Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Alpinegora

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

Well, I was told by WP:AIV to take it here.

Major WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV issues, and anti-Iranian/Persian behaviour as seen through their edits and comment. Not a single edit by this user (starting from this summer) has been constructive and neutral. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted (some recent examples [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], notice their dishonest "simple changes" edit summaries) and they also responded to my warning with this grim comment, accusing me of getting paid for my edits, etc [6]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: this page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III, which according to its manual should obey a Template:Do not archive until. I've added {{subst:DNAU|10}} to this thread, which should keep it here for 10 days. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's a thing. Err.. well, this is embarrassing. Thank you very much Apaugasma! --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor: I agree, definitely looks WP:NOTHERE to me, only here to push a POV. Together with that user talk page response, should be blocked indef. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, that Talk page comment screams NOTHERE. Indef is the right call. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep. They are still unashamedly pov editing under the same dishonest edit summary "simple changes", which I just reverted [7] [8] [9] [10]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• This is the grim comment I was speaking of; "You may better to write and edit the content about your country, Iran. The history of Afghanistan is belong to Afghans and we can write by ourselves correctly! I see that many Iranian wiki writers like you are getting paid by dictator regime of Iran to change everything for their own benefit and as the religious regime of Iran want. You will never be proud by lying about history and stealing the pride of other countries! --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been up for almost a month. It goes without saying that I too think that Alpinegora should be indeffed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to guess the reason why this hasn't been dealt with yet is because there are other methods at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution that could have been tried here before ANI, have you exhausted all other DR options before ANI? — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't an dispute or disagreement, this is a user engaging in outright disruptive (and dishonest) edits and personal attacks. Nothing about them suggests that they are a net worth to Wikipedia (WP:NOTHERE), and thus I'm surprised to see how long this thread has been up. I did also add a warning to their talk page, which led to the personal attack. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright then. Hopefully that makes the message clear here that the remedy for Alpinegora is a block of long or indefinite length.

If this thread gets archived, and the user makes the same problematic edits again afterwards, then make a new ANI thread referencing to this one.

By the way, just today the user has made an unsourced addition with the same dishonest "Simple changes" edit summary, which also looks like POV-pushing to me as per the examples above: Special:Diff/1153367792. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to support HistoryofIran here, this is not an editing dispute, but a behavioral issue. Alpinegora is directly accusing HoI of being "paid by a dictator regime." That's a direct personal attack and should not be tolerated. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I too believe that they are WP:NOTHERE based on their edit history and comments. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 18:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Alejandro Basombrio: POV-pushing, edit-warring, canvassing

Hello ANI, first or second time posting here, so I apologize if I'm doing this wrong. I think this has gone for long enough to warrant an assessment from a wider range of administrators. The user in question is Alejandro Basombrio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

POV-pushing / Edit-warring:

• Special:Diff/1150564609: removal of categories Category:Anti-indigenous racism in South America, Category:Class discrimination, Category:Genocide of indigenous peoples of South America from the article Forced sterilization in Peru. This speaks for itself.
• Special:Diff/1073969975, Special:Diff/1149991780, Special:Diff/1150155145, Special:Diff/1150206572: addition of far-right ideologies including Nazism, National Bolshevism and Neosocialism to the {{Socialism}} navbox, some of them as "minor" edits, revert-warring after being asked to gather consensus on the talk page first time (per WP:ONUS). Special:Diff/1150156515: similarly for National syndicalism on {{Syndicalism}}. WP:FRINGE and against consensus.
• POV edit-warring on Ayacucho massacre (look throughout the history log, the article's talk page and the user's talk page).
• Other general whitewashing and downplaying of far-right politics that constitutes their entire contributions log, too many diffs to list. Mostly removing "fascism", "Neo-fascism", "Neo-Nazism" and replacing them with "conservatism" or "nationalism". This includes Special:Diff/1150219971 on Nationalist faction (Spanish Civil War) and Special:Diff/1150388314 on {{Francoism sidebar}} (again, "minor" edit, presumably to try it fly under the radar), against already established consensus (if they had time to even acknowledge it during this widescale POV-pushing campaign).

Canvassing:

• Special:Diff/1152054618: openly asking a partisan audience to support their campaign on Talk:Far-left politics.

I admit having made ad hominem here, while trying to bring some light on this user's activities, and I'm standing behind my assumption that they were very selective in who to ping among many who participated in previous three sections. Whether I'm wrong or not about it, I'm leaving to the judgement of Wikipedia staff. –Vipz (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the POV at categories, looking at the edits: The added/deleted templates/categories of the user seem to be mainly used as more or less subtle associations to discredit/credit. For example the person did add to the Black Power movement the perpetrators and ideologies of the Rwandan genocide and vice versa [11] [12] [13] [14]. What has the genocide of Hutu militias against the Tutsi in Rwanda to do with the Black Power movement? This makes no sense (net search shows only Wikipedia as result too), other than to associate negatively with a supposed "gotcha" (yes black people can do crimes against humanity too). --Casra (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Page 49 from this issue in JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40466134?read-now=1&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents) claims: "The "Mouvement Révolutionnaire pour le Développement" or MRND changed its name in 1990 to "Mouvement Révolutionnaire pour le Développement et la Démocratie" after multiparty democracy was authorized in Rwanda. It retained the acronym, MRND. Other important political parties at the time included: the MDR (Mouvement Démocrate Républicain), the PL (Parti Libéral), the PSD (Parti Social Démocrate), and the CDR (Coalition pour la Défense de la République). In 1993, both the MDR and the PL split into two factions. In each case the faction opposed to RPF participation in the government called itself "Hutu powa" after the English term, power. The "MDR powa," "PL powa," MRND, and CDR parties all counted many among their numbers who later became active in the genocide against Tutsi.". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The source mentions on p. 49, in a footnote describing the names of organisation in the conflict, that the faction used the English term power. Without mentioning the faction as part of the Black Power movement at all. That's no reason to include them as part of the Black Power movement, unless we want to add everything from Power Rangers to Power Forward (international used basketball term) to the template. With good faith in mind, I find it still hard to believe you really thought that when the rather common term "power" is used (with English being an international influential language) it makes the topic an automatic part of the Black Power movement, no matter if the source includes it as part of the Black Power movement, and that just by coincidence you added a genocide topic to the movement. Casra (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

1. About the "forced sterilization in Peru", the terms "class discrimination" is not present on the article, nor it is inferred. The "genocide" label is still debatable. The article uses more the term "ethnic cleansing".

2. While I recognize national socialism is still debatable if it's a form of socialism, which I apologize to add without consensus, national-bolshevism or neo-socialism are not. National Bolshevism is a variant of Bolshevism, which is included in the socialism bar. NB was also included far before I added it again, because someone removed without consensus. On other neo-socialism is included in the "French Section of the Workers' International" bar. In fact, the article describes it as a "revisionist" socialism.

3. All my "Ayacucho Massacre" edits were entirely extracted from the Spanish Wikipedia. If you were actually informed about my country's events or at least you learned some Spanish, you would not complain about the changes I made or you would complain about Spanish Wikipedia's information. In that case, go check the talk page, since it's not only me the only one who thinks the page already violated the NPOV rule far before I edited it.

4. About the "Nationalist faction" article, the label of fascism is questionable since the nationalist faction included a diversity of right-wing ideologies, which not all were fascist. Conservatism, Traditionalism, Carlism, Alfonsism, etc. The main ideology of the faction is "Spanish Nationalism", not "Fascism", which in the infobox the ideology used in a faction is "falangism" and "semi-fascism", not fascism entirely. On other side, while I apologise for removing "fascism" from Francoist sidebar, Francoism is also considered by a lot of academics as a form of conservatism rather than fascism, reason I added "conservatism" category too.

----

I apologize, such as how you apologize for ad hominem, for "canvassing" since I didn't know it was against the rules. Some user tagged me on a talk page before and then I thought it was allowed to do. But I only committed the pinging once with a user called "trakking", not with the others, which you claim I tagged them for canvassing purposes. You were also called out for being dishonest in your last comment by Spookytalk Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Forced sterilization of indigenous peoples constitutes genocide, it is not debatable. It takes a whole lot of mental gymnastics to justify attempts at denying this. Ethnic cleansing and genocide are not mutually exclusive, they go hand-in-hand.
2. Nazism ("National Socialism") being a form of socialism has been debated and proven WP:FRINGE more times than you can imagine; it is not. Its offshoots "National Bolshevism", "National syndicalism", "Neosocialism", "National anarchism" and such have not received as much attention. I told you on your talk page to start a request for comments that will cover all of these, either together or separately. Even if you're acting boldly, tagging some of these controversial edits as "minor" is very questionable.
3. Since I did not participate on this article, someone else who did will have to attest.
4. You've now been informed about the RfC that resulted in clear consensus that Francoism and its followers were fascist. Likewise, not mutually exclusive with other ideologies. While WP:CCC, it's only a little less unlikely to change compared to Nazism. You're welcome to present all of the academic work that has not been brought up yet (on the article's talk page), gather consensus, then act accordingly; as opposed to just casually changing this under a "minor" edit tag.

I look forward to responses from others. –Vipz (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no "debate" over whether National Socialism is "a form of socialism or not", the consensus of subject experts is that it is not. The Nazis added "socialism" to the title of their party in the hope of attracting disaffected workers who might otherwise align themselves with the Socialists or the Communists, and to do so they redefined "socialism" to be something that is not socialistic at all, thereby setting up the current situation where right-wing cranks and wannabe Nazis pepper us with complaints and constant requests to redefine Nazism as "left wing" and not "right wing". Fortunately, the experts are perfectly clear than this is not the case, so we should not even allow a hint of that to remain unquestioned on English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

True. I was actually referring to Wikipedia talk page debates that keep popping up about it and which always result like you explain above. Thanks for the clarification, however, as I might not have worded the above reply too well. –Vipz (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Vipz's assertions, broadly speaking. While on a few occasions, seen in isolation, his edits may be/seem reasonable, this editor's overall activity consists precisely of general whitewashing and downplaying of far-right politics. The editor has been attempting to enact a series of bold changes on pages that are thought to be less watched like nav templates and categories in a predictably bivalent pattern: adds nazism to socialism navbox on one hand, removes integralism category from the fascism category (diff ... but doesn't remove fascism cat from Integralism or discuss this on the main article's talk page, which would be the starting point for such a change) on the other etc. Their Ayacucho massacre edits are discussed on the NPOV noticeboard, and probably shouldn't be discussed in detail here, but one of those edits is this preposterous 18k removal of the entire 'Background' section. —Alalch E. 20:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This. Glancing at the edits they look innocent, but for instance with the Template:Conservatism in Peru, they try to separate the newspaper El Comercio (Peru) from conservatism. Not to mention that with the Ayacucho massacre, the user tried to justify the killing of unarmed protesters, though this may be partially to blame on the media situation in Peru (with their El Comercio edit, I doubt this is the case, however). Another questionable edit would be this one where they remove information about Go on Country – Social Integration Party being described as "far-right" by multiple sources. So as other users have stated, this appears to be a whitewash effort regarding right-wing politics and Peruvian topics specifically. WMrapids (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Why do you complain about the Avanza País article when you were the first one removing sources, such as the one from Amerika12.de? I moved the sources claiming that the party is "far-right" to the "far-right bloc" paragraph, where they fit more properly. Also about the Conservatism templates, I highly suggest you from checking the format used in the ones from Spain, Germany and Russia (the last one completely made by me). When recurring at media, people are not mentioned, like you added Erasmo Wong Lu, but newspapers and TV Channels. The claim about El Comercio being "conservative" is debatable and most sources describe it as "liberal" or "center-right". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Your edits reverting multiple reliable sources makes it apparent that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and are rather an ideology warrior for the promotion (or whitewashing) of right-wing/conservative articles. Your questionable edits far outweigh the few good ones. WMrapids (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The edit you just put there to make the claim I'm "reverting multiple reliable sources" shows the reliable source from Amerika12.de you removed before. The modifications I made was not removing sources unlike you, but moving there to a place were they fit better, like the claim you literally wrote about Avanza País being part of a "far-right bloc". Also you wrote that globally the party is considered "far-right" and apparently only the national "mass media" claims that the party is center-right, then cherry-picking sources to make the claim that it is a far-right party. I highly suggest to check this Wikipedia essay and check if the biased sources make that claim because of ideological purposes or if they want to make a valid claim. As the article says: "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Since much of the content is WP:USERGENERATED, it is a dubious source. Seeing that you recognize Amerika21.de as a reliable source for such information (it strangely describes Prensa Latina as a “partner” too), you either need help with determining reliable sources or you could be making quite the reach to support your ideological edits. Could be both. WMrapids (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, you tried to replace well-cited information with an opinion article, a site named “Olive Press” (?) and a .info site. Clearly making some reaches here. WMrapids (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Propose 6 month topic ban for User:Alejandro Basombrio from Politics, broadly construed

This has gone on long enough. Despite multiple users giving strong polcy-based reasons that gis bahavuir is wrong, Alejandro refuses to back down and has done nothing but attempt to deflect and Wikilawyer his way out of this. A topic ban should give him the chance to prove he can edit constructively let he get caught on the receiving end of a WP:NONAZIS based ANI.

Support as proposed. 50.214.130.225 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Arkenstrone: baseless accusations

Context

User:Arkenstrone has been POV-pushing since the beginning of April at articles Maria Valtorta and The Poem of the Man-God. I recently removed their POV-pushing. The user opposed this removal, so I reverted their revert and tried to explain to the user that random blogs and reading clubs' websites and the likes were not reliable and why information had to be removed along with refs, but the user WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and stated they wanted to create a FALSEBALANCE between what they deem "pro-Valtorta" and "anti-Valtorta" points.

Then, Arkenstrone's versions on both articles were revdeleted for copyright violation, part of which was due to me asking Diannaa to check them after their revdeletion at 'Maria Valtorta'. The user asked Diannaa for the revdeleted content, when Dianaa refused Arkenstrone stated: I am seeking other admins to give me access to the original material because you are unwilling, even though I've explained to you the unique circumstances of many valuable non-infringing edits being lost as a side-effect of your revision deletion. The user then went to ask 3 other admins to get an e-mail of the deleted versions (links to threads): Bbb23, Deepfriedokra, and DatGuy. The user has stated that all three were chosen because they had imposed sanctions upon me in the past (I have made those requests to these admins because you have been blocked by them at least 5 times previously for disruptive editing behaviour [...] I contacted the admins that previously blocked you because they might recognize a pattern of questionable behaviour in your conduct and be more sympathetic to my request), a reason the user has double-down on (on Deepfriedokra's talk page, admin Anachronist characterised Arkenstrone's behaviour as a blatant demonstration of WP:Admin shopping). By the way, the admin shopping worked with the last admin.

Accusations

The user has portrayed my behaviour as disruption or vandalism without any basis, thus violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links"). They have also consistently characterised my removal of their POV as "gutting" the articles. This is the the user's last remark to me that made me write this ANI, and I have updated the writing with DatGuy's recent acceptation of e-mailing the copyrighted material.

• The user gave me bogus warnings, also stating they reverted my reversion of my disruptive edits. I asked the user to stop their baseless accusations, otherwise I would go to ANI. To which they responded by giving me more bogus warnings. They have also attacked me on 3 admins' talk pages.

• At User talk:Diannaa#The Poem of the Man-God: This editor's approach by removing large portions of the article because he doesn't like the sources, is extremely disruptive; the other editor removed large portions of the article because he doesn't agree that the sources presenting important information are good sources. This is disruptive; this user disruptively gutted large portions of the article.

• At User talk:Bbb23#Assistance for Disruptive Edits: they state I have a long history of WP:3RR, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:VANDALIZE, and they ask that I be blocked for serial disruptive edits and vandalism: this is not true, I have never been blocked for vandalism and my removal is not disruptive nor vandalism.

• At User talk:DatGuy#Access to copy of deleted revision?: I didn't give the normal editing process a chance to function, me asking Diannaa to check for copyvio is a sort of gaming of the editing process, and I have been attempting to confuse, conflate, and game the editing process.

Sidenote unrelated to me: Arkenstrone has also characterised Diannaa's refusal of handing their revdeleted versions as well beyond your purview and veering dangerously close to a form of soft-censorship and micro-management of the editing process based on your own personal views and opinions. Veverve (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The admins involved in this discussion already came to a resolution. User talk:DatGuy#Access to copy of deleted revision? Arkenstrone (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a completely different issue, as DatGuy has told you at the very talk page you link. Veverve (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If Arkenstrone had stuck to the subject of getting back their content, that would have been great. But they personalized the conflict with Veverve and specifically sought out admins who'd sanctioned Veverve in the past. Me included. I'll leave it to y'all to decide what to make of this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You are missing some important facts. Allow me to correct the record.

• Bbb23 was the first admin I contacted after Diannaa, asking him for 1) a copy of the deleted revision and 2) to assist, and possibly block Veverve since he was repeating past disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked multiple times previously (by gutting articles due to what he considered unreliable sources and edit warring). That's not how things are done. You bring it up on the talk page, and if a source is indeed low quality, then tag the sourced text with "citation needed" or similar, and give other editors a chance to provide better sources. That's good-faith.
• Bbb23 didn't want to have anything to do with it. So I respected his wish not to get involved and left it at that. Afterwards, I decided to focus on just getting access to the deleted revision and not confuse things with conduct issues. I made no mention of Veverve, on any other admin's talk page, including DatGuy's or yours.
• It was Veverve that decided to make his presence known on DatGuy's talk page. Only then did I respond to his confused and deflecting statements, and provided the facts of his past bad behaviour, which was happening once again. I wasn't going to mention his past behaviour in that thread, deciding instead to give the editing process a chance to function, and see what happens.
• Only after DatGuy [15] recommended to introduce material from the deleted revision with copyvio corrections + source improvement (slowly), did Veverve choose to file this frivolous ANI. I would advise Veverve to consider WP:BOOMERANG. Arkenstrone (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Baseless accusations?

Patterns of questionable conduct: 1) gutting articles WP:VANDALIZE, 2) disruptive editing WP:DISRUPT, and 3) edit warring WP:3RR. At least 5 blocks have been levied and one Arbitration Enforcement Sanction. The facts speak for themselves (below). This editor doesn't seem to be getting the message. Before opening a frivolous ANI, perhaps he should consider WP:BOOMERANG.

1. Edit Warring: [16] Block: [17]

=> "You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Russian fascism (ideology)) for a period of 1 week for EDIT WARRING."

2. Edit Warring [18] Block: [19]

=> "You are currently edit-warring across a wide swath of liturgical calendar-related articles. You are fighting multiple editors who disagree with your unilateral decision to gut all of these articles of their usefulness. Could you please cease and desist the edit-wars, firstly, and secondly, consider that your decision goes against consensus and that you should permit others to hold contrary opinions about this?"

=> "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring."

3. Edit Warring & Block: [20]

=> "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring in the same articles immediately after your previous block ended."

4. Block Extension: [21]

=> "I have extended your block by two weeks and revoked your talk page access. Pinging other editors to argue with them and berate them while you are blocked is not acceptable. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options."

5. Edit Warring & Block: [22]

=> "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Heresy in the Catholic Church."

6. Arbitration Enforcement Sanction: [23]

=> "The following sanction now applies to you: You are indefinitely topic banned from all subject that relate to "Russia", including discussion or any article that is related to Russia in any way, broadly construed. You have been sanctioned [24]"

7. Disruptve Edits: [25]

=> in progress Arkenstrone (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have completely missed the point. And you double-down on calling my edits Disruptve Edits (using your own warnings as proofs), accusing me of having vandalised (which I never did, you do not appear to understand the meaning of this term on WP), and baselessly state that I was repeating past disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked multiple times previously (by gutting articles due to what he considered unreliable sources and edit warring). I never denied receiving blocks or being topic-banned. That none of the three admins to which you mentioned my behaviour were willing to sanction me should have made you realise your accusations were baseless.

