Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.183.144.120 (talk) at 06:27, 25 June 2020 (→‎Harassment, edit warring, controlling behaviour with an admin friend). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Heyday to you's WP:CIR issues

    BLOCKED
    as per WP:CIR, WP:DISRUPT by User:El C. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 06:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Heyday to you (talk · contribs) is back following a week-long block but the issues remain:

    At the contributor’s last unblock request, Yamla wrote „This does not address your blatantly disruptive edits. Also, frankly, it does not convince me you understand WP:RS and WP:CITE.“ WP:CIR still seems to be critically lacking. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The allegations of Robby.is.on are baseless. You may check user's contributions to whom I sent those warnings.
    P.S. I failed to find reliable sources for those edits as my sources were being listed as external links. Since I am a novice in Wikipedia, so I ended up writing my defence statement in this page.
    Heyday to you (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Heyday to you[reply]
    @Robby.is.on: is not reporting a single stand-alone incident here. Heyday to you (talk · contribs) also placed a warning today on User talk:95.15.163.182 [3] (twice - having misformed the first one [4]) - with a header for a page the IP has never edited. The IP in question was blocked for 31 hours on 24 May and has not edited since. Gricehead (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP guy looked insane through his edits. So I placed the warning. I don't think placing a late warning is unlawful in Wikipedia. Heyday to you (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Heyday to you[reply]

    That IP user was blocked as a result of their last edits. Placing a warning after that may not be "unlawful," but it's pointless and arguably disruptive, as it could potentially mislead someone reviewing an AIV report that there is more recent vandalism. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Heyday to you, would you at least calm down, ask for guidance when in doubt, use a sandbox to test your editing skills, and most imperatively; study a few of our policies and guidelines before attempting to directly edit in areas you aren’t sure about? Celestina007 (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    this guy,@Heyday to you is familiar to me. He is my neighbour;this dude doesn't know much about policies of Wikipedia. So I think he must have unintentionally did this. I am a IP address user.122.177.155.197 (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You guys may check mine or Robby's talk page to check our conversation. There you may find our conversation.Heyday to you (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be quite surprised if the above IP isn't Heyday to you while logged out. They left a warning template here, without having ever made a contribution to an article, and presented Heyday to you with a barnstar. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Earlier today, I warned Heyday to you about socking. Later today, an account which zero previous edits places another barnstar. Can admins please address these issues? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Heyday to you's edits to Black Lives Matter were minor and a few were wrong (changing American English spelling to UK English, etc.). Definitely not worthy of the BLM Barnstar mysteriously awarded to Heyday. A recent error by Heyday was creating a vandalism final warning on talk page of an IP editor who had not received any prior warnings, and was in fact editing in good faith (but neglecting to provide references for edits). Several recent article edits by Heyday have been reverted. David notMD (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have started a SPI investigation agenst Heyday The creeper2007Talk! 20:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've encountered this user before - at best incompetent, at worst a vandal/sock. Either way NOTHERE. GiantSnowman 20:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    On Heyday's User page, claims to be 13 years old. Also claims via Userbox to have a Triple Crown for FA, GA and DYK. Not true. David notMD (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Heyday’s sock investigation have been closed. Although Hayday do check to Silver Play Button and one other account, the investigation was closed because the CU suspected to be multiple people sharing a IP and the CU have also not found anything abusive. The creeper2007Talk! 17:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Heyday to you continues to place inappropriate warnings: [5] and edit non-constructively: [6] Robby.is.on (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. WP:CIR and WP:DE block. El_C 13:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. I just about to do it myself. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nicoljaus Sockpuppet

    BLOCKED
    Nicoljaus blocked as per WP:SOCK for 3 months by User:Callanecc. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nicoljaus (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 05:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    On the Taras Bulba-Borovets there is a user 93.157.203.231 who is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Nicoljaus who is reverting edits that cite RS. One such example can be found here. Nicoljaus has been blocked four times from the English Wiki for edit warring and various other infractions such as making personal attacks, and has been banned indefinitely from the Russian Wiki for the same reasons. I do not want to start an edit war on the page so if an administrator could intervene and try to mediate the situation I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much.2601:143:4200:E070:2110:34E3:9829:3A4 (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, semiprotected for 3 months. Any reason the lede does not say the guy was a Holocaust perpetrator, only that he was a resistance fighter?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The similar problem in the article Dmitry Medvedev (partisan). Semi-protection would be nice.--128.68.221.32 (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected this one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that 118.68.221.32 is most likely a Nicoljaus sock puppet as well and should be blocked. Ctvaughn555 (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is for checkusers. Please open a SPI.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw Nicoljaus is not blocked. And what is your main account is also an interesting question.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m sorry but I don’t understand what you’re saying. I never said that Nicoljaus was currently blocked. (On the English Wiki that is.)Ctvaughn555 (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disruptive edits by 1292simon

    1292simon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is constantly removing properly sourced edits claiming that they are not sourced on the BMW 5 Series (F10) page. Furthermore, this user is also removing other content (such as transmission type, layout and reliable sources) without an explanation. He was previously warned to stop this disruption but instead of avoiding this, this user continues disrupting the page without seeking proper consensus on the article talkpage.U1 quattro TALK 04:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Now this user is doing the same at the BMW 5 Series (G30) page. I request the administration to take appropriate action.U1 quattro TALK 04:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No action has been taken yet as this user continues to remove content without any explanation.U1 quattro TALK 03:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Miya people and WP:MOSIS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR issues relating to user:UserNumber

    This is in response to the ANI notice by UserNumber (talk · contribs) (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039#Disruptive_user_Chaipau) which I failed to notice in time since no notice was left on my talk page. In that ANI report they make voluminous accusations of "disruptive" editing by me. This is, of course, incorrect since I am trying to bring the article in line with standard Wikipedia policies and styles. The policies and styles with which Miya people is not aligned, IMHO, are given here.

    • In the revert [7] UserNumber has violated a number of different policies and styles that guide Wikipedia.
      • WP:MOSIS - UserNumbers have inserted more Indic scripts into the Info-box and have cluttered the lead with meanings. This makes the article less readable.
      • WP:NPOV and WP:OR - UserNumbers has re-inserted a link to a dictionary that gives the meaning of Miya in Bengali. This is WP:OR because it does not say anything about the etymology of the word Miya in this particular case in Assam, given also that Miya is a widely used honorific in South Asia, which derives from Persian.
    • In the revert [8], UserNumber
      • is trying to push for a POV by re-inserting a Bengali article, even as a citation in English already exists supporting the text. Bengali op-eds should be avoided for the following reasons (1) WP:NOENG and (2) the express opinion of a prominent Miya poet himself who says: "It is essentially an initiative to upset the amplified efforts made by some Bengali ultra-nationalists – with roots in West Bengal – on the Char Chapori Muslims of Assam to discard the Assamese language for Bengali. The campaign by these groups has been going on in our areas since 1991." ([9]). As a result, in this article, we should be using op-ed type sources only to demonstrate an opinion that exists and not to assert any facts, if we have to use them at all.
      • is inserting predatory journal articles (from [10])

    I have tried to discuss some these issues in Talk:Miya_people#Bengali, but it seems UserNumbers is either adamant on pushing a particular point of view or displaying WP:OWN.

    I request comments here to resolve which policies and styles are relevant here and how we could best implement them.

