Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Conduct problems at move discussion

• Omegatron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Personal attack by Achezet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Disclosing ANI discussion involving Djm-leighpark not Omegatron with regard to article/talk overlaying discussion)

Omegatron is an admin who notes "people are frustrating", at least at this version of their tlak page, which is a worrying trait for an admin; though no admin tools have been exercised in this event. I will suggest their contributions over a desire to move the article Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination to Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia have been disruptive and problematic, not of the standard to be expected of an experienced user let alone an admin where a higher standard is expected. A BOLD move of what might reasonably be expected be controversial at Special:Diff/1060932429, let alone issues because a move had previously been slightly discussed at Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination/Archive 1#Adenoviruses only?, though the entire content of the talk and archive should have been. Following a somewhat assertive exchange correctly in my opinion raised a Special:Diff/1060938802 requested move on 18 December 2021. However per my comment at Special:Diff/1061542226 Omegatron had indulged in disruptive undated modifications and additions to discussion and a Canvas, which while I can AGF he intended to be "fair", was, I would say, ultimately biased. Plus per WP:CANVAS good practice would have been to "leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." Ultimately the CANVAS issue is minor, change talk discussions, especially a nomination to which responses have been made, is a serious matter. Whether Omegatron's timing to challenge this today was to do with RL, which I can accept, although doing a CANVAS and then disappearing is not really great practice, but it can happen. However responding today a few days after the Special:Diff/1065055859 discussion was closed, half questioning my concern about discussion irregularities (and not owning the major part or the problems) at Special:Diff/1065826060 brings this here, plus Omegatron seems not to have respected closer Mike Cline's request to discuss a move review on his page as requested, but rather to continue on the article talk page dragging me into it first. This seems like behaviour that is unbecoming or any user, let alone an admin. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to prejudice any serious discussion here, but, to be brutally honest, it is starting to look a bit like either no-one cares about this complaint, or they are all going WP:TLDR. I make no comment on the validity of the complaint. As an aside, this may be better suited to WP:AN. Just a few peanuts from the comment gallery. Cheerio. Mako001 (C)  (T)  15:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: @Omegatron has 48 hours to respond here, and I'd be encouraged to suggest 72 hours. And yes, course no one cares, and usually coming to ANI costs the raiser. Though at at this rate I'm frankly expecting to see a voluntary de-sysop, or alternatively I'm likely to get the old block if I get frustrated and give the short form. Anyway at some point I'll consider perhaps wasting my time and doing something or other or nothing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You may want to make a summarised version of the above, to avoid the TLDR issues? Again, I'll be brutally honest and say that, since no-one else has really responded here, it could be that no-one else thinks that your complaint has any merit? Again, no comment from myself on whether it does or not. Has omegatron been active in the last few days? If not you may want to email them politely and ask them to respond to this thread. Anyways, I'll leave this thread for now, I don't have any other reason to contribute to it. Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001 So you wish to suggest me to out and expose my email address to Omegatron? I think not sunshine. I'll make it simple. Omegatron has initiated discussions. I have responded, at great time expense, and RL cost, here and on the closers talk page. It is generally expected users, let alone admins, would be expected to keep pace on initiated discussions. Yes, there can always be RL reasons, there might be personal or weather events suddenly come up. But equally well this admin may be teaching a behaviour not to respond when its been reasonably alleged your, let says "playing dirty". Now if admins are condoning altering of making undated alterations of talk page discussions after people have replied then perhaps they should stay away from commenting here. But its a sad examplebad example to set. Thankyou. 01:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC) -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the summarised version, I'm sure it will help. With the email, I'm referring to the "Email this user" function. It goes via the WMF servers, and neither of your email addresses are actually visible to each other. Generally, users don't directly email each other, and references to "email" generally refer to the "email this user" function. I'm sorry if I caused some confusion by my lack of clarity earlier on that. Mako001 (C)  (T)  12:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Sending a message via the "E-mail this user" function "will disclose your email address for the purposes of a reply" (source). Distelfinck (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Reading through the discussion, I see some bludgeoning by Omegatron. It would also have been better for them to have put their comments citing various sources beneath a discussion section header to separate it from the opening statement more. The canvassing concerns seem hyperbolic, particularly given the balance of the !votes in that discussion against Omegatron. I don't think there's anything sanctionable here at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Rosguill: Thankyou for taking time to analyze. With respect I think you've been a little soft to the unsigned significant changes in the discussion/nomination when people have responded to that nomination. So it's gone above a little bludgeoning. In terms of the canvas not affecting the !voting, that not really the point. Per Special:Diff/1061321198 the criteria was one of the top 10 contributors to this article - actually I've pretty sure on the edit count metric was not top ten prior to the canvas but useful contributions post canvas brought this user into a top ten edit count. A "top-ten" contributor who had been strident in attempting to ensure the article was not promoted was omitted. It is actually pretty easy to accept that Omegatron would believe they were doing an unbiased canvas ... though in practice it is very difficult to avoid concerns of systemic bias from particular angle and the obvious thing per recommendation is to declare the canvas on the discussion. But ion all events the canvas was secondary to the bludgeoning and talk interference and I again put as a very poor example for admins to show. Thankyou. 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ultimately this will likely fail due to a dialog failure here, I have to AGF this is not simply so Omegatron can cling to their adminship badge. With regards to Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination considerations bludgeoning if it hints at restarting Dispute resolution processes will be needed or a more review etc. discussed with the closer ... if that sort of dialog fails there would seem reason for Wikipedia:Administrators#Review and removal of adminship under Disputes or complaints; that's not really a punishment angle its that privileges should not be left with those who don't really need them; on the counter side removal of said rights might cause Omegatron to go inactive. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by Aydın memmedov2000

• Aydın memmedov2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Added "We are not iranian, This is nothing but fascism, we are not iranians (persian), we are a modern Turks people. You are carrying out the policy of assimilation of Azerbaijanis here." on the Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis page.[1]
2. Added a link published by the government of the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, a country without media freedom, in order to press a historic 15th-century Turkic woman as "the first diplomant woman of Azerbaijan"[2] (See also; Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan)
3. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th century Turkic figure.[3]
4. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th/15th century Turkic figure.[4]
5. Added a fictitious flag (per the file description and Commons) to the Meskhetian Turks article.[5]
6. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 15th century Turkic figure.[6]
7. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[7]
8. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[8]
9. Warned on numerous occassions.[9]-[10]-[11]-[12]

Looking at the compelling evidence, it appears that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• from what I've seen personally, I agree that the reported user is a NOTHERE nationalist editor. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• this kind of behaviour is hard to treat, a topic ban with an option of applying for a ban lift in 6 months if behaves in other areas perhaps could treat the problem. --Armatura (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• The forum comment at Iranian Azerbaijanis is quite bad form. I'd be able to AGF about most of the other edits in this report, but am much more concerned by edits like Special:Diff/1061922934, where it appears that they attempted to pass off a source as saying something it did not. I think Armatura's suggestion of a medium-length tban is sensible, and think that having it apply to "origins of the ethnic groups of the Caucasus and their languages, broadly construed" would address the scope of articles where they've exhibited battleground attitudes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• UPDATE: They are now actively involved in WP:CANVAS designating other editors by their supposed ethnic background (in response to another, disruptive account who's now blocked[13]).

1. "The last article I wrote is being retracted by an Armenian trying to forcibly delete it, please help"[14] (on VisionCurve's talk page)
2. "The last article I wrote is being retracted by an Armenian trying to forcibly delete it, please help."[15] (on Grandmaster's talk page)
3. Google translate (Turkish) "Please help me !! In my last article (Azerbaijan old maps) it is constantly being deleted by an Armenian, please do something"[16] (on Beshogur's talk page)

- LouisAragon (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

More proxy editing, on Beshogur's talk page:

1. Aydin Memmedov2000 (Google translate, Turkish): "Malecomes insults me and deletes my articles I don't know how to report it so I need your help please report this guy"[17]
2. Beshogur's reply: "I'll do it".[18]

- LouisAragon (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted a rather weird random copy-paste text (from [19]) he posted on my talk page, which led him to write this afterwards; I understand that you hold a grudge against me. Don't worry, I won't bother you any more. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an absolute mess. He has created several articles with pseudo-history Azeri blogs as sources. See this talk page for example [20]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

As per aforementioned discussion, I propose a 3-month topic ban for user "Aydın memmedov2000" on origins of the ethnic groups of the Caucasus and their languages, broadly construed. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban - I've unfortunately had to revert a lot of this users edits, including just recently. Many of them were akin to the diffs posted above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - A topic ban, an indef block. Aydin memmedov2000 is clearly just not here. I am seeing no upside to this editor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support the state of mind of the user is apparently a WP:Battleground with Armenians, and 3 month is the minimum time to sober anybody from that state of mind, --Armatura (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I believe this "new" user is a sockpuppet, see investigation (pending). Very similar behavior to the master, especially the canvassing stuff and rapidly creating articles. There were more diffs of the master canvassing, but I couldn't find all. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• support: I also support an indeff block, because the NOTHERE Is strong with this one. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC) looking at the links provided about I think that the topic ban should also Include the AA area, the Azerbaijaniization article by itself is a good reason. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Editor DilploCult and Paolo Petrocelli

DiploCult (talk · contribs) This editor contacted me via email sent through WP. This in an effort to get me to make Paolo Petrocelli back into an article. It is currently a redirect per this AFD[21]. There was nothing wrong with the email, it was a plea, providing many sources,in order to prove Diplocult's notability. Yes, in the email Diplocult admitted being Petrocelli.

This is just a notification of this off wiki contact. I thought it may be necessary because-

• Diplocult has a COI. He made four edits to the article but back in 2020.
• Diplocult may have contacted other editors or may still do so.

I have no plans to edit the article (Which I have never edited at all) which was last edited 3 months ago. Any administrator who would like to see the email, I'll be happy to provide a copy....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• I received the same email via WP. I have no idea why he contacted me. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• My God, why do people insist on embarrassing themselves this way? The relentless self-promotion is absolutely nauseating. See https://www.paolopetrocelli.com/ (or any number of other websites endlessly repeating that Paolo Petrocelli, PhD-EMBA-FRSA, is a senior cultural manager driven by the belief that culture, arts and education are a major force for growth, development and change globally. A passionate, innovative and dynamic manager with an extensive experience in leadership positions in a variety of organizational settings, he is an international relations and global cultural affairs expert and so on and so forth). EEng 02:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC) I haven't been able to determine whether FRSA is the Federal Railroad Safety Act, Free Radical Scavenging Activity, or the Florida Roofing, Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors Association.
• I was also contacted on 14 January, and the most annoying thing was the flattery towards me written in the e-mail. At this point, it is possible that every Italian who contributes here has received an email from him. Alex2006 (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not Italian! rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not that there's anything wrong with that. EEng 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  I was not contacted! EEng 05:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  You're not worthy. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have also received the same email with accompanying flattery. I left a message on his talk page to the effect that for the sake of transparency, I will only discuss the issues he raised in the email on his talk page and left it to him to initiate the discussion there. Note that he appears to have a second account Musicdiplomacy (talk · contribs). See here. Of interest also is Draft:Stauffer Center for Strings, a new conservatory of which Mr. Petrocelli is the director. The draft has been created by a paid editor, who after being challenged subsequently disclosed this. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • DiploCult replied[22] to you at his talk page. I saw Musicdiplomacy too but didn't investigate too deeply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, I noticed. I have since left him some advice there. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @Voceditenore: DiploCult is Paolo Petrocelli, They admitted so at the very beginning of their email to me. So WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI should apply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
        • @WilliamJE: Yes I know who he is, he said so in his email to me and on-wiki. He also knows that I know. That's why I told him that if he tries to write a draft, he must declare his conflict of interest. Ditto adding to EMMA for Peace. He's already been warned multiple times by others about WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. All of that is implicit in my advice to him. But I'll add a link to that guideline in my message just in case. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

          Maybe the Cato the Elder anecdote will sink in. EEng 05:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

          • I too received the same e-mail.4meter4 (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Rlink2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion is that Rlink2 is warned for high-speed editing. This thread has been open for more than 6 days, and I believe the outcome is clear enough that further discussion will not change it. The dispute revolves around two distinct aspects of the behavior of Rlink2 (talk · contribs), which I will now summarize.

1. There was a claim that Rlink2 is a sockpuppet of Rotlink (talk · contribs). At this discussion, there is no consensus to take any action regarding this claim.
   • Rotlink was a user who was blocked in 2013 for running an unapproved bot called RotlinkBot (talk · contribs); the primary activity of this unapproved bot was adding links to the web archiving service archive.is, which Rotlink was the owner of (see [23]). Rotlink's block led to a lengthy RfC which resulted in archive.is being blacklisted from Wikipedia from 2013 to 2016, when a new RfC overturned the blacklisting.
   • Rlink2's username bears remarkable similarity to Rotlink's, and it is doubly coincidental the majority of their edits relate to links to web archives, including the Wayback Machine, archive.today (the successor to archive.is), as well as a new archive site called "ghostarchive.org", which can archive YouTube videos (see e.g. [24]). In November 2021, about two months after Rlink2 registered their account, they filed their first BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rlink2 Bot, which is a bot task relating to archive.is links. Further, it is interestingly coincidental that, like Rotlink, there have been complaints that Rlink2 may be running an unapproved bot based on their high rate of editing.
   • Although some editors agreed that these coincidences were suspicious, I do not see any consensus at this discussion that Rlink2 should be blocked as a sockpuppet. Some editors noted that the lengthy gap of seven years between Rotlink's last edit at Rlink2's first edit makes it difficult to prove the connection to a satisfactory level. Some editors left comments stating that they believe WP:SPI would be a more suitable venue to discuss this possible connection, since the editors there are more experienced with investigating sockpuppetry.
2. There were claims that Rlink2 may be running an unapproved bot or is otherwise not paying attention to their edits, based on the speed with which they edit. There is merit to some of these claims.
   • Since registering an account less than five months ago, Rlink2 has made more than 200,000 edits.
   • Rlink2 states that their edits are not fully automated, but rather semi-automated with the use of the tool AutoWikiBrowser (AWB), which requires human users to review all edits before submitting.
   • There is consensus in this discussion that the speed of Rlink2's editing has indeed been too fast. High-speed edits are often problematic for the reasons stated in WP:MEATBOT: often quality is sacrificed in the pursuit of quantity, and if there are issues with the high-speed edits, the time required to fix them would be more immense. Some editors also complained that high-speed edits flood watchlists, which may disrupt the work of other editors. MEATBOT allows editors to be sanctioned as if they were running an unauthorized bot, even if they were merely using a semi-automated tool like AWB, if their use of the semi-automated tool has caused errors that give the impression that they are not fully paying attention to their edits.
   • In light of this, some editors argued that Rlink2's access to the AWB tool should be revoked. I'm afraid I see no consensus for this. Rlink2 has acknowledged that the high speed of their edits is a valid concern, including a concession that they sometimes do not fully supervise their AWB edits, instead blindly submitting them—see [25] (I admitted that sometimes I don't review all of them (particualy, there were times where I didn't scroll down in the AWB window) ...). At [26], Rlink2 committed to slowing down, to closely reviewing all edits before submitting them, and to being more careful, if it is agreed that these are relevant issues. In my view, the consensus here is that these are indeed relevant issues.

In light of these factors, I believe the most appropriate outcome of this discussion is that RLink2 be warned for high-speed editing. A consequence of this warning is that further problems in this area may lead to more severe sanctions in the future. This discussion was not clear about any numerical speed limits, but it is clear that Rlink2's current speed—about 10 edits per minute—is too fast. If I were Rlink2, to avoid further problems, from now on I would start conservatively by only submitting AWB edits at a speed that would be reasonable if a human were doing this by hand—if anything faster is required, then out of an abundance of caution, I would file a WP:BRFA. (This is not to say that Rlink2 is required to edit at this speed; this is merely my personal advice.)

For disclosure, my only prior involvement with Rlink2 was in a purely administrative capacity (I blocked one of their bots because it was malfunctioning). Mz7 (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Rlink2 appears to be Rotlink, who was blocked in 2013 indefinitely for unauthorized botting, both on and off his account. The site he has been adding as an archive URL appears to trace to the websites he added on Wikipedia before he was blocked, and there's some concern in discussion with a few other administrators that he owns the website in question. (Editors may also be interested in reviewing the earlier account's global contributions, where there are about dozen blocks on several wikis.)

Currently, he operates AWB on his main account (clearly using some script to fill in website titles) as well as an authorized bot account Rlink2 Bot (contrast the declined RotlinkBot).

My first inclination was to block for the seeming evasion, but the editor's talk page is largely without issue so far and the bot account was approved. However, given the potential COI and his main account being used for high-speed editing itself, I am left in a bit of a quandry. (A few of the other admins I discussed with seem to lean more strongly toward blocking immediately, though I'm sure they can speak for themselves.)

Opinions sought/welcomed (or bold action if someone feels more strongly on the point). Izno (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Revoke AWB access from account for flooding. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

How am I flodding? I go at 10 edits a minute, which is consistent with other editors. Let me know how I am supposed to use the tool and what rates are acceptable. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no way you are verifying all your edits at that rate, you are obviously blindly accepting software suggestions. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Like I said before, sometimes there are times I do take shortcuts. However, 99% of my edits are verified, and I revert errnonous edits all the time. Now, I'll just make sure its 100% instead of 99%. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed 37 most-recent edits and found problems with 10 of them. That's only 73%. You do need to slow down. ~Kvng (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I already admitted that sometimes there were times I didn't review all my edits, but I will from now on.

Technically, if we are following mathematical laws, it needs to be a complete random 37 edits you picked. You picked the last 37 edits I made regarding bare refs, so your method of sampling is flawed. That percentage may or may not reflective of my entire edits. Also, when I said I review 99% of edits, I didn't literally mean 99%. My response to the rest of the "problematic" edits is on the current version of the BRFA.

However even if the percentage is low, it doesn't justify my mistakes. I always try to make sure I make the highest quality of edits. Out of those ten you linked, only one or two I think was a big enough problem that it shouldn't be put through while using AWB. For example, for some of those examples, you complained about generic titles, but the URL itself was also fairly generic. Also, if the link was dead, I saved anyway with a Wayback link, regardless of the title (because the link was dead, so it needed to be upgraded to a citation template for the archive anyway ).

In one of the examples, you complained that I turned <ref>http://www.pembina.com/about-us/our-operations/</ref> into <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pembina.com/about-us/our-operations/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140929031141/http://www.pembina.com/About-Us/Our-Operations |archive-date=2014-09-29 |title=Pembina - Our Operations}}</ref> . However, the title has the same information as the URL, and the link was dead anyway, so even if the title is wrong, now the article is pointing to a working link. Would you rather have a broken bare link or a link that works but maybe has a nondescriptive title (in this case, the title looks OK to me, but maybe there are other examples where it is not).

One of the other diffs you complained was that I turned <ref>http://www.redwater.ca/visiting/pembina-place/100-living/activities-recreation/pembina-place</ref> into <ref>{cite web |url=http://www.redwater.ca/visiting/pembina-place/100-living/activities-recreation/pembina-place |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129031902/http://www.redwater.ca/visiting/pembina-place/100-living/activities-recreation/pembina-place |archive-date=2014-11-29 |title=Pembina Place}}</ref> . In this case, you have a stronger point that maybe the title is less informative than the original URL. But keep in mind the link was dead, and the Wayback link was there. A dead citation is basically the same as having no citation at all. Hence, that is a good reason to let it through even with the debatably generic title.

Here is an example of a good diff, <ref>https://www.ssafa.org.uk/about-us/governance-ssafa</ref> into <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ssafa.org.uk/about-us/governance-ssafa |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150509224024/http://www.ssafa.org.uk/about-us/governance-ssafa |archive-date=2015-05-09 |title=How We're Run - Our Governance {{!}} SSAFA}}</ref> . Not only was the link dead, and rescued with Wayback, the title is more informative than the URL. Yeah, some people like Ssilvers will say the "website" parameter should be split, and I have been working that in, but as multiple other editors said, we must not let perfect be enemy of the good. Wikipedia is based on incremental improvement. Stubs don't become FAs in one edit, there is always room to improve the citation later on.

Off topic question but when is visual editor coming for the noticeboard? Someone here would know the answer to that. It can be hard to follow along in the text editor for a large page with lots of changes.

Rlink2 (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Revoke AWB access including the bot. I am fairly convinced these are the same individuals, and I believe they have some sort of stake in the archive sites (archive.today and ghostarchive.org) they are performing automated work in regards to, if not being the outright owners. I believe the main account's current AWB activity looks to be the unapproved activity proposed as a second bot activity here. Activity on eswiki should also be noted. The four RFCs on archive.is should be reviewed for historical content, including admission of Rotlink of either owning or being heavily involved in the development of Archive.is and the 2013 botting issue that resulted in over 30 cross wiki blocks. More action may be required. -- ferret (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "relationship", if anything, I have been in talks with Mark Graham of the Wayback machine in terms of possible collaboration, and we have many editors on here already working with the Internet Archive. Supposing I was related to archive.today (or otherwise), I don't think "getting" at me for that aspect alone is helpful because we have people working for archive.org as well. I have a metheology for picking archive sites to use, we have a limited amount of archive sites, and some of them do stuff that the others can't. If Wayback can't archive a site, but something else can, I don't think it's right to say I'm connected when there is a clear explanation for why I do what I do. For example, archive.today can bypass paywalls, archive.org can't. And ghostarchive.org can do Youtube videos, which up until very recently archive.org could not. And you seem to be missing my bare ref fixes that also use web.archive.org. You omit that part of the argument as well.

Regardless, I have spent a lot of time on non archiving matters, such as fixing bare refs. There are clear differences between my and Rotlink's account (such as the fact Rotlink doesn't appear to be a native English speaker). Rotlink only added archive links, from the look of it. If the community realizes that my time spent archiving refs is not appreciated, I will stop doing it. Maybe even revoking AWB access is the right choice, even though I do review every edit I make with it. But I do not think a full on block is required. Rlink2 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rlink2: Well, the difference between other editors with the Internet Archive and you with Archive.Today would be disclosure. If what ferret is saying is true (idk maybe it is; maybe not), then you should definitely be transparent about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: Thanks. I know it sounds maybe a bit hard to believe, but I have no relation to Rotlink or any other past editor. For those that want to believe other wise, all I can really say is that I am willing to stop any work with alternative archive sites if that is what you all want. I didn't have any plans with alternate archive link repair for a while, since my editing plans involved filling bare refs, and then filling in the titles for "Archived Copy" (see Category:CS1_maint:_archived_copy_as_title) when that was done. Both of these efforts have nothing to do with any of the alternate archive sites, and would/is taking months of my time. If using other archive sites results in COI accusations and stressful ANI threads, it is not worth the time and effort for me to keep using them, to be honest. Rlink2 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Izno: when you say that Rlink2 appears to be Rotlink, are you speaking with your checkuser hat on? Firefangledfeathers 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, solely based on naming, behavior, and strongly overlapping interests. Izno (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Firefangledfeathers 02:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

All this seems to be based on the fact that you think I am Rotlink, which is not the case. Yes, the username might be similar (unfortunate coicidence when picking my username) but I have no affiliation with Rotlink whatsoever. I read the archive.today RFC before creating an account and I thought the name "Rotlink" sounded cool, so maybe it had an subconsious effect on my username. I knew someone would think that this was the case sooner rather than later, so for that reason I kinda regret choosing that username. Rlink2 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Immediately revoke AWB access and block: This user is using their account to operate an undisclosed bot. Their edits indicate that they are a meatbot. Furthermore, there is no possible chance that they are properly analysing the truly absurd number of edits that they are making. All of this is incredibly problematic, even ignoring the probable ban evasion and conflict of interest. Considering the sheer amount of disruption and other questionable actions, a block is warranted in this situation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Except, I am looking at all of my edits with AWB. I explain that I revert my errnouns edits all the time, and I also just recently maintained a list of broken pages of my script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rlink2/Problem_cite_titles. If i waasn't looking at all those edits, I wouldn't have started maintaining that page and also reverting errors in the script, like I did in the example on my talk page. Rlink2 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday you made 3316 edits non-stop across 7 hours at a rate of 8-11 a minute. During that rate of editing, you saved edits ranging from small minor single citation fills of under 100 bytes, to huge 2000+ (and even a few 10K+) byte changes that touched dozens of citations. Even for the large ones, you spent less than 10 seconds before your next edit. It's difficult to believe you're reviewing these edits. -- ferret (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, sometimes I do sacafice quality for speed, especially before the new database dumps come out. This is the exception though, not the rule. And sometimes I have days off, yesterday was MLK Day, so I have more time to edit. It wasn't non stop, there were clear breaks however. I don't edit when I'm sleeping, and I don't edit when I'm at my workplace. If I was running a "bot" I wouldn't have a list of bad links, I wuoldn't be constantly reverting mistakes. Also note that everytime someone leaves me a message on my talk page, I respond instantly. If I was running a "bot" I wouldn't be able to respond that quickly to messages since I would be away from the computer. Rlink2 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've noticed this user prolifically across my watchlist recently. The sheer number of edits is astounding, and indicates either a meatbot or a literal unauthorized bot. Either way, it is clear these edits are done with little or no care for their accuracy or helpfulness. To give just one example, I've noticed the addition of a template [27] which, if we go to its template page, appears to do nothing and was created on January 12th by Rlink2. I am not a template expert, but I can't see the point of adding this template which appears to do nothing to thousands of articles. And even if it does serve some sort of purpose, the total lack of documentation is wrong and must be corrected so we have some clue as to what the hell the template does. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: The purpose of that template is to mark bare PDFs, since the title of those are not so easy to extract. I should have added some documentation, but didn't, sorry. The purpose is for me and other editors to categorize and then go through the PDFs that are bare. I really did (and still do) like your train articles. Rlink2 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm glad to see it does serve a purpose (and that you like my articles), please add some documentation though. I am not convinced you are related to Rotlink, particularly considering the difference in English proficiency. Fighting linkrot is important, but I think I speak for many when I say you need to be more careful with your mass edits. I have compared AWB use to a B-52 bombing run: it can be very powerful, but if you call in the bombing run in the wrong place, the cleanup is massive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Trainsandotherthings:. I am just stressed right now and your feedback made my day.

If the issue is with my choice of archive site, just say so. If the result of the ANI thread is that I shall no longer do link work with any archive site that isn't archive.org I will happily follow that. I do way way more than just archive stuff. Wayback is the gold standard of archive sites, and it is always the one I prefer the first. My work will not be seriously impacted if I am prevented from using any site that isn't archive.org, it just means longer do anything with preventing linkrot with sites that do not work with the Wayback machine, which, thanks to the amazing team at Archive.org, is rapidly becoming fewer and fewer. In the mean time, however, those links will unfortunately have to rot. The Wayback team is amazing and I am sure they will get to fixing all the issues, but in the mean time we should not prevent the usage of other archive sites until the Wayback team can fix the sites not working properly. But this is up to the community to decide. I was and have been taking a break from archiving "no-Wayback" sites anyway.

If the issue is that I go too fast, I will make sure to slow down. Yes, I have been faster in recent days, but usually I go at 10 edits or less which I think is OK.

If the issue is that I don't review my edits all the time, I will begin reviewing my edits all the time (which i already do for the most part).

If the issue is that I need to be more careful, I will be more careful. Yes, I have made mistakes with AWB before. Just look at the Citevar situation. I responded by cleaning it all up. We are all humans, imperfect. I propose that if my AWB access is revoked, it is revoked for a limited amount of time (maybe a week? month?) because I think I do important work with it. My edits have been a net good, based on community feedback. And keep in note that even Izno said editor's talk page is largely without issue so far meaning that there is some level of support and consensus for my work. I respect each and every one of the editors in this thread, and I hate to see misconception burn bridges. Rlink2 (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I was myself dragged over the coals at ANI for the better part of a month in November 2021. It was an experience I would not wish upon anyone but the most disruptive editors or vandals. It is why I usually refrain from commenting here at all, but as I said earlier I've seen your name pop up a lot on my watchlist so I felt the need to comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm currently leaning towards revoke access per the issues brought up by trainsandotherthings. Adding {{Bare URL PDF}} to enough pages that it got semi-protected seems a bit irresponsible. This is the type of thing that should've been brought up at {{Bare URL inline}}'s talk page or WikiProject Inline Templates before it got added to 1,532 different pages.
  This user certainly has potential though, so I am a bit torn. If access is revoked, I do think there should be a clear path for them to regain access. For the record, I have also not looked into the Rotlink connection at all. My comment is just a reflection on the AWB usage rather than socking accusations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  @MJL: I see nothing at all irresposnible about Rlink2's creation of {{Bare URL PDF}}. It is analogous to {{Bare URL inline}}, but helpfully provides a distinctive designator for PDF bare URLs, which pose a particular problem because there is no reliable way for tools to extract metadata from PDFs. It would have been better to complete the template before deploying it, but that oversight is a very minor issue, and easily remedied.

  If you or any other editor actually discussed this with Rlink2, you would them open, attentive, and well-seized of the issues. This issue would have been resolved promptly.

  It is very sad to see something like this used as "evidence for the prosecution", when no effort has been made to have the usual discussions about whether it is actually a problem. (Hint: it's not a problem. It's a productive addition). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  PS: I have completed and documented {{Bare URL PDF}}. It may not be the perfect solution for PDF format WP:Bare URLs, but I thank @Rlink2 for taking this useful step forward.

  If editors want further discussion of how we can make progress on identifying and fixing the backlog of 47,887 untagged PDF-format bare URL refs (as he 20220101 database dump), this is not the appropriate venue. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment As an editor who fired a rocket at Rlink2 at an early stage (for an error that turned out have been made by WorldCat), I too began by being suspicious of their motives. I also had a sharp intake of breath to see so many of the pages I watch come up with bare URL flags. It was annoying that I missed them being added in the first place but we should not shoot the messenger. Some editors have complained at talk:Rlink2 that just to add title= is inadequate and want to see a full set of metadata: it seems that they would rather have a bare URL than a basic one. Personally I have found it a useful prompt to go get the metadata since invariably the site needs to be deconstructed by human eye. "The perfect is the enemy of the good". Blocking their AWB access is being an enemy of the good. Maybe they should be admonished for employing 'almost a bot' but let's not get on our high horse about it. Does Counsel for the Prosecution propose that CitationBot be shut down too? If not, why not? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Revoke AWB access as above, and launch SPI into possible sock puppetry/block evasion. GiantSnowman 19:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  If Rotlink was blocked in 2013, it seems unlikely there would be any technical evidence left for a CU inquiry. A gap of 7 years between Rotlink's last edit and Rlink2's first edit would also seem to make any other attempt at proving socking/block evasion pretty well impossible too. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Congratulate Rlink2 for excellent work improving articles at a steady rate. Any bot-like process will leave imperfections behind due often to pre-existing and unpredictable errors in articles. Oculi (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Oculi, I agree. Rlink2 is doing great work, and should be congratulated, not hounded.

  This thread is an depressingly good illustration of the principle that no good deed should go unpunished. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Woah there! This discussion is deeply unpleasant to read. It seems like a pile-on.

The complaint is based on a supposition that @Rlink2 is a) a block-evading sock, and b) somehow in cahoots with archive sites. No actual evidence has been offered for either assertion other than a similarity of usernames. Rlink2 denies both, and nobody has added any further evidence.

The choice of this venue for a socking allegation is very quite strange, because Izno is a checkuser, so should know that suspected sock cases should be brought to WP:SPI. Why has that not been done here?

As to the alleged "collusion" with archive sites, no evidence has been offered of any such collusion. And what harm could be done by any such collaboration? Archive.is is an acceptable archive site, so why this rush to monster an editor who archives some pages there? If some editors want to re-open the debate about whether to use Archive.is, they should open an RFC rather than monstering an editor who archives refs.

