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 108.31.92.88 (talk) at 05:11, 16 February 2023 (→Nonsense at HQ (video game): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    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

    Disruptive editing by Hawkers994

    This user edit only biased claims without providing sources in the articles about Horn of Africa. As can be seen from this user's contriburions, they is a user whose sole purpose is to make edits in favor of Somaliland, not to add information, but to delete information they does not like, and to participate only in rewriting Somalia as Somaliland.

    Hawkers994's editing keeps the sources he likes (reliefweb.int/report/somalia/catching-human-rights-needs-sool-and-sanaag-after-four-years) and deletes the ones he doesn't like(reliefweb.int/report/somalia/detailed-site-assessment-dsa-sool-region-somalia-march-2022). (Both of these sources are what I sought out.) These are information from the reliefweb.int and should have the same reliability. I have explained this to Hawkers994 in Talk:Sool but they is not convinced.

    In Talk:Sool, Hawkers994 claims that Sool is Somaliland because it is effectively controlled by Somaliland; but about Badhan, Sanaag, they claims that since Badhan is not in the Sool, that principle does not apply. In short, in Hawkers994's mind, the conclusion that "xxx is Somaliland's territory" comes first, and they edits the article with his assertions and brings up rules that suit them. I explained this to them in Talk:Sool as well.

    Editing without sources for a particular point of view is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. Note that knowledge of Somaliland and Somalia is not required to consider this issue. The only issue is whether their are consistent with WP:VERIFY and WP:POV. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    With previous consensus[1] already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources [2] infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. WP:POV states opinions are not facts. Hawkers994 (talk)
    That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages [3] [4] and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against WP:POV As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.Hawkers994 (talk)

    As you can see from the Yagori revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. Tuulo Samakaab is a Sool's town near the Yagori, but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on Edna Adan Ismail and Laas Geel to the Japanese Wikipedia as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV.
    The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At Sool, this user writes "Disruptive editing, use article talk page for disagreement", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit.
    This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in Buraan, the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "Corrected info." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Wikipedia.
    Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two reliefweb.info sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own [5] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [6] somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.
    The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition by Hawkers994 on January 12, 2023:
    On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. [7]
    As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows:
    Somaliland's Minister of Interior Mohamed Kahin Ahmed sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.[1]
    I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Wikipedia? Freetrashbox (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    :No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that WP:POV is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region [8] with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hawkers994: Are you satisfied as to why I rewrote your description about the topic in January 2023? Or do you still think my rewrite is unfair?Freetrashbox (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the explanation has become lengthy and there are items added along the way, I will summarize them once and for all.

    • This user deleted the same reliefweb.info information, leaving only what he liked.[9] - WP:POV violation.
    • This user had a different editorial attitude between Sool, and Badhan, Sanaag & Buraan. - WP:POV violation.
    • This user says "use article talk page for disagreement" in Sool, but when the argument goes against him, he unilaterally ignores the argument and continues to edit. [10] - WP:NEGOTIATE violation.
    • Almost copy-paste post from a news site. [11] - WP:COPYVIO.

    --Freetrashbox (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As mentioned before user Freetrashbox ignores the sources in the mentioned article pages [12] and even deleting wording of sources that i have added in these articles [13] numerous times the sources make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet his disruptive editing ignores this and reverts all sources and edits to his opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you feel that there was a problem with my edit, it is no reason for you to violate Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This user's problematic behavior is still ongoing. This user replaced Somalia with Somaliland in El Afweyn. I also believe that El Afweyn is Somaliland territory, so I have no problem with that edit itself. However, the references cited at the beginning of this article all clearly state that El Afweyn is Somalia's area. If this is to be rewritten as Somaliland, it is common sense to at least provide a source that El Afweyn belongs to Somaliland. - WP:CS violation.

    This user got into an editing war with another user, and when another user committed a 3RR violation, he reverted it. The 3RR is a problematic action, but it is usually also a problematic action when the discussant reevrts it. And this Revert is also 3RR. - WP:3RR violation.

    In addition, this user writed a 3RR violation warning on the talk page of the user who first committed the 3RR violation. For the first user who violated the 3RR, it would be difficult to understand why it is allowed and not allowed for his own actions, even though his discussion partner also violated the 3RR. - WP:BITE violation.

    --Freetrashbox (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This user Freetrashbox has completely ignored all the sources in these articles and only goes by his opnions, his disruptive editing and completing ignoring WP:POV stating his opinions as facts. As the source clearly stated the town is in Somaliland [14] he deleted it and wrote somalia which has no presence in this while regionn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)
    @Hawkers994:The sources you indicated mention Yiroowe, but we have not discussed this town in the past. What does this source mean? Freetrashbox (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkers994: You don't seem to have responded, can I assume that you agree with my comments above? Freetrashbox (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [15] and previous discussions which you have ignored [16] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[17]


    you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [18] and previous discussions which you have ignored [19] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[20]
    you have ignored all sources and have chosen to only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in these regions [21] and previous discussions which you have ignored [22] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)
    @Hawkers994: Does your comment above mean that you do not intend to discuss this further? Freetrashbox (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ignoring sources and stating your personal opinions after several discussions you have chosen not to discuss but to enforce your own viewsHawkers994 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkers994, stop using WP:VANDALISM as an edit summary unless it's actual vandalism. As you can see from the link it has specific meaning here and the most recent two in your edit history, do not appear to meet it. Better to assume good faith when reverting and explain why. Slywriter (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Slywriter that user in multiple times removes information with no edit summary or for no other reason or discussion [24] [25] [26]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

    This user has removed the additions with sources by unrelated editors. I can understand his sentiment in deleting my description, but he should not delete the edits of an unrelated person. This implies that he is editing without much content review. Freetrashbox (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This user Freetrashbox has once again after many explanations and discussions keeps adding somalia with has no presence or authority in these regions in the info boxes [27] [28] [29] even though there is a specific dispute article which highlights this [30] he needs to understand that his opinions are not factsHawkers994 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Somaliland Minister of Interior and traditional elders held meeting over Las Anod tension". somaliland.com. 2023-01-11. Retrieved 2023-01-12.

    Breitbart Spam Blacklist

    Moved back from Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist
     – – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 20:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    History: On 25 September 2018 the closer of a Breitbart RfC Fish and karate said Breitbart News was deprecated and added "It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary."

    On 26 September 2018 the initiator of the RfC, JzG, added Breitbart News to XLinkBot.

    On 3 October 2018 a thread "Offensive edit summary" began (original heading was different), in which editors showed that new users were posting changes referring to Breitbart along with what were presumably bad words. Almost all the changes were effectively reverts of removals of Breitbart cites since 25 September 2018. zzuuzz explained "This is JarlaxleArtemis, hopping around on open proxies. A range block is not going to be effective."

    On 4 October 2018 JzG added Breitbart News to the spam blacklist with edit summary = "Adding \bbreitbart\.com\b per MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#breitbart.com. Using BlackList/ReverList Handler." -- actually I don't see that this measure was discussed on Spam-blacklist, but JzG perhaps was thinking of the WP:ANI thread, because JzG announced there "I have blacklisted breitbart.com for now, which should prevent further reverts." Others disagreed, or suggested an edit filter, or wondered how long it would last.

    On 5 October 2018 in response to an objection JzG wrote "This is on the blacklist to control massive spamming and disruption by JarlaxleArtemis socks."

    On 27 December 2022, The Blade of the Northern Lights wrote in a JarlaxleArtemis edit summary "He's not coming back soon ..." and confirmed on 5 February 2023 "Yes, in 2018 he was still active but as of now we have good reason to think he won't be anytime in the near future." but added "Still a good idea to have that on the blacklist though." I disagreed. I'm also involved in a dispute about use of a Breitbart cite on Breitbart News talk page thread Quotes and cites.

    Requests: (1) Remove Breitbart from the spam blacklist since the stated threat no longer exists. (2) Do not interpret this as about conduct of any of the users whom I have mentioned and pinged. I believe everyone except JarlaxleArtemis acted by the rules. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an admin but… I cannot think of a single reason an encyclopaedia would want, let alone need, to link to a poisonous den of liars like Breitbart. If any of the Nazis and Nazi enablers on that blog say anything that would be worthy of mention in an encyclopaedia, we should be quoting and linking to other sites that are quoting them. — Trey Maturin™ 20:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Followed here from the talk page. Generally speaking, if we directly quote someone/something, it seems like good practice to cite it directly, in addition to the sources which copy the quote. Breitbart should not be used as a source for anything but its own words, and its words carry no WP:WEIGHT on their own, but if there's consensus that a quote should be included via coverage in other sources, then yes. The same is true of, say, things written on someone's personal blog or social media. I just wonder how often it's actually necessary to use quotes from Breitbart at all, rather than paraphrase them. The case that led to this thread being opened is this line from the Breitbart News article:

    Breitbart News has published several articles accusing the English Wikipedia of having a left-wing and liberal bias, including headlines such as "Five of the best examples of left-wing bias on Wikipedia in 2017".