    Chaipau (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • I will address this again. I added ONE Indic script (Assamese script) in the infobox of the Miya article. For most people groups-related articles such as Tamils, Punjabis and Bengalis, they have Indic script in the infobox at least. WP:MOSIS only applies if there are MANY Indic scripts which makes the article MESSY.
      • Secondly, the reason why I insert the dictionary definition is because the term "Miya" is used pejoratively towards the people to make it known that their origin is in Bengal. The Persian word is Mian, and it became Miya in Bengali. I am well aware that their language is Assamese, but in this specific case, Miya is a Bengali term which Assam's people use to discriminate Bengal-origin Muslims.
      • These are the only two problems I see here. I do not see any mistake I have made. Only one of these "problems" include me adding the words "Bengali" to the article and suddenly you accuse me of pushing POV. I wasn't PURPOSELY adding predatory journal articles, they were added by another user and perhaps came back whilst I was undoing your mischievous edits (which involves claiming Miya is Urdu etc.). UserNumber (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @UserNumber:
    • You are imagining WP:MOSIS; please read carefully: "Avoid the use of Indic scripts in the lead sections or infoboxes. Instead, use International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides, which are more international. Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script." The result of this RfC is a clear "No" on the question "Should we allow for Indicscript/s in infoboxes?"
    • The use of pejorative use of Miya is cited from Baruah 2019. You don't need a Bangla dictionary, which is WP:OR (are you trying to say something more than what the sources say?)
    • I had to correct you on a number of occasions. Here you have inserted a link to indilens.com, a news portal to claim that the immigration started during the Bengal Presidency period ([11]) Assam left Bengal presidency ended in 1873/1874 and the immigration started around 1911. Here you have inserted "Bengali Muslim" whereas Miya people themselves make a distinction between that term and "Bengal-origin Muslims" ([12]) Either you are trying to push a current political agenda in Wikipedia or you are unaware of the nuances of the issues regarding the article. In any case you are clearly standing in the way of an WP:NPOV article.
    Chaipau (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaipau is also adding promotional images (unreliable) to history of Assam. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Assam&diff=960745019&oldid=960732362 . 2409:4065:93:6D9C:15A6:1400:78FE:B4FA (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaipau, you are now lying against me. These links were insterted in my edits during the merge and move of information from the Na Asamiya article. These weren't even my original edits, I was just doing some merges. I have already discussed the "Bengali Muslim" issue and this discussion has been RESOLVED as I agree that Bengal-origin Muslims is better. Stop bringing old edits which I myself no longer agree with. You are doing the same as Aman Kumar Goel is doing, by bringing up past edits which have already been RESOLVED. UserNumber (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaipau, the only CURRENT ISSUE (we're not in the past) is Miya being a Bengali word of Persian origin. The only reason I am adding Bengali dictionary references is because YOU keep removing the fact that it is a Bengali VARIANT. In Persian it is MIAN. The reason why it is pronounced MIYA is because people discriminate these Muslims because they are of "Bengal-origin". UserNumber (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @UserNumber: Before you call others liars, do take care and click on the diffs I have provided. The evidence of what you have inserted are right here. All your claims are WP:OR unless you provide WP:RS (not someone's op-ed) that directly supports your claim. Furthermore, the Bengali romanization of the word is Miah; the Urdu romanization is Mian; but the romanization used here is Miya which is different from the Bengali romanization. In your edit here ([16]), you tacitly admit that Miya is not the Bengali romanization. Chaipau (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not gonna try and guess who's in the right, but reading through these messages, I don't see any particular evidence of the "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" which would warrant opening a discussion here. A content dispute such as this would be far better suited for the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Opening tit-for-tat ANI discussions are not gonna lead to any sort of meaningful resolution.
    Alivardi (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Alivardi: Thank you for your comment. I have not received any reply from UserNumber on policies and styles, even after I have pointed them out. Here they are reiterating the same argument they made earlier ([17]). If we have WP:IDHT then it means we will land up here again. Also, this was a response to an archived notice, not a new one. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think WP:DRN will resolve the conduct issues with UserNumber since he is not understanding WP:OR and is now accusing others of "lying" (see WP:NPA). Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems user:UserNumber is asking for help as he did here ([18]), and user:Alivardi responded in this section ([19]) I am not sure whether soliciting or offering help for a particular side in this situation is appropriate (WP:CANVAS?). It seems user:UserNumber and user:Alivardi have collaborated on a number different projects. Nevertheless, this is not an attack on any user, but a discussion of issues around WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:MOSIS etc., so we do not have an (WP:IDHT) situation as we did in Miya people and we can move forward. Chaipau (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shahnwaz aalam

    BLOCKED
    per WP:CIR, WP:COMMUNICATE by User:El C. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This user has persistently engaged in edits of a promotional nature, either about themself or about various internet peronalities. Besides the deleted articles, they have also kept adding obvious copyvios to Commons. In any case, they have not engaged on talk page or any other type of constructive editing and they appear clearly WP:NOTHERE. Could an admin take a look at this and quite probably indef them (the pictures on commons need to be deleted too). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Their latest edit to their sandbox, which appear to be starting to write an instruction guide on android app development, are not good signs either in this regard. I have of course also filed a thread at Commons regarding their problematic copyvios, if there's any admin here who's also an admin on Commons and can deal with it. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely — a WP:CIR, WP:COMMUNICATE block. El_C 15:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Eostrix

    User:Eostrix recently nominated an article I created for deletion, which was fine as I stated it was borderline notable at the time, but I did ask to check that he was not from a rival rolling stock company due to the speed of the proposal, and lack of any talk page comments etc first. When he said he had no such connection, and didn't even really know about the rail industry (something that now seems to possibly be untrue considering his later comments), I moved on.

    Following other editors supporting the retention of the page, rather than accepting that his nomination may not have been correct in this case, this user has started what appears to be a campaign against anyone making an opposing case - having made a formal COI claim against me, despite my having replied on the article to have no interest in the company other than through being a rail enthusiast in the local area, and then accusing me of "infesting".

    This persons aggressive style seems very unsuitable for Wikipedia, especially considering that despite being a new editor he has been given the role of a new page reviewer. Neith-Nabu (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Eastern Rail Services was filed after two low edit accounts showed up, one of them uploading media from within the company's stockyard and labelled as "Own work" ([20], [21]). I warned Neith-Nabu of making personal attacks, including describing other editors as "infesting", namely:
    1. [22]: Neith-Nabu saying "Wikipedia is infested" by certain editors. Appears to be directed at User:Spartaz who closed the AfD delete as well as my self.
    2. [23]: accusing me of being "on a personal vendetta against the company, myself, or both".
    3. [24]: accusations of "lobbying for negative votes can be accomplished?" on relist of AfD by User:Spartaz.
    4. [25] calling User:Spartaz a "supervoter".
    --Eostrix (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neith-Nabu: End the accusations, veil insinuations, and implications against all editors. Without evidence, they are personal attacks and you can get blocked. Reasonable fair-minded unaffiliated editors do disagree. The assumption that those that don't see it your way must be paid or part of a conspiracy against you or the railway is nonsense. Step away if you have to, but further accusations against anyone - including IPs and low-edit accounts - will earn a block.--v/r - TP 14:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the infestation runs deep. A shame. We to see the encyclopedia we built back in the day turned into a little boy's club for the validation of the ego's of life's failures. Block away. I'll still be here long after you and your buddies have found something else to infest. Neith-Nabu (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fellow infestation here: I am not going anywhere. You'll be waiting a long time. Reyk YO! 17:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: Reyk YO! 12:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock

    Last week I blocked Ythlev (talk · contribs) for a 3RR violation (they reached 9RR). Today I caught them socking with a new account Uconf (talk · contribs), which I also blocked. They are now editing from IPs; I blocked 114.137.46.249 (talk · contribs), but they have popped up again with ‎114.137.134.85 (talk · contribs). Is it possible to block them with a rangeblock? Alternatively, they have quite a narrow focus of edits (Taiwanese elections), so alternatively, all of them could be semi-protected. Cheers, Number 57 12:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a /16 range so it's possible but I wouldn't recommend it. From what I see, collateral is possible but unlikely and unless newer IPs on that range pop up, I would argue multiple IP blocks being a better mechanism. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They are now reverting random edits I've made from another IP (114.137.206.26 (talk · contribs)). Beyond short-term blocks to stop them socking at the moment, I wonder whether longer-term sanctions may be required. Number 57 14:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, you could start acting like an admin and actually fix the problem. 114.137.206.26 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:3X requires the socking to have been confirmed by a CU; CUs do not publicly link accounts to IPs. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Centre of Muslims

    (non-admin closure) No need for admin attention here. This is currently being discussed productively on the MfD page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As-Salam O Alaikum!

    I recently created Wikiproject Centre of Muslims. It is created to improve the articles about places with more than 80% of Muslim Population. After sometime the percentage could be reduced to 50% (places with majority Muslim Population). Similar wikiprojects are working like in the case of [Australia], The only difference is that their scope is countrywide and scope of this Wikiproject is larger, i.e Muslim World.

    It was put on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Centre of Muslims because of solo participant. Someone also asked that "Would Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam be interested in this project as a Geography task force?" and I think that Centre of Muslims project should be merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam's Geography task force. --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Brysonjett

    (non-admin closure)No need for further action, user blocked, unblock declined, TPA revoked, pointed to UTRS. Nothing more to see here. Heiro 18:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A user with some serious WP:CIR issues.

