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

Proposed article-space block Greghenderson2006

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

---

Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was p-blocked from article space in August 2023: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_12#August_2023 and unblocked in December: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Ferdinand_Burgdorff_has_been_accepted for UPE and problematic sourcing. However their promises less than three months later are resoundly and regularly broken: User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Please_stop_the_COI_editing You are right, I forgot I was a distant relative of the guy. might be believable with a new editor, but not with someone of Greg's history. User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_17#Hazel_Watrous, immediately after the block was lifted shows their ongoing issues with sources have not improved and there's more of the same at: User_talk:Greghenderson2006#Draft:Santa_Clara_Verein. Too much editor time and energy is spent trying to fix Greg's content when it's clear he has no interest in changing his behavior. This is especially problematic when he's paid and volunteer time has to be spent cleaning up. I believe it's time to re-instated the p-block which will allow him to use edit requests and article talk pages to propose his edits as well as improve his articles in draft space, which has been suggested multiple times.

Note I'm not going to ping anyone but the un/blocking admins as there are fewer editors supporting Greg's reinstatement than opposing and I want to avoid any indication of canvassing. I will of course notify him directly on his talk. Thank you! For the purposes of disclosure, I'm noting I did just !vote delete in an article of theirs at AfD but my proposal would allow them to continue participating there so I don't think there's an issue. Star Mississippi 22:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

COurtesy pings to @Drmies and @PhilKnight as noted Star Mississippi 22:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm pinging Graywalls too, who deserves a medal for their work cleaning up. I know this is from last year, from before the block, but still. Who'd have thunk that a longterm editor would write like that? Drmies (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - In my own defense, the above statements are not correct regarding no interest to change my behavior. I do have a keen interest in changing my behavior! I am not doing any paid editing. I have written over 400 articles and have been helping to cleanup articles with tags. Since November 2023, I have written 11 new articles, 8 have been reviewed and accepted into the article space. In January and February 2024 alone, I have cleaned over 30 articles. I acknowledge my past involvement in problematic COI editing and have worked hard to earn trust again. I have consistently used the review process and have responded to requests from my fellow editors. An article-space block will limit my ability to help cleanup articles and make improvements to existing articles. Wikipedia should be an open collaborative place where our editors are supportive of one another. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not doing any paid editing. Then what about Nyombi Morris, Jin Koh, Zearn, Robert W. Smart, Winston Swift Boyer, Washington Review, and Gary Hugh Brown? On the lattermost two, you directly reverted to restore disputed material on your paying clients' articles as recently as January 28th, which one other editor said was "rather objectionable" while another simply called it "outrageous". Left guide (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I have not done any paid editing since I was p-blocked from article space in August 2023. Since then I have followed the guidelines and heped write Wikipedia articles, update existing articles, and made every attempt to rehabilitate myself. Yes, I did try to update two articles with inline "requested better sources needed" edits, not realizing it would be a conflict of interest. I realize now that it was not OK and have since use the Edit Request process. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

and User_talk:Greghenderson2006#January_2024? You should not be directly editing anywhere that you have a COI given your ongoing misunderstanding of primary, secondary and reliable sourcing. It seems you continually need to toe the line. Also, your comment below re: AfD (although I'm not proposing a block from there) is disingenuous. People should not need to repeat themselves or cite a policy. You have a COI and are a paid editor. Of course you have a vested interest in keeping the article. It must be disclosed. Star Mississippi 16:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

How did you not realize it would be a conflict of interest to restore validly disputed material by making direct reverts on articles you are being paid to edit? If somehow that's actually true, that raises serious WP:CIR concerns. Left guide (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment re-reading Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Greghenderson2006 where Possibly noted They !vote at AFD without disclosing their COI while !voting. and Greg followed up with I forgot to add my COI on AFD pages, but will do so in the future when Left guide had to make this disclosure for Greg today. Further to my thinking that they have neither the intention nor the willingness to follow our guidelines. Star Mississippi 23:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Untrue, I am willing to follow the guidelines. In the above case, I was not fully aware that in an AFD, you need to disclose this in a "Keep" vote. If this is the policy, I will follow this in the future. Please understand that I am willing to follow the guidelines and appreciate the freedom to edit and write articles. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment, Greghenderson2006 has said here I was not fully aware that in an AFD, you need to disclose this in a "Keep" vote. But in July 2020 he was specifically asked Why is it so hard to disclose on AFD pages that you have a conflict, or give us a list of articles you have a conflict with? and replied These rules of WP:COI and WP:AFD are somewhat new to me. I am still learning. So bear with me.] [1] It was also pointed out at the time that that was seven years after he had first been warned about COI editing. And yet now he is saying that 3.5 years later again, after dozens of back and forths on this topic with multiple editors, that we should still WP:AGF that he was not "fully aware" of this. I also note this discussion from August last year about paid editing where he said The omission of disclosure concerning payments and conflicts of interest appears to have endured for the past year until you raised the matter here. Frankly, I had concerns about drawing attention to the articles, which led me to avoid addressing the issue altogether. Moving forward, I commit to strictly following the COI guidelines. This reads to me as demonstrating clear awareness of the guidelines but a decision to deliberately "avoid addressing" them, and again came with a clear commitment that the guidelines would be strictly followed, yet they have demonstrably been ignored again and again. I'm sorry to say I have very little patience or good faith left here. Melcous (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel you are rehashing old issues and that since I was p-blocked from article space in August 2023, I have followed the guidelines and have written some decent Wikipedia articles, updated existing articles, and made every attempt to rehabilitate myself. I am not perfect, I realize I should always disclose my COI and not edit pages or vote on Afd without disclosing this first. I feel these incidents do not warrant blocking me from writing on the main article space. Look at my user page and you will realize I am making an honest effort to write and update articles and have a long history of contributions to this wonderful encylopedia! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Given the evidence of chronic ongoing competence concerns raised at Talk:Joseph W. Post House, I believe the behavior of this user should continue being reviewed and discussed here before this archives. Pinging @Graywalls, Melcous, and Netherzone: who are involved there, and have been tirelessly cleaning up after (and trying to mentor) this user. Left guide (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

my Joseph W. Post House article was peer-reviewed and accepted into the article space on February 13, 2024. The questionable edit came from two sources: here and from the Posts, California article. I do not think this edit warrents an article-space block. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Totally missing the point, that comment was never meant to zoom in to that one individual incident as the sole basis for sanctions, but rather to show evidence that the bigger overarching pattern of chronic competence issues still persists, even after you were made aware of this discussion. Left guide (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a very general statement. The point is I have made significant contributions to Wikipedia that should be reognized and not punished. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You have made significant COI and UPE contributions to Wikipedia that are certainly being recognized in this discussion (as of now, 8 of your top 12 most-edited articles are COI/UPE). If you wish to argue that those significant contributions shouldn't be punished, you're welcome to try. You also promoted your non-notable paying client across other articles without coming clean about it, which is yet another UPE violation. You failed to mention them even though you were inquired about conflicts of interest on your user talk page numerous times since those edits. Left guide (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your conduct has gone far beyond one individual edit but a long pattern of disruption, COI and messes for other volunteer editors to clean up for your paid clients. Star Mississippi 02:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - The oldest warning about COI actually goes back 14 years to 2012: [2], the first warnings about UPE go back 12 years to 2012 regarding a since deleted article: AFD [3]; follow-ups by closing admin: [4], [5], [6]. And the first warning about removing maintenance tags goes back 17 years to 2007: [7]. I don't have the time to into the incompetent sourcing that has cost volunteers hours of volunteer time. I am sorry to say that do not think that Greghenderson2006 will ever change his ways, as he has been apologizing for repeating the same behaviors for over a decade. Heartfelt sounding apologies or acting clueless should not be a strategy to game the system. Just weighing in here because I was pinged. Netherzone (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Instead of criticizing past behavior, let's focus on finding solutions to prevent similar issues in the future. I am commited to providing WP:RS and following the WP:PILLARS. Since October 2023, I have written 10 new articles that have been peer-reviewed. Since January 2024, I have contributed to and helped clean up 50 articles. My commitment to Wikipedia guideines and desire to improve my editing skills is important to me. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment May 2023, WP:OR that goes along with his pattern of writing in hagiographic tone. On December 22, 2023, I removed pay to play Lynn Momboisse's voicemap.me walking tour Greg introduced into the article. On January 10, 2024, Greg removed Lynn Momboise blog, but left behind contents sourced to this blog causing the prose to appear as it is reliably sourced and this required additional reviewing time. Then as recent as February 14, 2024, Greg introduced personal website/blog as a source into an article. Graywalls (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite mainspace block. I do not find Greg's explanations convincing. He has repeatedly affirmed that he will abide by the rules for COI editing, but he claims to not have an understanding of those same rules every few years (per Melcous). On February 9 in this discussion, he claimed I am not doing any paid editing. Yet, on January 28—less than two weeks before he made that claim—he added improperly sourced material back to two articles he wrote for paid clients (per Left guide), and he now claims that he was unaware that that would constitute COI editing. Greg has already been blocked from the mainspace for UPE and sourcing issues, and he immediately continued the same behavior when the block was lifted (per Star Mississippi). At this point, an indefinite mainspace block is needed to prevent continued COI disruption; Greg should still be allowed to make edit requests and discuss other issues on article talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 09:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Also, strong oppose site ban as excessive and bordering on punishment. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support indefinite mainspace block, or indefinite block in general as this behaviour is well beyond what usually rates just getting kicked off the encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite mainspace block. Looking at just his talk page I stopped counting the number of times editors have patiently explained why not to do something, Greg has agreed to not do that thing, and a very short time later Greg is found to be doing the thing again. The commitments and promises are unfortunately not something we can rely on any longer. Greg may be genuinely forgetting or misunderstanding, but CIR and I don't believe his actions live up to his words. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite mainspace block or indefinite sitewide ban. I just spent some time looking at this, examining numerous edits not mentioned here, and I see that their behaviour has not changed much at all since they were unblocked in December 2023. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support - an indefinite mainspace block or an indefinite site ban. This is based on all of above and the vast number of concerns on his talk page and archives (and article talk pages). The behaviors still exist today even after multiple concerns being communicated over the years, a block, and many editors devoting time and attention to trying teach and mentor this editor for longer than a decade. It's a huge time sink for the community. Problems persist re: COI, UPE, repeated use poor-quality sources and writing puffed-up or promotional content that is an exaggeration of or doesn't exist in the sources, or is original research. It seems clear that CIR and IDHT are also relevant. Netherzone (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support for mainspace block but Weak Oppose sitewide ban - despite this really crummy (hope that is not too uncivil) behavior, I still would argue the vast majority of this user's edits are constructive, but obviously the COI issues cannot be ignored. Because of this I think allowing the user to submit edit requests on talk pages as well as create draft articles if the editor still wants to contribute. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I have demonstrated improvements to my editing skills. Since Ocotober I has created 10 new articles that have peer-reviewed, and contributd to 54 existing articles. Since I started writing for Wikipedia, I have created over 400 articles and made contributions to over 300. I am a valuable asset to Wikipedia and deserve to be treated wtih respect not a mainspace block. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

:*Don't write about yourself in the third person.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose for indeff block- I've reviewed a couple of Gregg's articles via AfC and they are generally well written, constructive, and a probable net gain to the project. I have real concerns about the CoI editing, so would Strong Support mainspace block. Qcne (talk)
• Support main-space block and/or TBAN (subject area ban) on broadly construed: 1: Henderson and their extended family members 2: People, organizations/companies and buildings related to Carmel-by-the-Sea and Monterey County area, broadly construed. Graywalls (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support mainspace block. Having read with incredulity Greg's responses to the questioning he has been getting on his talkpage, I don't see that he has much left in the way of a defence of his cause. Seemingly an able editor, his slow grasp of the COI issues at hand are his downfall. Many of his draft articles are accepted, so there is hope for the near future. Seasider53 (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Update The basic premise “Greg’s ongoing issues with sources have not improved” is not true. I have improved and my recent articles and my updates show this improvement (see my user page for current articles created and updated at User:Greghenderson2006). Per WP policy WP:INDEF an indefinite block is “usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy.” I have improved Wikipedia and added value. I believe the articles I have edited or created are examples of expanding the scope of Wikipedia. My article El Castillo de Monterey was recently peer-reviewed and accepted into the article space. I enjoy making quality contributions. I admit to making some mistakes when articles were subject to Afd or tagged with not being notable. I have learned from these mistakes and will not make them again. If a block is put in place, please add a time-limit, per WP:BLOCKLENGTH. Having edit privileges is important to me so I can maintain the 400+ articles I have created in the past 20+ years. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Having edit privileges is important to me so I can maintain the 400+ articles I have created in the past 20+ years. says so much and I have learned from these mistakes and will not make them again. is absolutely meaningless when you've continued to make these mistakes while this discussion is open.

  Peer review is not what happens at AfC. Star Mississippi 16:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that I've made mistakes, and I take full responsiblity for them. My recent articles and updates show my initiative and willingness to change. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Greg, this or the variant of this is what you say every time. Graywalls (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I understand you've heard this before, but I meant it sincerely in this context. My intentions and contributions to Wikipedia can be seen in the articles I have created and edited. Although, they are not perfect, they are improving over time, and helping to expand the scope of Wikipedia. I am constantly trying to improve myself to make my articles the best they can be. You and other editors have been a great inspiration for me. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  None of that addresses the bigger COI/UPE issues (which are considered to be significant disruption and major breaches of policy) germane to this discussion and most of the vote rationales supporting the proposed indefinite mainspace block. So I don't see how that explanation has much value in your new goal of negotiating for a temporary block; you've deflected the main reasons why the community is supporting the proposal, and instead pushed your own preferred narrative. Left guide (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your concern and belive there are other factors to consider as well. Perhaps we can find a solution that addresses your concern without an indefinite mainspace block, which seems too severe in this case. The articles I have created speak to my willingness to make quality contributions. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User:SheriffIsInTown and timesinks

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

---

This was long due as SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has managed to avoid scrutiny for a long period by choosing not to archive their talk page messages, notices, and warnings. Instead, they have chosen to display only barnstars, praises, etc., creating a false impression for any editor who might have concerns regarding their editing behavior. They have been given enough WP:ROPE to mend their ways and become a productive editor rather become a massive WP:TIMESINK, don a rhino skin as they say [8], and adopt WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach.

User:SheriffIsInTown have chosen otherwise and continue to dismiss any criticism of them by amusing productive editors ([9]), be uncivil ([10], [11], [12]), pass comments, or just ignore. They passed comment like "Please do not allow censorship otherwise they will censor everything they would not like about someone" against me on 6 February 2024 to which I asked them to stop [13] (and @Edwardx: who agreed with me by sending a thanks), but they still repeated the offensive comments in an other form and said "You cannot just barge in and start changing already established content. It seems as though you are here to unveil history rather distort it in your way since yesterday. There are editors who have been unveiling history for decades here". on 7 February 2024 in an edit summary, violating WP:SUMMARYNO. I'm deeply hurt by this and felt like they are trying to drive away editors that doesn't agree with their definition of "truth", regardless of what reliable references say or write. I again tried to resolve this and asked them to stop [14] and in reply they said "Please grow up, there is no personal attack in it.". This shouldn't be tolerated and should be enough to sanction them.

User:SheriffIsInTown apparently doesn't care what the community thinks about them and uses sick quotes like "It is not sufficient that I succeed; all others must fail." to describe culture on Wikipedia. It is also unfortunate that they take community sanctions imposed on them as a joke, (like ban on them editing Muhammad (imposed on 16 January 2016 by @HighInBC: and arbitration block imposed by @BU Rob13:), and displays them as some kinds of medals of honor.

Other recent issues in span of a month

• On 18 January 2024, @Jacobolus: raised an issue with them regarding their use of refill script You can't just mindlessly run the URL "refill" script. You have to inspect and think about the results to prop up edits counts but most of them were unproductive edits. Instead of apologizing and helping Jacobolus clean up the mess they created, they wrote an AI-generated rap to mock them.
• On 22 January 2024, someone raised an issue with them regarding the use of WP:LLM ([15]) which they just removed it on their talkpage ([16]) and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup. Apparently they also don't know what the spamming is. The issue was regarding their use of ChatGPT to generate a rationale to nominate Wikipedia articles: i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Afzal Marwat (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awrangzib Faruqi, generate a lot of law-related articles with AI. It is abundtly clear that they used ChatGPT to do all this and even didn't acknowledge the warning. They just don't care.
• On 30 January 2024, @Saad Ali Khan Pakistan: had enough of this (hurt by them like me) and complained to them what is their real issue to which they wrote another a rant and again tried to impose what is their definition of truth. A day ago, they reverted User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan's edits without a reason [17].
• On 1 February 2024, they joined unreferenced articles drive to prop up the edits count but soon they created more work for volunteers than they contributed and were kindly asked by @Broc: and @Altamel: to slow down ([18]). Another time sink.
• On 3 February 2024, they downplayed User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan's work on a list and claimed that they were already working on that list for a few weeks (without providing any evidence like sandbox) and went on to use terms and sentences like "try to do better job", "It seems you beat me to it by simply creating a separate article that looks somewhat clumsy", "You ought to have demonstrated politeness and respect by communicating with the editors who dedicated hours to the actual work, suggesting the creation of a separate article to acknowledge their contribution", and "there are certain manners we should all adhere to as human beings" See User_talk:Saad_Ali_Khan_Pakistan#1970_members_list.
• On 6 February 2024, they started to edit war with me ([19], [20]) and insists to add a section titled "Alleged extramarital affair" on a private woman's biography based on primary references, such as an interview given by her ex-husband after 6 years when military started the crackdown on Imran Khan. See Bushra_Bibi#Alleged_extramarital_affair. It is another time sink created by them to waste community's time - I've asked for independent opinion on multiple noticeboards.
• Since 7 February 2024, they are reverting ([21], [22], [23], [24]) well-cited information that summarizes the article in the lead that PTI intra-party elections case ruling was controversial (per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY) and was influenced by the military of Pakistan. They dismiss all the reliable references as WP:FRINGE and cited essay like WP:STATUSQUO when in actual I'm just summarizing the body and citing additional references for the verification. They even moved war when a move discussion is going on [25].
• On 8 February 2024, they were warned by @ARoseWolf: to stop the distruptive editing ([26]) to which they haven't replied.
• The massive disruptive editing from them is on 2024 Pakistani general election where they are trying to censor anything related to Imran Khan and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as if this site is operated by the military of Pakistan, contorary to the fact that reliable publications in the whole world are describing the PTI-backed candidates as a separate group and a clear consensus on the talkpage is that we should include them, see Talk:2024_Pakistani_general_election#Should_PTI_be_included_in_the_Infobox. They are still edit warring ([27], [28], [29]).

• On 9 February 2024, @Saqib: warned them to stop removing referenced information on Talk:2024_Pakistani_general_election#Removing_rigging_information. That information is from reliable publications such as The Economist, Time, France24, but according to them these sources are "speculative" and "we shouldn't blindly include wild accusations based solely on speculative reports; not everything reported in the media is suitable for an encyclopedia." They are speaking the language of the Pakistani military establishment and attempting to impose Pakistan's censorship standards on Wikipedia which is against liberal norms. War Wounded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another editor who almost always agree with them repeating similar narratives, and is editing from a mobile device like SheriffIsInTown. I suspect that they are either collaborating offline to establish a false narrative on Wikipedia articles or are the same person. I ask the community to review them concurrently with User:SheriffIsInTown as well.

Remedy

All of these concerns converge on a few topics, such as politics of Pakistan, blasphemy ([30]) towards which they have a strong bias and couldn't contribute constructively. Wikipedia volunteers' time is the most precious thing and a deliberative approach to create work for others and waste community's time is a serious issue for which we have to take some kind of action. I'll leave it to the community to discuss the necessary measures, but I suggest the following restrictions at a minimum:

• Topic ban from articles related to politics, blasphemy, and restrict them to use semi-automated tools to do quick edits in general.
• Obligate them to engage in discussion with fellow editors constructively (i.e. cite proper diffs and independent references, rather than making awkward arguments) and avoid incivility.
• Require them to archive all past talk page messages and continue doing so in the future, especially for warnings, notices, and noteworthy discussions.

Thank you. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE War Wounded (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, while they didn't double-check or clean up all of the citations they had twiddled – hundreds to thousands of which were never checked by anyone else, with likely a substantial proportion of regressions – SheriffIsInTown was at least somewhat responsive to talk page discussion, and did make some effort to fix edits where the problems and appropriate solutions were explicitly explained. Since then, they seem to have stopped trying to do script-assisted citation changes. If they refrain from further masses of script-assisted edits going forward I won't have any personal problem with them. I can't really comment on the Pakistan politics stuff. –jacobolus (t) 18:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, due to having been away from WP for some time, I'm not familiar with the cases put forward above except that I find SheriffIsInTown's editing approach on the 2024 Pakistani general election page quite amusing. I returned to WP yesterday after hearing reports that individuals were tampering with the election page in an attempt to censor information. To my dismay, I found that it was indeed true. I suggest If SheriffIsInTown or any editor continue with this editing style, I strongly recommend implementing a topic ban. I agree with what User:HistoriesUnveiler said we don't have enough time to keep engaging in pointless discussions/arguments with someone who has clear POV agenda. SheriffIsInTown suggests that the Pakistani military must admit to engaging in election rigging before we can include those credible news reports in the article. Otherwise, there's no point in even mentioning them. It's as if the military has acknowledged in the past their involvement in election rigging. The Pakistani news media is forbidden from explicitly labeling PTI-backed candidates as such, for apparent reasons. However, if foreign media is openly acknowledging them as such, why are we hesitating to do the same? Are we here to serve the Pakistani government and censor information? Is this website run by the Pakistani government, for heaven's sake? --Saqib (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It's evident how he quietly removed Imran Khan's statement [from jail], which was well-referenced and unrelated to rigging. --Saqib (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2024 Elections PTI gave tickets to its candidates and just before elections Election commission, whose main duty is to conduct "Free and Fair Elections" went to Supreme Court against PTI and Supreme court gave ruling to take back PTI's Bat symbol because PTI party elections were not valid. Another party ANP also didn't conducted their party elections which was only fined PKR 20,000 by the ECP and ECP also ruled that ANP should conduct Party elections after elections of 2024 and their symbol "Lantern" was not taken from them. See Reference[31]

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf being the largest party of the country deserves to be added in election Info box because it received most number of seats across the country and although PTI candidates ran as Independents but they were backed by and supported by PTI party and they received PTI tickets before the SC ruling. Many prominent and Independent news sources of the World and Pakistan stated "PTI-backed Independents" and differentiated them from other Independents. Here in Wikipedia, which is an International and Independent platform we were discussing on this topic to add PTI backed Independents in election boxes but it was opposed again and again. Western World (United States, United Kingdom and European Union) expressed concerns over lack of level plating field, fairness of elections and undue restrictions of freedom of expression. See[32]

Removing Imran Khan's statement from jail is against freedom of expression and showing real information to the readers of Wikipedia because people of Pakistan has given mandate to Imran Khan and his statement should be added with reference from valid reference. Reference from International Media should also be added on election rigging and human rights in the country as well.