    In that case, the sample headline doesn't actually add anything to the article. "It has said wikipedia has a bias and has said 'wikipedia has a bias'", effectively. It should just be removed, and then no citation to Breitbart is necessary. If there are other quotes that actually add to the article, I don't think it's a problem to include a secondary cite to the original text, though. For those rare purposes, just use the whitelist. Not need to remove from the blacklist. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When Breitbart says Wikipedia has a bias, it is not worthy of note. All of the conservative media bubble says we have a bias, we are a leading source of reality-based information on climate change, evolutionary biology, COVID-19, and a host of other things that billionaire libertarians have paid for the GOP to reject, as articles of faith. It would be notable if a right-wing website said we don't have a bias. And for any claim by Breitbart to be considered objectively significant, we'd need a reliable independent third party source that evaluates its accuracy, because Breitbart does not care if what it publishes is true or not.
    I'd also note that the article you highlight above is by a banned troll, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has used the platform to continue his harassment of, and personal attacks on, Wikipedians - he proudly admits it at the foot. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be removed from the blacklist because you can't be bothered to request whitelisting the use of it? Which strongly implies there's not a good case for inclusion. Oppose strongly as the blacklist keeps well-meaning editors out of trouble and there is no good of the encyclopedia benefit to allowing bretbart to be linked in articles or talk discussions. Slywriter (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no good reason to allow links to Breitbart, and I am not aware of any good-faith attempt to use it as a source other than in a tiny handful of WP:ABOUTSELF instances. Any link added to an article as a source would obviously have to be removed, allowing people to use it on talk pages just encourages rabbit-holes of conspiracist nonsense, at least one banned troll editorialises there against individual Wikipedians, including use of real world identities that are not, as far as I know, all publicly declared. Nothing about that cesspit would add value to Wikipedia, all it would add (and all it ever added) is drama and additional work for people who care about sourcing standards. If it's removed from the blacklist it would need to go into an edit filter - and the blacklist is more efficient. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you dispute any of the history description? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, because that's not the correct way to handle individual uses of blacklisted sites. Instead, use the spam whitelist. That works. --Jayron32 19:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't get the response you wanted. That does not mean it "doesn't work," just that you didn't get what you wanted. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't make that request. And there was no response. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The request to allow breitbart.com links is apparently for the reason given in the OP at Talk:Breitbart News#Quotes and cites. The stated reason relies on generic procedures that would generally be appropriate but which do not apply in every case, and in particular, do not apply in this case. The reference is for an independent source (haaretz.com) and that is perfect in an article about an abusively unreliable subject. I do not see a reason to remove the quote which was picked by the independent source but it could be removed if there were an editorial reason to do so. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG removed the quote, but that thread isn't what this is about. The thread that matters is the WP:ANI one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no good reason to use Breitbart's own reporting on their (entirely justified) blacklisting by the Wikipedia. Other reliable sources independent of the subject are preferable. ValarianB (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, who are we blocking and for what reason? The entire discussion above seems to be about the spam blacklist, and whether or not something should be on it. This is not the purview of this noticeboard; it should more properly be discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Unless someone can tell me what they want an admin to do for them concisely, and not include a bunch of irrelevant information about managing the Spam blacklist, that'd be great. --Jayron32 16:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The history shows that it was here on WP:ANI that the matter was brought up, here on WP:ANI that the observation about JarlaxleArtemis was discussed, here on WP:ANI that a single administrator announced the blacklisting. And the concise request is: "(1) Remove Breitbart from the spam blacklist since the stated threat no longer exists." Since it's shown that an administrator can do it, it's appropriate here and now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. If you want to discuss it here, my opinion is that Breitbart News doesn't need to be removed from the black list. While the problems with JA were the proximate cause for it being added to the blacklist, several people above have cited good reasons why it should stay on the black list, and I am inclined to agree with them. If it does need to be linked to from within Wikipedia, several workarounds have been proposed, but otherwise, I can come up with no reasonable reason why to take it off the blacklist. It seems to not be causing any problems being there, and it is likely solving many by remaining there. --Jayron32 19:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not. Read the top of the page:
    This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
    This section is off-topic for ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're trying to cite something (that isn't about Breitbart itself), and you find that the only source you can find to support that edit is Breitbart, you might want to go back and consider carefully whether what you're adding is a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked in the "Offensive edit summary" WP:ANI thread "Could we switch it to being on XLinkBot's disallowed list?" which wasn't answered directly but I think there were technical obstacles. Nobody said there were technical obstacles for an edit filter, maybe I should have proposed that as an alternative to my remove-from-blacklist request, but too late now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep on blacklist - Breitbart is not now, never has been, and never will be a reliable source, and there is no justifiable reason to link to it. If a link is needed, a third part source should be more than sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I second everything you said. I fail to see any reason to remove a website from the blacklist that is inherently only going to be used to cause chaos and start fights. If the information can be sourced on a reliable source, then it should be done that way. If it can't, then any information to be found on Breitbart is guaranteed to be false. Rhayailaina (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question If I understand the issue correctly, Brietbart has been put on a spam list. Is Brietbart a source of spam? If no why is it on the list? Brietbart is deprecated and that isn't likely to change. Are we saying that deprecation isn't sufficient to deal with Brietbart references? We shouldn't, as a matter of consistency if nothing else, apply remedies meant for one issue (spam) to a source that is problematic for totally different issues (very low quality reporting). Springee (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Reading what the spam blacklist's purpose is would answer that question. The blacklist isn't just for bot promo spam but as a way to auto-block any attempted edit to add info originating from that site. Rhayailaina (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn't that already the case when someone uses a deprecated source? Do we have issues with people adding Breitbart (or any other deprecated source)? Springee (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Some deprecated sources are blacklisted, some are auto-revert by Xlinkbot, and some just trip and edit filter. See the handy table at WP:DEPSOURCES. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't really explain why it was blacklisted. Again, is there an actual problem this is solving? Springee (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I was responding to "Isn't that already the case when someone uses a deprecated source?" No, since not all deprecated sources are on the blacklist. Technically it also answers your second question "Do we have issues with people adding Breitbart (or any other deprecated source)?" No, since the source is blacklisted, and no one can add it unless they request an exception. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Springee: Breitbart links were constantly spammed on articles by someone named JarlaxleArtemis. See: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2018#breitbart.com (removal request). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 13:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Springee: You have two, mostly unrelated, questions there. The answer to your first, why it was blacklisted, is that it was put there to stop disruptive spamming by a long-time troll known as JaraxleArtemis. The second question, which is the actual problem it is solving, is that being on the blacklists stops people from using Breitbart as a source or a link in Wikipedia articles.--Jayron32 13:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion

    88.230.104.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked a few hours ago for DE. They have switched to 5.176.188.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and are continuing to spam See also links. See contributions.  // Timothy :: talk  12:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Blocked for evasion per WP:DUCK. --Jayron32 13:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The block on 88.230.104.114 has expired, and they continued the same editing pattern that they were blocked for.  // Timothy :: talk  22:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for two weeks this time. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked that one.-- Ponyobons mots 01:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The block on 5.176.185.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has expired and they are continuing the edits from that IP.  // Timothy :: talk  18:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    5.176.176.0/20 blocked 1 week.-- Ponyobons mots 19:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another 176.30.232.114  // Timothy :: talk  00:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 176.30.224.0/20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for one week as well. Also rolled back everything from that range. --Jayron32 15:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    176.220.98.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing.  // Timothy :: talk  01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And now, Special:Contributions/94.235.120.86. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked the two above IPs for 2 weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    New spam ip 176.220.192.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)  // Timothy :: talk  13:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    RESOLVED
    Indeffed by Cullen328, rev-delling all done by Cullen328 and Deepfriedokra. Tails Wx 01:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



    This editor is adding a link to a phishing site on the Meridian Energy article and the Te Uku Wind Farm pages. As their only edits consist of adding links to phishing sites targeting people trying to find the Meridian Energy website, I believe they are WP:NOTHERE and that an indefinite block is appropriate.

    Relevant diffs are here: [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. Note that this list of diffs consists of the entirety of their edits. Michael60634 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a stale report, but then again, it is a serious issue. I'm not against an indef for the user purely based on the phishing websites, and this might need revdel in addition to that. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't argue it's a stale report. They seem to be editing on and off since late October, and their last edit was a few days ago. I wouldn't have reported their behaviour here if this was just a one off incident that had a low chance of happening again. I do agree that a revdel might be necessary. Michael60634 (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked Neal Barclay. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Would the edits be revdel-able? After all, it is phishing... LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of this users edits have still not been revdel'd. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 Can you revdel the rest of the edits? Michael60634 (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further investigation, it's not only phishing, but a scam. The creator of the phishing website tries to get Meridian customers to go to an "investment" page on the website that links to various "investment" tiers. And that page then links to a phishing account on Telegram. With that said, I've reported the website to Meridian and the Telegram account to Telegram. Although I don't have faith that Telegram will do anything. Michael60634 (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I revdel'd all the phishing. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, looks like you got everything. Michael60634 (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Userbala

    Userbala blocked from page 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake for a week. Tails Wx 01:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User keeps making unsourced updates to 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake. I dropped a message on their talk page requesting them to provide new sources when updating the death toll which they still are not following. User isn't willing to discuss with me either. This was the most recent edit. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked them from that article for a week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:HabibKhosti's tendentious editing

    On Torkham article an IP editor 39.41.6.68 probably the reported editor made contentious changes without explaination and usurped the article from a border crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan to a town in Afghanistan. [41] When he was reverted he started an edit war first as IP which was blocked and then with above account almost 6 times, 5 of them in just two days while 4 of them in last 24 hours with no regards to dispute resolution process or trying to build consensus for these contentious changes. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

    Not only that he even removed notice of Requested Move started by another editor [47] and second time even went on to move it bulldozing the discussion process. [48] And when I started the discussion on talkpage, he didn't even bother to come and explain and straight-away went on to revert again.

