Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097

Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo bot-like editing

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

Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo is a two month old account that is racking up thousands of semi-automated edits at a fairly shocking pace. An editor has complained on their talk page that they were removing infobox parameters that could have been fixed, although I'm not sure on what scale they're making mistakes. Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo doesn't appear to be acting in bad faith, but I'm under the impression that this level of rapid semi-automated editing is enough for the user to be considered an unauthorized bot under WP:BOTPOL. What is the best course of action here? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 11:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

hello Swarm!, about the problem on my talk, MB were just reminding me that i have a mistake on editing |postal_code= and also other fixable parameters on "template:infobox settlement". i recently try to avoid those mistakes again and presistently focuses and more carefully fixing them. however i'm not a bot, i know it's shocking, but i actually opened more than 100 tab on Chrome and edit the articles one by one. The general process takes about 1 hour per se. I actually keep an eye on my editing record. And i'm also surprised that i managed to make 2000 edit on a month period. overall, thank you for mentioning me in WP:ANI, and i hope i did not make any awful mistake. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:MEATBOT? If you are editing rapidly and such editing is producing errors an attentive human would not make then it doesn't matter if you are running a bot, using a script or just editing very quickly. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The pace of editing definitely seems human and is not too rapid. (I mean, for comparison, this board has often refused to take action against established editors who are actually possibly using bots on their account, or at least making so many (debatable) systematic edits that their behaviour is indistinguishable from one.) Different question as to whether or not any of the edits are problematic, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

taken into account the amount of problematic edits that i made, it's only a handful, and mostly on a high-traffic pages, as MB mentioned on my talk that i noticed. however, there are mainly mistakes that i made, for example mentioned above, |Postal_code= or |iso_code= and sometimes map, but luckily some other helpful editors fixed it aferwards. i did fix them as of now though. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m not trying to get you in trouble for making mistakes, I just think this scale of bot-like editing means you get treated like a bot under bot policy. Like, you can’t do it without approval. I could be wrong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 11:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

if ever, i will try to reduce it to more acceptable pace. but the reason of those quick-paced edits that i made was solely for my intent to reduce backlog for the corresponding template. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that you're making a lot of mistakes in doing it, I just had a peek at a few of the edits you've made and there were issues with over half of them.

In this edit the parameter needed its name fixing, not deleting [1]. You should have just removed the "Gibbons is home to K.B"

In this edit [2] the "Parameter" you removed was someone's attempt at adding an image caption, it should have been moved to the caption parameter.

In this edit [3] the parameter needed the half HTML comment removing to fix the name, it didn't need deleting.

You've made a load of edits where you've been deleting "pushpin_map1" and related parameters [4] [5] [6]. These are an old obsolete method of adding multiple pushpin maps that was removed a few years ago. These should have been converted to the new format like so:

|pushpin_map = Map 1#Map 2

|pushpin_map_caption = Caption 1##Caption 2

Rather than being deleted.

I looked at less than 10 edits, The error rate here seems enormous. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of behaviour requires approval under how the bot policy is currently implemented, but the edits do have to be improvements and absent of errors, otherwise it's just disruptive editing.

On that note, as to the purpose of Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo's edits, afaics I think they're (mostly) removing parameters used in articles that aren't recognised by the infobox template? If this is because the parameters were renamed/removed, then fwiw Primefac has a bot task to clean that up (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 30). If there is a new format to convert them to, such that they will produce an output, then that should be preferred to just removing them. For edits like [7], these are legitimate, because that's not a parameter that's ever existed in the template AFAIK. Others, like this, result in visible improvements to the article by removing bad parameter fields. In general, the removal of non-existent parameters is considered a useful task, since it improves wikitext clarity and reduces confusion (c.f. the PrimeBOT 30 approval). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes exactly!, i was removing parameters that are not recognized by the format. however, there are some mistakes. but i believe it is not as serious as precieved. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

192.76.8.70 take into consideration that most pages that i actually edited is low-traffic to low-importance but this is not the case. the general intent for me is to reduce the backlog. as i said earlier, i did mistakes. the |pushin_map1= and other parameters that were labeled per se, some of them did not show any changes to the infobox overall. So i flag them as "unknown format" anyway. thoroughly i did fixed some of them, but my focus was to remove the unrecognized format out of the infobox. i did recheck and re-preview most of them, except those that i missed. Take into consideration that this is not simple and short task to do. Infact it is a very time-energy consuming task to do. and i doubt there are many people who willing to do it on a large scale. moreover, the articles that i got was randomized aswell per Category:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 12:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo: I've just been through your last 40 ish edits and at least 10 of them contained mistakes, that's an error rate of 25%. You're making even more questionable edits while this discussion is going on which is probably not a good idea.

In this edit [8] Why did you delete the latitude and longitude information rather than converting them into proper parameters?

You need to slow down, double check every edit and make sure that everything you are removing couldn't be placed in another parameter. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you checking the edits you are making at all? Because I find it hard to believe that anyone who was paying even the smallest amount of attention would have made this edit [9]. Why did you delete the parameter rather than fixing the obvious vandalism that was causing the error? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@192.76.8.70 I did not know which one of them is questionable, i did checked and re-checked. and also my apologize for not updating the parameter. but on what condition does my recent edit is questionable ? They seems to be fine on a sense. i just trying to clean them. And that was actually is a mistake. but on a sense, it isnt. I just reverted a blatant vandalism. why not you fix it ? i did not know why did you talk in an antagonizing manner right now. i try to keep things warm and civil here. I did change and put things where it belong, for example, sometimes |pin_code= was mistaken to be a |postal_code= and vice versa, i did put things where it belong and fixing it if it isnt. but i do make mistake, just so be clear. right now, you talk to me as if i did not recognize there is one. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 12:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you've been brought to the administrator's noticeboard because people have concerns about you performing rapid bot like editing it's generally a bad idea to continue performing rapid bot like editing while the discussion is ongoing.

I have been fixing the errors in your edits when I've come across them, but other people shouldn't be needing to follow you around cleaning up your mistakes. If you're going to be making large scale changes to articles then you need to get them right first time. The issue here isn't specifically "pin code vs post code" or the map edits, it's generally that you don't seem to be making any effort to check what you're doing and are creating a lot of messes for other people to clean up. If we wanted to bulk delete all incorrect parameters we could get a bot to do it trivially, but we don't. We want people to take care, think about what they're doing and fix the issues where possible. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"Infact it is a very time-energy consuming task to do. and i doubt there are many people who willing to do it on a large scale." If it (whatever "it" is) was widely viewed as a major issue, though, there probably would be, don't you think?

