDALT and every time I lose an account I mention it in my user page, your explanation in the talk page is baseless POV pushing and a clear case of IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. -Suratrat (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, you are well versed with Wikipedia's jargon and therefore, fully aware of what vandalism means, yet you insist on misusing the word. I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your still turning in circles and poisining the well (the thing about me creating multiple accounts, etc). The problem is you are removing referenced content and not justifying it with any reasons.-Suratrat (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to historical accounts, Almohad Caliphate was in power when al-Marrakushi was born and the Marinid Sultanate was in power when he died. Is this not historically accurate? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Synotia

    This editor was previously warned for name-calling other editors including by myself[45]. Now in WP:AE of all places, they make a statement aimed at me with the edit summary "Bend over"[46]. When told this is inappropriate, they double down with the personal attacks. They again reply in my own section despite being told to write in their own section, writing Yep, you've bent over and What I personally see is a keyboard warrior and I won't call you Misha or Vovochka or anything similar, if that makes you this uncomfortable, i'll leave the task to your mamka[47]. Clearly this user does not wish to follow WP:NPA and the behaviour needs to be stopped, hence I have taken it immediately to ANI. Mellk (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Name-calling? Товарищ means comrade in Russian, and you know it. Дорогой товарищ = dear comrade. Plenty of people on ruwiki like being called this just take a look. So much for being an insult.
    The bending-over part was an allegory for the metaphorical strip search I was subjecting you to, which only entailed 3 contributions, which is nothing compared to the scale of the sniffing at which Volunteer Marek and Michael were subjected in the thread. (10+ contributions each)
    Besides the keyboard warrior part, which I admit was inappropriate, I don't see what is reprehensible. Intimidating me through abuse of the administrator noticeboard will not change my conviction about you, which I perhaps might have had strength/patience to keep for myself had we not been in such a geopolitical context. Synotia (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not Russian Wikipedia, you are writing in English, and clearly you are doing this in an insulting and belittling manner, you know this. You were told to stop with this[48][49]. You see no problem with everything else you said besides "keyboard warrior" including your comment about my mother, which speaks for itself. Mellk (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What have I called your mother? Have I called her anything insulting? All I meant is that endearing nicknames will be left for her to use, not by me. Synotia (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely no reason to talk about my mother, ever. And you are clearly trying to belittle me there. If you see no problem, that's fine, I will let the admins be the judge. Mellk (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Knock it off, Synotia. Anything that is meant as an insult is an insult, and it's perfectly clear what you meant. And we don't subject other editors to strip searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Synotia for 72 hours for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User: BMA-Nation2020

    BMA-Nation2020 (talk · contribs) has been editing since July 2021. In that time they've been issued several warnings for edit warring and have been blocked. I ran into them when removing all unlinked entries of {{Skydance Media}}. I started a discussion when they undid my edit without an edit summary explaining why. I haven't revisited the template since.

    In November, I noticed MaddoxDragon2003 doing the same thing at {{DreamWorks Animation}}. A couple of reverts later (see history), and WP:OWNERSHIP-ish tone in an edit summary ("they stay, no changing. Navboxes are fine like this. You shouldn’t judge them by their looks"), I issued BMA-Nation2020 a warning for reinstating entries that do not have articles, per WP:NAV and WP:EXISTING - in a nutshell, we only list articles in navboxes, because they help with navigation, we don't add everything associated with a particular subject. They gave a strange response, which I responded in detail to. I also brought up the fact that they've been issued warnings for edit warring, but that's just because "I get those because they don’t understand me or what i’m trying to fix. If you check my profile, i have autism." I replied once more and asked them to undo their revert, but did not receive a reply. Earlier today, I messaged again, this time getting a reply that they want to be left alone. That's fine, if they want to be left alone, I'll do it. But that's not an option either apparently: "STOP SAYING IT'S FOR EXISTING ARTICLES ONLY! IT STAYS AND I'M GETTING FED UP OVER IT.". I messaged them again just now, asking if this how they want to go. After their latest reply, I thought it was best to go here.

    BMA-Nation2020 clearly has no intention of working with others or following consensus. They claim ownership to this navbox. They have been issued warnings for edit warring. They have used a personal attack in an edit summary. They are using their autism as an excuse not to follow editing guidelines. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick side note, it's 20:38 where I am, I off to bed soon, I might not reply for the next couple of hours. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actully… i did what he said and fixed up the template. And i moved the short films to the related since it’s a lot to take by. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    to @Soetermans, the template is being fixed for DreamWorks as discussed from the talk page. I have removed Dog Man and Puss in Boots but i apologize by my behavior. The one that should be blocked for a while is MaddoxDragon2003. Not me. Which clearly you're accusing me over something i tired to fix. I know i did some things i should have listened to but i fixed them after this happen. I am sorry by what i said and i wanna do better than just do... that. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After several of my messages, pointing you to the relevant guideline and asking you kindly to undo your revert, after your replies in which you clearly said stuff like "no undoing. I'm tried of this. I leave it where it was and that's final. Stop bothering me and please let me do my own thing" it took me starting a discussion here for you to undo your revert. Do you understand that is not a good thing to happen?
    You shouldn't point fingers at other editors like MaddoxDragon2003. They might've done the same thing like you, adding non-existent articles to a navbox, but they sure weren't uncivil to me or claimed ownership over a navbox.
    Thank you for your apology. Let me be clear: I honestly do think you are trying to help, but WP:COMPETENCE is required and so is WP:CIVIL behavior towards your fellow editors. We had this whole argument about listing films without articles to a navbox, we're not even discussing actual content on articles. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, your hostile tone might scare of editors. I'll leave it up to admins for any actions they deem necessary. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to help. I had a rough day. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain to me how you consider your were "trying to help". I pointed you to the relevant guideline and you disagreed. If you had a rough day (or several rough days, I waited 24 hours for a response), maybe not take it out on your fellow editors. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Brooklyn IP keeps removing Entertainment Weekly from cites

    I have repeatedly asked IP 47.17.47.199 from Brooklyn to stop removing the name of the magazine Entertainment Weekly from citations, but the person doesn't acknowledge that it is a problem, and continues make the removal. The IP is on a campaign to update the many citation URLs for this magazine, which is good, but will not stop removing the magazine name. We discussed this on several talk pages:

    The person has been doing this since May 2022,[50] and they show no sign of stopping.[51] I could use some help getting through to them. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    But aren't they correct? If they're altering it to a valid web link and changing it to a secure web URL for the reference, it's not a magazine any longer and therefore the magazine property should be cleared. Or am I missing something? Canterbury Tail talk 23:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    {{cite web}} is for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template, so the {{cite magazine}} template is still the most appropriate one (and supports the URL= parameter)
    Regardless, I'd rate these as improvements, since it allows us to stop relying on archived links (quite a few of which are missing entirely or broken). DFlhb (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Updating the URL is an improvement, yes, but as Izno notes below the change of citation template is unnecessary (at the least) and the removal of the work is incorrect. Even if changing to {{cite web}} were appropriate, |magazine=Entertainment Weekly should be kept as |website=Entertainment Weekly rather than taken out. XAM2175 (T) 21:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These changes are strictly not improvements. The work/website, which is Entertainment Weekly, is being removed from the citations, even if the change from cite magazine to cite web were agreeable (it also is not). Izno (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my position, too. The Brooklyn IP person said that they think that the authorlink parameter is "obsolete",[52] and their behavior shows they think the same thing of the magazine name. They are trying to streamline the citation template, but it has multiple parameters for good reasons—to increase the certainty that one is referring to the right publication, and to help search for similar text strings across many articles. Binksternet (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what they mean by saying that the author link is "unclickable", either, because being clickable is kinda the whole point of them. XAM2175 (T) 21:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw this yesterday. I reviewed the diffs and thought quite a bit about it actually, i.e. about what could lead someone to make such changes – based on a premise that there could be a technical reason, i.e. that the IP editor is not fully aware of the result. Sadly, my conclusion is that the animus behind this was not a constructive one. The editor acknowledged that they are aware of the result, was correctly informed that it's undesirable, and still kept doing it. —Alalch E. 21:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read the IP's talk page, I believe there are potential WP:CIR issues; the foundation of Wikipedia is collaboration, and the IP seems unwilling to listen to feedback or respond constructively. DFlhb (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealer07 is evading their block again