As the OP notes, Rlink2's AWB work is mostly uncontroversial, accurate filling of bare links, and issues which arise out of that being discussed openly and amicably on their talk page. Their edits have made a huge contribution to clearing the backlog of bare URL refs, and I am shocked to see that valuable work being brought to a halt on the basis of a set of wild accusations.

Nobody seems to have identified any actual harm being done by Rlink2. So what is this drama actually about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

My only note was regarding to flooding watchlists and recent changes with fairly high speed AWB use, when they have an open BRFA for this already - but instead of completing that they are just slamming the edits through the unflagged account. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who doesn't pay too much attention to BRFA. My recent experiences there have been of very poor communication speed, poor assessment and being subjected to gratuitous personal attack and insults which no BAG member was wiling to challenge.

Until BAG can reform itself by make it less of a hazing exercise and showing the maturity to genuinely review its bad decisions, editors are well-advised to stay clear. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with BHG. I would like to see any sockpuppetry accusations handled at WP:SPI in accordance with the burden of evidence there, as it's usually done. As for the bot use, that's a separate issue. While personally I'm not too happy about meatbots, this noticeboard has time and time again failed to revoke AWB access for editors running actual meatbots. While I'd like to see a consistently harder stance on that, I do find it difficult to believe the tally above for revoking access is solely due to the editing behaviour. archive.today is a perfectly acceptable and popular archive site.

All the OP has said is that and there's some concern in discussion with a few other administrators that he owns the website in question -- there is no evidence presented for the assertion, and I'm not going to go digging around for evidence myself. I'd like to see some evidence presented here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Xaosflux and ProcrastinatingReader took the words right out of my mouth, honestly. All this infighting could instead be used to advance progress on Rlink Bot Task 2. The description and the goals have been slightly changed (for example, the bot will find bare refs itself, it won't need submissions), but for the most part I think it is best for everyone if we focus on advancing the bot task. The goal was always to get the bot task approved. Rlink2 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: it seems to me that unless Izno can present some actual evidence to support their allegation that Rlink2 is the owner of an archive site, they should strike the allegation and apologise.

Same with the allegation of sockpuppetry: Izno should take their case to SPI and accept the outcome of that established process, or strike it and apologise.

Editors should not be subjected to unsupported allegations which are the taken by other editors as grounds for sanctions, which is what has happened here.

And given that Ser Amantio di Nicolao remains unsanctioned for about 4 million edits with a very badly-run unauthorised bot (he's too lazy to even use meaningful edit summaries, and that's the least of the problems), it would be grossly unjust to sanction Rlink2 for a well-run AWB task on a scale several orders of magnitude smaller. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The archive wars/RFCs are long behind us and I think I speak for all of us that we don't need to restart those. The issue of if we should use archive.today is completely seperate from me, if that is a discussion you want to entertain that is fine, don't take it out on me like BHG said. Like I've said before, I will happily accept not being able to work with any archive site that isn't archive.org, if your issue is that I somehow own these archival websites, and the community says they do not value my work with those alternate archive sites. If I was the owner of any of these sites I would not be making that offer. So that alone invalidates the supposed allegation of ownership.

Regarding name similarity and sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Editors_who_may_be_confused. I should note that some of these users with similar usernames also share the same interests (for example, two of the usernames just so happen to be 'crats, and two of other similar usernames belong to two different amazing admins who both are intrested in sports topics). It's not some crazy, out of the world, one time thing, for someone to have a similar name to another, and for them to have similar interests. I think that if you want to say I someone else, you should have more evidence than just a similar username and having similar interests. Rlink2 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether I am a checkuser is irrelevant to where a user chooses to bring a discussion (see ad hominem).

I am however willing to answer the question: I chose to bring this discussion here because I was prepared to block without consultation and wanted to give the party of interest and broader community an opportunity to respond to the issues presented before issuing the block, because a) SPI does not work that way these days (generally), and b) issues other than whether or not the user is block-evading were presented, namely, the user is clearly editing at high speed without review on his non-bot account, some edits of which cross into territory on their bot's unclosed BRFA.

As for collusion:

1. The previous account Rotlink was in fact in cahoots with the archive sites he chose to add: he owned them. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC.
2. The current websites being added today are all in fact the same website as in the RFC in question.

As for behavior:

1. Same exact topic area in which the former account was blocked: namely, archive URLs added by bot
   1. Same behavior of running at high speed on his own user account without the BRFA to go with it.
   2. The Rlink2 account hasn't edited in any other area, which usually indicates a returning editor from the get go.
   3. Has exclusively focused on the archive.is family of websites (to wit, several replacements of .is to .today in the early editing history of the Rlink2 account, something I believe the Rotlink account also was interested in)
2. Basically the same name
3. A CU I trust has checked the data from the last time Rotlink edited (there was some) versus Rlink 2 today (without my prompting) and while he didn't find that they matched, he did find that Rlink 2 is on a proxy that changes its IP address more than daily. (Likely similar in behavior to the case listed in the RFC, though I haven't checked myself.)
4. There is at least one item of offwiki material that links Rlink 2 to the website directly, which I am happy to send to my colleagues on ArbCom (it is not particularly damning, but it is yet another piece of a "this is a sock" puzzle).

Now, you are free to argue that this is a returning editor doing good work such that "time-served" is the appropriate response (NB our sockpuppetry and block evasion policies do not allow this when it was in the same area as the previous sanctions, but you may argue it), or you may argue that there is insufficient evidence to believe this is the same editor (I am convinced, but you may not be), both of which are part of the reason I invited discussion at ANI rather than at SPI. But even ignoring the socking angle:

1. The editor has clearly edited in a high speed fashion without review of his changes and which cross over into an unapproved BRFA's scope.

So at the very least, I would expect a followup on that aspect from this forum, which is the appropriate forum regardless. Izno (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The previous account Rotlink was in fact in cahoots with the archive sites he chose to add: he owned them We have people paid by the Internet Archive on Wikipedia. Why is that necessarily a problem?

The current websites being added today are all in fact the same website as in the RFC in question.. Archive.today was approved for use on enwiki in RFC #4. If the site is approved by the community, I don't see the problem with doing link maintenance.

The Rlink2 account hasn't edited in any other subject area This is not true. I have done stuff like recent change patrol, and I am working on bare ref fixing. I have partcipated in village pump and citation bot discussions, multiple times. You have even tagged me in some of them. I have even done some small article work, which I plan on continuing. I can link to diffs of each of these.

Has exclusively focused on the archive.is family of websites is not true. I've done work with more than one archive website. For example, all the bare ref fixing was using web.archive.org. I did some edits that were related to filling in Trappist's "archived copy" category that had web.archive.org as an archive link. Even the BRFA that was approved has archive.org stuff in there in there.

The archive.is to today thing was one thing I've done earlier in my edit history, but I've moved on from that since almost all the links have already been converted to ".today". If I was here only for converting the archive.today links why would I be still editing?

Regarding Same behavior of running at high speed on his own user account without the BRFA to go with it. I didn't think that 10 edits a minute was high speed. And I was going "high speed" because I was using AWB, there was an explination for that. There is a difference between AWB and unauthorized bot. And I did have a BRFA filed.

Basically the same name I have addressed a rebuttal above. There are many Wikipedians with the same name and work in the same topic area. I don't think that means anything.

and while he didn't find that they matched I'm glad we've cleared that up, so technically I am not Rotlink. he did find that Rlink 2 is on a proxy that changes its IP address more than daily yes I do use a VPN/proxy, its not some uncommon thing these days, the climate back then in 2013 and now are very different. People are more worried about their privacy. DuckDuckGo, Protonmail, etc.. are all doing well because there is a large section of the population who is becoming more aware of privacy in the digital world. An IP address is like a social security number. I wouldn't want to give out my SSN to everyone I meet, would you? IP privacy is become very important these days, the WMF is hiding unregistered IP addresses for a reason. The existance and usage of VPNs in 2021 is way bigger than the existence of VPNs in 2013, there are alot of people using them. So I don't think that's a big deal.

high speed fashion without review of his changes I admitted that sometimes I don't review all of them (particualy, there were times where I didn't scroll down in the AWB window), but I never said I never reviewed any of the changes. I did, bascially almost all the time. And while the bare ref BRFA was unapproved, the very act of fixing bare refs had consensus.

same area as the previous sanctions All this seems to be predicated on the fact that I supposedly only do work with one archive site, which is not the case like exlpained before. And I've already offered to drop any work with non archive.org sites, if that is what you and community want. Also, you seem to miss the fact that there can be a difference between owner and fan. Archive.today is a popular site, one of the top 100 sites on the internet, of course they will have fans. Any popular band, musician, thing etc. has fans that are overly interested in them and are fans of what they do. It is not implausible that there are other people that like archive.today.

Like I said, my usage of an alternate archive site for just a few "non-Wayback" sites is not worth all the attention. I say this with honesty, that I am not Rotlink. The primary causes of all these "reasons" you give are simply due to overlapping intrests. For example, if I am intrested in fixing archive links, of which there are many, how else am I supposed to do it? Of course semi-automated or a bot approval tools are necessary. Note that other editors who are intrested in internet archival, and someone else also had a bot to convert .is to .today. However, some people, like you, may permanently think that I am Rotlink. Given the cirmustances, I would completely understand, and I respect your opinion and I see where you come from and why people would think I am Rotlink. I personally don't think it even matters if I'm the owner of archive.today (I'm not), seeing how archive.today is an approved archive website. To that, I can really only say if people are somehow convinced I own archive.today, I'll happily stop any linkwork with the site. I have other stuff to do here. Other than that, I really don't have much else to say.

Here is some reasons to believe that I am not Rotlink.

1. Different English proficiency - someone else also pointed this out. Don't CU's have some language tool that allows them to analyze people's tone and voice? Why don't you use it now?
2. Engaging in other tasks - explained above, I do other stuff than just archiving. I did recent change patrol, and I have an article I'm intrested in developing in my draft space. Rotlink only did archived links, he seemingly shown no interest in content creation. I think the conerstone of ANY wiki is content. All of the archiving stuff, just supports the content creation. If there was some sort of community decision that said I couldn't do work with AWB or archiving until I have at least one GA article for nomination, I would follow that happily.
3. Offered to stop work with archive.today - If i was the owner of archive.today, which is an approved site, why am I giving up my ability to work with it so easily? The owner of archive.today would instead push and probably still be sucessful in being able to work with his site, given the status of RFC 4.
4. Ability to listen to the community - this ties in to what I was saying before, I am always open to consensus. If we did an archive.today RFC 5 and the result was to ban the site, I would still be around. When archive.today was banned the first time Rotlink left the WP communnity IIRC.
5. Experimentation with way more than 2 or 3 archive sites - Early on in my tenure here you'll also notice I tried other archive sites then what I used, such as "etched.page" and "archive.st". However, I did not find those sites particularly helpful for my use case. If I am banned from doing archive.today work, may have to look into these sites, but seeing how "etched.page" is some cryptocurrency thing, and you need to pay to archive a webpage there, I think it would be even more controversial given the talk of crypto in the news recently. The point is, I have no real bias towards any of the archive sites. I just use what I think is right of the job.
6. Do not edit 24/7 or exhbit the hallmarks of an unapproved bot Looking at Rotlinks time card, the account was editing 24/7. I was always exhibiting some sort of supervision with my edits, and it shows because I don't edit 24/7. No one can be awake for that long. With AWB, I always responded to people basically the instant they left a message on my talk page. That wouldn't be possible with an unapproved bot running unsupervised. I reverted erroneous edits all the time, meaning that there was some sort of supervision. The level of supervision is debatable. But it was certainly there in some sort.
7. Failure to look at how the archving may benefit my wiki status - It could be argued that my work with archive sites actually has nothing to do with the sites, but to increase my position on enwiki. For example, converting all the links from .is to .today is a great way to get to 500/30 (EC protection) and inrease your edit count in general. Adding and fixing archive links is a simple and easy is a good way to get "reputation points", increase your edit count, gain trust and permissions at any wiki. It's equivelent to fixing spelling mistakes. It is then easy to branch out into other more pressing matters (like editng protected articles, creating new ones, etc.) You didn't consider this aspect of it though.
8. I am not placing archive.today or any archive site other than archive.org on a higher pedestal. Here is this example: There are many fans of Olivia Rodrigo editing the Olivia Rodrigo article. There are people obseesed with Olivia Rodrigo, they wear her merch, buy all her music ticket concerts. However, it becomes a problem when they push biased points of views, or prefer their own opinion over others (POV). We have rules for that WP:NPOV. Why are COI editors asked to make a request on the talk page? Because if they edit directly, there is a high chance of POV pushing. Similarly, I am a fan of all the archive sites. I am not putting archive.today on a higher pedestal however. I don't treat it any higher than I do with archive.org. Archive.today is for sites where archive.org does not work. You have not addressed the issue of archive.org not dealing with certain sites.

If you go ahead with a block, I'm not the one to beg and beg. I'll ask for WP:SO and maybe a community review of the block, and I hope it'll be offered to me, but if not, I'll just have to accept my unlucky fate. I wouldn't want to work in a community where everyone thinks I'm evil and bad just because I supposdedly own an approved archive website, which many enjoy and use. I did enjoy my work here, was wonderful to meet many new people. As Arthur Morgan in Red Dead Redemption 2 said, I tried. In the end, I did. Rlink2 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I will not be placing a block now given the contention here and the fact I was the original person bring the concern, but that does not mean you should not continue to be involved in this discussion, as another admin may do so without further warning. Izno (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no plans to leave this discussion. I think it's good we keep everything in one place. And I'm glad you chose ANI to voice your concerns where everyone can speak. That way people can see the evidence and the whole story. Rlink2 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Izno: thank you for finally presenting some assertions of evidence in support of your claim. It's a pity that several of them are demonstrably false (such as "has exclusively focused on the archive.is family of websites" and "hasn't edited in any other area"), but at least you made your case as you saw it. That is what you should have done at the outset.

However, this comment by you is shameful: Whether I am a checkuser is irrelevant to where a user chooses to bring a discussion (see ad hominem).. As a checkuser, you should be very well aware that WP:SPI is the forum for examining claims of sockpuppetry. This explicitly stated as policy at WP:HSOCK:

If you believe someone is using sockpuppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.

Note that the policy does not offer ANI (or any other forum) as alternative venue. So tell me: did you, as a checkuser, consciously choose to ignore the policy which you are entrusted to uphold? Or were you not even aware of the policy? Or is there some other reason for your breach policy? Given the tools available to a checkuser, I am very alarmed at the possibility that you may have been unaware of policy.

This matters because a) WP:SPI has a structure for assessing claims of sockpuppetry, and b) WP:SPI is a centralised venue which is monitored by editors who have experience of assessing such claims. I cannot know your intentions in bringing the claim here, but it is clear that the effect of bringing your claims here is to evade proper scrutiny.

Your dismissal as an ad hominem of my complaint about your misuse of procedure and breach of policy is disgraceful. WP:ADMINACCT applies here: you wanted an editor sanctioned, and in doing so you have a responsibility to follow policy and justify your actions. Here is the relevant section in full:

Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested.

Instead of justifying or revising your policy-defiant choice to making an SPI complaint in the wrong venue and without any evidence, you chose to hide behind the shield of a wholly bogus allegation that criticism of your admin/checkuser actions is an ad hominem. That is not just an evasion of your responsibility to justify your actions; it is a nasty attempt to smear me for making legitimate, policy-based criticism. Such smear tactics are deeply uncivil in any editor, and unacceptable in an admin. Please behave much better.

As to the substance of the evidence you have belatedly presented, some parts of it are demonstrably false, and most of it seems to me to be weak and circumstantial. I am particularly troubled that use of a VPN proxy is being held against an editor, because it seems to me to be a common and wholly reasonable practice. You may disagree about that, but if you want to pursue this complaint, then for goodness sake: follow policy, and take it to SPI, where it can be properly scrutinised.

And are you really sure that publicly disclosing at ANI that fact of VPN proxy usage, without going through SPI processes, is compatible with the procedural policy Wikipedia:CheckUser? It seems to me to be a possible breach of WP:CUPRIVACY.

I AGF that you honestly believe you have a reasonable complaint against Rlink2. But the way you have pursued that complaint is most unreasonable. I am minded to open an ANI thread about your own misconduct here, but I hope that you will reconsider and make that unnecessary. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually discussed with multiple other administrators before bringing it here, so, no, I was decidedly not attempting to avoid scrutiny, never mind that ANI reaches more watchers than SPI, not fewer. I could as easily have filed at SPI (well, would have had to add the set of behaviors at the open rather than the close as you suggest) which, if I were a betting man, would have had to settle it on the merits of the behavior (the technical evidence was likely to be useless for making a direct connection to a decade-blocked account), and the usual SPI admins probably would have taken my connection and run with it. All of this even if should were language that indicates a requirement rather than (strong, as it is policy) suggestion. (must is such requiring language.)

An ad hominem is the fallacy basing an argument on something about the person you are discussing with rather than on the statements provided by that person or the facts of the situation. A statement Our policy says you should have taken this to SPI is fine, a statement You are a checkuser and you should have taken it to SPI as a result is not. Hence, your comment was an ad hominem as a factual statement (rather than some attempt to smear you; I have no interest in such a thing). Now, I continued on to discuss why I had done it, so I actually fully answered your question rather than dismissed it out of hand, since the root question was reasonable.

I believe it was not a breach of CUPRIVACY as the statement was in sufficiently broad terms: nothing identifying the user and nothing about the specific IP addresses used (the details of which I have not seen in fact). Separately, the CU who ran the check verified that he thought this was an reasonable statement to make public. (Regardless, this generality is routinely seen in the context of SPI, so if there is an issue here, it is a broad rather than specific one.)

Thanks for your comments. Izno (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Izno: thanks for the tone of most of your reply. But it is sad that you still sticking by your false claim that I made an ad hominem attack.

Your policy error was that a) you offered no evidence in your initial post; b) you brought your complaint to ANI rather than SPI, as required by policy. That is a criticism of your actions, to which you should have responded in good grace rather. Your checkuser privileges are highly relevant, because as a holder of those privileges you are required to work within checkuser policies, so you have a duty to know and apply the policy. If noting the specific responsibilities of someone who has special privileges is labeled as an ad hominem attack, then accountability is impossible.

I ask you again to withdraw that claim.

As to the rest ... well if a bunch of weak circumstantial claims which include at least three demonstrable falsehoods would have led to a block at SPI, then gawd 'elp us. I had assumed that SPI worked to much higher standards than that.

What I see in Rlink2 is a highly productive editor who is doing excellent work helping to resolve a long-standing problem of WP:Bare URLs, but is being hounded for it. Why on earth have you and that undisclosed group of other admins had these secret discussions to try to stop that good work? Why did you not attempt to discuss these issues with Rlink2 before coming to ANI, as requested at the top of this page?

The only part of your complaint of misconduct (other than the tenuous claims of sockpuppetry) which has any substance is the complaint that Rlink2 has done a lot of edits without a bot flag. But if you really concerned about that issue, why on earth pick on Rlink2 rather than Ser Amantio di Nicolao's vastly greater use of an unauthorised bot, with huge and long-standing quality problems? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding some of the other accusations, you could also claim I have a “direct link” (as in, lines of communication or “diplomatic cables”) to archive.org, there is on and off wiki evidence of this. One possibility that might come out of this ANI is that people are convinced I am "linked" to both archive.today (through your evidence) and archive.org (through my evidence) in terms of communication (not ownership). Which would basically prove that I am not the owner of any of them and that I do not prefer one archive site over the other.

Keep in mind owning a site versus merely talking with the owner or submitting feature and bug reports are two completely separate things. I know about Amazon and buy stuff from there all the time, and if there is an issue I call their support. Contacting AMZN support over a missing package doesn’t mean I own Amazon, nor does it mean I have a relationship with them, or I’m putting it over eBay or some other ecommerce website. Are you trying to claim I own an archive site, or you trying to claim I have merely communicated with employees/owner(s) of an archive site? Two very different things.

And furthermore regarding the ".is" to ".today" changes, not only is IABot and GreenC bot converting all the .is to .today links, many of the people who voted support in RFC #4 were also involved in changing the links to ".today". They used AWB to do it, and they said that their relation to archive.today was that we are just frequent visitors of the site. Again, this supports the "fan theory", when you are popular enough, people will do stuff for you, give money to you, etc... It can be hard to tell the difference between overzelous fan and owner/strong COI in this case. Don't believe me? Go to any boy band's Wikipedia page and look at the edit history, both of the article itself, and the editors who wrote a huge chunk or maintain the article/keep it up to date. That's why WP:NPOV exists.

Anyway, you ignored my work with archive.org links, and you ignored the part in my first response I said I may have been working/communicatting with the Internet Archive, I think we all agree (even the starters of the thread) that the Internet Archive is a trusted and reputable organization. When making ANI decisions, aren’t we supposed to know all the information that is possible about the case and just not one side?

the complaint that Rlink2 has done a lot of edits without a bot flag. This is a perfectly valid complaint, I have already admitted there are times I go too fast. I can work to change my behavior on that. Rlink2 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Rlink2: move to close

I think it's time to close this discussion. No evidence has presented to support the allegations of sockpuppetry and that Rlink2 is the owner of some archive site, and it is disappointing that those unevidenced claims have not been withdrawn.

The only other complaints are that a) Rlink2 created {{Bare URL PDF}} without prior discussion, which is in no way an ANI matter, and b) that their highly productive edits would be better done as a bot task (on which there seems to be complete agreement).

There is no ANI issue here, so all we need to do here is to ask WP:BAG and @Rlink2 to speed up WP:BRFA/Rlink2 Bot 2. There is no need for ongoing drama about that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree. Since the starters of the thread seem to be intrested in video games, let me use an analogy they can understand. Without any further evidence, mulling any more on this ANI thread is like when the AI controls USA and Japan and they go to war in Hearts of Iron 4. Anyone who has played that game knows that the AI doesn't make any headway. Or maybe it can be compared to the Far Harbor puzzle mission in Fallout 4- that mission is so much trouble, and there was literally no point to that one. I don't even know why Bethesda put it in the game.

Jokes and video game comparisions aside, all the drama is truly unnecessary, and any possible (mis)use of AWB could have been discussed on my talk page before taking it to ANI. Let's get back to building a encylopedia. Rlink2 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree this should be closed. There are some minor issues, but it is entirely unfair to hang the specter of a sock allegation against Rlink2 without hard evidence. I am strongly opposed to any block of Rlink2 based solely on circumstantial evidence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Agree this should be closed. I have read this thread several times. (1) There is a possibility that Rlink2 is connected to an editor who last edited 9 years ago; (2) there is a possibility that Rlink2 in some unspecified way benefits from rescuing dead links and replacing them with live useful archived links; (3) there is irritation that watchlists are being affected. No-one has given a specific troublesome diff. Here is recent diff from Rlink2: Rosecrans Memorial Airport: a bare and dead link has been converted into a useful properly cited archived link. By what convoluted logic is this being turned into a negative? Perhaps Sue Gray should be asked to investigate. Oculi (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional input subsection

Let's put the archive wars behind us ... or maybe not

• I just want to note that although I didn't have much time to take it further yet, I was concerned with this user's promotion of certain archive sites and have expressed it once at the user's talk page (permalink). —PaleoNeonate – 03:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How am I promoting archive sites? I just use them, when it comes to articles, I have some minor copyedits on the archive.today and Internet Archive article. That's about all. I have not written any article about any archive related topics and likely never will. And I explained my rationale for using non archive.org sites, both when you left a message on my talk page, and in this ANI thread.

Like other editors said if you have a problem with an archive site, open up another RFC. I have a feeling this ANI thread is being derailed to a soapbox of people's personal opinions about archive websites, instead of the claims laid out against me in particular. Let's keep it focused. Rlink2 (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• The focus is your activity on WP. To answer about promotion, it's obvious: adding thousands of links to otherwise rather obscure websites about which there exists little scrutiny. You have admitted to me that they were controversial but simply persisted. I realize that this is ANI, that there was one call to close and that it may not be the last discussion about this, but since we're already here and that, like I almost did, others may have missed it, I decided to ping various editors. In case they want to comment or just take note of the event, these have helped or expressed concerns in the past. Some may have noticed an evolution, others are used to technical tasks or familiar with the use and rules of automated or semiautomated edits, etc. @Ssilvers, DeCausa, John Maynard Friedman, ElKevbo, Spinningspark, A876, Trappist the monk, Keith D, Geogene, Whywhenwhohow, GreenC, TheSandDoctor, Cameron11598, Mz7, Joeyconnick, Wallyfromdilbert, Ravensfire, Slywriter, JlACEer, Kailash29792, and Ymblanter:. —PaleoNeonate – 10:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I posted on Rlink2’s talk page a couple of weeks ago because I was highly suspicious of my watchlist being filled up with edits to citations linking to a web archive I’d never heard of by an editor who only started 4 months ago but had the confidence to make mass changes across WP, run a bot and accumulate 150k+ edits in that time. At that time my thoughts were (a) there must be a previous undisclosed history/account (b) if there are systemic problems with these mass edits, eg that web archive is unsuitable, it’s going to be horrendous to unpick. I’ve looked over this thread - but not in detail. It seems, IMHO, highly probable that Izno’s suspicious are correct and Rlink2 is Rotlink - and that explains much. I don’t really understand why this isn’t at SPI though for a proper behavioural analysis by those experienced in that sort of thing (I understand CU won’t work here). I can’t claim to have followed all the ins and outs - but it doesn’t smell right though. That’s all I can say and probably not a very helpful input. DeCausa (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Like i said before, if you have a problem with an archive site, take it to RFC. Do not take it out on me. If an archive site was banned I would follow that resolution. And I already offered to stop working with those alternate sites if people want that. Rlink2 (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• This ANI has been running for quite long enough for the original accusation of sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry to have been investigated through the standard channels. Either that has not been done or has not supported the allegation. I thought that WP has higher standards than McCarthyite inferences based on nothing more than surmise and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sure it upsets some people to see twenty articles come up on their watch-list report that they'd even forgotten having put a watch on and haven't seen a change for years. Shooting the messenger is not the solution; just go bring the citations up to current standards – if it didn't bother you to have a link-rot citation before, why are you bothered by a less-than-perfect fix? As to which archive site to use, who cares so long as it actually works? It may all become moot [en-us] soon anyway because of copyright actions. The work that Rlink2 has been doing is not perfect, but there is no bot that is; most importantly it is an improvement on the status quo. Time to wp:drop the stick. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the support John. Rlink2 (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the editors you tagged in left questions on my talk page that have nothing to do with archive sites. Trappist the Monk has commented on 0 ANI threads in his WP history and this won't be the first one. Actually, I think there was one in 2013, where he just commented to clear something up (so he had no opinion on the matter). You should have read the whole ANI thread before tagging and making more accusations. I think its unlikely GreenC will comment on here, but he said that all the archive sites were OK on my talk page. Almost all of the editors you pinged left mesages that had nothing to do with archives. The only "anti-archivers" you pinged are DeCausa (responded already) and Whywhatwhenwho. And Whywhat just trout slapped me regarding missing citation info, I don't think he was against the alternate archive sites. Asking questions about something and being against something are different. Again, if you have a problem with an archive site, start another RFC. I meant controversial in the way that some don't like but some do, and that there was an RFC that settled the controversy.

And you, Paleo, I resonded to your message, you never got back. If you don't respond to a message, I will assume that are OK with what I am doing, or your confusion cleared up.

I have explained time and time again that my use of alternate sites is for sites Wayback can not handle. Wayback is already unsuitable for these links. If Wayback fixes the capaibility to archive those sites, and an RFC to replace any "alternate archive" sites with archive.org sites passes, I will follow that. And I also explained like 5 times in this thread that I am willing to stop any work with non archive.org sites if that's what people want, since I do way more than just archiving. The links that don't work with Wayback will just have to die because you don't like the solution. You say I persisted in archiving as if I ignored consensus, but you omitted the next part of that sentence where I said I only use it for certain sites. I think we all agree having an alternate archive link is better than letting the link die, that is not uncontroversial.

And many like the other archive sites. I saw on the community wishlist someone wanted additional integration with archive.today. You may not like it, but others do. I have been thanked many times for my edits, and even though a "thank" could mean anything, it at the very least signals appreciation or a "good edit". People are more likely to complain out loud then to thank out loud, its human psychology.

If you haven't heard of an archive site, that is not my problem. I am not a PR agent for archive sites. Some on here didn't even know AWB exists, some still think all admins can edit CSS/JS (unaware of Interface Admin role). If there are editors unaware of everything ON wikipedia (which is fine), how can there be editors aware of everything off wikipedia that other editors use? Some support the archive sites that I used. Let's not turn this skrimish into Wiki Archive War 2. Archive War 1 was supposed to be the war to end all wars, we suffered alot of casualties. Some of the brave soldiers in first battle of the Marne didn't even make it into Battle of Megiddo. Many of the veterans aren't even as active on WP anymore. No one wants to fight another war. We already have a citation war going on too, isn't it wise wisdom to never fight a war on two fronts?

I find it funny how PaleoNeonate and DeCausa are saying other archive sites are bad when archive.org employees say other archive sites are fine and integrate it into their Wikipedia bot. I am sure Cyberpower and IA could get away with the bot doing archive.org, but they added alternate archive sites as well. IABot will sometimes choose other archive sites over Wayback when adding archived links. There was a diff somewhere I would have to dig to find it. Rlink2 (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• As I stated on Rlink2 talk page, I believe they should get clear community consensus for any activites that could be considered WP:MEATBOT if for not other reason than to avoid endless talk page messages (and repeated visits to ANI). They have also been responsive and polite on their talk page and have handled this lengthy discussion without losing their cool. If the community still feels their AWB should be revoked, it should be removed for only as long as it takes for them to get community consensus to resume specific activities.Slywriter (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Slywriter:. In a way, I do have "community consensus" - I link to policies that support my edits in my edit summaries. I am not doing anything completely new or out of the ordinary with AWB. Archiving links? Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations. Fixing bare references? Wikipedia:Bare_URLs. How are those policies made? Through community consensus and discussion. And if people have any issues I don't mind talk page discussions. That is one way of further developing and refining consensus.