    He has repeated the same feat at Wesh-Chaman border crossing by moving the article twice without any discussion. [49] [50] While making contentious changes [51] [52] and edit warring. [53] [54]

    He's just pushing Afghan nationalist and irredentist POV and his behaviour clearly states that he's here with battleground mentality and not here to build encyclopedia. 37.111.137.135 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Banned edit-warrior (ShahabKhanJadoon1 (talk · contribs)) is behind the above IP (37.111.137.135). He's not allowed to edit any page or make any report, and if required I can list all his other names that haven't been blocked and tagged. As for me, I came to organize a few very messy pages which nobody oppose except this one-and-only banned edit-warrior based in the Islamabad, Pakistan, area who is network-switching [55] and creating multiple user names to evade his ban. I know all this simply by reviewing history of pages. It's the same exact character and thinker. He generally hates Indians, Afghans and Persians.--HabibKhosti (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I use Wikipedia simply via my mobile network's shared IP addresses and because my operator is based in Islamabad so its IPs are assigned that location. I have no knowledge about the editor you're linking me with, you have did this with other editors too previously for which you have no proof and just because they are reverting your tendentious editing in Af-Pak area on Wikipedia. [56] [57] [58]
    The same IP and account of yours is involved in similar editing on Torkham, Pakistan. [59] So this is clearly a pattern that you first make IP edits and then come from account to back them. You're currently evading your IP block too which has been blocked for edit-warring. 37.111.128.42 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not you? What about this? [60] Bro, the entire world knows that you're abusing Wikipedia by making countless spare user names and using them to edit Pakistan pages. Your character and specific thinking gives you away. 99.9999% Islambad people think and act very different than you do. It's all about the way you behave and write. Are you one of those deported Pakistanis from America?--HabibKhosti (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And your assumption about me is totally wrong. I don't revert others, just fix a page and go, but when you were spotted I had to expose your misbehaving. If you're not banned why don't you use one of your many spare names? An intelligent person like you shouldn't be doing these things.--HabibKhosti (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every banned editor on Wikipedia from Shahab to Siddiqi and Ali banu sistani is me, happy? No proofs, nothing in rebuttal, just casting aspersions and being sockphobic. That's not how you defend yourself. I have presented the case with all the diffs about your WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Admins will better decide over it, I have no time to pay heed to your histrionics. 37.111.128.166 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Siddiqui. [61] Don't these banned names write 99.99% like him? [62], [63], [64] And contrary to how he behaves, Islamabad people in general are humble and very respectful to others. Another give away is his unique fondness for Turkey (and anything Turkic). He's known for being arrogant and making frivolous statements. What's wrong with changing an article's name twice? The first was based on Afghan news reports and the second based on alphabetical order (C comes before S). Why would someone find this contentious or requiring a discussion? About using my Wiki name, didn't he write this to the other IP: "Instead of allegions and article hijacking why doesn't you login with your account and come here...." [65] Admins, notice how an educated person like him wrote "allegions" and "doesn't" there. This demonstrates that it was error for the admin to block the IP that reverted a banned editor. Admins, the entire educated world knows that Pakistan was historically India and Afghanistan. I think he wants to propose that we stop mentioning this in Wikipedia, and that we stop accusing him of being a banned editor.--HabibKhosti (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a shred of evidence presented here that can relate me to those accounts in anyway. I have started IP editing on Wikipedia barely a year or two and I'm being linked to Wikipedians as old as 17 years while interestingly you are only 3 months old account knowing so many old Wikipedians which means you yourself could be someone's sock.
    • First of all you are in an open block evasion of the IP 39.41.6.68 as you're defending it.
    • Secondly my IP range is different from the one you are linking me with and there's a clear difference in our prose. I have given the reason for my IP ranges location, interestingly that IP of yours involved in nationalistic editing is also based in Rawalpindi, Pakistan but I haven't called you refugee because that's least of Wikipedia's concern.
    • Thirdly even after this report you're continuing with your tendentious editing by removing sourced content from article. [66]
    • Fourthly renaming of Wesh-Chaman border crossing was reverted by User:AafiOnMobile (Torkham renaming was reverted by User:Paine Ellsworth who gave fair justification for their undo.
    All these points further adds to the case against you and your mention of Pakistan as Afghanistan and India further tells about your nationalist and irredentist mindset against Pakistan. I will wait for admins to assess this report. 37.111.189.27 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any person who taps on "View history" sees who did edits. I have children and even they do that sometimes. It's the year 2023 if you didn't know. When one taps on editor's name it is blocked and/or banned. I did it and quickly learned they [67] [68] [69] [70] had your characteristic. [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] What if 39.41.6.68 is another person? And honestly, I had no idea it was blocked until you said it here. What's "nationalistic editing"? Fake news from 2007 about Pakistan building rail line in Afghanistan has no place in Wikipedia and I gave my reason. [76] Discuss that there, not here. You easily give yourself away. You writing under IP here is basically admission that you're banned. More importantly, you writing comments like a person who grew up in America, acting arrogant, and giving a poor country like Pakistan the image of a rich developed country in Wikipedia simply makes you a one of a kind. No other editor based in Pakistan does that.--HabibKhosti (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this has devolved into aspersions. HabibKhosti, if you believe this person to be a sock, present evidence at WP:SPI. If you continue to make such accusations without doing so, that can also be considered a personal attack which will get you sanctioned.
    I am not weighing in on the editing dispute, just informing folks that they need to drop the stick and actually support their accusations or withdraw them. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't directly accused him of anything, my concern here is his editing behaviour and I have presented proofs of it on which admins need to weigh in because he's only up on edit-war if I'm going to revert the article to its stable form since there's no consensus building effort from him. 37.111.134.208 (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hand That Feeds You, the sock accusation was central to HabibKhosti's quick defense here. And in exceptional circumstances WP:SPI can be bypassed because the filing and result takes a long time. Regarding consensus, see Talk:Torkham#Requested_move_10_February_2023 (1 support and 2 opposes).--HabibKhosti (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This section has been so overwhelmed by the protagonists as to make it very difficult for any independent editor to see if there is any behavioral problem here. Both of you, please shut the fuck up unless you both want to be blocked. You have made your points several times over. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    148.252.68.112

    148.252.68.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - static IP, lots of good edits but also a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, which they have been blocked for before, and which they continue to do. A nightmare to clean up after. Help/thoughts welcome. GiantSnowman 19:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I partial blocked from article space for one month and instructed user to discuss these concerns here. Any admin should feel free to remove or adjust the block as they see fit. Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wes sideman