" i did recheck and re-preview most of them, except those that i missed. " You should be checking and previewing every edit, don't you think? Begoon 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

i'm not reffering to those pin code errors, i just trying to make a stand here that those mistakes were inevitable as you said about |longtitude= etc, it is really clear that the format detects it to be unrecognized. Where should i put it ? consider it. I did put focus on it. If seen on your POV right now, seems that all my edits were problematic. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You should have read the documentation at Template:Infobox settlement which clearly explains how to deal with all the different parameters the template can handle and what format they need to be in. You shouldn't be deleting stuff just because an automated tool tells you it's unrecognised, you should be putting some effort into figuring out how to fix it. Yes, there is a parameter for keeping longitude and latitude data in, and it should take you a few seconds of reading the documentation page to figure out which one it is. Yes, your edits are problematic, because you've been making thousands of edits deleting stuff from templates without bothering to read up on how the template works, without bothering to see if the information could be preserved in another parameter and seemingly without bothering to check your edits before you save them. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Begoon yes i did preview it 2 or 3 times before publishing it and as you said, "if it's a major issue". But is it ? No it isnt. But the thing is only a few people would like to do this on a large scale on a "minor issue", on a pretext to minimize the backlogs. and i'm actually happy to see people fixing the errors i made, i feel that they helped me in a certain way. anyhow i did not intend to create any harm to the encyclopaedia. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

But your comment, confusingly, says that you previewed most of them, except those you missed. Can you elaborate? Begoon 13:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

take note about my saying above on line 2, i opened more than 100 tabs on chrome, (which now seems to be a bad idea). i did preview most of them as i said above, 2 or 3 times. But there are some i missed. By "some" is not elaborated as many, but infact minority of them. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

So, if, having now seen that people have concerns about the speed and possible inaccuracy/undesirable nature of what you are doing, you were to stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, do you think that would be a problem? I guess what I'm really asking is whether you think there is some kind of urgent emergency that means you can't just take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. Begoon 13:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a note, Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo: you may notice that many Wikipedians are highly skeptical of anyone making large numbers of edits, and will comb through them to make sure you're not making mistakes. The problem is the amount of work it makes for other people when there are mistakes. Some people (basically everyone at the top of WP:4000) do successfully make large numbers of edits for a long time... others (including some of the people at the top of WP:4000) wind up getting banned because the benefit of lots of small changes doesn't quite make up for a lot of other people's time spent cleaning up when those small changes go wrong. The takeaway here should be: be extra careful when editing rapidly, and maybe even slow down a little. If there's a single large batch of edits you want to make, you can always create a WP:BOT account. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Rhododendrites thank you very much for the advice!, i will be extra careful next time. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. I'm sure that slowing down and being more circumspect will be appreciated. If you have time to answer the questions I asked above, which you probably missed, I'd appreciate it, but regardless of that, your greater care, deeper consideration, more thoughtful consideration of options and willingness to engage can only be a good thing. Thank you. Begoon 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Begoon i did and i will re-evaluate my approach, but does that mean i will stop editing ? No, these are critiques and advices that i sought have to accept. i infact still and will keep editing on that topic and try to improve my approach and slowing down a bit. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Good luck. I hope this discussion has avoided the whole thing becoming a bigger/ongoing issue. Begoon 13:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Begoon it wont!, thank you for the participation and advices on this discussion! -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Indulge me, because I'd like to just ask one of those questions again:

"So, if, having now seen that people have concerns about the speed and possible inaccuracy/undesirable nature of what you are doing, you were to stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, do you think that would be a problem?"

I'm particularly interested in "whether you think there is some kind of urgent emergency that means you can't just take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. Begoon 14:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Begoon 1. stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, i did not agree on the first half sentence, however, i did agree on to re-evaluate. the thing is, i did not have an intention to stop editing. the secenario that i would be ended up doing is to slow down and carefully fix the parameters on the format per se. in my opinion, it's really unproductive to stop just because you made a mistake. what you must do is that; you must fix it and overcome it much more carefully.

2. take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. I'm actually quite having a trouble on comprehensing this one. But if you meant that, will i accept the advices on board above or not? definitely i will accept them. There is no way i'm not gonna accept them. Overall the general reason for me here on the encyclopaedia is to contribute and do the right thing. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 14:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. We'll see how that goes. I'm not entirely optimistic, because it feels like the things you don't want to do - taking more care, slowing down, listening to people who disagree with you rather than plowing on, accepting your path may be flawed, finding better ways to edit, are not really things you seem keen to hear. I somehow don't feel it will be long before we can know for sure though... Begoon 14:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I just fixed one of this editor's "delete the parameter instead of fixing it" errors that was made two hours ago. This editor is failing to listen to advice and continuing their disruption. Here's another recent one from less than three hours ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95 that edit was made before this ANI discussion even started, and were already addressed. thank you for fixing it. but this doesn't mean it porhibits me to correct other article's parameters carefully. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 15:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Untrue, AFAICT, based on the time stamps. The discussion was started four hours ago; the disruptive editor responded nine minutes later. Both erroneous edits were made after that response. I just reviewed this editor's most recent 30 edits and had to revert 8 of them. This is a terrible error rate. This editor should take the time to read the template's documentation and commit to stop removing parameters. In general, when the editor fixed a parameter name instead of removing the parameter and value entirely, the fix was valid. The editor should focus on that type of edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not - but you're not really showing the positive commitment I'd have hoped for here. I'll ask you again: What's the emergency that makes you think you can edit like a bot against very clear consensus? And why haven't you just said "ok, I'll stop doing that because it's not clear that I should" yet?

You're starting, if I'm honest, to just look like a nuisance. Begoon 15:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I blocked the user for a week, just to reduce damage to the project, since they kept high-rate editing against objections. I leave the discussion here open.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem necessary. After their response to me above, they made nine edits in nine minutes. That's not a particularly high rate of editing. Has anyone identified problems with any of those nine edits? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    • AFAICT, all 3 of the edits 192 commented on Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango's talk page were after they replied to you, actually after all replies by them on this thread except that to Jonesy95. They're counting 3 out of 8, you're 3 out of 9, either way assume 192's assessment is fair that's a terrible error rate. Technically, these may have only been specifically identified after the block but IMO it was reasonable enough under the circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Indeed. :/ Looks like the message didn't sink in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I just visited another 50 or so of this editor's edits to settlement infoboxes, and I found that they deleted valuable information instead of fixing the broken parameters at least a quarter of the time. It pains me to say that, unfortunately, all of this editor's infobox settlement edits that are current edits should probably be reverted so that they can be revisited properly via Category:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters. It appears that there are about 2,000 such edits dating back to March 25. Here's one dating from March 25 that I just had to revert. I don't know how this would be done, or if there is a better way to address these hundreds of errors tucked away amid some valid edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Why shall trolling usernames, only intended to disrupt collaborative editing, be allowed to stand? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Mass revert seems appropriate. There are scripts that do the bulk of them in a few clicks (User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps I'm jaded but the user name, signature and edit summaries smell troll to me. Coupled with the inability to read the mood here and the arbitrary nature of the edits (some improve things and some don't), I would be inclined to block indefinitely, particularly if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  2,000 edits, most of them helpful, without attracting attention until the 1,900th edit, doesn't smell like a troll to me. It seems more like a CIR problem to me. I don't think it changes the outcome; a longer block is probably appropriate if the editor fails to comprehend the problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I’d recommend a conversion to indef for CIR indistinguishable from trolling, pending only a logged WP:CONDUNBLOCK. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, troll or incompetent, either way, the username just screams "I'm not here to make your lives any easier". SN54129 18:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:UNCONF. Basically, a “confusing” username (excessive length is cited as an example) is strongly discouraged but not outright prohibited by the policy. However, such a username should be viewed through the lens of its edits, and it can be viewed as an aggravating factor, including when issuing blocks. That’s the policy guidance as far as the username goes. Regarding the user, if there are no objections I am not going to let the block expire and will be converting it to an indef until a conditional unblock can be negotiated. Regarding the edits, if there are no objections to a mass rollback I can do that as well. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Swarm, makes sense. SN54129 14:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  For icing on the cake, see User:Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  And they stole the name I was going to use if/when I rename my account! I wonder if User:Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo2 is free... But on a serious note, at the pending changes reviewer page, they tried to "up" their account, after making the required minimum edits to get that far. Past experience suggests they're not a new editor and/or up to no good. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• The one week block will expire tomorrow, so it would be good if someone evaluated consensus in this discussion concerning the site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  He's gonna vandalize again!!!!!!!! Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 15:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just browsing through ANI and saw this report. It seemed like there was a request here to mass revert this editor many edits but when I checked, this hadn't been done. Is this an action that folks are advocating? Mass revert is most effective to do soon after the edits have been made...in my experience, when another edit has been made to the page in question, the edit can no longer be reverted. It has to be the most current, latest edit to the page. I'm sure if my understanding isn't correct, someone will tell me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment & Declaration: Thank you very much beforehand for everyone who attend this discussion. These are some of my statements that i made per my talk page since i was blocked. There are 4 points on this to conclude.

