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

User:Filetime and Providence article images

User:Filetime appears to believe that they have WP:OWNERSHIP of images in articles about Providence, Rhode Island. They have consistently reverted my changes to these articles, and, when challenged, have WP:CANVASSed editors they believe will support their position to the discussions, and have refused to compromise, although I have done so (see Talk:Brick Schoolhouse, for instance, in which I dropped my support for my own image in favor of another editor's, or Talk:Providence City Hall, in which once another editor had provided a new image for the infobox, I dropped support for my own.)

• Congdon Street Baptist Church - [1], [2]

• Discussion - Talk:Congdon Street Baptist Church#Dispute

• Brick Schoolhouse - [3], [4], [5], [6]

• Discussion - [7], [8]

• National Register of Historic Places listings in Providence, Rhode Island - [9], [10]

• Discussion - [11]

• Waterplace Park - [12], new: [13]
• Providence City Hall - [14], [15], [16]

• Discussion - Talk:Providence City Hall#Images

• Shepard Company Building - [17], [18], [19], [20]

• Discussion - Talk:Shepard Company Building#Images

• Roger Williams National Memorial - [21]
• Rhode Island State House - [22], new: [23], [24], [25]

• Discussion - [26], new: [27]

The nub of the problem here is the Filetime seems to believe that any photograph which I have taken, or any image by anyone else that I have selected for use in any article, is automatically of "low quality", although their standard for that is variable: see for instance the discussion on Talk:Shepard Company Building in which they insist that an image (not by me) is unusable in the infobox because the resolution is too small, but when replaced by the highest resolution image in the category on Commons, one that I happened to take, rejected it as well because he didn't like the image's "quality". (Her again, when alternate images were suggested by another editor, I uploaded them from Flickr and added them to the article in place of my own.)

Certainly, there are inevitably going to be disputes in good faith between editors over what images to use in articles, but it simply cannot be the case that every image I select is bad, and every image that Filetime prefers is good. Their inability to judge images as neutrally as possible (something that I try very hard to do, i.e. I never replace a current image with one of my own unless mine is appreciably an improvement; simply being newer or of better resolution is not sufficient to replace an image which serves its function -- such as use in an infobox -- better) and their digging in once they've made a decision are counter to collaboration between editors. Further, their continued violation of WP:CANVASS by pinging to discussions only selected editors, in the face of their being told directly that they should not do this, flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS. (The latest instance of this can be seen at Talk:Rhode Island State House.) Their apparent automatic rejection of my contributions is beginning to border on WP:HARASSMENT.

I am not asking for Filetime to be topic banned from Providence articles, that would be unduly harsh, as well as counter-productive for the encyclopedia, since their contributions to those articles overall are quite useful and generally improve them, but some way needs to be found to stop Filetime from automatically rejecting any images I add to articles, and to get them to stop violating WP:CANVASS.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Edits marked "new were added after the original posting of this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• I also wanted to add that this has been going on since April 27th. In other words, I waited three-and-a-half weeks before bringing this to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• After checking a couple of these disputes, I think I agree with Filetime. For example, the first one (File:2021 Congdon Street Baptist Church, 11 Congdon Street, Providence.jpg is the one you (BMK) are advocating), the stated reason for removing the image is that it's out of focus. Well, it IS out of focus. Especially the top of the building is quite blurry and perspective distortion is serious. File:2021_Brick_Schoolhouse,_24_Meeting_Street,_Providence.jpg is even more blurry. Aesthetic quality is not the only or even main thing that we look at in infobox images, but when an image is seriously out of focus its encyclopedic value is also much less. The photographs taken by Filetime are more technically proficient and I think you (BMK) should show more understanding. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to note that independent editors have repeatedly characterized @Beyond My Ken:'s constant replacing of high quality images in articles relating to Rhode Island as shoehorning. These images are of low visual quality and often reflect errors in photography and editing techniques (blurriness, poor white balance, distracting visual elements). Furthermore, discussions have consistently found that the images added by the editor are of lower quality than those previously included. These editors often note that the difference in quality is not ambiguous. In the case of Rhode Island State House, one independent editor wrote that deciding the previous image was of better quality was an "Easy choice, IMO." Reverting edits that consensus consistently finds to be un-constructive, low quality, and possible shoehorning has nothing to do with ownership. Filetime (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I was one of the editors "canvassed" to the discussion at Talk:Rhode Island State House, and I'm not sure how notifying me would be canvasing, a policy which permits notifying editors "who have made substantial edits to the topic or article"? I have previously edited the images on this article, and User:Kzirkel, who was also invited to the discussion, has also made edits to the photos on this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Replacing images - especially the main image in the infobox - is one thing, and indeed one that I would agree with if the images were poorer. However, in the case of Congdon Street Baptist Church, you are just removing an additional image that BMK has inserted. Given that BMKs image is more recent, and not technically terrible, removing it does not seem to me to be a useful edit. Ditto removing an image completely here. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Canvassing again, this time on Roger Williams National Memorial [28], along with wholesale reversion of all the changes I made to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• I happened to see Filetime's revert at Van Wickle Gates just now, in Recent changes, and I reverted, because a. I don't accept the edit summary (this wasn't a major formatting change) and b. because I think it is better to have captions for images than not. And it's the same images, of course, so there's nothing here about quality. And if, in another article, I compare BMK's version with Filetime's version, it seems pretty obvious to me that BMK's is better--just look at that terrible picture in the infobox. I think having a picture of a sign in the infobox is pretty silly, but in Filetime's version you can't even barely see that it's a sign. And Filetime's edit summaries are highly tendentious, as if they're itching for a fight. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, so Filetime can't be arsed to come by here and explain, but they did find the time to make this completely unexplained and unreasonable edit. They did leave an irrelevant note on the talk page--whatever. No, this editor is not being very collaborative here. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: According to you "can't be arsed to come by here and explain" though I literally wrote five lines of text an hour and a half before your first comment. As for the park, a photograph of the park itself is a "a picture of nothing"? Look into any travel guide or on google images and I assure you you will not find grainy photographs of parks signs but rather photographs of the outdoor spaces themselves. If you are so confident in your stance, I encourage you to try and promote this "picture of nothing" argument on the articles for Central Park or Grant Park and convince them that they should use images of signs for their infoboxes. Filetime (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
      • This dappled and unclear image, esp. in thumbnail size, File:Roger Williams National Memoria entrance sign, Providence Rhode Island.jpg should not be mentioned in the same sentence as this one, File:Central Park - The Pond (48377220157).jpg . Drmies (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • ANI doesn't seem like a great place to hash out which version is better, but I disagree on the Roger Williams National Memorial. Being an article about a park, it makes sense to me to have a picture which displays the park rather than only the sign (and it's better not to have the multi-column cluster of images on the right). But it's certainly not the case that either is obviously better such that either party should be edit warring or going to battle over this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Haha, but "their" picture was a picture of nothing. At least the picture of the sign showed a sign! Drmies (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Regarding the picture of the sign: I also don't think that a picture of a sign is the best choice for the infobox, but after going through the relatively small number of images available on Commons, I understood why Filetime put his sign picture there -- there just weren't a lot of good choices. I replaced it with my picture of a sign for exactly the reason that Drmies points out, that at the size it is displayed at in the infobox, my image was at least readable as a sign, while Filetime's was not.
        This is actually a problem with many of Filetime's choices, that he refuses to understand that an image in an infobox has to function at the size it is presented at. An image which is not the best possible shot of a building can look just fine in an infobox at a small size, and a very good picture can look shitty when presented at sub-postage stamp size in a gallery. For Filetime, though, an image is intrinsically either good or bad, without any consideration about how it is being used, or at what size it is being presented. That does a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Misinterpretation of MOS - In this edit on Rhode Island State House, Filetime reverts my edits on the grounds that MOS calls for images to be right-aligned. This, of course, is not the case. As I point out in an edit summary MOS:IMAGELOCATION says "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left"; while Help:Pictures#Alternating left and right says "Perhaps the easiest way to handle multiple floating pictures is to alternate them left then right (or right then left); this way they do not come into contact with one another, and so cannot stack up in an unattractive way.". In point of fact -- as any editor who has worked in article layout knows -- stacking images on the right side can be very boring for the reader, so alternating sides (without squeezing text between images) provides visual variety to the article and makes it more enjoyable to read. I am only making this arguent here instead of on the article talk page, because, once again, this is Filetime rejecting edits primarily because I made them, not because he has the best interest of the article at heart. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be content to see some kind of image-related 1RR/BRD or other kind of edit warring-related restriction for both BMK and Filetime here. A restriction that basically just asks editors to approach editing like basically everyone else does shouldn't be necessary, but it seems called for here. Filetime for tendentious edit warring and edit summaries over a short amount of time, and BMK for a years-long default dispute resolution style of edit warring and taking a battleground approach to pushing through preferred versions of articles. Note that in all of the examples that BMK provided, BMK changed the status quo, Filetime challenged it (sometimes with the support of others), and BMK just went ahead and restored it. Sometimes with an accusatory edit summary, sometimes with no edit summary, but always just jump right into edit warring to force a preferred version putting the burden on the other person to find consensus. This kind of behavior regarding personal image-related preferences images was the subject of a large ANI thread a couple years ago. There were also a couple times where Filetime changed the images, BMK reverted, and Filetime likewise edit warred, lest it seem like I think Filetime is entirely in the right here.
  In some cases Filetime's version was better (I weighed in on one of those); in some cases BMK's was better (I weighed in on one of those, too). But this most definitely is not the venue to get into which version was better. Suffice to say it's not uniformly clear and nobody should be taking the approach that they're taking here. It's disruptive and causes a miserable editing atmosphere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Adding: just since this thread was opened:
    • BMK still edit warring over images/image style
    • BMK still edit warring over images/image style
    • BMK still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
    • Filetime still edit warring over images/image style
  • Again -- while this thread is open. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - In regards to the gallery size disputes, and correct me if I'm wrong, shouldn't we still be following WP:IMGSIZE? I don't think there's any good reason to force image sizes for these galleries, just as there should not be fixed image sizes for thumbnails. Pbrks (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just a reminder: The issue here is the capricious and automatic deletion of an editor's good faith attempts to contribute to Wikipedia articles by an editor with an inflated sense of OWNERSHIP over an entire range of articles, amply shown by the diffs provided above. Further, the editor continually CANVASSes like-minded editors to discussions in order to prevail. In that situation, any apparent "consensus" reached is a WP:FALSECONSENSUS and is not binding, as it does not truly represent the sense of the community. This behavior needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I was one of the people pinged by Filetime. I've never had an interaction with them prior to all of this and was only brought into it after Filetime asked for opinions at the photography workshop regarding different photos. Clearly, (at least in my case) this is not CANVASSing. Your edits may be in good faith, but that does not mean they are always better. In every scenario I have been involved with, I have found that the reverts that Filetime had made have been justified, as the photos that you took and replaced in those articles have been technically worse. Pbrks (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, that is precisely CANVASSING - Filetime pinged you because he had a previous relationship with you. You should actually read WP:CANVASS sometime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t be rude. I have read it, and it is not canvassing. I refer you to fifth bullet point under “Appropriate notification”. Pbrks (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Wait, isn't it a conflict of interest to edit war or revert to reinsert your own image? Didn't this get another user topic banned?[29] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  That is an interesting way to look at it. I had not considered the COI aspect of them edit waring their pictures into articles. Looks like promo work. PackMecEng (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Based on my understanding of the many past ANI threads and general practice, users are indeed encouraged to add their own photos to articles as long as they improve those articles. But if someone challenges it, you shouldn't restore it without finding consensus to do so first. So I guess it's just basic BRD and edit warring guidance, but with the added emphasis because COI can be argued if you continue. Adding photos to articles is not itself a COI any more than adding text to articles is a COI. If someone advocates on a talk page for their picture being the better one for the article, I don't see that as much different than arguing for their version of a block of text. But if it seems like you're edit warring/arguing to include them without regard for the quality of the article, then yeah COI can come into play. It gets more complicated if the person in question has a photography business, but as I don't think that applies to anyone here, we can stem that tangent. Ultimately, the sanction imposed on Toglenn in the thread Morbidthoughts links above is just the advice I give all newbies about adding one's own images (and what I do by default). It shouldn't take a sanction, in other words. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I give up

Not to get all WP:DIVA about it, but I've just noticed that Filetime's last dozen edits were all about undoing my contributions to his articles, and no one -- except, ironically, the two admins who have commented here -- seems to think that there's any behavioral problem with doing stuff like that. It's really just too much hassle for me to deal with this editor, so I'm going to scrub my plan to edit other Providence articles at this time. Maybe at some point in the future, when Filetime has finally been indef blocked -- because the behavior he's exhibiting now is not likely to stop, and will only get worse -- I can pick up that project again, but for the time being I'll put my energy into more productive areas.

I've put away my copy of Guide to Providence Architecture, and I formally withdraw my complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've posted images and edited articles about buildings and sites all other the country [30], and the editors of Providence are the first to have actively made me feel unwelcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to note that the behavior chronicled here, i.e. the OWNERSHIP of a group of articles and the running off of a good-faith editor trying to contribute to them, is deeply antithetical to the Wikipedia ethos, and dangerous to the encyclopedia if allowed to thrive and spread. After all, we're not talking about reverting vandalism, or protecting the project from promotion or political propaganda, we're talking about simple disputes about the use of images being weaponized and utilized as a bludgeon. That Filetime continued (and for all I know continues, as I have not cared to check their contribution list since earlier today) even after their behavior has been exposed is disturbing, and potentially dangerous. Filetime has shown interest in other geographical areas as well: Massachusetts, specifically Boston, and Chicago, for instance. Will they replicate their exclusionary behavior in articles about those places as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Dangerous? Excuse me? Maybe dial down the rhetoric a bit. The pictures I checked that you uploaded were not improvements. When your work is removed it hurts, I get it. But let’s not make this into something it’s not. Maybe this is an opportunity for you to revisit some of those sites and try to improve your photography skills. If they are better I will join you in getting them added to the relevant articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Ernie (now that you're here, I know that I'm in the right), "dangerous". Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus. When one editor takes it upon themselves, without the community's approval, to prevent another one from participating in a certain subject, collaboration is out the window, and when they call upon like-minded editors to back them up, without a general call for participation, consensus is undermined. If collaboration and consensus are gone, Wikipedia can no longer be what it intends to be -- so, yes, "dangerous" is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the subject topic at hand, this section just feels like you're throwing a tantrum, BMK. If multiple other people are disagreeing with you, then it's clearly not just Filetime supporting these changes. From what I can tell from looking at the above linked talk pages and examples, you're correct in some cases with your images, but incorrect on others and instead are supporting inferior images. Silverseren^C 02:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Filetime's crew, and a few long-time adversaries who come out of the woodworks every time my name comes up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

🙄 Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Quoddy earache demon stranded?  :) ——Serial 13:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It's ironic that BMK is making claims of WP:OWNERSHIP, because I'm seeing the reverse. ANI is revealing a long-standing behavioral problem, yet again. This is a content dispute that should not have made its way to ANI. There are editors who cannot withstand having their edits altered or deleted in good faith and in accordance with policy. These editors, regardless of their editing talent, tenure, or friends here, are largely a net negative for the project if they're repeatedly unwilling to acknowledge their disruptive behavior. Frankly, at some point, BMK has to look at the common denominator. His colleagues are doing him a disservice by insisting on rushing to his defense rather than encouraging him to participate more collaboratively and develop methods to mentally overcome dissent to his edits. Worse, he begins a new section to passive-aggressively accuse his opponents of operating an anti-BMK cabal. This battleground mentality is a disruptive time-dump. RandomGnome (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Violation of sanctions

(Non-administrator comment) Isn't this the reason BMK has agreed to the following sanctions from the previous ANI?

There is community consensus for the following pledges made by Beyond My Ken:

• BMK will put all article images within the section they relate to whenever and wherever possible.
• When another editor disputes BMK's judgement whether it is or isn't possible to put an image inside the relevant section, he will defer to their decision.

Beyond My Ken has also agreed that failure to stick to the above pledges may be enforced by blocks.
— User:Ritchie333

The conduct described here definitely violates the second bullet point, as evidenced by an apparent image-related dispute (specifically concerning the infobox of Shepard Company Building) that BMK himself carried over to Talk:Shepard Company Building. I'm not sure if bullet #1 has been violated, or if there have been any similar incidents involving BMK in 7 March 2019. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The second clause relates only to the first clause. It is not a general statement. Nice try, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with BMK on this particular subsection. The clause in question only applies to disputes over which section an image belongs in, not the image itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bold Revert Discuss

I'm with BMK here. He's a respected and experienced editor in good standing. There clearly has been canvassing. At the end of the day, Filetime wants to keep their WP:OWN photos, cool we all appreciate the time and effort involved in taking the pics and they are good pics...but WP:BRD is a key part of editing Wikipedia. Once the edits were challenged it is on edtors to discuss in good faith and without calling in as many sympathetic editors as possible, ie WP:CANVAS. BMK has done nothing wrong, it is Filetime who is not discussing properly, engaging in an edit war and canvassing for support...IMO Bacondrum 09:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You have it exactly backwards. In just about all (if not all) of these examples, it was BMK adding his own photos to articles and Filetime objecting, then BMK starting an edit war to force them in. In some cases Filetime restored their own photo, and in other cases they restored the work of third parties like Kzirkel. In all cases, BMK edit warred to introduce his own photos after being challenged. In all cases I've seen, it was BMK who did not follow BRD, gaining consensus on the talk page before restoring his photo. As for canvassing, did you actually look at who Filetime allegedly "canvassed"? I guess it's possible I missed some actual canvassing, but BMK was calling canvassing just the simple act of pinging particular people. I haven't seen evidence that it was actually canvassing (i.e. that they were pinged only because Filetime thought they'd agree with a particular position -- pinging specific people isn't automatically canvassing). At the time Filetime pinged me, I had just supported one of BMK's photos in one of their disputes, and yet BMK accused Filetime of canvassing when I was pinged. Other people have just been active in RI articles, had responded to the previous WikiProject posting, or active in adding photos to Wikipedia. A WikiProject post would be better, I guess, but calling it canvassing seems like a big stretch. Filetime is a problem here, too, with the edit warring and jabs in edit summaries, but BMK has done nothing wrong is demonstrably false even by BMK's own evidence. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into details, because I've withdrawn this complaint, but your description is not accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu

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

---

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

User seems to have a strong opinion (to say the least) to anything Iran-related, coming up with accusations/rants like this;

You can't Indirect decide that these are not realible or well also by hiding Turkics number of İran on Wikipedia won't help upcoming Irani civil war. Iranian nationalism is all I see here.

This is not true! I do not understand your purpose! I added it to half a dozen citations and those articles have the term whole azerbaijan dozens of times. This is not Iran's platform for ethnic cleansing. If you revert once again, you will be reported. WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:RVAN

Why are you deleting also the map? WP:SNEAKY You guys cant hide ethnic minorities in Iran either You cannot do informational ethnic cleansing either. The flag issue is controversial, what about the map?

Added 7 academic citations, you can examine geographical sections. It will not be late for me to request the admin page at the first revert to be deleted from now on. Please torpise your ethnic hostility on a different platform. This is not a place where Iran is trying to wipe out its ethnic minorities, it is a free encyclopedia

In just one month, he has reverted Khorasani Turks 6 times [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] (4 of them today), attempting to force a fictional flag and map onto the article. He justifies his addition of the map by adding various random sources not even related to it.

