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

Maliner false information

This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114, where I reported User:Maliner's problematic editing which involved spreading false information by using unrelated and dubious sources. User:Inomyabcs very kindly attempted to resolve the situation on the article's talk page, but whilst the discussion continues to happen, Maliner continues to add false information in the article. I don't want to start an edit war again, but it's shocking that action is not being taken against Maliner's edits. It's clear that he isn't open to discussion and does not want to admit that he is connecting two different things to alter the reality of a concept. SalamAlayka (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone please check the presented sources in article's text, this user's is not following the wikipedia guidelines of reliable sources and pushing his or her own original research. Maliner (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

and may I know who has given you the authority to designate me with the pronoun "he". Maliner (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a different preferred pronoun? It can be a bit tough to tell around here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I always use they as a non-specific pronoun, it's how I was brought up. Was always taught to never use a gender specific pronoun unless the usage of that is actually important to the point being made, which it very rarely is. Canterbury Tail talk 15:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably the best way to go, and I try to do the same, but I am old enough that sometimes I slip into old habits. Always happy to be corrected, though. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it is polite to use the user’s preferred pronoun if you know what it is. I installed User:BrandonXLF/ShowUserGender, which shows that next to the username in conversations. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

(blinks) There aren't many people out there young enough to be raised to use non-specific pronouns; it's a quite recent practice. Calling people what they ask you to call them is the way to go, of course, but the hostility of Maliner's response doesn't precisely allay the worries raised by the OP. (That aside, I'm raising an eyebrow over a newbie editor with just 52 mainspace edits declaring themselves a recent changes patroller.) Ravenswing 18:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It's been pretty common in British English, and local varieties under that, for a few centuries. It seems like it's mostly American English and Canadian English that's having a growth period over it. Unless the gender is important to the point, use they as a singular pronoun. Unconnected to self-identification which is where all varieties of English are experiencing a change and growth. Canterbury Tail talk 20:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• The article referred to apparently (without diffs or anything else) is Barelvi.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Seems like this same fight has been going on for a few weeks: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Maliner_false_info and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Barelvi didn't get any third-party input. JBL (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  And the basis looks very much like a content dispute, with bad faith being assumed by people on both sides. Can't you just talk about the facts of the case (such as whether particular names precede this movement) without making any personal comments about editors? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  There's a section at the bottom of Talk:Barelvi (I started it and since I know absolutely nothing about the point at issue, I then walked away) where discussion has been proceeding since 29 November. Not always very civilly, but it is proceeding. Those taking part deserve credit for continuing to talk the issue through. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: @Bbb23: @JayBeeEll: @Phil Bridger: @Yngvadottir: Essentially what is going on here is that Maliner wants to present the Barelvi subsect as being equivalent to, or being the authentic form of, Sunni Islam (known in Arabic as Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l-Jamā'ah). For an analogy, think of the Church of England and wider Protestantism. The evidence of this can be seen in the talk page where he suggests that the Barelvi article be rename to the latter (which is just the name of Sunni Islam in Arabic). This is a very dishonest approach from Maliner as anyone that can do basic research on such a topic will release that there are a wide variety of movements under Sunni Islam. The Barelvi movement is mostly limited to India and Pakistan, with an extensive diaspora community. However, Maliner adds information to the article using sources which mention the term Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l-Jamā'ah since he considers it to be the same as the Barelvi movement. This is like an "Our movement is right, all the others are wrong" sort of idea which is dangerous to the neutrality of Wikipedia. SalamAlayka (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This user has again started removing well sourced content from Barelvi. Can admin help in this bad behaviour. Maliner (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maliner: Myself and two other editors have agreed that your paragraph is not relevant and is too generic. The removal of such content is not vandalism, and I urge you to stop this edit war. SalamAlayka (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is still going and you are repeatedly removing the content. This show your bad faith intentions to vandalize Wikipedia. Your actions are under moderation now as you are on ANI now. None of the participants is satisfied with your behavior per talk:Barelvi. Maliner (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Both SalamAlayka and Maliner should make a stronger effort to wp:assume good faith and engage in productive discussion. That said, I agree with SalamAlayka that Maliner is not just wrong, but wrong in a way that if not abandoned will cross to WP:TENDENTIOUS territory. Maliner should understand that, whatever their personal beliefs about this, scholars do consider Wahhabis, Salafis and Deobandis to be Sunni Muslims, and that Wikipedia follows scholarship. We also do not follow the claims of one religious denomination that other denominations are incorrect in their beliefs, and continued addition to articles of content implying this will be considered disruptive. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Apaugasma May I know where I have mentioned my personal beliefs? you both are assuming baseless faith about me without any evidences. What, if I will tell you a that you are a staunch Shia as you have written about Abu Lulu, not only you have written about him but taken it to good article status. You are writing about Shia sect that does not mean that you are Shia. Will you stop making baseless claims now? And as far as I know, Wikipedia is not a place to discuss sectarian biases at all. As far as Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP is concerned you should check the relevant places for reliable sources such as article talk or relevant pages, I am addressing it at relevant place. Maliner (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm referring to things like the following:

  • adding stuff like Bangladesh Islami Front and its students wing Bangladesh Islami Chattra Sena have worked to protect the faith and belief of Sunni Sufis in the country and took stands against Deobandi Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh and Salafist Khelafat Majlish, which frames the Barelvi opposition against Deobandis and Salafis as 'protecting faith and belief'
  • replacing Barelvi with Ahle Sunnat (Barelvi) as if Ahl al-Sunna (= Sunni Islam in general) were identical to the Barelvi movement.
  • comments like this, where you say things like If someone considers Wahhabism, Deobandism and Salafi movement under Sunni Islam and correct in their beliefs then why would their speakers are against them like Barelvis, citing a source that in translation says The speakers said that Wahhabism-Shiaism-Salafism, which is a false interpretation of Islam, is contrary to faith and distorts religion [...] The identity and contours of true Islam, i.e. Ahl al-Sunnah, are being endangered and pushed to the face of extinction through Sunni claims despite being followers of null and materialistic doctrines and denying the fundamental aspects of religion, all in an apparent argument that, again, Ahl al-Sunna refers only to Barelvis.
  • your argument at RfD [1] [2] that Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaah should redirect to Barelvi because sources indicate that the Barelvis call themselves that way, all the while ignoring that there are several other organizations and movements with that name, and that the expression in fact is, just like Ahl al-Sunna, a synonym for Sunni Islam in general.

  In short, your edits seem to be targeted at making Wikipedia adopt the Barelvi claim that they are on the only or true Ahl al-Sunna and that their opponents are not. In the course of this you are skipping normal WP procedures such as distinguishing between what we say in wiki-voice and what we cover with explicit attribution to partisan sources, as well as the normal considerations regarding primary topic at a venue like WP:RFD. I'm sure that you don't mean it this way, but it is disruptive, and it does need to stop. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Iathien & Talk:Mediterranean Sea,

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

---

User:Iathien seems to have a problem with Turkey being mentioned in areas they consider purely Greek, see Talk:Mediterranean Sea & Talk:Mediterranean Sea. The editor seems to be Greek and is fighting the Greek/Turkey dispute on these pages. I think it is likely breaching WP:NPOV as well as being tedious. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Kitchen Knife, you have yourself levelled personal attacks against other editors in the talk page threads you are referring to. I am not saying that Iathien's conduct has been acceptable - it has not - but yours is also seriously substandard. I don't have a view on the content dispute that is at the heart of this, but you need to take a look at your own behaviour here, regardless of who is right and who is wrong on the content. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Then I suggest you put a complaint in about me, rather than use this one to vent your pent-up anger.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Not an ideal response. I thought the username was familiar - I realise that I blocked Kitchen Knife myself for personal attacks earlier this year. Since then, they have been blocked again in November for PAs, and had TPA revoked for abuse of their talk page while blocked, and their fifth edit after that block expired was to call another editor a ridiculous and laughable Greek Propagandist, who cannot even read a map. Since they seem not to understand what the problem is, I have blocked Kitchen Knife indefinitely. I currently have no view on whether any action is needed with regard to Iathien: they certainly seem to be casting aspersions about other editors inappropriately, but the account has very few edits so this might be down to inexperience. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It's quasi-moot since your block, but you're not an ANI rookie, and you have no excuse for not understanding how ANI works. Any participant is liable to have their own record reviewed and questioned, and no participant gets to dictate what is or is not discussed. Ravenswing 23:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The OP has been indef with TPA revoked for continued harassment and combative editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

We do not need militant, aggressive nationalists of any nationality on this encyclopedia. I would happily block three Greeks and three Turks, and an Armenian, an Azerbaijani. a Kurd, a Syrian and an Israeli too. Even an American or a Mexican. Oh, a Pakistani and an Indian too. Edit neutrally and calmly, collaborating and building consensus with people witn different views, or you are going to get blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Spilia4; POV-pushing; Not assuming good faith; inappropriate, retaliatory templates

While editing Carey Price tonight, I noticed this edit summary that was left by Spilia4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not assuming good faith. I politely, but sternly, reminded them of the AGF policy using a level-2 template as the user does appear to have been using Wikipedia for a while. I then reverted the edit in question, as I disagreed with them that the "wording is more supported by the source". I was surprised when they retaliated by copying and pasting verbatim what I had left on their talk page onto mine. Concerned by the totality of the behaviour, I checked out some other edits they made to Carey Price and have found what I believe to be POV-pushing.