1. It has been a week since @Swarm, @Begoon, @192.76.8.70, @Rhododendrites, @Ymblanter and @Jonesey95 mentioned me on ANI, and on those times, i have made a significant changes in my approach since i'am blocked, but first of all, i'm sorry for what i did, i should have stop editing the template while the ANI discussion is going that night, if only i show restraint on the editing and listen to others, it wont became a bigger issue like this. As @192.76.8.70 said; "what is fixing if it came out even worse?". and i re-thinked about their saying that night, and then i realized for what i did was wrong. i will not do it again in the near future.

2. My commitment now is clear that i will stop editing on the template format, and will just doing some minor maintenance instead on other articles, ie. adding citations, adding contents per WP:RS. etc, and going back to my non-disruptive pattern prior to 25 march 2022. and i will stay away from the Template Settlements, my intent is that; i wont repeat the same mistake that i did as per my commitment above. And as a reassurance note; notably i'm active on editing such things as minor improvements on other pages before i mede this big erros after 25 march 2022. And as a track record you can check my edits starting from this date (14:39, 25 March 2022 ) to the even older ones to the bottom. And you can see the diffrences between my editing pattern on those times compared to the times where i edited the settlements template. however this did not justify my recent editing actions which is an obvious mistake and problematic.

3. The statements that i made above is my commitment, and it did teaches me something, As of this times, i already recognizes my mistake. for example, as shown on this revision, it's very obvious that it is my mistake, because i thought those parameters is not usable and is not a valid parameter, but turned up it is a valid parameter and i blindly deleted it just because there is a gibberish vandalism in it, and i blindly do this repeatedly in many settlement articles. and as @192.76.8.70 and Jonesey95 said; i could've fixed it into more proper format and/or convert it into a modern format because some of them used the old format, and also it is better that if i read the documentation template first before making any edits. and as my statement above, i will refrain, to even stop and persistently not do so again. and most importantly I will never do any form of rapid editing again as per WP:MEATBOT since it is ineffective, inaccurate and will reduce an article quality. so because of this; i will slow down & put as much attention as possible to an article when editing them in the near future. and also regarding on the mass revert, please do so if possible.

4. per points i said above, i accept an administrative actions pointed towards me, because the mistake i did was very obvious. but i hope an indef block is not neccessary, since i will stop this type of editing and will act conscientiously according to wikipedia policy. And thank you for your valued directives given to me that night, i say this is what makes the encyclopaedia a better place. atleast there are people that are willing to help me reach a better productive measure towards editing. Thank you -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• I apologize for the delay, I am traveling and on mobile. Without objection, I have converted the user’s temporary block to indefinite pending a CONDUNBLOCK. I am also initiating a mass rollback, again, without objection. In my opinion the standardized unblock negotiation process can handle this from here, and this thread can be closed. I appreciate everyone’s feedback. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  The mass rollback has been actioned, and to address Liz’s concern, in spite of the delay, I consider it to have been successful, with over 1,500 edits rolled back, most of them probably never vetted. Sadly this means there are still many changes that were not rolled back, however the majority of them were. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't have the full context and don't know whether you've done more harm than good, but that may not have been a good idea. Before clicking the link in your edit summary that led here, I reverted two of your rollbacks, [10] and [11], at Maso Sahar and Katrathal, because I saw that they consisted of (re-)adding fake parameters to infoboxes. I stopped short when I realized it was a long-established editor (you) making those edits and was wondering whether your account had been hacked. Largoplazo (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  There are 100% going to be good edits that get reverted, that is a full guarantee. The assumption here is that it’s impractical to resolve this user’s errors any other way than a full mass revert, and that such a mass revert would be more of a net positive in the grand scheme of things. Any errors that are noticed should be re-reverted or fixed down the line, and that is an eventualist trust that is placed in the community. However it is in the best interest of the project to run this script. Regardless, I could have done this immediately, and I brought it here for feedback instead, and the feedback was quite clear. It is done now after ample time has been given for feedback, and it cannot be undone. I thank you for fixing some of the mistakes but you should not be wondering if my account has been hacked when I included a diff to this explanation that it is a mass rollback, in the context of the lengthy discussion and evidence above. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that there are bound to be good edits caught up in a mass rollback. I am very leery of using this powerful tool and I think I've only used it with sockpuppets. You can also select individual namespaces and just do mass reverts in particular ones, I'm most familiar with a sockpuppet who disrupts categories so I've used it to revert edits in Category space. Glad to see you back, Swarm. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, nobody volunteered to scan the 2,000 edits that contained roughly a 25% error rate. I reviewed about 100 edits, but I do not have the patience to review 2,000. As I posted above, a mass revert appeared to be the least bad option available. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Bawah Nama Cinta

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.

---

Bawah Nama Cinta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly submitted Draft:Khilaf Asmara for review despite having no refs every time, and is persistently trying to put it in mainspace without addressing the issue. The current mainspace version was recently recreated ignoring all TP messages. MB 19:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User is also a paid editor [12]. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

They have also recreated Dendam Seorang Isteri and Hati Yang Dikhianati, which is the only one without a version currently in mainspace. The message Hi please approve this page!, left on my TP, is another indication they are ignoring or not understanding policy. MB 21:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2022 (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 look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 10

Special:Contributions/42.3.120.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 7 October in 2019 (only 42.3.120.242 is not),please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 05:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Djjjjjl. El_C 14:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

i will light you on fire 晚安 (トークページ) 06:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/112.120.179.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 18 July in last year,please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Plllllljn. El_C 11:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

no 晚安 (トークページ) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/119.236.212.0/22,please El_C block it,also,please protect Bag (Spam and DE after last protect),thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Mnnnnm. El_C 13:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

What if MCC214 could block the IPs? Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs! 08:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

that would be great, so el_c would stop making these keyboard mashes 晚安 (トークページ) 11:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Classical library and ad hominem attacks

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.