    • Edit warring on an BLP to insert uncited material about their friend who apparently knows the famous person. 4 insertion, I reverted them but stopped at 3 reverts, someone needs to address the last re-insertion into the BLP.
    • After coming off a recent block they re-inserted a pretty egregious 4 year old vandal edit on the blocking admins userpage
    • then proceeded to play dumb that it was even them, see exchange here User talk:Brysonjett#June 2020
    • Admin gave them a benefit of a doubt (block rational = (Disruptive editing I was tempted just to block indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE given the warnings and recent edit warring, but I'll give one last chance.[26]))
    • Looking at their contribs, I was unable to find one constructrive or productive edit going all the way back to Sept 2019 when the account was created.
    • Clearly WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR come into play. Heiro 16:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They are also harassing this editor [27] and have continued with this after notified of this ANI. Heiro 16:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. @Drmies:, can you also revoke talkpage access? Per "Wtf did i do to get blocked? [28]" Heiro 16:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    MixedButHumann

    This user consistently edits to push a pro-Aramean POV, and has frequently made personal attacks against myself. I have provided the evidence to demonstrate that in a modern context there is academic consensus that Arameans are considered coterminous with Assyrians, e.g. Ethno-cultural and Religious Identity of Syrian Orthodox Christians, Sargon Donabed & Shamiran Mako (2009), p. 72, UNPO: Assyria, Who Are The Assyrians?, Nicholas Aljeloo (2000), Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia, John A. Shoup (2011), p. 30, Routledge Handbook of Minorities in the Middle East, ed. Paul S Rowe (2018), p. 357. I have attempted to engage the user in discussion, but he has continued to push his POV.

    • At Sharbel Touma, the user demonstrates he is advocating his POV contrary to the academic consensus with no evidence [29]. Note in my edit on this article, I did not change the assertion that the person is Aramean, but pointed to the consensus that they are considered part of the Assyrian people. This is also evident at Jasar Takak, [30].
    • At Jimmy Durmaz, the user has replaced reliable sourced content (BBC) with a link to a YouTube video to assert the person has Aramean ethnicity [31]. At Bishara (singer), this user has asserted a living person has Aramean ethnicity without providing a source [32].
    • At Stateless nation, the user has restored content by a confirmed sockpuppet, which is unsupported by the source provided [33].
    • At Chaldean Catholics, the user has removed sourced content that is contrary to his POV [34].
    • At Assyrians in Israel, the user blanked the article without discussion and manipulated the sources to assert his POV, despite the sources supporting the existence of an Assyrian community in Israel [35].
    • At Arameans, the user restored content added by a confirmed sockpuppet. The user's "sourced content" is from the Aramean Democratic Organization, not an academic source, and a book named "The Arameans; and their diaspora" with no other details, and cannot be found anywhere. The user points to the variations in languages to support his argument that the Arameans are a separate ethnic group to Assyrians, but this is not accepted in academia, as demonstrated by the sources provided.

    This user has been warned to not perform disruptive edits twice [36] [37]. Mugsalot (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi user:Mugsalot
    As I already did let you know I did not POV anything on the edits I made. If you look at the sources I provided you can clearly see that the things I edited are stated by several historians, academici, and other objective websites etc and I did provide tens of sources.
    I find it very sad that you are kinda trying to change the situation. Because in fact I see you together with other Assyrians editing several Aramean-related pages and remove the Aramean name of several of articles (See talkpage of Assyrian people
    And again how can you state that I use a POV on Chaldean Catholics when I provide sources of objective Iraqi newswebsites? How can that be a POV?
    As last I want to warn all Wikipedia moderators for Assyrian nationalists on Wikipedia. There is an ongoing Wikipedia war about Assyrian articles with their goal to strengthen the Assyrian nationalism. There is a reddit page called ‘Assyrian that has 2.5000 members and they called up everyone to make a Wikipedia account to strengthen the Assyrian cause. Please see the next link:
    It’s clear that you are a pro-Assyrian if you look at the edits you made the past view months, this is not a personal attack, but facts that can be seen when someone watches your edits of the few past months.
    (Redacted)
    Note 3 of the 5 sources you provided in your text here above come from Assyrian nationalist who work for the Assyrian cause, that’s a POV. Sources like that cannot be used on Wikipedia. It’s a neutral place for sources with that are objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MixedButHumann (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: om pages like Jimmy Durmaz and Sharbel Touma the sources were already speaking about them identifying as Arameans. Yet Assyrian nationalist with a POV changed this into ‘Assyrian’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MixedButHumann (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MixedButHumann (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MixedButHumann, please don't post links to offwiki coordination and definitely please don't cast aspersions about that. Anyway, I find your reply generally unresponsive to the evidence provided. Right now, you are likely to suffer sanctions for editing disruptively and tendentiously. El_C 21:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi user: El_C
    as I stated above the pages he mentioned, mentioned Arameans already and if you look on the pages you can see that the sources that are being used also use Aramean instead of Assyrian. It’s being changed by Assyrian nationalists.. please take a look at the sources mentioned in the articles, they all refer to Aramean people and not to Assyrians. Also isn’t a source of a person literally saying he’s Aramean in a interview more relevant than a source of a news website?
    MixedButHumann (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MixedButHumann, you are still light on evidence. And I like my evidence in the form of diffs. No, BBC is preferred to Youtube in almost 100 percent of the times. El_C 23:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    -Ok, so the topicstarter agrees Sharbel Touma and Jasar Takak being og Aramean descent.
    -About Jimmy Durmaz I provided the YT-interview, because he literally stated in that video that he is from Aramean descent with his parents being from Turkey and Lebanon. I personally saw this as a source as you can literally see the person stating he’s Aramean, while news websites mostly pick it up from sources as Wikipedia. About Bishara Morad he’s a widely known young artist of Aramean descent if you look up on Google you’ll see him several times showing the Aramean flag with him.
    -stateless nation I reverted this back because Arameans are being seen as the indigenous people of Syria and Turkey without an own state. The sources that were provided by another editor were valid.
    -Chaldean Catholics I added the Aramean identity to the article, because there are Chaldean Catholics who besides Assyrian and Chaldean, identify as Aramean. I used a source of a telephone call with Ankawa.com one of Iraq’s biggest Christian news websites. The patriarch of the Chaldean church stated that the Chaldean Catholics are one people known under the Aramean name. [38]
    -Assyrians in Israel I redirected the page with Arameans in Israel, because the sources in the article were all speaking about the Syriac-Aramean nations and the article consulted the same information as Arameans in Israel[39], even the file used on the page of Assyrians in Israel had an Aramean flag left above the church doors. [40]
    Please, note that also the page Arameans in Israel was targeted by Assyrian POV that’s why it’s a protected page now.
    -There is a wikiproject:Aramea that wanted to improve Aramean related articles, till now there was no page referring to the modern Arameans and there was the need to create one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MixedButHumann (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MixedButHumann, I don't know enough about the subject, but Assyrian has been the status quo ante. You are the one introducing new material, which per WP:ONUS: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So, you discuss on the article talk page and avoid edit warring. If you reach an impasse on the article talk page, there are dispute resolution requests you can avail yourself of, like WP:3O, WP:RFC and WP:RSN. El_C 00:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I don’t really get it. Even tho if it is the Status quo ante (who and When is this decided according to what?) how is it possible to identify someone with a name, that that person isn’t identifying him/herself with. That’s like erasing someone’s culture and identity? Or?MixedButHumann (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MixedButHumann, I'm not sure what you're trying to say about mis/identifying names. It's very confusing. Anyway, it is my understanding that until you began objecting, Assyrian enjoyed consensus by virtue of WP:SILENCE. Now you wish to challenge that consensus, which is fine, but the ONUS is on you to do so correctly. That means not edit warring and discussing changes on the article talk page often while focusing on content. El_C 00:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The user continues to demonstrate a lack of willingness to accept the academic consensus that Assyrians and Arameans are the same ethnic group.
    • At Stateless nation, that edit originally by a blocked user has one source. That one source does not support the content in that edit, e.g. there's no mention of the "Between 2,000,000 and 5,000,000" Arameans in that source [41].
    • At Chaldean Catholics, this edit illustrates how the user is acting on the basis of his POV that Assyrians and Arameans are separate ethnic groups, contrary to the academic consensus [42].
    • At Assyrians in Israel, the sources I explained to the user on his talk page, that were already on the article, demonstrate that they have no mention of Arameans ([43] [44] [45]).
    The user is under the false impression that I am actively editing with an anti-Aramean bias, and it's clear I have provided references to support persons' Aramean identity where appropriate, or simply left their identity as Aramean if the sources support that, as shown at Sanharib Malki, Gaby Jello, Abgar Barsoum, David Teymur, and Daniel Teymur. Mugsalot (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think I understand the name mis/identification — it's about Aramean being called Assyrian. Anyway, MixedButHumann, if you don't restrict yourself to high-quality sources which represent scholarly and mainstream consensus, you are likely to be sanctioned. I gave you some advise on how to go about doing that. But if other editors consider the view you're advancing to be WP:FRINGE than it cannot be included in articles, per due weight. You are invited to get the attention of other contributors to the dispute at hand through the means described above. El_C 00:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C are you going to place sanctions on the user? I have a suspicion if I were to restore content then he will simply continue to revert. Mugsalot (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mugsalot, not yet. Let's see if my comprehensive advise had an effect first. El_C 13:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    user:Mugsalot what is again the reason you just reverted all articles I edited? The edit on Arameans is because of the wikiproject: Aramea, there is a need about a page about the modern group that identifies as Arameans. Here above you stated that you agree Sharbel Touma and David Durmaz Being of Aramean descent, yet you reverted this edit again.
    You also reverted the edit on Chaldean Catholics while I mentioned that their patriarch tried to unite the Chaldean Catholics under the Aramean name.
    I agree with you about the reverting of Bishara Morad and stateless nations as the sources weren’t relevant enough, but you can’t just revert all edits. user:El_C please your opinion on this, because here is more going on from Mugsalot his POV than we think.
    Note that all Wikipedia pages in other languages have seperate articles about Arameans and Assyrians. The group separated from eachother what makes that they have another history and culture. Arameans trace their origins back to the ancient Arameans while Assyrians trace their roots back to the ancient Assyrians. Organizations and other cultural aspects are different from eachother so a page about the modern Arameans is needed, as they both have another history, culture and even traditions.
    MixedButHumann (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C I support the choice of the user redeeming himself but the above edit suggests his POV is the sole driver in his edits. The best summary of this debate is provided at Routledge Handbook of Minorities in the Middle East, ed. Paul S Rowe (2018), p. 357 that details that the Aramean identity emerged within the Assyrian community in the early 1980s, and reflects a disagreement over the choice of name to refer to the community across the whole, and does not suggest they are distinct, separate ethnic groups as argued by the user. Without some sanctions, I don't think the user is willing to accept this. Mugsalot (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MixedButHumann, this is the last time I'm going to allow for you to cast aspersions on Mugsalot — who has been an editor in good standing for over half a decade. That is not acceptable. I have instructed you on how to address your content dispute. I have detailed the nature of WP:ONUS and how key focusing on content is (to both of you: this is not the place to do so — those venues are respective article talk pages). I have also explained to you about the nature of dispute resolution requests that are at your disposal for content disputes that otherwise reach an impasse (to bring more outside contributors to the dispute). There is no magic bullet — I am not going to decide on the content dispute myself. Either you do it right, or it's probably not going work out. Again, bring high quality sources that fairly represent the scholarly and mainstream consensus to the table, or there's simply not much left to talk about. Thanks and good luck. El_C 17:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    user:El_C Ok Thankyou, I’m going to try to provide high quality sources to Arameans and will try to enlarge the participating members on the wikiproject:Aramea to improve Aramean-related pages with ofcourse relevant sources.
    MixedButHumann (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipal11119