That you decided to make it personnal and continued to baselessly accuse me once I intervened on DatGuy's talk page, or on whatever page, is not a defence at all: it only proves you have trouble working on a community project. And as I said, I had decided to start this ANI once you confirmed that you were clearly unwilling to give me the time of the day.

You admitted you decided to ask specific admins that sanctionned me in your admin shopping. Veverve (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• (comment so that it does not get archived before an admin has fixed the problem) Veverve (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks from C. A. Russell

C. A. Russell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

C. A. Russell has repeatedly attacked the competence of Steel1943 in the RfD nomination for FILE pointer that was created by them, with comments such as:

• This request could have only arisen from someone (alternatively: a naively implemented bot) that did not actually read the article.
• If you feel there's something unclear about the statement that stdin, stdout, and stderr are all identified as FILE pointers, and the data type itself is, in fact, described in the section that immediately follows ("Member types"), then please take some time to consider whether you should be participating in, let alone initiating, the "discussion" part that's intrinsic to the "Redirects for discussion" process.
• The person who opened this RFD lacks the attention span to read five sentences that directly address the claims they made in the RFD. Nominally, this is written as an example of a sentence about a topic that doesn't directly have the exact name of the topic. However, the choice of this exact wording rather than one that doesn't attack a user should still be considered a personal attack.

Relevant RfD diffs: [26] [27] [28] [29]

In addition, C. A. Russell has made edits to the target page with the specific intent to be reverted[30] as to "demonstrate a trivial edit" to add the exact wording "FILE pointer". This also should fall under disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, however the amount of disruption here is immediately self-reverted edits in the article history rather than serious vandalism.

I'd also bring attention to an earlier ANI report that seems to have went unnoticed by administrators before being archived. Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition, it seems this editor has been blocked in the past for personal attacks. There are also warnings regarding personal attacks in the editor's talk page history. Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

...Anyone? Steel1943 (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Anywho, I suppose I'll bring up some things that I feel the need to point out since it seems as though this editor is preparing a response statement and ... well, this whole scenario has caused me a lot of grief already:
  • A day or so ago, I replaced my user page with a link to Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence and then reverted after I saw this report. Obviously, the former edit was in response to this editor causing me emotional grief. Ultimately, any such mention of this occurrence as a negative towards me is a strawman-type argument since it strays from the content of the argument that resulted in this report, but rather validates the grief that this user caused me, thus any such mention will probably be a WP:BOOMERANG.
  • As pointed out above, the editor's initial "keep" vote in the RFD discussion was identified to include a personal attack not just by me, but by another editor. In addition, the editor accused me of wasting the community's time with RFD ... which is a rather odd thing to accuse someone of and definitely did not seem like a "good faith" statement, considering RFD is one of the various WP:XFD discussion forums out there that literally is built on community participation, and thus utilizes the attention of the community. In addition, there are cases where such discussions will literally receive no community input, and will this result in "soft delete" or something similar: In other words, there is no requirement for there to be excess community participation in anything other than closing an open discussion ... which is really cheap resource-wise.
  • A few days ago, when this all started, I took it upon myself to see if this editor had a history of causing editors grief such as this ... and the results were astounding. In 2020, the editor was blocked for 48 hours due to personal attacks. In a recent RFD for a redirect titled Primus sucks (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29#Primus sucks), the editor posted a rather long list of questions, demanding yes/no answers that, to me, seems to have came off incredibly unhelpful for forming consensus and may have resulted in the nominator wanting to withdraw the discussion. (I mean honestly, if I had seen something like that in one of my nominations, I'd probably would have decided to ignore it and move on to actual consensus-building inquiries ... a lot of those questions seemed to be snidely attacking the nominator rather than having any sort of consensus-building purpose.)

...With all that being said, this editor, with their statements, has caused me the most unreasonable amount of grief I have had to deal with on Wikipedia for a good while; I'm no stranger to dealing with (and previously, finding) stress on here, and have over the years learned to do my best to avoid extremely controversial areas in response (but in no way am I diminishing the efforts of others who do so since thanks to them, policies and precedents are established on Wikipedia), but the responses from this editor were like a figurative land mine that I would not have been able to spot with the best mine-detecting equipment; their attitude comes off as needlessly defensive to a point of lashing out. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

For reference, here's a draft of the response they are writing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm guess I'm tangentially involved here, in that I originally put a comment supporting Deletion on this RfD, which I since vacated because the thing has become a wall of text that has more words than that redirect has seen page views in its entire lifetime and I don't want to be a part of that. Still, it's pretty clear that @C. A. Russell's behavior at that RfD is uncivil. They seem to feel ownership over this page and redirect, to the point of saying @Steel1943 is wasting contributor time by proposing it, requesting that Steel1943 not only change their mind about this particular redirect but stop participating at RfD altogether, and willingly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point ([31]). It's evident that they're someone convinced the only valid outcome of a discussion is one where everyone else acknowledges they're right. I think at the very least C. A. Russell should be formally warned here, and given that their behavior is enough to drive other editors away from discussions, I'd favor something more. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 06:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

As a person intimately involved with the Primus sucks RfD and has started the "earlier ANI report" (already linked above) regarding that RfD, I broadly agree with Dylnuge's assessment of Russell. However, I do believe that we can probably start with warning Russell this time around but ensure that we emphasize the OWN-related issue that they have, given that Russell themself had created both "Primus sucks" and "FILE pointer" and proceeded to use that attitude when their redirects are challenged over at RfD.

I would also like to alert you to this page in Russell's user space, which contains the list of "a rather long list of questions, demanding yes/no answers" (using Steel1943's words) that first appeared at the Primus RfD. I do deem the page pretty POINTy, but I don't know about you.

(NB: Unless there is a comment directed specifically against me - whether I am mentioned explicitly (pings) or implicitly - or for minor, clearly-noted refactoring, I plan for this to be my only participation in this ANI thread. Need to cut down on drama after my previous ANI report.) NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like this is regular behavior on "their" redirects at AfD pretty much no matter what the redirect is, see also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_17#Yanny\_or\_Laurel. It may also be worth noting that the collection of quotes from themself they have at their talk page seems to be all surrounding an incident with another user that ultimately ended up at ANI and got them a short block. Their user page isn't a problem in-and-of-itself, but it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me that they'll listen to a warning here when they've got that little monument to how they were right and everyone else was wrong. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

They're definitely combative and seem to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality based on my interactions with them. I certainly didn't appreciate Russell telling me that if I don't like the redirects they create I should stop patrolling redirects as part of WP:NPP. They also initiated a long back and forth with me on my talk page because I said they were taking the nomination too personally, badgering me to remove said comment and ranting about how inappropriate it was until I refused to engage further. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Will an admin respond to this report please? I feel this needs a proper close since this is not the first time there has been a report like this against this editor in the past few years, and since the report posted a month or so ago never got answered and ended up being archived. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked C. A. Russell for three days. See the block log for details. I didn't think a warning would be effective or sufficient sanction for their conduct. One of the itemsI listed in the block log that really troubles me is they appear to have no insight into their own behavior, which is a problem generally in a collaborative environment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• I have come here as a RfD regular, and had seen the FILE pointer RfD unfolding. I wanted to close the RfD (since it is ready for close) and I wanted to keep the behavioural aspects of the discussion separate from the merits of the redirect. I had planned on adding a gentle and non-antagonizing note at the talk of C. A. Russell on my observation of his conduct at the RfD. I had read Steel's comment ...this is the first time I've seen you on RFD, and I've been active here for over a decade, so I proceeded to see if the user had a prior history at RfD. Which is when I found the Primus Sucks RfD, and recalled that I had seen that unfolding as well. As suggested at this ANI, he has taken too personally, deletion nominations of redirects created by him, and as hinted by Bbb23, may not be aware that it is a problem.

Today I saw that he has been blocked, and there is this ANI already, so my gentle note at the talk is not going to happen, and I'll have to be blunt here. Dylnuge has covered most of everything I had to say. The user was not civil at the RfD, did not assume good faith about the nomination, and disparaged the nominator repeatedly. This amounted to a personal attack, and vitiated the atmosphere at the discussion. I have feedback about Steel's behaviour too, but this being the ANI about Russell, not bringing it up. Jay 💬 11:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Guns & Glory

Guns & Glory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I removed two sources on the EF88 rifle in Steyr AUG as they were forums [32] per WP:USERG and added a {{Citation needed}} tag.

Guns & Glory has removed the tag and added an Army source [33] for the rifle. The source did not clearly support the material as presented in the article per WP:BURDEN. The user misrepresented a reliable source per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

I then substituted material on the changes to the rifle from the Army source and removed material not in the source [34].

Guns & Glory then reverted my edit [35] re-adding the disputed material with the Army source.

I left a disruptive editing warning on Guns & Glory user page [36] for the article.

I then removed the disputed material on the rifle [37] and Army source.

Guns & Glory then reverted my edit re-adding the disputed material with the Army source [38]. Melbguy05 (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You're removing information that is important of the said topic. The list provides the changes/improvements of the EF88 from the F88. Know your weapons before you start crying like baby Guns & Glory (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Wikipedia can do without insults like "crying like baby"; see WP:CIVIL. I suggest you strike it. Narky Blert (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me ask everyone, what is the main purpose of Wikipedia? To educate and prove reliable information. What this guy is doing is removing information just because the new set of citations that were added didn't include what was mentioned before. New citations have been provided due to a different editor who removed previous citations. Guns & Glory (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore it shows your lack of knowledge of this particular firearm. Read the paragraph, it talks about the Thales F90, not the adopted EF88 by the Australian Defence Force. The F90 is capable of equipping the said new rifle grenade technology. Before you remove that list again, I suggest you do your research, cause you clearly need it instead of removing it. I already provided a citation for the main website and have added the need to provide a better source to accommodate every single detail that contains on the list. That list has been on the article for as long as I can remember. Maybe since 2012. Obviously whomever added it at that time, because the original citations were removed, it will be difficult to find a source that will state every single thing on that list. But I read it, and I don't see anything that is misleading or incorrect with the information given. It feels like you just wanna remove content for the sake of it. Not even providing a better alternative just a straight up deletion which is absurd and contradicts the main purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide information. Guns & Glory (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Guns & Glory WP:VERIFY requires that "All content must be verifiable.. and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". The Army citation you provided did not verify the content in the 10 points. You even admit it did not saying above that the "new set of citations that were added didn't include what was mentioned before" and that "it will be difficult to find a source that will state every single thing on that list". Per WP:VERIFY "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." You restored the material without a citation that supports the material. The Army citation did not support the 10 dot points. It is disruptive editing to mispresent a source as you did for the Army source. I placed a disruptive warning on your talk page and you ignored this and re-added the unverified content to the article. Melbguy05 (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Because the original citations were removed by another editor. Then asked for new citations. I placed 2 citations, and added 'need better source' Guns & Glory (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Guns & Glory You added the Army citation discussed above which misrepresented a reliable source. Later, which I did not discuss above, you added {{Better source needed}} with "The current source is insufficiently reliable (WP:NOTRS)" [39] you then added another source [40] Lithgow Arms citation. You kept {{Better source needed}} after adding Lithgow Arms. Since those edits you admit above that the ""new set of citations that were added didn't include what was mentioned before".--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's a revision dated June 2017 that has three citations for the list, which at that time contained 12 points: Diff of Steyr AUG. How about you two have a look at these 3 citations and see if they cover the points and look reliable. Do this on the article talk page, not here. — Diannaa (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is an archive url for citation #28. The other two might be forums. Unsourced content can and should be removed if a supporting citation cannot be found. It doesn't matter if it's been there a long time. — Diannaa (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The 2011 Thales document has information on the F88SA2 rifle and on its planned replacement the EF88 rifle. The EF88 information on page 20 is potential design changes "areas for enhancement". The disputed material is the actual design changes implemented which came from the forum w54.biz. My edit comment was "remove WP:USERG forums, not in WP:RS ref" by WP:RS I meant the Thales document. --Melbguy05 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If the previous supported the material in question, then just add the previous source. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

North8000 I'm not sure what you mean by previous supported. There were three citations that I removed when I added the {{Citation needed}} tag: two were forums (removed per WP:USERG) and other a 2011 Thales document that did not support the material. The forum indiandefence is a dead url and it is not available from an archive. The material in the most part comes from the forum w54.biz.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I was mostly addressing Guns & Glory / their argument. I haven't taken a deep dive into the article/issues. Their "Because the original citations were removed by another editor" implies that the material in question was supported by a now-removed source. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The source was a forum, which is not an RS. So yes, the material in question was "supported" by a now-removed source, but the source was invalid. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

With this edit they've continued the same behaviour of restoring unreliable sources. They've had the verifiability policy explained to them both here and on the AUG talk page several times now, so I'm really not sure why they're still having this much trouble getting the point. Loafiewa (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Muhsin97233

Muhsin97233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE, user is on a nationalistic mission rather than improving Wikipedia. The vast majority of their (pov) edits (some direct examples [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]) have been reverted, as seen here [46][ if you Ctrl + F "reverted". They are obsessed with turning everything to anything "Arab", even spamming talk pages with their WP:SOAPBOX nonsense [47] [48] [49] [50]. This has been going on since they first started editing, in February 2022.

Their talk page is also full of warnings I have warned them multiple times, which they only addressed once with this comment (there's more in the diff); "...Conclusion We all know the English Wikipedia, most of them are run by racist Persians who falsify the facts in favor of their Persian nation..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I won't comment on this as I'm not well versed in the subject, except only to point out that it's pretty misleading of you to say that "Their talk page is full of warnings", when in fact all those warnings come from you yourself. To avoid creating the wrong impression, please use the active voice in such situations, such as "I have warned them many times". Bishonen | tålk 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC).

You're right, my bad. I have fixed it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is classic extremely one-sided ethnic POV-pushing. Basically, everyone of any note is Arab, not Persian or Berber [51][52][53]; [54]; [55]; [56]; [57]; [58]; [59][60][61]; [62]; [63]. Don't say 'Persian', say 'Muslim' Even the cookbook is not Arabic (=language), but Arab (=ethnicity)! Any pushback against this must of course be racist [64][65].

Muhsin97233's disruption is sparse but ongoing since July 2022, with little or nothing else in between (diffed above is almost every mainspace edit they made). I think a wp:nothere indef block would be helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the last several edits from this user, and it's a mixed bag; though nothing to me that says they need a block as yet. Maybe a topic ban at best. I mean, most of the edits are to talk pages, which we encourage, and is not really disrupting article text. Some of the edits, such as this one seem fine; the source doesn't seem to mention "Arabian" at all (at least, the little bit available online doesn't). Perhaps a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would solve the problem? --Jayron32 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Only their most recent edits are to talk pages. In mainspace, it's been almost all disruptive (see the diffs in my comment above; the Camel urine edits are one of the few exceptions). That said, I've encountered this user during patrolling but did not report precisely because their most recent edits did not disrupt mainspace. If that is taken as a sign that they might be willing to reform, then yes, a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would certainly also solve the problem. But there clearly is a problem, and I think that now that we're here it would be helpful to do something about it. I therefore also support a topic-ban as an alternative measure. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

SimoooIX and M.Bitton - round 3

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

---

SimoooIX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also previously known as Simoooix.haddi)

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous ANI discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#non_adequately_explained_revert,_baseless_accusations_from_M.Bitton
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#M.Bitton_and_Simoooix.haddi_2-way_interaction_ban

Two weeks have passed since the last discussion, and I was recently called in to Talk:Ahmed Ben Bella to intervene in a latest round of dispute, taking place at Talk:Ahmed_Ben_Bella#April_2023 and Talk:Ahmed_Ben_Bella#May_2023. While there's some mild PA-sparring going on there and at discussions linked in those sections, what ultimately motivated me to bring this back to ANI is the exchange related to Talk:Ahmed_Ben_Bella#April_2023 and misrepresentation of sources. Reviewing the source in question [66] and the diffs carried out by SimoooIX (Special:Diff/1152380324, Special:Diff/1152392502), while I think it is possible that SimoooIX's misreading of the source may have been a genuine mistake rather than a deliberate intent to misrepresent the source, their willingness to insist on edits and argue forcefully for them despite their inability to understand the source cited is disruptive, and leads me to recommend that the community pass a topic ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics, broadly construed against SimoooIX. If this were a first time offense, WP:ROPE would be appropriate, but coming as it does after months of bickering, a p-block and 2 ANI threads (not to mention this opening shot to their relationship), I think that we have collectively been more than enough patient in waiting for SimoooIX to edit constructively. I would also note that the specific concern that SimoooIX was misreading French sources has been raised before by M.Bitton but does not appear to have been investigated in detail in the prior threads. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Enough is enough, this has to stop. --Yamla (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, regarding the issue of sources misrepresentation (which is not the real issue why i pinged you, and i think you should have mentioned the edit warring and properly sourced content removal stuff):

1)- the content i added is a matter of fact even if it wasn't mentioned in that specific source, It is supported by other reliable sources.[67]

2)- the author of the article, did also write an other article in which He is clearly confirming what i added. [68]

3)- The author of the article made this conclusion at the end of the paragraph. "Le futur président algérien est donc marocain et « berbère » par ses origines, rural et provincial par son statut social".Why would He even do that? SimoooIX (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics, broadly construed against SimoooIX. The above post does not help their case.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per evidence above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Here are some reasons why a Topic ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics is not a good idea:

• 1)- It simply means that i should definitively stop editing on Wikipedia (see my userpage in order to know why):
• 2)- I have contributed many times on this topic and the majority of my edits were constructive (feel free to check my contibutions). i have also created the articles of Almohad conquest of Norman Africa and Awraba. and i have intentions to improve them in the future, also i have plans to create more articles.
• 3)- the most important reason to me is that M.Bitton clearly has something against Morocco and you can see that in many instances. For example they have labeled mentions of Morocco 'stupid' [69] and i have highlighted their mistake [70] and another editor did that too [71]. Also they have referred to the Moroccan policies as being 'colonialist'[72]. Unfortunately there is no one to stop their POV pushing. if i get banned that means they will feel free to do whatever they want.

As for my third edit. I admit that it was a mistake, and i have already apologized for it. i re-apologize if this was needed. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of SimoooIX's edits have been either disruptive or questionable at best. Here's their sole contribution to the Awraba article that they "created" (a single line with a factually incorrect nationalist POV that their tried to reinject after it was removed). The other article is a POV fork (created according to them to present the Almohad's view rather than the Normans' view) that consists of 80% background that is covered elsewhere.

Three days ago, they accused me of POV pushing and when asked to either substantiate their accusation or apologize, they referred to a discussion that proves the exact opposite of their assertion (this comment by Apaugasma sums it up quite well).

Look, i'm aware that an Algerian president being Moroccan Berber by his origins is a bothersome to you. But Wikipedia is not the place to impose your biased POV. yesterday's personal attack (that they tried to hide 12 hours after making it) is beyond the pale. It's also near identical to the first they made on the day they joined the project. M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Now you are clearly making baseless accusations. When I created the article of Awraba, I simply translated a part of the French article that referred to the Awraba as a tribe of Morocco. When you changed "Morocco" to "North Africa" and mentioned that you've adressed the anachronism, I initially thought adding "modern-day" would address the issue. However, after you explained the issue more clearly, I agreed with your reasoning and moved on. I was assuming good faith throughout our interaction.