    Dealer07 was indef blocked for edit-warring over nationalities of biographies. The person keeps coming back as Greek IPs to continue the disruption. They got blocked two days ago as the range Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0BD:F4A7:0:0:0:0/64, but now they are using Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:0:0:0:0/64, Can we get a larger rangeblock than just the /64, to prevent future disruption? Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to talk about their habit of continuously trying to force edits without references or prior consenus on talk page [55], [56]. 2A02:85F:F0E5:FF86:71AA:8C7:8909:A9E3 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one will pay any attention to your comments or edits due to your massive socking. As a result of all that socking you are banned from the project. You are block and revert on sight. The only way you have out of this monumental waste of your own time is to go to your main account and request an unblock. No other comments of yours will be responded to in any way. Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    C. Fred blocked the /64. I would still like to see a larger rangeblock, for instance the /40 which looks like it would create zero collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And right on cue, Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0FD:6A1E:D5BF:F913:8511:2501 shows up to evade the block. Binksternet (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By any chance are all of these IPs through the same ISP? I know there's a thing that can be done in which we contact the ISP and get them to yell at Dealer07, but I don't know if that appiles here. If so, worth a shot. SniperReverter (Talk to me) 17:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Canterbury Tail: Just an FYI they are currently globally locked. Yoshi24517 Chat Online 23:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ChillaxIsCool inappropriately editing Indian-themed articles

    User:ChillaxIsCool is persistently and inaccurately changing other Indian languages to Telugu on a number of Indian-themed articles; appears to be personally motivated. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Why haven't they been warned for this on their talk page? TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 04:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikihounding by user Trangabellam

    I am seeking an admin intervention to finally put an end to constant wikihounding by user Trangabellam. I am really tired of this user's relentless pursuit of me, aggressive rhetoric, incivility and never-ending bad faith assumptions.

    I do understand if some users track other users' edits for collegial or administrative purposes, and with good cause, but the aforementioned user tracks me everywhere with a sole intent: to cause irritation, annoyance, and distress. This sticks out of a mile when you check his/her attitude and these mocking statements directed at me such as (you keep writing nonsense.., you won't learn anything..., The OP exhibits a IDHT attitude and is unaware of where his competencies lie) . Besides, this user has recently posted an over-the-fence “no-edit order” at my t/p (diff 1), which grossly violates WP:NOEDIT: no editor may unilaterally take charge over an article by sending no-edit orders, and create his/her own policies. All editors have equal rights to edit all articles, templates, project pages, and all other parts of Wikipedia if not blocked by level of protection.

    A couple of days ago (I took it as a point of no return and the latest evidence of her wikihounding on me, after which I decided to take my concerns here), Trangabellam again tracked me and cattily joined the discussion (diff 2) at the t/p of the page, which again, has never ever been edited by him/her since that article was created in 2005 (diff 3) (search for user Trangabellam if you find one). Trangabellam, as expected, sided against me and threw away such mocking adjectives as “ridiculous”, without presenting a reasonable argument to defend his/her stand on the issue.

    This wasn’t the first time it happened. For instance, I got in on the act to figure out the reason behind the revert of my contribution by user F&F at this t/p diff 4. Just after I made my case known, Trangabellam was there before you know it, responding first and quickly siding with user F&F, again without providing any argument for doing so:

    [Detailed reply incoming]. Broadly, I am in agreement with F&F. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

    As expected, this user's detailed reply is still on its way since July 5, 2022. (diff 4.1)

    According to WP:HOUND: "The offender usually singles out an editor by maliciously joining discussions on multiple pages or topics that editor may regularly contribute to and in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". It continues with: "Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place-to-place on Wikipedia, and often can be identified by reviewing the offending user's contributions." Trangabellam even tracked me up to admin Yamla’s t/p to whom I appealed looking for advice to tackle his/her behavior of wikihounding (trying to resolve it without creating too much drama) and posted my concerns there (diff 5), notwithstanding the fact that I didn't even ping this user (diff 5.1). Moreover, Trangabellam’s countless false accusations, like the one where he/she accused me of adding "nonsense" to the page, she has never contributed before (diff 6 (diff 7), eventually turned out (diff 8) to be actually this user’s own contribution (diff 9).

    Trangabellam wouldn’t discontinue this, and after a short passage of time he/she again falsely accused me of edit-warring here (diff 10), and distorted facts from my discussion Talk:Babur#Verse from Babur's poetry. There was no edit-warring, I didn’t undo the revert even once. The history of the page is for everyone to see (diff 11) (see June 5th, 2022). In fact, it was another, experienced editor who undid the revert (diff 12), diff 13) and actually supported my addition to that page. Instead of Trangabellam’s imaginary edit-warring, I decided to find a compromise and created a whole new section (diff 13.1) in that article, which definitely improved the page. But of course, this user won’t ever mention that and my other similar contributions.

    I’m open to work and collaborate with everyone, but in a healthy, mutually respectful environment. I proved it this when recently Trangabellam claimed that addition of translated material (even if a little re-worded) was against Wikipedia’s policy on plagiarism (diff 14). I presented my opinion regarding that with civility and immediately stated that if proved wrong by a competent admin, I would have no objections to removing those sentences. This was not a deliberate disruption, since even the complainant admitted that this was in fact Wikipedia’s grey area (diff 15). Also, one of Wikipedia’s long-serving and in my opinion, outstanding editors, user HistoryofIran, also cast his doubt whether this can qualify as plagiarism (diff 16).

    I strongly believe that all of the above bear a close resemblance to wikihounding. Besides Trangabellam constantly exhibit the patterns of behavior with arrogance, ridicule and satire. This is one of the latest examples ([57]). This user did his/her best trying to ridicule me and my work again, showcasing him/herself as a history expert while goofing on the Soviet academic he/she didn’t know, instead getting humiliated him/herself at the end of the day. Lately, he/she addressed in the same uncivil way to a user, who happened to be the GA reviewer (diff 17) of the page nominated to GA by me.

    Furthermore, this user's ominous "I will keep a tab over your editorial activities" diff 18 posted at my t/p is basically a confession in Wikihounding for me.

    Finally, this user's actions are accurately summarized in WP:Hound, which says that the important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing. Following another user around, if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