It was my first time working on election page of Pakistan during current event time. I started adding election boxes(details of candidates by votes, % etc) which sheriff reverted by saying that it is against neutrality to add election boxes before elections, so I stopped working on it. When I worked on making List of members of the 5th National Assembly of Pakistan and I copied names of elected members from 1970 Elections page and I worked to modify it by adding party colors to the table, adding districts and divisions of East Bengal (Now Bangladesh) at that time, Districts of West Pakistan, separating elected members from members elected on by-elections adding a separate section "Membership changes", adding Members elected on Women seats and also added members names of Patuakhali district. but still he stated "Dummy edit for attribution". Saad Ali Khan Pakistan (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm. The reported editor has a long history at ANI, so others well versed in it are likely to chime in. But my first observation is that OP has a rather precocious editing history, creating articles and initiating page moves within five days of account creation (and within their first twenty edits). Grandpallama (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Grandpallama, I'm a MediaWiki developer, so I'm familiar with the platform. Before the creation of this account, I edited as an IP editor, so I'm familiar with the main guidelines as well. I mainly created this account to create or edit content considered censored in Pakistan, and could have repercussions (see Enforced disappearances in Pakistan), so I don't want to reveal my public location and IP. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Grandpallama (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@HistoriesUnveiler: It's difficult to grasp how a MediaWiki developer could be so knowledgeable about what's going-on on Wikipedia. You seem to possess more knowledge about SheriffIsInTown than I do, but that's beside the point. It's good to know that you're here to edit content perceived as censored in Pakistan. However, I also feel your attempt to remove BLP on Bushra Bibi is also viewed as censorship, IMO. --Saqib (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Knowledge about SheriffIsInTown in form of diffs is public. Any one can access/collect it using the software. I spend a day to go through their history and collect the diffs, just to stop the disruption. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Note to admins: HistoriesUnveiler and Saqib had content dispute with me which they took to ANI. HistoriesUnveiler, a 12 day account starts changing article content massively disregarding already established consensus, when countered by me, they could not get through their edits due to lack of consensus, Saqib ends their long break and decide to help them out, the content dispute ends at ANI instead of them resolving that on talk pages or engaging official content dispute mechanisms such as WP:DRN. Further than that if an admin finds anything questionable or objectionable, please ping me and ask, and I'll gladly provide clarification. Otherwise, I prefer to dedicate my time to enhancing the encyclopedia rather than engaging in a back-and-forth exchange of essays. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify that despite being on a wikibreak, I've been intermittently active on WP. I'm not here to support User:HistoriesUnveiler or anyone else as you claim without any evidence. I fully agree that HistoriesUnveiler should have sought resolution through WP:DRN instead of bringing the issue here. I've no issues as long you refrain from removing properly sourced material. --Saqib (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that users are leaving messages on the talk pages of both Sheriff and War Wounded, asking them why they are actively interfering in the process of inserting crucial information which must be available to the average reader (such as the claims of the military rigging the election, which is true, and the refusal to insert Imran Khan in the election box), but these two individuals are not responding to the messages on the talk pages, thus there is a missing confrontation which further makes it difficult to address these problems. VosleCap (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@VosleCap: Your comment is not clear to me. Who is inserting crucial information to pages and which two individuals are not responding to the messages on the talk pages? --Saqib (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Saqib, disruptive editing and incivility history is too long, which we cannot resolve through WP:DRN. The topic ban on politics-related articles is necessary. They have a long history here: IBAN from Dresser, POV-pushing on Afghan president's WP:BLP, abusing an editor in Pashto, harrasement of @Sminthopsis84: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#User_page_and_actions,_User:SheriffIsInTown, attempts to remove word Islamist from a militant's biography, and describe Hussain Haqqani as a traitor and incivility issues with @Kautilya3:. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Because I was specifically tagged here I will respond. This will be my only comment on this issue unless asked for more information. I have 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault watchlisted and saw and edit war taking place between SheriffIsInTown and HistoriesUnveiler. I started a discussion on the article talk page, something that should always be done before an edit war escalates to the point it did. Neither editor was blatantly adding or removing vandalism. As stated there, Sherriff removed some very obvious misrepresentations when you actually read the source material. The misrepresentations were caused by previous good faith attempts at simplifying the wording in that section. The problem is that the edits changed what was being said. I cautioned Sheriff to maybe do a little deeper dive, it took me less than a minute, to find out the history of that section. The editor that made the edits responded and we are going to both work together on restoring the correct information. I am not aware nor do I want to be involved in any further dispute between these two editors. I only wanted the edit warring to stop. --ARoseWolf 16:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• If I've previously edited a page, I typically review the edit history starting from my last edit. However, I hadn't edited this page before, and I encountered objectionable text while researching for any existing article on Salman Akram Raja, whom I was planning to create an article about. Raja is known for his advocacy for human rights and women’s rights, but the text in that article falsely accused him of victim-blaming, which seemed inaccurate. Recognizing this serious violation of the WP:BLP policy, I concluded that it had been added by someone to discredit Raja and proceeded to remove it. HistoriesUnveiler had already been involved in conflicts with me on other articles and wikihounded me to the 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault page. They began restoring the BLP violation without consideration, seemingly to prolong their battleground behavior. Given their wikihounding, I didn't believe they would be receptive to reason when it came to this matter, otherwise I would have attempted to engage them on talk. Since then, I have revisited the page and restored the text to its original wording, effectively removing the BLP violation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Reading all above details, In short I agree with SheriffIsInTown in a way that Saqib and HistoriesUnveiler both have many behaviourial issues which cause suspision and disruption. I feel both of these have biased views dening nuetrality. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hard to see this comment as anything other than retaliatory for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LingoSouthAsia_reported_by_User:Saqib_(Result:_Declined). Grandpallama (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• I was tagged in OP's post, so I will add my comment. SheriffIsInTown participated in the WP:FEB24 drive, adding dozens of dubious sources to pages of villages and railway stations in Pakistan. After it was repeatedly pointed out in the talk page, they stopped using those sources and continued editing as nothing ever happened, without ever looking back on previous edits. The result: 100+ poorly sourced articles that will probably never be cleaned up (I started doing so and it's a massive undertaking). While the user has been responsive, they have not shown an attitude of being able to recognize and correct their mistakes. Broc (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• The aim of WP:FEB24 was to diminish the unreferenced backlog, which stretched back to December 2007 (17 years old). My intention in participating in the drive was solely to provide genuine assistance. The village articles pertained to legally recognized locations, and the sources I added were not for contentious material; rather, they simply verified the existence of these places and their population. The population census data is compiled by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics and was copied by a third-party website. By adding sources to this third-party website, I effectively removed these pages from the unreferenced backlog. While more sources could potentially be added in the future, I believe this was sufficient to address the backlog for now. I intend to continue working on articles related to Project Pakistan, and those articles now being on my watchlist will certainly be revisited and improved upon. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  The "third-party website" is a personal blog [33] and definitely not a WP:RS as has been explained over and over again in your talk page and on the drive talk page. Pakistani census data is officially available (as you have yourself used this as a source on later pages), yet you are not willing to correct or even admit your mistakes.

  On several ([34] [35] [36] and many more) railway station pages you added a fan club as a source. Again, it was pointed out, you stopped adding the source but never admitted your mistake or backtracked.

  There is no point in discussing content here as it's not the right venue and you have had all the opportunities to express yourself; I am slowly adding {{Unreliable sources}} to many of the pages you edited as part of the drive, but this goes to prove the point of OP here, your editing behavior causes huge time sinks. Broc (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  Within WikiProject Pakistan, there are over 100,000 articles, many of which are in a subpar condition, written in language that may not meet English proficiency standards, as English is not the first language for many Pakistani editors. A large portion of these articles lack proper sourcing, fail to adhere to style guidelines, and have been left stagnant after initial creation by transient editors. WikiProject Pakistan requires extensive improvements, and with that being said, small village articles and railway stations were not high on my list of priorities. I came across them during the drive and attempted to locate better sources, but encountered difficulties due to the unavailability of the Pakistan Railway website and anomalies in Pakistan Bureau of Statistics data. As a result, I resorted to sources that, while not entirely reliable, did not contain incorrect information in my assessment. Due to these source-related challenges, I chose not to actively participate in the competition aspect of the drive, as it would have been unfair to others who were able to provide better sources. Outside of the drive, I have other high-priority tasks, such as election coverage and reducing the article size of Pakistan, which has over 15,000 words of readable prose. However, over the course of my editing endeavors, I do intend to enhance many articles within WikiProject Pakistan, including those related to villages and railway stations, when the time permits. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  As a result, I resorted to sources that, while not entirely reliable, did not contain incorrect information in my assessment.

  This is facially unacceptable reasoning if one accepts why WP:V is important, and ultimately does not help improve the content you'd like to improve on the site. While you are my fellow editor and I do respect your commitment to improving a topic that really deserves more adequate coverage, I do not want to take your word for it regarding claims more than I do for anyone else. I trust you would also find this unacceptable if it was coming from another editor. Remsense诉 04:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Appreciate your feedback, I will strive to find better sources going forward. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I am not particularly knowledgeable regarding abstruse political issues, and am not inclined to the research necessary to give an informed comment on them, but @SheriffIsInTown: this is not good and I would appreciate if you did not do it. First of all, you are wrong -- tools like ReFill do need to be used with caution, and it does create more issues than it solves if you use them blindly -- and second of all, even if you are right, it is hard for me to imagine any situation in which having ChatGPT write an insulting rap is an appropriate response to an onwiki problem. jp×g🗯️ 21:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It was just for fun and it happened only once. It was not intended to insult. I regret that, it won’t happen again. As for the refill, I already stopped using it for large scale edits. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Like JPxG, I don't have the time nor inclination to examine in detail all the issues being raised here, but I did happen to look at the discussion between jacobolus and SheriffIsInTown containing the "insulting rap" linked to above, and if that discussion is in any way representative of SheriffIsInTown behavior, then it would suggest that they are not a net positive here. @SheriffIsInTown:'s "just for fun" is a childish and terribly unacceptable justification for insulting behavior, and such a response (itself insulting) is further evidence of your inappropriate behavior. Paul August ☎ 13:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I regret my behavior and no rap of any kind will happen in future. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate Sheriff for above acceptance. This may be taken as a positive step by Sheriff. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It really does not seem that bad. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the rap as being a problem. The problem in that thread is that the errors other editors are pointing out were real errors, while Sheriff continuously argued that they weren't errors (up to and including the rap). The mainspace errors were the main problem; the refusal/failure to listen to others' explanations of the errors were the secondary problem; in my view it doesn't matter if WP:IDHT behavior occurs in poetry or prose. Levivich (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't disregard the issues entirely; some were indeed valid, and I took steps to resolve them. However, it's been over a month since then, and I've ceased relying solely on refill, realizing there are numerous other constructive ways to contribute to Wikipedia. I have definitely learned from that experience. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You really didn't resolve them. What you did do was (eventually, after excessive effort on my part) (a) give up on the style of semi-automated edits, hopefully for good, and (b) make at least nominal effort to fix problems with particular edits which were pointed out to you along with explicitly recommended fixes (while several of your fixes were mediocre, I give you points for at least making some effort here). This is certainly better than continuing to cause further damage, but does not entirely solve the problem. You made at least hundreds of other questionable edits which have never been double checked, a substantial proportion of which are likely regressions which should be fixed. (If you or anyone reading along here wants to volunteer to do that, it would be appreciated.) –jacobolus (t) 18:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I also reviewed some edits beyond the ones you highlighted and did not identify any noteworthy issues. It's hard to confirm that none of the edits were double-checked, considering that many of those pages are likely on the watchlists of numerous editors. However, if you believe all my refill edits had problems, I'm willing to revert them all to their previous state or, as a goodwill gesture, I can manually fill one reference per day outside of WikiProject Pakistan. Manual corrections are time-consuming, but I'm committed to contributing positively. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Manual corrections are time-consuming – yes, this is precisely why doing questionable 1-per-minute-pace semi-automated edits is a problem, because it takes significantly disproportionate effort to clean up later. –jacobolus (t) 21:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I see it as not that bad, SheriffIsInTown is committed to contributing positively. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea where to shove this, but, unaware of this whole thread, I restored the comment on WT:WPAIC. That AfD example looks LLM to me. Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 07:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• See their full note here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• I've blocked the OP as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, Bbb23. It was obvious something was up, but I could not figure out who it might be in order to file at SPI. Grandpallama (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Can I request a closure here as I have been a victim of targeted campaign first by an IP, then by OP who has been blocked as a sock now? I have addressed all other issues in my comments above. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Cross-wiki CITESPAM and stalking

Recently it came to my attention that User:Doctor Xiao has been promoting a number of papers written by a Congrong Xiao ("肖聪容") in a number of articles on Chinese and English wikipedia (zh:客家文化, zh:羅馬尼亞, National symbols of China, Chinese dragon and so on). Since these references are either from questionable open access journals or journals with little evidence of peer review or impact, I removed them as WP:CITESPAM. Soon after there are a group of IPs warring to add back the citespam material. One such IP has stalked over here, Special:Contributions/170.83.216.60. Please monitor these articles in case problems arises. -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/23.158.104.249 on Taiwan Passport. -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The papers cited by Mr. Xiao are all from legitimate academic journals, which can be found on Google Scholar, CNKI, or Wanfang, so it is not a problem to use them as reliable sources. I don't understand the importance of so-called "peer review" in Wikipedia - as far as I know, most sources of Wikipedia do not have authoritative peer reviews. Should delete all of these? Of course, some of the content you deleted was indeed reviewed by authoritative peers. In fact, the most crucial principle is the "Assume good faith" principle. Are these academic concepts themselves correct in the eyes of most people? Is it against common sense or full of political tendencies? It seems that none of them. 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct it, it's "I don't understand the importance of so-called "ittle evidence of peer review or impact" in Wikipedia" 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by deleting my complaint in the Chinese section? Is it because you want to learn from authoritative government to make people shut up? 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks. NM 22:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on the Assume good faith, all of us hope that Wikipedia's content will be richer and more authoritative. I have obtained Mr. Xiao's consent for using many of his papers, and he is also happy to contribute to enriching Wikipedia. But your behavior is completely opposite to the spirit of Wikipedia, which is really disappointing. 23.158.104.249 (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Most sources of Wikipedia do not have authoritative peer reviews.

Academic journals making nuanced historiographical claims should.

Should delete all of these?

Yes. Remsense诉 10:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And to emphasize: it is nowhere near sufficient for a journal to be listed in various index or database services, or whatever you mean by "legitimate". The phrase reliable source has a specific meaning. It does not require (or even care at all) whether the author of a source has a certain preference. Given you know about the assume good faith rule, it should be obvious to you that "Is it because you want to learn from authoritative government to make people shut up?" is an unacceptable thing to say. DMacks (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"Is it because you want to learn from authoritative government to make people shut up?" is an unacceptable thing to say

I have already publicly disclosed this relevant evidence on Twitter (X). By the way, let me tell you this is a Chinese-style joke called"Who is kneeling below the dais, and why does he accuse this official（me)?" 81.89.213.87 (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is evidence. 46.70.172.125 (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: zh:Special:Diff/81456027

Anyone who says anything will probably be considered party to whatever conspiracy you are conceptualizing, but I will try to speak plainly regardless: it must be said that rallying support off-site may seem justified to you, but it is unacceptable on Wikipedia. You've proven nothing, and moreover proudly spoken about you conspiring off-site to make waves here. That's all I've got. Remsense诉 10:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have explained that the academic journal sources I cited are reliable (refer to CNKI), and the actions of "Mys_721tx" attempting to block all my edits and Mr. Xiao's academic viewpoints are contrary to Wikipedia's principles. You claim "Anyone who says anything will probably be considered party to whatever conspiracy you are conceptualizing"? I have never said anything resembling that. Do you have any evidence, or is this a rumor you are fabricating on the spot? "Unacceptable on Wikipedia," so Wikipedia editors cannot be questioned by anyone, is that right? That sounds like quite an authoritative government. 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Listing in a database is not peer review, and is a much less significant indicator of reliability. Remsense诉 03:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not peer review"? Does it mean that this journal can log in to CNKI without being reviewed (which is clearly impossible)? Or does it mean that the expert editorial board is not a peer review? Or is a master's thesis recognized by a university professor's defense committee not considered for peer review? Do academic journals with influencing factors not have peer review? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Does this count as peer review? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I just checked, even the journals indexed by CSSCI are considered "with little evidence of peer review or impact." CSSCI is basically where only professors are qualified to publish papers. It's clear that his reasons are just arbitrary remarks. Do you really believe him? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, similar behavior has not appeared on Wikipedia before (see here for details), but my updated academic views are basically culture, art or history, and have nothing to do with politics, especially the Chinese Civil War, and opposition to the Communist Party. The editor "Mys_721tx" was previously considered pro-communist by many people in Hong Kong and Taiwan (see details here).Considering his doubts about the reliability of academic journals hosted by the Hebei Provincial Committee of the Communist Youth League of China, I suspect that his political stance is being questioned due to his poor academic abilities? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I also cited many scholars' papers to enrich Wikipedia (some were deleted along with Mr. Xiao's viewpoint). All the articles I have cited (including Mr. Xiao) are from official academic journals, and if these are unreliable, there are no reliable sources. Many of the viewpoints of Scholar Xiao's papers are still preserved in Wikipedia, but the authorship of his paper has been removed, which has made Wikipedia's emphasis on sources a joke. Someone deleted my Chinese complaint section and locked it down. This is not the behavior of an authoritative government，then what is it? 185.142.40.63 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Correction, the paper by American scholar Fox is not from a journal, or the part I quoted is not from a journal 185.142.40.63 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The IP has a point: if you're going to delete references to Xiao's papers, also delete his viewpoints from the article (unless those are based upon other WP:RS). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should retain content that is correct or neutral, and has reliable sources. But some people have clearly done the opposite, deleting a large number of academic viewpoints or sources without considering whether these viewpoints themselves are reasonable, correct, or neutral. This is clearly contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. 138.99.205.110 (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure is Mys_721tx or Remsense Or someone else is trying to ban my IP, I'm just explaining that this kind of "shut up" behavior is happening now. 142.154.108.208 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are one of the administrators of Wikipedia, so I will not follow your thoughts for the time being (if I understand correctly, you think all content in Wikipedia that has no clear source should be deleted). But I hope you will do so. 138.99.205.110 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems you have a misunderstanding of what administrators do on Wikipedia. NM 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not sure if I misunderstood the work of Wikipedia administrators, but honestly, I don't know. However, "Mys_721tx" attempted to block all my editing content and Mr. Xiao's entire viewpoint. Does this contradict the openness principle of Wikipedia? Secondly, I am fairly certain that users "Manchiu" and "ZhuofanWu" are puppets of "Mys_721tx", and I suspect "Malcolmxl5" might be too (but I'm not sure). Does this violate Wikipedia's principles? Lastly, the situation has developed to this extent solely because "Mys_721tx" forcibly blocked me and refused to communicate with me in any Chinese forums (even though he is an editor of the Chinese Wikipedia). He claims that CNKI, China's most authoritative academic paper website, and some influential academic journals are "questionable open access journals or journals with little evidence of peer review or impact." Therefore, I doubt his attitude and academic ability as a Wikipedia editor (or does it mean that only academic journals indexed by SCI or SSCI, CSSCI, AHCI, AMI, etc., can be cited on Wikipedia?). In summary, do you think I misunderstood, or is "Mys_721tx's" attitude highly questionable? 119.236.164.241 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Do not accuse others of being sockpuppets without evidence. If you have evidence, take it to WP:SPI. If you do not, then strike through that comment, or else it can be construed as a personal attack.

The rest of your comment is just further casting aspersions against Mys. To answer your question, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I remember the requirement from Wikipedia that "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third party sources" is what? For example, do academic journals organized by national or provincial organizations belong to "local companies"? And if CNKI, SCI, SSCI, CSSCI, and these are not independent third-party sources, what are they? It has already exposed some people's claim that there is no peer review. 46.36.116.224 (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeating yourself is not going to make these issues go away. Take it up on the article talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

These IPs are all User:Doctor Xiao, right? _Dial^mayo 18:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban on PenmanWarrior

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

---

• Michele Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (older/now-deleted revisions)
• Draft:Michele Evans
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans
• PenmanWarrior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Micheleevansny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.117.93.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Quick timeline of 9 January, which is quite revealing.

• 14:44 (diff to a user talk page post confirming the action, since I can't link to a deleted diff), the IP amends the redirect for Michele Evans to a newly created article about a totally different Michele Evans.
• 14:51 IP adds link to Michele Evans to an article
• 14:54 IP adds another Michele Evans link
• 14:57 Micheleevansny adds link to Michele Evans to an article
• 15:43 Micheleevansny amends a pre-existing Michele Evans link to retarget to the previous redirect target (Lockheed Martin)
• 15:43 Micheleevansny does the the same again.

Now I'm hoping there's not much doubt in anyone's mind that Micheleevansny, with their rather revealing choice of username, must have some connection with the IP that was making Michele Evans related edits just minutes before, and that the use of the IP was an attempt to avoid accusations of potential conflict of interest.

The creation of the article on Michele Evans resulted in a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Michele Evans, followed by the "Articles for deletion" discussion linked to above. During the latter, the IP bludgeoned the discssion for days on end, not even a 60 hour block stopped then coming back and wasting more time with even more bludgeoning. The PenmanWarrior account was created on 14 January and is either the same person or someone associated with them, based on the exceptionally narrow editing interest.

The deletion of the Michele Evans article should have put a stop to the promotion, save for some grunbling from the IP that seemed to be the case. However PenmanWarrior created a draft which is pretty identical except for the addition of a more recent news article that mentions Evans a couple of times, and wouldn't override the result of the Afd discussion as far as I can tell. They are also making spurious requests for undeletion, more of the same here, and more complaining here.

We've had the discussion about Michele Evans and the consensus was clear. There's no reason why PenmanWarrior should be permitted to waste any more of the community's time on this, and I propose they are topic banned from anything to do with Michele Evans. Obviously my proposed topic ban would cover the IP and the Micheleevansny account, since they are either the same person or acting in concert with them. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Love the way facts are glossed over and new developments are ignored! This shows a lack of good faith! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

What does that mean. It's eligible for speedy deletion for goodness's sake! ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No it isn't; the Article was deleted, so the Draft is not eligible for WP:G4 (that's the whole point of the Draft space). Primefac (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind that... ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Uninvolved reviewer here, also my first time on a ANI! I gave the editor some good advice on the AfC Helpdesk but was met with a fairly belligerent tone and I am seeing hints of bludgeoning again. They're providing poor sources. There must be an undisclosed COI here. Qcne (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support block/ban of IP and/or PenmanWarrior. LOUTSOCK, new-account to evade scrutiny, or any other shade of puppetry is a problem itself. And given the disruptive edits and refusal to listen, I'm seeing a time-syncsink with no net gain for the project. On the fence about which buttons get pushed where. DMacks (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Now that everyone's clock is in agreement, we can discuss how much time is wasted. DMacks (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked PenmanWarrior 31h for disruption, including IDHT (including some via forum-shopping). Even if later raised in a more appropriate location, the fact is they raising the same points that have been repeatedly responded-to, roundly opposed, and/or are not accepting our policies, guidelines, and processes. And now even disrupting the review of their own draft. DMacks (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Good block and support longer if the disruption returns when they are unblocked. They're welcome to try and improve the draft, they're not welcome to wear everyone out in search of the answer they want. Star Mississippi 01:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a legal threat from the user directed at @Kathleen's bike. Qcne (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if this is particularly a legal threat but rather an "I'm gonna get you blocked grr" threat or something similar. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - Obvious close association with subject. Evidence includes citing a primary source immediately after it appeared online, and citing a source on the strength of hidden text within the HTML. The fact that PenmanWarrior denies a conflict of interest, and refuses to take on-board anything anyone else says does not suggest they are willing to contribute in good faith. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Since everyone's in agreement, should this ban be enforced? ''Flux55'' (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Less than 24 hours have passed since this thread was started, and the user is currently blocked for another 18 hours anyway. Are you in some sort of rush? Primefac (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Not really. I just realized that they were already blocked just now. ''Flux55'' (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Will be updating with many refs and details. Active campaign to eliminate Ms. Evans from Wikipedia. Just added a new MAJOR source. One might not like my communication style but that does not warrant a topic ban. Active stalking/harrasment in progress as defined by Wikipedia. Speculations based on timestamps is frivolous and just that SPECULATION. Including ban on other accounts displays bad faith. Also, the enactor of ban to paint me in bad light refused/couldn't/wouldn't respond to or give explanation of what was done to warrant ban. Fact is nothing was done by me to support this. I followed all Wikipedia rules and made appropriate contributions with new major developing sources. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not trying to conspirate to remove her. What do you mean by "major developing sources" anyways? Flux55 (my talk page) 13:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you use COI edit requests for future editing of this article, and you can still contribute to the page. _Dial^mayo 14:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

More WP:BATTLEGROUND editing here [37] today. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I propose a motion to block as WP:NOTHERE? Qcne (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Theroadislong @Qcne. I would once again ask the continued harassment be discontinued. Condensing facts into one comprehensive space and asking for advice on how to proceed is not any of the above implied/accused/linked circumstances. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I may have time to categorically review every single reference on Friday in your Draft and write up my findings, which would then hopefully put to bed this entire issue as either a Yes She is WikiNotable or No She is Not WikiNotable and then, either way, no more of your time or Wikipedia volunteer time will be spent discussing this. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Support a NOTHERE block. Penman, this is not harassment, your behavior is disruptive and people have been asking you to stop. I get you think you have to defend Ms. Evans, but that's a bad idea and only going to result in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have put a great amount into an article that had 59 sources at one point. My time is just as valid. Please address what nobody will:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb

https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/

My edits are valid, major and appropriate. I have asked people to stop. They have not. @Qcne Promised he would go away but continues his campain.