"The other article is a POV fork (created according to them to present the Almohad's view rather than the Normans' view)" you clearly understood nothing from my comment ( I don't have to explain it now). So i suggest you refrain making accusations based on misunderstandings.

Now let's talk about your behaviour as an editor. You've personally attacked me more than once [73][74][75], you have threatened me [76], accused my properly sourced addition of being "a POV serving a political agenda" [77] and falsely accused me of sockpuppetry [78]. As for the reason why i pinged Rosguill (apparently that was unhelpful), the following is a copied comment of mine that i have left in the talk page of Ahmed Ben Bella:

I have added properly sourced content, but apparently M.Bitton didn't like what i added, and removed it as well as other relevant content for being 'undue' (which is clearly not). i have reverted their removal and respectfully asked them not to edit war and discuss their removal in the talk page first. but they clearly seem unwilling to cooperate and cotinued edit warring. (you'll notice that they are refusing to continue this discussion). SimoooIX (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Just as a note, SimoooIX, unfortunately here at ANI we don't care that if you're t-banned, It simply means that i should definitely stop editing on Wikipedia. In fact, that hurts your case, as to most experienced editors it's a sign you may be here to WP:RGW.

A topic ban means you apparently aren't currently able to contribute in a certain area in a way that is a net-positive. It doesn't have to be permanent if you can show you're capable of editing in other areas productively. It's possible you simply need more experience to understand that, yes, Wikipedia is not the place to impose your biased POV is indeed a personal attack.

(That said, I agree M.Bitton has made the same kinds of personal attacks on you, and while I think they definitely need to be warned, it's a little hard to understand why you can recognize it when they throw it at you but not when you throw it at them. Although that's true for them, too. Really both of you are behaving badly.)

At any rate, if you stop editing because of a topic ban, rather than attempting to learn how to productively contribute in other areas until the t-ban is lifted, we kind of consider that evidence you were WP:NOTHERE. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I did my best to avoid them since the last ANI, but they kept casting aspersions and justifying them by referring to a discussion that proves the opposite of what they claim, culminating in the last PA (see above) that I simply ignored. They have a thing against me (as clearly highlighted in their third ever edit and repeated numerous times since) that I simply cannot ignore, and while turning the other cheek is what we're supposed to do, there are limits to how much harassment and abuse one can take. Also, if they can try to justify that to themselves, I don't see how they can possibly justify insulting the Algerian president (in wikipedia's voice). If that's not the sign of someone of who's here on a mission (one of which is to drive me up the wall), I don't know what is. M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, but when you retaliate with the exact same kinds of personal attacks, you've kind of forfeited that moral high ground. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not retaliate since the last ANI where I promised to avoid them. See the last two blatant PA (highlighted above) that I ignored. Also, what did the Algerian president ever do to them to deserve being called a pussy in Wikipedia's voice? M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Your accusation is actually based on another editor's false accusation (on french wiki). Now tell me, why do you think that i called the Algerian president a 'pussy'? Please be precise! SimoooIX (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, it's a fact. I saw what you wrote with my own eyes before it was RevDeleted and you blocked indefinitely on fr.wp.

The disgusting insult towards the Algerian president says everything there is to know about you as an editor. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You're just repeating things. I asked for an explanation! Do you even undestand Arabic, Amazigh or whatever the language? You should explain your accusation, otherwise this will not be tolerated anymore. SimoooIX (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: Exchanges like the above are the reason I'm still not sure there isn't fault on both sides. M.Bitton must have mentioned this insult to the president of Algeria -- which none of us can see unless someone here is an admin on frwiki -- at minimum a dozen times in various discussions. Valereee (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, i should make this clear now, i cannot stand more false accusations! Here is the edit i've done on the french wiki:

تبون -->طبون.

Probably i was wrong, but that was actually the spelling i used to see in social media, so i thought there was some mistake in the arabic spelling. (Apparently there wasn't)

Also as far as i'm concerned, the pronunciation of 'Tebboune' in french is more like طبون than تبون. (You can compare the Arabic pronunciation of both Arabic words on Google translate)

Now M.Bitton should explain to us how is that an insult or how exactly that means that i called the Algerian president "pussy". SimoooIX (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: since I'm damned if I respond to them and damned if I don't, I might as well do myself a favour and keep away from this nth time sink altogether. M.Bitton (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

For me, you're totally free to respond. you have replied to me multiple even after the last ANI (including instances where you personally attacked me). Thus, I am curious as to why you are unable to provide a response to me at this specific moment. SimoooIX (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, I understand that you may be tired of this unnecessary conflict (which is understandable).

First of all, i would like to apologize for any actions that may have been interpreted as a personal attack.

An yes, my main reason for joining Wikipedia was to contribute to articles related to North Africa, and I also engaged in anti-vandalism efforts such as reverting edits and warning vandals, but that was secondary to me.

As a former reader of Wikipedia, I noticed that certain mentions of Morocco were being removed, and upon checking discussions on talk pages and the contibs history of some editors, I identified M.Bitton as a frequent contributor to these edits. I didn't like their edits (especially that they had started their editorial careed by edit-warring). And that was the moment when i decided to open an account and personally attack them (again, i'm not justifying anything).

In my early days on Wikipedia, I also engaged in edit wars frequently. Interestingly, M. Bitton was also involved in these conflicts consistently. What I found funny was that while they were sending warnings on my talk page about edit warring, they were simultaneously engaging in the same behavior. This led me to believe that edit warring was a typical occurrence on Wikipedia, even among experienced editors.

To avoid an unnecessary t-ban, I propose a solution to address one of the root causes of the problem. Admins should tackle two problematic behaviors exhibited by M. Bitton, namely

• Edit warring.
• Refusal to discuss.

I strongly believe that resolving these two issues with M. Bitton can eliminate the larger problem altogether, as other issues can be easily resolved once these two main issues are addressed. Thank you. SimoooIX (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no difference, none whatsoever, between your so-called early days and the way you've been conducting yourself ever since you joined the project (including you last comment). You're clearly here on a mission that includes, among other things, driving me up the wall.

Did you "discuss" anything with the Algerian president before you decided to describe him as a "pussy" in Wikipedia's voice? M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The current dynamic is toxic; I'm happy to revisit if SimoooIX demonstrates they can edit productively in other areas. The misreading of the Ahmed Ben Bella source is fundamental. One other matter: M.Bitton, I appreciate that dealing with SimoooIX is aggravating, but you need to disengage and de-escalate. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, but did you read what i wrote above about the sources and the content i added? Anyway, I'm not the only who has had issues with this editor (I can give names if you insisted, but for now, i don't feel the need of involving other editors) I was unlucky enough that my first interactions were with them and that they are editing on the exact same topic for which i've came to wikipedia to edit on. (I'm not justifying some of the mistakes i've done but i think the entire conflict could have been avoided. In fact, i have noticed that the exact same problem happened somewhere else with other editors, i was fan of how the experienced editor had dealt with the issue). SimoooIX (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was unlucky enough that my first interactions were with them By which you mean you sought them out and made an unprovoked personal attack. Yes, very unlucky. [79] - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  I suggest you read the whole comment in order to undestand why i said that. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support t-ban. SimoooIX, your best bet is to go edit somewhere less contentious while you gain experience. If you really don't have any other editing interests at all, Wikipedia may not be a good fit for you. Valereee (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as proposed. Since the previous ANI report, SimoooIX has continued wasting precious editors' time at Talk:Azougui#Sources and Talk:Almoravid_dynasty#First capital over an issue which seems to me to be tendentious in nature. Among three cities commonly called by sources 'capitals' of the Almoravids, SimoooIX insisted that the only non-Moroccan one should not be called capital, keeping multiple editors who disagree busy with this over several days, and utterly refusing to drop the stick.
  I already suggested to SimoooIX that they consider staying away a bit from Morocco-related subjects and look for other subjects to edit, but apparently they are only interested in editing North Africa-related stuff.
  However, interpreting "la sainte éponyme, qu’on dit originaire de Marrakech" as meaning that the Algerian politician Ahmed Ben Bella himself is from Marrakech (Morocco) [80][81], and doubling down on that even after an English translation of the relevant sentence has been presented, is ... strange. Either it's extremely tendentious, or (perhaps more likely) it's a combination of lacking French language skills (a rather serious wp:cir problem for anyone insisting on only editing North Africa-related topics) with a failure to assume good faith on the translation given. In any case, it's another talk page filled [82] with pure wp:timesink stuff keeping editors busy for days, and if nothing else that needs to stop. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  Apaugasma, i suggest you are more precise. I insisted that Azougui mustn't be described as the "first capital" as per reliable sources that described Aghmat (another city) as the "first capital" and i have explained that here talk:Azougui#Sources and here talk:Almoravid dynasty#First capital.

  Have you read what i wrote above about the sources and the content i added? The content i added (that Ben Bella's parents came from the Marrakesh region) is a matter of fact and supported by other sources! SimoooIX (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  The point is not 'capital' or 'first capital', the point is that you at least seem hell bent on diminishing the status of that non-Moroccan city, that you appear to resort to tendentious reasoning to arrive there, and –most importantly– that when multiple editors do not agree with this reasoning, you refuse to drop it.

  Yes, you added to the Ben Bella article that his parents were originally from Marrakesh, while the source you cited only says that the patron saint of his native town Maghnia was originally from Marrakech. It's true, other sources like [83][84] do confirm that Ben Bella's parents originated in the Marrakesh region, but you only came up with a new source after making this whole stir about it, and even then you did not admit that you misread the first source, nor that you clearly do not known enough French to read it correctly.

  Look, this is not about whether you're right or not, it's about the way you go about it. As Rosguill writes in this t-ban proposal, while I think it is possible that SimoooIX's misreading of the source may have been a genuine mistake rather than a deliberate intent to misrepresent the source, their willingness to insist on edits and argue forcefully for them despite their inability to understand the source cited is disruptive. It's not normal for a Wikipedia editor to create so many sprawling talk page disputes over seemingly simple edits. It's not normal for a Wikipedia editor to waste so much of their fellow editors' time. You need to learn how to communicate more effectively, to admit your mistakes, and to drop the wp:stick when appropriate. The best way to learn this is by editing in other subject areas for a while. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

the point is that you at least seem hell bent on diminishing the status of [that non-Moroccan city that's an accusation that you should prove!

Well, if that makes others happy, i apologize for any actions that have been seen as a misrepresentation of sources. SimoooIX (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: as proposed. SimoooIX's tendentious editing and unwillingness to stop digging deeper holes is apparent here. It also takes a high degree of chutzpah to suggest -- as they did below -- that the best way to avoid hitting SimoooIX with an "unnecessary" ban is to sanction the other guy instead. With that degree of willful ignorance, I wouldn't consider them a strong candidate for improvement to the level of collegiality and collaborative editing we need. Ravenswing 20:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  You can support whatever you want but please do not misrepresent what i said. I didn't suggest to sanction M.Bitton instead. i have heard enough reprimands for some of my actions. I just find it unfair to ignore M.Bitton's violations. With that degree of willful ignorance didn't you see me apologizing above?

  @Rosguill, look, i can understand that you may hold some sympathy for M.Bitton (this diff is showing it quite well [85]), but don't you think that the way you filed the ANI was not impartial enough? i mean you didn't mention even a single violation of M.Bitton's (which i mentioned above, in addition to violation of 3RR in the Marinid Sultante article) which i found to be odd. Also while I may have misrepresented a source, it did not result in any significant damage given that other reliable sources support the information I added. Your ANI made it seem as though I was the villain of the story which made everyone support the t-ban.

  I was previously blocked for edit warring, and Valereee insisted that i should learn how to discuss issues instead. I have taken this lesson to heart and have been more engaged in talk pages. During the second ANI thread, @Valereee suggested a two-way IBAN, and @ScottishFinnishRadish seemed to support it. This implies that both administrators agree that the problem was not one-sided. However, I am curious as to why they are supporting sanctions against only one side of the conflict now (i mean what made them change their opinion?). The ANI concluded that M.Bitton should avoid interacting with me, but in reality, they continued to interact with me (which is understandable given that we both edit the same topic, making it impossible to avoid me).

  Rosguill, i preferred to ping an administrator (which was you) instead of being engaged in an edit war, but apparetly the award i will get for that is a t-ban. i didn't want to ping Valereee as i was pretty sure that she may had enough with this conflict, i thought that pinging a relatively less engaged administrator would be a good idea (apparently that was a stupid idea). If i had opened an ANI discussion by myself, certainly the damage would have been lesser than a t-ban.

  Finally,I don't blame M.Bitton for not assuming good faith whatever comes after this sentence, i find it intolerable especially when it comes from an administrator. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Apologies" are just empty words when they are not matched with actions. Disabusing yourself of the notion that you will win an argument if you just bludgeon it with rebuttal after rebuttal, walls of text upon walls of text, would have been a good start. It just doesn't seem like one you were willing to undertake. Ravenswing 02:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• To avoid an unnecessary t-ban, I propose a solution to address one of the root causes of the problem. Admins should tackle two problematic behaviors exhibited by M.Bitton, namely:
  • • Edit warring.
    • Refusal to discuss.
• I strongly believe that resolving these two issues with M. Bitton can eliminate the larger problem altogether, as other issues can be easily resolved once these two main issues are addressed. Thank you.

SimoooIX (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Ready for close?

Consensus seems pretty clear here. This could use action and close before the archive bot sweeps it away. - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No, not yet. I've provided evidence of M.Bitton's violations of Wikipedia policies through the diffs I presented above. It's strange that except Valereee, no one else has acknowledged or dealt with these violations.

I have also suggested an alternative (more reasonable and peaceful to me) solution above that should be taken into account.SimoooIX (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

With unanimous sentiment of those other than yourself supporting the consensus, it's plain that whatever you feel about your own arguments, the other editors are unmoved by them. I find myself unmoved by them. As to the "three reasons" you list above for not being topic banned, the first one (that it would effectively bar you from editing Wikipedia) engages my sympathies as little as any other editor; if this is a declaration that you refuse to edit collaboratively and in accordance with civility policies anywhere if you're demonstrated to be incapable of it in this topic area, that's useful to know.

In the second reason, claiming that the "majority" of your edits were constructive begs the question: why weren't they all constructive? In the final case, your allegations against M.Bitton don't hold water. He did not call Morocco "stupid" -- he said that referring to the Marinid rulers as a Moroccan dynasty, long before Morocco existed, was stupid, a defensible assertion. (Would you likewise consider imperial Rome, the Kingdom of the Vandals, and Carthage "Moroccan" states?) And while he referred to Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara as "colonialist," that is indeed the position of the United Nations, and only one other country on Earth recognizes Moroccan control over the territory. Ravenswing 00:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to fully understand the issue. By describing the mention of Morocco as "stupid," they are essentially labeling the numerous references (from reliable sources) to the dynasty being either Moroccan or a ruling dynasty of Morocco (which I have provided examples of on the talk page and can provide more) as also being stupid. This is the crux of the matter, and I find it indefensible. (The examples of Rome, Vandals, and Carthage are irrelevant and have little to do with the history of Morocco compared to Marinids).

Please correct me if I am wrong, but when did the UN refer to Morocco as "colonialist"? While they may have referred to Morocco as an "occupier," there is a significant difference between the two terms. While I understand that editors may have biases, they should do their best to conceal them while editing or discussing on talk pages to maintain neutrality. Even if the UN did refer to Morocco as such, it is still not justifiable. "Moroccan Sahara" is actually the most widely used term to refer to Western Sahara in Morocco, and it is commonly used by Moroccan politicians and Moroccan citizens, as well as individuals from other Arab nations. Therefore, when M.Bitton refers to them as "colonialist" and "cheerleaders of colonialists" it borders on hate speech towards people from a specific country. (Note:and only one other country on Earth recognizes Moroccan control over the territory your wrong statement proves somehow you're not familiar with the subject of Western Sahara)

Lastly, those were not the violations I was referring to. Please refer to my comment above where I highlighted some of the personal attacks, false accusations, content removal, and edit warring. Thank you. SimoooIX (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand the issue quite well, thank you, and stand by the accuracy of my statements. I just don't happen to agree with you, and you should be capable of understanding the distinction, as well as recognizing that no other editor here agrees with you either. As it happens, your personal approval is not required in order to tban you. Ravenswing 20:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:Jacona

Hello, I’m writing to report behavior of User:Jacona that I believe constitute personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, as well as WP:OWN, and WP:TEND concerning Trinity Christian Academy (Addison, Texas). I’m an employee of the school being attacked, which has more than 1,200 students and a minority population of 17.5% as of 2021. Jacona has been forthright in making these personal attacks against the school on both the article’s Talk page and my user Talk page. This includes asking that I get the school’s administration to issue public statements in line with Jacona’s agenda and an outrageously false and libelous claim that the school “successfully continues that mission [perpetuating segregation] today.” Jacona’s agenda has spilled over into damaging the WIkipedia page in many ways, which I will detail later.

Here are examples of Jacona’s attacks against the school (ital emphases are mine)::

We all want the article to be better, but not everyone is interested in accuracy - the Wikipedia article should not look like the school's website, which tells this fairytale about the school's founding. It makes me very sad to see racial discrimination equated to "the glory of God". Since you're connected to the school, perhaps you could encourage the administration to publicly acknowledge their founding and demonstrate how they've grown despite of it, rather than claiming that very sordid beginning to be glorious and divine. (emphasis mine) [86]The school has certainly come a short way in a long time, so far as diversity is concerned! [87]

Note: the school website Jacona links to describes the school’s religious mission and makes absolutely no mention of racial discrimination or equating racial discrimination to the glory of God.

If this article were an attack piece, it would likely dwell more on how this school was founded to perpetuate segregation, and successfully continues that mission today. (emphasis mine). [88] 
It saddens me to read your school's website and it's fairytale history of the schools founding that states "Founded on the purpose of educating and developing the whole person for the glory of God, we believe there’s more for us to do than simply teach and ultimately, there’s more for our children to do than simply learn" and "TCA was started by a small group of parents who were committed to building a school with a strong curriculum within a framework of traditional Christian values". It implies that the "glory of God" is to keep Black people from getting uppity and think they are good enough humans to attend the same school or ride the same buses as White kids, and that "traditional Christian values" include providing rich White and Asian kids an education free from the influence of poor black kids. (emphasis mine) I don't believe either to be true, and am inexorably drawn to Matthew 25:45-46. When we're talking about education in the United States in 1970 and today, it is obvious to me that when Jesus was speaking about "the least of these", he was talking about the students that were then and now are excluded from an education at TCA. (emphasis mine) [89] 

For the record, Trinity is committed to promoting diversity, including with scholarships, and as noted, has a 17.5% minority enrollment as of June 2021. [90] It’s worth noting that this pattern is not limited just to Trinity, but can also be seen with similarly disparaging Edit Summaries on pages about other Christian academies. In these two examples, Jacona inserted the term “segregation academy” into the lead of two articles about a private Chrisitan school, and then removed it shortly after, but left a disparaging comment in the Edit Summary about each school:

(Removed the term "segregation academy" to avoid offending whites who want to feel that an all-white school that admitted no black students is somehow not a segregation academy.) [91] 
(Removed the words segregation academy; although the school certainly fits the definition quite well, I can't find a source that uses those exact words. Split the current demographics into a separate section.) [92]. 

Jacona has also demonstrated a pattern of altering the leads of articles about Christian] academies with content that is original analysis based on WP:PRIMARY sources or no sources at all. For example, Jacona added this sentence to the lead of Trinity. The source does not have any information about the racial demographics of the area, and certainly does not make the comparison Jacona does.