    I kindly ask admins to take their time and look at every single diff carefully. This behavior does cause profound stress, is disruptive, and should be stopped. Thank you, VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 07:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • When you are mentioning other editors like @Fowler&fowler, you need to post a notification at their t/p. As F&F and admins like RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Bishonen, Abecedare et al can attest to, I am among the most prolific editors of pages concerning S. Asian history including the Mughals. In contrast, how many topics on S. Asian history have you edited? As to my charges of edit-warring, I repeated what administrator Abecedare told you at the t/p (vide, @Visioncurve, I (Abecedare) am disappointed that an experienced editor such as yourself is edit-warring in article-space instead of discussing the issue here to arrive at a consensus.) It might be that you were not edit-warring but you need to introspect on why so many experienced editors including me, Ab, F&F and others tend to oppose your edits or characterize your editorial activities in an unfair manner.
      @ANI audience: This thread is a response to User_talk:Visioncurve#Turkoman_(ethnonym) and User_talk:Visioncurve#Machine_translation:_Plagiarism_and_Copyright. The OP has a long history of misrepresenting sources (see this thread for an egregious example) that warrants scrutiny. Fwiw, a year ago, the OP had apologized to me for their "frustrating response to [my] decent remarks".
      I spot that the OP has written an entire paragraph on his copyright violations where he presented [his] opinion [] with civility and immediately stated that if proved wrong by a competent admin, [he] would have no objections to removing those sentences. I will leave administrator ToBeFree to be the judge of the situation; VC's defensive responses that had incurred a block-threat from ToBeFree is emblematic of his problematic approach to editing guised under "civility". Civility does not allow you to post machine-translate of vernacular translations and then, request for evaluation from "competent admins"; civility does not allow you to misrepresent sources etc.
      As to my "no-edit-order" (huh - ?) at Tuqaq, it was a request and I was terribly frustrated with how he went about editing topics on Sejuq history using fringe (Soviet) sources which, now, appears to have been machine-translated. I regret that I have nothing but satire to offer when VC uses romantic fiction novellas to write articles on Seljuqid history.
      I will post about a dozen examples of egregious misrepresentations of source and other issues from the OP (please keep an eye at this page) but need a day to compile them, before invoking WP:BOOMERANG. Some examples can be found in Talk:Tuqaq#Maintenance_Tags, Talk:Turkoman_(ethnonym) etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      TrangaBellam, I was just looking at one of the diffs and noticed [58] and I wondering if you could explain what you meant by might I suggest that any improvements to Magtymguly Pyragy is an exercise in futility? Simply put, there does not exist enough reliable sources to write an encyclopedic biography of the subject. Gusfriend (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, @Gusfriend.
      There are many subjects who are deserving of proper historical scholarship but as of now, lacks it. The only way of writing something decent on our subject is using sub-optimal drivel sources from Turkmenistan. VC had once used such sources to push the article past GA before I critiqued the sources alongside the inaccuracies in the content; a Community-Reaasessment was launched by me, and was failed by an uninvolved editor. That section is worth reading in entirety; for every criticism I made of the content, VC subjected me to random accusations like "negative opinion against Turkmenistan arising from my stay at the country", "fondness for some [Western] scholars" etc. Despite the tonne of criticism that I presented against state-sponsored scholars of Turkmenistan, he remained oblivious to their unreliability. Though, in fairness, VC did apologize to me a year later for their "frustrating response to [my] decent remarks".
      So, a month ago, when I spotted VC devoting another round of efforts to the article (once again, using mostly-vernacular sources), I left a note. Does that satisfy you? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That makes sense. Can I suggest, were such a situation to arise again, giving the GA context, perhaps something like sufficient for the article to reach GA status." at the end? Gusfriend (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, that is very agreeable. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Gusfriend In the meanwhile, I am adding to User:TrangaBellam/VC. Will like to hear your opinion. Ty! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey TB, just a note: After you've finished gathering evidence [which I presume you'll post it here or AE or somewhere relevant?], would you mind deleting that page? :) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Dax, I will be moving a boomerang proposal shortly. Thanks for the pointer to U1 though. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that I clicked on every diff mentioned in the OP's post, it appears that the comments, which the OP took as "a point of no return", were misunderstood (do not ask me, how) to be against them, when they were actually in the OP's favor. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's irrelevant as it doesn't cancel the fact of your latest wikihounding me.
    You were quite right when you mentioned that I had apologized to you initially and gave props to your respective remarks. You knew I was open to cooperation and work with you to improve those pages (diff 2), I even posted 3 similar messages in your t/p (1, diff 3, diff 4) and waited for your positive response. Little did I know back then how mistaken I was that your true intent was not to collaborate, but undermine and ridicule as can be seen through your derisive language and uncivil rhetoric in the messages you posted at my t/p (diff 5), Tuqaq's talk page (diff 6) and countless other places (see the above diffs). Who would choose to cooperate with you after all this or reply to your respective inquiries when you always assume bad faith and exhibit patterns of disruptive behavior? Accordingly, I have decided not to respond to your latest walls of messages, but your latest tracking me to Kutadgu Bilig's talk page was "enough is enough".
    Besides, I believe that all your above-mentioned reasons and explanations don't grant you an exclusive right of wikihounding others, undermining or taunting them. I am not a serial plagiarist, vandal, POV-pusher or under a temporary unblock truce to deserve the kind of monitoring enough to try the patience of a saint. VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 15:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You engaged in the same behavior with me, accusing me of roughly the same things, a year ago. Then you went on a year-long break, came back after a year to concede that your editing and responses was indeed inappropriate, and went back to similar editing. Shall I expect you to do the same now or shall I proceed to initiate a boomerang?
    I expect that editors, irrespective of their skills, have integrity. That they shall not misrepresent sources. That after using machine translations, they shall not claim to the contrary. Writing must be enjoyable but only for those who can write without resorting to academic malpractices. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am active in similar topic areas. My view is that while TrangaBellam has been hounding Visioncurve to some extent, this has been done in good faith; the latter's edits needed to be brought to administrator attention sooner. Visioncurve is supremely unwilling to change their editing habits, most importantly their proclivity to misrepresent sources. This can be seen in this very ANI post, where they misrepresent the community consensus at this discussion to be that of a question from HistoryofIran, rather than the conclusive points of two administrators, ToBeFree and Dianaa. Strong WP:BOOMERANG needed — Visioncurve is capable of producing good content, but seemingly prefers not to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I agree with your characterisation. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Original Post by Visioncurve is too long, didn't read. If they have something to say, they can say it concisely. If they have something to say and have to provide a lot of background (which they didn't), they can say it concisely and provide the background material on a subpage. I will read the boomerang proposal in a little while. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang

    As AirshipJungleman29 notes above, "Visioncurve's edits needed to be brought to administrator attention sooner. Visioncurve is supremely unwilling to change their editing habits, most importantly their proclivity to misrepresent sources [..] Strong WP:BOOMERANG needed."

    So, without further delay, I wish to attract the attention of the community and its administrators to this subpage, where I document a multitude of misrepresentation of sources alongside use of unreliable sources, pushing of fringe POVs etc. Accordingly, I seek for appropriate sanctions against Visioncurve.

    • Support as nom - I propose that Visioncurve be banned from editing any article on history for an indefinite period; however, they can propose edits to the articles using talk-page. On a succesful probation of six months, Visioncurve can appeal before the community at AN/ANI for repeal. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The problems outlined are serious and cast serious doubt on the editor's ability to contribute acceptable content in this topic area. Much of the problematic content was originally added in 2020 or 2021, but there are at least two edits that were made in the past month [59] [60]. Visioncurve, I would like to hear what you may have to say here. – Uanfala (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Uanfala Fwiw, Visioncurve took a eight-month-long break from October 2021 to June 2022. That explains the scarcity to an extent. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      AirshipJungleman29, I wonder how you'd explain then TrangaBellam's mocking rhetoric at my t/p (diff 1), bad faith assumption (when he/she called my (Soviet and Turkish) sources "shabby" and failed to recognize a well-known Soviet historian, later embarrassing him/herself) and expert on that issue (diff 1.1) (diff 2) and ended with him/her embarrassing him/herself, and false accusations of adding "nonsense" (diff 3 (diff 4), (diff 5) when it was actually his/her addition to that page (diff 6) and of edit-warring when it has never happened (diff 7), (diff 8) (see June 5th, 2022), (diff 9), diff 10) as well as maliciously joining discussion to just oppose me (without providing any argument for his/her stand on the issue) at Talk:Mughal_Empire#Persian_influence as a good cause wikihounding?
      Robert McClenon, I believe that's the reason why a couple of editors I'm happy to know advised me not to take my concern to ANI, because they believed that usually first complaint (and its respective diffs) were not thoroughly checked, and that it was better to read immediately-posted replies or the last lines of discussion, or counter accusations (like Boomerang), as in your case.
      TrangaBellam, as for you, your allegation regarding misrepresentation of sources or lack of sources were left without my attention, since:
      1) I told you before that I refused to reply to your inquiries because of your long history of disruptive behavior towards me;
      2) As the admin, and by chance, GA Reviewer of my page Lee_VilenskiUser:Lee Vilenski rightly noted (when you rushed to his/her t/p after he/she had presented my page with GA status) and employed similar aggressive rhetoric towards him/her (calling him "oblivious" and suggesting that he doesn't understand English) (dif 11) you were not a nominator of that page.
      However, I have come to conclusion to respond to your latest "allegation" in order to prove my stance. Besides, I hope respective admins would notice that your inequitable request to indef block an editor (with a probation of 6 months) who hasn't vandalized, made personal attacks, constantly edit-warred or committed similar gross violations of Wikipedia policies basically proves your true intent and disruptive attitude towards me. VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Lakbros vandalising by mass reverting

    The boomerang has struck. Salvio 22:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Hello Admin,

    The user named @Lakbros is mass reverting to his preferred version at the Chekavar page. I had added a few sentences to the opening lead directly from the lead paragraph of the Extended-Protected Ezhava page, which clearly mentions the following:

    "Chekavar, a warrior section within the Ezhava community."