---

Classical library (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In March 2020, I filed a report here regarding an editor that ultimately proved to be Classical library; the discussion is archived at the following link.[13] The user was subsequently blocked for three months for assumptions of bad faith.

After two years of radio silence, Classical library returned today to remove content from the Seraphim Rose article [14] and then to immediately challenge Pbritti about the edits—not as much on substance but on the basis of Pbritti's religion. [15]

I come to this noticeboard with two concerns:

1. Classical library's edits are laser-focused on Seraphim Rose; they have edited no other article or article's talk page. (They have edited user talk pages and multiple noticeboards.) At the best, this is a single-purpose account. (Other users have alleged a conflict of interest, but I cannot find diffs to support that claim at this time.)
2. The user's tactic of responding to any edits away from their preferred version of the article by challenging the user on the basis of the user's religion goes against WP:NPA: it's focusing on the contributor, not the content. When this happened two years ago, it was adjudged to be bad-faith editing.

I ask the community to consider what steps can be taken to either coach Classical library into being a constructive, collaborative editor or to prevent further damage caused by their bad-faith comments directed at other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, C.Fred. If any one looking into this matter would like to contribute to further resolution outside of disciplinary action, ask you to consider weighing the merits of the conversations held on the talk page and in the cited material so that you may vote in the ongoing survey. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Propose Indefinite Topic Ban from Seraphim Rose, article's talk page, and any discussions relating to Seraphim Rose anywhere on the project. Classical library's behavior is indeed unacceptable. And the suggestion that Roman Catholics may not edit an article about someone who was Orthodox is simply risible. As for the specific content dispute, it should be handled through the customary processes. Fr. Seraphim is a controversial figure within the Church's recent history with lots of opinions, some heated, on both sides. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block based on this comment left on my talk page. This editor clearly lacks the temperament needed for a collaborative project that requires both civility and a respect for WP:CONSENSUS. If that comment had been left anywhere other than my own talk page, I'd have already blocked them myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support TBAN as proposed. I have also left a comment on the article's talk page and encourage others to do the same to help settle the specific content dispute once and for all. M.Bitton (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef site ban Their latest comments speak for themselves. M.Bitton (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Unsure if I'm allowed a vote but I would prefer a temp topic ban with explicit explanation of what is wrong with the editor's actions, with perhaps a temp from editing user talk pages. This editor seems sporadic at best and failure to properly inform could simply lead to ban-evasion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef site ban after this edit: [16] ~ Pbritti 04:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. Classical library's behavior is inexcusable and sustained. Will need affirmation from them of agreement to change before allowing editing access again.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support site ban. The incivility and battleground mentality displayed in recent user talk page messages is beyond the pale for a simple TBAN. Kiowabole (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Who is this? El_C 05:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC) I was wondering too. Brand new account just to stand up for this? I mean, I appreciate it, but what? ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support ban, as "In addition to this, as a religious Roman Catholic you have a blatant conflict of interest, as..." is attacking an editor's faith. --StellarNerd (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef after the edit to Ad Orientem's talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef after the above-mentioned edits to Ad Orientem's talk page, in addition to all mentioned above.Maximilian775 (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Classical library blocked indef

User_talk:Classical_library#Indefinite_block. Discussion about a site ban (above) can continue, of course, though personally, I don't think this user's contributions merit it. As for a WP:TBAN (or a more limited WP:ABAN, now popularly known as a p-block), due to this editor's single prupose here, I just don't think those kind of sanctions would have worked. El_C 05:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@El C: - might be worth taking away their talkpage editing ability too, based on this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that read like a fever dream. But at least they wished me a nice day (thank you, I qwill!), so there's that. El_C 12:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That talk page tirade gave me a good laugh. AusLondonder (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2022 (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:Tharun Srinivas Reddy - Unsourced Edit

Found Many unsourced edits being published without any reliable source and being continuously undoing the edits. No Citations Found — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmk456 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Pmk456: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Please provide diffs to the problematic edits. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on this edit by the OP we may need a WP:BOOMERANG. MarnetteD|Talk 21:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. There's a lot of shouting in a few of the edit summaries with threats to block ([17] [18]), including the one in the diff MarnetteD provided. I dare say it comes close to threats given the attitude used. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

May be conjecture, but is it not a coincidence that in 99.9% of cases where the OP has failed to notify the reported user, the OP in fact is at fault/WP:BOOMERANG-eligible? I guess that's not always surprising, though I do wonder what exactly is the cause of this. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Failure to follow the clear instructions on this page regarding notification is probably correlated with failures in WP:CIR. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Legal threats and block templates from User:Walter420

Walter420 seems to have made a couple legal threats against IPs who were vandalizing articles ([19], [20]) and, upon closer inspection, placed a block template on the talk page of a user who is not blocked. This is just from a cursory check of the user's contribs. AviationFreak💬 22:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for the legal threats. Cullen328 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a sock of, among other accounts, Crab Meat Hooperbag. I'll put in a glock request, and suggest that any talk page conversation is not going to be very extended. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Genre warrior on the loose

Genre warrior LKF2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned multiple times (diff, diff, diff), yet seems to be completely unbothered. Genre additions (mostly "adult") are either unsourced or poorly sourced despite having been specifically warned to adhere to MOS:TVGENRE, also instances of edit warring (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). Throast (talk | contribs) 19:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, strange habit of blanking and then self-reverting (see edit histories of List of adult animated television series before 1990, List of adult animated television series of the 1990s, List of adult animated television series of the 2000s, List of adult animated television series of the 2010s, List of adult animated television series of the 2020s). I don't think this should be ignored. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Anujror trying to game the system fresh off a block for the same behaviour

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. A few days ago, User:Anujror was blocked by Inter for making disruptive edits, after repeatedly making and reverting meaningless edits to the pages for FF, JShell, RT, and Thul Hairo Khan; see User talk:Anujror#April 2022 2. This appeared to be an attempt to WP:PGAME himself some user permissions after some of his articles for creation submissions weren't going through.

After his block, he applied for rollback permissions by editing another user's request to pass it off as his own, and continued to engage in the same PGAME-y behaviour for which he was blocked, this time on his user page at least. With his newfound permissions, he created Ridhi, which is how I found out about him: She has learnt to do all of this. And she has learnt to do it all very well... The Holy Grail for an Archer Is Now on the Radar. I'm not sure it is worthwhile for the encyclopedia to keep this user unblocked. Endwise (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This user clearly did not get the message. Indef blocked on grounds of WP:NOTHERE Oz\^InterAct 16:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks . Endwise (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (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.

New editor SOAPBOXing in article space

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.

---

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

I'm not thrilled about giving this troll the attention they crave, but the disruption has now reached a level where it shouldn't be ignored any longer.

The diffs speak for themselves: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27].

Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Dude! Their first 5 edits were fine, then they made one that got reverted, then they went on a combo philosophical rant/vandalism spree. Bbb23 beat me to blocking them though. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Lol, "philosophical". Thanks Bbb23. Generalrelative (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2022 (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:Shashank1947 - No communication

Shashank1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'd like some help in getting this user to respond on a talk page, like once. I'm grateful that they're updating WP, but I'd really like if they communicate as to why something (maybe like this and this to start with) should be removed. All my attempts on their talk page, or edit summaries are futile. Mobile edit, sure. WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, maybe? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yep, WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. It is truly astonishing what the WMF can spend stupid amounts of money on, yet ensuring editors can see their messages is (despite being a major issue) apparently something that they can't be bothered to fix. Spectacular incompetence, but don't expect it to be fixed any time soon. Black Kite (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The mobile sites and apps should either be fixed promptly or shut down, since they actively impede collaborative editing. The fully functional desktop site works just fine on modern smartphones and mobile devices. Cullen328 (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator comment) They are a logged-in mobile web editor. A big red circle is shown to them about new notifications since at least a couple of years; see some screenshots at the bottom of phab:T229902. There is an open ticket about making it more intrusive, but it's not like they aren't seeing any intimation of the alerts. Hemantha (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

References to legal sources

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 tried to add back to an article references to an act of the Australian commonwealth parliament which was mistakenly deleted from that article, but that was repeatedly deleted and even my talk page message was deleted again and again. Now that the talk page is locked. What can I do about this? Is there something wrong with references to statutory law, that they aren't accepted in articles, not even discussed in talk pages? 223.197.159.34 (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

How many times do editors have to tell you that the material was removed because you are evading a block?user:Chipmunkdavis has repeatedly pointed out their edit summaries on when reverting you on Talk:Country: "WP:BLOCKEVASION". And as user:M.Bitton said in their edit summary: "Block evasion followed by a revert from the same geolocation is usually as valid an excuse as any" The talk page has now been protected too. Meters (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No objection from me if anyone decides to nuke this whole thread. Meters (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Evading a block? Me? I thought they are talking about other messages not mine. I am not associated with any block. I don't pay any attention to who the blocked users are and who aren't. I haven't even talked any where else in that talk page or edited anything else in that article in the past few years. My talk page message is in no way related to the recent dispute there which I have quickly gone through just now. They are talking about the US and China squabbles aren't they? As for the same "geolocation" you are talking about a country of 7½ million people, which is one of the most active countries on the web by some measurements. I thought administrators here are able to tell what happened. Maybe I was wrong. Just as those who deleted my message there and went on to protect the page. 223.197.159.34 (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't you find it strange that both you and the blocked IP are reintroducing the same content, such as The word country is used to refer both to sovereign states and to other political entities.? M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

IP Blocked – for a period of one week for block evasion. Note: I am one of the protecting admins. El_C 12:50, 26 April 2022 (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.

dispute with User:Praxidicae who repeatedly moves article LH Research back into draftspace

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.

---

Dear Sir or Madam,

I created a new Wikipedia article called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:LH_Research , which is about a major Californian electronics-company that existed from 1976 until 1996. It had thousands of employees, changed significantly the power-electronics-technology until now and had a noticable impact in computing. So one could argue that relevance is given.

This article also exists in the German namespace, and has been redacted and improved by a lot of other editors. This is remarkable, given the fact that this was an American company after all.

The editor User:Praxidicae repeatedly moves this article back into draftspace, claiming it does not live up to Wikipedia-standards, especially not including enough citations. Though my article has many citations, some from computer- and electronic scientific journals.

I had a discussion with said editor, but with no success. So I inquire an arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoman3 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to your statement, I have engaged with you, on your talk page where you said you'd wait for a review. I also explained to you that we don't accept word of mouth or your personal interviews with former employees as a source. So you linked me to your google drive (which I do not recommend anyone click) which I also told you isn't appropriate nor can it be used as a source. Not to mention it's extremely promotional. Move it back for all I care. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Madame. Then I may suggest we can close this arbitration. (p.s.: It's a dead company after all, how could I promote a corpse?)Geoman3 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I've moved it back to Draft. The other option is deletion. The sources used fail WP:RS and I see no indication of notability (WP:NBUSINESS). EvergreenFir (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Does this mean that the following articles should be deleted as well: PrairieTek, Siel, Phase_Linear?

WP:NOBITING anyone?

So go ahead and delete my article. I will leave the English Wikipedia once and for all, since I see no need for me to work on this project. Geoman3 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of bad articles on Wikipedia, and lots of promotional dross that should be deleted. If you identify something like that and it's irredeemable (WP:TNT, WP:BEFORE), definitely please send it to WP:AfD. JBL (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the best essays on that matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jean-Francois_Gariepy/Preservation_Details

And I am NOT sending articles to WP:AfD ! Because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it."

I pity you guys, you entire lost the essence of what "Wikipedia" meant in the first place. Geoman3 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I won't speak for anyone else, but there are much better reasons to pity me than my stance on the threshold for keeping Wikipedia articles. Cheers, and have a nice week everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure what the problem is with Draft:LH Research. For one thing, the company has been defunct for 26 years, meaning that it is unlikely to actually be an ad - although in theory an article on a defunct company could read as promotional, and there is a successor to the company's IP that is still offering replacement parts for the company's products, so I suppose it could be promotional in that it's promoting the existence of replacement parts from that other company. That said, it doesn't read as "extremely promotional" to me. Regarding sources, the article cites 9, plus some "Further reading". Of the 9 cited sources, the ones that strike me as applicable towards notability include: and

References

I do think "How Wally Hersom, The Most Powerful Man In Bigfoot Made His Money". Retrieved 2022-04-20. is an unreliable source. Also the Open Corporate sources don't strike me as contributing to notability as they are routine coverage. The last citation to a list of replacement parts on the Pioneer Magnetics website strikes me as potentially promotional and better as an external link than as a reference. The article could also use a through copy edit. That said, I don't think it's bad enough to force it back to draft. It seems like a need for relatively minor clean up. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm also not entirely sure what we are supposed to do with this. I'd say let AfC decide this one. Oz\^InterAct 19:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the OP wants us to take some action against Praxidicae. However, I don't think Prax has done anything really wrong, and I don't think action against her is warranted - even though I disagree with her on the question of if this needs to be in draft space. I also don't think the OP or the article is in need of admin action. My suggestion for the OP is to work on the article some more, remove the sources I have identified as unreliable, read through it looking for awkward or incomplete sentences, and then submit it to AFC. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. Oz\^InterAct 07:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I actually would feel obliged to accept it if I were reviewing. However, if it's declined again it needs to be deleted, preferably after a deletion discussion. Deb (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2022 (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:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Revision history

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.

---

Not sure exactly where to take this, as it may be meat or sockpuppetry, but its a over a range of IP's.

This [[28]] keeps getting re added by SPA ip's with dubious attempts made to claim A. already few individuals disagree with you this is not forum thread (all (as I said spa's) B. Its a request to make a change (hard to see what they are asking to change) C. removing it is vandalism.