The White enrollment is now 80%, in a community that is 48% White. (emphasis mine.) The school serves pre-kindergarten through grade 12.[93] 

Jacona does the same thing, using Primary sources, in the lead of another Christian Academy:

The public school district, Clarendon 02, had a student body population that was 47% Black and 46% White. (emphasis mine) [94] (contrasting public-school district demographic stats with those of a single private school.)

As I said at the top, Jacona’s agenda has spilled over into damaging the WIkipedia page about Trinity Christian Academy in many ways. These include: 1) fabricating grossly inaccurate stats to attack the school (i.e. saying in the lead that the school had only 4 black students in 2020) [95]. 2) When User:Archer1234 removed this fabricated information [96], Jacona added in a wholly original analysis comparing the region’s racial demographics (without any source), to the school’s racial demographics – stating that “to not include [it] looks like whitewashing.” Edit Summary. 3) Jacona also cherry-picked this stat for the lead of Trinity on November 7, 2022: “...as of 2020, 4 percent of the student body was Black” (ignoring the overall minority enrollment from the Primary source.) [97] Yet the body of the article, where Jacona got the stat, gave the full demographics of the student body, including Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and African Americans. By choosing to highlight only the recent Black student population in the lead (rather than all minorities), right after a statement about the discriminatory 1971 history, Jacona created the false impression that the current student body is 96% white. 4) Importantly, Jacona has blocked efforts to expand the page about the school from beyond attacks. They answered a Request Edit proposal I made last October in less than 24 hours, declining with thin rationale Request Edits regarding reliably-sourced school information (e.g. sports, curriculum, school activities) that comport with Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice [98]. The result is that the page remains about little else but the controversies. Jacona says they believe the school is only notable because of controversies, and should be deleted. Apparently in their mind this means the page should only be about the controversies.

So anyway, the only areas that make this school notable are its history of bigotry against Blacks, and the more recent discrimination against homosexual students. In my opinion, the article should be deleted. [99] 

Of course, it’s Jacona who has blocked the expansion of the article to include other topics, such as the curriculum and sports, in part by questioning the legitimacy of multiple local newspapers or topics not to their liking, despite the detailed content recommendations of the WikiProject Schools. There are many dozens of stories about the school in the local press over the past five decades, enough for it to even perhaps reach GA status, if future rounds of Request Edits are not blocked by Jacona. Given their history of making personal attacks and undisguised agenda editing, I do not see how Jacona can continue to make direct edits to the page in a neutral manner or evaluate/close Request Edits. Lkspears (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Lkspears (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Quite aside from my agreement that Wikipedia's civility policies do not remotely allow someone to claim that they're personally attacked by purported "attacks" on an organization with which they are connected, however much the OP has conformed to COI, I looked over JoJo Anthrax's link myself. If we're not mistaken in our surmise, the OP is just about the last person on Earth justified in pointing fingers about "agenda editing," dealing with this page in a neutral manner, or over violations of NOTADVOCACY. Ravenswing 01:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

References

I'm curious why you brought this up 4 months after the last interaction you had with Jacona? This doesn't appear to be a pressing issue and I'm not seeing any personal attacks here. Attacks on the subject, sure, but not on you or any other editor. --Golbez (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Golbez note that this editor says they work for the school, not sure in what capacity. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This should be closed. There are no apparent personal attacks here, and this is not a forum for resolving content disputes or for determining if an article should or should not be deleted. @Doug Weller: For what it's worth, a quick inspection of the school's web cite here provided me with good evidence of the OP's job description. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax yes and yes. I’d close it if I weren’t on my iPad. I’m as likely to mess it up as do it properly, clumsy fingers.😀 Doug Weller talk 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

A) Personal attacks specifically include: “Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on [. . .] religious or political beliefs [. . .] directed against another editor or a group of editors.” Jacona singled me out as an employee of an evangelical Christian private academy to falsely accuse me and my school of equating racism and segregation with “traditional Christian values” and “perpetuating segregation”, and to demand that I pressure the school into issuing a public statement – outside of Wikipedia.

B) And even if it’s not technically a “personal attack” under Wikipedia policy, Jacona is openly editing to advance an ideological viewpoint in violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY. Aside from infusing their viewpoint on the page and Talk, even in their response here on ANI, Jacona says the school has “made progress”, as though their personal evaluation of whether the school is meritorious should influence Wikipedia decisionmaking. Lkspears (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

[T]he only areas that make this school notable are its history of bigotry against Blacks, and the more recent discrimination against homosexual students. This line amounts to Lkspears (talk · contribs) complaining about WP:NOTCENSORED — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Oops, misread the history — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I've made no personal attacks. As the self-acknowledged paid editor mentions, I've acknowledged that the school has made a lot of progress, being rougly 83% white/17% minority (albeit in a community that is majority minority), but that does not change history. It was founded as a seg academy. Their complaint boils down to non-acceptance that Wikipedia is not censored. They (or IPs I strongly suspect to be them) have just been trying to censor it for a long time. Jacona (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Logged out edits

Can Lkspears confirm that they are not responsible the recent wave of IP edits that resulted in the semi-protection of the article? [100], [101], [102] [103]? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not responsible for any of those other edits and I have no idea who is making them. I didn’t go to the trouble of disclosing my COI on the page’s Talk, proposing Request Edits with COI disclosures over many months, and posting this extensive ANI complaint with another COI disclosure today, just to turn around and wantonly violate Wikipedia policy with undisclosed COI edits from an IP address. Lkspears (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Marrakech

I removed this comment that Marrakech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made to Talk:Cheshire home invasion murders because it seems blatantly transphobic to me, and to ignore styling guidelines for names of transgender individuals at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity. After I informed then of the guidelines, they doubled down, [104]. Given their previous edits in the transgender topic area (eg [105]) I think a topic ban or an indef block may be warranted. Admittedly my original "taking out the trash" edit summary when initially removing their comment was not ideal and did not adequately explain the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I'm from that area and go there with some frequency (though I don't know anyone involved in this, it was a huge news story that was unavoidable around here), but given the context I'm having a hard time getting past referring to this specific person's previous name as a "deadname". The Linehan thing I don't know enough about, this isn't my topic area, so I'll defer to those more familiar. That said, the removed comment from Marrakech was totally inexcusable, I have no sympathy for Hayes but that was obviously intended to be as incendiary as possible. At minimum it deserves a strong warning, repeating it would certainly be worthy of (at minimum) an indefinite p-block from that page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the person was clearly notable under their old name due to their crime, and I agree the name should be include. My issue was with Marrakech calling it a "disgrace" that their current gender identification be respected, which is part of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Enough with the hyperboles. It is not 'blatantly transphobic' to call the guy who raped and murdered an innocent woman a guy. Nor was my comment 'intended to be as incendiary as possible'. I am merely criticizing the article for treating Steven Hayes as if he were a woman. You may not agree with that, but voicing an opinion can hardly be a reason for any ban whatsoever. At least not in an environment that respects basic rights and principles. Marrakech (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, actually, voicing transphobic opinions is transphobic. "I'm just voicing my opinion" is not some magic protection from criticism, and being permitted to edit wikipedia is not a "basic right". Wikipedia's guidelines on gender identity are very clear, and you wouldn't be the first to be blocked for blatantly refusing to follow them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, looking further into this I'm deeply unimpressed by Marrakech's recent contributions as a whole, which are largely concerned with pushing their PoV on trans issues. Since the beginning of 2022 they have made 19 edits as I write this, including: the comment on Talk:Cheshire home invasion murders (once, twice, three times); this edit using Quillette as a source (generally unreliable according to WP:RSP), this edit sourced to a Forbes Contributor article (generally unreliable according to WP:FORBESCON; and the source doesn't strictly support the claim made anyway); this edit to Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting where they argue that WP:DEADNAME should be ignored "as a general rule"; twice adding the word "alleged" to the description of Graham Linehan's anti-trans activism, and this edit to Talk:Ezra Miller arguing that the use of singular they in reference to a specific known person is ungrammatical. Some of these might be excusable individually, but they make up the majority of Marrakech's edits in more than a year, and together they constitute a clear pattern. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself here. I can attest that, especially for anyone from here, this is about the least sympathetic subject imaginable on any level. Your problem is with choosing the most inflammatory way possible to express it, and I have a hard time thinking that you wouldn't intuit this would result; if you honestly didn't, that's a problem in and of itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It is blatantly transphobic to call a trans woman a guy. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Marrakech's original comment - the one linked to by and removed by Hemiauchenia - was pure transphobia, and expressed in the most despicable way. They need to apologise and voluntarily back off, or I would support a block of some kind. GiantSnowman 22:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologise to poor Steven Hayes? Because my crime is on a level with what he did? Anyway, not believing in something does not equate to hating or despising it. I do not for a moment believe that Hayes is a woman, but that does not mean I hate and despise him for self identifying as such: no transphobia there. There are of course plenty of other reasons to loathe the guy. Marrakech (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You're taking a very moralising stance about Hayes here but you've been doing the same thing on the dutch Wikipedia with regards to respecting the pronouns of Suzy Eddie Izzard. where, among other things, you've been repeatedly claiming that (paraphrasing slightly to accommodate translation): "just like a man claiming he feels like he's twenty when he is actually fifty, a man who feels like a woman obviously isn't a woman". I don't necessarily believe we should sanction people for behaviour on other platforms save for extreme cases, but it does lead me to believe that your behaviour on that talk page has less to do with Hayes, and more with you. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

'You're taking a very moralising stance about Hayes (...).' Well, about as moralising as the stance you guys take about me for opposing the view that Hayes should be treated and described as a woman. Because that is what this is all about: wrongthink. Marrakech (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

When looking at your edits more broadly, this clearly isn't about Hayes, but your contempt for people changing gender identity in general. The fact that you have an entire ArbCom case on nlwiki just dedicated to your disruptive editing regarding gender identity/pronouns suggests you have a problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

See, someone killing and raping another someone doesn't give a free pass to misgender them. I'm honestly surprised no admin has indeffed you yet, it's an obvious open and shut case. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• I should probably know this, but my eyes glazed over when they talked about the new contentious topics regime in class. Do you still have to have some kind of official templated warning before making a contentious topic sanction? I looked at WP:CTOP and didn't see such a requirement, but surely they're needed, right? Anyway, I'd suggest an official warning (if required) or a CT topic ban (if not). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Oh wait, sorry. They already got one last summer (although I'm still a little curious if they're officially required; did I miss something at WP:CTOP?). I'd suggest an admin more familiar with the i-dotting and t-crossing of CT sanctions just unilaterally topic ban them. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Awareness of contentious topics; there's still some formality involved but they've tried to reduce it. Galobtter (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• comment: in case english-only people here are unaware, this user is currently the main party subject to an unresolved ArbCom case on dutch Wikipedia for a related issue. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Marrakech has used a previous account. Per Wikipedia:Clean start#Contentious and scrutinized_topics they should disclose the previous account. I was going to impose a WP:GENSEX topic ban, which should be done as a minimum, but this edit suggests that the problems extend beyond the topic area. Galobtter (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

What is problematic about that particular edit? Apart from this, LilianaUwU's comment 'It is blatantly transphobic to call a trans woman a guy' sums it up nicely. You guys present mere opinions as facts and want to silence wikipedians who do not happen to agree with you. Is Wikipedia still a free and democratic encyclopedia, or an environment similar to countries where strict blasphemy laws continue to be in place? Marrakech (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure which Wikipedia you're talking about, but this one is not and has never been either a democracy or a platform for free speech. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions, but I see this user finds it difficult to resist GENSEX-related topics,[106][107][108] where their viewpoint becomes evident, and as far as I can see all their edits in this area get reverted. That, combined with the Dutch ArbCom case, makes me believe that Marrakech should indeed be topic banned from the area of GENSEX. — Czello ^(music) 15:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Editing Wikipedia is a privilege. Having seen Marrakech's recent edits, their replies in this thread, as well as their behavior in the nl wiki, it's clear their editing is hateful and disruptive and not collaborative, as such I've indeffed them. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Good block. Looking at some of their previous edits, they should probably have had at least a GENSEX ban a while ago. I suspect that their very erratic editing contributed to that. And I'm surprised that this took over 24 hours; we indef racists and misogynists on the spot, but apparently not transphobes. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

    Yeah I agree. There's some types of hatred that we handle better than others, and how we handle transphobia is definitely not great. We should be faster at handling it in general, as there's a lot of disruption in the GENSEX content area that goes unresolved, especially so in clear cut cases like this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

    Good block. GiantSnowman 10:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Entirely correct. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Endorse the block. Way out of line, and digging themselves deeper. At a minimum, any unblock should be contingent to them agreeing to abide by a WP:GENSEX topic ban as well. --Jayron32 16:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

    Agreed. Marrakech's pre-block contributions and their post-block comments on their talk page indicate that a GENSEX topic ban would be the absolute minimum before any unblock request should be granted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

    Should the comments mentioned by OP at Talk:Cheshire home invasion murders be RD2'd? They're particularly egregious compared to other problematic edits by this user, as they deadname a living transgender person with intent to discriminate against them. These edits by an anonymous editor, immediately before those by Marrakech, have a similar tone and content as well, plus an accusation of Wikipedia advancing a pro-transgender agenda. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• They're currently indeffed, so this may be a moot point, but endorse GENSEX topic-ban in case we ever lift the block. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Srj.cooldude and Love jihad

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

---

• Srj.cooldude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Love jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Because I might appear to be WP:INVOLVED, I am bringing this issue to ANI for review. I propose that, at minimum, Srj.cooldude be WP:PBLOCKed from Love jihad and its talk page. This could be done as a sanction under WP:ARBIPA, but the severity of the behavior would likely warrant a regular WP:DE block.

Srj.cooldude is a zombie WP:SPA that has re-awoken after 6 years of inactivity to push for various inclusions of "love jihad". The user has assumed bad faith, cast aspersions, and been overall disruptive including calling users biased in favouring jihadi... and promoting violence, promoting terrorism ([109], [110], [111], [112]). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I indeffed. I went over their contributions after their DRN post this morning and almost blocked, and I see there's been quite a few more edits recently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Gracias! EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Good block. --bonadea contributions talk 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

May want to look at revoking TPA. They've made themselves clear that they've no intent on appealing the block but are continuing to make bad faith allegations CiphriusKane (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of Vietnamese spam links using various IPs/IP ranges

There is a user who has been inserting the same few spam links (always Vietnamese sites afaict) to a selection of articles using various IPs, particularly in the last month but also earlier (see Betway). I'm not sure what to do here and was told after a few reports at AIV to take it here. Here are all IPs I'm aware of (grouped roughly by similarity, sorry for the long list):

• 1.52.41.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.54.214.152 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1.55.219.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14.248.87.119 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27.72.144.223 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 58.187.251.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 113.178.48.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2001:67c:2628:647:6::351 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2001:EE0:1A28:47EB:90D3:9E8B:48D3:FB52 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2001:EE0:1A14:E4B3:5C0E:2618:F192:33F2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2401:D800:2E10:CB30:745D:64CE:D76C:8C9F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2401:D800:2220:4CFB:BC32:AB76:88DE:90C3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2401:D800:22C0:9DC5:8896:F018:C082:7C72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2401:D800:2C3B:DD4E:7D97:952:F3FF:BB28 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2401:D800:FD27:5DC6:719D:22AE:5C31:108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2401:D800:5111:13AB:A91D:79D5:B700:9F42 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2401:D800:7E04:D878:14F2:7F87:F503:98A5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2402:800:B180:8B33:D08E:870F:DDB9:2D4D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2402:800:70BE:D1C0:5903:C650:8573:A4B9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2402:800:7C1B:B39:EC1C:34F3:9BF3:ADB2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2402:9D80:228:EB99:B5B3:1640:FCC3:E5B6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2402:9D80:249:C913:1DCE:56A5:32FB:635C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Here are the articles affected so far (all the ones I'm aware of; sorted roughly by edit frequency):

• Image file format
• Laws of the Game (association football)
• Betway
• Casino Royale (novel)
• AVIF
• Game Arts
• 2007–08 Bundesliga
• 2007–08 Premier League
• Football records and statistics in England
• Premier League of America
• Norway national football team
• Premier League–Football League gulf
• Footballers' Wives
• Premier League of Belize
• PDF
• 2003–04 FA Premier League

Some of the IPs are/were already blocked and some of the articles are/were already temporarily protected. I have only notified the most recently used IP (1.52.41.60), I hope that's ok. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the spamming has been going on in high volumes for quite a while here, from too many different IPs on too many various articles to make neither blocking nor page protection effective, what you could do, is request that the links being spammed by these IPs be added to the spam blacklist, over at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I've created a spam blacklist request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#dichvuchinhsuaanh.net and many other Vietnamese spam sites. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@AP 499D25: That was a good idea, thanks for going through the articles and making the request, which has already been answered. Let's hope this hinders the user somewhat, although I have my doubts about that (for similar reasons you believe the many IPs and articles make blocking/PP not an effective option)... Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@AP 499D25: Looks like they already did (using one of the above IPs to edit one of the listed articles)... Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Felida97 If it gets spammed enough times, then I would make a request to add it to the spam blacklist, like I did above. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

User:ApprenticeFan continuing to edit as IP editor

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

---

User:ApprenticeFan was banned from the English Wikipedia earlier this year, yet has continued to edit in the same topic areas while logged out as an IP editor. I have opened multiple sockpuppet inquiries (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ApprenticeFan), but there has been no action taken. This editor confirmed yesterday (User talk:124.6.179.62) that they are continuing to edit despite being banned and they do not seem to understand that they (the editor) are banned and not just the account. Can anything be done - a range-block, or a sternly-worded notice from an administrator that continuing to edit as an IP editor is still sockpuppetry? Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I range blocked the latest two IPs used. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Jhofferman accused of paid editing at Vivek Ramaswamy

I have no idea if this is true or not, but Vivek Ramaswamy Paid Wikipedia Editors to Erase His Soros Fellowship and Covid Work] says "Mediaite reports that Ramaswamy seems to have paid Wikipedia editor “Jhofferman,” to remove information from his page that he presumably thought would damage his candidacy in the Republican primary. A few days later, he announced his 2024 bid." Posting here as I don't know where would be better. Searched to see if it's been posted elsewhere but didn't find anything. Doug Weller talk 06:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Jhofferman disclosed the paid editing both on his userpage [113] amd the article talk page [114]. - Bilby (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

So it's technically not undisclosed paid editing, but considering the contentious topic, I think it's just as bad as if it were undisclosed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but in this case it looks like the disclosure meant that other editors stepped in and fixed many of the problems the paid editing made. Far less than ideal, but something. - Bilby (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

They have extensively edited the article itself, both before and after the disclosure on July 14 2022, instead of proposing the changes on the talkpage. WP:PAID very strongly discourage[s] such conduct (bolding in the original). Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User: Jhofferman has disclosed on their userpage that they have been paid to edit Vivek Ramaswamy, a long-shot Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States. Here's the context: Ramaswamy received an academic fellowship from a group run by the brother and sister-in-law of George Soros. Association with Soros is the kiss of death in Republican primaries these days, so Ramaswamy has an obvious motivation to remove mention of his "youthful indiscretion", as it were. This is being discussed somewhere else, Doug Weller, but I can't remember where right now. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 At the obvious place (I should have looked!) Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy#Wikipedia manipulation. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(Fixed the link for you - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC))

@Boing! said Zebedee Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• FYI, Jhofferman commented on this on their talk page responding to someone else, before this ANI thread was created: [115]. My initial reactions is this is a lack of wisdom rather than evil intent. But there are multiple threads on his talk page about problems with his paid editing, and yet problems keep happening. It seems that at the very least the "very strongly discourage" recommendation against declared paid editors editing articles directly should be made mandatory for him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. A partial block for the article, leaving him to edit the talk page, seems appropriate. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Based on issues raised about his other paid work, I'd say that's best for all articles he is paid, or has been paid, to work on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Hanlon's razor applies but even innocent error is less forgiveable when a professional editor getting paid for their work creates clean up work for volunteers. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• WP:PAID is (IMO) not the issue here. What appears to be the issue here is that WP:NPOV has been compromised for pecuniary benefit, and against Wikipedia policy. I am not comfortable with this. Propose indef block. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Bilateral relations troll 3: Tokyo Drift

• 185.203.18.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.71.0.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 5.182.38.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 45.58.43.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 45.8.146.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.131.100.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Last discussion about them here. Still edit warring in See also sections while IP hopping, as is their modus operandi. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like all of these were picked off by a number of other admins; they're all webhosts/open proxies, etc. Thanks for being vigilant. Feel free to rollback at will anything that hasn't been already. --Jayron32 14:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Found more while checking to see if the rollbacked edits were reverted again: 45.159.249.180 (talk · contribs), 5.182.36.108 (talk · contribs), 5.182.37.93 (talk · contribs), and what seems to be an actual user for once: Kindedir. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU Thank you for dealing with this. TylerBurden (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

These are all IPs associated with Stark Industries Solutions. @Blablubbs:, who I believe works frequently with WP:OP to block open proxies. Is there any rangeblocks where we could take this down? It looks like this person is using Stark Industries Solutions, and I'm not sure there's any good reason not to block them; googling the name turns up a lot of red flags. --Jayron32 12:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I've gone through and blocked the ~150 unblocked Stark ranges I could find. There seem to be some other webhosts involved here too, but I'm hoping this will help a bit. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Giltsbeach

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

---

Giltsbeach (talk · contribs) I regret having to do this, but I think it's time to talk about Giltsbeach's battleground attitude. I considered going to the edit warring noticeboard, but it goes beyond that.