• [3] - This edit violates NPOV as A) it omits the fact that Price received backlash for his comments and B) It misrepresents the legislation in question, which the source used does not at all say "would outlaw the majority of hunting firearms."
• [4] - Reverts an editor attempting to make the paragraph more neutral by giving attribution to the claim.
• Additionally, the first diff I linked to was similarly a revert of an attempt to bring more neutrality into the article.

I have no issue with discussion on the talk page, but not if the other user is going to vandalize my talk page like that. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I have been an active and respected Wikipedia editor for nearly 9 years with thousands of contributions, as my userpage, talk and contributions list will show. I have never had an incident with any user on Wikipedia before this libelous post. My edits are in line with the promotion of Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. My edits were not combative, were not driven by agenda, and were not driven by ulterior motives. My edits are supportive by the majority of sources on the topic, including the ones linked within the article in question. The second edit in question removes original research which was not supportive by the sources. I reject this notion of POV pushing, which it appears the user who instigated this incident may themselves be engaging in, and do not believe I need to comment further on the issue. I will welcome others comments, of course, in determining how to proceed, although as stands, I question the grounds on which this 'incident' was brought forth. Spilia4 (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of *my* supposed POV-pushing. I'd love to hear it. I was able to provide three. I would also argue that you were the one who introduced the original research when you wrote "...which would outlaw the majority of hunting firearms." Furthermore, there was absolutely no reason to write the full statement including naming Justin Trudeau.. Those two facets combined make it seem as if you're trying to push an anti-gun control/anti-Liberal Party of Canada narrative. Being here for 9 years also does not give you the excuse to accuse the IP you reverted of acting in bad faith just because you disagree with them. Also, I wish you would address the vandalism to my talk page. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Spilia4's editing here is not at all to their credit -- clear misrepresentation of the source, clear AGF violations, low-level edit-warring. It's disappointing to see no talk-page discussion anywhere, and it would certainly be worrisome if they were to re-revert. I don't think it's a good idea to describe retaliatory templating as "vandalism", though. JBL (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive page moves of African leaders

@Setswana: has recently been moving the pages of African leadership positions (President of X, Prime Minister of X) to "List of presidents/leaders etc....." (see Prime Minister of Zimbabwe for an example). Most of these can be reverted but I noticed yesterday on President of Zambia where the page was moved to a "List of" and then recreated as a duplicate (this was sorted by @Asukite: at WP:RM) but given the history of this user doing this in their logs as well as their apparent refusal to engage when I asked about it, suggests we may need to have a discussion about this as well as possible wholesale reversals of their undiscussed moves. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

(What a coincidence, I just requested TPA revocation for an IP and I see this in the section above)

If they're back up to this nonsense again, an indefinite block for disruptive editing is needed, until such time as they are willing to actually engage with other editors. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: I had thought about that being a possibility under WP:NOTHERE but i'd like to see what the admins think. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Already blocked for 3 days by Ad Orientem. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Setswana has now returned to edit war whilst logged out using multiple IPs, clear DUCKS, on List of prime ministers of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). See 2405:205:150a:3f71::939:8a0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 103.129.220.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can we now make the necessary indef? And block the IPs too. Honestly, I thought that they'd at least wait out the block before getting back up to their nonsense, but apparently not. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And yet another twist. We have socking.

Quacking is coming from the following accounts:

Botswana Gaborone (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (for those unaware, Setswana is a major language in Botswana)

Suiste mollar filtri (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

May add some more, this will probably need splitting off to a proper SPI at some point. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Setswana indeffed. IP's blocked. List of prime ministers of India protected x 2 years. Two sock accounts already indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk)

Thanks. It seems that they have been evading scrutiny for a while. See 2405:205:1000:0:0:0:0:0/36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Back in August, Tamzin gave this range a week off. Maybe it might do to watch this range, but blocking the /36 doesn't seem necessary (yet). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked the 2405:205:1000:0:0:0:0:0/36 range x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, there was a lot of other garbage coming from that range too. I was just thinking of the stuff which was obviously from Setswana. Good block. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record – I tagged Setswana and Suiste mollar filtri with appropriate sock-related tags, but I was unable to do the same with Botswana Gaborone, due to their Wikimedia account. When I tried to tag the Wikimedia account, it was refused and I got a message that some of my rights (apparently my autoconfirmed status) are temporarily revoked. I am really not familiar with all of this, so it would be appreciated if someone can look into this issue. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I figured out how to properly tag Botswana Gaborone on the English Wikipedia, so I did it. The existence of their Wikimedia account caused come confusion on my part. Someone should look into the issue of whether its necessary to tag the Wikimedia account as well, and the issue of my rights status, as I said in the post above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 14:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There also seems to be Admi Javed Khan king (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who scored an indef cublock from Drmies. It may do to hear what they found to trigger that (or at least as much as they can share). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Mako001--well spotted. Yes, that editor is completely incompetent and a terrible nuisance. Perhaps one of you would like to start an SPI; I have also CU-blocked User:Джавед Хан 786 786, User:Botswana Gaborone, and User:Suiste mollar filtri. Pinging User:Yamaguchi先生 as well--you blocked a big fat range, first for some of those articles and then just generally. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll start an SPI sometime withing the next few hours. At this point, it will basically just be a fomalisation and summarisation of this discussion, since all accounts are indef blocked. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul Whelan (security director)

An admin is needed over there due to the usual Wikipedia US political fuckery ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artificial Nagger (talk • contribs)

Sorry, @Artificial Nagger: you're going to need to be a bit more specific. It is unclear what fuckery you think needs admin attention. Can you provide some diffs that highlight any problems? Thanks. --Jayron32 19:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I’m unable to do diffs at this time. Seems to be some edit warring the lead to include/occlude information on this BLP that might lead people to believe this is a very bad man. That and they’re screwing up the formatting in the process. Artificial Nagger (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There may be some sockpuppetry going on. I'll take another look later for a formal report if someone else doesn't but an SPA and some newly created accounts hanging around this BLP. Slywriter (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is now under pending changes protection for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I find that PC is a poor choice when there are many edits and BLP implications, but I suppose we'll see.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone should probably take a look at Paul Whelan (security director). There is a very obvious attempt at WP:SOCK going on, a half dozen IPs (I'll pretend I know how /64s work) and a few accounts, that are clearly being cycled through. This page is making nearly hourly appearances in the Pending Changes Log with nonsensical edits. Etrius ( Us) 22:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

*sigh* Yeah, I didn't think PC was going to work well, but there were anons in there fighting the vandalism too, so I thought I'd give it a try. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the pending changes for now. It was a 'hodge-podge' of constructive edits, nonconstructive edits, and corrections to the aforementioned edits. Frankly, it would've been pointless to parse through it all since the original pending edit was unsourced and, at this point, reaching edit war territory. Etrius ( Us) 03:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I added semi-protection for three days, there are really too many bad edits for the moment. Pending changes protection is still there, when the semi expired pending changes remain active for a few days.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 Damansara Shopping Mall (2nd nomination)