Any ideas? Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Sock/meat puppets blocked, talkpage protected for a while, forum chat removed. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This [[29]] seems to be realted Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC) I have also just had an alert that multiple attempts have been made to access my account. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

And this [[30]] a clear threat, is there any way to protect my account? Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven, people attempting to access your account is a fairly common form of harassment. Assuming you have a strong, unique password, they won't succeed. I've semi-protected your talkpage for a while - let me know if you didn't want that and I'll undo it. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Its fine, no opinion either way.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This user has started attacking me too, see my talk page. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

These are all proxies. Revert, block, protect, ignore. Acroterion (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Now extended to Talk:Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

They really will not leave, won't they? Now that page is going to be protected too. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I suspect it will be on every page related to the conflict. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

And another IP with more threats [[31]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

9 login attempts, speedrun. El_C 14:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Nine of em, all at once somehow. I win, 1th place. El_C 14:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I was not clear, nine attempts to log onto what? Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

My accountant, what else? El_C 14:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Ohh I see, so its not just me who wants to be their enemy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit warring has now resumed on Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War[32]. — Czello 14:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Really hoping they don't try and breach my account, that would be bad news for me... 162.219.198.189 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't even have an account, so that probably is worse. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

How can it be worse? M.Bitton (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

They have hijacked his IP. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No, they haven't, at least, not yet. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I mean that is what wouod be worse than just hauivng your account hacked. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

If could be arsed I would check other articles about the war, just in case they are at it elsewhere. But A, I have better things to do. B That would smack of looking for trouble. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, it seems as though the abusive IP's have stopped, though it is likely they will come back. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Given all the pages are under PP, maybe not. They just cannot, and once PP is removed with start up again. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

We can not protect talk pages indefinitely. Once they do, please report again. Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand that, just pointing out we may be back here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2022 (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.

Degretory remarks by an IP

106.203.238.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuously making vandal edits on Director's Kut Productions and Anupama: Namaste America. He's also using negative remarks in plot summary for Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah for it's makers over a small mistake and promoting the same negative remarks in Packer&Tracker's talk page. I suspect him to be blocked User Princepratap1234's IP trying to evade his global block as usual seeing his talk and edit summary pattern and geo location also. Administrators please look into this matter. Pri2000 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

ohh wow, I was helping you in making Anupama: Namaste America page better and you are accusing me for no reason. I did not say anything to you and did not make any derogatory marks on anyone.You try to own a page and don't let other people edit it. WP:OWN. even somone help you , you will betray them.106.203.238.218 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs? Also, you should have notified the IP, but it's a moot point now. Singularity42 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Singularity42: I tried to make him understand this thing. You can see his talk page. But he started creating more degradatory remarks. You can see edit history. And this person is none other than Princepratap1234 who harassed and stalked me brutally in the past even on the day when I created the draft. There he made negative remarks against me and used my real name in edit summary which he came to know after severely stalking me. He doesn't stop here. God knows how many e-mail address he owns. That he comes by new IP. Few days back when I reverted an unconstructive edit by an User on Anupamaa he created negativity against me there also. Even he sent me a mail again 4-5 days back that his IP is blocked and I should remove all his contributions. I blocked his that mail again. He even harasses one other editor in same way.Pri2000 (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

When did i make derogatory remark on someone. anyone can see my contibution and check if i made a derogatory remarks or did vandalism. 106.203.238.218 (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to create any edit war. Administrators just see his talk page, Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah edit history and Packer&Tracker talk page once. What's the need of using detractors remarks even on makers. These type of mistakes can happen in daily lives even happen in publication house producing History books. So will we call them that they just intend to make money???Pri2000 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Pri2000:: I don't see any evidence of vandalism. What is see is two different perspectives on what makes an article better. You like your version better, they like their version better. This is a content dispute and should go through dispute resolution, which does not need any admins. When you use a word like "vandalism" in this sense, that is just wrong. Vandalism only means that someone is trying to ruin a Wikipedia article, like by adding random swear words to it, and that is not what is happening here. Accusing people of "vandalism" when they clearly are not doing that is a Bad Idea, and you should stop doing that immediately. I would strike the word from your vocabulary until you learn to use it correctly. Secondly, other than a single use of the word "shameful", I don't see any other derogatory remarks. Probably not the best choice of words on their part, but seriously, that's not a sanctionable offense. What I do see at that article is an edit war; which you each should stop immediately, lest you both get blocked. I have no idea on the sockpuppetry issue, WP:SPI is thataway. --Jayron32 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• A brief review of the IP's edits show the following less-than-kind remarks that Pri2000 is likely referring to:

Do they care about our country.They just care about money and being indian i did not like that thing.

see this https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/taarak-mehta-ka-ooltah-chashmah-team-apologises-for-airing-incorrect-fact-about-lata-mangeshkar-song-7887764/. Creator of this show does not even know out country history.

I see nothing else that constitutes vandalism or derogatory comments. Nothing actionable. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

June Parker, hostility, personal attacks, assuming bad faith etc

• June Parker (talk · contribs)

My first interaction with this editor was on the article Melissa King assault case, where I reverted their removal of categories. First sign of problems was their revert of my edit where they were going to ″cut the bull and call me a liar″ immediately assuming bad faith and throwing in a personal attack as a bonus. They were given a civility notice about this edit summary on their own talk page by a different editor, where I also went to provide my reasoning for the edit as well as observations I made about their similarity and convenient timing of editing to an editor named Desertambition (who incidentally, is also a current report on this board). The initial response to this was not particularly notable aside from their continued refusal to assume good faith, justifying it by percieving others not doing the same, and they denied being a sock. However this apparently lit a fire in June Parker and they would not let go of insisting that I was directly accusing them of being a sockpuppet in edits such as these: 1(a bit strange to claim a summon was made to this apparently aside from stumbling across the same article at the same time unrelated editor when there was no ping, and they apparently just found it on their own), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8. That's eight (has gone up as I've been writing this) diffs accusing me of calling them a sockpuppet, based on my initial message on their talk page.

Throughout these diffs you will also see a complete lack of the concepts WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, aside from vandals I've reverted, I've never had so many assumptions spewn at me, particularly disturbing is the fixation on the white genocide conspiracy theory which Parker, for some reason, keeps bringing up despite no one else so much as mentioning it. Apparently because of my relevant edits, I am ″obviously passionate about the white genocide myth″. I have never so much as read in depth about this conspiracy theory, let alone made edits about it, which makes the accususation all the more perplexing.

They showed up also on Talk:Melanin theory here claiming I had expressed I ″believe this page which describes a form of racism black people commit against all non-black races should be labelled as "Anti-white" and nothing else″, which like many things this editor says, came out of thin air.