Looking at all this, this seems like a WP:TENDENTIOUS issue to me at the very least. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You keep always reverting sourced information and its not a slander you guys in a constant effort to hide the Turkic minority in Iran related articles. Btw i dont reverted YOU GUYS DELETING & reverting my edits. I putted tons of citations yet dare to report me without seeing his own fault. They constantly erase the articles and delete the sourced information about Turkic people's in Iran. They are the ones who reverted, although I have provided 7 academic sources right now. Pure Informational ethnic cleansing in my opinion. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I rest my case. I'll let the admins deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

+ It's not a fictional map even on Wikimedia states; Based on Dr.Papoli Yazdi work (فصلنامه تحقیقات جغرافیایی، سال سوم شماره 2 ، پاییز 1376، دکتر محمد حسین پاپلی یزدی ) Geographical Research Quarterly, Third Year No. 2, Fall 1997, Dr. Mohammad Hossein Papli Yazdi. Also, I removed the flag myself and already asked why did you remove the map together with the flag? That's also WP:SNEAKY. Although I did not mention 7 academic sources supporting the map, you reverted it again. Ethnicities in Iran ; If you look at this page, you will see a focused version of the same map. It is unwise to delete this or you revert for different purposes..To my own opinion, you are trying to hide ethnic identities here. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

[37] That map literally says "Source: Own Work", its a textbook example of WP:OR, of some random wikipedia member drawing up a map by himself based on his interpretation of a book. The fact that you're unable to understand basic Wikipedia rules about sourcing and have to resort to ethnosectarian accusations and fantasy ramblings about "ethnic cleansing" and "civil war" shows that you're very clearly engaging in disruptive editing. Your rants don't change the fact that your additions are baseless. --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Quick cursory digging in his recent posts shows this [38] which is a straight-up personal attack on another editor he was disagreeing with (claiming his eyes aren't working properly). --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack? You sad 2x times that you don't see Khorasani Turks in this dozen of citations my friendly advice is seeing eye doctor or try to use CTRL+F if you can't locate stuff. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment Cengizsogutlu has a long history of attacks towards other users that disagree with them and POV pushing :

• "Congratulations, You play the sneaky and stupid role very well".
• "I want this in a civilized way, most likely you hate Turks oky whatever everyone's own life".
• "Then I recommend you go to an ophthalmologist.".

This editor does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia and i have not been able to find out how he/she has been a net positive to the project.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What a nice example of Etnic nationalism, One more example of persianization of things. I'm Grateful for the Wikipedia seen this kinda ethno facism. You guys even tried to change drink called Ayran name into Doogh also deleted Turkish section etc. If I need to remind you, I have already received a 24-hour mute from these comments. Yet that didnt helped your Doogh name effort Ayran name still REMAINS ♥. I understand your hatred guys, it makes you sad that I disrupt your ethnic stuff changing games. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The above comment is very instructive as to the kind of editor Cengizsogutlu is.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The above comment is very instructive as to the kind of editor Cengizsogutlu is. That's what i mean You play the sneaky and stupid role very well. This is not an insult I apologize if you understand this that way, but this is an an irregular situation. What you are trying to do to erase an edit that you do not like, saying "he insulted me" "his style is not normal" "" he is an editor of this kind ", always stay away from the main subject and play the role of the victim. During this time, the other party is blocked, and no matter how wrong the subject you are defending, remains on wikipedia. It's a nice sneaky strategy btw. Sorry, but these excuses are not enough to hide your mission to hide ethnic minorities in Iran guys. Keep trying to let me banned but it won't change the truth. You are constantly talking about personal insult.

You play the sneaky role

If you can't find it from a dozen of citations and if you are not malicious, then you should go to your ophthalmologist

I apologize if you saw these as insults. My aim is definitely not insulting. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If you say that there is no word on the citations in this article that match, it means you are either maliciously intended to find excuse to delete or have a bad eye. If you can't find something, it doesn't give you the right to revert. Friendly advice is appearing to ophthalmologist. The bad intention is that, in my opinion, because of your ethnic nationalism, you cannot tolerate these facts. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This editor does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia i made articles much more than you deleted sir. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to so many nonsenses. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu, I suggest you edit in another area for a while. Ethnic debates are notoriously bad places for a relatively new user, you're going to make mistakes and wind up in arguments very frequently. And yes, your statements towards other users absolutely come across as personal attacks, so that needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu has been POV-pushing and actively engaging in edit-warring in Whole Azerbaijan. In response to me asking them to quote the sources they are referring to (I am familiar with the sources and have reasons to believe they do not support Cengizsogutlu's claims), they said: if you cant locate with Ctrl+F go to an ophthalmologist and ask if you have astigmatism. I find this in violation of WP:CIVILITY and request that the administrators review this case and take measures if necessary. I must specify that the user has been warned on different occasions by fellow editors that they had been engaging in disruptive editing: [39], [40], [41]. Parishan (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

HandThatFeeds has a good point. Based on the above evidence, I propose that Cengizsogutlu should be banned from making edits related to Iran and Turkic peoples (1), which is the usual outcome of discussions like this. In fact, Devlet Geray (talk · contribs) got handed a similar topic ban in a February ANI for tendentious editing about Turkic peoples — Cengizsogutlu's editing at Khorasani Turks and Doogh sure looks tendentious.

I'm also proposing a topic ban from Turkey-related topics (2a), or at least from the Turkish Armed Forces (2b), as well — twice did they blank a statement in Ağrı Province involving Armenians (diff, diff), and at Turkish Land Forces they restored a paragraph (Special:Diff/1021263224, Special:Diff/1021265483) removed by Visnelma (talk · contribs) per a discussion at the talk page, though their edits at List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces such as Special:Diff/1024691317 might be okay, despite using primary sources. The aforementioned discussion mentioned that they were p-blocked in February for edit warring, including the exact same dispute at the article in question (diff, diff). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Proposals (1 and 2a): broadly construed. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support both proposals (1 and 2a).---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 2a it does not appear that the block and p-block (by myself and El_C) have made any difference. Black Kite (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support both proposals (1 and 2a) per his conduct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 2a, it's clear this user isn't able to edit objectively on this subject. Perhaps he can appeal this in a year or two as he's still a relatively new user, and editing in less-controversial areas might hone his abilities. — Czello 09:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1 and 2a per LaundryPizza03, and Cengizsogutlu's battleground comments. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support both per his inability to understand how sourcing works, and his emotional behavior towards these topics. --Qahramani44 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Question So im technically banned although I do give academic based citations about Khorasani Turks in Iran & Whole Azerbaijan stuff, Because I replaced Armenian claims propaganda of Agri province to history secion, Because I am defending that the history in the logo and official claim of date 209 BC better remains on Turkish Land Forces article, Also try to explain what Orda (organization) is to Visneelma? ? Anyway i am not doing any other editions here expect from Turkey, Military & defence industry edits. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Pure strawman strategy on your side, this won't be helpful in your situation.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

At least I do not complain when someone comments to me such as strawman etc also I do not hide behind victim roles about fake personal insults so can also hide ethnic identities in Iran :/. Also Persianization of drinks and poem controversys wont help Iran for upcoming Iranian civil war. I know perfectly reason why you guys chasing me; The main reason is after the Karabakh war because of the fear that Iran will be subjected to civil war by the Azerbaijanis. You guys perfectly knowing there will be events before Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. You know the only reason Israel and Turkey arming Azerbaijan; That's why Turks involved & taking part in soviet puppet wars. All these are preparations for Iran. Of course, you want me to blocked because I have put a spike in your hiding ethnicity plans .Well Good Luck pushing your agenda & a jug of Ayran takes all the heat after B 61 rain. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever helps you cope with the fact that you've failed to convince anyone that your fake unsourced maps are worth keeping on Wikipedia. If you want to live in turanist fantasy land and daydream about the future, feel free :) --Qahramani44 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Another example of your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Your above statements are not the point here, the point is your editing profile and the fact that all the editors who commented your topic ban proposal supported it, regardless of their nationality/ethnicity, playing that ethnic card almost all the time is not relevant on Wikipedia (nor in real life, in my humble opinion). For the records, thanks you for your concerns about Iran and its future, however, you should not worry so much about Iran and Iranian Azerbaijanis, but one might have some concerns about Turkey and its 25-30% Kurds who are, as far as i know, not very well treated in that country. I'm done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu, your comment indicates that you're here to right great wrongs, which is entirely the wrong way to deal with Wikipedia. I suggested you step away from this subject so you can get experience working in other areas, and then come back to this one with an understanding of how to correct things you feel are misrepresented on the articles. The topic ban is just a way to enforce you step away for a bit. But your comments above such as I do not hide behind victim roles about fake personal insults so can also hide ethnic identities in Iran are blatant personal attacks which could result in you being blocked from Wikipedia entirely. Please take a break, then work on some other subjects for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I just personally thought I was being victim of unjustness, so I wrote a little bit like that way. Forgive me if I have spoken a lot absurdly. I think I will try to improve myself by concentrating on other topics, if i got a chance. I guess I am not cared about because I cannot handle discussions properly and I am too rude. I think this is because also I am a little amateur in my ability to edit on Wikipedia. I apologize to the community and if the last chance/ opportunity given, I will focus on army equipment, technology stuff and defense industry for now to improve my ability to edit. Again, I apologize to everyone. If I'm going to be blocked, perhaps I deserved it. I wish you all a good day & good editing.☺♥ Cengizsogutlu (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block I wanted to support topic ban (1 and 2a) but the above comments/rants by the reported user just prove this is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND case. He was blocked before[42] (multiple times) and he still thinks he did nothing wrong. So what's the point of topic ban? Take a look at his edits, comments, and edit summaries. I don't think giving the second chance would work for this case. Wario-Man ^talk 18:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block As per Wario-Man and The Hand That Feeds You.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile

I am here to address User:FleurDeOdile. Ever since the user's last block in November of 2020 for personal attacking there seems to have been little improvement since then. For one thing, the user is still attacking people (off-wiki now on a WikiProject discord) and has also been assuming bad faith and acting uncivil towards users who were new and or inexperienced with the image standards we have enlisted in our WikiProject (at WP:WPTC/IMG) for images of tropical cyclones, as well as edit warring.

Here the user changed this infobox image with an inconstructive comment, which was later reverted for being a lower quality image.

The edit here looks to have been made to just attack another user instead of explaining why this image was changed. Soon enough, the edit was reverted and instead of seeking consensus, the user edit warred between the user who reverted, as seen in diff 1 and diff 2, where he also made yet another comment.

Also during around the time of the edit war, the user reverted a WP:CIR edit, but assumed that the edit was in bad faith without linking the guideline which states that the source he was using was not reliable (the user in question was new around this time).

More recently, the user also unexplainedly changed the infobox image on 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, the image which was personally created by the user who originally put it, which was also later reverted for being rather inconstructive.

More recently, the user had attacked me off-wiki on a Discord server (which, if is even contributive to this? I'm not sure) and told that he 'would get into beef' with me as I disagreed that his Commons image was a higher quality, albeit respectfully. He changed the infobox image, as revealed by this diff and after another user changed it back explaining that the image change was un-warranted, he proceeded to change the image again as proven by this diff but tried to disguise the edit by saying he had "Fixed a typo".

Possibly unrelated, but I'd also recommend looking at the user's talk page which gives a better look at warnings and notices other users have given him recently, a majority of which were based off edit-warring or giving rude comments which were calmly responded to... which were completely ignored. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of WP:BITE. This one also does not explain why FDO has changed it. "original is better" is not valid. This also reveals that FDO is engaging in personal attacks, most recently this. I believe because of the evidence provided by Hurricaneboy and myself, FDO needs some sort of sanction or block, as this is turning into WP:IDHT after numerous warnings, blocks, and discussions about this user's disruptive behavior. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding on, as for the blocks, all three of them were related in some way to WP:LISTEN, as the user refuses to heed warnings and blocks. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Fleur has continued to WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [43] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [44]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. Noah^Talk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

While Fleur's most recent instance of attacking other editors on-wiki was in March, he has continued to do so regularly on a Wikipedia Discord server, as recently as just a few days ago. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 12:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget that just last month, there was a discussion about this exact topic that basically went nowhere at all. Just thought I should let you guys know. This is also the 4th discussion on either 3RR or on ANI regarding Fleur. However, I have had a few encounters in which the editor was rude to me, such as [45], and [46], when I was still a relatively new editor at the time. However, aside from those edits, I haven't had many issues with them, and though they have reverted me in the past on different pages, they were for valid reasons. However, If there is not enough evidence to support a block from any of the above users and the evidence they have provided, the least we could do on my watch at least would be to have them enter some sort of Mentor-ship program, maybe similar to how Chicdat (talk · contribs) and MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) are doing it? Maybe that way one could have more control over their actions on-wiki, and maybe they'd learn how to stop attacking and warring with people, as well as learn how to better use edit summaries and discussion. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense. Maybe instead of just leaving warnings and then reporting FDO, someone can try mentoring him. I'm not experienced enough, but maybe other users could be open to it. I do believe, however, that if, even after or during the mentorship, Fleur continues this disruptive pattern of behavior, that is grounds for a block or topic ban. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

True. I am not experienced enough either, but I think it would still worth a shot for someone who has been around for a lot longer to try it out. I agree with CodingCyclone here though, if a mentorship weren't to work, and the editor were to go back to their old ways, then I think that it would be justified to enforce some more consequential actions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I honestly disagree. After being blocked three times prior and STILL not learning your lesson on civility/disruptive editing, there is obviously a chronic problem going on here which has no excuse. There is no good in letting an injured bear continue in the wild. Thus, there is no good in letting a disruptive editor continue their unacceptable behavior which personally has made me want to quit making Commons images altogether. Whos to say he would even want a mentorship? Most friendly notices have been completely ignored and is just WP:IDHT. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am just putting out alternative ideas to blocking the editor, so that there may be a wider range of choices when it comes to what the possible consequences are, and because they do occasionally make good edits. I am sorry to hear that you have considered quitting the Commons, I sincerely hope it does not come to that extreme. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

My idea is to propose a formal restriction from editing tropical cyclone images, broadly construed. However, I'm not going ahead if there's no further disruption from this editor. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

just mentor me already FleurDeOdile 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Is that request or a demand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Or a threat? — BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a request. But I'm not open for more adoption right now. They'll need another mentor for this. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Before you get mentored you need a self-ban on changing tropical cyclone images. Either that or you need a block. This is ridiculous behavior which requires consequences. Why should he get off the hook for this? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe a mentor would be appropriate for this situation. Given the statement above, it is quite clear Fleur doesn't really care. A mentor is for newer editors who are making mistakes without knowing they are, not for established editors who simply don't care. I would rather see Fleur be topic blocked from editing mages on WP than blocked from editing period since images seems to be the only issue here. He should be able to upload his own work to commons, which is quite useful in many instances, but the behavior on WP in regards to images and changing them is quite appalling. Noah^Talk 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm on board on the idea for a topic ban in editing tropical cyclone images. Though, there's no such thing as "topic block", instead it is a "topic ban". MarioJump83! 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Then let's ban them or block them. Either way, some kind of action is needed, and having now seen the comment they put, you're all right that they obviously don't care at this point, and they need to either be topic banned, or blocked. If they are also harassing users off-wiki on discord, then they need to be removed/banned from the server or servers in which they are involved at. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I doubt Fleur should get a mentorship in this situation. He clearly does not care at this point, and I doubt a mentorship will help anything. Most likely, after the mentorship, he's going to go straight back to his old ways. Plus, I doubt very many people will be willing to mentor him anyway. I think we should have a topic ban for him from editing related to tropical cyclone images, as that would solve most things. Off-wiki, we also suggested a self-ban from editing the "Image=" parameter on infoboxes. As for action off-wiki, I think Fleur should be removed from the WPTC Discord server. He is very uncivil, insulting, and rude with their comments on other people off-wiki. If you search for "garbage" or "trash" in his messages on Discord, he has sent over 50 texts in the past year insulting other users. He has been warned several times to be civil and kind to other members off-wiki, and never listens. His only response has been "Civility doesn't apply off-wiki.", which is clearly not valid. As some action, he could be removed from the Discord server. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban (FleurDeOdile)

Given the evidence linked above, concerns from several people about civility (in relation to image edits), and Fleur's lack of care regarding his behavior, I propose a topic ban be instituted. The ban would cover all image-related parameters on articles and discussions related to images on the English Wikipedia. Noah^Talk 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with this. The user should still be able to upload to Commons, but may not be able to edit at all related to tropical cyclone images on enwiki. If disruption continues in other areas, or if the user violates the topic ban, the user should be indefinitely blocked. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 17:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per the reasons provided above. I would also support a wider range within the topic ban, including tropical cyclone articles in general, however the original proposal will suffice regardless. And, per HurricaneCovid, I would support completely blocking the user if the Topic Ban does not work. However, I would also support someone mentoring FDO per my original comment above.🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 17:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the above. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Netural - While I feel like and know that some of Fleur's actions are out of order, I think the general lack of involvement from admins or editors outside the project is very telling.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support I'll agree. A topic ban is fine, since he only seems to get mad about editing infobox images, but if he violates the topic ban, it will be a more valid excuse for blocking. Also, perhaps unrelated, he should be banned off the Discord server ASAP. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As for the ban from the Discord server, I 100% agree. The user has been warned multiple times to be civil and refuses to listen. More of his texts are insulting rather than constructive. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support since FleurDeOdile is unwilling or unable to follow WP:BRD or actually use edit summaries when changing images.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support – per above. FDO's continued disruptive behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia. As for the off-wiki personal attacks, he should be removed from any place where he is doing such a thing. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 02:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the above here. HurricaneEdgar 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support of course. But like Jason there's a need for some involvement outside of this WikiProject about FleurDeOdile, that's why I'm little hesitant on taking actions against Fleur. It is possible that with some mentorship, especially with more experienced editors in Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters (nearly all of them are outside this WikiProject), can help make FleurDeOdile change hopefully. MarioJump83! 03:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support – Per above. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 12:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Are we just going to let this grow stale or are we going to so something about this editor? Considering that there is plenty of consensus to at least topic ban FDO, could an admin please review this and do the needed actions? 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone should do it at this point. MarioJump83! 08:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @LindsayH: As an outside user previously involved, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this latest ANI discussion.Jason Rees (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the ping, Jason.