    I have used the same references and sources mentioned in its opening page, but user @Lakbros keeps reverting to his preferred version by removing the hyperlinks and portraying the Chekavar as a separate group.

    He has done this many times before.

    Requesting assistance from @Materialscientist, and @RegentsPark.

    Kind regards TheWanderer9 (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) It looks like a slow moving edit war and a content dispute. I've checked some of your contributions and although the cites (mostly google books) seem impressive, too many of the ones I checked do not support your assertions or even fail to mention the subject at all. Kleuske (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    I have edited the lead opening of the Chekavar page to include the exact same reference that is present in the Extended-Confirmed Ezhava article, that too in it's own lead paragraph.
    The reference clearly and unanimously states that "the Chekavar is a warrior section within the Ezhava community."
    And this is what I have, literally, stated in the Chekavar page too.
    Thanks TheWanderer9 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not the place for wild goose chasing. The latest reference I checked referred to a different book and failed to mention anything that backs up your assertions. The cite on "Ezhava" has exactly the same problem. It refers to a different book and fails to mention the Ezhava or Chekavar (except in a footnote, which does not back up your claims). Kleuske (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, good point, I didn't see those footnotes. Please have a look at the Chekavar page as well, there's a lot of paragraphs there saying that they were:
    A "warrior surname", "exceptionally talented martial artists", "they were a warrior caste who fought for their rulers", "formed the army of the Chera Empire", "During the British rule, seeing their chivalric fighting skills which can be attributed to their Chekavar lineages," etc.
    Seems like many unsourced sentences there, kindly remove these to improve the article.
    Warm regards TheWanderer9 (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Materialscientist and @RegentsPark, kindly intervene in this matter at the earliest. Thanks. TheWanderer9 (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you are actively edit warring right now, I have intervened and partially blocked you. For future reference, please follow WP:DISPUTE, instead of continuing to revert, when involved in a content dispute with other users editing in good faith, such as is the case here. Salvio 12:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm yes Salvio, you do have a good point. I had asked the @Kleuske guy to help improve the article, since she had said she had read all of the attached sources, but was met with an unfriendly, "Do you think i'm here to cater to you" or something lol.
    She started it, and couldn't handle the response ;)
    Anyways, I have better things to do. Cheers peeps, and have a great day! TheWanderer9 (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You posted that "request" after you got (partially) blocked. I also never claimed to have read "all of the attached sources", just that I checked some of the sources you cited. Kleuske (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now devolving into personal attacks. [61]. Kleuske (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why this user is doing edit war on this!! But what he is arguing is simply baseless. One can see thousands of pages in wiki like ezhava page and insisting that the same should be written in chekavar page, I don't know what purity of intention is. The content of the current reference on the chekavar page is written in the first paragraph. In Edward Balfer's 1850 book The Cyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia, Volume 2, Thiyya (Tier) caste is used by the word "common" with reference. But it should be understood that he has not read the references very much. The vandalism-filled page was reverted with an edit. I didn't write the page for my liking, in all available references, the name chekavar is mostly used by some special people trained in kalaripayattu weapons of Thiyya division, the source of the writer "Nisha P. R" Jumbos and Jumping Devils: A Social History of Indian Circus has put it first. The same opinion has been expressed in many books written by Indians including foreigners who visited India, Edward Balfour.Lakbros (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also personal POV pushing (diff) by inserting claims that run counter to the very next referenced sentence in the article. I don't think this editor is here to do anything other than stir things up by pushing his religious beliefs. He certainly isn't here to build an encyclopaedia based on the five pillars. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Learn to read. The article in question, Islam in Bangladesh, starts by saying "Islam is the state religion of the People's Republic of Bangladesh."
    Click on the state religion part.
    What does it say?
    "A state religion (also called religious state or official religion) is a religion or creed officially endorsed by a sovereign state."
    So, state religion = official religion.
    And what did I write on the page you reverted?
    "Despite being a Muslim-majority country with Islam as the official religion, Bangladesh is a de facto secular state."
    Learn to read, and run the mouth less, with your accusations of "POV pushing religious beliefs."
    Your User Profile page says you follow "DGAF - Don't Give A F*ism."
    And you have certainly proved that with your third-class subpar editing lol!
    Cheers peeps! TheWanderer9 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to cool it, remember to assume good faith, and work on how you talk to other users. This is a collaborative effort where we all must work together and being uncivil towards others does NOT help you get a point across. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, Josh, of course. And I assume the same applies to Mr. Socket here as well, with his accusations? Or does he get a free pass because he follows "DGAF - Don't Give A F*ism," as proudly stated on his User page? Cheers! TheWanderer9 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusations of POV pushing with sources are very different than telling someone to "learn to read". You're focusing way too heavily on a user box on that person's user page. Focus on the content, but what someone's user page irrelevantly states. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    All this trouble about beer? --JBL (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Justinw303 changing sourced information based on own interpretation

    Justinw303 is changing sourced information based on their own interpretation and WP:OR. In this diff, they state in their edit summary that the source is less reliable than their original research (own eyes). When the edit was reverted and restored to that which the source stated, they simply repeated the edit with another aggressive edit summary bludgeoning their OR and stating that YouTube is the correct way to VERIFY. I posted this (since deleted) request on their talk page. Their response once again totally fails to acknowledge that OR is not the best way to VERIFY information. I then issue a non-templated warning.

    Following the warning, they went straight back and restored their edits, using a weak source that doesn't state the result and failing to source correctly. Here and here. This is following a warning and again causing disruption. I am seeking admin assistance as previous attempts to address the disruption on the editor's TP have been ignored and deleted, sometimes with severe personal attacks, as here and here, the latter of which when they delete requests to cease making edits exactly like the ones I am concerned with.

    I have notified the user on their TP and warned, as you can see.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm. On the one hand, this seems to be a pretty hostile fellow, and of course "watch the fight" is unacceptable as a source. But on the other, he does have a point: however reliant people are on Sherdog, it doesn't constitute an official source, and what makes it that much more reliable than SB Nation? What steps have you taken beyond "Sherdog says so" to verify your own information? I'm aware that this minor promotion's been defunct for a decade -- for which one could say, bloody hell, you're having an edit war over whether a single fight between two obscure fighters fifteen years ago in a long-dead promotion was a 'KO' vs a 'TKO??' -- but there shouldn't be anything preventing you from going to the Internet Archive or the California state athletic commission. Ravenswing 15:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While Justin has a lot to work on where Wikiquette is concerned, he has provided a source to support "TKO". As a content issue I'd say this should resume on the article's talk page, or otherwise at WP:RSN if the source is disputed. — Czello 15:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point that I think you might be missing is that Justin was changing information that was sourced to that which was not. Based on what they saw. In the Wikiproject, the guideline states:
    In the column Method, do not use your personal interpretation of a fight result in the record. Using a reliable source is important. The official website or Sherdog may be useful.
    What the editor did was a personal interpretation based on what they saw. It was also not sourced either to an official website or to Sherdog, but rather sourced via an edit summary to an article whose title directly contradicts the point they were making and which does not contain the official result listed in the official way. It's also worth pointing out that several posts express concern with the editor and all they get back is deletes and insults. An unofficial, unscrutinised source mentioned in an edit summary (while warring and without discussion) surely isn't correct, is it?NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found a legacy official version: https://events-staging.mixedmartialarts.com/Strikeforce-Evolution:607B00D7-7553-4206-9C41-4E6B07C9C5A0 note the format. I have restored the info, too.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now included proper, legitimate sources for the change I have been attempting to make. The body of the article indicates the fight ended in TKO; the title using the phrase 'KO' is irrelevant to the issue, as a TKO is simply a subset of the term 'KO'. All TKO's are KO's, but not all KOs are TKOs. In this case, it was a TKO, and I would imagine Wikipedia would prefer the most specific result listing possible. Nedochan reversed my most recent edit even though the sources were clearly marked/indicated. Justinw303 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source that you have given does not state the result in the official format. The two sources I have given do. I find it interesting that now you are engaging. I suggest you restore the STATUSQUO and take the the talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) NEDOCHAN and Justinw303, would both of you guys mind moving the discussion to the talk page? I think that both of you guys are now cooled down enough that an administrator's intervention is not necessary. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should BOTH take this to the talk page (or to RSN) instead of ANI, but you might want to consider what your answer to this question would be: what makes "events-staging.mixedmartialarts.com" an official source, other than that it backs up your POV? There would only be two "official" sources: the promotion itself, and the state athletic commission.

