Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064

Mass-creating articles based on one unreliable source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Lugnuts has created hundreds (thousands?) of articles on Turkish villages based on one source, Koyumuz. There is no indication at all that this is a reliable site, it looks like one of these typical weather-predicting sites based on some dubious geographical source. This was raised here on ANI in the discussion about the mass-creation by Lugnuts of cricket stubs, and I again raised this today at WP:AN#Another case, this time Turkey. While the villages most likely all exist, the only additional information in it, the population, seems to be dubious. Examples:

• Elmadüzü, Oltu has a 2012 population of 64 on enwiki: the Turkish article gives a population of 302 in 2007, and 406 in 2014.
• Çengelli, Oltu; enwiki claims a population of 154 (2012), Turkish Wikipedia claims 307 in 2007, and 398 in 2014.
• Küçükorucuk, Oltu: enwiki 105 (2012), TRwiki 147 (2007) to 198 (2014)
• Savaşçılar, Narman: enwiki 22 (2012), TRwiki 175 (2007) to 204 (2014)

Now, it may be that TRwiki is wrong and ENwiki is right, but that should be based on some official or clearly reliable sources then, not on a random weather-predicting website. All these articles should either be corrected (a good source provided and the population checked), or moved to draftspace if the former can't be done swiftly. And creation of any new articles like this should stop. Fram (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Fram's m/o is, but he continues to bully and harras my work on here. Looking at the Turkish articles for these places, NONE of them actually source the populations quoted. These places do exist, as the source confirms. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Now, the flip side:

• Kanlıtaş, Refahiye, 65 EN, 65 Tur
• Şahaloğlu, Refahiye, 131 EN, 131 Tur
• Dallıca, Kemaliye, 13 EN, 13 Tur
• Beşikli, Kemah, 63 EN, 63 Tur

And all the Turkish articles have a source for these figures. And surprise, surprise, population figures do change year from year. I wonder why that is. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The question is whether the source you use is a reliable one or not. If you can show us that it is, fine, no problem. I guess you have researched this before setting out on a mass-creation spree, so you should have no problem showing us some evidence that it is a reliable source. That it sometimes matches trwiki, and sometimes doesn't, is an indication that there may be a problem with it. It is up to you to disprove this. Fram (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The Turkish Wikipedia articles appear to have no sources at all. I don't know why why there should be any attempt to correlate the information with unsourced material on another Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Creating articles based on unreliable sources is poor practice. When checking these, I noticed that TRwiki (which is also an unreliable source) has different numbers for these villages. This doesn't prove that our numbers are wrong, but is an extra indication that there might be a problem. Now, if a reliable source can be found which matches our numbers, then all that needs to be done is replacing the source in these articles with the reliable one, and use that one from now on. If no such source can be found, then the articles need more drastic action. Fram (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the RS (or otherwise), simply that we should take Turkish Wikipedia with its completely unreferenced material with a pinch of salt. It's in no way an indicator of problems on another Wikipedia when the information there is completely unsourced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Batch delete needed, sanctions should be considered (at least remove Autopatrol) - A search for "Koyumuz" returns 4,452 hits. Scrolling through the first 500 results I see that most of them have the same length (22 words) and none is longer than 60 words. All seem to have been created in a ~16 day period from 11 March 2021 to 27 March 2021. Clicking on ten of them I see that all ten were created by Lugnuts. I agree that Koyumuz does not appear to be a reliable source - there is nothing indicating where its data comes form and it does appear to be some kind of weather mirror site. Moreover these articles are explicitly about neighbourhoods, which are not anyway automatic WP:GEOLAND passes. This is clearly a mass GEOFAIL situation, one that simply cannot be dealt with through PROD/AFD given it involves thousands of articles. There may be some WP:GEOLAND-passing articles in amongst those 4,452 articles and some may be duplicate hits so I think we're going to need some more analysis to get a proper delete list (Hog Farm - maybe another case where we could get an output of the kind being done for Carlos's Iranian articles).

This is particularly disappointing given that I had this discussion with Lugnuts on 19 March 2021 about this exact problem (mass-creation of WP:GEOLAND-failing articles done simply to boost article-creation stats, which is classic WP:NOTHERE behaviour). Lugnuts KNOWS this behaviour is not OK, that these articles are automatic WP:GEOLAND fails as written, but created them en masse (with an algorithm?) even so. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you could show how you think this isn't a reliable source, rather than spouting it over and over again, the same with your bad-faith WP:NOTHERE comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

1) The burden is on you to show it is reliable, not on me to show it isn't. 2) The website doesn't say where its data comes from, the data clearly isn't created by a small website so the inference is its mirroring something else and/or creating its articles algorithmically - WP:V fail since we don't know what it is mirroring. 3) It appears from the contact form provided on each article that the website accepts user-created content. The accusation of bad faith - well, we talked about this exact issue, didn't we? You're response to another user doing exactly what you've just done was "Wow, what a mess!". And you then went ahead and did the same thing anyway? FOARP (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The articles I looked at pass WP:GEOLAND; the source was published but now seems to be unavailable, at least at its original URL. I checked for updated statistics and the map on the census website labels all places in a district with the population and the name of the district, but not the place name. I couldn't find anything below province level on the database page and I don't know if it includes villages or neighbourhoods but it was used as a source in the Turkish Wikipedia when the populations of the districts were updated. Wherever it is, it isn't under an obvious title; I asked about this at the WikiProject Turkey talk page. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fram: Are there any sources out there (I know nothing about Turkey outside of the "They Might Be Giants" song, it's named after a bird, and it's not in the Middle East, but it's also not in Asia) that could take the place of this one? Like how we use US Census data here, do they have their own form of that? Only reason I ask is I would hate to lose all those articles. If that's the only option, then I have to agree, batch delete...but let's try and explore all reference options first, please. Just in case these articles can be saved. Just sayin'. As for the user, yeah, he needs at least an article creation ban (is that a thing?) since this isn't a one-time issue, but the user has done this prior (ie: Cricket...yet another subject I know nothing about unless we are talking about the bug). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:55 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Second the call for an article creation ban here as well. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You mean this thread where there was nothing wrong with my work? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comments I would suggest that the reference used from now on and which should replace koyumuz should be nufusune.com which is a reliable reference. I don't think we should delete any of these articles.--Semsûrî (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Disclaimer on that site: "Sitede yer alan bilgilerin doğruluğunu taahhüt etmiyoruz. Bu site bilgi ve eğlence sitesidir. Burada yer alan bilgiler Resmi amaçla kullanılmaz, delil olarak gösterilemez." which Google translates as "We do not guarantee the accuracy of the information on the site. This site is an information and entertainment site. The information contained herein is not used for official purposes, and cannot be shown as evidence." So perhaps not a reliable source either? Fram (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks for your input Semsûrî. What Fram said, plus unofficial neighbourhoods are barred from the automatic presumption of notability under WP:GEOLAND, and the overwhelming majority of the 4,452 articles citing koyumuz are 22-word articles reading "X is a neighbourhood in the Y district of Z province, Turkey", apparently created using an algorithm. These appear to be census tracts? Census tracts are also not accepted as proof of legal recognition. At the very least another reference having WP:SIGCOV is needed for each. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    The Turkish gov. website has details of each village/neighbourhood. Happy to replace the existing source with that, and remove the population stat as I go. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    Can you perhaps then start doing that first, instead of creating new articles? And perhaps stop insulting people on a regular basis? "appease the deletionist"[1] when what you are actually should say is "shit, you're right, I shouldn't have used that source, I'll clean it up now" really isn't an acceptable way to interact with people. Fram (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    A disclaimer doesn't make it unreliable, it just means it is not definitive. It anything without a disclaimer is not reliable we would probably have to say the definitive map is the only reliable source of a public right of way in the UK, (anything else that fails to include a disclaimer would be even less reliable). Peter James (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Before I say anything else, I would like to comment that I do indeed believe that Koyumuz is an unreliable source. I would prefer if Lugnuts used Nufusune instead. However, these articles all do pass WP:GEOLAND. Originally, all of these neighborhoods were considered villages. However, in 2013, the Turkish government began classifying all villages from 30 provinces as neighborhoods. This means that some provinces have no vilages. Believe it or not, neighborhoods are actually classified at a higher level than villages, so WP:GEOLAND is clearly met. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Scorps. It's clearly semantics about village/neighbourhood, and they're all populated places too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Scorpions13256, Nufusune indicates that they aren't a reliable site (as was already said above), so advising to use that one instead isn't really the best advice. Fram (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Fram. I didn't see that. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Every district in Turkey has their own official page like haymana.gov.tr which does list the 2014 population of its villages (in this case administered as neighborhoods since its in Ankara Province)[2] but I can't say if all districts have such a population page. Perhaps, if we could check if the data is identical with Nufusune we could classify that site as reliable? --Semsûrî (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would we use Nusufune if we have the information from a reliable source in the first place? It is a mirror, it displays information taken from elsewhere without editorial oversight or checking. That the source they mirror or have scraped is a reliable site doesn't make Nusufune an acceptable source (although it would be at least better than what we have now, at least Nusufune indicates both the source they used, and the fact that they aren't reliable, which are both commendable). Fram (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The question is if all official sites for the 973 districts have such data like Haymana does. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Just to be clear here, because this seems to be getting lost: these articles are overwhelmingly one-sentence stubs apparently written by an algorithm sourced to a single unreliable source about neighbourhoods with no proven legal recognition with (according to the unreliable source used) tiny populations (e.g., Leylekköy, İspir, pop. 44). Lugnuts created hundreds of these each day over a two-week period, right after he was involved in a discussion about another editor doing exactly the same thing. There's no way that Lugnuts has done the work to show a WP:GEOLAND pass for any of these, even if some can be rescued by other editors. FOARP (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Leylekköy is a village in the traditional sense, but is considered a neighborhood administratively in Turkey. As mentioned above, mahalle/neighborhood in Turkey is the only administrative term used in the most populous provinces (see Metropolitan municipalities in Turkey). When a province in Turkey hits a specific population, settlements that are considered köy/village gets upgraded to mahalle/neighborhood status. The only thing Lugnuts has done is creating articles of what we would consider villages but Turkey officially considers neighborhoods. I still believe that none of these articles should be deleted and they DO PASS GEOLAND, but should be referenced better. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Like Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I've started work on changing the reference, so down from 4,452 (quoted above) to just 4,396 to go. Some of them using Koyumuz won't be articles I started, as the ref had been used way before I started to use it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete all and remove autopatrol at the very least. Batch deletion is an appropriate response to improper mass creation even if some articles might be valid; if someone handed you a phone directory and told you it was a list of notable people, you would toss the whole thing rather than going through one-by-one to check notability.

Lugnuts should be expected to clean up the current mess (which they offered to do above) before mass creating more articles (which is what they're currently doing as we speak). It's a very bad practice, if not a violation of GEOLAND, to go through any sort of database or list and create an article for each place with no further research. One such article created by Lugnuts today is Saksı, Pasinler which consists of "Saksı is a neighbourhood in the Pasinler District of Erzurum Province in Turkey." I don't read Turkish and I'm not familiar with locality designations in Turkey (Is Lugnuts?), but the source is nothing more than a list of 72 neighborhoods within the larger district. What sort of neighborhood, village, etc is this? Where is it exactly? Why should we care about it? Lugnuts is leaving it up to others to figure out so they can focus boosting their own article creation count. This type of behavior by several editors (including an admin) has been a major source of disruption, a huge time sink and we need an overall ban on mass article creation as well as a change to the "officially recognized populated place" criteria at WP:GEOLAND which allows editors to claim notability. –dlthewave ☎ 13:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

How is that any different to this moth, for example? By coincidence, it is also from Turkey. Where is it exactly? Why should we care about it? etc, etc Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

1) Well that looks like an excellent candidate for deletion, why don't you nominate it for AFD? 2) WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. FOARP (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is an essay - do you have a policy to link to instead? You seem to have an issue with its notability, I'll leave the AfD to you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

All species are notable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES though admittedly that article is a Qbugbot level stub. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

OUTCOMES must be used very carefully. It does not say , for example, that all species are notable, but instead that it is very difficult to challenge the species article at AFD because there's a general presumption that all species are likely notable and can be proven that way when push comes to shove. If all species were considered truly notable, we'd have an SNG to cover that, but we don't. --Masem (t) 19:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

When's the last time a species was deleted for being non-notable? If there's a presumption of notability, how do you disprove that definitively? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Even if Lugnuts is creating all these articles by hand, a serious question to ask is if they plan to go back to ever try to improve them beyond the one or two line stub they set them up as. That's the problem with mass article creation is that there's no assurance anyone is going to come along in the future to expand out, and it becomes much more work to clean up after this, even though in such mass-creation actions, the onus is on the editor undertaking the action. Even if the source here was legit (which may not be), the onus really should remain on Lugnuts to make sure this articles are taken to a point beyond the basic stub -- or simply stop making them altogether. --Masem (t) 13:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you link me to the policy that states anyone creating a stub MUST improve/expand it? Once you've found it, I'll get to work on them. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:GEOLAND. If you create articles that fail this standard as-written then expect for them to get deleted. If you create articles failing this standard en masse, in the knowledge that this is problematic (something you've criticised other editors such as Carlosuarrez46 for doing) then expect other editors to point out that you are knowingly engaging in the same kind of disruptive editing and apparently don't care what the effect is. Just how is this different to what DrBlowfeld/Encyclopedius did with their algorithm and got told to stop for? FOARP (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you highlight the exact bit of WP:GEOLAND for me that states a stub MUST be expanded by the article's creator? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I can, again, highlight the part of WP:GEOLAND that all of these articles fail for you, if that helps? As well as WP:V? Since they fail these, you should not be surprised to be having this conversation about deleting them all. If you pile up immense tasks for other editors here on Wiki don't be surprised if people just say WP:TNT is the solution. Additionally, don't be surprised if people point out that you are knowingly engaging in disruptive editing. FOARP (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You've still not actually pointed to the precise text. Maybe WP:5 is wrong - "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." All these places pass WP:GEOLAND and WP:V. The difference between Carlosuarrez46 & "DrBlowfeld" (sic) is that I'm working through all the articles indentified, and fixing the source as I go. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any consensus that anyone is obliged to improved past a stub. The issue is the mass creation part of it IMO (as below). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the mass creation facet is the larger part of this. We've all likely created a one-off stub, and no one is biting our heads off for that. It would be different if these mass-created stubs may be one or two fully fleshed out paragraphs, even if based on one source, that show far more potential for a larger article, than the single sentences we're getting now. I doubt we'd have an issue if someone was able to mass-create articles on villages/etc. that has 500+ words, complete infobox, and appropriate sourcing. Would still be stub, but at least that's a useable stub, and few would balk at an article of that size. --Masem (t) 15:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass stub creations can be useful (if they pass Wikipedia:Notability), it's documented in the book The Wikipedia Revolution how one person made thousands of articles for each county in the United States, all as stubs. But it allowed for other editors to more easily start editing/adding info, even years later. I do think mass editing needs to be done responsibly, and with extra care for sources. Shushugah (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem with mass creating articles like this is doing so without community consultation (if not consensus) first. "Hey I'd like to create a thousand stubs on villages based on this one source" would get the kind of input about source quality and the information drawn them them beforehand rather than afterwards at ANI (if anyone notices a problem or its pattern at all). I think it's a good thing that Lugnuts said they'd be willing to replace the source in question with another, but wouldn't it be even better if people had a chance to point that out beforehand? Beyond that, as I said in the cricket thread above, and at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to see data-based mass creation require consensus first (along the lines of WP:MASSCREATION/WP:MEATBOT). I was under the impression it was a well-known best practice to do so, but the previous thread disabused me of that notion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It is well known best practice. The problem is when it's mass-creation of stubs about footballers, NFOOTY shows up to defend it. When it's mass-creation of stubs about cricketers, NCRIC shows up to defend it (this was the last thread). When it's places in Turkey... well, perhaps NTURK isn't as active as these other wikiprojects... I think it's dangerous for an editor to confuse "not enough consensus to sanction" with "no problem with the creations". Sooner or later, we're going to end up with an article creation restriction, at which point I fear Lugnuts will quit. This reminds me of other high-volume editors from the past, I fear we're just a thread or two away from the final one. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What Levivich said. Additionally, they are very obviously doing this algorithmically without first having got consensus to do so, which is against WP:MASSCREATION. There is simply no way that anyone is creating so many hundreds of sports/location articles by hand each day - we're talking 400-500 EDIT:about 80 location articles each day alone. FOARP (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong again. I'm not using any bot, algorithm or tools in ANY article creation. 400-500 per day?! Less than 80 per day, at best. Again, you've made many aspersions on my work, and provided ZERO evidence to back up what you say. Feel free to filter on my contributions, and if you find the day that I made 400-500 new articles, I'll eat my hat. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

But you're not typing each one out by hand either. Please don't be coy with us. Your user page boasts that you've created 88,000 new pages. Over 15 years that's still more than 5,800 mainspace pages per year, or 16 per day, every day. I'd bet you haven't even read them all. And if you have, it's proof positive of how short they all are. If you spent a half hour on each of them, that would be 8 hrs per day, 365 days per year, for 15 years, with no days off or even half days. Whatever tool you're using, whether it's a script or a template or whatever it may be, you're not typing out 5,800 articles per year by hand. And if you are, that would be really bizarre. Like that would be a medieval-monk-level of scribing. We can tell by the volume that you're spending no more than minutes on each page creation. You've got to come to appreciate that there are many editors here who do not want you to do this. I know you view this as building an encyclopedia, but in my view, it's spamming the encyclopedia—well intended spam, but spam nonetheless. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts - OK "about 80" then. Can you tell us how you create 80 articles in a single day without using "any bot, algorithm or tools"? I mean for reference, your first article cited to koyumuz on 28 March 2021 was created at 17:25 and the last at 18:35 - 70 minutes in which you created 47 near-identical articles, that's just under 90 seconds an article. FOARP (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Prior discussion would be helpful and also required by WP:MEATBOT. Some editors treat WP:GEOLAND as an entitlement/mandate to create a standalone article about every populated place that appears in a government table or database, when in fact it may be more useful to present them as a list until individual articles are built out. I would strongly support listing every village in Template:Pasinler_District in a section at Pasinler, Erzurum which would result in no loss of information.

It's also critical to vet the source being used. We've seen many instances of editors assuming that every entry in a particular census table or database automatically meets our notability standards for populated places, when in fact they're often made to serve a specific government function such as counting people or delivering the mail that doesn't necessarily reflect distinct settlements. The source used here is a list of Mukhtars (village leaders) within Pasinler District which provides no other information about these places. It appears to be at the better end of the reliability spectrum since they do reflect an official level of government administration, but it's also unclear why we would choose this source which provides so little information about these places and would need to be supplemented by other sources. Whether this mass creation is actually helpful would be a valid question to pose to the community before embarking on such an endeavor. –dlthewave ☎ 16:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It is well known best practice - then I would like to hear from some of the admins who weighed in at the cricket discussion and here as to why this wasn't actionable. My sense is that while it's a best practice, the actual rules aren't clear about manual mass creation. As I see it we have three issues: whether this is a WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT violation (and if it's unclear, how those policies should be changed to be clearer), the reliability of the source (IMO not particularly important here except insofar as it highlights the potentially negative impact of mass editing), and an SNG which allows (if not encourages) this. The SNG discussion is underway [again], the RS issue can be handled at RSN if it's not resolved already, and all that's left is to address MASSCREATE/MEATBOT. Lugnuts is hardly the only person to manually mass create stubs based on data or a single source, and if our rules aren't clear I see no reason to hold Lugnuts alone accountable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - I agree that Lugnuts should not be the only person held to account for this. For this reason we also have an AN discussion ongoing against Carlosuarrez46 for doing exactly the same thing (mass creation of GEOStubs based on dubious sourcing). Lugnuts actually knew about this case and was critical of Carlos. Yet he carried on doing exactly the same thing. I am currently having a conversation with Encyclopedius (ex Dr. Blofeld) to see if we can come up with a solution to the problem of the articles their algorithm created in 2008, but he at least appears co-operative and his mass-creation was stopped years ago. FOARP (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that there are also older creations (from January 2021 or thereabouts) for Turkish villages which use only another source, Yerelnet, e.g. at Karapınar, Gölhisar or at Kınık, İnegöl. Unfortunately, Yerelnet doesn't have any information on these villages at the moment, so these articles as well will need checking. There are more than 2000 articles referencing Yerelnet, but not all of them are creations by Lugnuts. A requirement for any further mass creations to follow the spirit of WP:MASSCREATION (no matter if these are created (semi-)automatically or purely manually but in a way indsitinguishable from automated ones) seems to be the minimum that is necessary here to minimize the chance of future similar problems. Fram (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support AfC restriction and/or removal of autopatrol mass creation of stubs of doubtful notability is not helpful to the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 16:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment from passerby. Lugnuts's burden-shifting reply of "what evidence do you have that Koyumuz isn't reliable" above is not acceptable. If this source really is reliable, the article creator should be able to easily provide (or link to) an affirmative case for why it is reliable, same as any challenged source (especially if it's the sole source!). If Lugnuts genuinely isn't sure whether Koyumuz is reliable or not, then they should go through the AfC process like newbies do so that someone more experienced can check for them, and be willing to accept a potential "no, this isn't good enough" reply. Those are the only two options, so Lugnuts should pick one. SnowFire (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It was a geninue response to the claim made by that editor. I could say X source isn't reliable for a source they've provided, and get slapped with "you're not WP:AGF!" in reply. The alternative, which I'm now working on, is to replace cites to Koyumuz. I've removed about 150 today alone. I'll work on the rest and have that down to zero. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

A) Even when there's true bad-faith hounding by an editor afoot, statements on a noticeboard have a wider audience, so just state the case for why you think the source is fine (potentially with some mild snark in cases of hounding, e.g. "as I wrote in our earlier discussion (link), this source is reliable because...") B) But it sounds like you accept that this source isn't actually good? So why the heck didn't you just say so above, back down, and thank the other editors for pointing this out to you rather than argue with them and imply they were acting just to spite you? This doesn't speak well of any editor's judgment. Do you plan on mass-creating more stubs in the future based off a single source? If you accept that you picked a bad source for these Turkish neighborhoods, do you have some way of assuring the community that you will pick better sources in the future, will run questionable sources past others before going on an article creation spree, and thus don't need a must-go-through-AFC restriction? SnowFire (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• 'Passer-by comment Mass creation of articles is a red flag for me. Cricketers who are otherwise not notable is another example from this editor and the resulting controversy rages on. I do not believe that each and every single village and populated centre created could possibly be notable enough for Wikipedia. Mass creation on the basis of one flimsy source doesn't sit right with me. Is to chase a prize? Is it to gain kudos or cache? Is it to look good? I would consider reviewing if mass creation is really something we should be allowing as a community.. doktorb _words^deeds 23:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • doktorb, "The consensus is that Lugnuts' creation of cricketer stubs is within existing guidelines." Drmies (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There have been recent issues with stubs about plant species, and I had been thinking about starting a discussion at the Village Pump on this general issue when some of the specific incidents have cooled down. There seems to be more appetite for curbing mass creation of notable substubs than I thought. Perhaps the least disruptive way to do so would be to require >1 source for these mass creations. I think what's really objectionable is not that people create many stubs, but unless the single source is very high-quality, mass creation transfers a large number of systematic errors into the encyclopedia. Detecting and removing them requires much more effort than the original article creation. Imposing some level of manual reconciliation between disparate sources could curb the worst of it. Choess (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Further comment - One issue that has come out above is whether or not Lugnuts is creating these articles algorithmically. Lugnuts denies using "any bot, algorithm or tools" in creating them. I present the following data based on this search (as far as I can determine Lugnuts was the only editor creating articles cited to this source on these days) without further comment:

• Between 17:25 and 18:35 on 28 March 2021 Lugnuts created 44 articles in 70 minutes. Time per article = 95.5 seconds.
• Between 18:42 and 19:12 on 27 March 2021 Lugnuts created 19 articles in 30 minutes. Time per article = 94.7 seconds.
• Between 12:32 and 13:48 on 27 March 2021 Lugnuts created 46 articles in 76 minutes. Time per article = 99.1 seconds.
• Between 18:30 and 19:13 on 26 March 2021 Lugnuts created 31 articles in 43 minutes. Time per article = 83.2 seconds.
• Between 13:10 and 14:01 on 26 March 2021 Lugnuts created 38 articles in 51 minutes. Time per article = 80.3 seconds.
  FOARP (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  It could be just copying and pasting manually almost the same text with the substitution of different names/numbers etc. Whereas functionally it is hardly different from semi- and automatic tools, it is not prohibited.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, exactly that - copy & paste. The only variable that changes in the place name. Again, for FOARP's benefit, I'm not using any any bot, algorithm or tools to do this. If I was, then your data analysis would show the 500 per day that you claimed before (amongst several other erroneous claims you've made directly about me). I can do about 400 to 500 edits a day, let alone 500 brand new articles. Thanks for adding the timespans, again this shows human manual creation. I spend about an hour doing a batch, as your evidence shows, then I move onto something else. Again, if this was all magically automated, the timespans would be much longer. For each new article, I also link it to its page on Wikidata, and create redirect/dab pages for the first half of the placename as needed. And I've also been replacing links from the koyumuz site, doing about 200 in the past 24hrs. Obviously I wont be replacing that source if someone else has added it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It's possible (though I note that there is relatively little variation in the time taken). But then isn't that basically WP:MEATBOT behaviour? FOARP (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

PS - also can I point out that, in spite of everything they said above about fixing things, Lugnuts is still creating these articles right now based on a bare link to a government website that does not appear to mention the "neighbourhood" they are writing about. I saw this article (and many others) just pop up at the WP:NPP feed, each with the green tick that indicates the user is auto-patrolled so no-one needs to check it. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the "Muhtarliklar" tab on that page, but there's no way to link directly to the tab. It's number 61 on that page; the same place as http://www.geonames.org/745238/incecay.html. All villages in Erzurum Province are under "mahalle" ("neighbourhood") instead of "köy" in the census. Peter James (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec)While I don't think creating new ones is a particularly good idea while there are still thousands of old ones that need cleaning, in the cases I looked at the neighborhood is mentioned in the linked source, it just isn't obvious: when you go to this, to the right of the map you'll see "Belediyeler (1)". To the right of this, in very pale grey, you can click on "Muhtarliklar (71)", and then a scrollable list of neighnorhoods appears. So this at least verifies their existence from a reliable source. Fram (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A link to a government website that tells you the name of the neighbourhood and literally nothing else at all about it. WP:GEOLAND explicitly says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject", and it might as well be talking about this source. FOARP (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

They don't establish notability, but they verify that the places have the presumed notability of WP:GEOLAND. Peter James (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Where does the source state that these are "Populated, legally recognized places"? The guide specifically says don't use sources like this and gives a reason why ("these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject") that is both valid and definitely applies to this source, which is nothing more than a labelled map. FOARP (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that simply appearing in a list meets the verifiability burden for WP:GEOLAND. We've had several instances where that assumption caused problems because an editor misunderstood the scope or purpose of the source and created thousands of articles that turned out to be GEOFAILS.

In any case, none of this guarantees a standalone article. WP:PAGEDECIDE explains that some information is better covered as part of a larger article; common sense would suggest that these "X is a village in Y district" articles could be a simple list within the district article until they can be expanded beyond stub stage. –dlthewave ☎ 16:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Just as a note - there are 35,000 EDIT:50,305 (thanks Peter) Mahelle/Köy (neighbourhoods/villages) in Turkey as a whole. Is the proposal really that we have an article for every single one of them that is a one-sentence permastub containing no real information? FOARP (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This is really quite a larger issue than ANI. Do we need individual articles for every cricketer, every footballer, every village? Or would they be better covered in a list? I'd lean towards the latter (though I think I might be a bit biased here - I'm sure others wouldn't see the utility of 2020 Wyoming Democratic presidential caucuses). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• comment As someone who has dealt with several rounds of these geo-stubs, I am firmly opposed to any mass creation of them. There is simply too much work involved in verifying them, and too many problems are turned up in the verification. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. As a DABfixer, I find such permastubs almost useless, but would find "List of populated places in X district" articles very helpful. An editor has recently been creating well-sourced stubs about Ancient Greek archeological sites in modern Turkey. They helpfully contain coordinates, but less helpfully say "near the modern village of Y". After looking in vain at the enwiki DAB page and its trwiki equivalent (if any), where few if any of the articles have coordinates, I resort to Google Maps. Very often, none of the nearby villages has an article anywhere, and it can be a 10-20 minute struggle to determine the province let alone the district to create a redlink. Entries can always be split out of lists if there's something worth saying. Narky Blert (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I had brought up the mass creation and the apparent unreliability of the source used at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey#Mass creation of village articles on 24 March. Lugnuts did not reply. Unrelated to that, two months ago I asked them to stop creating placeholder disambiguation talk pages, and I wasn't the only one to do so. That time Lugnuts did respond, but with a bizarre excuse to ignore the existing consensus that such pages shouldn't be created. If I could extrapolate from these two incidents, it appears that Lugnuts is on a mission to create as many pages as humanely possible, and when people point out problems with each endeavour, Lugnuts ignores them until the moment it blows up big at ANI. If that's the case, then this pattern definitely needs to change. Lugnuts, if there's a big inheritance waiting for you on the condition that you create 100,000 articles here, then you should come clean and the community may actually be able to help you get there in a way that doesn't involve drama.
  As for the Turkish village articles, the people with topical expertise who have commented above believe them to be notable. If that's the case, then I believe the best course of action is to locate a water-tight source of data, and then get a bot to build short articles out of that, overwriting any existing content in those microstubs. That way the unreliable sources will be replaced by reliable ones, the articles will likely get expanded with some additional information (I'm hoping for coordinates, postal codes, historic populations, etc.), and the navigational infrastructure build by Lugnuts (redirects, dab entries, wikidata links) will be preserved. – Uanfala (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  With the tracking category that was recently added to Template:WikiProject Disambiguation there is now a good reason to create the talk pages with that template. Peter James (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I get what's going on. The talk page post about the tracking category leaves the impression it is part of a test for an unrelated module. How does that affect the (lack of) need for placeholder dab talk pages? – Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  Category:Disambiguation pages not detected by Module:Disambiguation. It doesn't detect set index articles, or some redirects such as Template:Roaddis, but it's likely that they will be added eventually. There is Filter 837 but it only tags edits by new users. Peter James (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  I wrote above that Lugnuts doesn't seem able to stop unless it all blows up big at ANI, but apparently even it all blowing up big at ANI isn't enough – they created another 60 microstubs just yesterday. It doesn't seem like anything short of a community sanction could help now. If there's any ban from (mass) creation, it shouldn't be restricted to articles, as that will likely only displace the problematic activities into other namespaces. – Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala - I've asked this over at the Reviewer talk page but maybe someone here knows the answer: is it allowed/good practice to review your own articles? Every single one of these thousands of Koyumuz-sourced articles was self-reviewed by Lugnuts as OK. FOARP (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts has the autopatrol right, articles created by users with this right don't need reviewing. (If you intended to ping me above, that didn't work: a ping gets sent if you link a user's page, but not if you link their user talk.) – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Uanfala, and yeah, sorry about the bad ping! I hadn't known that Autopatrolled also came with the right to pop a review on the talk page. FOARP (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to the creation of talk pages with project banners? Everybody's allowed to do that, and in fact, creators are encouraged to do that too. "Reviewing" in this context refers to the activity of WP:NPP, and unless I'm mistaken boils down to marking an article as reviewed in the Page curation log. Creations by autopatrolled editors are exempt from the need for this type of review. – Uanfala (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Lugnuts mass-creation)

• Further comment. Since somehow Lugnuts is still at this creation of substubs... I think User:Dlthewave had the right idea - redirect these and create village lists in the district-level article ([3] ). If Lugnuts wants to add this data, fantastic, it can be some form of table that includes more than just a name at the already-quite-short district level articles (sure, throw in Lat/Long, population, whatever in the table too). But since Lugnuts reverted Dlthewave instead ([4]), this may somehow have come to the point of requiring actual community sanction + administrator attention, which would be ridiculous since adding information on this is great, just... not in the form of tens of thousands of stubs, but rather content for hundreds of district articles. Of course, the best and easiest solution would be for Lugnuts to simply agree and at least start with expanding the district level articles, but since he seems to be ignoring this conversation... SnowFire (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  The pages were redirected to the town (which is only a small part of the district by area and population) because there is no separate article for the district. Redirect them and they are less likely to be expanded within the list. Also the links should go to the places not to the districts they are in. Peter James (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this: there is no chance that the overwhelming majority of these units (50,000+!) will ever be expanded from the single-sentence micro-stubs that they are being created as. So, either we just say "OK, let her rip" to the creation of 50,000 or so permastubs by WP:MEATBOT copy/pasting (and can you see a consensus for doing so here?), or we actually write proper articles about the ones that are actually notable and write district articles with lists including the ones that aren't. FOARP (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You're really selling Wikipedia short and not taking cognizance of the timeframes involved. Most of them will eventually become full articles. People take pride in where they live and it natural for them to want to expand the article when they see it on Wikipedia. It is a kind of latch, that they see and stuff gets added. I've seen it time and time again, the most obscure places becoming quite well known. The dataset used may be from the government. In the UK for example, geographic data comes from one only outfit, it may be the case in Turkey. scope_creep^Talk 12:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but the vast majority of these places contain less than 100 people. versacespaceleave a message! 11:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no geographic information attached to the article. That is a major component that missing for 88000 articles. If a dataset could be sought, it could be added by a bot. Even the Turkish equivalent article doesn't have the coords. scope_creep^Talk 13:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd add that if the lists were created first, then it would be very logical to mass-create the redirects to that list for all the named entries, or expand the appropriate disambiguation pages. These names are still potential search terms, and by at least directing a user to the larger geoland entity that includes them, that's reasonable and still fulfills WP's function as a gazetteer. --Masem (t) 14:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not encyclopedic in the slightest, it is statistical errata. No different than Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_complaint_about_Fram (which isn't actually about admin Fram despite the title) above, yet one gets a block for WP:CIR, while the other here gets defenders. ValarianB (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearly different - that was not only about content, and where it was, it was about articles containing information that was not supported by the sources, this is about reliability of sources. Peter James (talk) Peter James (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal of autopatrolled, creation restriction, and apparently a block, too; can't believe Lugnuts is still mass creating articles while these threads are open. I can't wrap my head around the idea of someone who can't refrain from mass creation even for a week. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal of auto patrolled rights and a topic ban on creating any new articles. I politely suggested to Lugnuts that they cease creating new and questionable stubs whilst this discussion was ongoing - they have ignored me (and others here) and continue to do so. As such this is the only option - well, that or a block. GiantSnowman 14:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Well I've addressed the original issue, and have begun to replace the unreilable source. I haven't created any more of these today, although everything I have done is clearly within the spirit of the guidelines for populated places, and per point 1 of WP:5P. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I am basically on your side and would oppose sanctions, but I think it would be a helpful show of good faith if you were to cease stub creation while people try to figure out the proper approach here. I think you're within the spirit of the guidelines, but guidelines can change. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't created any of these stubs in the past <24 hrs or so (although I'm sure someone will say I created X location 22hrs and 55 mins ago...). I've assumed a lot of good faith from the OP's concerns, despite the two of us not seeing eye to eye. The original issue being about the reliabilty of the koyumuz source. I updated a whole batch of them earlier today, and I've said I'll work through the rest. And if I'd gone and created 10,000 taxonomy stubs, I'd probably have a talkpage full of barnstars, along with a Knighthood... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If those first replies were assuming good faith, I'ld hate to see you assume bad faith with anyone. Fram (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is the article creation log just in the time since this thread opened. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That link shows that Lugnuts has created 12 stubs today alone...the fact they cannot differentiate between "those stubs" and all stubs is concerning. You cannot simply move to begin stubs about Swedish actors when somebody raises concerns about your stubs on Turkish neighbourhoods! GiantSnowman 16:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, volunteer to hand Lugnuts a barnstar for his talk page if he merely creates hundreds of list articles or otherwise expands content at the district level, with the exact same information if it's reliably sourced, rather than tens of thousands of microstubs. SnowFire (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

*Support removal of auto-patrolled rights and some sort of limit on article creation for a time period (ideally it should be voluntarily. This will give them time to properly research their article creations and will save other people's time). Lugnuts has created more than 88,000 articles, many WP:KITTENS (for me they are already enough), but watchlisting them by a single user is simply unmanageable (a nightmare). Because of overwork (possibly burnout), they behave rudely to colleagues which is not good for them as it is evident from their block log. I hope they will come strong after the limit agreed by them and will continue to benefit Wikipedia. Störm (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Strike my vote for safety reasons. I don't know if this triggered Lugnuts' thoughts (whatever that was), but I don't want to be part of this. I hope Lugnuts will accept whatever community decides here and that they will decide to stay here. Störm (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support I proposed the loss of auto-patrolled rights at the last ANI thread which I started just last week on cricket articles, but apparently it's fine to mass-create cricket stubs. WP:GEOLAND is interesting, because we do want to catalogue populated places, and is probably part of the project where stubs are most welcome. However, as Mangoe said, we have to be very careful when we create these pages - US place cleanup continues and is very difficult, while article creation takes 90 seconds and is very easy. I strongly support requiring an AfC restriction and a restriction on the number of articles they can create in a day, and specifically the loss of auto-patrolled status as I suggested last week. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Some sort of strict numerical restriction. The mass-creation of Turkish places (and cricketers, and Olympic competitors, etc) would fall under WP:MASSCREATION and there is not approval for this methodically templated creation. Even if these small Turkish villages exist, it is concerning that the source used is such low quality, and thousands of substubs is inconsistent with community desires. The cricket creations continue to violate WP:SPORTCRIT: "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." and "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no point to this anymore. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• (EC) Support removal of autopatrolled rights and sanctions on article creation. I'll copy-paste my comment in the Lugnuts cricket stubs thread: *Comment. I am 1000% on board with limiting mass creation of poorly-sourced BLP stubs that overwhelmingly fail at AfD (...shouldn't everyone be?). I get that articles don't need to demonstrate notability when they're first moved to mainspace, and that meeting a guideline that presumes GNG is technically fine, but come on -- if an experienced editor continues a behavior that they know is burdening the community and is genuinely considered disruptive by many, shouldn't that warrant some kind of warning? Or at least the editor's agreement to compromise or even acknowledge the problem? And I think it's just a little hypocritical to support equivalent sanctions on JPL (where there isn't even a BLP issue) using essentially identical arguments to the ones here (e.g., dozens of low-effort boilerplate contributions in a short amount of time, poor AfD track record, etc.). While I'd be disinclined to support sanctions in this case (for the same reasons people opposed them for JPL), perhaps it's worth considering something along the lines of the voluntary concessions JPL made in those most recent threads. Please also ping me whenever someone makes the proposal Levivich suggested. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not going to revert the hatting of the discussion, but this should be properly closed so it gets archived. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Break after re-opening

• I've reopened the discussion per WP:BADNAC and WP:NACEXP. It is technically not appropriate for a non-admin to force-close and collapse an entire discussion as "pointless", in which there is a potential developing consensus to revoke a user right or impose another sanction. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Entirely independently of the virtue of reopening, reopening per BADNAC seems...insensitive considering why the close happened. Closing and hatting was the only appropriate move, for anyone, at the time. Creating an incentive system where people (regardless of mops) are encouraged to leave open conversations that have had potentially horrific consequences for the people at the wrong end of them, in defiance of decency to one's fellow man, is much worse than making a close that will eventually be reversed. (We are lucky this close is reversed; it is the best of all possible outcomes.) Vaticidalprophet 04:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC) context: diff with the exact wording I objected to (very big diff, it's the last section), as Swarm softened his wording after my comment Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with your take. I have no intent to drag the closer, but it's now a week later and the close was technically improper and the discussion is in need of a formal closure as to the merits of the community's discussion, and more feedback if necessary. I have softened my wording a bit. However the NAC sections I've referenced are not meant to be some sort of condescension, they're merely the relevant principles as to why the close needs to be replaced with a formal one. My intent was to articulate a technical reasoning for reopening the discussion without prompting a rehashing of the previous closure. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• The situation is still the same - Lugnuts continues to create these stubs, albeit at a reduced rate, and in order to try to sway the outcome of an AFD regarding them engaged in WP:CANVASSing of sympathetic editors (see above report for difs) and has been uncivil to the AFD nom EDIT: and to me. Despite what they say, they simply have not learned their lesson which was not only about the bad sourcing they used initially, but about the bad source (a map/table excluded by WP:GEOLAND) they were using as a replacement. Agree that the hatting, given what was known at the time, was the best course of action - this is why no-one challenged it at the time. We were all concerned for Lugnuts well-being. I think, though, that we can now look at what has happened since and see events in a new light. FOARP (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Still in denial, I see - WP:6MILLION is yet another case of the community dredging up that Jimbo quote about "the sum of all human knowledge" to promote a dubious accomplishment. What does that really mean? One news article regurgitating the WMF's press release about this milestone also stated that a realistic sum of all human knowledge compromises 104 million articles. In other words, in twenty-plus years, this community has only accomplished a minute fraction of the total goal. Every time I view my watchlist, I see the reason why. Certain people show that they have tons of time for Wikipedia but are only interested in hiding out in project space, waiting for the next opportunity to pounce on someone for having the temerity to actually contribute encyclopedic content. I remember one discussion with an admin a decade ago about working towards achieving a realistic sum of all human knowledge in a particular topic area, which went nowhere because it was "too ambitious" in his opinion. In other words, in the admin view of things, we'll keep selling six million articles as "the sum of all human knowledge" because the readership will obediently accept whatever shit we shovel. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  RadioKAOS, I'm not sure that this is entirely helpful. This isn't about stopping someone from contributing encyclopedic content, this is about the very real risk that articles created using dubious sources might contain mistakes, or may even be entirely erroneous, and the simple fact that if thousands of articles are created very rapidly we have no capacity to check them for those errors. The case below demonstrates what I'm talking about - it after more than half an hour's investigation, I cannot satisfy myself that the subject of the article exists. I don't know what proportion of these articles would be similar - that's the only one I've looked at in any depth - but there is a problem here that goes beyond people looking to jump on someone.

  That being said, I'm gratified that Lugnuts has acknowledged that there may be an issue below, and I'm looking forward to hearing more on what they think. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  People may disagree on the benefit to the encyclopedia of creating several thousand articles whose content entirely consists of the sentence X is a neighbourhood in Y District of Z Province. However, people shouldn't have disagreements on the need for this content, however minimal, to be accurate. And inaccuracies are almost inevitable when an editor mass-creates content using sources in a language they have no knowledge of. Even a statement as simple as X is a neighbourhood is misleading, as the word "neighbourhood" is only one of several possible translations of the Turkish mahalle, and here it appears that those places are not neighbourhoods but villages or hamlets. – Uanfala (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Couldn't have said it better myself. versacespaceleave a message! 13:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lugnuts An editor openly bragging this much about creating nearly a hundred thousand articles might be making articles for the wrong reason. Wikipedia is not a game where you get a high score. 2001:4898:80E8:7:107:A8F3:D47E:3DD9 (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The initial concern was the creation of populated places articles using an unreilable source. That has been recognised by myself, and I'm working through replacing said source. I think the original stats were 4,000+ articles with that source, the number is now just over 3,000. IE I've updated 1,000+ articles since the issue was flagged up. That's it. ONE mistake with a source, which is now being fixed. Everything I create is to the letter/spirit of the relevant notability guidelines/policy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts, I'm new to this issue. FOARP has flagged up Yeni, Tavas, which you created on Monday. Now, I don't speak Turkish, but when I click on the source, I see a map labelled Tavas Kaymakamlığı, and a table headed Tavas Belediyesi. Searching for the word 'Yeni' didn't give me any results, and I spent a small amount of time zooming in and out of the map and panning around, looking for the word Yeni anywhere on it, but I couldn't find it. Maybe I'm missing something, can you explain how the source supports the content of the article? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: - thanks for this. If you click on the source, there's a link on the right (sort of grey'd out, but clickable) with the heading "Mutarliklar". Yeni is at the foot of that panel. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, ah, OK gotcha. So, I can see that it's listed as 47, which seems to have no coordinates related to it so the map component is putting it at 0°0° off the African coast. I'm assuming that Mutarliklar means village? (Google translate gives me nothing). GirthSummit _(blether) 08:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I believe Muhtarliklar is an elongated term for Muhtar, which is head/leader of the local area. The URL has the term "mahalli-idareler" contained within it, which translates as "local administrations", and that is also the title of the third drop-down menu along the top of the page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, can we be sure from this then that there is really a village of this name? Might it not be some other sort of administration? I mean, I spent quite a bit of time looking over that map and couldn't find it (but I did find a lake called Yenidere Baraj Golu, which has got the word Yeni in it - that was the closest I could get). I can see why there might be a concern that we are making assumptions here. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeni just means "new" in Turkish, there are plenty of places / objects containing "yeni" in the name--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I tried a Google Maps search for Yeni in that area (like this). It is giving me lots of places called Yeni nearby, one of which seems to be a subdivision of Denizli, others seem to be parts of smaller towns and villages, others are shops and so on. None of them seem to be in the Tavas District. Lugnuts, I am really not looking to give you a hard time, but I don't see how that source verifies the existence of the subject, or the information which is in the article about it. I've spent half an hour on this now, and I'm not convinced that the village exists. Can you see why people might be concerned about creations like this, if done on mass? ​GirthSummit _(blether) 09:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I do see your point, and that's why I've stopped creating these places. But leave this one with me, I'll ask for further input about this specific place. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I've asked a couple of users for more input, and they were unable to find anything more about this one location. I think it's sod's law that one was chosen! Now I created that in good faith, based on the source from the Turkish gov. site. The .tr article is also pretty weak in this case, unlike the vast majority of places I created. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, thanks for looking into this in more detail. I don't doubt for a moment that you created it in good faith, and I think that the speculation as to your motivations for creating thousands of articles are entirely inappropriate: we all edit here for our own purposes. Some people like getting barnstars, some people keep an eye on their number of edits, others compete in the Wikicup. If someone wants to top a particular list, that's entirely their own business - what matters is whether what they're doing is disruptive.

Having said that - it might be a case of sod's law, but I don't think that any article should be written in the way you did here. That source could be used to support an assertion that person X is the administrator of such and such a locale; while we can infer from that that such a locale exists, we can't say whether it's a village, a rural district, a subdivision of a town, or a proposed shopping complex that hasn't been built yet. Creating articles based on an inference with no additional sources seems intrinsically risky to me; errors like this are bound to occur, and the effort involved in verifying each and every one of thousands of articles is excessive. At a minimum, I think you ought to undertake not to create any more articles where the source implies that a subject exists but gives no more information about it. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GS. Agreed, and I've stopped creating these now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not one mistake though. Before you created 4000+ articles with that bad source, you created a 1000 or so(?) other Turkish villages sourced to equally problematic Yerelnet, as was mentioned already in the above discussion. Fram (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

And call me old fashioned, but 5,000 bad articles is 5,000 mistakes. This is especially the case when, in all likelihood, someone will have to PROD/AFD/redirect them one-by-one in the face of being asked to satisfy WP:BEFORE on every single one of them. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• I had written a small note to Lugnuts after they returned, expressing regret that they seemed to be caught in the middle of a larger dispute over mass stub creation. Their response after I nominated some of the stubs for deletion was "So this is quite obviously bullshit"[5], which leads me to question whether they're capable of distinguishing between a content dispute and a personal attack. This seems to be reinforced by a similar attitude from several other editors who view these nominations as some sort of attack on Lugnuts. I don't recall interacting with any of these editors previously, yet simply nominating articles for deletion was enough to trigger this:

• Rugbyfan22: Canvassing at Wikiproject Cricket - "Hi guys, we've got 10 new AfDs which just appear to be an attack on Lugnuts' articles. The one with the fewest games has played 25 games for example. Please can people take a look at them when they have time. Thanks." [6]; apparently it's inappropriate to send Lugnuts' Cricket stubs to AfD because of consensus at ANI - "The attack on Lugnuts is weird as well given the cricket related ANI closed with the consensus that he was editing within the current guidelines, which have yet to change, so there is nothing wrong with any of the articles at AfD." [7].
• Joseph2302: "These seem like bad faith nominations, especially when coupled with loads of deletions of Turkish places (also created by Lugnuts). Seems like a deletionist who's been reading ANI too much. [8]; "This editing pattern would suggest a vendetta against Lugnuts, and you seem to be jumping on the anti-Lugnuts bandwagon from the stupid ANI threads people keep raising." [9]. When I asked them to strike these personal attacks, the response was a talk page ban because "I don't like your deletionist attitude." [10].
• No Great Shaker: "As Joseph says, there is for some reason an anti-Lugnuts bandwagon on the roll." [11]

I feel like a warning, at the very least, is in order here. There's certainly a lot of opinions on mass-creation and we're not all going to agree on everything, but it really doesn't seem appropriate to accuse editors you disagree with of jumping on an anti-Lugnuts bandwagon. –dlthewave ☎ 17:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, there was an ANI previously on Lugnuts' cricket stub creations. That was closed with the view that Lugnuts was not doing any wrong because he was operating within the guidelines, which haven't changed. The 10 cricket articles that wen't to AfD were perfectly within the guidelines for creation, and all of them had played multiple games. No WP:BEFORE search had been properly done on these articles as it was very easy on some of them to find GNG material. Basically Lugnuts did nothing wrong (in terms of his cricket editing) and you just decided that his articles weren't acceptable and should be deleted. Seems like an attack to me. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Nomination of those articles was out of order and entirely based on "don't like it". No Great Shaker (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of that discussion was that he is allowed to mass-create those stub articles, not that they can't be taken to AfD. versacespaceleave a message! 18:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but no proper WP:BEFORE search was done on the articles as sources were found in a simple search for them. There was also suitable redirects for some of them that could have been used but ignored. I find it strange that a user that has never edited on cricket articles before, and not really on sport before, would suddenly list 10 AfDs in a matter of minutes on a subject they're not usually involved in. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of that discussion was skewed by the fact many of the "opposes" were directly connected to the cricket WikiProject. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

That was likely because it was directly related to cricket and about cricket stubs. There was still a consensus and the view that proposals were to be discussed at NSPORTS, which is what's happening. But the current view is that Lugnuts' cricket articles are fine until the guidelines change, I have no idea whether his village ones are notable and am not knowledgable in that area though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this is the exact same issue as cricket - only the topic has changed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I see it as slightly different, the Turkish villages issue was due to whether the source was reliable wasn't it, whereas the cricket one has been due to a sourcing to a statistical database. The closing of the cricket one led to the opening of the NSPORTS discussion so the closer clearly believed that although Lugnuts actions were fine, he also took into consideration the arguments about his stubs. If there's a change in the guidelines meaning he has to link to a GNG source then fine, but as the guideline has yet to change these AfDs were jumping the gun. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Which AfDs were jumping the gun? Neither the cricket articles nor the geography articles clearly pass notability guidelines on their face. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That is so messed up. Are they even allowed to do that? versacespaceleave a message! 18:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Remarkable given you made this comment at AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer mm...is making thousands upon thousands of permanent stub articles to make it to the top of this list not wretched? versacespaceleave a message! 20:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: I have no idea why you pinged me specifically, but your remark is pretty clearly WP:UNCIVIL. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Is it wretched or not? And I clarified what I meant by the statement right next to that statement. versacespaceleave a message! 21:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: ahhh i pinged the wrong person. meant to ping Rugbyfan22. the latter statement is still directed to sporting.. versacespaceleave a message! 21:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. You could have also hidden or removed the comment when you made your apology but you've decided to leave it there at the top of the discussion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22: If you felt there was a conduct issue on my part, why did you think it best to post at a Wikiproject instead of, say, ANI? Did it cross your mind that this may be percieved as canvassing? –dlthewave ☎ 01:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I decided as it was the first time you were involved in AfDs like this that at the time it didn't warrant taking any further. I messaged you on your talk page about the quantity of AfDs, and since there haven't been anymore. I then discussed CRICKET AfDs on the CRICKET WikiProject with other cricket editors (who are likely to be interested in them, especially due to the number of AfDs we're getting at the moment). Given they will all be listed on the project anyway in the task box, i'm not sure it's canvassing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment since this was re-opened. I was just a random passerby on ANI and had zero stake in the outcome, and am a random passerby once more. But... "The initial concern was the creation of populated places articles using an unreilable source" from Lugnuts - this is not the case, okay? There were multiple concerns raised, of which unreliable source was just one. This is a fundamental matter of content organization afoot here as well. Lugnuts, as I said before, it's great that you want to add this information, but adding it over literally tens of thousands of one-sentence stubs is not the way it should be added. It's impossible to maintain. If somebody vandalizes one of these articles, will you be paying attention to revert it? If you want to add this information, you can keep the exact same content in some sort of List of populated places in XYZ district that creates a section for each one. Wouldn't it be simpler to defuse this whole debate by just doing it that way, as multiple editors have requested above? You've still done your good deed of adding the exact same information to Wikipedia, it will still be inviting for others to expand on, it will be marginally maintainable. I find it baffling that this debate has continued when such an easy, obvious fix exists - "both sides" should be happy. SnowFire (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"If somebody vandalizes one of these articles, will you be paying attention to revert it?" - Yes. Everything I create is on my watchlist. It's a very weak case to say "don't create it, someone might vandalise it!" Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not monitor hundreds of list articles instead, though? If you really prefer the tens-of-thousands-of-separate-articles solution, I would like to see a specific case for what individual articles are doing that a list article can't, because I suspect that is fixable. Mentioned it at the AFD, but in the realm where we believe that there's lots of room for expansion, something like User:SnowFire/List of mahalle in Aziziye should work fine - just as inviting for random good-faith contributors to click the "edit section" button rather than the "edit article" button.