• I looked at his contributions since the previous ANI outing in which i also commented, and at this time i oppose a topic ban for FDO. First, there is a smallish number of edits, about three dozen, which does mean that (even if it's unbelievably frustrating) any disruption he is causing is quite limited and easy to correct. Second, i am pointing no fingers, but i am concerned at what reads to me as piling on by those i assume are members of the WikiProject; i would very much like to see some outside opinions (which is why i'm delighted that i was pinged here; as a complete outsider, i hope to offer an unbiased opinion). This does not mean, however, that i see no issues; i do. FleurDeOdile, i am very disappointed to see that you do not appear to have read or digested the opinions and advice in the previous ANI outing; in particular, your use of misleading, rude, and straight-out inaccurate edit summaries is not collegial, and is liable to lead to a worse result than a topic ban if you don't change. I also see an issue with the way you are changing images which appears to be contrary to consensus; i have no idea which images are better ~ to me a typhoon is a typhoon is a hurricane ~ but your colleagues have opinions which you really need to take into account. I do not, as i say, think a topic ban is currently appropriate, but clearly some action is necessary; i would suggest some kind of mentoring, if it were possible. I did note that above someone said that they're not available to do so; is anyone? I would offer myself, in some form, but i may well not be acceptable, as i really know nothing about the WikiProject which is FDO's interest, so any support i could offer would be purely on behaviour, nothing to do with content. I hope this offers a helpful outside view; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support This AN3 report from November 2020 administered a partial block for edit-warring over an image in Hurricane Eta.
  On a furhter note, I don't think this is limited to images, though their conduct in that area is unacceptable in its own right. For instance, I notice that this diff form May 2020 is in the same topic area where this incident happened, but that it is about redirecting, not images. There are more recent warnings, such as one from August 2020 about this diff and one in January 2021 about edits like these at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season, which are also about content or data removal. Since FDO edits exclusively on hurricane-related articles, I'm hesitant to propose a hurricane TBAN as well, but wouldn't oppose it if other users deem one necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring by Amigao on China related topics

This really needs resolving, and previous attempts to do so has not resulted in sanctions or changes to the editor's behaviour.

- Amigao is aggressively policing and edit warring on topics related to China over a long term period. He has a very persistent tendency of firstly doctoring articles towards a negative point of view, and then policing and reverting anyone who attempts to alter these particular changes or balance them. He subsequently slaps warnings and accuses those who disagree with his edits of bad faith behaviour and reports accordingly, framing them as vandals in order to get the upper hand [47] [48]

See for example here, this is just one of many many reverts he has made against me on this specific article [49]- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Two additional reverts just now to bring into consideration, meaning he has now reverted me three times in 24 hours: [50] [51]- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Further Evidence

• [52]
• [53]
• [54]
• [55]
• [56]
• [57]
• [58]
• [59]
• [60]
• [61]
• [62]
• [63] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunderland Renaissance (talk • contribs) 02:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am wondering if I should even bother saying something, I gave up on warring with Amigao some time ago. His belligerent edit tactics just overwhelms my capacity as a casual editor to follow up. IMHO, he is clearly furthering a WP:POV, without bothering to calm down and discuss any controversial edits. For my own sake, my quarrel was with removing CGTN references without even bothering to look for alternative sources. Quashing propaganda sources is IMHO an important job, but the way he goes about it is not particularly constructive. BFG (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Amigao deserves a barnstar, or several, for quashing propaganda sources! Bravo Amigao! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.23.251.178 (talk) May 25, 2021, 14:56 (UTC) Inappropriate comment by anon struck out. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 02:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment Whilst removing deprecated sources is acceptable, there is no consensus that the sources user:Amigao are removing are totally deprecated. Indeed in the diffs, some of these references were used in an explicitly SELFSOURCE context. I'd suggest that Amigao could benefit from taking some due care in interpreting the context of the sources before removing them, and to behave in a more collegial fashion. Certainly some of the edits made by Amigao are better treated by BRD [64] - this one for instance, is not automatically an antisemitic canard, and the lack of good faith taken when reverting that edit was alarming. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Triggerhippie4, user:Gidonb, user:SoaringLL

These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel. Additionally, User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.

The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement. However, user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."

User:Gidonb continues to make frivolous requests to fish my ip address.Catchpoke (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I raised a concern that I have on the appropriate page, then detailed it a bit following multiple public requests by multiple fellow WP volunteers (not the folks that happen to be with me in this section header). I did nothing different from the previous times that I reported something that concerned me at WP. I expressed my opinion at the discussion that the complainer initiated, disregarding all concerns, even when pressured at this point, and called names by the person who complains here against me. How awkward! In my opinion, the complainer's uncivil behavior[65][66][67] is not acceptable and, of course, one is always free to take a look at my actions. Policies apply to all. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As for the TfD itself: beyond incivility, there is too much back and forth. I think that everyone should have their say and opinions should be given some space. It's not a good idea to react to everyone's opinions. gidonb (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

At the SPI you started, you were asked for diffs 3,5 days ago [68]. You have not provided one even today [69]. Also, I cannot follow your logic in here: did you go to SPI because of incivility? -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I went to the SPI because of a concern of sockpuppetry that I continue to have (previously I would report a suspected sockpuppet on an admin's page who referred me to that page). I think it is a valid concern. At the very least there are very valid causes for concern. The user decided to attack me on multiple pages, including here, by my interpretation as a sort of defense. That's a strategy I do not approve of but just maybe within the complainer's rights. I hope not. I'm no expert on how these things develop or on all procedures and abbreviations. I'm not going to argue with all that is being said here or with every way my actions are misinterpreted. I do not do that in other discussions either. I mostly edit. All this is extremely time consuming and draining. Even simple discussions where you just want to provide your two cents have become that way. gidonb (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to make this incredibally short but if pressed, I can supply any reasoning required: user:Gidonb, I've included you here because user:SoaringLL is clearly a sock. Your request for a background check at WP:SPI was unwarranted however since you did not supply the required information for such an invasion of privacy. I don't want to comment or involve user:Gidonb further.Catchpoke (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure I acted in good faith. But is it special? All Wikipedians with a constant record of fighting vandalism, sockpuppetry, POV, and excessive nominations on Wikipedia act in good faith. Once in a while we get a barnstar, after 12 years we receive the PumpkinSky Prize, but far more often our pages are vandalized or we are threatened or even dragged to the WP:ANI or other boards. I'm not a Wikipedian for any of these. I'm here because I like to edit and believe in Wikipedia's mission. If you want to edit constructively, start necessary discussions, and report a case of possible sockpuppetry for honest reasons -- that's great! gidonb (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• What an incredibly horrific and unpleasant TfD discussion we have there. Multiple participants deserve WP:TROUT, if not actual warnings. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Adding to the report wrt User:Triggerhippie4:

Triggerhippie4 canvassing casting bad faith: [70]. They did not respond but did engage in side-issues [71] 'That's why I notified these users.' (i.e., nothing about the canvassing post).

Triggerhippie4 entring personal attacks in TfD discussion: [72] 'False. You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even ...', [73] 'Nominator is a newbie', [74] 'You are as competent as the nominator', invoking WP:CIR, 'mindful editors please'.

Triggerhippie4 was warned about this behaviour by multiple editors: [75] 'chilling effect of attitudes and comments', [76] 'unhelpful', [77] 'for a second time enters PAs'.

-DePiep (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Adding to the report wrt User:Gidonb:

Gidonb expressing PA [78] 'unnecessary procedure, ... You'll just keep precious wasting community time' (sic), a warning was added [79] 'I don't think your judgements on this procedure and on an editor's GF are sound or helpful', which was ignored [80] pretending not understanding.

Gidonb initiated SOCK claims [81] on 20 May 2021 against two editors he was involved with at the TfD. On 19:25 21st, extra info (diffs supporting their claim) was asked per CU process. Up until this moment, 3,5 days later, Gidonb has not provided a single diff. Still they continued to post otherwise [82] and elsewhere [83][84][85] in the discussion. Finally (so far) after 3,5 days, they withdrew one accusation [86] as a 'weaker case', and adding verbose meandering thoughts again without a single diff [87].

• All in all, I think Catchpoke has good reason claiming harrassment: here is a list of PAs (in various specific forms) and the spurious still unsourced SOCK accusation. While SPI ideally should be considered independently from other claims, ie by itself, such claims are not free and do have a chilling effect on a discussion. Gidonb must be aware of this, especially since they withdrew one name late (despite being explicitly asked to look at it), and another name is hung in the open still without proof. (I'd expect an earlier throw-out by CU clerck btw). This is gaming the system.

I have not experienced problematic behaviour with SoaringLL. MEATPUPPETtry could be checked for. I think a block for Triggerhippie4 and Gidonb would be useful, both to stop extending unbased SPI accusations and to keep the TfD discussion healthy & fruitful. -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

In their posts and responses here, both Gidonb and Triggerhippie4 do not show awareness of their problematic behaviour. This implies they are not up for changing their behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I've believe user:Gidonb engaged in good faith behavior since he is in his rights to accuse me of sockpuppetry but I don't want to comment on his behavior further.Catchpoke (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Above, #report wrt Gidonb shows in diffs that there is more to it. Multiple personal attacks, multiple users frivolously accused of being a SOCK (as [admitted by Gidonb] themselves), and not responding to serious requests for many days (i.e., keeping the SPI/accusation needlessly open). Whether knowingly or unknowingly: unacceptable behaviour towards other editors. And don't forget: all this disrupted the TfD to the brink. -DePiep (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with a block on user:Triggerhippie4. In addition to the facts stated by User:DePiep and I, he WP:VOTESTACKed and only notified keep voters on their talk pages of a previous and similar discussions.Catchpoke (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This is slander. I notified all active users from previous discussions. Point to an active user whom I should've notified but didn't. It's not my "fault" that previous nominations resulted in 'keep'. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

See #report wrt Triggerhippie4 above. The diffs there show that you were WP:CANVASSING, made WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS. Also proofs of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, to which we can add later posts. Your questioning is not negating all that — it is ignoring all that (proving the point). I stand by my proposal. -DePiep (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My conduct is nothing in comparison to yours, apparently. I just looked at your block log, and omg, I don't think I need a lecture on civility from someone who was blocked for PAs and harassment multiple times, including one time indefinitely. You are on WP:EDRC for that. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you hiding behind others to justify you own breach of WP guidelines? Quite a non-defence. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

O.k. Well I found this. Maybe we can move forward from this ANI and User:DePiep and I can discuss these templates further.Catchpoke (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

>These 3 users have engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel.
The allegations are baseless, as I don't know those users. I notified Gidonb, because he's major contributor to one of the templates you started the discussion about. And I have nothing to do with SoaringLL.
>User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in WP:CANVASing behavior in an attempt to WP:HARASS me.
I don't consider this ([88]) WP:CANVASS, it was accurate description of your nomination.
>The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement.
The intent of your nomination was to delete {{Largest cities of Israel}}, and the overwhelming majority voted to keep.
>user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."
I said it in response to your astounding claim "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}", because it was obviously false. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't even be making a comment like this when the discussion is ongoing and elsewhere. That certainly was harassment. "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}": Did I do my math wrong? And there were 2 uses until you added it to this article.Catchpoke (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am a bit surprised that this quite simple report on two editors does not gain any traction by ANI regulars. Any rational explanation? -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Persistent WP:DE in 'Arabian Sea' article despite being protected recently

• Arabian Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• HistoricalNameisPersianSea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Basp1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There seems to be a recent coordinated nationalistic POV pushing at the Arabian Sea article. Newly created account @HistoricalNameisPersianSea have extensively engaged in edit warring to use the 'Persian Sea' as an alternative name and in some revisions changed the article title to redirect to Persian Sea. @Basp1 was caught in the loop during the WP:WAR adding contents and sources under the Alternative Names section with citation overkill to some WP:QS. @HistoricalNameisPersianSea was subsequently banned and the article got reverted and protected. @Basp1 then continued to reinstate the POV edits (diff) despite being warned and advised (by me) not to do so in my talk page (link to discussion), yet they seem adamant on ignoring that and continuing with the WP:DE. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 10:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaving a ping for @Girth Summit: who issued the block of User:HistoricalNameisPersianSea and also for User:Kuru and User:Acroterion, admins who have edited the article since 1 May. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston, responding to ping, I haven't looked at the article or its history any depth. If I remember correctly, I blocked HNiPS for egregious personal attacks, threats to sock if blocked, and the obviously SPA username, altogether leading me to believe they weren't HERE. Probably worth looking at the other accounts through an SPI lens, given some of HNiPS previous comments, don't have time to investigate right now myself. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding to Girth Summit's observation, I found this comment by the blocked editor, responding to User:Tol's complaint about him at WP:AIV:

..personal attacks which is deserved for being biased. i have other autoconfirmed accounts and we are a group of Iranian editors on discord who combat western imperialist propaganda and saudis in Persian Sea and elsewhere HistoricalNameisPersianSea (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

–EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The expected plague of socks and meats (advocating for the Persian side) has yet to appear. The best way to close this might be with some advice to User:Basp1, to carefully follow our sourcing rules before making further changes at Arabian Sea. Basp1 was notified of this thread but hasn't responded yet. Some issues with their edits were pointed out by User:Tamzin previously at User talk:Basp1#Reliable sources and POV-pushing. If Basp1 does not take the advice and continues to revert then this would become a conventional edit-warring case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Basp1 strikes me as someone who's working in good faith and is at least trying to comply with NPOV, but whose main issue is with being able to make edits that conform to Wikipedia style. This doesn't strike me as your run-of-the-mill case of "No, call this body of water my preferred name"; see I had never said it should be called persian sea.no body have the right to change an international recognized name, which is something you don't normally hear in a case like this. I would strongly encourage her to keep her edits to the article's talk page. If there's consensus to add content about "Persian Sea" and other historical alternate names, someone else can make those additions.

P.S. The sentence fragment "POV-pushing by User:Tamzin" was quite startling to see on my initial skim of your post. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that an advice might be the best way to close here. The user have been notified previously but I think they didn't grasp the concept of Wiki style and couldn't understand what's wrong with their edits and formatting, perhaps it's a case of a language barrier. But I also find nationalistically motivated editing to be concerning. I'm going with @Tamzin here assuming good faith and will open a new section in the talk page to outline why the cited sources are unreliable hopefully they cooperate there. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 21:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi . I just want the readers to know what the old names of this sea were. It is everyone's right to know. Nothing should be censored. What you are doing is [89] destructive. Of course, this is mostly due to the language barriers and problem. According to the books: "The Persian Gulf throughout history page 6 -7 by Dr Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh [90] , "The Persian Gulf, from Ancient Times until Today". and "The History of Shipping in Iran" page42 by Ahmad Eghtedari and "Documents on the Persian Gulf's name facts pages 58-84 [91], [92]

and other scholar :"old Arabic and Persian books have used the Persian Sea. they did not used the term "Arabian Sea" Arabian sea appeared in the European maps of 17 century" most probably 1737. I don't know how much (Contemporary Nomad] had knowledge of the subject and why he insist not accept the references to the recent articles by famous scholars and old text even I referred him the original old text for example Abu'l-Fida,pages 26- 27 [93] ,Zakariya al-Qazwini, Al-Masudi [94] ,Ibn Hawqal [95].

References

(Hafiz-i Abru).[96] the Arabic text and you can not understand that text with Google translate , for example, this link is the text of the book Abu'l-Fida [97] you should type the word بحر فارس (persian sea) or Arabian sea بحر عرب and search for the words Persian Sea and Arab Sea in the text of the books . But unfortunately you do not do this and you say that the sources are not reliable. What source can I bring better than the text of the original book itself?. revert of my edits with the references is not fair. you can just remove any part that you think is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• there are many mistake in the page I am trying to add necessary information.according to hundreds of books and documents previous name of Arabian sea was persian sea but there is no even a single mention of the name persian sea in all the article. for example look at reference (8) in the alternative name:"

...Erythraean Sea, this reference itself is a prove of the persian sea look at para No 34- 35 . why he don't want to mention it. somebody should look at references in historical names [98] and add the what is necessary in historical names and maps. at the moment article lack necessary information and has some misleading information revers of my edits and reliable resources are against the policy and the aims of wikipedi . 00:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC) 01:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Nationalistic POV

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

Both users seem to not respect the Wikipedia guidelines, have most probably several accounts on Wikipedia to fullfill their agenda (Assyrian nationalism), remove sourced content without providing any sources and are Personal Attacking other Wikipedia users. Please, see this case, with a lot of information of accounts carrying out their POV since at least 2009 already: [99] Reldex (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Reldex asserts I am a sockpuppet because I reject his restoration of a version of Arameans article that was originally added by a sockpuppet (Special:Diff/971044631), and, after being removed for discussion on the talk page, was restored by another sockpuppet without discussion (Special:Diff/974874117). It is poorly written, mostly unsourced, and poorly sourced and formatted when it does have references. There needs to be consensus for it to be added, not to remain. The article is currently being brigaded, as one can see from the high number of IPs restoring this poor edit, and I have requested page protection. Mugsalot (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: Reldex has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. (Non-administrator comment) dudhhr_Contribs 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mugsalot, actually that's not the reason. I have mentioned all the reasons above in combination with the diff. I have added. You keep claiming that Arameans are part of the Assyrian people however there is no consensus on this topic. You keep removing and replacing the term Aramean even when it is sourced and the sources speak about Arameans. Thereafter you summarize it as (Reverted POV edit; For modern "Arameans" see Assyrian people) [100]. That's not something you can do and especially since you are fullfilling this agenda since 2009 I am concerned about the neutrality and quality regarding these articles. Reldex (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Mugsalot is has gotten into an edit war at List of maphrians:

1. Special:Diff/1025416100
2. Special:Diff/1025429400
3. Special:Diff/1025631620
4. Special:Diff/1025633457
5. Special:Diff/1025633640
6. Special:Diff/1025634216
7. Special:Diff/1025634540
8. Special:Diff/1025634804
9. Special:Diff/1025635272

The other user, Br Ibrahim john (talk · contribs), accused Mugsalot of partisan editing multiple times, such as in Special:Diff/1025634966. This is despite an extensive discussion at Talk:List_of_maphrians#The_Maphrianate_of_the_East_is_not_a_successor_of_the_Church_of_the_East between the two users... which admittedly seems to be just the two users arguing back and forth. A third opinion may be needed from someone familiar with this topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User:King G.A

I was going to bring this to the 3RR noticeboard, due to User:King G.A reverting 4 times, but since the user is completely unresponsive (saying "do not contact me") and provides absolutely no edit summary as to why my housekeeping edit is being reverted at Money Heist, I brought it here for attention. I'll leave it up to you whether a block is warranted or if the page should be protected. Thank you, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions of King G.A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I see a lot of reverts and no willingness to communicate. In addition to the "do not contact me" mentioned above, when they do communicate they do so by way of revert summaries in the vein of "You probably do not understand!!!!!!!!", all exclamation points in the original. However, this being a collaborative project, effective and collegial communication is required by all editors. Because King G.A appears to lack these skills, I am indefinitely blocking their account. Sandstein 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Since the block, two different IPs have shown up on Money Heist to revert back to King G.A's version. Is this block evasion? Should the article be semi protected? - MrOllie (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: semi'd 10 days. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Fullomayo

User:Fullomayo has repeatedly deleted the Controversies section from the page Isa Ali Pantami without reason or by citing "libel;" however, they do not point out what is potentially libelous, edit the section, or communicate your issues with the section; instead just deleting it while refusing to respond to inquiries on their rationale on either their talk page or the page's talk page. Isa Ali Pantami appears to be the only page the account has ever edited, and only in a positive light, adding a laundry list of achievements and deleting well-sourced content that could be viewed negatively. Due to the reasonless edits, unresponsiveness, and potential conflict of interest or undisclosed financial stake, I ask that you decide if Fullomayo be suspended from editing the Isa Ali Pantami page and/or the page be protected (as a brand new account just added a bit of positive news - to be clear, I'm not saying that the account is Fullomayo's). Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fullomayo. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have continued to edit because I noticed an editor continues to add unproven allegations to the page of Isa Ali Ibrahim to the extent that the additions seem to defeat the purposes for an autobiography of a living person. This is demonstrated by writing an unproven allegation section that was retracted by the tabloid as the major content of the autobiography. The guidelines stipulates that potentially libelous content or fake news be avoided to prevent defamation of character. I have repeatedly edited to provide an objective summary, however there seems to be a false propaganda narrative by User: Watercheetah99 and some other users to drive a propaganda against a living person. I have previously engaged Dewritech and WikiDan61 of which we agreed an article is a mere highlight of a persons life and not every achievement or controversy the person has ever had in his life. I hereby report that users should be refrained from adding potentially libelous content or unproven allegations that defames the character of a living person and adds no value to readers or the article and or biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullomayo (talk • contribs) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Fullomayo, please point out an example of defamation. It has been weeks now and you have never once pointed out the defamation so someone could fix it. Watercheetah99 (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Vauxford again