    I think Wikipal11119 could do with some guidance. I'm not convinced this editor properly understands WP:BLP. Guy (help!) 20:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I mention this only in passing and haven't had time to do a thorough search, but that username is oddly similar to the recently blocked Ishita1119. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CaptainEek, looks like a coincidence, article focus is very different I think. Guy (help!) 10:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Theochino

    Please see the comment here, hopefully why I find this inappropriate does not require explanation. --JBL (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeez, JBL, you sure picked a high-traffic page for your complaint! For your own privacy, might I suggest that next time, you contact an admin personally? (I, for one, am at your disposal, so please don't hesitate.) Anyway, I have revdeleted and will have a word with Theochino about WP:OUTING. El_C 21:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C raises a good point: the less attention drawn to something like that, the better. I redacted the offending portion of the edit and emailed a report to the oversight queue. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much, both! (I am not bothered so much by the connection being drawn, hence why I came here; it's the "and I tried to call you on the phone" bit that freaked me out. I'll try something more subtle if it happens again :).) --JBL (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    2601:188:C300:14B9:51C:5874:485F:4B04

    This IP keeps removing content at Gary Wheaton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and claims to be the subject of the article in question in their edit summaries. Can an administrator investigate this IP and verify that the IP is actually the person they are claiming to be? Thanks. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 22:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is already at WP:AIV.— Diannaa (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits by Cristiano 700 abr

    I noticed that the user Cristiano 700 abr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuously vandalizing the article Mashrafe Mortaza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), removing references without giving clear reason. I warned the editor once but the editor had ignored the warning. Abishe (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I just warned them again, on something like this just escalate the warnings and then use WP:AIV if they don't stop. The Moose 06:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Need a help regarding harrasment by Sock puppets

    Moved from User talk:ToBeFree
     – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know how to deal with this, so directly bringing the issue to you. The ip 78.1.13.211 was blocked because of personal attack towards me that too just 2 weeks, then its sock puppet 78.0.161.90 been range blocked due to similar personal attack and unacceptable rude emojis here and just now 93.143.70.88 another sockpuppet made exactly same commentary here and again another of it's sock is also there 93.143.76.66. Now you will ask me why I didn't opened a SPI, as I kind lost faith in SPI and felt total waste of time after that last obvious SPI failure here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/78.1.13.211/Archive, the closing admin just concluded it as not sock puppet when the first case was clear evidence of sock puppet. I am staying out of those article for sometimes but it seems like the user behind the ip is hounding me again and again. I hope you can help me out in this, blocking all these ip ranges. Drat8sub (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Drat8sub, I have semi-protected the deletion discussion and will move this discussion to WP:ANI. To ensure transparency, please use WP:ANI instead of my talk page for further requests about similar issues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the SPI, Cabayi, the edit summaries of the following diffs do seem to justify a block for block evasion, as the second diff happened after the first: Special:Diff/961725604, Special:Diff/963311929. However, perhaps SPI is the wrong venue for reporting pure block evasion that does not involve active sockpuppetry using multiple accounts. I'm not entirely sure about that; I would have reported IP block evasion at WP:SPI myself if I couldn't deal with it myself. Especially as WP:AIV is only for obvious cases, and as AIV often receives complex lists of diffs that seem to be way more fitting for a SPI page. If SPI is the wrong venue for such a report, I can understand this decision; I just need to know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ToBeFree, thank you anyway for bringing it here, I think you know what is best for the case.Drat8sub (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know much of the ip thing, how it works, but one thing that I have noticed, since 78.0.161.90 was range blocked, the user couldn't use those similar ip starting with 78.....it seems like the user have 2 different connection one with ips starting with 78 and another with 93. Nether of the ips starting with 93 had a block so, its using ips starting with 93..... still it's just an assumption out of no knowledge. So, I think admins are better to decide how to end this repitition of incivility. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ToBeFree, the first IP used had stopped editing, the second had been blocked, and the third - well, at that point it looked like it would be the beginning of a game of Whac-A-Mole with IP addresses. In User talk:Drat8sub/Archive 4#Away from SPI... I advised Drat8sub that page protection on the relevant pages might be a more effective solution, but with the caution that it might be seen as an attempt to skew the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATK–Mohun Bagan. My reading of the situation was that Drat8sub was stoking the flames rather than making good faith attempts to discuss the one-club two-club issue and achieve consensus.
    WP:AN3 has two recent cases involving Drat8sub, one, two. As soon as the second of those was resolved Drat8sub was reviving this issue on ToBeFree's talk page - Special:Contributions/Drat8sub. The AN3 complaints also raise the matter of how other editors address Drat8sub. I see a common thread between these issues. Cabayi (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cabayi, I want to correct you, the third ip was not blocked before you closed the SPI, and thats why I opened the SPI, otherwise there was no need of the SPI. I did not stoke any flames regarding anything, my attempt was clear, until and unless anything official comes from the clubs nothing will be added in any articles. Because lot of rumours going on regarding the issues. Secondly, kindly and please care to read the AN3, and find out one thing where I has done anything remontely like stoking flames. That user was abusing editing privileges and still doing even after multiple times the matter is addressed regarding another article for which the AN3 was opened. That AN3 is totally different case, where the user is adding totally unsourced materials, and the second AN3 was just a revenge AN3 which does not have any substantial base becaus emy edits were per 3RRNO. Drat8sub (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re your corrections
    "the third ip was not blocked...", and I didn't say it was. As I said on your talk page, page protection was likely to be more effective in dealing with the issue.
    "one thing where I has done anything remontely like stoking flames", that would be "repeat after me 3 times" which I'd find aggressively condescending if said to me.
    "the second AN3 was just a revenge AN3", which resulted in both of you being warned. Cabayi (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drat8sub, your statement "until and unless anything official comes from the clubs nothing will be added in any articles" demonstrates the problem with your editing. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not primary sources like self-serving club announcements. You do not own the articles about Indian football. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil Bridger, by saing "until and unless official annoucement comes from club" does not mean I am saying I own any article, I am asking for absolute fact not rumours. Before someone wins an election we don't annouce someone victorious based on opinion polls, do we??? Same here, more than that the clubs themselves told the name and all other thing will be annouced soon and the artcle was too soon. And we could have wait for that annoucement for any move. A article should not have been created in the first place based on rumours. Fake news a big issue in India, Press freedom index goes down to 142 and we live here and deal with this every second. Rumours are spread like wild fire, and the same happened here. And FYI any one can write in goal.com, khel now through freelancing, where that ministry thing was written, a half truth. My suggestion was to wait for an announcement, I don't think I have asked any illegitimate thing. Now the ip concerned here itself now saying that "still fake article, insult for common sense" here, however, along with disruptive editing, removing the discussion template persistently. I will not say much and let this disruptive editing or edit war continues in these two articles, if thats how the norms are. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I just got dinamic ip nothing of "sockpuppets". This drat is in deed dangerous man deleting article based edits so has to be fought all allowed ways...dont put (personal information removed ~ToBeFree) in this. told you afc is my life and will beat you in such online vandalism acting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.113.214 (talk • contribs)