Giltsbeach created their account on March 23, and began editing heraldry articles. Their early edits had no edit summaries, and at one point their unexplained rewriting and removal of referenced information at Rule of tincture was reverted by Materialscientist, who templated them (but did not respond to their request for an explanation). They then got into an edit war with JalenFolf at Sable (heraldry) over their removal of the "Poetic meanings" section. They left the information in the infobox, but removed the references on 2 of the 3 points, which had been only in the text. They accused JalenFolf of accusing them of removing a template, and in later edits reintroduced a one-sentence summary: cumulative changes. After a rollback by Mako001, they brought both editors here: archived section. JalenFolf then saw the single sentence and dropped their objections. Previously in the section, rather than pointing out that they had added back a sentence and before responding on the article talk page, they responded to Mako001: "You accused me of "disingenous editing" because I moved information from a stub of a subsection to an infobox. An infobox that every other heraldic tincture article uses, mind you. You threatened me with a ban, but not the other user who refused to engage in dialogue with me. I don't think you'll be happy until I step back off a cliff."

The claimed local consensus to have information in the infobox but not in the article prose violates the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and is detrimental to the encyclopedia to the extent that it requires the reader to read the infobox as well as the article prose. (The Sable article is also short, and expansion would be a better service to the encyclopedia than cutting a section of referenced information.) I joined the discussion on the article talk page, where Giltsbeach responded to me with the further assertions that the material is "trivial" and that the MOS is not a policy. (They have since informed me that they are only prepared to discuss explicit policies.) At one point they reverted me with an accusation of vandalism.

I took the discussion to WikiProject Heraldry to clarify whether there was indeed a consensus to override MOS on the heraldic tincture articles, and if so on what grounds, but only Giltsbeach responded, ultimately with incivility; perhaps as a new editor they were unaware of its inappropriateness. I ultimately did some research myself, found what I thought was the origin of the practice that Giltsbeach claimed to be conforming the article to, reported it there, then took the issue to the talk page for the MOS guideline. Both of those who responded—and subsequently Girth Summit—agreed with me that there is no reason for these articles to be an exception to the guideline. I notified Giltsbeach of the section, but they did not respond until I gave them the courtesy of another ping in my summary at the end of the section: they accused me of "fighting a war of attrition" and lying.

When I then went through the articles to conform them to the guideline, I discovered that my extension of good faith to Giltsbeach had been entirely misplaced; their assertion that Every other heraldic tincture article places this information in the infobox was an equivocation. There was no consistency in placing the "poetic meanings" only in the infobox: several articles had the section, with similar wording, at least one had the text but no section header, and some lacked references for the material. Giltsbeach's response has been a section here (soon closed), wholesale reverts (two rounds, the first of only half the articles I had worked on), claims of misreferencing including at the OR noticeboard (I suspect the initial issue was they failed to query the UWisconsin library archive we were referencing in the Sable article and thus did not find the relevant passage, but they are now quibbling over whether the word "often" is justified. And accusing me of advocating expansion of the articles, while also arguing (here) that I am inhibiting their expansion of the articles.

I would be happy for Giltsbeach to bring the knowledge of heraldry that I presume they have to bear on Wikipedia's heraldry articles. But I have not seen them add referenced information. Most of their additions appear to consist of adding images, in many cases images they have uploaded themselves. As can be seen from the history of their talk page on Commons, many of these have been deleted as copyvios. That can be regarded as a newbie mistake (uploading from a site with an incompatible licence), but replacing the images in an article with their own versions of the same arms is uncollegial, and seeking to have someone else's image deleted in favor of their own is churlish. (And their dismissal of anything except explicit policy concerned their reinterpretation of the arms of Trøndelag so that en.wikipedia would use their version.)

Giltsbeach appears to want to leave their mark at all costs and to be unable to brook having their work challenged or changed. They have learned to make edit summaries and belatedly re-fixed their typo that I had corrected in an edit they twice reverted. They haven't recently accused me of being upset or aggressive. But they are edit warring furiously and arguing dishonestly in pursuit of winning, and they demonstrate little respect for guidelines or much else except for what they have decided they want to do. I see they have just called me a troll :-) Can they be induced to stop the reverting and the escalating outrage and focus on article improvement? (Apologies for length; I have tried throughout to be fair, and so there's a lot of back story. Also, apologies, but right after notifying, I must go to bed. I'll return first thing to see whether I've been blocked, or taken to Arbcom). Yngvadottir (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I have attempted to make the main points clear below, but you should really read the above to get the full story, there is a good deal here for a fairly new editor to have got themselves into:

Giltsbeach treats Wikipedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

They have often got into heated disputes, whilst refusing to properly listen to others, taking editors to noticeboards as a tactic to gain the upper hand, and generally being highly tendentious.

They got in a dispute over information being removed from the article body and placed in the infobox instead. They claimed that consensus from WP:HERALDRY supported them.

The claimed local consensus to have information in the infobox but not in the article prose violates the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes.

Yngvadottir joined a discussion on the article talk page, where Giltsbeach responded with the further assertions that the material is "trivial" and that the MOS is not a policy. (They have since informed Yngvadottir that they are only prepared to discuss explicit policies.) At one point they reverted Yngvadottir with an accusation of vandalism.

Yngvadottir tried to clarify whether the consensus Giltsbeach claimed actually existed by asking at WikiProject Heraldry. But only Giltsbeach responded, ultimately with incivility. The consensus was determined to be against Giltsbeach's position in a discussion at the MOS talkpage. Giltsbeach responded by accusing Yngvadottir of "fighting a war of attrition" and lying.

Yngvadottir has since found that Giltsbeach had not been entirely truthful when asserting that Every other heraldic tincture article places this information in the infobox. There was no consistency in placing the "poetic meanings" only in the infobox. Giltsbeach's response has been to apparently declare war on Yngvadottir.

They also don't add referenced information, but do add images that they upload. As can be seen from the history of their talk page on Commons, many of these have been deleted as copyvios. That can be regarded as a newbie mistake (uploading from a site with an incompatible licence), but replacing the images in an article with their own versions of the same arms is uncollegial.

They have also behaved tendentiously on Commons.

Giltsbeach responds extremely poorly to criticism or percieved rejection. Some promising signs have been shown, but they are still apparently fighting a one-user war against a percieved enemy. They called Yngvadottir a troll. This needs to stop, and they need to be useful. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The easy way to deal with this would be to either TBAN them from heraldry or site ban them for a few days to let them cool off and read the relevant Guidelines. Nobody (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@1AmNobody24: They've had plenty of time to read those guidelines and been directed to many of them, but have chosen to act the way they do anyway. Blocks aren't really for cooling off, they are to prevent disruption. About a TBAN, a heraldry TBAN would do one of two things: stop them editing entirely (might as well block), or move the problem elsewhere. The latter would result in them being blocked anyway. A TBAN seems unlikely to gain consensus, but not because they don't need sanctions. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Block Giltsbeach. Indefinite in length and for the cocktail of behaviors they bring to the project: not listening to anybody, raging incivility and a failure to assume good faith since they've been here, and general inability to work in a collegiate environment.
  After their tirade here yesterday, I thought they might become more reasonable. Yet the opposite is the case. Not only the recusancy but calling Yngvadottir a troll with no cause whatsoever is outrageous. If it hadn't been for that, I'd support a TB, reasoning that they might just need to gain experience in our myriad policies and guidelines. But their attitude makes a TB pointless; they will clearly continue to be as offensive anywhere else on the project. SN54129 15:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Despite me rescinding accusations of removal when I had reverted Giltsbeach, I’m looking back at contribs, and the incivility on display scares me. I had considered proposing a site ban, but given this user has only been with us for a month and a half, I later thought against it as possibly taking it too far. However, if another editor wishes to propose either a TBAN or CBAN given the current situation, I will not oppose. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why we're so keen to launch straight into site bans nowadays. To me, in a case of common-or-garden semi-trolling like this, an ordinary indef seems no more complicated than it has to be. As you say, they've only been here a few weeks; hardly time enough to demonstrate irredeemability. SN54129 18:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Giltsbeach as a normal administrative action. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Killing of Markeis McGlockton

Two separate, related issues. The first pertains to disputed content about the victim's criminal record--Though it received extensive coverage, a case can be made that it's irrelevant here, so I'm not inclined to war over that, but would like further opinion. The second is the restoration of talk page comment that's a personal attack [116]. I do not wish to engage there while using different IPs, nor join the discussion after the 'racist' comment. Time for administrative input. More eyes appreciated. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed the talk page comment again and explained on MayDay2099's talk page my reason. They are correct, normally you don't remove talk page comments, but calling someone "racist scum" is about as blatant a personal attack as it gets. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that collection of titbits inserted to smear the victim is completely undue, and MayDay2099 and the IP were right to remove it, even if MayDay's rant on the talkpage was not optimal. Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I was notified of this forum.

I'm not the one who left the message. I merely restored a talk page entry that was removed by someone else because, as I read recently on the rules, it's not right to edit or remove someone else's talk page entry.

I'll let it stand though, apparently there are admins. Thanks for not being crude or cruel to me for whatever misstep I made. MayDay2099 (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

For the record, WP:FORUM covers the removal of messages that are not specifically meant for article improvements. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Cool. I will read that. Thanks. MayDay2099 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Malformed RfC may need closing.

Things are getting somewhat heated at Talk:Love Jihad, where an RfC [117] seems to have triggered a broader debate. The debate clearly needs to continue, but in my opinion, the RfC itself is malformed, and totally noncompliant with the way they are supposed to be conducted: it isn't simple, it isn't neutral, and it seems to be discussing three different things. Plus there is at least a whiff of possible sockpuppetry. Could I ask an admin (or at least some uninvolved experienced contributor) to take a look, and close the RfC if they think it appropriate, before it generates further antagonism? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Fwiw, I believe the IP editor who started the RFC was well-intentioned but inexperienced since IIRC they asked about the issue at User_talk:RegentsPark and at WT:INB before starting the RFC. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This may now be overtaken by events, but there was also a request for mediation at DRN filed by Srj.cooldude saying that the article was biased. I closed the thread because there is already an RFC, and I also recommended that discussion about bias in an article could be taken to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. The filing editor has since been blocked for disruptive editing. I don't have any other comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Please speedily delete Josh Alcorn

This redirect page violates Wikipedia's policy on deadnames, when the transgender individual was not notable under the deadname. This individual wasn't notable under her deadname, Josh Alcorn. WarriorPlate (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the right place for such requests. Please see WP:Deletion process. Callmemirela 🍁 02:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I’m new to Wikipedia. How do I request speedy deletion? WarriorPlate (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't qualify for a speedy deletion. It would need to go the regular process. Callmemirela 🍁 03:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

How would this square with the second paragraph at MOS:GID? CityOfSilver 03:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't fall under any criteria for speedy delete. It would need to go through PROD or AfD. Callmemirela 🍁 03:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Which wasn't really what I asked (and it isn't eligible for either of those) but okay. CityOfSilver 03:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Then I have no idea what your comment meant, it seems. Callmemirela 🍁 03:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

ec: And since WarriorPlate has already PRODded it, it should not go to AFD unless the PROD fails. Meters (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It would not go to AFD anyway, it would go to redirects for discussion. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 03:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course. Thank you. Prod removed. Meters (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#May 5 for user:WarriorPlate Meters (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Abusive language from User:Cesarbongon

This user has engaged in disruptive edits and after being warned, used abusive language against me on their talk page here: [118]. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The first admin who reads this ought to indefinitely block User:Cesarbongon and revdel that message. CityOfSilver 03:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Warned. I suspect it's a teenager. Callmemirela 🍁 03:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Easy one to address, in keeping w how we address personal profanity insults. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:40C6:2E91:2ACA:FD97 (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for assistance (and potential tutoring) with user

A user named BlackRain1989 has openly identified themselves as a sock account of LemonJuice78 on my talk page. I have lodged sockpuppet reports against them before for, alongside the sock reasons, erroneous edits to Wikipedia military articles, but with each return they are communicating with me with increasing desperation and asking for forgiveness, stating they will not stop creating new accounts until they have the "right" to edit Wikipedia. There is some hostility, as I am the only user to lodge reports since the pages they edit receive lower editor traffic.

LemonJuice78 has admitted to being unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules and procedures, and is trying to learn, but creating sock accounts is not the way to do it. Their request for unblocking on their original account was denied by administrator Yamla due to not specifically addressing their mistakes. I have stated to him that his original block was administrator-applied, and to return to editing means direct contact with administrators. I have thus lodged this report to open up communications before the situation spirals out of control.

Respectfully, LemonJuice78 may need assistance from another Wikipedia source (mentorship by a veteran user, I'm unsure), as I only have so much time on my hands and cannot have this user persistently following me as if I am the arbiter of their fate. I cannot keep handling this on my own. I literally can't. I hope an administrator can step in here and take necessary measures. I leave it up to admins, but if you can render assistance, rather than an immediate, unconditional block to the BlackRain1989 account, it would be noted.

For further details, see Sockpuppet investigations/LemonJuice78/Archive. GirthSummit has usually been the one to handle their CheckUsers. SuperWIKI (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

They are WELL past WP:3X at this point, and creating socks over and over to continue editing is only going to dig the hole deeper. The BlackRain1989 account is being blocked as sock of a now effectively banned user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:CXDS

The User:CXDS has been making disruptive edits on a couple articles such as the Siad Barre article[119] and the Jigjiga article[120] removing sourced information and accusing their references of being "biased lies" and "old and inaccurate" without any evidence of course. I reverted these edits[121][122] and left a warning on his talkpage but he later blanked it with an edit summary of "you have no authority"[123] he then brought back his edits on the Jigjiga article[124], I reverted it again and sent him a second warning on his talkpage to not engage in disruptive edits, he of coursed blanked the page again accusing me of "impersonating the admins"[125] and then brought back his edits on the Jigjiga article[126] محرر البوق (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm confused. It's you who is changing the founding date to 1916, even though the article references it back to the 1840s, and the 1916 information in the text that you are adding talks about it being a garrison town until 1916? That seems inconsistent to me. Either way, this is not the forum for editing disputes - neither of you have tried to discuss this - heck, there's nothing this decade on the talk page! I'd suggest closing this, and both of you go read H:EC before a boomerang hits someone from behind. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • You may also want to read up on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa before one or both of you and/or the page end up attracting the attention of DS team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B18F:9F09:20C3:77CE:9F91:480F (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I've added context to my previous edit with early sources from Richard Francis Burton debunking this myth created in the reign of Haile Selassie that Jijiga was founded in 1912 by a Abyssinian commander. In the Demographics section the main source used in the article doesn't breakdown the city by ethnic groups at all. Someone just made their own pie chart with percentages they conjured on their own.

  My edit regarding Siad Barre article was about the Early Years section specifically that he witnessed the murder of his father at age of ten and that it was in a raid done another clan. In the 3 sources used in prove this supposed claim was a magazine and two books. None of them having a source or evidence for this supposed raid. The Marehan and Habr Yunis live nowhere near each other for this raid to a have happened in the first place. Also the proof that Siad Barre's father being buried in Garbaharey. CXDS (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Nfitz@CXDS I didn't add the 1916 information on the article, that was already there. The problem is not the founding date on the infobox, the problem is CXDS removing sourced information in the article, Pankhurst reference is reliable and there is no reason why it should be removed even if there is conflicting sources, WP:BALANCE. Also I added 1916 because I saw that number floating around in the article and the previous year of 1727 was unsourced, if CXDS just changed that to 1840 or whatever other year the article says then that wouldn't be an issue. The census for Jijiga DOES breakdown the city by their ethnic groups, its pretty obvious you haven't read the source.

  Your edit summary on Siad Barre's page was quote "This is just historical revisionism with no proof or even source of this supposed raid. Habr Yunis live nowhere where Marehan live." You obviously didn't go into detail as to why this was "historical revisionism", hence I obviously intepreted this as disruptive. محرر البوق (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Read the source again it breaks down the whole Somali Region by ethnicity not the city of Jijiga. Pankhurst is not reliable and makes many erroneous claims about Somali clans and isn't well versed on Somali history or in the history of the horn of Africa. I suggest we continue in the Jijiga talk page and we go back and forth there not bothering the admins. CXDS (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Histrionic editor

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

---

I am dealing with a pretty shrill editor who hates my edits. Can you calm him down? Talk:Justice_League Kurzon (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI, @Kurzon, you should send a message on their talk pages to warn them of the ANI discussion. I did it for you. (Admittedly, I haven't let you take the time to do so, but I did it for you anyways.) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's silly, I assumed it involved the named editors. I didn't see the IP. Oh well, it sorta concerns them too, I guess. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's well out of order and I have pblocked the IP /64 range from that page and the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:CANVASS violation by User:William Allen Simpson

This, this, this, this and this all violate the canvassing policy.