Also, to be clear, I'm not worried about childish vandalism that gets zapped by bots anyway, and ignored by any sane human if not automatically caught. I'm worried about subtle, harder to notice false information that requires a real human checking the diff, and ideally knowing the topic. If somebody edits in that a particular town has been plagued by a high crime rate ever since non-Kurds started moving out, we need someone who's going to check the source and see if this is just sectarian garbage, or if it's real. That takes time, and ideally knowing Turkish. SnowFire (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are a lot of people complaining because they don't like Lugnuts or the topics of his article creations. I see only one issue that would justify administrative action: Lugnuts creating articles faster than they can be discussed at AFD. If Lugnuts slows down page creations substantially, ensures multiple non-database references for creations, or gets prior affirmative consensus to pre-empt AFD threads, there shouldn't be any issue. If Lugnuts cannot do any of those, a per-day article creation limit will be needed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  There are a lot of people complaining because they don't like Lugnuts or the topics of his article creations – I can't claim to know people's motivations, but I believe this statement, 力, is clearly incorrect. Some of the participants critical of Lugnuts were active in the discussions that led to the AN case for the Iranian villages, and probably ended up examining Lugnut's recent spate of creations while following this trail. As for me, I haven't had interactions with Lugnuts other than the ones I've mentioned above, and I definitely want to see the topic area developed – above I've expressed support for a bot task to create content on all these places (and more), and that's already a stance that's more inclusionist than most.
  And as SnowFire pointed out above, there were numerous problems with Lugnut's behaviour. Here are five – they were mass-creating stubs on a large scale without consensus (1), in a topic area they have no expertise in (2), using often unreliable (3) sources in a language they don't speak (4), and that they kept at it even after various people had raised issues with that or asked them to stop (5). #2–4 may have been excusable on their own, but their combination with #1 meant the problem was big, and it's because of #5 that the issue couldn't be resolved without coming to ANI. – Uanfala (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• There was a point at time where article creation was occurring faster than they could be discussed at AfD, and that point in time was as recent as the day this thread was closed. Lugnuts continues to create articles at a rapid clip, too, albeit not as quickly as they were - today, they've created seven articles, including two cricket stubs sourced only to CricInfo that will probably have to go to AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sanity break

Lugnuts has said above "Thanks GS. Agreed, and I've stopped creating these now.". So long as this is a voluntary agreement to stop mass-creating stubs, or at least Geostubs (and it would be good to have clarity as to what exactly is being agreed to) without first getting consensus to create, and it is stuck to, I think most people would be happy with this and we can all just move on. Agreed? FOARP (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be content to take Lugnuts at their word and move on. I'll restate that no one should be creating articles about any subject based on a single source that name checks that subject, but doesn't tell you what it is. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Policy for creating stubs

 Administrator note I left this section open (separate from the close above) as I believe this discussion is badly needed. However it's not a discussion that requires admin attention, and should probably be moved elsewhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Policy for creating stubs

 – Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

User:WritingGold's consistent revision of articles showcasing a pattern of a WP:AGENDA

This user being reported onto the incident board has, at random sequences per their contribution history, made attempts to revise information pertaining to an organization which it appears they may have some connection to. Recently, they have opted to remove well-cited and appropriately cited information pertaining to the history of the United Pentecostal Church International, considering it unsubstantiated; on the other hand, the sources from a Christian newspaper and a local paper appear to show otherwise. Is this an attempt to sweep certain information under the guise of faithful contributing to Wikipedia, as was done prior by other unrelated contributors now blocked for appearing to do the same with the J. Delano Ellis article? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

TheLionHasSeen, don't you think you might have discussed the changes with them somewhere, and any possible affiliation with the subject, before making your way here? These user has all of 17 edits, none of them vandalism or obvious spam - coming straight here seems premature to me. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Concerning conduct of 87.71.163.21

87.71.163.21 (talk · contribs) actions are very concerning. This diff clearly show that they are threatening other users, while their edit summaries here are full of concerning remarks. The nature of their edits as well are disruptive. SunDawn (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

A boilerplate extended block of the IP range is in order. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 08:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

He's back with a new IP: [12] EditorInTheRye (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

66.181.168.82 (talk · contribs) also shown similar behavior. SunDawn (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

81.29.28.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well, blocked. They change IPs faster than I clean up their shit and protect the pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• 121.177.37.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) one more EditorInTheRye (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I believe all known IPs have been blocked and all known pages have been protected, waiting for the new ones.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, this is Nate Speed. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 09:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page block for user:170.78.161.22

170.78.161.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Also needs a talkpage block. --FF-11 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI is probably not the best place to put this, but the IP has been blocked already so it doesn't really matter now. (Non-administrator comment) h 13:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring animals' rights advocate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cruelty to animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

NunhumanAnimalAutonomy is edit warring to include unsourced fringe advocacy material to Cruelty to animals. I've tried engaging on their talk page, and on mine, and on the article talk page, but they insist that their changes must remain on the grounds that In this special case - ethics far outweighs Wikipedia 'guidelines'. I considered reporting to WP:AN3, but given their complete lack of any engagement with the reasons I've given them for reverting, I don't think they are here for the right reasons, but I'm not going to block myself since I have been the one reverting them. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no edit war, User:Girth Summit reverted my contributions without any discussion beforehand, so I undid the revert before responding on his talk page. I have not added any "fringe" advocacy material, all edits are absolutely factual and valid.

Clearly this is a case of conflicting opinions regarding the subject. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You may want to read up on both WP:POV and WP:COI. Girth is correct that to continue in the direction you're going will likely result in a block. — Ched (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@NonhumanAnimalAutonomy: You absolutely did add fringe material, including this bizarre bit of WP:OR. Given that I can see you've reverted on that article 3 times now, and also once on Template:Animal rights sidebar, I'd say this is pretty unambiguous edit warring. — Czello 13:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Believe what you will, it does not alter reality. The article has been reverted for the last time. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Believe what you will, it does not alter reality

Take your own advice. Girth Summit doesn't require YOUR approval to keep the status quo, and you WERE edit-warring, period/full stop. It's YOUR burden -- like EVERY editor's burden -- to get consensus for any major changes AND provide evidence for them. Even YOU admit that your attempt redefine the word "person" runs afoul of reality and that the organization you were promoting is attempting to change that. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The reported editor is clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and should be topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The matter is closed. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In what respect? If you mean that you will not be editing the article anymore, fine, but your clear and obvious COI and POV goes substantially further than that. If you mean that somehow you've waved your hand and no one will look for the droids any more, you're sadly mistaken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

...or, they could be referring to the "retired" banner they put on their user talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• This thread can be closed with no action because the user in question has taken retirement. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)j

Retirement isn't really something for 1 day old accounts. The user has been blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE based on RGW and BLP violations requiring REVDEL EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One-purpose IP 82.173.133.70

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

One-purpose IP has been entertaining the community now for days crosswiki (see here) with his deletion requests and the same and recurring arguments over and over again against a certain music publisher. It's finally time to block this toxic behavior! Uwe Martens (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The only deletion request was for a now speedily-deleted article Tobias Broeker, which was self-written by a non-notable person. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Vague legal threat from 2600:6C40:5F00:72FC:B833:CFE0:A269:448A

Admin action required: Per Wikipedia:No legal threats suggesting posting here for admin action at [13]. Suggest also refusal of edit request with possible consider also of revision deletion. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 06:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User notified. Better to talk with him at first. Uwe Martens (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Uwe Martens: Thanks for dealing. Should have signed here and reported to user also so not on best form this morning and its good someone else is dealing.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Your post was just signed incomplete, so don't worry too much... ;-) Uwe Martens (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

FleurDeOdile

If you look at FleurDeOdile's talk page, it is cluttered with warnings, mostly about edit warring over images. Fleur has already been blocked three times, but refuses to listen to any warnings, blocks, or editors. There have been about ten discussions on WP:AN3RR about this. I think an indefinite or long (longer than 3 months) block is warranted. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat: I don't think WT:WPTC is the right venue for this. Perhaps you might like to try WP:ANI instead. Chlod (say hi!) 11:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Everyone is telling me not to go to "the drama boards", but all right. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

To elaborate: After each of the three blocks, FleurDeOdile has immediately reverted (in both ways) back to his/her original behavior, and many users are fed up with this. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Convenience link to user: FleurDeOdile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ~ i haven't yet looked at their contribs, but i find it easier to do so if there's a link here, so i assume others probably do, too; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to give background IG, I have been personally fed up with this user's behavior involving edit wars related to tropical cyclones. He has been warned numerous times about edit wars, breaking 3RR, etc and gives unconstructive, rude/snarky edit summaries to people (numerous of which were new and inexperienced to some of the policies on WikiProject Tropical Cyclones!) after reverting them which is violating WP:CIVIL. A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4.

This behavior has also leaked onto Wikimedia Commons simply giving poor feedback and deleting images with reasoning that its "low quality", or that it doesn't look good, which is purely subjective off his opinion. An example would be him requesting deletion of someone's image they probably put effort into here because he simply did not like it. THeres many more examples of this too if you check his Commons and his main account here's contributions. He has shown no change after being blocked and has even gone on personal attacks towards me off-wiki, such as telling me to leave the WikiProject i'm in because I tried to reason with him over an image (not to say that is punishable on this platform). There's probably more others can add, certainly. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on the edits themselves ~ they are entirely outside the realm of mine interests or experience. I will say, though, regarding the behaviour, that i have gone through the contributions back to 1 February, about sixty edits or so; of those, thirteen have been reverted, which is perhaps a little high, maybe an indication of edit-warring, but i don't see multiple reverts back and forth on the same article. I also see a couple of rude-ish edit summaries, though nothing i would block over (i mean, were i an admin; obviously, i'm not). I do not see anything like what Hurricaneboy23 mentions, suggesting that the latter leave the project. All in all, FleurDeOdile, i would suggest you tone down your summaries and ensure you're not even occasionally rude, and be sure not to edit war; i don't see any behaviour rising to the level of making an ANI report necessary; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@LindsayH: There is some back-and-forth editing at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season. I would also like to add that @FleurDeOdile: should provide better edit summaries than simply saying an image is "low quality." If there is something wrong with an image, then there should be a comment about that specific problem. Simply continuing to revert without elaborating about what makes an image "low quality" isn't going to help. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In the past 150 edits to 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season, FleurDeOdile has edited three times, each of which seems useful and doesn't seem to have been reverted; that's scarcely "back-and-forth". I agree with the need for better edit summaries ~ by all editors: In the same past 150, there are only 30 with a summary. Again, i'm not seeing anything requiring an ANI report; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 05:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit summary of this diff shows that Fleur wasn't even trying to discuss. "Original was better" seems to me like a sign of WP:NOTHERE. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And in this case, if the user FleurDeOdile reverted was a new user, Fleur could have driven them out of Wikipedia. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat, TornadoLGS, and Hurricaneboy23: Just Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. As @LindsayH: has said there is nothing in @FleurDeOdile: recent contributions that mean that they should be blocked from editing wiki and you guys are just trying to cause a bit of drama when there isnt really any to be had! Jason Rees (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jason here. It's kind of annoying that some WPTC members always have a knife pointed at some other member's throat. Perhaps we could... write some more articles? Anything more productive than this. Chlod (say hi!) 13:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat by Chatarpatar2020 against Kashmorwiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Chatarpatar2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kashmorwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Legal threat stated more than once in this thread. Gonna call the cops to settle an editing dispute. I NLT blocked. Alerted to DS/IPA. Posting here in case more is needed. Looks WP:NOTHERE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The user is still threatening me legally even after they have been blocked. See [14]. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Following the breadcrumb trail says this is fairly obviously a paid editor, and almost certainly a returning editor (thus a sock) and might be worth an SPI. I've moved one of their articles to draftspace as it fails NFILM but they have a lot of creations. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  Now they have started threatening Deepfriedokra. See [15]. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reblocked with TPA and email turned off. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have moved some of their creations, which have been not reviewed so far into draftspace. Only some seems problematic. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 10:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring on Panthera pardus saxicolor

The user @LPFCW: has repeatedly changed the page Panthera pardus tulliana to that of an old synonym, citing several outdated sources [16], and then going on a rant on their talk page (User talk:LPFCW) about how the editors of the page were censoring the information on the article. They have reverted edits more than 4 times in less than a day, and seemingly tried to edit the page in the same way before without an account: [17], [18], [19]. Also has no qualms with edit-warring when warned [20] and has even admitted to it [21]. I have done my best to correct their wrong edits without reverting, as I am currently on a no-revert period. I believe this user's talk page and edit history speaks for itself. I also hope @SilverTiger12: does not get blamed for edit-warring, they are trying their best to revert the user's edit warring. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I gave you scientific references while I knew you are not looking for that! You are the real warring editors! So, I will be back to you with my IT team! You are purposefully spreading false information and you do not have the right to do that! Change the title of the page otherwise this edit war will be forever!--LPFCW (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)LPFCW

^ I believe that should be enough for you, admins. He even changed the title of this complaint. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If I come back tomorrow and I see tulliana is still instead of Persian leopard, I will hack this page! Now as you wish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPFCW: Your threats are meaningless, all this means is that you will get blocked faster. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Their edit history [22] reveals that they are only here to edit war surrounding this subspecies. Their suggestion that "this edit war will be forever" unless other editors accept their edits show that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I recommend at least a temporary block, preferably an indef NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

And this is why I love ANI. h 13:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Before you come to talk Hemiauchenia I gave several references why these editors purposefully spread wrong information using Wikipedia. You can read it before you say something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPFCW: You've threatened to "be back to you with my IT team" and "hack this page" (whatever the hell that means), you clearly don't care about the opinions of other editors, so why should we care about yours? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ddum. I tried to type out a longer paragraph but it was removed due to edit conflicts. Basically, the talk page and edit history of the article show what is happening clearly enough and the problem editor has poor hearing. I already warned them on their talk page. Also, the edit conflicts I have run into while trying to comment hear are really something. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

SilverTiger12 Your behavior is also obviously warring! That was not a threat! That was a real fact I will be back with IT team and will hack this page unless you correct the title! You should learn you do not have the right to change the historical names! Hemiauchenia I do not really care what you think! You are actually wasting my time! The reason that I am alone now s because here was midnight! But today is another day! For your information I was block all yesterday! I do not care about Wikipedia and you guys at all! I know your behaviors! You think you have all the rights to do anything! By the way, I said the word! If you are referencing to that newsletter should change the scientific name only from saxicolor to tulliana. Why did you change the Persian leopard in the page title?!! Change the title to Persian leopard and leave the tulliana while you are referencing to that newsletter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Your block record is clean. As are all the other accounts and IPs that have been recently edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

LPFCW has now reverted 10 times in a 24 four period, blowing right past the 3RR. Silvertiger12 has also gone way over the 3RR, but I don't think that they were familiar with the concept of the 3RR, so I've let them know on their talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Hemiachenia, I admit to knowing what 3RR is, but was busy irl and forgot to keep track of how many times I was reverting him- a few were manual reverts which made counting doubly difficult. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't edit war! There is no point continuing in a situation like that—do you think one more revert is going to change their mind? Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:∞RR. Actually, I suppose that could be a redirect to the 3RR exemptions. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked LPFCW for a short period due to the extreme edit warring. I had issued a polite warning at User talk:LPFCW#Procedures but then noticed the battle was continuing. Please let me know (perhaps with a ping from talk) if problems persist. If needed, the next block will be indefinite. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Considering the talk of "hacking" and IT teams, I guess we shouldn't be surprised with block evasion [23] Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Call me a wimp but I just semi-protected Panthera pardus tulliana so we don't have to waste more time in the next three days. An indef looks inevitable and if someone wants to do that now, fine by me. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  When they are unblocked, they'll just go back to the same thing. I'd recommend indefing them now (but I'm not an admin :-) ). What a silly edit war. --Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 07:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  A candidate for WP:HALLOFLAME, perhaps? Narky Blert (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Extreme edit-warring is right, that article is showing up in Hot Articles as having 91 revisions in the past three days. Also, I know that edit-warring is not right but thought that there were exceptions to 3RR for vandalism and such? And as I said, I was having a hard time keeping track of how many times I reverted him due to being busy IRL. Thanks for the semi-protection, I just hope it goes away and doesn't turn into a more persistent issue. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Added to the WP:HALLOFLAME! :-) -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 22:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Shouldn't WP:NOHACKTHREAT be up there with WP:NLT as automatic block? I assume if nothing else it's intent to violate the Terms of Service. Slywriter (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Nah. NLT was originally written to prevent legal disputes from spilling onto the Wiki, and later expanded due to its chilling effect on editors. Threatening to "hack the page" is just nonsense, and basically just indicates the user is WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

User Vilmeenkodi

Vilmeenkodi (talk · contribs) has over several years added content to specific pages related to the Malayalam language - unreferenced, original research material. The user also tries to present unreliable historical primary sources like Keralalpathi as reference sources. The user received multiple warnings and final warnings for creating this type of content (1, 2, 3) which don't seem to bother them at all. I personally don't believe the user is here to create encyclopedic content or that they really understand what an encyclopedia is and it has become tiresome to revert their edits.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The user is right now busy spamming talk pages related to Malayalam with original research content to discuss (?). Talk:Old Malayalam/Talk:Malayalam. 1, 2, 3, 4 ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this user is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE promoting weird OR and wacky nonsense (such as the claim that the Nepalese language was introduced in the southern state of Kerala in the 19th century). There's no other way to put it. –Austronesier (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Propose topic ban. h 13:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User ‎Sam Jamadar2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:‎Sam Jamadar2020 has been editing several articles stating 'denigrating Hindu Beliefs'. I have issued warnings and advising if they wish to make these changes they need to be sourced but they have been ignored and the edits have continued. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by SPA at People of the Book

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Medeni-56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above editor seems interested solely in adding one contentious paragraph to the article in question; despite objections on the talk page and despite conflicting sources being presented there. This is now a slow pace but enduring edit war, and has also extended to other articles. I'm not sure if more formal sanctions are required, but I'd suggest the editor in question refrain from this topic and try something less contentious first. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I endorse this report William M. Connolley (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Talk about bludgeoning and refusing to get the point. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced edits and personal attacks by User:JND AMD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is repeatedly making unsourced edits to several Indian Railways related articles or they are sourcing blogs like irfca.org. There are sufficient warnings, but they are not listening to them. Instead, they are resorting to personal attacks using foul language in Hindi. The first personal attack was on their own talk page here for which they were warned here. Despite the warning on PA, they have again done the same on my talk page here. I request admins to take a look into this user's edits and their behaviour and rev dev the both the PA linked above. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 14:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:107.10.140.224

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:107.10.140.224 has been blocked several times for removing content from Stand and Deliver. The most recent block has just expired and he has returned to make the same edits again. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month. El_C 13:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, doubt he will learn so I'll see you back here in a month!!!!! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User :120.29.71.93

• 120.29.71.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Request IP block of edit privileges (WP:NOTHERE). A myriad of unsourced/unsubstantiated edits done to musician BLPs blindly adding/claiming sales without including any reference. See list of edits. Itssheenabautista (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation accounts

Cards84666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), along with a few other accounts as admitted here. Cards84664 15:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Also block Davidng914 as well, thanks. pandakekok9 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Shortscircuit at LowTierGod

Shortscircuit (talk · contribs)
LowTierGod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Shortsitcuit registered his account solely to request speedy deletion of an article created, vetted, and published through the WP:Articles for Creation process, then deleting major article content and turning the page into a WP:Battleground after failing. Given the subject's nature as a controversial figure, I've requested page protection. Further, given this user's particular history (seemingly using his IP to sockpuppet) and making one innocuous edit before diving into the battleground, this user is clearly personally invested in the article's deletion and may be the subject himself. A WP:Topic ban may be in order. --BananaYesterday (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

BananaYesterday, whether or not Shortscircuit has a COI or is socking here, those appear to be good edits. The article is supported by numerous sources considered unreliable by WP:VG/RS, like Event Hubs, Niche Gamer, Game Skinny, One Angry Gamer, etc. Much of the content was unsourced as well. Any content about living persons needs to be supported by high-quality reliable sources, and this isn't it. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For me there is a big concern that this editor is calling good faith edits vandalism in his edit summaries. that isn't helping the matter along with his unwillingness to use the talk page to hash things like that out. --JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

JohnnyFiveHole, I agree that Shortscircuit needs to stop reverting and calling people vandals, and to use the Talk page. But you should consider not restoring WP:BLP violations as well. Woodroar (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The subject of the page LowTierGod is a person with a large troll community. There have been trolls vandalising the page by adding false and malicious statements and claims about the subject. These statements added to the article by trolls have no valid references for backup. Some statements have "references" that actually do not contain what is claimed in the article. I removed these statements. The trolls are reverting the changes and claiming that it was "vandalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortscircuit (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This above statement (which is a copy/paste of the user's recent edit summaries) is what I imagine the above user is referring to (User:JohnnyFiveHole). Removing what you think isn't reliably sourced? Please, do so and talk about it at the talk page. Calling everything you remove an instance of vandalism and those who added it trolls? Absolute nonsense and WP:Bad faith. There have been demonstrable instances of vandalism on the page, which I and others have reverted myself, but tellingly none of them have been reverted by this new account who is deriding others' contributions. --BananaYesterday (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Shortscircuit, calling editors "trolls" or their edits "vandalism" are both considered personal attacks on Wikipedia, so please stop that. See WP:VANDAL if you have any questions. These appear to be good faith edits, though they do fall short of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Woodroar (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

we definitely need to rewrite certain parts of the article, especially the part about the cult following. i am working on that now. I do think shortsircuit now just violated 3rr and edit war policy. JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JohnnyFiveHole, User:Woodroar I am willing to hash it out in the talk page of the article. The main thing about these contested edits is that references and sources are nowhere to be found. If you look at the references given for these statements, the references themselves actually do not contain the information that are being added to the article. In other words, there are no actual sources for these edits. I read through all of the provided "references" to check. Not to mention these sources are not very well known or reputable. If you consider the nature of these contested edits, it is quite possible that these edits are made in bad faith. This is also considering that the subject of this article has a large community of internet trolls. I also just want to point out that I was not the one who started using the word "vandalism" first. Shortscircuit (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

that's definitely not true for everything you've been deleting... i see new sources being added for subject name for example but you kind of keep getting lost in the big picture and reverting new edits that try to add content with reputable source... this is why the general tenor of you edit warring and violating 3rr with your new account is so problematic. i'm not trying to insult you or anything but talking about who said "vandalism" first is kind of childish and i only asked for page protection about vandalism in relation to ip edits calling him "chicken legs" and other things... JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some of the edits made by other people (such as Greyjoy - 10:23, 9 April 2021 and also Arjayay - 12:24, 9 April 2021) are good edits. For example Greyjoy actually added a reference for the subject name. Unfortunately, User:BananaYesterday subsequently made his own edits/reverts, specifically, he made the contested edits. Just to be clear, I am not talking about good faith edits like 10:23, 9 April 2021. I am talking about bad faith edits that have no actual (accurate) references. For example, people were adding names like "aka Chicken Legs", fake birth dates, and even another name. These claims/statements had no actual referencing. Just from edits like these, you can see there are certain people trying to add unfounded and negative edits to the page. Shortscircuit (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Glad you've returned to this page. I never called you a vandal (while you demonstrably have attacked me as such, including on the article's talk page). I did say that I fear you have a WP:Conflict of interest given that you made this account and immediately turned the page into a WP:Battleground, which I was not alone in being startled by. --BananaYesterday (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You did indeed call me a vandal. When you first reverted my edit of the page, in your edit summary you wrote "revert vandalism"... this was the first time either of us mentioned "vandalism" Shortscircuit (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

i would add that for me it makes it hard not to see shortsircuit's edits as coming from a conflict of interest given that he requested speedy deletion twice before calling you a vandal for making the page at all... JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

All the editors working on this article must familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons because they are obligated to follow that policy. Do not accuse people of vandalism lightly. That's disruptive. Do not accuse someone of having a conflict of interest based on speculation and without providing solid evidence. It is not COI to support deleting an article and then to work to eliminate BLP violations if the article is kept. Good editors do that all the time. The source for every statement in that article should be checked for reliability and then whether the source actually supports the statement. Every statement that fails that test should be swiftly removed. Restoring contested unreferenced or poorly referenced content to a BLP is a policy violation. I checked one statement and found that the source does not back up the statement. Nowhere close. I noted that at Talk: LowTierGod along with a BLP policy warning. So, all of you interested in that article: please work together to clean it up and do it promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have continued checking this BLP, and it is riddled with unreferenced or poorly referenced assertions, which I have tagged. What a mess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree, the page is a mess of fan cruft and poor references, there's something to be salvaged, but it's a mess to clean. And am I the only one amused between a discussion with Shortscircuit and JohnnyFiveHole? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have made some deep cuts to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cullen³²⁸ for responding to my Edit Request. Much of the article has been fixed. There are just a couple of other lingering issues about the article, which I have detailed in the article's Talk page (badly sourced assertion for birth name, long term protection for article). Shortscircuit (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I have had to block two editors for violating WP:DOX on the article talk page and have requested oversight. More administrator eyes on this article would be helpful. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• I won't pretend to try to evaluate the sources for this, as they seem to me, based on what we accept as reliable for most topics, to be completely unreliable but it appears that those who follow this topic area consider them to be reliable. I would remind Shortscircuit that the place to discuss deletion is WP:AFD, and would remind everyone that acceptance at WP:AFC does not protect an article against deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Content removal at Raja Prithu and Kamarupa

Two IP addresses 2409:4063:4d8d:e41e:5c81:cab9:afe:7ccd (talk · contribs) and 103.92.41.152 (talk · contribs) (probably socks) are removing content in Raja Prithu ([24], [25], [26], [27]) and Kamarupa ([28], [29]). The users repeat similar claims in subject headings. Chaipau (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's undoubtedly the same person, but there are also reasons why someone might end up editing from multiple IP addresses, possibly without even knowing what an IP address is. I've put the old protection back in place for a month. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Uncle G: Thank you Chaipau (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:0utspoken exp0sd

• 0utspoken exp0sd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vegaphobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New user replacing sourced content @Vegaphobia with unsourced content and attempted to blank the lead several times, see filter log. Multiple template warnings sent, and a personal warning by me:[30] about possibly getting blocked. The user then threaten to make another account if blocked:[31]. Jerm (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User made a personal attack against me:[32]. Jerm (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Jerm, all cleared up, I think. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thank you. Jerm (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

IP number change vandalism

96.231.48.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Appears to be a static IP: user's contributions since last August consist entirely of unsourced changes to musical artists' sales figures, other than a handful of verifiably incorrect edits at 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash. I've reverted a few and warned (their talk page is full of warnings but mine is the first for this month), but I haven't time today to review all of their edits to restore the correct information, hence posting here for community attention. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 months. I see that my Chipmunk Army has some competition (Nuts!). El_C 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Freespirit571

• Freespirit571 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalism-only account targeting political biographies. Please do the needful. Thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by Uncle G Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Given the unambiguous vandalism of this user, AIV may have been more appropriate. Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 18:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Tol, but this gets quicker attention. I'm not exactly unfamiliar with how this works... Guy (help! - typo?) 20:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Ah, no problem! I don't have too much activity here at ANI; as it's often for more long-term issues I would have thought AIV would be quicker. Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note in case of an unblock request, while most of the vandalism is just obvious nonsense, this [33] was a serious BLP vio. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Revdeleted. El_C 20:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Notes

User 174.89.129.51 repeated made false accusations against me and other users

The user 174.89.129.51 repeatedly made false accusations against me and other Wikipedia users in the past based on their contribution history.

My encounter with this user started when I reverted an edit on FreshCo because they made an edit which was unconstructive and their edit summary was misleading, so I left a warning message on their talk page. After that, they accused me of edit warring/disruptive editing on my talk page and the FreshCo talk page when I did not do any of that. They left rude comments on what I should do and threatened to report me, despite doing nothing wrong. I warned them of harassment and offered kind suggestions on Wikipedia policies that they should read because they appear to have little understanding of the policies, and now they are accusing me of harassment, which makes no sense.

This user has previously harassed another user on April 2, 2021 and left rude comments on their talk page too. Edipio ^💬 21:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Something has to give. El_C 21:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Flagrant personal attack from dynamic IP editor

Yesterday, I reverted this puzzling edit because piping links in a "See also" section to something other than the actual title is unproductive. Today, the editor who made that edit returned from a different IP and reverted it with an edit summary characterizing my revert as a "jihad." This is quite possibly the most incendiary thing I have ever been on the receiving end of on Wikipedia and at minimum the edit summary should be revdel'd. --Sable232 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Revdel'd. El_C 21:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Sable232 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/74.51.144.75 and WP:VERIFY

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

User is back making changes without appropriate sources. [34][35][36]. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 20:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month. Déjà vu! El_C 21:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

IP user 136.49.166.71 persistently editing against talkpage consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP user 136.49.166.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues disruptively editing the Cris Cyborg article, after an attempt to resolve the issue was made on the article's talkpage and a consesus was reached. Said user is now editing the page against the talkpage consensus and reverting other editors that try to correct his edits. He was warned on his talkpage multiple times.

The discussion on the article talk page, in which consensus was reached - here

Disruptive edits and reverts by 136.49.166.71 after consesus was reached - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Further unsuccessful attempts at resolution - 1, 2 3, 4, 5 6

Personal attacks by 136.49.166.71 (in edit summaries & on his discussion page) - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Diana056 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Diana also refuses to admit, that with sources, information and more, that She reverted my page, because She didn't like what was posted. She also neglected to mention, that when we were both informed of being "blocked" that only I was the one blocked for 3 days, which She remained editing, when She was the one reverting and undoing edits more than I was. Which I informed them showed Bias, because they both agreed on the matter, not truly giving the post the chance it had at a true resolution. Also the agreement was that both pages would be changed to "one of the" greatest, not THE greatest. I agreed to leave the Amanda Nunes page alone, and have not touched it since reaching the consensus, that I did not agree with, however I abided by the rules and did not tough the Nunes page. I did however go back to the Cyborg page since what was stated was incorrect. I was informed that both pages would be changed to "one of the greatest" not only one. Since it stated that Nunes was "arguably" the Greatest, and that Cyborg was "arguably" the greatest. the main argument was that for Nunes (to diana) that "arguably" doesn't count because She likes Nunes more and wants her listed as the GOAT (wasn't what was said), what was actually stated was that She has been called that quite a bit lately. My argument for Cyborg was that for over a decade She had been called the Women's MMA GOAT, and Her losing ONE fight does not take away her legacy. She went undefeated for over 13 years, and had done quite a bit, things that no other female mma fighter has even touched. And also won championships in 4 different Major MMA organizations.

This was the deal. "@Cassiopeia:, hmmm, That's one of the most well-put... logical responses I've seen in quite some time.. Especially regarding this. I digress about the Jones situation, since it was proven he did not intentionally cheat, and He proved his innocence with each time. As far as this goes. You did state "Since there are recent sources indicate Nunes is the current female GOAT and there are still sources stating Cyborg is..." I think the fairest way to go about this, would be to change both pages to "one of the greatest female mixed martial artists." Since as you stated, there's articles that state both are the Female GOAT. Recency bias or not, I believe that would be fair with this topic, personally. Since as you stated, there's no Unanimous GOAT as of right now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.49.166.71 (talk) 14:43, February 28, 2021 (UTC) @2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:CA3D:DCFF:FE71:E371 and 136.49.166.71: Thank you for understanding and participation on the discussion. And all of us have agreed to state Cyborg as "one of the female GOAT" instead of "the female GOAT". The normal process for discussion to be closed without further discussion is 7 days; however, since we have reached a unanimous agreeable decision, "one of the female GOAT" statement would be change but let keep this discussion open for next 24 hours for user 2A02:AB04:2F43:5000:CA3D:DCFF:FE71:E371 is in different time zone than user 136.49.166.71, and might not be online to check this message. Once again thank you all involved parties participate in this discussion. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia(talk) 03:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)"

Since the deal is now null and void, the GOAT conversation opened back up, but on the Nunes side of things, Diana made the exact same argument, I provided sources (which she attempted to discredit, then She would provide sources from those same SITES she discredited....) Now I added information to the Cyborg page, I opened a new tab in her page called "Other MMA Achievements" And placed that Cyborg had the longest win streak in Women's mma history (Which was now passed by Zhang Weili), I also placed that Cyborg was undefeated for over 13 years. I also provided sources for all that. I also edited the main page and placed that "Cyborg is also referred to as the scariest and most feared female mma fighter of all time" I provided my sources for that as well. I then also placed "Cyborg was undefeated for over 13 years and 20 straight fights before her shocking KO loss to Nunes" I also provided sources to that, with the betting odds, and the MMA sites "upset of the year" Which Diana and Cass both continued to undo my posts on all of these, from the Achievements, to the Accomplishments, To the most feared woman, to the win streak, to the betting odds, etc... My posts were constructive, and without bias. However those 2 are biased and I wasn't going to play their game anymore. So I gave up on editing. Diana follows pages and just undoes and changes what SHE doesn't like, regardless of what is presented, if there's evidence to show something, She is going to remove that evidence, so She can change the entire post. She did it with Cyborgs page before, She did it with the Nunes page, when I showed her She is not known by everyone as the Female GOAT. It's been back and forth with her, but She follows whatever I post, clicks on it and attempts to find a way to undo my post, failing horribly, then getting upset that I won't just allow her to change what She chooses. It's honestly a waste of time and it's annoying. Also look into her "persistency in editing, if I somehow get blocked or anything, She should most definitely be reprimanded. but at least I provide sources, and site my sources, She goes based off personal opinion. 136.49.166.71 (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@136.49.166.71: I don't want to detract from this discussion by bringing up the Nunes article, because the subject of this dispute is Cyborg's article, but just to quickly explain why on Nunes' article it can state 'widely regarded as the greatest' and on Cyborg's it can't: For Nunes, there are multiple sources which call her 'the GOAT' in her article; for Cyborg, there are only sources which call her 'one of the GOATs' and none that call her 'the GOAT' (and to this day, none such sources have been provided). Hence, the wording 'one of the greatest' is more appropriate in in Cyborg's case according to the sources, as was agreed upon in the discussion. The issue about being called 'the goat' was also discussed on Amanda's page, and it was agreed that in her article it can state that because it's supported by sources, unlike in the Cyborg article. You were part of both of the discussions and this was explained to you multiple times. Also note that 'widely regarded' doesn't mean the same thing as 'unanimously regarded', this was also discussed. Regardless, however, even if you still disagree you have to respect the consesus which was reached. The edits you engaged in was unconstructive, against talkpage consensus and persistent. Diana056 (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Diana you don't need to detract, you're stating "multiple sources call her goat." When I have multiple sources that call Cyborg the goat, you just overlook it, because of your bias. You're telling me you haven't found an article that calls Cyborg arguably the goat? And Arguably is not "one of" in your definition, because you completely stated it in my sources that it's ok for it to state 'arguably' so here, since you won't look (and that's pretty much it, you just won't look) And you wanted it to be recent. https://www.dazn.com/en-US/news/mma/julia-budd-vs-cris-cyborg-live-results-updates-highlights-from-bellator-238/153q7ittgaa21sb19thbp4v64 https://mymmanews.com/bellator-249-main-event-breakdown-cris-cyborg-vs-arlene-blencowe/ https://cagesidepress.com/2020/01/25/bellator-238-can-budd-spoil-the-beginning-of-cyborgs-next-chapter/ https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/mma-news-bellator-president-claims-cris-cyborg-is-the-greatest-female-fighter-of-all-time https://thebodylockmma.com/ufc/cris-cyborg-is-the-body-locks-2020-female-fighter-of-the-year/ All of that. is within the last 6 months, with 3 being within the last MONTH,. She is either called "arguably" the greatest, or "The greatest." You just didn't want to look. So no it isn't. And I provided those sources several times, as I stated before, you chose to overlook them. Now you're going to say "Well because they say arguably...." But however if I state the same thing for Nunes, you're going to say it's ok for Nunes. And no the deal was both pages would be changed. Since that deal was not kept. I added more sources to Cyborg's page and changed it. Simple as that. As long as sources are provided, that is all that matters, and I did that. Your bias is the only issue with communication with you. Honestly it's aggravating. Plus on the Cyborg page, we reached the consensus without you, because you added nothing of substance to the conversation except bickering and crying.

These were legit her words to me "Yes, in the discussion above we already went over the fact that I provided 6 recent sources that call Nunes the greatest female MMA fighter. The reaction of 136.49.166.71 to that was that they also provided number of recent sources that call Nunes "arguably" the greatest, which doesn't necessarily dispute the original wording of that sentence ("the" greatest), but according to them, it should be changed to arguably the greatest because in a similiar dispute about the same statement in Cris Cyborg's article it was agreed upon that it should be changed to one of/arguably the greatest." But however when I placed it with Cyborg She responds with "There's no reason there whatsoever to reformulate the sentence in the article which calls her the greatest. In Cyborg's case, all of the recent sources call her "one of the greatest" or "arguably the greatest", hence why calling her the greatest in her article is not appropriate nor accurate"

She believes that with Nunes it should be overlooked (bias) but with Cyborg it should be used (unfair). She is never consistent. She wants what she wants. She doesn't have neutral editing. She is only editing based off what she personally feels. Not sources (which she erased as per the writing I just quoted from her) And several times she would undo my edits. And this is why I did not like to communicate with her. Her bias is just completely there. She claimed she couldn't find articles to support my claim, so when I tagged them, She would say that the articles were biased (I'm so serious, she really did, look at the Nunes edits, She claimed MMAjunkie, MMAFighting, Bjpenn, etc... were biased) So when she removed my sources, She then USED THE SAME SITES to Site her claim, but it's not bias, as long as it agrees with her narrative. THAT is my problem, is her biased nature, and it is completely against Wiki policy, and her edits SHOW she is biased with editing. 136.49.166.71 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't read any of this for obvious reasons, but is there any particular reason why this obvious content dispute is cluttering up the admin noticeboard? Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Although, actually yeah - that's not acceptable. IP blocked for a week. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• • @Black Kite: The reason is that I reported persistent disruptive edits against talkpage consensus, which as far as I know should be reported here. As I explained above in my report, and supported with diffs of said behavior. The personal attacks were added only as for more complete documentation of editor's behavior, but were not what I was reporting. Why the other editor is responding with lengthy posts arguing about content I obviously have no way of knowing, but I would really appreciate it if you could read my original report (it's not long). Diana056 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE, anti-Iranian and anti-Semitism behaviour by AlHathal99

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AlHathal99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edits my userpage with the edit summary Loser who steals other people’s history

Know that stealing someone's history is not an easy task. Also, know that the Arabian peninsula's coastline is larger than Persia's, so it is the Arabian gulf/coast. Alexander simply didn't see the other side.

I'm assuming this is meant as some kind of racist insult towards Jews, Shias and Persians; Shias/Persians = Jews of Europe

WP:OR personal theories which makes him think his edits are justified, with the classic message of 'Don’t change history please' [37]

Changed Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf at Arab states of the Persian Gulf twice [38] [39]

Decreased the Shia presence in several areas, and changed 'Persian Gulf' to 'Arabian Gulf' [40]

Changed Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf at Kabsa [41]

Disruptively removes an entire infobox [42]

EDIT: Attempted to remove this thread twice; [43] [44]

I could go on, but this is basically what type of edits he does, clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Its bad, I some of his edits and he should not be allowed on here. DXLB Muzikant (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice grammer me, i mean to say that i reverted some of his edits DXLB Muzikant (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

He just edited my userpage once more, lol [45] --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours in response to the disruption to this page and HistoryofIran's user page, but have no objection to further discussion and action related to the original disruptive editing allegations. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Recommend permablock This is the sort of NOTHEREness HoI gets a lot of. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: This is indeed quite NOTHERE. You are free, welcome and recommended to adjust the length of the block already set by Rosguill... :) Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've actually set the block duration not to expire. I think the nature of the fabrications and provocations call for some serious assurances before editing should resume by this account. El_C 21:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conduct issues at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films

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

Ichika Kasuga has been displaying what I consider to be WP:CONDUCT issues primarily relating to WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF at Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films#Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train. I am fairly certain that they have also committed a WP:LOGOUT violation (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ichika Kasuga for evidence thereof), which is to say that I think the conduct of the IP in question should also be taken into account. There are also WP:CANVASS concerns regarding an edit where they asked that another editor join the discussion specifically to help them.

Examples (though really, reading the entire discussion gives a much better impression of the overall conduct – it's mostly about a consistent pattern of behaviour):

• Ichika Kasuga:
  • Again, I am telling you to use your sandbox for practising your edits.[46] – WP:OWN
  • Conclusion
    Unless and until Box Office Mojo or The Numbers corrected and add the missing grosses of various territories till then we will use this method of sourcing grosses[47] – WP:OWN
  • Conclusion- Let Box Office Mojo and The Number update the gross for missing territories then I switched the reference. till then I would continue with this method of sourcing[48] – WP:OWN, note conspicuous use of first-person singular pronoun
  • You are such an insane person[49] – blatant WP:NPA violation
  • If you keep inducing me that my edits are Original Research, then I would feel that you are either not happy about the success of the film or just trolling me.[50] – WP:AGF
  • Consensus
    Until Box Office Mojo and The Number update the gross of the film and added the missing territories then I will switch the reference. Till then, we all be use fxtop.com as source[51] – WP:OWN, note conspicuous use of first-person singular pronoun
• IP:
  • the way you are behaving looks no way different from monkey. Never mind my language but that is the only truth about you.[52] – blatant WP:NPA violation

Since there are conduct issues that may be actionable independent of any WP:SOCK behaviour, I'm posting here and to WP:SPI separately. TompaDompa (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How can asking someone's help be wrong? I do not know what is wrong here. If a random user called him monkey then how can I get related? いちか かすが (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Ichika has been given a week off for bad-faith logged-out editing. I have no objection to someone extending that to an indef if deemed appropriate. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:GAMING by recently created account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jserranoq87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Cynicism (or flair, call it how you want) naturally leads me to believe they might be a block evading sock trying to game a semi-protection or eventually an ECP. See also the boatload of accounts (most without an edit) beginning with "Jserrano" + number or "Jserranoq" + number... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 02:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks! Wasn't AIV for obvious vandalism and ANI for NOTHERE or at least slightly more complex stuff? Anyway, bureaucracy aside, Special:Contributions/74.104.130.117 certainly needs a block ASAP so if you could oblige... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Already done. Right, I overlooked the iterations, which is why I retracted that (AIV) one minute later. Of course, a vandalism-only account will find it difficult to get autoconfirmed! But maybe that's what the iterations are for...? Who knows. Or cares. El_C 02:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Assistance_requested - Well... Clearly I was naive. sigh... - jc37 02:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by User:Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Last month Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked then unblocked after making personal attacks against a user and admin active on controversial gender-related topics. Their unblock seemed to rest on the assumption that they would focus on association football articles and refrain from personal attacks specifically. However, they recently made a very non-AGF comment toward the same user at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. When I learned of the previous block, I notified the blocking admin on St. H. T. D. C. & A.'s talk page. St. H. T. D. C. & A. then started blanking talk page comments [53][54] and making a series of bizarre user talk page moves seemingly to try to cover their tracks (e.g.: [55]) Bringing this to ANI because St. H. T. D. C. & A. has since resumed their attacks against their origninal target. Note that they were notified of discretionary sanctions in this topic area already. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a candidate for indeffing as NOTHERE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Very disrespectful of you to make the assumption I did the page blanks to cover my tracks. I actually did the first one by mistake (meant to be a test edit) so I tried to redirect it back but I missed the last period at the end of my name so I fooled around with it a little. More evidence that I'm not trying to hid it is that I can provide you the conversation right now.

Potential violation of unblock conditions

@Floquenbeam: I see you unblocked this user on the condition that they refrain from attacking a specific user regarding gender issues. In their unblock request they stressed that they just wanted to edit football articles. Recently they made a very non-AGF comment toward the same user at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. Would this justify re-blocking? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Well I just wanted to talk about the sources, I wasn't calling anyone bad or anything. And if you see my contributions. Like literally 99.9% of my contributions are football articles. I'm fulfilling my promises and also, am planning on creating a new football article 2022 in association football so I think I'm doing fine. Mohammad (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Hey! That was my thousandth edit! Awesome! Mohammad (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Also didn't I do that del thing you taught me how to do? I don't get why this is still an issue. I followed your directions, and by my contributions, I am doing a lot of good work and help with a lot of articles! Mohammad (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you had previously been blocked for making personal attacks, which puts your comments in a much different light. Being a productive editor overall doesn't give anyone a license to make snarky comments about other editors. You were already notified about discretionary sanctions in this topic area. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Did you forget about what we were talking about before. That I was talking about the source and not the person? What happened to that? Mohammad (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: There is no way they will ban me over this. I haven't even done anything. 1. I said before that I am interesting in editing football articles in Wiki. And if you even bothered checking my edits, that's what I've been doing. 2. I refrain from attacking people regarding gender issues. I have never attacked anyone after the unblock. What you are sourcing is absolutely ridiculous and BAFFLES ME because we had a discussion like just an hour ago that I wasn't attacking the person, and that I was directing that at the source. 3. That is one of the only non-football related edit I've done and it was on the talk page not the article even. 4. I know it says "you" but as our discussion before we both know I was talking to the source. I would've edited it but it's against the rules. You told me to just put the delete (or slash) mark on it. Which I did. So I don't know why you are still bringing this up. 5. Previously (how I was blocked) I was seriously attacking someone (literally going on their talk page) and saying bad things. This is nowhere near that. 6. As you can see from my user page. I created a deleted article, an article, and looking to create another. I'm not here to hate and this is a mostly-sport Wiki account. That's the stuff I'm interested in. If I see an issue or a typo in a different article, I will bring it up or fix it. If I say I'm focused on football articles means I can't conversate with someone about a different article. 7. That was the only other non-sport article I have ever edited (from what I remember) since the unblock (unless it was a typo). There is absolutely no reason I should be blocked. I would've said more reasons but I forgot what I was going to say. Mohammad (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You may want to review the First Rule of Holes. We'll see what the blocking admin has to say. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC) @Sangdeboeuf: Only reason I'm explaining like this is that I thought our previous conversation was resolved so I deleted it. I delete all resolved conversations on my talk page. It was resolved until a few hours later you out of nowhere tried to ban me. Mohammad (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Given everything said here, you should seriously consider striking your most recent comment. You should also apologize to GorillaWarfare immediately for the personal attack. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: For what? Saying "I know what you're doing here"? How is this a personal attack? In which planet? Mohammad (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC).

− − I will provide my reasoning below. Just had to get this out there.

@NorthBySouthBaranof: WHAT? Have you seen the articles I have created and the thousands of contributions have? Mohammad (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Your utterly bizarre and clearly-intentional page moves of your user talk pages make it clear that you are here to troll, not constructively contribute to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.:, please change your signature as it will cause confusion with User:Mohammad, per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Padgriffin (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: @Padgriffin: WAIT BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING! CAN I NOT PROVIDE MY REASONING? AND DEFENSE? Mohammad (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: @Padgriffin:

MY REASONING

1. I did not personally attack anybody. The closest thing closest to a personal attack is "I know what you are doing" (not like stalker type)

2. My warning was to not personally attack anyone my warning was NOT to not edit the articles stated.

3. I am a legit contributor. I have Extended-Confirmation Rights. I have over 1,000 not-reverted legit edits. I create and edit mostly sport (association football) articles. I am not a troll account.

4. What really annoys me about @Sangdeboeuf: is that we had this discussion a few hours ago (about the "personal attack"). We had both clearly agreed that I was directing that the source had an issue with the movement NOT @GorillaWarfare:. I would've edited it but as @Sangdeboeuf: told me, I was to put it in a slash.

5. The extra pages was originally a test, then I tried to redirect it back but I forgot the "." at the end of my name. Since there were so many constant mistakes, I decided to poke fun with it. I admit I shouldn't have done that, but it was my talk page and really didn't affect anything (plus I put it back).

6. I am a legit editor and @Stevie fae Scotland: @Sakiv: and a lot of others can agree I am not a vandalize only or troll account and that I'm a legit editor.

7. My promise for this warning is that I will never edit or contribute to the MGTOW article ever again. I also promise to re-read what I'm typing before I click enter to make sure it's appropriate.