    Wes sideman given words of advice. No formal action necessary at this point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Over the last few weeks User:Wes sideman has repeatedly accused me of either lying[77],[78],making changes cause of alleged bias, sometimes before a discussion had even begun,[79], [80], [81], or personal attacks/condescension [82], [83],[84]. They have also accused me of WP:SYNTHESIS [85], or WP:COATRACK [86]. When I responded to explain my view, they would ignore it and repeat the claim later. I asked repeatedly for them not to make assumptions about our disagreement, accuse me of lying, or to be civil. I posted a message asking this on their talk page and it was deleted with no response. [87](UTC)01:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)--3Kingdoms (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Wes sideman is not the most gracious of editors here on Wikipedia. I've experienced some of the same kind of treatment from him, but I tend to shake it off. I'm surprised, however, that 3Kingdoms didn't mention the most annoying (from my perspective) thing he's done in his interactions with 3Kingdoms. More or less immediately after removing an edit by 3Kingdoms on The Helms Amendment which contained a quote from former Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, sideman went to Fortenberry's bio and changed the opening sentence to begin "Jeff Fortenberry is a convicted felon..." He just couldn't wait for the reader to have to slog through the first two sentences to get to that information (Fortenberry lied about $30,000 in campaign contributions and resigned from the House). Fortunately, someone other than 3Kingdoms or I reverted his edit with a solid explanation and sideways only offered a token objection. Goodtablemanners (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wes response pretty much sums it up. I at no point worked with GTM on this message, Wes assumes so because they seem convinced that I have no reason to takes issue with their behavior or disagrees with their claims. So not only are they wrong here, but this is not the first time they made such a mistake. In their message on Blue Lives Matters they said I have no edit summaries when in fact I did. In the Shaun King article they claimed King was only mentioned in one sentence. When I corrected them they ignored it. They have not said sorry for the mistakes, which I had for mine. By Wes’s own logic I should suspect them of lying because these mistakes are so “numerous”. I don’t think they are lying just made a mistake happens to everyone. I’m not going to get into the merits of the discussion, but Wes bringing up RFC is odd. They insist that me or GTM do so because we’re so “clearly” in the wrong and they want other editors to point how “wrong” or “insane” our edits are. Even though they brought it up they insist they don’t have to do it because they are so right. Now given that me and I think GTM feel pretty comfortable about our edits again by their own logic we should not have to. Finally their second response, to me, comes across has dismissive of the complaint about behavior which as others have said leaves much to be desired.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms (talk • contribs)
    Sure. You have two editors here, working in concert, who have edit histories that are nearly entirely made up of edits removing things that they perceive to be negative about right-leaning and right-wing topics/people, and they don't like that the late Jesse Helms is described as a "strident anti-abortionist" on the Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, offering various moving goalposts on why they don't want the adjective, or the noun, preceding his name, despite the sourcing. I suggested an RfC to poll a wider community about their opinion on that phrase, but as you can see, they've decided to not do that, instead reporting me at ANI. I I don't know whether the 3 times they were incorrect in assertions they published at the talk page were deliberate lies, mistakes, or a combination, but the fact that it's been done 3 times makes me wonder how someone could get so many things wrong in a talk page discussion without it being deliberate. Again, they offered no valid policy-based arguments for removal, and when I suggested an RfC multiple times, they have, for some reason, chosen to not do that. Wes sideman (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wes sideman, I haven't read through all of the diffs presented by the OP, or the discussion at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, but this edit by you does look like a BLP violation. Even though the assertion you added is technically true, it is not appropriate for the first sentence of the lead because it is not the primary reason for the person's notability (MOS:FIRSTBIO). The article dealt with the issue of the conviction perfectly adequately before you added that - I'd like to see a commitment from you to be more careful with how you edit BLPs in future. Girth Summit (blether) 12:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. And to be more civil in discussions, especially on controversial topics. Accusing people of lying and other misconduct isn't helpful to achieving a resolution. And making an edit like that in the midst of a discussion could easily be taken for disrupting a Wikipedia to make a point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all good advice. I would like to point out that the Fortenberry first-line discussion was completed on Larry Hockett's talk page amicably and without drama. It didn't involve the aforementioned two editors above at all, but they felt the need to highlight it in this ANI posting. I still don't feel they've offered any policy-based rationale for changing the Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act text, and they haven't asked anyone else for an opinion, instead choosing to attack me here. Wes sideman (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You people have been warned for months about this guy, how much longer are you going to allow his chronic bad behavior? He violates WP:TENDENTIOUS literally every day. It was a bad idea granting him pending change reviewer. @Deepfriedokra: 76.108.74.209 (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying it loudly and repeatedly doesn't make it so. Just as Wes sideman is being admonished for accusing others of misconduct without evidence, so you must present evidence if you want your claims to be taken seriously. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Block evading IP comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    here ya go:
    • @Ws sideman: You need to stop now. When you point a finger at another, you point four at yourself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ws sideman: IP editor, it looks like the beginning of an edit war. It is time to open a discussion on the talk page of the article rather than to continue the edit war.. Constant314 (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra&diff=next&oldid=1120943837
      fyi he has disrupted alot more since my small issue - he violates WP:TENDENTIOUS every day, it's a pattern. amazing how even admins that had problems with him are protecting him now.. unreal.
      Result: User:Ws sideman is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. They have added "Honor and brotherly love' as the fraternity's motto seven times since mid-January. Others have reverted their change, saying that such a wording for the motto is unsourced and is not to be found in Baird's Manual. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1127118280#Quick_AE_question
    73.46.238.152 (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should file an ANI report? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: It is not a contest and pointing out the flaws of others is not a remedy for your own conduct issues. Wait tick-- you are admitting to block evasion. OK. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    well someone needs to be a whistleblower - this isn't about me. unfortunately due to the unfair and complicated system in which wikipedia operates, this is the only way I know of, unless you can help..  All I was trying to do was correct an obvious wrong, and 2 experienced editors agree. Wesley never gained consensus, and now I'm finding out this is a disturbing pattern in his edits going back to 2020.
    He has been reprimanded by multiple admins in the past 3 years but nobody is putting it together. He gives a quick apology, then moves on to his next victim.
    tendentious example 1 from 2021: Ws sideman, I have once again reverted your attempts to add these allegations. You have already been informed that TMZ is not an acceptable WP:RS for salacious allegations of criminal activity. Your "I didn't hear that" attempt to re-add this is verging on tendentious editing. Please do not attempt to add anything to this section again. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eggishorn Is cheatsheet.com a reliable source? Ws sideman (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply][reply]
    NO. How do I make this clear? You have demonstrated that you are determined to insert information that multiple experienced editors, including an administrator, have told you is not allowed by policy. You should not be trying to find an acceptable source for this information to justify its inclusion. You should be leaving the article alone for the time being. Pursuing this course of action is likely to end in frustration or worse. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive323#Chad_Johnson_(television_personality)
    tendentious example 2 from may 2022:
    Per what I've posted here: scroll down one after this link  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive452#User:Moxy_reported_by_User:Wisefroggy_(Result:_Not_blocked;_talk_page_discussion_recommended) This user has been extremely toxic and engaging in an ongoing edit war since the end of 2020 with another user. He has refused to gain consensus on the talk page of the article in question: Talk:Execution of Nathaniel Woods. I tried to seek a middle ground between both users and he resorted to continuing to revert the article as well as modifying other articles that I used as examples to suit his argument, as seen here: [153] and here: [154].
    Why he is making such a big deal over the word "drug" and "crack" is beyond me. I was merely trying to gain WP:Consensus which he refused to participate in and merely changed the article wording again, as he has done since end of 2020, to suit his agenda. I listed examples in the edit warring report I made that shows he has been engaging in a long term edit war since the end of 2020 with TheXuitts. Inexpiable (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply][reply]
    More examples of his ongoing edit war, and this is with another user, not myself:  Original revision: [155]. First time Wesley changed it: [156].
    More examples of him reverting it here over the past few years and months: [157], [158] [159], [160]. The examples are from end of 2020, 2021, March 2022, and yesterday. Inexpiable (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply][reply]
    exhibit 3:  @CycloneYoris, @Ws sideman Greetings. I approved the IP as a pending change reviewer. As I understand my roll, it is to stop vandalism, obvious edit warring, and other obvious non-constructive editing. The edit did not appear to me to be any of those, so I approved it. When it came up again, I felt like the IP editor had a point that it was better to mention the specific single felony conviction rather than the vague "convicted felon".  When you hover over a blue-link, pretty much all you get is the intro. I think it better serves the reader to be specific in the intro in this case. I don't plan to be otherwise involved. I hope you will consider my opinion. Constant314 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    exhibit 4: This being said, as far as the lead sentence, it seems pretty clear to me that it should mention that he is a swimmer first, then that he committed a crime. SecretName101 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    exhibit 5: Noting that it looks like Defeedme was restoring status quo ante. Ws sideman needs to justify the proposed changes. Both need to stop and take it to WP:BLPN or WP:DRN -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a minor edit to the lead, correcting ERRORS and order of importance in his life. which is more in line with other Olympic Gold Medalists. Not sure why this is such a big issue for this person ws sideman.. Klete Kellers swimming career and medalling in 3 World Olympic Games far outweighs the Jan 6 local disruption, this is a fact, not opinion. Defeedme (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    personal attack 1: @Ws sideman: I have no opinion on the merits of your accusation, but if you believe you have sufficient evidence, you should reopen Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DrAcHeNWiNgZz (Inexpiable's previous username). Otherwise, you need to cease accusing Inexpiable of socking because it constitutes a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    personal attack 2:  By the way, Ws sideman - please don't ask people to reveal their identity, even if they are blocked. I recognise that you qualified it with 'you don't have to answer', but generally speaking, just don't do it. Even if they said they were a particular person, we can't establish the veracity of any such claim here. If it needs to be established (which is not necessary here), that's done through WP:VRT. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 20:16, 1 February 2023
    personal attack 3: I respect SecretName101's take on the lead sentence because they did a lot of work on the article. I disagree with that take, but no need to rehash that here. I think the situation with Defeedme has been resolved and I look at that as a positive. Ws sideman (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2022
    personal attack 4:  The best part of this is that, through all the sockpuppet and IP edits, you've increased the number of people watching the Klete Keller page to over 40 - ensuring that, even if I quit editing tomorrow, your POV edits to the lead will never, ever survive the added scrutiny that you've drawn to yourself. Thank you for that. It's a good feeling. Ws sideman
    and there's more..  all of the above shows a determined pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior that hasn't stopped - and he's doing it in such a devious way that somehow all the admins can't see, even the ones that had issues with him in the past. I don't know exactly why he's being "protected" but I have my own opinions on that. thanks for your attention to this matter.
    76.108.74.209 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and there's alot more! 76.108.74.209 (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1127118124#Wes_Sideman_Abuse_of_Power 76.108.74.209 (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1127118280#User:Wes_sideman 76.108.74.209 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just going to note that this IP is likely block evading, see this IP. Tails Wx 13:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is most definitely Defeedme. Wes sideman (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    why are you protecting him? 76.108.74.209 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At least they brought it to ANI instead of my talk page. Clearly this is someone evading a block with a grudge of some sort. Maybe part of orchestrated off-Wiki campaign. No idea, really. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page deletion

    hi there – – I apologize for my experience with communicating on Wikipedia, however each time I ask a question, I don’t seem to be able to find any response, and only see a speedy deletion of the page created. A few years ago a page that has been up for almost a decade was removed. The kind administrators said that it was because there were not enough books with ISBN in support of the artist in question. Now several years later The artist in question has many books to their name, they host a radio show on KPFK Los Angeles, and they have won many international prizes. They are well-established now and I think that they deserve a Wikipedia page. However, when I put up a brand new page for them yesterday, it was nominated for speedy deletion and cited that it was a persons page had been deleted before and that the contact was copied from the page that has been deleted. This is not true, and the page was completely brand new, with all new references. Could someone please tell me what to do in this case, when a person perhaps was not notable before, but has become quite notable, but because their name page was deleted once they’re being immediately nominated for speedy deletion again. The artist in question is Linda Ravenswood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuitsally (talk • contribs)

    You can create Draft:Linda Ravenswood and put it up for review. Fram (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping to @Jimfbleak, who did the last deletion per [88]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for ping. Jesuitsally when an article is deleted, and you don't understand why, it's usual to approach the deleting admin. If you wish, I'll post advice on your talk page, but you will presumably want to finish here first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Email received from User:Longestnovelforlife

    Email access revoked for the sock and sockmaster. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I have received the following email from the indef-blocked sockpuppet User:Longestnovelforlife:

    The reason that I am contacting it is that Marcel Ray Duriez has had an investigation opened on him as a writer on Wikipedia, we do not like this, Marcel Duriez has an academic background and has published my novels, saying that his project is unknottable unacceptable; also having editors slamming Duriez for being an author is wrong, were they have stated that the entire series of my novels it was garbage or words like that, by editors of Wikipedia since you are one of the top editors on Wikipedia.

    I will give you the information for yourself- to mend this and make the page that others were not able to do using my name and mudding it, I would like to have this investigation closed, I would like a page made about Duriez and his novels and music.

    We would like to have my article placed on Wikipedia, for life, as it should be because it is notable when you have books in most extended literature like the Worm that have listed fewer cited links than Duriez, that have less credibility than my book titled "Nevaeh Saga."

    Duriez never intended to be a stunt writer or stunt Musician; Duriez has written works of literature, and musical competitions as an artist for 10 years of his life, not made copied and pasted fragments and 'nonsenses.' as was said in this report. saying:

    The 'sock drawing is back' used in place of his good name, is tasteless, and 'no nothing is also wrong, is deplorable use of words.'