I understand that Mr. Simpson is upset to see an emerging consensus to do away with his cherished policy, but I played by the rules and so should he. If he can make a convincing argument in favor of his preferred position, fine. But lashing out and mass-posting and pinging biased notices is not the solution. I did not forum-shop, I simply opened a discussion in the most appropriate place, without regard to where previous discussions may have occurred. — Biruitorul ^Talk 08:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I really wish we could stop obsessing about pigeonholing and labelling people by descent and ethnicity and get rid of these categories altogether, they cause nothing but edit wars and endless problems and presents the fiction who someone's parents or ancestors were is more important than who they are. Canterbury Tail talk 09:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I really wish we could address the substance of my complaint here. — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Not that this is worth discussing here, but I would like to point out that this is not about the "pigeonholing" categories being especially cherished by me or by Biruitorul (though they do seem to have much support in the wikipedian community, and also do seem to have a purpose for at least some regions of the world); it is simply a fact that, if we are going to have them, we should at least have a consistent approach that is dictated by the sources, not an editorial decision guided by whims. You can either have all the categories mentioned by sources, or none at all; the current guideline is remarkably ludicrous in suggesting we should only have one. If there is any bias or preference on my part, it is one against whims, not for ethnic categories. Dahn (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

An editor who was not notified has appeared here. Meatpuppet? Sockpuppet?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, because every editor who’s ever commented here has done so only by notification. Let’s focus on your canvassing behavior, Mr. Simpson, and leave aside the diversions. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, I may be a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet (and a major creator of content when I'm not engaged by William Allen Simpson in absurd debates about his pet peeves, once they come to intersect with the content I create); then again, I may be a user who simply bothered to click on this rather public page and was drawn to comment here on a side topic brought up by Canterbury Tail. Dahn (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:ASPERSIONS. Strike your absurd comment. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:B195:BCE:2355:7AD9 (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Many editors visit ANI to keep track of disputes and weigh in on them. It is not unusual for unrelated individuals to chime in, and is in fact encouraged to get a broad consensus on the disputes in question. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I think User:William Allen Simpson's response was likely a sardonic one, commenting about the fact that the two accusing him of canvassing, apparently didn't like the comments of another editor who showed up here. And so was sardonically commenting that it "must" be another attempt by him at another sort of collusion. I'm not saying whether that was appropriate or not, but just that's my impression of their comments. - jc37 17:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Be that as it may, let’s also talk about the WikiProject notifications. They begin harmlessly enough, but then go on with a lengthy paragraph about how I’m forum-shopping. Hardly the neutral announcement required by policy, is it? — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Jc37: Please note that I had never accused Mr Simpson of canvassing -- I noted that the accusation may have some merit, but did not endorse it myself, nor had anything to to with this ANI notification. I did read it, though, and I did comment on the side topic opened up by Canterbury Tail. I then proceeded to make a point about the egregious claim brought up against Biruitorul. Also do me the favor of noting that even in the categorization RfC that's being discussed here I expressed an opinion that is substantially different from what Biruitorul proposed, regarding what the standard of ethnic inclusion should be (which did not prevent one of the users invited in by William Allen Simpson from suggesting I am Biruitorul's sockpuppet). Anyway, I really do wish that both parties could stick to the point that's being discussed, here and anywhere else. Dahn (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Poe's Law is in full effect, so without an indicator, I really can't tell if someone is trying to be snarky anymore. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This was WP:FORUMSHOPPING by definition. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. Biruitorul's RfC was posted on a less frequently visited Talk page (nothing posted in 3 months) during a (currently active) discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 17#Category:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation, where such matters are supposed to be decided. (See WP:RFCNOT.) This is one of a series of such discussions over a period of more than 4 months: (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 20#Category:British people by ethnicity and occupation.) Biruitorul failed to notify any of the current discussion participants nor any relevant projects. After belatedly discovering it serendipitously, I've notified the recent participants and other relevant Talk pages.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The complaint here is about you, Mr. Simpson. Your notifications were in no way in line with WP:CANVASS. Please stop diverting me discussion. — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOOMERANG. Your actions can be scrutinized here too. USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 10:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Scrutinize all you want. But while you scrutinize my actions, maybe also take a moment to scrutinize the actions of William Allen Simpson, if it isn’t asking too much. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Anyone else feeling like handing out interaction bans and topic bans against both Biruitorul and William Allen Simpson and just being done with this nonsense? --Jayron32 11:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but what exactly am I guilty of here? I started an RfC, which I oversaw in the most civil, engaged manner possible. Then along comes William Allen Simpson who blasts me with some ridiculous charges, and canvasses his supporters. Sorry but I’m not the one in the wrong here. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

    Jayron32's solution sounds like an especially appealing one to me. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

    Again: what have I done wrong? — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope Jayron32. What a horrible idea. The only thing it is going to gain is make you feel like you solved anything. How about either treating the topic at hand fully or not commenting at all? Sanctioning a more than a decade-long content writer out of laziness is not acceptable. This goes for WaltCip too. Super Ψ Dro 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's a bad idea, I came up with it. All bad ideas originate with me. I'm an asshole, of course. It shocks me that anyone listens to me at all. Sorry all. Carry on. --Jayron32 14:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Biruitorul has only had a marginal involvement with this topic, unlike William Allen Simpson, whose edits largely revolve around this issue, and this interpretation of policy, in a manner and at a pace that very few could even keep up with. Biruitorul had requested for a comment not on Mr Simpson's behavior, but simply on whether the guideline makes sense -- it was raised in an appropriate venue, and was actually more valid than many of Mr Simpson's edits, precisely because it asked for input for editors who (like himself) have not been generally involved in this issue, and have no entrenched position either way. To which Mr Simpson invoked claims of forum shopping, all the while calling in people whom he knows share his exact position as !voters. So what is Biruitorul even accused of? Dahn (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

At a minimum, William Allen Simpson should be cautioned that notifications should be worded neutrally. Schazjmd (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but I really don't understand how this blatant canvassing is going completely unnoticed. Super Ψ Dro 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  William Allen Simpson's lack of diffs when referring to CFD discussions made it challenging to identify where those pings came from. I think it was this one, and as there weren't any editors who disagreed with the proposed deletion, I'm assuming good faith that had there been, they would have been pinged too. Schazjmd (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Schazjmd: IMHO, it should be noted that the CfD mentioned by Mr Simpson has in fact very little to do with the guideline that Biruitorul has brought under scrutiny -- we were not discussing the merits of categorizing by ethnicity and occupation (to clarify: I myself am agnostic on this issue -- though I have created some such categories, to the measure where they seemed to be validated by a long-standing practice, I do not object to them ultimately being folded into the larger ones, if this reflects consensus), but the notion that we should only categorize by one ethnicity. I'm not entirely sure that/if Mr Simpson's bringing in other editors who happened to vote his way on that CfD should count as canvassing, but I myself would be interested to know: (a) what other similar CfDs those same users have supported, in the plethora of like-minded CfDs started by Mr Simpson (so many in fact that it has become simply impossible to keep up with them); (b) why Mr Simpson thought the CfDs and this issue would be connected enough for those particular users to be called in. Dahn (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

So what William Allen Simpson did was ping everyone from a CfD in which everyone supported them to an unrelated one? That is indeed canvassing. Though in the discussion that started this report some people that did not participate in the one you linked were pinged, so they must come from somewhere else. Super Ψ Dro 16:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The first diff could be canvassing depending on if the people ping'd were only supportive editors from a prior discussion. You've not provided any evidence of that. The last diffs all appear to be notices of the discussion you created: the wording is not ideal (not neutral in tone). WAS does raise a good point about the venue you chose to start that discussion at being the venue with least participation seemingly. Did you make an additional notifications when you started that RFC? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

131.251.253.0/24 disruptive editing on book articles, incivility & attacks

I'm reporting the IP user:

• 131.251.253.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

for disruptive editing and uncivility, on the following articles:

• General Relativity (book) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Principles of Quantum Mechanics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As a recent changes patroller, I initially came across this IP editor edit-warring with User:Nerd271 on the General Relativity article. Although I'm generally not highly involved / interested with articles outside of computer stuff, I had a close look at it anyway, and could not legitimately see anything wrong with the "Table of contents" and "versions" sections from an encyclopedic point of view, plus I looked at many other book articles to see if they had these sections or not, and quite a number of them did, so I shared my insight into this with this revert once, pretty much agreeing with Nerd271, although mildly at that. I also wrote in that edit's summary suggesting to take this to a talk page instead of continually reverting. Which was successful.

They got back to me on my talk page, calling me an editor who started editing Wikipedia only recently, and mostly concern yourself with reverting and leaving warning messages (diff). The only content-related piece from that message was their mention of the WikiProject Books guideline WP:NONFICTION#Headers.

However, I was not so sure if Nerd271 would agree with the reasoning citing the guideline above, so I started a discussion at the article talk page, inviting both the IP editor and Nerd271 into the discussion, with me both writing the message with a neutral stance and sharing my own thoughts on the matter besides it.

Nerd271 and I both provided some high-value content-based arguments on said talk page, while the IP editor just blasts us with ad-hominem personal attacks, focussing their messages very little on the actual content of the article, if at all.

Here are some quotes from that talk page:

• Metadata that a monkey could copy and paste in adds absolutely nothing to any reader's understanding of a book. It is a pity that someone with just a few months of editing experience and no evidence of any prior interest in this topic has decided to assist an editor with a years-long history of ignoring guidelines and editing disruptively.
• How many times have you reverted those who take them out with dishonest edit summaries like "restored good version" or "restored stable version"? Dozens? Hundreds? Even once would have been too many. The account which decided to support your years-long campaign of disruptive editing despite no prior interest in the topic and no familiarity with the guidelines should undo their most recent revert.

Since then, the IP editor went on to edit war with three other editors on the article Principles of Quantum Mechanics, removing those same table of contents and versions sections from that article again, despite there being clear consensus on the General Relativity talk page in favour of keeping those sections. One of the edit's summaries accuses User:Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 of being a revert-and-warn SPA editor. A 48-hr block was placed on 131.251.253.112 by Ponyo shortly after they made their third revert on that article in less than two hours (block log).

However, after that 48-hr block, the IP editor still continues to edit war on the General Relativity article, instead of seeking consensus / dispute resolution for their edits first, as well as commenting on editors instead of purely content in their edit summaries.

I genuinely tried to be helpful here – I wrote a message on their talk page, recommending to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution protocol, even suggesting them to use requests for comments (RfC) to get some more feedback / input from other editors on whether those ToC and Versions sections should be included on these articles or not.

But instead, they are not listening at all to my recommendations, not even noticing the clear consensus from three different editors in favour of the ToC and Versions sections, just continuing to remove them on the article disruptively instead of seeking WP:DR options. It seems they are blanking the messages I and other editors have left on their talk page without reading them.

By now, a total of six different editors (including me, as well as both involved editors and recent changes patrollers) have disagreed with this IP editor's content removal. No one else has sided with the IP's edits (both edit-wise and talk discussion-wise) as of yet.

I am making this report after a final warning for disruptive editing on their talk page: Special:Diff/1153283775 (which has been blanked already of course).

Important note (for admins):

If a block is to be handed out to the IP editor here, a range block needs to be placed, not a single IP block. They started out as 131.251.253.112, moving on to 131.251.253.41 a week later. The WHOIS info for the IPs suggest the range is /16, but considering the first three groups of these two IPs are the same one here, only the last one changed, I believe the range here is /24. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I was one of the involved editors and I agree that the table of contents should be kept as I stated on the article talk page. This IP editor has been very uncivil and has repeatedly chose to revert edits without proper consensus. AP 499D25 handled this in a very professional manner however the editor still chose to be uncivil. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit of a BKFIP vibe here, to be honest. XOR'easter (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

His attitude towards those who disagree with him is unbecoming for a Wikipedia editor. Thank you, AP 499D25 for bringing this up. Nerd271 (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It is really just common sense that a bare table of contents of a book has no encyclopaedic value. This is clearly stated at WP:NONFICTION: "An exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included". Unfortunately, User:Nerd271 has added such bare tables of contents to many articles about textbooks. I've seen many people removing them at many different articles, but User:Nerd271 invariably reverts, with misleading edit summaries like "restored stable version". A succession of oddly similarly named accounts, all just a few months old and with no prior interest in the article, tag-team reverting in support, is strange indeed. 131.251.253.41 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked the /24 range 1 month for clear violations of WP:EDITWAR. Additionally, the bizarre comment above where they cast aspersions against Nerd271 with no evidence is beyond the pale. Let us know if they move to another range. --Jayron32 18:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Persistent Unsourced and Unconstructive Edits from IP Hopping Anon

User in Question:

• 2601:408:C181:8B80:EDB0:77F6:70BF:B53B/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 164.76.35.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Anon has used multiple IPs to make several unsourced and unconstructive edits, which include overlinking and not following MOS:DATE. All edits are directly related to Hockey or Trains. At least two different users (@Wracking: and myself) have issued multiple warnings, but the user is hopping between IPs (likely unintentionally). A final warning and attempt to communicate was issued, but anon has persisted.

Some of the Warnings issued:

1. First Warning
2. Second Warning
3. Third Warning
4. Forth Warning
5. Fifth Warning
6. Sixth Warning
7. Seventh Warning
8. Final/ANI Warning

Edits After "final" warning:

1. [127]
2. [128]

ANI Notice:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:408:C181:8B80:EC08:2518:42B9:6544&oldid=1153345090]

Any help would be appreciated. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• I blocked the IPv6 range for a week. IP, you should be reading this: you are blocked for persistent unexplained and unverified edits. Please communicate with your fellow editors, and explain your edits--which should have secondary sourcing--in edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Long term pattern of unsourced edits and ignoring communication attempts with User:Masonjcole

I have posted to ANI twice about this editor and both times there was no comment or anything. This user has about 10 months worth of unsourced edits, including adding birthdates and birthplaces to football related articles and prematurely updating articles before transactions (including number changes) are official. This user continues to do this despite a multitude of comments on their talkpage and multiple comments advising they need to communicate on Wikipedia. This user promised to start checking their talkpage more often in December but hasn't kept their promise because there is still zero communication and the editor is continuing the same pattern.--Rockchalk717 22:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Another case of someone who should take "collaborative editing" more seriously. There's a talk page full of warnings, with one single response from them, promising to be more careful--that hasn't panned out. Blocked for a week; let's hope this convinces them that we are serious about communicating with other editors and responding to messages. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thank you!! Yes I agree and I hope this does help the user understand how important this is.--Rockchalk717 01:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on sub section semi-high speed rail of the page High-speed rail in India

There are are instances of repeated disruptive editing from the User talk:71.183.235.166 and possibly their sock puppet account User talk:2600:4041:7B25:C500:4029:511F:561A:1E8C on the semi-high speed rail section of the High-speed rail in India page. The user in question keeps removing the clarified content and adds their own content without sources. The sources were sent to my talk page but none of those demonstrate any evidence to the user's content.

It's about a list of semi-high speed routes in India that are operational, under upgradation, planned to support a speed of 160 kmph. But the user has confusion with the trains sets that are capable of running far beyond these speeds but don't do so due to incapable tracks. The user is trying to add routes that these trains run on, those routes are either not planned to have speeds beyond 110kmph - 130kmph or are part of the already mentioned greater section.

I request you to stop these disruptive edits as they mislead people into thinking India has far greater amount of tracks that support 160kmph speeds when they do not.

Footy2000 (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Footy2000 sūçk my rōd. 2409:408C:AE95:2219:0:0:4308:F70C (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Charming. Sitewide block (on top of the pblock) for a week. Miniapolis 21:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Range-hopping stealth IP vandal

Someone or something has been editing nonsense into number articles and their talk pages over the last 48 hours: [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134]

This may be a continuation of previous similar vandalism in April: [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140].

Warning and ANI notification, on the offchance they haven't already moved on from that IP. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of opposing views

User DarkSide830 initiated a requested move here and removed my opposing view in this edit. In the same edit, the user has replied to another opposing view by the page creator. This seems to be an attempt to artificially build a consensus.--Mixmon (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon Given that DarkSide830's edit was made only a couple minutes after yours and that they were using the source editor this seems far more likely to be an edit conflict than a deliberate, malicious attempt to remove your comment. Why have you immediately assumed ulterior motives and escalated this to the administrative noticeboards? You should assume good faith about the edits made by others. A much better first step would have been to raise this on their user talk page. 192.76.8.75 (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

+1 to the IP; it was a gross over-reaction to bring this here before calmly discussing it with DarkSide830. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't remove any edit, not sure what you're talking about. I normally just add a new section, but edited the overall talk page to add the move request. Also not even sure what is meant here by "opposing views" here. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

TheTranarchist: GENSEX topic ban warning disputed

• TheTranarchist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User TheTranarchist is topic-banned by the community from the topic covered by the scope of the WP:GENSEX arbitration contentious topics case (Special:Permalink/1142680274#Advocacy editing by User:TheTranarchist). They were advised about testing the edges of this ban on March 3, and have previously been formally warned about editing in GENSEX contentious topics, though the current ban is a community sanction.

Today they reverted a series of edits on the above article, and were reverted by another editor noting the topic ban. I left a warning on their talk page noting the previous warnings and advising that any future violations would result in a block. Several other users have responded that TheTranarchist's edit did not change any content related to a gender-related controversy and asked that I retract the warning; I have countered that the topic cannot be separated from the anti-transgender advocacy it is widely known for and thus any edit to the page violates the ban. I am asking for a review of this warning per WP:ADMINACCT. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Users notified. Please note that I have invited TheTranarchist to participate in this review notwithstanding their topic ban, per WP:BANEX. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The article is almost entirely about CRT and the group's pushing of anti-CRT topics. The edit made had nothing to do with the limited gender section. This isn't a violation of the topic ban. This seems like an attempt by OP above to do a run-around on an edit war. Silverseren^C 17:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Wait, you yourself made the exact same edit as TheTranarchist afterwards. What the heck is even the point of this report? Silverseren^C 17:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I would read the revert by Ivanvector as a procedural one. Another editor reverted my restoration of the edit, even though I had taken accountability for the edit by virtue of restoring it.

Otherwise the purpose for this discussion is to review Ivanvector's TBAN breach warning, which I and another editor believe to be erroneous. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the case. Any editor in good standing may restore a WP:BANREVERT-reverted edit if they have good reasons for believing that the content of the edit is appropriate, and they then are viewed to have made that edit themselves. BANREVERT was the wrong shortcut for me to have put in my edit summary but that is written somewhere, I just couldn't find it at the time. When Sideswipe9th was reverted again, my revert was an attempt to explain this and also to cap off a brewing edit war which was over the status of the edit and not its content. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: but that is written somewhere — It's in WP:PROXYING, although I've felt for some time that it should be moved somewhere more logical. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The TBAN is invalid to begin with, but that's another story for another day. I'm not an admin, and I'm a GENSEX editor, so my opinion doubly doesn't matter here, but indeed, Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism is so focused on CRT that I think it isn't a violation of the TBAN. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion is as valid here as anyone else's, LilianaUwU, this is a community noticeboard and does not limit participation to administrators. But you are right that whether or not the TBAN is valid is neither here nor there: it is the result of a community discussion and has the backing of community consensus; my action was in a good-faith effort to reasonably enforce it, not a commentary on its merit. TheTranarchist is free to appeal, though they were advised that they should wait six months. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who challenged this warning. I reviewed the edit in question prior to restoring it, after first checking to see if any changes were made that altered any gender related content in the article. As there were no changes made to content that would be covered by GENSEX, and I agreed with the policy reasons for the changes, I restored the edit.

With regards to the scope of the TBAN, back in March, TheTranarchist asked if editing the non-GENSEX content in the FAIR article would violate the TBAN. My reading of CaptainEek's response was that the gender related content was obviously covered by the TBAN, and that editing the non-gender content in the article would not be a TBAN violation, though it was otherwise unadvisable due to the controversial nature of the organisation.

I would disagree that the sum of the organisation's actions, particularly those involving critical race theory and racial inequality lawsuits, are intractable from their anti-transgender advocacy. While the gender subsection of the article is sizeable, it is dwarfed by the critical race theory, and other lawsuits sections. And while critical race theory is another controversial topic in its own right, it is, in my opinion, a stretch to consider it a gender-related controversy and subject to the scope of GENSEX.