Thanks for reading and I hope we can come to an understanding. Mohammad (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Padgriffin: Signature is changed now. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Given your history with GorillaWarfare, It's clear that "That explains everything. I see what you're doing. I'm not stupid" was meant to accuse them of wrongdoing without evidence.

Your block was lifted on the specific condition that you would not "continue to attack another editor for the crime of being a woman who dares to disagree with you".

I was skeptical at the time that "it seems you have an issue with men wanting to go their own way" was about the "sources" and not the user you were replying to. I am even more skeptical since I learned you had been blocked for personal attacks against the very same editor. I certainly never "agreed" with your explanation.

The comment blanking I referred to was at the article talk page [56][57], not your user talk page. You already knew this was "against the rules", as you put it. Maybe you just panicked and wanted the issue to go away; regardless, blanking others' comments is disruptive.

Alerting other users to come to your defense is disruptive WP:CANVASSING and is unlikely to change the outcome in your favor. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Also this comment removal fits into the pattern of harassment against a specific editor. Intentional or not, such a pattern should not be allowed to continue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Proposing a TBAN of the user on articles concerning MGTOW and other Feminism/menosphere-related topics. As the user has repeatedly attacked both editors and authors of sources in addition to expressing misogynistic and anti-feminism views, a TBAN may be in order. Padgriffin (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Padgriffin: So does that mean I'm banned or banned to just feminist articles? Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: You would be banned from editing those articles. Padgriffin (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN. I can see no productive edits to that page and plenty of disruption. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Frankly I'm stunned that the block was lifted at all following this all-caps homophobic slur. I would support another indef block on top of the TBAN. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. Padgriffin (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Was just going to voice support for a topic-ban as they seem genuinely interested in football, but what does it say to our female editors if we just shunt users like this to a topic area where they feel comfortable? Shouldn't Ms. GorillaWarfare and others be comfortable when editing and not have to coexist with a user like this? This isn't about "safe spaces" or any of that silliness. Disagreements will always exist, arguments will exist, as will occasional incivility. But the edit diffs presented above are abuse. 100% abuse. Absent a sincere, genuine acknowledgement that they were and continue to be in the wrong to call out someone for their gender or sexuality when discussing a topic, and consensus from all that that is acceptable, I would therefore support an indefinite block. Zaathras (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• While I initially supported a TBAN due to the user not having exactly violated the terms of his unblocking, I've combed through his comments and would also Support an indefinite block- people like this shouldn't be in this community, even if some of their edits were constructive. Padgriffin (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Floquenbeam was incredibly generous to unblock the editor after the original attack on GW, they promised not to repeat the behaviour and they haven't been able to leave it alone. No second chances, sorry. Support indef. Black Kite (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I've indefinitely Tbanned Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. from the topic area of gender and sexuality, broadly construed, as an AE discretionary sanction. I saw that as the bare minimum needed to prevent disruption in the topic area; I don't intend that to prejudice this discussion, and if there is consensus for a site ban or indef block that should also be imposed. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've indeffed Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion for harassment as a normal admin action. A discussion aimed at escalating this to a site ban can continue, of course. Ditto for an unblock, I guess. El_C 14:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Stupid question, El C, but their talk page history is extremely short for the content that's on it. Have there been some page move shenanigans? Sdrqaz (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes — El_C 17:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's bizarre: they also messed around with Ponyo's archives too. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• What Black Kite said; support indef. I was astounded they were let off of their indef the first time around--as I noted at the time, making an apologetic unblock request a mere 10 minutes after this edit did not fill me with confidence that an unblock would be possible without future disruption. Here we are again, and if the sheer volume of page-move nonsense I had to sift through to actually find those diffs is any indication, it's only getting worse. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef block/community ban. The condescending/intimidating behaviour towards female editors is completely unacceptable, and the fact they refused to adhere to the terms of their unblock conditions is all the more reason to get him out of here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm disappointed it's come to this. The site block is appropriate given the editor's actions. Without excusing his behaviour, should the community have cause to look at it again, I'd like to mention two things. First, he's young. Having recently seen a note from an oversighter to another young editor about why they'd removed the age from the editor's page, I emailed oversight to ask them to do the same for Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. Second, regarding his use of the word 'queer' in referring to GorillaWarfare (I'm assuming that's what Sangdeboeuf referred to as an 'all-caps homophobic slur'), it's likely that SHTDCAA looked at GorillaWarfare's user page, which has User:UBX/queer. Maybe in a year or two he'll be ready to come back and edit within policies and guidelines. I tried to help him, but there's only so much one can do. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  The "all-caps homophobic slur" was this: the user clearly expressing rage that we would dare allow a queer woman to exist here. No, there's no excuse. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It makes sense that St. H.T.D.C. & A. would be young. On the bright side, that gives them more time to mature, maybe returning when they can contribute without disruption. Yes, I was referring to the use of "queer" – even though some folks apply it to themselves, it can still be a slur, especially when used as a noun in all caps. I was considering the impact on an unfamiliar reader coming across that remark and seeing that the user who made it was allowed to remain on Wikipedia. I think that would only harm the project. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  Good point about the chance of an unfamiliar reader encountering that. Perhaps I'm being too soft on him because of his age. I don't think his behaviour's in any way acceptable. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  The very fact that they all-capped queer and feminist as if they were a bad thing a bit like how back in the 80s school kids would say "that is so gay" about things being crappy is more than enough to raise eyebrows with regards to their leanings. Zaathras said it best. WP should not be saying to editors "you only get to do this once." --Blackmane (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing less than siteban - don't let the door hit your homophobic, misogynistic ass on the way out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban - does not appear to have the collaborative qualities needed to edit here. — Ched (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Site ban This where the old adage of "talk about the edits, not the editor" comes into play. This user has not understood that. I get that it can be hard to get everyone to agree on some of the Western values that are enshrined here, and I a wholly an advocate for building a global encyclopedia with a global community, but to go after someone for being merely a feminist (women right's = men's rights, oh how terrifying!) and being "a queer" (the use of that word as a noun and not as an adjective is telling) is absoltuely unacceptable. Attempts to guide this user away from this type of combativeness have failed. We should not waste any more of our time. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban per Indy beetle.--Jorm (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban Harassment is not acceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Site Ban The more I dig through their comments, the more disgusted I get. The user has STILL not apologized for their actions on those talk pages, which shows me that they should not be allowed to participate in this community. Padgriffin (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban they have clear issues with misogyny, and none of their interactions with women have been in any way appropriate for this inclusive encyclopedia. Maybe in a few years if they grow up then they could appeal this unblock, but right now this is not the sort of editor we want on this inclusive encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, even if they are deeply remorseful for their actions, that doesn't demonstrate that they won't do it again. It took them about 2 weeks from getting unblocked to getting blocked again, and there's nothing that suggests to me that that wouldn't just happen again if unblocked anytime soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Suspended Siteban I propose an alternate remedy: A suspended community/site ban , which any administrator could impose if behavioral problems persisted after an unblock , in order to give the user one last chance without requiring another ANI thread. The user could appeal to have it vacated in its entirety 12 months from the date of its enactment. Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• They were already unblocked and promptly violated their unblock restrictions, which is why we're back here. We're under no obligation to continue extending clemency to someone who has proven they will not adhere to its requirements. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support siteban per the WP:No Nazis doctrine. We banned an MGTOW-affiliated user not long ago. @Padgriffin: It's actually spelled manosphere. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

can't say I'm a real big fan of that ... ok, I guess we call it an essay. I'm not really sure it accomplishes what it was intended to. — Ched (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support siteban - Only way to be sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

China requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Another requested move that could use some uninvolved admins keeping an eye on it given the past problematic editor behaviour in the topic. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks headed for a SNOW closure. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I've obliged, there's no reason to attract disruption when the SNOW close can be done by anybody. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli and Timrollpickering: That escalated quickly :) (not that there's anything to worry about, me thinks). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: oh god Elli (talk | contribs) 12:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption at Talk:Nazi Germany

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A while back there was a discussion on Talk:Nazi Germany about what should be put in the "Predecessor" and "Successor" fields in the article's infobox, especially concerning Poland. This eventually lead to an RfC, which lead to a consensus as to what to include in those fields.

Now comes a brand new editor, User:Txbiassss, whose account was created two days ago, and has 15 edits, all of them to Talk:Nazi Germany, and all arguing about the "Predecessor" and "Successor" fields. The editor has been pointed to the RfC, and has been told that there is currently a consensus, and that the way to overturn that consensus is to star another RfC, as unnecessary as that would be, but the editor simply want to argue. In the middle of that discussion, a even newer editor, Talk:Hoksalik, dropped by to post a comment -- their one and only edit to Wikipedia -- supporting Txbiassss. [58]

Several of the editors who frequent Talk:Nazi Germany are of the opinion that Txbiassss (and their apparent sock Hoksalik) are not legitimate editors, but are disrupting the page with what appears to be trolling. Such disruption could be controlled by topic banning these editors from Nazi Germany, broadly construed, but they don't seem to be here to contribute to building the encyclopedia, and should probably be indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Other regular contributors at Talk:Nazi Germany may wish to comment on this: @Diannaa, Slatersteven, RandomCanadian, Levivich, Kierzek, K.e.coffman, Snowfire, and R-41: Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixing @SnowFire:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether it's Kengir evading their block or somebody else (I have not taken the time to investigate whether this is worthy of taking to SPI); the RfC is clear enough evidence that there was consensus for the present version; and a new one would be patently disruptive. WP:IDHT comes to mind; and the "two" "new" editors should be politely pointed towards it. That or they're NOTHERE socks and then we just quietly apply RBI to this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering that KIENGIR recently posted a comment on hu.wiki which appeared to be a solicitation for another editor proxying for them (which was not accepted by the other editor),(this exchange. (machine translation link) it seems as if KIENGIR socking is a possibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated question. When I click on Hoksalik's profile, I can't see "user contributions" on the left as normal. Anyone know why? I figured it out. Beyond My Ken just to let you know you dropped the ANI notice onto a non-existent article talk page rather than a user talk page. I've fixed that for you now — Czello 17:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea if they are shocking, block evading, or trolling (I suspect it's POV pushing, some nationalist agenda or other). What I do know is they are clearly (and adamantly) refusing to accept consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken the time to look at this. Neither of the two accounts seems to have a total mastery of English (further details not provided per BEANS) so that would fit, if marginally, with our prime suspect. The arguments bear some similarity. The more suspicious element is of course already highlighted above. I'll take it to SPI; it's likely that if the two accounts are not our suspect that they are at least related to each other. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The SPI is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99— Diannaa (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So 3 accounts related to each other but I presume neither Kiengir nor the older master... NOTHERE would be in order in any case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged, so I came over here. I have stayed out of the recent postings on the talk page for the GA rated article Nazi Germany as I did not believe it was necessary to take part; consensus on the matter was reached and frankly, I did not want to feed the apparent troll. BMK's posting above is a fair chronology of the talk page events discussed. Kierzek (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So apparently unrelated to either suspected master but confirmed to each other per the SPI (according to Oshwah's inquiry). That still leaves space for a NOTHERE block (both on grounds of general behaviour [trolling] and of socking). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About user Jingiby

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a person by the name of Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that all he does is edit Macedonian pages and makes them Pro Bulgarian. How can a publication allow this if it wants to be creditable. Then he reports you when you change it to real facts because it's true and then block us ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.169.134 (talk • contribs)

See WP:TRUTH. Also, please notify the other editor. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've sent an ANI notice to Jingiby. Jerm (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotse_Delchev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yane_Sandanski

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krste_Misirkov

and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yordan_Piperkata&diff=902709275&oldid=902708954 These edits from this user are one sided

On the other hand the Macedonian Wikipedia does not agree with this user edits for his disrupting editing. https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5_%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2

https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%88%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8

https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2

I think that all articles that this user wrote on the English Wikipedia should have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.169.134 (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The Macedonian wikipedia does not mention about BG

I accuse Jigby of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia ] We can also see that Jigby was also given blocks on the Macedonian Wikipedia https://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B0:%D0%94%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA?type=block&user=&page=Jingiby&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=

Hi everybody. Exept this IP has called me a troll I suppose it is using multiple accounts, as this one: User:77.29.107.157. Quite a few accusations of a single-edit editor. Suffice it to say that the mentioned topics are systematically attacked by a set of various accounts located in North Macedonia and Australia, where the largest Macedonian diaspora resides. Such edits are usually oppenly destructive and there are no attempts to have a meaningful discussion on talk, or to provide credible academic sources in support of their view. I suppose this account is in contact with the group, which declared me its enemy last year. And another time I have drew the attention of the administrators here for such accusation, periodically trying to discredit me and related probably to this group called WIKIPEDIA WARRIORS: THE NEW FRONT LINES IN THE BATTLE FOR MACEDONIA. As for the Macedonian Wikipedia, there even the page about North Macedonia bears the old name of the country, and its constitutional current name has been declared a mockery. The page is fully protected to avoid actualization. So much for its objectivity. Jingiby (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Jingby there is no objectivity in your wikipedia edits also you have been blocked on the Macedonian Wikipedia once and unblocked because you called other editors with bad name and pushing your Bulgarian propaganda there Ithink this user's writing articles it is a propagandist he is just pushing Bulgarian Propaganda on Wikipedia and ask that you sanction him. On that video also there is a photo of him answering to someone that on BG wikipedia transfers content to English Wikipedia and that transfering content to the MK Wikipedia is not going well that at that time he is blocked and his edits reverted i think that is clearly a signal that he is pushing an agenda here on Wikipedia and that he should be sanctioned. It is not true that I am using mutiple accounts he is lying about that this is a personal attack what he accusess me of also he wrongfully blocked users that tried to report him to the admins of Wikipedia for his disruptive editing and reverting back his view of a certain Articles on North Macedonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dikaiosyni

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dank_macedonian_lord

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.125.168.200

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Macedonia1913&diff=prev&oldid=965791960

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.245.33.152

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:178.221.16.240

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.50.7.170 Also it is not his function to say whether a country name change is good or bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.169.134 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: I am afraid I have to disagree completely with the IP in that Jingiby's wikipedia edits have "no objectivity". Jingiby does not need any special introductions here; a well-respected editor in the difficult Balkan topic area, whose Contributions log speaks for itself in that he worked tirelessly in maintaining WP:NPOV in the contentious topic area which is famed for being target of IPs and nationalist editors whose goal is to promote all kinds of political propaganda. In my opinion, this filling lacks credibility and one can easily tell that from the way the IP has written it and responded to Jingiby's comment. The ANI should either ignore these IPs fillings and/or use scrutiny against them for what it appears they are filling reports just to harass and discourage editors such as Jingiby, whose views do not consort to theirs, from "getting in the way" of their disruptive effort in promoting certain Macedonian nationalism political propaganda which have no place in Wikipedia. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 04:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• • Scrutiny of the IPs editing may well be in order here. As for Jingiby having been blocked elsewere in the past, that is none of our concern here. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

    We have crossed while I was closing, but I will keep it for a while like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I fully agree with SilentResident, Mjroots and Ymblanter; someone's been trying to waste our time here. Apcbg (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Incivil comments made by User:Memz.exe on my talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In this message by the user, the user blatantly made a personal attack. Ahmetlii (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Final warned, was very close to a NOTHere block based on their overall shenanigans and would not object if someone else goes there directly. StarM 13:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on their talk page, which includes them putting in their own block and unblock messages, plus the fact that they've been here 3 weeks and haven't even attempted to make any kind of a proper edit, they're just here to play and mess around. I say we just show them the door and lock it behind them. Canterbury Tail talk 13:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest anyone making a comment such as the one Ahmetlii received should be blocked automatically. Jeppiz (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Yup. Not going to waste time with this user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inaccurate decision on drafts!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from WP:AN

 – Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for more than 2 years. My articles are never promotional in any way, few days back all my work was targeted to be marked as advertisement by User:QueerEcofeminist. I have no issue with that, it is that administrator User:OhNoitsJamie deleted all my work with no proper checking and when I requested him to restore my work (which for sure was not promotional eg. - Draft:Youth Against Rape), he denied by saying I've wasted lot of his time? It is not the purpose of Wikipedia administrators to rule every user. I don't have any kind of fight with User:OhNoitsJamie. I just believe this mistake should be corrected and the warning given to me should also be removed. Thanks and regards -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You are free to remove the warning yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Although, of course, be aware that removing the warning does not invalidate its contents and that you still ought to take it under consideration.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well... Youth Against Rape was originally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Against Rape. You then created a one-line stub about it (a fund-raising cycle ride for an organization that doesn't have an article either). If it wasn't promotional, it was certainly non-notable. However, I am far more interested in your creation of Draft:Vaibhav Palhade, a draft about an obviously non-notable person. This article was originally created in mainspace by now globally-locked user User:Viralvilla and then tiresomely re-created (after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaibhav Palhade) no less than four times by also-now-locked accounts which turned out to be his sockpuppets. Why did you decide to write that, I wonder? Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Courtesy ping for @Pratyush.shrivastava, OhNoitsJamie, and QueerEcofeminist: that I have moved this from AN. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd made similar observations as User:Black Kite. In my experience, resurrecting articles about clearly non-notable people and subjects created by blocked editors is often an indication of WP:PAID editing. The articles in question stubs that were hardly worth restoring, hence my comment about time-wasting; not just my time, but the time of everyone involved with rejecting the numerous articles deemed to be non-notable that were created by this editor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I would have blocked this editor straight away if they had been new, but they have been editing for 3 years, hence bringing it here. Black Kite (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really though, between registering their account in late 2018 and August of last year they made all of 25 edits. And as far as I can see they never did directly address the fact that they were CU blocked for some really lame socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I thought the username was familiar. For context: this user has been blocked for socking recently. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Meh, I hadn't noticed that. I think therefore given the obvious evidence as regarding Vaibhav Palhade, an SPI would be a waste of time and an indef is the next point. Done. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV pushing on articles related to India

I previously reported this at WP:AIV and was told to bring it here. Peter ParkerJSR108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in POV pushing on multiple articles related to India. The first few were to add religious bias to Ganges ([59] [60] [61]). The user was warned about disruptive editing, sourcing, and NPOV. The user then went on to edit war or make edits against consensus on Narendra Modi (possibly a WP:ARBIPA issue), including removing cited material reflecting negatively on Modi ([62] [63] [64] [65]). The user has also refused to engage in discussion, saying the multiple warnings on the talk page "irritate" and "vandalise", and made snide, curt replies to a welcome notice of all things ([66]) and to talk page warnings ([67], [68]). So in summary we have a borderline edit warring violation, a potential WP:ARBIPA problem, failure to adhere to WP:NPOV, and a user who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm new to this place,I have stopped engaging in editing over here cause I know maximum editors are biased towards the left. They are removing content which is sourced but no action is taken against them on Narendra Modi page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter ParkerJSR108 (talk • contribs)

Warned. Peter, as I note on your talk page, if you do decide to stay, you'll need to slow down considerably, in a number of ways. Again, good luck. El_C 11:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, El C has already given sage advice on the user's talk. The most problematic conduct in this report is the edit warring and removal of content. Intent matters though, and a good-faith rationale for removing this content (which is where the crux of the issue seems to lie) can be made. For non-public figures the content would be questionable per WP:BLPCRIME and so the argument of 'unproven allegations' is plausible on the surface, but Modi is a public figure, and so the content is fine. As the editor is a newer participant to the project, reasonably they're not expected to be familiar with these editing norms and nuances. Luckily, the editor's rationale does not appear to be that the sources are biased (a difficult argument to make against, say, Reuters), which would be far more indicative of non-neutral editing. However, to Peter, I might suggest that controversial topic areas that one feels strongly about isn't a good place to learn to edit in. If I were you, I'd probably edit in an area I feel less strongly about; Wikipedia has a lot of articles on less controversial India-related topics, and you may enjoy editing about those, or a different topic entirely. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible WP:NOTHERE

User:Bog oinb hasn't made many constructive edits (only seemingly constructive edit is a draft). I think they might qualify for a block under WP:NOTHERE but I might be wrong. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That draft was an attack page as well reading it over. Likely just a bored school kid, blocked however as WP:NOTHERE for that very reason. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

M-Mustapha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been using his rollback without warning users, see their contributions, trying to misrepresent user scripts, see this. I propose removal of rollback rights, as they do have prior warnings for misuse of rollback, upon other types of warnings from other users, and administrators. They may be hat collecting as well, see 1 and 2. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 02:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Zppix, I'm not aware of any requirement that an rollbacker needs to warn the offending editor, although the RedWarn thing was a little strange. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Zppix please provide your diffs regarding the misuse and the other types of warnings, I can provide a valid defence of all my revert actions here. Twinkle is not mobile friendly that's why I don't often warn users as it's a bit tedious to do it manually whenever I'm using my mobile phone to edit, I hope you know that twinkle doesn't work on mobile view. Thank God that's all you have seen from all the work I have been doing in fighting vandalism to keep Wikipedia safe. The Living love ^talk 04:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I would generally recommend using not-Minerva when you are working from mobile and need access to advanced tools. Since you're logged in, I might suggest using the desktop domain and either Monobook or Timeless, which both have a mobile-friendly (and fully functional) interface. Izno (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha, Diff for prior warning for rollback usage, see 1 For other warnings that you have been issued in the past for various things, see 1, 2. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Zppix! But apart from this Slip, I don't think these diffs are related to the use of my rollback in any way. Please make valid accusations and insist on the right. The Living love ^talk 17:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha, Note, I never claimed they all had to do with rollback, I simply mentioned them to establish a history. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix:! And those were all you could get to establish a history, not bad! History is always clear in good faith. The Living love ^talk 17:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix: as others have said, there's zero requirement to warn people when using WP:Rollback. As the guideline says, due to the lack of a proper edit summary rollback should generally only be used for clear cut vandalism or other cases when the reason is clear, for blocked or banned editors, or when a reason is provided somewhere else (and 2 other cases not relevant for general usage). But I had a look at M-Mustapha's recent use and most of them seem clearly appropriate e.g. 1 was reverting an edit calling someone Nazi man, one was reverting an edit saying someone's little brother was a pain in the ass, and the third was an edit changing someone's name to Ritzcracker. The other 2 weren't so obvious with just the preview but if there is a problem you're the one who needs to provide evidence. Please remember that there's also zero requirement to warn vandals when reverting their vandalism. While I understand it can be frustrating for some since editor's often can't be blocked without a prior warning, for a variety of reasons plenty of editors do not warn. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz & Nil Einne, sorry for the delay, but Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings even states warnings should be issued. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix: right, but there is no requirement to do so, and it would be completely inappropriate to sanction someone for not issuing warnings. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, OK, maybe that part of what I said was a bit hasty, therefore i'm striking my proposal statement above, however, something should still happen, as I do believe it is problematic. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I’m kind of lost here @Zppix, asides all else, you implied that @M-Mustapha was engaging in WP:HATC, how so if I may ask? They definitely aren’t so if I may ask why did you say that? If you are going to accuse someone the least you can do is provide diffs to substantiate your claims. If not then you are just making unwarranted baseless accusations. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  Celestina007, I said they could be, and I did provide two links in my opening statement of this thread about that. "may" and "are" very different, I said "may" explicitly because it may not be the intention of the user, but still wanted to bring it up, just to see what others may think about it. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes! @Celestina007:, it might be someone is hat collecting. I can see that because I recently requested Rollback access on Commons and mentioned that 'I have experience in fighting vandalism on other Wikimedia projects' not knowing that Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ had already requested to be autopatrolled there, I think that is where he saw me and quickly came here to request my rollback removal with baseless claims that I'm not warning vandals. The Living love ^talk 14:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha, baseless claims that you arent warning vandals? You legit just admitted that you don't warn them because you are on mobile not even a few comments up... Secondly, I didn't even realize you requested any rights on Commons. Please do not cast aspersions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, there is no requirement that the person being reverted must be warned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• There should certainly be no action taken against this user, because, as has been pointed out already by more than one person, there is no requirement whatsoever that vandals should be warned when using rollback - indeed the whole point of that tool is that it's a quick, no-questions-asked, revert of vandalism. And, as for the hat-collecting accusation, the original poster here seems to be doing more of that than the target, so, if there is any action taken here, it should be as a boomerang. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to close (Warning for dragging to ANI(Accusations of hatcollection)

Dear all,

It appears that the original case has little to no merit. This should be closed as soon as possible with a warning for dragging to ANI,

Blessings,

Yaakov W, Yaakov Wa. (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please keep the lawyer in the courtroom and out of ANI. Thank you. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated breaches of WP:5P4 by VersaceSpace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

VersaceSpace joined the site on 1 December 2020 and has made nearly 1,700 edits. On 7 December, he was blocked indefinitely for vandalism after this edit. However, he apologised immediately and was reinstated. His talk page has attracted several other complaints and warnings that he nearly always deleted until he was warned about it recently.

On 3 April, the editor breached WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with an unwarranted and disrespectful reference to Lugnuts. He was warned about this by Celestina007, to whom he was also rude and disrespectful – see here and here. He joined the ANI about Lugnuts on 8 April but his edit there was one of those suppressed. Only ten minutes later, he made this edit at AFD which casts a scurrilous aspersion on Lugnuts' motives as an editor. He was asked a few hours later to retract but did not respond. Instead, he later repeated the aspersion here (btw, it seems he pinged the wrong person there). His edit at the Shahid Ilyas‎ AFD has also been condemned by both AssociateAffiliate and myself but there has been no response to either of us.

Action needs to be taken against this editor for his disrespectful behaviour and I have brought the case to ANI for that reason, but there is also a strong suspicion of sockpuppetry. Could you please let me know if you want me to outline that case here or take it separately to SPI? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I would comment that VersaceSpace appears very confident for such a new user, and very ready to correct others for someone who already has a block log. However, I can't see justification for another block at this moment. I would suggest that a watching brief is adequate. Deb (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

No Great Shaker thanks for the ping. I find this user very uncivil, though my condemnation of his comment wasn't exactly civil back!!! I do wonder though given an obvious vendetta against Lugnuts by VersaceSpace and Dlthewave an SPI might be warranted, just given the similairty in their behaviour and general uncivilness? StickyWicket (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: @No Great Shaker: @Deb: hi. Thanks for noticing my confidence, I guess. I don't believe the vandalism should've been brought up because I had not made any good contributions at that point? I want to respond to the sockpuppetry accusations first. Me and that editor have completely different interests. I enjoy editing things related to Doja Cat, and other female rappers and singers, among other topics. I don't know nor care what the other editor likes, but it's certainly not that. I have other things to do, so I'll address the other things later. versacespaceleave a message! 17:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Deb beat me to it, FWIW I have always been able to tell a new editor from a banned/blocked editor evading their block by virtue of their Tone and I too believe the editor to be too bold for a relatively new editor. I do not see the incivility issues to be too egregious as to warranting a block. But if there are suspicion of sock puppetry (which I believe may be at play here) then an WP:SPI should be launched at the appropriate venue. Celestina007 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like an outright admission of sockpuppetry because I haven't said a word anywhere about my suspicions. Doja Cat, however, is certainly part of the evidence. I will go to SPI and thanks for that advice, Celestina. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for logging this NGS. The personal attack against me certainly raised a red-flag, and at best (for them), it's highlighted this to the community. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: what??? looking through the user's edits I see no edits to Doja Cat. I only said what I enjoy editing because that editor does not edit those topics, contrary to me. versacespaceleave a message! 18:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you go to SPI where you will see that User:Billiekhalidfan and User:Dojazervas are the suspect accounts. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. I've replied there. versacespaceleave a message! 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I'm gonna fully respond now, I planned to do it before but the SPI case distracted me. I want to formally apologize to @Lugnuts: for calling them/their edits wretched, and I'm also sorry for the non-apology that came after that remark. It was lousy. All of my !votes at deletion venues should be based on policy and mine was not. I also have no vendetta against the user, and I only am aware of him because of his constant stub creation, which I still object to.

No Great Shaker says that I received a lot of warnings which I "always almost removed". Until a while ago I would clear my talk page instead of archiving it. Rookie mistake. The only warning I've deleted since then is one by @Celestina007: who also deleted my messages from her talk page. I didn't want them to send messages on my talk page because it was the same vice versa. After they noticed that I deleted the warning, they came back to my talk page and basically tried to "gotcha!" me, saying that "removing warnings from your talk page, means you have acknowledged, and read the message. So the next time you refer to anyone as “wretched” or engage in any egregious personal attack, your next warning would commence from a level 2". I really had no intention to call someone wretched again, so I think this message was unnecessary. Also, I question how them calling my existence here "inconsequential" and calling me inexperienced (which is true, but they said it as an insult) is civil. I don't like how Celestina brought "tone" into this discussion when their tone in edit summaries deleting my messages were things like "get your inexperienced self off my talk page" and "be gone". Is that civil too? I'm not making an accusation, simply asking how that doesn't break the same rules they continue to bring up.

My "asperations on Lugnuts motives", and I quote myself, "I won't make any accusation but I think everyone can kind of see the reason why these exist, and it may not be because the author wants to constructively write about Azizkye". I do believe this and that's why I didn't strike through the !vote. I didn't respond to the request by User:No Great Shaker to strikethrough because FOARP had responded and I was in agreement with their response, so I saw no need to say anything.

Keep in mind, none of these users ever came to my talk page except for Celestina who for some reason assumed right off the bat that I would commence this behavior again. Besides that, nothing because, as User:No Great Shaker suggests, I do not reply. I had dropped the stick. versacespaceleave a message! 20:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace, please do not drag me into your mess which you continually create. What i said was that I am not watching your page because your presence here was inconsequential to me (and still is I might add) but with the emphasis on to me and not in general as you are trying to imply so please quit with the lies. Right here is evidence to substantiate what I just stated. Please once again do not bring me into your mess, some of us are actually trying to focus on protecting the integrity of the collaborative project and abhor drama especially this sought of drama. Celestina007 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I never gave context as to what you meant by what you said, because it's irrelevant, and it's still an insult, no matter how you angle it, and you said yourself that insults were a violation of WP:NPA (something i didn't concur with until you told me so). I'm not dragging you into any issues, you spoke here first (which is a good thing, just clearly not me dragging you into my problems). Be mindful that I didn't create this thread, and I'm left to defend myself, so I'm stuck in a position where I can't win at all if you simply label it as "drama". versacespaceleave a message! 01:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• As an aside, No Great Shaker just posted this comment on a cricket AfD, which is also a breach of WP:CIVIL. Not sure if an interaction ban will be necessary pending the sockpuppet review (CU came back unlikely.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've answered this "aside" at the AFD page. Apparently, it is a breach of core policy to request that a sysop should investigate hounding and insults within that AFD. What a strange place Wikipedia is, if that should be so. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Who is VerspaceSpace? versacespaceleave a message! 00:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don't drag out this drama by questioning an obvious typo that you perfectly well know was meant to be your name. -- ferret (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If finding a typo funny is perpetuating drama then..yikes. I never refuted that he was talking about me. versacespaceleave a message! 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace, just like @Ferret said, please don’t escalate the drama, you knew all well & good that they were referring to you. I vividly remember telling tell you to “mature up”. Apparently you didn’t listen. Celestina007 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: wait? but you did this exact thing? take a look at the edit summaries here. word for word, bar for bar versacespaceleave a message! 01:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

in fact, i only said this because you did! if you can say this certainly i can too. or do the rules not apply to everyone? versacespaceleave a message! 01:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've struck my comment at the Shahid Ilyas AfD. It's clear this ANI is not going anywhere, and neither is the SPI filed against me (where CheckUser has concluded it's possible/unlikely that I'm connected to the account, I assume that means it's inconclusive). My apology to Lugnuts has not drawn any response from him or the other cricket editors, so at this point I just want to get over it. I shouldn't have to have this stuff lingering over my head if there's been little to no discussion on it for a while now. versacespaceleave a message! 14:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to close (issues resolved)

Dear all,

It appears that issues have been resolved or (in case of SPI belong in another place). Therefore, I suggest that the thread is closed as soon as possible because it is not a conducive editing environment having an open thread at ANI and versacespace should be allowed to go back to editing without worries of immediate sanctions.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer and someone who understands the situation versacespace is going through. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

please don't do this. it doesn't help me at all and it raises your chances of being blocked. the issues have not been resolved, there simply hasn't been a reply (maybe because there's nothing else to be said, but still). i suggest deleting this section and you have my permission to remove this comment if you do. versacespaceleave a message! 02:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear versacespace

As far as I am concerned, no reply for 3 days indicates there is nothing further to be said. If there is, they will be mentioning it very soon. As for your concern about me, I appreciate it, but that should not stop someone from doing the right thing.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear all

I noticed that all the accusers were active since these last posts If we penalize users for not responding to ANI, then certainly per WP:AGF, we must give them the benefit if their accusers do not respond.

Although well intentioned, and we need prosecutors (for obvious reasons). I believe the problem at ANI is not that there are prosecutors, but rather that there are too many individuals who are prosecutors at ANI and not enough defense attorneys.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The ANI is not a courtroom. we definitly don't need Lawyers. Yaakov- bud- take a break please. Walk away for a bit and come back with a clear mind. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BANNERSINGH & gross BLP violations

BANNERSINGH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I don't think there is much to state here. Take a look at this contributions, some of which they reverted themselves but will require revdel. Clearly WP:NOTHERE, see the following diffs (nsfw btw), Special:Diff/1017749021, Special:Diff/1017723582, Special:Diff/1017735126. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked, and I've tagged the picture for deletion on commons. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Uploader seems to be another account, the image that they placed on the page of Bin Laden also seems to be some non-notable individual's selfie which I find especially concerning. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, hopefully the admins on commons will consider those other uploads there. In fact, I see that Elcobbola, active in the thread above this, is a commons admin. Any chance you could take a look? The account on commons is 'Randistan'. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC) (Groan - botched template, fixed ​ GirthSummit _(blether) 13:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've deleted the image and blocked the account. In case it will be useful for reference in the future, in addition to BANNERSINGH's addition of the referenced Randistan image, behaviour includes:

• 07:47, 14 April 2021 - Randistan uploads c:File:Dhruvrathee.jpg;
• 09:51, 14 April 2021 - BANNERSINGH adds it to Dhruv Rathee;
• 11:35, 14 April 2021 - Randistan uploads c:File:Sushantrandi.png ;
• 11:38, 14 April 2021 - BANNERSINGH adds it to Mahesh Bhatt;

That these accounts are related quacks. (Note that, for the moment, BANNERSINGH has not attached to the Commons, so I can't run a check; Randistan has not attached to en.wiki, so a check cannot be run here. Overlapping attachments on login.wiki and meta.wiki are stale for BANNERSINGH, so a meta/Steward level check would not be helpful.) Эlcobbola _talk 14:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Elcobbola, thanks - I won't trouble the stewards then. Looks like it's all wrapped up for now, thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Sarah.Xenos - WP:CIR issues

• Sarah.Xenos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sarah.Xenos has been editing Wikipedia since early September 2020 (7 months) and is still making basic errors despite multiple requests on her talk page. She does make some very valid contributions but, after 7 months here, competency is still a big issue. For example, just today she made edits to Tanilba Bay, New South Wales that introduced more errors on top of previous errors made by her that I have subsequently fixed.[69] By far her biggest issue seems to be complying with WP:REFPUNCT. There have been 5 warnings on her talk page regarding this. I have been trying to keep up with the errors but lifestyle changes in recent months, and especially now that I have been diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, mean that I'll have less and less time to do so. This editor requires either mentorship or some sterner action from admins as she doesn't seem to be responding to gentle warnings on her talk page. I invite editors to review Shay Dockling, an article that she has written only a few minutes ago, which demonstrates the WP:REFPUNCT problem as well as others. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is a glaring competency issue with regards to the user's written English skills and adherence to our WP:MOS. The Shay Dockling is chock-full of sentence fragments, punctuation mistakes and oddities. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Although Shay Dockling definitely needs copyediting and it is obvious that the editor in question is not a native English speaker, I had no problem understanding the prose despite the problems. Isn't this type of article the very reason why we have enthusiastic copyeditors? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that it's obvious that she's not a native English speaker. Australia is an English speaking country, she lives only 10 km (6.2 mi) from me, volunteers at Newcastle University (17.5 km (10.9 mi) away!) and her edits are all about the local area and Australians. It seems to me that she's just a person with exceptionally poor writing skills. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear about your health issues, AussieLegend. I suspect User:Sarah.Xenos may not know she has a user talkpage. That is often the case when a user completely ignores warnings and advice. I have blocked her for two weeks (the length calculated so that she doesn't miss it, since there are substantial gaps in her editing), gently explaining that the purpose of the block is to help her find her talkpage. All admins are invited to unblock once she posts on it (in a reasonable manner). Bishonen | tålk 13:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC).

In addition to the problems above, there are also some issues with copyright infringement because two of her edits have been revdeleted. When somebody makes that many copyright violations, it is likely that there may be more. I think Bishonen's block was a good way to get her attention. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:ElKevbo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ElKevbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has harassed me and threatened me. He's been warned on four occasions and continually deletes my edits without cause or evidence with an honest reason. Is trolling me and claims he is "collaborating" but is simply deleting my any content I create, even when it is sourced from a third-party. FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• The very first diff that I read when looking for what "threatened me with harm" could be, as that is quite concerning, is Special:Diff/1017720335. Then Special:Diff/1017717230. And conversely Special:Diff/1017384904 and Special:Diff/1014859520. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@FirstPrezzzz1776: you've posted this here, to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and to AIV. Please don't do that. Can you present some problematic diffs, perhaps? Elli (talk | contribs) 08:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

And now an IP is reverting User:ELKevbo's changes here. FirstPrezzzz1776 - do you know anything about this?Nigel Ish (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the IP (It's fairly clear that "a total refurbishment and seismic upgrade to the iconic 28-story Tower" is not only promotional but a Google search suggests that it's almost certainly a copyvio as well) and I will protect it if it is reverted again. User:FirstPrezzzz1776, I have reverted your spamming of other noticeboards and if you continue adding promotional language to articles or abusing other editors I will simply block you indefinitely. I hope this is clear. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• As Uncle G notes (citing this diff) but does not make explicit (so I will), it's a little unbelievable that the OP would come here after making a personal attack as egregious on the user of whom they are reporting. You’re pathetic, small and a worthless editor. Go climb into a hole so the world can be a better place — is block-worthy, in my view. El_C 11:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• El C, I agree with you. The comment before they modified it is even worse. The only reason I haven't just indeffed already is that I couldn't see that anyone had given them a warning for PAs, or a link to the relevant policy. (Not that I think that anyone should really needs to be told that What a complete A-hole you are is unacceptable...) GirthSummit _(blether) 11:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment as El C has rightly said I think it is OP with the problem here, just a quick look through edit history/TP it is clear that they will fight and abuse any editor who disagrees with them. I would support a block for OP on this basis. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 11:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• My analysis of this situation is this: FirstPrezzzz1776 starts off by edit warring on this article, which is then reverted by ElKevbo. FirstPrezzzz1776 then violates WP:NPA by posting this onto ElKevbos talk page., and then subsequently files this report against ElKevbo. This revision might have been FirstPrezzzz1776 reverting while logged out, but I am not entirely sure. In regards, I feel as if a block is in order. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• FirstPrezzzz1776 was blocked on Commons for copyvios (02:09, 24 March 2021), and then proceeded to create a sock (06:00, 24 March 2021), FcktheWikiGods, to recreate the deleted images. While this occurred on the Commons, the person at the keyboard does not change with project space. Indeed, this is further demonstration of the issues noted above: recreating problematic content out-of-process (effectively edit warring); incivility (FcktheWikiGods = Fuck the Wiki Gods, presumably admins enforcing policy); the propensity to "fight and abuse any editor who disagrees with them"; etc. Related to consideration of character and ability to edit productively, it seems worth noting that FirstPrezzzz1776 claimed "I work for the university and attended as a student" when they thought that would assist restoration of deleted images, but claimed "I am not affiliated/work for the University" (and multiple times: [70], [71], etc.) when questioned about conflict of interest. It seems FirstPrezzzz1776 will say or do whatever suits them in the moment. Эlcobbola _talk 13:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• In light of this, I have indeffed, noting also that this is a m:Global lock candidate. El_C 13:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• I may be a bit late to the party here at ANI, but I have been attempting to help and educate FirstPrezzzz1776 since they first showed up at the helpdesk in March after being blocked on Commons. They seem resistant to guidance and exhibit an ownership attitude towards that article. In light of today's actions, I agree with blocking them.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User not making constructive edits and has already been warned

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:1702:760:1680:FC8C:3771:9114:55B7 has been making some unconstructive edits to pages about animated tv series and has already been warned multiple times. Not sure if all their edits were unconstructive but I came here just to let you guys know and you guys can make the final decision. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 months. Third recent block for this range. El_C 15:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I just saw them while looking at recent changes and they said something about Lin-Manuel Miranda creating the theme song for The Magic School Bus while providing no sources. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza editing without summaries, sometimes adding incorrect business info, but possibly ref spamming as well

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rosguill suggested I reach out here as a last resort. Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza has been adding a lot of sourced and unsourced financial information and other info to business articles, without edit summaries. The info is sometimes incorrect. He has been asked by me and others on his talk page to add summaries and was blocked before, but persists. With this recent edit [[72]], he incorrectly added former historical components of a new company as its subsidiaries. I'm also seeing him often using macrotrends.com as a source for financial data. It's a paid research site with no identifiable contact info, and so I wonder if this is a strategy to drive traffic to that site. Here are some recent related edits. [[73]], [[74]], [[75]]. Not all the info is wrong, and not all is unsourced (if you don't mind the excessive linking to macrotrends.com that borders on ref spamming), but his activity and inconsistent accuracy on highly visible business articles is disruptive. The few times he has responded on his talk page make it appear that he isn't a native English speaker, and that he doesn't understand the criticism he is facing. [[76]]. The clincher for me is that he was just updated to an extended confirmed user, yet doesn't show he deserves it. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Who has time for this. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sudipto Surjo - template disruption, unilateral page moves and disregard for collaboration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sudipto Surjo (talk · contribs) is an editor with a high edit rate, yet has been predominantly disruptive over the past several weeks. With a penchant for editing media franchise articles, Sudipto Surjo has moved hundreds of popular articles, without engaging in any prior (or post) discussion. That doesn't even address the out-of-scope addition of templates to incomprehensibly vague associations. I mean, who could forget John Wilkes Booth's stunning presence in National Treasure 2? Likewise, they have made irrational edits to templates, with the biography-oriented ones including acting credits and the media franchise ones including their creators/directors/stars in the headers - then, after they're reverted, he waits to change them back. This editor has been warned about their behavior to an egregious extent, with some cases of two or more final warnings listed by different editors in immediate sequence. However, Sudipto Surjo has opted to respond by deleting the warnings, acting coy - and even editing the warnings to make other editors appear unreasonable or foolish. I have linked up some specific incidents, but if you take a peek at their contributions, you will see literally several thousand of these uncollaborative edits, one after another, after another. Sudipto Surjo was previously blocked by Rosguill in October 2020 for this behavior, but appears to be regressing once more. There can only be so many dismissed final warnings before this needs to be firmly addressed. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 08:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no question that this conduct merits at least a temporary block. Deb (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

While I wait for some insight from the subject, I instead see some interesting edits being made to Seth Brundle, Template:Jeff Goldblum and The Fly (film series), before my very eyes. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Multiple warnings either ignored or engaged disruptively (re-writing someone's comment with entirely new prose, even!). Likely competence issues that will need to be corrected. El_C 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I also 95% certain that Sudipto Surjo is yet another sockpuppet of User:Aledownload. See Interaction Analyzer with one of the latest socks. I need to get round to either filing an SPI or just blocking for the clear quacking. Canterbury Tail talk 12:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

In my view, Interaction Analyzer data has to be super-obvious to be in any way helpful. But otherwise, a 95 percent certainty would be enough for me to indeff over. El_C 14:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Their block expires on Sunday - should we keep this thread open, to see how they behave upon returning to the site? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 09:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Since CT seems to be familiar with this, I'm inclined to let them take it from here. El_C 14:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think we need to keep this open. Canterbury Tail talk 14:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandal IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

86.174.27.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding vandalism as well as arguably actual libel in their edits to a new article that was recently moved out of userspace: Vaush. The IP seems to be WP:NOTHERE, and seems to be there solely to attack the subject of the article. I've requested page protection for the article because they're not the only ones doing this as the topic apparently has attracted some kind of concentrated attention. Eik Corell (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I've already semi'd the page independently of this report (by way of WP:RFPP). Will check for revdel candidates more closely right now. El_C 13:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup, revdel'd everything. El_C 13:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Found a few more, but GN beat me to it. I think this is wrapped up, for now. El_C 13:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soumya Sekhar Biswas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Soumya Sekhar Biswas has had a history of deceptive edit summaries [77] [78]. They then did it again at Pahela Baishakh. [79]. --Firestar464 (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that this is an over-escalation. I too have noticed this user's misleading edit summaries and was going to their talk page to discuss it when I saw this. I have provided more detail to the user to clarify concerns and let's see how they respond? Agreed it cannot continue. Mark83 (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to officially complain about the editor Guy Macon.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Talk:Motorola 68000
• User_talk:Guy_Macon#Hostile_admin_warning.
• User_talk:Vapourmile#Enough.
• User_talk:Vapourmile#WP:BRD

I would like to make a formal complaint about editor Guy Macon whose hostile actions I regard as /argumentum ad baculum/.

I had removed a large section of the talk page on the 68000 entry at a time when I was not aware it is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. My reasons were that the section was long and unproductive.

After the full comments section was subsequently archived, Guy was the first to remark on the talk page, immediately rekindling the same unproductive argument.

After a short exchange, including making technical corrections some of Guy’s comments, he directed this threat at me:

"Vapourmile, I am close to my limit putting up with your behaviour. Knock it off and start treating other editors with respect and civility or there will be consequences. --Guy Macon"

I accept some of my response was cynical. This is explained by the fact I had been previously threatened with account restrictions for removing a section of the previous talk page only to find the entire page had been archived and replaced with only Guy’s comments on that same topic. That aside, the accusation of not treating others with civility appears to refer merely to the fact I returned to add technical annotations to his edit.

That same argument has since become the mainstay of the same talk page and have I simply stepped out of it days ago, or so I thought until this morning when new threats from Guy appeared on my talk page where after days of silence suddenly this new threat from Guy appeared:

"Given edits such as this:[5] (reverted here[6]) I would suggest a topic ban from computer architecture, broadly construed. I do not believe that Vapourmile is capable of editing collaboratively in this area, and that they should spend their time on topics where they do not have such strong emotions"

I contest that it definitely not I who is having difficulty keeping my emotions in check, as this new assault arrived some days after my most recent change to that page, and a new response has since appeared after my last change which I have simply ignored and allowed to carry on in my absence.

The comment I had made on which Guy has decided to offer an opinion this morning is seven months old, and on a different Wikipedia talk page to the one where the dispute arose, so I can only assume either Guy came to Wikipedia after days had passed simply to look through my edit history to pick out actions to complain about to try to get my account restricted, or Guy, as I expect, patrols Wikipedia pages for reasons of contest rather than information. I have been asked not to assume bad faith but it is a little bit difficult to see it any other way when somebody actively corrals attention and works to try to have my account suspended for simply correcting them on what is an encyclopaedia talk page.

With this in mind, from my point of view, it certainly does not appear to me that I am the one having difficulty controlling my feelings, it seems today he has taken it upon himself to literally try to hunt me down. I would ask Guy to try to approach disagreements wearing a cooler head and especially ask him to tread far more carefully on those technological entities in which his personal pride is clearly invested. Please ask Guy Macon to desist in his persistent uninvited unnecessary hostility. Vapourmile (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please follow protocol.

This is a lot of text without a discernable point. Can you please summarize what exactly the issue is and provide diffs? TAXIDICAE💰 16:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh. boomerang (verb); (of a plan or action) recoil on the originator. i.e. "misleading consumers about quality will eventually boomerang on a car-maker" Black Kite (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Given I woke up this morning to yet another personal threat from Guy, it is a little bit of a stretch of the imagination to think this comment appears to be directed at me. He has been the libel engine so far, and is not until now that I have replied to it. Vapourmile (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

But thanks for using the phrase "Argumentum ad baculum," which looks so much more polite and eloquent than the Anglo-Saxon alternatives. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Argumentum ad baculum" is the correct choice of term for what is occurring. I am being threatened for not accepting other editors' inaccurate comments ipse dixit. Vapourmile (talk)

• And this [80]. Bishonen is not a troll, she is the alter ego of a kaiju. Please keep this straight. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not call them a troll. I referred to the comment they made, not the person, the churlish accusation I was confusing a Wikipedia editor for the French president. The distinction is important: My response was directed at the comment made and not the person who made it. Vapourmile (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The comment was, I believe, made because you kept referring to Guy Macon as Guy Macron. So wasn't a trolling comment, but a rather polite hint that you're getting another editor's name wrong. Canterbury Tail talk 17:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I accept that was what they meant, my point is, they could have simply said that. I have since altered the spelling to ensure it is correct. Vapourmile (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a less grumpy approach is needed, so you don't have to resort to such rhetorical hair-splitting? Acroterion (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Yet you're happy to call her "churlish." Please respect the law of holes. Acroterion (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not call *her* churlish. I referred to the comment, not the person. The comment I am confusing a Wikipedia editor with the French president IS churlish.