I just recognized that I just put this to AN instead of ANI. I hope it's okay, to move it over here. For the history of the discussion please see history of AN. I'm sorry. Mea Culpa.--Alexander-93 (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose to reconsider lifting the topic ban of Vauxford in January 2021. In the previous weeks I added some of my and some of other users photos over his more or less bad images, since I think they are an obvious improvement (some of them are even featured as QI) for this Wikipedia ([101], [102], [103], [104]). Today he reverted these edits with arguments like Previous was fine, take your blurry mediocre images elsewhere. I think he did't grew up since his topic ban about replacing and adding his own images to articles was lifted in January. IMO he is still defending his images over everything, which is also shown here. Furthermore he still replaces other images by his own, although he was told to stop with this behaviour in March 2021. His defiant behaviour harms here and makes a constructive work impossible.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(I will add more info soon) Firstly Alexander-93, you are not active here. You only drop by dumping your photographs in the articles, most of which are mediocre to say the least. Most importantly you are extremely hypocritical wanting to put a topic ban on me again. The reason why the topic ban was because I was disruptive when self-inserting my own images on 50 different Wikipedias which I stopped doing and focused only my native one. You on the other hand, not so much:

Audi A4 Audi A4 Ferrari 330 Ferrari 330 Audi Q8 Bitter CD Bitter CD Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Hyena

I'm going to repeat what I said on your German talkpage when you tried to stir up trouble towards me:

There is many, MANY more diffs I can show you to prove you are no better then I am. You do the exact same style editing and behaviour, and the fact you pointed fingers at me on my main Wikipedia site for this and made everyone on their scrutinised me. Why aren't people calling your editing a "personal vanity project"? Why aren't people telling you "you're degrading wikipedia with your mediocre photos"? You get NONE of that and you left another user who is very much does the same as you do to suffer. I'm not saying all my edits are justified but it the upmost sheer hypocrisy that you started this ANI to get me put on another topic ban. I had enough people wanting me gone as it is, scapegoating me all the time and removing my photos simply because it is "Vauxfordy". --Vauxford (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I am as active as you are here. And yes, I'm able to communicate in English, so why shouldn't I edit here? Yes, in the past, I also replaced images, which were not so fine - maybe not that much like you did - but I did it in a way that I would say today, was not okay. But I stopped that already at least one year ago. The edits you mentioned above are all from 2019. And some of them are even okay.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander-93 Then what are these? You did all these less than a 1 or 2 months ago so clearly you haven't stopped your mass adding. --Vauxford (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mazda MX-30, Mazda MX-30,Mazda MX-30, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, Audi Q2, BMW X3, Citroen C4 Cactus. Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Golf.

Disputes like this just make me feel that we would be better off without images altogether. They are nearly all original research and what image we include in an article often just depends on who can muster the most supporters for "their" image. Do they exist for the benefit of readers, or are they more to stroke the egos of photographers, who are now just about anyone with a mobile phone? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh and don't forget his editing history, some are which were from less than 2 months ago! Ukraine, WikiData, Japanese, Polish, Finnish, French, Arabic or though he hasn't touched that one for about 6 months, Russian. To put it straight forward, I am not innocent but at least I quit the disruptive habit that got me a topic ban, if you look at my edit history on the Wikipedias I mentioned they will be quite a few from 2020-2018, there is one from May 2021 on one or two of them because I reverted a 7 Series image which Alexander mass added at some point. I apologise for my passive-aggressive edit summary on the recent edits he stated above but I'm truly sick and tired with this situation and want it to end. What peeves me off greatly is the fact Alexander-93 continues to do this with little to no repercussions, nobody telling him off or reverting his edits. Why is he able to get away with the same shtick that got me into hot water? Please someone answer this because I been waiting for one for the past 2 or 3 years! --Vauxford (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The edits mentioned above aren't disruptive in my opinion. If I'm adding a image to a Wikipedia, where it is "needed", since it's the first which was uploaded, it's an obvious improvement. And yes, that's what I'm doing still sometimes. And sometimes I'm replacing a bad image (e.g. in case of the MX-30). But I think that's something different compared to what this thread is about: Reverting obvious improvements and replacing an image by another although there are just minor differences.--Alexander-93 (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What you been doing is one of the reasons why I got the topic ban, my reasons were the same as yours. The person who created the ANI which lead to my topic ban proposal pointed this out and people were not pleased with it. So why hasn't anybody pointed that out about you? That is what I'm trying to get across. --Vauxford (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I reverted some of Vauxford's recent changes (at Kia Stonic and Audi Q8), as Alexander 93's pictures were clearly better. Vauxford responded exactly like he did before his ban, by reinstating his pictures and being generally abrasive. I am unsure if I have removed any of Alexander's pictures recently but I don't remember ever having to have long boring arguments with him. And while this is not a competition in "who can have the most pictures used", I completely understand replacing pictures when one takes an objectively and clearly better photo. There is no defacto ban on putting pictures up in different languages, the problem is how and why it is done.

I, too, am heartily tired of this nonsense and I don't see much blame (if any) landing at Alexander's door.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr.choppers I might've been harsh with my edit summary and I'm sorry for that, as you mentioned I am simply drained from of all of this. At least try and see my frustration over this user who is very similar to or formerly similar to me and not gotten any backlash from it, wouldn't you find that frustrating? Imagine two users who both acted and behaved badly, one get the telling off and the other doesn't, that what I'm trying to point out with evidence. --Vauxford (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I just clicked one of the links you provided above at random (French Mazda MX-30), and Alexander-93's picture is a clear and undisputable improvement over what was there before. I notice his edits, but I almost never feel that he is reinstating his own photos just because they are his, or replacing existing photos that are not undisputably of a higher quality. He does what he does without annoying people, and when others revert him he generally responds calmly if at all.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr.choppers I don't understand, type in his username in the VisualFileChanger and you see that they are not "undisputably of a higher quality". This is the exact same type of a so-called "vanity project" that Charles01 pointed out. There is strong evidence that he is reinstating his own image on as many Wikipedia page as he could simply because they are his, that was my motive before the topic ban and I reflected for two years why that not a good thing to do. I don't annoy people on other Wikipedias and I do respond calmly if one gets reverted. Once again, I apologise for my outburst with today's reverts, both to you and Alexander. However, he continues doing that and nobody has told him off or warned him. --Vauxford (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

General comment re images @Alexander-93 and Vauxford: - the main consideration for which image goes in an article is quality. Who took the image, or uploaded it to Commons/Wikipedia counts for absolutely nothing. It an image of yours does get used, count it as a bonus. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep @Mjroots: that's what I'm doing - or at least trying to do. I'm trying to add the best available images to an article. And if an image is not that perfect, but the very first in its category, I'm adding it too. And if there is a more suitable image of another user or also of me uploaded later, I'm totally fine, if it gets replaced (by whoever). But in the case I described above, Vauxford didn't behave like that. And that's what the people criticized even before he was topic banned. I added obviously better images to some articles, but he didn't care about the quality. If it would have been the other way round (e.g. the image of the blue Kia Stonic from me and the image of the yellow Kia Stonic from him), he would have been probably the very first who changed them. And that would have been totally okay, since it's an obvious improvment. But since his image got replaced, re reacted (at least in my opinion) defiant. And that's a behaviour that doesn't bring us forward.--Alexander-93 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I notice that a lot of the diffs provided are to Wikipedias in other languages or Wikidata. We can only consider any alleged diruption that takes place at en-Wiki. What happens elsewhere is a matter for those other Wikipedias. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander-93 It the same exact reason why I add mine, I do care about quality. I will say this again, I shouldn't of acted the way I did yesterday with the reverts and I ensure you this does not reflect who I am today, for the past months I been keeping my frustration to myself because of your style of mass adding your photos, there was many times that I was close to create an ANI about you but held back since I thought it would do more harm than good.

Quite frankly Alexander, if you take a look at the photos you taken carefully, they have several problems with them, you appear to take cues from me when it comes to angles and where they are etc but 80% of the time you always mess up the focus and colour. They are always washed out and the balance is all messed up, the angle is always skewed and the vehicle itself is often blurry, and that is the reason why I reverted those edits, especially the Up! GTI because of it. --Vauxford (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to point to a comment made by User:Johannes in the January discussion which lifted Vauxford's topic ban:

I believe that Vauxford has had some time to figure why his behaviour was considered disruptive; in case he did not figure this, the tban can be reimposed.

I think it's quite possible that we're at that place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I fully understand why you oppose the original topic ban lifting but you can see above my reasoning as clearly as I am able to make it, I don't believe my actions are a repeat of the past but rather seeking for the best quality images that are available from Wikimedia. Ever since the topic ban lifted, this is the only incident that happened here and I strongly regretted the action I did with the reverts and edit summary. --Vauxford (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, we had the long-running Charles01/Vauxford dispute, and, now that you've been unbanned for 4 months, we have the Alexander-93/Vauxford dispute. It's obvious what the common factor is. If your response was one that any other editor concerned about image quality would do, why is it that no one else did it but you? (If someone else did, they would be pertinent information, but you haven't mentioned any such instance.) It seems to me that there's still a problem that needs to be addressed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I can't remember how many times car pictures have come to the drama boards, but it's definitely too many. Why not try a slightly innovative solution, since the usual don't seem to have worked so far. These two users (Vauxford and Alexander-93) could be forbidden to insert their own images into any automotive article, but be free to insert anyone else's ~ indeed, even encouraged to find those of the best quality and do so, even if they are each others'. They would still be able to create all the images they wanted, and upload them to Commons, and while they're on Commons, look for excellent images that aren't theirs to improve articles. Might it stop them picking on each other? Who knows, but it might be worth trying as a way to stop these regular ANI visits; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

case of COI, SPI and UPE.

I request Admins over here to kindly check the relisted section over HERE, as it shows that user owlf having a clear COI with Prakash Neupane as he seems asking help in the screen recordings to revert edit by an ADMIN on the facebook group, and user OWLF Re-created the page Prakash Neupane after 4 different discussion, and his behavior since I had AFDed the page was weird as first his account started deleting afd tags from the page Prakash neupane see This and This,

and since he has a clear COI in some facebook group see | screen recording 1 here and | screen recording 2 here thats why I presume out of nowhere this user closed the afd of Prakash Neupane which s/he reverted after an admin asked him or her to do so see Here

also I had open a SPI which got closed by stating that its irrelevant by a SPI clerk where I saw User:SS49 and user:owlf interaction timeline where they clearly seems to be working under some farm, I request some Admin over here to have a look on the mess going around here,

I apologies if I am wrong but I presume there is some big paid farm going out there which is worth having a look at.

after watching the screen recording by a user on HERE I connected all these dots and it does indicates towards some serious shit going around. I also have some more evidance which I will only share once an admin pings me so that they can instantly see it as a proof that Prakash neupane page is being involved into some paid farm and puffery. Thanks Suryabeej (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well about SPI the user had already filed it before and he had mentioned it before and being a Nepali Wikipedian I've created many actors, musicians, politicians, movie-related articles and has contributed to many articles. Just wanted to clarify here that I edit and care about Wikipedia and I don't look after who did what outside Wikipedia. If any admin wants to ask anything else feel free and about COI I'm not involved. Owlf (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) OP blocked 31 hours for harassment. This is their fourth or fifth WP:FORUMSHOPPING request for sanctions against editors they disagree with at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakash Neupane (4th nomination) after being warned repeatedly to knock it off. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• I stand behind my close – it was retaliatory nonsense and these two are clearly not the same person. The orbit of this case is ripe with COI socking and joe jobbing. Speaking of, I find it curious that the videos the OP linked show upwork as one of just three browser bookmarks and that the person who recorded it seems to be running Avira for Android judging by the logo in the status bar – that one comes with a free VPN. --Blablubbs|talk 13:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sir I want to tell you that the notification icon is of "Avira Antivirus" that keeps running in the background and not the "Avira VPN". You can confirm that by installing both the apps. The vpn app does not have any icon for the top bar. And I know using vpn is again the wikipedia rules. And regarding upwork, it is not a bookmark, it is an app icon on the launcher screen of phone. I request you to watch the video again. Thanks. JAHANZAIBARIF|talk

67.80.249.131

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

This IP has been waging a grand crusade for the past several days. While some of their edits have been beneficial or at least neutral, such as [105], the vast majority have been disruptive. The IPs two main "targets" are nicknames, such as [106] and [107], and image captions, such as [108] and [109].

He has been warned multiple times, and has been given explicit reasons, and yet he continues to make the same edits to the same exact pages he got warned for (most namely Bobby Jindal, where after his edit was reverted, he was explicitly warned by User:Palindromesemordnilap that consensus had been reached regarding the inclusion of the nickname and the IP chose to ignore that warning and re-edit the page to remove the thing he was just warned against removing.) This IP is clearly not here and now causes us to have to parse through their edits to see what need to be reverted or not. Curbon7 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What we've got here is an IP user that is editing from mobile, so it's a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. In other words, it's not evident to the user that they have received any messages, as they've not received any notifications. Please see the open ticket phab:T278838 for more information on this problem.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The user's most recent edit to Bobby Jindal is not tagged as being a mobile edit; see [110] (not sure how accurate the tagging system is). palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 14:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe they are deliberately ignoring us. When they changed the caption for the second time (without explanation),[111] I reverted their edit and asked why (in the edit summary).[112] What did they do? They removed the caption altogether.[113] M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a month. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Siddha Yoga

An IP is continually edit warring at Siddha Yoga to promote a "Controversy" section to the top of the article. It's been going on for weeks now and needs to stop, so I think somebody should take a look at it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion by FDMD04 and 27.97.175.194

• Raghav Juyal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FDMD04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.97.175.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

FDMD04 was blocked on 21 May for 48 hours for edit-warring at Raghav Juyal. In less than a day after that block expired, they were blocked on 24 May for 1 month for personal attacks and harassment. On 26 May, 27.97.175.194 restored the same edits at Raghav Juyal for which FDMD04 was blocked originally for edit-warring (removing maintenance tags without resolving the issues and edits contrary to MOS). – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Random addition of sources and inflammatory edit summaries by User:Sarakhanjunglee

Sarakhanjunglee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added sources in a random fashion to leave political statements in edit summaries such as:

• Zionists want us killed[114] in Paracetamol
• Palestinians are failures. Mahmoud Abbas is not even a Muslim, he's a Baha'i. Wake up Muslims[115] in Palestine 194
• Sufi erdogan freemason only barking like dogs. All staged drama[116] in Islam in Palestine
• No leader will tolerate khawarij extremists. Long live Widodo. What he's doing is right[117] Joko Widodo

The sources are not or only remotely connected to the text to which they are attached. Quite strange is the addition of Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East to the see also-section of Apocrypha. The addition of a note with a Hadith text[118] after the first word in the lead of Pleurisy is less randomish, but betrays a CIR issue.

Judging from previous warnings about similar behavior and other various issues, I get the impression this user is not here to built an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). –Austronesier (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The second one looks particularly racist, and almost all of the other edit summaries seem to be Islamophobic or potshots at Islamic terrorists like [119] at Abqaiq. I see that the edit summary in [120] at Bilal Erdoğan has already been RD3'd; should any more edits or edit summaries be revdel'd? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Actually they're not Islamophobic, but seem to loathe everything that deviates from their Sunni mainstream POV, whether it's Sufi mysticism or Salafist terrorism. Most of their edsums are not as gross as the ones I have picked for the report, so I don't think there is much more out there for redvel. And they haven't edited since the report, so this might become stale anyway. –Austronesier (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Incredibly disruptive edits on Azerbaijan-Armenia related pages

Hello everyone.

Two IP addresses as well as a registered account have been conducting pure vandalism and POV pushing in Azerbaijan-Armenia-related articles.

2607:9880:2F07:FFB8:FDB3:A22F:16FE:F157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The first user, out of Canada, has made 12 highly disruptive, incredibly incompetent and sheer vandalistic POV edits, such as using incoherent, nationalistically motivated language to denigrate cultural treasures and an entire nationality. Edit summaries which in reality result in erasing information include facades like "grammar fixes" or "deleted outdated information". This needs to cease immediately.

185.30.91.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The second user, out of Baku, Azerbaijan, similarly, uses their account to erase criticism for the Azerbaijani ESC 2021 singer's highly controversial rhetoric (calling an entire nation "terrorists"). Edit summaries include threats such as "The stupid record of Armenians was deleted" (in Azerbaijani) and "Don't even dare to write it again".

Claude ker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Lastly, the newly-created account Claude ker erases Armenian heritage on Azerbaijan-related pages on which keeping the Armenian designations and the entailing history has long been agreed on.

Please act accordingly. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@BaxçeyêReş: You are required to notify the named user and the two IPs of this report. See top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, I just did. Apologies for not doing so prior BaxçeyêReş (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

2601:5CA:C302:43D0:7031:CDC9:2028:2669

2601:5CA:C302:43D0:7031:CDC9:2028:2669 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Has been engaging in edit warring as well as blatant personal attacks, including accusing users of "extreme anti-woman bigotry" diff and of being a "Anti-Native racist" diff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours by Bbb23, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MLJ 657 and addition of unsourced material at 2021 in animation

I have noticed a problem with MLJ 657. They have persistently added unsourced series endings to articles that fail WP:V and are not supported by any citations in the linked articles.

A timeline of the situation:

• March 6, 2021: user made a series of edits adding unsourced series endings to 2020 in animation. Edits were subsequently reverted by Magitroopa, who then proceeded to warn MLJ 657. MLJ 657 then responds saying he will stop.
• March 18, 2021: user added Muppet Babies (2018 TV series) to 2021 in animation's ending section with this edit, breaking the promise he made to Magitroopa.
• March 25, 2021: I warned user, user then posts to my talk page saying "I won't be blocked from editing without further warning so I have to keep in mind to not do that."
• April 14, 2021: Once again, user continues to add unsourced/poorly sourced material, adding Fancy Nancy (TV series) to 2021 in American television ([121]) and 2021 in animation ([122]), citing RenewCancelTV, which is not a reliable source (see here for why I don't consider it reliable, posted under my old account). I then proceed to warn them for adding unsourced/poorly sourced material again, user replies making the same empty promise they made the last two times.
• May 5, 2021: Unsurprisingly, user adds unsourced content to 2021 in animation again.
• May 25, 2021: I removed user's addition, but it didn't occur to me that it was MLJ 657 until I scrolled through the page's edit history. Thus, I go to their talk page to express my frustration with this continued behavioral pattern. User has yet to respond to my message.