Also procedurally, I believe this is the wrong venue for a ADMINACCT review. I believe these discussions are supposed to be held at WP:AARV or WP:AN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that Ivanvector made a simple mistake in filing here rather than at AN, where he recently filed a request for review of his actions. As for AARV, what I have to say about that noticeboard is not printable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I figured this was more an "incident" than a "thing administrators should know about", and until just now I didn't know we had actually created WP:AARV. My decision was whether to file here or at WP:AE, and this was the obvious choice among those two pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur that there were no changes made to content that would be covered by GENSEX. Just because an organization takes positions that do fall under GENSEX doesn't mean that everything about them does. Otherwise, any GENSEX topic ban would be an AP2 topic ban de facto. XOR'easter (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism is a 'gender-related article'. It has a 'gender' subsection, and a big message on the talk page that says This page is related to gender-related disputes. I don't think arguing about this is helping anyone.  Tewdar  08:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• The talk page for FAIR contains a GENSEX warning box, and my reading of CaptainEek's response to TheTranarchist's question is that they should most definitely avoid editing that article in its entirety, for this exact reason. In my opinion, Ivanvector is correct in their warning issued to the editor. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Given that one of the issues mentioned by the closer of the discussion that imposed the topic-ban was TheTranarachist's editing of the wikipedia article on an anti-transgender rights activist and given FAIR's views on gender, I see their edit to the page as a clear violation of the topic-ban. A warning is merited, if only to prevent future missteps that may end up requiring stricter sanctions on a clearly dedicated and well-intentioned editor. This is not a comment on the merits of the edit (and therefore other editors are free to restore it in part or in whole, once they have reviewed it) or the merits of the topic-ban itself (whose close can be appealed, if needed, assuming that hasn't already happened). Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I just want to state for the record that I haven't appealed it yet. A very brief recap of the case is on my userpage here.

  I'll also confess I've thought about appealing often, either for the ban to be lifted, restricted to the specific subset of GENSEX touched on in my case (anti-trans BLPs/ORGs), or at least a partial exemption to edit in GENSEX where my work was purely uncontroversial (trans healthcare articles, LGBT rights in <location> articles with WP:USALGBT (which I created), and historically notable trans activists and rights organizations such as Angela Lynn Douglas and Tri-Ess). Honestly, it really hurts to be completely banned from GENSEX. I freely admit I fucked up when it comes to writing about hate groups that do nothing other than seek to restrict transgender people's rights (and even then, I might add only a few articles I wrote there really showed problems, with the clearest wrongdoing on Posie Parker And even then, only after she publicly called me a liar and insulted me with sexualizing transphobic insults for writing her article, which has had a repeated talk consensus that the description of her is accurate, according to RS, and that descriptions of it as a hit piece were unfounded and stemmed from SPAs). Even the close decision stated it was apparent I was dedicated and willing to work on improving as an editor. Lesser sanctions, or even an initial warning, could have helped me improve as an editor. Now, I can't any article even vaguely related to trans topics. I can't even participate in the LGBT noticeboard. I can't take Gloria Hemingway to GA. Apparently LGBT rights in the Commonwealth of Nations, even though it doesn't mention trans rights once and I only asked to reformat the pre-existing content. I got dragged to AE for that explanatory message I left on my userpage, literally acknowledging my ban and saying goodbye to GENSEX just after my case closed. I can't continue collaborating on articles I wrote even on talk, even where fellow editors praised my dedication to NPOV and collaborative editing. I wanted to take all my old articles to at least a B, but am unable to.

  I went from being a well respected editor in GENSEX, known for doing good work across various subsets of GENSEX, to being completely cut off from anything vaguely trans related after a sockpuppet started a case against me, even though half the participants (who while I didn't exactly poll, were notably often other frequent editors in GENSEX, including those I've had civil content and policy debates in the past) vocally supported me.

  With all that weighing on me, why haven't I appealed? Because multiple editors have privately counseled me to just wait it out. Even though it really hurts, and even when they agree it's unjust, the constant thing I've heard is that by merely asking for an appeal, reformat of the ban, or limited exception, I'll risk making my ban longer and damning my chances. I've been told my eagerness to rejoin GENSEX will be considered evidence against me instead of stemming from the obvious fact that I am a trans person, I wrote a lot of trans related articles, all of it fell under GENSEX and WP:BMB, only a specific subset of articles I wrote were even mentioned in my case and shown to have issues, and it hurts to be so fully exiled from anything vaguely trans-related.

  Perhaps I've become too jaded by my last time at ANI, so I'll ask anyone who cares to answer: is there some way the community might see fit to make this ban a little less stifling? To recognize my previous good contributions in GENSEX, my dedication to improving as an editor, and my improvement since and just allow me to edit some trans-related articles? I wasn't going to ask, but since I'm here at ANI a quick informal poll seems prudent, would the community support a limited exception to the ban starting June 1st for Wiki Loves Pride on LGBT rights in <XYZ> articles? I'll do anti-bludgeoning restrictions, 0RR, talk page only, any intermediary sanction the community finds appropriate. I just want a little WP:ROPE, opportunity to prove my ability to make valuable contributions to GENSEX, and honestly I don't want to spend pride month feeling awful about the fact I can't make a single edit related to trans people (which, per WP:BMB, even includes general articles about LGBT rights and content unrelated to trans people). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  This may be better framed as a request for a clarification of the current TBAN - are articles about LGBT rights in <XYZ location> included within the scope of the ban? And if so, as a limited exception to the TBAN, can you edit these specific types of articles subject to restrictions such as talk page proposals only, or 0RR? These seem to generally be articles that may have regular editing disputes, but not similar to the level of disputes in articles with WP:GENSEX banners on their talk pages.

  As to the review of the warning, the TBAN scope seems somewhat unclear due to what CaptainEek said and the policy language. I can find content in the midst of the large edit, i.e. FAIR describes itself as non-partisan and "pro-human" with a source about a gender-related dispute [141], which may generally support Ivanvector's view on how inseparable the topics are for this organization; gender-related dispute content is also not contained only to the Gender section, see e.g. at the end of the Opposition to critical race theory section and the Emory Free Speech Forum section, which seems to further support Ivanvector's perception of the article as within the scope of the TBAN. I think under these circumstances, it could be helpful to clarify the scope of the TBAN as covering the FAIR article and move on without a formal warning. Beccaynr (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  This may be better framed as a request for a clarification of the current TBAN yes and no. While this obviously has an impact on TheTranarchist's editing, it also has an effect on a multitude of other editors who are also subject to a GENSEX TBAN. If we're construing GENSEX this broadly, then as Rhododendrites, HandThatFeeds, and myself have pointed out below this would also amount to a defacto AP2 TBAN, as well as a British politics TBAN. This question on scope how broadly we define the scope is probably something that ArbCom needs to resolve, given the impacts it will have on many editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was referring to the request for a quick informal poll in the bolded part of TheTranarchist's comment as something that may be better framed as a request for clarification, along with a way to propose a clarification that emphasizes a straightforward distinction for the specific type of articles. As to the rest, in my own peanut gallery way, I previously cautioned TheTranarchist to show clear distance from the topic area, because I think this provides the easiest path to minimizing conflict that could arise, as it has here, over how to interpret the scope of the TBAN.

  From my view, the content and talk page history of the FAIR article, as well as the totality of CaptainEek's general comments, indicates to me that Ivanvector was acting within admin discretion to issue a warning - I have tried to suggest a mitigating factor based on how CaptainEek's comment and the policy language might have been interpreted, and to suggest an informal warning along with clarification that this article is within the scope. The idea is to resolve this conflict and help guard against future conflicts, with a reminder about not testing the limits of the TBAN even if an edit seems technically defensible.

  So I don't think the TBAN applying to this article, with GENSEX sources and content identified in various areas of the article, necessarily risks transforming GENSEX into a defacto AP2 ban. From my view, there seems to be enough evidence for Ivanvector to find a TBAN violation here - the concern about a slippery slope seems based on a view that GENSEX had no connection to the edit, but there seems to be disagreement with this assessment in this discussion. And these kinds of differences in opinion seem to emphasize the risk of skating close to a topic area that does overlap to varying degrees with a variety of other topics. Beccaynr (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I was having such a nice morning... Woke up early, got fresh air, got a little editing done on Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, while I was on WP quickly reverted some obvious vandalism, and went to an event I'd been looking forward to for a month. Starting heading back, thinking about how I'd enjoy continuing to work on UHAB since I had some time (which I now spend writing the following), only to check my phone and realize somehow I ended up here again...

1. Quoting WP:TBAN: a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". and For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also ... weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;

   From the second quotation more specifically, I'll paraphrase as if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with Gender: the section entitled "Gender" in the article FAIR, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;

2. The edit did not touch any parts covered by GENSEX
3. I think anyone looking at the edit can see I had firm policy reasons for reverting the content. I don't think a single editor would disagree the content was not encyclopedic in the least, and per WP:BANEX: The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree
4. As noted by others, I asked CaptainEek does the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism count as GENSEX? Talk page consensus there was that they are not an anti-trans organization and their dealings with trans topics are not notable enough for the lead, so I want to be sure whether I should avoid it or not., to which the response was When it comes to the gender aspect of FAIR, certainly. Further, as a matter of becoming a better editor, I would advise you stay away from controversial topics for the time being, so I'm not sure that touching the rest of the FAIR article is a good idea either.
5. As noted above, there was a talk page consensus that the organization's stance on transgender rights is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic or reason for a category related to transgender rights. The fact they opposed transgender rights was removed from the lead by another editor (however, whether that is appropriate per LEADFOLLOWSBODY and the fact there is a gender section is a separate matter).

As a recap, I reverted obvious vandalism for sound policy reasons, not touching the section devoted to GENSEX in an article about an organization primarily known for campaigning against what it deems "critical race theory". An organization local consensus determined was not notable for its positions on transgender rights and which doesn't even mention the organizations' positions on trans people in the lead. This fits into both the definition of WP:TBAN (the part of the article about the CTOP, not the entire article) and for extra safety the provisions of WP:BANEX. I had previously asked the closing admin about whether the page was covered by my TBAN, and while obviously the section devoted to GENSEX is, the rest of the article was fair game while not advisable (I also want to note, I asked that weeks ago, and only touched the page since to revert the aforementioned vandalism this morning). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist: About a quarter of the current version of the article (roughly 900 out of 3700 words) is devoted to "Gender", a topic where I believe we can reasonable assume that your views don't mesh with the organization's. So when you edited the lede and the Reception section to restore a version of the article that highlights critical views of the organization instead of its self-description, the edit may well have been reasonable on its merits, but it cannot be said to be unrelated to GENSEX. As an uninvolved admin, I don't think the question of whether this was a violation of your topic-ban is really debatable (it was!), although I understand that you may not have realized that.

So my sincere advice to you is:

• Either formally appeal your topic-ban to be rescinded or narrowed, or
• Follow it strictly without even skating close to the edges

If in doubt ask any uninvolved admin of your choice and if they advise you to not to edit a page (as CaptainEek did wrt Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism) don't mistake their polite phrasing to be an implicit permission to edit the page. If I may be blunt here: IMO, editors who are arguing otherwise are (unintentionally) setting you up for further TBAN violations that are likely to lead to actual sanctions and diminish the chance of the current topic-ban being overturned. And, ironically, Ivanvector is doing you a service by warning you off actions that are not in your long time interest if you wish to ever edit in the GENSEX area again. Abecedare (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

While I make no judgement as to whether this was or was not a tban violation, my thinking most aligns with Abecedare's. While my phrasing was not an absolute proscription on editing FAIR, it was not an invitation either. The fact that TA has decided to edit it regardless speaks to poor judgement on her part. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

We all agree the content of the edit itself has nothing to do with GENSEX, right? So this is about whether any edit to an article on a subject that has opinions about gender is covered by a GENSEX tban? Or perhaps the questions are (a) whether Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people should extend to "associated organizations", and (b) whether someone/something is "associated" by having expressed an opinion (among other unrelated, more prominent opinions)? If the organization were first and foremost focused on gender-related issues I think there's a case for the tban to extend there, but otherwise we're effectively turning any GENSEX tban into an American politics tban. One of the two major parties, along with its various think tanks, PACs, and publications, has made transgender rights a standard talking point. If we're looking at article-level rather than content-level edits, all of that would be off-limits, as long as a mention of a position on gender/sexuality made it into their Wikipedia page. Perhaps there are precedents here I'm not aware of, but IMO we treat a GENSEX topic ban as relevant to content except where the subject's notability is tied to gender/sexuality. If problems persist, rather than say "GENSEX tban should be treated as an AMPOL tban", consider whether an AMPOL tban should be added (clearly that's not the case here). They're separate tools, so use them that way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this cuts to the heart of the matter. The edit was reversion of obvious vandalism, not related to GENSEX. The article subject is not directly related to GENSEX, though a subsection is. If the topic ban applies in this case, it becomes absurdly broad. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur with this (as my comment somewhere up there indicates). XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

otherwise we're effectively turning any GENSEX tban into an American politics tban I have to agree here, and this cuts both ways as a AP2 TBAN would also become a defacto GENSEX TBAN. While "broadly construed" is standard terminology in TBAN applications, what has been said by other editors above is I think stretching that far beyond what was originally intended.

Also sidenote, while it's not designated a contentious topic, such a broad definition of GENSEX would also mean that a TBAN from GENSEX would also be a TBAN from British politics. Why? Well two of our major parties, along with several think tanks, non-profit organisations, one loud and contentious charity, and substantial elements of the British media establishment have also made transgender rights and to some degree denigration of trans and non-binary people a standard talking point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I can’t speak for American politics, which I don’t edit, but I strongly disagree that a broadly construed GENSEX topic ban would be in effect a ban on editing British politics. You can talk about, for instance, Brexit, the NHS, immigration, tax, trade unions, the cost of living, without mentioning anything to do with GENSEX . In British politics, GENSEX is a minor subject. I have not seen any mention of it in the discussions about the recent local elections results. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)  

The Conservative Party article contains only minimal GENSEX content about same-sex marriage, does not have a subsection titled 'Gender', and does not have a big GENSEX warning on its talk page. I don't think anyone wants to play TBAN-Gotcha here, but I'm reasonably sure that articles that were created with subheadings that include 'Opposition to transgender rights' are within the scope and spirit of the TBAN. Unless it was a revert of obvious vandalism, of course...  Tewdar  19:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a case where TA can with some credulity claim they didn't see this as an GENSEX article as the specific content of their edit was not GENSEX specific. However, I can also see why editors would say this is a violation similar to how we might see an edit to Trans rights as a violation even if the specific edit content wasn't GENSEX. What I think hurts TA's argument here was pointed out by Tewdar, TA created the article and did so by saying the group opposes transgender rights. The article was also part of the ANI that resulted in their Tban. That TA sees the group as clearly GENSEX related should have been a redflag to at least ask or alternatively, ask someone else to review the edit. In the spirit of AGF, I think this discussion is sufficient warning to at least ask in the future.

As for the discussion if GENSEX is basically all AP2, no, I don't see that. I think the question is if the article is primarily or heavily associated with the GENSEX topic. So a YT commentator who talks about politics and "culture war" topics that may occasionally include GENSEX wouldn't be off limits (excluding GENSEX specific material) but a group that the sanctioned editor sees as a GENSEX related group would be because the editor themselves has said the topic is under the umbrella. Springee (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The question is integralness ("integrality"?). For instance, Political positions of Joe Biden has a lengthy section on Biden's views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I don't think we'd generally say that an ARBPIA topic ban covers edits to other parts of the article, because those views aren't really central to Biden's overall political ideology. Gender isn't mentioned in the lede at FAIR, and honestly the current gender section looks UNDUE in its length, just judging at a glance from text:citation ratio. "Broadly construed" does not override the general principle, codified at WP:TBAN, that in "related content" a TBAN only applies to relevant portions of the page. It's possible to enact a TBAN that's stricter than that ("X is banned from any page that in any way mentions gender-related disputes"), but that's not what was done here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

On a balance, I agree with Rhododendrites: if people want this user topic-banned from AMPOL (and 'BRITPOL'), then topic-ban the user from AMPOL, but saying GENSEX = AMPOL and someone can't revert vandalism or puffery or whatnot to articles about anti-anti-racism groups because those groups also mention trans people sometimes is ... well, such an interpretation would not only prevent editing politics, but prevent making similarly non-GENSEX-related edits to e.g. update the editor-in-chief parameter in an article on any major news media (BBC, NYT, etc have sections or sub-articles detailing the contention around their coverage of GENSEX issues) or other media organizations (e.g. Disney is the subject of some contention involving GENSEX issues), reverting puffery in articles on actors (any major one has usually made comments or actions on GENSEX issues, e.g. Emma Watson, Mark Ruffalo, Cara Delevingne, etc), cleaning up articles on censuses (recent ones either asked or attracted contention for not asking about GENSEX) ... We all seem to agree that the edit in question did not add, remove, change, or touch GENSEX content, yes — the question is whether an organization having expressed an opinion on GENSEX issues at some point makes everything else they've done untouchable, and GENSEX = AMPOL? Such an interpretation is implausibly over-broad IMO, but as highlighted by other users above, it would also effect any user with a GENSEX restriction (and perhaps any user with an AMPOL restriction), so this seems like something that needs to be discussed as such, perhaps with input from ArbCom, rather than as part of a discussion of one warning to one user. (In the meantime, perhaps the best lesson this discussion offers is to the vandal or PR person: next time, also puff up some GENSEX content to more clearly reduce the number of editors who are allowed to challenge your puffery — in general, the more contentious topics you mention, the fewer editors are allowed to challenge you.) -sche (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Awful 'copyediting' by SuspiciousReality70

I've spent a couple of hours picking through several hundred edits by SuspiciousReality70 (talk · contribs). In a few cases they represent minor upgrades, but mostly they accomplish something else that requires real initiative: make articles already compromised by promotional tone even worse. Every edit is accompanied by the meaningless and deceptive summary, "Fixed one part so that it fits the tone/style of wikipedia." Please feel free to cherry pick any half dozen edits and see. It's left to administrative discretion whether a block is appropriate now, but I submit the disruption merits sanctions. Thanks, 76.119.253.82 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I was thinking the same thing: [142]. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, the pattern of topics chosen is seemingly random and in many cases uncommercial, and the edits are coming in small but very rapid bursts. It makes me wonder: could this be a good-faith editor who thinks running text through an AI to rewrite it is a good idea? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say the evidence supports that theory, and this seems to be their entire contribution history. I would block per WP:CIR, and I think it would be a good idea for us to write up a guideline on this in short order. Was it just yesterday there was an editor blocked for doing this, and they also used an AI to compose their unblock request? This is getting out of hand quickly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The common thread is choice of articles that have been tagged for unencyclopedic or advertising tone. They then go into a (usually) unsourced passage and the bloviation commences, along with the edit summary telling us the part has been 'fixed'. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The "Suggested edits" feature for newcomers surprisingly causes newcomers to do what they are being asked to do, independently of their capability to do so.

Want to create an article? Add some unnecessary wikilinks and try to copyedit text others have failed to write correctly first. And yes, this is indeed better than bad article creations, but it causes maintenance too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Have left them a talkpage message urging them to step away from the AI and edit articles directly. Agree with DavidEppstein that they're likely acting in good faith but their additions are usually worse than the original text. If they persist without engaging with anyone's concerns, they will reach disruptive editing territory.