Complaints will never stop, because not everyone is aware of the policies, discussions, RFCs, etc.... Or some disagree with them but want "take it out" on me. We have an archive.today RFC and people are still complaining about the site. So I don't think a discussion anywhere will be the "silver bullet" necessary. Rlink2 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged here, and I don't have time to read all of this, so I'll just repeat what I said on Rlink2's talk page: I don't think it's a good idea for new editors to make high speed, automated edits. One thing I noted was that Rlink2 has been making numerous automated edits purporting to "fill out bare links", but instead their edits were simply to add a mash-up of the article's title and publisher/work, leaving a messy, incomplete citation, rather than filling in the citation with author name, publisher name, date of publication, as well as title, and other essentials of a good citation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I upgraded the script to split and use publisher/work field after your concern. Second of all, there was lengthy discussion about this on my talk page with multiple editors, see User_talk:Rlink2#A_little_mindless The consensus is that we should not let "perfect be the enemy of the good" . Not all articles on Wikipedia are featured articles and need to have perfect citations. All I was doing is bringing the citations from bare to filled. Articles on Wikipedia don't become stubs to FAs in one edit, do they? I am working on the principles of incremental improvement. Rlink2 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Since Paleo has pinged in some of the critics, lets tag in some of the supports (have thanked me more than 3 times, all on edits from AWB runs) who may have something to add:

@Cat's Tuxedo: @Ahunt: @MarioSoulTruthFan: @Bigturtle:

For the people that were pinged, I know the thread might be long, and you don't want to read it, so I have one simple question for you: for the edits which you thanked me for, were there any problems with them? Would you say I am doing good work with AWB, or do you think I was making disruptive edits? Were my edits constructive, and did they improve the article? You thanked me, so I assume you liked the edit, and your response will help others know that I was working with some sort of consensus. Rlink2 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I have checked hundreds of your edits and they have been useful. None needed fixing or reverting. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't give a thank you if I wasn't sure an edit was an improvement, so I see no problem here. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I routinely thank constructive edits, including yours. Bigturtle (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The editors I pinged were all that I easily saw in discussions in my above permalink. Some were also helpers. I didn't particularly select them, to avoid WP:CANVASS. —PaleoNeonate – 19:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I am currently working on an article that's being reviewed for GA status, and I went to expand a section... so I opened the URL to the source... to a PDF on a county government website... which was a 404. Egads! Thankfully, someone thought ahead and added an archive link some months ago -- I was able to read all several hundred pages (and that's far from the only article that PDF was a source for). Personally, I think anyone who is going through Wikipedia archiving references is doing God's work. Reading through this thread, I do not see a whole lot of cogent argumentation of how this guy is doing anything wrong, besides the fact that he is doing a bajillion edits at once. So, okay, I guess he should stop that, or get approval to run it as a bot task. It doesn't seem disruptive to create a template, or to fix a bunch of articles. If I am missing something here, let me know, and perhaps I will change my opinion -- but it seems fine to me. jp×g 16:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Looking into this a little further, and going over some of Rlink2's edits: this one looks fine to me. The archive.md link being replaced reads "archive.today" on the header when you follow it. I guess I am not up to date on the various dramas between archive sites, so I don't get what the difference is, but it doesn't seem destructive to me. Also, he's adding titles to three URLs that are otherwise bare URL refs. This edit converts a dead bare-URL reference to a full citation template with a title, archive date, and working archive URL at archive.org. This edit from November does the same as the first (changing archive.is links to archive.today links). Again, not sure what the difference is, but it doesn't seem to make any difference (the archive.is link, again, says "archive.today" in its header when you follow it, leading me to believe that the .is site itself endorses the .today domain). This edit from September adds several YouTube archive links (to archive.org as well as ghostarchive.org). I followed one of the archive links to each, and neither of them loaded -- although both of them had the original video title, upload date, video description and uploader listed. This seems to be some kind of screw-up on the part of the archive sites, but even so, having all of this metadata available is far superior to having nothing. This edit, also from September, is reversion of blatant vandalism. This edit from August straightforwardly adds an archive.org link to a link in a reference. Maybe there are some garbage edits that I'm not seeing here, but these seem to be fairly straightforwardly helpful. At worst, some of them are benign. jp×g 04:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to those diffs. It proves that I did/do work with all of the archive sites, and I did more than archiving stuff (like RC Patrol/vandalism prevention or filling bare refs). I think its important to note the usage of alternate archive sites for YouTube. As explained before, at the time the alternate archive sites were the only ones doing Youtube archives. Yes, there was a web.archive.org link, but I think that was for videos that were already dead, and usually only the metadata was there. It is better to have some archive than no archive. Rlink2 (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• I just got a message about this; I'm not one to judge either party for whatever reason that this argument is about but just as jp×g said most of the same that was said can be applied to what I will say as well. There is an article that has made me fearful of citation deletion if it weren't for Rlink2 archiving these very citation, they would have been all for nothing! For the article where I've seen Rlink2 were not disruptive but extremely helpful, I have also learned how to use the very archiving website to do the very same Rlink2 has done. As far as how many on how disruptive for any article this would be... I am not the one to ask. Maybe the implementation of a bot? I have no experience in this matter either but whatever may have started this I hope something can get sorted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.99.169.177 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Making 200k edits in the first 4 months of an account is ... for comparison, 10x what I've done in 3 years and I'm on here every day. Obviously Rlink2 isn't Rlink2's first account, but if they're not Rotlink (and the username is so close as to almost be trolling, but AGFing to the max...), I'm unclear on who they are. Normally I wouldn't ask an editor that question, it's none of my business if it's a clean start or whatever, but you kind of give up any pretense when you make 200k edits in 4 month of a new account. Also I'm unclear about whether they are or or are not in fact linking to one website. If they are, it's shameless promotion, and they ought to be site banned. If they're not, and it's good-faith editing, then the next question is what's the "error rate" (good edits v. bad edits). If it's not too high, then whatevs. If it is too high, then slow down/fix the errors. As for the socking concern, it should be pretty straightforward for Rlink2 to email some CU and disclose their prior account and thereby establish that they're not Rotlink. (They don't have to tell me, it's none of my business.) Levivich 02:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Making 200k edits in the first 4 months of an account I used AWB, when you use AWB you can get alot done, depending on the task.

the username is so close Wikipedia:Editors_who_may_be_confused There are literally multiple editors on that list which "basically close" usernames.

If it is too high, then slow down/fix the errors. I agree.

Also I'm unclear about whether they are or or are not in fact linking to one website. I use multiple archive sites, and there are multiple diffs to back this up.

Thank you for your opinion, it is much welcome Rlink2 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: You think that's wild, wait till someone opens the SPI to unmask the shady character pulling the strings behind me, JFG, JzG, and Jpgordon. As for the amount of links added, well -- it's an archive site. A search in source for "archive.org" in mainspace returns a little under a million pages before the regex times out. jp×g 03:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I am confused by what I read at the top of User talk:Rlink2/Archive 2, such as the reference to "he", which -- somebody correct me if I'm wrong -- is a direct reference to User:Rotlink? Levivich 04:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to the response Valjean's comment of Changing https://archive.ph to https://archive.today doesn't do any good., "he" is a direct reference to the owner of archive.today. The word "he" could have been replaced with "owner of archive.today" I was not trying to make any reference to any wiki account. Rlink2 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So what is your relationship with the owner of archive.today, because it seems to me, based on that comment, you are familiar with him? Levivich 05:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I read the blog post, and I said that "he said" based on the blog post he wrote. There was a link to the blog post in there (https://blog.archive.today/post/659307974748160000/because-you-have-multiple-domains-can-you-tell-me). Again, I do not work for archive.today, just a user of the site. Rlink2 (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. What's your relationship (if any) with ghostarchiving? Levivich 05:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Similar to archive.today. And that goes with etched.page as well.

Like I said at the top, if anything at all, I have been in talks for possible collaboration (as in, doing work for them) with archive.org (althrough nothing has materialized through it yet). It's a long thread, but you should try to read it all so you have all the facts.

If people are convinced I own some archive site, I have said that I will happily stop linkwork related to the supposed archive site on the wiki if the community decides its right. I don't think a relationship with an archive site is a bad thing, seeing how we have many people on here working for archive.org. I think even the owner of archive.org is on wikipedia, but not sure. And the alternate archive sites are doing sites archive.org can not do, so as explained before, assuming I own some archive site, it's not like I'm putting one site over the other because I am related to it, rather it is because it is the only option.

I put the image gallery on the top for a reason, if you think an archive site should or should not be used on enwiki, open up an RFC. I would follow the results of any possible RFC. Rlink2 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Similar to? OK. Look, that archive.is (aka archive.today) blog post you've linked to about using the .today extension is from Aug 12, 2021. Ghostarchive.com/org/etc was registered August 13, 2021. It also uses a Tumblr blog, like archive.is. It's first post was to repost an archive.is post on Aug. 28 [28].

On Sep 1, you created User:Rlink2. Here are your first 5,000 edits (this link takes a while to load): [29] which run Sep 1 to Nov 7. "Archive.today" appears 4,814 times on that page. You also added archives to ghostarchive in early September (they have the edit summary "arc", etc); as GreenC pointed out to you, you might be the first person to add that link to Wikipedia. On Sep 22, you created a phab task about IABot removing ghostarchive links [30].

Here's your next 5,000 edits [31] which run to Nov 24 ... quite the ramp up. "YouTube" appears 2,181 times on that page, and I think that's all ghostarchive archives. "archive.today" appears 2,148 times, and I think that's about the other half.

So through the first 10k edits, Sep 1 to Nov 24, it looks to me like more than 90% is adding archive.today and ghostarchive. December was a 100k-edit month according to your xtools [32]. How much of those is adding archive.today and ghostarchive? (Also according to your xtools, archive.today is your second-most-edited mainspace page, behind 2021 Pacific typhoon season... all your edits to that page are links to archive.today [33].)

With 200k edits, you're now #208 editor by edit count in WP's 21-year history, and you got there after only four months. I'm not going to look through them all but, yeah, I think if you're going to mass-add archive links, you should get consensus first, and before agreeing, editors may ask for a more detailed explanation than "similar to". :-) Levivich 06:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. Look, that archive.is (aka archive.today) blog post you've linked to about using the .today extension is from Aug 12, 2021.. I address this below.

It also uses a Tumblr blog, like archive.is. I have a suprise for you: Internet Archive Tumblr. And many companies have social media accounts. I don't think that means anything.

Ghostarchive.com/org/etc was registered August 13, 2021. According to this page, it traces back all the way to January 1st, 2015. I don't know too mucb about the history of the site, it seems to have been around for a while. I do know i have started using it fairly recently. and It's first post was to repost an archive.is post on Aug. 28 How do you think I found out about the site? Through the archive.today blog. I know its a new site, we should definetly go easy on using it, but it could do Youtube videos, hence why I used it. Would you rather have an archived Youtube video at a relatively new archive site than no archive at all?

On Sep 22, you created a phab task about IABot removing ghostarchive links Yes? I think on the advice of someone else, I don't remember though. What does that have to do with anything.

On Sep 1, you created User:Rlink2. Here are your first 5,000 edits You need an account to get AWB access and do AWB edits. ​So through the first 10k edits, Sep 1 to Nov 24, it looks to me like more than 90% is adding archive.today and ghostarchive. See my point 7 up top regarding Failure to look at how the archiving may benefit my wiki status. Its relatively simple to add archived links, especially as a new account, to get to 500/30, AWB access, etc... And why are you ignoring my other edits? Most of those edits are AWB edits where it is expected that lots of edits are done. 10k edits does not necessarily represent a significant time investment.

you might be the first person to add that link to Wikipedia. Might be true, think I saw it in one article, don't remember. I chose ghostarchive because it did youtube and no other archive did youtube. You ignored that part of the argument?

you should get consensus first, most people were fine with my additions. See above.

(Also according to your xtools, archive.today is your second-most-edited mainspace page) because I forgot to take out archive.today article when doing the archive.is to archive.today changes in AWB. So my edits are mostly reverts of myself.

Regarding 2021 Pacific typhoon season that was related to repair of archve links other people placed there.

#208 editor by edit count in WP's 21-year history maybe that was my goal? It does look impressive to friends, resume, etc.... Imagine how cool it would sound being able to tell people you are one of the top 200th Wikipedia editors of all time. You know this is true, everyone likes bragging rights. Again, see point 7 above. You accuse me of making those edits because I am in cahoots with archive sites, but what if I used the archive sites to get to be the #208th editor? What else can you do to gain such amount of edits? If I was someone looking to rack up my edit count, that blog post would be a major lightbulb. Editcountis is real. And to be honest, yes I was obsessed with racking up my edit count (not anymore). I didn't want to admit it but I am now forced to. There are not many spelling errors to fix with AWB, so this is a very easy way to rack up edits.

And again, archiving links is not the only thing I do on here. I do other stuff and if this evidence convinces others I am related to archive sites then I will stop linkwork with the alternate archive sites, like I said before. I'm fan of archive sites, this doesn't prove ownership or "stake". Wouldn't it make sense that someone who is intrested in archival and link rot in general would be the first to know about a new archival site? You also didn't read the "boy band" analogy I wrote above.

Here are some more questions that invalidate your theory.

• If I was the owner or was related to these archive sites, why would I be doing other stuff such as recent change patrol and bare ref fixing and even some article incubation? I was changing the archive.is to archive.today links for a while, with no controversy. If I was the owner, why would I be spending more time on WP then I needed to, coding scripts and writing articles that I didn't need to write? Even the bare ref stuff takes lots of attention and time. I am prepping up to create and mantain another tool similar to reFill or refLinks. That will take up even more of my time. Somehow my hard work in other areas is not mentioned. The only reason we are here is because people were complaining about the bare ref fixes and the quality.

• If I was the owner or was related to these archive sites, why am I dropping the ability to work with it easily? Surely, if I could no longer work with archive.today links, and I was the owner, then there would be no point of me being here, so why would I make that offer?

• Why didn't you mention other sites that I found useful to use on Wikipedia? You looked into my edit history and talk page archives deep enough, you saw I did some work etched.page and some Instagram paywall bypass website for WP:V. I do not own any of these sites. I didn't think etched.page was suitable enough, but attempted to use the Instagram site. However, they did not have consensus, so I stopped using them and instead used the archive sites, which was what people wanted. Saying I'm affiliated with 5 different archival websites would be a strech for anyone to believe, so you didn't mention it, but why? Rlink2 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of being in cahoots, or really of anything else. You said you weren't mostly just adding links to archive.today and I just showed you that in your first 10k edits, more than 90% (really like 95%+) are adding links to archive.today and ghostarchive. I don't care what the other 10% edits are. If you want to convince me that this is not a representative sample, you're gonna have to show me at least another 10k edits. Linking to a few diffs or nakedly asserting it ain't gonna cut it with me. Now, you don't have to prove anything to me, I'm not an admin or anything. But after looking at your first 10k edits, I see almost all of it is adding links to ghostarchive and changing archive.* to archive.today, and that started within a couple weeks apparently of ghostarchive being registered and archive.today's owner asking for the links to be changed. It's bloody obvious you created an account for the purpose of adding these particular two websites, and that's what you spent 90% of your first 3 months / 10k edits doing (I have demonstrated the truth of this above, so let's get past the rhetorical bullshit). There are lots of reasons a person might do this -- editcountitis, fanboyism, a deep passion for internet archiving, payment, the hopes of getting a job in the future, boredom, or something else entirely -- and I don't know or really care which one is your case, just like I don't care about prior accounts, and I don't care if you make these edits at all... except that I care that you don't do it without consensus, because that is disruptive, and I'm suggesting to you that if and when you seek that consensus, editors are going to ask questions like what they're asking here. So saying things like "similar to" and "I may be in talks with" sounds sketchy af, you're better off being a lot more specific, direct and transparent. But seriously, don't bother telling me, because I don't care. Tell everyone else, when they ask, which they will when you ask for consensus for mass edits. I hope that clears up where I'm coming from. Levivich 07:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't care what the other 10% edits are. So you don't care about seeing the other part of the story?

you're gonna have to show me at least another 10k edits. I have cleared so many bare refs, and don't take my word for it. My work on bare refs are so phenomonal that other editors are prasing my work. I have performed more than 30k edits regarding barerefs. Just look at my most recent 10k edits, its a good sample of my bare ref fixing.

It's bloody obvious you created an account for the purpose of adding these particular two websites and first 10k edits, more than 90% (really like 95%+) are adding links to archive.today and ghostarchive. If I was trying to avoid suspicion or scrutiny, wouldn't I do the bare ref fixes first, or article creation first, and then the archive fixes? Surely, someone adding new archive links as a new account would set off more red flags, wouldn't it? And also I didn't add addtional links to archive.today, I fixed ones that were already there. And the archive.is to archive.today conversion is basically complete, I have also finished my work with Youtube archiving as well for the forseeable future. If I was here only to adding these particular two websites why would I still be here. And also I added more useful sites as well to help ensure WP:V, like the Instagram thingy, but I stopped because there was consensus to use archive sites instead.

I have demonstrated the truth of this above, so let's get past the rhetorical bullshit Woah there! Let's try to assume good faith and WP:CIVIL. And I'm not trying to rhetorical either, you are suggesting evidence to show your claim, and I am suggesting evidence to prove my side.

except that I care that you don't do it without consensus, because that is disruptive I have showed you places where my edits were supported by other editors. There are examples in this very thread. There are examples on the talk page archives you checked. There are some editors that may not like it, but theres a difference between "not like but fine with others doing it" versus "I don't like it so much it shouldn't be used on the Wikipedia at all". I never got any sense of the latter in regards to archive sites until this thread and very very recently.

People have affirmed that my edits were constructive and helpful. If I made disruptive edits, please link to the diffs.

and that started within a couple weeks apparently of ghostarchive being registered It was registered in 2015. and archive.today's owner asking for the links to be changed. There was another post made even earlier than that, that was just the most recent post I could find. Now it is way past my bedtime. Rlink2 (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The WHOIS Creation Date of ghostwriter.org (and .com and .net) is 2021-08-13. You mentioned you were in talks with Brewster. Did you ever talk to Brewster about buying out Denis? I wonder how recently did archive.org start handling YouTube videos? Levivich 14:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I am awake again, and reread your previous comments . you're better off being a lot more specific, direct and transparent. I have addressed basically every single concern in this thread, maybe I forgot one but other than that I answered or offered a rebuttal them all. Not all of it is me trying to defend myself, some people have pointed out things I shouldn't have done, and I agreed that I shouldn't have done that. I'm making this additional commment just to tie up the loose ends since I was way too tired last night. Not only have I answered all your questions, I have asked you additional questions. You have not answered or responded to any of these.

Regarding the balance of archive website placement, I estimate about 25-45% of the bare refs are dead, and were replaced with an web.archive.org link. Seeing how I have made at least 50,000 bare ref edits, thats about 25,000 links added to web.archive.org. Using your liberal estimate, my first 10k edits, 9500 of them were related to ghostarchive or archive.today. So from just this small sample, I have placed nearly 250% more archive.org links than archive.today and ghostarchive links combined.

You mentioned you were in talks with Brewster Not with him, but with someone else at the internet archive.

The WHOIS Creation Date of ghostwriter.org (and .com and .net) is 2021-08-13. The domain creation date is January 1st, 2015, did you read the page I linked? I don't really care when they started though, I heard about it fairly recently, so it's new to me. And when did this become a discussion of when archive sites started and stopped? A project called Lifelog shut down on the same day Facebook started, and while its fun to believe they are related (two arugably very similar projects with arguably similar goals), there is no evidence to believe so.

Archive.org only started handling Youtube very recently. I checked today and many popular videos are alreaady archived. But the less popular videos that are not archived take a couple days to archive. Ghostarchive does it (and has always done it) instantly. Try it for yourself. Rlink2 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can check a WHOIS service, like https://lookup.icann.org, and confirm that the Whois creation date for ghostarchive.org is 2021-08-13. You posted an archive link of what appears to be an older registration from 2015 (that you even found it is surprising). Perhaps that older one expired, was deleted, and was re-registered on Aug 13, 2021. But the current registration was originally registered on Aug 13, 2021; the current website is not older than that; Whois creation date can't be changed afaik per icann regs (check Wikipedia.org: creation date 2001-01-13). Anyway, like I said, I really don't care if you wrote the ghostarchive code and are now trying to sell it to archive.org, I wish you the best of luck on that. But if I can follow these bread crumbs, so can everyone else. We're big on transparency. Levivich 15:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The "WHOIS" creation date and the domain age are different. If the WHOIS creation date was 2015 once, then the domain has been under operation since 2015. Perhaps that older one expired, was deleted, and was re-registered on Aug 13, 2021. So it's maybe possible they forgot to pay their domain bills and lost the domain temporarily, so had to re register? It happens to a lot of big companies: see here. Why don't you ask them about their creation date if it means so much to you?

Whois creation date can't be changed Except it literally did, from 2015 to 2021 as you are claiming.

I really don't care if you wrote the ghostarchive code and are now trying to sell it to archive.org, I wish you the best of luck on that. Where did that come from? Archive.org is a million dollar organization, I dont think archive.today or ghostarchive has anything that archive.org can't get. Regardless, I have no idea where that notion came from, that I somehow run two archive websites that i'm trying to sell to archive.org, and in order to do that I spend a significant time working on completely unrelated topics of Wikipedia. And you have not even answered any of my follow up questions, instead choosing to make theories which seemingly have no basis.

Even if the community says my work with alternative archive sites are fine, I will very sure be staying away from using any alternative sites on WP for a very significant period of time. I mean this with sincerity, I have other stuff to do on here. It's not worth the accusations and theories that result from using them. We're big on transparency. then why haven't you answered my follow up questions? Rlink2 (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If the domain was registered in 2015 and renewed ever since, it would show a WHOIS creation date of 2015. If it expired and was later renewed, it would still show a creation date of 2015. If it was transferred, it would still show a creation date of 2015. The only way (afaik, feel free to prove me wrong) that the whois creation date is 2021-08-13 is if it was entirely unregistered on 2021-08-12. If it was registered in 2015 and was unregistered in 2021, that can only happen (again, afaik) if it was expired, not renewed, deleted, and then later registered again. This indicates a period of inactivity long enough to allow the domain to be deleted. (I think that's a year these days? Not sure.) What I am sure of is that the current ghostarchive.org was registered as a new domain on 2021/08-13. Or else the whois creation date is wrong, which (afaik) is not possible. I'm not answering your questions because they're rhetorical (in the form of "why would I...?"). I think you're trying to get a job/partnership/something with archive.org (you've said as much), and that alone explains, to my satisfaction, your editing history, and your answers here. There's nothing against policy about doing that (other than maybe the lack of transparency), and as you've said, there are already people paid by archive.org to add links to Wikipedia. (There are lots of people paid by lots of orgs to add links to Wikipedia, such as Wikipedians in Residence, for example.) But my suggestion is still to be upfront with your relationship with the websites you're adding links to, and not rely on rhetorical questions like "why would I...?" cuz they seem sketchy, at least to me. Levivich 16:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

If it expired and was later renewed, it would still show a creation date of 2015. Not if you let it expire "completely" I think. Again, this is a question for them, not me.

I heard about it in August, I can only speak for me.

In regards to relationship/ownership There's nothing against policy about doing that (other than maybe the lack of transparency) I am aware of that. Reminder that Rotlink was banned for running an unapproved bot, not owning archive.today. At best, having a COI puts you through additional sanctions, but it is not worthy of a ban IMO. We have COI editors on here, as long as they follow the rules they are allowed. Therefore, there is no reason for me to lie about any relationship. This just goes to strengthen my argument and responses.

But my suggestion is still to be upfront with your relationship with the websites you're adding links to I wasn't trying to be shady, I answered almost every question and addressed almost every single complaint in this thread. I'll make this as clear as I possibily can: Regarding the other archive sites (and any of the other "half-archive" sites that you did not address in your inquiry): I have communicated with them, whether its in the form of blog questions, feature requests, etc... For example, I wouldn't have converted all the links from .is to .today if I wasn't sure that that was what the owner wanted. To be clear, I am not paid by any of the archive sites.

I have never denied this, and I say the same thing in the diff Paleo linked. I also said the same thing earlier in the thread. Me calling Amazon support about a package does not make me own Amazon or mean I have a relationship with them, nor does it mean I am "cahoots" with them. If I have an issue with my cell phone service, I call the phone company. It does not mean I own the phone company. That was one of the major points I was trying to make above that I am guessing you didn't see.

I am not putting one site over the other as I explained above. I will say I have communicated more with archive.org than any of the other sites.

I'm not answering your questions because they're rhetorical They were not meant to be rhetorical.

think you're trying to get a job/partnership/something with archive.org Well, nothing has materialized yet, but we'll see. This is a far more sensible theory (well, fact) that is supported by evidence. The other accusation I really don't care if you wrote the ghostarchive code and are now trying to sell it to archive.org, I wish you the best of luck on that. doesn't make any sense. Rlink2 (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine shows that Ghostarchive.com was a music page in 2011, and was a parked domain in 2015 and January 2016 and was an entirely blank page in March and October 2016. The claims you are trying to make about the age of Ghostarchive are not convincing. To be fair, I don't entirely understand the argument Levivich is trying to use the age of Ghostarchive to support either. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the archived pages. The page from 2011 says that This web site is on hold at the present time no firm date has yet been set for its launch.. That is certainly intresting to note.

The claims you are trying to make about the age of Ghostarchive are not convincing. I have not made any claims, just offered suggestions and stuff to look into. I think its likely that they started fairly recently, but I also think there is more history to it than just August, as shown by the 2011 archive. I am not an expert on domain names and/or computer networking, I could be totally wrong. Rlink2 (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pppery: It raises my eyebrow that there's an archiving service that apparently started in August 2021 and by Jan 2022 it has 50,000 links on WP. It's not necessarily a bad thing, just an unusual thing. Levivich 02:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

apparently started in August 2021 We started using it around then, but as evidenced above maybe its history goes deeper than that. But for the purpose of the argument, we can assume it started around August 2021. We can even argue it was founded yesterday, if it helps.

it has 50,000 links on WP. Of which the vast majority (95%) are Youtube videos, and no other archive could do until recently.

To me, that just shows that people are fine with the site. The more articles its on = the more people have seen it on their watchlist, article, etc..... and haven't complained yet = the more people using it in general. If people had a problem with the site too many people would be complaining before it got to that level. Rlink2 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity how many of those 50k links to ghostarchive were added by you? Levivich 02:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I processed (I think) about 40,000 articles in my Youtube AWB run. About 5% were already dead, Wayback only had the metadata (video wasn't actually archived). 5% of 40,000 is 2,000, so that would mean 38,000 were preemptely archived by me. That is an estimate, might be lower, might be higher. Rlink2 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Rlink2 has, by my count, made ~50000 edits converting bare references. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Rlink2 has, by my count, made ~50000 edits converting bare references. Thank you for pointing that out. Multiple other editors have also been pointing out my hard work in other areas. Rlink2 (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Specific archive sites for specific purposes

I have been explaning time and time again that my use of alternate archive sites are for site Wayback can not handle. Not one person who has complained about these alternate archive sites has responded to this, or anything I have said as a matter of fact. Note that most people appreciated my work with the alternate archive sites, as can be seen above. I am assuming that the links to the alternate archive sites worked for them. The thread is getting a bit messy, and think its important for everyone (including the users that will make a decision on the thread) can see my justification for using alternate archive sites instead of Wayback for a temporary period of time, I'll show these two archive links. These are archives from back when the archive.org Youtube capability was not as good (It is much better today) and from some of the diffs linked above.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160306215000/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0U_iNAESlo

https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/RMjE2rC8gXI

I would like to see what others have to say regarding the Youtube archive functionality of the two sites during the time I was using these alternate archive sites.

Wayback is much improved now, but back then I had justification for my actions. All I am trying to do is prove that. Rlink2 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record (and for anyone confused) Ghostarchive does not appear to be working on Firefox. However it does certainly work on Chrome, which is already better than Wayback which just says it is not archived, so I do think using a lesser-known archive site is reasonable here. eviolite (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I just tested the example above on Firefox, and it does not seem to be working for me either.

However, I did test other videos on Firefox, those seem to be working. For example the front page video: https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/jNQXAC9IVRw and another video https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/y2R3WlVpNio . So it might be with that particular video. Not sure. Thanks for your comment. Others are welcome to also comment. Rlink2 (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no issues with ghostarchive, just that I don't want it to be blacklisted. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes Wayback has made improvements saving YouTube links. Wayback is in the process of archiving every YouTube link on every Wikipedia (300+ sites) as well as archiving new ones as they are added. I suppose if Ghost gives up the ghost we'll have Wayback as backup, or use both sites via {{webarchive}} with the |format=addlarchives option. -- GreenC 19:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad to have some conformation. The improvement I have seen from the Wayback machine regarding Youtube videos now has been vast. When I first started archiving Youtube, the Youtube functionality at archive.org wasn't great. But now, you can submit a video, and most of the time it saves instantly even though it says "may take few days to complete". My only complaint is that it is sometimes too slow to load the page in the first place, but I am sure they can iron that one out. Youtube being included as part of "NoMore404" is part of the reason I stopped preemptly archiving Youtube videos, since the point of that editing strech was to make an archive in an instance where there would usually be none. If I pick up on Youtube again, Wayback would now be the preferred source due to their vast repository of archived videos. Rlink2 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Does this mean past archives of YouTube videos can be viewed? Or only the latest ones? If it is the latter, I hope a bot—any bot—fixes non-working YouTube archives with working ones. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

I can't accept admin bullying

• Further information, User talk:VocalIndia#Speedy deletion of Chen Jinggu

Hi, as according to my two year over experience on Wiki, i can't accept that was copyright violation , it was only one sentence with a few general words. Firstly, I started Chen Jinggu article with one sentence then i added "Legend" section that was copied from Guanyin article. I've explained in the page's edit history for attribution (WP:CWW). I don't know that was original editor's copyvio. Violently admin removed the whole article. Really need to delete the whole article? They should only remove copyvio contents that came from Guanyin's article. Clearly that is not my violation. However, admin Justlettersandnumbers says the original stub version is also a copyright violation. I've shocked and that was only one sentence describe "Chen is a historical shaman priestess. She is one of the most important Fujian goddesses and chief deity of the Lüshan Sect. " That tiny sentence was also edited by several editors. See below. Really?

Our article	The source[34]
... a historical shaman priestess who became one of the most important Fujian goddesses and chief deity of the Lüshan Sect	... one of the most important goddesses in Southeast China (the chief deity of the Lushan sect).... A historical shaman priestess who became ...

. What a bullying! Sorry, I was angry and fiercely responded. Pls kindly teach me out and want to restore original stub. Tia VocalIndia (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, it's not bullying every time someone disagrees with you. And I don't know how "violently remove" is--but what I really don't understand is the problem. If you, as you claim, copied something from some article, and it turns out to be a copyvio, then what's the problem? The copyvio is removed, and we move on. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

but admin deleted the whole article with accusing of my stub is also a copyvio "Chen Jinggu is blah blah". I dont think it is copyvio. VocalIndia (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• The personal attacks need to stop. In the past few hours you've repeatedly called other editors "dogs" [35][36][37], "jealous [dogs]" [38], having a "poor mind" [39][40], "useless" [41], and "disgusting" [42]. DanCherek (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, As i said above I cant't control my anger. I've removed some PA words before this ANI. VocalIndia (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If you cannot control your anger, then you do not belong on Wikipedia. Period. You are required to control your anger here, no matter the provocation, real or imagined. Ravenswing 04:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• As I frequently have to tell editors, you need to write Wikipedia in your own words. We don't need you (or anyone) just loosely transcribing what's already out there. That can be read at its original location. No one has "bullied" you, and hyperbole like "violently" removing your edits is so silly it's distracting to your whole point. Please just stop all this and take the constructive criticism to heart. Learn from it instead. Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Sergecross73 I can't accept that -- is a historical shaman priestess who became one of the most important Fujian goddessesand chief deity of the Lüshan Sect was copyvio. not eligible for vio criteria. Everyone have to right this writing method. VocalIndia (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no opinion on the issue at hand as I am not familiar with it at all, but just noting that there's a big language barrier, it seems, which further complicates things. For example, they may be using the word "violent" for something else, but I don't know. Having said that, as a language barrier obviously doesn't excuse behavior like this, I otherwise agree, broadly speaking, that the aggressive behavior and personal attacks need to stop. Amaury • 03:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• As someone who has some experience with copyright violations, I do agree that stating basic facts aren't serious copyright violations, however I do believe that sentence could have been worded better. It is impossible to reword phrases such as "one of the most important ... goddesses" without making the sentence confusing, so it would have been better to reword the structure of the sentence instead, probably something like "Chen Jinggu is regarded as one of the most important Fujian goddesses. Once a shaman priestess, she became the Lushan sect's chief deity" to make it less similar to the source text. If there are any more people who are more experienced with copyvio than I am, please try to make things more clear or correct any errors I may have made. Akbermamps 04:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks Akbermamps. I've also noted that "the basic facts aren't serious copyright violations." according per my experience. That's why I strongly against admin's action. Thank you for pointing me to the right direction. VocalIndia (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• OP has thrown up a ragequit statement on his user page: "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of January 18, 2022, Some finding my minor mistake for their grudge and covert to a big mistake. Time to say Bye Bye. Be happy. Wikipedia is a bullying school for guys who has poor English. (His/Her mood is very disgusting." The degree to which we can take this seriously, mind, is that they made 14 edits so far after posting the Retired notice. VocalIndia isn't a newbie, mind, with nearly 5000 edits, but I question whether they're more than a liability with that kind of attitude. Ravenswing 04:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This very much is a WP:CIR issue. Even some of his most recent edits show a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright in previous occasions, as well as lack of understanding for proper sourcing (re:this edit from 30 mins ago). That's not even getting into this user's conduct at AfDs, which has been less than admirable. The thing that makes this sad is that this user has some genuinely great actions, for example with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hold Nickar. However, even with that AfD, his anger issues clouds over the good edits he does. Like this AfD was successfully litigated between me and the nominator to the point the nominator decided to withdraw, but that didn't stop VocalIndia from getting angry for no reason. This editor has the potential to be good, but consistently falls short of the line with no indication that he will cross it. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Why is it that so often the people who engage in bullying behavior are the same ones who complain that others are bullying them? Anyway, the ability to control one's anger is a non-negotiable essential for participation here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• The diffs by DanCherek are damning enough—I've blocked VocalIndia for 1 week for personal attacks. Civility is required from all editors on Wikipedia. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 04:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a copyright investigation needs to be started? I see e.g. Huang Tianhua, which they created in January, vs. this

Our article

The source[43]

... was sent away when he was three years old to be trained by the'superiorman' Master Virtue of the Pure Void. He wore golden armour and wielded the Moye Sword, as well as his master's Fire Dragon Javelin and twin golden-tipped hammers. He rode his master's kirin, which could take him anywhere in a matter of seconds. After Cheng Tong informed him of his father's death, he eventually abandoned his master's service. Given a flower basket by his master, he went to his father's camp and used the mystical tablets in the flower basket to bring him back to life. After formally introducing himself to his family, he inquired about his mother's whereabouts and, upon learning of her death at the hands of King Zhou, pledged to assist in the overthrow of King Zhou. He battled against the Shang dynasty in several engagements, dying at least once before being resurrected by his master. He was one of the first casualties among the Zhou's army's most competent generals, dying at the hands of Gao Jineng. His father avenged his death by killing Gao Jineng with a single blow. After his death, Jiang Ziya posthumously deifies him as Bing Ling Gong of the Three Sacred Mountains.