I would appreciate some input from experienced editors at this discussion; particularly those familiar with WP:CORPDEPTH. I suspect, although I have no proof, that possibly some of the editors participating at this AFD may have an undisclosed WP:COI with this for-profit business. Regardless, anyone with knowledge and experience dealing with the notability of pages on for-profit businesses that are willing to comment about the notability of this mall in particular would be appreciated. All opinions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@4meter4: While there was nothing wrong with posting a neutral notice on the notability guideline talk page I find it very concerning that you appear to have tried to canvass an "expert" to that discussion. Please don't do that again, it's simply no acceptable and is enough to topic ban you from AfDs IMO. Keep notifications to wikiprojects and similar, and only notify individual editors if are notifying all editors with experience with the article or previous AfDs on the same article something where you can fairly demonstrate you were not biased in you selection. Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Equally concerning, despite accusing 3 editors of possibly having an undisclosed COI with self admitted no evidence, you neglected to inform them. I'm even more strongly leaning towards a topic ban. In the mean time, I'm going to notify them Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Having a quick look the the respective editor's editing histories, I see no reason to think an undisclosed COI. Actually one of the usernames was instantly recognisable to me. It seems to me far more likely is this is a typical case of editors with different views of our notability guidelines (likely including to some extent different parts of the inclusionist vs deletionist spectrum) probably combined with other issues like systemic bias concerns who found the AfD in some fashion expressing their views. Some of the comments may very well be against the consensus of parts of our policies and guidelines, that's hardly atypical. I mean I could assume that you have an undisclosed CoI and that's why your so desperate to get the article deleted to the extent that you canvassed an editor and raised the possibility of an undisclosed CoI here on ANI with a self admitted no evidence. But the far more likely thing is you're acting in good faith, and saw something which you thought was concerning and unfortunately responded in a very poor manner. Please remember that editors often do in good faith make mistakes or misunderstand our policies and guidelines. E.g. in that very discussion a delete voter appears to have incorrectly assumed some stores were closed, which to be fair are closed, because the business was closed. But the reality is both businesses still exist in Malaysia. Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I will not make the mistake again of pinging a specific user, although my intention was to get help from a user who seems to be a regular contributor at AFD and is a regular participant in NCORP related discussion. I thought I was being helpful, and not obstructive. Further, I did not accuse three editors anywhere. I specifically chose not to name anyone because I have no hard evidence. I also do not suspect everyone at the AFD. You are putting words into my mouth, and pinging people who I have no issue with. I really wanted to just get some more experienced editors involved. That’s my only intention here. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We are at ANI, this is not a place to have a conversation in a vacuum. By linking to the AfD, they were implicitly named and are parties especially as this is a forum for behavioral issues. Though, I would say the same if we were at the teahouse because talking about editors as a hypothetical doesn't exist and they have a right to know their actions are being discussed. Slywriter (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Then I categorically retract my statement regarding any COI if that is going to be the response here. Apologies for not handling this better, and apparently waisting everyone's time here at ANI. I consider this matter closed. On a positive side, at least this conversation may have brought more participation from a wider audience to the AFD discussion. I wish everyone here and at the AFD well. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Having participated in this AFD discussion by relisting it, I'm surprised to see it brought up on ANI of all places. There is nothing very notable about it, it is much less contentious than most AFDs that I review (at least the ones that are not unanimous). Everyone comes to a discussion with a point-of-view, often undisclosed. I'm much more concerned with POVs in discussions about cryptocurrency firms than one about a random shopping mall. I'm surprised that this AFD even got your attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, I was picturing this modest little AFD that I've dealt with over the past 2 weeks but in the past 6 hours or so the discussion there has exploded, I gather from the publicity it received for being mentioned on this noticeboard. It doesn't bear any resemblance to the quiet discussion that existed up to today. I wish this kind of attention could be spread around to more AFDs, there are so many that barely receive one editor's participation in them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You are not wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Putting a vote as Keep doesn't mean that the person could be involved with the company, you cant just assume someone works or is closely related to the company for a Keep vote.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 15:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t make that assumption in your case Helpingworld. The problem of pinging editors to this discussion who I never named is that people are now making assumptions about what I meant. Regardless I retracted my comment. This issue is over.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You got what you wanted and the article was deleted. All that's left to say really is that a very quick glance at my contribution history would show that I do not have a COI with a Malaysian shopping centre. Garuda3 (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I definitely over reacted yesterday, and allowed our conflict to impact my perception of what was occurring in a way that was not fair to you. Apologies to you Garuda3. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Machiavellian Gaddafi and Llll5032

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

---

Request for a temporary ban for user:Llll5032, or a ban from editing Censored.TV. Multiple instances on talk page of warring and blatant editing biases. The latest example is of page titled Censored.TV, as user is submitting continuous reverts, of which new references and edit summary do not match given do not match edits.

• Llll5032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continuous reverts, of which edit summary does not match given do not match edits. Wikipedia:Edit warring

Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Most of this new article, about a controversial website, was unreliably sourced and self-sourced. I removed undue WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PROMO content, aligned the descriptions to the WP:BESTSOURCES available, and added tags. I made no reverts. Machiavellian Gaddafi has reverted my editing and decided to escalate to ANI without discussing on the article talk page. Llll5032 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Machiavellian Gaddafi wrote most of the article in dispute. Machiavellian Gaddafi wrote tonight on my user talk page about one section, "Expecting an email with various articles included in it tomorrow, and I will implement them once I receive them." I don't know what Machiavellian Gaddafi meant by that, but an explanation may help. Llll5032 (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

---

From User: Machiavellian Gaddafi

User WAS warned, but shows to remove it from their page, as seen below:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1126409909&markasread=266129110&markasreadwiki=enwiki

User is also continuing to vandalize and misinterpret the page Gavin McInnes with purposeful biases. Warnings like these have been given by several other users over the recent past (starting in October of 2021), as you will see on there talk page. This is an ongoing issue that apparently hasn't been addressed, and it shows that this user, Llll5032, is using Wikipedia for their own personal issues rather than matching what said reference points present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not "continuing" anything. My edit at Gavin McInnes was well sourced, and now I see that my edit in fact returned a description ("far right") to the stable version that existed before Machiavellian Gaddafi changed it on December 6. Llll5032 (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And no, all my edits came before any "warning" by OP (by a minute); the first communication by OP was the ANI notice, with no prior discussion. I detailed more below about the chronology and my hasty deletion of part of the notice on my user talk page (not in bad faith), but I realize now that this aspersion needs a more immediate correction. Llll5032 (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

From Machiavellian Gaddafi

There's a clear pattern here, shown through both your edit history and, not specifically, complaints from other users. I'm only asking that you cannot continue to edit these pages, as your reasonings do not match your actions. For example, one of your edits included falsely adding a an individual the Censored.TV that is not part of their staff, and had never been employed. You also added the term white supremacist to this person, being Nick Fuentes. Although that accurately describes him, putting this on a page that has nothing to do with him other than an interview is slander. As aforementioned, your edits have a pattern of doing such things, and others have talked to you about it. Let's let the administration decide what to do with this, and I ask in the meantime that you stop with this obsessive and overreaching behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 06:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I added white nationalist because that is what the two cited RS called him.[5][6]. Machiavellian Gaddafi's description for Fuentes is "campaign staff member and political commentator",[7] which is not a description used in the RS. (Also, I want to note that I used white nationalist to match the two RS, not white supremacist as Machiavellian Gaddafi writes above. I ask Machiavellian Gaddafi to cease aspersions and take a break.) Llll5032 (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

From From Machiavellian Gaddafi

Let's leave it up to the administration to decide, after reviewing your edits and complaints from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 06:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

One more thing: I take WP:CONSENSUS seriously and discuss any disagreements in good faith in summaries or on article talk pages. So no, I did not ignore any warnings from Machiavellian Gaddafi. My last edit to either disputed article was at 5:13, a minute before I was notified of Machiavellian Gaddafi's first communications to me at 5:14, which was an ANI notice!. (Machiavellian Gaddafi appears to think that I used some bad faith when I deleted half of that 5:14 notice in my reply on my talk page, which quoted his initial 5:10 ANI complaint that did not tag me, but I actually deleted it because it had a repeated heading and I thought it was an ugly mistake.) Meanwhile, Machiavellian Gaddafi has edit-warred his preferred versions back in at Censored.TV[8] and McInnes[9] since making his complaint. Llll5032 (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

As do I, but your recent actions say otherwise. You still haven't explained why you chose to delete 80% of the Censored.TV Show section, instead of addressing the issues at hand. I reverted the changes as the removals did not follow Wikipedia guideline (as I'm allowed to do without continuous warring, hence the Undo link), as a number of would've been warranted. I created the page just 24 hours ago, and to delete almost all of it when all of the references/links, which are direct urls to the content mentioned, raises a red flag. Reading through your talk page shows that you're notorious for this kind of editing, and it always targets political figures and commentators of both the moderate, libertarian (McInnes), and conservative realms. 100% of your issues with other user have has to do with pages like these. Now, I understand that you can edit whatever page you want, but you have a history of overstepping Wikipedia Guidelines and deleting other's hard work, due to what shows as blatant bias and borderline vandalism. As a so-called Longtime Wikipedia fan, occasional editor, this contrasts the persistent complaints by others.

I don't want you banned, but you do seem to have to do a lot of apologizing for "mistakes", mistakes that always involve the same actions and targets. The same mistakes don't happen dozens of times. Some of these edits are by paid, freelance editors, and they take these articles seriously. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m in hospital waiting for a CT PET scan and don’t have much to say other than this seems to be a political dispute. I’ve seen pov and badly sourced edits by you and I’d advise any other Admins or editors to look at he edits by both of you. I don’t know what paid editors you are talking about, could you elucidate? Doug Weller talk 08:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the OP’s talk page they say they are paid to edit. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Two of the user complaints are from freelance editors from two different outlets; that's all I was referring to. I'm personally not paid for any edits a this time, but rather doing some work for some peers. Anyways, thank you for reaching out to me, and I'll try and be more accurate with some of my sources and formatting. The only real issues that I have were mislabeling and excessive deletions, but your on it, so that's all from me. Thanks again, and good luck with the CT scan... hospital visits are far from pleasurable. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Machiavellian Gaddafi Who are those editors. And you are an undisclosed paid editor according to your talk page. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment As far as I can see the problem isn't Llll5032. I've just had to revert another load of edits by Machiavellian Gaddafi on Gavin McInnes. When someone's politics are consistently referred to as far-right, there are multiple sources for that, and the actual title (not the content) of the first source uses the words "far-right", then changing it to "conservative" is simply disruptive (especially when your edit summary says "Far right is a form of slander"). They also keep introducing unreliable sources. Yesterday I had to revert their changes because they were introducing red-flag language like "according to the mainstream media" into sections containing language they didn't like. I'd suggest they stop editing on the subject since they appear to be unable to maintain NPOV. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller

I answered you on my talk page. As far as the two that ARE paid, two people indicated it in their talk pages, and I honestly didn't care enough to remember, as they had some type of box/badge saying so. That said, not all of the Llll5032 talk pages are complaints, so it shouldn't be too hard to find on your end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 10:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You didn't answer me, you responded to User:Justlettersandnumbers saying you aren't paid, despite saying on Nov. 22 " I'm paid to make these edits, and losing 350+ characters after spending multiple hours writing it is unfortunate, to say the least." Doug Weller talk 10:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Minor correction, that statement was made on 26 or 27 November, depending on timezones. Hopefully the link is helpful. --Yamla (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller

Yes, I did (read again, below)

I'm not paid or compensated, but rather contributing to the best of my knowledge. I have interest is certain areas, but this is just a hobby. That said, once I feel like I've reached the point where I COULD do this as a side job (I'm still fairly green), the first thing I'll do is fill out the form. Thanks! Alan C. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs)

@Machiavellian Gaddafi: Why did you write "I'm paid to make these edits" if you're now saying "I'm not paid or compensated"? Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite|Black Kite

Your reply is an example of some of what I'm talking about. You took a reliable source, that being the New York Times, didn't bother reading anything but the headline, and totally dismissed where McInnis stated that he is a fiscal conservative and libertarian. I feel like many of you don't bother reading the articles, and she's taking lazy way out and read headlines. If someone says that they identify with a certain political ideology, that's what they are. A journalist that probably met them for the first time that day doesn't trump what the person themselves identifies as. For example, seated interview and told someone you worked at a retail store, but in the headline they wrote that you didn't work. Who's correct? You are the content in this scenario, and the reporter is the relay. Am I wrong, @Doug Weller? Shouldn't a reliable source that clearly states within their article that McInnis identify as in the way he does be relevant? There seems to be a bigger issue here, and that extends beyond my original issue. No, I don't work for any of these people who I've edited, but I'm starting to think that maybe I should reach out to them in regards to what's happening here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 11:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• If someone says that they identify with a certain political ideology, that's what they are. Er, no. That is absolutely NOT how Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. If you do not understand how reliable sourcing works here, then you are definitely better off not editing biographies of living people. It is actually fine to say that McInnes claims to be a conservative, though - and look, that's exactly what it says in the lead paragraph. Black Kite (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@SamWalton9

It's an A-B conversation my friend—A and B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I went over this talk where I said I was paid, and it looks like I made a typo. I often type via microphone, as I'm doing now, and sometimes things just don't come out the right way. As I said before, if I'm looking to get paid, I'll fill out the form. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't figure out what you were trying to say, it certainly makes sense as it is. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller

Is New York Times a reliable source? Do statements coming from the mouth of the person being interviewed in a New York Times be deemed as factual information? Should libertarians and other moderate types be labeled far right, when their counterparts are never labeled as far left? These are clear biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Anyway, I presume you are aware that the sentence Mcinnes (claims) that he is not far-right or a supporter of fascism, identifying as "a fiscal conservative and libertarian" sourced to the New York Times already exists in the lead paragraph? Black Kite (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite (talk)

Machiavellian Gaddafi, may have one valid point, if one looks at the contents of Category:Far-right politicians in the United States and Category:Far-left politicians in the United States, there is a huge imbalance. There are other possible explanations than Bias, however. — Jacona (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, but his personal identity that he relayed is more truthful that a reporters opinion. There's nothing in far-right politics that states anything even close to libertarian or fiscal conservative. Isn't our goal to be as factual as possible? I guess I'm going to have to find some more articles that support his identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• It is precisely because our goal is to be factual as possible, that we present the subject's own claims as precisely that - claims - when they are contradicted by multiple reliable sources. You can imagine the chaos that would ensue if we were required to use subject's own claims as the unambiguous truth - since they could claim absolutely anything about themselves. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite

This is becoming off topic and redundant, so I'll move this debate to the page's talk page. I'm sure we can all come to a happy and fair medium eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Just opening the thread for a PS: I have blocked Machiavellian Gaddafi indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing and not being here to help build an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 09:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC).

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

User:173.218.150.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) NOTHERE

This editer seems tho be WP:NOTHERE based on this edit.1AmNobody24 (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks more like a lack of familiarity with how Wikipedia works. I'll have a word. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Unusual account activity, possibly NOTHERE

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

---

Maniasophy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi, this account trigged the unusual account activity edit filer. They have 10 edits to mainspace and over 300 to their userpage. This appears to me to be an attempt to game the system to gain ECP. Or they are just screwing around, I can't tell. I asked them what they were doing [10] here but my question went unanswered and they blanked the page. They have continued to edit their userpage, now with rather bizarre additions. Could I get some eyes on this activity from those that are familiar with this sort of apparent gaming? Thanks, Jip Orlando (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely someone to keep an eye on. I mean, strictly speaking, playing around with the UP is not exactly sanctionable, but this is verging on WP:NOTHERE. --Jayron32 16:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We can always remove ECP etc if we feel it's been gamed, that's not a big deal. Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! Maniasophy (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, we are done here. Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

no...wait...they had so much to offer... Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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

BLPvio by User:PhotogenicScientist on Hunter Biden laptop controversy after admin warning

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

After asking an admin for clarifcation, PhotogenicScientist was directly warned: "saying the laptop was Hunter's in Wikivoice is wrong and a BLP problem". Photogenic has now reinserted the unsourced contentious claim. Feoffer (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Attempting to remove an editor from a content dispute, isn't the best route to take. Would recommend this report be closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Concur with GoodDay here. I'm not saying PhotogenicScientist is right. I'm not saying Feoffer is right. I don't care about the content of the Hunter Biden laptop article at this point. I just want everyone to stop trying to play "gotcha" with people who disagree with them as though getting someone punished because they think something different from you is a good way to solve problems. Stop edit warring, stop trying to play "gotcha" with others, use the talk page etc. --Jayron32 19:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

A well attended RFC determined that language was acceptable. That is a clear demonstration, along with the closure review, that the community does not see this as blpvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Though the RFC was closed by a non-admin account, which is probably not a good way for a closure on such a controversial topic. Masem (t) 19:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And yet there was no consensus to overturn at the review. The way to handle disagreement with a consensus that was upheld at review isn't to then bring an editor filtering the RFC to ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the RfC and the review upholding it at AN seems to be a far bigger issue than who closed it. This is an article that already has wiki-lawyering issues and now an admin is inserting themselves giving warnings for complying with the RfC while also placing doubt on it's validity. That's way outside the norms of this encyclopedia. Slywriter (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Masem is WP:INVOLVED, but contrary to the OP, I don't read his comment as giving anybody a "warning." He was asked his opinion and gave it. That he's an admin is totally irrelevant. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• By my reading, the RFC did not endorse any specific wording; it was solely about the inclusion or exclusion of the word "alleged." At the very least, people reverting to one specific version with the argument that that has consensus need to slow down. --Aquillion (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Surely you agree that the edit complained about in the OP, which removed the single word "allegedly", is 100% supported by the RfC, and that editors should remove that word if it is reinstated. Levivich (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but by my reading the edit that sparked the current round of back-and-forth was the revert by Mr Ernie here (as he says below.) That edit absolutely did not reflect the RFC or any consensus reached on talk. Obviously a bold lead rewrite can be reverted for other reasons, but it's important to be clear on that point - edits like that are just all sides revert-warring over aspects of the lead that have no consensus behind them. Like I said on talk, my concern is that if that isn't answered then the RFC can become a Motte-and-bailey situation where the answer to a more narrow RFC question is used to support more sweeping conclusions than there is necessarily a consensus for. (More specifically, can we say X vs. should we say X in the first paragraph of the lead are different questions, and the RFC was very clearly written to ask only the first.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Why was it the revert that sparked the current round, and not the edit that was reverted? The outcome of the RfC is that Wikipedia says it's his laptop in wikivoice. We all know how to change that: make a subpage collecting all the best RS and what they say, and post it to the ongoing RFC. Levivich (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No, the outcome of the RFC is that we cannot imply that it is not his laptop in wikivoice (ie. no saying "his alleged laptop" or anything comparable wording that would cast doubt on it.) That's very different from "we must state that it was his in the first paragraph of the lead." The latter is, obviously, a much stronger statement; given that the RFC for the weaker consensus to avoid implying it was not his laptop was already controversial, I don't think it's reasonable to assert that a consensus requiring that we state it was his laptop in wikivoice in the lead exists. That's the whole reason we're having further discussions for the exact wording; but people who insist that the RFC currently requires that we state that in the lead are mischaracterizing it. --Aquillion (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What? I don't understand what you're writing. An RfC that comes to consensus to remove the word "allegedly" from "allegedly belonged to" is an RfC that comes to consensus to state "belonged to" in wikivoice. I really don't think this is even an arguable point. Levivich (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

An editor is being warned for following the outcome of an RfC? That's quite chilling. Slywriter (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Feoffer you seem to seriously misunderstand the role of admins. They aren't "super users" in any matter that comes to content - their opinions hold the same weight as anyone else's. The way admins differ is that they're able to wield special tools to enforce policy. Which is why I explicitly asked @Masem if it would be a violation of policy beforehand, and if there were any actionable roadblocks in place. And nothing in their response seemed to me to point to a bright-line "don't do this for policy reasons." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer, I am in disbelief that you opened this thread an hour after the last one (at AN) was withdrawn. And the OP is incredibly misleading. WP:Drop the stick. Levivich (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You should have reported me for this. I'm the one who restored the page to the RFC consensus version - link. Can we please not do this? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The RFC was not about any one particular version, just about whether to use the word "alleged." You shouldn't revert-war back to one version in particular based on the argument that that one version has a consensus, since it does not. --Aquillion (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s not how the majority of us have interpreted the close and subsequent clarifications. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your restoration edit, Mr. Ernie. GoodDay (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the smartest editor in the classroom. Therefore, I don't know what Feoffer is trying to accomplish 'here' or at the related page-in-question, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I came to this article as a reader, knowing nothing about the topic and having literally zero emotional investment in the topic.