I have tried to resolve and cool down the situation, but to no avail since the more I say and try the more crap I get thrown at me so I don't see what else to do but take it here since this editor is violating policies. --TylerBurden (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of TylerBurden insinuating June Parker and I are sockpuppeting:

1. [33]

2. [34]

3. [35]

4. Right before posting on ANI: [36] Desertambition (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Fast response, so you're going with the same reach but instead of accusing I'm insinuating? Like I said, being suspiscious of something and making observations, is different from directly accusing someone. Which you also falsely accused me of doing here. TylerBurden (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Accusing" and "insinuating" is a distinction without a difference. Desertambition (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you say, I never accused anyone and your diffs themselves show that. TylerBurden (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Given June Parker called for Desertambition to be sanctioned for an unrelated dispute they weren't involved in unless we're playing a game of 4D chess here the sockpuppet concerns are hopefully not justified. AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I recently read a wiki essay to do with wikihounding, which I was not aware of until recently. My intent in appearing on those talk pages was after revisiting some of the articles I had previously edited (Including Melanin theory) and viewing the contributions of Sangdeboeuf.

What I said there is fine to analyze but I had no intention to wikihound, which is an odd accusation coming from this user given that they appear to have entered two conversations on my talk page that had naught to do with them in order to accuse me of being a sock puppet, by suggesting my "Editing style", timing, and subject matter was too similar to Desertambition, multiple times, and then backpedaling when I defended myself against that. Also lauded with accusations of a bad faith attempt to "Whitewash" controversial South Africna politicians and events.

To boot, they seem to have a dispute with Desertambition which they engaged in on my talk page. After I tried to funnel multiple conversations we had into my talk page they continued to engage until I stopped. Which I doubt is against the rules, but I don't think Tyler has a right to complain about me being uncivil with the amount of things he has said to me, especially when I tried to be mature and end the conversation. By egging the convo on, attacking me, and now bringing the case here.

Feel free to deep scrub both me and Desertambition to prove we are not socks, as given this entire write up by Tyler he is still convinced I am a sockpuppet, naturally I won't let go of something if I am repeadetly called one. I have had multiple edit conflicts trying to post this too.

I am going to bed. Notify me of your decision in the morning. June Parker (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, so won't be responding here anymore tonight (I am usually either entirely inactive or less active editing during weekends but will try and keep up with the thread the best I can, but there's more to life than Wikipedia, espescially drama on Wikipedia). I will leave it on this: once again an accusation out of thin air, hounding is not something I have ever accused you of, so I'm not surprised to see that backed up with as much thin air as it came out of. Goodnight/whatever it is for you. TylerBurden (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Let me see if I got this right, because this is a confusing thread. On 03:51, 21 April 2022, June Parker personally attacks TylerBurden with an edit summary that read (in part): I’m going to cut the bull and call you a liar. Not someone who made a mistake. Not someone who told a lie. But a liar (i.e. someone who lies habitually). Not the most egregious personal attack, but it's still weird and unnecessary WP:BATTLEGROUND. I presume that's what Doug Weller's NPA warning on 08:52, 21 April 2022 was about, but who can really tell? Not even Doug, I'm sure.

Then, on 11:25, 21 April 2022, TylerBurden says the following to Doug Weller about June Parker, stating (in part): It's also interesting how they show up on the article as the same time as Desertambition, an editor who has had similar behaviour in the past. I don't want to assume bad faith or a sockpuppet but it does raise some suspicion at least. After that, it's basically June Parker saying why did you call me sock? with TylerBurden responding with I didn't call you a sock. And on and on that rendition goes with great repetition, and with neither side relenting. Oh, and 17:36, 21 April 2022, Desertambition provides a super-friendly advise that talks about pearl-clutching or something (at length). Still not sure what admins are expected to do right now with... whatever this is, though it doesn't look to be heading anywhere good. El_C 04:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This whole incident started with an egregious personal attack by June Parker, who went on to engage in repetitive axe grinding about sock accusations. It looks to me that the odds that June Parker will turn out to be a collegial, long term, productive editor are negligible, although I am prepared to be proven wrong by a dramatic change in their behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a pretty uncharitable reading given that they insinuated June Parker and I were socking four separate times, including right before this ANI post. I have no relation to June Parker and it seems like "heavily insinuating" is pretty close to accusing someone. Surely there would be a similar issue if I was implying users I disagree with are socks. It's understandable that people would get defensive when accused of socking. I believe WP:PEARLCLUTCHING is relevant to the discussion as June is too combative but seems to be willing to learn and engage with the process and the reaction to their comments is massively exaggerated.

Here's the full quotes because you seem to be saying these "insinuations" or "accusations" never occured:

1. It's also interesting how they show up on the article as the same time as Desertambition, an editor who has had similar behaviour in the past. I don't want to assume bad faith or a sockpuppet but it does raise some suspicion at least.

2. If you are not a sock, or related to Desertambition, great. It just seemed odd you show up at the same article at the same time with the same arguments, and the overall similarity in editing. I'm not accusing you of being a sock for sure, I'm just saying I did find it a bit suspiscious but that's literally it. I've not opened an investigation against you and I don't find that to be necessary right now.

3. By the way, sorry for continuing to pester you, as you call it, but what do you mean you summoned Desertambition? I see no ping, so they just stumbled across your talk page?

4. I still wouldn't be surprised if you're more related to Desertambition than you're letting on, but that is not something I am going to accuse you of being with certainty, because I don't do that without feeling sure about it which I do not. Desertambition (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes you have a pretty good idea of the timeline of events June Parker (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• June Parker seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and I share Cullen328's concern "that the odds that June Parker will turn out to be a collegial, long term, productive editor are negligible". In fact, just two days ago June Parker made the following egregious personal attack against David Eppstein: "You are the one misrepresenting a source to appeal to your white genocide fantasy, your 'Big scary muscular black dude invasion' fantasy. If you insist on being intellectually dishonest and breaking the rules, I can't help you. Have the day you deserve." Clearly, June Parker needs to be made aware of just how unacceptable it is to repeatedly cast such aspersions on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Accusing editors of holding a "white genocide fantasy" is the same as calling them racists. June Parker doesn't belong here. --StellarNerd (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, unless there are promises made to not behave in this way in the future, I don't think they belong here either. TylerBurden (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Regardless of anything else, that June Parker's first interaction with a person they had never previously met or interacted with is to call them a liar is not a sign that they intend to interact collegially with others. The other diffs cited above show similar personal attacks, which have no reasonable antecedent. I can't find anything in David Eppstein's editing history here that shows they have anything resembling a "white genocide fantasy", or could be interpreted as such (which is not saying that such people don't exist; they do. We deal with them all the time here at ANI. But David is definitely not one of them). It's a total invention of June Parker, who made it up out of whole cloth and lobbed it randomly at David because he did something June didn't like. This is not how disputes are supposed to be resolved. I'm not sure what is to be done yet, but something needs to change soon, hopefully voluntarily by June themselves, if not, maybe admins will need to do something. --Jayron32 12:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• :I have had a look at a couple of their edits and would have to agree about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am in two minds about mentioning this as it may seem minor and petty. Certainly by itself it is deserving of nothing more than perhaps a reminder to take care when dealing with citations.

  • As an example on the page 2016 Ouagadougou attack they removed a source and replaced it with the citation needed template as it was dead and changed "said" to "claimed" in the text that was supported by the removed citation. A citation was added and then was removed by this user (and marked as a minor edit) with the edit summary "decrepit tabloid source". I have looked at the reliable sources list and there is nothing about https://www.france24.com/en/ being unreliable. I also went to the site with the dead link and put the title of the dead link into their search bar to get this which looks like the original citation.