... was sent away at the age of three to be tutored under the 'superiorman' Master Virtue of the Pure Void. He was described as wearing golden armour and wielding the mystical Moye Sword, as well as his master's Fire Dragon Javelin and twin golden-tipped hammers. He rode his master's kirin, which could transport him to any location in mere seconds. He eventually left his master's service after hearing of his father's death by Cheng Tong. Given a flower basket by his master, he rushed to his father's camp, and brought him back to life with magical pills in the flower basket. Formally introducing himself to his family, he asked about his mother's whereabouts and after hearing of her death at the hands of King Zhou of Shang, swore to aid in bringing down King Zhou. He fought in many battles against the Shang Dynasty, dying at least once before being revived by his master. He died a permanent death at the hands of Gao Jineng, becoming one of the first casualties among the Zhou's army's most talented generals. His death was avenged by his father, who killed Gao Jineng with one blow. At the end of the novel, Jiang Ziya posthumously deifies Huang Tianhua as Bing Ling Gong of the Three Sacred Mountains. ...

Opening a WP:CCI may be necessary. Fram (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm the bullying admin, and for all I know also the "Montha fackka!!!". For those who can't see the history: at Chen Jinggu, VocalIndia copied a big chunk of text, with correct attribution, from Guanyin, and can't be blamed for that. Both Primefac and I tried to remove the copyvio before deleting (I'd restored it in the hope of saving it), but found that that wasn't possible. VocalIndia became agitated and fairly incoherent. To the extent that I can follow the user's talk-page posts, he/she seems to show a worrying lack of understanding of what is meant by copyright, both in general and in this project.

I agree that it may be necessary, Fram, but I'm not yet sure – I looked some contribs yesterday and saw many that seem fine, but found and removed copyvio from Prince Euneon. I think more investigation is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, Princess Tatiana Alexandrovna Yusupova is an unattributed and poor machine translation of the Russian article (leading to stuff like "This novel was actively discussed in the world" when no novel is being discussed at all), Hong Guk-yeong has text copied without attribution from Royal Noble Consort Wonbin Hong. Heifeng Guai unexplicably has text taken from a 2014 Facebook post about a (Dota2?) game character[44]? Whatever the original source, not new writing but copyvio. Fram (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: the editor correctly pointed out that the "princess" article is not an unattributed translation: I only checked the edit summaries, but the translation is noted on the talk page. Still a very poor machine translation, but not a reason to add incorrect accusations of course. Fram (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I can't agree that their edits to Hold Nickar are good.

Hold Nickar	Source[45]
Hold Nickar is a Teutonic malevolent water spirit who tips over boats and torments sailors. Hold Nickar is the king of the sea nymphs. It is said that Saint Nicholas's legends were created mainly out of folk tales about the Teutonic god Hold Nickar.	It is said that Saint Nicholas's legends were created mainly out of folk tales about the Teutonic god Hold Nickar, a malevolent water spirit who tips over boats and torments sailors, or even about Alte Hoerner [...]

("Hold Nickar is the king of the sea nymphs" is also copied from a source, but a different one).

Hold Nickar	Source[46]
Hold Nickar is a patron of the sailors and in ancient Britain his shrines could be found in seaports where they had to face the seas. He was a descendant of Poseidon, according to the Italians a descendant of Neptune.	In Russia he was Hold Nickar patron of the sailors and in ancient Britain his shrines could be found in seaports where they had to face the seas. He was a descendant of Poseidon or according to the Italians a descendant of Neptune;

In addition, the first of those sources is shaky to say the least, and so are some of the other sources they proposed in the AfD – but that is a content issue, so not the important point here. --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah I just meant that it was originally soft deleted and he brought it to a !keep. I didn't actually look at the article. Curbon7 (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It does not look like this editor is capable of editing productively here. Paul August ☎ 17:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Hold Nickar, I have asked Bloodofox for an evaluation of the sources, since they know more about folklore than I do, but the article as it currently is, after reduction almost entirely by VocalIndia themself, looks like a straightforward candidate for redirecting to Nixie (folklore). However, after originally being closed as soft delete, with only one !vote, delete on exactly those grounds but without mention of redirecting as an option, the AfD was ultimately closed as keep, so I hesitate to boldly override that decision all on my lonesome. After cutting out the non-waterspirit material, VocalIndia made mention at the AfD of foreign-language Wikipedia material; that led me to look at es:Hold Nickar, and I realized that it was similar in spirit to the long version of our article, and found that a passage only loosely supported by the cited source, this archived pagan essay (mainly the weird translation of the names of Thor's goats), was a close translation of the corresponding Spanish passage, which cites the same source. I then found that VocalIndia added a translation attribution template on the talk page back in May, although I can't see any attribution in the history of the article itself, including the April edits creating it. I think VocalIndia has been misled by trusting other Wikipedians too much to have done a good job on topics they themself are unfamiliar with, and has failed to check the sources to see whether they are reliable and support the statements being made (or hasn't known enough about the field to check what reliable sources say). This may relate to their over-close paraphrasing noted above; I think a root cause may be that they are working on topics where they lack the necessary knowledge to make good editorial choices. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef This kind of uncollaborative behavior even after the block show this editor is not capable to be productive here. TolWol56 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef. Their comments on their talkpage even after being blocked indicate that they clearly aren't going to change their attitude towards other users. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 12:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support a longer block - I hate to pile on here but reading their talk page after they were blocked and seeing the inappropriate use of it, even after being warned, shows that their behavior isn't consistent with the kind of culture we (are supposed to) have here at Wikipedia. Indef doesn't mean forever and behavior can change over time, I think that they need more time to cool off. Perhaps we need to remove their talk page access too? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Abusive genre warrior from Greater Buenos Aires

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

---

• 170.51.104.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from the outskirts of Buenos Aires has been busy genre warring in pop music articles, and leaving abusive edit summaries such as "DON'T ADD GENRES WITHOUT SOURCE, BITCH", "fuck the unsourced", "Put yo ass in a chair" and "Block me if you dare, Dog". I don't sense a positive net worth to the project. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Fully support blocking. I'm not well-verses in range blocks though, so I'd rather have someone else take care of that. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't like this edit, either: Eminem is a shit, lol. Not that the edit itself is problematic, but I think insulting a BLP is unacceptable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

There used to be a WP:GWARrior from Argentina, but this does not appear to be the same editor. That editor made no use of the edit summary, but was an active block evader. Their SPI page is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190.16.216.10. The block was two years ago and was only for six months. Different genres. Different ISP. Slightly different area. Not likely the same editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

WG, your IP gwarrior showed up just a few hours later: Special:Contributions/190.191.147.178. Funny you should mention it. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

First thing that comes to mind when it comes to Argentinian (sorry, that's the Spanish pronunciation) music editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for three months. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

How Hillsong Church garnered incivility and SPA edits

I noticed that Damien Linnane (talk · contribs) called an editor liar. Unfortunately, I deleted a bit too much of the URL when I changed it to a diff and added it to Damien Linnane's talk page. It was only later that I saw a second instance. I was called out for the poor edit and the interaction did not improve. While that transpired, the other editor, L32007 (talk · contribs), wrote that they felt attacked by Damien Linnane on that original talk page, and made it clear that they were discussing a separate topic. Back on Damien Linnane's talk page, the editor wrote, "Of course I called an editor a liar" and continued to explain why that was perfectly acceptable to have done so.

This is, unfortunately, a mess. L32007 is most clearly a WP:SPA and has edited primarily on the topic of Hillsong Church and associated articles. Do I expect the editor to attempt to minimize the church's (more like a denominiation's) problems? Of course! Do I think the editor is intentionally lying? No, I WP:AGF and assume an error. Do I think that there may be political spin? Probably.

Damien Linnane, on the other hand, is attacking, unrepentant, aggressive and treating editing like a battleground, at least with this subject, and two separate editors.

Am I perfect? Look at my block log, but I have attempted to stay cool on this topic. If no administrative action is taken on either of these editors, at least a nice discussion about WP:CIVILITY with Damien Linnane would be worthwhile and one about WP:COI with L32007, since my earlier comments on their talk page did not seem to help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I can understand how you could see me as WP:SPA, I have limited interests haha. I understand the COI re: Hillsong Church, but the closest COI I have is that I am a pentecostal Christian. I am not paid, endorsed or otherwise instructed to edit by any church. I appreciate your pushback on some of my edits Walter and your efforts to ensure balance when you have felt my edit has gone too far, as that is also my goal. I will try to broaden my contributions to other topics in future, Cheers. L32007 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting to note Walter Görlitz only started this conversation after I informed him I was drafting a topic at ANI regarding this incident myself [47]. Why he felt the need to get in first when he knew somethign was currently being drafted, is up for you to decide.

I came across the Hillsong Church article for the first time in July 2021. As I pointed out in my debut contribution to the article's talk page, there are some very biased editors deliberately manipulating sources in favour of the church: [48]. The main one was Adammoore1982, an SPA who was blocked from editing the article for over a year after someone else raised concerns about their behaviour here at ANI last November. However, as my talk page comment pointed out, L32007 has also made similar behaviour. In July 2018, with this edit they used a primary source to make original research comments that a letter from a minister was an apology and refuted any allegations against the church: [49]. As L32007 has just admitted today [50], the letter was not an apology. Nor did it refute the allegations in question, though anyone who actually reads the letter can determine this for themselves. This incident was not isolated.

L32007 edits infrequently. Prior to today, their last series of edits to the page was in December 2020, when they used a primary source to add original research to the article regarding childhood sexual assault: [51]. The edit was reverted by Zazpot, who clearly explained that the edit was being reverted as it did not back up what L32007 claimed it did: [52]. L32007 then proceeded to reinstate his own original research back into the article the very next day, where he again presented a Hillsong pastor's reasoning for not reporting crimes as a hard fact, whereas the new sources he included only state this is the pastor's interpretation of the law (regardless of whether he was indeed correct, the sources did not say that) [53]. Thankfully, their edit was partially reverted and worded in an appropriate manner by Avatar317 [54]. If that isn't enough evidence for you of their editing behaviour, please let me know as I'm happy to go through more of L32007's edits.

In addition to their original research, I obviously agree with Walter Görlitz that L32007 is an SPA. The ANI topic I was in the process of drafting was, and still is, going to ask you to take action against them on the grounds they are an SPA making extremely biased original research edits. Walter Görlitz just commented above that they expect L32007 "to attempt to minimize the church's problems", and (correct me if I'm wrong Walter) appears to have no problem with an SPA doing that. I, however, do not think a single purpose account who is only here to defend the church's reputation should be acceptable. I ask ANI administrators to take whatever action they think is appropriate.

Walter Görlitz is the top contributor to the Hillsong Church article. Despite this, when I pointed out the biased edits from Adammoore1982 and L32007 last year with detailed evidence, also pinging Walter to essentially thank him for reverting one biased edit, Walter made no comment. That's fine, but it's interesting to note, especially considering what has happened since then.

Yesterday, L32007 made a terse and very late reply to my talk page comment, ignoring the majority of my criticisms and instead claiming the letter I said he was using for original research was a different one that what he had originally used. I went through snapshots of the letter on the Internet Archive, and responded by providing hard evidence that the letter has not changed at all since it was uploaded to the Hillsong Church website in 2012, and is the same version that appeared when L32007 falsely claimed it was a letter of apology in July 2018. My post was 143 words long. 137 words was evidence that L32007 was not being truthful. Six of my words essentially concluded that he was lying. Regardless of this, Walter left this confusing message on the Hillsong Church talk page, saying I should "focus on the content rather than the contributor" [55]. Regardless of whether or not I made a personal attack, I did indeed primarily focus on the content. Walter, however, consistently ignores complaints against anyone accused of protecting the church's reputation, and instead attacks anyone who points out their bias.

Walter did not respond to my evidence against L32007, and instead his only action was to leave a generic template message on my talk page accusing me of being uncivil for pointing out another editor was not telling the truth. He explicitly stated it is uncivil of me to say another editor is lying "even if [the allegation] were true". If Wikipedia does indeed have a policy against pointing out lying, I haven't heard of it. I don't think there was anything inappropriate about my actions. L32007 has a history of spinning sources with his own original research. Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest.

Walter Görlitz has also responded to my perceived personal attacks with personal attack of his own. In this message on my talk page [56], he states, completely without evidence, "I suspect that you call so many editors liars, whether calmly or not, and whether you feel justified and have supposed proof". In his post above, he accuses me of "attacking, unrepentant [and being] aggressive" against two editors. Firstly, I didn't even start the ANI complaint against the first editor, Adammoore1982, though I note ANI agreed with my opinion that he was an SPA, and took appropriate action in banning him. Walter seems to have a serious problem with me pointing out biased editing at the Hillsong Church, and I'll leave it up to you to decide why. I only came across the Hillsong Church article in passing and clearly spend the majority of my editing time working on completely different topics. I simply left a comment on the talk page pointing out what I saw as biased editing from two editors, and according to Walter, pointing out biased editing is unrepentant aggression. I suggest appropriate action be taken against him as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You have had no previous interactions with me prior to today, so the idea that "Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest." is absurd. I don't really want to defend edits made years ago, but I will say that any edits I've made were NOT done with original research and were made in good faith. From memory the section being talked about here predates my contributions to the article, but I could be wrong. I have contributed lots of good encyclopedic content about the Church, including the majority of Hillsong Conference and TBN Inspire -- yes, I have a special interest. No that isn't WP:SPA. But, if the administrators wish I can 'sequester' myself from making edits on the Controversy section of the page in question. I would prefer not to do that, I like to think I'm acting in good faith to make the page better and more accurate. I do have a view about that page that it's a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE (it's a lot better than it used to be though, thanks to cooperation between editors), but editors are allowed to disagree. And I'm not engaging in any edit wars on the page. Walter and I have disagreed about my edits, and that's fine, I am committed to respectful discussion in the effort to make any page we're working on better. Cheers L32007 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact I haven't interacted with you is neither here nor there. I've gone through many of your edits, therefore I feel very justified in saying (and have irrefutable proof) that you have a history of adding original research to the article. Also as you've pointed out yourself, the overwhelming majority of the articles you edit are related to the Hillsong Church, including TBN Inspire. Maybe you're confused about the definition, but an SPA isn't an account who edits only one article, an SPA is an account that edits a "very narrow area or set of articles". You're editing history clearly matches that description. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote, If you want to continue this discussion, WP:ANI may be the correct place to point out that other editor's behaviour. That was before you continued to attack. Other than that, I let my analysis stand, and you made no apologies for your behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I never attacked anyone, nor did I "continued to attack" anyone after you mentioned ANI discussion as the appropriate place to bring this up, which I responded to by saying that I would indeed do that. Why you didn't tell me you were drafting something yourself, I do not understand, though it's easy to guess. I have nothing to apologise for. L32007 has a history of adding original research which goes back several years. Already knowing this, after he said something else that was clearly untrue, I said he lied. It's that simple. Why you're focusing on me saying he lied in passing, instead of years of his biased editing, is up for admins to decide.

In closing I would like to note something that appears to have been lost along the way. This all started not because of L32007's original research, but rather because he was adding original research AND then complaining about edits from others that he perceived were biased on the article's talk page, citing several guidelines in the process he is clearly familiar with [57]. It should be noted that he appeared well-versed at recognising bias when it was made by others, which is evidence he was at least aware on some level (if not completely aware) of the biased edits he had made previously, and continued to make afterwards. I have nothing more to add, and await a response from admins. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Calling an editor a liar is a personal attack. The reason I started this ANI is that it was clear to me, from our brief interaction on your talk page, that you did not understand that, and you still do not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack if there is irrefutable proof they are lying, it's simply a statement of fact. I understand you disagree, however, as you've already stated on my talk page it's uncivil to call someone a liar even if they are lying, which is an absurd belief to hold. But that's my opinion, and unlike you, as I've already mentioned I'm happy to agree to disagree. I still can't believe you've felt the need to make a mountain out of a molehill with something I said in passing that was clearly true. Please just drop the stick and let the admins make a decision. I won't reply to anything further you add. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How about we both stop writing and let an uninvolved editor or an admin weigh-in? And for the record, I'm happy to agree to disagree, but not when WP:NPA is being violated with no end to that behaviour in sight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Uninvolved (occasional) editor here. Damien you need to cool your jets - one of the basic principles here is "assume good faith" - so even if you're sure someone is lying, don't just go around calling them a liar. You're better off working with Walter to improve the article. It doesn't need to have the minutiae of every little scandal gone into in great depth. Walter - it would probably be good for experienced editors and/or admins to keep an eye on this article for the next few months - Hillsong have got themselves involved in Australian politics at very high levels (e.g. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/09/23/hillsong-brian-houston-scott-morrison/) and there's an election coming up in the next few months, so no doubt there will be occasional bursts of politically-motivated editor-initiated shenanigans. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus: I did ping Walter to the talk page last year for the purpose of addressing concerns at the article, but he didn't reply. Nobody wanted to help fix the issue, which was a shame.

I put a lot of effort into uncovering the lengths at which SPA editors had manipulated the article, and when one of them finally replied, they ignored all the criticism against them, and instead made a false claim. In retrospect, yes, I was quite triggered that the only reply I got to all my hard work was someone commenting directly underneath my evidence regarding a letter from a minister that I had quoted the wrong letter, which I can clearly prove I did not. Yes, I was very angry. If that person didn't have a several-year history of adding original research to the article, I would have assumed good faith, but considering their history, I could not.

I completely agree the article should be watched by others, and would happily recuse myself if this happens as I actually have no interest in the Hillsong Church. The sole purpose of my talk page post in the first place was pointing out bias in the hopes others would get involved. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The root issue, however, is not the article but you calling an editor a liar. I do not expect that to change if you go to another article. You keep blaming other editors and refuse to acknowledge the issue at hand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The root issue is SPA's adding original research and making statements that are not true. It isn't wasted on me that nobody is doubting that untrue statements were made over a period of many years. You keep refusing to acknowledge the cause and instead only address my reaction.

You and I have interacted once. You're making quite the leap (and are also not assuming good faith), when you say you expect me to call other editors liars in the future. To the best of my recollection, I've never called someone a liar before in 14 years of editing Wikipedia. Until this week, however, I'd never had to deal with an SPA with an editing history this questionable before.

Rest assured it will not happen again though. I have learned something through this experience, and that is the next time I uncover someone with an editing history like this, instead of saying they lied, I'll say "you have a long history of making statements that are inaccurate". No I'm not being facetious; that's what I will say. Maybe then people will actually pay attention to their editing history, instead of my reaction to it. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I never wrote that I expected you to call other editors liars. I posted a link to the article's talk page, and deleted too much of it, yet you know where I was referencing when I stated that you made a personal attack. The sarcasm was misplaced but you clearly did not see that calling an editor a liar because you believed it to be factually true. Whether it was based on fact or not, it is inappropriate to call an editor a liar. For the record, the editor has since written they were referencing a document different than the one you were and so this is a misunderstanding.

The question is not whether you are or are not good at uncovering problems, it is how you choose to address other editors whom you dislike. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of the editor's response, and as you already know I responded at the talk page in question indicating what's wrong with their explanation. L32007 choosing to post directly under me commenting about a letter from a minister and saying I got the letter wrong, and expecting me to read their mind and understand they're referring to a completely different letter that was mentioned several months earlier, is either just plain silly, or deliberate dishonesty and a poor attempt to back-pedal. Their explanation also neither addresses the fact that they have completely ignored and refused to discuss the criticism of their behaviour, nor does it change the fact they have made untrue statements elsewhere.

You explicitly said "[The issue is] you calling an editor a liar. I do not expect that to change ..."[58]. Now you're trying to say you never expected me to do it again. That appears to be gaslighting. I don't have the energy to keep up with how often you seem to change your story, so I'd very much prefer if we stopped talking. One editor has agreed with you that I'm over-reacting, though I note they've given no indication they even looked into the root issue of the SPA's behaviour. The only thing we seem to be able to agree on is that L32007 is an SPA, and us continuing to remonstrate over everything else is just bloating this section and making it less likely for anyone else to weigh in, so once again I won't reply to you again unless someone new comments. And just for the record, when I say I'm not going to reply again until someone else comments [59], you replying by suggesting the exact same thing[60] is redundant. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice to admins. WP:TLDR? I pointed out the behavior of L32007, an SPA editor, who had attributed inaccurate statements to references over a period of at least 3 years. He ignored my criticism and instead only accused me of linking to the wrong document in my argument. Because he has a history of inaccurate statements, because he would not discuss his behaviour, and because I did not make the error it appeared he had accused me of, I lost my temper and called him a liar. In 14 years of editing Wikipedia, to the best of my recollection I have not called someone a liar before. L32007 then stated the error he had accused me of was something different to what I thought; if this is true he did a very poor job of explaining what document he was initially referring to. It was difficult for me to AGF on this, due to his wording and his history of making untrue statements. However, I will accept this and move on. I emphatically reject many of the claims Walter Görlitz, the top contributor of the article, has made against me during this conversation. He was unwilling to discuss the issue of SPA edits on the article's talk page after I pinged him there, which was disappointing, and this inaction contrasted with how quickly he was willing to criticise me over this matter, exacerbating my already tense feelings on the situation. In saying this I am only trying to explain why I continued to lose my temper, which is regrettable. I do agree to not call someone a liar again, even if I am certain they are lying and they have a history of making inaccurate statements. L32007 has already stated he will "try" to broaden his editing outside his current narrow interest. His unwillingness to discuss his behaviour is problematic, though I do not believe he will continue to attribute false statements to references. I see no reason for this discussion to stay open and now hope this issue can be closed swiftly. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be closed with a block for Damien Linnane for incivility. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Response for admins: As should be indicated by my 14 year editing history, and my last post, me calling someone a liar is an isolated incident with extenuating circumstances. I was willing to let this go and move on, but if you take action against me please also look into L32007's edits. Turns out I was wrong. Since my last comment here they have made another biased edit at the article in question: [61]. I note Walter originally asked for a polite warning against both of us. The fact he's now asking for a block against me when I've agreed to change my behaviour, and no specific action against the SPA COI editor whose behaviour has not changed, should not be wasted on you. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• I came here from Damien's talk page, but am otherwise uninvolved in this issue. From my perspective, Damien has apologised for his use of emotive language, said he won't do it again, and explained that the incident was an isolated one borne out of frustration. In my experience, it is poorly representative of his general character, so there is no "chronic, intractable behavioral problem" that merits any kind of block.
  Having said that, I believe it would be wise to use this opportunity to examine L32007's edits more closely. They've admitted above that they've been behaving like a single-purpose account. Studying their edits in detail, it comes across – to me at least – that L32007 is not editing from a neutral point of view, and one of their primary reasons for being on Wikipedia is to mitigate any criticism of this church. They've been doing this since at least July 7, 2020, and frequently removed entire sections of reliably sourced content, see this and this. The mess of IPs in article history using similar reasoning and language is also troubling, especially when multiple other users continually revert these additions, example. Coupled with the fact that L32007 cherry-picks content from sources to rephrase negative information in a more positive light for the church (see this), I believe these are "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" which may require some form of action. I'll leave it for others to postulate what form of action that may be.
  Probably shooting myself in the foot with this one: I honestly can't say I would have reacted all that differently to Damien were I in a similar situation. We all err from time to time, and it's good that Damien apologised for and learned from the experience. There are other issues here that still need to be examined though. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I feel I have the right to defend myself here. I am not a "single purpose account", I'm a person who has specific knowledge that contribues to wikipedia in areas where i am most able to. This edit that you say removes "entire sections of reliably sourced content", removes a section of content which references several articles most of which do not mention Hillsong (except for briefly mentioning a rumor that some contestants were Hillsong members, which was refuted by Network 10), but instead mention a church called Shirelive.. Shirelive is not Hillsong. Shirelive (now Horizon Church) is a pentecostal church with no relation except a denominational one to Hillsong. An accurate version of that content would have been something like "There was a rumor that some contestants on Australian Idol were Hillsong Church Members. This was refuted by Network Ten.", That would definitely not be notable and is why I removed the whole section. All the content about vote-stacking related to Shirelive, which is why I removed that section. You are welcome to add that content to the Horizon Church Page

You again claim that I removed sourced content here, when in truth I added more content about the affair and issues within the church, while removing an irrelevant quote which doesn't add much to the content.

In this edit, which you also called "removed entire sections of reliably sourced content", in line with discussion on the talk page I was moving this content to Frank Houston (proof) as it was noted that the section on Frank Houston in Hillsong Church was longer than his own page.

As for your comment that I am "rephras[ing] negative information", in that edit I added more context and removed excessive quotes from that section of the article. I felt this was WP:OVERQUOTING and didn't present any new information for the reader anyway.

Thank you for examining my edits, please when doing this in future examine them more closely for context before you go ahead and accuse me like this. L32007 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment : Regarding edits to the Hillsong Church article, in my opinion, edits like the one show that L32007 seems to be here mainly to POV push pro-Hillsong agenda.---Avatar317^(talk) 00:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There is a Talk Thread about this edit that provides some context as to why I made it. And at least signals that an edit of SOME kind was warranted. The consensus was to remove the problematic wording that i was trying to correct. L32007 (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That edit clarifies that the belief position is based on personhood, not biological facts. That edit has no "pro-hillson agenda", that's absurd.L32007 (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In defence of my edit history: This article has serious problems with people coming in with bias adding their unsourced opinions and pushing an agenda. Yes, I might personally be biased in favour of Christianity, but I am only making edits to make the article NPOV, not to introduce my POV. There is clear bias/motive in some editors when an unsourced claim that the prime minister of the country is a member of the church can remain unchallenged when it is public knowledge and also listed on a different article of wikipedia that he is a member of Horizon Church. It's also troubling that a pastor of Influencers Church who fakes cancer to hide a pornography addiction gets a section on the wikipedia page for Hillsong Church but isn't mentioned **at all** on the article for the church that he was leading at the time, but because he can be linked to Hillsong Church by fact that he was invited to write a song that was featured on a hillsong church album, it gets added instead to the Hillsong controversy section. From memory the cancer scandal was a big thing that shook the Adelaide Church-sphere, and shook influencers church leading to a huge loss of members -- why it was included on Hillsong's page can only be put down to a POV push. Or how about when Horizon Church and the AOG are linked to alleged vote stacking in a reality TV show, it gets added to this article, and not the AOG's article or Horrizon Churches article -- solely based on the fact that there is a tenous link to Hillsong (a false rumor mentioned in the news articles that Hillsong has a contestant on the show, completely irrelevant to the vote stacking). There are people pushing their POV on this article by strategically inserting content selected to push a negative POV. It's not me, my goal with this article has been to balance it -- that's why I've spent more time on this article than others -- because of the issues I have identified. There are more examples, but I'm on holiday right now. L32007 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It appears to me that we've gone well into the territory of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Three people have explained to L32007 what the problem is with his edits, and in each case L32007 refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem on any level, and just insists the other person is wrong. As per my first post here, L32007 making factually inaccurate edits to defend the church's reputation goes back at least 3 years, though it's possible it extends many years before that, as I only made the time to do spot checks back till 2018. People reverting their edits clearly explain their reason for doing so, yet L32007 continues to make the same type of edits that have been reverted with explanation time and time again, which is why I stopped AGF in the first place. And lets be reminded this issue only escalated after they refused to respond to criticism of their behaviour on the article's talk page (and, of course, how I reacted to this refusal to discuss the root issue). As I have recently noted on the article's talk page, L32007 appears to have a completely different set of rules for themselves than for everyone else. On January 20 this year, they said they had removed some criticism of the church because it was unsourced (which of course was fine)[62]. Yet only five days later he added an unreferenced statement to defend the church's reputation (no reports of COVID at a church camp)[63]. I have nothing further to add regarding these new commenters and L32007's responses, though I will point out this in closing. Does anyone see something problematic with this comment here? [64] L32007 does not refer to Hillsong critic Tanya Levin by name, and only says we should not listen to her because "it's a woman ... trying to sell a book" (emphasis mine). Why would you mention gender at all (as opposed to just using her name), unless you considered her gender part of the reason why her opinion should not be valued. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I unreservedly apologise for my gendered language. I should have done this earlier but I admit my ego got in the way. I was trying to emphasise that a single person trying to sell their wares via their sharing grievences isn't notable and forms a indiscriminate list of grievences. WP:CRIT says "Great care should be taken that the [criticism] section is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of complaints." However, that's no excuse for the way I phrased that and I will do better.

I have addressed the rest of your comment in the talk page where you brought my edit re: COVID up. People revert and edit other peoples work all the time, it's how we achieve consensus. The only person not willing to participate in discussion to make articles better appears to be you. I have nothing further to add regarding your comments. L32007 (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

References

WP:NOTHERE by Walamba.kana

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

---

Walamba.kana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[65] [66] [67] - Removed 1,500 text, replacing the Arab background of the figure with that of an Afghan/Pashtun

[68] [69] Removed 6,472 text, added unsourced claim that the dynasty was Afghan/Pashtun

[70] Removed the probable Tajik background of the dynasty

Right after his block expired, he removed the Persian/Dari spelling of this article and replaced with Pashtun [71]

Moreover, he also earlier wrote this rather nasty comment to me in his edit summary because I reverted him; HistoryofIran koss madar Irani khar = HistoryofIran your mothers pussy you Iranian donkey

I think it's clear to say that this user is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran - I haven't looked at the diffs, because that insult alone should immediately lead to an indef. However, I haven't been able to verify your translation. You don't indicate what language it's written in, and Google Translate is giving me meaningless nonsense when set to 'detect language'. Can you point me at something that would confirm your translation? (Sorry for being a pain on this; I hope you can appreciate that I need to be certain about what somebody said before I indef an account.) Girth Summit _(blether) 19:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit I understand. It's Persian (and perhaps used in Pashto as well?), but as far as I'm aware Google Translate only translates Persian written in the Persian script. There are sites which show Persian insults, such as this one [72], which has the words "kos" and "khar". --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That's seems clear enough - I've blocked for personal attacks/harassment. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

51.6.138.13 by Alexander Davronov

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

---

51.6.138.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [ANI NOTICE]
51.6.138.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is it WP:BKFIP having fun again by going after my edits? Can someone take a look?