I would like to complain about Guy too. He isn't strong enough on telling it straight, he is far too polite, and he knows far too well how wikipedia works. Please do something, Admins. Thanks. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

For what exactly? For defending myself? Vapourmile (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you addressing me? I was complaining abou Guy. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Point of order - Vapourmile, you are required to alert Guy Macon about this report using {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~, as the instructions say on this page when you edit it. Please do so now. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to do that but did not do so immediately so as to honour Guy's request he made, adding to my talk page this morning a request not to add to his talk page. The requests are in contradiction so can't possibly do both. I hope that is understood. I will however make the addition to his page at your request and in accordance with guidelines. Vapourmile (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Since somebody else has notified Guy Macon, I have elected to honour his request not to add to his talk page and assume it will be sufficient for somebody else to have done the job. Vapourmile (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I thank whomever it was who added the illustrative links above. Since many of them lead to various threats which appear detached from any details of why I was their recipient I hereby ask for clarity on what rules I am alleged to have broken, accompanied by links or verbatim quotes, to the exact offending behaviour, thank you. Vapourmile (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Vapourmile Few things. First, you cannot demand people do all the leg work for you, when you yourself haven't bothered to provide a single diff of the behavior you object to. Second, please indent when responding and sign your comments. Last, please, for the love of all our sanity be more concise in responding to people. Pasting walls of text will only cause people to ignore you and quite frankly, it will just piss other editors off. TAXIDICAE💰 17:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not demanded anything. I have asked for something: There seems to be some eagerness in supplying links to the various threats made, as if with the tacit assumption that if I am to have received threats of bans, account restrictions, or otherwise, then I *must* deserve it. All I have done is request what anybody who is being held to accuont is entitled to, which is evidence. It is my contention that the various threats are unwarranted. Meanwhile I have indented and signed most of my comments. The editor who added teh links appears not to have signed those, why didn't you say something to them? My contention of most of this incoming flak is unwarranted. I am simply asking for an explanation. Since I have been threatened with account restrictions, I think that is reasonable, don't you? You and I may see this differently. I have merely corrected technical errors, and not even mostly on the pages themselves but merely in the talk sections, to which hostility quickly arose. I don't think the threats have anything behind them except vendetta. I haven't seen much reason to believe I have done anything to warrant these sorts of threats. I am simply asking for whatever I have allegedly done to be made visible where it can be examined. I see nothing unreasonable about that request as my complaint is that the attacks and threats they constitute are unwarranted. Vapourmile (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You're asking editors to provide "verbatim" quotes from you but you yourself have not provided a single diff or a concise summary of what your complaint is. And to top it all off, you've now responded yet again with a wall of text and nothing of substance. I'd suggest you withdraw this because right now it's a massive time sink and it's disruptive. TAXIDICAE💰 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You say that like it's labour intensive. I have been the one in receipt of the incoming threats which is why I am here, and so far nobody seems able to explain why, which is what I came here to ask for. A "verbatim" is nothing more than a ctrl+c / ctrl + v away. I'm just challenging the assumption that those threats I have received are attached to any wrongdoing I have done. I am not the one threatening people with account restrictions for editing Wikipedia pages without explanation. You claim my comments aren't helpful and yet all I can find in yours is "Nobody has to provide a reason for account restrictions. If somebody says you've broken rules then you have. Just take our word for it". YOU have been specific in this exchange and I thank you for it, but nobody has in any of the exchanges which brought me to this, and the explanation is what I came here to ask for. Vapourmile (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Vapourmile, Yes, finding diffs actually is somewhat labor intensive. So: follow WP:DIFF and please provide some links to the alleged problem edits. If you are unwilling to do so, I will be forced to close this thread for lack of evidence. The onus is on the reporter of an issue to show there is an issue, which must be supported with clearly linked evidence. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the place I started contains two verbatim quotes, which I'd say was evidence, and a description of the turn of events. Some of which can be verified by the links supplied above, so I am somewhat suspicious of the accusation of "no evidence" given that it's actually there, especially given that there is also "no evidence" of my alleged previous wrongdoing and nobody seems to want to start placing burdens of proof on the people sending me account restriction threats demanding those threats are warranted, you yourself are excusing the people who have sent those threats, accusing me of being demanding, but then demanding /I/ provide evidence of the counter case. You have the evidence of the restrictions-threats made against me which I am saying are not warranted by wrongdoing on my part. I shall have a look later, but there already are quotes and links in this post so as yet you may also like to countenance your request for evidence from me with the fact nobody making threats against me has been able to state what the wrongdoing is. I obviously can't prove I *didn't* do something I've been accused of so it sounds like burden of proof shifting to me. Vapourmile (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears that Vapourmile objects to this, this, viewing it as a threat. Vapourmile, to be clear, Guy Macon is merely suggesting a topic ban from that specific narrow topic, not an account ban. And generally speaking editors are allowed to make such suggestions (though if they're completely meritless they risk a WP:BOOMERANG); it's not automatically considered a threat. Given Vapourmile's pretty aggressive comments it appears to be at least a defensible suggestion ([81][82][83], basically similar to the ones in this thread.) Compounding the issue is that it appears that Vapourmile believes, or believed that, Guy Macon and @Guy Harris: are the same person; at a glance it looks like they reacted much more harshly to Guy Macon's initial comments than they would have otherwise because of that. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Aquillion for a concise and DIFF filled summary of the matter. Vapourmile, this is the standard sort of summary at ANI. Short, well linked, and to the point.

On the merits, this is a nothing-burger. Who knew computer processors could inspire such passion. Vapourmile, you were fairly abrasive, and Guy (who is not an admin) suggested that if you kept up your attitude you might find yourself topic banned from computers. Not from all of Wikipedia. Just a very small portion of its 6 million articles. If you cannot edit without inflamed passion about a topic, you are probably best off not editing in that area. So: I suggest you re-evaluate your approach to the topic. I suggest you use formal dispute resolution or hold an WP:RFC to resolve the content issue if it is truly at an impasse. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I knew. — I mentioned this the last time this was on this noticeboard. People have been arguing about the "bitness" of these processors for 40 years. Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I do wonder how someone can have 29 edits to ANI, and only 40 edits to mainspace. That's a remarkably low productivity ratio (even lower than most arbs). I would recommend focussing more on creating an encyclopedia, and less on creating drama. – bradv🍁 18:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And after having been here for 13 years. Canterbury Tail talk 18:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You think it's odd? Well from my very first response on the 68000 talk page I said myself just how odd it is that after 13 years of Wikipedia use and some page edits, suddenly I am receiving threats of account bans. How strange it is. Yet it seems like I still will not find an explanation here, even have asked for it directly through what I thought was the grievance process. You are not alone in finding it strange, I assure you. Vapourmile (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right- with the way you have conducted yourself on this thread- I'm surprised it took 13 years for threats of account bans to be applied to you. I'm surprised it wasn't much much earlier. Seriously- listen to what you are being advised- either withdraw this, or make a concise, DIFF heavy list of what, exactly, Guy has done wrong. Cause right now-there is a boomerang heading straight for you kangaroo. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Funny how Vapourmile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is suddenly able to spell my name...

Vapourmile appears to have a problem with the Commodore Amiga computer and the microprocessor (the Motorola 68000 series) it uses. Like many people who engage in wars over such things as Mac vs. PC, Windows VS Linux, Vim vs Emacs, Ford vs. Chevy, etc. Vapourmile's behavior is belligerant, insulting, and displays a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. some examples:

Extended content

Edit warring, deleting other editor's comments: [84][85][86][87][88][89] "I AM *NOT* THE ONE DOING THIS FOR PERSONAL REASONS. I AM THE ONE DOING THIS TO GET THE TRUTH OUT. You really need to look at yourself and YOUR motives... YOU don't give a damn what the truth is. YOU just want people believe whatever you want them to. YOU are dong this for competitive reasons. Inventing whatever rules you want so you can win. I am doing this *to protect the truth*. Something which clearly you will to anything to prevent from prevailing.... including causing far more damage to the 68000 page than I did. What is the point when an encyclopaedia has got obviously corrupt editors?"[90] "it's nt only obvious most of the defenders of the 68000 don't care about the accuracy of public knowledge"[91] "I am the single person attempting to bring facts back to some of the Wikipedia pages which are obviously being patrolled by evangelists such as yourself whose actions are no more than going in to bat for your home team. It was not I but you who kickstarted the argument on the 68000 page after the page wage archived. I have resisted returning to the talk page despite the addition of yet more counterfactual amateur opinion racketeering. Your own personal biases are making a mockery of Wikipedia. YOU are the one who should have your account restricted as this is clearly nothing more than a hostile attack on somebody you regard as an enemy. Emotion? Keep your own in check. It's people like you are the problem. The 6800 and Amiga Wikipedia pages are littered with evangelical fan-fiction which should be redacted for the sake of restoring accuracy and impartiality."[92] "It is a delusion to convince yourself you can simply pick and choose as you feel and come away with whatever outcome you like the sound of. If you want to have the final world then stop writing things which are not true. This is an encyclopaedia, aiming for credibility, not your teenage bedroom. "[93] (Accusing another editor of sockpuppetry) "The copy immediately above is just straw-clutching nonsense. Guy Harris pretending not to be?"[94] (Accusing another editor of sockpuppetry)" if I was a gambling man I'd bet this was Guy Harris, piping up with the save drivel again, not signing so as to conceal his identity."[95] (replying to IP 194.187.155.245) "It's you again Guy, isn't it? Because once again the topic in the 68000 and once again you want to talk almost exclusively about Duesenbergs and other irrelevances. You *want* the 68000 to be 32bit but it isn't. Grow up and accept it."[96] (Replying to Zac67 saying "Vapourmile, the accusation of sockpuppeteering is a serious allegation. I'd urge you to reconsider your statements.") " 'the accusation of sockpuppeteering is a serious allegation'. Show me the Wikipedia guideline which says this. Meanwhile, here are just a few reminders of the Wikipedia policies on sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry. This is not an accusation. Just useful information on what the policy guides actually do say. WP:SOCK WP:EWLO WP:CRONY WP:NEUTRAL WP:BOOMERANG"[97] "You want to talk about things that are irrelevant or wrong or both, that's Guy's MO."[98] "Whatever, the main problem on that page is Guy Harris. The trouble with this subject is it is being contested by people who fundamentally don't know what they're talking about. Also: I didn't kickstart the argument again on the 68000 page, as can clearly be seen. Since then somebody fitting the behavioural description of Guy Harris has also appeared there talking about old minicomputers again which have absolutely no relevance to the topic and are just fogging the subject, again. Why don't you go off and add some snarky remarks to those peeople's talk pages? Better than that, instruct them *not* to continue adding more unhelpful text to talk pages when they clearly don't understand the subject, it achieves nothing but fogging the site with irrelevant banter making those talk pages unhelpful, unreadable and useless "[99] (Replying to me saying "Vapourmile, I am close to my limit putting up with your behavior. Knock it off and start treating other editors with respect and civility or there will be consequences.") "Consequences? What are you going to do? Stop me adding corrections so that the only people allowed to comment are those who so fundamentally don't understand the subject that they don't even understand when their comments are not even about the subject?"[100] "Excuse me but there would be far less to say if the discussion wasn't being dogged by falsehood... If people were not littering Wikipedia pages with falsehood there would be nothing to reply to."[101] "The sort of writing above is typical of Amiga enthusiasts who graffiti Wikipedia with eulogies of their favourite platform. Amiga enthusiasts are frankly a plague on graphics articles on Wikipedia."[102] "This page has been created as a historical myth-buster to combat the perception of desktop graphics systems leading up to and surrounding the launch of the Commodore Amiga desktop computer. As an computer graphics enthusiast I am fed up with reading misleading or factually incorrect articles written by competitive Commodore Amiga enthusiasts claiming..." [103] "Given that the 'Other' column gives up so much to Amiga related OSs, I think it would be better to make a separate column for Amiga things. Personally though I would prefer it if they were simply removed and put on their own page where they can be ignored by everybody except those in the Amiga-enthusiast audience who are likely to be the only people interested in reading about it. Amiga spam is a galling feature of the Wikipedia computing pages."[104] "People viewing Wikipedia pages have to be careful about fan and evangelist edits, especially in regards to entries regarding the Commodore Amiga whose fans have a beef with the rest of the computer industry about the failure of the platform which has endured in online flame wars for decades. I recommend apparent fan and enthusiast edits, such as those found in this computing page and others, are removed."[105] (In the edit summary) "Another example of the Amiga/68000 evangelising which pollutes Wikipedia."[106] "The arguments made favouring the 32bit moniker have, since its inception found in Motorola's own marketing material, constituted nothing but an ad-hoc redefinition of how to classify CPUs purely to suit the specific architectural design of the 68000 alone. People should not feel free to redefine the scoring system of the game to be about some arbitrary specifics of their home team performance just so their home team wins."[107] "I am quite happy you've decided not to "engage". In fact, I hesitate to say this, but I think most of the discussion I've had with you should simply be deleted because nothing productive has come out of it and you don't seem to have the right knowledge to answer the question, or even the right idea how to."[108] "Sadly in regards to the 68000 and Amiga platforms both are Wikipedia poison for attracting inaccurate evangelising. Wikipedia is shot-through with people who apparently still want to work in 68000/Amiga sales. I would in fact like there to be a more pointed effort from independent editors to correct or remove cheerleading, inaccuracy, and misleading product comparisons introduced far too often by their respective fan-base. The propensity for technical inaccuracy, dishonesty and irrelevance makes them the least desirable fan base of any platform."[109] "You additions to the talk section are boring, superfluous and irrelevant. "[110] "Those arguments are all posited by people who fall into at least one of two camps: 1. Marketing people, and other 68000 fans and evangelists. 2. People who just don't really understand how micro architectures are definitively rated"[111]

NOTE: I have never used an Amiga or any other 68000-based computer. My personal computers have been COSMAC ELF (1802) -> C128 (8502/Z80) -> Pentium -> ARM.

My recommendation: a topic ban from the Amiga computer and the 68000 series of microprocessors, a one-way interaction ban with Guy Harris, and a warning that further personal attacks and incivility will result in an indefinite block with the usual option of appealing after six months. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

So tell Vapourmile, still a newbie after 13 years that they are making newbie errors, including types noted above. Suggest a bunch of mellow editing in other articles to get started. Guy seemed a bit pointy for that situation, including that yes, that was a bit of a threat. Suggest mellowing out a bit.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, when reviewing this editor's contribution, this rings quite hollow to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not consider removing other editors's comments, false accusations of sockpuppetry, filing bogus ANI reports, and writing "I AM *NOT* THE ONE DOING THIS FOR PERSONAL REASONS. I AM THE ONE DOING THIS TO GET THE TRUTH OUT." or "You[sic] additions to the talk section are boring, superfluous and irrelevant." to be newbie mistakes. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• SupportThose behaviors are common / accepted in most on-line venues and terrible unusual behavior in Wikipedia. So, they are newbie errors. Explain that this smack is a part of their Wikipedia training process.North8000 (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support (at a minimum) Guy Macon's recommendation. Likely just kicking the can down the road a bit - but wp:rope and all that. — Ched (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBan at a minimum per Guy Macon Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 21:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• begrudgingly support the tban, but would prefer an outright indef block as they don't really appear to be here to do much in the way of actual editing considering more than half of their total edits are to drama boards. TAXIDICAE💰 21:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Guy Macon: For the sake of clarity, how old is your bedroom? I'm not a fan of newbuilds myself. nagualdesign 22:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The above refers to Vapourmile's comment "This is an encyclopaedia, aiming for credibility, not your teenage bedroom." My bedroom was constructed in 1960, so it is 61 years old. My first computer (as in "I wrote programs that ran on it", not as in "I owned it") was a NCR Century 100. The first computer I designed part of the hardware for was the Perkin Elmer 8/32. The first computer I owned was a COSMAC ELF, which I upgraded to a COSMAC VIP. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. In that case I think we should forego the boomerang in favour of the waddy. nagualdesign 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support the three parts of Guy Macon's recommendation, per what Ched said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  Per Cullen just below me, I agree that the scope of the TBAN should be broad, computers and computing, rather than just some specific types. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from computers and computing, broadly construed. I pity any poor editor named "Guy" unfortunate enough to run across Vapourmile. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support broad TB per Cullen above, or Amiga TB if that's what there is a consensus for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support TB per nom. Padgriffin (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support TB per Cullen Bludgeoning, refusal to drop the stick, and what appears to be a false statement in the opening justification in this request for action against Guy Macon. After the full comments section was subsequently archived, Guy was the first to remark on the talk page, immediately rekindling the same unproductive argument. is false. Guy posted to the page at 16:32 [112] and at 16:49 [113], the page was archived at 19:00 by user:HandThatFeeds [114], and the next content edits were two days later, by Vapourmile [115]. Note that Vapourmile appeared to be aware that he was starting the discussion up again rather than replying to subsequent comment as Vapourmile started off with "Oh look, somehow the entire talk section has mysteriously disappeared and all that's left of it is this argument" Meters (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Call for snow close

I believe that WP:SNOW applies and that there is zero chance of further discussion changing the result. Could someone uninvolved please evaluate the consensus and close this? I really would like to unsubscribe again. Seeing a steady string of ANI cases on my watchlist tempts me to comment on them. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jack Ciattarelli

I am looking at Jack Ciatarrelli's page. Why is he referred to as "Shitarrelli"? I cannot believe this is a mistake. It is disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.18.109 (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi anon, this was some vandalism that snuck by our recent changes patrollers. I've reverted the vandalism so we should be all good now. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Long running RFC at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)

There's been a few admins involved on-off. Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at the recent thread Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_UK_(series_2)#Any_update_on_the_"debate"? and close/resolve the RFC as necessary. Its been long enough and I'm at a stage where either way, we need a decision. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I posted a request at WP:AN/RFC with link to the discussion in question. Either way it will be dealt with, and hopefully this annoying at least partly-Twitter-fuelled incident can be quietly forgotten. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Rapid escalation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Frank6292010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi! I had reason to have a word with User:Frank6292010, who is using automated tools [116] [117] to undo non-vandal edits and leaving misleading edit summaries. His response has been to continue [118] [119] and leave me a {{uw-unsourced3}} warning [120] threatening to have me blocked. It's all a bit odd. Can anybody tap him with a clue-stick? ◦ Trey Maturin 15:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I should note that these edits were not made with RedWarn (notice the absence of the "RedWarn" tag). Judging by their user page there have been a several issues with other edits since February. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 16:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I had a helper before Mvcg66b3r, who help me edit when I joined and use RedWarn on TV station's and networks. Frank6292010 ((talk)) 16:07, April 12 2021 (UTC)

Frank6292010, are you referring to yourself or Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs) using RedWarn? If you are referring to yourself, as far as I can tell, this isn't true. You have not used RedWarn ever on this account. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 18:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Frank6292010: Do you consider Placeholder for future article (RW 16.1) as a helpful edit summary (especially when reverting someone's edit)? M.Bitton (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

What on earth is this user doing? They added another discussion to this thread. Padgriffin (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#User:Frank6292010 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#User:Frank6292010, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Ownership problem at articles about TV stations again. The threat to call the police in the last ANI discussion has taken this beyond mere disruption. Uncle G (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether they're trolling us or if this is a textbook WP:COMPETENCE issue. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've just looked through Special:Contributions/Frank6292010. The article-space edits are the usual unsupported changing of facts and figures that weren't supported before, that one sees all too regularly in certain classes of articles from lots of people. But any project or user talk page edits go rapidly off the rails, as they just did to this very page. Uncle G (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This user was here a week or to ago in a spat with the indeffed Theshavia29912 (talk · contribs) who has a couple of globally-blocked sockpuppets. While I don't think they're part of the sock farm, they're two sides of the same coin, and almost got indeffed at their previous ANI appearance. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Edit warring at As Told by Ginger appears to be two other people. Have you got two incidents confused, by any chance? Uncle G (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, I did, they were in a spat with Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs) - similar subject areas, and the same sort of behavior. Unfortunately, they all tend to look the same after a while. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have some sympathy with Neutralhomer in the January discussion, but it's difficult to see what can actually be done when all attempts to converse meander off into an incomprehensible series of actions. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

And it continues: another revert saying it was made with RedWarn when it wasn't, another nonsensical edit summary. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and they 'thanked' me for the edit that they then reverted. Are they just pressing all the random buttons all the time? ◦ Trey Maturin 17:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Remitbuber

I'm growing concerned that whilst this user has made a lot of constructive and positive contributions to our encyclopaedia, they seem to find it difficult to respect consensus. See the multiple times that he has edit warred over the speedy deletion tag at Adrián Macías, as just one example. They have received a number of messages regarding paid editing/COI, which they have chosen to ignore. They also vandalised an AfD discussion, which caused a considerable amount of confusion for a number of other editors. Admittedly, that discussion was started by a sock so it didn't exactly get off to a great start. This is an editor with a lot of potential but I feel that they are starting to become a net negative due to some uncooperative and tricky behaviour. They were warned that I would start a discussion here if they continued to behave in this way. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• It seems like the best thing for Remitbuber to do here would be to take a step back and add those sources to the article on Adrián Macías, rather than vandalize and disrupt the AFD process. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• They have been almost single-mindedly promoting Nicolás Atanes and Virus Matemático, adding it where they can (cf. Mathematics, Math crisis, Adrián Macías, and Blas Méndez) while completely ignoring what other editors have said. They have also uploaded dozens of blatant copyvios to Commons. Remitbuber is pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE. — MarkH₂₁^talk
• If Remitbuber does not come clean about their COI, and does not respond to fellow editors before they go back to editing about/promoting their favorite topics, they will be blocked. User:MarkH21, did you report those things on Commons, and what happened? Drmies (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I just tagged the individual files with copyvio notices and their sources. Almost all of them have been deleted but a few are still tagged and awaiting admin review, you can see most of them in the last few sections of their Commons talk page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - please see this edit where User:Remitbuber has vandalised this discussion to make it look like I've said something completely different (now reverted). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep, Remitbuber is clearly seeing these discussions and warnings. Rather than engage with them, the user is just directly modifying other editors' comments and recreating deleted articles. A block is warranted. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC); revised 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• I came across this earlier as I have been cruising the new pages feed. Virus Matemático is one of their creations. Until I fixed it, it had the novelty approach of using the template "infobox conflict" and its parameters "leadfigures2=Adrián Macías| causes=Low social interest in mathematics| goals=Raise awareness about the importance of mathematics". I thought that was pretty creative, but not the correct use of the template. I was wondering if they had been warned about their math zeal yet, and visiting their talk page I see they have had 11 warnings so far. It seems like a block would be a good idea, given the refusal to stop promoting and also to discuss the issue.--- Possibly (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• IPs have now joined the fray: 176.12.82.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) directly modifying the text of a PROD nomination by CommanderWaterford and promoting Nicolás Atanes. I think there was also an IP that was removing the A7 tag at the first now-deleted iteration of Adrián Macías. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Also now fairly obvious socking from Alicia220978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --JBL (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OK. That account is a match with User:Remitbuber, so that's simple: indef CU blocks for both. In addition, Remitbuber is blocked for disruptive editing, an undeclared COI, a refusal to communicate, and et cetera. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE IP user keeps changing part of an article to a non-neutral point of view

This user User:2405:204:a499:633c::14ef:80ac keeps changing part of an article to something that is not a neutral point of view. looking at the history shows this user is clearly not here to build an encylopedia as they keep doing the same edit multiple times. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, blocked. Consider using AIV for that sort of thing. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue what that is. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, WP:AIV is the shortcut for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok. THank you! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf, I see that you have Twinkle enabled - an AIV report can be made using that tool, chose 'ARV' from Twinkle's drop-down menu when you're on the user's talk page, choose 'AIV' and fill in the form. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh that's really helpful! THanks for telling me that's a feature! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

More eyes/patience needed please

Bizarre magic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) suffers from a lack of sources, lack of watchers, repeated insertions of questionable notability, and links to commercial websites masquerading as sources. I am currently in a discussion with Vwjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Talk:Bizarre magic, but I think the situation would benefit from more eyes and more patience than I have at my command. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe AfD is the next step. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've only just looked at the original edit - it clearly started as a promotional article, and the history since has been a mix of promotion, denigration, and a few blp violating edits which I had to email Oversight about. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill is not being helpful when asked but deleting information. Links to verified sources are being supplied and ignored. When suggested sources are given, DuncanHill ignores and deletes. He refuses to help by researching edits and contributing and instead has started an edit war by deleting again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwjr (talk • contribs) 20:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)‎

• Vwjr, I don't think you understand what WP:RS says. And I would urge you to stop this edit warring lest you be blocked. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations added. Verified citations added. Publication citation added. Links added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwjr (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Vwjr What do you mean by "verified citations"? Please explain in your own words why/how the sources you cite constitute reliable sources as Wikipedia defines that term. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep. The stuff you are adding, so far as establishing the notability of this term, is quite frankly, useless. User generated content, links to the front page of a website, etc, is not at all useful in this regard. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to name fields on infoboxes

50.224.168.146 has been adding incorrect names to infoboxes. Most of the edits look like the work of a confused new editor, but there have been a number of BLP errors (i.e. assigning unknown ?invented? nicknames for celebrities), blatantly incorrect edits (i.e. Assigning Nintendo as the creator of a PC-only game), and blatant vandalism/edit tests (e.g. "spunky anal destroyer") that make me wonder if this is just a troll. I left a note on the talk page but there was no response except further identical edits. It looks like EdwardUK and K6ka have tried to correct these errors but there was no resolution. Should I be directing this editor to the Teahouse? Could someone look into the matter? -Thibbs (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

you didn't notiy them of this discussion - I have done so— Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Is the {{u}} template insufficient to notify the person? -Thibbs (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No. The instructions say "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose."— Diannaa (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Returning blocked user, sock-puppeting on IPs to harass certain users accusing them of being paid vegans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A indefinitely blocked user JustANameInUse who was very abusive has been using an IP to harass me and two other experienced users (including @Alexbrn:) complaining that we are paid "vegans" to edit Wikipedia on the talk-page of the Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease article‎.

He previously did this on the IP 93.141.106.212 [121] on the Atkins diet talk-page (the IP was blocked for one month), and has now returned on [122] 93.141.106.103 which traces to the same geographic area and same IP range. Returning on IP's to personally attack other editors is clearly a violation of the ban (per WP:SOCK etc). Can an admin please investigate this? Thanks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The editor here is a paid vegan activist, he even said he is in contact with a known vegan activist to straighten out a rumour. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Greger&diff=1002388477&oldid=1000888854 He is most likely and paid author that hasn't disclosed his employer. 93.141.106.103 (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I blocked 93.141.106.0/24 for a month. Who knew you could be paid to be a vegan...who's paying you? The Cows on the ChikFilA sign? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't underestimate the reach of Big Tofu. --JBL (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I suspect it is likely that we will see this user back again in the future on the same IP range but one month peace is fine with me. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If he returns let me know and I'll extend the block. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heffner000

Heffner000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has consistently added poorly sourced material to BLP articles for months, for which they have received numerous notices. They have recently edit warred 5 times in 24 hours [123][124] [125][126] [127] to add a poorly sourced "controversy" section to the TommyInnit article despite 3 different users reverting them, and in spite of them being given an edit warring notice and asked to read and understand our RS and BLP policies. I haven't taken this to AN3 as a temporary block won't help with their long term CIR issues and lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to say that i have never added information without citations and proper sources and have always fact checked before doing any edits. The accusation of me editing false information for months is wrong as i didn't edit the TommyInnit article until yesterday. When Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) brought up any problem with my edits i immediately tried to rectify it and make it better but for some reason that was not enough. Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) kept calling it poor information even after i cited sources and even screenshots. All the three different users who reverted my edits had no good reason except saying it wasn't 'noteworthy' to include. Heffner000 (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

An tweet from an unverified account and a YouTube video from an unverified account aren't reliable sources, and don't show notability. You need reliable, third-party sources that talk about the subject to prove its notability. —El Millo (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Heffner000 has reverted again and readded the section diff which is cited solely to tweets. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Seeing the user's responses in their edit summaries, they either can't understand the point or they aren't willing to. —El Millo (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I gave them a block to stop the edit-warring, anything more will take a longer discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

What this looks like to me is a new user still trying to figure out RSes, recording something that seems very important to him, and getting stressed out/digging in his heels at the sense people are attacking his contributions. I suspect half this site started similarly. I suspect dragging such a user to ANI as immediate escalation (I know there was a BLPN thread, but it could have at worst been localized there) isn't going to turn someone who already felt stressed and unheard into a long-term contributor. Vaticidalprophet 06:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This was not "immediate escalation" I provided numerous edit summaries and links to policies to the user prior to making this report. Even when an uninvolved user reverted them they still persisted. I think that "they either can't understand the point or they aren't willing to." sums it up. Ultimately a user who wants to edit BLP's but does not follow the guidelines is someone who needs administrator attention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Original research and potential sock puppetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I’m in the middle of an issue at 2021–22 Arizona Wildcats men's basketball team. A user, Smitty Smitty, began by reverting my removal of a blank depth chart on the page. To begin with, a depth chart should be a violation of WP:OR as schools do not release official depth charts and any sources that provide one, it’s either a “prediction” or “unofficial”. I posted on the user’s talkpage advising of it being OR and reverted the change. The user reverted again. So I posted a warning instead the second time, as well as advising against an edit war, which I was afraid was going happen and I reverted the change. So I reverted again. The user then performed a manual revert, which lead me to post another warning and revert the change. I also warned that 1 more edit would violate the 3 revert rule. A little bit later, an IP address then added the depth chart back. Which I reverted. I believe that the IP was the same user, who logged out to make the edit. I reverted the edit, in hindsight, I kinda regret that because that’s my 4th revert. I will leave the page alone while this discussion here is going on.--Rockchalk717 22:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I actually don't think the IP is User:Smitty Smitty, even though it looks very suspicious. The IP, which operates on the 2600.3C2.8280::/48 range from Memphis, has been editing basketball articles for years, and indeed if you go back to 2017, here's Smitty Smitty actually reverting them [128] (they warned them as well). I have protected the article for a week for discussion, although given that Smitty Smitty has over 10,000 edits and has never made a single one to an article talkpage, that may be more tricky. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Yeah that’s what I was afraid of with this user, but they did respond back it looks like. We’ll see once the protection falls off what happens. I appreciate it.--Rockchalk717 00:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent dynamic-IP disruption that appears to be a blocked editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've recently noticed a lot of minor disruption from an assortment of IPs resolving to Bellflower, California. The topic areas are almost exclusively automobiles and professional wrestling. As to the former, a lot of the edits are incorrect vehicle dimensions ([129]), adding unsourced and speculative predecessors/successors ([130]), introducing errors to or otherwise tampering with timeline templates ([131]), and an array of other disruption.

The two main areas of interest align very closely with those of Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was indefinitely blocked in early March. That account's edits include much of the same misinformation vandalism to dimensions, predecessor/successor disruption, and timeline template vandalism.

A small cross-section of the IPs in question includes:

• 2603:8000:B00:4CF5:FDA1:B2D1:BD4D:682E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2603:8000:B00:4CF5:E41A:357B:DF9:5DFA (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2603:8000:B00:4CF5:E566:F99C:EFB7:B4A3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2603:8000:B00:4CF5:2911:11DA:2416:2777 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2603:8000:B00:4CF5:A062:9741:A91C:3CC4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2603:8000:B00:4CF5:E4F2:8AC4:56BF:4938 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I have come across disruptive Bellflower IP edits long before Ninenine99 was blocked, but they have become more frequent since then, and the account has made edits to articles related to that region of California. It looks reasonably clear to me that this is block evasion. --Sable232 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• These are all in the same /64 block and are therefore the same editor (all contributions here). Whether or not it's a sock, it's disruptive and I have blocked the range for a month. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, how does being in the same /64 block indicate they're all used by the same editor? I'm not familiar with how IPv6 works. --Sable232 (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • IPv6 allocates addresses in a different way from IPv4 and effectively the smallest subnet that can be allocated to a single user is a /64, as anything smaller causes problems (and yes that is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses!). Also, the allocations tend to be more static, so any address in that /64 range is almost certainly the same user over a period of time (the exception being mobile broadband, which can be a bit more tricky). Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits by HM2021

• HM2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Good morning. I am requesting assistance/advice on how to deal with HM2021. User has a history of multiple plagiarisms and questionable editing (mostly related to either unsourced content and films announcements that don't line up with WP:CRYSTALBALL), that has been annotated on user's talk page, but I am afraid it is a WP:IDHT case where the user does not respond to the community inputs and continue contributing the same way. I was planning to let it go for some time, but then I checked user's other contribution and there is the same pattern. Please advise on how we can encourage the user to listen and change his behavior. Thank you! Kolma8 (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• The biggest problem here is communication. They have over 4,000 edits, have never used an article talk page, and have a total (if you disregard removing warnings from their talk page) of four usertalk edits. They also still don't seem to understand copyright policy despite receiving numerous warnings and aving many files deleted and edits reverted. And (I don't particularly care, but I know it annoys many people) they mark all of their edits as minor. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  ARe their edits done on the mobile app? If so then the problem might be WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  No.— Diannaa (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  The user made edits to his talk page in the past and recently. Kolma8 (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing out the minor edit issue. I left them a msg on the talk page to educate about that. Kolma8 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Incidentally, you didn't notiy them of this discussion - I have done so. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you. Kolma8 (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Bruno Rene Vargas draftwarring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Bruno Rene Vargas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've had previous issues with the editor, issues I felt we had put behind us. But today, I saw a draft I had made, Draft:TAR (film) was randomly moved to userspace by the editor and took the space for themselves. They cited "It seems unfair to me that someone like you who months ago reproached my way of creating drafts now does the same and does not suffer what I suffered at the time with Draft: Cocaine Bear. I proceed to send your draft to your personal workshop because I consider that my draft was created with a better format and information, just as you did with User:Bruno Rene Vargas/Cocaine Bear (film)". So this initially made me think I accidentally created a duplicate draft of one they had made, but this isn't the case. Bruno is essentially upset with me I had created content in that namespace before them. So I reverted this action, restoring my edits to the draftspace and telling them that they had not previously made a version of the page so their actions were unjust and taking credit away from myself for my edits. However, Bruno again moved my work to a new userspace location. They are at this point blatantly trying to discredit my work based off old beef I thought we had squashed. Rusted AutoParts 21:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Again, being honest with you is not the first time that it happens to me that I am creating an article and then when I go to publish it I find things like this, this or this. I would not care if it were not the fact that it was you who did it, but taking into account the fact that you reproach my actions but you continue to do the same thing that you criticize so much. In all the examples, including the two that you created today, the same thing happened to me, because after your claim I decided to create drafts that at least had a reference and specified that they are movies. The problem is that when I want to create them I find that you already created it in a lazy way and without even a reference, sometimes you even go to the extreme of creating redirects instead of drafts as such. Speaking of this particular article even though I hadn't created it before you, I was working on it and when I wanted to publish it I couldn't because you had created it again without any reference. This article was only the straw that broke the camel's back since for several weeks I have been putting up with your lazy way of creating drafts and that is why I proceeded to move your draft and make space for mine. It should be clarified that when you moved my draft it did not matter to you that I was the first to create the draft, you only gave importance to who created it with more information. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't give you invitation to just shove my work out of the way. You just never understood my umbridge with you from the get go (being the time between making the page and then adding content), thus conflating our editing practices and now you've been chomping at the bit to get one back at me. This ain't it, and a total affront to cooperative editing. Rusted AutoParts 22:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As for Cocaine Bear, it was because @Anthony Appleyard: had already explained why your requests to merge the two drafts couldn't be done. THe issue should've stopped there, but you were really desperate to be the one to make the page so you kept trying greasy tactics to seize it back. I moved yours to Userspace to put an end to it. That is not comparable to this scenario, where you're literally discrediting my work and hijacking the draftspace because I beat you to the punch. You did not have a duplicate TAR draft to make a case for yourself. That is not a valid excuse to make so many needless userspace articles just so you can be awarded credit. When you see the draft was already made, you edit and add to it, not shove it around. Rusted AutoParts 22:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

And why didn't you say that when Vistadan made this page movement instead of just adding it to my draft created many hours before? So if another user does it there is no problem but if I do it you consider it a "greasy practice". The only thing that can be seen is that there is quite a bit of hypocrisy on your part. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I saw an admin make a definitive decision about the situation. Whether I’m acting hypocritical or not is not relevant to the fact you stole a draftspace I created content in just off the basis you didn’t like I created it prior to you finishing your edit. There is no excuses for that conduct, and your persistence to do it after I reverted you shows it was just a means to spite me. Rusted AutoParts 22:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly Bruno Rene Vargas, was it so difficult to just add what you did to the already-existent draft? Isn't it easier to do that rather than start fighting over something as petty as who first created a draft that's currently 3,074 bytes long? —El Millo (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Of course it is, in fact very often I do it, the problem is when a user like Rusted AutoParts creates drafts following the same method as the critic. Hopefully all this will serve as a lesson and that the next time he creates he will do it with at least one reference and not only with empty templates or redirects.

It doesn't seem to be because of the scarcity of information on the subject rather than "laziness" on RAP's part. Citing diffs such as these three ([132], [133]. [134]) is also disingenuous, given that RAP almost immediately filled them to this, this, and this, in the span of no more than 10 minutes or so from that first edit. Granted, those are still quite bare-bone, but they're not as rudimentary as you tried to make it appear. —El Millo (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Plus, editing practices and past problems with one another aside, how is it justifiable for an editor to just cast away a draft to take the location? Bruno tends to take a situation and twist it to be about something else to avoid the topic at hand. Rusted AutoParts 23:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That same question I asked myself when Vistadan did the same with my draft and whether you want to accept it or not, you were part of it without anyone ever calling you. Obviously, creation practices must be taken into account since they are the cause of all this conflict. If you had not created those articles without any reference, this conflict would not have arisen, so it is quite silly of you to say that I tend to twist the debates when I only bring up the causes of said action. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You're literally doing that right now. The complaint is: you hijacked an already existing draftspace to prove a misguided point. You're now talking about "but Cocaine Bear". One doesn't need an invitation to provide input or intervene in a conflict. I found myself starting to check your edit history to double check if you'd already made an article or not so that I wouldn't create duplicates. I saw the dispute. That's it. Vistadan may or may not have edited inappropriately, but once the admin explained the scenario it should've stopped there. This should answer the quetions about that irrelevant situation, other than a poor comparison you're trying to make where my moving your draft due to a dispute is comparable to you moving my draft to make room for your draft that didn't exist yet. Please stick to the point. You were out of line shoving my edits out twice. Rusted AutoParts 23:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I wish to point out this is the exact behaviour I had warned of in their request for Page Mover status. Rusted AutoParts 11:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This unnecessary intervention of yours adds to the long list of occasions in which you, without being even remotely involved, have appeared to give your opinion and even intervene with the sole purpose of harassing me. You reached a point where any conflict that I had with another user appeared and you took the opportunity to criticize me, that's why I had to warn you that if you did it one more time I would report you according to WP: IBAN, something in which that you are very familiar with. That is why a few minutes later when you realized that I had a better chance of winning that dispute and you were sanctioned again, you decided to give a truce, so that everything is on good terms. And so it was until again you started creating articles from redirects and things like that, being you who criticized my lazy way of creating articles, now you do it and worse because I at least put a reference when creating my drafts, you on many occasions directly only create redirects. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You are being incredibly disingenuous about multiple things. I wanted the truce because I had clearly inflamed things to a needlessly hostile point. It wasn’t some opportunistic motion, it was “this doesn’t need to be such a bitter thing so I should cool it down”. And you’re still obsessing over the edit practice thing. Like Facu-el pointed out the drafts I made were fleshed out within minutes of its creation. I keep telling you what my issue with your practice was but at this point I think you’re just refusing to get my point. Either way, this still. does not. Address the core reason we are at ANI right now: you objectively moved my draft out of the way because you were upset I made it first. It is a very scummy move. Rusted AutoParts 14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

More dirty is your move, request that I create the articles with more information (which I currently do) so that you have time to create it in a lazy way through a redirect or an empty template. And you always excuse yourself that you keep expanding it after a few minutes, which doesn't justify the lazy way you create them. I challenge you to find a single draft that I have created in the last two months that at least doesn't have a reference and I specified that it is a movie at the time of creation. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

”More dirty is your move, request that I create the articles with more information (which I currently do)” holy god I can’t even count how many times I’ve told you the issue was the time between creation and expansion on your end. I told you this on your damn talk page yesterday! I don’t know if the goal is to just frustrate and WP:FILIBUSTER a different point than the issue raised, but I’m going to keep reiterating it so it’s not forgotten through your constant whataboutism on incorrect points: you shoved someone else’s work out of the location so you could have it. It’s improper and considering you did it twice, disgustingly uncivil. I said prior it’s frustrating to run into edit conflicts trying to create pages before but I would never shove the editors work out of the way to be pointed. I’m disappointed you couldn’t offer me that same courtesy. Rusted AutoParts 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Your problem is that you take it very personal, that I know at no time have I overstepped you and you are already about to fall into insults by leaving comments like the previous one. In this link you confess that you intend to create a "rival article" every time you find a draft created by me, as if it were a competition. Again this reinforces my speech that you only came to harass me by bringing up problems that I had in another Wikipedia. Minutes later your next edit is this, where it clearly shows how you can't control your emotions and you go out and write unnecessary insults like this. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Holy god, more whataboutism. I literally told you shortly after that exchange that it was from frustration, and not a genuine retaliatory measure I would take. The Captain Marvel edit summary, which literally had no point here, was in regards to a frustratingly persistent edit vandal. The third one I was literally punished and blocked for. It’s ancient history that you’re using as an excuse to not address the point. You allege I take it personal when in the first exchange we had you immediately got intensely confrontational, pulling this same whataboutism tactic. Stop it and stick to the issue. Rusted AutoParts 15:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Both of you stop. This sniping back and forth is not helpful. Wait on other people to look into this and offer advice, remember WP:NPA is a rule. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s hard to see what all this is about, or why anyone should care. As El Millo asked earlier “just add what you did to the already-existent draft..Isn't it easier to do that rather than start fighting over something as petty as who first created a draft”. I couldn’t see an answer to that. Why does it matter who created the draft page? “An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft”. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue is Bruno taking the already existing draft and moving it elsewhere so they could be attributed credit. It wouldn’t be so problematic to me if this wasn’t so clear the motive behind it. He did not create another version at an earlier time, it’s not filming, it’s not in violation of any draftspace rules. Bruno simply did it because they perceive me as hypocritical and wanted to make a swipe. If anything this shows the editor should not have page move privileges as they’re misusing them. Rusted AutoParts 21:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

So, @Bruno Rene Vargas:, without getting into why you did that, what’s stopping you saying you won’t do that again? DeCausa (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're right @DeCausa:, I promise not to do it anymore but please @Rusted AutoParts: stop creating drafts without any reference or redirecting them. And please also stop tracking my contributions because this is clearly a sign that you constantly look at my edit history or how do you explain the fact of editing minutes after me a draft that was more than 6 months abandoned? Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Because I fail to understand why you wouldn’t just add content to the draft that already exists. Why do you need Parasite deleted when if you wish to contribute stuff you could just do exactly that? If you’re making requests, then I’m making it a deal, if I stop making my drafts like that, you will return my version of TAR back to where it was as there was legitimately no reason for it to be relocated. Rusted AutoParts 21:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

At least now you are acknowledging that the way you create them is not correct. But I am not going to give up a draft that I have worked on and expanded substantially. I have already lost a draft thanks to your intervention months ago so I will not allow him to do it again. For my part, I have already said that I will not do that type of movement again, and if you do not want to stop creating them the way you currently do, that is your problem, I do not come here to negotiate anything just to ask you to put in a little more effort when starting a draft. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

So my work should be lost just because you made retroactive edits to your version when it pointed out how small it was? I shouldn’t have to lose my version just because you feel wronged in a previous disagreement I have countless times explained to you why that was done. You can’t just them engage in tit for tat warfare, make demands then not meet middle ground. So then I have 0 incentive to do what you wish because you’re unwilling to revert your wrongdoing. I guess there’s no deal then. Rusted AutoParts 21:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the only one who keeps talking about "deals" is you, I never negotiated anything with anyone, I simply said that I will not do this type of movement again. You prefer to continue creating drafts in a lazy way with the excuse that you do not want to lose this draft, it is paradoxical that you have repeated ad nauseam the fact that I am a person who always wants to be the first author and it is you who continues to prolong this thread where you can only see "a war of invalids" and whether you want to recognize it or not, both parties have been arguing over nonsense instead of investing that time in continuing to expand this great project. And let it be clear that unlike you if I wanted to collaborate with you many times leaving links to Variety Insight of drafts that you created but I suppose that none of that mattered to you. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I proposed a deal because you're asking me to do something I feel should be met with a compromise. And I absolutely made attempts at collaboration with you, I made additions toward the Draft:Untitled Steven Spielberg film. I didn't kick up a fuss about not getting to create it first, I helped flesh it out. You fundamentally wronged me here. It's not an argument over who is first, it's an argument over you literally throwing my already existing version out of the way for no reason outside of pure spite. I have spoken "ad nauseum" about this because you just refuse to get the point. THis was not about either of our edit practices, nor was it about Cocaine Bear, or an immature edit I made *9* years ago. You used page moving in a malicious way and expect me to agree to your request while not respecting mine. I want to put this to bed but you won't allow it because the only way I'm to be satisfied this is a dead issue for us is if your wrongdoing to me is undone. Rusted AutoParts 22:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest the two of you put the past behind you and agree a compromise approach going forward. If you don’t, I’m guessing, there will be a loss patience with this bickering and imposition of some sort of editing restrictions/interaction ban that neither of you will like. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The funny thing is, like I put up above I was under the impression this issue was put to rest. Rusted AutoParts 22:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is preposterous. Bruno Rene Vargas reverted relevant, reliable sourced information to the Draft:Parasite (TV series) because, apparently to him, Rusted AutoParts is coming to add content just in order to bother [him] again. This goes along with the clearly disingenuous way in which this user has been using diffs against RAP, like the aforementioned Captain Marvel diff against a relentless and self-admitted vandal, and the one from 2012, which was nine years ago and for which RAP already paid the price. —El Millo (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, seeing as @Rusted AutoParts: no has intention of changing, I have no choice but to support the block proposal that @DeCausa: mentioned above, for my part I think that would be the best for both of us, an editorial block regarding the creation of drafts and that has a minimum duration of 6 months. I prefer that only two of us are harmed instead of continuing to waste time and patience with other users. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

You are being so disingenuous. You are claiming I have no intention of changing when I am literally trying to reach a compromise with you. Would you abide from a request made by someone who is actively wronging you and not willing to meet middle ground to resolve the problem? If anything the course of action is interaction ban if you're that dedicated to not reaching a compromise. Rusted AutoParts 22:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

How about addressing the comment? You reverted a good edit saying that it was made to spite you. —El Millo (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo:, the truth is that your interventions here are quite unnecessary, or did Rusted AutoParts ask you to come and help him here, or are you his lawyer and I'm not aware of it? It seems quite unfair to me that a reversion of me seems absurd and you are not able to recognize that it is very obvious that Rusted AutoParts is continuously looking at my edit history. The problem is not that he add information, the problem is that he do it only 20 minutes after my edit when he had more than 6 months to extend the draft if that had been his intention. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And here comes the WP:BADFAITH. I did not summon Facu, they responded on their own volition. This is ANI, this issue was brought here specifically for 3rd party input as just edit warring over the space is just pathetic and not something I wish or want to do. Is it not more likely I am seeing when you make responses here so I can respond? I saw you putting a perfectly alright draft up for deletion off the basis that a sock made it when I felt the draft could have just been given the updates you seem willing to submit. I am fairly certain you were told before not all of Starzoner's drafts need to be rubbished. Rusted AutoParts 22:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you remember it, it is due to the fact that again on that occasion you entered without anyone having called you, just one more sample of your constant vigilance towards my contributions and my talk page. Precisely because I saw that Starzoner was practically the only main author, I proposed its deletion and that is allowed, what is not allowed is to delete a draft in which several users have added enough information, which is what you did in order to avoid deletion and so annoy me. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

People do not need invitation or direct invovlement to get involved in an issuer or discussion. Also, My purpose in life is to not come in and give you hassle, so knock it off with the blatant incivility and paranoia. We're clearly not going to say anything to one another that breaks this cycle of bickering, so let's agree o

I'm admittedly surprised to see this kind of quarrel arise between two editors I respect. I know it is frustrating to work on establishing a draft, only for what could be perceived as a "low effort" alternative swoop in and take up its space first. However, we do not own any of the pages here and concerning ourselves over being the original creator can be disruptive - as it has become here. I suggest you both simply consider what is best for Wikipedia and abandon all precious thought over who creates what. Any shoddy draft can be edited and built upon, as I have looked to do, ironically with the latest example being Draft:Rothko (film), created by Bruno Rene Vargas. You guys know better. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 07:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas, Rusted AutoParts I'll start by saying that I don't have the energy or motivation to read through the entire discussion above, or through all the many links that have been given. I think that the original complaint was that BRV moved a draft that RAP had written into RAP's userspace, so that they could create a draft at the same title; BRV's rationale is that it was a bare-bones draft, and their intention was to create a better one. Then you both got into something of a tit-for-tat about problems you've had in the past about working on drafts. If that's a fair assessment, here's my advice:

• Bruno Rene Vargas: moving a draft into someone else's userspace, so that you can create your own draft, and with an edit summary like the one you used, does seem quite WP:POINTY. There may sometimes be a justification for it, but I'd suggest that the first thing to do would be to talk to the other editor and see whether you can work on the draft together.
• Both of you: you both seem to be interested in working on upcoming films, where creation of a draft prior to the release of the film seems like a sensible approach. I would suggest that the first thing you do when you sit down to start a new draft should be to spend a bit of time looking to see whether someone has already started one. You can set the search tool to look only in draft space and user space, so it should be quite a straightforward task of putting in a couple of appropriate search terms to see whether any such draft exists. If you find that there's already one there, rather than create your own parallel draft, work on the existing one. If it is in userspace, you'd need to speak to the user first, but this is supposed to be a collaborative project - that shouldn't be an issue. Having two drafts on the go in parallel is a really bad idea - the work involved in performing a history merge is non-trivial, and should be avoided if at all possible.

Do you think there's any chance you would both be able to put this behind you, and try to do a better job of working collaboratively on a topic area that you both seem interested in? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ll make a slight correction that Bruno’s intention was more retribution for a previous interaction as opposed to wanting to make the page better but at this point I find this inane back and forth draining. It’s apparent I’m not getting my version back so I’ll let this one go. I do want to work collaboratively, this is why I sought to nip this in the bud last month when I saw how inflamed the situation had gotten.

Bruno, all I ask this time is, again, never use your page moving abilities like that again. If you have problems with the drafts quality, have at it, flesh it out, make it better. Don’t make new userspace pages (I’ll get out ahead of potential “you did it first” by reiterating it was to end a conflict an admin already made a decision about). And I don’t see us needing an interaction ban if we agree here and now to stop going to one another’s talk pages to squabble about editing practices. I’ll make sure at the least when I start a draft there is a source in place before saving. Can we please finally bury this? Rusted AutoParts 12:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, as I had said before, I will no longer do that type of movement and I agree with your proposal @Rusted AutoParts:. Bruno Vargas _{Eñe'ẽ avec moi} 12:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to close (Better collaboration skills needed)

Dear all,

In regards to this situation, it appears that both Bruno and Rusted (Put names alphabetically) recognize the need for better collaboration. This is part of the human condition where sometimes we misunderstand each other and get upset. It happens, yet the best method (and sometimes there will be times where it is not upheld due to the fact of the human condition), is to think 30 seconds before publishing and edit when in a calm state of mind.