And as a side note, it continues to be horrifying how many articles are just puff pieces lifted from company websites. If SuspiciousReality70 has done any good work it's that their contributions page provides a "to do" list of articles in need of major rewrites.-- Euryalus (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted some of the "copyedits" that made the articles affected more promotional. Considering this editor is acting in good faith in my opinion, I would propose a warning followed by some length of block if they continue the poor copyedits. (Non-administrator comment) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, their copyediting targets are a (probably completely random) subset of Category:All articles with a promotional tone, so we do have that list already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This category has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. This notice will hide itself when this category has fewer than 10000 items. I don't know how much good that list is doing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree has hit the problem on the head: a newcomer is likely to end up at somewhere like [143] which calmly categorises copy-editing as "Easy", and suggests it for newcomers. Copy-editing is hard. You will meet sentences that are grammatically wrong but also ambiguous, which means either finding a way to correct the grammar while retaining exactly the same ambiguity, or (better) going back to sources to find out which meaning is correct. Copy-editing requires nuance; non-native-level speakers will often correct "He does eat fish on Fridays" to "He eats fish on Fridays", because at their level it is most likely that "he does" is an error. But in the context, it is likely to be a deliberate emphasis, asserting a contradiction of a (possibly-implicit) expectation or statement that he doesn't/shouldn't. It was bad enough when copy-editing WP was a practice-ground for language students, but AI brings a real risk of superficially reasonable copy-editing that's completely unaware of its effects on the underlying meaning. In addition to sorting out SuspiciousReality, we should get rid of every suggestion that newcomers gravitate into copy-editing. Finding references, a "medium" activity in that list, is far more useful, and much safer. Elemimele (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I am in agreement. As someone who did copy-editing frequently in the past, anyone who doesn't have a proficient grasp of the English language will likely do the reverse of what is intended. Small, obvious grammar and/or spelling mistakes are easy, but most of the pages tagged for some form of copyedit likely need major changes or re-writes, which new or non-native editors would struggle with. I would be in favour of replacing the copyedit section of the "suggested edits" section with categorisation and move the "Copy editing" section in Wikipedia:Task Center to intermediate editors, although I think there would be a need to be an RfC to gain consensus. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Would be very dangerous for BLPs. Newbs might not understand why Obama isn't categorized under "Left-wing politics" (not a category for BLPs, not a defining label, original research), or why Trump isn't categorized as "Fascism" or "Patriotism" (depending on their views), and so on and so forth. Those two are protected, but most BLPs aren't, and it's a minefield best avoided.

I agree with Elemimele. Sourcing is something newbs might get wrong, but it should still be the first thing they learn, and the risk of harm is low — DFlhb (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point; swapping sourcing and copyedits is probably the most low-risk option. That being said, if I or another editor was to raise an RfC, I would have no idea where the RfC would be hosted, or how someone can even make this change. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Generally the discussion would be at WP:Village pump (proposals), or if it's only to change the one page then it would be at the applicable talk page. For what it's worth, I'll support any measure if it has a good chance of teaching better sourcing practices early on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes to pretty much all the above. They have left a roadmap for overtly promotional articles to clean up. More broadly, agreed that it's not too soon to draft guidelines on dealing with AI, though I don't know what that would look like or if they'd be enforceable. And yes to making it more difficult, not easier, for new editors to bombard the site with inept copy edits. Prior to this report, I came across a wave of edits by newly registered accounts, cross-pollinating multiple articles, primarily adding wikilinks. They tend to be indiscriminate in their application; I suspect most don't use English as their native language. I think it dovetails with this discussion. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Stalking user who previously used multiple IP addresses now edit warring with a new account

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

---

A user who was using multiple different IP addresses from different ranges was undoing my edits on multiple articles: Basketball at the 1988 Summer Olympics, Basketball at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, 1988 United States men's Olympic basketball team, and Ice hockey at the 1998 Winter Olympics – Men's tournament. Obviously this made it difficult to discuss. They recently created a new account, but still refuse to follow WP:BRD despite my asking them to not revert until a discussion is complete. I have abandoned the reverting because they simply revert back in their edit warring. Posting here in the hopes that they will self-revert and continue discussion. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

We can add Miracle on Ice to the list of articles this user stalked and reverted my edits, as they just admitted to that behavior as well. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Upon further review: This is probably a sock of Max Arosev. These same disruptive edits, almost verbatim, go all the way back to 2020, when this IP's edit ended up getting the IP blocked as a sock of Max. It appears he is holding a long grudge against me. Explains all the reverts and different IPs, as well as how knowledgable this "new user" is about policy. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Naming the user would have been nice, but Xkpsy now blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

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

PettyCache

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

---

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

This editor is making me very concerned, as they have been creating articles on Simpsons episodes, which should've stopped a while ago. I don't know if the episode articles are under notability, but this user also did create an article of a Family Guy episode, the article only has one source of backup and it doesn't follow notability. Although the warnings the user got maybe limited when compared to some others I reported, this user maybe WP:NOTHERE. This is Wikipedia, NOT Fandom. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Simpson episodes are regularly the subjects of Wikipedia pages. Nothing broken in that regard, so NotHere doesn't seem to apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that this is NOT a Simpsons Wiki. Episode articles would have to follow notability in order to have articles. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Simpsons collection, just as it has collections of thousands of individual topics. So there is no problem. Individual episodes of many television shows, including The Simpsons, have been recognized as notable since 2001, and you say above that you don't know if the created articles follow notability. I don't know either, so why bring this here? I looked at one and it at least needs to follow sentence case in its presentation. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that most of the drafts that have been created are duplicates of existing episodes. Some of the reviewers picked up on this and left messages saying so, however the editor has repeatedly continued to do so. The reporting editor is making it sound like that Simpsons episodes shouldn't have episodes at all. (Non-administrator comment) JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that The Simpsons shouldn't have episodes, the articles for the episodes that do follow notability can always stay, especially the good article criteria ones. What I was pointing out is that articles of episodes from the series have been created, but some do not follow notability. Given the over 700 episodes the show has, redirecting the articles might be a difficult task. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

All of the article the user that you have reported have are drafts, which aren't redirected to mainspace. Frankly, the issue here is the editor not listening to people telling them to stop making draft duplicates of mainspace articles. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

There is another problem with there creations - large direct 'quotes' that are actually just copyright violations - for instance Draft:Bartless was mostly direct copied content. KylieTastic (talk)#

This user does not listen to everyone. We tried helping but they ignore us and just continue to make policy violations with copyvio and notability. Clearly NOTHERE behavior and wanting Wikipedia to be more like Fandom. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the notability/duplicate draft issues, the volume of copyright violations is unacceptable. I have blocked for same. Star Mississippi 16:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Given that the user is also possibly WP:NOTHERE, I think its time to set the standard offer clock. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@KylieTastic I think I got all the ones you flagged (thank you!) and a few others I found. If I missed any, feel free to flag. I'd reject any standard offer until they indicate they understand what was wrong with the copyright creations-much larger of an issue than whether an episode is notable or not. Star Mississippi 16:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

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

58.169.208.18 disruptive edits to Maggie Smith

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

---

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

The IP editor above edited after final warning on BLP article Maggie Smith, changing her birth year to 1788 and changing the caption of the photo. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@JML1148: It's moot now that they've been blocked, but you have failed to notify 58.169.208.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of this thread. Please remember to do so next time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: My apologies for the mistake; I forgot to do so. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Revenge Edits by an IP

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

---

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

This IP has been following behind me and reverting my edits. I believe it has something to do w/ my having gotten the List of Passions Characters article redirected. This same IP reverted my PROD on the article, which led to my subsequent AfD, resulting in the redirection. User:JalenFolf suggested this IP may be connected to an LTA. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Relevant talk page discussion. I agree with @JalenFolf: that this is some form of sock; that being said, they haven't been warned about their conduct on their talk page. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Should I warn them, if only just for procedural purposes? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Considering that we are at AN/I and the editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE, it probably isn't necessary at this point in time. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Can't be surprised if this even is a sock as I only made an educated guess based on the large history of edits targeting Cringy from this IP address alone. I remember other IPs in the past have targeted Cringy before, but my memory cannot allow me to remember exact IP details. Nor is my mental state allowing me to search through a long list of contributions just to see exactly where on the encyclopedia Cringy was targeted. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, for article history purposes, the actual page in question is List of Passions characters. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

IP blocked x 2 weeks for hounding and harassment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Talk:Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog

I have no idea what to make of this, and if it's worth an ANI topic. The involved IPs are the same person, from likely switching internet and devices:

• 2601:188:C500:49E0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 73.234.95.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It started with an edit request at Talk:Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog where @M.Bitton: intially commented on the request. I eventually erroneously closed the request having misread the article's page protection expiry date. Another edit request was made the next day, which I have no issues with, but was declined by both me and @FlightTime: for lack of sources. They then proceeded to remove our comments by lashing out and change the request to unanswered. They later apologized in another edit summary. I restored the removal and most recent edit request, where I tried to engage in a discussion with the user. It was unclear what the changes they wanted to be made, given the article already mentions them. I closed the request but willing to continue the discussion. That's when they did this and this as edit summaries and removing my comment once again when reverted. Potential WP:OWN issues with these edits: [144], [145], [146], and their message on my talk page [147]. Another involved user was @FilmandTVFan28: with their reversal.

I have no idea what to make of this, and I have no idea if an admin needs to be involved but it's gotten unconstructive and probably disruptive. Callmemirela 🍁 21:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that I have notified the user in question but removed it. Callmemirela 🍁 21:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally they have removed the comments once again. Callmemirela 🍁 21:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the range and the single IP each for one week for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

User edit warring and not responding

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

---

User @Sundayclose keeps editing in false information on wiki page Codrus. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaUZz LYte (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

See PaUZz LYte's talk page. They were blocked about two months ago for edit warring the very same edit to the article that they just made, with no additional discussion, no additional sources, and certainly no consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I've indefinitely pageblocked PauUZz LYte from Codrus for returning to the same behavior that led to their previous block. They can try to find consensus on the talkpage, preferably with a more collegial attitude toward other editors than they're presently displaying. Acroterion (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

And, as is usual with obvious WP:BOOMERANG victims, they didn't even have the basic courtesy to notify the person they were talking about... I wonder if it was intentional. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Aradicus77 edit-warring to puff up the importance of Red Krayola

• Aradicus77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 92.9.57.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Red Krayola
• Draft:Steve Cunningham (musician)
• April 2023: WP:ANI archive 1126: Non-neutral inflation of importance: Houston–London avant-garde band Red Krayola
• Industrial music
• Free improvisation
• Proto-punk
• Noise music
• New wave music

Two weeks ago, I reported Aradicus77 as editing in a non-neutral manner, inflating the importance of the semi-obscure avant garde musical group Red Krayola. The problem has been continuing, with Aradicus77 edit-warring across multiple articles to re-insert mentions of the band. Aradicus77 has reverted to their preferred version 11 times today across multiple articles.[148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158] This is a behavior issue.

Static IP 92.9.57.106 has been involved in the same effort, along with other IPs who have not edited recently. Aradicus77 created the biography Draft:Steve Cunningham (musician) but it was deleted by Liz three weeks ago for inactivity and not being notable enough.[159]

To me, this looks like someone associated with the band who wishes to leave behind a legacy of a critically important band rather than a fringe band with a small following. Accordingly, I have placed conflict-of-interest warnings at User talk:Aradicus77, along with many edit-warring warnings. Note that University of London musicologist Stephen Graham explicitly states in his book Sounds of the Underground: A Cultural, Political and Aesthetic Mapping of Underground and Fringe Music that he chose not to write about little-known bands such as Red Krayola. That makes Red Krayola too fringe for the book about fringe music.

Aradicus77 has been searching for any mention of Red Krayola in published sources, and inserting these tidbits in multiple articles, to make it seem that Red Krayola is important across a wide array of music genres. Aradicus77 is ignoring the policy of WP:ONUS: disputed text must stay out of the article until consensus is formed for inclusion. The edit-warring has to stop. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Consider myself fairly well-versed in music, esp. alt, punk, and industrial metal. Never heard of em, this is clear agenda editing, possibly paid. Zaathras (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Because some 73 year old guy is definitely going to pay a 17 year old kid to edit their band on wikipedia lmao. How hard is it to believe that these guys are influential in the same way the Velvet Underground was, you've been ignoring my talk page discussions every time I provide a rebuttal. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Very hard, actually. But I'll give you a simple metric: Google hits for the Velvet Underground run over a hundred times as many as for Red Krayola. What rebuttals, by the bye? Ravenswing 01:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Well if you've never heard of them, now you have, you can't know them all. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't even edit warring in new wave or free improvisation, we disputed those. We also disputed the noise music page, I deleted the whole section as by your definition none of the bands mentioned fit the criteria to be featured. The industrial music page is also apt given the sources. Proto-punk/punk too, and if this is aimless promotion how come there's so many sources from cites like Pitchfork, AllMusic, Chicago Reader... etc noting the band's presaging of so many genres? You don't really come across that with any other bands, shows that their influence hasn't been properly documented on Wikipedia, to add on you act like I'm aimlessly promoting them and just exist to promote them, when I've added information on pages for a variety of bands, they just happen to be the one I stumble on the most when it comes to information. For example, I'm looking for a source I read a while ago from Far Out Magazine that cited Wire's 154 as a precursor to shoegaze and post-rock, would that not be an important and valid addition to those pages? Anyway do what you will, if I'm blocked so be it, would rather be blocked and stop wasting time on a site that doesn't take my contributions. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I genuinely don't care anymore, I'll say some shit to get me permanently blocked so I don't have to be tempted to come back here again to waste time contributing things that will just get removed for no reason:

I am a member of both the Counter-Counter-Vandalism Unit and Anti-Anti Vandalism Group. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Aradicus77 and blocked their IP for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

IP editor inserting NPOV violations, casting bad faith accusations based on religious affiliation

• 174.94.67.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Special:Diff/1153707311

IP editor 174.94.67.56 has made several disruptive edits to the Keith Self article, including prose with a non-neutral tone that very plainly violated WP:NPOV. After removing the content twice, I ceased making further edits to the article while the IP restored the content with some revisions. In doing so, the IP editor seems to have made a pretty clear violation of not assuming good faith by calling out my own personal religious affiliation (as stated on my userpage) and assuming it motivated my removal of the content. Kafoxe (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Long term abuse by IP

Various 93* IP ranges geolocating to Italy have been vandalizing Wikipedia since the summer of 2022, they often target South Asian topic areas to make random changes to percentages or figures in articles. As far as I know, they are able to alternate between many different ranges (2 of them have recently been blocked because of my report at AIV). They nonetheless continue to vandalize even after the blocks. They have made hundreds upon hundreds of edits, every single one of them is vandalism and they show no signs of stopping or at least making constructive edits, and have already received dozens of warnings, and a few short blocks.

Examples: [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171]. Keep in mind this is a very small sample of the hundreds of edits he's made.

As far as I can tell, he primarily uses the ranges of 93.33.0.0/16 [172], 93.44.0.0/16 [173], 93.38.0.0/16 [174] and occasionally 93.32.0.0/16 [175].

I managed to get the 33 and 44 ranges blocked, but at my most recent report at AIV against the 38 range, I was told to take this to ANI as the admins were weary of blocking a /16 range [176]. The user is continuing to vandalize articles through the 38 range. I'm not sure if anything can be done given how often he changes his IP though. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit: I think I found an appropiate subrange for the 38 range: [177] where 90% of the edits since Jan appear to be him. The same subrange applied to the 32 range yields about 80% [178]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Hailey's On It! page by JamontW2005, leading to an edit war

Hello everyone. This all began when @User:JamontW2005 improperly created a page for this animated series instead of submitting the Draft:Hailey's On It into the mainspace. I have posted on their user talk page multiple times and have mentioned them in various reversions. But, I can do no more as I'd be violating WP:3RR. They are adding in badly sourced content, copyrighted content, and are engaging in an edit war. This all occurred from May 5th to today, May 8th. I also suspect that the user discussed in this post, JamontW2005, is trying to own the Hailey's On It! page as their own.

Actions by JamontW2005

• First removal of content (adds in badly sourced content, copyrighted synopsis, and copyrighted episode description) [19:57, 5 May 2023]
• Second removal of content (says "This is fine how it is.") [20:00, 5 May 2023]
• Third removal of content (no edit description, but re-adds badly sourced content, copyrighted synopsis, and copyrighted episode description) [23:40, 5 May 2023]
• Fourth removal of content (says in edit description, claiming "Thanks, but there is nothing wrong with this page. It was looked over by an admin and they made no changes") [23:41, 5 May 2023]
• Fifth removal of content (says in edit description, stating "Stop removing the episodes, they've been confirmed.") [13:29, 7 May 2023]
• Sixth removal of content (says in edit description, stating "Removed casting") [19:33, 7 May 2023]

My responses

• First reversal (21:25, 5 May 2023)
• First warning (I say in the edit description "um, this edit isn't helpful. I added MOST of what you originally posted... and you created this article in the improper way") (21:26, 5 May 2023)
• Second warning (I say in the edit description "can you please stop doing edits like this? Thanks") (23:57, 5 May 2023)
• Third warning (I say in the edit description "I'm sorry, but your version of the page uses links which are badly cited and has other issues") (23:58, 5 May 2023)
• Incorporated edits by JamontW2005 to article opening (00:08, 6 May 2023)
• Incorporated more edits by JamontW2005 (00:12, 6 May 2023)
• Again, incorporated more edits by JamontW2005 (00:15, 6 May 2023)
• Once again, incorporated more edits by JamontW2005 (00:20, 6 May 2023)
• Once more, incorporated more edits by JamontW2005 (00:25, 6 May 2023)
• Write in an edit summary "added in a source used in JamontW2005 edit, which I feel like used a lot of copyrighted content and/or paraphrasing from copyrighted sources" (00:34, 6 May 2023)
• Re-add content, provide another warning (I say in edit description "Since an edit war would help no one, I'm just going to re-add back in the sources incorrectly removed by @User:JamontW2005. There should NOT be a description until the series airs. Please STOP re-adding it. Better sources are needed for premiere dates. Made other necessary revisions.") [18:12, 7 May 2023]
• Improve sourcing for link to trailer on YouTube originally posted by JamontW2005 [18:16, 7 May 2023]
• Final warning, re-addition of content (in edit description I say "The synopsis was a copyright violation. Making some other changes. @User:JamontW2005, can you please stop adding in subpar sources to this page. It helps no one. Improved the page a bit more") [00:15, 8 May 2023]

Postings on JamontW2005 talk page:

• I post on talk page on 21:30, 5 May 2023, and say, in part that their edit isn't "helpful, to be honest. Not everything you added is bad, obviously, but it should be added in section by section without erasing the work of other editors on the page." I add to this at 18:25, 7 May 2023, adding, in part, "The episodes have now been kept, so can you stop messing with the Hailey's On It! page? It helps no one."
• I post on talk page on 00:04, 6 May 2023, and warn them, stating "Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation...you may be...blocked from editing". I later revise this comment on 0:06, 6 May 2023 and on 00:26, 6 May 2023. In the latter comment I state that "the series description you used is copied from...the Disney site for the show! Copyrighted content for the series description is not good, as it makes it possible to be removed, causing issues for users and editors."

Any help in resolving this issue would be appreciated, as I feel I should have posted this sooner, and probably could have handled this better, admittedly. Maybe I was too hard-nosed at times.. I would love the Hailey's On It! page to remain intact, if at all possible. I am not sure why this user is doing this, but I am hoping this issue can be resolved. Historyday01 (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Protected for a week to allow for discussion on the Talk. If another admin feels a block is necessary, feel free. To my eyes it was edit warring all around.

Star Mississippi 02:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I admit I unfortunately participated in some of that edit warring too, but... in the future, if something like this happens again (which is altogether possible), I'll come here SOONER rather than later. Historyday01 (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)