IGES

21:20, January 19, 2022 - «fixed style errors, removed badly-written recent addition»

19:53, January 17, 2022 - «tidy-up; source»

↑ Removed my small, but well sourced contribution under a pretext of minor issues

ANGLE (software)

17:31, January 19, 2022 - «restored older text which was in good English»

17:27, January 19, 2022 - «Undid revision 1066555004 by Alexander Davronov talk) riddled with errors»

23:05, January 18, 2022 - «‎top: OpenGL ES»

↑ The same

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yep, that's them. Blocked for 3 months. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Alirwez061

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

---

Alirwez061 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user seems to be on a mission to Arabicize certain Iran-related articles (mainly the ones to do with Khuzestan) with his own POV or/and non-WP:RS sources, rather than attempting to improve them. In fact, he has a long history of that.

17 April 2021 - Changed the name of "White Bridge (Iran)" to "Ahwaz White Bridge". "Ahwaz" is the Arabic variant of the city of Ahvaz, often used in a nationalistic/irredentist sense. It has no official status whatsoever.

25 April 2021 - Added the name "Arabian Gulf" to the Persian Gulf article, a politically motivated name used by a few Arab states.

5 September 2021 - Removed sourced mention of Persians being indigenous to Khuzestan, claiming that they are not "are not indigenous to this area"

6 December 2021 - Add his own personal POV into articles. As you can see, the cited reference makes no mention of what he added about this 'Persianization' section.

20 January 2022 - Add his own personal POV into articles. As you can see, the cited reference makes no mention of what he added. The cited page is literally a map of Iran and its provinces.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello dear HistoryofIran, first of all thanks a lot for naming a few of my contributions to wikipedia, and secondly, I may have made a few unsourced edits back when I started my activity on wikipedia, but my recent edits on Emirate_of_Arabistan are all sourced and verified, and I request admin support as some accounts (probably of the same person) tried to damage the quality and completeness of the article by continuously deleting resources, preventing the improvement of the article. thanks and regards Alirwez061 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• "I may have made a few unsourced edits back when I started my activity on wikipedia"

Strongly disagree. Its apparent from the many diffs that were issued as warnings on your talk page[73]-[74]-[75]-[76] or through edit summaries that you are on a campaign in Wikipedia. That campaign is to promote an irredentist pro-Arab POV in Khuzestan-related articles of Iran, by deliberately misinterpreting sources and cherry-picking material. We call that WP:TENDENTIOUS editing to the point where its WP:NOTHERE. I can add many more diffs that attest to this, in addition to the ones posted by user:HistoryofIran. No, this campaign has never stopped and it is in fact the sole reason why are you being reported to ANI. The feigned assertion that it was somehow only when you "started your activity" is easily disproven by the fact that many disruptive diffs dating to December and September 2021 and Januari 2022 can be found. You've barely made 50 edits within the past 6 months, yet they are drenched in disruption. Here are two more:

1. Tried to turn the non-Semitic Elamite Empire into a Semitic one, using a Biblical quote. Date September 2021.[77]
2. Changed "Khuzestan Province" into "Emirate of Arabistan". Edit summary "Ahwaz is not part of the peninsula" (the WP:COMMONNAME is "Ahvaz"). Dated December 2021[78]

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The edits to White Bridge (Iran) and Persian Gulf don't appear to be inappropriate. Arabian Gulf shows enough use that it should be considered as an WP:ALTTITLE, while there is some reason to believe that "Ahwaz" is the common name for Ahvaz. BilledMammal (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

'Ahwaz' is often used in sources about medieval Caliphate Iran or by some Arabic news sites yes, but certainly not (neutral) sources related to modern Iran. How is suddenly making such page move appropriate? With no discussion whatsoever? Likewise, the bit about Arabian Gulf (a politically motivated word with no historical basis) should be discussed first. Moreover, you did not address the other, more problematic behaviours of this user as well, curious. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at recent news, while Ahvaz is slightly more common, there is significant use of Ahwaz, such as in The Australian - I've added it as an altname to that article. And the move was appropriate under WP:BOLD; while a more experienced editor would have understood that it was likely to be controversial and opened an RM, this was only their 30th edit. As for adding "Arabian Gulf" as a WP:ALTTITLE, I think most editors would follow WP:BRD. I haven't reviewed the other behaviours in depth as I don't intend to become too involved in this discussion, although I note that there is coverage of persianization in Khuzestan in reliable scholarly sources, possibly enough to warrant a mention in the relevant articles - and issues understanding sourcing requirements are not uncommon among new editors. BilledMammal (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How was it appropriate under WP:BOLD? Ahwaz is still a far cry from WP:COMMON NAME. If you don't want to become too involved, then why are you still here? You ignored the most blatant parts of his behaviour, and are now making excuses for him which he didn't even make himself - this is concerning. Sure, there might have been done Persianization in Khuzestan, but that is still not mentioned in the 'source' he cited, which he keeps claiming there is. The user literally admits on his userpage that he 'Supports the independence of Ahwaz' - something which he clearly projects into his edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors can make mistakes, as long as they don't amount to a WP:CIR issue, and Ahwaz is close enough to the common name that it is a reasonable mistake. And you're right, I don't want to become involved, so I will leave the discussion now. BilledMammal (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Imagine using retroactive WP:CRUSH to justify long-term disruptive editing. What about the attempt at labeling the Elamite Empire as Semitic, as demonstrated above?[79] Is that related to supposed Persianization in Khuzestan, or irredentism related to the Persian Gulf, i.e. the internationally recognized name of the body of water? - LouisAragon (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SPI CU comment: Alirwez061 filed a SPI saying HistoryofIran and LouisAragon are the same person. The evidence presented did not lead me to see these users as the same person and I did not find any evidence to suggest this either. This was probably made in good faith, but wanted to provide this context. The SPI page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofIran. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Alirwez061 just tried to start an SPI against LouisAragon and HistoryofIran which was dismissed with prejudice: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofIran. Singularity42 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban / indefinite block proposal

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopaedia. I propose either an indefinite topic ban from all Arab and Iran-related topics, broadly construed. OR, an indefinite block. The community has wasted enough time with this disruption--time which could be used more fruitfully. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear user LouisAragon, I really appreciate your time with us, but your recent edit at Emirate of Arabistan is obviously unconstructive as you are continuously deleting resources and edit-warring and I recommend you to refrain from vandalizing the article furthermore. Thanks and regards. Alirwez061 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

An accusation of vandalism without supporting evidence is a personal attack. I see you have made the same accusation in an edit summary at the article you reference. You would be well-advised to withdraw both of those accusations in your next edit. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Having looked at the edits in question, that's not vandalism. That's a content dispute, and furthermore it certainly seems to be POV-pushing on Alirwez061's part. New regimes make name changes all the time, and there's nothing unusual, sinister or particularly noteworthy about these century-old changes. Ravenswing 22:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello dear wikipedians, first of all, resource removal is obvious vandalism and itself is an evidence, and secondly, dear user Ravenswing, I don't think it is neceasary for us to get in particular details of the content inself. Content/Resource removal is as obvious as it is. I immediately request admin assistance. Thanks and regards Alirwez061 (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean that you prefer we don't examine it too closely, so that others see it as simply another content dispute that may also run against WP:UNDUE. Sorry to puncture your bubble, but as it happens, we make such value judgments all the time, which is why such reversions do not constitute prima facie vandalism. Seek consensus on the appropriate talk pages for such edits, and if consensus doesn't go your way, accept the result. Ravenswing 06:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. There are millions of topics in the encyclopedia that a given editor can work on without running into this kind of issue. If this editor can contribute productively in other areas for a year or so without problems arising, the community can decide at that time let them work in their preferred area again. BD2412 T 07:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Millions of topics, how tropical! Anyway, I'm fine with rescinding the block in favour of a TBAN, though I have reservations even about that. But I'll go with da flow. El_C 07:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I said what I said. I'm not categorically opposed to a block, but I believe in last chances. BD2412 T 07:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Tautology is a topic! I also believe in final chances, but there's been multiple warnings (though they've been removing em from their talk page). El_C 07:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alirwez061 blocked indef

User_talk:Alirwez061#Indefinite_block. El_C 07:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Solidarityandfreedom's violations of WP:PROMO, WP:COI, WP:EW and WP:COMPETENCE

Solidarityandfreedom created their account with their first edits attempting to make a Wikipedia page for the chairman of the American Solidarity Party, Draft:Patrick Harris (Party Leader). They then used their account to spam the article for the American Solidarity Party with Twitter links to the American Solidarity Party's "Liberation Caucus". Solidarityandfreedom has been cautioned and reverted by many veteran Wikipedia editors for promotion and the deletion of cited material as can be seen here by Avatar317, here by Rediculizer42, here by Goodone121, and here by Anupam. Solidarityandfreedom's conflict of interest agenda is clear here and their misrepresentation of citations has been noted. They have done the same at related political and religious articles too, with others such as Litawor reversing their edits here and Pbritti reverting their edits here where Solidarityandfreedom is citing primary citations. Solidarityandfreedom's talk page is plastered with warnings from users such as ValtteriLahti12 and others who are tired of wasting their time with this editor who clearly does not have the competence to edit here. Goodone121 has noted that they use misleading edit summaries to blank large amounts of content from articles [80][81]. A topic ban from all articles related to religion and politics is the next best step here, but since these are the only topics that they edit, a site ban could only help him now. TolWol56 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Having monitored Solidarityandfreedom's edits from time to time, I agree with TolWol56 insofar as action appears necessary but disagree with a site ban, as the edits are innocuous enough. A topic ban, even a temporary one, seems proportional. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I've only seen Solidarityandfreedom's edits on the American Solidarity Party article, but I would classify EVERY edit I saw by that editor as promotional and poorly sourced, with a clear bias of trying to write what they want and then finding "sources" to stick behind their statement (often SELF-sourced to the party itsself - As an easy extreme example, we don't allow white-supremecist groups to characterize their own organizations, we use Independent Sources WP:IS.) Addditionally, Solidarityandfreedom often deleted SOURCED info that doesn't align with what they want the article to say.

The username seemed to me like a redflag for a potential COI on at least the ASP article, and because of their repeated tendentious editing on that article, I support a topic ban for the ASP article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Solidarityandfreedom has started to sock as 72.28.3.68 and is pushing their same POV COI cruft.[82][83] Would anyone oppose a site ban at this point? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked Solidarityandfreedom from American Solidarity Party, although the editor is still able to make their case at Talk: American Solidarity Party. I have warned the editor that taking their disruptive style of editing to other parts of the encyclopedia may result in a broader block. Cullen328 (talk)

In response to the IP editing, I have semi-protected the article for one week. Please inform me if the disruption resumes, and I will semi-protect for a longer period. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328, but they are now socking with an IP.[84][85] Perhaps an indefinite block and protecting the article would be the next step? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned above, 1990'sguy, I have already semi-protected the article. I am not going to completely block the editor unless they continue their disruption after my page block. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban for Solidarityandfreedom on politics and religion articles, broadly construed

• Support: This editor is only here to promote their COI views and they have dug a hole for themselves by not taking warnings seriously. Instead, they are still edit warring to push their POV across a range of articles. After this ANI discussion was made, Solidarityandfreedom has resorted to socking under 72.28.3.68.[86][87] --1990'sguy (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• (other comment) In my opinion there doesn’t necessarily need to be an entire ban, however I would support a block on the Girolamo Savonarola article as he constantly adds information that contradicts the sources that were already used, seemingly to go against the common claim that he was a proto-Protestant (like Philip Schaff and even Britannica 1911 mentioned). ValtteriLahti12 (talk)
• Support topic ban per my original post and the proposal. TolWol56 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support TBAN or even a NOTHERE block per proposal. From the twitter link-spamming to religious disruption and promotion, I'm leaning more into a total block, but my judgment could be wrong. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Reaver55

The user Reaver55 has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing. They are quick to assume bad faith and seem to be generally uncivil with most people they engage with. They make generous use of "you" when addressing the actions of editors, and otherwise try to personally engage in one form or another with the editors they're taking issue with (as can be seen here and elsewhere). They are drawn towards controversial subjects and use talk pages as a means of airing their own rants related to the subjects. (Just check their contribs to see.) They have disruptively edited their own talk page as well, which is currently almost entirely struck through (and many topics have been deleted from the page, including notices of discretionary sanctions). I could go on but I don't care to. Mewnst (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You "don't care to go" on yet you made this report, this just seems out spite and anger that your edits are being removed for being irrelevant to the topic Cracker (term). I could say the same thing for your own editing history and you even have a notice for "Transgenderism" which is a controversial topic which you were corrected on due to Transgender being the correct term versus Transgenderism, not to mention you have a habit of NOT using the talk page and forcing blanks like you did with the bored apes yacht club article which you were given a notice about, The Notices are old and I could of deleted them but I prefer to keep it? Is there something wrong with that? Regarding my opinion(s) I was hoping to bring further clarification on why Chadwick Seagraves was important to include so I did some research outside of wikipedia since theres no information on him here which I was why I specified it was my opinion, just like it was their opinion that that paragraph was relevant so to keep the article as it was BEFORE the editing by Mewnst and encouraged Mewnst via the edit summary to use the talk page, they then decided to blank the entire story, which I then wrote a reminder to use the talk page, I never put that story there I just kept it how it was before the disruptive edits by Mewnst without using the talk pages to discuss its relevancy to the article about the term. Cracker I could go on but I don't care to.Reaver55 (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Not going to take a side in this particular content dispute, but Reaver calling other editors "biased" is concerning. MiasmaEternal☎ 10:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Again who are you, are you relating to ANY of these incidents/pages about this discussion? Its the same situation as Sly. Another commentary from an editor which seems to me adding further to the "dog pile" to put me in a "negative light" Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Reaver55 wasn't at all involved in the matter regarding my updating of some of the language used in gender-related pages. This is a toxic attempt to smear me as a biased and unworthy editor by digging into my edit history over something that was never an issue or edit war. I don't care about having my edits stick in the Seagraves stuff either, I am here because of this needless confrontation from this person. They continue to behave uncivilly here. Mewnst (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Toxic attempt to smear me as a biased and unworthy editor by digging into my edit history" You did the EXACT same thing, its a sign of repeated disruptive editing behaviors that editors such as myself did not report, but I'm beginning to rethink that decision as a possible vandalism attempt and not a mere mistake of what agreed upon consensus is. Reaver55 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Reaver55's discussion style is rather too confrontational and personalised, and it is a general pattern.

They have about 80 edits in total. Back in May 2021 there's this edit summary, this user TP section, this TP post, this edit summary, and several other similar edits leading to a short block for disruption and personal attacks, and then to a longer block for edit warring. In June, there's this. In November, this. On 1 December this, later in December this, and in January this and this... and it's not like these are isolated incidents, either.

They have had warnings about personal attacks and posting inappropriate warning templates, and gave this response; that was right before this block. The second block in May, for edit warring, came with a note that further edit warring might lead to an indef block, so their revert warring a couple of days ago, seen in this edit history, is not impressive. (In addition, they have returned to a couple of other articles where their preferred wording had previously been challenged, and reverted back to "their" version without discussing it first, but that hasn't led to actual edit wars.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

So what your saying is you know these disputes are old yet you bring it up to I guess add fuel to your argument? Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be a clear case of WP:NOTHERE: treating editing as a battleground, little or no interest in working collaboratively, a general pattern of disruptive behaviour and (based on their numerous accusations of bias) a long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopaedia. Theknightwho (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Mewnst seems to be a clear case of WP:NOTHERE: treating editing as a battleground, little or no interest in working collaboratively, such as blanking a bored apes yacht club article, changing Transgender terms to non-scholarly accepted terms, adding massive unrelated stories to unrelated articles then blanking the entire story because theyre edit was undid, an act of vandalism. All without notice or even a thought of starting a discussion on the talk page. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

He is clearly WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia imho. Talk:Not_Fucking_Around_Coalition#"We_are_a_Black_militia... shows just one example of bad faith assumptions and personal attacks then claiming others are editors are biased. MartinezMD (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, not good at all. Taking on everyone and anyone. Concur with WP:NOTHERE.Slywriter (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Useless commentary giving their opinion about a dispute/page theyre not involved in.

You were constantly going AGAINST the agreed upon consensus and kept injecting your own opinion, it wasn't until you saw the American Militia movement with NFAC listed as #2 did you finally accept that it was part of the American militia movement and its a talk page specifically about how you are not maintaining a level of neutrality for NFAC since you constantly disagreeing on it 1. being a BLACK militia and 2. That it is a militia. So by asking you to remain unbiased and maintain a level of neutrality is not a overstep but rather apart of the Wikipedia rules on neutrality.

And if you really wanna go on about rules Mewnst, didn't you blank two sections of two different articles without using the talk pages then getting two notices about how you should utilize the talk page, could be considered "Treating editing as a battleground" or "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention" such as Trying to put a whole paragraph about a proud boy member AFTER the misidentification incident, his story was not important only that he was a proud boy member, it would be more appropriate to put his story after that misidentification on the proud boys page. Again if you wanna talk about disruptive behaviour how about not utilizing the talk page and having to receive two notices for it or just complete blanking of certain stories without even making a single comment about if it should. Reaver55 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Not at all trying to invoke a resolution in my favor regarding that page or the discussion, there are merits to keeping it as you prefer and it's not worth arguing like a lawyer over. I am here because of how you've behaved through it all. Mewnst (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Like a lawyer? Like defending myself? How dare I defend myself indeed. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if Reaver55 should be blocked as NOTHERE or maybe for TEND instead, but they clearly lack the temperament for consensus building. I saw this removal of Slywriter's comment which drew me to this thread. I figured the removal was a mistake, but after seeing diffs of removing other comments on article Talk pages and using del tags at their own User Talk page, I don't think it was. The full thread at Talk:Not Fucking Around Coalition#"We are a Black militia... is what makes me support a block. That's a checklist of tendentious editing: refusing to listen, assuming bad faith, and getting so upset that they're nearly incomprehensible—not to mention forgetting to indent and sign their comments. I also see plenty of that here, in this very thread. Woodroar (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would love to see your evidence on how my edits on wikipedia articles are NOT from a neutral point of view, do you care to say China uncensored is an "right wing" organization like the vandal earlier today? That I reverted, or that NFAC isn't a black militia part of the Militia movement in the United States? Please provide some evidence. His comment should of been removed so I instead crossed it out and specified why. user is not involved and is giving their opinion "imho" which urban dictionary defines as "In my humble opinion", so it's an opinion, unrelated to a page or dispute that person is involved in. So why should it stay Woodroar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaver55 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

MelanieMD, the user in dispute about NFAC being apart of the Militia undid my revision despite it being the Agreed upon consensus of the American militia page, so I started a discussion page on why it's a miltia based on the definition of a militia from Wikipedia and since they are based in the US it was part of the American Militia movement not to mention they are listed on that page by someone else a long time ago but the edit has remained since, but I believe the disagreement was a misunderstanding of including the word "movement" instead of militia linking to the "American Militia Movement", but either way it was resolved. However we ran into another misunderstanding

regarding the "We are a black militia' it seemed to me the user was trying to advocate deleting the Black Nationalist part of the initial sentence.

Regarding the "getting so upset that they're nearly incomprehensible—not" please provide that edit! And regarding the indents and signing before, I was new and just figuring it all out. Regarding the indenting... your comment about indenting isn't indented... So maybe cut some people some slack or maybe be a good editor and fix it. along with a note on what they did wrong and how to fix it, like the person who told me how to sign comments. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd support a block for tendentious editing, personal attacks, and/or edit warring. Continuing the reported behaviour in this thread isn't a good sign. --bonadea contributions talk 17:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Just like to point out The user reporting me that constantly like to bring up past reports, has two notices for blanking without using the discussion page, a form of edit waring. Continuing the reported behavior wikipedia isn't a good sign for the site as a whole on maintaining an informative neutral Wikipedia. Also kind of odd how we just run into a minor dispute and here you are advocating for a blockage suddenly, but I didn't delete your comment because you are relating to page/edit dispute I'm involved in. Sly was not. It was nothing more than an opinion/commentary unrelated to any of the disputes. Reaver55 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of unrelated commentary is not against the rules. For the NFAC, take it up with the America Militia editors, its labeled as part of the American militia and I had to defend tooth and nail to ensure the agreed upon consensus that NFAC is a Militia, (Some mild debates about it being a black only/predominately black militia which primary sources contradicted that.), I did listen and I did debate their specific points, MelanieMD even agreed with me after much debate, even though I'm not the one who put them on The American militia movement page. It's the agreed upon consensus. I've even dealt with a staff member "Asartea" (The notice striked out in December 2020 because its over and done with) who agreed with me on maintaining a level of neutrality and that The American militia page has listed NFAC as a active militia in the United States, if you look on their page around the same time youll see my edits about disputing their notice, which they agreed and let the edit remain. Mewnst edits regarding Seagraves will have to remain on the talk page until we can get more opinions on whether or not we should add that specific paragraph and if it adds information relating to the pejorative usage of the racial epithet "Cracker", nor should you be randomly deleting and "blanks" stories without even so much of a notice or starting a discussion on the talk page. "Like a lawyer" You mean defending myself...? How dare I indeed. Regarding Sly's deletion, he is completely 100% uninvolved in any of the pages listed here, such as "China Uncensored" "Not Fucking Around Coalition" "Cracker(Term)" I didn't delete Bonadea, because they are involved in a minor dispute about grammatical correction vs "Stylistic choice" but because theres a dispute going on with Mewnst and seems like a bunch of people out of the wood works coming to "dog pile" on this report because they are mad at me for undoing/disagreeing with their points along with bringing counter evidence usually primary evidence, to dispute these points.

But as my profile says I'm trying to maintain a level of neutrality and blocking disruptive editors, without mentioning specific users since that enrages them, from destroying that neutrality. My edits are far more constructive and add to this Wikipedia than a certain user blanking numerous articles without warning or discussion.

As for my "behaviour" what? How dare I defend myself? How dare I delete random commentary from editors not even relating to this specific incident or any of the pages I have edited ever on Wikipedia. Just useless comment to further and seems to me trying to put me into a "negative light" Reaver55 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - could an admin please assist? This user has added so many edits in so many different places that the section is becoming impossible to parse. Theknightwho (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean my edits are constructive and I spend a significant amount of time writing on Wikipedia maintaing a level of neutrality, almost like I'm not actually a troll/Vandal which seems to me like you are all trying to paint me out to be? Shocker. Reaver55 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m too tired to do anything tonight but to say the personal attacks at Talk:Cracker (term)#Issues, incomplete data regarding the North Carolina vandalism/"cracker" use and the edit summary here reverting a final warning by User:Bonadea do strongly suggest a block is appropriate. Doug Weller talk 21:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression that only people marked as administrator were allowed to give out warnings as you can tell from my notice board I was given a notice about "improper usage" yet my warnings were very much valid. Not even to mention editors have problems with me lining it out and now theres a problem with me deleting it. Please make up your minds on this. Regarding Unfair undids if my threads are to be removed because they're not "commenting on content not editors" then so should the others, essentially wiping out/removing those specific sentences/sections in the "Cracker(Term)" talk page and maintain neutrality Reaver55 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller and Bonadea: you both reference personal attacks, but I don't know what these are because... walls of text. So, maybe quote the thing...? Just throwing it out there. Also, this thread is long yo! El_C 00:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Reaver55: anyone can give you a warning. @El C: at the talk page there's "it wasn't until I undid their revision did they act in spite and blank the whole thing," and "Frankly its obvious your acting out in anger due to your biased edits about a specific no-body proud boy member whos not even involved in this story other than being a proud boy member which was already established and now you made a report because you didn't get what you wanted. Literally just shows more bias". That was aimed at [[User:Grayfell who he accuses of personal attacks, maybe that refers to Grayfell's comment "You came out swinging with a lot of inappropriate accusations. It's far too late to play coy. Insinuations and aspersions are also personal attacks. "So What editor?" won't fool anyone, and more importantly, it's not an excuse for casting aspersions in the first place." The edit summary was "Undid revision 1067121859 by Bonadea (talk) Undid Harassment and misuse of warning system." Doug Weller talk 07:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I don't want to make this too nuanced, because I think there may well be WP:IDHT and WP:TE problems that'll need to be addressed regardless, but I don't see a personal attack there. The tone is hostile and combative (WP:CIVIL), sure, but failing to assume good faith isn't automatically a personal attack (WP:NPA). Ditto for calling someone "biased," or telling them not "to play coy," or falsely complaining of harassment — none of these are personal attacks. El_C 11:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Surely saying that User:Bonadea is a harasser is a personal attack? The "misuse" bit may be just confusion. Certainly both show a lack of good faith. And I still think accusing someone of acting out in anger isn't civil. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Doug, where was the word harasser used? I see you quoted harassment, but they are not necessarily interchangeable. El_C 12:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: that's too subtle for me. Harassment means a harasser surely? Doug Weller talk 12:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Doug, in the same way that "trolling" isn't necessarily interchangeable with troll. Anyway, g'luck, I'm gonna do something else now. El_C 13:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked indefinitely as not here to build an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 13:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC).

(edit conflict with the message about the block – thank you, Bish.) Hmm. I do think the edit summary "Dealing with a extremely biased editor" is a personal attack, especially coupled with phrasing like "I will [...] not allow you to further wash away the truth"). Similarly, "Stop spouting CCP Propaganda China bot. You live in West Taiwan." when removing a 7-month-old 3RR warning. Since this thread was started, there's "its obvious your acting out in anger due to your biased edits" and " Replying to a beg for admin based on malicious bad faith lies." (in the edit summary). Going through their contributions is sapping my will to live a little, but those are some recent instances. --bonadea contributions talk 13:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Those are indeed personal attacks. Had you did the thing, where the NPA warning also contains a diff of the attack, I'd have blocked for that. Oh well, live and learn. El_C 13:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

User:CRS-20 repeatedly changing date formats

CRS-20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user CRS-20 has repeatedly been changing the date formats from "mdy" to "dmy", and the associated templates, for articles related to US spaceflight, which goes against the guidance in MOS:DATETIES. This user has been asked multiple times by multiple users to use US date formatting for US-centric articles, but has continued to make these edits.

Diffs showing changes from "mdy" to "dmy"

Space Shuttle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3
• Diff 4

Crew Dragon Demo-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Diff 1

Requests to not change date formats

• Talk:Space_Shuttle#Clarifying_appropriate_date_format_for_this_page
• Talk:Space_Shuttle#Stop_changing_date_format
• User_talk:CRS-20#Please_don't_change_date_format_of_American_Spaceflight_articles_from_MDY_to_DMY
• User_talk:CRS-20#Date_format_changes
• User_talk:CRS-20#January_2022
• User_talk:CRS-20#Please_revert_your_date_format_changes_on_all_US_Spaceflight_pages

-Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If an admin looks into this, I would request that they also do something (such as a final warning, ideally) about how CRS-20 simply does not communicate. I have been annoyed off-and-on for over a year by how CRS-20 rarely replies on their talk page. A few times they have replied in French (1, 2, 3), so there might be a language barrier. Here's one particularly bad example of them never replying, even though I consider the issue I brought up to be severe. Here's a more recent case with no reply or change of behavior. Sometimes there is a minimal reply, such as these five sections on the talk page (e.g. see here for a minimal reply that doesn't really address the question). Here's the most recent. Here are the unsorted miscellaneous examples with me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, links copied from here. Just to be fair and present the whole story, a few times, such as here, I have actually gotten an interaction. Leijurv (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts and revenge AfDs

User:Lugnuts has received some attention here and some restrictions, I guess I don't need to rehash this here. He is now disrupting AfD, on the one hand by accusing User:Cbl62 of being a proxy for User:Johnpacklambert at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnolds Krūkliņš, and on the other hand by starting revenge AfDs against Johnpacklambert, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conners Creek, Michigan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, on the latter even claiming that it fails WP:V even though it was very easy to confirm its existence and find multiple sources. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramdasa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, ...

Can please something be done to make it clear that taking articles on viable topics to AfD as a revenge for having your own articles at AfD is very poor practice and should stop? Fram (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, not informing JohnpackLambert of these AfDs was a rather poor decision as well, but fits the pattern I guess. Fram (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Interestingly I was informed of the 2 later mentione AfDs, and 1 other that is not named above, but the 2 on places that are now part of the city of Detroit I was given no notice on. So it is not that Lugnuts does not know how to inform editors of AfDs, he just chose not to place notice of the 2 on places in Michigan on my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• For pity's sake, at what point is Lugnuts' manifest and ongoing bad faith going to stop? Quite aside from that it's a horrible look for the Wikipedia champion of creating SIGCOV-less two-sentence sub-stubs sourced only to databases, how many disruptive bites of the apple does this guy get to have? I'd be entirely comfortable with Lugnuts getting an indefinite topic ban from the AfD process (except for commenting in defense of his own article creations), to add to his mounting block and tban tally.

  And the further question is this: at what point will we be forced to conclude that Lugnuts is not here to build an encyclopedia so much as he views Wikipedia as a zero-sum battleground of combats to be won and enemies to be thwarted? Ravenswing 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• He did it again [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff, Michigan]. This may in fact be a valid AfD nomination, but he has again failed to notify me as the article creator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, "he did it again" could be misconstrued as "he did it again after this ANI report was opened", but it was started at the same time as the other AFDs. So it's more a case of "he did it another place that hasn't previously been mentioned". I was initially confused, so wanted to prevent others from being confused. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Your point is well taken. His failure to post notice on my talk page about these nominations made it harder to keep track of when they were occuring.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Another example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, where Lugnuts took a gratuitous dig at Johnpacklambert's religion, knowing that he is unable to respond. Unseemly. Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have taken the liberty to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, as Speedy Keeps. These are NAC's done under WP:SKCRIT #2B: nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption. They could also be equally considered to qualify as criterion #2a: obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Ravenswing's suggestion is a good one. Let's make it a formal proposal.

Proposal

Lugnuts is banned from the AfD process, except in defence of articles he has created.

If the last part proves problematical, it can be rescinded. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment/oppose Looking at the most recent AfD noms by JPL, I see that half of the most recent ones (from 5th Jan) have targeted articles I created. Being somewhat vexed by this (and no, that's not an excuse), I picked some of JPL's creations at random. Many of them are fine. The ones I came upon were not/are not in the best shape, and would come under the comment of "SIGCOV-less two-sentence sub-stubs", above, sans the sourcing bit, such as this, this and this, for example. I did look for sourcing for all of these, and then logged the AfDs. I think other editors who found those stubs in those states might have done the same. However, I understand the tit-for-tat aproach this could be viewed as, for which I apologise, and for the spam comment too. Infact - @Johnpacklambert: I apologise for that comment about the spam/CoLDS and any offesene it may have caused.

My AfD data is pretty good overall (if that counts for anything). Good faith works both ways, and I'm happy to not log AfDs for articles created by JPL that would be viewed by any reasonable editor as a "revenge AfD". As for the bit about not letting the article creator know about the AfD, WP:AFD states "Consider letting the authors know on their talk page" (my emp.) - it's not a requirement. Maybe that needs its own discussion/RfC. The outcome of this proposal may already be a fait accompli, but I've responded, held my hands up, promised not to repeat it and apologised. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support: And so here we are, yet again. From another editor, I would credit Lugnuts' professing contrition, but he's done that before. Over, and over, and over again. He promised back at ANI in April that he had learned his lesson, and would stop creating sketchy sub-stubs to bolster his creation count; he broke his word there the next day. His block log is studded with exhortations of good faith going forward, apologies, atonements ... leading right into subsequent blocks. After being tbanned from new stub creation, he's turned his attention to new redirect creation, dozens in the last month. JPL's slowly working through the many thousands of unsourced sub-stubs Lugnuts has created, and so all of a sudden Lugnuts is on the one hand screeching BEFORE! at JPL while taking JPL's own article creations to AfD, with such threadbare evidence and rationales that they're being speedy-kept en masse.