    (non-admin comment) Cool story, bro, whatevah it was you just said. Narky Blert (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ip user, your are going good, ad hominem attack and name calling one after another, now I become dangrous man !! Absolutely, on right track. Drat8sub (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At the technical level, all of the IPs involved here belong to the same ISP and are in the ranges Special:Contributions/78.1.0.0/19 and Special:Contributions/93.143.0.0/17, both of which are sufficiently large that rangeblocks would probably cause a fair amount of collateral damage. I don't think either editor has particularly clean hands here, but I'm more concerned with the IP editor's attitude and harassment. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty concerned about that as well, GeneralNotability. And while their latest comment contained no information that isn't publicly available on Wikimedia projects, I find it as close to outing as something non-oversightable can be. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please restore Sheila Ford Hamp

    (non-admin closure) The article has been restored at mainspace via passing through WP:AFC ~ Amkgp 💬 17:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Newest female owner of Detroit Lions keeps getting deleted. Please restore so it can be built by community.16:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstantPlancks (talk • contribs)

    Sheila Ford Hamp did not had enough sources and citations as written to remain published. Thus, it was moved to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where it can incubate the article with minimal disruption. For information, Draft:Sheila Ford Hamp has been declined once as it failed to meet WP:GNG. Thus , it needs more eyes to review before moving to mainspace. The editor also engaged in removing speedy delete WP:R2 notice by himself/herself. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of sources. One of a handful of female NFL owners and chairpersons. Not sure what planet this doesn't meet GNG guidelines. Every male NFL owner is notable. ConstantPlancks (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ConstantPlancks, Just for future creations always keep in mind the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Its important here. Wikipedia needs reliable sources to establish notability of any article inclusion. Again, thanks to Theroadislong for helping out to make article Sheila Ford Hamp ready for mainspace. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Joel B. Lewis and I's incivillity

    I'm with EgRoll97. Let's just move on from this spat in good faith, without admonishments, as the path of least resistance. These things happen. Deescalation is good. The basis for the dispute can now be resolved through the RfC. Hopefully, by tomorrow, this bit of tension will be but a memory. El_C 22:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Notified checkY [46]

    For context: A post on was made on the BLP noticeboard regarding Bangladeshi diplomat Saida Muna Tasneem from an associate asking to remove information about an embarassing incident in 2004 where Tasneem was recalled from the United Nations after her husband spent a large amount of money at a strip club which he said was fraudulent. Nomoskedasticity suggested that the passage should be removed, as it did not directly relate to Tasneem, I said that it probably should be included in some capacity, diff. Nomoskedasticity made the edits diff which reduced the paragraph down to "The Bangladeshi Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled Tasneem from her posting to Bangladesh's United Nations mission in June 2004" the wording of the BBC report[1] made it clear that the recall was directly to do with the strip club row, rather than anything to do with Tasneem's conduct, so I made an addition of "for issues unrelated to her conduct" to clarify the wording, which could be considered misleading otherwise. diff. Joel B. Lewis undid the edit, saying in his edit summary that "this is a terrible addition" diff

    Joel B. Lewis then pinged me on the talk page and gave me an extended edit summary diff which I found to be condescending stating that it was "personal interpretation" despite that BBC news title said it was "over" the row. I accept that in retrospect that the link was not definitively proved in the article body, but the edit was made in good faith to avoid misleading negative statements in a BLP. As it was three in the morning and I was in a foul mood I snapped back. diff calling the comment "rude" and "asinine", which in retrospect was uncivil and I apologise for. I then subsequently moved the thread to the BLP noticeboard as I thought that the discussion was better served by being linked to the main BLP thread, where there were more eyes and potential contributors to solve the issue. diff diff Joel B. Lewis took umbrage about the fact that I moved his comment and crossed out the discussion on the BLP noticeboard diff and undid my removal from the talk page diff

    Joel B. Lewis then opened up a section on my talk page, again in a condescending tone stating that I did not comprehend the first sentence of his discussion on the talk page diff. I did, I interpreted that the "this is a terrible addition" was merely the opening statement of his full edit summary rather than that comment retracting it. I then gave a reply again trying to clarify why I didn't like the tone of the edit summary and asking for kindness diff. Joel B. Lewis replied that I had a "lack of grace" for not accepting his non-apology and accusing me of engaging in "aggressive whining". diff

    I ask that both Joel and I be admonished for incivility and for not assuming good faith. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Diplomat recalled over strip club row". BBC News - South Asia. 8 June 2004. Retrieved 22 December 2019.
    What is there to say? I mistakenly submitted an edit with a poor edit summary and immediately took to the talk page to apologize for it; everything else is a massive failure to AGF by Hemiauchenia. I stand 100% behind "aggressive whining" and I support their request to be admonished for their behavior. --JBL (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All I am asking for is that you treat other editors with kindness, and don't condescend them when they make edits you disagree with, and try to understand their perspective. I agree that I failed in this too, but you don't seem to understand why I was not appreciative of your sharp tone. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm rather puzzled about the "consensus" to remove this in the first place, since the embarrassment that the incident caused is directly tied to the ambassador's recall. Is the only reason for this removal because the ambassador's PR person asked for its removal? If so, that's a pretty terrible thing for us to accede to, especially since the explanation for the recall is reported by the BBC and, while it might be embarrassing, isn't particularly controversial or contentious from a BLP perspective. To see it as unrelated to Tasneem's career if it has impacted it so directly also seems a disingenuous claim. Grandpallama (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it should be included in some capacity, as being recalled seems like a big deal. BLP noticeboard discussions tend to favour the complaints of article subjects in my experience. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Subject complaints about undue weight given to largely irrelevant issues should be taken into consideration, as should complaints about material that might endanger the safety and/or privacy of the subject. Complaints about the properly sourced inclusion of a scandal that affected a career ambassador's posting (sixteen years ago!) that make laughably false claims about how it has no bearing on her career should not be entertained. Grandpallama (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary BLP issue here is actually not the subject but her husband. The article is about the subject. Details of what her husband did that are not important to understanding the subject therefore should be removed. I think most of us at BLP don't really care much about what the subject thinks, we just want to be fair to living persons, especially non notable ones and don't try to punish people just because their complaint was imperfect by ignoring legitimate issues in the article. These sort of issues are often tricky to deal with. For example, one case I recall is about a convicted murderer on death row who has became a bit of a cause célèbre. One of the issues that arose there is that one of the subject's claims is that the boyfriend of his alleged victim who was a police officer in the department that investigated him may be the perpetrator. There doesn't seem to have been any good evidence for this, but since it's part of his defence and covered in several RS, it sort of seems we should present it in some fashion yet it has strong BLP implications. There are a bunch of other claims in his defence IIRC some of which also raise BLP issues. Meanwhile this subject has sort and received significant attention in relation to his appeal for that particular conviction and appears notable. However there are other allegations about him of slightly related conduct that he was investigated for but never convicted of possibly in part because it was felt not worth the effort after the death penalty conviction, yet it seems these allegations were considered in his appeals. These allegations are potentially covered in RS. (I've never been sure since people have kept trying to add court records.) How much detail to cover is again a tricky BLP question. Given the cause célèbre nature of the case, we get a lot of people advocating on either side but I'm fairly sure none of them are any of the actual subjects. Most of us at BLPN do our best to put aside the advocacy and try to work out what is supported by BLP and or other policies and guidelines to be fair to all involved. Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, I have now opened a RfC on Tasneem Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm making a very bold assumption in asking this, but, is it not possible for both of you to move on from this, and just avoid each other? It would certainly be better than a prolonged dispute here, leading to everyone complaining no matter what happens. Both of you seem to have issued some form of apology to the other, so this discussion on ANI seems somewhat unnecessary. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Qetuop1's legal threats