"I may have time to categorically review every single reference on Friday in your Draft and write up my findings, which would then hopefully put to bed this entire issue as either a Yes She is WikiNotable or No She is Not WikiNotable and then, either way, no more of your time or Wikipedia volunteer time will be spent discussing this. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)"

My requests to stop are just as valid as anybody else's. I have asked for advice and continue to do so. Please visit my talk page to see detailed content compiled into one section. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Update: PenmanWarrior has been blocked indefinitely by administrator Daniel, see new thread § Repeated issues with attempts to block Michele Evans article below. Do we close this thread with no action taken here, or would a topic ban also be placed on the user as well, given there's a consensus here in favour of it? — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I went ahead and merged that section into this one. PenmanWarrior not only got blocked, but their IDHT led to talk page access being revoked. They'll now have to appeal through UTRS, so I think we can consider this closed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeated issues with attempts to block Michele Evans article

Please see the following issues. I am a new editor and have asked several times for help addressing this situation. The behavior detailed below seems to violate Wikipedia. I am a new editor and don't know how to file complaints so please help me format places/concerns to address these issues.

Recently ran into issues editing/creating an article about controversial figure Michele Evans.

Some of the issues have been:

Please use diffs and links, not enormous copy/pastes

@Kathleen's bike: violates Wikipedia standards again: WP:BLUDGEON, edit warring, disruptive editing While technically not done within the 24hr timeframe, the essence of, three-revert rule was also enacted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1196841532 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1208941127 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209368498 Kathleen's bike claimed "See guidance at WP:ON:US regarding the repeated restoration of content whose inclusion has been disputed" However only one restoration had been made and the inclusion of this book in Rikers Island had never been disputed. Kathleen's bike also recommended deletion of Michele Evans "Delete Escape Orbit summarises things easily enough, fails notability guidelines at the present time. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)" @Escape Orbit: comments Kathleen's bike was referring to: "Author. Self published only, so unlikely to be notable Software Engineer. Not notable. Creating Tiger Woods' website is not sufficient, and source cited does not support this claim. Sports Reporter. Possibly, but entirely unsourced and almost purposely vague. A single op-ed in The New York Times written by her." Escape Orbit continues: "Again we are agreed. The sources currently on the article are not adequate in demonstrating notability. So I urge you to find the existence of suitable sources, and the matter will be resolved. Others have tried and failed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)" Kathleen's bike herself admits Escape Orbit sumarises things. Escape Orbit said this would be resolved. His issues were addressed with the introduction of the new articles: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ It is resolved. Escape Orbit has been asked to stick by his word and resolve as promised, but as of this writing, has not. In addition Kathleen's bike violated Harrasment Hounding WP:HOUND WP:HOUNDING WP:WIKIHOUNDING WP:FOLLOWING Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Kathleen's bike engaged in "an attempted outing". Stated belief of editor's identity/real name and even opened a complaint to do so in order to enhance this alleged outing. WP:ANI "Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)" On the subject of not sticking to promises: @Qcne: after promising to leave alone, comes back next day and threatens to decline article Michele Evans: "I have to note you as a hostile commentator. In addition to you incessantly posting to my talk page, you suggested I should be barred from writing about a subject simply because you did not like my valid question to you. Can you please place your energy and focus somewhere other than on me? Thank you! PS. Nobody says the source was used by itself. Currently, there are 58 sources on the page. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" "Sure thing, I'll leave you alone. Good luck with your draft. Qcne (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) "However, @Theroadislong, I am minded to reject if you agree? Qcne (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" @Qcne: continues his campaign after promising to leave alone. Now attempting to be only authoritative voice on subject after having already been noted as hostel to subject. "I may have time to categorically review every single reference on Friday in your Draft and write up my findings, which would then hopefully put to bed this entire issue as either a Yes She is WikiNotable or No She is Not WikiNotable and then, either way, no more of your time or Wikipedia volunteer time will be spent discussing this. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" @Theroadislong: declines article, refuses to answer requests to address major sources, goes back add multiple non-major comments to article, finally admits did not read sources and then re-declines article after twice insisting he wasn't going to review again: "Sorry I have no idea what you are referring to, you can submit for review and another reviewer will take a look, I will not review again. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" Theroadislong refuses/won't/doesn't respond to requests to address major source and instead goes back and adds comments to article: 'Comment: Ridiculous weird content about distant relatives and ancestors is not remotely helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)' 'Comment: As noted elsewhere "Her software engineering does not make her notable. Her self-published books do not make her notable. Her filming work does not seem to make her notable. Her personal life (death of daughter, grandfather, lawsuit, etc) do not make her notable." Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)' 'Comment: There are still 17 links to her own books and Amazon profiles which are NOT required and other sources which do not mention her, hack it back to the reliable independent sources and report on what they say. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)' 'Comment: A large number of these sources make no mention of Evans whatsoever, references to her own work are not required and see WP:REFBOMBING. Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)' Finally, Theroadislong admits: "I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" "Ok, yet another editor admitting they did not read the sources before declining the article. A pattern has emerged. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" Theroadislong then goes back and declines the article after saying twice he would not review the article again. "Submission declined on 21 February 2024 by Theroadislong (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. Where to get help How to improve a draft Improving your odds of a speedy review Editor resources Declined by Theroadislong 3 hours ago. Last edited by Theroadislong 2 seconds ago. Reviewer: Inform author." User talk:69.117.93.145 was blocked for edit warring things/edits involving Michele Evans by: "Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)" I would ask @Daniel Case: to equally block Kathleen's bike for edit warring and violating other Wikipedia standards. While you are doing that a WP:BLUDGEON review is warranted for @Theroadislong: and @Qcne: and any other actions I may not be aware of. Also please advise how to handle/report Kathleen's bike for the above-stated behavior as I am a new editor. @Caeciliusinhorto-public: minimizes/reduces Evans contribution to Rikers Island Covid-19 section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209141675 Curiously ref to Evans' New York Times is deleted in Rikers Island https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209359829 There is a lot of incoherent grumbling here which nobody will read, you are free to take any gripes to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. To be clear I have only reviewed your draft ONCE. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Incoherent? I's all just copied and pasted content from other sources. Now it appears you are personally attacking. Maybe 1% commentary on my part. If you have only reviewed once, why is article showing declined again, after I resubmitted it yesterday? Also why would the time stamp be you declining 3 hours ago? since you initially declined yesterday? Please help me understand as I am new. If it is explainable, I will remove the associated content. If nobody will ready this, why did you make accusations on Wikipedia:ANI about it? Make it make sense please. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Two editor's decline article and subsequently admit to not having read substantial sources @Muboshgu: "PenmanWarrior, that NY Times piece from yesterday would add to her argument for passing WP:GNG, but I cannot tell how much as it is behind a paywall and I am not a subscriber. However, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans appears to be overwhelming and I doubt one new piece will change that. Since the draft is basically identical to the deleted article, save for a sentence or two based on that new NYT article, I think it would be inappropriate to accept the draft. If you believe that the new NYT article changes things, make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)" @Theroadislong: "I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" I am a new editor but I can't imagine declining an article without reading MAJOR SOURCES is appropriate. Someone please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenmanWarrior (talk • contribs) 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk I see you added an unsigned template but did not address any concerns or respond to advice. Please do so.. Thank you! PenmanWarrior (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Continued campaign in WP:ANI: "More WP:BATTLEGROUND editing here [165] today. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" "Can I propose a motion to block as WP:NOTHERE? Qcne (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" "@Theroadislong @Qcne. I would once again ask the continued harassment be discontinued. Condensing facts into one comprehensive space and asking for advice on how to proceed is not any of the above implied/accused/linked circumstances. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC) I strongly suggest you concentrate on addressing the issues pointed out in the reviewer comments on the draft and stop with the conspiracy theories about a non existent "Campaign to eliminate Michele Evans from Wikipedia". Theroadislong (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC) @Theroadislong Labeling conspiracy theory is dismissive of valid issues raised here. Concentrate on your comments? You completely ignored three very substantial sources and admitted to not reading. How am I supposed to concentrate on comments that don't exist? Nobody will address the three new substantial sources. Please do so now so I can address as you suggest. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ Although it would be ideal for you to read, the fact these stories lead with photos/captions/excerpts of Evans is enough to know they are not mere mentions. You can see that much regardless of paywall! PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Response to concerns about Speedy Close of Deletion Review: Hello PenmanWarrior, I noticed that you left this comment on the deletion review noticeboard after your request for a review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans was closed with the deletion endorsed by the community. Your comment asks How do I appeal?, saying that you have found additional sourcing. As it stands, that discussion was your appeal, and your appeal was declined by the community. I note that you are active at Draft:Michele Evans, where you are working to try to bring the article up to standards. What would help the reviewers on that draft might be something simple: if you were to go to the draft's talk page and list the three best sources you have for demonstrating significant coverage of this individual by independent reliable sources, along a brief (two-to-three succinct sentences) explanation on why you think those sources demonstrate significant coverage, that would be helpful. If all three of the best sources are in the context of one event, you may want to include a fourth source that provides significant coverage in some other context. I can't guarantee that the article will be accepted, but structuring your arguments in this way will be more clear to reviewers than they are presently. Cheers, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk A speedy delete was used to circumvent the new substantial source being addressed. Time was not being wasted as good reliable sources were being addressed. This was an abuse of process and the article never got a chance to be properly considered. Will add your suggestions to the article's talk page. Thank You. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC) I don't see a speedy deletion as having been used on the article; the only deletion log for the article I can find is this one, which clearly states that this was done pursuant to consensus in an Articles for Deletion discussion. The deleted article's talk page was speedily deleted as a page dependent on the deleted article (see: Talk pages with no corresponding subject page), but that speedy deletion seems to be correct. Is there some other page I am missing here? I've looked through your deleted contributions, and I can't find any page that you have edited and was deleted except for the article at Michele Evans. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC) On the review page: " Michele Evans – Summarily endorsed. Nominator's blocked for DE and the community's enacting a topic ban, with, at the time of typing, unanimous support. I'm invoking the fourth limb of "Speedy closes", above, to close this without wasting further time.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Deletion review PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Speed Close is what it is called apparently. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC) I didn't even get a chance to explain the situation for the review. They blocked me, refused to give reasons as their were none, and then closed the review. You will note the lengthy explanation I responded to on the block notice above, which was the only thing I was allowed to respond to at the time. You can't call it a review and not let the requester present reasons for the review. That's an abuse of process. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC) You had the chance to present your reasons in the nomination statement you made, and you did present them. Nobody was convinced. You were also clearly told why you were blocked. Look, PenmanWarrior, Wikipedia is really attractive to people who want articles to exist for their own personal reasons, and we've had to develop ways of dealing with such people very promptly and efficiently. If we didn't do that our readers would never be able to find anything useful because of all the spam. I'm sorry if this makes you unhappy but you aren't going to be an exception.—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC) No at all. I did not get the chance. I was gathering reasons/getting ready to respond when I was blocked. My initial opening simply had links to two sources. There was no detailing of those links or case made as to why the appeal should be approved. I had been accused of bludgeoning before and was waiting to listen to others' positions so I could respond only once. As it is, there are 3 new sources. Closing the appeal the way you did is an abuse of process. Your rant on personal reasons is also inappropriate. I've spent a lot of time crafting this article. My time is just as valuable as anyone else's. No spam. Please address the following very significant sources. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/ http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ I can't imagine unfounded accusations wouldn't be frowned upon! PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Block never explained when asked.

"@DMacks:??? Disruptive edits ??? Please explain PenmanWarrior (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" Wikipedia says blockers should respond to the request. I made no disruptive edits and detailed extensively the lack of offense in the block announcement above. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC) @S Marshall PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, please advise as I am uncertain how to properly handle this. User:PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You can start with a one or two paragraph summary instead of 20K of TL;DR. If you've been accused of bludgeoning, ANI is a poor choice of venue to repeat it. Acroterion (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be verbose forum-shopping after a rejected DRV request. Acroterion (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a spurious report. I have offered to help with this draft , as have other AfC reviewers, and we have been bludgeoned. Editor has already received a temp topic-ban, but the behaviour is now becoming disruptive.

I am not sure if I am being accused of anything due to the wall of text (thank you for correctly leaving the ANI notice on my User Talk Page), except perhaps changing my mind when I first suggested I would not interact further with the Draft and then today offered to spend a significant amount of time in good faith going through each reference one by one to try and establish notability. Qcne (talk)

Sigh... Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

As PenmanWarrior has now been blocked and had talkpage access revoked this is probably moot, but I want to note for the record that (1) I stand by my edit to Rikers Island: there was absolutely no need to dedicate so much of the section on the jail's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic to Evans' account, without any evidence that this had been discussed by secondary sources and (2) despite their repeated complaints that nobody addressed the new sources they had added to the draft, I did and they responded to my comments on the topic though they ignored the substantive point I made presumably because it wasn't what they wanted to hear. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

This thread was the final straw. I'd been monitoring this issue for the past couple of days. I have indefinitely blocked the editor - "Single purpose account, continued disruptive editing, refusal to accept advice from experienced editors verging on battleground mentality".

As always, welcome review of the block from the community here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Good block. Exceedingly tiring Editor which became disruptive. Qcne (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access, we (as admins) are not going to spend the rest of our lives reading through every appeal this guy files in order to whine about his circumstances. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Good block. We literally had a previous ANI thread about this, albeit posted by a different person and not by them, from a week ago. See section § Proposing topic ban on PenmanWarrior above. They were previously blocked 31h as a regular administrative action, but it seems that didn't really change the way they edit. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've merged the two sections to keep this together when it gets archived. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Daniel, after reading the thread I decided to put on my special glasses. User:HandThatFeeds, you may be interested in this as well. User talk:Micheleevansny is CU-confirmed with PenmanWarrior. I don't know if you're interested in tagging them; that's up to you. There are two other accounts on that IP that technically are indistinguishable but either haven't edited, or haven't edited in that area--something to keep an eye on. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Well that's a plot twist I wasn't expecting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I was, but then again I checked earlier in the week. Personally speaking, I see PenmanWarrior as somewhere between a DIRTYSTART to Micheleevansny or the latter as an abandoned account. I figured if the latter didn't keep editing there wouldn't be much point in blocking. ​ (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk)

That makes sense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? The Michelle Evans article now seems to be a wiki page and not deleted? Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 14:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Giant-Dwarfs yep, there's a new re-direct now on the Mainspace article to a different Michele Evans. We were on about Draft:Michele_Evans. Qcne (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Never was the brightest! Sorry Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 14:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Penmanwarrior has now begun using the email function to attempt to convince people to edit on their behalf. I just received one myself. Is it possible for admins to revoke their ability to use the Wikipedia email function? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sent me an email too with some interesting accusations of sexism. Qcne (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Email revoked. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to add a 'me too' on receiving email solely about content rather than addressing their block. I have obviously ignored the request (didn't even read it closely enough to know what it was asking). DMacks (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Alexei Navalny

Could someone have a look at the recent discussions at this page? The subject recently died (was likely murdered by the Putin regime), and there is a constant stream of new-ish users (many of which may not even edit the page because of the RUSUKR restriction) who suddenly want to give undue weight to the activity of the subject from fifteen years ago, and deploy a lot of original research trying to prove that the subject was not the opposition leader (as opposed to what reliable sources say). One of them, User:Brusquedandelion, with less that one year and 600 edits tenure, came today as particularly aggressive and even issued me a warning for "personal attacks". In any case, the discussion went far away from what the talk page is supposed to serve for. Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Specifically this user, as I see now, already collected a lot of warnings during their relatively short tenure. Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting that a user who recently wrote this is warning you against PAs, apparently for writing this. I have blocked them for 31 hours for that personal attack and assumption of bad faith, plus for generally aggressive editing as per the talkpage warnings. Bishonen | tålk 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC).

Thanks. May be this will teach them that the talk page is for discussing the content of the article, and not for anything else. Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This user has so many warnings about personal attacks and not assuming good faith on their talkpage (at least in relation to their short tenure on WP), and so little indication that they care or are interested in toning down such behavior, that a 31-hour block for the same is pretty lenient. Grandpallama (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but then it's their first block. Those should preferably be pretty lenient, I think. More just to show that there are limits to what'll be accepted here. Bishonen | tålk 17:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC).

All but one of those warnings were completely spurious. I am fully willing to fault where there is fault. Also, I have been an editor for six years, not one. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Your account is six years old; you've been active editor for one. Grandpallama (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Are there rules against telling Wikipedia administrators to be civil? Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:AOBF and WP:AAGF; accusing other editors of incivility or bad faith without clear proof is considered uncivil. If an editor is clearly uncivil and you can prove incivility however, you are free to do so regardless of their access to admin tools. NasssaNser_talk 03:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have six years tenure, not one. This is readily apparent from my page, and as an administrator you should surely know how to check this. The fact you are quite obviously lying about this should make anyone question your motives here.

This is clearly a content dispute that doesn't require admin attention- as evinced by the fact that nearly the entirety of even this very comment I am replying to is trying to address content- and you are trying to silence appropriate discussion regarding this content based dispute by any means necessary.

Further, you seem to think, just because you are an admin, that people are not allowed to ask you to be civil. The acerbic and cynical nature of your reply to my completely good natured comment on your talk page speaks to this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, 6 years, not a year, my apologies. It is unfortunate that even after six years you have not understood the most basic Wikipedia policies. Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Do other people see what I mean? Are administrators supposed to be acerbic, cynical, and just plain rude like this? First they lie; then when I point out they lie I get this. It's quite clear this admin thinks that peons such as myself have no business speaking to them.

Notice how this admin doesn't apply this same logic to themself: this all started because of me leaving him a simple request to maintain civility on their talk page. Their response sarcastically implied that, due to their many years on Wikipedia, I had no business telling them about something as base and unbecoming of their stature as civility.

If I were to apply the same sort of logic to them, I might say something like "It is unfortunate that even after thirteen years and an adminship you have not understood the most basic Wikipedia policies." But I won't do that. Civility applies to everyone, and if it applies to any category of people more than others, surely that category is administrators. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to note that Ymblanter appears to be threatening me with more blocks if I don't "fall in line," as it were:

So you have just got a 31 h block and still have not understood anything. Prepare yourself for a longer block then.

Are administrators allowed to behave like this?

Is a more level headed administrator able to explain if there is a Wikipedia rule against asking administrators to be polite? If so, I will happily note that I deserve the initial block. Otherwise I am unsure what I am being punished for. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You are not simply asking administrators to be polite. You directly accused another editor of hav[ing] an ideological axe to grind and trying to silence people who disagree. Calling your position "laughable" is hardly an offense, especially compared to the direct personal attacks you leveled.

You are not the victim here. Trying to spin this around so you are the aggrieved party is not going to fly. Frankly, I suggest you stop digging, before you create a hole too deep to get out of. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

To return to my earlier comment, 31 hours was pretty lenient, given what should probably have just been an indef in light of pretty clear indications of no interest in listening (the characterization here of their previous warnings as all "spurious" is pretty telling). Now they're straight off their block, here casting aspersions. Their "completely good natured comment" they refer to above is this ridiculously rude and combative follow-up to an unwarranted warning template on Ymblanter's talkpage.[38] Bishonen said the light block was to show "that there are limits" to what will be accepted, which I'd argue demonstrably did not work; if they want to push this any further, another, longer block is in order. Grandpallama (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The user pretty much continued preaching and pretending to mentor others in an inappropriate tone on a subject they have little understanding of whereas their opponents have editied the topic area for years [39].--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Long shortdescs from User:Transport 2005

• Transport 2005 (talk · contribs)

Either a competence or WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. This user has been adding adjectives and trivia to shortdescs (for example [40] today) since joining last month, despite nine user talk page messages asking them to stop doing this, up to and including a final warning. Belbury (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

User is also totally unresponsive. Has now started adding superfluous links (overlinking) to articles. For example here. The Banner talk 16:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Would suggest blocking from article space to force a resolution. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. The Banner talk 18:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Transport 2005 from article space. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

And now a sockpuppet is blocked too. I guess the message was not registered. The Banner talk 13:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Addiction of unsourced content, blocking bypass and sock

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

---

User Satanichellmaster666 (Special:Contributions/Satanichellmaster666) is clearly a blocking bypass of the banned user Greyplod (Special:Contributions/Greyplod), who also created the Uttorks account (Special:Contributions/Uttorks), i.e. using sockpuppets, blocking bypass and adding unsourced content. Goldencerebro (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, both reported users (block evasion). El_C 05:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Gotta watch out for those unsourced addictions. EEng 00:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Single-purpose editor not engaging in discussion at Pitof

Last fall, I came across Pitof, an article about a French film director. It had a fair amount of unencyclopedic language, overdetail, unverified claims, and in general, possible promotionalism. I cleaned it up, but since January, Oscarwings has repeatedly re-added some or all of the removed material. They are a WP:SPA with an exclusive interest in Pitof and his career. I'm happy to discuss the changes with them, but per WP:ONUS the material should stay removed while we discuss. Repeated comments in edit summaries, talk page pings, and messages on their talk page have failed to garner any response. Oscarwings has never edited a talk page or any page not in article space. It's possible they simply are unaware, or they could be deliberately trying to fly under the radar. Not sure what the next best step is, but will go notify them on their talk page now per ANI rules. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely a SPA. I removed the dob as being unsourced for at least 15 years apparently, and removed some other original research and IMDb and Guinness. If they don't engage on the article talk page and continue adding crappy sources and original research, I propose a pblock to get their attention. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Oscarwings#Indefinite block. El_C 05:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Bobak

I've never interacted with this user before today (that I know of), but they are verbally attacking me over essentially nothing, tripling down on it, and now attacking User:Drmies as well (see Bobak's talk page history). A quick check shows an ongoing problem:

• "Take your straight-up internet bullying harassment and go tell someone who cares. This is why good editors don't want anything to do with you lifers." (Special:Diff/1209629879/1209694975)
• "who, specifically, was I attacking? LOL." (Special:Diff/1209612188/1209618671)
• "what a waste of human effort" (Special:Diff/1209304146/1209394924).
• "who the hell cares" (Special:Diff/1207122171/1207138340)
• "I love how this indicated that someone had no idea "California State University" is a 23-university *SYSTEM* with nearly a half-million students. Do any of you check your work? Then think "hmm, I bet google would give me a little additional data" -- no? Not any of you?" (Special:Diff/1207992908/1209395413)

This started when they verbally insulted me out of the blue over what was essentially a minor typo (calling me "incredibly lazy" Special:Diff/1206450949/1209494134). Other editors have noted their snark is uncalled for (User:TAnthony: "You don't get to be snarky about perceived laziness when you don't bother formatting your citation" Special:Diff/1209395413/1209406940).