    One other thing you should remember: the Wikiproject's private guidance does not constitute making a source "official." Ravenswing 17:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The sources given state the official result verbatim.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded to on the appropriate talk pages. Ravenswing 22:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism from the outskirts of Washington DC

    Range blocked for 6 months. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 17:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



    Someone is using Special:Contributions/2600:4040:5E51:3D00:0:0:0:0/64 to vandalize multiple articles,[62][63][64] and has been doing so for four months. Can we block the range for a long time? Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hounding and edit warring by Volunteer Marek

    Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

    I have already had several runnings with this person on the Simferopol article, as shown from my POV here (you're welcome to read the entire Simferopol talk page and form your own opinion), which in fact resulted in me significantly reducing my participation on Wikipedia because I have neither the time nor the desire to waste hours dealing with this person's accusations, given that nobody seems particularly interested in telling him off. However, today I woke up to find that he had gone through my edit list and undid 4 of my last 5 edits (I initially mistook one of his reverts for a previous user re-introducing his changes) in a handful of minutes (his diffs [65], [66], [67], [68]), without even checking what he was reverting, let alone the talk page. I reverted (manually) some of his changes trying to address his concerns and he once again mass reverted, again without checking (to the point of re-introducing stuff he had previously removed), and paid a courtesy visit to a discussion page (because I prompted him to) merely to drop a one-liner to justify his revert.