    Writers of my documents have attached what is needed here within than what is needed to make an article on this site, Duriez team writers are asking for your help out in this, and I hope you will.

    Duriez is not trying to stunt his work for fame, yet it should be hoarded on Wikipedia.

    https://medium.com/@duriez19/the-history-of-marcel-ray-duriez-220b0fd74597
    https://marcel331869472.wordpress.com/2023/02/13/nevaeh-saga/
    http://duriez19.wix.com/marcelrayduriez
    https://marcelrayduriez.bandcamp.com/album/duriez

    I am posting this here as it is my general preference not to receive solicitations of this sort without the knowledge of the community. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Beeblebrox revoked my extended confirmed privilege and isn't giving it back after 2 years

    The boomerang has found its target Salvio giuliano 06:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Hi,

    User:Beeblebrox revoked my extended confirmed privilege 2 years ago for only welcoming users, which wasn't mentioned anywhere in the official Wikipedia documentation that didn't count, so it was very arbitrary for it to be removed in the first place. In addition since then, I have made at least more than 500 additional valuable edits that's not welcoming users. He still doesn't give me back my right. When I post on his talk page "Tell me explicitly what do I need to do to get extended confirmed, I will do it. " he just says "go away". I think his administrator privileges should be revoked, I don't think he, with such arbitrary actions deserves to be an admin in Wikipedia. Also if an another administrator has the right to can that admin give back my right since Beeblebrox is not giving it back.

    Link to recent interaction: User_talk:Beeblebrox#Give_me_extended_confirmed

    Uni3993 (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What you posted on their talkpage that elicited Beeblebrox's response started with "You are an important person, I respect your authority and cower in fear from it". Based on that, and the attempted misrepresentation of their reply here, I don't think anyone will be particularly inclined to think granting your account further user privileges will benefit the encyclopaedia. CMD (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look I wasn't trying to provoke a reaction I asked him earlier he wouldn't give me explanations as to how I would get back the privilege. Some people have narcissistic personality, one of the symptoms of such a personality disorder is to have as much authority (such as being an Wikipedia Administrator--not saying all wikipedia admins are narcissitic) as possible and his previous interactions made me to believe this person suffers from it. That's why I wrote that. Uni3993 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uni3993, you were warned not to attack other editors after you called Beeblebrox a "narcissist"; here, you are again calling him a narcissist. So why did you repeat that? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a disorder that some people suffer from it that's what I think he is suffering from. Which is completely fine with me, I never wanted to personally attack anyone. Uni3993 (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uni3993 You did not notify Beeblebrox of this discussion, I have done so for you. Yoshi24517 Chat Online 05:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought my mention would be enough for him to be notified. Uni3993 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uni3993 If you would have read the giant notice on the top of the page here, and while editing, it would have told you to go to his talk page and leave a notice. Either way, I have done it for you. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I respect your authority and cower in fear from it." sounds like trolling to me. No wonder you were told off. --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to troll Uni3993 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And beyond the other comments, look. You say that the official documentation didn't explicitly forbid gaming the system by only welcoming new users. Should it have to do so? We expect that editors are going to use common sense, and not only not need to be handed bright-line rules in order to act responsibly and avoid trolling, but not whine after the fact about the fast ones they try to pull not getting them what they want. (Never mind, good freaking grief, "some people have narcissistic personality?!" Do you genuinely think that crack is going to win friends and influence people?) Ravenswing 06:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think User:Beeblebrox was very lenient in only removing the extended confirmed.

    After reading this thread, then thread at User_talk:Beeblebrox#Give_me_extended_confirmed, then at the user's contribs both recent and their earliest, and also seeing what to me seems a lot of gaming the system by someone who appears to be wiki-literate from the start - I was close to doing an indef block per the above and WP:NOTHERE.

    To be clear, User:Uni3993, please consider this a warning - if you look down, there's a line in front of your toes. If you step over it, any uninvolved admin may block you at this point. I suggest that you consider your next steps carefully. - jc37 06:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I, on the other hand, will block the account in a moment, although I will only block for a month for trolling and making personal attacks (repeated personal attacks, despite being warned not to do so). Any admin is welcome to up my block to indefinite, if they think I was too lenient. Salvio giuliano 06:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Salvio giuliano I was just about to indef given the two previous blocks, a lack of quality edits, and this response, but a month is fine... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see Jc37 has indef blocked them. That is that then.... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well, Uni3993 was asking for a block very loudly, so it's no wonder many different admins decided to oblige... Salvio giuliano 06:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (several edit conflicts later...)
    I upped it to indef after seeing this posted right after the warning.
    I'm not a fan of blocking typically, but...
    Anyway, I'll go do the talk page notice about the block in a minute.
    And of course the typical note: Any admin is welcome to "take over blocking responsibilities" for any reason. Including unblock, presuming they accept that responsibility. - jc37 06:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding that Uni3993 also raised this at WP:RFP/EC and was turned down by user:Stwalkerster following a personal attacked aimed at User:Beeblebrox [89]. So, the admin who removed the permission declined to restore it. The permission was requested at RFP/EC and a different admin declined to grant it. And now we're at ANI? Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. 06:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nonsense at HQ (video game)

    HQ (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    AlmNack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    108.31.92.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    2600:4040:21D9:C700:29FA:6807:238E:C420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    So there has been at least two IPs and one registered editor has been attempting to add unreliable content about a player takeover of HQ (example revision here), sourced to Twitter and - you're not gonna believe me - screenshots. Could an admin check what's going on with this?

    Pinging @Adakiko since he's the one who brought this up to me. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just reverted an edit by 2600:4040:21D9:C700:29C4:3D04:A630:CE15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Screen shots that were uploaded minutes before the content and citation were added BTW. Adakiko (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, AlmNack took the screenshots of the conversation to provide as sources, as you both had said there was no sources. He was trying to provide sources to validate our claims. I was told in an edit that I had done that those sources were unreliable and very unreliable, so I removed them based on your request. I don't understand what type of sources you want us to use to validate our claims. This isn't a subject many people know about, as only 8 people were part of the takeover, so only 8 people would have access to seeing the whole conversation. In order to prove that, we'd have to use screenshots. That's why I don't see how you want us to provide proof. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See, having nothing is better than having something bad. In this case, if there are no reliable sources (say, a newspaper talking about it), don't bother putting it in. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying we need an article talking about the takeover? Not sure any of those were written. Would Reddit posts work? There were some Reddit posts talking about it. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSPS has all the answers on what to use and not use when it comes to sources. Spoiler alert: Reddit posts are in the "not" camp. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The takeover didn't get much fanfare from the media. There are plenty of stuff bout the documentary though. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's not much information out there to be used as a source that implies to me that this isn't a particularly notable incident, and so it might not be justified to be included. — Czello 09:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a person taking a control of a popular trivia game. That alone I think is fairly unusual, and noteworthy, as most apps would have measures to even prevent that from happening. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but then the question is why hasn't it been more adequately covered by reliable sources? Notability has to come from these sources, rather than us as editors deciding ourselves something is noteworthy. — Czello 09:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can attest to this. I indeed did take a screenshot of the message from "UntrustableRus" which read "HQ server now I own the HQ website !!!!". Said screenshot in question came from a direct conversation with him on the Discord application which can be viewed here https://ibb.co/cCKZmLq AlmNack (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlmNack Screenshots are not reliable sources. Now, tell the class, what is your association with those IPs? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this, school? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it is`now. Did you bring your math homework? U-Uh, I mean, are you connected with @AlmNack in any way? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated in a previously removed revision of the article, both of us were part of the team that was apart of the player takeover. Other than that, we're just friends. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be meatpuppetry, then. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're friends. We've meet on discord from our shared interest in HQ. We both enjoyed the hosts, and the game formats it's had. I don't really see what the problem is with having friends, it's pretty natural if you ask me. It's something that nearly everyone has weather they like their friends or not AlmNack (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The show Glitch: The Rise and Fall of HQ Trivia is scheduled for release March 5 on CNN and April 6 on HBO Max. Possibly what is behind the editing? Adakiko (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that is a part of it, as no info was provided about that previously in the article. Due to the fact that the documentary hasn't released yet though, the main reason was to tell readers how the player takever went down. If their is more to share after it's release though, then I'm sure we would wanna add to the article with that info as well though. At this point all we have is articles and a trailer talking about it. I can add some of that in if you want. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a place to break stories. If regular mainstream media haven't reported on a story, neither do we. Tweets, screenshots of Reddit conversations and the like - these are things that a journalist might use to write a story. Once they do that, and it gets published by a reliable source, we can then write something about it. We follow the sources, we don't anticipate them. If the edit warring continues, blocks will likely be forthcoming, and/or the page will be protected. Girth Summit (blether) 09:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thankfully, the edits have stopped, but with the supposed meatpuppetry going on (both of us were part of the team that was apart of the player takeover. Other than that, we're just friends. as written above), I would argue that blocks would be needed anyways. I ain't an admin, though, so it's not my call (and I would be too involved to block if I were an admin anyways). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      user:108.31.92.88 describes their collaboration with AlmNack here: Talk:HQ_(video_game)#HQ Trivia Player, and Website Takeover Adakiko (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to clarify, are you saying an article has to be written about the takeover, then if we use that article as a source, it'll be accepted? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Possibly. The article needs to be a WP:RS. If what you're trying to add has been covered in reliable sources then you're past your first barrier but it might still be the case that whatever it is isn't something we will cover per WP:DUE etc. All COI editors should refrain from adding any content directly. If you can find reliable sources you could propose additions of revelant material on articles talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the info. As of now I don't think any articles have been written about it, so I guess it can't be included at this time. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the IPv4 has attempted to report me to AIV, complete with bad formatting. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 10:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, what you call being an asshole to another editor? You're comment about tell the class your assoisiation was totally being an asshole, and certinaly uncalled for. Thought we're supposed to be polite here, not rude. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the IP for making personal attacks. Providing the edit warring stops, I don't think we need any further blocks just yet, but AlmNack and the IPv6 editor should familiarise themselves with the guidance at WP:EW, WP:RS and WP:MEAT before attempting to make any further edits to the page; they should also start using the article's talk page. Girth Summit (blether) 10:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add (now that I've noticed the IP saying that they were personally involved in these events) that WP:COI is something they all need to familiarise themselves with. Leave it to someone else to write about stuff you did, or were involved in doing. Girth Summit (blether) 10:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, but in some cases for things that are internal, other editors tend not to know about things so I don't really see how that would work in a case of that happening. Like I said though, there's no reliable sources as of now to include so it's a moot point at this point. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried being polite, IP. I really did. But no matter how many times I told you and your friends to not add unsourced content, you didn't listen. Of course I was gonna lose my cool after the 5th time I was getting told "but I have this (unreliable) source!"
    As for further blocks, yeah, I think this is enough for now. As long as the editors follow @Girth Summit's advice, things might work out in the end. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 10:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The other IP is 100% correct that "now tell the class" was obnoxious and inflammatory. "I tried being polite" well no, not in that instance, you were rude and unpleasant for no particular reason. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your support, AlmNack, and I appreciate it. If only other editors could look at it the way you could. If I'm being honest though, I think we're treated differently as we don't have accounts. I think account users get better treatment, which is sad, but I think it's the case. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call you messages polite. You said the various sources I had originally used were unreliable, and very unreliable, so if you look back at the history, I had removed the sources you had complained about per your request. So in that aspect, I did listen. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Weird socking