I don't see prior history of this kind of behavior, in ANI or their talk page, prior to about 2 weeks ago. Has the account been hijacked? Bobak has been an admin since 2007, they clearly know better than to behave like this. -- GreenC 05:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely with talk page access revoked. Reminder that indefinite does not mean infinite — I just didn't know how to time the length of this block. This will almost certainly end up at ARBCOM, so this is a stop-gap measure. As mentioned in my block notice, being an admin does not allow one to attack others with impunity. El_C 05:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This is obviously an exceptional block since it involves an admin. Accordingly, any admin may adjust it as they see fit, including by lifting it outright. I need not be consulted or even notified. El_C 06:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

El_C, that this editor is an administrator, that was news to me. I'd never have thought it. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Non-involved comment: Maybe WP:XRV could be the venue for discussing your action? I have seen admins use it before when making a potentially controversial block.

ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No one has raised an objection for this block yet. If El C feels the need to get reassurance or a concrete conclusion on whether this block is appropriate and justified, they are free to create a thread there themselves. Right now I don't see a need to review this action. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No, no WP:FORUMSHOP, obscure or otherwise. I'm good with here (or at RfAR). El_C 15:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair point.ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I see a bunch more questionable and rude edit summaries going back years, though not as bad as the current ones. [41][42][43][44][45] It doesn't look like a compromised account, since the language is similar in some places. It could just be a stress or WP:EUI incident, wouldn't be the first and it doesn't necessarily need permanent consequences. Endorse block at least until we can figure out what's going on. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I've restored talk-page access (with El C's permission above) in case Bobak has any response to give; anyone is welcome to re-revoke it without consulting me if it's used inappropriately. But yeah, unless there's a very good explanation forthcoming, this is on the fast track to WP:ARC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Endorse block, it will have to be an amazingly good explanation. And being under the influence would be the worst possible ones. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, Extraordinary Writ. I revoked TPA because the tirade was happening an hour'ish prior. If it would have happened something like 24 hours earlier, as was the case with the AdamBlack89 NPA block directly above (damn, many blocks last night), I likely wouldn't have touched talk page access. But this seemed like more of an urgent, in-the-present thing. HTH. El_C 15:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom appears to have started the process for a speedy WP:LEVEL2 desysop, so I don't think there's a need for a full case request at this point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: I think there is a need if people would like to see this admin desyoped. I see no urgency that requires LEVEL1 or LEVEL2 -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, according to reliable sources, he seems to just swear a lot without any intended malice, so this may just be a situation in which a prolific user from the early 2000s who's been relatively inactive in the last ten years is due some reminder about the changing nature of discourse and language — namely that the "In which there is epicly random cuntwaffle douchenozzle chimpfuckery" era of the web has passed, and we are currently in the "Hey! I’m so glad you reached out. I’m actually at capacity / helping someone else who’s in crisis / dealing with some personal stuff right now, and I don’t think I can hold appropriate space for you. Could we connect (later/date) or time instead/ Do you have someone else to reach out to?" era. jp×g🗯️ 22:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  First bullet point above is his response to such a reminder - to blank it and make more personal attacks. MrOllie (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, maybe a sequence of increasingly heavy reminders, delivered with greater velocity. jp×g🗯️ 22:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I was surprised that this escalated to an indef so rapidly. Obviously Bobak's behavior is not acceptable and it needs to be addressed, but jumping straight to indef for an editor with no apparent history of sanctions seems harsh. On the other hand, I'm also not comfortable allowing Bobak to retain access to the blocking tool. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am satisfied by Bobak's explanation at his talk page. The block should be lifted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's their prerogative to make a convincing unblock request. Mach61 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note that Bobak has now responded on his talk page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• This went 0 to 100 (blocked with no TPA) very quickly. Are experienced users who violate WP:CIVIL usually responded to in this way? I was under the impression that the community often dithers on civility blocks. In this case, perhaps the response was too strong? We also now have an explanation and apology on the user talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking for myself, I think the quick indef was appropriate only because there was concern about a potentially compromised account. The edit summaries looked a lot like ones that banned editors leave when they have an axe to grind with Wikipedia. Now we know that isn't the case, and Bobak has apologized and agreed to tone down the edit summaries. We can discuss civility issues, but I'm fully convinced the block is no longer needed to prevent ongoing misconduct so I'm lifting it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, The Wordsmith, I appreciate you. El_C 00:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• I explained why indef was used rather than timed and about TPA, if some fail to read it, there's really not much I can do about that. But I'll reiterate that there were a couple issue raised (at different levels of probability), including as the OP asked: Has the account been hijacked? Anyway, Bobak seems to have calmed down, so I'll be unblocking. They are of course welcome to engage the discussion directly, though obviously civilly is a must. El_C 00:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, they were already unblocked. Sorry, I missed The Wordsmith's note about that (due to ec). El_C 00:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: As an uninvolved user, it's good to see Bobak has offered an apology, but a statement like Frankly, I believe the Wikipedia block function should not be weaponized by users who are simply annoyed by another [46] is concerning. This statement suggests a belief the block happened for some kind of personal reason rather than a recognition that the block happened for two reasons: because there was concern that hijacking was at play; and because such behavior violated Wikipedia policies. Civility is one of the five pillars of the project. Bobak's history of contributions is a great thing, but I hope there's understanding that invoking such history isn't exculpatory and that being an admin does not allow one to attack others with impunity [47]. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• I'm all for indefinitely blocking the legacy admins, but this did seem to escalate rather quickly. If you think an account is compromised, you could just ask me to look into it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"<redacted>"

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

---

(Redacted)

A pretty egregious violation of WP:ATTACKNAME, looking into their contribs its a fresh user making very rapid, random edits. Edits in general are disruptive. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Redacted, redacted, redacted — all redacted (including the logs). El_C 05:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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

AudiGuy-1204 and me

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

---

My friend, which uses the User:AudiGuy-1204 account, has been editing very weirdly before I even started to edit, and after he got blocked, by repeatedly resetting my modem, he started to vandalize articles of mostly anime, music or car-type articles. This lasted for more than a year.

Last day, AudiGuy reappeared, this time thinking an typo was an different name of a car, then added swastikas to AIV and an admin's talk page, but I entirely took over internet access of my friend. He can no longer edit.

I am not AudiGuy. I will create an new account, which is named identically (despite being not him): ToyotaGuy8811. I don't like Audi, as it moves forward to having an range only featuring electric vehicles.

Now I have edited some of AudiGuy's redirects to be targeted to more relevant articles. AudiGuy started editing in August 2022 as IPs, before creating the account in October and getting blocked mid-November. After that, he continued to edit as an IP until he repeatedly got blocked for block evasion, and the vandalism starts here. The first sock of him as far as I know, was Bucks Meet Weebs, which is an anime-related humorous backronym of the Bavarian Motor Works.

He has repeatedly harassed the anime article editor, Harushiga, creating impostor accounts of them.

He recently started to add swear words and Nazi swastikas, and the vandalism has gone multilingual, vandalizing mostly the Turkish Wikipedia, but also the Japanese, German, French and Dutch Wikipedias.

I am not AudiGuy, nor even a block evasion of him.

Thank you for all your response.

My friend is also an huge car guy, and he created numereous accounts and harassed admins, and I keep getting blocked and all of my constructive edits get reverted, and whenever I post an unblock request, the admins simply think I'm lying or trolling, when it is the fact that I'm closely related to him. 95.70.138.236 (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have now created my account. I am still a car guy, but different than that AudiGuy. This damn AudiGuy made me unable to edit for one year. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Ummmmmmmmmm... — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not him. Still not a block evasion, but I never used that account. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll send ANI notices to every sock of AudiGuy I could ever see. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) If this was a court of criminal law with the power to take away your life, liberty or money, and so with a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof, I would probably believe you when you say that you're not him. As it is all we can do is take away your right to edit one web site, so we subject ourselves to the "balance of probabilities" standard of proof. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Finally I'm free. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I misread it. You say "take away your right to edit one website". Do this means I'm going to be unfortunately blocked? ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaving WP entirely. Rest in peace. ToyotaGuy8811 (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

But not leaving as an IP. I'll continue to edit as an IP. Thanks. 95.70.138.236 (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked both the account and the IP address. This is the typical approach AudiGuy-1204 takes these days, along with trolling WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Regular vandalism, edit warring by Maphumor

Maphumor is continuously contesting in edit warring. He deletes Wikipedia informations without explanation according to his whims. He is seen continuously to impose his edits over other editors. If you see his edits, his edits are mainly of deleting information. Besides, he clearly seems to uphold or suppress specific specific political ideas (he probably does not like that is not my issue...His disruptions is making problems). His edits can be included in Vandalism, Disruptions, Edit Warring, Biased editing. Multiple editors @User:Dhruv edits, @User:Shaan Sengupta, @User:Happyjit Singh, User:XYZ 250706. Please take steps against his edits. A discussion regarding him was done here previously also with no outcome. User:XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide specific WP:DIFFs of edits you believe were vandalism. Note that vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and false accusations can be considered personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Indian_National_Developmental_Inclusive_Alliance_candidates_for_the_2024_Indian_general_election&oldid=1210034588 Here he deletes Party names as per his wishes even many editors have said him not to delete them. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Indian_general_election_in_Tamil_Nadu&oldid=1209209948 Maphumor here deleted AIADMK party (major party in Tamil Nadu) without giving explanation or sources. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Such activities are continuous. If he does not do such activities, many number of editors would not have to warn him continuously. XYZ 250706 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Gresha Schuilling

Can I have some eyes on Gresha Schuilling? We've got a couple of socks (Gresha Schuilling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2402:d000:8138:13a0:5071:b6b8:cb63:512b (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Dylan Yadhati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) turning stub into a full-blown hagiography. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. She is actually part of the church I go to, so I'm trying to contribute some more recent information from her website since the current details are from 20 years ago. Dylan Yadhati (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed for a week, which unfortunately locks you out as well IP 81. All are welcome to use the Talk to determine whether she's notable and, if so, what should be included. Star Mississippi 19:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll survive! ;-) Thanks for this, Star (and also to Bbb23). 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

and thank you for flagging it, IP 81. Have a great day Star Mississippi 19:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Navbox top / Template:Last word vandalism

Looks like an admin's gone postal, I'm unable to revert this. — east718 | talk | 20:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Special:PageHistory/Template:Navbox top and Special:PageHistory/Template:Last word since it lags my browser.

Also perhaps this should be posted at WP:AN. Edit: Nevermind, it was not an admin. – 2804:F14:80C5:3C01:883F:AC05:C289:2CD4 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the templates and blocked the account. Any more anywhere? The word 'compromise' springs to mind, though I don't have a lot of data to go on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I figured they'd be protected due to high visibility, sorry for the false alarm. — east718 | talk | 20:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It was EC-ripened, probably a sleeper. Also, hi East718. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've upgraded both to Template Editor protection, they really should have been using it already with how many transclusions they have. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Long time false numbers insertion into Ukrainians article

Ukrainians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - IP editors are persistent to change population numbers contrary to what sources say [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] and so on. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be different IPs each time, perhaps page protection? Conyo14 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

On the other side, I see many good IP edits in article history. Any solution other than long-time page protection? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Perhaps pending changes protection? —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 23:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Manyareasexpert, the most recent of those edits was made two months ago. This is neither an urgent incident nor a chronic, intractable behavioral problem as described at the top of this noticeboard. I suggest that you keep the article on your watch list, and ask for help from an administrator if active disruption resumes. Cullen328 (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The edits are chronic and the last edit was today [54] but yes, it's not urgent. Maybe more editors will add the page to their watchlist as I may come and go. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like an excellent case for pending changes. Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

[55] now it's 2 days old acc. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a week and applied pending changes for an indefinite duration. Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I applied for a pending changes reviewer. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@StarkReport; Edit warring, numerous warnings, WP:CIR, WP:OR and other violations

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

- WP:EDITWAR

[56] (his 1st rv, reverted then by me)

[57] (his 2nd rv, reverted then by @HaeB)

[58] (3rd one, he'd rv Apaugasma's edit, reverted then by @Toddy1)

[59] (4th one, he'd rv Toddy1's reversion, was reverted then by @TryKid)

[60] (5th, rv some text)

[61] (6th, rv @DenverCoder19's reversion, was reverted then by @Toddy1)

- WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:CIR. Numerous warnings already regarding edit warring and other stuff on his talk page. However, he removed all of them.

[62] , [63] warned by @HistoryofIran

[64] by @Kuru

[65] by @Diannaa

[66] by @Isabelle Belato

[67] by @AhmadLX

[68] by @Gotitbro

[69], [70] by @LouisAragon

[71] by @Girth Summit

[72] by @Apaugasma

[73] by @Toddy1

- WP:OR; source misrepresentation

[74] Pointed out by @AhmadLX

[75] (Including cherrypicking & WP:CENSORSHIP) pointed out by me.

[76] Unsourced.

- WP:CIR or WP:IDHT

StarkReport was informed by Toddy1 [77], [78] that deleting text but leaving its sources is something that destroys verifiability. He replied with "alright" [79]. He had also been warned about something similar by TryKid [80]. However, just recently he overwrote some text but again left the sources of the text he removed [81]. Even though those abundant sources were for information that was very different from the text he just entered.

- WP:COPYVIO (had been warned before by Diannaa)

[82] Almost exact copy from [83] p. 6. (Compare the edit with [84] the parts I underlined, he merely added "According to the influential thesis of Ameer Ali" at the beginning of the passage.)

-WP:CENSORSHIP, whitewashing on articles related to Islam.

[85] Removed sourced content that

... Muslim world exporting as many as 17 million slaves to the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa

[86] Again censorship (−1,061‎)‎. Warned then by AhmadLX [87].

Starkreport then proposed a draft on the article's talk page. However, @Apaugasma considered that his draft:

"is a lot worse than the original. What it trims are not needless details, but the context needed to understand how exactly the views of the different scholars differ. The proposed revision reads as if all these views are more or less the same. This not only misrepresents these views (since in actuality they are rather different), it also gives the paragraph –even though it is shorter than the original– an almost superfluous feel."

[88] Trying to remove this sourced material:

"Aisha also spoke her mind, even at the risk of angering Muhammad. On one such instance, Muhammad's "announcement of a revelation permitting him to enter into marriages disallowed to other men drew from her [Aisha] the retort, 'It seems to me your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!"

- Again WP:CIR or WP:IDHT

Starkreport was told by Apaugasma on the Battle of Karbala's talk page on August 1, 2023 [89] that "Historical subjects generally require (secular) academic scholarly sources", but just recently he was again trying to use religious sources in Aisha to push a fringe theory [90]. I, as well as Apaugasma, informed him again that our WP:SOURCE policy requires sources to be independent [91], [92]. Toddy1 also told him that the view he was pushing was fringe [93]. His response suggests that he understood [94]. But not long after that, he did it again [95].

- Trying to mislead people to win over an argument.

[96] Warned by @HaeB to "not throw around links to pages that do not mean what you claim they mean."

[97] Told by me that he was misrepresenting what Apaugasma said. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 02:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Displaying revisions from over a year and a half ago, during a period when I was less experienced, all of which were successfully resolved amicably.

2. Misrepresenting the minor issues as significant ones.

3. Utterly false accusations and distortions like "Trying to remove this sourced material"[98] where as I merely discussed it with a senior user and he simply stated "I think it contributes a lot to our understanding of their relationship" and the end.

I absolutely refute this appaling fabricated evidence which has been manipulated to align with the perspective of a single user, Kaalakaa.

This is a clear-cut case of WP:Bullying's False accusations and Misrepresentation. Please tak action against this sort of behavior.

To the administrators, I respectfully request to ask those mentioned above like Apaugasma, @Toddy1, @Anachronist, and others about what do they think. StarkReport (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to mislead people. The ones from 1.5 years ago are just a few of the warnings on your talk page, while the diffs about your behavior are mostly recent. And many of them are by no means minor. Anyway, I'm already tired of your incoherent bludgeoning. The evidence is there, let's just see what the admins have to say. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 22:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Responding to pings. I'm sorry, but I don't have time for this. Both of you seem to seek out difficult and controversial Islam-related issues, yet neither of you seem to have a proper understanding of the historiography of Islam, nor the editorial skill to forge a consensus on thorny subjects.
  I was pinged to Talk:Aisha on 30 January, and responded that I wouldn't be investing a full week's time into this. Yet you both are still bickering there and elsewhere. Both of you, indeed StarkReport somewhat more than Kaalakaa, but both of you are causing serious timesinks for other editors.
  My advice for you two is to stop editing Islam-related articles, and to go and edit something on which you have less strong feelings and more expertise. My advice to the community is that if this doesn't stop, topic bans on Islam-related subjects should be considered. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Dear @Apaugasma, I apologize if you think of me that way. But on that article's talk page, those who disagreed and tried to explain policies and guidelines (such as WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, etc.) to StarkReport were not only me, but also many other editors, including yourself. As @TryKid summarized the situation here as one (StarkReport) against many. While on WP:ORN [99] I simply pointed out the gross source misrepresentation StarkReport made in another article, which still doesn't get a response from him. There is indeed a difference of opinion between me and you (which is normal for people) regarding the treatment of a fringe theory about Aisha (you yourself agreed with me that it is a fringe theory [100]), which you have not responded to here. Maybe it's because you haven't had time, or maybe my concern isn't worth responding to for you. But if you think I should be given the same sanction as StarkReport, who I believe has done the violations I listed above, I think that is very unfair. I believe that I have always tried to write articles in accordance with our policies and guidelines. If you see problems with my other edits, feel free to point them out and I will try my best to answer or fix them. But still, I respect your opinions, even if I find them hard to accept. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 00:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Kaalakaa,I take my words back about addressing you as a "senior editor." It seems you clearly are not. The amount of times you exhibited WP:IDHT and WP:CIR is exhausting. And, despite my explicit clarification "Kaalakaa, my argument has nothing to do with including the views of Muslims scholars rather the content like however, elsewhere Tabari appears to suggest----- " which was made by consensus way before both of us "should not be removed under no circumstances" and yet you shamefully tried to manipulate it "But not long after that, he did it again" and tried to get me banned. But, to no avail.

  Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and stop treating it as such. Else you will be sanctioned. StarkReport (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy close - WP:FORUMSHOP There was already a report of StarkReport ^{created by Kaalakaa 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)} at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Source misrepresentation and cherrypicking in History of Hinduism. It is best to deal with that complaint first.

The list of complaints by Kaalakaa (above) is over-long because it contain duplication. @StarkReport: would do him/herself a big favour if he used talk page archiving. With talk page archiving it would be easy to see that he/she had dealt with some (or most) of the warnings in an entirely satisfactory way. If he/she wants, I will set it up for him.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The No Original Research noticeboard has a different purpose than this one (ANI). If an editor has engaged in multiple different forms of problematic behavior (e.g. misrepresenting sources on the one hand and e.g. edit-warring, battleground behavior, misrepresenting other editors' comments, or misrepresenting Wikipedia policies on the other hand), then I don't see why it should be prohibited to raise each in the most appropriate noticeboard around the same time.

In any case, concerning the NOR noticeboard thread you brought up (which Kaalakaa had already cross-linked above): Despite StarkReport's vocal but unspecific denial (Absolutely not. [...]), two other editors appear to since have agreed there that StarkReport has indeed misrepresented sources. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

There is also an element of spin in the above report. The claimed "edit war" consisted of a list of all the reverts he/she made to the page on Aisha between 30 January and 23 February.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There is also an element of spin in the above report. The claimed "edit war" consisted of a list of all the reverts he/she made to the page on Aisha between 30 January and 23 February.

Isn't slow edit warring blockable? Like these cases, perhaps: [101], [102]

And the first four of his reversions, which I listed above, took place between January 30, 2024 and February 3, 2024.

WP:FORUMSHOP There was already a report of StarkReport created by Kaalakaa 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC) at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Source misrepresentation and cherrypicking in History of Hinduism. It is best to deal with that complaint first.

I'm not sure about that. WP:ORN is not a place to "report" on an editor's behaviour, it is a place to ask for input on possible original research. And the issue I raised there is just one of the many things I listed above. Also, I posted this report here because I saw the 6th rv by him.

The list of complaints by Kaalakaa (above) is over-long because it contain duplication.

Which part is a duplicate? Let me know so I can strike it.

would do him/herself a big favour if he used talk page archiving. ... If he/she wants, I will set it up for him.

That, I think, is a pretty good idea. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This is one example of duplication.

• 107 by @Toddy1.
• StarkReport was informed by Toddy1 22, 23 that deleting text but leaving its sources is something that destroys verifiability. He replied with "alright" 24.

I have not checked to see whether there are others duplicates. If I were you I would also strike through the nonsensical complaint of edit warring above - if you look at the diffs: No. 1 & 2 are about one thing, No. 3 & 4 are about a different thing, No. 5 is about yet another thing, and No. 6 is about a load of different things. i.e. the six reverts done over a 25 day period are about four different edits. You are beating a dead horse. Both you and StarkReport are inexperienced. Just accept that you have made a mistake. We all make them. Be willing to accept advice. And if there is still an issue with StarkReport's behaviour after the other forum report is closed, wait two weeks and figure out which forum is best for it, and then make a report that applies the lessons about what was wrong with this one.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This is one example of duplication.
*107 by @Toddy1.
*StarkReport was informed by Toddy1 22, 23 that deleting text but leaving its sources is something that destroys verifiability. He replied with "alright" 24.

The one above is in the list of warnings on his talk page, while the one below is my elaboration of one of his WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issues. So I don't think it's a duplicate.

No. 1 & 2 are about one thing, No. 3 & 4 are about a different thing, No. 5 is about yet another thing, and No. 6 is about a load of different things.

WP:EW:

The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.

the six reverts done over a 25 day period are about four different edits.

As I mentioned earlier, his first 4 reverts happened between January 30, 2024 and February 3, 2024. He had received an edit-warring warning [103] from Apaugasma after his 3rd revert. It was only his 5th and 6th reverts that took place on February 23, 2024. Perhaps this case of another editor can be used as a comparison. Their first 4 reverts happened between July 8 and July 13, 2013, while their 5th and 6th reverts happened on August 1 and August 3, 2013, respectively. But they got blocked for edit-warring, nonetheless.

the other forum report

Dear Toddy, like I already said, WP:ORN is not a place to "report" on an editor's behaviour, it is a place to ask for input on possible original research. And the issue I raised there is just one of the many things I listed above. Also, I posted this ANI report here because I saw the 6th rv by him. If I only report it later after the issue I raised on WP:ORN is archived, I'm afraid it will be too late to report this edit warring case. 🙂 — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 03:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

How does an editor whose account was created in 2023 know about a WP:AN/3RR case from 2013?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1, If its any relevance, Kaalakaa has also been under suspicion of engaging in sockpuppetry. After @DeCausa asked him about it, he clearly refused to give a direct answer. See SPI investigation.