MLJ 657 has continued to add unsourced or poorly sourced material after promising multiple times to stop, and I feel that some disciplinary action should be in order. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 20:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India

User:Ahm Imran Shah is continuously vandalising the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India (among other pages) despite me notifying him that his edits are unsourced and disruptive. I think he should be blocked, Wikipedia is not the place for unsourced claims. UserNumber (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@UserNumber: You have not discussed this with the user – their user talk page is empty, without even a welcome or any attempt at an explanation of why edits need to be sourced. You have explained (very briefly) in (some of) your edit summaries why you reverted their edits, but you can't take it for granted that a brand new editor will read the edit summary and understand what "unsourced" refers to. Adding unsourced information in good faith is not vandalism, and they have not exactly been working at lightning speed – they have all of three edits with at least 10 days between each edit, to that article. Finally, you are required to notify editors on their user talk page when you start a discussion about them on this page. There is a bright yellow note at the top of the edit window explaining this, and how to do it. --bonadea contributions talk 07:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

FTR, I have posted a welcome notice to their user talk page with information about the verifiability policy. --bonadea contributions talk 07:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal yet again

• 2607:FEA8:BD42:1300:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 72.138.217.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• April 2021 – Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal again
• March 2021 – Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060#Challenging rangeblock for Ottawa music vandal
• July 2020 – Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#Another rangeblock against Ottawa music vandal

Long-term abuse from Ottawa is flaring up again, with wrong credits inserted into the same old music articles as before. Special:Contributions/72.138.217.84 was blocked but that didn't stop Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:BD42:1300:0:0:0:0/64 from resuming the disruption. Let's get a block going. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I blocked 2607:FEA8:BD42:1300:0:0:0:0/64 for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Editing Khazars and ARBPIA3

• Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BasedMises (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alwaysasn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry lies under ARBPIA3 sanctions. My query has several aspects. In my view the recent editwarring there does not revolve around a content dispute, but a refusal to engage with serious questions about evidence assessment, WP:RS while tagteaming to revert with little focused talk page explanation (See here).

Without wishing to assert Ownership, I did write most of the Khazars article and the relevant sections of this page dealing with both its antisemitic uses and the conspiracy spun from it by fringe lunatic figures in the Ku Klux Klan and othe racist groups. I.e. I trawled through scores of scholarly texts on the topic, which survey the idea’s rise, and credibility. In this academic literature, the idea that it is intrinsically antisemitic or a conspiracy theory is rare, except to note its occasional abuse. Most scholars evaluate it as improbable. Most scholars who have taken it as worthy of scrutiny are of Jewish background, and are neither underwriters of antisemitism nor conspiracy theories. According to two new editors of this page, it is conspiratorial and anti-Semitic to its core.

User:BasedMises on 12 May (2 days into the present I/P crisis), rarely steps out of his field of economics (user page). He provided 5 sources reacting to a tweet on Twitter by an obscure Qatari figure, Ghada Oueiss, on 22 August 2019 that the Jews qua Khazars were intruders in the Holy Land, as proof that the idea in itself is a conspiracy theory. 3 are brief echoes of a report responding to this tweet in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The fifth is from Steven Plaut, a deceased Israeli economist who was convicted of libel (lying) in an Israeli court and who was permabanned for sockpuppetry (User:Runtshit) on wikipedia. Just to give one an idea of the quality of the evidence used to justify this distortion of the record.

A virtually inactive account,User:Alwaysasn registered in 2011, and making just 13 edits in 10 years , was reactivated on 21 May to back up BasedMises’ claim that was a ‘conspiracy theory’.

My question is, can Alwaysasn edit an article that falls under ARBPIA3 guidelines (requiring 500 edits). When I raised this with User:Doug Weller, Alwaysasn replied that the specific header states that the ban extends only to an (undefined) portion of the page, whereas he edited in material that deals not with the I/P conflict but with ‘Jews’. However he admits that he made his edit due to an (unattested) ‘the stark rise in antisemitism . . discredit Jews around the world’ at this particular moment.

Both editors came to the page at the beginning and end of the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis. Both editors cited as proof the absurd crack made by an obscure figure in Qatar two years ago. The original source used, the JTA, does not state that the Khazar theory is intrinsically antisemitic or conspiratorial, as the two editors claim. To the contrary the JTA text for 22 August 2020 almost certainly took its remarks from our wiki article as it stood that day, a text that has remained stable for several years:

The theory has been used by anti-Semites and anti-Zionists to discount Jewish claims to the land of Israel. Scholars have discounted the theory

On the 22 August 2019 our text stated (and have continued to state until this recent brouhaha altered it):

The hypothesis has been used at times by anti-Zionists to challenge the idea that Jews have genetic ties to ancient Israel, and it has also played some role in anti-Semitic theories

Does this content refer to the 'portion' ARBPIA covers, in which case Alwaysasn shouldn't be editing there, or is his battle to defend Jews against a stark surge in anti-Semitism in the last few weeks nothing at all to do with the contemporary flare-up in the I/P crisis? The JTA article supported by both editors specifically states what Alwasasn denies, i.e. that the the theory is abused to 'discount Jewish claims to the land of Israel'. It falls therefore under ARBPIA3.Nishidani (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Editing Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry displays this edit notice which clearly states that the article is subject to 500/30 (WP:ECP). To remove doubt, I just applied that protection to the article. It would not be reasonable to argue that a certain portion of the article should be exempt from 500/30—the very fact that there appears to be a dispute indicates that WP:ARBPIA4 applies. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: thanks, but both the edit notice and talk page notice says "A portion of the article Khazar" - I think you added the wrong templates. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Groan, I missed that. I adjusted the edit notice and the talk page notice. @Nishidani: You will need to be more patient as we have to tolerate off-wiki campaigns reaching articles. Focus on knocking off the unreliable sources and pointing out that "No evidence from genome-wide data ..." means the author is claiming no evidence not conspiracy theory. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've shown all the sources are unreliable. I've shown that Behar (2013) is cited for the view that the theory is unscientific and a conspiracy when Behar does no such thing. He confutes an hypothesis advanced by another scientist in his field arguing on technical grounds. He does not anywhere state that his colleague is engaged in pseudo-science. A blip in a tweet and report (then copied 4 times in 1 day) cannot trump scholarship. I can't get any answers from the two editors: one doesn't respond, the other merely says my queries or analyses are all ad hominem, and he has newspaper snippets about an incident in Qatar in 2019 which call the theory anti-Semitic and a con spiracy. Obviously neither of them have trou8bled to read the relevant articles, where all of these aspects as they are analysed iin numerous scholarly studies, are thoroughly covered. It's therefore a behavioural problem (WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and evidence of lack of experience as to what constitutes WP:RS. etc. People who write articles always have to have immense patience here with passing tweakers who have an opinion based on some tabloid, and who lack the patrience or curiosity to thoroughly familiarize themselves with the topic. Sorry for the tirade. But the situation there is farcical. It is even pointless asking me to be patient when one has a numbers game with two blow-ins to the topic trumping any argument since that numerical 'majority' established the consensus. So the bullshit will stick, and the WP:BLP smear it contains by direct implication is that a ranking geneticist Eran Elhaik is a pseudoscientist by definition, since he tried to justify a theory that comes under that formulation. Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Exercising the patience advised above, I dropped a note on User:Alwaysasn's page, suggesting they take the contested sources to RSN. Their response was an inflammatory insult, interpreting my remarks as ‘antisemitic gaslighting’. They have since refused to strike this personal smear as I have requested. This nonsense has already wasted 3 hours in a busy life. Surely one cannot get away with that as well? Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Advice on a best way forward

I'm looking for some advice regarding The Wall (British game show). There is consensus on the article and WP:TELEVISION to not have contestant results in the article because of them being an indiscriminate collection of information. There are two users who refuse to accept this and constantly restore the contestant tables, one of the editors has been article blocked for two weeks (expires in two days time), but this has had no effect as another user popped up and started the same editing pattern of restoring the tables. Neither editor will communicate. I'm unsure what the best way forward is, page protection?, user blocking? or some other way? Advice gratefully received. - X201 (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Luc812208 continuing to revert, and refusing to use the talk page, despite being told about the pre-existing consensus, policy and talk page discussion via various means, constitutes disruptive editing (and arguably not being here to build an encyclopedia). I have indefinitely blocked their account. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I have a strange feeling that I'll be back here in two day's time. - X201 (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@X201, I understand it's frustrating to try to protect an article from a series of unproductive new editors, but for each unproductive new editor, they're only one in that series. You say you think you'll be back in two days -- do you mean with another unproductive new editor? Is page protection a better choice? @Daniel, I'm not seeing Luc812208 has ever edited a talk page at all, including their own? Maybe they don't even know there is such a thing. Maybe we change to a p-block from article space to encourage them to discuss? —valereee (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I did consider that originally. However, for two reasons I went full indef instead: 1) they don't appear to be editing from Mobile, so no justification for not using talk pages and b) their disruption spread over multiple articles, so I'd have to indef p-block them across multiple pages. The indef block isn't infinite, it's designed to force them to respond and start discussing, instead of just disruptively edit warring against consensus (as they had previously been directed to do). No issues from me if an admin unblocks/alters block if they respond on their talk page at all. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Block adjusted and talk page updated, now p-blocked from article namespace until they start discussing. Thanks Valereee for the heads-up about p-block namespace capabilities that I wasn't aware of. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

IP user

A user editing through at least one or more IP addresses apparently wrote inappropriate comments on my talk, Special:PageHistory/User talk:87.3.127.86 reverted the warning I post on their talk and continues to communicate inappropriately in Italian. I used google translate to see what the comments were and it seemed inappropriate. I continued to place warnings on the user's talk, but the user keeps reverting. Please advise? 54nd60x (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The IP is free to remove comments and warnings posted on their talk page - you should not have edit warred to restore. I suggest you drop the matter and let me know if they come back to pester you. I don't think there is enough for a block. GiantSnowman 09:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: the user did it again. The reason I came here isn't mainly because of the removal of warnings, but with the harsh comments they keep making. 54nd60x (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

They keep calling you an "idiot" and asking you to stop posting (per "pissing") on their talk page - they are probably just frustrated at you repeatedly posting on their talk page, I cannot see anything more than that. Please stop posting on their talk page! Like I said, if they continue to pester you elsewhere then let me know and we can take action, but until then, nothing. GiantSnowman 10:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Okay. The user keeps telling administrators to block me, which is annoying. What should I do then? 54nd60x (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll ignore the user for now. 54nd60x (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Blanking the ANI report and making personal attacks at ANI by the IP are not legit. A block may be warranted.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eostrix: I agree. Even though the IP may be using harsh language because I keep posting stuff on their talk, I don't know why the IP began harsh language in the first place. I tried asking, but my edit was instantly reverted. 54nd60x (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't feed the troll or Proverbs 26:4, whatever works for you. Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:LTA/SBT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Kavkas

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

This user has been active 2013, he should very well know how Wikipedia and its guidelines work by now. However, he clearly doesn't, as can be seen by his editing history, both back then and now. At Gelae (Scythian tribe), he removed sourced info and attempted to push information with outdated sources, which I told him was not okay. His best response was Now go complain to the admin, which honestly made me give up further attempts to talk with him.

He seems to be constantly pushing WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, as as well heavily lacking WP:COMPENTENCE.

He has a tendency to alter/remove sourced information which doesn't fit with his POV;

[123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have dealt with the user previously, I do not think Wikipedia benefits from their continued ability to edit. I found that they have a battleground attitude, and that their competence to make encyclopedic edit is not so great.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month, as this person is showing zero interest in trying to become more productive. Maybe that'll get their attention. —valereee (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Atharv Bakshi

Atharv Bakshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

@Atharv Bakshi: continues to engage in content dispute/edit wars despite being told not to several times by @Number 57:. The user does not indicate any intention of stopping this. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer, I'm only finding one warning from @Number 57 on that user's talk, and it's about infoboxes, and a single mention of edit-warring on their user talk -- can you give us some diffs? —valereee (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This editor is disruptive and I'm not sure is entirely competent to be editing Wikipedia. Virtually every edit of theirs that I've seen has had to be reverted. Number 57 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've p-blocked from article to try to get the editor's attention/get them to discuss. Still not sure we tried hard enough, but p-blocks aren't as aggressive so I'm willing to. Actual diffs for the problem would be really helpful, though. —valereee (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

1978 Los Angeles Ravagers

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

---

User:1978 Los Angeles Ravagers was recently blocked by @Jayron32: for disruptive edits and a deeply uncivil response to a warning about them. They responded with this which looks to me like a request for an indef block. Laplorfill (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hahah. Classic. Screaming into the void is always so productive. --Jayron32 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And indef'd. That's not someone who's going to edit in a collaborative manner. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, as I expected. He/she was an editor who was WP:NOTHERE to contribute. His/her (self-entertaining) response to being blocked, was predictable. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposed Indefinite Block On Kelvinsage1

Kelvinsage1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Has been an editor for five years and has been using Wikipedia for purposes described in what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Their talkpage indicates possible covert undisclosed paid editing since 2016 up until date. They were warned by Praxidicae in January 2020, see here of engaging in upe, of which they denied and claimed they were not collecting financial rewards for article creation, but since January 2020 till now their actions negates their claim as they have created six promotional non notable articles all of which have been deleted, (5 BLP's and one article on an organization). Their most recent article, this was yet again on a non notable individual and the article is currently in an AFD. So either this is gross incompetency and a failure to understand WP:GNG despite being here for five years or this is undisclosed paid editing, either way I am proposing an indefinite block on them for violating our TOU policy on paid editing and or/for WP:CIR, though the former is much more plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a failure to understand GNG (for which there are different levels of understanding, and interpretations); from their comments in discussions it's more about verifiability and identification of reliable sources - for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hefna380. In their most recent article Okoro Blessing Nkiruka there was a "scandal" referred to without any explanation or source, and at least one unreliable source (reference 6 in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Okoro_Blessing_Nkiruka&oldid=1025605110 linked to a site with self-published content and no mention of the article cited - the only search result for the title is a copy of the Wikipedia article). Some advice from an editor who is better at assessing the reliablility of sources would be useful, as WP:RSP doesn't say much about Nigerian sources. Also RSP is becoming useless - Fox News "generally reliable" and Daily Mail "deprecated" when outside Wikipedia they are considered to have similar levels of reliability - and is not always taken seriously at AFD, so an article can be deleted because a source is "deprecated" when RSP and the linked discussion show consensus was unanimously against deprecation. The main issue is that for content that discusses living people (either the subject of the article or other people mentioned) the sources need to be adequate for the purpose, particularly with controversy, and with material unrelated to the subject's notability, but also to verify assertion of notability. Peter James (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Long-term disruption on the Mount Nemrut page

There's a long-term campaign going on aimed at shoving the word "Armenian" into the Mount Nemrut page, in spite of the majority WP:RS and the UNESCO entry,[130] which don't mention the word "Armenian" even once, and only mention Greek and Persian/Iranian. Every time, as soon at the page protection expires, the IP hopper/LTA shows up again, completely ignoring a few dozen of Wikipedia guidelines. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well, more importantly, is the word "Armenian" mentioned in the two books that source that sentence? If not, then the IP is wrong. But that's the place to look. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is what the sources say;

"In the first century BC, Antiochos I, son of Mithradates Kallinikos and the Seleucid princess Laodike, ruled over the Iranian and Hellenistic kingdom of Commagene. It is Antiochos I who was mainly responsible for the establishment of an intriguing form of Greco-lranian religious idiosyncrasy. 56 This featured an impressive pantheon that in its final shape boasted: Zeus-Oromasdes; Apollo-Mithra-Helios-Hermes; Artagnes [ WarBrayn ]- Herakles-Ares; and the goddess Commagene. Antiochos I promulgated its nomos51 and established throughout Commagene a network of major cultic spaces (hierothesia) at Arsameia on the Euphrates, Arsameia on the Nymphaios and Nemrud Dagt, as well as more discreet temene, 58 toward the celebration of the cult of the ancestors and/or the syncretized Irano-Hellenic divinities." - Shayegan, M. Rahim (2016). "The Arsacids and Commagene", page 13, you can find the work here [131]

Gotta admit that the second one is a bit unclear and I should have put a better source (which I easily can), but still, not a single mention of anything Armenian;

"At Arsameia Antiochus built a “hierothesion” dedicated to the dynastic cult, perì patrṓōn daimónōn, for the paternal daímones, and for his own honor (Arsameia Inscr. 1.8.f.). This expression is comparable to the Iranian conception of the fravashis. The original cult was instituted by his father but Antiochus reorganized it and made regulations concerning the days of festival and the duties of the priest responsible for the rites. An inscription from Nimrud Dag ( Dittenberger , Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae, I, 383, 1. 54f.) enumerates the deities of the dynastic pantheon. Following the dual tradition of the kingdom, the gods receive both Greek and Iranian names: Antiochus worships Zeus-Oromasdes, Apollo-Mithras-Helios-Hermes, Artagnes-Herakles-Ares, and finally the all-nourishing fatherland of Commagene. These deities are arranged according to the tri-functional system discovered by Dumézil: 1) Ohrmazd ( < Ahura Mazdā) and Mithra representing the religious-juridical function; 2) Artagn ( < Vərəθraγna), the warrior function, and 3) the all-nourishing fatherland, both collective and nourishing function, in this case another symbol for the Iranian Daēnā, the spiritual element in its collective and nourishing function (Nyberg, Widengren)." - ANTIOCHUS OF COMMAGENE, Iranica

Honestly I could post more and more, the vast majority of sources agree that these gods were a mix of Greek and Iranian/Zoroastrian, as was typical in much of the Near East at that time.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please turn off TPA

for Dance with Drake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please also don't forget to remove the edits. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

IP with an ax to grind and legal threats

2601:1C0:4280:1FF0:B1C5:99A5:8156:8CE5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is determined to add NPOV opinion and is making legal threats when reverted. Also- well past WP:3RR

[[132]]

Nightenbelle (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 IP blocked for legal threats. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish leveraging admin tools to maintain preferred, anti-consensus revision at Thor

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

---

Having been on English Wikipedia for many years now and along the way having written quite a lot of the site's content relating to folklore and its various genres, I've encountered a lot of issues, as I am sure all veteran editors have. Particularly when editing topics involving pseudoscience, every now and then I've gotten death threats and been on the receiving side of attempts at harassment or intimidation, some of them even making their way to offsite publications. Yet I have in fact never encountered outright abuse of mod tools from an admin until today.

First, a little background. Over at Thor and related articles, regulars such as myself encounter a variety of drive-by edits. Most of them consist of the typical vandalism one sees on any highly visible article, some are the result of confusion, and far too few helpful.

One thing we see every now and then is a well-meaning user wanting to add a userbox to the page. Unfortunately, these users rarely know the material very well, and often seem to have not read the article. This has resulted in several discussions over at the Thor article, where topic regulars like @Yngvadottir:, @Haukurth:, @Berig:, and myself respond and continue to develop this and related articles.

To date there's been a clear consensus that the introduction of infoboxes tends to be misleading, if not outright misinforming, and provide nothing the lead does not. For the Thor article, clear consensus against infobox inclusion has been established since 2008, as indicated in these discussions:

• 2008: "Infobox"
• 2011: "Infobox"
• 2017: "Infobox redux"

Related discussion can be found at the talk page for English Wikipedia's Odin article, for example:

• 2014 & 2020: Talk:Odin "Infobox" & "Infobox (Redux)"

Earlier today, a user with very few edits added an infobox to the Thor page containing numerous problems (@SpyGuy12345:). For example, not only does this infobox have obvious grammatical issues (that'd be the Æsir, for one) but it also tells readers that the "symbol of Thor" is the swastika.