    All of this, plus the fact that he had literally zero edits on any of these pages previous to this episode, suggest that he explicitly looked my profile up and went through the contribs page to undo my edits, likelier than not to spite me, as this is not the first time he comes after me following a hiatus - the last time, after 10 days without intervening on Simferopol, he came back out of the blue to accuse me for the nth time of being a "sleeper single purpose account" planted to disseminate Russian nationalist disinformation. I have no interest in engaging in an edit war with this person, or engaging with this person at all, but he seems hellbent on trying to annoy me. I'm not planning on responding to anything he has to say about this here, but I'm happy to address anyone else's concerns. Ostalgia (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    1. These pages were on my watchlist.
    2. These were all bad edits, with the account "Ostalgia" edit warring with other users (in particular User:Mzajac [69])
    3. Aside from one instance there was no participation on talk from Ostalgia
    4. This is an account which was dormant until May 2022, having made only a dozen edits prior to that. Some of the edit summaries suggest this isn't their only account [70] (again? when did they interact or edit that article previously?)
    Volunteer Marek 16:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have both of you guys tried to resolve the dispute via discussion at talk page or WP:Dispute resolution? I think it would be better for both of you guys to not go through ANI in this case. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ostalgia - You were told (that was only 3 months ago) to seek consensus and dispute resolution last time you were blocked, didn't you?
    Quote: ..you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution..[71] - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I don't get your point. For starters, this is not a content dispute. If anything, you could say I'm in a content dispute with Mzajac, with whom I am in fact engaged in a talk page discussion after he reverted an edit I made to a page he had last edited weeks ago, a bold edit that was reverted by someone else and for which he, by the way, did not seek consensus.
    Fundamentally, however, am I supposed to discuss and seek consensus (?) with Volunteer Marek prior to editing a page where he has never edited in the past? How exactly would that work? Ostalgia (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ostalgia please ping me if you to start arguing our content dispute elsewhere.  —Michael Z. 17:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, but since you had been mentioned right above me I assumed you were already aware of this discussion (and I assumed correctly, I suppose, seeing as you had actually already replied by the time I posted the message you're responding to). Ostalgia (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (And not that I need explain myself, but the dubious string of edits on and after December 30, that wiped out solidly sourced information on the subject’s identity, is why I came back to restore the lead in that article.)  —Michael Z. 17:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ostalgia What are you doing here? Provide links to discussions you initiated and then to dispute resolution please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read my message you'll get a pretty clear idea of what I'm doing here, and it has nothing to do with a content dispute, as I have already told you (and you seem only too happy to ignore). Ostalgia (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So no links? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ostalgia: Then you'll need to explain what behaviour issue is so intractable that you felt the need to go straight to ANI, rather than discuss the issue at all with Volunteer Marek, or provide links for any prior discussion. Remember, ANI is a last resort. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 20:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned in the very first line of my post, I have already had issues with Volunteer Marek on the Simferopol article. I provided a link to a summary of my previous interactions with him. This is the link, again - it leads to a previous ANI case. As explained there, I previously attempted to engage him by opening a discussion on the talk page, where he repeatedly and routinely dismissed sources, but fundamentally, where I was accused of pushing nationalist disinformation, being a sleeper single-purpose account, pushing putinist irredentist propaganda, being a sockpuppet and WP:NOTHERE. As can be seen in my summary, I also hit back at Marek. You can check the entire talk page discussion here. I hope you'll understand why I am reluctant to engage with him in any sort of discussion again lest it devolve into that once more. Ostalgia (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the call for peace talks, or at least a civil truce.
    The fact is that scholarship on Ukraine is being decolonized, resulting in sources’ viewpoints being revised[72] (e.g., Degas’ Ukrainian dancers’ name corrected).[73][74] This process started in the mid 20th century, accelerated after 1992, 2014, and 2022, and will continue being an issue (remember, we retitled not only Odessa and Kiev, but also Kharkov back in 2004).
    It is easy to find support for widely divergent views on these things and for conflicts to arise. I suggest everyone become familiar with the essay WP:BIAS and consider that much of Western historiography on historical “Russia” in the broad sense is dated in some ways, but also that we should choose up-to-date sources without anticipating (WP:CRYSTAL) and losing track of Wikipedia content guidelines. And if you find yourself writing a personal message in an edit summary, better pause and take it to talk.
    This won’t go away soon, so we need to learn to set an example and continue cooperating, not just these two editors.  —Michael Z. 17:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sorry, I can sort of engage in a civil debate with you because even though it is clear that we have very, very different viewpoints, at least you are open to dialogue and maintain a generally respectful approach to discussions. This has proven impossible in my dealings with Marek. Ostalgia (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You could still find yourselves needing to coexist in this website, weeks or years from now.  —Michael Z. 18:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the edits in question, it would seem the edits by Volunteer Marek and perfectly correct. Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've found some of Volunteer Marek's edits in the Ukraine-Russia war space to be a bit strident and strong... Perhaps that's because they've had to put up with so much BS like this. What's in the linked diffs does not appear to be hounding and VM appears to have been willing to engage in discussion on the disputed points. The only thing that comes close to crossing the line is the "sleeper SPA" attack which doesn't appear to be justified based on the account's edit history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Horse Eye's Back The account (Ostalgia) was dormant from 2020 until 2022 (2 years) and then they jumped straight into the edit war in Russia-Ukraine topic area without showing signs of being a new account. It’s obvious. This behaviour continues despite the recent block. GizzyCatBella🍁 20:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That justifies "sleeper" but their editing history appears to be over a wide variety of topics. I wouldn't argue with someone who called them disruptive and suggested a topic ban but a SPA they are not (even if we are only looking at their 2022 edits). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back There is a history related to an extreme harassment of VM by new sleeper and sock-puppet accounts. I’ll not go into it now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Above does note refer to @Ostalgia - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And what the heck does that have to do with whether or not the account is SPA? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I made edits more or less on a yearly basis since creating my account, but never in a sustained manner. I eventually got hooked by this event because it's an area I'm more or less familiar with in a professional capacity. I focus on topics mostly related to history (while avoiding stuff too closely related to my specific area of research, so as to not fall into a conflict of interest) and I have tried to steer clear of anything even remotely linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the except of a paragraph on my article on the Ochakovo brewery in which I mentioned the brands they introduced, after the war resulted in an exodus of foreign companies. Since you're parroting the same accusation as Volunteer Marek, and for you It's obvious, I would like for you to tell me a) what is wrong with me not having been as active on this encyclopedia until an event caught my eye and b) what my single purpose is. Alternatively, you can retract your accusations of me being a SPA and a sockpuppet. Ostalgia (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ostalgia Done - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciated, although it's hard to assume it doesn't refer to me when it literally has my name. I'm not picky, though. Ostalgia (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A "new" user making Russian nationalist-like edits is reverted, rightly. Comes to ANI to complain. Seems like a rebound is in order, of a topic-ban at the very least. ValarianB (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but if adhering to WP:KYIV, MOS:ETHNICITY and MOS:PLACE is "Russian nationalist-like" then we've all lost the plot here. Ostalgia (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Volunteer Marek following other editors to the point of WP:HARASSMENT? I'm afraid this may be a recurring behaviour. I know this is completely useless, but what can you do? So here are few diffs:
    1. 03:00, 3 December 2022 I create a new article Ruslan Kotsaba, "the article is still incomplete and I will finish it in the next few days". From 18:47, 3 December 2022 to 19:15, 3 December 2022 VM makes 17 consecutive edits (!) with massive removals of sources and texts. I spend hours cleaning up the mess and bickering with him and his retinue.
    2. 19:35, 6 December 2022-10:15, 7 December 2022 I restore, update and expand the section on language rights (5 edits). 07:28, 12 December 2022 VM removes the whole section. It will take lengthy discussions with the usual load of personal attacks [75] to reach a consensus on the highly reduced and revised text published at 02:31, 14 December 2022 by Masebrock.
    3. 15:08, 13 December 2022 I add text and source (Amnesty) to the very sketchy lead. 17:15, 13 December 2022 VM reverts "Per talk, obvious POV and lack of balance". Human rights in Ukraine remains without a lead.
    4. 12:28, 30 December 2022 I remove tag:cn and vague/unsubstantiated reference to "Russian media" citing favourably Katchanovski's theory. 05:31, 31 December 2022 VM removes four references (Ishchenko, Sakwa, Cohen, Moniz Bandeira) citing favourably Katchanovski's theory: "remove some of the usual flat fringe and conspiracy theorists". Eventually a well-researched paragraph on the reception (supporters and critics) of Katchanovski's theory is removed due to lack of consensus.
    5. 15:50, 6 January 2023 I add content and sources about Roger Waters being listed in the Myrotvorets database of "enemies of Ukraine". 20:12, 7 January 2023 VM reverts "Really not significant".
    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gitz6666 popping into any discussion that involves me despite having been asked multiple times to stop WP:STALKing me? I’m afraid this is recurring behavior. The best part is how he, who’s been following me around for several months now, is coming here to complain about supposedly me following someone else around. You just can’t make this up. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my god. Human rights in Ukraine remains without a lead. You. JUST. Removed most of the text from the lede yourself literally seconds before coming here to post your accusations [76]. So let's see. You remove most of the text from the lede. Then you immediately run over here and try to make it seem like the fact that this article "remains without a lead" is somehow my fault? Is this typical of your approach to editing the encyclopedia and involving yourself in disputes Gitz6666? Volunteer Marek 05:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just address the "17 consecutive edits (!)" part, because I had to stop there: Why does the number of consecutive edits matter? Wikipedia isn't edited in one-person time-alotted editing sessions where people take turns. You added content to Wikipedia, he selectively removed some of your additions while giving his reasons in summaries, and then instead of discussing it with him, and coordinating the effort, you mass-reverted him while also saying how you are "going to address the issues raised" yourself (you hadn't even provided a reason for why you disagree with his changes in the summary), as if you have some privileged role in deciding how the article will be worked on. You then complained on the talk page how it took you three hours to review his edits and respond to them, which you did at some length on the talk page, starting a whole series of sections, while also accusing him of "obstructing [your] work on the article". Basically, none of this is terrible, but his edits were normal and you could have responded to them much more "economically", in terms of the amount of reverting and talking required to get to the same end result. —Alalch E. 01:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I should have done a blind revert. It was a herculean effort of AGF on my part to address each and everyone of his comments, especially because a fair share of them - let's say 2/3 - where completely groundless, and when I say "completely" I mean they were not the kind of things where different views are possible. To that end, to address all of them, on the 4 December I opened no less than 6 threads on the t/p and gave detailed answers to his edit summaries. At the end the talk page was like this - please, have a look [77]. I did my best to reply to his comments and restore the materials he had removed. And what were the reasons for this? The reason was that he had removed a mention to Kotsaba from the article Human rights in Ukraine [78] (a fellow editor and registred user had already vandalized Kotsaba's name and made it Kotsababy). I became curious about who this prisoner of conscience "Kotsababy" was, I researched it, wrote an article about it, announced it on the talk page [79] and what did I get? instead of some cooperation, I got 17 disruptive edits plus the tag:notability [80] on the page. Yep, I think it borders on harassment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, no. And how many times have I asked you to stop following my edits? Four times? Five times? Trying to accuse others of "harassment" as a deflection tactic really takes some chutzpah. Volunteer Marek 08:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Behavior that looks driven by following an editor is hounding and should be addressed. Even if it's just to admonish then to "stop doing that" which IMO (admittedly just from a read of this thread, not an in-depth research) is appropriate here. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn’t follow them. All articles are on my watchlist. All were, as already pointed out by other editors here and elsewhere, bad edits. They were all of the same nature. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not consensus for historical topics. Quote: "For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content." In other words, it wasn't Kyiv then, so don't fix what isn't broken. Next time, read the policy you cite. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 07:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, I have restored Kiev when dealing with historical topics only, and if My very best wishes had stopped his combing of my edits in October instead of September he might've found this message correcting a fellow editor for disparaging the use of Kyiv in an edit summary. Ostalgia (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandbox-like vandalism from Samh aljml

    There's a bunch of curious edits from Samh aljml (talk · contribs · block user). They're more nuisance than vandalism, but he's created a bunch of pages in the Wikipedia talk namespace corresponding to shortcut redirects (so Wikipedia talk:ESSAYS and Wikipedia talk:NOTTEMPORARY, for example), each containing only the shortcut (so ESSAYS and NOTTEMPORARY).

    He also added a nonsense edit to his own talk page and a nonsense barnstar to User talk:Rainwarrior~commonswiki as well as a few nonsense edits elsewhere. They're all mobile edits, so they might even be "I clicked the wrong thing several times and didn't know how to undo it".