You are more informed about the necessity of initiating another more thorough immediate investigation if it is required. StarkReport (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've only seen Kaalakaa at Muhammad. It's pretty obvious they edited extensively before this account and, for whatever reason, don't wish to disclose it. I don't know who they were previously so it's not something I would take to SPI. Don't know anything about the issues in this thread. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea if or by what account Kaalakaa edited previously, but as far as the linked SPI report goes, I am 100% sure that Kaalakaa is not Loverofediting (and trust me, I'm in a position to know that). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Didn't you know that we had a search function? The results can be very random if you don't sort by date, though. Like the reason I got that case. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 10:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read through the whole complaint, but seeing StarkReport's behaviour around the time I had an eye on the talk page, I do see a pattern of obnoxious (civil?) POV-pushing. And now silly references to "battleground behaviour", "CIR", "IDHT" against the complainant here—pre-empting or mirroring descriptions of his behaviour? I'm not sure whether any adminstrative action is required though. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that StarkReport shows a pattern of obnoxious but definitely civil POV-pushing ('sealioning', though apparently more as a result of inexperience than of bad faith). I'm also not sure whether administrative action is required. I think that would get cleared up more easily if Kaalakaa's approach to dealing with the civil POV-pushing would be much more concise and a little less battleground-like. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, when I initiated the discussion about the Aisha article, I envisioned a swift resolution with a few requests for improvements. Regrettably, I had no idea it would drag this long. StarkReport (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

OR/POV issues

User:Orunab has continually inserted OR into the F35 article, continuing to do so after their level 4 warning: [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]. Further, the comment on their TP, "Note: Please accept the Turkish Defense Technology reality, and give up the US Defense's Global Monopoly" indicates to me that this is a pretty obvious case of POV editing and WP:NOTHERE. Loafiewa (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them from Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II for a month. There are other problematic boosterish edits on other topics, that may warrant a broader block if they continue. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Indian IP disruptive editing

Indian based anonymous IP editor is unfortunately being a broken record and repeatedly trying to re-add in his same uncivil reply to others multiple times, despite being reverted on it. I request looking into him and blocking him as best you can as it seems he is just unlikely to stop.[110][111][112][113] HarmonyCrusador (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Report against Fred Zepelin for censorship, bias and vandalism on Al-Duraji

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

---

Page: Al-Duraji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Reported Editor: Fred Zepelin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Reporting Editor: Elijahtree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fred Zepelin has been purposefully hounding me and removing my sourced content from this page, claiming my edits as "suspect", suspect for what exactly I am not sure. Attempting to condense me and this user's history is as followed:

• I have been making genuine, useful contributions to this page for roughly a week now, and have made 21 edits thus far. I cleaned up, added information, and removed hazy information made my prior contributors without bias, for instance I removed a not so notable tribesman from the Notable's list seen here. And rewording some fairly opinionated language, seen here.

• Problems arose when this user first began to edit the page, you can tell by the demeanor and clear biases in his edits that he was not trying to make relevant, useful edits to this page but instead the opposite:
  

Extended content
Bombardment of edits

• He made a one or two good edits, such as removing the YouTube citations (which where not added by me), and removed the Kuwait section due to these citations. Although he could have searched this information up to verify it's authenticity, to which I found that it is, as mentioned on known Arabic media outlets, but I chalked it up to this user being not knowledgable in the Arabic language and just wanted the satisfaction of ruining someone's work and research.

• Problems arose when he took it upon himself to "remove non-notables", where he took it upon himself to judge who was well-known enough to stay and who had to go. I began to question this user's underlying intentions when I found that he removed arguably the two most known people on the list. One of them even having roughly 4.5 million followers on Instagram. I then formally warned him over the cont. comments saying:

"re-added Hafid, and Abdul-Jabbar to the Notable Clan Members list. Please do not remove anyone from the Notable Clan list if you personally do not know them. This is an Arab tribe and these people are a lot more known compared the the other two in the Arab regions. If you do not come from an Arab background please do not assume you know best and just remove people for not having a Wikipedia page on the English directory"

• I do not know how I could have made it more clear that I skimmed through his logs and found that he has no connection to this region and should not make any haphazard edits which ruins the page. I did find other behaiviour which I wanted to raise to the Wikipedia administrators which I found to be against the Project's fundamental principles, which I will get to next. User responded by reverting back and ignoring my warning, further commenting:

"Lots of problematic additions. Most of the sourcing looks suspect (Getty Images, e.g.?) reverted, take to talk page, please"

• This is where my clear red-flags appeared, I knew this user was trying to sway the information of the article to something which suits him. The "problematic" additions was referring to the 'Victims of War' subsection I added, which was fully cited and syntaxed in a professional manner. No reason to suggest this to be problematic unless to quietly censor information pertaining to a specific narrative. He then further goes on to suggest that "most" of the sources are suspect. Most of the sources are in Arabic as you see, and I assume this clear unusual user is suggesting anything in Arabic is suspect. He then justifies his actions by bringing up the sole one Getty Images citation. This either shows he is being manipulative since this information was already mentioned in the previously cited source, and I just added the Getty Images citation for some extra information and a visual. Or this user did not even go through the informaiton and just wanted to find any reason to justify reverting back.

Extended content
User purposefully clogging logs with useless edits to either obfuscate his clear vandalism, or make it seem like he is providing the page with plenty high-quality edits.

• As seen above, to cut a long story short, he further ignored my requests for him to stop removing information from the page for no reason twice, making it three times he vandalised the page, and to rub salt in the wound he claimed that I was disrupting the page and claimed that if I revert back to the original uncensored page, an Admin will block my editing privilages. I assume he thought since I am a fairly new user I wouldn't know how to escalate this user for review and would just keep quiet. I would like to also pay close attention on his editing style, being that he populates the log with a rapid burst of substandard edits in quick succession. Described in the extended content above.
  

Extended content
User began warning me in an attempt to getting me banned from the editting the page. Seemingly ignores any communication with me and just waits for me to revert back to warn again minutes after re-reverting. Extremely manipulative behaiviour, seemingly targetting what he thinks is a new user to forcefully stop them from editting?

I hope the admin's notice through this detailed report and screenshots what this user's main undertaking behind his aggressive interference against my edits, and clear attempt of suppressing my future edits from, ironically, the page which I contributed most to in recent days and they contributed nil. It is a smart yet extrememly disingenuous approach in censoring views which differ with his. He was extremely quick to send me the three warning when I reverted his removals, yet ignored to all my responses on my talk page; even when he verbatim asked me to respond to him on it, twice. This would leave me, or any other victim, with no other choice but to keep reverting his vandalism, until they had enough warnings to get the original editor blocked from future edits. This would have probably worked if I was new to Wikipedia and had no idea about how to complain, unfortunately for him that isn't the case today.

This type of manipulation should be looked into from this user and why he was showing a clear bias against showing the IDF in a less favorable manner? The reason why I donate to Wikipedia and take my time researching and writing edits is due to this project's commitment to spreading genuine information. This user's censorship truly rubbed me the wrong way. Thus, looking through his logs to confirm any suspicions I gathered from this user's edit history, here are screenshots arguing the following agendas/behaviours shown by this user:

toxicity, disruptive user:

Extended content
Previously told off for falsely accusing other for vandalism.

Extended content
has had previous involvment in edit wars to push his narrative above the rest, yet blame me for inciting an edit war?

Extended content
censors, more than contributes.

chauvinism, general political activity:

Extended content
the only page I saw him actively working on, didn't check if these were edit wars, but he seemed to be editing the Sound of Freedom a lot, and mentions QAnon a lot too, etc.

Extended content
calls another user disruptive for adding more detail differentiating. he seems to find a lot user disruptive.

other users complaints of his bias, aggressive editing, and pushing a one-sided narrative:

Extended content
banned previously for personal attacks towards other editors.

Extended content
another user calls his wording "so obnoxious in its haughtiness".

Extended content
an editor claims that he unfairly removed the entire 'accuracy' section from the Sound of Freedom wiki. more political bias, censorship, and narrative-pushing

Extended content
another user claiming he is hounding, and reverting edits, without even reading the sources.

Extended content
more claims of him hounding other users to stop/change edits, again, referring to the Sounds of Freedom movie. To which he professionally responds "oooo, "final warning"!!! Scary threat, making me so scared."

lastly, and most relevant to this page, Israeli/Judaism leaning bias; partial anti-Arabism:

Anti-Arab Phraseology

1) he wasn't a fan of the slighlty optismistic language describing a notable fact about the pyramid at Abu Rawash, and reworded the entire paragraph to sound monotone (which is good, yet there is a clear contradiction below).

2) funnily enough, a little more than 10 minutes later he decides this reworded piece doesn't fit and claims that since this (his reworded version) is about the pyramid and not Abu Rawash, I don't think it belongs here at all. This could be argued against, since stripping pyramids from Abu Rawash is like stripping water from a fish. And he further changed the interesting fact about the area regarding the pyramids, to a monotonous fact which seemed out of place. looks even a little purposeful from a third party spectating.

File:SCR-20240223-uofk.png

he was also quick to associate with the Islamic Movement in Israel (mentioned as an Islamist group) to being "also known" as Islamic Movement in 48 Palestine. I couldn't find one source showing this being called such a name in Arabic or Hebrew. I did find one or two sources, that look to be created using pure html, which use this term. One of which having comments calling the term a misnomer.

Jewish-Bias Phraseology

File:Change of wording.png

as seen here, compared to the Abu Rawash monotonous rewrite, this rewrite seems to be a lot more opinionated. I don't know anything about this movie, but I just wanted to show the contradictions of this user stating his commitment to the removal of "superfluous language".

Alas presenting all this information of this user's behaviour, and returning back to the main issue with Fred Zepelin disrupting my edits on the Al-Duraji. I kindly ask for Administrator to look into this user and his aggressive reversals for no reason.

If it is possible to place a protection against this page please let me know. Of course please do also check through the citations/information looking for any problematic additions as this user claimed, since he did not expand nor explained what the problem was.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahtree (talk • contribs) 11:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't pretend to have read all of the above, but simply note that neither party to this content dispute has posted at Talk:Al-Duraji. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

i see, is that my responsibility or his? since I wasn't the one with the issue. He did post on my user talk page. Thanks for the heads up, and respect the honesty lol. Elijahtree (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It is both of your responsibilities. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am going to be plain, there is no use beating around the bush here.

1. The contributions Elijahtree has made are wrong for the reasons Fred Zepelin pointed out, they are not in accordance with Wikipedia content guidelines and policies, the ones they've linked and that that Elijahtree makes no mention of whatsoever, and they were right to revert them how they did. They should have posted on the talk page sooner.
2. Fred's tone in each example you've posted is snippy at best, but is usually totally ordinary. They largely commented on the content, and Elijahtree decided at every possible opportunity to take it as a personal insult. I am not sure how it would be possible for Fred to raise their concerns without Elijahtree doing this, which means that they are likely going to have trouble collaborating with anyone that has different views than them, which is required on Wikipedia. Fred's comments elsewhere are variously less acceptable.
3. Elijahtree's multiparagraph, multimedia post here is pure polemic and a completely unacceptable overreaction to the issues above. They have cast an aspersion on Fred for every 4 edits they've ever made. A low edit count is not a disqualifier from having grievances, but the fact that Elijahtree's has so quickly posted something like this in response to ordinary editorial remarks is telling to anyone with experience working in group settings.

The snippiest remark Fred made to Elijahtree is not worth bringing up in any ANI theoretical discussion. Again, they should have posted on the talk page sooner. On the other hand, Elijahtree has convinced me in the span of one edit that they are WP:NOTHERE, unfortunately, this is a WP:BOOMERANG case.

Elijahtree, you do not WP:own or have rights to any particular page, even ones you have personal feelings about. You have not been acting like this is the case, and as such, ordinary edits are personal insults. At no point have you assumed good faith from anyone who you haven't been using as evidence for your case. If you can't do that, then you will not find other editors to be more acceptable to you. Remsense诉 12:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

remsense,

I see that kindness isn't really important in your response, so I will take you advice and respond snippily to attempt to understand what you are attempting to tell me. You have decided upon a few, weird, conclusions to take away in your assessment, and I can infer that you are not looking at this report from a neutral lens, and seemed to side with the reported user at all times; This response fits the role of Fred's defense attorny moreso than it does a nonpartisan moderator, not very just of you. The implication that my contributions are not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines is portrayed as an opinion rather than me breaking rules, you and Fred have both not given any specific examples or policies that I broke to substantiate such claims, which I could use to improve my edits and stop this user from censoring me. I am an Anthro. major at a great school, so I would hope I know how to cite correctly and I believe I ensured that my edits are well-researched and fully cited. Again, you have failed with showing me what policy I broke, merely saying this user is right isn't enough to prove what content guideline I broke. There are no YouTube articles, nor is the Getty Images reference being used as a primary citation and can be removed if need be. Those are the only two examples they have managed to point out and you saying "they've linked and that that Elijahtree makes no mention of whatsoever" is just nonsensical jargon which doesn't make sense.

1. The assertion that I have claimed ownership over the page is unfounded. You are falsely putting words in my mouth, please point me to one place where I asserted ownership in anyway since the word 'my' is not found. Enhancing an article with useful information is not equivalent to ownership; it is a contribution to the collective knowledge base that Wikipedia represents, I would assume you would understand that being an authority figure at Wikipedia. The reasoning behind the reversions made to my edits have been extremely vague and unexplained, which is counterproductive to this editing process. If there are concrete reasons for these reversions, they should be clearly articulated, allowing for a constructive dialogue. You stating "contributions Elijahtree has made are wrong for the reasons Fred Zepelin pointed out" is not helpful at all.

2. My concern has never been about the tone of the discourse against my edits nor do I care at all; rather, it is the unwarranted reversion of my contributions that is at issue. I am focused on content, not personal sensitivities. The lack of clear communication as to why the edits are considered problematic is the crux of the matter. If you are referring to me simply pointing out this behaiviour going on in the past as me being emotional, then you are wrong. I just wanted to show that I am not the only one having this issue with this user.

3. Mentioning the user's history was intended to shed light on a relevant pattern of behavior, and make it easier for the moderators to find all relevant information, not to provoke or overreact, and definitely not to "cast an aspersion". I have never reported anyone before and looking through some posts, I see I may have written this a little too professionally, yet never once was I disrespectful in my report, just pointing out what is public domain. If you see that as "completely unacceptable overreaction", then what do you consider your rage-filled response, a mental breakdown?

simply looking at your final paragraph shows you either a. didn't read my report, b. are twisting what the report entails. here is bullet points:

. "you do not WP:own or have rights to any particular page" = falsely accusing me saying such a thing. Do not make assumptions.

. "even ones you have personal feelings about" = what? I am not a tribe member my name is Elijah. Nonsensical claim.

. "You have not been acting like this is the case, and as such, ordinary edits are personal insults." = That made absolutely zero sense again, acting like what?, what case?, how did you derive this random conclusion. I have no idea where youa are getting the idea I am reporting my feelings getting hurt as opposed to censorship, did you read the title at least? More baseless assumptions?

. "At no point have you assumed good faith from anyone who you haven't been using as evidence for your case" = What are you waffling about lol? good faith? the guy is reverted my edits, why are you making this all about emotions. I do not care about emotion, simply reporting exploitative reversions!!

. "then you will not find other editors to be more acceptable to you" thanks for the random dig lol, you are very emotional which is very weird since not once did I mention insults or emotions or anything of the sort, your seemingly twisting it in such a way which I will not let you falsely do. Simply his censorship of cited data is the issue! and his history of doing this as shown above. I didn't ask you to ban him from the site, and if you seriously even suggest that your response is written from an impartial neauttral perspective such claim would be laughing. As I said, you did a good job acting as Fred's attorney, this was the most one-sided thing I have ever seen, You almost fully fabricated, twisted, and ignored every single point I brought up, and made this an emotional issue, when you seem to be the only emotionally charged person in this thread. I will request arbritration in hopes of showing this clearly corrupt, one-sided response. I literally even say he made two good edits in the beginning, but you are making it seem like I hate the guy. Wikipedia truly have to reconsider you having such a role in the community, since judging from a nonpartisian perspecting should be the most imporant this for such a role. I wish you well for your future endeavours. Elijahtree (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

References

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

Disruption and personal attacks

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

Aroneasadas has been making disruptive edits and personal attacks ever since they have started to edit election articles and this has increased since the past week.

• On February 2023, removed 22,000 bytes of content from an article without any explanation. Special:diff/1138944985 Two months later, edit wars over it (Special:diff/1149496511) and once again without explanation.(Special:diff/1165972819)
• This was his response to another user in the talk page of an election article on March 2023: "...i can also accuse of you being anti India , pro terrorist." (Special:diff/1144950325)
• Has violated WP:3RR in 2024 Indian general election in Tamil Nadu with five reverts on the edits of three different users within the last 24 hours to push his unsourced POV content.(Special:diff/1209812236)(Special:diff/1209816206)(Special:diff/1209841957)(Special:diff/1209934641)(Special:diff/1209944362). From 21 February 2024 to 24 February 2024, he has made 8 reverts in this article without any explanation.
• When I posted a warning template for edit warring in their talk page, he personally attacks me and calls me a "moron". "... I do not have to tolerate your lies and deceit. You are the moron one who changes my edits to the way you like and trying to gaslight me.." (Special:diff/1209933475)

Most of his disruption since the past week is happening on 2024 Indian general election in Tamil Nadu to secure his POV version of the article by indiscriminately reverting anyone with no explanations in the edit summaries. - SUN EYE 1 13:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

What you accuse me about is applicable to you also

your reasoning for changing my edits is based on your delusional dogmatic view points.

Do not expect all of them has the same opinion as yours

None of your expiation is satisfactory, I do not want to type long paragraphs to enlighten you.

You are in pretentious sleep, you can't be awakened

All of your edits are pro indi alliance. Your Low tolerance about other views

for example

1. (Special:diff/1209938590)

2. (Special:diff/1209787884)

3. (Special:diff/1209763413) these are some examples , do not pretend to be a white knight

All of them are not subscribed to your dogmatic ideas and narrative setting

no explanations in the edit summaries

I already give explanations when a critical edit is done for minor edits what the need of explanation.

You are the one deleted those without proving anything

i give links to credible sources, why do you delete it

why you always delete NDA candidates and K.Annamali links without any explanation and saying that "its just cleaning" the article

You are the intolerant one who pretends to be a nice guy

I like to know your view points in details, why do not you explain yourself for your lies and deceit.

I will give summaries and expiation for all my edits. How about that? Aroneasadas (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How about that? Sounds to me like you're talking yourself straight into a WP:NOTHERE indef, is what. Ravenswing 14:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

How about that? Is the only thing you get in your mind ?

I want to give a balanced view points to the world, not one-sided view points

WP:HERE Aroneasadas (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

We do not provide WP:FALSEBALANCE here, nor do we tolerate personal attacks like ...i can also accuse of you being anti India , pro terrorist. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The first unlinked diff you've provided (Special:diff/1209938590) is an edit by another user. The second one (Special:diff/1209787884) is me removing an WP:EL to another language wiki which you had added like a citation. The third one (Special:diff/1209763413) is me nominating an article for deletion with WP:TWINKLE. I'm unsure how these diffs support all the personal attacks in your reply again - SUN EYE 1 05:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Promoter generates online coverage in real time

• Shviki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Мкдвики (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hristijan Kicho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On February 8, 2024 Star Mississippi posted this final warning on a user's talk page. The following is my reasoning for why an administrator should follow up on that warning by applying blocks, as the behavior has continued.

On February 16, the same user has created and continued using another account, which is made plain by applying the duck test to this discussion: User talk:Alalch E.#Thank you.

The user is aware of the latest content to be published on the fairly obscure and blog-like news website ekran.mk, which is operated by two people (see here). They have been reacting to changes in the draft in real time by notifying me that a "latest" or "new" content has been published on said website, that incidentally offers solutions (superficially so) to the sourcing/notability deficiencies identified in the Draft:Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski. There were two instances of this.

• In the first instance (see the first ekran.mk link on my talk page), after the draft was declined, a "news article" was published containg verbatim copies of a book's blurb and foreweword (предговор), written by the book publisher's editor-in-chief and technical editor. The content that is published is incredibly non-newsworthy to the point where one wonders why would this uninteresting and non-news-resembling content be published at such a random time. The user notifies me of this, describing this off-wiki spam as "a full critical look at Macedonian poets about Trajkovski's poetry". I wrote about this in an AfC comment, and got the following (20:01, 17 February 2024) reply on my talk page. I was informed that I will be given "all the necessary information".
• In the second instance, soon afterwards, following my 21:33, 17 February 2024 edit that removes an unverifiable claim that the writer's story was published in the book Different Worlds, I am informed (08:47, 18 February 2024) that a source that purports that the writer has something to do with the book ("his first book anthology project") has just appeared—on 18 February: https://ekran.mk/aleksandar-sasha-trajkovski-so-nova-kniga-antologija-razlichni-svetovi/ ... clearly in response to my edit.

There is off-wiki-coordinated promotional activity that generates off-wiki spam in response to what is happening with the draft.

There are other accounts in this COI cluster, noteworthily, the draft creator. See this for some background, which connects the draft subject as an autobiographer, the off-wiki spammer, and the draft creator: mk:Special:History/Разговор:Александар Т..

All this is really incredibly banal, and it would be possible to ignore it on the side of conduct and keep managing things on the side of AfC (by simply not accepting the draft), but I believe that the pattern should be recognized and recorded somewhere for the future.—Alalch E. 12:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I got this on my talk page, saying "we have made the necessary changes, we have set with our colleagues a source for each sentence, we plan to set up some more new sources independents" (sic) – I thought by 'sources' they meant referencing in the draft, but based on what @Alalch E. says, perhaps they mean "set[ting] up new sources" in a more literal sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is most definitely what they mean. —Alalch E. 12:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to help other poets and writers have an English version besides their more linguistic. But I see my intention to help, you see it as an intention to help, so I retire, you don't need to waste time on me in discussions unnecessary. Greetings and every good. Мкдвики (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I got another perplexing one: [114]. I will give you another source for the critical look at his poetry from other writers, not From Elija and not by Sonja. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Alalch E.. This probably needs an SPI, but as a first step I've blocked Мкдвики as an obvious sock to enforce their threat to retire. Star Mississippi 14:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

To me Hristijan Kicho is an obvious sock. As is Vladimir.grujeski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another account that has only edited the draft. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Brought this back from the archive since it's ongoing and per User_talk:Star_Mississippi#WP:LOUTSOCK (cc @Asilvering). Was the master IDed or are we still just playing whack a sock?

Star Mississippi 14:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

On Talk:Irena_Jordanova#This_article, @Alalch E. made a comment suggesting this sort of activity could go back a long time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we're just playing whack-a-sock, I'll start an SPI and see if CU turns up any others. -- asilvering (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Мкдвики. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Threat or attack by Alexiscoutinho

At Talk:The Vladimir Putin Interview Alexiscoutinho (talk · contribs) first made this reply to @Manyareasexpert:, then after the latter reacted, they made this series of edits. I removed their comment and gave them a warning on their talk page[115] to which they replied.[116] They also restored their "I know from where you're coming from."[117] which sounds like a threat to me (or is it an attack based on Manyareasexpert's nationality which is unknown to me ?).

Let me add that I agree with Manyareasexpert that Alexiscoutinho's attitude towards RS is highly problematic. Examples:[118][119] Rsk6400 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• "I know from where you're coming from." sounds more like an accusation, but it is still PA also for comparison look at their changes over at Battle of Bakhmut Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

May I also note that Slatersteven is not the most impartial observer as we already had beef/content disputes in the past, in that same Battle of Bakhmut page. But I appreciate your effort at contextualization. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• "I know from where you're coming from." is more a colloquialism to say they believe they understand what perspective you're arguing. They might be incorrect, but it's not a threat, more stating that they think you're pushing a specific viewpoint. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• I know I was previously advised by a wise editor to avoid text walls, but I'm afraid I must make one again to adequately contextualize this issue:

This is harassment by this point. The big problem, Rsk6400, is that you are trying to interfere in the affairs of other editors without having any idea of the context. While your action could be viewed as virtuous as a mediator, you inherently risked a lot by making incorrect judgements based on incorrect assumptions.