In addition to the suggestions noted by Girthsummit, a practical suggestion for not losing your work is using a personal sandbox and then transfer information from personal sandbox to the draft. This may help prevent edit conflicts like this.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review of actions at Prince Louis of Battenberg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Third opinions are invited regarding my actions at the above article, which Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) characterizes as stalking. DrKay (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• DrKay reverted my edits at one page (I added information about Philip's flag, they removed it). A few hours later, they reverted my edits at another page (Louis). If it's not stalking, it's sure as hell a great impression of it. It's also worth noting that DrKay has a history of edit-warring on British Royals articles, at least once resulting in a block. They really need to stop the edit-warring. As for Louis, I realized I was mistaken and stopped editing the article and let DrKay's revisions stand, so why an ANI is necessary now is beyond me. pbp 19:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The flag was removed because it was a repeat. File:Royal Standard of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.svg was already shown in the section immediately preceding the one you added, as was the description of the quarters (already shown in the immediately preceding 'Escutcheon' section). Both articles have been on my watchlist for 14 or more years; I edit both very regularly and one I took to featured status. DrKay (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You should have explained that the first time you made the revert. You edit-war and stalk too much and you discuss too little. And you push other editors around and you exercise too much OWNership over British royals pages. Also, I believe Phil's flag needs to be discussed in more detail than it was prior to my edits. But this is not the place to discuss Phil's flag. pbp 19:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I did explain. I explicitly said it was a repetition in the first revert, and then followed that up by saying it was in the 'section immediately above'.[135] DrKay (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm guessing DrKay has both articles on their watchlist so this probably is in no way "stalking". Besides, WP:HOUND allows for correcting related problems on multiple articles which this appears to be a case of anyway. And bringing up a block log which is nigh on eight years old is bad form. So, no boomerang for DrKay, more a trout for Purplebackpack89 and a warning not to cast aspersions. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: The Rambling Man has a history of hounding, stalking, bullying and harassing Purplebackpack89. And, judging by his sanctions, a helluvalot of other people. Why he thinks continuing that here is a good idea is beyond me. pbp 19:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Your response here and your rush to accuse others of "stalking" is symptomatic. There's no point in trying to turn this on me, I'm just figuring out that DrKay had a number of articles you decided to suddenly edit on their watchlist. I think calling them a bully and a stalker for trying to remove errors that you've added to articles on their watchlist is a failure of NPA and you should be advised accordingly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Why are you still here? Stop stalking me! In fact, why haven't you been indefinitely banned from this project for all your tomfoolery. pbp 19:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Responding to an ANI is not stalking. Accusing others of stalking without foundation is a personal attack. This is about you, not anyone else. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
          • TRM, you hadn't edited ANI in weeks until you jump in to an ANI about an editor with whom you've previously quarrelled. You also have no connection to the edits in question. It's more than coincidence that you're here. pbp 19:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
            • As far as I know, there's no ban on me editing ANI. And as I said, your problematic edits and accusations have affected not just DrKay. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
              • Just because there's no ban on you editing ANI doesn't mean it's a good idea to jump into an ANI with a person you have history with. And just because there's no ban on you editing ANI YET doesn't mean there won't eventually be one, considering your rap sheet. I don't know why, with all your blocks and sanctions, you think you have any suasion in the slightest to tell me or anybody else on this project how to behave. pbp 20:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
                • This is all about your behaviour, not mine. But I think that's pretty obvious. You can't stop me commenting here, and having been subjected to accusations of a very similar nature, it was perfectly reasonable for me to opine. Your personal attacks are unjustified and unwarranted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
                • Aye, it's not even funny. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
                  • OOOH ARE YOU STALKING ME INDELIBLE HULK?! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
                    • I'm not indelible, and stalked the OP. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
                      • I can't believe it. How suspicious. Etc. (insert hilarious joke here). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
                        • Well, accept it. Followed from Talk:Donald Trump. You're simply collateral. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
                          • Followed from Trump?? I don't think so! Chuckles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
                            • TRM, "they said you were high class" ...? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) DrKay is well-known for being all over royal articles. If I made erroneous edits on two “Mountbatten” articles (as Purplebackpack89 did) it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if DrKay reverted me both times. Even if that were not the case, two edits a stalker does not make. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Disagree. It's too much of a coincidence if it's two different articles in three hours. And I stopping editing those articles so what's the point of an ANI? pbp 19:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

"Why an ANI is necessary"? Well, I certainly wouldn't appreciate a comment like this. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: DrKay was rubbing me the wrong way. They weren't treating me with any respect in the slightest. I felt, and still feel, harassed by DrKay and that's why I said what I did. For example, I was called "delusional" by DrKay in one of the edits ago. If somebody was pushing you around like that, you would feel the same way. As far as things people have said to admins, it's relatively tame. And now I have TWO people hounding me and harassing me, because The Rambling Man is resuming his off-and-on pattern of popping into my life to make it miserable. pbp 19:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No, just responding to this ANI. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

If any of my edits to "British Royals articles" get reverted by DrKay, I generally find it's a learning opportunity. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe DrKay behaves differently to you, @Martinevans123: but it felt less like they were trying to teach me something and more like they were harassing. I'm entitled to feel that way. And people are essentially telling me that I'm not entitled to those feelings. And I still say there's no point in an ANI when I stopped editing the pages hours ago. pbp 19:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Why is this still open? There is no evidence of continuing edits to the page mentioned in the original post. pbp 19:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well your behaviour here and in hurling accusations unfounded at multiple editors probably needs more analysis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's exactly why you're here. You don't care about the articles in question, which is nominally the topic of this ANI. You don't care about DrKay. You're just doing what you've been doing at least a couple times a year for the better part of a decade: jumping into a discussion about me to try and make me look bad and maybe try and get me punished. And you've got to stop doing that TRM. I stand 110% by my claim that you harass me. pbp 20:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Also, FWIW, TRM somehow found his way to another article I edited. TRM had previously never edited the article before. Again, more than coincidence... pbp 20:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is about your behaviour. And yes, per HOUND your problematic (unsourced in this case) edits needed to be addressed. I'm leaving this to someone now to check out all the accusations and aspersions and personal attacks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wandering in from the above thread, at a glance it certainly seems like PBP needs to take a chill pill and stop with the stalking accusations. I have an extensive watchlist, and it has happened quite a few times that somebody has made a series of problematic edits that affected a large swath of them, and I undid them all and explained to them why the edits were unhelpful. That's not stalking, it's maintaining the encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I literally have a diff of TRM stalking me with an edit to a page he'd never edited before. And more diffs of TRM doing that to me in the past. I am somewhat willing to retract the accusations against DrKay but I still think DrKay lacked civility in the way they treated me and that bothered me. When you undo large swathes of edits, Beeblebrox, you probably give more detailed, logical and courteous explanations than DrKay did to me. I stand 110% by my claim that TRM has been hounding me and stalking me off and on for years. pbp 20:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Purplebackpack, by your posts here you’re turning a situation where the worst that could happen is that you get a warning to one where you might get sanctions. Why don’t you just apologise for the PAs and get out of here. Don’t post anything else, you’re digging a hole. DeCausa (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Noticing someone is making problematic edits, then looking at other edits they made to see if they are also problematic is also not stalking. I don't believe I've linked to WP:SPIDER in years but it would seem to apply here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, you are being argumentative and insulting to the point of disruption. I encourage you to stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

And given this as well ("You're a bully and a dick. I can't believe they gave you the mop. You would never get it under the current scrutiny.") I would strongly suggest PBP stops digging. Go and take a break, it'll do you good. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: "Take a break"? I literally stopped editing the articles in question before the ANI even started. And remember that that was in response to DrKay calling me "delusional" so DrKay bears some responsibility as well. pbp 21:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Propose 1-way I ban I propose a 1-way interaction ban to ban PBP from interacting with DrKay, because the main issue here seems to be PBP's personal attacks and baseless accusations against DrKay. Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a non-starter, @Jackattack1597:. Any one-way interaction ban is a non-starter. As Apaugasma notes above, DrKay's style of reverting/rollbacking is questionable. Also, a one-way interaction ban means that DrKay could undo my edits anywhere for any reason and I'd have no redress. It would also allow DrKay to say whatever the hell they wanted about me anywhere and I would be unable to respond. That's patently unfair. 2-way or 0-way. pbp 22:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) DrKay asked us to review the actions at Prince Louis of Battenberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). While, as pointed out above, the stop stalking me appears to be meritless and would need much more serious evidence, I would note that DrKay reverted a good faith edit using rollback without leaving any edit summary. A quick inspection of their latest edits shows that they have done this on two other articles today ([136], [137]). This is not the standard we expect from anyone (also note that, even though there was only 1 edit reverted each time, using rollback like this in principle constitutes a reason to have rollback rights removed), let alone from an admin. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 22:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Propose removal of rollback rights for DrKay per what Apaugasma said above. DrKay's use of rollback and lack of explanation for reverts was inappropriate. pbp 22:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  It isn't technically possible to remove rollback from the admin toolset. You'd have to get him desysopped. P-K3 (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Honestly, de-sysop is something we need to consider. DrKay's mop is a relic of 2007 when it was much easier to get a mop than it is now. As noted by Apaugasma, DrKay's use of rollback and lack of explanation for reverts was inappropriate. DrKay has been blocked for edit-warring in the past, and frequently engages in it. Non-sysopped editors have been blocked or even indeffed for less edit warring. pbp 23:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  If you really think DrKay needs to be desysopped, and you have evidence to support your case,WP:RFAR is right around the corner, but if you don't have substantially more evidence, I can't imagine that it would be accepted.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  PBP, please take Beeblebrox' advice above and calm down. People make mistakes, and we should at least see how they respond to them. It's probably a good idea to just wait this out a bit. Please take a break, and come back tomorrow. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  I second this, please DO NOT file an arbitration request right now , it would only make the situation here worse for you at this point in time. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Using a sock to influence AfD discussion on a paid article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, user NeonRoo (talk · contribs) has admitted on their talk page [138] to using sockpuppet account Hapanyc (talk · contribs) to influence the outcome of an AfD discussion regarding Matrak Enterprises (see [139]). NeonRoo was also paid to write Matrak Enterprises, something they failed to disclose prior to creating the article [140][141].

I am not inclined to WP:AGF. --JBchrch (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Quick and easy proposal: they're flagrantly and willingly violating our terms of use, they should be blocked indefinitely. TAXIDICAE💰 22:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If a puppet investigation is opened, De Bellissen Benac Margaux (talk · contribs) may be worth including in it; only one contribution to date, at the AfD in question. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Praxidicae. @DoubleGrazing: yes it's a good idea, but it would be easier to do it if action is taken against NeonRoo and Hapanyc first (for whom we don't even need a SPI). JBchrch (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NeonRoo about both accounts. I don't think it'd be easier (or harder). afaik socking goes to SPI even if CU isn't needed (such as in this case). Most importantly, SPI forms a structured archive, which doesn't happen with a discussion lost in the ANI archives. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much ProcrastinatingReader. JBchrch (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User AldezD

I wish I can report this matter to AldezD because of the conduct, which we have monitored over time. This user has frequently revert the edits of many users without reason, whether good will or not, but their edits have proven nothing wrong; if some people want to comment or left a message, this user is a funny coward, as he blanked the talk page so that he could hide any evidence of him doing. I am the same anonymous user who previously filed a report on the page but only a warning was issued because he did not do anything wrong, but the administrators are wrong, and if there is a wrong in Wikipedia, I want to fix this. 183.90.37.42 (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This the admin noticeboard, so what we need are diffs, rather than linking to basic policy pages — pages which the average reviewer here is already expected to be aware of. El_C 16:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at his contributions- he undid many of the possible improvements made by many users in Wikipedia and even blanked his page. This is not right and it's not that attitude of a Wikipedia. 183.90.37.42 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I require more precise evidence in the form of diffs, if you wish for me to review this as an uninvolved admin. Again, no need to link to the user's contribs — I know how to do that already. El_C 16:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, but when I got diffs for evidence, I will repost this again.183.90.37.42 (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 183.90.37.42: AldezD can remove comments placed on their user talk page whenever they like. See WP:OWNTALK. This appears to be their preferred method of cleaning up their user talk page based on the editing history of their talk page. As EL_C noted above, diffs of what you think are problematic would need to be provided. It's rather difficult to go through the 16k+ edits this editor has made to find potential diffs that might be problematic. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit more bold here. Who's sock are you? I find it very odd that this IP hasn't edited in a month and it's first edits in that time are to come to ANI to post a complaint, and checking the IPs history, none of their edits were reverted or changed by AldezD. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I use edit summaries and follow policy guidelines. I don't stalk or harass other editors. I leave template warning messages when vandalism is made by a non-registered or newly-registered user, and leave more detailed talk page comments for other editors linking guidelines when I revert something. Articles I submit for deletion are made in good faith and include links to reasons why the article has not met WP guidelines. ANIs I have opened for other editors are based upon reasons why the user is not following WP guidelines or has an evidenced pattern of vandalism, and those ANIs include links to guidelines and the user's edits.

WP:UP#CMT "does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages".

In instances when I do not use an edit summary, it is most often when reverting edits that are clearly vandalism, where I am removing repeated addition of misinformation, or when making other similar minor changes. I use rollback sparingly to revert vandalism.

I have far better things in life to focus my attention on instead of a "wahh wahh wahh someone undid my edit" ANI. If a registered user is going to log out and use the IP to open an ANI and call me a "coward"—and even include in this ANI your comment that I "did not do anything wrong"—well then I guess you're more devoted to something that to me is merely a hobby. Perhaps you should focus your attention internally and reflect on your own life and purpose.

You'll notice I used edit summaries in this reply.

Cheers. AldezD (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have had a quick look at AldezD's contribs and I can see nothing wrong, indeed their recent edits mostly appear to be the reverting of large amounts of unsourced trivia to articles. Unless the IP can come up with something that actully needs to be looked at, I suggest this is closed. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: would you please check edits for 183.90.37.42 against ‎PAustin4thApril1980? Thanks. AldezD (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@AldezD: I don't see any obvious connection, but there's very little to go on. If you have anything worth considering please let me know what it is. JBW (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by user:Queen NawalM5

User Queen NawalM5 has repeatedly removed referenced information from the page Majid bin Mohammed Al Maktoum and replaced it with conflicting unreferenced information and personal commentary. Please could someone protect the page from these edits. Regards Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Just passing by, but for convenience: Queen NawalM5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems like a pretty clear case of NOTHERE; added material consists of ramblings about fake news, and editors who disagree with this user are branded "enemies of the Royal Family". Lennart97 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Partial block. As mentioned on their talk page, being new notwithstanding, a dispassionate discussion that is grounded in policy is expected on the article talk page, or access to that page, too, will be revoked. El_C 15:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

They've done the same thing on French Wikipedia, if anyone also edits over there. Fences&Windows 23:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I was brave: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Requ%C3%AAte_aux_administrateurs#Queen_NawalM5:_fausses_modifications. Fences&Windows 00:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Found a user with a Username violation

Block (censored username) for violating Wikipedia's Username policy. LooneyTraceYT (Where it never goes out of style • contribs) 17:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Fatass blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

LooneyTraceYT You may report inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to say this has aroused my curiosity, as I am stunned that it would've taken over 20 years for someone to think of choosing this as their username, and for some reason I don't see a log entry for this account being created. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It didn't take 20 years to choose this as their username, it just took (nearly) that long to be noticed. They predate the user creation log; their user_id (201296) suggests they registered sometime in early 2005. —Cryptic 05:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Phew, my faith in humanity is restored. --JBL (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I do have to ask. How did you even find this? Canterbury Tail talk 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean the block is rather pointless, but also harmless I suppose. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice the creation date. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive categories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Fcstu_2000113193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is persisting in adding incorrect "English-speaking country or territory" categories to articles despite a warning not to do so. I've reverted their widespread edits (affecting about two dozen articles so far) per WP:ROLLBACKUSE no. 5; but I'm afraid the only way to stop this will be a block. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

As a note, they aren't using rollback (they don't have it.) However their combative behavior, disruptive edit summaries and lack of edit summaries where they are not disruptive is troubling. TAXIDICAE💰 19:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

And on that note, this is clearly a sock or troll and I would suggest a swift block. TAXIDICAE💰 19:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I was justifying my own use of it (in addition to the messages I left on their talk page). But yeah, if its a troll... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my contacts are wonky and I only briefly read. In any case, they should be indeffed, this is clearly a user who is not here for anything productive. TAXIDICAE💰 19:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by the above

Hello,

A user who I have never interacted with has put on their userpage that they "hate me with a burning passion" despite me never actually interacting with them. Further investigation shows that putting that on their user page was their third edit after joining the platform. This leads me to conclude that this is a sockpuppet but I do not know what user it is a sock of. Or rather, I can guess, but not with enough evidence to take it to the sock report people. I am reporting them here on the grounds that this is a blatant unwarranted personal attack.

CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note also stuff like this, which I assume contains nothing edifying. Unblock request which is likely to be denied, and then likely a request for a glock for cross-wiki abuse? Anyway, we're done here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bsadowski1: See you blocked them over there as a checkuser block. Mind telling who they're a sock of? Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I have tagged them here. --Bsadowski1 01:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Epictrex in an unusual edit war with themselves

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Epictrex (talk · contribs)
• 2600:1700:7C20:3100:F5F7:E045:3647:41C3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) IP used April 11 by Epictrex to vandalize talkpages
• 2600:1700:7C20:3100:838:8ECC:B606:E57C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) IP used to vandalize History of Nevada April 15
• 104.3.229.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) IP used to vandalize History of Nevada April 15

User:Epictrex, a newer user, had a hard time adjusting to adding references and not violating WP:FRINGE. when working on history and archaeology related articles. They have been warned several times, including these diff, and [142], but have blanked most of it from their talk page.

• Epictrex had a minor meltdown several nights ago, here User talk:ThadeusOfNazereth#Epictrex, although they self-reverted much of it later, but it is in the diffs of User talk:ThadeusOfNazereth.
• Part of their behavior at that time included logging out and doing this at my talkpage, and then this when reverted. As well as targeting User:ThadeusOfNazereth here. That IP geolocates to Sparks, Nevada
• They quieted down after that. No further activity, until today. Another IP, also geolocating to Sparks, Nevada, inserted this fringe info into History of Nevada, and then was reverted by Epictrex. The material was reinserted by yet another IP, which also geolocates to Sparks, Nevada. Material was reverted by ThadeusOfNazereth, re-inserted by the IP, and then reverted by Epictrex.
• The nearest I can figure, Epictrex is having an edit war with himself using 2 IPs. Or edit warring with two meatpuppets. They have moved from some WP:CIR problems to outright vandalism at this point. I considered filing an SPI, but that's a much more involved process, and I thought maybe the quacking was so loud it could be dealt with easier here. Heiro 23:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Users mentioned notified, I have to log off for awhile, things to deal with IRL. Will check back on this later.Heiro 23:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not at an edit war with anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epictrex (talk • contribs) 23:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• As the other involved editor besides Epictrex, I should throw in my two cents here. I think I was pretty clear at my talk page what the issues were with their erratic behavior. I'm not totally sure how accurate IP geolocation is or whether this is something that would be better off at WP:SPI, but I will say that I think it's really odd that after posting at WP:TEAHOUSE asking how to delete their account and accusing other editors of being abusive, the first edits they made after that were on the History of Nevada article, right when the vandalism was happening. THAT BEING SAID, I don't know that Epictrex was behind that vandalism, and I try to avoid making bad-faith judgements whenever possible. My interpretation of this is that Epictrex is new to Wikipedia, probably younger, and doesn't have as firm a grasp of editing as people who've been here a lot longer. Looking at their edit history, they've made constructive edits in addition to what happened at my and Rowe's talk pages. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not involved with any of this, however after seeing what he's done I can say this, (Redacted) as after seeing how he acted on Heironymous Rowe's talk page he went from calm, to very angry rather quickly. Now as for their edits, they haven't made purely unconstructive edits. For example, their most recent edit on History of Nevada is constructive. They stated that the information added does not have any evidence supporting it (no citation) which is true. Just thought I"d give my opinion on things. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, removing that would seem constructive. Except for the part where it was Epictrex themself who used 2 different IPs to add the information to begin with. And then reverted it with their named account. As noted above, several days ago they vandalized 2 talk pages with an IP. They then did not edit for 4 days. Then on the 15th an IP added the nonconstructive material to History of Nevada. Material that is virtually identical to material added into other articles by Epictrex. Within 1 minute Epictrex logged in and reverted. Then a second IP re-adds the material. Epictrex then reverts it again. All 3 IPs mentioned geolocate to the same place. Those IPs are Epictrex. Heiro 14:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm really not a fan of speculating about people having "mental disorders" because somebody got frustrated on Wikipedia. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I was just going to post that. Please refrain from commenting on other people's mental states and diagnosing mental disorders unless you are a mental health professional or the user has self declared something. Even so it's not something we should be discussing, discuss the edits not the editor. Canterbury Tail talk 14:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have placed a warning on Blaze The Wolf's talk page regarding the personal attack. See User_talk:Blaze_The_Wolf#Personal_attack. I do hope this sort of behavior ceases. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

W28394

W28394 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Constant disruption (removal of sourced info, alteration of sourced info, etc), WP:TENDENTIOUS and edit warring, unable to take his concerns to the talk page - some examples;

Jalal-ud-din Khalji [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149]

Hindkowans [150] [151] [152] [153] [154]

This is not the first he has edit warred across these articles, as he was blocked for the very thing back in September [155].

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran

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

Accuses editors of not being able to take their concerns to the talk page without actually having visited those talk pages and seeing editor contributions and discussions on said talk pages despite being requested to do so before engaging in edit warring.

Discussions spanning back to months and years after which a consensus was reached amongst various editors is being blatantly ignored by the user and edits are being disruptively made. As stated earlier, the user accuses editors of not being able to take their concerns to the talk page without ever clicking on the talkpage. This should be evidence enough of the user being a disruptive editor. Talk pages in question; Hindkowans[156] , Khalji Dynasty[157], Jalal-ud-din Khalji[158]

W28394 (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

As you have repeatedly failed to get the point that claiming to be right does not excuse edit warring, and started a bogus retaliatory thread, I'm blocking you for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The 'consensus' on the talk page referred to by W28394 here and here is entirely fictional: rather, Talk:Jalal-ud-din Khalji, Talk:Khalji dynasty, Talk:Hindkowans contain long discussions where W28394 found themselves opposed (and quite a few times, warned) by other editors. This has been going on at least since August 2020 (see the article talk pages and the user's own talk page). Although a consensus was given at a talk page by the user themselves, in reality the edit warring just continued after that ([159], [160], [161], and see especially this one). I believe that a longer block is warranted. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 14:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

User/IP continuing to go on my talk page

Basically, there is an editor who I had blocked from editing an off-Wikipedia website I run. They have had disruptive edits here in the past, and even block evasion (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DarkWariior and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DarkWariior/Archive). They keep coming to my talk page to beg/whine for me to unblock them from the website, but I don't wish to discuss anything anymore with this person. Only problem is, they keep coming back- currently at 74.96.187.96.

I don't think it would be considered block evasion anymore, as both the master account and IP it was doing block evasion from are both no longer blocked- so if that is the case, is there any way to get rid of this IP from continuing to come to my talk page? Whether it be a partial block (blocked from just editing the talk page in question) or whatever other possibilities, I truly don't want to deal with them anymore, but they clearly don't understand what it means to 'stop'. Magitroopa (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1018347082. Done. Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Speculating on mental conditions

I've been seeing several instances here, on disparate threads, where we speculate on the mental conditions of other editors. In the instances I've seen in the last week, the motives of the speculating editors have been pure as the driven snow. However, I really think this needs to stop. It is a form of personal attack. I wouldn't want someone commenting on my mental health if I were having a bad day. Or a good day, for that matter. If someone wants to disclose a mental medical condition in order to help other editors understand where they are coming from, that is well and good. Otherwise, unless you are a medical doctor, and that editor is your patient, and that patient has given explicit permission to disclose medical conditions, then commenting on medical status is inappropriate at best and highly disruptive at worst. Maybe I'm the only one concerned and I'm off base, but please think about it? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This is more of a Village Pump thing than an ANI thing. versacespaceleave a message! 14:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

How do you figure this is a VPP issue, VersaceSpace? There are already existing policies for this, including WP:NPA. TAXIDICAE💰 14:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there are policies against this but aren't ANI reports for individual editors? versacespaceleave a message! 14:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

While I think the incident in the thread I'm involved in was inappropriate (as the user in question had only disclosed his neurotype in a much more limited context than goddamn ANI), I can't imagine a way to formalize this that doesn't fall into the "everything is either mandatory or forbidden" trap -- that is, doesn't end in people overcorrecting and totally avoiding any and all discussion of someone's neurotype or potential psychological distress even when it's obviously relevant. (I've commented on that issue here too.) I think, hard as it is to say, we'll have to use common sense rather than try and legislate it. Don't out people as neurodivergent at ANI; don't act as though someone in the midst of serious psychological distress is going to handle a thread exactly the same way as anyone else, either. Vaticidalprophet 14:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I placed this here on purpose. This is related to at least two active threads on this page. I am not looking to implement or modify policy or procedures, our current ones adequately address this. Thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs of specific comments you feel were inappropriate? If not there's not much that can be done about vague concerns with no clear examples. — Czello 14:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Czello I'm not the one you asked, but I can only assume it was this absolutely inappropriate and bizarre comment. TAXIDICAE💰 14:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I could, but I won't. I'm not asking for anything to be "done" about it. I'm not looking to make anyone feel bad, or to shame anyone, highlight "bad" behavior, or to be on the lookout for someone to block. As these are active threads, I'm merely hoping those who have turned conversations that direction will amend their course. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

As someone who, in real life, volunteers with a charity that takes folk with disability afloat, I agree with @78.26 that this should not be a "Something Must Be Done" thread. Unless it ever becomes a Wikipedia:Competence is required issue I believe we must and should take all editors as face value. Any speculation is insulting.

What needs to take place is quiet education by any of us, all of us, of the editor expressing an opinion in this vein. That is certainly not a recommendation for any official action, simply a collegial awareness, and each editor taking personal responsibility.

The charity I volunteer for is very clear. All of us are equal whether we consider ourselves to have a disability, a different ability, a specific neurotype, whatever the correct term is. I expect it to be the same here, but am never surprised when it is not.

The issue arises when one sees a style of editing that one might associate with particular areas, and makes the error of seeking to describe one's thoughts to another editor, almost always out of consideration, albeit misplaced, for the person being described Fiddle Faddle 15:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this - It's really weird how nobody found this unacceptable in the other threads. There are so many reasons people get frustrated, and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with having a "mental disorder." I think people also need to consider what kind of effect their jump from "bad faith editor" to "mentally ill editor" might have on non-nuerotypical editors who edit constructively, of whom there are many. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 15:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've submitted ANIs about this in the past (example). IMO speculating about the mental health of another editor is unacceptable. But apparently some editors do it in good faith, possibly without thinking and/or are trying to show empathy, so probably best not to come down like a ton of bricks for minor infractions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Like. (Originally to PR, but also equally to ThadeusOfNazereth, whose comment I mistook as part of PR's.) El_C 15:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Speculating about the mental health of another editor is absolutely unacceptable. I'm saying this as someone you could probably speculate a lot about, and it is extremely disrespectful. All editors here are equals, and while a user's mental state could be a good-to-know when an issue crops up, it's not at all something one should speculate about ever. If the user hasn't made it public that something is the case, it's not acceptable to try and "figure it out". I agree with pretty much everyone here (nom, ProcrastinatingReader, ThadeusOfNazereth, Timtrent, and Vaticidalprophet). —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree the same, and also add that an editor who may have disclosed neurodivergence elsewhere should not have that brought up as 'evidence' supporting another editor's view of their conduct or an issue they may have brought up.

Though I haven't seen it onwiki myself, as someone who's autistic and went through higher education - where none of my tutors had the faintest clue how to handle it - there were times where I felt like my issues were just being lumped under 'oh, they're autistic', swiftly followed by 'well, that's their problem to deal with, nothing I can do'. I've experienced being abandoned for my neurodivergencies before, and it's not something I'd see anyone else go through, either.

Editors should be careful not to let a potential disclosure colour or affect the way they respond to an editor with a disclosed neurodivergency, in regards to "special" treatment that merely acts as leaving that editor to handle things by themselves, and dropping in every so often to criticise behaviour seen to be "part" of their neurodivergence. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that, Ineffablebookkeeper - When I worked as a tutor in the writing center at my school I noticed a similar trend among other student workers and even the faculty. It's definitely not just a problem on Wikipedia, and I really appreciated what Timtrent said above about trying to make a space for education here. I don't think it's helpful to blame people for assuming that bringing up neurodivergency would be empathetic or helpful if they haven't been called out on it, but if they do it again it should be considered a conduct issue under WP:CIVIL imo. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I strongly encourage editors having active issues to take a break from the site. This is the primary reason I'm currently not actively contributing, so frankly it's a good thing I happened to check AN/I today. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My full opinion on this topic is maybe a bit more chaotic. (I do use 'neurotype' and 'neurodivergence' over 'mental illness' in those posts, after all.) One big issue that I've alluded to elsewhere is neurotypical and neurodivergent people actually tend to draw the line of acceptable speculation in different places. A neurodivergent person may well be shocked to find neurotypical people reacting with "you're about to be blocked for personal attacks" to something they thought was a bona fide explanation drawn from personal experience. (Corollary-slash-contra: fuck if I'd ever disclose the details of my neurotype onwiki, because I'd not exactly be happy to find it diffed on ANI.) Vaticidalprophet 15:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree here, I'm mainly commenting on mental health, but my opinion on neurodivergent is identical to yours. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Even if an editor makes it public I don't think it should be brought up in dispute resolution. For example: Aspergers was brought up about another editor above, to speculate on why an editor behaves the way they do, and that comment seemed like it would've been discomforting for the receiving editor. In fairness, it appears to have been made in good faith as some kind of 'mitigating factor', but that doesn't make it better IMO. Perhaps those with the condition feel differently about this, but from my perspective: unless an editor is disclosing a mental condition and themselves trying to use it as a mitigating factor (and I've never seen an editor do this), nobody should be speculating whether an editor has a mental condition, or if a mental condition they have has anything to do with their conduct. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You hit it on the nose here. That comment was clearly brought up in good faith, but the person it was directed at was pretty obviously made uncomfortable and interpreted it as an attack against their neurodivergency(and honestly, I don't blame them). Keeping discussion on the disputes themselves should always be the standard. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Mental health should not be used as a sword or a shield. We have no way to verify anyone's mental health claims (about themselves or others), and most people don't know about or understand the details of various mental health issues. Information about an editor's mental health is thus not verifiable or useful to us; it's irrelevant. I don't understand why anyone ever brings it up. (That includes self-disclosures.) Either an editor is able to contribute or not; if able, it doesn't matter what their mental health is, and if not able, it doesn't matter why not. WP:NOTTHERAPY makes this point. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  My issue is Hulkamania, and bringing this up in occasional stark ravings is simply a symptom, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• As the kids say, "I feel seen." Quite recently I commented on a thread, I think here perhaps elsewhere on a noticeboard, that I suspected an editor might be on the spectrum because of their editing, language, and other behaviour. Now as it happens, I am also on the spectrum, as anyone who has spent over a decade editing facts, figures, numbers and niche interest articles would be expected to, I suppose. Nonetheless, of course I see the issue with typing in the public domain my assumptions and guess-work about an editor's neurodivergence. I can only say that my observation was not meant as insult, merely an assumption from the manner and form of communication another editor was using. As someone who has to navigate the world while not always able to understand or compute tone of voice or facial expression, I know that it's difficult to analyse someone at face value. This section has some interesting elements to it and I will try to learn from my behaviour and that of others. doktorb _words^deeds 16:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User with the sole goal of doing what need not be done

On User talk:Gexajutyr you can see messages from seven editors asking Gexajutyr to stop adding pointless pipes. The user has been directed to WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE, and WP:NOTBROKEN countless times on their talk page and in edit summaries. Yet the user continues. The closest they ever got to engaging in a discussion about their disruptive behaviour is stating they are "fed up with that NOTBROKEN nonsense". Bizarrely, adding pointless pipes is all this user does. You are welcome to try your luck reasoning with Gexajutyr. Surtsicna (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, adding pointless pipes isn't all this user does; they also remove useful pipes.[162] Certes (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I've partial blocked them so they can no longer edit articles until they discuss the matter here. We are all expected to respect consensus even when we do not agree with it, and it's clear a number of users have tried in good faith to explain the situation to this person and they simply don't want to hear it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to ask this be held open for a while, this user often takes several days off between edits so they may not even know about the block yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Commenting to keep this open longer. Fences&Windows 18:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for what I have done. It was never meant to upset you. It is possible that I do not improve the articles but you also do not improve them by reverting my edits. As in the Canada example: I think there is a reason why the article name is Parliamentary system and not Parliamentary democracy. But I can stop if it is so important for you. Gexajutyr (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gexajutyr: Do not modify other people's comments as you did here to Certes's, even if it ultimately doesn't change the substance of the comment. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Gexajutyr, can you say what you meant by "fed up with the NOTBROKEN nonsense"? What is the 'NOTBROKEN nonsense' exactly? EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken (I use the direct link, not the redirect Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN), it is absolutely prohibited to avoid redirects that are not broken. But it is nonsense. Links to redirects are annoying. But I can stop with such edits if you find them disruptive. Would you please unblock me? Gexajutyr (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone please unblock me. I will stop with "bad" article edits. Gexajutyr (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you please stop with your refusal to answer my request? Gexajutyr (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Surtsicna, why did you revert my edit?[163] I removed unnecessary piping. Gexajutyr (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I made a mistake. Sorry! Surtsicna (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Ping Beeblebrox now Gexajutyr has responded. Fences&Windows 18:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit underwhelmed at this response. I'm going to go ahead and unblock, in the hope that it is now understood that you can disagree with a policy, you can argue to change it, that's all fine, but deliberately, repeatedly ignoring it is not. Wikipedia uses consensus as it's primary decision-making method, and consensus can change, so if this is really that big of a deal, Gexajutyr can feel free to propose such a change at the appropriate venue. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Gexajutyr, I am concerned that you may still not understand the problem. Here and here you bypass redirects in a way that is not only pointless but breaks the grammar of the sentence by using the singular where a plural is required and vice versa. Certes (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an eye on this. Reblocked. This is ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible puppetry

User Tusharrayate has created two articles, apparently on himself and his business. Speedies were requested on both, but these were removed by another user, with very little edit history except removal of speedies.  Looks like a duck to me, but I didn't want to take this to sock investigation just yet before someone more experienced takes a look. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked him. Talk about shameless self-promotion. Deb (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Deb, TopAndPopular appears to have almost singlemindedly worked to thwart any attempt at addressing the self-promotion by Tusharrayate; reverting other editors (including me) and telling blatant porky pies whilst doing so. If they're not related I'll eat my hat, and if they do a single thing to build an encyclopaedia I'll have my coat for dessert... Jack Frost (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, TopAndPopular is indeed the one I meant in my OP but forgot to name/link — sorry! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pune Institute of Business Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is perhaps the epicentre of this. See its edit history. Not necessarily puppetry, but a congress of people who cannot write. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment - yes, clearly there is either sock or meat puppetry going on. I only blocked one user, in the hope that this gets rid of related users as well. That's why I haven't closed the discussion. Deb (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• In related news: Multibrands International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a typical PR job. I pruned it. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Since threads here are not intended to last, maybe COIN would be good followup, —PaleoNeonate – 03:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

New User User:Ukelele47

I want to report this new user because I was suspecting that he would be using the article to vandalize and edit articles on his own image to contravene the policies, which we found a lack of evidence of, as what he did in the Star Awards 2021 article, and he is also investigating on the edit warring which I also lodged as well. This is a newly created user made today. 122.11.212.253 (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

DevilInTheRadio

DevilInTheRadio violated clearly expressed WP:CONSENSUS at Talk:Julius Evola#Evola as "antisemitic conspiracy theorist": original research, conflicting sources and quote without reference and it seems like a violation of WP:NONAZIS. Diff: [164]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not contentious to say that he was an anti-Semite, unless one happens to secretly approves of his anti-Semitism (as a few Evola apologists clearly do). It's not contentious to say that the Protocols are an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory; anyone arguing otherwise needs a WP:NONAZIS block. There are already plenty of other sources in the article about his anti-Semitism, there are sources about his endorsement of the Protocols, and the lede is just accurately summarizing all this info in the most succinct and relevant way. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I (DevilInTheRadio) did not. I do not have an issue with the label anti-semitic conspiracy theorist mentioned in the article since Evola did write on the subject, but to place it in the first line among his occupations is intellectually dishonest. It was not his occupation, and he only wrote on the topic sparingly (and disagreed with many of his contemporaries - See "Tre Aspetti"). I will not have Tgeorgescu insinuate I am an anti-Semite just because I dispute his political motivations in placing the label there so prominently when it shouldn't be. Again, my issue is not with the label, but with the placement among his occupations. It should be discussed where it is actually appropriate, such as regarding his links to Nazi Germany or his research topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilInTheRadio (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You have watered down those clear statements about him being an antisemitic conspiracy theory peddler. So that alone is a violation of WP:NONAZIS. Also, you are clearly acting against WP:CONSENSUS.

I have also reported a WP:3RR violation by DevilInTheRadio. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The clear statement is still there, just in a more appropriate context. I have explained my case multiple times now. Leave your political motivations out of this and stop reverting my edits regarding his recently published work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilInTheRadio (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you realize you have violated 3 (three) different rules? The real question is if you have any business at all editing Wikipedia or you should be site banned.

They have a history of violating WP:NONAZIS, see e.g. [165].

Their own intention is very clear at [166]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• For clarification, WP:NONAZIS is not an official policy, just an essay (although I'm of the opinion that it SHOULD be a policy). That said, it seems like DevilInTheRadio's problem isn't with labeling Evola an "anti-semitic conspiracy theorist," but with putting it in the first sentence. They might just not be familiar with how we typically organize those labels. It's not uncommon to put such labels in the first sentence when people are heavily associated with them (see Alex Jones, Richard B. Spencer, and Renaud Camus, among others). In Evola's case, the label should be in the first sentence, or at least the first paragraph. DevilInTheRadio, a good rule of thumb is if somebody is prominently known for something, it should be said in the first couple of sentences. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's also worth noting here that the lede already describes him as both a "fascist intellectual" and "the leading philosopher of Europe's neofascist movement," so there's clearly a precedent for him being described in such terms. As to DevilInTheRadio's point that he wasn't "prominently known for his antisemitism," I'd point out that A) Fascism and antisemitism go hand-in-hand, and B) a Google search for "Julius Evola" turns up several articles describing him primarly as antisemitic [1], [2]. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth: Thanks for the clarification, you are right about my intentions. I disagree with your last statement though, he wasn't prominently known for it, since it was a minor aspect of his writings. He was prominently known for being a (fascist-adjacent) philosopher, esotericist and occultist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilInTheRadio (talk • contribs)

Wow, wait a bit: your intentions should have been tempered after I asked you politely to read WP:NONAZIS, explained to you that you violate WP:CONSENSUS, and gave you a formal WP:3RR warning for edit warring. You may no longer pretend you were ignorant of those requests, but you have still chosen to pursue your edit war despite all my advice and all my warnings. You simply wasted too many occasions of repenting of breaking our WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit warring is clear and actionable should it continue, but it is rather inappropriate with as few data points in Devil's history to rush call the edits they did on that article and the other example you gave (the only examples I can see in their history) to call them out as "whitewashing" and a ban needed under NONAZIS. Bringing articles to what one feel is conformance to NPOV though a BOLD edit (of which removing or moving a label they don't believe is well sourced would fall under), assuming they were reasonably unaware of prior talk page history that established consensus for the language, is definitely not whitewashing, and there's no pattern to show this being their editing approach. Obviously, their continued changes were inappropriate but simply from an edit warring angle, nothing else; we have nowhere near sufficient evidence to bring a NONAZIS claim here (this is the general danger with that essay, it can lead down the road of MacCarthyism if we're not careful in its application). Hopefully, judging by edits since, Devil's stopped edit warring (only change to the article was to readd a new general book, non-contentious) but they should be aware to be careful with bold edits in the future. --Masem (t) 00:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: They are actually past 3RR, see [167]. If I did not explain them the reasons at every step, then yes, I could be blamed for rushing to WP:ANI. But I offered them enough chances to better their ways, and they refused those chances. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that 3RR is actionable, as I've stated. However, no further edits have been done to the article since, so its hard to say if disruption will continue or not, so whether action on 3RR is needed or not is not clear. But there is no question the line was passed. --Masem (t) 00:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Site ban

• Support as proposer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• A site ban based on what? The result of their edits was moving "antisemitic conspiracy theorist" further down the lead and framing the label as a viewpoint rather than a fact, plus adding one of Evola's books to the collection of works. This proposal seems precipitous. You each reverted three times, so any edit warring sanction would apply to you equally. Fences&Windows 18:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Fences and windows: According to WP:3RR reverting more than 3 times is not allowed. Reverting precisely 3 times is allowed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Their initial edit doesn't count. You reverted three times; they reverted you back. It's number of reverts, not number of edits. Also, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Fences&Windows 11:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @Fences and windows: Their initial edit was a revert (deleting someone else's contribution to the article). Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now From what I can tell, theres a lot of heat, but very little light into the nature of the alledged misbehaviour. NoNazis is not policy, its a (fairly contentious apparently) essay with limited support. At any rate, content disputes should be handled on the talk page of the article in question, or perhaps at arbitration enforcement if an arbitration policy applies.This should only be brought to ANI if theres an immediate threat to the project. As for the 3rr, one is reminded of wp:boomerang, although it does appear radio is perhaps ignorant of wp:own and our balance policies, both of which have historically been treated with at most a block for a first incident, much less a siteban. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 04:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

User disallowing others' edits performed during their vacation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Yaakov Wa. has been on a wikibreak (per this announcement). Upon return today, editor reverted to the last revision before this break, effectively rolling back all edits by other users during their absence. Following my reversion of this action, user repeated the rollback. I have attempted to discuss this with the editor at Talk:Messiah in Judaism#Suggestion and am unable to intervene further due to 3RR.

For context, this page has since 19 February been the venue for a high volume of tendentious editing by Yaakov Wa., largely without consensus or substantial discussion (notwithstanding Yaakov's attempts to contact other users via email and video conference). Exasperated attempts by Warshy at discussion in more appropriate venues led to one prior ANI report. Attempts by myself and Editor2020 to at least improve the quality of Yaakov's edits have led to the incident I am reporting here. Ibadibam (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted. Seems to be a bit of a WP:OWN situation going on here. — Czello 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a fairly new editor. Ibadibam did mention why it wasn't a great idea, but there hasn't been real discussion of it. Technically, WP:BRD still applies and this is really a content issue, although his reverting twice in 24 hours isn't good. This really needs to be on the article talk page, with an attempt to resolve it there. Hopefully it won't have to have admin intervention, but at this time, it really isn't ripe for sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ibadibam, and any other editors,

Firstly, in regards to discussions where communication is paramount, I believe it is preferable to use verbal and visual communication. I am available for approximately 4 more hours from posted time. If any editor wishes to set up zoom meeting, please put message on User_talk:Yaakov_Wa. and this meeting will be open to all editors. Up until verbal/visual communication is achieved, I will do my best to understand and respond via non-verbal communication.

Now, in regards to situation:

I will lay out response in three parts. a)will lay out general background of editing Messiah in Judaism, b) then discuss edits over break. c) will discuss rational for keeping proposed structure until discussion at talk page.

a) In regards to general background, started editing feb 19. Was advised to discuss at talk page. I discussed proposal at talk page feb 21. Was given feedback on this proposal as well as support. and feedback discussed. After feedback was inputted and WP:consensus achieved, began overhaul on feb 23. With lots of discussion about content in edit history.

b) Up until the break, the page had the organization[168] along proposed overhaul, with exception of etymology which was discussed. Ibadibam, and other Editors chose to keep organization mainly along proposed overhaul.

Then, during the announced break, as Ibadibam mentioned above, major changes in organization were done. I found this peculiar because these changes in organization started during week when I announced I would not be editing. There were ample opportunity for editors to request changes in organization before the break.

c) Based on the above, I believe that the article should be temporarily kept according to prior consensus of overhaul (with exception of etymology). I am very open to discussion and feedback. Ibadibam appears competent(I have probably asked at least 10 users to give assistance and feedback to this article). I welcome Ibadibam's future discussions and contributions. I encourage any editors (preferably with hebrew and technical skills) to make proposals and edits to this article. However, as Dennis mentioned, we must go according to WP:BRD, which in this case requires us to temporarily have Messiah in Judaism at prior consensus.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References

• the response above rather than alleviate concerns only increases them in particular that the editor is not familiar with WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. The editor is attempting to over-represent a one-sided accounting of the issue according to a particular religious sect. They also claim a consensus for an overhaul when really, one lightly active editor gave a message of support. Maybe this can be solved at the talk page but if nothing else, they should be warned that they are not to revert edits because they need time to personally review the edits before restoring the ones they find acceptable. This isn't a pending changes queue and they are not the sole arbitrator of what readers can see. Even now, they are expressing opinions on which editors are competent (and what skills sets are preferred to edit the article) and I am concerned that point c is a belief that WP:BRD gets their version restored and other editors will have to negotiate consensus around their preferences. Slywriter (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• BRD isn’t about giving an editor time to review edits before the public is *allowed* to see them. Reverts should be only for when an editor has a reason to disagree with an edit. (Never thought I would have to write that.) That and their tone in the above post seems to suggest they think they are the editor-in-chief for this article. But, given their newness, I suspect it’s more WP:NOCLUE than WP:OWN. Probably of greater concern is what appears to be their POV editing that’s already been referred to. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Slywriter and DeCausa's comments above, and I would like to fill in some other details, if I can. Ibadibam, Editor2020 and myself have been so far the only regular, veteran editors who have edited the page since this completely biased, one-sided religious POV so-called "overhaul" was one-sidedly 'declared,' pretty much out-of-the-blue. I want to be on the record again here, as I have been consistently on the article's talk-page discussions, that the new one-sided declaration above, that a supposed "consensus" for this so-called "overhaul" was ever achieved with me is completely false and misleading. I continued to consistently oppose the "overhaul" up to the user's one-sidedly declared "break," and I am still opposed to it at this moment. I posted several more in-depth arguments against the basic motivation and the completely biased religious POV that this new user brings to the task, based on all the primary sources he is singularly using for the proposed task, and I also declared there that I was still considering going back to the article's last stable version, before this so-called one-sided "overhaul" started. I still have this version specified in the article's talk-page. My suggestion at this point would be to go back to that stable version, and allow the new editor to re-start his attempts at changing certain paragraphs or sections by proposing localized, limited changes on the talk-page first, and have this proposed localized, limited changes discussed and approved. Once every new localized, limited change is proposed, discussed, and approved by all involved editors, then it can be implemented. That is how I had originally suggested the new user goes about his intended task. He gave me a short reply at that point, which I did not bother to reply to, and he took it then one-sidedly to mean I was withdrawing my explicitly stated reservations about the entire "task." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Warshy: Starting over seems like a good idea. I suggest you propose a revert to the stable version on the talk page and see what the other involved editors think. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe it will be preferable for anyone with questions to join zoom meeting on my talk page. Non-verbal communication is not-very-effective communication.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't how we handle things on Wikipedia. We discuss articles on their talk page, not through a Zoom meeting. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I remember already explaining to Yaakov Wa that relevant talk pages should be used, so that WP:CONSENSUS can be assessed, not only by the article's history, but also by the talk archives. That is also where RFCs take place, etc. Wikipedia editors are free to refuse invitations to off-WP venues and the state of the article should not depend on their presence (or absence) there. Some editors may even consider such invitations suspicious. —PaleoNeonate – 03:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I notice that Yaakov Wa has a habit of posting invites to multiple editors’ talk pages asking them to edit Messiah in Judaism. It’s been claimed on the article talk page that Yaakov Wa is editing to push a Chabad POV, and a cursory look at their edits seems to justify that claim. It’s not clear to me how he’s selecting these editors he contacts (he usually refers to seeing relevant ‘skills’ in their edits elsewhere) but what he said here, and this post to an editor with a Chabad user box, raises a question of an attempt at WP:CANVASSING. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• There is a branch of Chabad who does not acknowledge the existence of streams of thought different from their own regarding moshiach. NPOV is literally against their religion. if Yaakov Wa is part of that sect, he should probably be topic-banned until he gets a sense of how Wikipedia works and decides whether it's for him. 207.172.174.5 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yaakov Wa., you talk of non-verbal communication being ineffective, but that is what we use at Wikipedia. If it isn't effective for you, then this is the wrong hobby for you. I'm not going to Zoom with you (or anyone), and most other's aren't either. Besides, all discussion about an article are supposed to take place here so everyone can participate. Reverting to your favored version is still edit warring and WILL get you blocked. Read that last line twice, please. Read WP:BRD. Twice. You don't seem to understand how things work here. They don't work according to your preferences, there is an established set of guidelines and policies that you are expected to follow. Reading your replies, I don't have high hopes for your future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal (Yaakov Wa.)