In reality, scholars have debated (and continue to debate) whether this is the case (as English Wikipedia's Swastika_(Germanic_Iron_Age) article makes clear, which our Thor article's section pipes to). In short, it's unclear if the symbol signified the sun in the ancient Germanic record, some other deity, or who knows. Similarly, as is common in myth, geneaologies can differ by source, place, and time: For example, Thor may well have been Odin's father during the Migration Period and among some groups during the Viking Age, and before that, at some point *Tiwaz (who became North Germanic Týr) is widely considered by scholars to have once been the 'sky father'. Add to that the great majority of these 'related' figures in the infobox are not attested outside of the North Germanic branch and yet this article covers Thor from the early Germanic period until today. Lots of issues.

All of this is why the introductory paragraph of English Wikipedia's Thor article so carefully says which corpus these relations are described in. The infobox presents no such nuance or care—useful for car models and battles, not so useful for complex figures from folklore. Then there's the issue of whether an infobox in these cases provides more information than the first paragraph of the introductory paragraph, to which consensus is that it cannot.

Anyway, I went ahead and reverted this addition and opened a talk thread, as per usual Wikipedia practice. Business as usual. However, I was soon surprised to find that an admin, @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: had appeared out of nowhere and reverted my edits. Eventually, after trying to get him to use the talk page and right before his third edit, he locked the page to his new, preferred version:

• revert 1: "No consensus for that"
• revert 2: "Talk pages have been reviewed. There is no consensus for this."
• page lock
• revert 3: "Status quo reversion.. protection as requested.")

Only after locking the page did he decide to appear on the talk page, where he accused me of "vandalism" and warned me that he was an admin, with a threatening "suggestion" that I "stop", presumably thinking I'm a new editor, among various other odd and false claims. Catfish Jim also somehow attempted to put his decision to lock the page at his preferred version in the third revert above on me as my request because I had said someone ought to lock the page. Nice.

I'm not sure what is going on with this guy but, in short, what would have been a regular Wikipedia conversation turned into Catfish Jim leveraging admin tools as a trump card to get what he wanted, making no effort to discuss the matter until locking the page to the version he wanted before his third revert, and all the while making a variety of false statements. This highly visible page is curently worse off for it.

Ignoring the pros and cons of infoboxes, a debatable topic, Catfish Jim's actions here look to be a pretty clear example of abuse of admin tools to me. Given this behavior, I don't think Catfish Jim should have access to these tools. In fact, someone with more time than I have to offer might want to look through this Catfish Jim's edit history to see if he's used admin tools to get his way in other exchanges. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've unprotected the article. I agree that was a gross abuse of the admin tools. We don't do desysops at AN/ANI, and ArbCom (which does) usually won't desysop over one misuse of the tools. If there appears to be a pattern of this kind of tool use, then an ArbCom case is how you would remove the tools. Hopefully this was a one-off.

As far as edit warring is concerned, you have both reverted 3 times. I am going to block CJ&tS from that page for 24 hours for edit warring, because of the aggravating factor of his admin tool misuse. I won't block User:Bloodofox now, but I will if they revert again, as that will be a 3RR violation. Anyone besides BoO is free to revert to the status quo version, which (contrary to CJ&tS's comment) appears to be the the version with no infobox. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ouch! EEng 01:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ouch indeed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

After opening a Wikipedia tab, seeing pings, coming here, then examining the history of the article and then the talk page and posting first there ... thank you for removing the protection, Floquenbeam, the article has been re-reverted and I endorse the action. Bloodofox summarizes the problems well above, except that the scope of the article is all reflexes of *Þunraz, which may make the problem a bit clearer. I have only two comments on Catfish Jim, one, that I have no recollection of them making unwise admin decisions, presumably a bad day, and two, that this is an illustration of why we have a general principle that admins avoid using their tools based on content matters except in cases of obvious vandalism. (An unusually short comment for me; I gotta go.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Golly. I was expecting to have a few messages this morning, possibly even a notice that there was a discussion at ANI that involved me, which would be a first (I think). Blocked from editing a page... that's also a first. I admit I probably was in error in reverting the page after locking it at bloodofox's request. Bad day? You could say so but would that excuse a "gross abuse of admin powers"? I was attempting to engage with the guy, but here we are.

Anyway... I note bloodofox's request for me to resign or to be formally desysopped. I am absolutely open to WP:RECALL and will resign the mop if there is consensus that I should do so. Probably better to do that in an WP:RFC than here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Here would be fine... doesn't need to be a formal, drawn out process. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd certainly say that a bad day (God knows we all have some of those, especially in this trying period) would excuse this, if it's a one-off indeed. However, I would also recommend you take another look at what the word vandalism means here, and perhaps also at wp:brd. Most of all though I wish you a better day today (and no RfC)! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I admit I probably was in error in reverting the page after locking it ... I was attempting to engage with the guy Is this a joke? You realize everyone else can see the full interaction? You were dismissive and assholish and called their definitely-not-vandalism edits vandalism and then you continued an edit-war after locking the article! The dismissive assholish edit-warring I could see labeling "I was having a bad day and probably acted badly"; but the second part? Get your act together and offer a detailed, personal apology to bloodofox. --JBL (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No joke intended. I freely admit to being an asshole and to using WP last night (UK time) to blow off steam rather than to improve the encyclopedia and I apologise directly and humbly to bloodofox. Sorry fella, won't happen again. How detailed and personal do you want it? Some prick poisoned my cat and I had to get him euthanised yesterday. He died in my arms. He'd been at the vets for four days on a drip but his kidneys had failed. I drank a bunch of whisky and came on WP and acted like a dick. Yes, it was a bad day. Was it appropriate behaviour from an admin? No... we're told that adminship is no big deal, but obviously we're supposed to maintain a minimum standard of interaction.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with you apologizing and explaining the situation, but it is always a good idea to stay away from WP when you're under emotional stress. The saying "adminship is no big deal" was maybe correct a long time ago, but this does not seem to be the case anymore.--Berig (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: That really sucks, I'm sorry that happened to you. I'm going to remove the block, for a couple of reasons (the first of which makes me feel kind of stupid, and I shamefully briefly considered not mentioning it and seeing if I could get away with it): (a) I didn't notice last night, but your protection was actually only semi-protection, so it didn't actually prevent anyone involved in the dispute from editing the page (I'm kind of assuming you meant to do full protection, but it doesn't matter now because of (b)); (b) You acknowledge what you did was wrong; (c) I skimmed thru your other edits in May, and not counting similar actions at Loki yesterday, this doesn't seem to be a pattern at all; and (d) I don't think the block is preventing anything anymore, as I get the impression you don't intend to edit the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

With the above, I'm inclined to put this one up under the WP:TROUT rather than WP:RECALL variety. CJ&TS has expressed clear understanding of the problem, expressed understanding of what was wrong about it, and promised to not do it again. It was certainly unbecoming of an admin, but I don't see the need to drag this out any further. Editing while pissed (by either the British or American definitions) is contraindicated, and this episodes serves as a good reminder why. I move we close this thread and move on. Any objections? --Jayron32 14:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If no-one has any other evidence of CJ&TS acting as an admin and editor on the same article, then no.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Also a no from me. --JBL (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Can someone get IZ041 to engage in discussion?

IZ041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted my annotated removal of non-reliable sources on a beauty pageant article [133]. When I asked why, they deleted my question on their talkpage with a single word summary "ridiculous". I think maybe they need help understanding how collaboration works here. Beauty pageants are under discretionary general sanctions. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly straightforward content dispute. Another source might be https://www.gala.fr/l_actu/news_de_stars/miss_france_genese_d_un_concours_de_beaute_140397 Fences&Windows 16:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Bsy950707 repeadtly adding controversial category without consensus

Bsy950707 has repeatedly added Category:Genocide perpetrators to Xi Jinping's article. The category is an issue for numerous reasons: 1) its not sourced in the article 2) It's dubious to attribute an entire Genocide to a single individual 3) Huge BLP issues 4) Its WP:NONDEF 5) It just doesn't make sense—why Xi and not the 100s of other members of the CCP? They have resorted to edit warring and have been reverted by myself ([134], [135], [136]), Buidhe ([137]) and CPCEnjoyer ([138] [139]) as well as failed to express anything in the relevant talk page discussion. The article history on dictator appears to have them edit warring (with no sources) as well, now over if Hirohito should be listed as an example. They have now left an edit summary of "So, do youd deny Uyghur genocide?" [140] directed towards me—a comment that is grossly insulting and has, frankly, pissed me off. Aza24 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The editor doesn't seem to favor the concept of discussion using a talk page, evidently shown by his ignorance of the article talk page, his own talk page and this noticeboard. I personally do not want any administrative sanctions for Bsy950707, but rather want him to realize that this is a collaborative project and he should respect the consensus instead of attempting to right great wrongs. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that this editor does not seem to understand the collaborative nature of this project (given their refusal to listen to concerns and instead simply reverting edits by others without giving a reason in the edit summary), and they've also not quite participated in any talk page discussion. A partial block from mainspace, until they bother to answer on talk pages, given the disruptive nature of their edits, might be an option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bsy950707: Communication is required. Please take part in the discussion here to address concerns about your editing and how it can be remedied. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User:EndRacismNow2021

User:EndRacismNow2021 is a new account. At Talk:South China Morning Post they are railing against western media sources and accusing Wikipedia of sinophobia. After I politely directed them to the page at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources so that they can see that sources such as The New York Times are considered suitable for use on Wikipedia, they have been attacking me with no basis (suggesting I have said things that I have not): [141], [142]. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, responds to constructive attempts to help with hostility and personal attacks. Citobun (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've warned them. Let's see if there's any positive response. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The username doesn't make me optimistic. — Ched (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Perceived legal threat at Talk:Pasi (caste)

Per WP:LEGAL, I'm bringing this up here for the proper action to be taken (if any). IP user 2409:4043:2189:5FF7:0:0:2912:50A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made what I believe to be a legal threat at Talk:Pasi (caste) in this diff while requesting for two terms to be entirely removed from an extended-protected article. (Otherwise we will be binding on the court to resort.) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 03:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a pretty straightforward legal threat on a well-referenced topic. /64 range blocked for two weeks. Acroterion (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Some LTA block report

Hey, Sammi Brie has started an LTA page for Mexican media image vandals called Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mexican media image vandal. So here you go:

• Edits entirely via IP addresses in the 187.232.x.x and 187.233.x.x ranges and more recently in IPv6.

IPv4

• User:187.232.1.253
• User:187.232.35.38
• User:187.232.49.16
• User:187.232.69.113
• User:187.232.81.85
• User:187.232.88.111
• User:187.232.96.64
• User:187.232.115.127
• User:187.232.120.237

• User:187.233.98.89
• User:187.233.139.53

IPv6

• User:2806:103e:2:55cc:4153:ce01:3252:5227
• User:2806:103e:2:55cc:39cd:6b4e:cf89:a7b8
• User:2806:103e:2:b8de:7d40:2995:8454:5234

Block them all since the LTA page still says Present in the Wikilifespan. Just in case, some of these dynamic IPs are inactive, but still needs to be blocked so they won't go active again. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 03:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The contributions overall for 187.232.*.* and 187.233.*.* are huge ranges that show really minimal activity, only a few edits a month. They don't all seem to be this user, either.

The IPv6 range is covered by 2806:103E:2:0:0:0:0:0/48 and does appear to be consistently this user, but i'm still struggling to see what it is about this user that's so disruptive that it requires an LTA page and preventative blocks. There really isn't much activity. ~ mazca ^talk 10:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There have only been a handful of edits from the last half year. Plus, their disruption has been mild. If anything, this seems like a below-average sockpuppeting and vandalism case; it's not what I'd consider long-term abuse-worthy. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 18:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: As the administrator who is the most active with addressing LTA, what do you make of this? To me, this doesn't even come close to warranting a LTA abuse page, as the editor has only been scarcely active, hasn't lashed out at anyone and will once in a blue moon make an identical edit to a tiny pool of pages. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 02:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: I agree and don't see that the new LTA page is helpful because, as stated above, it's infrequent dime-a-dozen stuff. The IPs mentioned are covered by ranges 187.232.0.0/17 + 187.233.0.0/16 + 2806:103e:2::/48. Judging by the number of "Reverted" tags, those IPs are unhelpful. I have been an enthusiastic supporter of IPs in the past but now I think there are too many people amusing themselves with silly editing and Wikipedia needs to deal with the problem more efficiently. However, many editors prefer that a hundred vandals are free to play rather than one innocent IP be blocked—after all, it's someone else's problem. Re the LTA page: it has existed since 27 April 2021 so an WP:MFD would be needed to delete it. Sorry to not be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User:UserNumber

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

---

Several times broke 3 reverts rule and really non-cooperative jerk attitude could be seen in pages like Bengalis and Template:Bengalis (clear violation of 3rr and last edit summery is baseless argument to change a long standing photomontage, There is no common rules for that!!), despite warned by several veteran users on talk page and edit summaries no progress could be seen yet! hearty requesting to an admin to use checkUser to detect Sockpuppetry! As a long observing user I can smell a very old bangladeshi page related sock master there!! —2A0A:A546:2916:0:46:2EEE:BC66:CC51 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for personal attacks. Unfortunately, what's really needed is a range block and wider than /64, but I'm too tired to figure out how wide.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Block request and possible rev/del

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

---

Hi all, could I get a block and perhaps a rev/del for this edit? I'd take it to the usual noticeboard but think it deserves special attention, and not just because I'm the subject. It's way over the top, as I see it, starting with WP:NPA. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Taken care of across the board, and ended up rev/del a number of edits by the IP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Editing AfD discussion after closing

X4n6 insists on editing a closed AfD to belittle the AfD nominator - can an uninvolved admin please revert and protect the AfD discussion? Thanks. SportingFlyer T·C 13:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty unacceptable for an editor who has been here for almost 15 years -- the comment itself is pretty uncivil. — Czello 13:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I won't protect the AFD - I've left them a warning, if they do it again I'll block. GiantSnowman 14:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• (sigh) Where to begin... First, SportingFlyer apparently doesn't understand the difference between "belittling" and responding. The AfD nominator went on an ill-advised debating spree responding to virtually every adverse !vote (which was unanimous, by the way) on an ill-advised nomination. I was unable to clarify several inaccurate assertions the nominator made about my own !vote, prior to closure. Those were simply added for the record. It seems SportingFlyer forgot that even he/she felt the need to add more beyond their !vote here, and additional rebuttal here. Just as SportingFlyer doesn't seem to understand the difference between "should" and "must not" or "may." As in, closure instructions say: "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." This appears on top and bottom of the page. However, nowhere on the page do the instructions say: "Subsequent comments must not be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits may be made to this page." That's 4 "shoulds" on the page and not a single "must not" or may/not." This project is an encyclopedia. If the community had wished to compose a definitive sentence, it certainly could have. Nor is this the first time an overzealous user has extrapolated more than is written in our policies and/or guidelines. I was also very clear about why I added comments to a closed AfD, when I said: "To be fair, these comments come after closure. But they are comments not !votes - and they needed to be said - and added to the record." But some folks will run to ANI whenever they don't get their way - no matter how small or insignificant the issue.
• It's also patently ridiculous that Praxidicae chose to leap into this fray almost a full 5 seconds after it was posted, before I even had the chance to respond - with some utter nonsense about it being a personal attack. Nothing about posting after closure, but suddenly a newly imagined grievance. Not to mention the bandwagoning that has occurred since. Get serious. Would my comment have been deemed a personal attack prior to closure? Of course not. Plain and simple, this is wrong. X4n6 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The "SHOULD" here is clear. Don't they and excuse your shoddy behaviour with shoddy excuses based on semantics. You have been here long enough to know that, and you have no excuse for restoring your edits or for your disruption. GiantSnowman 14:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess you chose to ignore the unambiguous "Please do not modify it" in red font.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

On the subject of should vs "must not", it says in big red letters, Please do not modify it. I think it's pretty clear, regardless of the exact wording, that edits aren't supposed to made once it's been placed. As for SportingFlyer apparently doesn't understand the difference between "belittling" and responding, No, I'm with SportingFlyer here -- those comments were belittling, regardless of whether or not the AfD was ill-advised or the discussion was bludgeoned. — Czello 14:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not about semantics at all. Actually, that's an insultingly simplistic and frankly weak response. It's about ENGLISH. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, right? IF we WANTED to say it MUST not, are you saying we're too dense to pull that off here, when it's so easily done elsewhere on the project? Hence the difference between a policy and a guideline. Or do you just want me to point you to a dictionary definition of "should?" Like M-W's "to express what is probable or expected;" or "to express a request in a polite manner." And for an admin to try to rewrite a template to try to block me for violating a guideline - or policy that doesn't exist - is also pretty weak. Someone said I've been around here too long to know better. They're right. I've also been around long enough to know on this project things say exactly what they mean. We have far too many grammarians around here to do otherwise. As for the please in red letters? Please, indeed. We don't do policy by "please" around here. Give me one example where we do. We do it by "DO NOT." Nice try though, but thanks for the help proving my point. And to pretend I'm the first person to ever edit a closed AfD is also a joke. I've also been around long enough to see it done MANY TIMES - by users and admins alike. But this is the first time I'm aware that someone has clutched the pearls over it. So I'm just not buying this outrage. Now you want to talk about 3RR? Different story. Consensus? Fine. You got that. For now. But consensus around here changes too. So you folks can just let me know when you want to work on changing the wording from "should" to "must" and/or from a guideline to policy. I'll sure have one helluva story to tell. X4n6 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I bet if you put a few more words in all-caps, it will make your argument even more convincing. --JBL (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Because it wasn't near as offensive to your sensitive eyes as when GiantSnowman did it, right? X4n6 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman was QUOTING and substituted ALL-CAPS for bold! BUT ALSO the point of my comment is that your comment is rant-like and silly and that you should listen to what other people are telling you (like Jayron, below) instead of continuing to argue. --JBL (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I bet if you put a few more words in all-caps, or bold, or caps, bold, parenthesis and emoji, it will make your hypocritical non-argument even sillier. X4n6 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Let's try to bring this to some semblance of closure. @X4n6: Do you agree to avoid editing AFDs after they are closed, and agree to instead of that raise objections to anything said during the AFD in other places, such as user talk pages or WP:DRV as appropriate? If we can all agree on that, we can close this thread, because the bickering and sniping at each other is not helping. --Jayron32 16:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

But yes, @Jayron32:, thank you! For the love of God and all things Q Anon (or insert another fun current reference), let's close this inane thread-that-never-should-have-been, post haste. Because you're right, it ain't helping. If anything, it's exactly the kind of nonsense that drives good people away from this project. In droves. But sure I'll agree to not edit after closure, unless/until we get some definitive clarification/language change/guideline or policy correction at the proper board. Which, after this, I'll happily work on. That's more than fair and should/must/may/will actually benefit this project moving forward. That's all. Now kindly close the thread quickly. Before all the snipers (who never bothered to read the entire AfD anyway) can snipe again. Let's see how they'll feel. Pretty ironic, huh? Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

User FatemehKhalili copying other user accounts

I'm not entirely sure how to address this, or if it's considered a problematic behaviour at all, but user User:FatemehKhalili has copied my user page into their own. I don't think they are impersonating me, precisely, but the fact that all the content of my page now shows up on theirs is somewhat disturbing. Additionally, they are a disruptive editor, as can be seen on their talk page, and this just seems to exacerbate the issue. Please let me know what should be done. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

When you asked them about this, what did they say? --Jayron32 16:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, almost all elements of my userpage were shamelessly jacked from other people's pages. Now, I didn't copy mine wholesale from someone else and did note attribution where applicable, but borrowing a page is hardly a crime. Otherwise, edits aren't great, but more than anything they could use some helpful advice that isn't just templates. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, they used the formatting and layout and some of the same phrasing, but it seems more like they were using it as a template than ripping it off. For example, on yours it says "Hello, my name is David, welcome to my page 😄" and on theirs it says "Hello, my name is Fatemeh, welcome to my page 😄". Doesn't look like bad faith, but it does certainly seem a little gauche. jp×g 23:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

73.248.126.206 needs a quick block

• 73.248.126.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This (more or less) static IP has been editing WP:NPOVN every couple of seconds for something like an hour now, and needs a quick block so that other editors are able to edit the page.