    Weirdly, I first noticed the account because he thanked me for an edit to my own global CSS 🙃 — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Betcha a beer it's trying to game autoconfirmed. But they're doing similar across multiple sites, and are blocked on one for spam. DMacks (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked this editor as not here to build an encyclopedia. Also, competence is required. Cullen328 (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin on mediawiki (where they are blocked for spam) checked their deleted content there, and it appears to be more of the same pointless edits seen elsewhere, not actually promotional content. DMacks (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behavior from Jackson883941

    User:Jackson883941 has been engaging in disruptive and uncollaborative behavior. This particular instance started with a dispute at List of large aircraft, but their history of disruption goes back a while. On the 8th, Jackson883941 engaged in a minor edit war, though WP:3RR was not broken with only two reverts. Although they made the correct move and brought the matter to the article's talk page, they also requested that users "dont touch my talk page without my permission". I also wouldn't call labeling those who leave critical comments "unhappy campers" a sign that they are willing to collaborate. Looking into Jackson883941's contributions will show even more evidence that they are WP:NOTHERE, including an inquiry about how to block "some users". - ZLEA T\C 23:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on my review of Jackson883941's contributions, I have indefinitely blocked this editor for disruptive editing, including hostility to other editors, refusal to collaborate, and possible block evasion based on their hostile edit of 16:27, October 31, 2022 to their own userpage. That was their second edit with this account. Cullen328 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kabz15

    Per WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:NOTHERE, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. This user created several articles which per WP:DOIT were merged for failing WP:GNG but he unmerged them [83][84][85][86][87], leaving the content in their targets; after another user merged them again time he unmerged them a second time [88][89][90][91][92], insisting that others users resort to the talk page but never doing so himself. He then nominated an article I created for deletion, which several users consider to have been purely retaliatory [93]. He thrice added content that does not match the information contained with the sources he cited, even after two different users reverted them, always insisting that others should use the talkpage [94][95][96]. He twice reinstated content after it had been removed by two different users, always insisting that others should start the disscussion, but never doing so himself [97][98]. He obviously doesn't care about consensus or proper procedure, only that his changes stick no matter what. I'm hoping for a resolution. Wareno (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:90.254.56.9

    Im not sure what's up with this user User talk:90.254.56.9 contribs (almost no contribs, so guessing it was so egregious they were all revdelled or it's the IP associated with a socking named acct). But their edits in the last few minutes look like an intent to be disruptive. Would someone mind making the block full and longer to forstall whatever it is they are planning/playing at? This one [99] was especially weird. Also, could be a joe job, per User talk:331dot#User talk:90.254.56.9. Heiro 01:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll wait it out. I'm patient like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.56.9 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The block may need expanded to a range, but the IP is siteblocked for 72 hours. As an added bonus, the partial rangeblock has been extended. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a bunch. Heiro 02:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Florida army accusations on Jimbo Wales Talk

    I know Jimbo's page is a bit of free for all by his own choice, but I do not appreciate being accused of White Supermacy for declining a draft that was resubmitted without attempting improvement.

    Special:Diff/1132419847 - accusation of white supremacy Special:Diff/1132439834 - clarification that it was merely 'propping up white supremacy'.

    Accusations of racism or any -ism are not the way to get content published. Slywriter (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I wish you'd talked this out with him longer first, Sly. He's working in an area where documentation was often suppressed or obliterated, and his frustrations are understandable. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I am quite tolerant of editors blowing off steam, but accusing other editors of racism is over the line. His frustrations with sources or lack thereof are not an excuse to accuse others in 2023 of engaging in the same. Slywriter (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also to the extent content is relevant, sourcing was not the issue. The low effort to summarize those sources and leave editors guessing on notability caused the decline. So, obliterated sources were not relevant here. Slywriter (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FloridaArmy has been fighting (non-disruptively to this point) for more coverage of 18th/19th/early 20th century African American people and related entities (like towns and schools), but most of his interactions to discuss this are at Jimmy's talk page, and rarely elsewhere. Due to attitudes they have taken before (trying to make lots of stubby articles that likely fail notability), FA is under a restriction to go through AFC, which as one can see at the present discussion on Jimmy's page, is sorta a double whammy due to AFC's typical approach alongside how FA tends to write. Now, while they have been bitter about this, this most recent discussion is the first I really have seen them calling out flat out racism on WP's part (though that could be read between the lines before). So while I do agree this is blowing off steam, this is part of a cycle we've seen with FA and that while they are trying to work improve WP in this topic area (an important one) they don't seem to be taking advice as to avoid AFC rejection problems. Masem (t) 04:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate FA's research and flagging articles that may benefit from other editors' input, and I have acted on their prompts on several occasions and, IMO, we've improved the project. They especially leave record of potential sources that could be used. We do have representation/bias issues that are an issue, and AfC is backlogged. That said, the state FA leaves stubs in sometimes leaves a lot of work for subsequent editors and reviewers, so there's probably improvement that could happen somewhere. A ban is not the solution and wholly oppose that or any further restriction. Star Mississippi 05:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I missing the part where you're mentioned in that comment? Is that because the Waters article was used as an example and you're the one that rejected it? Because FloridaArmy's general comment about a blatant racist bias in what articles are approved or supported on Wikipedia is 100% correct. As for Waters Edward Turpin, this source, which was cited in the article at the time of AfC submission, should have been all that was needed to meet the requirements of AfC. It would not fail at AfD with that source alone, not to mention this one as well in the draft at the time. So, at least on the merits of that specific draft being used as an example by FloridaArmy, you absolutely failed at your due diligence as an AfC reviewer. SilverserenC 04:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As being discussed at Jimmy's page, there are a whole, independent set of problems with the current state of AFC, where quantity has to excel over quality to deal with backlogs, and AFC reviewers simply don't have the perceived time to properly review sources, which directly affects FA but is not limited to just FA. That's a wholly separate discussion being had at Jimmy's page right now. Masem (t) 05:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Community ban This behavior at Jimmy's talk page is typical of FloridaArmy. FloridaArmy is already under restriction, and yet, complains that those of us giving our time to editing are biased. This is unfair and I think, unreasonable. FloridaArmy is a burden for AfC volunteers and a net-negative for Wikipedia. I support a community ban. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I've seen, many of those "giving their time" at AfC are incredibly bad at judging notability and I'm not surprised that FloridaArmy would get fed up with many of their articles getting rejected when they shouldn't have been. Waters Edward Turpin as I discussed above being just one example. Another example I was involved in being against a new user for Mahnaz Malik, where this version was rejected despite having a large number of references in the draft directly about the subject. Oh, but they aren't template formatted, so I guess that's a failing requirement at AfC. SilverserenC 05:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the ban proposal. FloridaArmy is a net positive to the encyclopedia. Either ignore their hostile posts to User talk:Jimbo Wales, or partially block them from User talk:Jimbo Wales. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose community ban FloridaArmy has contributed a massive amount of useful content to this encyclopedia. Yes, they take an inclusionist stance regarding African-American topics and are sometimes wrong. But they are writing a lot of drafts that do get accepted to the encyclopedia, and Jimbo has welcomed their venting about institutional racism on his talk page. I think that the editor may sometimes engage in rhetorical excess, but it is also true that we need to do a much better job of dealing with systemic bias. We can do that without banning a dissident who sometimes complains on Jimbotalk, but also inspires us to refocus on a genuine problem. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose further sanctions I agree with Cullen328. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1071#User:FloridaArmy and accusations of racism and white supremacy, with the exact same issues. Rather surprisingly (to me), then and now most editors here don't seem to have an issue with an editor claiming again, and again, and again, that their drafts get rejected because of racism and white supremacy, even though all their drafts get about the same rejection rate, no matter the subject: this is caused by their usually terrible articles, and some too critical AfC reviewers. See e.g. Draft:Sandfield Cemetery, which mixes information about two different cemeteries (same name, different state). An accepted article like Richard Falkner (politician) has three sentences, which just state the very same thing again and again. Draft:Willis Robards is rejected despite not being about an African American subject. Draft:Jack Clifford (actor) has been rejected 5 times, by four reviewers, over the course of two years. It isn't about an African-American subject though. Perhaps FloridaArmy should stop ranting and flinging about wild accusations, and simply improve their work? Fram (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban. An editor continually implying their fellow editors are racist without very strong evidence is not a net positive period. Systemic bias is a real thing that is significantly affecting Wikipedia in a negative way and so something we need to find ways to counter but accusing everyone and sundry is not one if the ways. It is actually extremely harmful to attempts to counter systemic bias since it understandably pisses nearly everyone affected off and is unlikely to make them consider ways they can reduce systemic bias. All that offensive posts like FA ones do is inspire editors to hate everything they stand for and dislike the parts of the community that allows such offensive comments to stand even when we know we shouldn't and that some of their goals and our fellow editors who tolerate such nonsense do good work. So they do not inspire us to do better in any way whatsoever, nor cause us to focus on anything positive for the community except the possibility of sanctions for the offender FA which while it is a positive is still a silly waste of time when FA could just stop us needing to focus on sanctioning them. Note that it perfectly possible to be inclusionist for any topic without accusing other editors of racism without evidence. It is also possible to get extremely frustrated and to let the frustration show in somewhat acceptable ways without accusing others of racism. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Failing a cban, I would encourage anyone who feels they have been or might be falsely accused of racism or otherwise have to put up with too much nonsense to simply ignore any AfCs from FA if that's the only solution. If that results in FA's AfCs languishing I see no harm in that. A back log is less important than editor well being and we can find ways to avoid FA's AfCs overwhelming queues etc if need be. FA would still be free to improve existing articles instead if they find they've defacto banned themselves from article creation. I would strongly oppose any attempts to lift their AfC requirement simply because they alienated all reviewers. Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No community ban (yet), but I think FA should simply be informed that admins will block him for increasing periods every time he insinuates that other editors are being racist or displaying white supremacism, even if that incivility is not aimed at specific editors, but groups of them. I asked FA to redact the diff that the OP has (quite justifiably) complained about - of course they have not done that, and even continued to throw even stronger aspersions about. Regardless of any perceived unfairness, this is not acceptable, and it needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Why does FloridaArmy always get a free pass?