Given the ongoing issues with Yaakov Wa.'s editing evidenced above and in prior ANI discussions, and taking into account this very recent response that suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of our policy concerning original research, I think that a topic ban from Jewish theology, broadly construed, for 1 month is appropriate. I also think that they should be formally warned against inviting editors to resolve editing disputes through off-Wikipedia venues. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Given the tone-deaf response, I would agree but would opt for 90 days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support But could his return (whether 30 or 90 days) be conditional on satisfying an admin of his understanding of WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NPOV and, well, basically what’s expected in writing full grammatical sentences when adding content? I’m not sure what’s going to change just through a period of absence. (Btw, I wasn’t even sure if he was replying to me (in Rosguill’s diff) or just carrying on with his original post as if my post was invisible. I think the latter. Either way I could see there was no point in saying anything else.) DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose for now per mine and Slywriter’s today’s comments below. On condition of finding and their accepting a mentor. DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Per this, back to Support. DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support I have deep concerns about the insistence to take article development off of talk pages. This effectively creates an elite group who edit this one article and anyone who is unable or uncomfortable joining their clicque calls doesn't get to collaborate. WP is a place of written communication- which, by the way- is still verbal communication- it is purely verbal, where spoken communication actually includes more non-verbal with tone of voice, pitch, volume, and facial expressions coloring what is being said. WP is for everyone to contribute to- and in order for that to happen, previous discussions must be accessible to future editors- not a summary of what one person heard- but the actual words used. Anyone who tries to take away this fundamental facet of WP creation- is missing our purpose and what makes us special. And, I believe, is experiencing a serious case of WP:OWN. For this reason- I support a t-ban until the user can learn to collaborate using the appropriate tools and share knowledge and ownership among all editors. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support Block Editor has resorted to disruptive trolling and needs a break- possibly permanently but I would support less to start with Nightenbelle (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support a topic-ban. The insistence on Zoom discussions violates various policies and guidelines, including article ownership, and has aspects of not being here to edit collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support wouldn't go so far as to say he's Not Here, he does not understand how Wikipedia works and I think that misunderstanding makes him a net negative on these topics. I don't think 30 days will be enough, but he's a new editor so 90 days might be too much. StarM 16:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Upgrade to strong support for TBan if not a site ban based on the below subthread and Talk:Olam_katan where he shows he does not understand or respect how Wikipedia sourcing works. Since a topic ban will not prevent him from editing, I'm not sure it will stop him. StarM 13:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: from their responses, I honestly think that he may not have a good grasp of English and may not understand what we are saying.

h 13:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• comment looking at their other contributions- I think they don't understand why WP won't accept them as an expert- they are arguing for inclusion of their own analysis on multiple articles- yes it might be a language issue- but its a problem that they seem disinclined to discuss or stop. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• They’ve posted these thoughts on their user page. Taking that with this self-revert and this on the talk page of that article, I don’t think language or NOTHERE or OWN etc is what’s going on. It’s just a bad case of WP:NOCLUE and they are, in good faith, really trying to get the hang of Wikipedia. They’re struggling to and now seem to understand they’re struggling to. Although I supported a TBAN above I think what they need instead is a mentor. Understanding of WP is not inherent and for some people isn’t obvious, intuitive or easily learnt. For some it is. But there’s something very dispiriting about seeing someone genuinely trying to understand WP in that way but being told (by me included) that, in effect, there’s no place for them here. DeCausa (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, per Decausa and because editor appears to be a genuinely good-hearted person. They are not here to make trouble; they won't be edit-warring over religious views, like so many nationalistic SPA editors would. There is a real chance that their worldview is ultimately incompatible with the wikipedian community and all I am supporting is kicking the can while giving them more WP:Rope and adding work to other editors but at least others won't be demeaned, insulted or threatened as a consequence of letting him remain an unrestricted editor for now. Slywriter (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sigh. Hope everyone has a great day today. Slywriter (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support: while it is indeed very important for editors not to bite newcomers and to assume no clue, it seems to me that the editors who have been dealing with this new user have done this rather admirably in most cases. The problem is much more that the user has been somewhat of a slow learner. While it is also true that they appear to be acting in good faith and show genuine signs of wanting to understand, competence is required, and a lack of this can be equally disruptive. Administrative sanctions on Wikipedia are not punitive, and I think that it may be helpful if the user would edit on other topics for a while, just to get the hang of it. A core problem has been that the user is very knowledgeable, but strictly from the point of view of original, mostly non-secular research. If they would be willing to try their hand on subjects which fall outside of the scope of this research, they may have an easier time getting used to the strict source requirements, and to the secular academic perspective of Wikipedia. A mentor, if such is possible, may also be enormously helpful. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose such punitive sanctions. Two main reasons. First, many of the diffs are just not as damning as people make them out to be, and if folks paused for a few seconds to think about this from the perspective of a newcomer used to collaboration in different environments they might be able to see the diffs in a more favourable light. For example: Zoom is of course not how we do things around here, as established editors will know, but this editor's rationale for why verbal/face-to-face communication may help in dispute resolution is not wrong. For a new editor who isn't aware of how WP does communication, or is unfamiliar with the community's desires for transparency and onwiki discussion (along with the fact that many Wikipedians don't like to communicate outside of text mediums), the proposition seems far more reasonable to make. The ownership/OR concerns are more pertinent, but not only are they relatively low in frequency but it appears the editor is understanding the now clearly raised concerns around that, and for a newbie not familiar with our cultural norms (such as WP:OWN) such an error is slightly more tolerable. (And ironically, I've seen even admins exhibit very similar OWN conduct before and get off without even a warning. Why are experienced editors who are expected to know better held to lower standards, and newer editors who are trying to learn proposed for sanctions?) Some editors have switched to support presumably because the editor contested a PROD? (a PROD which is now also contested by an admin). Have editors forgotten that policy does not require edits to provide a rationale to remove a PROD? Besides, the editor didn't just remove the tag without further comment (which would be all policy requires), they left a comment saying pretty much that 'this is discussed in lots of sources. I don't have sufficient expertise on this complex subject to contribute fully, but I believe it's notable and I'm happy to give pointers to sources'. That conduct is entirely proper. It's irrelevant whether the argument is true or not; take it to AfD, as you would if any established editor challenged the PROD. Not a valid basis to criticise an editor. Second, the editor has shown introspection and is improving.[169][170][171][172] That's not to say there are no problems here, but there is no evidence that self-correction has proven to be impossible and that non-voluntary community intervention (via sanctions) has become necessary. But intent matters, as do assurances, and this entire section is rather saddening. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone switched to support because of a contested PROD. You may have missed the fact that the sources the editor pointed to after explicitly being asked for scholarly secondary sources are all religious primary sources (Tanya and other 18th/19th century Hasidic texts, as well as late medieval and early modern Kabbalistic sources). The fact that this happened after having been explained about WP:NOR numerous times and after the whole thread above (including the topic ban proposal) tends to confirm the tone deafness. I concur that they seem to have good intentions, which indeed renders all of this rather dispiriting, but I for my part believe that we should be much firmer in making sure that content policy is understood and respected. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

At least one comment adjusted their vote explicitly citing that talk page. Again, no editor is required to provide sources to contest a PROD. That's policy. The talk page diff you link isn't a violation of the original research policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that updated comment explicitly cites the lack of understanding with regard to sourcing. Though I see only now that I should have removed the PROD myself given the objection (I too am only ~5 months here), the PROD really is irrelevant: we both agreed that the article needed sourcing, and we were having an open dialogue about that (it would help if you would try not to see it as a battle of any kind, since we didn't either). Showing a lack of understanding on a talk page is indeed not a violation of anything, but it of course accompanies and supports edits in mainspace that are violations (e.g., citing the Tanya mentioned above as a source for an evaluative statement about the subject matter of that source). This combination of (mostly) friendly and open dialogue on the talk page with blatant OR edits in mainspace has also been going on for nearly two months now at Messiah in Judaism, and I guess that for some the interaction at Talk:Olam katan (as well as the minor incident in the collapsed thread below) was the last drop in the bucket. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 06:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I switched to support, but it’s nothing to do with contesting a PROD. I had switched to oppose earlier because he appeared to show recognition of what he needed to do to stay on WP, and was willing to assume WP:NOCLUE. I switched back to support because he:

• Added this to this thread in response to the PROD; and
• What he did at Talk:Olam katan and Olam katan showed that his claims of changing his ways had no follow-through.

Final straws. There’s a history there. DeCausa (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The PROD along with the editor's subsequent request to stop the PROD with a section titled "Keep[] this article temporarily" backdrops and defines the entirety of the editor's involvement on that article. It's appears to me that they were just trying to stop a deletion, claiming the topic is notable and that more sources exist. Maybe one could argue these remarks are attempts to introduce OR if there were a concrete proposal to add specific content. But they weren't even proposing a specific content change here, just trying to stop the deletion with claims of existence of sources. I mean the gist of the comments is summarised thus:

• Am first working on gathering sources, then adding info.
• Only have knowledge of this concept in regards to ... I do not possess the time to wade through and understand ... texts on this ... subject. I will only be able to contribute partially ... If you are an expert, and are willing to go through some texts, I can give you some pointers if you are going in the right direction.

Exactly what policy are you saying this is violating? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

He has a history of mis-using primary sources for OR. And that’s what he’s referring to on the talk page and did on his edit to the article. But that’s not the main point. The main point is what he added to this thread and which I already linked to. Any WP:NOCLUE sympathy I previously had was squashed by that section he added. His edits at Olam katan are just the icing on that particular cake. You may have missed that I made in this thread the same points you made (and linked to the same diffs) about “introspection and improving” before he proved me wrong. DeCausa (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't bother mention the sub-section below because it's even less concerning to me (and if that's the main point then this case really is built on a house of cards. Not only because great latitude tends to be given (at least to experienced editors) in relation to doing strange stuff during conduct-related discussions, presumably under the premise that people have worse judgement when stressed, worried, or overly excited. Overall I think this is an issue blown wildly out of proportion and many of the diffs just don't portray the story some believe they do. Others can evaluate the comments and come to their own conclusions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough; that’s your opinion which I obviously don’t agree with. I only responded to you because you seemed to be under the misunderstanding that anyone changed to Support/strong Support because he objected to the PROD. There’s no indication of that. I think his history primarily at Messiah in Judaism and talk is what’s driven inputs to this thread, not Olam katan. DeCausa (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

*Support topic ban: Reading this thread has been one of the more incredible experiences of my years perusing and contributing to AN/I. This editor appears to misunderstand how Wikipedia functions at a baseline, from the way they rolled back the page when they checked back into the office after the break, to saying that others can be penciled in for Zoom calls. Everything that can be said about content will be said on this site and anything off-site should never have an impact on content. I would have opposed a topic ban, as they are still learning, but that stunningly disrespectful letter down below was something else. I support a temporary topic ban, as they hopefully learn how things are done around here. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 04:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, opting to declare a bunch of other AN/I cases closed while your own spirals downward is a poor idea. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 09:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Site block: Their persistent attempts to close all the other AN/I threads, on the basis of this board being full of "prosecutors" demonstrates a fundamental misalignment of priorities. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 17:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don’t know what to make of Yaakov Wa.’s spree a few hours ago of trying to close down a number of other AN/I threads. Disruptive? Maybe. Bizarre? Definitely. this, this, this, this, and this. DeCausa (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

If these were only slightly disruptive, this request not to comment is crossing the line. Perhaps they are just testing the limits because they desire this discussion to be closed (and I certainly agree that it is taking too long), but some kind of response is needed. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 16:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Can someone reopen the discussion he just closed? versacespaceleave a message! 11:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support topic ban as they are simply a drain on our time and energies (the two most important resources, etc); I'm somewhat surprised there has been no proposal to simply indef on grounds of competence. If there is, then you may consider me a strong support for that option also. ——Serial 12:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear all,

WP:CIRNOT,

Blessings,

Yaakov W.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yaakov Wa.: Instead of demanding closure of other threads at AN/I (you’ve just done it again - I think it’s the 5th or 6th one in the last 18 hours) why don’t you focus on what you need to do in response to the feedback you’ve been getting consistently over the last 2 months. Two editors have just reverted you at Messiah in Judaism yet again for misuse of sources/poor sourcing. Take on board what they’re telling in you instead of ignoring it (or worse you seem to be reverting now). These calls for threads to close look like displacement activity. DeCausa (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to close (Warning for Apaugasma (OWN violation))

This isn't going to go anywhere and just demonstrates a lack of understanding of how enwp works. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear all, I believe this thread has wasted enough time of valuable contributors such as DeCausa and Slywriter who have probably spent hours on this thread. Besides that, it has wasted many hours of my own time as well. I believe it is time to close this thread. Also, should we propose warning for Apaugasma for what appears (to me at least) to be an attempt at owning the topic of Olam katan through deleting competing articles and attempting to topic ban a user involved? Although it is possible that Apagausma does not mean to do it, just the appearance of WP:OWN is rather troubling and should be avoided. Sincerely, Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Support: As proposer.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) @Yaakov Wa.: I give up! I don’t think it’s ever been proved so comprehensively and so quickly that I have appallingly bad judgment. You’ve managed to do that by the above post and this edit (“G-dliness”?!) and what you’ve written at Talk:Olam katan. It’s perfectly reasonable for Apaugasma to suggest AfD for a sourceless article like that which duplicates an already existing article. (What’s a “competing” article?) How can it be OWN? And what on earth makes you think it is appropriate for you to say this thread should be closed as a “waste of time” when the consensus is clearly that you should be topic banned with only myself and Slywrite, somewhat tentatively, opposing. You’ll be lucky if you’re not site banned now. DeCausa (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to close

This has gone on long enough, with subsequent behavior that appears to be trolling, or further proof that this editor does not have the competence required to edit collaboratively. I was initially in favor of a topic ban, but further conduct moves me toward a block if not ban. Can an uninvolved admin weigh in and assess the consensus before this closes with no action? StarM 17:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban User’s contribs show he’s moved on to disruption. DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support full site ban After reading through the above, I do not see how this member could ever be a collaborative contributor without becoming a complete time sink for anyone else they run into, Heiro 17:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban per WP:NOTHERE. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Tentative support I think that a block is warranted given the disruption at ANI, but am not sure indefinite is appropriate at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Courtesy @ProcrastinatingReader: as the primary oppose to be sure PR has seen the latest in the form of the diffs from DarthBotto . StarM 17:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As it's difficult to gauge intent, it's a thin line between 'there's an AGF interpretation to all this' and CIR. I think the AGF interpretation and extended olive branch was reasonable. But after the latest diffs it's hard to justify them, or the apparent 'pattern'. So sanctions seem likely. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban: what this user needs is a Chabad-wiki, where their contributions would no doubt be very productive. Their whole method, i.e., OR based strictly on (what are from the perspective of WP) undue and unreliable Chabad-sources, would be perfectly valid on such a wiki (and create interesting and valuable content), but it is fundamentally incompatible with WP. I believe that the frustration engendered by this incompatibility is what causes the disruptive behavior. Despite their seemingly good intentions (I do not just AGF, I actually believe there is no bad faith here), there is no sign whatsoever that they are even beginning to understand the origin of the frictions, and allowing them to stay would be nothing but a drain on everyone's resources (including, perhaps in the first place, on their own). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Per me above. ——Serial 13:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Support site ban. sigh. User has moved to disruption, and does not seem to be here to build the encyclopedia. They've got a pretty big misalignment of priorities between themself and that of the majority of enwiki contributors. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban User seems to be obviously WP:NOTHERE at this point. Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Could someone close this please, with whatever conclusion? It’s gone on for over two weeks. DeCausa (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban, clearly a WP:NOTHERE situation. Nsk92 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CRZZY.R3X

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• CRZZY.R3X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated personal attacks (1, 2, 3) at User talk:Theroadislong. In future, can personal attacks like this be reported to AIV?--- Possibly (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as not here to build an encyclopedia, and for excessive use of exclamation marks (just kidding!) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

“And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head.” - Terry Pratchett, Maskerade. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

CRZZY.R3X is a friend of mine, he’s kind of a troll-type, I tried telling him your going too far, and he’s gonna get blocked, but he didn’t listen. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Abrand71 has made a series of vandalizing edits to Demographic history of Palestine (region) and Demographic history of Jerusalem, in 2019, 2020 and 2021.[173] The edits have the same pattern of subtle vandalism (the worst kind in my book); the editor changes sourced demographic data with random figures which look credible but bear no relation to the source. I think we have caught them each time so far, but one day this is going to be missed and the fabricated figures will be overlooked. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Don't forget to notify people when your report them here. I have done so for this user. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abrand71: shouldn't be editing Arab-Israeli conflict pages. They haven't ever been given a discretionary sanction notice. I just posted one on their page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I also extended-confirmed protected both articles which are edited by non-autoconfirmed users on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning. Onceinawhile, the report and reverting the edits is appreciated, but you should try to discuss edits that are not blatant vandalism with the user before going to a noticeboard and even vandals should be warned: WP:WARNVAND. Fences&Windows 22:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you very much for this. I didn’t realize that vandals should be warned or engaged with, but your points are fair. Thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UPE by User:Jonh takuma

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See talk page, has submitted many promotional drafts about people who would normally be eligible for A7. Noah ^💬 13:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I moved the one mainspace article they had pushed to mainspace back to draft. I also placed a {{uw-paid}} notice on their talk page. If they continue to edit as before without responding to the paid warning, a block is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There was already a {{uw-paid3}}. Noah ^💬 15:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. My first pass on their talk page didn't pick up on that. Blocked for failure to abide by WP:PAID after being warned. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass nomination of articles to WP:AFD by Parthhalder

Hi, I have created articles and expanded redirects of some popular Bengali TV and film actor and actress based on their WP:ENT and WP:GNG. They are Debottam Majumdar, Rukma Roy, Malabika Sen, Ratna Ghoshal and Anushree Das. I have attached WP:RS like Anandabazar Patrika, The Hindu, The Telegraph (Kolkata), Times of India, Firstpost, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Cinestaan etc. The Hotstar, Youtube are provided additionally to verify the claims of work done only and per WP:RSPYT that says Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability.. But Parthhalder has engaged in mass nomination of articles started/expanded by me and putting false allegations of being connected/or doing research work. I declare that I do not have any WP:COI or being WP:UPE. Please help, this is really posing as a big discouragement to contribute positively to Wikipedia. I started those articles because I find their works quite notable and they are popular in eastern India and Bangladesh. Please help. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969, Timtrent, and Titodutta: as they helped and reviewed the pages earlier. Thank you.Run n Fly (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Run n Fly: As it says in the big box at the top when you start a thread, you must notify someone if you open a thread about them. I've added the requisite message to Parthhalder's talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: pardon for the honest mistake. Will keep that in mind next time and thanks for notifying on my behalf. Run n Fly (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I encountered Run n Fly when I nominated Malabika Sen for deletion, perhaps too early. I promised that I would withdraw the nomination if they improved the article. They did, I did, and thought no more about it, save that I viewed the article as borderline when I withdrew. My decision was about giving it a fighting chance.

I may offer an opinion in any of these discussions, or I may not. Any opinion will be rooted in policy.

Other than that I have no horse in this race and offer no opinion in this discussion, at least at this point. Fiddle Faddle 14:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: While I dont have anything to say about the allegations, I dont see anything wrong in these AFD nominations. I already commented on two AFD discussions and from my assessment, the notability of the subject in those two were borderline. At the same time, I also have concerns regarding why Parthlader is only targeting the articles created by Run n Fly. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• There were only five articles sent to AfD, and they appear to need a discussion (one looks like a weak keep, one looks like a possible delete), so not really a disruptive mass nomination coming to ANI for. SportingFlyer T·C 15:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Parthhalder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't why Parthhalder is targeting my creations only. Anyone may examine the contributions (only 95+ till now) with three creations two deleted due to WP:PROMOTION. Also his/her statements in nominations seems to be done in hurry with spelling mistakes. Looks like some motive or WP:REVENGE behind WP:AFDs for unknown reasons. Looks suspicious to me. Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Run n Fly However hard done by you may feel it is not appropriate for you to impute motives to another editor. I commend Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot to you after you have read Wikipedia:Civility Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Timtrent OK. Will remember that. Run n Fly (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Run n Fly I am sure people will be asking whether you have attempted to resolve this on the talk page of the editor you have expressed concerns about.To save them the trouble I am asking. Have you done so? And have you allowed time for a reply?

  If neither of these is the case may I suggest that you withdraw this discussion (you may not delete it, only withdraw your complaint) pending the outcome of those discussions, discussions which must be conducted with civility. Fiddle Faddle 16:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• While I have nothing to comment on the purported feud, I have found apparently the only live article, created by Parthhalder (other than the previously deleted Signature 24 Production) failing to achieve notability and so decided to nominate it for a deletion discussion. Chirota (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Run n Fly: For the images you uploaded for Ratna Ghoshal, and Anushree Das, you put source as "own work". Do you mean you took this pictures/videos yourself or you took a screenshot of them and is your own work. Ratna's Picture looks as if its from this interview. And Anushree's picture looks like its from this episode(not this clip) of one of her shows. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiVirusC First one scanned from local newspaper and second one I have obtained from film VCD and edited both in GIMP. I have now updated these declarations now in respective commons 'source'. Thanks for pointing them. Run n Fly (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I have self removed the images from respective articles as 'scanned photographs' are not own work. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment and Suggest Closure This is going nowhere, and needs an admin who has not participated and otherwise has no interest in the case to sum up consensus and close it. We have an accusation, intemperate beahviour, lack of answers to the question about seeking to resolve thngs on the accused party's talk page, nothing productive of any description. I can see no sanctions likely in any direction, so this has worked as a useful but entirely pointless safety valve. All keepinh this open does is prolongs the time until healing takes its natural course. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 15:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attacks in edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hararararra is edit warring with questionable edits and making attacks in edit summaries. They also filed a disruptive AIV report on Serols. aeschyIus (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steverci

I find persistent violation of WP:CIVIL by Steverci (talk · contribs) to be highly unacceptable. First he filed a frivolous report on me at WP:AE, when he did not like a source that I added to the article. [174] He never tried to discuss the source in question with me at talk of the article, just took it straight to enforcement page. His report was dismissed, and I myself initiated a discussion at talk of the article in order to resolve the problem by consensus. [175] However Steverci kept being rude, and made personal comments, such as "Clearly you're not here to contribute to the article and this is becoming a waste of time", [176] and despite my request to mind WP:CIVIL, he continued accusing me of lying, etc. [177] Perhaps admins could explain this editor the importance of remaining civil, especially in an arbitration covered article? Even if we assume that I made a mistake, it is not a reason to violate WP:AGF and assume an ulterior motive in my edit. Uncivil and personal remarks are clearly not helpful, and create unnecessary drama. Grandmaster 23:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

As I explained a million times, the issues wasn't with the RFE/RL source itself, it was that Grandmaster falsely attributed the claims of two partisans the source only mentioned as being from RFE/RL itself and referred to them as "RFE/RL experts" when they have no affiliation to the website. This seemed rather identical to a fairly recent AE case where an editor was topic banned from AA2 for adding Category:Massacres of men to various unrelated articles, without bothering or not caring the category is only for articles where males were targeted for their gender. I gave Grandmaster the benefit of the doubt he misread the source and asked him to explain himself multiple times,[178][179][180] but so far he still has not. I said this was becoming a waste of time because Grandmaster referred to something overwhelmingly confirmed by reliable sources to be "mythical". Per WP:NOTHERE: their words or actions indicate a longer-term motive inconsistent with "here to build an encyclopedia". --Steverci (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Steverci, you directly said "any source that fails to even mention the Syrian terrorists is not worth regarding" about the RFE/RL piece, so it is not true that your concern was only attribution. Attribution can be fixed by a simple edit, not removing all the content. You've misrepresented what Grandmaster said: their edit began "According to RFE/RL," not "RFE/RL experts". You assert that reputable sources all attribute the Azerbaijan victory to "Syrian terrorists" (an inflammatory label reliable sources don't use, even if the Armenian government does), but you failed to cite those sources on the talk page - and even were other sources to back your claim (an analyst cited in the article refers to Syrian mercenaries), RFE/RL is reliable enough (I know it is US government run, but Azerbaijan has no love for it: [181]) and so can still be used in combination with other sources for an analysis of why Azerbaijan won.

If you're going to claim Grandmaster should be indef blocked, which is what saying they are NOTHERE effectively means, you need to have much stronger evidence. And referring to someone else's AE case is relevant how? You're making accusations of lying, which fails to assume good faith. You seem to be casting aspersions and you need to stop unnecessarily escalating disputes with WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

Grandmaster, the AE was already closed so there's no need to relitigate that. You should also avoid inflammatory rhetoric like "mythical" when referring to Syrian mercenaries; if reliable sources discuss their involvement, they're hardly akin to unicorns: [182][183][184][185] (etc.) Fences&Windows 14:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows I didn't say Syrians were a decisive factor, although Turkey was a decisive factor (as many sources confirm), and the Syrians were recruited and deployed by Turkey. I said it's suspicious if a source fails to even mention the Syrians because they were all put on the front lines, often in suicide attacks to locate Armenian positions. If RFE/RL is run by the US government, that explains why it ignored something NATO ally Turkey wanted to be kept secret. Further down Grandmaster's edit, he wrote "and RFE/RL experts believe that Turkey transferred to Azerbaijan". And I'm aware "terrorist" is a word to avoid, but that's exactly what the European Parliament calls them ("the transfer of foreign terrorist fighters by Turkey from Syria and elsewhere to Nagorno-Karabakh"). MOS:TERRORIST states: "...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". --Steverci (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Fences&Windows, thank you for your opinion, it is much appreciated. Just to clarify, I have no intention to relitigate the AE report, I only mentioned it to show how the dispute over RFL source started. And when I said "mythical" mercenaries, it was not a personal attack on Steverci, I meant that those mercenaries were practically invisible on the battleground. Major reports and analyses of the combat operations make very little mention of them, if at all. But I do not challenge their inclusion in the article, it was my response to Steverci bringing them up at talk, implying that no analysis could be considered relaible if it made no mention of them. But I will refrain from use of such words further on. In any case, I think that any communication on talk should not cross the boundaries of civility, and any argumentation could be presented in a polite and respectful manner. I certainly made no personal comments on Steverci, so I don't see why he should repeatedly make uncivil comments on me. Grandmaster 16:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Nguyentrongphu bludgeoning Talk:Adolf Hitler

User:Nguyentrongphu wants to make a change to Adolf Hitler, so they post on the article talk page. Three editors disagree that the change is warranted, so Nguyentrongphu starts another thread on Talk:Adolf Hitler and more editors disagree with him. So Nguyentrongphu starts a third thread on the talk page, where another editor disagrees with him. So far, six editors have disagreed with Nguyentrongphu, but they still insist on pushing for their change, saying that "consensus can be slow to build."

There is no apparent consensus to be built. The six editors who have disagreed with Nguyentrongphu include those editors who are very frequent contributors to the article and to the talk page. Not one has even hinted that they think Nguyentrongphu's change is acceptable.

Can an admin please suggest to Nguyentrongphu that they need to back off? If there's a consensus waiting for come to the surface to support their suggested change, it doesn't require constant bludgeoning from Nguyentrongphu. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Bishonen | tålk 11:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC).

It's not bludgeoning when I'm continuously trying to improve the sentence after receiving positive feedbacks such as the strength of the source. The requested change in the three threads are different, not the same. I have the right to improve my requested change when I see new valid arguments surfacing. After seeing issues with my 2 earlier threads, I started a third thread with more reliable and strong sources. Each thread is independent and has different contents, so saying 6 editors disagree with my third thread is misleading. It's actually one so far.

The sentence is problematic in its current state. Is the Hitler article so perfect that it's impossible to improve it any further? Other editors don't seem to be interested in improving the article further. I'm willing to compromise if someone can offer a better wording. Everyone should approach changes with an open mind. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I did comment on the first proposal, noting that you've synthesized something that is not actually present in the cited sources. That's called original research, and we're not allowed to do that. Your further proposals are no better, offering an over-simplified reason (proposal #2) as to why Hitler purged the SA and one that is obviously incorrect (proposal #3). Multiple other people (not just one person) have explained to you why none of the suggested edits work, so I did not see a reason for me to also add a comment. In the first thread Talk:Adolf Hitler#Request to add information, you said I seemed to be not knowledgeable, and later implied that you are senior to all of us. I tend not to participate in discussions with people who say things like that, particularly when multiple other people are already handling the situation just fine. I get it that people want to edit the big article, but when your suggested edits are low quality, they are not going to succeed.— Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa I take back the "not knowledgable" part. The "seniority" part, one has to look at the whole context. I was just making a point that don't start to talk about seniority when you joined Wikipedia after me. I clearly clarified seniority doesn't matter right afterward. I did try to adjust my proposal accordingly every time I saw a valid rational feedback. You don't have to agree with my proposal, but why don't you try to improve the sentence? It's partially untrue and misleading in its current state. Hitler didn't give a damn about anxiety of industrial and political leaders. Look at the causes in the table at Night of the Long Knives (2 of them involving the army). I'm requesting an improvement to the sentence that you yourself can come up with a change of what you think is best. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nguyentrongphu, it seems to me that you are promoting an idiosyncratic interpretation of sources you have read, and are not willing to accept that others are unpersuaded. You really should know better than this. There's a huge sprawling discussion, and you seem to be the lone voice in favour of what you want to say. It doesn't help that some of it reads as apologia, which I am sure is not your intent. I recommend you read the sources suggested by Buidhe on the talk page, it seems that you are working from older sources than other editors familiar with the subject. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy I did incorporate Buidhe's suggested source in my third proposal though. Take a look. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nguyentrongphu needs to conduct a more careful study of up-to-date reliable sources and stop suggesting that others lack knowledge. Our own knowledge is not so important - sources are what matters. The sources need to be closely followed and other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. I don't understand the rush to keep making suggestions of changes and it is not winning anyone over. If there are disagreements, follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

That said, Beyond My Ken's personal comment that "I find it rather incredible that you're a 'crat on Wiktionary with the kind of attitude you're throwing around here - 6 years with 57 edits" was unhelpful. Please focus on content, not trying to discredit other editors. I don't think this really needed to come to AN/I; there are other dispute resolution options less nuclear than this noticeboard. Fences&Windows 00:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

But none nearly as effective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

My third proposal has 3 books as reliable sources to support my position. I do agree that this ANI seems premature. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

In your second thread on that page you already tried to use two of those books - and it was explained to you by several editors in that earlier thread why you got that wrong. In your third thread you’ve done exactly the same thing using the same books in the same way plus adding Kershaw, but misusing it in exactly the same way. That’s why it’s WP:BLUDGEON. DeCausa (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That's one way to twist facts to fit your own narrative of bludgeoning. It's obviously not the same thing when I did change the wording. Nobody has explained to me so far what's wrong with my third proposal. One editor disagrees over a semantics issue of the word "threat", and that's about it. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Partial block. The time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's greatest resource, and it appears to me that Nguyentrongphu has been squandering that resource, not stopping after my warning. I have blocked them for two months from Talk:Adolf Hitler. With some hesitation, I have left the main page, Adolf Hitler, open for them, with a warning against moving any of the talkpage disruption there. Bishonen | tålk 09:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC).
  • The article is under extended-confirmed protection, and Nguyentrongphu only has ~100 edits. So it's not possible for them to edit the article until they have a bit more experience here at en.wiki. — Diannaa (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  Seriously? I have stopped opening another thread since the ANI. How is this block even warranted and preventive of anything? This does feel like a punishment for voicing a different unpopular opinion. I've asked for a block review. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTOPINION. MarnetteD|Talk 11:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I've stopped bludgeoning and stopped creating any new thread. And now, I'm not even allowed to participate in a discussion anymore without getting blocked? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You’ve got a theory. You’ve tried to push that theory 3 different ways over 23 posts over 5 days. None of the 6 participating editors buys that theory. Your participation in the discussion is the bludgeoning. Time to do something else. DeCausa (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It's actually 3 different theories (2 of them are related). 23 posts over 5 days per editor is actually on a low side comparing to some other discussions. 6 editors in total had disagreement over 3 different theories, not per theory. Saying participation in the discussion = bludgeoning is problematic and concerning. If that's the case, admins can block anyone (they don't like) arbitrarily for "bludgeoning" in any hotly debate when someone edits a lot in 1-2 days even when there is no edit war or 3RR or any violation of civility (or the bludgeoning has stopped). There is a fine distinction between participation in a discussion vs bludgeoning. The bludgeoning has stopped, and the wish to discuss has continued. Yet, I was blocked arbitrarily with the label "bludgeoning". I feel like I've been stepped over just because I don't have a lot of edits here. I don't think an established editor would be treated this way even if they go all out in a debate. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think I don't like you? I've never encountered you AFAIK. Bishonen | tålk 16:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC).

I'm not saying you don't like me. I'm saying established editor (with a lot of edits) get treated differently (better) compared to me with a low edit count here at En Wikipedia. I've stopped the bludgeoning and didn't plan to open any new thread since the ANI. I only wish to continue the discussion without bludgeoning, is that too much to ask? The discussion is actually dead at this point, not sure why a block is necessary. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

In response to a warning that you might get a WP:IDHT site wide block, you said on your talk page here that you were dropping this. But you said that before the last two above posts here. DeCausa (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That was before I saw your comment. I'll stop when you stop. I'm dropping it at my talk page and no longer requesting a block review. A site wide block would be a clear abuse from an admin since I haven't done anything that warrants it. I have the right to defend myself against false accusations and misleading statements here. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nothing more from me. DeCausa (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Persistent WP:DE IP range

There's been an IP range that's been continuing with disruptive edits for months long, possibly a year (or more?) at this point. Their main focus is on television articles, and at this point they've used a countless number of IPs that it's hard to find specific instances of disruptive edits. I know they've had a focus on Nickelodeon-related articles, and have been reverted by multiple editors multiple times. One article in particular would be Ollie's Pack- for whatever web browser you use, just go to the history of the article and search (in Chrome, for example, CONTROL + G or CONTROL + F) for '2804:D49'. Most of the issues involve them listing people incorrectly for certain fields, or just putting incorrect information and/or not following MOS/templates/hidden notes.

I'm thinking something needs to be done here, since it's clear at this point that any warnings they are issued are pointless/simply ignored by them, and they continue on anyways. Just the past month or so has included warnings at:

• User talk:2804:D49:4905:E600:68F7:F16B:105E:5511
• User talk:2804:D49:4905:E600:1A9:A675:80C4:910E
• User talk:2804:D49:BCF:8400:B41F:891A:23EB:E553
• User talk:2804:D49:D0A:8600:EEF4:51FF:FE08:B897
• User talk:2804:D49:4905:E600:684E:2958:E16B:9999

Also not sure what IP range would be best, but likely either 2804:D49:4905:E600:0:0:0:0/64 or 2804:D49:4905:E600:0:0:0:0/32. Magitroopa (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• The range Special:Contributions/2804:D49:4905:E600::/64 is likely one person and is the most bothersome. From Brazil, ignores messages, not sure understands English. Communication via edit summaries, user page messages and hidden notes are generally ignored as possibly not able to understand them. Some good edits, lots of unsourced stuff, generally ignores manual of style and infobox instructions for what goes in attributes. Other IPs listed above seem unrelated and just normal IP edits that vary in quality. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• The perfect storm. An IPv6 address that keeps changing, and so only has the same user talk page for 6 hours or so, editing from a mobile 'phone using a mobile interface, and so doesn't see talk pages. Wikipedia:Editing on mobile devices. Uncle G (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• I blocked the /64 range prior to even seeing this. Might be worth assessing potential collateral damage of a /32 and implement if warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It might be wiser to enable account creation, as the person creating an account and using it is a better outcome here. Uncle G (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Also worth noting that this is likely an even much bigger range issue, so likely the IP range will keep changing and will just need to be blocked each time they return:

The now-blocked (for 31 hours) Special:Contributions/2804:D49:4905:E600::/64 has only been since the beginning of February, and I'd already had problems with this 'person'/IP at Ollie's Pack since last year- going through the history of that article (instructions given in my initial discussion message above), and there's been others such as Special:Contributions/2804:D49:490C:3600::/64 from November - December 2020, Special:Contributions/2804:D49:4930:BA00::/64 from January - February 2021, and plenty more earlier in 2020 (not going to list them all), and likely plenty prior to even then. The oldest (on that specific article) is Special:Contributions/2804:D49:4925:F800::/64 from May - August 2020. I've also reverted them many times on Lego City Adventures, for example. Seems like they change ranges every 1-2 months, and the root of it all is '2804:D49', which would most definitely be too large of a range to block. Magitroopa (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Also as example for, "generally ignores manual of style and infobox instructions for what goes in attributes" as Geraldo mentioned- this edit on Ollie's Pack from October, even though Template:Infobox television says, "The show's writer or writers. Do not use if the show has many (5+) writers." Magitroopa (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

"The Federalist" RSN closure review request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

 – ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Several days ago, I made this close [186] at WP:RSN. Since then, Atsme has expressed concern with the quality of the close and the consensus of the discussion (see comments on my talk page: [[187]], [[188]], [[189]]. I made the close not based on my personal opinion of The Federalist, but on the consensus of the discussion, which I felt was to downgrade but stop short of deprecation. Since it's been challenged, I wanted to open it up to community review and give an admin the opportunity to review the close, especially since I'm new to this realm of editing. If there's consensus here to overturn, I'd appreciate any specific guidance on where I went wrong with this close. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

ThadeusOfNazereth - I'm thinking the correct venue for this review would be AN not ANI? Atsme 💬 📧 00:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

4-1 in favor of deprecating either in whole or in part. You're fine, the challenger is engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Zaathras (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Hotwiki and User:Tomahawk1221's edit summaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Further information: Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5 § Other status, X-Corporation, X-Men-in-Training, etc.

I am here to report User:Tomahawk1221 for his inappropriate behavior seen in his edit summaries.[190] Cursing out members and resorting to personal attacks are unacceptable.TheHotwiki (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Reporting User:Hotwiki for commandeering a page and refusing to take anything to the talk page.

He makes sweeping deletions without any discussion, contradicts rationales for keeping content vs widespread omissions. He is not the admin for the page but will not allow any edits save for his own. When confronted, he automatically claims abuse and personal attacks. He should be banned from making any more edits to this page: List of X-Men members

On many occasions, when others try to contribute edits, he simply reverts with zero explanation and only offers something snotty, like "no, thanks" as if he is the sole owner. I know he has had many other instances like this on other pages where he behaves in the same manner. People like him and his authoritarian approach make wikipedia worse and in direct violation of what "collaboration" is meant to be.Tomahawk1221 (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Calling people nazis [191], yelling in your edit summaries, and posting messages on user talk pages about how they "are such a little bitch" [192] does not help your case. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 06:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. and deleting the other user's report doesn't make it go away. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 06:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought I explained well why I removed such content. If someone has an issue with the recent removals, I'm willing to discuss them in the talk page of the article. Now what I don't get is why can't it be discussed in a civil way. Instead I've been called names, attacked plenty of times by the same editor. I'm always open for a talk page discussion regarding article disputes.TheHotwiki (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

More personal attacks here. Honestly I think Tomahawk1221 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 07:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Tomahawk is continuing to refactor and delete other people's talk page comments. At this point it should be a clear indef. — Czello 07:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

(post-close comment) If we have an award for Edit Summary of the Month, I nominate this one. "Cease and Desist!!" Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ravensfire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have an issue with the particular user Ravensfire. I have earlier notified several Wikipedian Admins including Girth Summit regarding the issue of a target game by Ravensfire when this particular admin Girth Summit asked me to shut up or I will be blocked INDEFINITELY if I raise my voice against the immoralities done by such users. Is this how Wikipedia treats people who raise their voice against wrongdoings?--Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to pass on my views on how Ravensfire had been constantly targeting an article created by me which is Priyanka Choudhary for siding up with his/her friends User Drmies and Fizconiz who were involved in edit wars with me.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

See, it is totally ridiculous that an editor like Ravensfire has totally set his/her eyes on the article Priyanka Choudhary when there are several articles like Priyal Mahajan, Debattama Saha, Pravisht Mishra and Gouri Agarwal all of which have issues with fulfilling both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG (I have nominated all of these for deletion recently). Isn't it funny that Ravensfire seems to least bothered about these articles but constantly targeting Priyanka Choudhary? --Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, please check the diffs [193] Ravensfire had removed chunks of information from the article wrongly claiming it to be WP:PUFFERY, when he/she was just trying on and on to delete the article.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I request the admins to do something about the user Ravensfire--Aleyamma38 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• It is difficult to get anything from your above report except for that you are unhappy with some situation which includes you, Ravensfire, and a bunch of articles nominated for deletion. If you want to go anywhere, you would need to provide diffs or at least links to discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aparna Mishra, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Choudhary, and pretty much the whole of User talk:Aleyamma38. Uncle G (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ymblanter:The OP has accused other editors of trying to nominate a page for deletion for "immoral" reasons (and has accused users of engaging in "immoralities" in making this report). The user also uses a lot of boldface and is responding to themselves in a long chain form, which is making some of this visually hard to parse. Some of it appears WP:BLUDGEON-ey, though it might be the bold text that's making it come off that way rather than the context of the text itself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • And, it turns out, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeeshan Khan (actor) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aparna Mishra. Uncle G (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Having scoured edits made by both you and Ravensfire, it appears that you are upset about the Priyanka Choudhary deletion discussion, so you not only responded by nominating several articles for deletion on similar grounds, but also requested disciplinary action against Ravensfire. I recommend you withdraw your case and stop bludgeoning discussions with bold ALL-CAPS. Otherwise, you are asking for a major boomerang. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 08:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Aleyamma38: The creator of the page doesn't own the page in any special way, so you don't get any sort of veto power over changes made to the page/the deletion of the page. Do you have any evidence that Ravensfire is coordinating with Drmies and Fizconiz to specifically target you? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• The one diff the you supply is this. Do you really not see that "Priyanka was always passionate about acting" is puffery? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • With reference to the last noticeboard discussion, I point out that I have soothed Drmies's brow ahead of time with a fireman. Uncle G (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Aleyamma38 Please don't use other people's signatures when you refer to them; I've refactored your comment to remove mine. I did not tell you to 'shut up', I told you that you should not make unsupported accusations of bad faith editing, because those are interpreted as personal attacks, which are prohibited. You have ignored that advice, and continued to unsupported accusations of bad faith editing, both here and at the AfD discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not really surprised at Aleyamma38 posting this, just that it took as long as it did after their prior block. They're understandably not happy at one of their articles being nominated for deletion, and I understand that. They've known my concerns for a while, and on Talk:Priyanka Choudhary I outlined those concerns and pinged a couple of editors that had previously edited the article or interacted with Aleyamma38 in an apparently positive manner. After they were blocked, I committed to not starting an AFD discussion until after they had returned and spent some time trying to find sources, but ultimately, I started the AFD about a week after their block ended. In that talk page discussion and in the AFD, Aleyamma38 will not accept anyone's view point that doesn't meet their approval. Between that and their posting style, communication is challenging at best. Aleyamma38 - I don't disagree with you that other articles are in poor shape or shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but honestly, when you find those articles, you really should be looking into them, not demanding that others do so. Just like you, I'm a WP:VOLUNTEER here editing. Asking for advice is one thing, but demands like you've made just don't go over well. Ravensfire (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Link to prior ANI where similar issues were raised - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#Aleyamma38.Ravensfire (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND ban

The OP has been previously sanctioned as a result of a recent discussion at this board. At the time, which was less than a month ago, El_C issued the account a 1 week block, writing in the block summary that the rationale for the block was (Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: WP:BATTLEGROUND, personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS. Also, seems to be disruptively long-winded, to the point of filibustering and WP:BLUDGEON. The user was further blocked from editing their own talk page by Girth Summit after similar behavior continued there. I therefore propose that the OP be subject to an indefinite WP:CBAN owing to their clear and persistent WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, as well as repeated uses of personal attacks while in conflict with other editors. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Previous discussion resulting in block by El C is concerning, and pretty much the same article and same kind of behaviour as this, so obviously the week block didn't work. I think one month would be better than indefinite though, with specific advice to stop personalising disputes, acting like they own articles, and by extension stopping with the boldwords weirdness. And with a caution that if they end up here again, it'll probably be for indefinite. Though this would depend on them, if they wish to take the olive branch or just continue like this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  Apparently this advice has already been given at User_talk:Aleyamma38#Needless_bold BTW, so there may be a WP:CIR issue here as well, also exemplified by User_talk:Aleyamma38#Edits, in which case indefinite wouldn't be inappropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support 1 month per ProcRead if their current shenanigans is the result of a temporary passion due to their articles being AFDd (even our best editors have been known to throw their toys out of the pram for the same reason). However, if their's is a more general CIR problem, then indef is the only possible option. ——Serial 09:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support totally. Deb (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support This user has ignored many attempts by many users to get them to understand that this type of discourse, where they throw around accusations that people are ganging up to victimise them, that people are acting immorally, that they are lying etc, but they have shown no inclination to engage with advice. It has become a time sink at this point. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support I think at this point it's quite clear that this user just isn't compatible with Wikipedia's collaborative editing. Based on their constant shouting, accusations, finger pointing and clear ownership over an extended period I don't believe it's possible for them to change at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 11:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above — Ched (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Padgriffin (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above and welcome to appeal in six months should they indicate an understanding of norms and collaborative editing. StarM 16:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is a collaborative project; behaviour such as refusing and ignoring advice and engaging with a battleground mentality when offered such advice is incompatible with that project. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. This person's behavior is consistently argumentative and confrontational. They have rejected helpful advice from several experienced editors and persisted with behavior that is incompatible with a collaborative project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but I echo the above calls for early appeal. I wish there were a better way forward, but it's hard to see, under the circumstances. My friend Cullen328 is a very kind and patient man, I think he is fundamentally right, but India has serious challenges right now and I think we should be mindful of the personal stresses that might disturb the judgment of otherwise good people. Two of my team are fighting COVID right now. Let's not forget that people are human, even while stopping their human frailties form disrupting Wikipedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. This user has made a promise to themselves to engage in edit wars and personal attacks to every user they interact with and it's pissing everyone off, clearly. Their arguments have never addressed the issue of concern and they drift off in their imaginary world of what they think Wikipedia is, by using claims such as "casting spells", "teaming up" "unlawful acts" and other extremely absurd phrasing they choose to shove into their annoying, visually unpleasant, and frequent shouting response, despite numerous other people telling them to refrain from taking that approach. The relationship between the position taken, argumentation, and their perspective presented are so irrelevant to the point where it becomes difficult for other contributors to settle a minor dispute. Their communication continues to prove its harm on the collaborative-based editing project. This user wants it their way or no way, and that's crystal clear. Fizconiz (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Of note is this gem on the OP's talk: My apologies, but your EXPLANATIONS are not VALID, whatever it is PINKVILLA is an UNRELIABLE SOURCE in Wikipedia. So they're just going to declare a criticising editor's opinion is wrong, based on what? Their feelings? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

TheDragonFire300 I never had meant his/her opinion is wrong. I said PINKVILLA is a UNRELIABLE SOURCE. Plus, it was Ravensfire who had told me as I have presented in the diff above, that re-writing twice in both Career and Television section is supposed to be WP:PUFFERY which I echoed with the other editor. Thanks --Aleyamma38 (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• I just want to mention about Fizconiz. The person is accusing me of edit wars when it is the other way round. That editor had been engaging in edit wars with me and that editor was the one who started all of this from the article Hitesh Bharadwaj. Please check the diff [194], where the user Fizconiz along with the user Drmies (misusing his/her admin powers) are hell-bent to CORRECT ONE SINGLE SENTENCE of an article, when there were so many other issues with the same article! Is Wikipedia all about correcting ONE SENTENCE? I had already told this to Cyphoidbomb but that admin never took any actions. He had been paying a cold-shoulder to all my pleas against Fizconiz right from the beginning. ISN'T THAT INJUSTICE?--Aleyamma38 (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Secondly regarding Girth Summit Please read this comment form that editor you've framed your comments above to me as a request, so I feel obliged to respond: no, I will not be following up on this with Drmies. Your behaviour in the lead up to this block was what was out of line, not theirs. Now, if you want to move on from the 'baseless brawls', here is what I would advise: just move on, stop talking about them, forget about them and do something else. And, like many others have suggested, I'd strongly recommend that you drop the bolding and capitalisation. It's not just that it's ineffective at getting your point across, it's also considered rude, and will get people's backs up. It's a bit like going into a library and shouting loudly - we just don't do it. Your making this small modification in your mode of address would likely impress people as a sign of your good faith. Best GirthSummit (blether) Here he/she is 'INDEED ASKING ME TO SHUT UP, but for what? For asking to PENALIZE Drmies who had passed a DEROGATORY COMMENT on me in my talk page(It's truly amazing: an editor gets blocked for harassment)? --Aleyamma38 (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There are so many admins' present here...Tell me why I'm being punished for raising voice against INJUSTICE? Why is there no one punish WRONGDOERS like Ficozniz, Drmies or even Ravensfire. Yes I don't have SOLID PROOF to show Ravensfire is involved in TARGET GAME. But then the editor ONLY FOCUSING on the article created by me is in itself THE BIGGEST PROOF I have. Has Wikipedia had asked him/her to FOCUS ONLY ON MY ARTICLE? No right? Then, why are they doing it? I have one request to the Wikipedian Admin, since this a collaborative project. I just don't want Ficozniz, Drmies or Ravensfire to start edit wars with me again or TARGET THE ARTICLES CREATED BY ME! then for sure there will be no personalised disputes. I think that is the least Wikipedia can do for an editor. Thanks--Aleyamma38 (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you've clearly not taken the advice given to you to heart. WP:NOTTHEM might be helpful in a short while... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: In light of the update provided by the editor following section and the discussion above, I've just added a request for closure at WP:RFCLOSE. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Enough Of Wikipedia

[I moved this WP:DIVA exit up from the bottom of the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)]]

Continuing with the discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ravensfire. I'm writing it here because it is too CROWDED there and I do not know if I will be left UNHEARD AS USUAL. I do not know what will be the WIKIPEDIAN ADMINS decision but I just have ONE THING TO SAY I have ENOUGH OF EDITING WIKIPEDIA. Now, I'm totally fed up with the PLATFORM will not log in again to edit here UNTIL AND UNLESS SOMETHING NEEDS TO SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED here. I request the Wikipedian Admins please do look into Fizconiz because that editor does indulge into a lot of edit wars. Just hope that the other editors don't suffer. I don't think Wikipedia really deserves an editor like me. So, in short I QUIT THIS PLATFORM. Goodbye--Aleyamma38 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Goodbye. Fizconiz (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Given the unanimity of responses in support of a block and the continued IDHT behavior, I'm going to go ahead and just issue an indef block. If they mean what they say it makes no difference anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(edit conflict)@Beeblebrox: Not to get too into the weeds here, but shouldn't it be a WP:CBAN? I know that for most practical reasons an indef block and a community ban are similar, but don't they have different removal/appeal mechanisms? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessary, a full site ban was not really what was proposed. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: the proposal was I therefore propose that the OP be subject to an indefinite WP:CBAN owing to their clear and persistent WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Per WP:SBAN, Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. I think it's clear editors were voting to site ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

And the closing should probably indicate that it was the filer who was blocked, not the subject of the thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

obvious sockpuppet of user:EljanM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

JavanshirAliyev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This new editor has a userpage, editing style (obsessively removing Armenian names from articles) and edit summaries filled with nationalistic reasoning similar to blocked sockpuppeteer user:EljanM and related socks.  Looks like a duck to me - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I noticed this as well, and opened up a sockpuppet investigation [195]. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

reported user was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet, can an uninvolved user close this report? Thanks - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Theplugsboy disruptively editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Theplugsboy has been constantly making edits on my user-space even after they were asked to stop multiple times. Not only that, but they have resorted to language/name calling on my page, and talk page.

Warnings and the User's response's to those warnings
First Warning: [196] Response: [197]
Second Warning: [198]
Third Warning: [199] Response: [200]

Changes they made on my user-space
Disruptive Edit on my page 1: [201]
Disruptive Edit on my page 2: [202]
Disruptive Edit on my page 3: [203]
Disruptive Edit on my page 4: [204]
Disruptive Edit on my page 5: [205]

Message they left me on my talk page
Message on my talk page: [206]

Not only that, but I feel like the message on my talk page was very much clear as to what they were telling me, which was in their words "just unalive urself". Chase | ^talk 21:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

122.168.143.180

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

A battleground mentality who refuses to make a case at talk for a very contentious edit. And they have actually dared me to report them for it, so here we are. The issue is this edit [[207]]. I have informed them of both DS sanctions [[208]] and informed them of ONUS. Yes they are a newbie, but its clear they need a formal warning.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Do not revert edits without showing any proof whatsoever to validate your actions. I had a citation, and that citation had relevant information. You can't claim that it's "unsubstantiated" on your own, especially without any proof. Also, judging by Slatersteven's talk and edit history, I'd suggest having a review of this user to check for his continuous edit wars and bias against a nation. A skim over his talk page makes it seem like he gets involved in too many of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.143.180 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said that is not how it works, WP:ONUS is clear, if you are reverted you make the case. Edit summaries are not the place to provide "proof", talk page discussions are. I informed you that we needed third-party RS (not sources party to the conflict) for such a claim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Moreover your reply here is chock full of wp:rightgreatwrongs and wp:nothere.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

IP blocked 48 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page misuse by R. Martiello

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

R. Martiello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly and significantly altered/removed their previous posts on talk pages [209][210]. They have not responded to messages on their user talk page, including a message asking them to abide by talk page guidelines. I'm generally getting strong WP:NOTHERE vibes from this user. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing the editor's history: there seems to have been a little previous editing at BLPs, but since June 2020 there's intent to redefine some commonly used English terms, like including Italians in the definition of Latino people. It's unclear to me if it's language barrier, nationalism or other reasons, but there's a lot of persistence despite previous explanation. Long winded posts and forum-style argumentation are used rather than presenting reliable sources to support their suggestions, previous self-posts are often reworked despite already being replied to (warned, repeated). Their talk page is full of warnings including for writing strange posts like this and for not citing sources when adding/changing material in articles. Altering content without a source happens again on 2 March, the rest is seemingly endless debate... —PaleoNeonate – 11:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• R. Martiello has posted on other people's talkpages, so I'm not going to make my frequent strenuously-AGF supposition that they may not be aware of having a talkpage of their own. Altogether, they don't give off much of a new-and-incompetent-user vibe, but seem to know their way around Wikipedia. I would block them, possibly for NOTHERE, were it not for the fact that I did block them for personal attacks/harassment in June 2020 — still the only block on their record.[211] To avoid the impression that I have a bee in my bonnet about the user, it would be better if another admin took stock of the situation and of the appropriateness, if any, of some sanction, or of yet another warning. Bishonen | tålk 11:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC).