This all started with a very long content dispute between me and ManyAreasExpert. We often indicated that we viewed one another as biased as we tried to reach balance in the Battle of Bakhmut page. There were a lot of talk page discussions about sources, estimates, attribution, etc. But after a long time and especially after this improper ANI ticket, the dispute seemed to have mostly cooled off. I even made two humble replies, [120] and [121], in a particularly contentious discussion there, Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#IISS removal from Aftermath section. Sadly, he never answered them. I gave him the best chance to properly "make peace", but at least it was clear (if you follow the edit history of that section) that we had pretty much settled. I don't remember exactly if we talked to each other elsewhere after that episode. If we did, it must have been very minimal and cold, as expected.

That was until the latest episode. I once again repeatedly raised a concern about the neutrality and balance of an article, this time the Vladimir Putin Interview article. I tried to defend my argument of keeping the {{Unbalanced section}} templates in some article sections for longer. I was discussing against 3 other editors. Needless to say, I felt backed into a corner and was nearing submission by numbers. The 3 editors, Rsk6400, Tdmurlock and Asarlaí, had all previously contributed to the article and were giving reasonable arguments, which I partially disagreed with. But then, out of nowhere (it was his first participation in the whole page), came ManyAreasExpert harassing me and "adding salt to injury" by making the majority even more overwhelming and also accusing me of continuation of a pattern of not adhering to WP:RS and WP:BALANCE and diminishing reliable sources in favor of (what?). Then he explicitly linked to the previous ANI ticket, something which I had already vehemently condemned before. And he obviously knew it because in the previous episode he masked the link, as I requested, to not make it as provocative. It's like you're in the middle of a job interview and then comes some random person remembering everyone that I had a criminal record. I view that action as extremely inappropriate.

So how should I reply to someone who clearly comes to a new discussion only to attack and discredit me (and apparently holding a grudge over some unfinished dispute)? Nicely? Give me a break. I even thought about creating an ANI ticket because of it, but I thought it was unnecessary and would consume too much of my time (something [time consumption] I'm trying to decrease recently). So I gave him a very harsh response indeed. You're asking for it!!! was an ANI threat, the most unfortunate part of the reply. I wouldn't have wanted to repeat it if such incident happened again. In general, I tried to be very cautious with personal attacks. I.e. when I said disgusting I was clearly referring to the grudge, not him. I also showed frustration that my apology in the Battle of Bakhmut talk page was not reciprocated. But, most importantly, I gave him an option to de-escalate the situation and make me completely retract my comment: I urge you to remove that link once again. If you do, I'll remove most if not all of this reply. And so he wisely did, and masked the link. As I promised, I completely retracted my original comment and substituted it with a cold but more respectuful reply: [122][123]. The I know from where you're coming from. part refers to the previous content dispute of the Battle of Bakhmut page and has absolutely nothing to with nationality, so control your imagination, please. Though only ManyAreasExpert would know that, hence the importance of him raising an ANI ticket if he felt threatened, not other observers who don't know the background.

The issue was solved, albeit quite bluntly. However, Rsk6400, in good faith, decided to be the sheriff/judge and proceeded with pocking the wound again in my talk page, blindly defending ManyAreasExpert, and also by reverting my retraction of the original comment and then deleting it again. Why?! What were you trying to achieve, seriously? The issue was over, the where you're coming from had nothing to do with personal identity, and the issue wasn't about you. It even feels like WP:BAIT. I then rejected his fragile intervention, the edit summary speaks for itself.

Obviously my conduct wasn't exemplary, but so were the others', and, given the context, I believe my strong frustration was understandable. But, in conclusion, I would like to ask for ManyAreasExpert to stop provoking me and for Rsk6400 to be very cautious when asserting yourself as a mediator when you don't know the context, and could consequently be partial, EDIT: because I can bite, especially if I feel cornered. 😉

Thanks for reading to the end. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

May I also add that I and MAE recently had a more friendly indirect interaction at Talk:Battle of Avdiivka (2022–2024)#Many wounded soldiers. Sometimes it feels like a bittersweet relationship, at least for me. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• The primary assertion is that the statement, I know from where you're coming from is a PA. Seriously! HandThatFeeds correctly identifies the reasonable meaning of this, particularly in the fuller context of that post: I understand your POV and am not going to engage with it. I am the editor that was canvassed by AC. While others may not, I see this as a request for an objective third opinion by AC. I provided this comment for which I was thanked by AC and understand the matter to have been resolved. The allegation that I know from where you're coming from is a PA is itself a frivolous and vexatious PA that only serves to enliven the dispute and weaponise ANI. The initial post by MAE to Putin's interview is certainly uncivil, if not a PA. It is an allegation of continued misconduct not substantiated by the ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Academic sources removal in favor of trickster POV pushing, WP:BATTLEGROUND. The response, You're asking for it!!! can be construed as a threat - of what? - to take MAE to ANI? Neither editor should have posted as they did to an article TP. Both editors made a tacit acknowledgement of this by amending their posts. AC has made a fuller acknowledgement of their error above. However MAE would continue to make allegations of a pattern of not adhering to WP:RS and WP:BALANCE and diminishing reliable sources, that were not withdrawn. For this, ANI must accept some responsibility because it did not provide a close to the incident, Academic sources removal in favor of trickster POV pushing, WP:BATTLEGROUND. An interaction issue between AC and MAE relating to MAE's allegations is likely to continue unless there is some intervention (not necessarily sanctions) by ANI. It is an unfortunate fact of RUSUKR that a sense of outrage has translated into a mob POV and that any one that does not conform to the mob is against it. There is no middle ground. The issue here is, in my view, a symptom of that condition. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User contributions for 93.218.55.200

User contributions for 93.218.55.200. Can I get a second set of eyes on this. Not sure if this is vandalism or not. here they seem to blank lots with odd edit summary. Lots to review. Moxy- 16:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what their intentions are, but their edits are definitely insufficiently explained and partly harmful, especially on such a mass scale. After the last warnings on their talk page and since this discussion has been opened, they made this edit at Córdoba, Spain, where they removed reference footnotes and templates from the infobox for no apparent reason, removed some piped links in ways that are not necessarily improvements, and systematically or semi-systematically removed URLs and some other details from citations throughout the article. Some earlier edits have similar problems too, e.g. [124]. Even if there's some constructive edits in the mix (like removing unsourced material), this is by far doing more damage than good. R Prazeres (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

PS: they also haven't responded at all to any reverts or notices on their talk page, as far as I can tell. R Prazeres (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

RD55555 persistent unsourced editing

• RD55555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent unsourced edits (primarily to Indian cinema actors' filmographies): [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134]

Multiple warnings: Dec. 8 Dec. 13 Dec. 13 Dec. 17 (final warning) Feb. 15 (final warning) Feb. 21 (final warning) Feb. 24 (final warning

Previously reported in December at ANI with no action: [135]

RD55555 has no Talk or User_talk edits. Can we get an indefinite block to prevent further disruption and to encourage them to discuss on their talk page their editing behavior?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

User ShirtNShoesPls, Block on grounds of repeated disruption (CIR/IDHT)

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

• Frequent and repeated insertion of unsourced content with an obvious POV-push. Examples include Donald Trump's 2024 campaign ([136]), an article called "ageism against Joe Biden" ([137],[138]) ([139],[140]), on United States ([141][142][143][144]), and Andrew Jackson ([145]).
• Deliberate misrepresentation of sources ([146])
• User removing appropriately cited content they simply don't like ([147], [148])
• When challenged user will misrepresent policy ([149],[150]), invent consensus ([151],[152]), declare removals of their material as "vandalism" ([153],[154]), or flagrantly declare unreliable sources are reliable ([155], [156]).
• Other items of note:
  • Received numerous edit-warring warnings [157][158][159][160], including a block [161]
  • Misuse of article talk pages (canvass/advert other articles) [162] [163][164]

Simply this user has shown a complete disregard for basic wikipedia policy (verifiability, NPOV), repeatedly goes against consensus, and only seems interested in POV-pushing. No likelihood of behaviour change given repeated warnings. Requires permanent action. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Over the last three months, I have encounter multiple occasions of ShirtNShoesPls (SNSP) engaging in both intentionally and unintentionally disruptive behavior. Beginning in December, SNSP has engaged in and been warned for canvassing, edit warring (for which they were briefly blocked), insertion of false and malsourced information, and creation of articles seemingly to capitalize on the popular zeitgeist.

These are the most frustrating cases I encountered with still-existing diffs: After disputing the reliability of multiple reliable sources ([165]), they cited their own claims about their priest ([166], [167]). Borrowing a turn-of-phrase from a blog post, they ignored discussion opposing a move of an article to insist on renaming a subject something sensational ([168]) that resulted in a frustrating case of CITOGENESIS when the term was picked up by Bloomberg; their refusal to submit the evidence they repeatedly claimed to have resulted in the term being deleted as even a redirect.

SNSP's POV-pushing and edit warring has resulted in a temporary block. However, SNSP continues to display a persistent disregard for appropriate sourcing. As such, I support a more permanent action. In the previous ANI, I think a text wall led to the remarkable wealth of evidence going ignored and action not being taken. Before this ANI was filed, I discussed the matter with the filer and advised them that it was worth pursuing further. I would ask that we do not repeat the mistake of allowing the disruption to continue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, tagging yourself as you appear to have had dealings with their behaviour in the past going by their talk page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a pretty egregious case of WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I think he needs some form of topic ban from history, politics, and culture-related pages. KlayCax (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

We should always tell the truth. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

POV pushing like this or this is quite blatant. I agree something ought to be done here. - MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Settler colonialism is what colonzation is. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have indeffed for IDHT, RGW, and quite a few others. A pile of warnings and a block were not sufficient to change their behavior, so now they'll need to explain how they will improve their editing of they're to resume. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Good block, thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax opinion

I've also interacted with @ShirtNShoesPls:. WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies to what he's doing here. I wouldn't call his edits vandalism — I think he's trying to WP: RIGHTGREATWRONGS — but he's making clear, NPOV-violating edits surrounding the aforementioned topics, in addition to other sociopolitical, cultural, and religious articles. (Circumcision now.) He definitely needs to be warned at the very least. Some form of topic ban (either temporary or permanent) seems appropriate here. Off topic: but that 2024 Donald Trump election page is, to riff on a quote he said, "a NPOV nightmare" and needs substantial revision.

(Although he has just made it worse.) KlayCax (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is @KlayCax is that they've has been warned about this behaviour around a dozen times and still it's a massive case of WP:IDHT. What makes me consider this beyond WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is that this individual is like this everywhere. Even in the article for a videogame (which is where they earnt their block) they show the exact same problem of WP:TENDENTIOUS. If after several months of various editors telling them to knock it off they still aren't, I don't think there's any option but a permanent block. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely problematic behavior. I agree that some action should be taken. But I wanted to leave it up to others to determine what it should be.

Some form of topic ban (1+ year) is necessary, at the very least. KlayCax (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Attack on me

All of those edits are being mischaracterized. Referring to the genocide of Native Americans as point of view pushing is outrageous. It's an uncontested fact of history. The conspiracy theories alleging Biden has dementia are misinformation. I only cited my priest to show that others interpreted it in the manner being claimed. Kill The Justice League had many controversial plot threads that deserves mention.

I believe that this ANI was filed due to differing perspectives on articles rather than a legit concern about my contributions. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

To me, the "Season of Swattings" stuff was enough on its own to warrant a severe sanction. You lied about having multiple sources, edit warred in moving the article, and even managed to keep the misinformation up just long enough for it to get picked up by an unscrupulous Bloomberg writer. If anything, this editor should be barred from articles on modern politics for at least six months. They have spunk, but need to temper their passions and demonstrate more caution with regards to contentious topics. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You've quite literally just POV-pushed/edit-warred yet again multiple times ([169][170][171]). Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

No one is "mischaracterizing" your extreme behavior, which contravenes everything from good faith to how editors work. Your edit-warring and repeated cut-and-paste "cultural studies" inserts—after several warnings already—warrant a permanent ban. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

New IP is edit warring in Manifest Destiny

New IP editor (94.204.105.141) is edit warring by deleting content in the WP:LEDE of Manifest Destiny:

1. 2/3/2024 8:44
2. 2/6/2024 0:13
3. 2/22/2024 11:45
4. 2/23/2024 8:48
5. 2/24/2024 12:21

I gave a warning on 2/24/2024 1:52 prior to the last revert. Although it doesn't meet WP:3RR, I find it to be disruptive and uncooperative. I am not sure what the best action is to make sure the editor stops this.
Notice given to IP. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Despite the notice and second warning at 20:05, 24 February 2024 and notice of this action at 20:05, 24 February 2024, the behavior continues. 22:57, 24 February 2024. This may now meet the WP:3RR threshold. I urge the editor be blocked for 24 hours. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Continued BLP violations by User:Sorry20

User:Sorry20 continues to add unsourced categories to biographies of living people after warnings and a block in July/August last year for this very thing. There was a further very clear warning from SuperMarioMan in December, since when the editor has slowly continued the same behaviour unabated. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked them again, this time for a month. With their repeated apology and choice of username, I'm beginning to wonder if we're just being trolled at this point. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 12:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

AppGoo0011 and racist editing

Hello, all, I'd like to shine a light on User:AppGoo0011 and their editing, as it pertains to subtly (or not-so-subtly) pushing racism into a variety of articles. On Feb 22, they did a find/replace on a bunch of articles, to replace "white" (as in people) with "White". Now, this in and of itself wouldn't necessaryily be a problem; MOS:RACECAPS doesn't recommend any particular combination of capitalization for "white" and "black" as racial descriptors. However, I find it very suspect when a person wants to capitalize "White" but not "Black", which is exactly what AppGoo011 did in these edits, such as this, this, and this. It's also important to note that, in those first two links, the text of direct quotations was also changed. These are just a sample, but the behavior is consistent throughout all of this series of edits.

Seeing this, I reverted these edits and left a warning (among others placed by other editors), with a note not to do this kind of mass change again without consensus at the talk page. The ensuing conversation was not particularly constructive; I was hoping they would stop, but they took my message rather literally and posted a message to every talk page. Again, the question of whether to capitalize "white" and "black" is a valid one, and constructive conversations have been spurred amongst other editors, such as the one on the reverse racism talk page, but AppGoo has not been a particular asset to those conversations, insisting that not capitalizing "White" is incorrect, with ridiculous justifications like it might mean "people painted white". I feel like this edit is a pretty strong indicator about why this is all happening (if it wasn't already obvious).

Today, I notice that, rather than pursue the talk-page conversations or a wider change of consensus at MOS:RACECAPS, they've returned to the mass-changes, though admittedly with a token effort to include capitalization of "Black" as well. Nevertheless, I think this behavior needs to actually stop, and would appreciate some other eyes on how to proceed. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Between their hobbies comment and this, WP:NOTHERE coming through loud and clear. @AppGoo0011 knock it off unless you want to be blocked. You're headed that way right now. Star Mississippi 23:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

In response to this ANI thread, this user has just sprung the "but I'm Black!" defense by placing this userbox on their user page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

A few things.

1. Thank you for capitalizing my race.
2. You're misquoting again. I never said those exact words.

AppGoo0011 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I know you think "white people" can mean "a person dressed in all white or painted white" (???), but surely you don't also think quotation marks can only be used for verbatim quotes! InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It can, theoretically. It's shorter than saying "people dressed in white" or "people painted white." While with just "White" – so long as it's not at the beginning of a sentence – there's no confusion. AppGoo0011 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, please. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I never thought there'd be such severe opposition to one capital letter. AppGoo0011 (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ha, you should see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles. But no one is "opposing" capitalization here, only raising eyebrows at your bizarre reasoning and frowning upon the disruption you're causing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The only disruption I see is the mass reverts of my edits. Nobody mentions that many articles have a mix of uncapitalized and capitalized usages of the terms (in the racial context) already, even outside sentence beginnings and quotes. I am improving the pages by resolving such inconsistencies. AppGoo0011 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

...Except that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that mixed-caps usage, so your edits are not automatically an improvement. The very MOS link you like to throw around specifically says that there is no consensus to implement a rule [...] against mixed use where editors at a particular article believe it's appropriate, and you're presumably aware that the talk page section you started is in fact trending towards a consensus to use that exact mixed-caps style for that article. So no, you are incorrect to say that removing such "inconsistencies" is necessarily an improvement. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not referring to deliberate mixed usage (which is biased, btw) I'm referring to the articles that have at least one instance of white instead of White or black instead of Black (again, outside of a sentence start or a quote.) AppGoo0011 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

AppGoo, the "severe opposition" isn't to "one capital letter", it's towards your multiple questionable edits. You can't just run roughshod over a delicate and complicated issue that has pitted Wikipedia editors of good faith against each other, with no real solution in sight other than we're trying to be considerate of the various communities and their various opinions. Someone who goes through capitalizing "white" but not "black"--yeah, don't be surprised if editors suspect your motives. Posting the same question all over various talk pages without seeming to have an interest in the answers, never mind in consensus, that's just trolling. You want to say, stop making absurd arguments (I'm white and not of the painted kind, obviously) and stop with your pointy edits. Just to make sure, here's the link: WP:POINT. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

What hit me in addition to general activity was Whites are actively demonized for forming racially exclusive groups, Blacks are not.[172] which shows a degree of insensitivity and unfamiliarity (trying to be polite) that suggests they don't belong anywhere near articles related to race. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Cases like this are why I wish the previous RfCs regarding RACECAPS had ended with a clear-cut consensus for some standard for this touchy subject. That's what an MoS is for, after all. "No consensus" is just inviting edit wars and talk-page drama. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That statement alone should result in a WP:NOTHERE block. The user is clearly pushing an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User လူကောင်း

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

This user has just today opened an array of AFDs without any discernible policy-based rationale (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Boden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Alemany), draftified articles like Silicon Valley, and proposed articles for speedy deletion that have a clear indication or assertion of notability. I have serious WP:CIR concerns, and they continue to make dubious nominations after a warning on their talk page and as I compose this comment. Jfire (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

In clear retaliation for my talk page message, they just nominated for deletion two articles I created, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Karl Hillers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avenue of the Baobabs, both with the nomination rationale "Delete, Not valid for wikipedia." Jfire (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Bbb23, you may have duplicated a thread by mistake. Looks like this one was opened right before yours about 5 or so minutes before. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Boden, which seemed to be the only one undone. If others need addressing, feel free to ping me. Star Mississippi 00:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Can someone move Draft öfgren to Ulf Löfgren? It didn't get undraftified to quite the right page name. Jfire (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Star Mississippi 00:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth closing each one? I was thinking more along the lines of undoing the nominations and nuking the AfD discussion pages they created. Perhaps that's not the way to go about it, though. Tollens (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I restored Silicon Valley. Yeah, this reeks of CIR. Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 23:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

လူကောင်း and deletions

လူကောင်း (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account in May 2023 and has about 440 edits. They appear to be obsessed with deletion, at least lately. I came across them because they tagged Bank of Balochistan, Octopus Renewables Infrastructure Trust, and Bob Meyer as WP:A7. I declined all the A7s, but the Meyer tag was really over the top. Then, when I looked at their contribution history, they have been cranking out AfDs like a pitching machine (gee, a sports metaphor). Their nominating statement seems to be always the same: "Delete, Not valid for wikipedia." Not the a typical rationale. I have not talked to them. Doesn't look like they talk, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Looks like a duplicate of the above. A WP:NOTHERE block seems more than appropriate to me. Tollens (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the duplication folks. Perhaps the first report hadn't started when I started mine, but, regardless... Anyway, after I created it, I had to step away from the computer (RL intervened) for a couple of hours, hence my failure to respond to the pings here until now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I was about to report them as well. User is draftifying articles that do not need to be draftified and is clearly engaging in page-move vandalism. I tried to revert their moves but couldn't (see how they draftified Silicon Valley). User needs to be blocked due to serious CIR concerns. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Just closed a nom for Venmo (you know the drill, any issues with my NACs bring them up here and I'll defend them fully); time to break the glass and block and strip the daily log, as their noms continue now. Nate • (chatter) 23:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. I'm hoping they can explain what they are doing in an unblock request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Why couldn't you have reverted them? You're a page mover.... Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 23:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why, but I've now restored some of them. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the noms from the log. Not sure if it's worthwhile for someone to delete each associated AfD page. Tollens (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

fair enough. I'm G3ing them since none had a valid argument for deletion Star Mississippi 00:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I believe they can all be done at once with Special:Nuke rather than going through them. I've gotten rid of the notifications they sent to the page creators. Tollens (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh – Star Mississippi, it seems you might not have seen the scale here. It isn't just the nominations linked in this thread. Here is the list. Tollens (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. Thanks @Tollens. Special Nuke wasn't working for me. Let me try another browser. Star Mississippi 00:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Might be because I tried closing some discussions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

LMAO. I missed the colon. They're gone now. Thanks again @Tollens Star Mississippi 00:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Star Mississippi! There's a little left to clean up but I am able to do the rest. Tollens (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the quick action here, very much appreciated, along with the cleanup of all the disruption so it was limited. Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23

I already nominated this user as a sockpuppet here. But no one took action even though its obviously following the pattern of the same blocked user. This sort of behavior was brought up in ANI before for another one of the sockpuppets here. Guy targets some of my articles under different accounts. I don't know how many sockpuppet accounts this guy has but we have to be on guard for all these low activity accounts made recently. 13Joker13 and လူကောင်း have also made a bunch of articles which are just direct copying of google translate of other language Wikipedia articles so I think they should be reviewed to see how many of them meet the threshold to stay. - Imcdc Contact 02:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Continued MOS:GENDERID violations by User:Angrycommguy

Tagging admins User:The Anome and User:Cullen328 due to their previous involvement in this matter.

User:Angrycommguy has on numerous occasions edit warred and made edits against consensus and wikipedia policy regarding the article Death of Nex Benedict

Laying out specific issues:

MOS:GENDERID:

He has repeatedly deleted the use of they/them pronouns in the article because he considers it "non-neutral wording", despite editorial consensus in talk repeatedly and overwhelmingly being against him. [173]. This is done in favor of referring to them by no pronouns at all in the article and their assigned pronouns in the talk page despite every reliable source in the article and overwhelming talk page consensus agreeing that Nex preferred they/them pronouns, and not a single source apart from his own WP:OR saying anything to the contrary. When these changes are reverted per ONUS, GENDERID, BRD, and a million other regs, he edit wars them back and says that since there's no consensus (because he personally doesn't agree based on his OR), there should therefore be no pronouns at all and demands admin involvement before he allows pronouns (this is all done unilaterally).[174] He additionally then demands that Nex's assigned sex at birth be included despite no reliable source making note of it, due to needing to understand "the nuance" of them being beaten and then dying shortly thereafter (more on that phrasing in a moment) without having to "go dig for information".[175] When these edits are reverted per WP:BRD, he re-reverts them, calls anything to the contrary censorship, and posts in talk one variant or another of the saying 'facts don't care about your feelings'.[176][177][178](There's a lot more than these)

He also repeatedly demands in talk that Nex be deadnamed, posts their deadname in talk (since removed by other editors), and then refuses to WP:DROPTHESTICK in favor of WP:BLUDGEONING the process with claims of censorship, that anything to the contrary of his view is "self research" no matter how many RSP secondary sources are cited, and makes more 'facts don't care about your feelings' posts.[179][180][181]

WP:BLPCRIME

He has also, both in talk and in article edits, wrote that the deceased committed criminal assault over the deceased throwing water on someone, despite not even charges being filed. When this is reverted per BRD, ONUS, and overwhelming talk page consensus already having been against him on this exact point, he edit wars it back in[182][183] and calls anything else vandalism.[184][185]

When anyone tries to tell him that any of these things are a violation of wikipolicy, his response is "Are you an admin? You're not".[186]

The diffs cited here are not an exhaustive list, I should stress. For a fuller picture, look at the talk page. Really just look at the talk page in general.