  Enough. Lugnuts has been around a long time now. He has over a MILLION edits, and I don't think it's the slightest bit unreasonable that after all the blocks, after all the ANI threads, after all the edit warring, after all the disruptions, after the bans, we not only expect the civil and collegial behavior that we would out of a newbie with a couple hundred edits, but we hold him as accountable as we would that newbie for willful defiance of those standards, and that he'd have just enough common sense to recognize that he's on very thin ice and ought not go out of his way to lash out at other editors. At some point, to paraphrase Anne of Green Gables, we need to see adherence to civil behavior more than fulsome apologies after the fact. If Lugnuts is incapable by playing by the rules, if after all this time he still doesn't get it, then what the hell, people? Ravenswing 20:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support tban from AFD, except to defend own creations - This is clearly beyond the pale. Between the aspersions of proxying at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin, these (fairly clear) revenge AFDs, and all of the past history with problems in this area, it's clearly time to nip the problem in the bud and stop the disruption in this area. Past attempts to deal with this have not worked, so in order to stop the disruptive behavior, this looks necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Commentpersonal attacks and well poisoning removedIt is also clear that Lugnuts' AfD's were, as he admits, a "tit-for-tat." We could just ban all three of them from AfD, but I think it would be more productive for all three of them to simply agree to cease the behavior that got us into this mess in the first place, with sanctions to be involved only if they don't. I would strongly oppose any sanctions that don't address all three users involved in this mess, but frankly don't see the need for anything at all if people just move on and don't repeat the behavior that got us here. If they show an unwillingness to do that, so be it, we'll do what we need to to make it stop. But hopefully cooler heads can prevail. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Smartyllama Unless you are willing to open a separate thread with direct evidence of proxying I suggest you withdraw the personal attack and well poisoning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It is possible JPL was just writing for his own convenience and did not actually expect anyone else to do his bidding, I'll concede that, and if that's the case, apologize to JPL for my lack of WP:AGF. However, if that's the case, it was still unwise given his already-in-place sanctions since it could easily be interpreted as such. If he would simply agree to refrain from suggesting pages for deletion on his talk page beyond the extent that he would be able to nominate them at AfD, that would be sufficient in my mind. As for having this conversation in a separate thread, the issues are related so I think it's best to consolidate them all in one place. But I don't particularly care about the formatting one way or the other, so do whatever is more convenient. Smartyllama (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I removed it for you. Don’t restore it, if you have an allegation open a separate thread. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• For what it is worth I am not trying to work through Lugnuts creations at all. I am working through 1912 births, and have been going backwards through the years from 1927 or so. I have since the end of December in part focused on the state of Olympian articles I come across. The fact that a large percentage of those that do not meet our inclusions criteria that I end up taking to AfD are from one creator is a function of who created what percentage of those articles, not from any actual attempt to target the work of one person on my part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• I never mentioned either of the articles I was alleged to have been proxying in my post. I mentioned a totally different person. That I have to even point that out is very odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I'm convinced that Lugnuts, unfortunately, has become a net negative at AfD. (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Commemt — Unfortunately the trio of Fram, Lugnuts and Johnpacklambert are all editors I have high regards for, thus I’d recusing myself from either supporting or opposing this, but I’d make a few statements (off topic) prior addressing anything else. I see that editors time and time again are irate about Lugnuts's article creation to that I’d say they have always created articles that meet/met WP:PSA and satisfy the relevant SNG thus Lugnuts is in the right & if people are left underwhelmed by this then an RFC should be started to that effect as to the bare minimum of paragraphs before an article should be moved to mainspace. Now to the issue on ground, I’d like to state definitively that revenge nom's are tasteless and in the past I have “speedy kept” AFD's I believe were created in bad faith. Infact i speak about this on my Userpage, see; User:Celestina007#True Editor Growth, thus I applaud Eggishorn for doing the needful, In my experience Revenge Noms are disruptive because more often than not they are without merit. Furthermore it is improper to swear at AFD's thus i do not appreciate Lugnuts's choice of words at the AFD. It is also improper to say an editor acts as a proxy without cogent proof & that is seriously an egregious accusation to make if it can’t be corroborated, Having said I appreciate Lugnuts because they are an archetypal example of a “serial article creator” stub or not. it is unfortunate that this has spiraled into this, if there is a possible manner Lugnuts can be warned without any formal community enforced sanctions I’d be happy but as earlier stated I wouldn’t be supporting nor opposing this, I however fully understand the frustration on the part of Fram, JPL, RW & Buidhe. Hopefully this can resolved (amicably) without enforced sanctions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - The creator of an article should not have to be contacted, when that article is being nominated for deletion. Such a contact-requirement hints of acknowledging a type of ownership. I wouldn't favour such a requirement. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Contacting the article creator makes sense when the article is new. Perhaps the creator was in the process of adding relevant information regarding notability or knew more about the subject that he/she did not include. The contact will act as a spur to improve the article. Once the article has been around awhile, contacting the creator doesn't seem a necessity. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's acknowledging a kind of ownership so much as acknowledging that there's a good chance they have an opinion on whether the article should be retained. Acknowledging ownership would be to give that opinion additional weight because they're the creator, which we don't do. Theknightwho (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Notifying the creator of something when it is sent to deletion seems fair IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  From the WP:AfD page - While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. -Indy beetle (talk)

  Not to mention that it just feels like common-sense and basic courtesy... Begoon 17:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Meh. What concerns me is counting article creations (95,525, 95,926, 95,545), being tbanned from making articles under 500 words, and then switching to counting category creations (7,871, 7,872, 7,873). This, combined with the "revenge AFDs", makes me question whether Lugnuts sees Wikipedia as a game, with a PvP component, and is trying to hit the high score. But he's apologized for the AFDs and said he won't do it again, so I don't see why we can't just accept that as resolving the issue; I don't see this AFD problem as so longstanding or widespread that we need a sanction to prevent further disruption. Levivich 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. An AFD topic ban does not really focus on, or address, the problem identified here; and allowing Lugnuts to participate in discussions involving their own articles (where much of the problematic behaviour seems to occur) seems to undermine the intent. Lugnuts appears to understand why their actions in targeting JPL's creations were unacceptable, even if it should not have needed pointing out to them, so it's probably best to accept their assertion that it will not happen again. Most concerning are the personal attacks and casting aspersions, which absolutely must stop. Given the volume of database entry-type stubs Lugnuts has created, it should have come as no surprise to them that cleanup efforts included a significant proportion of their creations. It would also be helpful if Lugnuts did not hamper such efforts by reverting bold redirects without appropriate rationale or article improvement, resulting in avoidable AFDs. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support at what point do we notice a user disrupting every area they turn to and realize that it's the user that is the problem here, not the specific area they're popping up in? Since there doesn't seem to be much stomach for the simpler solution, sure, let's keep going and adding more restrictions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  @David Fuchs: I'll tell you at what point: at the point at which you're ready to make a site ban proposal. Are we there? If so, go ahead and make the proposal, I'll probably !vote for it. But adding one bespoke sanction after another for what are really limited infractions... meh. Go for it all or it's not worth our time. Levivich 17:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, hence I'm not proposing it. If this restriction passes there is the slightly higher chance either Lugnuts figures out maybe being disruptive isn't a good idea and modifies his behavior, or it's another sanction to throw on the case for the inevitable ban discussion. My experience with wiki disputes is you're better off doing something to roll the boulder rather than waiting for it to come back down the hill. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, either, and maybe you're right about doing something. The way I process this is like this: if I'm at the point where I no longer believe that if Lugnuts says "I won't do it again," he won't actually do it again, then I should support (or maybe even propose) a siteban. Personally I'm not at that point. I've made plenty of criticisms of Lugnuts's editing, but breaking promises isn't among them. So I figure he should be treated like anyone else in this situation: you mess up, you say sorry won't happen again, you're given the chance to make good on it. I fear that editors already under sanctions will feel like they can't afford to make a mistake or else they'll get in serious trouble, and that's a tough way to edit, it's tough to expect reform from someone who feels they're under a microscope. I do see your point of view, though. To each their own? Levivich 19:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I rarely frequent AFDs, as I'm not an overly good judge of what article should or shouldn't exist. Just wasn't one to learn many of Wikipedia's alphabet soup article status rules. I figured leaving AFDs in the hands of those who are familiar with that area of the project, was best. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  While I'm sure we're all deeply fascinated by this little excursion, what does your personal relationship with the AfD process have to do with the proposal at hand? AngryHarpy‍^talk 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm already aware of the deep fascination by my little excursion has created, which adds up to me being Neutral, on whether Lugnuts should be banned or not from AFDs. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for using a bullet point. Levivich 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Strong Neutral or Weak Neutral? That could be crucial. Begoon 14:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Bullying never works, it seems... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - When you look at all the long-term WP:CRIC members who have either driven themselves crazy, gone AWOL, completely raged against the machine, or just given up, it's not really a coincidence. One can name half-a-dozen long-term expanders of the project who have given up over the years. Lugnuts, this isn't just about you, and JPL, this isn't about you, either. Please know, JPL, that I empathize with you over some issues more than anyone here would understand. Use your frustrations that I know you have, to achieve good. Not for raging against the machine. Take a step back just for a while and focus on another area you enjoy. Or just do some Wiki-gnoming, or something that will keep your mind busy.

At the end of the day, how do you salvage a broken project for the sake of what has become Frankenstein's monster? It's impossible because Frankenstein's monster will come back. Bobo. 18:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So is that a "yes"? Begoon 17:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support with a hope this will end the disruptive editing.--Darwinek (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Ban as I said last time a restriction came up, the disruption just moves when you restrict Lugnuts in one arena. While I believe he does indeed have the competence, he lacks the temperament to edit collaboratively. It's time to stop with regular time sinks related to this editor. Star Mississippi 02:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from AfD as this user really doesn't know how to handle it in a constructive matter. Also would cite WP:CIR. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Which particular part of WP:CIR do you think applies here? Begoon 17:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Stonewalling on Talk:Julian_Assange

Talk:Julian_Assange#RfC: Should Assange's involvement in the release of unredacted cables in Cablegate be included? is an RfC I raised but abandoned rapidly. It has been bad enough in previous discussions but never so blatant. What can be done if the talk page of an article degenerates to that extent? NadVolum (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Operation Samsonite.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A short but good example of the sort of stuff there stopping progress. NadVolum (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also like the general level of incivility, assumptions if bad faith, and snipping looked at as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Third-party edit interpolates pejorative content to my post

User:Newimpartial edited a discussion page section from what I had initially titled as "Sorry" [88] so that the title now reads "Sorry, not sorry" [89]. The section title now imputes sarcasm and WP:INCIVILITY that I didn't author and gives the equivocal impression, contrary to WP:REFACTORING guidelines (i.e. absent links to the original to clarify what I actually said and without a summary of the changes on a different page), that I titled the section as it now stands. Please offer assistance to ensure no one is misled into thinking the current title is my doing rather than Newimpartial's. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

As I noted on their talk page, these edits imply that Kent Dominic states "Sorry, not sorry", rather than "Sorry" - while refactoring headings can be uncontroversial, particularly on a users talk page, this is only the case when it doesn't result in a different meaning being ascribed to the author. I also noted that there is a pattern of this in Newimpartial's talk page edits; they made this ghost edit, which corrected a typo that confused Kent Dominic, and then responded to his confusion as if the typo had never existed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal, having reread the exchange, I still don't see any evidence that it was my typo that confused Kent, much less that any kind of pattern on my part was involved. I initially typed nonminary for nonbinary; in their reply, Kent referred to my sentence that includes “nominary identity”, which was neither what I typed nor what I meant. None of the subsequent discussion, visible, e.g. in this diff, leads me to think that the typo played any role in Kent's reaction to my comment. So I have no reason to think I did anything untoward in correcting the typo, much less that it is part of some (nefarious?) "pattern". Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The confusion appears where they say Sorry again, but I can’t make heads or tails of your sentence that includes “nominary identity.”, which is clearly a misreading of the typo "nonminary identity", a confusion that you address in the reply made with your ghost edit. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If you understand what Kent's confusion there actually was, and what gave rise to it, you are reading that exchange more successfully than I was then or than I am now. I didn't (and don't) know what had him confused, so I just restated my understanding of things, in my inimitable way. Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Kent, this really sucks. Is there anything I can do to convince you to withdraw? Firefangledfeathers 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Technically, Newimpartial was wrong to change your heading. However, I gotta say they were provoked by the lengthy, circular, but spiraling downward discussion. You should have put a lid on it way earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Provocation? No. Lengthy posts? Yes. Circular? I wish. From where I stood, the goalposts weren't moving, just the rhetoric. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I would have wished, but the point of the discussion is moot now that Newimpartial has taken remedial action --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23, WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN reads Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided - which is what I believe my edit (to my own Talk page) achieved. Newimpartial (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Newimpartial, you should not be adjusting for tone like that. I doubt that's what SECTIONHEADINGOWN suggests. El_C 03:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have already edited the section heading one more time, to achieve what I for one find to be a truly painful level of clarity and transparency. The current heading cannot reasonably be mistaken for what the editor originally posted and does accurately describe the content of the discussion, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Like. Sorry you were subjected to that nonsense. El_C 03:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Honestly having read that discussion, I've never seen anyone (Kent) use as many words to try and justify why they will not use a singular they, despite being repeatedly informed that they is the correct pronoun to use for the other party. Frankly, NewImpartial's change to the section header kinda fits the tone of the conversation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that there is Template:They, which if the editor has specified in their preferences a gender will automatically fill in that preference, avoiding cases of accidental misgendering. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Is it accurate to write "if the editor has specified"? It appears that a specification will be listed regardless of whether the editor has set one. How is it possible to avoid specifying? Or maybe more specifically, how do I specify in my preferences that I'm fine with either gender-neutral or gendered language? I only see options for "prefer gender-neutral", "prefer masculine", or "prefer feminine", not "don't care what you call me". —David Eppstein (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Very easy to avoid using the singular "they" (which is what I do), when conversing with an editor. Just use the editor's name. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, we remember. ;) El_C 03:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Was that comment really necessary GoodDay? JCW555 talk ♠ 06:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's sage advice. Best to look at every editor as having no gender. Don't bring the town down, over pronouns. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Unless you are conversing with They, of course. (Unfortunately you cannot because they are apparently a banned sockpuppet.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Kent Dominic, RE: However, if you, Newimmpartial, represent more than one third-person editor, please let me know and I'll factor that into the equation when referring to you in a mutually agreeable way. Deal? And: If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me. Use singular they, not complicated. You risk a WP:BOOMERANG with these antics. El_C 03:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• @GoodDay: I offered to use that same strategy, among numerous others, which Newimpartial graciously accepted. Subsequent argument was wholly unrelated to specific instances of co-referencing editors but rather the manners in which pronouns tend to be construed by various speech participants. It seemed (and still seems) to me that Newimpartial simply didn't want to acknowledge how people in various quarters interpret certain pronouns in ways that depart considerably from ways that comport with sensibilities to the contrary. Long and short: Denying evidenced dynamics doesn't make the dynamics disappear. I don't mind being shot as the messenger, but it became apparent that the message contained historically archaic and linguistic protologisms outside Newimmpartials's comfort range to withstand. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would point out that Kent began to edit war over the heading after I told him to remove himself from my Talk page. I don't think he should have been doing that. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's very clear that you're a writer, Kent Dominic, and more broadly an explainer. Both are generally good traits (to the extent that any trait can be good or bad) and both are traits that I believe the two of us share. I've found that in my case, I'm sometimes so eager to explain my point of view in a conversation that I overlook things the other party has said which render what I'm about to say to them incorrect, irrelevant, unnecessary, or otherwise not worth saying. My advice to you, if you're willing to take it, would be to take advantage of the opportunity Newimpartial has given you by ending the conversation on their talk page. It's a chance to reread what they've said to you, not with the intent to respond, but with the goal of understanding and considering. There are some important points in there that I think I might have missed if I was on your side of the screen. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 08:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the sentiment, User:Ezlev. I really had intended merely to apologize in the "Sorry" thread. In hindsight, I shouldn't have used what I thought would be obvious self-effacement with my "If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me" remark, which apparently caused the ensuing fallout. Or, perhaps I should have formatted it as nonbinary singular third-person pronoun to better signal that I was referring to nonbinary as part of a lexical category, not gender identity. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• How about everyone tries to be excellent to each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Newimpartial: Heeding my edit summaries' requests would have obviated the need to go on record here, right? No need to reply since I'm glad you've subsequently relented and remedied the situation. In the most charitable way I can put this, in case you missed it: It seems that you persist in associating me with rationale that's not part of my thinking. Moreover, it seems you feel more comfortable simply denying rationale that doesn't comport with your own. Obviously, I'm not asserting that as being amenable to objective proof one way or the other, only as how you come off to me. I truly hope I can be proved wrong on both accounts. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I endorse NinjaRobotPirate's request for excellent behavior. But I feel that something a bit more direct is called for in this situation. I was neutral about this thread until I read the appalling thing that Kent Dominic wrote. Kent Dominic, condider this a formal warning. If you ever refer to a human as "it", I will block you. If you ever deliberately misgender another editor, I will block you. You must read Singular they and all of its references and fully understand the long history of its usage in the English language before you comment again about this issue. If, after reading all of that, you freely choose to engage in disruptive and insulting edits about this issue, then I will block you. I hope that I am being clear. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Sorry User:Cullen328, can you clarify where you are seeing the use of "it" in reference to another human, as I cannot see it? If you're referring to the comment you are responding to, I don't believe either of the two uses of "it" are in reference to a person. Obviously, if Kent Dominic has used the word in such a manner then it is unacceptable, but I am not seeing the reference. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @BilledMammal: My best guess is that User:Cullen328 skimmed the first part of the "Sorry" thread and misinterpreted my initial reference to "it," and that the separate discussion of "it" further down (the part you're likely referring to) didn't get read. Rereading the initial part now, I can see how one might interpolate a disrespectful intention. So far, however, no one except Cullen328 has inferred anything untoward. I can only speculate that Cullen328 read, "If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me" and mistakenly presumed I was advocating "it" as a substitute for a singular "they" as a disparagement. Whether construed as a bona fide disparagement or as a joke, I hope continued reading here would clear it up: What does one typically ask when there's a knock at the door? What does one usually say after getting tagged in a game of Tag? (I've never heard, "Tag! You're they.") How do we reply to "who's that in the picture?" More cogently, according to the Oxford English entry for "it" - PRONOUN

1. [third person singular] Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified. // ‘a room with two beds in it’

1.1 Referring to an animal or child of unspecified sex. // ‘she was holding the baby, cradling it and smiling into its face’ (italics not in original)

2. [third person singular] Used to identify a person. // ‘it's me’ (italics not in original)

• I can also understand how that huge wall of text in the "Sorry" thread might dissuade a reader from reading every single item. Accordingly, if anyone read the teal comment (i.e., as just reposted above) and construed it quite literally rather than tongue-in-cheek self-effacement re. my familiarity with the topic as presented in excruciating detail later on in the thread, and without knowing all the linguistic (incl semantics, syntax, lexicology, etymology, and phrase structure) work that consumes me during my time offline as well as online, then shame on me for not including a smiley face and a "LMAO" disclaimer. I guess my reputation as linguistics nerd hasn't preceded me as far as I'd imagined. But please, everyone, don't quiz me on phonology or morphology - esp. Old English. And I'm not really up on that. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Kent Dominic, I'll be blunt: it was disrespectful and inappropriate. And if it wasn't clear, mine was also a formal warning. If you do something like that again, I will also block you. And might I also suggest you just speak plainly on this matter, without "excruciating detail" that might come across as filibustering...? It probably has little utility, anyway. El_C 12:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• For the record, BilledMammal, I think there could be some justification in reading all references to "it" as a pronoun for persons, in the context of nonbinary people, as potential dogwhistle rhetoric even when - as in this instance - the user is not explicitly referring to any nonbinary person as "it". After all, that is the way dog whistles work, and any sufficiently oblique comment is susceptible to multiple, layered interpretations as to its meaning. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Speaking of talk page titles that need to be changed, because they are inaccurate: it is false and misleading for the original comment in this discussion to title this as a "Third-party edit" and refer to it vaguely as "a discussion page". In fact, the edit in question involved Newimpartial retitling a section of their own user talk page to indicate what they, the main reader of the talk page, understood the subtext of the post to be. To me, this seems a lot less problematic than someone coming into a discussion between two other parties on a general-audience page and retitling it to cast aspersions on one party. If a Wikipedia editor receives a user-talk message with what they perceive as a hostile title, but don't want to delete or archive the message itself, are they forced to let that title remain on their talk page? WP:OWNTALK doesn't seem to address this possibility. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @David Eppstein: I agree that "third-party" is inaccurate and false. I admit not proofreading the title and I bear responsibility for that lapse, but I don't agree the title is per se misleading in the context of the WP:DIFFS and LINKS provided for readers to see for themselves what the issue was. It's a moot point in this case since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction, as the one who initiated this ANI. No comment on the WP:OWNTALK consideration you raised except to say I hope others keep in mind that, often, hard cases make bad law. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Alleged interference in RfC by DePiep

• Sandbh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DePiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Periodic table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

---

I regret the need to be here but this matter concerns a currently open RfC.

I recently initiated an RfC.[90] After the RfC statement section itself, there is a subsection for Votes and a subsection for Talk, notes, questions, suggestions.

User:DePiep then posted a question to the RfC statement section itself.[91]

I effectively boldly reverted DePeip’s edit by moving his question to the RfC Talk, notes, questions, suggestions subsection, and added my answer to his question.[92] I also asked DePiep to, “Please do not edit my rfc statement” adding that the place for questions is the RfC Talk etc. sub-section.

DePiep has now reverted my revert[93] and added a “serious warning” to my talk page,[94] saying he is surprised to have to tell me, once more, on how to behave in a discussion; that my revert of his edit was unacceptable, including my “misleading” edit summary; that I’ll understand this is tearing his patience with me and my editing behaviour; that there are other paths for me to walk if I have questions or issues “(but not me is gonna point them out to you any more)”. Further, "I will not accept you breaking or spoiling a discussion. So best consider this as a serious warning."

DePiep has also added a Glossary to the RfC statement section itself, without consulting me as the initiator of the RfC, and ignoring my previous request to please not edit my RfC statement.

In bringing my allegations here I am only looking to run the RfC free from interference of this kind by DePiep, and to be free from incivil postings to my talk page.

If this is an inappropriate forum to raise allegations and concerns of this nature I will be happy to raise them via another avenue.

Thank you. I’ve tried to be polite. If I’m at fault I am happy to be corrected. Sandbh (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I will reply later on. Most clarifying diffs will be from the RfCs history. -DePiep (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

DePiep, RE: why ask for "votes" instead of comments, in an RfC? Sandbh didn't ask for votes, they asked for !votes. RfC's are structured that way sometimes, which I suppose aims to reduce threaded discussion in the !vote list, largely relegating these to a 'discussion' subsection (personally, I'm not a fan of that format). But that isn't even the point. You sandwiched your "question" inside Sandbh's RfC opening text. I'm a bit surprised that I even need to tell an experienced editor not to do that, yet here we are. Anyway, I have removed the "question." El_C 11:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C:

(1) Sandbh initially, with the RfC opening post, named the section ==Votes== [95], no negating exclamation mark. So I asked "why?" [96]. Then a third editor changed the section title, noting WP:NOVOTE in their editsummary [97]. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(2) From WP:RFC: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template" (italics added).

So, El_C, could you check these two statements, and reply approprately (ie, I expect some form of withdrawal/correction in both). Since this is ANI, I may expect & request carefulness. Your writing, including the quotes, reads like undue reproach. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, prefacing "vote" with an exclamation mark isn't really that decisive, even if I might have started my warning to you with that (as that is what's being displayed atm). The point is that you're not allowed to intrude right onto the middle of an RfC's opening text. That you try to sidestep this crux rather than acknowledge it, is a problem, I find. El_C 12:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"right in the middle of"? It was straight after their signature, and before the "Vote" section [98]. Well, you may differ on the importance of a Vote-On-RfC setup, but I reject your repeated notion of bad faith or disruption. Adding scare-quotes around my question is not appropriate. After my clarifications, you still have not expained what trespassing happened. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, right in the middle of it. The brief RfC question was signed (presumably for the bot, which has a word limit), then they elaborated immediately below. You broke the cohesion of the RfC opening text with your "question." Please don't do that again. If you want to challenge the RfC's formatting, you can create your own subsection, without otherwise hijacking the flow of RfC opening. El_C 12:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Pls check the edit. Now, I asked questions re your statements (about my edits) here, but did not find answers. And also since you keep using so-called-quotes re my posts ie assuming bad faith, I cannot help you any further. Your conclusions are incorrect. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Even still, it is inside the RfC opening (above the !votes), which isn't really the place for a threaded discussion. That's where the RfC author can elaborate a bit or leave as is. And I don't need your help. I've warned you against inappropriately intruding onto the RfC opening field and I've warned Sandbh against clerking the RfC. There's not much else to say. Yes, I used quotes for "question," because what does it even have to do with the RfC opening (its substance)? You can get the same emphasis from a subsection, without interrupting its flow, remains my point. El_C 13:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfair and incorrect subthread, see my re below. -DePiep (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: DePiep has now added commentary immediately after my vote, rather than adding such comments to the Talk, notes, questions, suggestions subsection.[99]. I thanked him for this edit and then boldly reverted it, saying, “Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes section”.[100] DePiep reverted my revert, commenting, “"it is a discussion. Read WP:RFC. Do not change my edits. Stop tit-for-tat."[101]. While I stand ready to be corrected, I regard these alleged actions by DePiep as a form of vandalism, misguided as it may be. Sandbh (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Sandbh, you don't get to clerk an RfC you launched like this. You don't get to compel folks against engaging in threaded discussion in the !vote section. It's a recommendation which is ultimately at the discretion of individual contributors. El_C 11:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Reply to the report by DePiep. The interactions in a timeline:

A. Sandbh initiated the RfC, with section title ===Votes== (not !Votes) [102]. Because of my concerns for a too limited discussion (by vote tallying), I asked to change this sectiontitle to aim for true discussion, with me consulting & linking WP:RFC [103]. As recommended by WP:RFC, I posted this question right below the RfC question & signing, and before the (first, level-===) discussion section. A 3rd and a 4th editor then changed this title [104] [105] (@XOR'easter and YBG:). Answered, case closed, AFAIK. (But: see interactions E below).

B. I also asked Sandbh for talkflow layout edit re bullet usage [106], which was responded to by a 3rd user, coordinated. Good process, no issue, AFAIK.

C. Sandbh changed my post, with editsummary saying "revert" [107]. I reverted this manipulation manually [108], citing WP:TALKO: "do not edit other editor's comment". [109] On their talkpage, I wrote a note/warning. For the record: Sandbh is involved in this RfC, and the solution I hinted at is that a 3rd, uninvolved editor could be asked to check and make such edits if considered helpful or needed.

D. I made two regular contributions to the discussion [110] [111].

E. To my astonishment, Sandbh reverted (removed) my second contribution [112], es stating Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes section. IOW, still a "vote" tallying approach. (I reinstated my post [113]).

Z. As a short summary: I think that Sandbh, being an involved editor in this RfC, should not make discussion-flow or -restructuring edits. Especially not wrt other editor's posts, or by changing the argumentation flow afterwards. From this I asked twice for structure edit, and boldly reinstated my own posts. Then, in the end Sandbh still stating "Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes [sic, DePiep] section" [114], indicates that my concerns were right.

-DePiep (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Replies to Sandbh's statements and behaviour, by DePiep

As described above, I handled by WP:RFC guidance, not blindly but also because it makes sense to me in improving the RfC discussion quality. Let me quote once more: WP:RFC # Responding to an RfC: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template". I did so, asking a question, which was acknowledged by two(!) other editors [115] [116]. (When this change was made, already 3 ?Votes were posted i.e., discussion was happening; so it is good practice the Question should stay to clarify late changes to the discussion setup. But alas it was removed [117] for the wrong reasons).

By that same WP:RFC quote, for example the detail "add ... unbiased statement immediately below", I added a glossary (since !Votes seemed to divert by unclarities). In no way or sense dit Sandbh proposed improvements &tc. the Glossary: instead, they filed an ANI report.

Sandbh deleted my question. I reverted (manually), citing WP:TALKO: do not change another editor's post. I also notified Sandbh of this obvious error, adding the word warning as it is not the first time they did so [118].

I added two content contributions. Sandbh deleted one content contribution. The es: Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes section. Note that this was after Sandbh posted this report, and it repeated their original intention to go WP:VOTE tallying.

Aggravating circumstances are that (1) This is not a talkpage, but an RfC, and (2) Sandbh is initiator of the RfC and so involved editor.

My first conclusion is that the Sandbh's OP report here does not show any trespassing by me. Not a guideline, nor re good editing behaviour & intentions.

My second conclusion is, that Sandbh has posted this ANI report too frivolously, accusing an editor without sound base and without proper reference (such as understanding guidelines, WP:RFC, ...). This is requiring loads of editor's energy, especially mine but not mine alone, to resolve. It also reduces the quality of the actual RfC discussion at hand.

My third conclusion is that research for this ANI thread shows that Sandbh is disrupting the RFC repeatedly, and into a broken ineffective discussion. They do so by claiming WP:OWNERSHIP (both in approach as in disruptive editing), inclusing the procedural discussion flow (restructuring the discussion, clerking other persons edits), by misforming the discussion setup, and by changing other editors content(!) contributions. Until "now", that is Report time 10:05, 22 Jan 2022 (UTC), this could go as immaterial and solvable by proper talks (eg at right page & place). However, since and when these disruptions reappear, it might be necessary to impose restrictions to Sandbh's editing in this area. -DePiep (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur with the above sequence of events as posted by DePeip, but not the interpretation and omissions.

A. As El_C noted, posting what DePieP posted into the RfC statement before the Vote section was inappropriate.[119]

C. I did not "change" DePiep’s post, I manually reverted it and moved it into the discussion section and, in response to DePiep’s question/concern about Voting, I replied as follows: "I put the rfc as a question. A "vote" then is an expression of one's wish or choice with respect to the question."[120] DePiep ignores BRD, reverts my revert,[121] and posts an incivil "serious warning" to my talk page.[122]

D. I reverted DePiep’s contribution to the RfC since it was a commentary on the reasons for my vote, posted straight after my vote.[123] That was my bad, as El_C noted.[124], as ack by me.[125] DePiep ignores BRD and reverts my revert.

As DePiep noted, I asked him to add comments or discussion to the Votes section, in this edit[126] summary, a request which he has ignored.

Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you.

I acknowledge your advice that an RfC nominator does not have a clerking role in the running of the RfC.

I was following the example at Separate votes from discussion. In this case I recorded my vote along with a 90-word summary of my reasons. DePeip adds a 240-word commentary[127] to my vote, setting out his multiple disagreements with my vote reasoning as opposed to doing so in the Discussion sub-section of the Rfc. In closing his commentary to my vote, DePiep refers to what "we should choose" and asks people to also see his own vote. I feel this represents less-than-civil, disruptive behaviour on his part. How do you see it?

Please be further advised El_C that I intend to boldly remove (effectively via reversion) the Glossary that DePiep unilaterally added to the RfC[128], since I allege that it is biased, in breach of WP:RFC Responding_to_an_RfC, and adds content not germane to the RfC. My reversion edit summary will ask DePiep to please follow BRD however I expect he will revert my revert rather than follow WP:BRD (but I live in hope). Respectfully, Sandbh (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Sandbh, as the filer, the RfC opening is your domain (within reason) and any further additions or adjustments to it should enjoy a rough consensus. So set it as you've originally intended. There really shouldn't be any further issues with the RfC structure. About Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_formatting#Separate_votes_from_discussion: I don't really know what that page is. It isn't labeled as a policy or guideline or even an information page or even even an essay. Category:Wikipedia requests for comment is all we get. Was it just split from the main RFC page? Who knows. Regardless, it opens with All of these formats are optional and voluntary (bold in the original), which I think is pretty key.