    • Starting a little subsection because while I don't think a community ban is necessarily warranted at this time, I'm growing tired of the "if you're countering systemic bias you are allowed to be a jerk" attitude which Florida Army thinks accommodates them and its worthy of some discussion. At this point this is serial WP:IDHT behavior. FA should know that the reason they were forced to create limited things through draft space is because their drive-by new stubs sucked from a quality standpoint (to the degree that GNG and other notability criteria are not easily established by a reviewer) and many of them are rejected today because they still suck. It is not because these are about black or African-American topics. I know this, you probably know this, why can't FA acknowledge this? Why does FA have all this time to accuse other people about racism but can't take another 10 minutes while building an article to add a cohesive paragraph, remove unrelated trivial fluff (like this guy served in a legislature which had black members or this secondary school had a sports coach who quit after his team didn't do so well, how are these at all relevant to the main subject?), fill in citations fully, remove basic spelling and grammatical errors, and not use primary and unreliable sources to push POV? Why are we okay with FA editing like a noob editor after having been a part of the project for years? How about a topic ban from Jimbo's talk page for a start like Robert suggested above. Ranting there clearly isn't helping FA focus on improving their work, and they are wasting the community's time, as evidenced by the fact that this is not the first discussion about this issue. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As I replied above, this is legitimately the first time that possible disruption from their editing due to bad faith, etc. has actually come up, and we're trying to back them off that ledge. Everything before has been voiced but maybe not the most articulate means to express their concern about this topic area (fair), and how they can get artilces into the system (which points out the AFC issues). None of that, short of requiring them to use AFC for article creation, is disruptive to the point of a full block or ban. Nor are they the type of editor (working in a particularly weak section of our topic coverage) that we'd want to lose. Masem (t) 13:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • And as I replied above, this is false, I raised the exact same issue at ANI already in June 2021, and there indicated that they were blocked two times already, for a weeek in October 2020 for "accusing an editor of "slurring murdered victims of White supremacy and enforce punishments on those who point it out", after multiple warnings to stop accusing editors of stuff like that without clear evidence", and for 24 hours in May 2021 for "Accusations against other editors of racist behavior". After these two blocks they stopped naming individual editors and just made it appear as if it was a common, recurring issue with their AfC rejections, basically brushing everyone who rejects their articles with the same white suprematism brush: this was the essence of the June 2021 ANI section, and is the essence of the current section. Fram (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a cban from Jimbo's talk page. If Jimbo doesn't like it, tough. They're free to talk to FA on FA's talk page or use email or other means to stay in contact with FA. Note this is in addition to my support for a community site ban. I'd be happy with both passing since if FA comes back in the future perhaps the Jimbo ban will help ward them off their worst behaviour but I'm also unconvinced it's enough given the level of their problem. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not quite ready to take a stance on the particulars, but I would like some of the respected editors like Robert and Cullen328 above to point out to me where Wikipedia's civility rules are nullified as long as someone can wave a bloody flag and cry "But systemic bias!" Quite aside from the many editors who feel that Wikipedia policies and guidelines should no more be set aside to combat "systemic bias" than any other Great Wrong, we see a couple dozen editors a week at ANI (or RfC, or Arbcom matters) who claim that it's okay for them to edit war, or launch personal attacks, or make legal threats, or give the finger to notability guidelines, because, well, reasons. For the most part they get short shrift, and rightfully so. Ravenswing 11:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a ban from Jimbo's talk page. For better or for worse, WP:JIMBOTALK really is a kind of de facto community noticeboard, particularly in the way FloridaArmy is using it. I think we should treat this similarly to how we would if FloridaArmy was disrupting the village pump or whatever else by posting this stuff there: A ban from the problem area, and a stern warning that their behaviour (particularly regarding the racism/white supremacy accusations) needs to improve. I don't see a siteban being necessary yet for an editor who still can be productive. Also, I agree with Nil Einne that if Jimbo doesn't like people being banned from his talk page, sorry, but tough luck. Endwise (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    IP User Giving Death Threats

    IP user 63.155.99.66 has been attempting to post death threats against editors on their talk page. The user is already blocked, but they still have talk page access, could an administrator remove it? TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 13:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    TPA removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the IP is a sock of Aralia Fresia (talk · contribs) / Lara Nicole Daskivich (talk · contribs). It looks like she's been using IPs from the 63.155.* range for a couple of years (history of one of her target articles) – I don't suppose it would be possible to range block it? --bonadea contributions talk 13:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be 63.155.0.0/16. That's a pretty huge range, unless someone can narrow it down, it may be too big to be blocked without significant collateral damage. --Jayron32 13:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    CIR editor?

    Zahamey (talk · contribs) has a long history of warnings, particularly by User:Austronesier and User:Adakiko, mainly for adding unsourced material but also for edit-warring and copyvio. I've reverted some at History of Islam, one lost giving my edit summary as "Unsourced and readers won’t understand"the passage of sidi ouqba ibn nafi in the kawar'. They also seem to have an agenda which in part may explain this, see their statement "our history is being usurped and we have realized this is where the campaign against misinformation against us that we are leading by restoring the truth the purge was carried out on other sites but here you are preventing us from restoring the truth" on their talk page. I haven't reverted this large edit[100] which contains a lot of unsourced, some but not all proper names in lower case, and text such as "The sovereign za kosto" which I doubt many of our readers will understand. The first paragraph of this edit is sourced with sfn citation styles. I suspect all of this is copied from other sources but can't trace them. Translations perhaps.

    I considered blocking them myself but decided to bring it here instead. I'll go notify them now. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at his talk page and it seems evident that he's translating stuff from the French. With that in mind I checked the French wiki article on the Songhai Empire and he has also been editing there, where he seems to write more clearly but he still fails to capitalise some proper nouns. At the same time, I get the impression that he may be trying to add stuff from the oral tradiiton of his people, which is of course harder to source and not encyclopaedic (this doesn't mean it's worthless, but that this is just not the place for it and at best it would be a "primary" source). I'd say he's acting in good faith, but yes, it's a CIR issue. Ostalgia (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1132771459"