Sentence 1 featured an unsourced claim that the device belonged to Biden, but Paragraph 2 included a sourced claim that the device might not belong to Biden.

I don't particularly care how that contradiction is resolved, but some resolution is needed -- it's an embarrassment to the project for us to be serving a seemingly-selfcontradictory lede to our readers.

I certainly understand admin fatigue over American politics -- if I came to this article with any preconceived opinions, I wouldn't bother the admin community with this matter. But the current article fails our readers.

While I wasn't part of the Summer 2022 RFC, the non-admin closer has already acknowledged it was a goodfaith badclose, so no one should be citing it as a consensus.

New readers just like me will continue to show up and complain about the article's lede until we can provide our readers with a lede that doesn't appear to contradict itself. Feoffer (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is this? The RfC was closed. It was reviewed at AN and upheld. Any editor or admin who believes this RfC can be be ignored should be topic banned from the area until they acknowledge they will respect RfCs. Anything less is a disrespect to the processes that keep this encyclopedia running. Slywriter (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The nonadmin closer has acknowledged it was a bad close. Feoffer (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You continue to falsely claim it's "unsourced". There are sources cited in the body. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

BLP requires inline-citation, and a review of RSes shows probabilistic language remains the norm. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, and I've done my best to squeak in a constructive way, I'm not going to keep harping on it. But I can promise new editors will continue to show up to complain about the article quality until the apparently self-contradictory lede issue is resolved one way or the other. Feoffer (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, recommend this report be closed. It's not accomplishing whatever it was set out to do. GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

When paragraph 2 seems to contradict sentence 1 of a BLP, it's a problem that requires the attention of admins. I don't care which way it's resolved, but a resolution is needed. If there's really a consensus for sentence 1, then delete the contradiction in paragraph 2! I'm not a squeaky wheel by nature, I don't care at all whether the laptop is Biden's or not -- I just want to be able to go to Wikipedia and read a consistent story. Right now, the article's wikivoice is schizophrenic -- proclaimin a fact in sentence 1 only to turn around and deny it in paragraph 2. That's a problem, and no amount of handwaving will stem the tide of folks coming to demand a better article that presents a consistent narrative. Feoffer (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The RfC was valid, closed and affirmed at AN. Any confusion in the article is resolved by following the RfCs results. It's not resolved by wiki-lawyering methods to ignore a valid RfC. Slywriter (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Per OP, the underlying issue is not black and white. Instead of accusing OP of wikilawyering, it would be helpful to respond (or not) to OP's detailed concern and rebut it. All views have been aired here at least once. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It is 100% clear that you and others are attempting to contravene an RfC by any method possible. The rest is useless wiki-lawyering to further the effort to ignore the RfC and does not deserve a response as ignoring an RfC is the single behavioral issue that should be addressed. Slywriter (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The non-admin closer has already acknowledged the close was in error: there is a de facto consensus that my closure did not correctly reflect the community's sentiments". To the eyes of a new reader with no strong feelings about the topic, paragraph 2 seems to disprove sentence 1. I wasn't the first to point this out, I won't be the last. New people will keep showing up to point this out until it's solved.Feoffer (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Ukrainian conspiracy theory spread by Keith-264

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

---

User:Keith-264 is peppering their comments with false, harmful anti-Ukrainian conspiracy theories.

• As for Kherson, it's in Ukraine which has been a US vassal state since the coup of 2014 at the latest; the Russian withdrawal is anything but a liberation.[11]
• It isn't an allegation, it's a description of the truth. Ask Victoria Nuland.[12]

Statements that Ukraine is a “vassal state” or “external control” are false.[13][14][15][16]

These conspiracy theories are also harmful. Delegitimization of Ukraine as a state and a nation is part of the Russian Federation’s propaganda. See, e.g., Disinformation in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Delegitimization of Ukraine as a nation and state. Tropes of “Ukraine is under external control by the US,” and such, are part of denial of the existence of Ukrainians and the right of Ukraine to exist, and allegations that Ukrainians are really Russians under US control, which have been cited as elements of incitement to genocide by the Russian government.[17]

Comments legitimizing Russian conquest of Ukraine as “liberation” over the background of a war of aggression that has seen millions suffer, killed tens of thousands, and could get worse before it gets better are also encouragement and glorification of mass violence.

Editors should not feel free to casually indulge in what can be construed as hate speech. The rest of us should not be exposed to it. The remarks should be removed.  —Michael Z. 19:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Keith-264 is wrong, but I don't think that being wrong is necessarily equivalent to hate speech. We need to not dilute the severity of what hate speech is by categorizing everything someone says that is wrong (even really wrong, as pretty much everything you note that Keith-264 said above is really wrong) as "hate speech". People are generally given latitude to argue on talk pages, even to argue clearly incorrect things, on talk pages, so long as they otherwise obey WP:TPG and don't extend into edit warring in article text, bludgeoning discussions, etc. I want to make clear, that Keith-264's statements are 100% wrong on these matters, I don't agree with anything they are saying. But I also don't think it rises to the level of hate speech per WP:HID. --Jayron32 19:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I can see Jayron32's point, and agree that there are lots of cases where being wrong/ignorant/unpleasant is not a policy violation. In this case, though, I think Michael is correct. After nine months of Russian aggression, including numerous massacres of Ukrainian civilians, bombardment of Ukrainian cities, millions of Ukrainians made refugees, the vile propaganda lies Keith-264 spread to justify these war crimes certainly seem to not only equal but surpass most cases of hate speech. Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It implies support, or at the very least a tacit acceptance, of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. If it's not hate speech, then it's something of equal severity. Regardless, it's highly inappropriate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The comments were made in a discussion about content and style related to the article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and directed specifically to editing within the subject area. This article is subject to WP:AC/DS (Eastern Europe and the Baltics, broadly construed) and WP:GS/RUSUKR.  —Michael Z. 20:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't make it hate speech. Vassal state: "A vassal state is any state that has a mutual obligation to a superior state or empire". The assertion here (provocatively stated) is not that Ukraine is not a legitimate or independent state but that it has become dependent on US support. That is a defensive position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No, that is an incorrect interpretation, not only of the specific anti-Ukrainian propaganda libel, but even of your own quoted definition.

Why debate whether it’s technically “hate speech”? Instead please apply disciplinary action on an editor that has committed speech that several of us see as wrong, inappropriate, and possibly hate speech in a subject area under discretionary sanctions? It violates behaviour guidelines in a zero-tolerance subject area.  —Michael Z. 20:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This is political harassment of the most flagrant nature. I am condemned by a judge, jury and executioners ("several of us") for having a different opinion of what constitutes facts. Keith-264 (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any case here. Mzajac essentially wants to censor a user with whom he has a factual disagreement. One may agree or disagree with Keith-264's statement, but Mzajac's own comment in the same thread trying to pin Keith-264 with "genocide incitement" is arguably much less constructive for the sake of the debate. I don't see, at least anywhere cited or linked above, that Keith-264 would have talked about the "Russian conquest of Ukraine as “liberation”". Rather seems he had questioned the use of the loaded term 'Liberation' for the article title 'Liberation of Kherson', which is a pretty legit concern. 'Liberation' and 'Occupation' are both problematic terms in armed conflicts, because liberation for some means occupation for others and vice versa. --Soman (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's dumb, it's propagandist, but not "hate speech," which by labeling as such actually risks the very sanctions you wish seen imposed on him, Mzajac *** During the Yom Kippur War, after the US replaced the French as Israel's main weapons giver, Israel would expend all of its ammo during the day to virtual depletion, then the two opposing sides would take a few hrs breather...

During that breather, American C-130 Hercules would land with ordinates, Israel would re-arm, and they'd all have another go at it. For days and days. Had those planes stopped landing, Israel would be done and/or nukes. I think Ukraine is in a better position than Israel was if the US+adjecents were to halt the pipeline for, say, a day or two or weeks (but and/or nukes, again).