To that: my main point was that outside the opening, RfCs are generally free-flowing. In some instances, they'd also have an extended discussion subsection (the Survery/Discussion model), and additional subsections as needed. Also, sometime these will end up being conducted with clearly-defined constraints on what's allowed to be said on what section, even strict constraints. Which tends to be either the product of agreement among those not knowing that that is optional, or those who do know it's optional but still agree to run it this way.

Either way, as mentioned, I'm not a fan of strict constraints, mysef, which no one participant can decree by fiat. If there's a rough consensus to do anything like that, then, sure, I guess. I still think it's a generally bad idea, but to each their own. Anyway, hope that makes sense and hope it's gonna be smooth sailing from now on. El_C 22:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Not Again – It appeared that the community might have seen a break from the fights between User:Sandbh and User:DePiep and others over the periodic table. There were at least seven trips to WP:ANI in 2020 (as listed by CaptainEek):
• First ANI thread in August
• Second ANI thread, about ELEM in general More trouble with Sandbh and also User:DePiep. I am not making DePiep a party to the case at time of filing, but I do wonder if more than just Sandbh and Double Sharp are the problem here
• The third and almost productive trip to ANI
• The fourth time at ANI
• A fifth! journey to ANI. If only you got free airline miles for that many trips
• One of several threads where EdChem gallantly tried to mediate

Then User:CaptainEek (not an arb at the time) filed a Request for Arbitration: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=990863692#Elements

I recommended at the time that ArbCom accept the case, and consider whether any of the regular combatants should be topic-banned, and whether DePiep was a net negative to the encyclopedia, but the case was declined. Things then have been quiet for about a year. Now we have this. It appears that DePiep is complicating an effort by Sandbh to address the continuing controversy over the periodic table. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite a sloppy approach, User:Robert McClenon, and so damaging by low quality. Except for names reappearing, you have not established any serious connection between the 2020 set and this thread. AFAIK, invoking Arbcom (you propose) is not a sort of extended ANI. It is, well, to Save The Project (ie Wikipedia). You have not pointed out —not even started to— explaining why this ANI would not be sufficient in issue solving. After all, the only issue here is a non-optimal RfC; no mainspace page even affected. On top of this, you started drawing conclusions (calling for Arbcom and including a randomly-targeted, one-sided topicban still without explanation below) with this ANI thread barely having any analysis, and surely not having my response. I suggest to ignore this post, as it does not aim at conflict resolving. -DePiep (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, re El_C

• User:El_C has posted mistaken claims in this ANI, and my initial replies have not effected into corrections. So I want to set the record straight. I do so outside of the main thread, as it would disturb the regular discussion flow (the El_C subthread should not be part of).

El_C: [129] Sandbh didn't ask for votes, they asked for !votes— wrong. Here their initial RfC post says: ===Votes===, without exclamation mark. BTW, following my question re this, it was later corrected by a 3rd and 4th editor [130][131] (so: good process). In case one migh consider this minor, I note that Sandbh expressed explicitly that they intended this section to be vote-tallying, by deleting an indented content reply: "Please do not add comments or discussion ...". I am still flabbergasted.

El_C: You sandwiched your "question" inside Sandbh's RfC opening text— 1-BF, 2-wrong. No reason to put my quesion in ""-quotes, casting explicit a BF accusation. El_C keeps doing this, four times, intentionally then. Next, I added my question between the RfC-signing and the ===Votes=== header i.e. discussion section:

<RfC header>
Should ... ? [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 04:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

::{{@Sandbh}} Why ... ? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 05:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

===Votes===
...

This placement is fully in compliance with WP:RfC:

If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template.

With these wrongs, the paternalistic ... that I even need to tell an experienced editor ... is out of place.

El_C: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1067236917&oldid=1067236630&diffmode=source] The brief RfC question was signed (presumably for the bot, which has a word limit), then they elaborated immediately below is incorrect twice: there was no "elaboration immediately below" (see code quote above): what followed was a sectionheader. And I do not see what the bot-remark mean. Is it a non-signing? Should I have researched who signed it? I consider this, eh, irrelevant. In total: "immediately below the RfC question" WP:RFC says, and so I did.

I elaborate here this extensively because El_C repeated these wrongs and attitude after I pointed out these wrongs, my edit's backgrounds, and the notion that their ""-quotes are expressing BF. Misreading a diff can happen, but repeating so after being informed is inacceptable. Especially since El_C bases their conclusions on these wrongs, these are obviously incorrect and also harmful (for the thread, for editors involved). I propose to collapse that subthread as not relevant, and not use it in any way for this thread. -DePiep (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

DePeip, here's what you posted right under the RfC template, and before the Vote subsection, and the Discussion subsection:

"{@Sandbh}} Why at all do you call for Votes? How does that improve Comments & discussion, as WP:RfC defines & asks for?"

These questions did not have anything to do with the wording of the RfC which was "Should the periodic table in the lede be an 18-column table or a 32-column table?" Your questions did not ask me to improve the wording of the RfC, nor did they represent an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. In the event, what was immediately below the RfC template was a "Vote" subsection and "Talk, notes, questions, suggestions" subsection. While I have my shortcomings too, which I try to overcome, common courtesy and talk flow considerations would suggest placing the questions into the latter subsection. Sandbh (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

*Sigh* DePiep, were we not past that at this point? Neither one of you should be messing with the RfC's format for whatever reason, them by clerking it, and you with your format question in and any other adjustments to the opening. I've already warned both of you against doing that and other than that, I'm done here. El_C 15:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Now it's "the opening" (but, what is?)? Why can't you just read & reply to my actual post? Why am I supposed to guess your personal preferences, presented afterward as autoritative? Why should I discard that quote and the whole of WP:RFC? And, maybe relevant, why can't you admit & correct the wrongs I pointed out repeatedly? -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Now it's "the opening" (but, what is?)? That wen't over my head. Anyway, I admitted my errors about the timeline, but my basic warning to you not to mess with the RfC opening, that hasn't changed. It was inappropriate of you in that instance, which I am authorized to determine, and warn you against, as you are to appeal. Which maybe this subsection is...? Hard to tell. Outside of yourself, Sandbh, and Robert McClenon (all of you with some history, it seems), there seems to be little interest in this ANI report atm, anyway. El_C 17:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You are talking from authority, so you are supposed to explain your statements. You cannot just ididnthearthat and then throw in your own approach including "warnings" ie threats and then walk away. I have pointed to flaws and wrongs. You started using wording the opening, which is mistifying, and so incidentally evades a point you're expected to reply to. Don't mix or lump together your replies to Sandbh and to me. If you've admitted errors "about the timeline" (huh?) and you still come to the same conclusions, you have not admitted an ounce of essence. Why can't I find a clarification from you for the contradiction between the quote I quoted and your claims? Honest question: did you even read my exposé, check the diffs, sought the reasoning behind it? -DePiep (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

DePiep, as far as I'm concerned, you are both responsible for the confused state of the RfC's opening prior to my intervention. I don't know what you mean by you have not admitted an ounce of essence —again, over my head— but I'd admit that I'm unable to tell which of you is more to blame for the disruption to that RfC.

If you want me to clarify that you've both been equally warned (and that any lumping together is by default), sure. My main purpose was to get the RfC to be not broken and disrupted, so my actions should only be viewed a stop-gap measure to achieve that. ATM, I don't really care to look into any longstanding dispute between you two. El_C 18:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Topic-Ban DePiep

I propose that User:DePiep be topic-banned from chemistry-related topics.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this report leads to your proposal. (Could you at least provide diffs for what you think is transgressive?) Above, I have described:

- I asked a question re discussion setup [132], which was acknowedged by a 3rd [133] and 4th [134] editor.

- I asked a question about talkpage layout (bullet usage) [135], which was acknowledged by adressee in coordination with 3rd editor [136],

- I posted two contributions to the discussion, one of which was deleted by involved and complaining editor Sandbh [137] (astonishingly, I add).

Please reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've had many interactions with DePiep outside of this topic area, running from cooperative to contentious, and as such I have watched this conflict as a talk-page stalker for several years now. This conflict would not exist in this state without considerable violations of courtesy, policy, and cooperation by Sandbh, and any topic ban that singles out another editor and does not include them is highly problematic. There is a distinct lack of WP:Civility on all sides in this conflict, and Sandbh's conduct with this recent RfC brings up some pretty serious WP:OWN concerns. The RfC doesn't belong to Sandbh, and they have no right to impose their preferred format to the discussion, nor to remove other people's content because they don't follow some arbitrary rule. That having been said, DePiep's adding a glossary was needlessly provocative, and this is unfortunately only one example of this kind of activity. Frankly, both of these editors have been adding a lot more heat than light to this subject area for quite a while now, and neither of them have been putting in the work to resolve their issues with each other. So if you want to bring in a topic ban, you're going to need to cast a much wider net than just DePiep. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 22:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I previously acknowledged at WP:ANI that I was wrong to revert one of DePiep's posts to the RfC.[138] It was open to DePiep to observe WP:BRD rather than to revert my revert, and to revert the subsequent reverts I made per WP:BOLD. I previously acknowledged at WP:ANI the warning given to me by El_C that I don't get to clerk the RfC [139]. On heat v light, in this subject area (of the periodic table), and in the past six months, I made one edit—a revert, including giving reasons.[140] My revert was reverted by DePiep[141] (with no supporting comments), rather than following WP:BRD. I've further been active in attempting to bring nonmetal up to FAC status and recently achieved six supports and one oppose. While the oppose was from DePiep I don't regard that as having anything to do with this discussion. Indeed, I took up some of his suggestions and where I didnt, I set out of my reasoning. Thank you for the opportunity to give an account of my actions. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I would suggest that a topic ban from the periodic table would be more in order than one from chemistry in general. While DePiep is with some frequency a corrosive element wherever they edit (pun intended), it's been my observation that this is much more strongly the case when they edit concerning the periodic table. Editing in that subject area would be much less contentious without their participation, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Two Non-Proposals

I will throw out two bad ideas for how to resolve this dispute, to recommend against them, in case they come up during this thread.

• Interaction ban between DePiep and Sandbh. These are two editors who do not like each other, but I think that an interaction ban is a bad idea because they frequently edit in the same areas, the elements and the periodic table, so that an interaction ban could be gamed to acquire a first mover advantage. It might seem like a good idea, but is a bad idea.
• Closing this thread with no action. These editors have been quarreling over the formatting of the periodic table for too long, and will continue to come back here if this thread is just closed.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I will also comment that these editors are quarreling over a matter of formatting. There is no underlying scientific difference between different formats of the periodic table. Some chemists recognize that any form of the periodic table is useful for teaching, and that the periodic table is not used for research. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What to do, what to do?? One editor has a block log that is quite long and illustrious. The other has never been blocked, in more than a decade. This does point to the possibility of the first editor getting banned if they persist. In addition, the RFC appears to be working. To help it be hospitable for new arrivals, I have collapse two long, unhelpful walls of text. If the litigants agree to leave it that way and let more editors comment freely, I think the RFC will reach a clear resolution. I think we should keep this thread open and see if the litigants agree to let the RFC run its course. If that happens, no action will be needed. If they prove that they can't restrain themselves, I recommend renewing the request for arbitration. It was moving towards acceptance last time until the involved parties decided to back down and be more collegial. Should we need to go back a second time, I don't think that strategy will work again. We will get a case, and editor #1 with the long block log is likely to get banned. Also, attacking El C [142] for trying to mediate this dispute is not a good look, DePiep. I hope you follow my advice to curtail the hostility and put down the WP:CUDGEL.[143] Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly oppose you collapsing my contribution at the RfC. You have not even clarified why or how that has to do with this ANI thread. You are directly interfering and judging in an ongoing RfC? I object your "no good look" qualification: I may expect my points to be addressed. -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

btw User talk:Jehochman I think your opening line here is incorrect. Pls check you claims. -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I just realized that Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#DePiep exists. I was unaware of this until now. El_C 19:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Good find, Mr. C. DePiep, what's wrong with One editor has a block log that is quite long and illustrious.[144] Most of these blocks are from Wikipedia A-listers, and the only one of the dozen was overturned. ^Talk 21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

DePiep, your editing restriction gives me wide latitude in which to sanction you. Now, because I got a lot of the original details wrong, though as I keep mentioning, not the crux, I'm not gonna do that at this point. About the crux and about your objection to being "lumped" together with your opponent wrt the RfC disruption, I'll quote what Vanisaac said (in part, though I recommend reading his comment in full):

Frankly, both of these editors have been adding a lot more heat than light to this subject area for quite a while now, and neither of them have been putting in the work to resolve their issues with each other (diff).

So in light of that, I'd submit to you that it's in your best interest to de-escalate rather than keep throwing more fuel to the fire. Because rightly or not, sooner or later that's gonna catch up with you (again). And, if your opponent (longstanding opponent, as Vanisaac notes) stays relatively calm when you do not, you're greatly disadvantaged. Rightly or wrongly. Good to keep in mind. El_C 01:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Jehochman and El C: please take note [145] [146] [147]. It also illustrates why I use the wording "frivolous reporting". I don't know why you did not see it. With this, you might want to reasses your reasonings and conclusions. -DePiep (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• DePiep, please understand their faults don’t excuse you. You and they are two independent people. If you get riled up by some other editor who acts badly, stay away from them. If they are indeed up to no good, others will notice and do something about it. When you get into the action, it draws attention from them towards you. I know from my own recent experience that it can be hard or impossible to disengage when you see somebody ruining an article (in your view). You must still disengage or you will risk getting the sanction. The powers here are often humorless, and unforgiving. Enough of this. Just don’t post to any of these pages further. Go edit something else and avoid your nemesis. Jehochman ^Talk 06:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not claim any excuse. At all. Apparently it was necessary to completify the record, since you missed this information. Because this is new & relevant, I asked you to reconsider your own statements conclusions, for starters in your 19:05 What to do post opening (now shown to be incorrect as we have seen). BTW Do we know why this did not show up? Tech glitch?

I am surprised you are forbidding me to add this information. Why should I not fix missing information? You missed it, so I added it, at your own request. Worrying is, that you did cheer one find, and reject-with-admonishing another one. I expect unbiased approach. Please stop the "does not look good" blanket replies. If there are mistakes, I can point them out and ask for a rethink. -DePiep (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I add: it was you not me who introduced the logs here. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C: bizzy in RL from now, will reply later today. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Update

• It pains and saddens me to report that DePiep has once again re-reverted,[148] this time a revert of mine,[149] without observing the civility of WP:BRD. The page in question is the article that is the subject of the RfC.
• My WP:BOLD revert was of an edit by YBG; the two of us have been working together on the nonmetal article for some time, including during its FAC nomination. I received a civility barnstar for this work.
• As User:Jehochman noted, the RfC itself has been proceeding relatively smoothly since I posted my complaint here.
• I have twice acknowledged here at ANI that I was wrong to revert two of DePiep's edits. While I actioned these reverts in good faith they showed ignorance on my part of the applicable policy. @DePiep: I apologise to you for revering your edits.
• As noted, DePiep and I sometimes edit in the same areas. In my experience this has usually occurred without fuss. When I ask questions of DePiep his responses are usually civil.
• I make no claim to be angelic and I strive to observe WP policy, and to learn from my mistakes
• My general impression of DePiep's responses here are that they are hostile in tone; disrespectful of this forum and other editors involved in this thread including User:El_C and User:Jehochman; exemplary of WP:BLUDGEON-like behavior; and inconsistent with the indefinite editing restrictions he is under. Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s not nice to facilitate the downfall of another editor. Please stop reverting and use the talk page as it is meant to be. Make an earnest effort to consider each other’s opinions. Show respect and extend the Olive branch. If it gets thrown back in your face, somebody will notice and do something about it. There is no need to come here wringing your hands, looking tearful. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Airports

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

---

I recently started manual adding tags to airport articles in order to improve the sourcing of the - often horrendously bad - articles. This was earlier discussed here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#editing_thousands_of_articles_to_enforce_a_rule_that_does_not_actually_exist without action. Now User:Mako001 is removing the tags under the WP:BRD-excuse, but without discussion and clearly done by a bot. These removals are not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 11:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) They seem to be reverting these edits now (i.e. restoring your hidden notes). Can this be closed?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I've actually noticed (and removed) one of those tags; in this case, primary sources would appear to be allowed by WP:PRIMARY #3, as they are being used to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". That is not to say there isn't a significant issue with those tables, both in terms of their existence in those articles (See this ongoing RFC, which is how I encountered your tag) and in terms of their sourcing, which is often non-existent or not verifiable. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, my apologies, I didn't realise that the issue was discussed fully prior to this, I am reverting my removals, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverted all, if I've missed any please let me know. Is any further action needed? Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To make it clear, whilst I was aware of the previous discussion listed above, I hadn't actually read it through, or at all in fact. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding independent sources?

But I have noted that the big airports and airlines are fairly well maintained but poorly sourced. Smaller airlines and airports not so much. I have seen many cases of sources dating from 2007 and 2012, which in this pandemic time are not really up to date. And I have many cases where airline QQ states that is flying on airport CC, where the airport replies wit:"huh, what?".The Banner talk 11:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue is solved by now, so this can be closed as solved. The Banner talk 11:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Republic of Crimea

Please have a review of the page on Republic of Crimea, which is incorrectly consistently marked as a subject of russia by russian bots. This violates international law and many national laws as well. There is no reason to have this kind of illegal marking in the the article. Crimea was, is and always will be part of Ukraine, illegally temporarily occupied by Russia and should be marked as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Really? 331dot is a Russian bot?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If I am, I'm not getting paid enough for it. (that's a joke) This doesn't require admin action as the user has not attempted to discuss it with me. The article summarizes independent sources which state that Crimea is administered as part of Russia and others consider it to be under occupation. There is nothing "illegal" about this content. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) This happens on a regular basis, many Ukrainian users are incapable of understanding the difference between the Republic of Crimea and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and consider any mention that Crimea is de-facto administered by Russia as POV.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to duplicate the discussion at Talk:Republic of Crimea here. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We actually have a discussion on this on the talk page and you have suggested for me to gather troops and attack Crimea to make sure Wikipedia has correct status for Crimea. Without even commenting on this, I am no expert on how Wikipedia works, but I don't think that 331dot gets to decide how the status of Crimea should be marked on the Wikipedia page, so this requires admin input. 331dot have repeteadly changed my edits to have it marked the way hejust stated - part of Ukraine, temporarily occupied and administered by Russia. This is the status of this territory and should be marked as such. Marking this as part of Russia breaks international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

For sure, you are not to decide this either. Certainly not before you become an expert on how Wikipedia works.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We do say it, but the article is not about the Autonomous Republic of Crimea it is about the Republic of Crimea. A separate entity, in the sense that we have an article on both claims. At this stage you appear to be a POV pushing wp:spa who is wp:nothere. I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• that's a joke — said every bot ever. El_C 12:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So why exactly he is deciding this and not me? On which ground? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS requires you to get wp:consensus to make such a major change.You did not have it, as such it was down to your to stop reverting and win them over. Now at least two other users have told you you are wrong over this. As such it is now time for you to drop this and accept you do not have consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

how can I have consensus with 332dot if he seriously suggested for me to start a war so that he could change this status on Wikipedia? Another his idea was to have a UN resolution on how this should be marked on WIkipedia. Are you guys serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You were the one that said under international law the Republic of Crimea was not Russian, he just asked for proof of that claim. It may well be that the UN has said the crimea is not Russian, that is not what the article is about. It is about the Russian crated puppet state.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well no, he specifically requested UN resolution on what it should be named in WIkipedia and edited it later to look like he asks for the law you are talking about. And yes, there are resolutions marking that Crimea is occupied by Russia, everyone knows that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

But this article is not about the Crimea, are you even reading what you are being told? At this stage, you are heading into wp:tenditious territory and are becoming a time sink (and learn to wp:sign and wp:indent as well).Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Block the IP. This is a waste of valuable editors time. When someone starts from a position of "Illegal under international law", the likelihood of a rational discussion ending with the gain of a new productive wikipedia editor is near zero.Slywriter (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

45.142.160.71 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Wow if you don't like what you are told, you are trying to call someone a time sink or to even block his IP? If you don't know it, then I will tell you, that everyone in Ukraine and Russia calls Autonomous Republic of Crimea (UA) or Republic of Crimea (a puppet state created by Russia to administer occupied Crimean peninsula - yes, as you can see I know the distinction, don't you even have doubts I don't) simply as Crimea. To avoid you using this against me, I will in future use the correct term - if this actually adds anything to the topic of discussion - namely that the discussed statement, does not clearly specify that this was entity created to administer occupied territory and is only recognized by Russia and only a few other states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

And when someone starts by saying block the person providing argument cause it wastes his valuable time, something is wrong with such statements in my opinion and should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.142.160.71 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is now clear this is a wp:nothere account, I am unsure a block is needed a TBAN is, then maybe they might learn how to act by editing in a less contentious topic area more conducive to learning how we do things.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I will repeat myself because this hasn't been addressed, but why is this being discussed here when the OP started a discussion at the correct place, Talk:Republic of Crimea, moments before creating this one? This should have been closed immediately in favour of that discussion, but now a behavioural issue has been raised so we are left with a train-wreck. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

While the substance of this particular issue shall be indeed discussed at RoC talkpage, the broad issue of long-term country misplacing by IPs might still be worthy of consideration, because similar things also happen, from time to time, on Ukrainian counterpart's page, Autonomous Republic of Crimea: users fail (or don't bother at all) to read and/or understand {{About}} headers on these two pages and repeatedly try to put wrong country/subdivision pair on one or these pages: pro-Russian IPs try to label AR Crimea a Russian subdivision, and pro-Ukrainian IPs try to label Republic of Crimea a Ukrainian subdivision. I'm afraid, that we end up in either putting these "do not confuse" notices in editnotices of these pages (perhaps in big font, so editors will surely notice that when editing one of these pages) or, if that won't help, the time might come to semiprotect these pages indefinitely. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me, as this seems to be an IP issue lets just prevent IP;s from editing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-agreeable and unresponsive user

PlanespotterA320 has been reverting people without edit summaries and refusing to discuss a disagreement that arose between this user and me at here [150]. The conflict started when I found about the page De-Tatarization of Crimea created by this user. I was interested and noticed this ethnic group also had a navigation template (Template:Crimean Tatar Surgun era) created by the same user. This article was listed on it but as "Detatarization of Crimea" instead of "De-Tatarization of Crimea". I did some changes which included using the latter form because the article was already titled that way so it just seemed logical to me [151]. This user manually reverted this change [152]. I manually reverted back, with the edit summary "per article title" as the user could have not realized (I hadn't realized they had created that article yet) [153] and I was reverted again without an edit summary [154].

Afterwards, I left a message on the template's talk page, but it wasn't responded. I then searched a bit more to see if this had been disputed before or something just to get some context and saw that this user had created that page and that a conflict over the article's title had already ocurred back in 2020 [155]. Notice that the user had already been reverting without edit summaries by then. Later in March 2020 there was a formal RM which passed and the article, originally created under "Detatarization of Crimea", was moved to "De-Tatarization of Crimea". I read some arguments and it appears that "De-Tatarization" is more common in the academic world, better as per English grammar, and recommended by Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Hyphens and dashes ('Hyphens [...] are used: [...] when prefixing a capitalized word, such as "un-Christian"'; the Tatars are an ethnic group with a subgroup living in Crimea). Apart of all of this, when this dispute happened, the article was already titled that way.

At this point this situation seemed illogical to me so I reverted back [156]; the user did the same but this time with an edit summary stating "I'm the one that MADE this template and the article in question, stop making petty useless edits" (WP:OWN, already noted by another user in the talk page) [157]. I requested a WP:3O but it was declined and I was recommended to follow WP:DISCFAIL instead, which I believe I did properly. From now on I believe it is better for anyone to read the talk page instead, but basically, the user did mention some arguments as to why defend "Detatarization", to which I replied with some arguments as to why we shouldn't use this form, which again went unreplied.

This situation is so absurd to me that I've decided to go ahead and take measures to enforce this simply valid change. PlanespotterA320 has rejected to talk about the issue and stated they will not participate in any discussion anymore. Note the tone of the last message sent by them on the talk page. Please take measures so this situation is clarified. I will note that today this user, after two years, decided to try and unilaterally move the mainspace article De-Tatarization of Crimea back to "Detatarization" without any discussion and overruling the RM that approved this title [158]. This was reverted by another user [159]. Super Ψ Dro 19:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I will note that I manually reverted once again after this user sent their last message so far on the template talk page becuase I thought they had decided to leave the issue ("You can revert on the template if you feel like being a grammar nazi that badly, but I will NOT self-revert and I will NOT contribute to the prolonging of this discussion that should not ever exist. I am OUT and do not care to listen to this pettyness any further.") [160]. I was reverted again by the same user [161]. Super Ψ Dro 19:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Users who are not part of the Crimea Wikiproject taskforce has also been the subject of editwars on Russian Wikipedia) with no knowledge of the hyphenation controversy shouldn't be dictating how Crimea articles are titled. Those who come looking to start edit wars and pick and pick to interfere with actual content developers are not helpful to the goals of Wikipedia. There shouldn't even be such prolonged, drawn-out discussions over such pedantic tiny things in templates. The only reason I can imagine why the user bringing this up (Super Dromaeosaurus) is choosing to push for having such long and drawn-out process is to obstruct development of the remaining needed content on Crimean history (wasting my time by dragging me into such "discussions" again and again instead of sticking to their realm of Romanian history and letting me do my thing, ie, finish the redlinked articles in the template list). This is a longstanding problem on Wikipedia that has been exacerbated over the years - more time spent on petty talkpage arguments with people woh aren't even members of the respective wikiproject, less time writing and improving actual articles. Less respect to subject-matter experts, more subject-matter experts leave, more articles left unfinished/redlinks remain. If they at least bothered to be aware of the hypenation and capitalization controversy surrounding the word "tatar" or attempted to reach out to the people at crh wikipedia it would be one thing. But they haven't done that, the outsider decided that the Crimean template should be their way and decided to impose a burecratic process to push it nonstop. I will not discussion this further with people who are not project members, and I will revert below the limits of the editwar defintion (2 per 24 hours). But I will not respond to pings, or further calls for "discussion" with these blatant obstructionists impeeding my ability to MEANINGFULLY contribute to Wikipedia, and I once AGAIN call on them to either familiarize themselves with key parts of Crimean history before attempting to take sides or go be productive in a different part of the encyclopedia where they can make meaningful, productive contributions to the project that increase the availability of quality content instead of going around and picking fights with good editors. I should not have to reiterate that Crimean Tatars are NOT a subgroup of the ACTUAL Tatar people, but a completely separate, CRIMEAN people (more closely relted to the Gagauz or Azerbaijanis than actual Tatars or Bashkirs) who got CALLED TATAR by RUSSIANS (as a slur) and the name stuck (and has been a huge burden ever since, like with Ukaz 493. (Russians used to call all Muslims, from actual Tatars, to Bashkirs, to even Azerbaijanis "Tatars", but the name obviously didn't stick for all) In Crimean Tatar and Russian languages, there is strong opposition to capitalization of the tatar part of the defacto ethnonym, which is properly written as Qırımtatar, NOT Qırım-Tatar, not Qırım Tatar, not Qırım-Tatar). Of course, the user in question who actually wrote out "the Tatars are an ethnic group with a subgroup living in Crimea" (which made my jaw drop) would know about the controversy over the very word tatar itself if they were a good-standing member of a Crimean task force wikiproject and bothered to read the available articles and materials about this very issue. The very use of the word "subgroup" in reference to the Crimean Tatar people here (and not a part of it, say, the mountain or coast dwellers) just goes to show just how little they know about Crimeanness and how they have no business attempting to make calls on how things related to Crimeanness are written. I doubt he/she would be very positive, responseful, or even respectful if I said that Romanians are a subgroup of Moldovans and insisted on having long petty discussions about Romanian matters based on my minimal/non-existance knowledge of Romanians.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We're in English-language Wikipedia, where English-language standards and not Russian ones apply. In Wikipedia, these types of controversies are usually disregarded as ugly as it might sound. "Transnistria" is not a very liked name in Transnistria, but Wikipedia still uses this name per WP:COMMONNAME, and so per WP:COMMONNAME is "de-Tatarization" seen as a better title than "detatarization" as it is more commonly used in sources. But I will admit on having poor knowledge on the Crimean Tatars and I apologize for referring to them as a Tatar subgroup. And I don't gain everything from stripping Wikipedia away from info about the Crimean Tatars. I've been here in Wikipedia for a while now, and I've met a diverse group of people with whom I've had many absurd disputes. The first time is okay, I can move on, but the tenth? Sorry, but no. I am pretty convinced my stance is supported by English Wikipedia policies, and I plan to act upon that. Super Ψ Dro 20:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place for content disputes. But as Super Ψ Dro said, what goes on in other projects and actually even the Simple English Wikipedia or English Wiktionary doesn't generally concern us. There's no requirement that anyone must be part of any wikiproject to participate in discussions about any thing that affects Wikipedia as a whole including stuff in general templates. Actually such a requirement in strongly against fundamental wikipedia policy. Nor is there any requirement that only content creators can participate in discussions. Any editor in good standing can participate in discussions on improving pages and being them more in line with our policies and guidelines. Expert participation is always welcome, but they will generally need to bring sources etc to demonstrate whatever they are saying rather than just expect others to trust them. I'd note that if something is a pedantic tiny thing then there is probably no reason to oppose a change that another editors brings a page more in line with our policies and guidelines. But if there is a reason then ultimately the editor opposing will need to adequately explain their reasoning. Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

As I was told, I followed WP:DISCFAIL, precisely step 9, because before I made this report, the other user had stated they would not participate anymore in any discussion. Is this really a content dispute at this point? By the way, whether "detatarization" or "de-Tatarization" is correct or not was already decided at the 2020 RM on the article's talk page in question. Where else am I supposed to take this issue? To WP:AE, where the outcome will be the same as in the RM (because, why wouldn't it)? This issue was already decided, and "de-Tatarization" was shown to be a better title. I don't think we need reports and requests to change every single link to this article, because one user opposes this and refuses to explain their reasoning until an ANI report is filed. Super Ψ Dro 20:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't take the issue ANYWHERE, or attempt to get further discussion AT ALL. You should DROP THE STICK and stick to your matters within your own purveiw. PERIOD. Stick to articles on things you have at least an elementary understanding of. Like other users pointed out, this place isn't even a good place for content disputes. So be on your merry way and stick to some Romania related articles instead of obstructing Crimean content (I have wasted over an hour that could have been spent writing the missing articles to address your comments, and have made it very clear that I do not wish to waste any more)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually you are the editor who is out of line here, not Super Dromaeosaurus. You are being argumentative, exclusionist, ignoring consensus, and being belligerent not to mention what at this point can only be willful WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT around the capitalization and hyphenation. At this point I’m rather close to blocking you right not for not being willing to edit in a collaborative environment and throwing around wording that makes it clear you are uninterested in cooperating with other editors. You are very clearly unaware of what wikipedias policies and guidelines are and unless you step back and look at what you are saying, apologize and do a 180 turn on this approach, you are going to be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Just self-revert then. If you don't wanna waste more time into this, just do that. As you said on my talk page, you could expand the scope of the article. You could also rename it. But opposing a link (not even the article title, just a link), which contradicts the title of the article it is linking to, has not taken you anywhere. So just back off and self-revert. I don't even need apologies. My intention is not to make anyone feel humilliated. Plus, you'll save yourself from a block. I believe it's the most sensible action you can do right now. Super Ψ Dro 21:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

How about simply changing the label to "Toponym renaming" in the template as a compromise? (and being by far the most prominent/obvious aspect of detatarization that lingers today)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: Again please hold this discussion on the template talk page not here. Note that you seem to have misunderstood my comment. It was directed at both of you but mostly you. Super Ψ Dro started of the discussion with some brief mention of the content issue which was largely fine to help understand the background, but most of their message concentrated on your conduct that causes concern. You then came and didn't offer any reasonable defence of your conduct, instead made a lengthy post about the content dispute. You should continue the discussion on the talk page in good faith, stop reverting, and stop claiming people cannot participate because they aren't content creators or lack knowledge or whatever. I'd note that since the article has a certain title, you'd need to make a compelling argument for why we should say something else in the template. A compelling argument for article title being wrong is actually likely a very poor argument for doing something else in the template. Instead, it's a good reason to start a new RM and solve the actual problem. (If you feel the article is wrong but the community disagrees with you then generally you just have to accept that. There are some case where it's completely fine, thats what you need to demonstrate if you want to use a different title in the template.) Likewise, unless the link the template is only to a certain part of the article, in which case it probably should link to a subsection either directly or via a redirect, it's unlikely there is a good reason to have the link title only covering part of the article. Note this is intended as general advice so please don't reply with any arguments you have on what we should do, here. Instead take them to the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• I should note this user keeps the same condescending tone as before [162]. Maybe it's time for a warning? Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  The user keeps this tone already for many years, here, on Commons, and on the Russian Wikipedia. This is my favorite example from several years ago, where she pretty much says she does not care about policies and is not going to listen to anyone.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Director Neeraj Singh and Bikrookanpurgangster

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but would appreciate someone taking a look at Draft:Director Neeraj Singh. This was created by Bikrookanpurgangster who I believe is also editing it as IP2402:3a80:b42:ec57:0:63:9c5c:3c01 (I'm not complaining about the logged-off editing). The second edit summary on creating the page was "i am an indian writer and director i want to have a wikipedia page so that i can connect among my fans". The article had already been created as Draft:Neeraj_Singh, which was declined by Idoghor Melody and rejected by TheWikiholic. Based on the poor referencing, the fact the article obviously existed to connect with fans, i.e. was promotional, and had already been rejected under a different name, I tagged it for speedy deletion. The IP editor removed the tag. I replaced it with an explanation in the edit summary that they could contest it, but not remove the tag [163]. I also put a note on the IP's talk page [164], and on the draft's talk page. They have removed the tag for a second time. This is clearly going nowhere. I suspect they're going to continue to create drafts and remove tags. I don't know if I'm over-reacting, or whether my original tag was justified. But there's no point in getting drafts rejected and declined if they're just going to get recreated with different names, and WP isn't a social media site. I've tried to explain, but I don't think the editor gets it. Elemimele (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To make the COI even more obvious, user Bikrookanpurgangster is named after the film in the article: "... the film titled Bikroo Kanpur Gangster is based on..." rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• I Speedy Deleted it as another draft on the topic already exists. We don't actually have a CSD criteria for that regarding drafts, but I think it will pass muster. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

78.190.1.136

This user is so.n of a b.it.ch and spread fake Poorsian propaganda. One day he will be remove from wikipedia for using site as gaysian propaganda. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Let us know if they return after or ip hop. Canterbury Tail talk 21:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

They have: Gaysian lobby on work LoL :D You fking little sheet you are the one who nationalist manipulater editor --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: This is his third IP already, which he not only uses to make nasty comments, but also WP:TENDENTIOUS disruption and edit warring. Think a range-block might be needed: Iranian facist. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've just done a range block over this, hopefully its sufficient. Canterbury Tail talk 15:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Invalid vandalism warning.