I've partially blocked R. Martiello from Latino, Latino (demonym), and their talk pages. Their disruption was continuing despite warnings. If disruption persists on other pages then we can consider a topic ban and/or other blocks. Fences&Windows 00:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuous addition of unsourced content to Koshta by User:Piyushkoshta.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Piyushkoshta is continuously adding unsourced information to Koshta despite being reverted and warned by editors [212], [213], [214], [215]. The user has also performed various personal attacks in the user's edit summaries, and also may have a conflict of interest, as the username and language indicates that the user is part of the very same caste that the user is editing about. Action must be taken by an administrator to prevent the addition of unsourced content, especially in such a contentious area as South Asian social groups. Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocking now. As a general note, this topic area requires rapid and heavy handed actions from administrators; POV pushing is absolutely rife, and SPAs only get worse the longer you wait. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that such an approach can be aided by invoking the WP:CASTE GS. El_C 01:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Skb7 false accusation against me

See also: User talk:Paper9oll § Rose (singer), and Talk:Rosé (singer) § Please fix the Guinness Records

Hi administrator, I was accused by Skb7 through my talk page for harassment when I'm simply following the protocol. In addition, Skb7 also accused me of wikistalking and asking me unfollow the pages, and asking me to "refrain from making idiotic threats. I did not wikistaking him/her, simply watching pages that is within my watchlist. Neither did I make any threats but simply issued Level 1 warning after user continously added unsourced content to Rosé (singer) despite me stating my rationale through the edit summary. Also in Talk:Rosé (singer)#Please fix the Guinness Records, user accused me quote "He did this previously, and mindlessly reverted dozens of previous edits, and then, in spite of being proven wrong, continues to do it, now with threats", same issue here, again accussing me for issuing threats when I didn't. And also quote "Being abused for adding sourced accurate information is not a good look.", accusation again.

I believe user was referring to the reverted edits make by me on Gone (Rosé song), as with previously, user added unsourced content or failed verification content. Some of user edits in Gone (Rosé song) was sourced such as adding charts, however as per WP:CHARTS, I has to come from either Billboard or South Korean Gaon Chart for Korean releases at the minimum. User added Melon Music instead which is WP:SINGLEVENDOR which is why iTunes charts is allowed in charts table.

This accusation started because of user keep continously adding "How You Like That" to Rosé (singer)#World records table, this is the included source [216] in table. However no where did the source explictly stated "How You Like That" is awarded "First artist to reach number one on a Billboard Global chart as a soloist and as part of a group" which the user is trying to associate with. This is history of diff by Skb7 by continously adding "How You Like That" [217][218][219][220][221]. As seen from the diff, no supporting source was provided to support the claim for "How You Like That" was awarded the mentioned world record. In addition, neither did the source [222] provided in List of awards and nominations received by Blackpink#World records table and How You Like That#Accolades table stated "How You Like That" is awarded "First artist to reach number one on a Billboard Global chart as a soloist and as part of a group". This is the record page, which also doesn't indicate "How You Like That" is awarded the "First artist to reach number one on a Billboard Global chart as a soloist and as part of a group" previously or is holding the record currently.

I believe such behavior is not allowed in English Wikipedia or other languages Wikipedia, administrator please look into this issue. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the page. A brief look at the sources suggests you are correct; her solo song did indeed top the Billboard Global 200, but the Blackpink song only topped the "Global 200 Excl. USA" chart, which is not the same thing. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Thanks for speedy response. However, I think extended-protected status would be sufficient for the time-being or user should be warned or blocked temporaily whichever is appropriate. Unless, the fully-protected status is because of investigation ongoing due to this incident. This is my first time filing an incident hence I may not know much if this is the usual procedure, sorry about that. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  User continue to accuse me as seen in this revision, and doesn't seem accept the evidence already provided through Talk:Rosé (singer)#Please fix the Guinness Records. I believe administrator should take some actions against this user. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  To responsing administrator, user continue false accusation against me. As per WP:WATCHLIST, quote "A watchlist is a page which allows any logged-in user to maintain a list of "watched" pages and to generate a list of recent changes made to those pages (and their associated talk pages). In this way you can keep track of, and react to, what's happening to pages you have created or are otherwise interested in.", it is perfectly within my rights to watch articles, however user seem to interprete otherwise. As per WP:HA#NOT, quote "However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user. Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith, and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. and Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions. I believe your would have already known this, however I like to input this here. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been inserting factual information and User:Paper9oll has been mindlessly reverting it with threats and warnings. I request urgent administrator intervention. This is clearly harassment and stalking and does not help to build an encyclopaedia. Please can you ban Paper9oll for his abusive behaviour and ask him to stop stalking and harassing me and reverting all of my constructive edits. Thank you. Skb7 (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Skb7: you need to either provide evidence of WP:Wikistalking or withdraw the claim or you're likely to be blocked for making a personal attack. As Paper9oll mentioned, someone editing pages on their watchlist isn't wikistalking. Nil Einne (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Having read the message by Skb7 here, on Paper9oll's talkpage, and on my talkpage I have partial blocked them from editing the article, and dropped the protection back to semi. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Noted, I have no intention on making any changes to Rosé (singer) article for the time-being unless it is vandalism, disruptive editing, adding factual errors, adding unsourced content or adding copyright violations images. In regards to content, there is currently no information to be added other than changing/adding the charting positions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• [Haven't read anything yet] Paper9oll: your sig + green tq + yellow highlight = colour overload! El_C 18:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  @El C: My apologies, for the colour overloading. I wanted to highlight the keys point of the quote for references to this discussion. I will take note in the future to avoid using both green tq and yellow highlight. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 02:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Stalking and harassment by User:Paper9oll

I have been stalked by User Paper9oll, who has been mindlessly reverting accurate information added by me on dozens of occasions. He has clearly set up a watch page to automatically revert everything I add, and, in spite of being proven wrong on dozens of occasions, he is still doing it. I note that you locked the Rose (singer) page in order to support his stalking and harassment. I just want him to leave me alone and let me edit in peace. I have not added anything false at all. His insistence on reverting things that have sources and are accurate is just nonsensical, yet he has done it on numerous occasions. Please can you undo the page lock. There was no vandalism on that page. I was inserting factual verified information. The vandalism was by Paper9oll. Thank you.

Some examples of false accusations by Paper9oll against me:

• [223] - "Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)" - when I was inserting accurate information.

• [224] - "No where did the GWR source stated "How You Like That" is given "First artist to reach number one on a Billboard Global chart as a soloist and as part of a group (RW 16.1))" - even though it clearly states on Blackpink's page that How You Like That is the first and only Blackpink single to have reached number 1 on the Global 200. Paper9oll is lying...

• [225] - in breach of WP:3RR, he reverted me 3 times (I only reverted him twice). He claims that this belongs on Blackpink's page, but it actually doesn't, as the record is for first soloist and group member to top the Global 200, so it should be on Rose's page, but reference Blackpink, as I did.

• Generally, I think that he just has no idea of this topic and is just being a bully.

It goes back further, and I will go to further disruption by this user against me (and I don't need to go into disruption by this user against others, as he admits to being a "recent-changes patroller" and he mass reverts every day on topics he has no knowledge of.

Some more examples of Stalking, harassment and incorrect reversions against me:

• [226] - Deleted a mass of accurate edits by me with sources. While they were later added on, there was no apology for being wrong, and he just keeps on doing it.
• [227] - What I wrote here was accurate and is in the current agreed-to version of the article. He was wrong. Never apologised. Just kept on mindlessly reverting.
• [228] - Another WP:3RR breach, once again by falsely reverting accurate sourced information. The source was in the other article, which I linked to (!)

• He has had dozens of 3RR breaches, dozens of reverts with no decent recent, stalking, harassment and abuse, and now he is claiming they are "false accusations"! I am asking for help here. Are you seriously abusing me here????

• [229] - This one reverted a whole lot of work and he was wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. No apology ever.

• [230] - This one was queried (as it should have been, and, had they waited 2 days, it would have been proven to Wikipedia standards to be accurate). It would have survived AFD, but no, it was mindlessly reverted.

The term "accusation" implies that what I said is false. Per above, it is plainly true. Once again, please can you block User:Paper9oll, who is clearly not interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and please can you reassure me that his stalking and harassing behaviour that he has exhibited towards me, as proven above, is not acceptable behaviour. It is not a good look AT ALL.Skb7 (talk)

@Black Kite: As seen here again, Skb7 continue the false accusation. As per WP:3RRNO, quote "7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." of which it applies to first 3 diff supplied by Skb7 against me.

In regards to this diff, I have already explained the rationale through the edit summary. Skb7 added failed verification content and at the same time also supported by unreliable source as per WP:KO/RS#UR For this diff, I reverted it because the entire background section was unsourced and also Skb7 added back the failed verification content mentioned in the previous sentence. I later manually reverted it by providing reliable source as seen in the next diff which Skb7 failed to do so as per WP:5P2. For thisand this diff, as per the rationale in the edit summary, the article at that time doesn't meet WP:NMG guidelines/policies yet and also failed WP:CHART. As seen in following diff, Skb7 added Gaon Chart source which is allowed/recommended as per WP:GOODCHART. I didn't reverted it back to redirect page but actually improved it [231][232]. For mentioning, regarding the changing between the term "song" and "single" in the article is discussed here, after reaching consensus with fellow editor MotherofSnakes, we decided on using "song". It was only until 30 March–1 April 2021, the song was to be released as second single of the album.

Hence, this are all false accusations make against me. I believe Skb7 has been blocked indefinitely as per your talk page. I'm just responding because I feel the need to defend myself against the false accusations. Once again, thanks a lot. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Continuing abuse by User:Paper9oll enforced by block by User:Black Kite

Hi guys.

User:Paper9oll has continued to abuse me here [233]. I cannot reply to it, due to a block by the administrator User:Black Kite, who has ignored the substantial evidence of stalking and harassment and instead has insanely reinforced the abuse I have received by banning me from the article, based on the false claim that they are "false claims against Paper9oll". They are not false claims. They are evidenced claims.

Please can the abuse against me be reverted from that article, and the block against me removed.

And for heaven's sakes, stop encouraging bullying!!!!Skb7 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

To all responding administrators, please see above section #Skb7 false accusation against me. I don't wish to respond further against the false accusations, if nothing can be done at this level then I will report this to higher authority. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed your comment from Talk:Rosé (singer) because article talk pages are not the place to poke other editors. You may well be 100% correct (I have no idea) but please avoid the natural inclination to record information about editors on article talk pages. In fact, don't record it anywhere on Wikipedia except for a relevant noticeboard such as this. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll and Skb7: You must stop referring to each other in edit summaries and on article talk pages. Instead, edit summaries and article talk pages must focus on the issue, namely sourced content in the article. @Skb7: You were blocked from the article 'Since you haven't stopped with the "stalking" accusations...' as seen at User talk:Black Kite#Stalking and harassment by User:Paper9oll. That reminds me, stop referring to each other in section headings which also should not be used for accusations. Apparently the fuss is due to Rosé (singer) where a particular edit (09:28, 17 April 2021) is contested. Disputes like this are a dime-a-dozen at Wikipedia and it's up to those involved to work through the disagreement on their own by engaging with the discussion and not poking the other person. The official advice is WP:DR. My quick reading of the source for Skb7's edit shows that "How You Like That" is mentioned only in connection with Youtube. @Skb7: How can that source be used to justify your edit which concerned a Billboard Global chart? Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Hi admin, thanks for the follow up. Noted on the advice, as mentioned by you quote "My quick reading of the source for Skb7's edit shows that "How You Like That" is mentioned only in connection with Youtube", yes you're right. The source from Guinness World Records only stated "How You Like That" is currently awarded with the two records relating to YouTube and no where is it related to Bilboard Global Chart. As mentioned in the above section through the source provided ("How You Like That" GWR awarded record), the Blackpink song is not awarded with Billboard record at all.

Timeline of what is going on

1. Skb7 added "How You Like That" as awarded with "First artist to reach number one on a Billboard Global chart as a soloist and as part of a group" without providing supporting source.
2. I reverted it because it is failed verification.
3. Added back again without providing supporting source.
4. I reverted it.
5. Added back again without providing supporting source.
6. I reverted it.
7. Skb7 start accusing me for stalking, harrasement, bullying, etc.
8. I reply via my talk page after Skb7 posted on my talk page and also on Rose (singer) talk page.
9. Continuous accusation continues, I filed WP:ANI report here.
10. Accusation continue on here and on Black Kite talk page.
11. Black Kite posted on Skb7 talk page, Skb7 removed it.
12. Likely partial blocked afterwards by Black Kite (I wasn't online during this period hence can't be sure, but conversation in Black Kite talk page implies as such)
13. Accusation continue and here we are.

If you look at my talk page, it seem that Skb7 is implying it should be added because the song is charted on the Billboard Global chart. I filed this WP:ANI report mainly because of accusations instead of content dispute. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: As per your advice, I have open WP:DRN#Rosé (singer) in regards to the content dispute. @Black Kite and Johnuniq: please help to solve the false accusations pertaining to user conduct as WP:DRR/3, WP:RFC or WP:DRN is relating to content instead. Thanks you — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I stumbled across this issue at the Talk:Rosé (singer) page and I commented on the content dispute there, that it seems Skb7's edits are factually incorrect and not sourced. Paper9oll mentioned this thread to me there, and I have to say from looking at all the different threads that Skb7 seriously needs to let this go and move on. They have been blocked from editing the article already, and warned by Nil Einne on their talk page about making baseless accusations of stalking against another editor working in the same area. And yes, per Johnuniq, Paper9oll would do well not to respond in kind but it could be argued they also have a right to defend themselves against accusations of stalking. Skb7 is already blocked from the article in question for disruptive editing, and if they continue making accusations that don't seem to have merit and making personal attacks, then it might be necessary to expand that block to a full site block.  — Amakuru (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Paper9oll: Based on comments so far, it appears you are correct regarding the article content so thanks for maintaining the article. However, my comment about WP:DR was generic advice about disputes in general and I don't think creating a DRN report was needed now. For one thing, the other editor is blocked from editing the article and there is not much point debating a theoretical disagreement. For another, it's not reasonable to expect a dispassionate discussion about article content once there has been this much heat. Sorry to seem to be picking on you but it might have been better to leave my above question ("How can that source be used ...") for Skb7 to answer. As it stands now, my question is submerged by a wall of details which aren't needed. They're not needed because people here have shown no inclination to doubt the position you support. There comes a time in a disagreement where more words leads to more heat regardless of the merits of those words. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Noted. No worries. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, Black Kite, and Amakuru: Talk:R (single album)#Can someone please update album sales in Rose (singer) for your speedy actions please, despite told many times by Black Kite, Amakuru and @Nil Einne:, the accusations continues. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked Skb7 indefinitely to prevent further unsupported claims of harassment such as in their recent comment. Any administrator may unblock without consultation if satisfied that they now understand the two issues (the incorrect edit per my comment at 07:25, 19 April 2021 above, and the invalid accusations of harassment). Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

IP rant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

5.25.168.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Nationalist IP keeps removing academic references that state the city of Adiyaman is Kurdish-majority populated. Their arguments include: "[A] book called "Kurdish Awakening" are not acceptable source for the name of a city. Both are heavily ideological Kurdish irredentist nationalist sources". The book was not even written by a Kurd but by a Ofra Bengio. Its one of those cases where I can give dozens of reliable academic references to back up the info, but they'll be removed with random arguments. If a specific reference is genuinely problematic, they can contest that instead of removing all references as has been the case[234]. At Adıyaman Province, the editor removed info based on a BRILL encyclopedia and their argument was nothing more than a rant about Kurdish nationalists.[235] --Semsûrî (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a subject matter expert but I can comment on some non-content matters at Adiyaman:

The IP definitely violated WP:3RR with about 8 reversions in 3 hours (see contribs). I am about to make a report at WP:EWN. The IP hadn't been notified about Kurds/Kurdistan Discretionary Sanctions, and I just notified them.

Semsûrî has not violated 3RR, having made 3 reversions (including consecutively-saved reverting edits).

I just reverted IP users most recent edits to ensure that the edit warrior doesn't get the advantage. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to take a step back for now. They are digging their own grave. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The IP's reported to AIV and the affected pages to RFPP (they appear to be dynamic). Hopefully that puts a stop to it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Zhjsb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Hi. This user has been asked to stop creating non-notable articles on cricketers, to which they acknowledged. However, they've just continued to ignore this. They seem to have massive WP:CIR issues, including, but not limited to creating articles that already exist. Everything they've created is up for deletion.

A side issue is that it's almost certainly a sock account of a banned user, and there's a live SPI case. I don't want to jump the gun on that or forum-shop, but this user's edits at best are disruptive, and I'd be grateful if an admin could take a look to expedite this matter. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: they're blocked now, just had a look at the SPI archive for that user... looks like they're trying to give Daft a run for his money! StickyWicket (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and thanks to @Ponyo: for the block. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought Justshepu was part of the puppetry, but I saw nothing done, just thought I point that out, regards. Govvy (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LTA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please block 121.200.4.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with everything revoked? It's an LTA interested in vandalising "Sneed" or "Snead" related articles. See also filter 1137 aimed at this abuse. There's a report at AIV but there's no patrolling admin I fear, and I'm weary of this vandalism. Thanks, JavaHurricane 03:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: Thanks for monitoring the problem. However, edit warring with them at User talk:121.200.4.224 is pointless and in fact is only sport for them. For an LTA, apply WP:DENY as much as possible (no excitement). JJMC89 has blocked the IP for a short period. If problems resume, you can notify me but I probably won't respond quickly. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IPs disruptively making unsourced changes to pages

Two IPs, 79.19.12 and 62.19.152.24 ([[236]] and [[237]]), so far, are changing dates and other information for no apparent reason (without explanation), contrary to the sources, on haplogroup pages, Haplogroup D-CTS3946, Haplogroup CF (Y-DNA), and Haplogroup CT, in a manner verg similar to a group of disruptive IPs that were blocked earlier. I have reverted them asking them not to make unsourced changes and warning them but they have continued. I have recently warned them not to make unsourced changes or they will be reported. I suspect that they may be the same person (they have made some of the same/similar edits) and their edits (persistently changing dates, seemingly randomly, without explanation, and to some of the same pages as the current IPs) are similar to those of another IP group based in Italy that I reported, I think some months ago, that were blocked, some of which were these I believe [[238]], [[239]] and [[240]]

Here are the recent IPs' edit histories (I have notified both of this report on their Talk pages):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.19.126.62

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.19.151.24

And three earlier disruptive IP's histories for comparison (similar edits and to some of the same pages as made by the recent IPs):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.19.174.0

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.19.189.174

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.19.175.135

Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That's 79.19.126.62 (talk · contribs) + 62.19.151.24 (talk · contribs).

@Skllagyook: I left a warning at the IP's talk pages. Please notify me if any similar problems occur. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I will. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Please check the contributions from both IPs. I see that some have not been reverted. If they are unwarranted, please revert with edit summary such as "unsourced" or "unexplained". Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I will do that. Skllagyook (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive edits by Uni3993

Uni3993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past week, this user has made a wide range of controversial changes to philosophy-related pages without developing consensus, resulting in warnings from multiple editors. Highlights include:

• Moving Idea to Idea (philosophy) (reverted by me after a post at WP:RM/TR)
• Moving Causality to Causality (philosophy) (reverted by Kj cheetham after a post at WP:RM/TR)
• Controversial and undiscussed changes to the lead sections of many articles, resulting in reverts from many editors. I could pull out specific diffs, but just take a look at their reverted contribs (note the complete lack of edit summaries).

This behavior has persisted despite multiple warning, so I'd like to get some additional eyes on it. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• One of the things I check for when seeing a report like this is if the user is taking a WP:RADAR approach, just refusing to engage when anyone talks to them about their edits, and I ran across something I do not like the look of. They have never edited their own talk page, yet user talk edits make up over 50% of their total edits. How can this be? On March 22nd they created a few hundred user talk pages welcoming new users. A sampling of these welcomes turned up no accounts that had actually edited, they were just blindly welcoming every new account, an idea that has been repeatedly, explicitly rejected by the community. I don't think it is a coincidence that the very same day they managed to make their 500th edit and become extended confirmed, at which time they abruptly lost all interest in mass welcoming new users. Unless and until this is satisfactorily explained, I am revoking that user right. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

All of my actions regarding agrees with wikipedia policies. If they don't please give examples and the URL to the relevant policy. You don't need to be a dictator. Wikipedia is alive because of donations from donors like me. If it wasn't for us common peoples money, you wouldn't even be an administrator here. Uni3993 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The site is 100% run by volunteers, I'm not paid any more than you are so you can put that card back in the deck. We're here talking about your problematic editing, the gaming of user rights was just something I stumbled onto while looking into that. You need to start addressing the issues that have been raised here and on your talk page and stop deflecting. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Since they ignored three requests to stop editing in article space in the manner that has drawn concern, and since they've failed to address anything else they've been asked to respond to, I've blocked them for 24 hours to give them time to focus on an appropriate response. Acroterion (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Persistent undiscussed reinstatement of disputed changes has resumed after the block expired. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That was nice of you. To me this user looks increasingly like someone who is determined to make Wikipedia work they way they think it should work, policies be damned. That never ends well, but I guess it's worth trying one more time to get through to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Something concerning is that early edits included Special:Diff/746326115 and Special:Diff/773402151 which makes me wonder if some of those repeated edits that change the text without citing/updating a source would be WP:POINTy. Some edits seemed rather innocent but others were clearly problematic like minimizing that astrology is considered pseudoscientific and introducing misconceptions about the scientific process elsewhere. Then the various sudden page moves without any previous discussion. Plus the above false equivalence of dictatorship and editing-scrutiny in the encyclopedia. I'm not sure if this type of sanction is common but I would suggest forbidding page moves to encourage using the collaborative requested move process... As for claims of always going by policy, WP:CITE and WP:V appear to already be understood by Uni3993 from the above diffs, so is WP:CONSENSUS when reverted; both were violated. —PaleoNeonate – 13:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

User CejeroC disruptively editing

CejeroC (talk · contribs) has been inserting the parameter color_process into the infobox for multiple live-action film articles, and while it is a valid parameter, the documentation explicitly states, in fact in the first sentence of the description of the parameter, "For animated films only." I first notified Cejero of their misuse of the parameter in December of last year. On March 16 I became aware that they were continuing to misuse the parmeter and issued another warning that day. The following day I issued a final warning as they had continued to insert this parameter on live-action films. As far as I'm aware, neither any of my warnings nor any other messages left on their Talk page have been acknowledged, perhaps because they appear to be editing using a mobile device. I understand that as a result of that they may not even be aware that they are receiving notifications at their Talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that leaves any options other than to block them until they acknowledge that they have read and understand that they are misusing the parameter in question. I would be happy to see them unblocked as soon as they indicated that they would stop applying that parameter for non-animated films, and am amenable to other options that will similarly result in their no longer making these disruptive edits.

Examples of misuse of parameter (all from March 17 or later):

• March 21 (after final warning) - [241]
• March 21 (after final warning) - [242]
• March 17 (precipitating final warning) - [243]

Thank you for your time. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also observed no evidence of acknowledgement, apology or refutation argument from the user. The ability to acknowledge and either explain or apologise for disruptive editing (with merit or not) is essential. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC appears to have always edited on mobile, and almost all their edits are tagged as being made with the WMF mobile app rather than mobile web. They do not appear to have ever edited either a user talk page or an article talk page. It is my understanding (I don't have a smartphone but have seen Iridescent raise this issue) that the mobile app gives editors no indication they have messages other than a number that they may well overlook or misinterpret, and no link to their talk page. This person may well have no idea they have been warned against doing this. Is there a page they have hit repeatedly where a hidden note could be left? I know this came up here concerning another editor recently, and I've seen disbelief expressed on a Wikipedia-criticism site that I should not name on-wiki (by, IIRC, a member of Arbcom), so please excuse me if I have this wrong, but we urgently need to develop heuristics for such situations, because the WMF is apparently not likely to fix this glaring problem that we can't communicate with a very large class of relatively new community members. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The only pattern I saw is that their edits have focused on articles for older films, articles that probably don't have a lot of eyes on them. Unfortunately they appear to go in, make their edits, and then don't revisit the same article for months at a time, likely assisted by the aforementioned limited-oversight on such articles (i.e. if an article on your watchlist never updates, why would you go back to it?). I undid a large number of their erroneous edits last week, which may get their attention, but that's speculation. Unfortunately, in the interests of getting their attention, given their unpredictable editing habits, I'm not sure there's any option other than to block them. It's not what I'd prefer; I just don't know any other way to flag them down at this point. DonIago (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

They don't have e-mail enabled either, so I took a radical step and plopped a big fat message to them at the top of Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1950–1959), which I saw they'd edited a couple of times recently. I'm not sure whether the app shows hidden messages, so I restricted my WP:IAR to disfiguring a draft. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the Android app (for me at least) gives logged-in users a very jarring and hard-to-ignore system-level alert. No idea how reliable that is, though. It's logged out users (on all apps and the mobile web), and all iOS app users who live in a bubble. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, thank you. I'm flying utterly blind here, I know almost nothing about using smartphones, so, a stupid question: after the ding and vibrate, can an Android app user then find the message? Is there a way to get to their talk page? IIRC Iridescent was laying a lot of the blame on the Minerva skin that's forced on mobile users by default? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Just tried a few more tests. Even with the app closed and the phone locked, I got a system-level push notification a few minutes after leaving a message on my alt's talk page. In it, there was a link to the talk page. I tried again with notifications for the app blocked (in Android settings), and of course got no push notification, as expected. But there was also no in-app notification, or at least it was so subtle that I missed it. I have no idea how many people block notifications for the app.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T274359

Aside, I tried using the app to reply here. Put "wp:ani" into the search bar and clicked the first result. Got a copy of ANI from August 2020! Going to sign off for tonight. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm use the Wikipedia Beta app for browsing and found that it is showing me "Stayfree76" from 27 August 2020!! Vikram Vincent 14:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits continue. [244]. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to issue a block to persuade them to look at their talk page? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That was my thinking. Block them so that they'll read their talk page, acknowledge that they've been misusing the color_process parameter and will stop doing so, and then unblock them unless there are other concerns as well. Some of the film info they've added has been erroneous as well, but I don't have enough examples to make a case for a block on that basis. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC is continuing to misuse the color_process parameter, as demonstrated by this edit as of March 28. DonIago (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I propose a WP:CIR block to persuade the user to look at their talk page and actually respond to messages since they do not appear to be aware of this discussion and their talk page in general. It seems to be the only option we have to get them to engage in discussion with the community. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

On second thought that might not work either since custom block notices are broken on the mobile app. Does anyone have any other ideas? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah: dump the mobile apps. EEng 12:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

In terms of stopping their disruptive edits, I don't know that any other options are available. I'd certainly prefer an option other than a block, but needing to fix their edits every time they do this is getting old quickly. We can hope that if they couldn't edit via the mobile app then they'd take a look at their PC to try to figure out what was going on. DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• I no longer feel so alone and inadequate. I have never been able to make use of the phone for editing or even viewing current content. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I tried to view my Talk page using my phone and the Wikipedia app, IIRC, and I could see section headers but no text. I have some tricky coding on my page, but still... DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• @Padgriffin Are you referring to Wikipedia:Communication is required? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User is reintroducing color_process after Doniago removed it. This is honestly getting frustrating at this point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch! This implies that they either didn't notice that their previous addition had been reverted, or decided to reinsert the parameter regardless, without discussion. Perhaps it should be noted at this juncture that they also don't use edit summaries. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User is STILL inappropriately adding color_process after numerous attempts at communication and getting them to stop. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Another example of the user adding color_process after repeated warnings. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think, after all this discussion, the only viable option is to block. People can't keep checking/correcting these edits while being unable to communicate with CejeroC. It's a poor solution but it will hopefully get their attention and an inquiry from them. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone tried posting to his account on Meta so I did. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

1001st attempt at throwing spaghetti at the wall, Do we have any ability to log an editor out? If so, do we have any ability to alter the "Main Page" they see or any messaging they would get upon logging in? I'm guessing not, but spaghetti meet wall Slywriter (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit mind-blowing to me that he'd be a senior database administrator for WMF but never check his WP-EN Talk page... DonIago (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Bit tardy to the party on this comment, but as noted below, there was confusion in editor names. No concerns from me regarding JCrespo's editing. DonIago (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: What makes you think this case (CejeroC) is connected with JCrespo_(WMF)? Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Crap. At some point I got into the next section here, confused the names. Because there, editors were having difficulty reaching JCrespo_(WMF). I'm really off my game tonight. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I replaced User talk:CejeroC with a simple warning. Their lengthy talk page looked like something that I would ignore if I were a new user so it seemed best to make it clear. I would prefer some uninvolved opinions on whether a block would be appropriate if this continues but I'm prepared to implement a block if needed as the time wasting cannot continue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think a block would be appropriate at this point. Maybe around 48h – they seem to be editing almost daily, so that should be enough to get them to notice –, with a block message that tries to direct them to use their talk page. I only just noticed someone said earlier those aren't displayed. Still, not like there are any other options. 22:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC) – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have worked- they're STILL doing the same thing! Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• And AGAIN. That old saying about the definition of insanity seems extremely relevant right now. I would hate to block this user since their edits have been generally constructive but I don't want to babysit and patrol their edits for the rest of my Wiki-editing career. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Relying on WP:IAR, I temporarily replaced Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1940–1949) with a message to CejeroC. They edited that page recently and frequently. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your efforts to get their attention! DonIago (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

User has either not noticed or just doesn’t care- they’re still adding color_process. I’m afraid that the only viable option here might just be blocking them in the hope that they’ll check their talk page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

They've figured out how to use the revert option now. Padgriffin (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Correction- they did a manual revert. Point still stands. Padgriffin (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 48 hours as suggested above, given the evidence of continued disruptive editing. If the behavior continues right after the block expires, an indef will be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like they're right back at it :/. Support re-block for longer duration or indef. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've indeffed and left a note that the block can be lifted as soon as they demonstrate that they can engage with other editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everyone. Unfortunate that it came to this, but it seems that without a better way to compel editors to review their Talk pages, blocks may be the best (though not great) tool available. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an extremely sad situation, and to be frank, I blame the WMF for it. I started a thread at User talk: Jimbo Wales and I encourage other editors to comment there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that the general situation was finally acknowledged by the WMF on 7 April, and some action seems to be happening[245]. I would suggest waiting a short while to see if something good comes from this (with a clear timeline), and if this turns out to be unsatisfactory, to start an RfC to disable editing from these apps from our side out (through the edit filter probably). Fram (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a note to lead message: for anyone using TemplateData the sentence ‘the documentation explicitly states, in fact in the first sentence of the description of the parameter, "For animated films only."’ was never actually true. This includes visual editor users, TemplateWizard users, and I assume Wikimedia app users. I’ve fixed that. I think this is what caused the whole issue in the first place, even before the apps’ clear communication issues that are mentioned here and elsewhere. stjn^[ru] 16:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Me, I have been trying to test on my mobile account whether adding User:MER-C/payattention.js to the common.js page can alert editors. It does, but only if I am editing in desktop mode. Is there a way to tweak that script so that it shows an alert on the mobile interface too? Yes, I know we'd need an WP:INTADMIN every time we wanted to use this but it might help until the WMF can resolve the notification issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've made a modified version that works on mobile as well. Keep in mind this is only for mobile web, though. I don't think the apps execute user scripts, so this won't help reach editors like CejeroC. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 21:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

There may be another instance of this involving a different editor here. As it's a different user and not necessarily the same issue (though the situation appears similar to me), and I haven't been involved with it, I didn't want to necessarily make a case for it here, but it seemed worth a mention. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Answermeplease11 at the RD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Answermeplease11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing pretty much exclusively at various reference desks. Numerous people (I stopped counting at five) have told them that this really isn't the replacement Yahoo Answers, but they've continued. The questions have taken a turn from misguided to absurd, which has pretty much convinced me that they're NOTHERE. The latest one is Is it possible to restore DMX’s dead body?. – Frood (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for reporting, blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All pages of English wikipedia when it comes to Portugal are being vandalized by a user for a few years and who later joined a group of friends to help him in the process.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think this is not a new topic for Wikipedia, because wikipedia have already managed to block many users who have vandalized pages for long years. But I wanted to report a user who vandalized Wikipedia for 2 years, and his collaborating friends too, he mainly vandalizes the pages of Portugal, everything that has to do with Portugal he is there to vandalize, it is not a new thing 10 years ago a group of vandalizers were caught to vandalize the pages around Portugal and they was blocked, this user he was blocked in Portuguese wikipedia, these people cannot continue to vandalize Portugal's pages on Wikipedia, and they have to be blocked, if they are not I will speak to the direction of wikipedia hope that they resolve the matter, i am not a wikipedia user i created the account today to report it because this cannot continue, he is known for vandalizing the page of the portuguese empire and the list of the biggest empires in wikipedia, user - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TompaDompa

Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicefactsmoment (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• If you're going to claim that another user is "vandalizing" part of Wikipedia, you need to provide evidence, in the form of links to specific edits. Also, as the big bar at the top of the page says, if you start a discussion about an editor on this page, you MUST notify them. I've gone ahead and done that for you. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok Thank you, he instilled his own idea based on a theory, and does not allow other users to place other more realistic and historical sources that his source has everything but history, in this case in the list of the biggest empires, the Portuguese empire is always removing editions from other users, and often asking to block them, in other editions of it, it would be a long list, but you can see in the user's edition record, he himself removed that the Portuguese empire was the first global empire when are historically proven data and were also previously on wikipedia. links: 1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires 2- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Empire&action=history, here then is an extreme stubbornness - 3- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires ; he seems to rule on Wikipedia and the others are unable to do anything against it, and from what I saw in his editions it has been going on for many years. (Justicefactsmoment (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC))

• (Non-administrator comment) Looks like a sock of Roqui15. JBchrch (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• I suspected Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Boron notice how notice the (brackets) around the username.92.2.74.169 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please rangeblock disruptive IP editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

Although Special:Contributions/91.99.128.0/17 has the occasional constructive edit, the vast majority of their edits are unexplained deletions of text, often signifcant amounts, especially at the Neo-Assyrian Empire article. Could that range be blocked please? FDW777 (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

10 days ago NonhumanAnimalAutonomy was blocked by @EvergreenFir: for WP:FRINGE, WP:RGW, WP:BLP violations (requiring revdel), and ultimately being WP:NOTHERE. The discussion is here. After him writing extensively on his talk page about how he would be better (including a promise to change his username, which he hasn't done), his unblock request was eventually approved. He has now gone back to his old self, this time edit warring and making personal attacks at Veganism. A cursory glance at the edit history will show his edit warring, including attempts to WP:GAME the system, making personal attacks against Bodney, and disregarding the views of others because they're not vegan. Given that he has now claimed to be leaving the project for the second time (which is hilarious for an account that is 12 days old), I think we make the decision easier for him and simply indef him. He's clearly incompatible with this project and is more concerned with pushing his own personal ideology and casting aspersions on other editors rather than building an encyclopedia. — Czello 12:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked again for NOTHERE. FWIW I wouldn't have unblocked the first time, but that's just me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Has there ever been a more sick burn than enjoy your pizza? I think not. Greyjoy ^talk 13:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sick burn! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block requested for apparently static IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Can someone please block this IP? This is the "Happy Tree Friends" vandal that I most recently reported at this thread a couple of months ago, which resulted in the IP range 2603:9000:F407:8000:0:0:0:0/50 being blocked for a period of one year. This new IP seems static (all edits under the IP going back to 17 October 2020 are by the same user), and all edits are the same characteristic behavior of claiming that some random company has bought another company at some future year (e.g. [246][247]). Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Much thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rohit Chopra 1974

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Rohit Chopra 1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"New" editor who has been here a week edit warring over the content of pages such as Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. aand Wikipedia:Standard offer. They also have an unusually keen interest in editors who have been blocked and in block evasion.[248][249][250][251] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm honestly not sure what to make of this. This account could be evading a block or trying to mess with us, but it seems more likely that they might just be genuinely interested in the topic of Wikipedia policy and enforcement. I've left a note here on the user's talk page asking them to discuss any changes they wish to make on policy changes and get input first instead of simply editing the pages directly. I think that this is the best approach to take in this case; we can always escalate things from there if more issues arise with their edits. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Now blocked as LTA by JJMC89, —PaleoNeonate – 03:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Whelp, there you go... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Compromised account

Resolved

Can someone take a look at Tom.doyers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as it is possibly compromised; no edits between 2015 and a vandal edit this morning. CU check may also be required. Thanks Nightfury 10:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Tom.doyers is blocked indefinitely by Maile66. I believe i request it not on this page, but in AIV instead. 36.77.95.2 (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Nightfury - Unfortunately, checkuser data won't help here. The user hasn't previously edited since 2015, and technical data available to checkusers only go back three months from the time that the data was logged. We won't have any basis of comparison here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

IPv6 stealth edits removing well-sourced claims

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – false alarm due to confusing diff display, IP was doing nothing wrong ~ mazca ^talk 13:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:848E:2C01:28E7:BA41:C4F4:E9B5

I've reversed these edits, but blocking looks appropriate to me and this may be part of a wider effort. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Chalst: I'm genuinely unsure what you're considering was removed here. The overall edits made a net change to the article of about +20 characters, and seems to be entirely a succession of minor grammar changes and paragraph breaks. I can't see any sourced information being removed, just split into more paragraphs. This is the overall diff [252]. All the stuff that's disappearing from one paragraph duly reappears in the next one, as far as I can see. ~ mazca ^talk 09:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ouch, foot-in-mouth syndrome here. I misread the diff, seeing the deletes but not seeing that the next item was part of the delete reinserted. Apologies to an IPv6 address in order, and apologies here for wasting time.

Perhaps it is a good time to complain that we have a lousy UI to our diffs. I'm used to the excellent Emacs Ediff, MacOS has a nice visual file comparison utility, but with Wikipedia I am continually straining to see which characters were inserted in a very long, ref-filled line. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem! I totally agree about the diff display, sometimes it's fine but as soon as you start moving paragraphs around it always looks like huge changes have been made. ~ mazca ^talk 13:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sock in the ARBCOM:EE area

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Who is Special:Contributions/All_for_Poland? I don't know enough about the topic area to know who it is but clearly... @Primefac: so as not to ping the first person in alphabetic list on ArbCom... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Also they're quite obviously WP:NOTHERE so if anybody fancy a block on those grounds... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This user has been indefinitely blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

90.179.1.217

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Special:Contributions/90.179.1.217 looks like self-promotion of cs:Vratislav Preclík, amatérský historik (amateur historian), esp. edits like [253]. They were warned, see User_talk:90.179.1.217#Please stop promoting yourself, but have not stopped. Wikisaurus (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This IP user hasn't edited since October 14, 2020 - over 6 months ago. Why are we discussing a possible issue about this user now? The IP user is  Stale; there's no action needed at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:EditorUnitedStates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• EditorUnitedStates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Steven Hotze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I got a newly registered user removing sourced content at Steven Hotze. I did send two template warnings but no response. Based on this edit summary and the content being removed, it seems the editor is trying to protect the image of Steven Hotze. Jerm (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jerm: Looking at the page now, I concur that it looks like the new user is removing applicable categories and content. The citation of the anti-LGBT activism to Texas Observer seems sufficient enough if the magazine is reliable (which it appears to be based upon its awards). We probably should better attribute what media is making the claims, since it's a BLP, except where the claims are widely reported. Even the particular label of "conspiracy theorist" is be cited to multiple sources calling him that in the article. The editor seems to not understand WP:NOTCENSORED and it's quite possible that they are WP:NOTHERE. In any case, the new user looks like they need some time to cool down.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully the massive blanking of sourced content is over. The page is on my watchlist, but I ask someone also keep an eye on the article. Jerm (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked one week. Hopefully that will get their attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More eyes needed on No justice, no peace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could we have some more eyes on the page No justice, no peace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? Recently there've been some very POV-seeming edits by the single-purpose account PaxAmericana1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No breach of 3RR yet, but this looks like it could go on for a while. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I've gone one better. Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Rather obvious account here to right great wrongs from their first edit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article subject using their userpage as an attack page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jack Donovan Official joined Wikipedia in February to raise some (legitimate) concerns with the BLP about him, Jack Donovan (writer). I helped him to verify his identity, and then decided to try to help out a bit with his concerns about the page. I spent quite a lot of time researching him and updating the page, incorporating where appropriate his detailed commentary on the article talk page. By the end of February I had largely finished my pass through the page and was pretty happy with where it stood as far as sourcing, weight, etc. Donovan seemed to be as well, saying on the talk page that the article was "much improved" and that he "do[es] appreciate the integrity [I] have demonstrated in cleaning up" the article despite our differing views on feminism and politics. He was even kind enough to donate a photograph of himself to augment the page. We both seemingly moved on, and there were few substantial edits to the page from the end of February until Donovan returned in late March.

For some reason, he completely changed his tune when he returned on March 22 to write that the page was a "target for edits by obsessive weirdos" and "this page is basically a list of quotations written by angry feminists and known members of AntiFa". At this point he began to insist that various reliable sources be removed, the page be deleted, or that an editor needed to read an entire book of his to refute a reliable secondary source which he said claimed he wrote something he didn't (though he refuses to contact the publisher of this source to have them issue a retraction; see Talk:Jack Donovan (writer)#Suggested Edits (New - March/April 2021)). He also began to attack me and other editors as "obviously malicious, dishonest, and driven entirely by an agenda". I explained to him that he could take the article to AfD if he wished (and even offered to do it for him if he needed me to), and told him about WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN if he thought outside opinions were needed, but that I had no interest in continuing to devote large amounts of my time to edits that I did not think were necessary, despite his demands.

He has now taken it upon himself to, instead of going to NPOVN or similar, make his userpage into an attack page against me, and also use it to make potentially questionable comments on the authors of some of the sources. On April 20 he added "The editing of the page is currently being overseen by self described queer feminist Molly White." I objected to this on the article talk page, and asked him to remove it: "I do not appreciate the addition to your userpage, which feels like an attempt to target outside harassment at me. I am not "overseeing" the editing of your page, nor is this even a role editors take on Wikipedia. Please remove it." However today I see he has returned to make additional attacks against me and others. As I wrote previously, this appears to me to be an attempt to direct outside harassment at me, a tactic that I am unfortunately quite familiar with.

More generally, some outside eyes at that page and its talk page would be much appreciated. The talk page has become a bit of a mess of personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS from Donovan and others, such as Cleantheshymn who has recently begun accusing me, other editors of the page, and apparently any Wikipedian who uses paywalled sources at all of breaking the law: Talk:Jack Donovan (writer)#Brett McKay / The Art of Manliness. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Drmies beat me to removing it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That user page goes well beyond what is acceptable--though I suppose "cat lover" could have been acceptable--and I blanked most of it. Relevant here is WP:POLEMIC, as well as WP:NOTWEBHOST, since part of the user page suggest an "alternative" for the actual article we have on the subject. Jack Donovan Official, this is not acceptable. We have rules and policies for handling disputes, and this is not an acceptable way to handle a dispute. Please be advised that you can be blocked if you reinstate the content--either per WP:NOTHERE or per Wikipedia:Harassment--or if you continue to treat Wikipedia as a battlefield on which to harass other users, including possible dog lovers. Thank you. (And thank you, Oshwah.) Drmies (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Drmies on all counts. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Cleantheshymn, we see what you are doing. No one is breaking any laws. Not all sourcing is behind paywalls, and it's not a relevant matter anyway. You can say that something is a reliable source, and any explanation thereof (larded with secondary sources) is welcome at WP:RSN. If you cannot be bothered to either cite secondary sources or take it to the noticeboard, then you should stop talking, because you then truly put yourself in WP:NOTHERE territory. Above all, the personal attacks and unfounded accusations on that article talk page are unacceptable, including your commentary on a journalist, where you are verging on a BLP violation (and some admins may well think you already committed one). Now is a good time to stop doing all of that. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfareClaims that she is targeted whenever she is criticized or her biases are questioned. I posted the material to my personal page because it was part of the discussion about an article that has no reason to exist except to serve partisan interests and cite AntiFa source material. Since discussion of the biases of the editors is clearly not acceptable within Wikipedia's in-group, even on my own page that no one except Gorilla Warfare reads, I can create a discussion about the page and her activist editing and those biases on my own web site.Jack Donovan Official (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think my repeated invitations on the article talk page for you to begin discussions at WP:NPOVN will show that I am more than open to my "biases being questioned". But yes, when someone attempts to target me for harassment and uses their userpage as an attack page against myself and others (which uninvolved administrators have just determined is what you were doing), then I will describe it as such. It is telling, I think, that you have chosen to respond to this not by following the advice of myself and others to begin a discussion about any possible neutrality issues with uninvolved third party editors, but rather to threaten to move your harassment offwiki. It seems to me that you are trying to strongarm me into portraying you in the way you wish with these threats, and you know that inviting outside opinions from uninvolved editors will probably only confirm that the article is written in accordance with our policies on WP:NPOV and WP:RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

User indef-blocked, selected content of user page revdeleted. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite apart from anything else, a user who says because Wikipedia relies on mainstream media sources, it now shares the biases of the mainstream media is unlikely to be a productive editor.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think it's accurate to say that to an extent Wikipedia inherits the biases of its sources, and saying that doesn't make one unlikely to be productive. But it's odd that Donovan has decided that Wikipedia "relies on mainstream media sources" when his article has a pretty solid mix of media sources, books, and academic publications. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's surprising that a person like that can generate so much coverage. Is it his looks? Drmies (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe there will always be a market for people who say "actually, your worst instincts are a good thing." Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Heck, that might even be a winning theme for a Presidential campaign one day! MastCell ^Talk 20:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This should be revdeleted. There is no reason to keep harassment, referring to explicit real names, etc, even in the history of that page. MarioGom (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It has been done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Single-purpose IP 82.173.133.70

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Single-purpose IP has been entertaining the community now for days crosswiki (see here) with his deletion requests and the same and recurring arguments over and over again against a certain music publisher. Got even blocked on DE:WP so the deletion discussion could finally come to an end without further trolling. The user has been warned a hundred times here and on DE:WP. It's finally time to block this toxic behavior here as well! Uwe Martens (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

A word of advice. This is not DE.WP. People aren't blocked here just because they are blocked there, so that isn't going to get you anywhere. So far, you have twice attempted to get an IP blocked here for no other discernible reason than that they disagree with your opinion. The IP in question has made a single comment [254] at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 11 since your previous failed evidence-free request for a block here, and made no other posts whatsoever. What you are doing looks very much like hounding. I suggest you find something better to do with your time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You're leading my argumentation of this report ad absurdum. Especially that this man on a mission is doing nothing more crosswiki for over a week now than repeating his same arguments over and over again is, was and will be the reason for the blocking! Wikipedia is not a blog. But anyway, I'm not interested in the opinion of a reviewer who was in no way involved in the case. Normally, that would be a reason to simply delete your unsolicited comment. Indeed, I suggest you find something better to do with your time! Uwe Martens (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Entirely ignoring the two preceding comments: the IP is a cross-wiki SPA who might be trying to delete the page of a competitor on WP (plausible speculation). Their behaviour, at least here on English WP, isn't immediately obvious trolling, but the fact they have been blocked for that on DE wiki and the similar single-purpose of their edits (along with a moderate to severe case of IDHT, it appears) might indicate they are NOTHERE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

So why isn't anyone providing diffs of this supposedly problematic behaviour on EN.WP, rather than posting evidence-free 'plausible speculation'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Ten days of "hounding" a competitor within the music business (to use your slang), same on DE:WP and nothing more than this obsession, is still not enough? Uwe Martens (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Where in those diffs is a statement from the IP that he/she is 'a competitor in the music business'? I can't see any such thing, though I can see you making such unverified claims, along with entirely unnecessary speculative comments regarding the IPs geolocation. [255] I suggest you either provide actual evidence to back up your claims, or stop digging the hole you are rapidly getting yourself into. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Service: "I'm very familiar with music and musicology.". Sometimes reading the matter before talking might help! BTW: For a "retired" user, you seem to be pretty active! Indeed, I recommend that you stop digging the hole you are rapidly getting yourself into! Uwe Martens (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I would assume that most people taking part in a discussion regarding the deletion of a biography of a music publisher would be familiar with the subject matter. And please stop repeating things I say - it makes you come across like a petulant four-year-old. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think either of you are necessarily coming across at your best in this exchange. jp×g 17:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ignoring again the last two needlessly combative comments (calm down, people) seems a wise option. Back on topic: the IPs contributions are clear enough; they make the same arguments on both sites and those have been pretty much rejected on DE.WP; and while it's likely the subject is not notable per our guidelines for different reasons, that does not excuse the IP from not being here to build an encyclopedia and disruptively repeating the same points. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Again, what went on at DE.WP isn't of concern here. And accusing someone who has only made a single post to EN.WP since the 12th of April of 'disruptively repeating the same points' seems unjustified. Just let the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 11 run its course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Cross-wiki abuse is obviously disruptive (their edits on the German version are more obviously disruptive than here). Re-litigating a closed discussion from DE.WP here (which is what their last comment was) and repeating the same comments is IDHT. Re-pinging @LexICon: who was the blocking admin on DE.WP; they can certainly give us a clearer picture here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

IF the IP is blocked on DE.WP, they can't continue disruption there. Which then again leads me to ask how a single post can constitute 'IDHT' on EN.WP? What exactly is it about a single post in the last six days that makes a block here such an urgent matter? Why is any action required? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:BE and WP:FORUMSHOP come to mind. But anyway we can leave them some rope for the time being and also wait for the opinions from our colleagues over at DE.WP to make a clearer judgement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be under a misapprehension regarding blocking. The IP is not blocked here, and accordingly, cannot be evading a block here. As for forum shopping, again the IP isn't doing that on EN.WP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

To reiterate: @RandomCanadian: Neither BE nor SHOPPING apply here. Any sanction to the IP on Wikipedia must come as a result of their behavior on Wikipedia. ——Serial 10:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The deletions request on de:wp was closed the day before yesterday by admin User:Gripweed and the decision was "Keep". --LexICon (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@LexICon: Ich kenne es schon. The question was about the block of the IP editor (by you?). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I blocked him for 3 days, because the person behind the IP is clearly not here to contribute to an enzyclopedia, but for meta- and discussion means the only. A lot of people get involved and after all, it's a waste of time... --LexICon (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

We should be thanking this editor for pointing out the obvious trolling by User:Uwe Martens, not blocking. If this is considered acceptable at the German Wikipedia then there is something very wrong with that project. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

What I believe LexICon is referring to is that they blocked the IP because their first edit at de:wp was proposing a deletion, and because they seemed to have come over from en:wp, where they had been doing the same (first two edits [256] and [257]), leading them to believe the IP is a sock or only participating in the project for personal reasons (Uwe had already characterized them as "Scheinbar ein Mitbewerber aus dem Musikbusiness auf einer Art Mission"). They blocked the IP for three days, without any real discussion. Now while I believe the IP has done nothing but participate in a constructive policy-based dialogue, I do wonder why such an obviously experienced user would be editing from an IP. Then again, there probably are a lot of good reasons for that (?), and it seems that LexICon's block at de:wp just was too hasty. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 22:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Uwe Martens is an author in a good standing on de:wp with more than eight thousand contributions, but only very little experience on en:wp. --LexICon (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say that that standing is diminished somewhat by this, wouldn't you? After all, xe just outright invented the "competitor in the music business from Amsterdam" stuff. I suggest perhaps not taking what xe says at face value any more. After all, here xe is telling us right at the top of this section "arguments over and over again", when the edit history in the German Wikipedia clearly shows otherwise, "The user has been warned a hundred times here and on DE:WP" when there are zero warnings either here or there (The user talk page on the German Wikipedia does not even exist as I write this.), and "repeated a hundred times, blowing up the thread" when that's clearly untrue too. Perhaps you should treat Uwe Martens as an untrustworthy source for vandal reports from now on. Because xe has done this reporting people who disagree with xem as vandals, on both Wikipedias, at least three times since 2017 now. Uncle G (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Changing the subject slightly

I'd be interested to see opinions as to whether this diff [258] constitutes an appropriate notification for an ANI discussion. It certainly doesn't look like one to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have definitely too much free time! But see above! And BTW: An auto-archived report without decision due to inactivity of the admins has no significance here. The reported user replied, so you can see that the notice was obviously sufficient (what you have seen of course, since he even replied on his talk page, but you still keep making trouble here). Uwe Martens (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It might also be wise for Uwe Martens, in relation to this [259] earlier edit here, to take note of what the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines have to say on deleting other people's comments. Threatening to remove posts from WP:ANI because you aren't 'interested in them' certainly isn't legitimate grounds to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Normally the admins' sites are moderated by admins. So once again you got a wrong interpretation. But thanks again for showing us that 100 % of your attention goes to this report for defending another time wasting user! But of course you will have the last word again, as in every section here! I'm out of here. Uwe Martens (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the lack of evidence that the IP (who has, I reiterate, made a single post to EN.WP in the last six days) has been 'time wasting', I suspect that people may well form another opinion entirely on the subject. And in particular, on who is 'time wasting' where.