Obviously, like many of its neighbors, Ukraine switched from Russia's orbit to an American one (in 2014, when Yanukovych was overthrown). I would call it an imperialist-dependent country, like Israel and many other countries are today, but mind you, that's commie speak. In centrist terminology, I suppose one could call Ukraine a buffer or even client state — though, admittedly, calling it that could be seen as bad for morale, especially when Russian desperation leads them to conduct warfare through war crimes. But regardless, the point is that calling it a vassal state is archaic, irrelevant, and as mentioned, just plain stupid (and a bit disconcerting). But it isn't a "hate crime," which is a different animal altogether. El_C 22:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree but as a side note, it doesn't really sound centrist or mainstream based on the RS I read, to call Ukraine a client state - that is what Tucker Carlson calls it[18][19] I believe line is that Ukraine is a flawed but democratic state that happens to be getting a lot of aid from the United States, France, etc., in what might reasonably be called a proxy conflict. Ukraine has applied to join EU and NATO IIRC, and most Ukrainians expect their country to join last I heard. Andre🚐 22:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, Tucker is pro-Putin, just like his buddy Kanye, so obviously he'd go for the reverse (i.e. a client rather than a buffer state ←reflected on that page btw). But democracy is an amorphic thing, I don't really play with that. And speaking of which, wouldn't I be arrested in Ukraine for my political beliefs? Didn't they outlaw being a commie? I might be thinking of a different country, though. Either way, not a vassal state, not hate speech — disputants need to dial it back. El_C 23:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine is not a flawed democracy; the United States is a flawed democracy. See Democracy Index. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither country is a democracy, Ukraine ceased to be one after the putsch in 2014 and the US (like Britain) has never been one, they're oligarchic republics. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, so we see where you're coming from, and why you have trouble making NPOV edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't have oligarchs. We have benevolent billionaires. Oligarchs are what the other countries have. Huge difference, very key to remember. Parabolist (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you put that rather well. Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The "benevolent billionaires" can be democratically removed - dictatorial oligarchs where free speech has been killed off, not so much. DeCausa (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Pushing fringe conspiracy theories in discussions is disruptive. When one pushes them to make Russian war crimes sound acceptable in discussions regarding articles subject to discretionary sanctions with impunity, then their disruptiveness is out of control. When like-minded fringe figures pop out of the woodwork and try to normalize their opinions in a disciplinary discussion, there is evidence of a systemic problem in Wikipedia administration.  —Michael Z. 15:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac, in fairness, you are one of the few admins I've ever WP:TBAN'd (on Kyiv, now expired), a sanction imposed long before the Russian invasion (btw, there are many, though not me, who think an admin should not remain one with discretionary sanctions on their record). So, I'd submit that your conduct when it comes to Ukraine-anything is and has been subpar. This isn't to excuse Keith-264's nonsense (i.e. the Viceroy is busy), but it is a double-edged sword nevertheless. El_C 17:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice non-accusation accusation, @El C. Is this just innuendo, or are you actually accusing me of something now?  —Michael Z. 17:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not innuendo, Mzajac, these are plain facts. Which you should probably reflect on rather deflect from. El_C 18:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Is my two-year-old TBAN intended to be an albatross to be carried around my neck forever? If you’re going to bring it up along with an inappropriate short political essays about Ukraine, and politically biased disinformation (“wouldn’t I be arrested in Ukraine for my political beliefs”: no), perhaps I should appeal it.  —Michael Z. 18:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I might be thinking of a different country — but I just looked and Ukraine did outlaw the Communist Party,[20] so maybe that was it? Anyway, you wanna appeal a sanction that had consensus at WP:AE (I only closed that complaint, as I was doing with 80 percent of all AE reports for like a year), and more importantly, a sanction that had already expired? Sure, go for it. Zero reflection, still, I see. Oh well. El_C 18:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Tendentious labelling, self-serving inferences and sloganeering helps no-one. I'm bored with the name-calling from people who are supposed to set a good example so I grant everyone else the last word. Bye. Keith-264 (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264 is repeating another falsehood about Ukraine, its democracy, and a juicy Germanic-sounding “putsch.”

Putin’s pal Yanukovych brought Ukraine’s Democracy Index rating down from 6.30 (flawed democracy) to 5.94 (hybrid régime) in 2011, the year after he was elected. The rating dropped every year he was in office, hitting a low of 5.42 in 2014, when he passed unconstitutional “dictatorship laws,” presiding over the murder of 100 protestors, and was removed from office by the elected parliament with his own party members holding the deciding majority. It has been higher ever since. In 2021 Ukraine scored poorly in DI’s functioning of government category (where DI cites the effect of “direct military threat” from Russia), but a healthy 8.25 in electoral process and pluralism and a decent 6.67 in political participation.

Russia, controlled by a small group of siloviki since the end of the twentieth century is an oligarchy. The rich so-called oligarkhy don’t control government in either Ukraine nor in Russia.

Literally tendentious labelling, self-serving inferences, and sloganeering. Actually trying to distract from his behaviour by turning this into an argument about content, but his argument is based on disinfo. Please don’t fall into that vortex.  —Michael Z. 17:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Question

Is this a subject under discretionary sanctions? If so, why has Keith-264 not already been blocked, if only on the basis of his behavior in this discussion? Is someone going to have to propose a community ban to get anything done about this disruptive editor? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is: WP:ARBEE. But someone? You are someone, BMK. But "block" rather than a WP:TBAN, why? Also, maybe quote their offending comment/s directly...? There's a lot of text in this thread. So try to be specific, even if a little bit. But probably community ban, unless a clearer report is filed at WP:AE. Because this discussion seems too disorganized at this point.

But proving hate speech, as the OP (Michael) had claimed, was rejected by all reviewing admins who had commented here. And my point was that if there was consensus at WP:AE to TBAN him back before the Russian invasion, one could only imagine how fraught it might be now when, as I mention, Russian desperation leads them to conduct warfare through war crimes.

So, strive for balance, even and especially when it's uncomfortable. Even and especially as most of us, myself included, support the people of Ukraine against Russian atrocities. To expand more on your question: ARBEE does cover Russia and Ukraine, the Baltics, the Balkans (maybe also WP:ARBMAC, who can tell?), all of Eastern Europe, and some of Central Europe. HTH. El_C 20:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, hate speech is a non-starter. And yes, I am someone, but there are many someones editing Wikipedia, and I am far from the most beloved of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm someone else! El_C 20:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

LOL! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any past DS warnings for Keith on their talk page, and looking through their recent contributions, I don't even see any activity related to the Russo-Ukraine War other than the brief aside at a MOS guideline discussion that Michael has brought here, so procedurally there is no basis for an admin to issue a DS ban. In the absence of concrete diffs showing how their behavior in that discussion was consistently tendentious, I'm disinclined to consider a community ban. Some of Keith's comments about politics in this discussion would be problematic to insert directly into an article, but I'm not seeing anything so out of line that it would preclude the ability to contribute constructively (and pretty much all of them are in direct response to other editors making similar statements). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the real question should be: Will this come to any sort of productive end? Could we just close this, monitor them, and send them back here to the WP:HAPPYPLACE if they cause any trouble? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

At the very least some kind of warning needs to be issued. Keith's comments are reflects of Russian propaganda as Michael has said and it is obvious to me how their comments can be offending to the Ukrainian people. I really don't understand why a political discussion here was necessary, this user questions that the liberation of an ethnically Ukrainian city illegally occupied by a foreign army with dozens of war crimes to its name is a liberation. They also question the independence of a sovereign state and call a popular movement sparked by the murder of civilians a "coup". Would we also allow someone to get away with calling the Warsaw Uprising a "coup" against Nazi Germany?

Personally, I don't want to see these kinds of comments on any talk page nor do I think they are capable of contributing anything productive to any discussion at all. And I find it scandalous that they are seemingly going to be tolerated on Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 12:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, your own comparison between the Revolution of Dignity and the Warsaw Uprising goes to show that inflammatory rhetoric works both ways. Just like with Michael's claim of hate speech or Keith's vassal state. So, how about we do the following: warning to both, but also to you, Super Dromaeosaurus. Let's not Godwin it up, even when it's hard. Even when the Azov Regiment and Wagner Group have been bizarrely a thing during this conflict. I'll close this report momentarily. El_C 15:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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

User:OCCPlaza

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

---

Constant personal attacks against Randy Kryn. See the talk page of the user, its history, and these diffs. 1 2 3 (Article history here) 4 (Article history here) 5 (Article history here) 6 7 (Article history here) 8 (Article history here) 9 (Article history here) 10 (Article history here) 11 (Article history here) There's more than this. Check user contribs for more info. Sounds like WP:HOUNDING. — B. L. I. R. 20:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Come on folks, just let this master sockmaster back on again. He's not going away and he's probably rightfully pissed because he loves editing Wikipedia and was originally indeffed for things which at most should have deserved a week's block. Keeping him blocked is not only hurting the encyclopedia but is hurting me and my editing, which is not cool either way (and is there a way to turn off this new talk page thing where the talk page is suggesting words? Whoever thought that one up should be indeffed, ha!). Can't there at least be a subpage set up where he's allowed to talk and give suggestions for pages he can't edit? Randy Kryn (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022‎ (UTC)