Snokalok (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Tagging users @Sideswipe9th @LilianaUwU @Funcrunch @Firefangledfeathers @Callumpenguin Who can provide corroboration or refutation as needed Snokalok (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Methinks a topic ban is in order. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban for the subject or perhaps a 1rr revert restriction that forces them to gain consensus on talkpage. Unbroken Chain (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

A one-revert restriction wouldn't be effective in the slightest. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:LilianaUwU IMO it gives them rope. It allows them a voice while restricting article disruption. If the behaviors persist the sanctions increase. Looks like by my count they have breached 3 RR so that's why I was suggesting. I do not however hold a strong opinion here though, these are just my thoughts. Unbroken Chain (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Unbroken Chain, people who deadname trans and nonbinary people should not be given rope, they should be given an indef. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:LilianaUwU we allow all sorts of racists and POV pushers here, still need to be evenhanded in sanctions. What I was unaware of was the Enforcement warnings and arbcom case. Looks like they already had their rope and used it. Unbroken Chain (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No, we don’t—and if we did, that would be a bug, not a feature. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

They do not need to be allowed a voice when it's being used for transphobia. C.f. WP:NONAZIS BLP applies to recent deaths @Unbroken Chain. I'm not going to overrule @ScottishFinnishRadish who is more well versed than I in CT/DS, but I think the INDEF has been earned. Star Mississippi 00:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Star Mississippi A person does however deserve to be given a chance to rectify their behavior before we go scorched earth. It's the whole basis of assume good faith. Daryl Davis is a great exemplifier of this IMO. Change the hate and misperception from the inside. You're entitled to your opinion though and I respect it. Hopefully the limited sanctions imposed today is enough to change that behavior. I try and avoid these subjects as much as possible because it's impossible to please either side or have balanced conversations because of the strong feelings it invokes. Hope one day both sides can actually talk about things rather then just vilify each other. Big eye opener for me was taking a gender and sexuality class in university, learned a lot. Thankfully there was people there that did not share your view on how to handle those with misplaced understandings. Unbroken Chain (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm extending a bit of AGF that they're simply not aware of the intersection of WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLP, and perhaps they weren't trying to deadname, but instead follow primary sourcing they've reviewed. If there's a consensus that they should just be indeffed and be done with it, that is fine with me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You're my favorite root vegetable, but no one is arguing in good faith that the use of "they" is confusing or removing pronoun entirely in good faith. This is straight up disruption Star Mississippi 00:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm conflicted because, on the one hand, I appreciated a system that errs on the side of mercy and reform; and new users are certainly prone to doing stupid things, so it's reasonable and even constructive to let them learn.

On the other hand, I can feel wrinkles in my face in places I didn't even know it was possible to get wrinkles from the stress of today.

If it was me, I would've gone down the middle with an indefinite gensex topic ban, especially in light of previous warnings by admins on the topic, but you're the admin acting here and you're vastly more experienced and well-versed than I will ever be, so, thank you for acting quickly. Snokalok (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This was meant to be a reply to @ScottishFinnishRadish. Sorry1 Snokalok (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If the behavior pops up anywhere else in the topic area it'll be taken care of quickly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish has p-blocked. I was going to indef entirely. These edits and anyone making them do not belong here. Star Mississippi 00:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed if you straight up indeffed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated. Snokalok (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Angrycommguy's editing behavior was causing me a fair amount of stress. Funcrunch (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm hoping that they can continue to make productive edits to military articles, cleanup any copyvio issues they've created in draftspace, and learn the applicable policies and guidelines. If the behavior spreads to other articles in the topic then I'd support a full topic ban or block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I gave the editor some frank advice. They said they would probably stop editing the article but instead continued. I endorse the page blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Good p-block. I've been considering filing a request at WP:AE, as their behaviour falls very short of what we'd expect in this content area. I'd probably have advocated for a TBAN though, give them a chance to be productive in what was previously their primary interest of the US Air Force. I'd have some concerns that this behaviour might spread to other GENSEX articles, but I can understand taking a lighter touch as they haven't edited any other GENSEX articles or talk pages. I suspect if they do continue this behaviour elsewhere though, other sanctions can swiftly be put in place. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The spreading to other GENSEX articles is what I worry about also, especially because we've probably now pissed him off with *waves around* all this. Snokalok (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ugh, great. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I might be a bit of a baka, I read "The spreading" as "they're spreading". Oops. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

If the behaviour spreads to other articles, I'm sure an admin will be willing to do a GENSEX topic ban so I don't see a need to worry about this at the time.

I haven't not looked that carefully at the edits, but I'm not sure why editors think an indef would be normal in this situation especially since editors seems to be treating it as a goodbye forever or at least a long time type of indef. Even a GENSEX topic-ban is might be justified but seems unnecessary. Possibly some editors without any real history have been indeffed for something similar, but those are cases when we have no reason to think they can contribute productively elsewhere so do make sense and also those indefs are generally more in the form, well since we have no reason to think you can do so, please convince an admin you can, rather than a goodbye forever/longtime.

For example, I'm aware of at least one editor who's behaviour in violation of GENSEX is arguably worse and involved multiple articles and both pronoun and deadname related issues, and only received a 31 hours block. Incidentally they too didn't receive a topic ban, they're back to editing and so far seem to have stayed away from anything related (although it has only been a few days).

I'm also reminded of a massive blowup when a fairly well known editor was blocked and threatened with an indef for something vaguely similar pronoun related to what seems to be involved here. The editor retired after that but the whole thing was very controversial and there was never any suggestion we should already indef, just if the behaviour was repeated. Yes it involved an editor rather than a subject so GENSEX doesn't apply per se, but other guidelines policies do. And okay, the editor involved was fairly popular, and the editor they referred to was um controversial, and already indefed neither of that seems relevant. And yeah it was 3 years ago, but I think the other example is evidence it's not that out standards have changed so drastically.

Likewise, in terms of DEADNAME issues, there were problems recently at another article, but the editor seems to have desisted, without any block or topic ban, although they were warned.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the absurd mass attacks on every instance of the word "they" in the article is that they obscure the fact that there are problems with a couple of sentences where there are two or even three possible referents for a pronoun that, speaking with my reader hat on, doesn't convey information to or confuses us readers. Uncle G (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Related WP:TPO violation concern at Talk:Death of Nex Benedict

There has been considerable redaction at that talk page of mentions of Benedict's dead name.

For example, Mustachio0 asked Should Nex's given name be included?, and in the comment underneath included the deadname; LilianaUwU redacted it, saying no you're not including the name.

When an editor asked them to refrain from this behavior, on the grounds that it was against TPO, they refused, saying You think I'm gonna let a flagrant GENDERID violation stand?

I don't know whether it would be appropriate to include the name in this case, but the correct location to determine that is the talk page, and it isn't helpful to censor those discussions - it makes it harder to hold the discussion, it makes it harder to look for pertinent sources, and it deters people from participating in the debate. I'm not sure how to address this, but I think it needs to be raised. BilledMammal (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Please (re)read MOS:GENDERID regarding why the non-notable deadnames of trans and nonbinary people should not be included on Wikipedia, even on talk pages. Funcrunch (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I was familiar with that policy when I undid the edit, but I originally thought it would not apply in this circumstance given its specification of "living". XeCyranium (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I was the editor who reverted the first two edits to that comment, I initially thought the usual BLP concerns concerning former names wouldn't apply, given the subject's death. I was informed of this recent RFC which found that BLP privacy restrictions should still apply even after death in all circumstances for an indeterminate but presumably reasonable amount of time. So as it is I think it was okay for editors to have redacted the name though I do think referring to that RFC in the edit summaries would have made things smoother. XeCyranium (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You were misled; BLP does apply briefly after death, but MOS:GENDERID isn't part of WP:BLP and only applies to living individuals.

Further, there is a consensus that "Where the deadname appears in reliable sources, the question of whether to publish it on Wikipedia is one for editorial judgment", with there being occasional consensus to include the deadname of living individuals in contravention of GENDERID, such as at Isla Bryson case - it isn't appropriate for individual editors to decide that a discussion about whether a deadname should be included is a flagrant GENDERID violation, nor is it appropriate for them to unilaterally remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The provisions that a non-notable former name should not be included in any page, even if reliable sourcing exists, are founded on WP:BLPPRIVACY. And with the current reversion of WP:BDP to its pre-2021 state where it automatically applies, BLPPRIVACY based provisions would apply to circumstances such as those for Nex Benedict.

It is also entirely possible to hold a discussion on inclusion of a non-notable former name, without actually mentioning that name in the discussion. You could quite easily ask the question "Should we include Nex' former name?" without having to include it in the question. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The provisions that a non-notable former name should not be included in any page, even if reliable sourcing exists, are founded on WP:BLPPRIVACY.

BLPPRIVACY doesn't say what you think it says. It pertains to full names, not former names, and it does so in the context of identity theft. Further, it provides an exception for when the name is sufficiently covered in reliable sources - and Mustachio0 question was whether we should include it on the basis of the coverage in reliable sources.

You could quite easily ask the question "Should we include Nex' former name?" without having to include it in the question You could, but it makes it extremely difficult to find relevant sources and it suppresses discussion - look at the RfC and post-RfC discussion on Talk:Isla Bryson case, and see what editors were able to find when the name was provided that they weren't able to find previously. BilledMammal (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID specifically states: Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. Funcrunch (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Come on, BilledMammal. Isla Bryon committed her crimes under her deadname - so it makes some sense that it is included, even if I disagree with it. Nex Benedict was not notable under their former name. This is the whole point of MOS:GENDERID. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t considered whether Nex’s should be included in the article, and I suspect if I did I would find it shouldn’t - but what I have considered is that it isn’t appropriate for you to edit others comments in violation of WP:TPO and generally shut down the consideration of that question. BilledMammal (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let me ask this question: would you want my (currently private) deadname to be plastered all over the place if I died under mysterious circumstances? The exact same logic applies here. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the specifics, but I suspect that I would oppose including it in the article. However, if it is reported in reliable sources and an editor raises the question of including it in good faith on the basis of those sources then we must be able to consider that question - Wikipedia is not censored. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't trot out WP:NOTCENSORED as an excuse here. We do censor all the time, hence BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

BLPPRIVACY doesn't say what you think it says. If that's the case, why does GENDERID link to it when it tells us that we should treat non-notable former names as a privacy interest that is both separate from and often greater than a person's current name?

You could, but it makes it extremely difficult to find relevant sources Having edited the article since shortly after its creation, I'm familiar with all of the sourcing for it, and there are no relevant reliable sources that exclusively use or mention Benedict's former name. All sources that contain their former name also contain their current name, with many having a correction notice for formerly including and using the wrong name. There are no reliable sources on Benedict prior to their death. This is nothing like the Isla Bryson case.

it suppresses discussion No. Discussion on inclusion of a non-notable former name is free to happen regardless of whether or not it is currently included on the talk page.

look at the RfC and post-RfC discussion on Talk:Isla Bryson case, and see what editors were able to find when the name was provided Do you mean the one discussion where there's a bunch of what appears to be unsourced original research? Because all of the sources provided in the subsequent discussion contained both Bryson's former and current names. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

GENDERID can link to whatever it likes, it doesn’t change what BLPPRIVACY says. BilledMammal (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe it's because the longstanding community consensus is that we treat non-notable former names as a strong privacy interest, per how BLPPRIVACY handles all other types of personal private information. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there was ever such a consensus, but the most recent is that The community agrees that there is no rule that deadnames must be removed. Given the absence of such a consensus it is inappropriate to edit other editors good faith comments to remove them - and if you want to make such edits, get a consensus to modify BLPPRIVACY first. BilledMammal (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes the close of that discussion says that, but its in the context of revdelling and oversight. In this instance we're not talking about edits that have been revdelled or oversighted, just redacted by other editors. You were the only editor in that discussion expressing the same concern as you've done in this discussion, about removal stifling discussion, with others who were opposing saying that the non-notable former names shouldn't always be considered for RD2 or OS.

That close also states that the decision for removal is one of editorial judgement. In this circumstance, multiple editors have expressed that in their judgement removal is warranted.

The text on treating non-notable former names as a privacy interest that is separate from and often greater than the person's current name was added on 8 October 2020 as a result of this August 2020 RfC where similar wording was discussed. While there was subsequent discussion and an edit war on other text added around this time, the provision on treating the former name as a separate and usually greater privacy interest has remained in place since it was added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:TPO is the relevant PAG here. MOS:GENDERID does not apply to talk pages at all (it's the Manual of Style– why would anyone think it did??), and WP:BLPPRIVACY is likewise irrelevant (for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that it appeared editors were attempting to evaluate sources in furtherance of reaching a consensus on whether to include or exclude the name from the article). A group of editors should not be able to completely derail a talk page conversation dealing with the very thing they're adamantly against having in article-space. It's disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

As others have said, there's absolutely no reason why we need to include the dead name in any discussions of whether to include it. Excluding any mention of it is perfectly normal and it's reasonable to edit other comments while making it clear this was done to remove it. It's also fairly common we do this with cases where it's not a dead name, but simply a real name with limited sourcing or where WP:BLPPRIVACY may apply although in that case, there can sometimes be some confusion what name is being referred to so it can get iffy. (On the flipside, if there is insufficient sourcing oversight of this alleged real name be justified.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that if someone engages in behavior like deliberately/flagrantly ignoring MOS:GENDERID on a talkpage, in a discussion that is already heated, it's better to alert an uninvolved admin to intervene rather than edit war over trying to remove another editor's comments. Refactoring or reverting another editor's comments are almost guaranteed to inflame a situation, rather than achieve the desired outcome, regardless of the rightness of the action. Doing so with an "I will not let this stand, and I dare you to undo it" approach is guaranteed to inflame the situation. Grandpallama (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

While the phrasing of LilianaUwU's edit summary was a little brusque, in light of the MOS:GENDERID violations that had been pushed the deadname into the article's mainspace, I can understand there being some impatience (but quite restrained, frankly) with editors seemingly eager to violate MOS:GENDERID all over again. I support adhering to MOS:GENDERID and aver that it applied in this case. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Didn't say it didn't apply or that we don't adhere to it. But the language used in reverting wasn't a little brusque; it was deliberately provocative, from an editor with a history of warnings about needling. You can be in the right about an issue, but still not handle it well. Asking an admin to intervene is just as effective, and keeps things from unnecessarily overheating. Messing around with others' comments guarantees overheating, as I said. Grandpallama (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It wonder if it is the case that deadnaming, on the talk page of an article with a recent history of editors committing MOS:GENDERID violations, guarantees overheating. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's not the case, unless one decides to pick a fight instead of seeking uninvolved admin help; in fact, "this is a sensitive topic" is an argument that reduces our tolerance for angry engagement. The inability to edit a topic or page without getting overheated (especially when combined with a confrontational approach) is the classic Wikipedia rationale for TBANS and other editing restrictions. It's not lost on me that the editors with whom I'm most in agreement with from a philosophical and policy perspective are also exhibiting concerning behavior, but those behavioral concerns are real and justified. Grandpallama (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• It's quite clear that MOS:GENDERID and BLPPRIVACY and many other related pages are in proper congruence with each other on this sort of matter and that includes discussions on talk pages. Particularly since there is no need to use such names even if one is discussing something about them. There's already been one person removed from the page from the discussion above and it seems likely that the several others pushing for the usage of the subject's deadname on the talk page are also pushing the same POV stick and will, in time, find themselves t-banned, if not worse. Best to nip this in the bud from the outset. Silverseren^C 06:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Your comment is a little ambiguous; when you say "use", do you mean "mention"? - see Use–mention distinction. I don't know if other editors were using the deadname, but Mustachio0 was only mentioning it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  There are editors who have been using (not mentioning) the former name on the talk page, and advocating for its use (not mention) in the article. One of them has since been page blocked as a CTOP action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Can more admins keep an eye on the talk page? Beyond the gross misgendering and repeated use of the dead name of the person who died, some editors on the 'other side' (so to speak) have unfortunately let emotions get the better of them and are making the claim it was murder when there has been no charge let alone a conviction; and indeed AFAIK it hasn't even been found that it's a homicide yet. Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne You do know we have admins in that very talk section saying the same thing: “kill”. We have an admin there saying that it was a kill. [187] Snokalok (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's a problem, and people on the talkpage need to cool it. Grandpallama (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Report

• 2601:81:8400:910:5C67:F905:209:D37E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Made derogatory remarks as well as told me to kill myself on their talk page after giving warning for reverting vandalism they made on an article. Here & Here

Elvisisalive95 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

...Yikes. Can an admin also revdel [188], please? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that is the edit of the IP’s that i originally reverted Elvisisalive95 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, del'd some revs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Scottish. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring and vandalism by User:Shaks3

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

---

User:Shaks3 has been edit warring on page Dunki (film). Editor was given multiple warnings on his talk page. Still continued to edit war and also engaged in vandalism by deleting and removing sources and the particulars from the sources.[189] RangersRus (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Same editor deleted this ANI report. It was restored. RangersRus (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  I blocked them indef, this is a single-purpose account which was not able to engage in any meanningful communication. Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

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

BLP1E and BLPCRIME concerns

I am seeking some input into a newly-created page, Alan Filion a BLP of a teenager arrested in the US for swatting. The article has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Filion. I am concerned a BLP for a previously non-notable minor accused but not convicted of serious crimes raises WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME concerns. For example BLPCRIME states "Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures...editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Should it simply be resolved via AfD or should the article potentially be immediately changed? AusLondonder (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be an issue for the BLP noticeboard more so than here, with regard to BLPCRIME. ANI (in my experience) is for serious behavior issues/disruptions.

Awshort (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Long term battleground pattern of NOTHERE

Radiant Fellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a long term history that shows it is primarily SPA, more than 76% of their mainspace edits are The Chosen (TV series) and related articles. There is a significant pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN by constantly re-editing articles to their preferred edits over the objections of other editors. They do not openly revert, but rather will return and re-edit over any edit that has changed their previous edits, marking those edits as "minor", and using edit summaries such as "fix redundancy" or things of that nature, masking the fact that it is a reversion of another user's edits. Often, these are bundled in multiple edits making it difficult to notice. They have essentially refused any discussion. Key points of WP:NOTHERE, they have shown a pattern or disruptive, battleground editing with no interest in collaboration or discussion. I don't know if marking these stealth reverts as "minor" is intentionally gaming, but that's NOTHERE as well.

There is a good deal of this in their history, but in the interest of being as concise as possible, this is primarily just where it came to a head with another editor. In List of The Chosen characters, another editor (Alaska4Me2) had been adding a legitimate cast member that Radiant Fellow continued to remove through the "stealthy" reverting mentioned above. She pointed this out to me, that she had been trying to add this several times and had even reached out to Radiant Fellow via his talk page for discussion, which he generally blanked with the edit summary "bs". I agreed with her addition and reverted his edit [190] and posted an edit warring notice on his talk page, which he blanked with "copy, noted"[191].

• Alaska4Me2 made a number of additional edits (listed as one diff:[192]), which he again stealthily reverted in multiple edits, all marked as minor (listed as one diff:[193]).
• I reverted that to status quo ante asking him to discuss first[194] and notified him about the issue marking non-minor edits as minor[195].
• He reverted back [196] and blanked his talk page with "understood and resolved"[197].
• I reverted to status quo ante and again asked for him to leave it at that and discuss the edits with the other editor involved [198] with a tp notice of disruptive editing [199].
• He blanked that with "consensus is given"[200] and reapplied his edits with "As far as I understand, it corresponds with everything given" [201].

I had originally asked Doug Weller to take a look at it because he was somewhat familiar with some of the history involved. Only then did he come out with any kind of talk page acknowledgement [202], which, from my POV is a little bit of too-little-too-late and rings hollow since there was plenty of opportunity to discuss this at the article. And even after that, he made one very minor change with an edit summary "in accordance with Alaska4Me2" [203] presumably to give the impression that he's now collaborating (which he's not, as her edits that he overwrote multiple times were far more than just that minor change).

Anyway, after I had posted the evidence on Doug's page, I thought better of it because he's dealing with a lot and in order to not bug him with it unnecessarily, I am moving it here. I can provide additional evidence or clarification as needed, but as I noted, the vast majority of his activity reverting other editors is done through compound minor edits just going back to his preferred article state. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not at my best today due to recent chemo. I am not going to comment on Radiant Fellow's general editing because of that, but I did look at their talk page edits two days ago and was not happy with all the continuing reverts of discussions. As Butlerblog mentions above, blanking with an edit summary of "bs" suggests strongly that they have a difficulty with editing collaboratively. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Having read as an uninvolved editor the diffs OP provided and some additional edit history, I'm seeing what's described. This behavior is WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWN, or WP:NOTHERE, or a combination thereof. The combination of gaming the system with stealth-reverts tagged as "minor edits", misrepresenting the situation in edit summaries, and this having happened over an extended period of time is seriously troubling. I agree that Radiant Fellow's eleventh hour acknowledgment of being spoken to at all is a little bit of too-little-too-late and rings hollow; the behavior is more like attempting to dodge consequences than actual progress on improving upon prior behavior. If this behavior does revolve around The Chosen topics, a topic ban for Radiant Fellow and a warning to not continue this pattern of behavior on other subjects seems like a suitable next step. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Weird edits

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

---

I'm unsure whether Hatdogg2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is deeply, deeply confused or just vandalising, but it seems every single edit they have made is to change dates from what sources say to something deeply, deeply implausible. What can be done? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Hoaxery

Last week, an anonymous IP created Draft:Testzure Crystalzate Z5, a draft about a mobile phone that doesn't verifiably exist at all as neither the words "Testzure" nor "Crystalzate" bring up any hits whatsoever on a Google search. It was deleted by another administrator as a hoax, but since then additional drafts have been created at Draft:Testzure Crystalzate Doublfold 7, Draft:Testzure Crystalzate Tabpad S11 and Draft:Testzure Crystalzate Tabpad series. They were all also started by a different IP, but have since been edited by a newly registered user named IDYTAReturn29121.

So, essentially, this person appears to be creating hoax articles about an entire line of smartphone and tablet models that don't verifiably exist at all, by a tech company that doesn't verifiably exist at all.

Several times over the week, they've further revert-warred me over WP:DRAFTNOCAT issues, repeatedly putting the pages back into mainspace categories (including two redlinked categories that don't even exist at all, further defying WP:REDNOT) no matter how many times those were removed or disabled — so it would look as if I was misusing admin tools to gain the upper hand in a personal dispute if I simply applied any sanctions myself on the basis of the hoaxery. So could an uninvolved administrator look into this, and figure out if any deletions or editblocks are necessary? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• I was going to say that I'm sure that nobody would object if you performed the necessary deletions and blocks yourself, but then I remembered that there often seems to be someone who comes up with the most arcane, process-wonkery, objection, so I suppose it's better to play safe and get someone else to do it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• I've blocked Special:contributions/2806:2F0:33E0:F457:0:0:0:0/64 for one week and indeffed the named user. I've deleted all the drafts created by them except for one that is at MfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• I concur hoax vandalism. The clincher was the TechRadar articles from 2016 that had "Samsung" and "Galaxy" replaced with "Testzure" and "Crystalzate" in the citations and dates changed to 2024. Uncle G (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

More socking and NPA on Pakistani elections.