Please look at this edit by bbb23. I was warned for vandalizing wikipedia. Is that a joke? I didn't vandalize anything. Look at the history of helpful edits from my IP address. No vandalism.

I tried to tag an article for deletion, but then I cannot because I don't have a username. So I flagged the article as db-album. I think it's a pretty easy decision to delete that album under the speedy criteria because there's nothing notable about it.

So explain why I'm given a harsh warning like this. This is unacceptable behavior for an admin. Further, that admin has a locked talk page so I cannot leave her a notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Since you are supposed to notify any user that you discuss here on their talk page, but you are unable to because their talk page is protected, I will alert Bbb23 for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

bbb23 will likely delete this discussion entirely without discussion. I have seen it before. Again I ask everyone to look at my edits to see no vandalism. Further, look at the page I flagged for deletion. I'm sure it meets speedy criteria and it would fail AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• If it had just been the bogus tagging of the Michael Jones album, I would not have left a vandalism warning. However, the IP had also edited the Michael Jones article to state that Jones had died. This was sourced to an unverified Facebook page. It was reverted by others. Based on the IP's comments here, it looks like they have a chip on their shoulder ("I have seen it before"). Moreover, they could just have asked me on their Talk page the basis for the warning rather than bringing this to ANI, and I would have responded.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Your talk page is locked. I cannot contact you. If you LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF MY EDITS you will see I am not a vandal. Giving me the warning you did is completely unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) They probably could have been a bit more cautious in their wording (I wouldn't have leaped straight to the level 4im "blatant vandalism, only warning" template in a situation like this), but a few of your recent edits have had very basic problems, so I could see how they could leap to assuming it's vandalism. First of all, this nomination (in addition to the malformatted template) is plainly invalid because Michael Jones has an article and, as it says in the template, {{db-album}} only applies when the artist doesn't. It's right in the first sentence, so it's hard to miss, and the fact that you went from trying AFD to that template (and knew enough to invoke a CSD) makes it reasonable to conclude that you were intentionally using a CSD inappropriately to get around not being able to AFD it. Second, you cited a random facebook post here (in the edit summary, not the text), which is completely unacceptable as a source to establish that a BLP subject is dead - and at least at a first glance I can't find any reliable sources at all saying he is dead yet (though admittedly it's a hard name to search due to how common it is), which makes it reasonable for people to be leery that it could be a hoax. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have made no vandalism edits. None. Look at the history. Michael Jones, someone with whom I have corresponded, is dead. His own Facebook page and other pages verify it. There's a memorial video link on his own YouTube channel with a countdown as to when it will be. Why don't you do the right thing, apologize for mistaking me as a vandal, and then put his album page (which is not notable) up for AFD? Can you please do the right thing? Isn't there a WP:AGF rule? You don't seem to follow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Like I said, I don't think the {{uw-vandalism4im}} template you got was quite the right one to go with - it's more for completely unambiguous "replaces an entire page with cocks cocks cocks cocks" sort of vandalism, not for dubious edits that could be deliberate vandalism or could just be an inexperienced or confused editor. There's a reason the lower-severity templates are worded more ambiguously. But I don't think a {{uw-vandalism1}} "your unhelpful edit has been reverted" warning would have been inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Fine, then we could have had a discussion. I only removed the AFD template because I don't have a username and I cannot do it. I wasn't trying to "circumvent" anything. The warning I got is just wrong. Someone kindly add AFD to that album. As much as I like Michael, that's not even his best album and there's nothing at all notable about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
        • If he has died we still have to wait for an WP:RS to cover that before we can reflect it on Wikipedia - it should not take too long. Just set up a Google News alert or the like, wait for something to appear, and cite that when it does. And if you want to list a page at AFD despite being unregistered, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion explains how - If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. --Aquillion (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In retrospect, I agree with Aquillion that my warning was too harsh. Unfortunately, I originally thought that the death material was completely unsourced, but that was my error. I'll remove the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Because of the discussion at the IP's Talk page, instead of removing the warning, I struck it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Unilateral reopening of a contentious closed RfC by an involved participant.

See recent edits to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes, where Nug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has arbitrarily reopened a closed RfC [165] without the slightest attempt to gain consensus to do so. [166] This article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and it should be entirely self-evident that such an action, by one of the major participants in the discussion, without any prior discussion whatsoever, cannot possibly achieve anything but further disruption. And frankly, I don't have the slightest doubt that disruption was the objective, given that the RfC didn't go Nug's way.

I suggest that an uninvolved admin revert Nug's out-of-process arbitrary action, and inform Nug that any further disruption will lead to DS sanctions. Either that, or someone should take this whole mess to ArbCom, where they can look at the broader context, the gaming of the system (from multiple contributors, on both sides of the debate), and the broader failures of the 'community' to prevent these endless cycles of nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Restarting_an_RfC says anyone can restart an RfC that has ended, as long as the discussion has not been closed. I think given the topic a bit more time is certainly warranted given recent history. If an admin thinks otherwise then no problem. --Nug (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That response is exactly what I mean by 'gaming the system'. Nug is fully aware that a request for closure of the RfC was submitted 5 days ago. Waiting until now without raising the slightest objection to the proposal, and then acting unilaterally, is intentionally disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• The closure was requested 5 days ago and nothing has happened, so I'd imagine many admins would be relieved that the RFC has been extended to allow a bit more time to see if clearer consensus develops. Last thing we need is another closure with "no consensus" for any option. --Nug (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So why did you act unilaterally? After five days. Without the slightest attempt to gain 'consensus' for your actions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Restarting_an_RfC doesn't require consensus, and there are people still !voting after the first rfc tag expired, so a bit extra time is justified. The RFC is now closed, so this discussion is now moot.--Nug (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  There have been nearly 100 votes cast over the course of a month. Exactly what are you expecting to happen that will suddenly cause a clear consensus to emerge from this discussion? Sometimes RfCs end with no consensus. In this case, I think it would be better to close it as no consensus, study the results, take a break for a month or two, and then perhaps consider starting a new RfC that attacks the problem from a different angle, presents different options to the reader, and builds off of the discussion that took place at this RfC. Nothing is going to be changed by leaving this one open longer. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess that's an outcome. At least we finally got some movement. --Nug (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Violation of Talk Page Guidelines

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

---

There was another violation of talk page guidelines concerning this RFC. User:My very best wishes changed their !vote, which was permitted, and then changed my signed tabulation of !votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=1067343317&oldid=1067343231&diffmode=source

The talk page guidelines list a limited number of situations in which the comments of another editor may be edited, at Editing Others Comments, and this was not one of them. In particular, the guideline says: " Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". The meaning was that the count of !votes that I had tabulated was, to the best of my knowledge, correct as of the time of the signature timestamp. I see that the RFC is being closed. I object to having my tabulation changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the closer User:Wugapodes knows how to assess !votes. --Nug (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I wasn't concerned that the closer would be misled. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Use of ISIS propaganda twitter sources

Islamiyyatstate (talk · contribs) A user by the name of Islamiyyatstate (A reference to an islamic state?) has recently started editing Battle of al-Hasakah with twitter sources. More specifically twitter sources that are ISIS propaganda, he was warned about this here. Moreover this does not seem to be this editor's first use of ISIS propaganda sources, previously on the Kabul Bombing attack committed by ISIS this user also put in Pro-ISIS twitter sources into the article which can be seen as POV pushing, see here. They have been told not to use a pro-ISIS twitter account as a source multiple times, but keeps choosing to not get the point 1, 2, 3, the twitter account being used a source here is this account a pro-ISIS account spouting ISIS propaganda created recently. Warnings and explanations towards not using twitter on talk has failed as they insist that twitter can be used as source. I am putting this here as I do not they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Also Battle of al-Hasakah (2022) is under the Syrian Civil War community sanctions, so shouldn't it be extended proctored, or at the very least semi-protected to avoid cases like this? Des Vallee (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

They seem to have agreed not to use Twitter links?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Horang2022 reported by Reiro: BLP concerns

Original heading: "User joining only to stalk a living person". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Horang2022 (talk · contribs)

Hello, I am Reiro, one of the administrators in Korean Wikipedia. I know I have ongoing discussion with this user, but he seems some IPs in Korean Wikipedia, urging to reveal the personal information related someone since 2020, just editing once and twice. Please look at below in talk:lilka:

• Horang2022: Lilka intentionally published her birthday, birthplace, former occupation, former workplace and universities where she studied.
  IPs :And how funny is it to erase the real name that can be confirmed from the secondary source and the primary source when Lilka has revealed his face, voice, job, birthday, and academic background?[167]
• Horang2022: Because Lilka intends to make other merchandise under her controversial trademarks, her real name should be public information to track the decision about her trademarks.
  IPs: In addition to the registration of intellectual property rights, the official registered media called influencer Dot com and Daily e-sports reporters from corporations such as Daily e-Sports have their real names directly on articles written by other officially registered media, and there are more than one independent article.[168]
• Horang2022: Not only United states but also South Korean laws distinguishes high-profile individuals and low-profile individual. She is not private individual under US laws or South Korean laws because she made many self-promotional activities.
  IPs:Is it an infringement of personal information that South Korea, which has a resident registration system unlike the United States, does not need to hide its real name to prevent identity theft?[169]

Lilka does already noticed that she has been suffering some stalkers for 3 years, and does not want to reveal her personal information on the internet. Also, questioned sources are not appropriate to treat to them. However, Horang2022 bring unreliable Korean sources to justify his edit, which are same things that IPs had displayed. I am from South Korea, but I have never been heard Shinmoongo News and UTAgate Naver, Daum. They have less reliability and less boundary than WhatCulture.

Nevertheless, the IPs once revealed her information on the Korean ko:릴카 article, I deleted the revision and rejected their request to allow write it at January 2, 2022. This user suddenly joined 10 days ago, making her article with the information rejected by Korean Wikipedia, due to poor resources and violation of WP:BLP. and ToBeFree checked that they stated very inappropriate and malicious will in deleted edits, throughout e-mail. (Those revisions was deleted, so I cannot describe in detail here).

Horang2022 seems Single-purpose account, for the leakage of a streamer's information. In above, he/she has too many "coincidences" with IPs, just editing once or twice in Korean Wikipedia. It is sure that they chose to detour to English Wikipedia, for self-satisfying to leak inappropriate information.

Please block this account indefinitely. Thank you.--Reiro (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not prohibit Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and I have no obligation to tell whether I talked in Korean Wikipedia or not. It's my privacy. At that time, Shinmoongo News source was not published. His claim 'I have never been heard Shinmoongo News'(신문고뉴스, 인터넷뉴스 신문고) is false because Reiro actively participated in deletion reviews of Lee Gye-deok article in Korean Wikipedia for 8 years(ko:토론:이계덕/보존2). Lee Gye-deok was a journalist of Shinmoongo News. The Shinmoongo News source is from a partner news site of Daum and give public or academic interests about intellectual property to publish her real name. Because source from Shinmoongo News contains a screenshot of Korean Intellectual Property Office database, there is no doubt for Lilka's real name and reliability. There are three independent reliable secondary sources about Lilka's real name. Books from scholars and case laws suggested that celebrities who are known for trying to get public attention or appearing in the media are public figures and they have less right to privacy. In Korean Wikipedia, Reiro blocked IPs and removed opinions in deletion review to prevent undeletion of two non-commercial organizations(한국서가협회, 대한장기협회) but they were eventually restored by another administrator. This block request should be declined. Horang2022 (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Reiro's block request to take an advantage on discussion should be declined. In Korean Wikipedia, Reiro took advantage on deletion review of two non-commercial organizations(한국서가협회, 대한장기협회) by blocks and ignored WP:INVOLVED but they were eventually restored by another administrator. Horang2022 (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The easiest way to deal with this multi-wiki conflict is to insist that this is the English Wikipedia with its own policies and guidelines. User behavior on the English Wikipedia is usually evaluated independently of user behavior on the Korean Wikipedia.

There was an edit war on the page Lilka, a biography of a living person. The page has not been reviewed yet.

Reiro insists on removal of the disputed content, Horang2022 advocates for inclusion. Per WP:ONUS, part of the verifiability policy, the content remains removed until a consensus for inclusion is found. There is currently no such consensus.

Helpful advice about dispute resolution, for example about disengaging or requesting a third opinion, can be found at WP:Dispute resolution. It's really worth reading. This noticeboard here is a last resort for user behavior; I'm relatively certain that I'll be able to deal with further edit warring without the need of this noticeboard. Regarding the content, perhaps neutrally inviting opinions at WP:BLPN can help.

At the moment, I neither see a need for an indefinite site-wide block of Horang2022, who is already technically unable to edit the page, nor any action against Reiro, who has enforced the verifiability policy through the BLP exemption at WP:3RRNO#7. Ideally, this section here should be closed with a link to WP:DR. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Sauraved

User:Sauraved, in their first month of editing, has racked up five escalating talk page warnings from four editors for various types of disruption. These include manipulating direct quotations, altering reliably sourced figures, and blanking content without explanation. They have not responded, asked for help, or changed their behavior. Their disruptive editing continues, most recently with this edit, in which they changed "12-13 million" to "20 million" in contradiction of the cited sources. It is time for a block of at least a few days to get their attention and dissuade them from further disruption. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that I have just reverted edits by this user here, where they have inflated population numbers across the infobox, without any attempt to update the references. So who knows where these numbers come from, they look suspiciously made-up. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by Spencer for 31 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me know if disruption continues after block is up; 31 hours is my usual starting length for unsourced changes that aren't blatant vandalism/spam/etc. Spencer^T•C 06:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Obvious ban-evasion and disruption

• Millitaryactor (talk · contribs) was blocked after making a series of edits to US army tank articles; repeatedly adding and removing periods, followed by an edit to ‎1982 Ethiopian–Somali Border War.
• Licionfreeman (talk · contribs) has just made a series of edits to US army tank articles; repeatedly adding and removing periods, followed by an edit to ‎1982 Ethiopian–Somali Border War.
• Perhaps an admin could take a look? - wolf 06:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thewolfchild Per BilCat's request on my talk I have blocked the new editor. Looks like the page was protected due to prior disruption, and I would encourage you to consider opening an SPI case if you can track down any prior users blocked for similar disruption. Spencer^T•C 06:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Spencer:, thank you for the quick response. I will definitely file an SPI if I come across any similar editing behavior. Cheers - wolf 06:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

      @Thewolfchild: This is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PaullyMatthews, JSYK. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Zagraut'sTacoFest WP:NOTHERE, WP:GREATWRONGS

Zagraut'sTacoFest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Almost all of this user’s edits are conspiracy mongering, or otherwise violations of Wikipedia:Competence is required. They’re clearly not here to do anything productive. Dronebogus (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've collapsed their latest conspiracy theory infodump. I don't think we're getting anything useful here. Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Do you think they should be blocked before they waste more editors’ time? Dronebogus (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Probably, yes, but I'd like to see more opinions. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes, they should be blocked before they waste more editors’ time--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

         Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Supposed "legal issues"

• Plintron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 183.83.211.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.195.60.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.4.205.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.212.218.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These 4 IPs have/had removed the same section – first edit from last November, although the others were made within the last week – claiming it to be defamatory or "under arbitration and confidential by law". The first IP also claimed that the section was added by "the party in dispute with Plintron, Surf Telecom". I don't know who is in the right here. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 13:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The section concerned is badly sourced, or unsourced entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

A look at the deletion log shows at least half a dozen deletion on CSD grounds for G11, A7, and G12 issues. I've nominated for deletion so we'll see what happens when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plintron closes. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I chopped bits of the promotional content, but what is left does seem like the output of a PR department. The IPs were right to remove that legal blather though. Zaathras (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Plintrongroup

Not unsurprisingly, a new account cropped up when the article got moved to afd. Right at this exact moment they haven't done anything nefarious or malevolent enough to justify admin action, however that username needs monitoring. I go back to work starting tonight, so in 24 hours if its still as it is someone needs to step in take action on username violation grounds. While not an issue yet, they are starting to circle the NLT drain, and that will need to be watched as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Reported to WP:UAA. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 10:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User:RonanTheDude ignoring MOS:ALBUM

User:RonanTheDude has received numerous warnings for ongoing disruptive edits at music-related articles.

Mainly he ignores WP:PERSONNEL, which says to use lower case when listing credits; he's going around changing these to title case (caps) – [170] [171].

Another thing he's been doing is adding a new column to track listings to list featured singers – [172], [173]. No such initiative has been discussed at WikiProject Albums, and I doubt it would garner much support because of how redundant it is.

He has also made an edit which some might interpret as a GF mistake, but could just as well be vandalism, namely listing Jimmy Page has having been involved with a Jeff Beck album – [174] (which is an outrageous lie).

I invoke WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR as reasons to do something about his editing. I've yet to see one constructive edit by him. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, Liz managed to engage them into conversation at their talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

74.15.131.143

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

IP has attempted to add that this dynasty was of Berber Banu Ifran origin four times now, with no source whatsoever [175] [176] [177] [178]. He has already been blocked twice this month for vandalism and edit warring [179]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I blocked them for the third and, unless someone unblocks them next week, for the last time this month.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Malecomes (talk · contribs)

This account is an obvious troll placing curse words in Turkish, and other troll edit summaries. Beshogur (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Obvious NOTHERE is obvious. Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Dawit S Gondaria ignoring information within source materials and resorting to personal attacks

Dawit removed properly cited information (and citations), leaving other information uncited, broke a citation because the way I did it was supposedly wrong, changed another citation's parameters so that the information it provided was incorrect (again, because I supposedly did it wrong, and removed information without providing a source to the contrary. His behaviour at his talk page and that of the article in question is getting to be uncivil, attacking my intelligence here, and insulting the work I did at Qene here. I've had to clean up his edits, which are often grammatically confusing, if not outright wrong, and strangely formatted, which kind of brings WP:COMPETENCE into the equation as well. I'm not saying he isn't a competent person per se, just that it's quite tedious to clean up after him. Thiqq (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thiqq needs self reflection regarding WP:COMPETENCE. The article Qene user wrote gives undue weight to Geez composition, including in the lead. There's no mention of Amharic composition. Most published Qene are above and beyond in Amharic. Spoken/performed Qene are almost always in Amharic not Geez which is a vernacularly extinct language. Just like the French and Italian poets perform mostly in their spoken languages (French/Italian) and not Latin, the same applies to Qene. There's nothing on the contemporary process, which doesn't involve Geez, you can directly write poems using Amharic fidal.● Thiqq needs to learn to add ISBN/OCLC to avoid confusion when citing sources as she did with Molvaer.● As for Bete Amhara [[180]] i don't have to provide squat, the sources are very clear on the locations of Qene schools which are discussed at [[181]], which extends beyond the geography of Bete Amhara, a term Thiqq choose, not mentioned in the sources. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

More (not undue) weight was given to Ge'ez because I had only written about the origin of qene. You can write about its development and contemporary practice by adding more information, but there's no reason to remove that regarding Ge'ez. As for your ISBN comment, I included the LCCN for Levine's book, so it's clearly not something I need to learn. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean I don't know how to do something, not to mention the fact that the ISBN wouldn't have changed the mistake you made in assuming Molvaer was the editor, so don't be snarky. Bete Amhara is the region that Levine discusses. When I said you didn't provide a source, I meant that you didn't provide a source that defines Bete Amhara as not including Gojjam, Gondar, and Begemder. I only included a link to it so anyone who reads the article can go there for further reading on the region. Also, I'm a man, not a woman. Thiqq (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Princeton source not Levine, which you didn't provide any OCLC or ISBN [[182]] nor the names editors of the cited encyclopedia itself. ●The term Bete Amhara was your misinterpretation of Levine, which doesn't refer ‘‘Amhara country’’ as Bete Amhara, but Amhara provinces/areas as he elaborates the locations of Qene schools. I don't have to include a source that defines Bete Amhara, you shouldn't have gone with that term in the first place. Come with a sound argument why you chose a term not cited by the sources? Apologies on assumption of gender. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Update Levine book Greater Ethiopia [[183]] page 72: Quote: ‘‘Situated in what is today the southwestern part of Wello Province, the historical Amhara region was bounded on the west by the Abbai (Blue Nile) and its tributary the Bashilo river; on the north the regions of Angot and Lasta; on the east by the escarpment leading down to the Danakil Desert; and on the south by the Wanchet river’’ In this book Levine is talking historically before expansions and where Amhara first emerged. In Wax and Gold, it's easy to understand that he refers Amhara country as Amhara Provinces/Amharic speaking areas at the locations of the Qene schools, Gonj(google search Gonj) in Gojjam is west of Bashilo river. Lasta(beyond geographic range of Bete Amhara as source indicate), Bounded by Abbai to the West, Gondar is north of Abbai. Princeton further underscores locations of Qene schools. Bete Amhara doesn't encompass all the areas Levine refer to as Amhara country, the term Bete Amhara is not mentioned in the sources. The reference to Bete Amhara is historically and geographically inaccurate. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editor on Template:Professional wrestling in the United States

(User talk:Oknazevadtalk) is consistently reversing edits to Template:Professional wrestling in the United States based on their own personal bias. ( 02:11, 29 October 2021‎ : Meltzer is a rumor-mongering tool. It is far too soon to make any changes to this template based on news. Wait.) His conduct is poor and his reasoning is illogical. Requesting an immediate ban. Thecleanerand (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Where's your attempt to discuss this with me either on the template talk page or my talk page? Previous discussion was inconclusive at best and leaned toward not including the NWA as national based on the lack of national TV deal, which had previously been decided by consensus. Either way, this is a sever overreaction. oknazevad (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam

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

---

Special:Contributions/219.73.12.0/22,only it edit in this IP range after 28 June in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please block it.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Abusive message from User:Stellarthustra616

Nasty message left is here. Skyerise (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Also here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a real charmer, that one... indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by 93.22.38.147

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

Changed "Persian" to "Arab". The part was sourced.

Changed "Persian" of Arab descent" to "Arab of Persia" Proceeded to do it again later [184]

Removed the sourced claim of this figure possibly being Persian, kept the part about him being possibly Arab. Refers the author of the removed source as a "propagandist"

Removed mention of the figure being Persian and the 3 sources that supported it

Etc etc.

Based on this, user seems to be on a WP:TENDENTIOUS mission and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

•  IP blocked 72 hours for edit-warring. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Vfnn by Alexander Davronov

Vfnn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - NOTICE

Is it another WP:BKFIP sock? Any help?

Previous requests

WP:ANI#Incidents#51.6.138.13_by_Alexander_Davronov

WP:ANI#Hohaaa_by_Alexander_Davronov

WP:ANI#IncidentArchive1084#User:51.6.138.90_reported_by_Alexander_Davronov

Diffs

Jan 24, 2022, 16:15 - «fixed grammar blunders in lead, reduced to four paragraphs»

Jan 23, 2022, 21:24 - «‎Modules & Tools: fixed severe style failings»

Jan 23, 2022, 21:22 - «‎Compiler feature detection: rm badly-written uninformative text»

Jan 23, 2022, 21:17 - «"in other words" either means you didn't explain it properly, or you think the reader is too stupid to understand your explanation.»

Jan 23, 2022, 21:07 - «rv harmful edits - unencyclopaedic tone, appalling grammar, unnecessary markup which broke formatting, : incorrect bold face, abuse of MOS:CONTRACTIONS, etc, etc...»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. Now blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hornetzz as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Annette Maon

I would prefer not to bring an editor here but there conduct has been disturbing and seems to violate WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:CIVILITY, WP:NPA along with concerns they are either WP:TROLLING or running an experiment on the community.

Upon seeing Special:Diff/1066719606 , I reviewed their history to see what the issue was and ran across edit summaries and talk page with accusations of WP:OWN and cabal on Elon Musk page: [Special:Diff/1066674606]], Special:Diff/1066681498, Special:Diff/1066687551, Special:Diff/1066707842.

I also discovered and CSDed a essay that had BLP violations and triggered [[ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Annette_Maon#User%3AAnnette_Maon%2FA_female_paper_on_NPOV%7C this talk page discussion]].

Which also triggered their self-report about BLP violations at: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting and lead to further redactions. As well as concerning comments such as,  Special:Diff/1067110101, Special:Diff/1067195235.

Additional  concerns with their conduct on Talk:Orson Scott Card where they seem to believe the community is involved in intentionally misleading readers: Special:Diff/1050651411.

Numerous editors have let much of this go and I was inclined to see if the last few days have made a better wikipedian but the latest user talk post continues their belief that the community (and is hiding what can reasonably construed as  a personal attack on me for initiating deletion of their policy violating essay) is out to get them: Special:Diff/1067298640 and repeated at Special:Diff/1067712282 which is now a self fulfilling prophecy in that this posting is why I am turning to ANI.

In close, this editor's conduct needs correction before further BLP or civility violations occur.  That they try to be vague and sneaky when attacking other editors does not excuse the behavior nor are their repeated assertions of paranoia(often struck out), which may lend to WP:CIR being an issue.Slywriter (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Abusive comment from User:WNkh

• User:WNkh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After being warned for the final time regarding AfD disruption and being reminded that, if they opposed deletion, they should add their thoughts to the discussion rather than remove the AfD tags, this user responded abusively. See here. I'm aware that most of this user's edits have been constructive but I still don't think that this sort of comment is appropriate. Am I overreacting? Please can an uninvolved person have a look? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

We have some users on this project who can post this and avoid an immediate block, but this one does not seem to be in this category.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Rod Stewart articles

• Rhythm of My Heart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Motown Song (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two IPs from the same location in Australia have been inexplicably reverting my edits, often introducing uncited information or factual errors into the articles I've listed above. I've had history with this editor in the past. I'm not exactly sure what to do with this situation without going over 3RR, and it's seven in the morning as I type this, so please assist with whatever is appropriate. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I protected both articles for two weeks and blocked the most disruptive IP for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

www.ukdrivingskills.co.uk

• ukdrivingskills.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I have noticed that one editor, User:Don L Gates has made many contributions all relevant to vehicle driving in Britain. In all the cases I checked (about 10 recent edits) the contribution essentially involved adding a link to https://www.ukdrivingskills.co.uk , sometimes (e.g. The Highway Code) at the top of a list of other links. The links weren't to blatant advertising, usually linking to relevant information, but the pattern seems odd, and the site is a commercial site selling subscriptions. Consequently I post the information here so that it can be considered. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Don L Gates owns and operates ukdrivingskills.co.uk, which makes this a COI issue. Beyond that, I wouldn't consider this site a reliable source. No author by-lines, no editorial policy, no author/editor backgrounds, not cited by reliable sources, etc. Woodroar (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Regular disruptive editing from PhilLiberty

PhilLiberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked 4 times in the past for edit warring and disruptive editing. They still continue disruptive editing today. If you look at their contributions, nearly all of them have been reverted by editors.

Most recently, they have been making drastic changes to articles related to anarchism, and then edit warring when those changes were reverted by editors, asking PhilLiberty to discuss those changes on the Talk page before making them, pointing at WP:BRD.

Those drastic changes included sticking a large diagram below the lead on several articles, which has been deleted from Commons for copyright violations but now reuploaded here, again without a license or copyright information, apart from a vague "Hogeye Bill use at will" (the image is taken from here). I have outlined numerous factually incorrect and controversial things regarding the diagram on the talk page. Other changes involve completely inverting statements, removing any statements they don't like or agree with adding statements without any sources, and removing existing sources. All of PhilLIberty's changes seem to be ideologically driven, with no consideration for sources and ignoring consensus.

Some of the articles affected:

• Anarchism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anarchist schools of thought (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Free-market anarchism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Individualist anarchism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Progressivism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am frankly tired of fixing and reverting the disruptive editing this user is performing. They don't seem to understand that all changes need adequate sourcing, nor do they seem to want to cooperate with other editors by discussing those bold changes. I would really appreciate some sort of intervention here. BeŻet (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism on Indian constituency pages

There is a range of IPs which are making disruptive edits on Indian constituency pages. This person/group changes the party of constituency winners to BJP on many of these pages. Some of the IPs involved: 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. The editor moves on to a different IP before the 4 warning levels of vandalism can be posted on their talk page. Is this the right place to request a check for other similar IPs, and a range-block? Pinging @Dhruv edits: since he discovered most of these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Wizzito

I have been having some problems with Wizzito this morning. He has been calling me names this morning and he even said I should go and kiss a cow. He even attempted but unsuccessfully to make up false claims and said that I was retarded. He has been doing this from late last night through this morning and while I'm not sure what his problem is but someone needs to seriously give him a good talking too. Last but not least he even said I should put my head in the toilet.

Thank for your time in this matter.