    BLOCKED
    for making legal threats by User:Orangemike (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Qetuop1 is making legal threats on me, see this diff. They have also received a level 4 warning from SuperGoose007. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sockpuppetry at Who Are You

    (The only reason I did not put this at WP:SPI is the sheer amount of IPs involved.) Who Are You is experiencing massive vandalism by multiple IPs all in a short time frame. This can not be a coincidence, as the IPs have all started vandalizing spontaneity. I suspect the sockpuppet master to be SoggyEggs3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as it's first edit was at Who Are You. Can an administrator investigate these IPs? Thanks. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 20:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there's something else going on at this point, looks like some type of meme. I've semi-protected the page for 3 days to see if this will calm things down. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I am thinking that it is stemming from a TikTok campaign to vandalize Wikipedia, several pages have been requested for semi-protection at WP:RFPP relating to this, including:

    There may be more targeted pages that I am not aware of or are not yet at WP:RFPP. 73.96.106.231 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    All of the pages have been protected for 3 days at this time. Apparently some TikTok user called Chunkysdead is stirring this up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I found Chunkysdead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I'm not sure if this is Chunky, a fan, or just a random person that happened to have the same username as Chunky. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 20:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was that user, the only relevant TikTok post would be this one, which directly addresses the Wikipedia for motivational speaker, which was in response to this. That would be the reason for the vandalism on motivational speaker. Certainly appears to be a connection between the other pages and motivational speaker. The vandalism on them all began at near the same time, but the TikTok post doesn't mention the others. She includes Wikipedia links on many of her posts, so it might just be people going back to some posts in response to video A, and spamming those ones. Given the fast-paced nature of TikTok, I wouldn't expect the issue to persist, though there are probably other already-vandalised pages. And honestly, the connection is weird. Vandalism-like edit summaries are used, which is unusual if it were a legitimate horde of people responding to a TikTok. Not to mention the fact that many of these IPs only edit one of each of the pages and not any other presumed related pages. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear that TikTok is a weird place, and these people come from a weird part of it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Modern Day Romance, which I found from recent changes. Not sure what the pattern is here, although I'm not sure if we're going to get that many more edits from this. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a few still whittering away in a dusty corner at Thank God (film), and a few at RFPP (which I think should be left unprotected if possible). It seems to be following the familiar board-invasion style of starting strong, coming across the admins, then branching off and fading out. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Chunkysdeaders are now targeting Campfire Songs (album) because she apparently mentioned it. This might give us a clue of the vandals' editing pattern. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 23:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User causing repeated edit wars and misrepresenting articles

    User:VenusFeuerFalle is repeatedly attempting to misrepresent very fringe opinions with regards to the Islamic view of Angels as being one that is or was widely held. This user explicitly states on their page: "I don't like edit-wars. However, if I am certain that something is wrong, I will feel the need to clarify something." I've been primarily trying to resolve this issue with regards to the page Harut and Marut and have failed to come to some sort of compromise. Looking at User talk:VenusFeuerFalle this seems to be a pattern of repeated behaviour and I was in fact notified by another user that he's attempting to make similar claims on the Iblis page, see: Talk:Iblis#Muhammad_Mahmoud_as_source. This user also repeatedly violates WP:GOODFAITH, accusing people of sockpuppeting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harut_and_Marut&diff=964108752&oldid=964104092 and asserting that others are editing based on 'agenda': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harut_and_Marut#Edit_war_about_the_story FAISSALOO(talk) 21:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Faissaloo. Even I tried to reason with VenusFeuerFalle, and others whom he got into a dispute or contact with, here and there, but he persisted with nearly edit-warring against me here and there, accusing me and FAISSALOO of being sock-puppets, and he incorrectly said that a particular passage of a primary source (the Qur'an (18:50)) does not say that Iblis is a Jinn to another user, for which I had to refute him using a passage of the primary source that says that Iblis was a Jinn (since Venus was talking about this primary source e Qur'an), but Venus continued to pretend that the Verse didn't say that Iblis was a Jinn, and after I warned him to stop this WP:Bias, Venus then decides to report me for WP:Vandalism (when he himself is guilty of that ([47] [48], despite repeated warnings from me ([49] [50]) that he can't just go round deleting reliable sources to support his POV, not to mention that he is nearly edit-warring with me), and without a prior notification on my talk-page. Leo1pard (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC); edited 08:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User pushing alt-right talking points

    BLOCKED
    Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE by Drmies. Guy (help!) 09:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    RandomUser3510 (talk · contribs)

    Literally all but three of RandomUser3510's edits in this and the past two years has been WP:CIVILPOV-pushing alt-right talking points at different articles. This includes equating the ADL to white supremacists, acting like "white pride" isn't just a white supremacist idea, even saying that it's fringe and that "the article is racist against white people"; and even citing a Youtube channel that promotes Holocaust denial conspiracy theories to push an out-of-context quote about Jewish people promoting multiculturalism. There's also acting like the South African farm attacks are lead by politicians and the (ever-recurring) red flag of saying that noted neo-Nazi Lana Lokteff is somehow not a white supremacist while insisting Sarah Jeong should be labelled racist. After a short break, he continued promoting the white genocide conspiracy theory, referred to awareness that "white pride" is a neo-Nazi slogan as "anti-white propaganda", and said that trying to guide someone away from racism was a personal attack. Past versions of his user page expressed contempt for CNN and the SPLC, our acceptance of which apparently makes us a cancer

    Again, literally all but three of their edits in 2018 to 2020 are this sort of behavior (two of [51] suggest belief in conspiracy theories) try to make mainstream ideas from the alt-right. (Going into prior years, posts with WP:GEVAL for conspiracy theories is nothing new). If he is not an alt-right troll, the continued opposition to this should have been a wake up call at some point -- but let's face it, the alt-right's tactics are to pretend to be civilized academics and professionals who just have alternative views so they can cry 'so much for the tolerant left' whenever anyone points out what the alt-right really is. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Go ahead and ban me do your worst. RandomUser3510 (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) Is that an offer which can't be refused? Narky Blert (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ian.thomson: You made your case; what action do you propose? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, RandomUser3510 has suggested one course of action, though they may have gotten block and ban confused. At a minimum, a topic ban from pages relating to race, racism, and nationalism is clearly needed. Given their conspiracy theory related edits and the overlap between CTs, nationalism, and politics, a ban from politics in general might also be a good idea. However, I'd understand if the community feels that the few articles he's edited in those areas outside of race have not yet merited a topic ban. I would see that as room for us to test the user. I would also be comfortable if we just indefinitely blocked him, as the sheer number of missed wake up calls make it rather hard to assume his behavior is simple naivety and the alt-right doesn't need any voice at any table. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm convinced this user shouldn't be here and think a site ban is more appropriate. They haven't demonstrated that they'd be productive anywhere else. However, it undermines your point when you say that calling someone racist is "guiding someone away from racism." True or not, it's a personal attack.--v/r - TP 22:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Off topic, but I didn't call the IP racist, I pointed out that the idea they were defending is inherently racist and said that they need to rethink their lives if that wasn't their intention. That post was made with the assumption that they do not see themselves that way. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm calling BS on that. But it doesn't matter. The account should be blocked. You shouldn't engage with it anymore on ANI until consensus to block is reached, though. It'll just muddy the waters.--v/r - TP 22:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian.thomson, I agree with your analysis. I support a topic ban from race politics broadly construed, and a wait-and-see approach outside that field. Guy (help!) 22:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian.thomson:Your accusation about holocaust denial is totally false btw even a few years ago. All I did back then was link to a video of someone speaking: it doesn't mean I endorse the channel it is on or its views (I do believe the holocaust happened). But again if your reaction to dissent is to simply delete me from existence go ahead make my day. RandomUser3510 (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And once again, you're lying about what I've written. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And right after I pointed out the alt-right's tactic of pretending to be civilized so they can cry 'so much for the tolerant left,' RandomUser3510's user page is pretty much a variation on 'so much for the tolerant left.' That's about as much confirmation from RandomUser3510 as to why he's here as we're going to get. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:NVTHello again