    The sockmaster is known and this only serves to feed them attention, which is their main goal. If you're still curious, you can email me for more information. Closing per WP:DENY. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    So I found the first one putting weird templates and edits at User talk:Salvio giuliano. Addressed that, and when looking at their edit history, found more issues, and then found the second account, doing similar things at Folklore (Taylor Swift album).

    I also found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taylor Swift, which looks like a complete fabrication.

    This is starting to look like it's possibly a larger issue, so I thought more eyes on this would be better. Any help would be most welcome. - jc37 09:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I have seen him around. He's a prolific sock puppeteer, who has fun trying to impersonate administrators and other established users. I have taken a very quick look using my magic 8-ball, but the ranges the accounts I checked were editing on are too large to run a cumulative check on. I am afraid we will have to play whack-a-mole Salvio giuliano 09:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DatVandaİ was blocked by - who else? - DatGuy. I swear I know who that is... @Salvio giuliano, could it be Awolf58? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You want to make me confess I have a lousy memory, eh? Can't remember the original master, but I know I have seen him around... I have even blocked a few of his previous incarnations. Salvio giuliano 09:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it's hard for me to remember too, but I remember reverting some of their socks even though that should've been a lost memory like the 25k other edits I did. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:BurgeoningContracting

    This isn't really that big a deal, but I cannot convey to this inexperienced editor that what they are doing is a violation of WP:CUTANDPASTE. They cut and paste the contents from MacCarthy Mor dynasty to an existing redirect, MacCarthy dynasty, which had been created as the result of merge to the MacCarthy Mor page back in 2015. Then they added two small uncited sections regarding branches of the clan. I've pointed them to CUTANDPASTE, but they simply refuse to listen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs)

    If it's not a big deal, why did you bring it forward to the urgent admin board? This could have gone through disputes. Anyway, you didn't even read the edits in which I created new pages by performing splits and fixed genuine errors. You decided to revert them all. The merge of MacCarthy dynasty and MacCarthy Mor happened long ago and the page has gone largely unchanged until I came along. I offered to talk about this to arrive at a resolution or compromise in which we could be in agreements, but you engaged in the edit war first and only threatened to have me blocked. I hope can only hope the admins can arrive at a conclusion holistically. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @BurgeoningContracting: your violation of policy is not a dispute. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response. I have read the CUTANDPASTE page twice, and I don't see where I went wrong other than manually moving the page. Could you please direct me to which specific policy I violated? I intend to perform edits following the rules to the best of my ability, so it'd be of great help if you could tell me what exactly is wrong. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you already know what you're doing wrong. You can't move a page by copying its contents and pasting it into a different article. Don't do that. If it's unlikely to be a controversial move, you can just use the "move" function to move the page. If it's a controversial move or if there's a page in the way that needs to be deleted, then follow the directions at WP:RM to propose the move. Continuing to attempt cut and paste moves is a fantastic way to get blocked. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: It seems that BurgeoningContracting has stopped just short of WP:3RR, but is having a bad case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I have 3RR warned them, so perhaps their reversion spree has come to a halt. They need to understand WP:CONSENSUS and understand that we all submit to it whether we like it or not.
    If they are correct, fact based discussion of their views should hold sway and a new consensus will be formed. I commend that route to them. If they use it then this thread has served its purpose. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SCIART23 – copyright, and possible COI or paid editing

    SCIART23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User:SCIART23 has created copyright issues, may have a conflict of interest and has not addressed them when asked, and is moving multiple Indian articles from draft space created by IPs originating in the same area, all of which have sourcing, notability, copyright or puffery and other issues with unencyclopedic tone.

    Even with a

    this editor has never engaged user talk, article talk, or noticeboard discussions.

    Beginning in February, every article they (with other Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited Indian IPs from Bengaluru in the state of Karnataka) have created or moved from Draft space has significant issues, including copyright.

    Some of the Ips are:

    All of the articles authored by those IPs were promptly moved by SCIART23 to mainspace.

    SCIART23 also created these articles:

    • Akhilesh Pandey – see revdel by Dianna, tagged for citations, still has copyvio issues, puffery, and non-independent sources, and has been tagged for excessive citations.

    SCIART23 has not indicated if they have a COI on these two articles.

    Other Indian scientist bios created by Jio IPs and moved from Draft space by SCIART23 (many of these are notable scientists regardless of the article issues):

    • Sankaran Krishnaswamy – puffery, tagged for citations, gets a one-sentence mention in a 321-page book (One sentence says he initiated studies, another basically says “he’s my friend” and nothing more);

    It is time to address the close paraphrasing, sourcing, and tone issues, and get SCIART23 to discuss their relationships with these subjects and IPs. In the meantime they should not be allowed to move articles from draft space. Should this editor not respond on talk, could an admin block to prevent further copyright issues. Kablammo (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've indef'd the account and blocked 157.45.128.0/17 for six months to hopefully force them to communicate. If they disclose any potential COI and undertake to abide by copyright policies, they can be unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanishing editor

    Hi, I hope I'm writing to an appropriate place. In August 2022, I started a Talk section in response to a note 'undue weight - discuss' on a page. The article is Identity Politics and the quote flagged is from one Brendan O'Neill.

    Today I received two replies from the same editor, both containing intemperate language in what I consider to be ad hominem attacks. After replying in-page, I attempted to discuss the matter with the user as per WP guidelines. I received the message 'page does not exist' which suggests to me that the editor deleted their account soon after posting.

    This is behavior that IMO could be a nuisance, since if the editor re-registers with WP they can do the same to other editors. I post this in case WP has protocols to deal with this type of behavior, since I can find no guidance myself. Chrismorey (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Chrismorey If you are talking about another editor here, you must notify them of this discussion(see the instructions at the top of this page)
    It is not possible to delete an account, either by the user themselves or anyone- it is possible to delete pages, though an admin must do so, and that is not usually done to user talk pages. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. 1, you have not notified Mike0000000 of this discussion, I have done so for you. 2, the user hasn't vanished–the user just doesn't have a userpage. They haven't vanished, they're still there. And like 331dot stated above, it is not possible to delete an account, see here. Tails Wx 18:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Better to try to talk to their user talk ages instead of their user pages.😛 Speaking of which, I see Bishonen has offered the user a few words of wisdom. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Intriguingly, I see no messages on User talk:Chrismorey and Mike0000000 last edited yesterday. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP did not provide any links but it appears the discussion took place at Talk:Identity_politics#Brendan_O'Neill_quote.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deepfriedokra, talking on their user pages? WP:UOWN? Don't do it! ;) Tails Wx 00:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pawnkingthree: Thanks.
    @Tails Wx: Never! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Jakesaludaga

    indef'd by Izno-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user continues on editing the ratings of Batang Quiapo (TV series) without providing sources in the article. As seen from their contributions, the user only made disruptive edits in the said article, furthermore, the account looks like it is just newly made.

    Despite the warning I have gave them, they continued to do disruptive edits.

    Unsourced and disruptive editing is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. I hope you can help me in this issue. - jampol 01:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Achaudhary0205 continues to make ungrammatical edits and modify quotes, does not reply to talk page

    Achaudhary0205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user continues to make a high number of edits with grammatical errors and edits to quotes without reference to the quoted material. Does not have adequate mastery of English to be making these kind of rapid fire copy edits. Was previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#Achaudhary0205 making ungrammatical and inconsequential copy edits at high rate. Has gone on making these kind of edits and refuses to respond on any talk page request.