Certainly not. The user is community banned ([21]) and has continued their harassment. Describing measures against their abuse, instead of the abuse itself, as "hurting" is a form of victim blaming. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Randy Kryn, looks like you'll just have to take one for the team. EEng 00:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that, I had stopped reading it after awhile and missed the ping where he'd asked me, in very kind words, to step in and try to mediate between two language sets. Up to that point the discussion itself was so wall of texty that it was difficult to keep up. I'd assumed that he'd get a one week or month ban, and so did he, and had made sincere offers of trying to learn about wall of texts (which you are in right now). A week or month seemed about right for the infractions, and I stopped reading the discussion. Too many edits at once and wall of texts aplenty, so few took the time to read it. And on a reading of it now I only skimmed MrBeast's responses, way too wall of texty. I can see the frustration on both sides. Yeah, a month would have done it, with some understandings and learning curve thrown in. I assumed that's where it was heading. But just now I noticed it went from that language - "a week", or "a month" - and then the piling on began. No holding that back, the piling on for past wrongs flowed like water. I missed all of that at the time, and never expected the thing to escalate. Why? Not having had previous dealings with him, I didn't know about the past wall of texts conflicts, so took the result as a given - a week or a month ban. Well deserved, overwhelming a whole team of editors at such a major article as United States page, like a bull in a china shop with over 500 edits (not allowing space for page regulars to just take it all in a bit at a time), although, and this is the interesting part, the bull was not breaking much china along the way. I've never checked those edits but they weren't reverted in masse until they were, so most may have been okay edits. I originally reverted one because he had offered a revert in his edit summary, and he agreed on the reasoning, and I thought that was a nice talk but did not keep close track of the page edits or talk discussions after that. I don't regularly edit and have never page watched United States. This is wall of text now, but I can tell you, in the past few months he has learned to keep comments shorter. My entire point is that the indef ban seems to have been given for past interactions and editing style in past discussions, and not for the issues being addressed at the beginning of what seemed a simple discussion. On reading it now, the "one week" and "one month" language was soon lost (hopefully not because I missed a ping), and it quickly turns and reads like a kick him when he's down event. Way too much punishment for his edits at the United States article and its talk page, and he's punished me for everything because he may have been counting on me to stem the tide. Allowing him a re-hearing on just the original charges would be fair, because of WP:PILEON (which doesn't exist but describes what occurred here). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

TL;DNR. YSKB. WTKWWGOBMEGO. OW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

TL;DNR sums up much of why MrBeast was banned. When a week or two ban would have fairly handled the situation, what happened instead was an indef, and that's where it became unfair. Indefs during a civil polite discussion should be hard to come by, not the easy way out. He wrote in a series of long breaths during the discussion, but from what I read they were polite TL;DNR's. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Those are mighty big assumptions you're carrying around. Bottom line is: the community banned them. They should find another hobby. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Greeks

Need some blocks. Was involved accidentally trying to view differences. Crazy amount of back and forth. Moxy- 23:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry... what does Was involved accidentally trying to view differences mean? EEng 00:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

See link above...and edit summary. Moxy- 00:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• I've fully protected it and informed both editors that they should now discuss on the talk page (and if the edit-warring restarts after the FP expires, they'll be blocked). Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you° Moxy- 00:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought at first glance that this might be an interesting discussion about Greek letter organizations on US university campuses. But no. Just more endless Eastern Europe nationalistic bickering. How tedious. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that I can think of that is more tedious than nationalistic bickering is some students' desire to join sororities and fraternities. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Wilton Sampaio

Please protect Wilton Sampaio - referee in the current England-France football match. Article is being used as a football. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It is already protected, The last vandal was autoconfirmed, if they continue they are going to be blocked without further warnings. Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Brings out the best in people, doesn't it? I blocked several stupid Francophobic usernames that were created soon after the match ended. Bishonen | tålk 05:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC).

I take it we lost. Nothing new. - Roxy the dog 05:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

That depends who "we" are. England lost. The ITV commentators showed their usual bias towards the referee, claiming that every disputed decision should have gone England's way, so are probably partially responsible for what happened here. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

France were just playing better.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Phil, how boring. I didn't know that; I was watching some pretty neutral coverage in a different country. Fans expressing their feelings by creating accounts on the lines of Frenchtwats - and without even using them for any editing! — still seems extravagantly stupid. Harrykane123 did edit, by contrast — vandalism, of course ("we were robbed") — and I didn't bother with the usual softblock for name representing a well-known person... Bishonen | tålk 09:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC).

User:BaldiBasicsFan and User:MariaSantanaSilva on User talk:BaldiBasicsFan

I had removed some talk page discussions from User talk:BaldiBasicsFan because I have concerns about them potentially violating Wikipedia policies:

• [22] - WP:GRAVEDANCING
• [23] & [24] - WP:BLP(?), WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK

I am mainly bringing this here to determine if there are any violations of the cited policies. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would definitely say the first one is GRAVEDANCING and comes off as extremely rude. THe other 2 seem like discussion regarding an article but I'm not entirely sure. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess my question is why did you go straight to AN/I instead of dropping a message on their talk page about it? Maybe dropping them a {{Uw-socialnetwork}} or some sort of nicely worded message to the effect of "you should read WP:GRAVEDANCING?" This really doesn't look like a chronic, intractable behavioral problem if nobody's told them to stop before. (Though the reference to Qualitipedia/reception wikis concerns me, as those are generally full of bad content.) casualdejekyll 23:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, both users contributed to Terrible Shows & Episodes Wiki before Miraheze closed them following an RfC to dissolve Qualitipedia. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 23:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Wait Miraheze does RFCs? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. They decided to ban wikis that use opinions such as Terrible TV Shows, etc. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

MESSAGE FROM BALDI: For your concern, this is my thoughts on what I think of this issue. For the Crec issue, I understand why you removed that message because of GRAVEDANCING, but as for the Silva situation, why even just do a report here instead of a message on my talk page like what another user said? Yes the sources are not reliable and I don’t wanna add unreliable sources in the first place, but Silva did give me questions I found interesting. Also I completely lost interest in Qualitipedia when it closed. Yes Blaze Miraheze does do RFCs. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Baldi, we don't want to add unreliable and unverified sources, given I just wanted to help to add reliable and confirmed sources at the pages and I used to edit at Qualitipedia, but I stopped due to QP's closure (mainly the wikis' founder, Grust was not happy with the wikis ended up, mainly with the wikis themselves having many problems), for a person like me who dislikes unconfirmed sources. MariaSantanaSilva (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It never occurred to me that I could warn you for this. Also, I wanted admins' perspectives on this situation. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 00:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

If you thought the conversations were a problem, perhaps discussing it with Baldi would have sufficed. Schazjmd (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Erm. Could someone explain to me when GRAVEDANCING became a policy -- hint: it is an essay -- or a valid ground to redact someone's comment from his own talk page, which is not your own? Yes, gravedancing is rude, but if you dared to redact my own comment from my own talk page for just about any reason short of revdel country, I would be ballistic. What the pluperfect hell? Ravenswing 02:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is not constructive. Essays can describe why certain kinds of edits are disruptive and be referenced as reasons for blocks under the broad category of disruptive editing. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  You can "reference" whatever the heck you want for whatever reason you choose, but that still doesn't validate an essay, nor provide reasons for refactoring someone else's comments on their own talk page, nor constitute non-specious grounds for an ANI complaint. Ravenswing 16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think you are using this ANI thread to have an argument about something that isn't relevant or necessary to resolve the issue raised here. I will now withdraw, but I would request you reconsider your approach to this particular discussion. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ll have you know that I got blocked for GRAVEDANCING one time. Look at my block log for proof. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 03:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, nice try. What you were blocked for was gravedancing on someone else's talk page, after being warned to stop, and after you were previously blocked for harassing the same editor by way of (funny that) repeatedly reverting him on his own talk page. It seems this is a recurring problem with you. Ravenswing 17:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The Grand Delusion Baldi never made those discussions. They simply were just responding to those users who made them. So why are you making the thread about them, when instead you should ping the ones who started those threads, such as Logosfuture2002. They are the one violating the above, not Baldi. CartoonnewsCP (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

More Disruptive editing and trolling by IP user who has already had their block upgraded multiple times.

This is a follow-up to [ANI report] from August 16, 2022 that resulted in User:24.21.161.89's IP being blocked by Ponyo for "blatant trolling." The IP user's unblock request was declined by Deepfriedvodka on August 16.* Another unblock request was denied on August 18 resulting in the block being upgraded to three months by Yamla on August 18.

• On October 26, 2022, the IP user attempted to communicate with Yamla again but instead of responding to the question blanked the page deleting public front page evidence of the warnings and blocks.
• The user made only one more edit yesterday (December 9), changing the phrase "same sex" to sodomy on Respect for Marriage Act. This triggered a final warning on their user page from Wretchskull which brought it to my watchlist's attention.
• At that point, I brought it back to Yamla's attention, who decided to only block the user for six months for these reasons: Given the WP:LOUTSOCK and your edit, above, I have blocked this IP address from anonymous editing for six months. You are welcome to edit while signed in to your account, but you should expect a block on that account, too. WP:GAB explains how to contest your block. They appear to be a sockpuppet, as well, but I'll let Yamla speak to that.