    BLOCKED
    For unsourced genre changes. (non-admin closure) {{3125A|talk}} 13:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Once again, NVTHello is continuing their unsourced genre changes, despite a release from their block only last week. As of this post, a closed ANI thread still on this page contains context of the issue before their last 24 hour block. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JalenFolf, blocked for 3 days, next block probably needs to be an indef. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Overcategorization by Armando619

    To cite diffs, here are diffs made by User:Armando619 here: [53] and here: [54]. Both add unneeded content to the page. However, the edit summaries also mock people so they could be having a secret list of enemies? {{3125A|talk}} 11:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    General dickishness

    No. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    General dickishness from Bloom6132 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with a home run in their first major league at bat/archive1 [55] [56] [57]. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh come on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2600:8800:9D80:15E5:E9BE:644A:13B0:88D

    Moved to WP:SPI. (non-admin closure) {{3125A|talk}} 13:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    2600:8800:9D80:15E5:E9BE:644A:13B0:88D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted a riddle [58] which is about their username containing "Takoda". The answer might be Takodathagod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a user who was blocked 3 years ago for vandalism. Can an admin make sure Takoda isn't trying to ban evade? SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 04:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved to WP:SPI, can close now SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 04:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    We are going to have to protect Slate Star Codex from anonymous IPs

    Slate Star Codex is now protected from anonymous IPs; problem solved. (non-admin closure)

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

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/135.180.70.84

    We are going to have to protect Slate Star Codex from anonymous IPs, because they are posting the full name of someone who wishes to keep it private. I have already asked the Oversight community to remove the edits from the page history, which they do, but the IP keeps adding more edits violating Scott Alexander’s privacy. Also, clean up the history again. SkylabField (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SkylabField, if it's in the NYT then there's not a lot we can do to put the genie back in the bottle, even if it is Cade Metz (who has a long history of being used by griefers for fact-washing). I note that the article doesn't mention his affinity for racist hereditarianism, is there a reason for that? A laudatory article with supportive comments from National Review and Washington Examiner is usually a red flag for missing critical commentary. Guy (help!) 08:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the issue is that the IP kept trying to put Scott Alexander’s full name in the Slate Star Codex page. No, it hasn’t been published in the NYT (as I type this). The other stuff you bring up can be discussed over at Talk:Slate Star Codex; I do not have a dog in that fight (except to point out that the reason why you’re seeing national Review/Washington Examiner stuff is because those are the reliable sources devoting entire articles to Slate Start Codex right now). SkylabField (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated racist screed posted to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

    Blocked 93.106.33.80 for one week as per WP:DISRUPT by User:El C (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Can an administrator please block User:93.106.33.80? He or she is repeatedly posting a racist screed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned. El_C 14:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: The behavior is continuing. ElKevbo (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 15:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I took the liberty of revdelling that. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Same old stuff from User:Vkraja

    BLOCKED
    as per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR by User:QEDK (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:Vkraja has been blocked temporarily because of and, multiple times since the block, has been warned about (a) the use of Wikipedia as a place to display photos, (b) contributing in a language other than English, and (c) removing maintenance tags. The latest warnings were dire, the latest coming in April.

    The user hadn't edited since then until today, at Moolakkarai, the locale of some of the user's previous problematic edits. Today's edits involved (a) using Wikipedia as a place to display photos, (b) contributing in a language other than English, and (c) well, not removing maintenance tags, but removing the {{short description}} tag.

    Permanent block? Largoplazo (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears as though it's the old lay low for awhile move. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We could indef block them from the Moolakkarai article, see if they move to something else or if that's it for them. I don't think they've made a single constructive edit to that article. Canterbury Tail talk 16:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Neeraj Puru

    User Neeraj Puru is WP:NOTHERE and has seemingly WP:CIR issues. All they have done on this project is to add unsourced/made-up details about the Saini caste, which is apparently their caste: [59]. They have been warned repeatedly as well as made aware about the WP:GS/Caste, but to no avail. They were blocked this month by RegentsPark, but they have started in the same vein after expiration of the block.

    Previously, they tried to add Sainian in a village's name, but it was succesfully moved to its actual title: see Talk:Bir Mangaoli#Requested move 22 May 2020. Yesterday they again created the article with that unsourced title: [60]. Similarly, they previously created an unsourced article about a supposed clan of Saini caste – see here – which was rightly moved to draft space: [61]. But yesterday they again created that unsourced article: [62].

    In short, the are not here to build an encyclopedia. And something needs to be done to stop their damage to this project. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There only interest seems to be to add Saini everywhere. I've blocked them as WP:NOTHERE.--regentspark (comment) 21:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette

    I would like to file a complain for the way user User:J Milburn spoke to me in the Talk:Aleister_Crowley#RfC:_How_should_we_present_the_claims_that_Crowley_worked_for_British_Intelligence_in_this_article? which I think certainly breakes all the rules of Wikipedia:Etiquette as can be seen here. Things like "Are you lying, or are you just confused?" or "We follow what the reliable sources say, not what angry people on talk pages say." by far break the guidelines of etiquette. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's blunt, it's forward, and it's terse - but it's not a personal attack or "by far" a break of civility policy.--v/r - TP 22:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I Agree that J Milburn can do better. WP:UNCIVIL. Editors should focus on content. Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Domo Death Hoax

    I have been editing Wikipedia now for a few days and have learned that multiple people documented on Wikipedia pages have been targets of Death Hoaxes, I have been giving reliable sources such as https://www.nhk.or.jp/ which contain information on death hoaxes, please stop reverting my edits, else I will have to sue the Administrative departments for lack of administrationon their part. Domo news, the most reliable source has confirmed death hoaxes and thus I shall make those edits on Wikipedia.

    I wish to speak to a Bureaucrat or someone else who his competent enough to help me with this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.149.9.31 (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for the legal threat. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has apologized for the legal threats, but I'm still unsure where on NHK's website is the idea that several unrelated people haven't died, let alone why that information outweighs sources that say they have. (Any Japanese readers around?) The Moose 01:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the info they claim is at the website, this edit where they seem to claim Ian Holm is in fact not dead and that his death is a hoax, is not factual. Even without the legal threat, clearly WP:NOTHERE. Heiro 01:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Same with this one, as multiple WP:RS confirm they are deceased. Heiro 01:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment, edit warring, controlling behaviour with an admin friend

    Hello. I'm a humble IP editor who shows up on and off over the years. Usually I correct issues of bias that stand out to me, such as the summary of a research paper I saw on the Goldendoodle page. Admittedly, my edit is poor from an English/grammar point of view but at the least it summarizes both the positives and negatives rather than cherry picked negative details.

    I then went over to the page on Dog crossbreeds and was immediately mortified. I made one minor change to a sentence that was irrecoverable and proposed a rewrite in the talk page while mulling over a proposal by Cavalryman. Ultimately I disagreed with his proposal, but woke up to find the discussion closed and already implemented, which was odd since his proposal was only a week old and on a fairly minor page. Since my vote made the second vote and the proposal had only been up for a week on a fairly minor article, I reverted it and reminded Cavalryman that I had just voted and that we should keep discussing first. I made the good faith assumption that he simply missed my vote and forgot to take it into consideration or didn't notice that I had only started editing those pages.

    I then made a different proposal that we push the Poodle crossbreeds to the List of dog crossbreeds as a clean redirect since a large portion of the listed crossbreeds are "poodle crossbreeds" in any case. Cavalryman followed me to this page and instantly closed my discussion and proposal, despite that it was a different proposal from the other one, and refuses to allow any discussion at all in these pages as if he owns them. If I disagree, he just says he will call up his admin friend. I don't see how this could possibly be conducive to good faith editing and discussion in the long term. Following me to other pages and "closing" my discussion with edits is also incredibly inappropriate, as is basically using an admin for token support in these settings.