92.40.212.204, a openly-confessed sock of User:Bolt Kjerag who was also blocked for disruptive editing and being a sock themselves (see [[204]]), made WP:NPA violations, WP:IDNHT comments and soapboxing measures again in Talk:2024 Pakistani general election and Talk:Alleged electoral manipulation in Pakistan, especially with this [[205]] and [[206]]. Request immediate restrictions, a range block (they have used related IPs) and talk page revocation. Borgenland (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The range is CU blocked by @HJ Mitchell: Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by user over several IPs

There's been a repeated issue with someone vandalising Eurovision-related pages soon after their creation recently. When Sarah Bonnici was created after being selected for Eurovision, a Hungarian IP (92.52.232.134) inserted this (untrue info, note the claim about being from Connecticut) into the page and repeatedly reverted back to it. They asked for a user to start an AfD, which someone did well-meaningly, but which was eventually closed due to it being a troll.

Today, after Megara (band)'s selection for Eurovision and subsequent article creation, a new Hungarian IP (94.44.111.73) returned to add this info about Connecticut once again. Another Hungarian IP, 94.44.96.184, then added this flagrant BLP vio (which needs revdelling at absolute least). Subsequent reversions by 94.44.111.40 (here), 94.44.105.251 (here) and 94.44.113.50 trying to turn it to a redirect (here) before 94.44.97.18 nominated it for speedy deletion. All of these are similar IPs that geolocate to Hungary.

As this is much too complex for AIV and I don't know where to start in terms of filing an IP only investigation on SPI (though I suspect we could be dealing with the sock who created this due to a similar geolocation and knack for wanting Eurovision related articles deleted], I'm filing it here; long story short, the BLP violations on Megara (band) should be revdelled and the page might benefit from a semi-protection. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is a clear case of IP hopping, if you ask me: they are all Hungarian, share the same network, and commit BLP vios on the same page. An SPI should be filed by someone. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

An IP from Hungary also posted at WP:AN, asking that Megara (band) be moved to draft.[207] Schazjmd (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:01wikidocter and User:Miragekfir2000

Hello AN/I, I'm here about this strange diff of a user editing another user's page that came up in recent changes. That diff left me confused, especially since User:01wikidocter has not edited since Dec 2021, and I can't see any obvious interactions between the two at first glance.

I contacted User:Miragekfir2000 on their talk page, since that seem like an unusual edit to see made on another user's page, and that might not have been entirely intended. Talk page blanked without reply.

To the best of my knowledge, I've not interacted with either user before today. I'm looking for clarification, whether I should just drop the topic and forget, or if this warrants any attention. Thank you. Mlkj (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Miragekfir2000 appears to be a mostly good faith, productive editor. Their edits are largely unsourced, which isn't ideal, but they do appear to be correct (as far as I can tell). They've also removed sourced content that may be incorrect or that they disagree with, rather than adding or replacing other viewpoints. (Examples: 1, 2, 3.) Personalized comments in edit summaries like "If you don't know anything about firearms then don't pretend you do." also aren't helpful. Then there's this bit of random vandalism at AIDS Memorial Grove, for which they were warned. (Their reply was "Sorry, I just couldn't resist.") Given that they were warned about vandalism but still changed the message at 01wikidocter's User page, I suggest they be given a final warning from an admin.

As for User:01wikidocter, their initial User page message is also unacceptable, as is this edit summary. But they haven't edited for a couple of years, so perhaps the best we could do is keep an eye on them in case they return. Woodroar (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Long term disruption from IP range 2600:1700:B79:6E00:0:0:0:0/64

• 2600:1700:B79:6E00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs)

Lousy record of disruptive/reverted edits going back over two months, mostly to animation subjects. Looks like it's from Houston, but maybe it's too broad a range for a block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Looks the same as dormant IP 45.30.65.69 (talk · contribs), so I'm guessing they've been at this a long time. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Extreme spam

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

---

@User:User9382372864 has created several drafts (all the same structure) which seem to promote someone named Dante Carriman. Upon closer inspection, it seems that the cat picture used in the draft has been used by several accounts (all of which are banned) to promote this person. Ominateu (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Something this obvious could just be reported at AIV (which it since has been).

The account of the same name is globally locked for similar spam. – 2804:F14:80C5:3C01:1DC2:68AA:F94E:E2BA (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User 67.166.136.47

Repeated addition of unsourced/disruptive/non-WP:RS BLP content by user 67.166.136.47. (Examples: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). User is already serving a two week ban under his IPv6 alias 2601:205:4300:54F0* but has continued disruptive editing using this account. I have left a myriad of messages explaining WP:RS and many warnings on user's talk page, but user is WP:NOTLISTENING. Can something be done about this disruptive user? Rift (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I blocked off an AIV report. No objection to someone lengthening due to IP hopping Star Mississippi 22:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Summerdays1 and WP:BATTLEGROUND

Summerdays1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been making an extensive WP:BATTLEGROUND for months in order to target myself and a few other editors, involving consistent WP:CANVASSING and warring to revert edits, accompanied by personal attacks. This editor continues this behavior regardless and ignores every warning by multiple editors, including this most recent one by Ponyo [208]. Their reversions are usually under nonsensical edit summaries and often break article formatting or duplicate existing information, which is also disruptive. It's a pattern long enough to warrant a block. I've listed some here (this is not comprehensive, the rest can be seen through their edit log):

• Multiple violations of WP:CANVASS [209][210] [211]
• Intent to WP:HOUND [212] [213]
• Removal of edit warring notice [214]
• Removal of ANI notice [215]
• Continued removal of editor warnings and notices (not following them either) [216] [217] [218]
• WP:ICA (taunting me on my talk page) [219]
• Personal attack [220]
• WP:PA against Leventio [221]

Numerous reverts and unconstructive edits that I can't list them all. The most comprehensive view on my end would be through the edit-interaction analyzer (most of his edits were just reverting mine for no reason): [222]. They've continued their recent trend of just haphazardly reverting with nonsensical edit summaries which can be viewed on their log. Repasted from my old report (any newer edits show the same pattern):

• Spelling mistakes, reckless formatting mistakes, and grammar mistakes ( [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233])
• Erroneous material ([234] [235])
• Readded boosterism ([236]) GuardianH (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on anything else, but removing ANI/edit warring notices from their own user talk is not sanctionable. They're allowed to do that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Same goes for edit-warring notices (and most other deletions one makes on their own Talk page). I think the some of the other claims may or may not be valid but could benefit from clarification/elaboration. "Erroneous material" claims, for instance, might benefit from saying what about the edits was erroneous, and should be supported by evidence that Summer was warned that their edits were erroneous. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I noted the notices there as its just another part of the them ignoring warnings by editors and continued WP:ICHY. GuardianH (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For what its worth, I do believe their conduct on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (and my talk page) supports the notion the editor may exhibit traits of WP:ICHY. Myself (and briefly another editor) have repeatedly asked this user for a rationale for including content we have dispute over, This user has been unwilling to address the issues we've raised, or even attempt to reach an amicable position that satisfies both parties (despite my own attempts to reach a compromisable position). The latter part of the latest discussion on the article's talk page is largely them stating I am wrong with no rationale to back it up, or simply just asking/demanding of me to just to "leave it alone" (again exhibiting traits of ICHY concerning content they care for).

Once it was clear to myself that we would not be able to resolve this on our own, I've repeatedly asked them if they would like to wait for other editors to chime in on the talk page, or go to 3O or DRN. In turn, they have done everything except answer the question for a rationale/a rebuttal to my own rationale, or if they would like to find another party to help resolve this dispute (for this latter question, they have even questioned the utility of going through 3O or DRN instead of opting to choose a course of action).

This user has also made several comments which border on PA here and here. But that's besides the point of reinforcing the notion this user exhibits traits of ICHY. Leventio (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This user has also begun to remove my last comment on Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, even after I told them to look over WP:TPG to not do so. I can't comment on GuardianH's issue with the user, but their conduct on this talk page really makes me suspect traits of WP:ICHY. Leventio (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a notice is not "ignoring" it, but rather is typically considered to be the editor in question seeing your notice but choosing not to engage with it, which is their right. In terms of demonstrating a behavioral issue, it would be more effective to provide a narrative where you show that the editor made a mistake, then that you notified them that they made said mistake, and that they continued to make the same mistake. For instance, with the claims of inserting erroneous material, you should show that you notified the editor that the material they inserted was erroneous and that they then reinserted it. DonIago (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why did you edit war your removal on E. Gordon Gee instead of discussing, after you were reverted twice, seeing as it was contested?

Spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and formatting mistakes, so long as they dont go over into WP:CIR territory are acceptable so long as the edits themselves are in good faith. Nobody's perfect, and we have several people who dedicate their time here to fixing spelling mistakes for otherwise productive users. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)^{retracted after seeing new evidence}

Spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and formatting mistakes, so long as they dont go over into WP:CIR territory are acceptable so long as the edits themselves are in good faith. Nobody's perfect, and we have several people who dedicate their time here to fixing spelling mistakes for otherwise productive users. DarmaniLink, as an editor who cleans up such mistakes, I find this an infuriating take. No, we don't just block someone who makes such errors, but it's not okay for users to create error-filled edits on the assumption "someone else" will come along and clean it up. WP:CIR is a metric for whether someone should be allowed to edit the site, not the bar for whether an individual edit should be accepted. It's perfectly acceptable, even preferable, to revert "productive" additions that introduce a bunch of errors rather than to ignore them and expect other editors to clean them up.

An editor edit-warring to maintain such edits may not be a WP:CIR problem, but it's perfectly reasonable for OP to include edit-warring over them as part of the behavioral issues at play. Grandpallama (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I actually covered this previously, but Summerdays1 has been repeatedly reverted and has received warnings before about his reckless editing mistakes. Of course, they continue to do them or try to war them in (i.e., Nadine Strossen). They aren't in good faith either. Summerdays1 said that they would combat my edits and they've gone and done just that by following onto pages I've worked on — these grammar/spelling mistakes were made deliberately to worsen the quality of the articles. GuardianH (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The linked warnings (ignored ones?) are just someone asking the editor to participate in his own ANI case, not adding links, and not chirping into talk page disputes.

Sorry, but where are the warnings for the editing mistakes, and the instructions for correction? I don't see them in your case, and all I see on their talk page is a generic template warning for edit warring.

How do you feel about a two-way WP:IBAN if you do not want him reverting your edits, and he doesnt want you reverting his? Some edits such as Special:Diff/1206704749 appear to be constructive and good faith to me. (This would require his agreement as well)

Though, the editor does seem like a hothead, and does need to be told to calm down. ^{retracted after seeing new evidence}DarmaniLink (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they'd also benefit from not summarily deleting all or most of the messages left at their Talk page and choosing not to engage in this conversation. While it's certainly their right to do so, I think it's fair to say that it's coming across as a disinterest in collaborating with their fellow editors. DonIago (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've only encountered Summerdays1 in the last few days at Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. I hadn't until now spotted that this thread was open but having now seen it I'm surprised Summerdays1 hasn't received some sanction for WP:PAs, WP:BATTLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just from that talk page alone the most egregious examples are:

1. Look, you are easily exasperating. Why do I need to give you any reasons? I choose not to for the following: you are difficult and I really don't wish to converse with you on here or anywhere.
2. Because you are ridiculous. I'll say it, you are nuts.
3. They deleted an article talk page reply to them with the edit summary "unwanted expl.".
4. and again with edit summary "asked for another opinion, not yours"
5. "stop talking...You are deluded. I will not answer further."
6. 5 repeated deletions of another editor's article talk page post.[237], [238], [239], [240], [241].

DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see all those.

Yeah, definitely deserves a sanction. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The thing which isn't easily summarised in a diff but which can clearly be seen from reviewing that article talk page is that they don't feel the need to justify their policy-free opinion and being challenged on that results in an extreme WP:BATTLE reaction. Unless they shape up this is not someone who can collaborate here. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think indef blocking them first and asking them to explain how they'll cease being disruptive might set them off. A month (with appeal), for them to contemplate how disruptive they're being might be good though. If that doesn't work, indef them again DarmaniLink (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I support a block here — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Agree. I also support a block. GuardianH (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks are bad enough. Deleting other editors' posts on talkpages, that aren't theirs? crosses the line. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence presented, I support an indefinite one-way IBAN for whoever has been repeatedly harassed and a one week block for personal attacks, harassment, deleting talk page posts, and battleground behavior to deter future misconduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  seconded DarmaniLink (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Update: After having a close look at some of Summerdays1's contributions on various articles, I found some striking similarities in edits and behaviour between Summerday1 and an older account, AloofAnteater45. I have filed an SPI report, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AloofAnteater45. Thanks — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

GuardianH (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've de-archived this as problems persist and there is a forming consensus. GuardianH (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

COI / SOCK editor

• Jishnu Raghav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maryam Noor26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see this COIN report for User:Jishnu Raghav filed on the 21st. They continue to create a page for Jishnu Raghavan under different disambiguations to avoid detection. I filed the SPI at Helloo 68 last week but still awaiting CU. Since that time, I moved yet another disambiguation creation (Jishnu (actor) to draft which was just moved back to mainspace by newer user Maryam Noor26. Can we do a DUCK block on these and possibly protect yet another disamgiation version? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we blacklist the name? That should solve the repeated recreation attempts, which in turn should frustrate the sock - hopefully enough to stop coming back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B13D:12B7:549F:256E:933:DD82 (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I will never ever come to edit for wikipedia because for what i had came that has been completely fulfilled. I will be happy even if you block me and please don't delete Jishnu article protect his page and don't allow any unregistered user to edit his page. I'm not lying it's my god promise I will not come hereafter. BYE!! Jishnu Raghav (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI to reviewing admins - user has threatened to never leave actually. Hence the multiple sock accounts they have created over the last few months. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

For reviewing admin: diff. NM 07:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Both users have been blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User talk:ScarletViolet

This editor, ScarletViolet, has unilaterally nominated an article to GAN (which I created/expanded), where they had zero input and contribution, and at the same time initiated a review of said article. I'm quite stunned by the lack of awareness for the GAN process displayed the this editor, but also saw this coming considering this user has a history of this type of behavior, and I have made repeated warnings on the editor's talk page.

As a note, this user has had this behavior within the TFA and FAR spaces. And has been temporarily banned twice in prior years.

• Nominating Regine Velasquez's article to TFA as an April Fools joke [242]
• Nominating Mariah Carey's article to TFA and then withdrawing it because said editor could not not address issues to improve the article [243]
• With regard to second bullet, nominating the FA article for Featured Article Reassessment without being able to raise concerns at the talk page [244]

I would like to request that this user be sanctioned accordingly, either a block from editing, or a block from the FAC/FAR/GAN pages, whichever is appropriate as it appears that repeated warnings have not worked. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour of User:UtoD

User UtoD has twice reverted all my recent edits on Sri Lanka Armed Forces: [1] [2] However, they gave explanation for reverting only for one of my edits concerning child sexual abuse in Haiti by Sri Lankan peacekeepers but refuse to explain also reverting another edit concerning UN's report on war crimes even after I had notified them here by stating: "You also reverted my another edit without giving any reason. Again take it to the talk page."

In their latest reply to me in the talk discussion, they once again refused to address my complaint.

Further, in the same talk discussion, they refuse to engage my repeated requests ([1][2][3]) for clarification on the reasons given for reverting my first edit and instead only insists I alone have the burden despite instructing me in the edit explanation to reach a consensus. Yet this evasive behaviour is not conducive to a collaborative consensus-building effort that Wikipedia relies on. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User:AidanParkinson

Apparently, me pointing out (again) to user:AidanParkinson that citing Thomas Hobbes for content on "Commonwealth Costs of Carbon" is contrary to Wikipedia policy given that Hobbes never wrote on the subject makes me a Nazi. [245] I'd have to suggest that since it seems more or less self evident that AidanParkinson's only activity on Wikipedia relates to a topic from which he is page blocked, and since he seems unable to understand either actual purpose of Wikipedia nor the many policies which make his approach contrary to said purpose, a permanent block per WP:NOTHERE would be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

AidanParkinson appears to have a theory that they want to add to Wikipedia, and their efforts have been stymied for lack of verifiability. They have a singular focus. They have been blocked from Social cost of carbon for disruptive editing, and then the p-block was extended to Talk:Social cost of carbon for disruptive editing there as well. Multiple editors have tried to explain the problems, but neither the blocks nor the explanations seem to have made any improvement in AP's editing and behavior on WP. After reading through their talk page and Talk:Social cost of carbon, I don't think AP is interested in gaining wikipedia competence and their continued participation here is simply a timesink for other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

See also AidanParkinson's Draft:Commonwealth Costs of Carbon. This is clearly an attempted PoV fork of Social cost of carbon (the page from which he is banned), though as an exercise in pushing a PoV, and in Righting Great Wrongs, it is singularly inept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump - I'm afraid centralised long-term planning has been associated by many sources with national socialism and the rise of the Nazi party.

Further, it appears you are requesting the scientific community to publish evidence of insight that I have evidence is uninteresting to science. If you actually took the time to study Rawls and Hobbes properly, you'd understand that the position I advocate is common-sense. Not worthy of a Nobel Prize at all, or even a novel scientific contribution for that matter.

Now, I am only seeking for Commonwealth Costs of Carbon to be considered equally to the utilitarian perspective that your Social Cost of Carbon page advocates. I see no reason why either should be given priority over the other. However, I do believe you have a duty to include other points of view. Particularly, when they are as robust and valid as anything currently existing on the page.

Really, believe what you want. But, please allow for a reasonable plurality in beliefs. Otherwise, one might accuse you of being a national socialist yourself. AidanParkinson (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your perspective is alien to Wikipedia. If your views are indeed common sense, then it's all the more reasonable to expect you to be happily adhere to policy like everybody else. No one wants to take your word for what is common sense, I'm afraid. Remsense诉 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is all patently NOTHERE behavior from AidanParkinson. The above comment doubles down on the Nazi accusation, the draft they're creating is original research that strays well into NOTESSAY territory. I think this editor is incapable of editing this project productively and within a community setting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you'll find me simply inexperienced in contributing to a hostile Wikipedia community, rather than deliberately non-compliant. It is difficult to comply with all the requirements when your finding the community offensive. AidanParkinson (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I could paste here the views of numerous scientific editors on this subject, if you really require we sink that low. But, I'd hope we can keep the Wikipedia editorial away from an editorial war. AidanParkinson (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@AidanParkinson, this discussion is about your conduct on wikipedia, not about content. Schazjmd (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This comment in addition to their draft article demonstrates to me that Aidan is WP:NOTHERE. — Czello ^(music) 18:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

No sooner did I post this did Aidan get indef'd. — Czello ^(music) 18:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked AidanParkinson as not here to build the encyclopedia. There are many reasons but the nonsense about other editors being Nazis for disagreeing with their disruptive pushing of fringe theories is clearly unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Clasus1453

Clasus1453 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fail to see how this user is a networth to this site. All their edits have been reverted (mostly by me) and for good reason; they're unsourced and revisionism. Their talk page is also full of warnings (mostly by me).

They have never written a edit summary once, let alone written in a talk page. Back in January they created the revisionistic Category:Ottoman-Azerbaijani wars, adding it to conflicts between the Ottomans and Aq Qoyunlu [246] [247] [248], referring the latter as "Azerbaijani", despite the ethnonym first emerging in 1918 and the Aq Qoyunlu article literally stating that they're Turkoman, not Azeri. After reverting them, I tried to explain this to them at their talk page [249], but it was clearly ignored, as they went on a second time to create Category:Ottoman-Azerbaijani wars after it was speedily deleted for being empty, and after being reverted for that´too, they started edit warring [250] [251] and then created a even more revisionistic category, Category:Azerbaijani-Uzbek wars, this time not only calling the Turkoman Aq Qoyunlu (and Turkoman Qara Qoyunlu) for "Azerbaijani", but now also calling the Turco-Mongol Timurid Empire for "Uzbek" [252] [253] [254].

Bonus; altering sourced information [255]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Knson

Sir Knson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indef blocked, has amazingly returned as Knson Gold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as well as multiple IPs 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:B919:232:A560:9B58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:BD92:7D5B:6E32:1CEF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2A02:C7C:A739:F700:13E:82D7:30CF:2B35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) etc. I'd take it to SPI, but it seems perfunctory. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by a few people, including me. IznoPublic (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Text as a graphic

Coming here as I've hit 3RR if I'm wrong about this. Mainerlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding (five times so far) a list to Thomas College. The only issue is... it's a list they have neatly typed out in Excel and uploaded a picture of to Commons. They're not responding to attempts to communicate to them why this is A Bad Thing. Would someone else care to? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if I am wrong, but I think the 3RR noticeboard is better for this. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. AN3 is for reporting people who have violated 3RR. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 19:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not really to do with 3RR. It's to do with the text in a graphic, the MoS issues and the lack of communication – the latter especially, for which the venue is ANI. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If they continue to do this, please simply guide them to WP:ACCESS, because a PNG of a spreadsheet is simply not accessible and should be a paragraph or table of prose rather than an image, and they can easily make a WP:TABLE using Wikicode just as well that meets ACCESS. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User was Pblocked from Thomas College by Cullen328. User has admitted to working for the school, and expressed intent to keep adding it. I'm holding off on a full block for now, let's see if they're willing to accept advice. The photo itself has also been deleted from Commons. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I left a COI notice. DMacks (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat

On the talk page of Dean Mahomed, @Bengal213x: is now engaging in legal threats against Wikipedia and myself following a reversion after he removed sourced content. Please refer to this diff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dean_Mahomed&diff=prev&oldid=1210477551 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixudi (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 February 202 (UTC)

User blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This account is presumably the same as the several IPs that were likewise disruptively-editing this article a week ago, leading to a semi-protection at that time. DMacks (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Persistent creation of Indian election articles by Maphumor

Persistent creation of Indian election articles by Maphumor (talk · contribs)

1. 2027 Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly election
2. 2027 Punjab Legislative Assembly election
3. 2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election
4. 2027 Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election

User has not responded to inquires about the mass creation of articles on their talk page, (see User talk:Maphumor#Mass creating new articles in mainspace with obvious errors, Diff) and these pages contain obvious errors such as Legislative Assembly elections were held in Uttarakhand on 2027 Nov to elect 70 members of the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly. The votes were counted and the results were declared on 10 March 2022..

Further, their recent edits take to changing election information and results without sources, see Special:Diff/1210485401

Going further back, they recently frequently create Next election in xyz pages that are frequently moved to draftspace for the same concerns. Overall disruptive editing practice and failure to abide by WP:V.

microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar if this meets the threshold of WP:GS under WP:CT/IPA if it only involves one of the countries, I'm not familiar with that area of work. Happy to be informed otherwise. Brought to my attention as a reviewer at WP:NPP. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Further changes without sources as described above: Special:Diff/1210486763, Special:Diff/1210487748, and Special:Diff/1210488246. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Juniorpetjua

Editor Juniorpetjua (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Juniorpetjua) was blocked indefinitely on the Portuguese Wikipedia for "attempts to impose WP:POV generating numerous edit wars", as written here: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pedidos_a_administradores/Discuss%C3%A3o_de_bloqueio/Juniorpetjua/10 . He has been applying the same editing system here, not accepting changes to the articles he edited, he has "article owner" syndrome and although he thinks he is some kind of "protector of articles about the Northeast Region of Brazil", which is where he came from, he usually carries out massive unrealistic propaganda for the region, combined with political propagandism, and uses force and editing wars, as can be seen in 2017 editions in Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and now, where, recently he made nothing more, nothing less than 9 reversals in the Recife article in a way that completely disrespects other editors and the project. He already has a history of 2 blocks because of this and has learned nothing. I ask that the referring user be blocked from this Wikipedia as well.Stockpeixe (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Stockpeixe: As per the instructions at the top of this page, you are required to notify Juniorpetjua of your complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Done.Stockpeixe (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Starting a new category

Ahoy! Was trying to create a category for honorary citizens of the United States, but apparently that's off-limits for me and requires an administrator. Even though the category would only include articles about 8 people and about the honor itself, I think it's still worthy creating, considering the high honor in question. Requesting said category or help relating to this. Many thanks in advance! Kaljami (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)