See the first page of the page history, which is overwhelmingly edits from this IP.

Temporary semi-protection would work too, but I don't know if anyone wants to block all unregistered edits to that page, only this person's. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

addendum: IP is also engaged in a WP:1AM fight, sealioning and making personal attacks with those edits. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Kevin_Paffrath:_Landlord? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, you should notify them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've done that. They have stated that they will modify their style. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, you're absolutely right. I completely forgot that this was even a requirement, which was entirely my fault. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've fully acknowledged this, I know it's a problem and I won't do it anymore and will just let posts stand as is. Typically when I do it it's on article edits where no one is necessarily around, not an active discussion. It's a bad habit and I was not aware of watchlist notifications, etc., which make it worse.73.248.126.206 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Separately, the sealioning accusations are false. I believe I've made substantive points in the discussion that need answering to settle the debate, and haven't been.73.248.126.206 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(comment in non-admin capacity) I would oppose semiprotection of NPOVN when the disruption is just coming from one editor. However I agree that 73.* has been increasingly tendentious, with WP:IDHT and repeating (sometimes verbatim) boldface arguments that have already been responded to. They have insisted that their comments about common and industry usage of the term have not been responded to when they have, repeatedly, both further up in the discussion and on the talk page. Following the opening of this ANI report they posted If I can get a substantive, full response to the rebuttal to TFD's point above, I'll back off this discussion which is yet another demand to WP:SATISFY their repeated arguments, this one now adding a complete non-sequitor about whether a single individual who rented their home while they were briefly away would refer to themselves as a landlord (which is not at all applicable to Paffrath, who rents twenty homes as a part of his business).

They were asked by two editors to drop the stick, to which they replied the horse is very much alive, you're just unable or unwilling to see it and continued their bludgeoning. They have also cast various aspersions against me as a POV warrior of some kind on the page, and when they finally provided some specifics about my supposed misbehavior in response to Firefangledfeathers's request, they were all unfounded or complete misrepresentations (see [143]). They are continuing to cast aspersions now, with some weird gaslighting sprinkled in as though they were not suggesting what they clearly were: [144]. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey GorillaWarfare, there's a lot here that's frankly BS. You claim you responded to my two paragraphs of points. This was your response: Making the same argument but louder is not any more likely to convince people. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC) That's not a substantive response that furthers the discussion, it's a deflection. As for my 'misrepresentations,' you yourself acknowledged several of them were true (they were all true), and you have yet to answer my latest responses on them, or ultimately debunk any of the original points I made (that only you wrote the derogatory paragraph, that you removed references to net worth, that you removed the dollar figure regarding the donations and reordered the paragraph and made it decidedly more favorable to FB). If you're just tired of debating or don't have any answers then you should step away instead of making false accusations to get me blocked.73.248.126.206 (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

At a quick count, I have made more than sixty edits responding to your argument(s) over these past few days. Pointing to one and saying it was "not a substantive response" is ridiculous. you yourself acknowledged several of them were true I said that it was true that I twice removed references to Paffrath's net worth; I also explained how this was entirely appropriate and not some sort of POV-pushing as you suggested. Your responses to my points did not warrant any response in my view, as they were either plainly obvious attempts to misrepresent, such as claiming a bizarre interpretation of positive statements about Paffrath to suggest they were not really positive, or restatements of your original points. I am tired of debating you, as is everyone else I think, which is why you've twice been asked to drop the stick. The goal of this discussion was to invite additional views on the page, not for the two of us to debate endlessly, and that is why, as you apparently have noticed, I have repeatedly tried to step away to make room for outside opinions and third-party evaluations of our arguments. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Your contributions to the recent NPOV debate were largely about one of two things: defending yourself regarding issues that had nothing to do with the 'landlord' language, and gumming up the thread with links to acronym policy articles rather than actually answering points. Also, I want to point that GorillaWarfare also not infrequently does multi-edits (some of the 60 referred to), though not to the extent I did (and didn't realize the effects of, and won't do anymore). That is the subject of this noticeboard, not the debate itself. In their supposed rebuttals TFD, Cullen, and BlueBoar largely ignored my points and made unrelated/independent points that I don't think are particularly compelling (such as TFD saying that the words landlord and tenant are used in leases, which everyone knows and has no relation to the point at hand).73.248.126.206 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I note they are still at it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I did it one time more and it was right away so as not to interrupt others. It's a separate point from that made above. I assure you I will not make the rapid strings of edits seen in the history, or make any edits after the fact (i.e. after editors have replied). This was not at all comparable to past patterns of edits.73.248.126.206 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am one of the editors who referred to the stick essay. I could have brought up bludgeoning and sealioning and casting aspersions against GorillaWarfare. This editor has made about three hundred edits in the past two days belaboring the same point that a landlord should not be called a landlord. TLDR but I had to read it all. Will an uninvolved administrator please bring this obvious disruption to an end? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Cullen, it's not a disruption. I'm making a good-faith effort to debate the issue and settle it. The rapid edits were a mistake, not with ill intent, and I won't continue with that. GW made a change to the language that I oppose and she brought it up for debate. You and 2-3 others agree with her. Drmies agreed with me, the original editor(s) who inserted the original language that GW changed obviously agree with me. There is no clear consensus yet, and the argument needs to be settled on its merits. 73.248.126.206 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeating my statement from NPOVN: "As for your comment on the editor(s) who wrote the original language into the article, as far as I am aware none of them have engaged in any conversation about 'landlord', though at least one has edited since the term was added and not raised concerns about it. You cannot cite the lack of involvement in this discussion as implicit support for one side or another." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

IP, you are the only one who does not see your behavior as disruptive. That's telling. Drmies, you got mentioned here. What say you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, I totally appreciate your and GW's involvement and tone here. GW says she stepped back a bit to allow for more discourse from other editors, and that's something that I did as well--and I tried to be brief and to the point, in order to not add more fuel to the fire. But what the IP editor was arguing (about GW's partiality or whatever), with those unfounded accusations, I see that they're still doing that. This is just a sinkhole and a waste of everyone's time and effort. I don't even see the point in a partial block: there is nothing productive about the things they're saying, and I fully support a block so they won't get to climb on that very dead hobby horse again. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

One of the other editors asked me to catalog changes that GW made to the article. I literally just listed them - they almost all happened to be unfavorable to the article subject, and some were indeed dubious IMO (such as removal of donation dollar amount), though not conclusively malicious. It's not my problem that almost all the changes were that way, and I didn't make any accusations; those aren't aspersions, they're just factual responses to what another editor asked. I have other things to do with my time also so I'm not going to continue in this debate further, at least until other editors respond in a substantive way. I do want to point that Drmies said in talk that he is inclined to agree with me, sorry GW yet 'nothing productive'?73.248.126.206 (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The editor is blocked now, but it's worth pointing out that them citing me here is so deceitful that it amounts to lying. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked for two weeks for tendentious editing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, 78.26. To anyone else: if you want to trout me for forgetting to notify, my talk page stands waiting. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

New user acting like Poland date-changing vandal

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

---

• Laura7001 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 37.248.210.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Poland

Newly registered user Laura7001 is doing the same vandalism on the same music articles that had been attacked by the Poland date-changing vandal. One minute after Poland IP 37.248.210.197 vandalized an article, Laura7001 jumped in to restore the vandalism as their first-ever edit.[145] Laura7001 had already been vandalizing French-language Wikipedia in the same manner,[146] such that they got blocked today.[147] Can we do the same thing? Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Perfect. We're done here. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Intransigent new editor User:DagneyGirl

This incident began when I found 34 articles on my Watchlist had had linked place names changed with either no edit summary or simply "Spelling" given. When I clicked on DagneyGirl's talk page, I found several editors had already commented on her entitled attitude and poor EngLang skills. There followed a prolonged discussion between myself, Keith264, and a couple of other editors trying to persuade DagneyGirl to conform to WP consensuses. When she did not ignore or deflect our statements, she lectured us on how WP should be run. She is wedded to the idea that she is the only person who knows the true names of these locations, and that they must be the most modern iteration, regardless of usage a century ago.

When we got to the point of her third revert to my edits, I went to the Help desk, and posted the below:

I find myself in an edit war with a Belgian editor over place names. She insists that Belgian place names take priority over those found in my English language sources, and gives no source for her changes. She insists on destroying links in numerous articles I created tying the source place names to the modern place name. Several veteran editors, including myself, have used her User talk page to make good faith efforts to persuade her to follow the consensus to use English. Her behavior has been consistently defiant in stating her opinion is correct, although her language skills are lacking. I picked List of aerial victories of Gotthard Sachsenberg to serve as a test case. She has now made her third set of reverts to this article, though not in a 24 hour period. Her User talk page and the edit summaries in the Sachsenberg article tell the tale without my writing anything further.

I am unsure if this is the correct forum for this problem. Please advise me of the proper forum if I am in the wrong place.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You want to go to WP:Request for comment. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A I am not from Belgium and b Georgejdorner so called 'English language sources' claim is not holy true. The sources that Georgejdorner uses on pages like List of aerial victories of Gotthard Sachsenberg do not English names only, not even English from that time but uses names from documents, that can be English, French, German and Dutch names but also misspellings and phonetic spelling.

Georgejdorner just introduce these spellings on the pages with results that that on one page you find that spelling and an another spelling for the same place. Mistakes in documents are not corrected because taking one on one from the source. For example the misspelling 'Nieuwscapelle' is introduced on Wikipedia from the main source that is used to fill this pages, theaerodrome.com. There's no need for that. Same goes for the German word 'Uberschwemm', Georgejdorner added there (flood), so Georgejdorner knows that is not a English word, but did not correct the term or use the actual meaning in this context, flooded land. So text means that the fight was taking place over flooded land. On List_of_aerial_victories_of_Walter_Göttsch Georgejdorner decided not to always copy the name from the source one on one, heaerodrome.com. But that resulted in a mistake, making one place two places, 'Schaep-Baillie' to 'between Schaep and Baillie'. The actual place name is Schaapbalie. On List of aerial victories of Paul Billik it was spelled as 'Schaep Baillie', as spelled on heaerodrome.com page of Billik. On List of aerial victories of Eduard Ritter von Dostler there is the spelling 'Oostroubeke' directly from theaerodrome.com dostler page and this the only place where this spelling is used, apart from a forum that uses this name. We all make mistakes, but importing mistakes and different spellings for the same places not so helpful. DagneyGirl (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Immediately after this posting, she deleted her Talk page to eliminate the ongoing discussion of her misbehavior. However, the above quote gives a sample of her deleted responses. She also deleted her Contributions page to disguise the articles she had edited. I hope some admin can prevent her from further damaging Wikipedia. I am willing to aid the admins in any action they wish to take.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge it is not possible for an editor to delete their contributions page, and DagneyGirl's contributions page remains available here. I do agree that the editor's English skills are not excellent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally nothing has changed on the user's talk page either. So really not sure what is being referenced above. Perhaps Georgejdorner mistyped their username or something is the only explanation I can think of. Canterbury Tail talk 23:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have removed "foreign" from the title of this section. I am an American, which means that every English-speaking British, Australian, Canadian, or New Zealand-based editor is technically a "foreigner" to me, as are all non-American English-speakers from other countries. The problem being reported has little to do with the editor being "foreign", but to the quality of their English skills. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• (Slightly off main topic, "Uberschwemm" is neither a place name nor a valid German word in its own right, but most likely an abbreviation of "Überschwemmung" (flooded land). This is not something we will be able to source, and the best guess of a native speaker is probably the most useful option. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC))

• The relevant policy here is WP:COMMONNAME, which is really not complicated. Article subjects should be consistently referred to by the most recognizable name for speakers of the English language, our target audience. This is why we have an articles on Germany and Hulk Hogan instead of Bundesrepublik Deutschland and Terry Eugene Bollea. Other names should be briefly mentioned in the articles on these subjects, but incoming links from other articles should generally use the article title. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Beeblebrox is quite right. Insisting on using archaic (and even incorrect) placenames in Wikivoice just because a source uses them is really not the usual (or most useful) way to do things. DagneyGirl is doing good work to correct these archaicisms and misspellings. I've been surprised at how entitled and condescending the often misguided comments to this new user have been — particularly the insistence that archaic spellings or simple misspellings on obscure pages about often minor First World War engagements constitute some sort of "WP consensuses" simply because nobody has corrected them sooner. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, Georgejdorner, I'm surprised you missed the bit at the top of the edit screen for this page where it says in big letters "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Fake accusations of antisemitism

What do you think of [148] and [149]? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you should stop emailing people and hold the conversation on their talk page so we are not getting half the story. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Only in death: I did not e-mail them, they e-mailed me. I did not answer their e-mails. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ignore me then, I got that precisely backwards. Generally you should not engage at any point with anyone who brings up anti-semitism. There is no end to the discussion that will not result in you either being accused of being a nazi, being accused of not being supportive enough of Jews, or some other form of anti-jew behaviour that has no bearing on the dispute. The alternative scenario is that because its a serious accusation, it will need to be looked into in detail because if it is not, we get accused of not taking claims of anti-semitism seriously. Just disengage and ignore them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. I think those attacks and accusations of antisemitism are completely unacceptable. The editing is disruptive also, but playing the antisemitism card when reverted is way worse. I've blocked the user for 72 hours. If there's more of the same, I recommend an indefinite block. Bishonen | tålk 21:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC).

Behaviour of User:Mbroderick271 on the article Louis C.K.

The following concerns:

Mbroderick271 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Louis C.K. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This begins May 4, 2021 when Mbroderick271 claimed a WP:NPOV dispute on the page Louis C.K.. This was announced on the talk page here: Talk:Louis C.K.#NPOV dispute. Major changes were made to the article without gathering consensus. I reverted some of the user's edits but drew back not wanting to engage in an edit war.

On May 6, 2021 after searching for other editors that had been active in discussions on the talk page archive - I pinged a number of them. Some responded, others did not.

On May 6, 2021 Guy Macon came to the talk page to help referee a bit and offered a solution: for both myself and Mbroderick271 to removed ourselves voluntarily from editing the page or talk page here: Talk:Louis C.K.#A Modest Proposal. I agreed as this seemed like a worthwhile resolution to the conflict. I didn't want to be starting an edit war or conflict. The other party did not agree to this solution. Bilorv also had an active hand in the discussion. Guy Macon later restored all edits to a February version of the article per WP:STATUSQUO.

Mbroderick271 had been warned by Bilorv about various violations here: User talk:Mbroderick271#May 2021.

Mbroderick271 attempted to accuse myself and other editors of being undisclosed paid editors here: Talk:Louis C.K.#NPOV dispute. And accused me personally of WP:VANDALISM in the same thread and on their talk page.

The conflict calmed down and Bilorv and I had one or two conflicts but attempted to settle things on the talk page. We began discussion until recently when Mbroderick271 began editing the article again without consensus. I believe they are WP:BLP violations.

In short, I'm willing to take a step back from editing the page or engaging on the talk if other editors can come to a consensus and/or blatant WP:BLP violations are kept at bay. Hence this noticeboard incident.

Thanks.

CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that sanctions here would not be necessary and so I'm not sure what outcome is desired. There is discussion on the talk page, which Mbroderick271 has demonstrated interest in engaging with, and Mbroderick271 should be advised to stop editing the article directly, but we are all acting in good faith here. I would advise CaffeinAddict to let some of these earlier things (like the "undisclosed paid editor" comments) go where the user has apologised for them or understood someone else explaining why these things are not acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I have screwed up a lot on this Louis CK thing. I am frustrated that CaffeinAddict has expressed sympathy for a sexual predator and continually minimized this predator's actions, as I have many friends who have been sexual assaulted and I myself have been a victim of domestic violence at the hands of a comedian who later lied about and distorted the events after the fact (should note said comedian is neither famous nor successful in case anyone reads this and thinks I'm talking about someone they might know). However, Bilorv has been kind and patient enough to remind me that you have to work with editors of all different perspectives on Wikipedia, even editors whose views one may find odious. I am committing to approaching this article with a less personal and more professional style of communication moving forward, as ultimately my goal as a former fan of Louis CK is for the article to accurately represent both his achievements as an artist as well as his many offenses against his female coworkers, and his lies and attempts to cover up said offenses. Mbroderick271 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your personal experiences, Mbroderick271. My comments will always be based on my reading of secondary sources, not my personal view of C.K., but I am also a former C.K. fan who was outraged and depressed when I learned about his sexual misconduct, and though I've never been victim to sexual violence I have seen the effects it has through people close to me. — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing - Slake000

There is a user by the name of User:Slake000 who has been messing around in some pages, and also has a poor command of English. His edits began on the Sylheti Nagri (a South Asian script) article, where he removed a lot of information and instead added pretty much the same information worded in a poorer manner with innumerable spelling mistakes. The point I am trying to make is that his edits have not really been contributory, rather they have downgraded the layout, format and structure. Other than myself, it appears that other users have also attempted to undo his edits on the stated article.

Putting that issue to the side, it seems that Slake000 has realised that the habitual contributors to the page are not keen on his edits so he created his own article titled Sylheti script. Realising that this constitutes the Wikipedian policy of CSD-A10, I marked his article for speedy deletion and notified him on his talk page. Instead of responding and notifying me, he continued to abuse Wikipedia by copy and pasting random excerpts from different pages. This includes copying infobox templates from biographical articles such as Sadeq Ali, tables from Syloti Nagri (Unicode block) and publishing illogical lists which make no sense at all.

Now, I understand this noticeboard does not deal with speedy deletions, but this sort of behaviour that is being shown is unacceptable. I urge you to penalise this disruptive user. UserNumber (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @UserNumber: Please provide the diffs of the alleged disruption. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Austronesier, You've looked at this editor's work, and maybe you have some opinions on their edits on Chittagonian language. I don't yet know if there is validity to this, and to this being an ANI complaint, but I can see that there are some issues with these editors. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: In Chittagonian language, it's a mix of everything (CIR, cherrypicking plus synth[150]). The editor inserted big chunks of text without a source, and only provided a ref[151] after I had placed an urs-tag. I have just noticed that the source is rather poor in quality: it's an article in a local academic journal, which cites WP and WP mirrors. I think we have to explain them the do's and dont's again (they've been welcomed) gently and cleary, including copyright policies[152]. –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:Jeas116 and suspected related accounts

• Jeas116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jearbne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JESCaales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I know these editors haven't edited in a while, but my primary concern regarding all of them relates to persistent inappropriate usage of their Talk page. The only thing that makes me think all 3 are connected is that their contributions include editing each others' sandboxes. Is an admin able to possibly monitor these users for further misuse? Even though I know there was one that had an encounter with at least one of these users. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi JalenFolf, thanks for describing the concern. The behavior seems to be pretty harmless. In May 2020, I had blocked Jearbne for a week because they persistently used the "Template" and "User talk" namespaces for experiments that should have been done in sandboxes instead. The user Jeas116 was warned about possibly operating a shared account in March 2016 at User talk:Jeas116 by JBW. If their response was to create separate accounts per person, that would not be sockpuppetry but rather an appropriate response to the account sharing warning. It is also perfectly fine for a group of friends to work on article drafts together.