    Good faith requires that we take each other into consideration. These aren't huge pages with massive views, there's no reason for an admin to come in and prevent discussion and force changes while I, someone new, is just getting started in contributing. This isn't the first time this has happened, I can go through Cavalryman's history and point out other example of this sort of chronic behaviour and bullying towards new editors and stifling of discussion. Pre-empting an "edit war" argument to stop/prevent discussion on the talk pages is particularly inappropriate. So he can delete or push aside my comments even in the talk pages, how can I share my views or thoughts?

    Hoping I can get some consideration here. No idea what to do when I come in as a fresh editor, get ignored, and the big response I get is: "You can't do anything, I'll just call my admin friend William Harris who calls all the shots around here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You must notify any user you bring up in your grievance. 331dot (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified both Cavalryman and William Harris in their respective talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#User:LeoRussoLeo. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MarkH21, I would prefer not to have to close my own proposals but when it comes to dog articles, if you don't close them they sit idly open for years, my interpretation of WP:MERGECLOSE is I as the nominator are permitted to close a discussion. A notice of this proposal was posted on the article creator's TP as well as WT:DOGS, then I closed this discussion after a week had passed. It is hard to discern what the IP is seeking, and they seem more interested in slugging it out than engaging in discussion. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Further, the IP's recollection of events is distorted, this proposal was closed ([63]) a full 17 hours prior to their !vote ([64]). Cavalryman (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I distorted nothing. I made specific note that you had closed the vote shortly after I started editing the talk page (less than one day) but before I entered my vote. I also made specific note that even after I reopened the vote, instead of taking my vote into consideration you moved it to an unbolded less visible location and accused me of edit warring when I would not allow that to continue, while implementing your own changes. The only measure that slowed you down was opening this incident report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, you’re right that the MERGECLOSE wording does suggest that anyone can close merge proposals. In this case, opposition came soon after the proposal was self-closed, so one should probably just let it reopen at that point. The opposition demonstrated that the proposal was controversial (and therefore really only close-able by an uninvolved editor) and came soon enough after the close that it was reasonable to not enforce the discussion’s close (if it came a month later, that would be a different story). — MarkH21talk 03:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Puzzlement: "You can't do anything, I'll just call my admin friend William Harris who calls all the shots around here." Huh?
    Fact 1: On 16JUN20 I voted to support the merging of poodle crossbreeds into dog crossbreeds
    Fact 2: On 25JUN20 I received a "Notification of involvement in an incident" leading to here
    Someone needs to explain the logical connection between Fact 1 and Fact 2, in addition to the quote taken from above in this section.

    William Harristalk 04:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @William Harris: I think that the IP inferred (incorrectly) an attempt to bring an admin onto his side from: Pinging William Harris as the other contributor to the discussion. in this edit. I don't see any other explanation for that. — MarkH21talk 05:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was simultaneously accused of edit warring while Cavalryman told me his was bringing in the admin, in response to me disagreeing with a redirect proposal. Completely inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I still do not know what this has to do with me. I am not an admin, never have been, and never will be. You will need to explain to me why you called me to this page, and why you made the very strange comment that you did. William Harristalk 06:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cavalryman brought you up while attempting to remove my vote from a talk page. As you are involved in this incident, I was required to notify you. If you aren't an admin, I'm unsure of who Cavalryman was referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I made contributions to the talk pages in all of the mentioned articles and Cavalryman did not respond to any of them. Zero discussion or reply to anything I have stated in the talk threads, only deletions or accusations of "edit warring" with him because I reinstated my comments in the talk pages! Even after undoing his deletions and marking my changes with a request to him to discuss things in the talk pages, he does not. In this thread/incident report here, note he simply accuses me of engaging in a "slug fest" and says I'm not interesting in discussing things! I'm the one actually making detailed talk page edits and trying to discuss things. The edits speak for themselves. His edits involve blanking out other peoples replies in talk pages or pushing them aside and adding flags around them to tell them that their votes don't count. I see no contributions to the talk pages or discussions that do not involve baseless accusations rather than specific content in the articles.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OWNBEHAVIOR by User:Fowler&fowler

    Hello, I recently responded to an edit request made at Talk:India and encountered some problematic ownership-mentality behavior by another editor who appears to be a frequent contributor to the page. I initially declined to fulfill the request, but implemented it after a response from the editor that proposed it. Fowler&fowler reverted my change as being against consensus and responded with hostility. No consensus was linked to, but I think it's likely there is one. My concern is that the editor seems to think all changes to the article need to go through them. I was met with this response to my implementing the edit request. There was no inline comment in the article warning against adding the hatnote, or anything on the talk page that communicated that there was a consensus that Names of India was an unacceptable article to link to. I calmly responded that I objected to the editor's characterization of my edit as "random nonsense," and that I expected an apology. In their response, the editor displayed clear WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I decided to bring it here because I noticed a pattern of such responses by this editor, and I'm concerned they could have a chilling effect on discussion. The editor seems to frequently dismiss suggestions with rude and condescending responses, including implying that nobody should edit the article while they're "on vacation." Here are some sections on the talk page that point to a pattern of problematic behavior:

    • 1
    • 2
    • 3 (concern about possible WP:OWN violation raised by another editor)
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6

    It seems to go back pretty far. I think the following comment from #5 above epitomizes this behavior:

    It sounds ridiculous. Silly. Awful. I'm returning to my vacation. Consensus does not mean that two people can write claptrap and agree with each other. I'm returning to my vacation, like I just said. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

    This editor probably just needs some reminders from an admin on Wikipedia policies, namely WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVIL. Thanks. — Tartan357  (Talk) 03:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please don't answer edit requests and then parry grumpy editors with pointless arguments. Yes, Fowler's objection ("This is an FA. We can't just randomly add nonsense") was over the top and Fowler should have noted that the reason the edit was objectionable would not be apparent to those unfamiliar with the topic. However, Fowler did not get personal: the assertion was that the link was nonsense. Articles like this (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan) attract a lot of inappropriate edits. People answering edit requests should take the hint that there is no consensus for the addition since it was reverted, and move on. It certainly does not warrant ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: I don't doubt that there was no consensus since it was reverted. I only made the one edit. I don't see how I failed to "take the hint." I'm concerned about the pattern of ownership behavior by this user. And Fowler did absolutely get personal in their most recent response. I noticed a longstanding pattern of uncivil behavior that appeared disruptive, so I took it to ANI. — Tartan357  (Talk) 03:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fowler is on a break. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush: Yes, but they made it clear that my edit was so damaging to the encyclopedia that they had to come back just for this:

    I have just started a vacation. I would not have come back if I did not think great disservice was being done to encyclopedicity by the addition of that link.

     — Tartan357  (Talk) 03:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible Fowler may have been editing in the India space on Wikipedia for so long they may forget the perspective of those less familiar with it. While they can come off as brusque and overbearing, I don't think there is cause for admin intervention. Fowler was recently pulled up for similar issues at User talk:Fowler&fowler#FAC..., and responded that they would work on them. CMD (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: If they acknowledge that they’re working on it, then that would be good enough for me. I thought that wasn’t the case since they basically stated to me that they didn’t think WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL should apply to them. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work handling edit requests. However, it would be better if you did not take it personally when someone refers to a link as nonsense. You are using beautiful formatting with quoted passages and redundant reply templates, but it's not clear you are engaging with the issue. ANI is for stuff like telling you some bad thing. The quoted text ("great disservice ... that link") is a comment on the link, not you. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way I see it is (1) you got your head handed to you on a plate, (2) you wanted an apology, (3) YOU ACTUALLY GOT ONE!, (4) you took it the wrong way. F&F made a good case as to why they were upset, but they never addressed why that particular link was unacceptable. This confused me and I could not figure why that link was unacceptable. However, another editor on the talk page asks the same question. I think, if you are interested in the article, continue discussing on the talk page. If you were just helping an edit request and do not want to address it further, take F&F's apology for what it is (that is about all you can ask for around here) and move on. I do wish F&F had actually stated what was wrong with that specific link. I hope others experienced in that area can chime in on the talk page. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Feel free to go ahead and archive this. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive Edits Restored After Block Again

    User talk:84.203.69.48 was blocked on June 13, 2020 for 60 hours due to disruptive editing. They were blocked yet again on June 16, 2020 for a week due to restoring the same disruptive edits after the first block was lifted. Now, the IP has restored the same disruptive edits yet again after the second block's lift. The user has not learned their lesson. They've been blocked twice in the same month for the same issues. A longer block needs to be enforced. Armegon (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of a userpage

    Hello. Could an admin please delete Aaslamchaudhry as a copyvio from there? Due to the edit filter I am unable to tag it for speedy deletion. Thanks, 217.68.167.73 (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=964387888"