• That was yesterday, and now today the user has continued to anonymously edit on their own talk page here and here making WP:PERSONALATTACKS, WP:BADGERing and casting WP:ASPERSIONS against me byfalsely and maliciously accusing me of "wiki-stalking" and "sniping" at them from a distance by posting warnings, AN/I notices and "hateful" reports. The IP user was warned 5 times by other editors before the first ANI report by me was made and has never stopped making hateful anti-LGBT and anti-Black edits on pages like Coprophagia, The Book of Mormon, Watermelon Stereotype and Killing of Jayland Walker.

My question at this point is when will it be acceptable for the total WP:SBAN that I sought for in the first ANI report be a reasonable decision for an administrator with that authority to finally consider?

I would also like to respectfully request that the last two personal attacks - here and here - against my character accusing me of crimes be deleted from the record completely. Kire1975 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"but instead of responding to the question blanked the page deleting public evidence of the warnings and blocks." just figured I'd clarify that that's not what blanking does. The evidence is still public, just in the page history. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 04:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we are at the point of WP:SBAN now. That's complicated a bit by this IP address belonging to a registered user, but one I can't name (and haven't named) due to checkuser privacy policy. Still, we could SBAN and I could subsequently extend that to the account with template:checkuserblock-account if I catch them violating it there. --Yamla (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Nikolai Boyanov

Nikolai Boyanov (talk · contribs)

Nikolai has been continously adding unsourced materials to various articles including BLP ones in violations of WP:BLP and/or WP:VERIFY despite being warned multiple times by me and other editors, and also getting blocked for the same disruptive behaviour last month on 9 November, clearly Nikolai couldn't be bothered (WP:IDHT) to comply with our guidelines and policies especially WP:VERIFY. Also noting that majority of their edits were made on desktop (noting the lack of tags in their edits) hence not because of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU.

Here are 10 edits made on various articles since Nikolai was unblocked.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] There are more available via Nikolai's contribs, if required, I can help to provide them also. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

On a quick skim through the editing history I can't find any evidence that Nikolai Boyanov has every edited a talk or user talk page. This is concerning. Maybe a partial block from article space would be in order until this editor decides to start communicating? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sceptical that partial block from mainspace would even work because I doubt that Nikolai is unaware of the warnings to being with as they had previously posted on my talk page that they're aware of the messages as seen here and here. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Jai Vizag - NOTHERE

Jai Vizag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. BLP violation [35], incorrect edit summaries (almost all the time), disruptive editing, factually incorrect additions [36] [37] [38] [39], etc. Requesting an indef to prevent further disruption — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's a sock of blocked User:VGK Andhra as well. I also found User:VGK Vizag. Indeffed both of them, and I've semi-protected Andhra Pradesh as well since it seems to be their main target. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Just block the /64 (again)

2001:4450:8398:4100:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor was reported about a week ago (refer there for further context), and was blocked for a week. They have immediately returned to their previous disruption following the expiry of the block. It would probably be safe to block this /64 for a month, as it seems to be fairly static at that level. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Since it's a single user and the IP range is persistent, I've blocked it for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User:The middle e

• The middle e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account is not that old yet after a few edits has gone on to start and create AfD's. (Special:Contributions/The middle e) This is not normal behaviour for a new account. This feels like someone is socking here. Can an admin have a look. Regards, Govvy (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Nor is adding {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:The <sup>m</sup>iddle <sup>e</sup>}} to their userpage a typical new editor behaviour. Either they aren't too worried as they haven't got any skeletons in the closet anyway, or they're trying to make it obvious. I hope it's the first one. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Is tagging users in ANI and questioning them on their talk page appropriate? I thought sockpuppetry was illegitimate use of multiple accounts, the user doesn't seem to have done anything to arouse suspicion that this is the case, except for being competent. JeffUK (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@JeffUK: When mentioning someone here it clearly says to add a notice to their talk page. I didn't see any other relatable accounts to run an SPI. That's why you post a possible WP:DUCK sighting here!! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought I knew who that was, but I was wrong. That doesn't happen so often.  Confirmed to User:Gaois, User:X00y, User:Fingoal, User:Ihearthurling, and User:Litelad. Would be nice if one of them could explain this. There's a lot of overlap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

TheVHSArtist

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

TheVHSArtist is edit warring in South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut to remove citations and restore unsourced content: Special:Diff/1126824476, Special:Diff/1126827434. Can an uninvolved admin please block him? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I personally do not see what the issue is here - it’s common knowledge that the film the article is about is an adult musical movie. Last time I checked, the lead is supposed to summarize an article, and the edits made to the lead fail to do it. Information in sections of the article reveals it as such, and the lead it meant to summarize the points made below. By removing the points, the lead does not adequately summarize it. I intended to keep the AFI source, but to include the information gone into further detail below. TheVHSArtist (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) @TheVHSArtist: Clearly another editor disagrees with your change. If you believe you have a valid edit, put it back to status quo ante to show good faith and enter discussion on the article talk page to build consensus. As for @NinjaRobotPirate:, AN/I shouldn't be the first step in an edit dispute. If they're not under a WP:1RR ruling, it's a little over-the-top to jump into asking for a block for edit warring after 1 revert and no discussion. Did you WP:AGF and reach out to the user to engage in any form of discussion such as WP:BRD? At this point, this is just a content dispute, not a behavioral issue (and doesn't appear to belong in ANI). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Right, because twice removing citations to a reliable source (with the edit summary "um, no") is just a content dispute. I should have started an RFC on the article's talk page to see if the article should be properly sourced according to film scholars or whether we should restore the unsourced content and keep it free of those unsightly citations. Clearly, the essay you've pointed to overrules WP:BURDEN, a policy. But, luckily, TheVHSArtist has deigned to allow me to add citations to the article, and he restored most of them, except for the source for the genre. So, I guess we don't need that RFC after all, unless someone wants to add a citation for the genre. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The snark isn't necessary. You can disagree and still make a point and I would respect your experience - I'm just telling you how it appears from my perspective. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Multiple similarly named editors repeatedly adding unwanted content to my talk page

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

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

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

Please see changes here [40] from above users (so far).

Repeatedly adding a 'pornstar award' to my talk page (Which is definitely unwarranted and unwanted!) after being asked to stop. A lot of these contributions also seem to be unconstructive (reverting edits for no reason, removing templates from articles for no reason etc.) Special:Contributions/Devrimdpt JeffUK (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Also making direct attacks against other users in similar edit summaries e.g. User talk:Onel5969 - Wikipedia JeffUK (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

All indefinitely blocked with TPA and email turned off. Please ask if you would like your User/talk pages semi-protected for a while. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thailand IP range keeps ignoring film billing block limitations

• 2403:6200:8814:3F74:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The billing block of a film lists the actors who were able to negotiate star billing in the film. The infobox of film articles should reproduce this list exactly. Someone in Thailand has been very prolific in adding more actors to the infobox—actors who are not credited as stars.[41][42][43] Despite hundreds of edits, they have never contributed to a talk page. Can we give them a timeout and a chance to open discussion? Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Requesting to block User:Hisowow for disruptive editing

User:Hisowow has been making disruptive editing on the Template: Dance drama of Southeast Asia Tellisavas (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, you haven't included any diffs or an explanation of what makes the edits disruptive. Interestingly, the other editor reported you at AIV because of drama at Commons even though Hisowow has never edited Commons. Even more curious, the account is only 2 hours old. You guys seem to have some pre-existing drama. @Hisowow:, is your other account User:Truth and Copyrights? That wouldn't be a policy violation, but it's kind of weird if you're making multiple accounts to report people on different projects. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Diff of Truth and Copyrights reporting Tellisavas 1. Sarrail (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Hisowow is his sockpuppet account. This user:ผู้เปิดเผยความจริง is also his account and he's been making disruptive edits on Mek Mulung article. Tellisavas (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Since when it is 'Malaysian'? Given sources clearly stated that both Mek Mulung and Joget are definitely not 'Malaysian'. Stop hijacking another countries' cultures and claimed it as 'Malaysian', both Indonesia and Thailand are older than Malaysia itself per see. (Hisowow (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)) this was his words on my talk page shows a personal hatred towards Malaysia and vendetta against myself. I am afraid of my safety. Tellisavas (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

He has consistently making disruptive edits and changing every narrative regarding the Mek Mulung article under the username:ผู้เปิดเผยความจริง and based on Hisowow's arguments shows that Hisowow and ผู้เปิดเผยความจริง are the same person vandalizing articles of Mek Mulung and also to some extent Joget as well. Tellisavas (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, that's something I can work with. User:ผู้เปิดเผยความจริง is  Confirmed to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eiskrahablo. I blocked some others, including Hisowow, as suspected because they're on a different IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Washington DC–area IP range has problems with competence

• 2600:4040:1644:E800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using an IP range from Arlington, Virginia, has been disrupting music, film and TV articles with unreferenced and incompetent additions.[44][45][46] Some of the disruption breaks into BLP territory.[47] They have been warned many times but they never respond. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

problem editor on Professional wrestling article

User:WWE_Lover_Fan_Forever is behaving obnoxiously on Talk:Professional wrestling. Kurzon (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)