For the benefit of anyone wondering, no, I rarely post on Wikipedia these days. I did however happen to notice Uwe Martens earlier, failed, attempt to get the IP blocked (I look at WP:ANI sometimes, just to see what's going down - it hasn't changed much), and was somewhat surprised to see a second thread on the same subject. Even more surprised when I found that the IP had done nothing of any real significance since the last thread. IP contributors are sometimes seen as easy targets on WP:ANI, and in my opinion, it is often wise not to take the word of whoever is calling for their block. The actual evidence that the IP has done anything wrong on EN.WP is singularly lacking, in my opinion. My opinion regarding Uwe Martens' behaviour here is somewhat less charitable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I award that notification one frowny face: 🙁 Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Tbh, whatever the IP may or may not have done, I'm increasingly inclined to support a (minor, perhaps) sanction against the OP, who is demonstrating a consistently BATTLEGROUND approach ("Game over!"—wtf?!). Repeating other editors' words, casting aspersions, being reminded to provide diffs and not doing so, threatening to remove others' posts... etc.

And all this in the course of reporting trolling—! ——Serial 10:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Uwe Martens' behaviour

Looking at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021 April 11#Tobias Broeker and related as well as what is going on on this noticeboard it does look as if Uwe Martens (talk · contribs) is more the problem, here. Assuming bad faith of just about everyone, from the deleting administrator onwards; making personal attacks based upon geolocation assumptions; and not being interested in a third opinion offered immediately above. 82.173.133.70 (talk · contribs) seems to be doing what everyone else is doing, on the other hand, which is explaining project policy and guidelines, such as talking about "solid third-party coverage" at Special:Diff/1017172481 for example. Revoking editing privileges for doing that seems absurd, and asking for such a block claiming that it is "trolling" (see above) and indeed that it is vandalism (Special:Diff/1017282746) is problematic. Uncle G (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

(Uugh, I hadn't seen this section when I posted above, but I echo the sentiments wholeheartedly ——Serial 10:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

Uugh, perhaps you should have read the second section below as well at first before talking! So you would have understood what was running here cross-wiki! Uwe Martens (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply from IP

Hi, I do not want a long discussion here. It's not helpful for anyone. Why have I edited Wikipedia (and I thought this is encouraged)? I stumbled across what seemed like a strange article, and when I looked closer it was written by the person himself using his personal website as the main primary source. I found it crazy how someone could write his own article and it go unnoticed for years. So I suggested deletion. It was speedily deleted by an administrator. Uwe Martens disagrees with the deletion (and that's okay: opinions are different), but he's quite aggressively gone after me, three times taking it to ANI, threatening blocks, attacking other editors who disagree with him, deleting talk page comments he disagrees with... Examples here from the English Wikipedia only:

• attacking ANI admin
• attacking ANI admin and threatening to delete admin's comment
• inappropriate talk page notification 'game over!'
• patronising comment to 'those who face problems with a search engine
• 'opinions of IPs are irrelevant'
• previous ANI complaint 'finally time to block this toxic behavior!'
• again 'The time has finally come to block your one-purpose-IP! EOD!'
• unnecessarily aggressive discussion comment
• again 'you shouldn't make judgments in areas you obviously have no clue about!'
• patronising comment to closing administrator 'why should I have assumed that you would follow the arguments?'

I hope Uwe Martens can stop this and instead focus on the actual deletion discussion. And not act in this way simply because he disagrees with someone (whether me, the original closing admin, other editors who say the article is non-notable, admins on ANI, ...). I've tried to focus on policy throughout. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• The community thanks the reported IP user for the repeated confirmation of his inability to recognize his own misconduct! Wherever a different opinion was expressed, he came up again with the same argument in other words, repeated a hundred times, blowing up the threads. The obsession to maltreat obviously a competitor out of the music business as well as the creator of the article over a period of one and a half weeks in several wiki projects and to indulge in never ending querulatory repetitions, are of course no problem from his point of view. Here I'll feel so free to translate one of the victim's comments: "I had also written on the day of the deletion request, but was then quite appalled by the aggressive energy of the applicant directed solely at me. I did not want to pour oil on the fire by own comments. Hence my silence and my inactivity." Ban, revert and ignore is the only appropriate consequence! And @Uncle G, we have a German saying: As it rings in the forest, so it rings out! The show is now over! I have wasted enough time here, so EOD from my side! Uwe Martens (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I see from Special:Diff/1017279307 that you tried that trick a week ago. Your approach to people is terrible. You actually pulled the very same stunts over on the German Wikipedia, repeatedly blanking the other person's discussion comments (de:Special:Diff/211005573 de:Special:Diff/211006305) and then reporting xem for vandalism (de:Special:Permalink/211005910#Benutzer:82.173.133.70) just because xe had the temerity to disagree with you. And even the German Wikipedia block log and edit history do not agree that the person was blocked for wanting to delete an article or "warned a hundred times". I think that the German Wikipedia lacked an AndyTheGrump to step in before your wild mischaracterizations of someone disagreeing with you in a deletion discussion were believed too readily. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You have no clue what you're talking about! The IP user abused the German deletion discussion for his mission, desturbing repeatedly even in English language (BTW: Thanks for providing the diffs!). It's widly common on DE:WP to block and revert those troll postings. That's what we call "Meta sock puppet or discussion IP without the will to create an encyclopedica" and this was the reason for his ban. Everyone who sides here with this IP-user just prooves that he hasn't understood the problem, even after hours of talking. Uwe Martens (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It's tiresome how this guy Uwe repeatedly claims to be finished with discussing and then proceeds to jump back in to insult more people in the same vituperative vein. – Athaenara ✉ 10:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It's very simple: If somebody can't accept an EOD and keeps talking about me, I'll feel free to respond. But that you're evidently a troll protector with a one sided point of view is nothing new meanwhile, but thanks for confirming over and over again! Uwe Martens (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Agree, at this point, that Uwe is being needlessly combative. Agree that being a suspicious SPA is not a blockable offence in and of itself (though I have concerns over the cross-wiki nature of the thing and the seemingly sole target). Since this appears to be a conflict between two persons, I might have proposed a one-way IBAN, but given it's an IP, I now reconsider my previous position and think that the matter should be left to the regular process (AfD, ...) for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The IP seems to have found a promotional article on one Wikipedia (not sure which), and followed a link to the other. And pointed out the promotional nature of the article on both. I can't see anything particularly wrong with doing so, since there was clearly an issue in both places. The 'suspicions' look unfounded, unless one is of the opinion that all IPs are automatically suspect. Which certainly isn't EN.WP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I got it already that just repeating other people's slang (see first section here) is "needlessly combative" for you! In fact it's just to hold up a mirror to someone else. All the funnier that this, only when repeated, is then considered as inappropriate. 🤣🤣🤣 By the way, this applies to all discussants and replies here. Forest and sound and so (as explained above the German saying)... Uwe Martens (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved non-admin just chiming in to say that I agree you are being needlessly combative. I urge you to look at this many people agreeing about your behavior as a sign that you should reflect. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN Uwe Martens

• Uwe Martens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Support TBAN of User:Uwe Martens from Tobias Broeker (as proposer) - Uwe Martens is an SPA with ~100 edits almost all about Tobias Broeker, and as can be seen from the comments in this thread and elsewhere (DRV, talk pages), almost all of the participation surrounding this topic is negative: accusations, assumptions of bad faith, attacking anyone who disagrees, etc. This is net negative participation. Clearly they're not taking anything on board from the discussion above and prior discussions; let's separate this editor from this topic. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Minor correction: they don't seem to be an SPA (despite their recent edits here being overwhelmingly in that topic); they have previous contributions here (and are much more active on De.WP - where they do appear to be occasionally blocked for various things, also). Though, obviously a "contemporary music" enthusiast by the looks of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The last visit here was to immediately label a disputant a "vandal", too. Special:Diff/810719723 Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Realistically, they're a net negative at this point: their responses above are pure battleground. ——Serial 16:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

On edit: Also support anything else ranging from a block to a c-ban per their continued behavior in the middle of their own thread. ——Serial 18:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support Not sure this will have any significant effect once the current affair gets resolved (hence why I was suggesting letting the normal process run its course); hence think this will be an ineffective sanction. But they clearly haven't taken any of the advice given to them about their behaviour. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Uwe's behavior here certainly does not look so great, and I might go so far as to say it looks bad. Reading through this discussion, it occurs to me that perhaps the German Wikipedia is a vastly different sort of affair than this one. This would seem to explain Uwe's perplexing (to say the least) style of engagement. I'm not sure how salient this is to the current issue, but it might bear mentioning; obviously, I have no experience there, so I can't say for certain what the deal is. jp×g 17:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per self-evident inability to understand the Law of holes, as demonstrated by continuing bad-faith accusations in this thread. Leave any discussions regarding the notability or otherwise of Broeker to people who can engage in a debate in an appropriate manner. I suspect that without Uwe Martens antagonistic efforts, it might already have been resolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support looking through Uwe Martens' recent engagements with various editors here, they all amount to aspersions and battleground-type of behavior. Per RandomCanadian above, a TBAN may not be very effective, but some kind of warning that this won't be tolerated here is needed. I doubt though that it is any different at de.wp; rather, they reported the IP at de.wp's equivalent of AIV, where it seems that a short block was given without really looking into the case. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment 🤣🤣🤣 Uwe Martens (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per their lackluster response just above mine. TAXIDICAE💰 17:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I really have to thank the community for the impressive demonstration of the circumstances in this hobby editors' project (what is just a confirmation of what was known already for a long time)! That's why I sent you a public thank for your comment right now! Uwe Martens (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is...people are going to see that as trolling. Literally, the definition thereof. FYI. ——Serial 18:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, there is a point where the case becomes a waste of time. Time that could have been used to review the article in question. Especially when referring to the "law of holes" linked above, after a certain point it makes no sense to discuss further. You can just laugh about it and leave the project. I mean, it's said "Wikipedia doesn't need you" - but it's much more the case that I don't need Wikipedia! 🤣🤣🤣 So the community can continue to have a meta-meta discussion at this point while the article remains in its current state, it's that simple! As I said earlier: I'm out of here! Uwe Martens (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

... and ~60 mins later the user continues their combative, denigrating behavior [260], excusing themselves with 'SCNR' (which apparently stands for 'sorry could not resist'). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 20:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. It's pretty obvious that it's the German Wikipedia that has misunderstood who is the troll, not us. Let's not repeat their mistake. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  To be faire on them, they do appear to have blocked Uwe quite a number of times already for various reasons (20 if xtools is correct). Just apparently they've never done anything serious enough to justify a more permanent action. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The "problem" on DE:WP is that you get blocked if you try to represent an opinion against the mainstream. But for sure I won't make those issues on DE:WP years ago a subject here! The only notable fact in this case is that the reported single-purpose IP acted according to the motto: Attack is the best defense. And the discussants here seem to have fallen for this completely, unable to recognize own presumptuous behavior even after several notes. But sure: Keep talking about me while the party is going on at AfD the IP user is throwing! Uwe Martens (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I read all the posts and links in this thread, and I did my own research on de:wikipedia. Here on en.wikipedia, it looks like you've taken to accuse your crtics and detractors with your own annoying behavior. There are examples above. "Attack is the best defense" appears to be a big part of your own modus operandi here on en.wikipedia. I think you should not post anything at all anymore (including a response to my post) regarding this particular issue on en.wikipedia and, hopefully, come time come insight, your further contributions here will be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support it seems clear this editor has an unhealthy interest in this topic, as shown by their replies in this thread and elsewhere and their insistency they are going to leave but then continuing coming back apparently including sock after being blocked. Considering the history of the article on question, there are strong reasons so suspect some sort of COI. But even if there is no COI, I don't think this editor should be involved in Tobias Broeker in any way, not even in discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  The socking may be less clear than I thought, however the stuff that lead up to the block still seems enough to stick with my support. Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: 2-week block for Uwe Martens

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Their continued incivility, battleground mentality and refusal to listen to the advice of other editors is distressing and they've not shown any ability to self-reflect or understand the concerns raised about it. I'd suggest a block for at least a couple of weeks until the AfD and everything else can be resolved to WP:PREVENT any further sillyness. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as nom. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes at the very least. I'll admit that I'm already very prejudiced against the article that this user is defending because of this behaviour, so it would be better to be able to discuss it dispassionately without the trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Many thanks to the community for demonstrating how Wikipedia works! This will be a reference for public reviews about this hobby encyclopedists' project, far from being professional! I highly recommend to read my talkpage! Keep talking about me even after I noted several times "EOD" and "I'm out of here" and teach me in the end "the law of hole" if I respond... OMG! 🤣🤣🤣 -- Uwe Martens (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support WP:NOTHERE behavior is ongoing ([261], [262], [263]) and needs to be put to a quick stop. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support based on the discussion above. This editor has been combative since the beginning and, after many pointed it out, it seems they refuse to get the point. —El Millo (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support based on the discussion above - I'm not sure why this is only two weeks, if it's tied to the AfD for the DRV article maybe a month would be appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• I don't get why anyone thinks that this editor will ever be productive. —Cryptic 23:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Cryptic: I was considering proposing an indef (site ban?) but I thought that was too extreme (their long block history on DE.WP is obviously not too relevant here), and in any case giving some WP:ROPE is what AGF requires us to do. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  WP:AGF (go read it!) does not require we do anything of the sort in the presence of specific evidence of wrongdoing. We have that in spades. —Cryptic 00:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Cryptic: If you want to make a new proposal for an indef, go ahead. But I think that would be unecessary pile-up by this point - their other edits here outside of this area don't seem to be disruptive, at least the bit I can see; and if somehow they come back with the same attitude in two weeks (despite now claiming on their userpage that they're "permanently inactive"), the problem can probably be dealt with even more easily than now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support per doubling-down on the combativeness even in this section. And in reply to Cryptic, what people think, and what WP:AGF requires them to do don't always coincide. I suspect that if Uwe Martens resumes similar behaviour after a two-week block, the next one is liable to be indefinite though per the usual disclaimer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:OWB #46. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Uwe's perplexing comments in this thread and general openness about a lack of interest in collaborating with others. jp×g 04:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Some honest advice, RandomCanadian, wrt your administrative work: your heart is clearly in the right place, but you're regularly a degree or two out in your assessments. In this case, for instance, you should probably have proposed an indefinite block. Reasons: they edit so rarely that there's no reason to expect them to even notice two weeks (yes, there's a sudden spike nine days ago, but that's this particular incident). I think an indefinite-which-is-not-forever-block would have found much traction. IMHO of course. ——Serial 10:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  Understand your point, even if I disagree on the specifics of this case. I was hesitating between proposing an indef and a "block until this can be resolved" but in the end I thought the first option was too harsh: I don't think an indef is necessary to prevent further disruption at this stage, since the disruption here (ignoring DE.WP), as their recent edits, has been mostly concentrated on one issue which is likely to be resolved within the short-term (if their "retirement" is not just drama-queening, then the outcome is de-facto the same). If they come back at some point and continue their past behaviour on new topics, then it's a WP:ROPE issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is there a CoI issue here?

I wasn't going to comment on this earlier, since it seemed rather unnecessary, given the way that the discussion has been going. I would however note that Uwe Martens is now referring to Wikipedia as a "hobby encyclopedists' project". Which leads me to ask, is Martens actually involved in the "music business" in any way, and more specifically, does Uwe Martens have any sort of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with regard to Tobias Broeker? Beyond the obvious reluctance to accept other people's opinions concerning Broeker, there might not be much in the way of direct evidence for this, but denigrating others for participating in a 'hobby' would seem a strange thing to be doing if that was all that Martens was doing too. And if it isn't a 'hobby' for Martens, shouldn't we be told what it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's very obvious that there's a conflict of interest here. I'm still reeling from the fact that editors and admins of the German Wikipedia don't seem to realise the obvious. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Phil. What happened on the German Wikipedia was very disappointing. I saw a self-written article and thought Wikipedia would want it removed. The German article (also by Broeker and now Uwe Martens) is still there and I believe will not be deleted, even if the English one is. But that is their choice: I tried my best to help. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If obvious, then what a stupid way to go about pushing it. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• I doubt it. It's just a way of trying to assert superiority, just like all of the "obey my EOD" stuff (e.g. Special:Diff/1018784471) is. The actual account with the self-evident conflict of interest is the one named after the subject's main work. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd take a look at this discussion before turning off the laptop and I have to say: it's getting more and more amusing! First of all, I have already mentioned that I am not a paid promoter. Rather, it became clear that the reported single-purpose IP is apparently on a personal mission and coming out of the music business (see his comments on AfD). Furthermore, as always in the last few years, it becomes more and more clear that effort and benefit of this wiki project are no longer in an acceptable ratio. What was expected is a professional encyclopedia with professional behavior, but all I was confronted with was table talk and mushrooming squabbles, all discussants proved being incapable of reflecting on their own pretentious behavior and wondered about the answers! This is no environment for professional editing articles. Highly interesting anyway to get the circumstances of this project confirmed again, Wikipedia as its best, thank you very much again all discussants for the confirmation! This discussion will be definitely added to my collection of highlights! But keep talking about me in my absence, I don't care anymore! Uwe Martens (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the above, I'd say it's safe to just indef this user per WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You said "I'm out of here" more than once before making that comment, so you have shown yourself to be a serial liar. I don't believe that anyone apart from you is amused by such lies. Someone just please block this editor indefinitely, so that "I'm out of here" becomes a fact. The comments about hobbyists and professionals and paid promoters clearly reflect badly on Uwe Martens, rather than anyone else here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite block (Uwe Martens)

Having reviewed the above discussion, I'm seeing more than enough NOTHERE behavior to justify an indef block as an admin action, which I am going to go ahead and implement as I think it is both warranted by the situation and a simpler solution than enacting both a 2-week block and an indefinite TBAN. While there has been some explicit support for a full site-ban, this has not clearly won community consensus, so this block is a normal admin action rather than a CBAN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Reasonable decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the latest edit of theirs above. Seems reasonable indeed, or at least more so than a full CBAN, IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

+1 and thanks. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Socking by Uwe Martens?

Does anyone else think that Special:Contributions/178.113.28.33, who made 4 edits yesterday, all relating to the Broeker AFD, seems to bear more than a passing resemblance to Uwe Martens? Note the enthusiastic use of ! here, along with what might arguably be seen as canvassing, [264], and the attempt to control who participates in the discussion here. [265] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Your CU tools are useless here; but is the IP quacking loud enough? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like a duck, I'm going to go ahead and block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Rosguill. No, RandomCanadian, not useless, but I just can't talk about what I might find. The good news is I'm not placing any CU blocks in relation to this matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP range making unsourced edits, misuses talk pages

2A02:C7F:242E:4800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

This IP range makes unsourced changes and violates WP:NOTFORUM. Out of 24 edits (Special:Contribs/2A02:C7F:242E:4800:0:0:0:0/64), 8 are tagged as reverted, of which 7 added unsourced or inaccurate content (most recent example) to articles and 1 (this one) was a plain WP:NOTFORUM violation. The other 3 edits on talk pages repeat unsourced edits and were unsigned:

• Talk:A Disney Halloween#The film was really made in October 24, 1981. after Special:Diff/1015836123.
• Talk:The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad#Ichabod's old plowhorse is actually Old Gunpowder while Brom's horse is Daredevil. after Special:Diff/1017056106.
• Talk:Rosalina (Mario)#Her name is actually Princess Rosalina. after Special:Diff/1017208643.

Only the most recent editor from this range has been warned of this ANI, since the edit in question happened today and all edits in this range are likely by the same user. 13 more edits on Wikipedia articles have to be checked. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The range is blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Mtstroud

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's a user that has been adding lots of unsourced content to James L. Buckley so I did a rollback, that person then threatened me because they didn't like what I did. See here. I would take it to dispute resolution, but I think it's moved beyond that point already and I didn't want to start an edit war. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Rollback really shouldn't be used for unsourced material but his response was beyond inappropriate. Left a note on his page. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"He asked you a simple and perfectly normal question ... and you responded like he raped your dog or something". HAHAHA Jesus Christ, Ian.thomson... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

They've also been trying to add the right wing populism category to Gina Carano which seems to be a violation of BLPCAT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needlessly vexatious

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone take a look at User:JimboBuckets99? It seems to include some needlessly vexatious remarks, including the blunt lie that the user is a Wikipedia:Service awards#Master Editor (or Illustrious Looshpah). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, WP:SVC says: These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty (except possible disapproval from other editors), so there's nothing to be done about that. As for the userboxes, some of them are needlessly divisive per WP:UBCR and should probably be removed. However, you should raise your concern with the editor directly before coming to AN/I. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The userboxes seem like a bigger problem than the false award, especially the one that says" This User Does NOT Believe that Truth is Arrived at by Consensus", since that belief seems to run contrary to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia that decisions are arrived at via consensus. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jackattack1597, interesting... that one struck me as one of the few that could be kept. Which part of WP:UBCR do you think it violates? The one about non-Christians being "wrong about their worldview" seemed the most problematic to me. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, upon further reflection, that one doesn't really seem to violate the policy, and I definitely agree with you about the wrong about their worldview one being very problematic, and the marriage between a man and women one is pretty obvious since that userbox was previously deleted in an MFD.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Since WP:OWN is rather clear that nobody owns their user page and that addressing significant concerns is acceptable, I'll go ahead and do just that by trimming quite a few of the boxes, not limited to the ones which are avoiding community consensus by being recreations of already deleted ones... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

that one doesn't really seem to violate the policy Exactly. This User Does NOT Believe that Truth is Arrived at by Consensus Truth is not, but Wikipedia decisions are. Their results are explicitly not Truth. See WP:NOTTRUTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Can anybody tell if User:JimboBuckets99/Userboxes/Userbox Name is G4 eligible to an already deleted template? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  RandomCanadian, this is the closest MfD I could find, and the outcome was actually keep: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful. Probably best to start a new MfD, especially since that one is 11 years old. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  I couldn't find any previously deleted ones matching that one either; a new MFD seems necessary, but I'm not entirely sure if it would be deleted since incoherent isn't quite as bad as harmful, and even the harmful one was kept, albeit a decade ago. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Jackattack1597, a lot has changed in 11 years. I think it's worth a try. I opened an MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JimboBuckets99/Userboxes/Userbox Name. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  It might be a good idea to start two separate MFDs; one for the atheism and religion is harmful boxes, which were kept a decade ago when standards were more lax, and one for this one.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Jackattack1597, if you want to start an MfD for the old userbox, go ahead; I'm only interested in addressing the issue at hand. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  As we say in French, l'union fait la force, so I've created an MfD for the two "X is harmful" ones (you two seem to be already aware, anyway). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  So a userbox that says that I believe that God's existence can be proven objectively is "divisive"? JimboBuckets99 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  JimboBuckets99, that one's borderline. Several that RandomCanadian removed, though, were very inflammatory and not borderline at all. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's borderline inflammatory to suggest that you are a traditional theist? JimboBuckets99 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  JimboBuckets99, I don't think so. I wouldn't have removed that one. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  JimboBuckets99, I restored that one. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, might have been a bit harsh on that (though Wikipedia:Userboxes#Potentially_divisive_words does seem to recommend avoiding using "believes"; and I fail to see what one's religious convictions have to do with building an encyclopedia [especially since WP:NPOV quite clearly states that the only opinions which are relevant are those of WP:RS.]). But nevermind, there are plenty of silly userboxes so that's not a major issue nor a fire I'm on which I'm interested enough to start pouring oil on it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• I personally think userboxen related to religion or politics are generally a bad idea. This isn't social media, it's an encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think the allowances for what is and what is not acceptable in user pages might need rechecking, but I broadly agree that userboxes about politics and religion have little purpose, except maybe for editors who might have some expertise in these areas (but then that's entirely not the same as the kind of userboxes we're facing here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  They're also usually more tolerated for experienced productive editors (i.e. WP:NOTWEBHOST may apply). —PaleoNeonate – 09:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  (Sidebar) Wikipedia is in fact a form of social media. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Could the username be a violation of policy? Jimbo is most probably a reference to Wales... —PaleoNeonate – 09:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• While we need to police problem edits and problem editors, it's not really necessary to police people's userboxes. Nor is it a particularly good idea. Userpages like this one are helpful. I mean, finding someone with a userpage like that is a lot like finding an insect with yellow and black stripes on its thorax. You get some warning.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• I think that the appropriate guidance can be found in WP:UBCR as previously cited, specifically where it says Express what you do like, rather than what you don't like. Express what you comprehend, rather than what you don't comprehend. Express what you do, rather than what you don't. Express who you are, rather than who you aren't. It would also be helpful to remember that the entire point of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is that it is open and welcoming of editors of all religious beliefs and those who have no religious beliefs. Userboxes that explicitly denigrate other users' beliefs are not conducive to the broader project. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• This user is now at WP:DRN, claiming to be an outside observer, but obviously part of the conflict... —PaleoNeonate – 00:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• (yawn)  Confirmed {{checkuserblock-account}} --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats by IP User:68.6.77.55

Resolved

Legal threats are not civil. [266] I was referred here by a Teahouse editor and I now see that this action by another editor has been taken here [267]. Is that sufficient? Thanks. --Ooligan (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ooligan, they've been warned, so I'd give them a chance to heed the warning. You can come back here if they do it again. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

ok, thanks --Ooligan (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

IDHT, thinly veiled accusation and overall trolling (COVID)

• Empiricus-sextus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I didn't give the GS warning early enough, so asking instead for regular administrative intervention against disruptive talk page behaviour. The editor has been repeatedly informed about WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, etc. Instead of following the advice therein, they've only continued in their WP:SOAPBOX behaviour, which includes disruptively repeating the same points; persistently accusing other editors of "not understanding" what little there is to understand in their comments (which are mostly OR, anyway); very unsubtly accusing me of being a CCP mouthpiece ([268] - this bears ressemblance with some of ScrupulousScribe's socks); and then outright trolling by making stuff up about what's been said and imagining some boldly ridiculous claims as "biggest misinforamtion of the 21st century". This is not limited to solely one talk page. Edits such as this one (which uncritically repeat some previous, debunked points) show this isn't something new.

I might have been a bit guilty of feeding the troll, here, but I'm quite confident that at least a topic ban is warranted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed intensively - the problem is simply that not every hypothesis about the origin of the coronavirus is a conspiracy theory. This is a fundamental problem of the article. This is also the position of the WHO director, of 14 countries including the USA and various scientists - but any other position belongs for in the realm of conspiracy theory - a problem, which is shown by all articles on the origin of the virus. RandomCanadian blocked any neutral information and for e.g. concerning the WHO Report.The impact is, that the articles, also the discussed one concerning the origin are incomplete and full of misinformation.There is also a huge international discussion outside of science- which is for non-existent or relevant for RandomCanadian. The blocking of any serious information is a kind of trolling.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral on Wikipedia means "neutral according to the sources", not "neutral according to one's personal opinion". The "huge discussion outside of science" (I don't see much evidence of that) is entirely irrelevant, indeed, as far as WP:MEDRS is concerned; and there's already agreement that information about politics can be included in the articles about misinformation (including COVID-19 misinformation by China, COVID-19 misinformation by the United States, ...). You've still failed to grasp that and are instead still arguing the merits of the at best dubious lab leak, based on some points very common with previous blocked users. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting your own views and deductions on something - you must cite appropriate sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Coming straight to AN/I because of a talk page discussion is a rapid escalation, RandomCanadian. Tagging them as a "vandal" in the template is a bit much too. I think you could have had this discussion on their talk page - a topic ban seems out of proportion, especially as they've not edited the pages and only just received the GS notice.

Empiricus-sextus, it is not appropriate to suggest other editors are dupes of propaganda. Less rhetoric, please, and more use of high-quality reliable sources. You won't get to a good outcome by lashing out. Fences&Windows 01:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the template if that really posed problems. It might be rapid escalation, but the thinly veiled personal attacks are certainly inappropriate, and persistently making the same (already, earlier on the talk page and in previous discussion, rebutted) points is disruptive (and this isn't the first time lab leak enthusiasts have disrupted COVID discussions). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

We had a hard dispute. Everything /source /statement/ e.tc. that does not fit into the conspiracy theory is filtered and blocked , even based "on high-quality reliable sources" - especially by User RandomCanadian - whom I quite respect. Sorry, if various arguments were understood personally - was not my intention.Surely it must be in our interest that the article here, but also on the origin, reflects the more recent developments for e.g. (Goverment Positions of the Biden Administration, Schweden, GB, e.g., also the WHO Director) and is consistent with WP policy. A clear differentiation of the positions (science, states, IGO, public opions,conspiration theoriets) is needed, and simply the core problem, where it probably needs some more discussion. --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue what your grievance is, but the misinformation article is not the place to argue the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the lab leak theory. The politics are mentioned in COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story ("US politicians began spreading the unproven theories of a "lab" origin, including Republican Senators Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, as well as then-President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo".). Criticism of the WHO report is already given Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Biden_Administration ("had deep concerns"). That's not the issue. The issue is your persistent arguing for the lab leak with poor sources (which are not MEDRS) and with personal attacks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Edits like this (completely ignoring Fringe_theory#Definitions; and then Fringe_theory#False_balance which explains why we must not use popular press sources for MEDRS stuff) also seem to indicate they here to disrupt the topic in question. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, more in-depth discussions are needed. For the so-called Fringe Theory, there are 526 Google Scholar hits] and not a single scientific study. There is no explicit Fring Theory in science or epistemology - but we have generated something like that.The deletion request should have actually gone through, the article should be supplemented by reputbale sources - only, these do not exist de facto. "Per the discussion held here. There is no source covering this topic in a non-trivial way; it is not notable and not encyclopedic, and fails to meet the criteria for inclusion. Nearly All of the content and the uses of references/citations in the article are WP:SYNTH. Logos (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)"--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Arguing that an article about fringe theories (a notable subject, which gets lots of attention, see for ex. BBC or the common use of the concept, in stuff like [269] or [270]) needs to be deleted seems more and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT; and shows a basic lack of knowledge of our common practices such as WP:DINC. If you don't like that the lab leak is one among many fringe theories and only deserves explicit mention in the course of discussions about misinformation, that's not our problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It is longstanding Wikipedia policy that all statements and senstences must be substantiated with reputable sources - instead of quoting media (BBC) here show me a scientific article or analog encyclopedia entry on "Fringe Theory" or. In the biggest dictionary about philosophy and philosophy of science in the world (over 5.000 pages) - there is nothing about it ! This was also the condition of the adminstrator for keep. Theorizing or synthesis is not our job. But this is a completely different topic.There is nothing more to clarify here.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Not everything requires a MEDRS (philosophy certainly does not - though I find plenty of journal articles and books about "conspiracy theories" [271] [272] [273] - might just be a case of a title that needs changing - but then conspiracy theory also exists). As for the BBC, they are a reliable source for general news reporting (I think that's so obvious they might not even have an entry at WP:RSP, but feel free to check just in case). So long you stop arguing medicine with newspapers (I don't know if you have any formation in a specific discipline, but I guess no matter the topic, you'd rather employ suitable expert publications and not pieces written by journalists who may likely not have any relevant background). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, as important as MEDRES is for medical issues, however, the study of the origin of coronavirus is a bioscience question, with no direct medical implication (maybe you know...?) - unlike many other questions - that is probably a total misunderstanding of the topic.In this case, you will find few reliable sources. This is understandable for all other topics with medical implications - but not for scientific investigations concerning the origin, the coronavirus belongs to the animal virology.Your sources refer to conspiracy theory, what I am missing is a scientific foundation what a "frings theory" should be - I am dealing with questions of science theory, methodology, methods in different disciplines for over 25 years - the frings theory does not exist there - it is a phantom without notability ! For our guidelines it is o.k. - but in science it even not a minority position.I see the reasoning for the deletion request - later - but the reasoning is 100% correct, form s strong scientific point of view.I think here is not the place for further discussion. I stop here.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Normal journalistic sources that are generally considered reliable are fine to report about the fact that misinformation is pushed and that some unproven hypotheses are campaigned for without warranted evidence. I noticed that I had Empiricus-sextus listed on some COVID related notes of mine with this diff and note "promotion of speculative claims about COVID-19 written by people outside of their field of expertise", so this has been going on since at least February 2021. —PaleoNeonate – 14:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We really have a lot of misinformation about the origin of the coronavirus, but scientific hypotheses and discussions about it, are not automatically conspiracy theories. This is the small but fundamental difference of the disput with User:RandomCanadian. The controversial discussion paper by Wiesendanger (who is a execellent researcher, at his institute (where he is director) there is a physical corona research), is only a kind of literature review, an evaluation of the research studies of the Wuhan Institute, which has triggered a very large public discussion. This is also taking place in science - as the articles in the MIT Review show. Scientifically, these are not "speculations" or "promotion of speculative claims about COVID-19", but possible hypothesis, which should be investigated and tested, that is the position of the WHO director of 13 countries including the USA and Canada, as well as various scientists.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Over the course of the last several months, it seems like every few weeks another extremely verbose thread about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis has come to spew bile over a different noticeboard. Frankly, it's hard for me to understand how anyone can sustain caring about this for so long, in either direction; how extremely online can we get? But, moreover, it's hard for me to empathize with the argument that letting "Those Guys" have "Their Article" is inherently evil, or that "having an article about some stupid crap that was in the news" is going to somehow get people killed (note that we have articles about Strategery and planking). I've said this same thing at probably a dozen noticeboard discussions at this point -- it seems like a content dispute. This, to me, is evidenced by the fact that every noticeboard thread about it devolves into a prolonged argument about content. The fact of the "other side" being unreasonable is probably related to it being brought up dozens of times, to the point where any reasonable person would become exhausted and find something else to do. jp×g 21:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, at their core, many COVID-19 discussions that end up at ANI are content driven, but they end up here because very few admins (one less after RexxS was booted by ArbCom) are willing to step in and enforce the GS authorized by the community on COVID articles. GS are designed to prevent issues from boiling over to AN(/I) by enabling administrators to issue sanctions based on observed conduct that is detrimental to the project. GS is ineffective when there is a very small amount (if any) number of administrators who are both watching COVID related pages, and who are willing to step in and take GS actions to prevent disruption. I feel that many administrators who would be willing to step in and enforce COVID GS to prevent disruption to the project are put off by the fact that ArbCom has recently conducted a witch-hunt against an administrator who was doing so - but I cannot say this with certainty. Thus, I will plead, to all administrators who see this, please put a few COVID articles/talk pages on your watch list and watch for disruption from single purpose accounts or those who are here to right great wrongs. GS are designed to stop these sorts of RGW issues before they boil into AN discussions - but they don't work if nobody's willing to step in and issue topic/page bans to accounts that appear to only be here for one purpose prior to them boiling over. Administrator action on COVID related topics has been lacking since the pandemic started, and have been lacking even more since RexxS no longer can action - so please, if you want these conduct disputes to not boil over here, step in and stop them using the authority given by community-authorized GS before they actually do. If there's no GS application, the only option is to attempt to bring it to admin attention here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think your perception of why COVID GS is ineffective is correct. I made a report here months ago and that was also a pain to action (it was preceded by many threads in many venues, going back since the start of the pandemic). The enforcement issue has nothing to do with RexxS; he was aware of those specific issues and tried to comment on them and help, but presumably didn't find enough to take administrative action. In the end people had to wait until clear conduct issues manifested, at which point enforcement actions were taken by Boing, ToBeFree and El C. Certainly the lack of admins in COVID (compared to, say, American politics) contributes to the enforcement issues, but I suspect better reasons are a) the general issue with getting ANI threads closed with action; b) the fact that many COVID issues border on content dispute. Indeed, a recent RfC ended in no consensus and it's a very thin line between legitimate content dispute in accordance with that NC, and biased POV pushing / failure to comply with community policy standards. So which admin wants to analyse all the evidence and summarise it into something that can be actionable on the basis of policy (a requirement even for GS enforcement)? I suspect, quite reasonably, in a volunteer operation you'd have to wait in line.

Ultimately this is a failure of consensus and dispute resolution mechanisms. If there were a clear content consensus, admins could liberally enforce it. But there isn't, so the options are: a) wait for people to get exhausted and leave the topic (unacceptable IMO, and it leaves the credibility of Wikipedia's content relying on the energy of people like Alexbrn); b) wait for people to exhibit clear conduct issues, and then they can be sanctioned on that basis. Wikipedia needs a better way to deal with intractable content disputes without waiting for them to manifest into conduct ones. Binding mediation would be one solution (how that would interact with consensus is a bigger puzzle). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem is that virtually all conduct disputes start from content disputes where editors are unable to maintain collegiality, or violate common courtesy by WP:BLUDGEONING or similar - thus it's not helpful to characterize COVID issues as being hard to action because they are bordering on content disputes. Both this and the above thread about another user are clear conduct disputes that started from content discussions - and in this case especially, the bludgeoning has continued on this thread. It appears that the users bludgeoning this thread rehashing the content dispute is part of the reason that this thread hasn't been actioned yet - because the majority of words here are about the content dispute because the user's conduct is inappropriate (in bringing the content dispute here). This is why GS exist - because in some topic areas, content disputes tend to boil over frequently into conduct problems - but users can just rehash the content here on ANI and then admins will say "it's a content dispute" and ignore the conduct that even happened here that is detrimental to building the encyclopedia. Furthermore, I don't think it's a good idea to say that conduct shouldn't be considered problematic until a clear consensus on content has emerged - part of the reason content consensus in COVID topics is hard to form is because conduct isn't effectively policed and these threads tend to just sit for weeks without resolution of conduct issues, following which the problematic users continue blocking consensus with poor conduct. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If there are clear conduct issues going on, then that hasn't been clearly presented in this report. There are a lot of issues filed at ANI, and the ones poorly reported about not particularly notorious editors are unlikely to gather special interest for people to go digging on their own. There's also no bludgeoning in this thread; the user has made as many comments as RandomCanadian, mainly to respond to accusations made about them (not that number of comments itself constitutes bludgeoning anyway). Conduct can be considered problematic without underlying consensus, yes, and that's often how such intractable NC disputes are resolved (one 'side' gets frustrated, says something they shouldn't, and gets sanctioned). Where there is no consensus on content, there's more leeway for legitimate dispute. At the time that COVID RfC was opened - which you voted to oppose - most editors displaying clear conduct issues, sockpuppets and canvassed editors were already blocked for one reason or another. Thus, the cause of the NC isn't conduct issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we will need to disagree here, but the clear conduct issue of bludgeoning discussions and editing in this topic area only to "right the great wrong" trying to push the lab leak theory as anything more than it actually is (a conspiracy at this point) has been clearly presented here - and no more clearly than by the user's continued bludgeoning here. This is the problem in the COVID-19 area that led to GS being authorized - many conduct disputes are in depth and complicated and aren't as simple as "here's one link of clear disruption" but are instead based on patterns of disruption from users who are either not here to build an encyclopedia but to push their viewpoint or who are, over time, proving that their participation in a topic area is detrimental to the discussions. I agree that there is much less ability for administrators to act here without investigation - it's not a clear "this is obvious, I can block and close and move on" - and that's why GS were authorized to make it easier for administrators to apply their discretion on issues that may not merit full blocks based on clear cut single diffs of disruption. The fact of the matter is that this still requires administrators willing to investigate issues (as you say, to go digging on their own), which many administrators are not touching this topic area for whatever reason. Legitimate dispute is fine, but when users are hiding behind a previous lack of consensus to rehash the same arguments that led to that lack of consensus, and especially when they are doing so with personal attacks or in ways that are detrimental to forming a consensus, action needs to be taken and it's not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

For more context, it may be useful to look at the WP:AN archives IRT COVID-19. —PaleoNeonate – 12:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

In my long time in Wikipedia this is the first troll complaint - until now I assumed that arguments are not trolling. I work in the German Wikipedia on the article about the origin /Wuhan Institute and see from time to time what is in the English Wikipedia. I have looked at the whole historic discussion here and come to the conclusion that we have a structural content problem concerning the laboratory hypothesis, as well as a problem with rules- concerning sources. The dispute went primarily to reliable sources, but MEDRES covers only a small part of the sources of the very large controversial discussion.

• 1. So far, there is no scientific proof if the laboratory hypothesis, as well as any other hypothesis about the origin of the coronavirus is TRUE or FALSE. There are probabilities but no 100% evidence. There is also no postulated consensus of the scientific community on this - there are very many positions, even from renowned scientists who deny this or see it too early to answer that conclusively ! Virologist Shi Zhengli, head of the Institute of Virology in Wuhan has herself launched internal investigations into whether there was a laboratory leak.
• 2. For USER: RandomCanadian the laboratory hypothesis is already proven FALSE (my impression) and everything (any statement, source, etc.) against it is conspiracy theory. That was also his argument with deletion request. in the discussion.
• 3. By the deletion of the articel defacto the entire critical political, scientific and also in the media - was banned from the Wikipedia and the redirect on the Wuhan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story speaks for itself that all other positions (in addition there are 6.6 million hits concerning "Origin of the coronavirus") under misinformation, minority positions and conspiracy theory are to be categorized. All sources except WP:MEDRS are excluded - see above. With this we rules we can´t write an balanced, good article and by a subjective and selective choice of sources (the laboratory hypothesis is false - implicit) - we produce misinformation for the international public ourselves.

Basically, there are only three options left - to resolve this fundamental conflict:

• Option 1: We make a new article " Accidental Lab Leak Hypothesis controversy" - which was suggest in the deletion discussion by User J mareeswaran: "eak keep & rename to Accidental Lab Leak Hypothesis controversy. I disagree that this is a conspiracy theory or dis/mis-information. Intentional leak hypothesis would fall under conspiracy. Accidental leak would be a controversial position but not a conspiracy or misinformation. It is relevant article because a natural outbreak is yet to be established. The virus seems to have mysteriously appeared in Wuhan, in the middle of China, with no clue or trace about where it came from, & is surprisingly well adapted for human to human transmission unlike other bat viruses when they make a direct jump from bats to humans J mareeswaran (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC))" and include a large part of the content of the deleted article. This would be for "one of the biggest scientific controversies of our time (BBC)" an adequate solution.
• Option 2: We include a large part of the content of the deleted article under Investigation, but this is not easy.This will probably be difficult and lead to new controversies.
• Option 3: We postulate ourselves "implicitly" that the laboratory thesis is 100 % FALSE, a conspiration theory (= current implicit position) and thus produce global misinformation !

What you think about this options ? --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please remember that on Medical articles, Wikipedia has a separate set of rules for sourcing, see: WP:MEDRS. When you combine MEDRS with the existing WP:UNDUE, it should become obvious why we do not generally allow these sorts of fringe viewpoints to have much space. I am not a virologist, but actual virologists have published actual peer-reviewed papers in high-quality medical journals explaining that SARS-COV-2 resembles certain naturally occurring bat coronaviruses, with mutations that would be consistent with an intermediate host, likely a pangolin. A BBC article will almost always fail MEDRS, especially compared to peer-reviewed sources. Please read WP:MEDRS and be sure that you understand it before editing medical articles in Wikipedia. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hyperion35, there are reasons why some people believe COVID-19 leaked from a lab, and some of these people have published their reasoning in very high quality journals, like Sallard et al in Médecine/sciences [274]. The Hakim paper in Reviews in Medical Virology does not make claims that contradict the Sallard et al paper and it says that the lab leak hypothesis requires a forensic investigation to be ruled out [275]. There are no MEDRS which definitely makes the case for any hypothesis, as there is no available evidence to support any one of them, and the Pangolin data was found to be fraudulent [276]. Even the WHO’s own report doesn’t make a firm case for any hypothesis and the WHO Director General recommended to keep all hypotheses on the table and investigate them further.

Some editors have argued that MEDRS doesn’t apply here, because the Chinese government is covering up all origin traces of SARS-COV-2 [277], and yesterday they even attacked the WHO Director General through their state media [278]. These editors believe there will never be evidence, because the Chinese government will not cooperate with the WHO on further investigations, and the WHO is a very weak organisation that cannot enforce its mandate. This happened before [279].

If you are interested, there was a recent article in Ynet explaining some of the reasons some scientists believe a lab leak may have happened [280]. China’s behavior is now making it look more guilty. Tinybubi (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate the content of the article. My point was that we have to go by MEDRS, which by the way would generally exclude Boston Magazine, China Daily, Time, and Ynet. The actions of the Chinese government are similarly irrelevant. I would also caution to take the time to make sure that cited papers say what you think they say. WikiProject Medicine is a bit different than most of Wikipedia in this regard, the standards are much higher, original research is not accepted, and we are heavily biased towards the scientific consensus where one exists. This noticeboard however, is for behavioral issues. The article talk page is the place to discuss article content. My comment on this board was solely for the purposes of emphasizing the importance of MEDRS and reminding people that non-MEDRS content may be removed, and repeated attempts to insert non-MEDRS sources will likely be treated as edit-warring, bludgeoning, etc. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hyperion35, First read the Sallard et al paper published in "Médecine/sciences" in French here: [281], or in English here: [282]. Then read the Hakim paper, published in "Reviews in Medical Virology" here: [283]. Now tell me, do you see any contradiction between them? Both these high quality MEDRS lay out all possible hypotheses to be investigated and both conclude that only a forensic investigation of the lab leak hypothesis can rule it out. Yet the first paper is not allowed by NOLABLEAK editors because it is too neutral on all hypotheses, and the second paper is admissible only because its ambiguous title and introduction makes it easier for them to miscite and misrepresent. NOLABLEAK editors have been misrepresenting the Hakim paper for months. Now they want to twist the WHO DG words too. This is a conduct issue. Tinybubi (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tinybubi and Empiricus-sextus: There was an RfC on the above content issues that closed not even a month ago. The result was no consensus. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, that means the status quo remains. It seems rather obvious that a consensus will not emerge in the foreseeable future, especially given how long this dispute has brewed. I'm pretty sure most people are sick of arguing on this point, and most have withdrawn from the subject and wish to move on to different matters, so it's probably time for you all to drop the stick for some reasonable duration of time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This person is still not hearing it and continues grasping at any chance they can to form a link in Wikipedia voice - which coincidentally is the exact same reason that's included in "misinformation" because people in the general public are combining all of these unrelated things and trying to claim they "prove" the lab leak. A topic ban from COVID-19 topics, or at a minimum the origins of COVID-19, would be helpful to allow editors to focus their time on actually improving the articles instead of continually responding to this person on the talk pages. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Empiricus sextus is topic banned from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The reported user is still continuing with their WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON behaviour (despite being repeatedly asked for MEDRS to support their position and finding none). At this point we've given them enough warnings and enough notice about our content policies that if they're not willing to obtemperate, we should consider a topic ban. I therefore formally propose a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed (to avoid any lawyering). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but any administrator can already implement this without a consensus here under discretionary community sanctions on the COVID-19 topic area. The fact that a specific proposal is being required is more proof that the COVID topic area is sorely lacking in administrator attention at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DisneyMediaStuffFan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user is at it again, consistently moving Disney-related articles without first consulting talk pages, among other things. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

DawgDeputy - The last ANI thread that was started about this user is located here. Have we even attempted to talk to this user and just ask them to discuss moves before making them? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Iamsarbmalhi - possibly NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I am growing concerned at this user's behaviour and lack of responsiveness. To date, they have not responded even once to any of the COI or UPE messages left for them. All of their articles seem to be covert advertising and borderline COI spam. Not blatant enough for WP:AIV but I think that their deleted edits show a pattern of concern. Their lack of interest in editing in areas where they don't have a COI and repeated attempts to game the system by recreating the same articles over and over again make me concerned that this account is WP:NOTHERE. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• An indef for this quite clearly WP:UPE editor seems entirely warranted, IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • He’s spamming his block appeal in his talk page. Kaseng55 (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Procedurally declined one, left other open. I wouldn't consider 2 appeals spamming worthy of revoking TPA. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vrishni involved in vandalism at several Yadav related pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

[284], this particular edit is done continuously to remove name of some of caste even the source says so. Also adding Yadava in place of Yadav for pseudo historical caste upliftment. The Yadav page itself differentiate between the two. Explained at top. Also a WP:CU has shown him to be the possible sock of a blocked editor.Heba Aisha (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing admin should see this too Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KroshtaHeba Aisha (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, the same edit, removed source and the names. [285]Heba Aisha (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks to be over content-related issues. I've fully protected the article so that all of you can discuss things on the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.