Feel free to notify me if they continue to use their user talk pages for their experiments; perhaps a partial block can help. The drafting itself, when done in sandboxes, doesn't concern me at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Stalking

The user "SadirahFierg" is almost stalking, rather than he leads to the discussion side of the article (Sri Chinmoy). I asked him to stay from my user side. But he also posts his strange theses on my private side. In this article, some sock dolls were discovered and is regularly operated vandalism.

• Rubric:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riquix#I_have_sent_you_a_note_about_a_page_you_started

• Version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Riquix&action=history

Can you end this?--Riquix (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have warned the user to stay off your page, Riquix. Please let me know if they should ignore my warning as well as yours. Bishonen | tålk 11:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC).

Vietnamese IP's constant edits on UAE national team

There is this Vietnamese IP constantly editing and reverting edits on the UAE national football team article and has been doing so for a year, he's been acting like his edits are final and must always be preserved, whenever anyone tries to change his edits, he'll return to edit it back, he's refusal to corporate with other wikipedia users is pretty rude. He thinks his reasons are valid but they're very subjective like how he believes having a rivalry section is "redundant" or using the term "golden generation" is biased and not nuetral. He only seems to target the UAE national team and no other national team article but states that other articles are badly written despite the fact that I provided him an example of a good article (Croatia national football team) that looks nothing like his ideal style of a national team article. Can we block this user from making too many edits before he starts doing the same stunts to every other national team article? --Badass Flare (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2021‎ (UTC)

Here's some examples:

• Special:Contributions/2402:9D80:24C:2CEE:0:0:8E6A:E5A5
• Special:Contributions/2402:9D80:249:6074:0:0:8FDD:D237
• Special:Contributions/2402:9D80:246:2212:0:0:904B:BF34
• Special:Contributions/2402:800:6172:7B05:30BD:E419:81D6:2F5A
• Special:Contributions/2402:800:6173:4B9E:71C8:3DE:A08D:3132

Badass Flare, this is a content dispute and you're both edit warring. Why is there no discussion at Talk:United Arab Emirates national football team? You also failed to notify the IP editor of this post. I could have blocked you both, but I've fully protected the page for a week to give space for dispute resolution. Please involve relevant WikiProjects and noticeboard to reach consensus on the disputed edits. Fences&Windows 15:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

About CMHS Radio Caibarién and our permissions blocked

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

---

Hello, I am writing here because we are unhappy with the situation on Wikipedia [es] with our CMHS Radio Caibarién article. This article had a neutrality issue and a user flagged this article for removal. We wrote to some bureaucrats to help me with the article and they just deleted it and blocked my permissions to publish. Our account is owned by a local broadcaster but the article was never written with the aim of promoting or publicizing our praise. That the developed article has had a neutrality problem is certainly a problem but I think that it has been very hard with the measure and I think that an article with a historical character, with placed and categorized references, should not have been eliminated but edited with time, duly pointing out the elements that prevent it from maintaining its neutrality and from being part of the educational and historical content that Wikipedia has. None of the bureaucrats have focused on helping nor have they unlocked the permits. I can resubmit the article for evaluation. We hope they don't take it the wrong way and help me with the problem.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Emisoracmhs (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately as this article was on the Spanish Wikipedia, we on the English Wikipedia have no control as to why or how the article was deleted there. This would need to be taken up with the admins on their site. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

How can I send my unhappy situation on the Spanish Wikipedia ? Thanks!

Emisoracmhs (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

As noted, you will need to contact the admins there. If you are blocked, you will have to address that using whatever process they have to do so. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your answer. I goint to write to support on Wikipedia. Really we as institution are very unhappy with this situation. Thanks you and the rest of the admins for your answers. Emisoracmhs (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Taichi: - pinging the blocking adminstrator on the Spanish WP. I've left a small (hopefully not too clumsy) message on what appears to be their equivalent of ANI. The block on Spanish WP is for, as you'd have guessed, persistent promotional editing. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes but this is our first publication, we never persistent to do a promotional editing or publishing. We would like to make an article on Wikipedia [ES] and that this article will take a neutral status but it set to delete and blocked our permissions is a action to strong for us.  :( Emisoracmhs (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Emisoracmhs: Again, the Spanish Wikipedia and English Wikipedia are separate entities, so your concerns about es.wiki need to be addressed there. I can say that a similar thing would happen if you were to try to create an article here: the article would be flagged because of your obvious conflict of interest, and it would be scrutinized to make sure that the station is notable and that the article is written from a neutral point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Good morning. I am an administrator in the Spanish Wikipedia; I have just denied user:Emisoracmhs' request for unblocking. I don't know how you manage here to deal with self-publicity, but in our WP we have decided to deny every one of theses creations and editions ...and we receive a ridiculous amount of them, as you can see here: most of the undeletions asked there are the same kind of autopublicity. This case was exactly the same kind: a single-purpose account with an inappropriate username, editing in a conflict of interest about the broadcasting for which he or she works; the article was correctly erased. The user could have been invited to change his username and even blocked only for editing that particular article, but he clearly showed off that his only purpose in WP was insisting in that article, and even made som kind of lobby trying to find at least one administrator to restore the page. So he was definitively blocked, and that was all.

I am sincerely sorry to read that he feels unhappy, but I can see he misundestood the nature of Wikipedia: we are not a place to publish advertisings for free, we are building an encyclopedia. Have a nice weekend. --Marcelo (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

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

NOTHERE

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

---

IMCS231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• 1 Sept 2019 - [153] - first edit ever

• To Khamba Tendal: "Tell me this.....Are you an active participant in global humanity?...or Are you just a guy who likes to read about it and then spout out ill-informed conjecture as if it's fact?"

• Today - [154] - second edit ever

• To Acroterion: "Find a pretty girl that shares your interests and values and work up the nerve to kiss her. If you do I think you'll find much more gratifying ways of filling your time than policing Wikipedia. Should it further serve your ego to anonymously engage users of Wikipedia then feel free to lash out at me in response to this message. I would be happy to berate you if only to make obvious your meak and likely lonely existence."

There's no need for a third edit.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I was out at the market with my wife and the dogs, shopping and having lunch, and missed all this. This reminds me of the animal from Seuss with a very slow nervous system who bites its tail so they will wake up eight hours later when the pain registers. It took two years to get back at me?

In speedier times a rambling talkpage forum post and sniping at the person who removed it and warned them would merit a moderate warning. I eagerly await their response in 2023. Acroterion (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the internet is just really slow where they are? Levivich 17:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, your comment reminds me of the wonderful science fiction story Light of Other Days that I read as a teenager. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I'm so happy that you found that companion who shares your interests! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Useless person blocked indef. I 100% guarantee that warnings will have no effect. Sorry, tolerance for assholes is lower than usual today for some reason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• It the "12.75 Years Syndrome", a recognized medical condition. After 12 years and 9 months of editing Wikipedia, one's endocrine system stops manufacturing the hormone that allows one to tolerate assholes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, that frees up 2023. Acroterion (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:75.115.18.34 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Spamming my talk page with utter nonsense. [155] [156] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, Am I missing something? Reads like good faith questions, even if not your responsibility to answer. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING and edit warring by User:Naynay1980

A new user, Naynay1980, appears to be hounding me. Out of their 76 edits, many of them have been to pages I edit frequently, some of which are not highly-edited pages: LBRY, Minds, Mike Cernovich, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Papagan. If it were just the first three I might not think this was focused around me, since there is sort of a common thread there, but the Adam Papagan AfD is one I stumbled across after becoming involved with Kevin Paffrath, then finding the article about the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election, then seeing that this person had an article that did not seem to satisfy our notability criteria. It seems highly unlikely that they just came across it separately.

I will note that they have made some complaints about my behavior at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Adam Papagan which are extremely similar to the unfounded ones being made by Special:Contribs/73.248.126.206, who was blocked at 18:51, 28 May 2021 (see the related ANI discussion and NPOVN discussion). The Naynay account was created at 18:14, 27 May 2021 while the dispute was underway, and while the IP had expressed concerns they might be blocked.

Naynay is also edit warring at Minds, and has passed WP:3RR: (4 reverts; see [157]) They are aware of our edit warring policies: [158]. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't pass 3RR. I made 2 reverts to a recently added section (added on 5/24) on the basis that the source was being grossly misrepresented. I ceded one point to GorillaWarfare, and the other is being discussed in talk. The Cernovich edit had nothing to do with the user and involved the edit of another editor, so that's another misrepresentation. I've been following the CA governor's election closely and clicked on the candidate articles, noticing the Paffrath deletion nomination earlier as well as the Papagan deletion now. Alternative media platforms are an interest of mine. GorillaWarfare is obviously extremely active and these are hot-button issues with some overlap (politics and alt platforms, whose discussion topics are primarily political), so she can't be shocked a user might cross her path. I deny any accusations of intentional hounding.Naynay1980 (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Initial edit; revert 1; revert 2; revert 3; revert 4. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are separate edits and separate questions, you can't cast them all as undo/reverts. I only did a general revert on 2 occasions, and am awaiting input of you and others on talk.Naynay1980 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. You undid other editors' edits four times. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

3RR concerns the reversions of the same edit, which this wasn't. If I revert or change 3 separate ideas on the same or different articles, that's not 3RR or warring. That's a good-faith attempt to edit and happens all day long on this site.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Again: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It would not be 3RR across separate articles, but there is one article involved here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It was new material that was added to the article all by one user (you) on 5/24 and thus not consensus. If it was also there at some point well in the past, that fact was unknowable. Thus, you changed the article very recently without consensus and I reverted it for a talk discussion we're having now, so that's not 3RR. I ceded one point before 3RR was reached, and we are discussing the others.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean it's unknowable? Page history is completely visible and you can check that the statement about far-right users and content has been there since at least November 2020; feel free to check further back if you like. I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you on this when it's clear you are edit warring and hounding me; I will wait for an uninvolved admin to weigh in now. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The new content was all added in a flurry of your edits on 5/24, and there were no significant edits since. That's new content inserted without consensus, it's not 3RR to remove it, and it was grossly misrepresenting sources which has been proven (and admitted by you, that it was an error and should not have been posted in the first place) and is being discussed on talk now, yet you're rushing for a sanction/ban. You didn't point out the content had been there at some point in the past until the reversions had already occurred, and the onus can't be on me to compare hundreds of past edits and figure out that something used to be there.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

5/24 of this year...? There were no edits to the page on 5/24/2021: [159]. That is also not an accurate representation of the discussion on the talk page, and both myself and MrOllie pointed you to the talk page discussion and the fact that this was status quo in our first reverts of you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Naynay1980, 1) Everything you've been trying to remove is older than 5/24. Show diffs if you can establish otherwise. 2) Even if it was new content, that does not provide an exception to 3RR. 3) You are substantially misrepresenting the content of the talk page discussion. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your point #3, quoting from GorillaWarfare: For that matter, where in the previous version (which I agree is not well representing that source) were Trump supporters mentioned? Regarding #1, I misspoke, the changes were actually made today not 5/24, which is easily verifiable by looking at the history Minds. Regarding #2, I've been told by longtime editors on WP countless times that new content needs consensus, to 'take it to talk,' and they revert it as many times as they want before that occurs.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the singular sentence that was sourced to The Guardian, and you are quoting me out of context that would make that clear. You were reverting substantially more than that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There was an entire paragraph based on that source; maybe one sentence, I'd have to look back, but it was a very long one. That was the largest piece of content that was reverted, and again, even if wasn't erroneous, which it was and you admit it was, it was new content without consensus. It's not at all out of context, it's precisely in context. You are referring to the Guardian source and paragraph it's based on, which was the primary reversion in question. One of the other edits was not a reversion and involved moving text to a different section. Naynay1980 (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please do look back, because as two of us have explained, you are wrong. There was a singular sentence sourced to The Guardian in the article body and it was not new. You were warring to remove content from the lead, remove the one sentence sourced to The Guardian, and remove a sentence sourced to the New York Times. I agreed that one Guardian sentence should be changed (not the source removed), but that should have been established in discussion and not through an edit war. The lead sentence that you were warring over I have already explained has been in the article for a long time. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, you're misrepresenting on multiple levels. First, I never warred about the lead, after 1 reversion I simply broke it up into 2 paragraphs and kept the text, which I'd be happy to discuss in talk. Second, the Guardian section was a paragraph (perhaps a long multi-clause sentence that resembled a paragraph) and a substantial section on its own, you admitted it was wrong and misrepresentation of the source. I didn't remove the NYT section characterizing the users, I simply moved it down to the user section where I still believe it belongs but won't war over it. I did remove your 'preponderance' language (which you put back) because the sources didn't say or establish a preponderance. Thirdly, I asked you to take it to talk before you insisted on your new, non-consensus edits that appeared to all be added today, yet you reported me here before we were able to get into a discussion.Naynay1980 (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Naynay1980: Even if, for a moment, we set aside the edit warring issue, your account is two days old and you have managed to find yourself essentially following GW around a number of rather disconnected areas of the encyclopedia. Unless you can answer for why and/or commit to finding something else to do with your time, I'd be inclined to proceed with administrative action on the hounding issue alone. Go Phightins! 22:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll commit to not hounding GorillaWarfare and will continue to only make good-faith edits and respect talk consensus. Unless there's yet more overlap on editing interests other than the election in question and alt social/video platforms (which is one of my primary interests), I doubt we'll run into each other anytime soon.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason." (emphasis mine) Terjen (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Terjen, Per GW's opening statement, while several of the articles are related and one might perceive a legitimate content dispute—or at least discussion of article content—behavior at the AFD would suggest this goes beyond that? Go Phightins! 23:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There absolutely is a constructive dispute, which GorillaWarfare herself admitted to, and I have allowed her new, corrected version to stand. No, you can see my specific concerns at the AfD, which I retracted (on GorillaWarfare's request, which said the talk page wasn't appropriate venue) and may or may not bring up in ANI. I do believe that tagging multiple candidate articles in the same gubernatorial election is concern for there being canvassing. There's no abuse there, and these aren't aspersions; GorillaWarfare tagged 7-8 users as either canvassed or potentially illegitimate in the Paffrath AfD with no penalty. If one editor can express concern based on a perceived trend or indicator, so can another.Naynay1980 (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was one sentence with an issue; the edit war was over substantially more content than that and as yet has not been explained.

I'd be happy to go into an explanation of the Paffrath dispute but I am still awaiting your promised discussion if you still intend to open it. However I maintain that it is bizarre that you are so familiar with a dispute that predates your account, and is almost exactly continuing the complaints of the user who was blocked so recently that the discussion has not yet been archived from ANI.

You are also demonstrating the same pattern of making small tweaks to your edits after saving the initial version, which is somewhat unusual in new editors and was also an issue with the IP. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have a tendency to make one-off edits separately, but you yourself have been making tweaks to your comments on this discussion, which has interrupted my writing and caused me to make formatting errors. I am following the highly publicized, hot-button election, and there aren't many candidates with articles, two of which you've either nominated for deletion or made substantial effort that promoted the deletion cause. Regarding your continued misrepresentations of the Minds article, which I answered in the thread above, the Guardian section was the largest piece of content in question and the only one that really involved reversions. The other edits involved changing words or moving text from one section to another, and you materially got your way with all of them so far other than your erroneous Guardian paragraph.Naynay1980 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Naynay1980 If you read GorillaWarfare's explanation at the Paffrath AfD, you'll see why she proceeded the way she did. She became aware of off-wiki canvassing via Twitter and then she tagged editors whose first edits were to an AFD discussion so that a closing admin would consider that context when assessing the consensus. That's appropriate scrutiny since most editors don't stumble on administrative areas such as AFD as their first edits. What your comment at the other AFD did is to cast an aspersion about political bias which was unfounded and is consistent with the pattern of hounding GorillaWarfare identified earlier in this thread. As I stated before, while you are welcome to edit constructively in areas of the encyclopedia that you choose, you are advised to find other articles to work on and avoid edits that give the appearance of hounding. Please do consider this thread an official warning per WP:HOUNDING and Wikipedia:Harassment#Blocking_for_harassment that your recent edits have been reported as and deemed to be consistent with hounding GorillaWarfare, and any future incidents should be considered in that context. As to the edit warring issue, it appears from above that you are aware of WP:3RR and its implications and should limit your edits on relevant pages to working to establish consensus on talk pages as appropriate. Note that casting aspersions about other editors almost invariably violates our pillar that editors assume good faith about other editors. I'll employ that principle here and assume that there won't be future incidents in this area. Go Phightins! 23:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Regarding the AfD, I did retract it, and I wrote the original with a question mark, did not make accusations, and welcomed an explanation from the user. GorillaWarfare had her reasons for tagging users as canvassed or having a personal agenda/one-issue interest. I believe I also had my reasons: to me, an editor working towards the deletion of not one but two candidates in the same election is cause for concern, which I expressed, though not necessarily proof of malfeasance, which I acknowledged. I can't at all guarantee I won't run into GorillaWarfare again considering how prolific she is and how varied her editing topics, but it in all exceeding likelihood won't be in areas others from these, barring some major coincidence.Naynay1980 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly moving punctuation to incorrect placement despite warning

Tejedora (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly moving punctuation inside quotation marks. Despite been reverted at least six times in the past couple of days, and despite being warned, with explanation on his talkpage , he is persisting. 17 hours after he was usertalk warned, he moved another comma inside quotation marks [160]. Fully one-third of his entire edit history is making these incorrect edits (edit summary is always "Fixed typo") [161], so he needs to be stopped. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

A situation with IP/New account contributor on gun-related articles

Last week I requested page protection on Template:USCWWeapons because of a recent rash of edit warring and hostile edit summaries by a very IP/account-portable contributor who self-reports to be a weapons expert. At 17:24, 26 May 2021‎ admin CambridgeBayWeather applied semi-protection and the template conflict died down immediately. Unfortunately a lot of the contributor's work has been on the weapon articles themselves, articles where fewer users are watching. A clickthrough of page histories of template content pages Brown Bess, Colt 1851 Navy Revolver, Colt Army Model 1860, Spencer repeating rifle, Sharps rifle and other high visibility pages demonstrate that while the contributions are largely positive, there's a pattern of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the edits the contributor is making. The contributor often actively rejects sources and arguments requiring them. (ex:[162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167]) They are the expert; it's entirely possible there's more than one "expert" in this situation. Hostile and aggressive edit summaries seem common with this contributor. I'll point out the condition of the USCWWeapons template linked on 2 July 2020 and the version as of this datestamp. A vast number of these changes are redirects to sections of articles already linked. The template bloat is not an improvement. All this background is intended to call attention to this sockmaster/logged-out contributor who resorts to bullying and cursing in edit summaries when pressed. This evening the contributor is complaining about capitalization (tonight presenting sources) at User talk:Dicklyon. I don't think this is a straight sockpuppetry situation but the constantly changing IPs and new accounts ARE making the situation more unmanageable. BusterD (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)