    From prior report:

    • from Grill'd Grill'd claim to have an Australian first sourcing promise and works with local farmers and suppliers to keep food miles low and ensure the freshest ingredients -> Grill'd claims to have an Australian-first sourcing promise and works with the local farmers and suppliers to keep food miles low and ensure the freshest ingredients. (incorrect grammar for regional dialect of article, and Achaudhary likes inserting extraneous definite articles)
    • from Abductive reasoning The strike of the cue ball would account for the movement of the eight ball. -> The strike of the cue ball would account for the movement of the eight balls. (how many 8 balls are on a pool table?) and For instance: it is a known rule that, if it rains, grass gets wet; -> For instance: it is a known rule that, if it rains, the grass gets wet; (which grass is that again?)
    • from Social enterprise Social enterprises have business, environmental and social goals. -> Social enterprises have a business, environmental and social goals. and deciding on which organizational structure and legal form (e.g. Non-Profit, for Profit) -> deciding on which organizational structure and legal form (e.g. Non-Profit, or Profit)
    • from Dick Ayers when Sullivan "describe[d] what he wanted in the Ghost Rider" -> when Sullivan "described" what he wanted in Ghost Rider" (user likes editing quotes)

    Since prior report:

    Observed by R Prazeres (talk · contribs) making ungrammatical edits again, and warned on talk page (no response):

    • from Khan el-Khalili built in 1284–85 -> built-in 1284–85 and It became known as the Khan al-Fisqiya ("Khan of the Fountain") for centuries -> It became known as the Khan al-Fisqiya ("Khan of the Fountain") for the centuries

    Observed by Schazjmd (talk · contribs) editing quotes again, warned on talk page (no response):

    • from Animals as leaders "We see nothing but great potential with Matt, -> "We see nothing but the great potential with Matt,

    User was suspected by Wasell (talk · contribs) of being a sock puppet of UniqqMool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Joussymean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). UniqqMool and Joussymean were blocked by Bbb23 and block of Joussymean reviewed by Deepfriedokra.

    Sock puppet or not, this user is causing ongoing damage to Wikipedia and given their lack of willingness to engage the ANI process or respond on their talk page I believe an indefinite block is needed. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, for what it's worth, lending my support to at least some kind of block here, especially given the sheer volume and speed of edits involved. Responding to editors is not that hard, if they can't even take a moment to acknowledge an issue brought directly to them, then they're not able to engage with the consensus-based approach of Wikipedia; a sign of disruptive editing, regardless of good intentions. R Prazeres (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked indefinitely. Looks like another instance of a user not aware of their talkpage. Blocked, with an appropriate message in the log, to help them find it. (It doesn't look very likely that they'll be unblocked in any case, but stranger things have happened.) Bishonen | tålk 08:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    Really? It did help. Bishonen | tålk 16:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

    Ban from Wikipedia

    Yesterday, User:2A02:C60:C4FF:9800:0:9933:419:1 sent me a message in my talk page in which that IP wrote "pls ban me i want to be blocked from editing id love that ............ ban me from wiki". You can see the discussion here. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And...? WP:DENY, simply revert and ignore, or report at WP:AIV. This doesn't rise to the level of a chronic or urgent incident. Fram (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have warned and noticed this user for you. The next time you see a user with a lot of warnings on their talk page and doing disruptive edits, go to WP:AIV, it will be faster. Lemonaka (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_Veritas&diff=prev&oldid=1139335768 2601:18F:107F:BA80:BC6F:265C:C696:3D1E (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really rev'del worthy in my opinion. Just pointless political screed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Af420

    Af420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    At Rumi, Af420 initially made several attempts [90] [91] [92] to remove Rumi's birth place being the present-day Tajikistan city of Vakhsh, which is cited by WP:RS (one of them being by the Oxford University), replacing it with Balkh, conveniently a city related to his country of origin (Afghanistan). After being warned of getting reported, he stopped removing sourced info, but still went ahead and added Balkh [93], cited by random, non-academic sources such as rumibalkhi.com

    Despite that, during all this time he so richly kept making WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA to me;

    After being unable to demonstrate that his random websites were WP:RS, he backed out from the discussion and said that I can do as I please; BTW, not everybody has so much free time, so I’ll not be able to discuss this situation with you anymore, you can absolutely do as you wish

    And thus I reverted back to the original revision, however he then reverted me again, randomly saying that No sources were provided!. May I be so bold to call this trolling at this rate? Anyhow, this user in a short span of time has violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ONUS, WP:RS, and probably more. They're not exactly new here, having edited since 2016, so they should be well aware of this stuff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at those diffs and your edits, it looks like a regular content dispute. Their sources (not the rumibalkhi one) are just as good as the current ones. And it looks more like them getting frustrated with your WP:Stonewalling and not assuming good faith. That's what it looks like to me. Could be wrong tho. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong indeed. The first diff [94], for example, was literally their first comment towards me, in response my previous comment; rv, sorry, but you need WP:RS for this, not random (news)websites. Two of the three cited sources are news articles written by non-academic, non-historians. The third is just a random site (that is the rumibalkhi one) - see WP:SPS. If you’re gonna accuse me of stonewalling and not assuming WP:GF, please at least this properly read into the issue. This user keeps accusing me of stuff and refusing to continue the discussion which barely even started, yet I am apparently the one stonewalling and not assuming good faith. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Af420's latest (attempt at provoking) comment after their revert and this report [95]. Still think I am the one WP:STONEWALLING? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear @1AmNobody24:, You are right, I just told him to use sources that can prove his point, but instead of doing that, he got serious with me:))

    Af420 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just baiting at this point. Can an admin please deal with this person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran I agree that User:Af420 has probably violated a few policies. But you called the UN a random news Website. And that's just completly wrong. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I could have been more precise in that regard; I was referring to their news article, which doesn't qualify as WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible BLP violation, Socking, creating account specifically aimed at disparaging another editor

    RealPerson420 has been adding unsourced information to the Toby Perkins article, this could be considered a BLP Violation. I removed the unsourced information. The editor then stated that my editing was Tendentious and soon after that another editor Viewmontvikingisbad re-added the same unsourced information into the Toby Perkins article. VVikingTalkEdits 14:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)".[reply]

    Both accounts blocked, the 2nd one obviously with that name. RealPerson420 blocked indef for repeated BLP violations. I'll scan the article and see if anything needs to be redacted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I also blocked Person.1244 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who is using the same IPs as RealPerson420 and inserted the same content on Toby Perkins. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hate-supporting userboxes

    Past the point of productive discourse. User blocked for a week and the userboxes aren't displayed anymore, nothing more to do right now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    RowanJ LP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I came across this user recently and noticed this addition to their userpage, which they referred to as "some mildly offensive userboxes". To be clear, one of these userboxes clearly declares "This user is against Trans rights". The other userbox says "This user is a supporter of the JDL and Kach party". Let me remind those reading this that both the JDL and the Kach Party are designated terrorist groups in the United States, and not without good reason. Is it acceptable for a user who fosters such views to be allowed to function normally in this community? Is this not disruptive? I started a thread at their talk page yesterday but they still haven't responded. I am here for others to examine this case, because I don't think this should remain at the level of a simple conversation with RowanJ LP. -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 15:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm RowanJ LP but this is my alt account, I didn't realize that these userboxes violated Wikipedia's guidelines on hate speech, I took time to read over this conversation and multiple guidelines and I won't violate any hate speech guidelines again, sorry for the issue and guideline violations. RowanJ LP2 (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't understand how "This user is against trans rights" is bad, then you lack the competence to be here. --Golbez (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    These are the userboxes:

    This user is against Trans rights


    This user is a supporter of the JDL and Kach party
    This isn't only about deleting the userboxes from their userpage. At the very least, RowanJ LP needs be able to recognize that these are wrong. This is the most appropriate venue I could think of. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 15:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have users, or one at least, here that openly support Hezbollah via userbox, so, I really would not expect much traction to be found for the above. ValarianB (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Scenario: say, for example, Kach, the JDL, and Hezbollah really aren't an issue here. The anti-trans userbox is still quite a major problem. Athaenara got blocked for saying something anti-trans (I've slightly forgotten what is was) even before doubling down on it. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you have the same objection to a userbox that identified the user as "gender-critical"? Someone saying they are "against gun rights"? What action do you want taken? Personally I don't think anyone should be listing political or divisive things on their user pages. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most common statement I've seen is "support gun control" instead of "against gun rights". You also need to remember that gun rights and trans rights do not exist on the same level of comparison. Guns are just guns. But anti-trans userboxes show a person's negative views of other people, not their views of inanimate objects. Those other people are the ones they're supposed to be "improving the encyclopedia" with, and such a negative atmosphere isn't encouraged on Wikipedia. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 16:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Advocates of "gun rights" often believe they are civil, human or God-given rights. Maybe a better example would be "User is opposed to free speech" or something. Is there a great difference between "User is opposed to abortion" and "User is opposed to abortion rights"? Someone might be hurt or angered by any divisive statement regarding rights. I'm all for removing divisive material from user pages, if it is done impartially, fairly and consistently. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there is a great difference between those two things, in fact many people who support abortion rights are opposed to abortion. Just because you support the right to do something doesn't mean you support doing that thing. You have a right to tell outrageous lies (you invented the Moon for example), my support of your right to do so doesn't make me supportive of lying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel like it's too much to demand the hateful put effort into their hate; discovering the euphemism 'gender critical' is more effort than most of them put in. This is just lazy. --Golbez (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DIYeditor: For reference, there was such a gender critical userbox. I had to nominate it for deletion a second time to properly explain why it should be deleted, because users were willing to look the other way the first time. There's a serious problem of editors defending the right to post bigotry and extremism in userspace. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ValarianB: Openly supporting Hezbollah was banned in 2008. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox. The replacement is now so vague as to be nearly meaningless. So the whataboutism isn't really applicable unless we were discussing a confusingly worded userbox that avoids any mention of Kach or the JDL whatsoever beyond a subliminal yellow-black colour scheme. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a brief look at their edit history does raise some red flags as far as the topics. Maybe you'd care to scrutinize the history for evidence of inappropriate activity, if you are looking for some kind of action to be taken. Again, going by my experience with these, they are handled at MFD barring some other kind of misbehavior.
    —DIYeditor (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed both. There's no real need for an MFD, they were hard-coded on the page. The anti-trans box is 100% low hanging fruit, and I've removed it as divisive and attacking other editors per WP:UBCR; there is a very long history at MFD of nuking these. I would vigorously oppose re-adding that. The pro-extremist userbox is slightly less obvious, but I believe still qualifies for removal as "inflammatory or substantially divisive". I'll defer to others if I've overstepped on this one; I don't think I have. I'm pretty agnostic on any "RowanJ LP needs to recognize these are wrong"; that would be good, sure, but as long as similar issues don't reappear I'm more inclined to not push it further. That, too, is something I might be wrong about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still don't get why editors feel the need to proclaim their opinions in an encyclopedia. There are plenty of other places on the Internet where that can be done. And I get even less why they use userboxes to do so. But I recognise that I'm in the minority and, in its infinite wisdom, the English Wikipedia considers such "self expression" important. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Phil, I think of my userboxen as full disclosure, proclaiming "I hold some strong opinions; as a Wikipedian, I understand that any edits by me touching on these opinions may be viewed especially carefully for signs of bias (conscious or otherwise)." --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:User pages#Advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit says "'Acts of violence' includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence." So the second one should be allowed. Cambalachero (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Little confused why our friend here hasn't been blocked? If I had said "I think you are a subhuman" to a fellow editor, I would be rightly blocked. Instead of just removing the boxes for them, also demand they retract the statements, same as we handle a legal threat. --Golbez (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Golbez:, legal threats are a bit different. An editor is entitled to hold a dispute either on Wikipedia or in a court, but not both at the same time. Therefore, primarily, the block is intended to prevent simultaneous dispute in two places. Secondarily, it's to prevent the chilling effect of other editors feeling under threat of legal redress. But calling someone subhuman doesn't chill, it's just a blatant insult. To my mind it's still unacceptable, but not in the same way as a legal threat is unacceptable. As for whether political user-boxes are useful; I think they are. They can help to explain why an editor edits in a particular way. Also, we are bounded by censorship on one side and immorality on the other; it's nice to keep the free-region between the two as broad as possible. But Thebiguglyalien is right, content intended to make people feel bad discourages new, useful editors, and is just not okay. Elemimele (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know they're different; I didn't equate them, just saying the response should be similar. They can't be here as long as they hold those views, so they need to be removed until they retract them. Golbez (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The current rules are that political userboxes are allowed, unless it goes against someone. But if we get into it, there are ways to say you are against someone without openly saying so. And in some places politics are so polarizing that me mere action of saying "I support X" gets the anger from supporters of Y. Wouldn't it be simpler if political userboxes were completely banned? They give more problems that what they are worth. Cambalachero (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to leave a comment reiterating what I've said several times in various discussions: WP:Userpages and WP:UBX both explicitly forbid inflammatory and divisive content in userspace, and soapboxing and advocacy are not allowed on Wikipedia. I believe that this is the correct approach and that it should actually be enforced. Divisive content not only fails to benefit the encyclopedia, but it risks actively discouraging new editors from participating. There's a problem at MfD where several users always !vote to keep inflammatory content because they believe users have the right to express their opinions or that the WP:RAGPICKING essay should be interpreted to mean that even inappropriate content should be kept. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Golbez, I might have missed it, but valid statement are you referring to? Being against Trans rights or something else Rowan J said? --Malerooster (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That one, yes. Where is this question going? --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its going to, I don't think we should block people who are against trans rights, thats where. --Malerooster (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being "against trans rights"? No, of course not. This isn't thoughcrime. Saying it, however, thankfully removes it from the realm of "thoughtcrime" and puts it handily into the concrete "you said many of your fellow editors are subhuman". And that, we should absolutely block for. On what grounds do you disagree? --Golbez (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How was it "said"? With the user box or the "you said many of your fellow editors are subhuman" which I didn't see but would agree is blockable. If there was some discussion and an editor said that they were against Trans rights, I wouldn't think that is blockable, but just mho. --Malerooster (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are, quote, "against trans rights". I see that as seeing them as subhuman. If I say "[x] shouldn't have human rights," that implies that [x] are, well, not fully human. And I am fine with taking the context here to mean "human rights." You are under no obligation to see things my way, I have made my point. --Golbez (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an essay and not policy, fyi. --Malerooster (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking someone based on their activity on a different Wikimedia project is a line I don't think we should cross. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmmm.... Regarding 1-week or indef blocking: that's not how we've treated the dozens of other editors who have had similar transphobic or homophobic userboxes removed. The user has said they won't re-add the boxes. I'm not going to go out on a limb and expend time and effort and social capital for someone who feels the way they feel, so I won't lobby for an unblock right now even though I might disagree, but I'd oppose an indef block. This is fundamentally different than the comments that I blocked Athaenara for. This isn't a NONAZIS situation, this seems like 95% dumb and 5% despicable, not the other way around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The only reason they have given so far for not readding the boxes is because they didn't know saying trans people were subhuman was against the rules, which is a drastic failure of competence. --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      +1. We are not the freaking thought police here. It should be enough that the editor apologized and has stipulated he will not reoffend ... and I'm sure a few people are going to keep an eye on his future contributions to make sure he doesn't. More than that, no. (We are not, after all, out to preemptively block editors with African IPs, however much the great majority of African nations not only firmly condemn LGBTQ practices, but criminalize them.) The easiest way to avoid the standard right-wing slur that Wikipedia is firmly in the grasp of Radical! Woke! Witch hunts! is not to have them. Ravenswing 20:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If this is in reply to my comment, I know that they will not be indef blocked today. I am just making a prediction about their fate here. I didn't like the anti-trans userbox (and I believe it violates the Universal Code of Conduct) but it barely factored into my prediction. Is blocking African IPs something which comes up a lot or just a figment of your imagination, because I haven't seem anyone suggest that? Round and rounder (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "We're not going to pre-emptively block African IPs" Yes, because the laws of a nation are not the statements of an individual within it. If you don't see the difference between "living somewhere where the government thinks trans people are subhuman" and "saying trans people are subhuman" then... I don't even know. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Did I miss something? Did the user actually say "trans people are subhuman", or is that your interpretation of them not supporting trans rights?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      An accurate interpretation of when someone says a human does not deserve inherent rights. --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh. I think that's a huge stretch, and just so it's clear, without more, I don't support increasing the block to indefinite. Indeed, I didn't think the one-week block was deserved, but the user seemed to accept it, so...--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well what rights do you think our new friend was talking about? You're saying my interpretation is wrong, so please, share yours. --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the user's statement stands on its own: they are against trans rights. Beyond that, I have no idea what the user thinks, and I think it's presumptious of you to put words in their mouth. I don't know what you mean by "inherent rights" as that too is interpreted by people in very different ways. Personally, IRL, the people I know support civil rights of minorities, but the few I've met who do not, do not think the members of that minority are "subhuman".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just for the sake of argument, how does that compare with "This user is against abortion rights"? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Abortions tend not to be people, whereas trans people are. Abortions can't have human rights. Abortions are medical procedures. Perhaps you meant "this user is against women's rights", since that would be more analogous? And no, this isn't a pointless difference. It's the difference between saying "I don't think [x] should be done" and saying "I don't think [x] should have rights." If you can't see the difference then honestly why am I even still here. --Golbez (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, they did not say they don't support trans rights. They said, they are against trans rights. There's a difference. --Golbez (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you're reading it as "against trans people having any rights" when it was probably intended as "against 'trans rights'" or "against 'special trans rights'" but I can see why you'd see it your way. Not sure I see why it's so important to expel this editor if they were not making any bad edits. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Golbez: The laws of a nation with some semblance of democracy generally reflect the views of the people living inside of it. WP:BLOCKs aren't based on what a user thinks but what they have done. In terms of "preventing future impact on Wikipedia", a user who will not engage in certain behaviour again isn't very blockable. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Bullshit. Just because I live in Iowa doesn't mean I believe everything Iowa does. This is a really bad argument (essentially justifying civilian atrocities in wartime, among many other things) and you should pull up now. And I agree, this wouldn't be based on what he thinks, it would be based on what he's done, which, in this case, is saying that they think many of their fellow editors don't deserve rights. That seems pretty straightforward to me, not sure what y'all's malfunction is. --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user has apologized. I think that's enough at this point. Let the 1 week block expire and see if they are productive. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 21:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      again, I must point out, they apologized for, quote, "I didn't realize that these userboxes violated Wikipedia's guidelines on hate speech". So either they don't think hate speech should be avoided on its own merits, or they think this didn't constitute hate speech. Either way, we have a competence issue above anything else. --Golbez (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know or care what they think. It seems like they are ok with removing the infobox's though, which is the concern here. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 21:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Put another way, if I wrote "This user is against blacks having rights" and tried to argue that I didn't know that would violate hate speech guidelines, I'd be laughed out of town. That y'all are saying this is any different is really fucking depressing. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks Pizzaman10383

    Per this and this. Heiro 03:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Heironymous Rowe “You can ban these nuts bitch” gave me a laugh, but is pretty clearly not acceptable. Otherwise they’re an auto confirmed disruptive agenda editor; blocked indefinitely. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moneytrees: Yeah, I took that one as "you think ya funny, but not here to be constructive" clue myself, lol. Guess he can sit at home and play wit dem now. Thanks a bunch, ~

    Potential dox of uninvolved party

    @Loose canon reverted information on the Convergence Movement article using reliable sources from the Anglican Church in North America and the Kentucky Secretary of State, all because the information verified that an excommunicated priest became part of the Convergence Movement through a denomination whose founder has (according to the sources later provided) an erratic background. I would like for the admins to also bear in mind that they have seemingly doxx'd someone who has no involvement with editing here. I also want to highlight a very large almost obvious conflict of interest with their talk page draft article being rejected for Lumanog plenty of times. AndreasMar (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I also want to mention their edits to Cornell College] which also further verify a conflict of interest, and perhaps a self-expose of themselves. At jacklumanog.com they have this very article with others mentioning Lumanog's involvement with the college. For me, something isn't adding up. AndreasMar (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1139649656"