  Gusfriend (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Apologies, the more I thought about it the more petty what I wrote sounded in my head so I am striking it out and will give myself a trout tomorrow morning. Gusfriend (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what we're supposed to do with all of this? This seems like something June Parker/TylerBurden could have worked out themselves. There's certainly some poor behavior, but it was addressed on the user's TALK. Why was it brought here and what should be done about it? A simple warning to stop casting aspersions should suffice. Nemov (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure what you specifically are meant to do other than offer your opinion, which you've done I suppose, since you are not an administrator. They were already warned for the first personal attack they made against me, and you can see that I attempted to settle the dispute and ask them to be civil several times, to no avail. That's why I raised the issue here, June Parker does not listen to reason. TylerBurden (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  You repeatedly accused me of being a sock puppet to Desertambition and then accused me of being uncivil when I asked why you thought I was, backpedaling on those claims and then slyly insisting on it. I stopped talking to you because I couldn’t convince you otherwise. June Parker (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, I had been resolved to not speak to Tyler when it was clear he wanted to egg the problem further than what had initially happened to insist that I am a sock puppet editing in bad faith, in a talk page warning and another user's “Friendly advice” that he had little to do with, I can’t say much about what I have said to other users except that it doesn’t work and that I’m going to avoid doing in the future. Tyler appears to be starting more arguments with users who express neutral or any opinion less than calling for my block which can’t speak well for his conduct either. June Parker (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Adding to this but the main reason Tyler seems to have brought this issue to ANI despite us no longer talking is because he believes I am conspiring with Desertambition to push a POV he disagrees with, and when I kept asking why he believed this he denied it and then derided about how my behavior to him specifically was “Unacceptable”, while exhibiting the same behavior I appear to be, and barely even discussed the page content that I have altered. I believe this has more to do with a different dispute that I have little to do with. June Parker (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would recommend walking away from the dispute. Avoid casting aspersions in the future and assume good faith. Nemov (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sure thing June Parker (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  Except that and keep doing the same thing. How promising. TylerBurden (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

, June Parker and TylerBurden, you would both be well advised to say nothing further in this discussion, unless another editor asks either of you a specific question. I think that it safe to say that both of you are skating on very thin ice. Please go back to shore. Cullen328 (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing, I will do my best to handle these situations better and would like to apologize to Tyler for calling him a liar from the jump. I just feel very disgusted by the amount of racialized propoganda I end up seeing on this website so I will try to tackle it in a more professional manner. June Parker (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, if you're willing to learn from this situation, I am willing to accept your apology. TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure tyler, but I would also like to not be accused of sock puppetry or wikihounding in the future. I also never said I wanted nothing to do with you, I am willing to make an effort to work with you and avoid accusing you of bad faith if you are willing to do the same. June Parker (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of hounding until it became clear you are doing so, or are you going to claim you just found yourself on the Khaddi Sagnia article by chance? Not so much as with an edit summary did you violate not only MOS or how categories are meant to work, seemingly out of spite. If you don't want anything to do with me, then don't creep on my edit history. Ironically you accused me of saying that you were hounding, while I never did such a thing, however your behaviour at this point sure seems to fit the bill. Seriously, look at the thread and learn from your mistakes. If you are willing to do that I'm more than happy to work with you. TylerBurden (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• If you see actual racialized propaganda post it here. Any admin will be quick and decisive in dealing with that. But you do need to link or preferably provide diffs of actual racialized propaganda. The accusation of racialized propaganda without the evidence is not something the Wikipedia community will tolerate.—S Marshall T/C 07:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  Okay June Parker (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would just like to add: I strongly advise anyone to read S Marshall's comment above twice and remember it well. Oz\^InterAct 11:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Comparing Wikipedians to Stormfront

• This isn't stopping, today: "give the impression it was written by some mouth breather on stormfront who was too excited to be able to write an article where a bunch of black girls apparently beat up a white girl". --StellarNerd (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  I feel like the existence of Conservapedia refutes this one effectively. casualdejekyll 18:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Steller, that was a reference to an earlier complaint raised by another user about a decade ago about the articles content and sources, which I said I would look into to verify the accuracy of. I did not accuse any particular user of being associated with Stormfront.

  I would also appreciate if you participated in that discussion since you were involved and I pinged both you and Tyler. Tyler is there and explaining his point of view. June Parker (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Help - Sock reports on my talk page

Please see my user talk page User talk:Maile66 Created by blocked or banned user. I don't have a lot of experience dealing directly with socks. There seems to be an ongoing issue with blocked sockmaster User:Amkgp. At least, that is my understanding what is happening, and my experience in this area is scant. A good-faith IP keeps reporting on my talk page, which is well and good. It seems to me it might be a good idea to report this elsewhere to get it stopped. Their requests to me are to delete the edits. But if this is ongoing, shouldn't something else be done? Anyone here know how to deal with ongoing socking by one user? — Maile (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the good faith-yness of the IP but I would advise them to file an SPI. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, good then. The first thing I did was advise them of that and provide a link. They left me another alleged IP sock anyway. Maybe if I just leave it with my original post, they'll figure out what they should do. I don't feel comfortable blocking an IP just because another IP says it's a sock. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Carletteyt, a severe case of WP:IDHT or possibly just WP:CIR

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.

---

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

I'm not going to make this super long, you can see by their talk page that their edits are highly problematic, from overlinking, to writing illegible nonsense and straight up nonsensical edits for which they've been given detailed explanations why this is problematic, which is always met with "I'm only x years old!" and the behavior continues. Even BusterD and several others have tried to mentor them and give them numerous last chances, but they don't appear to be capable of listening and following through. To put this in perspective, they have about 374 edits, of their mainspace edits, all but about 10 have been reverted for various reasons.

Since giving them final warnings and being asked by myself and Buster to stop editing mainspace directly, here's a small selection of their edits. adding a link taht is neither an RS or relevant to the topic, barely legible content addition which later was changed to be a little more readable but about Twitch, a nonsense category addition, [37][38] Actually this word refers to a person with a big sexual desire. a direct quote from that edit. There are hundreds of such examples, this is getting old and editors are tired of cleaning up after them.

I am requesting a 1 month (or longer) block so that they can take some time to read about our policies, guidelines and take in all the advice they've been given. The only reason I'm not suggesting an indef is because Buster has asked that the next block simply be escalating. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll also note that this may be a language issue but their inability to actually take advice and criticism, combined with IDHT leads me to believe they cannot be a productive editor at this time. Further, we have often blocked people as CIR for far less, who actually were moderately productive editors and that just doesn't seem to be the case with this user. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

And now, after notifying them of this thread, a denial of actually making any of those edits. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Indeffed without prejudice to a possible WP:SO somewhere down the road. Unfortunately, good intentions only go so far and there are really serious CIR issues here. User has failed to heed repeated advice, admonitions and warnings from experienced editors. Too many other editors are having to spend too much time cleaning up after Carletteyt. At some point you have to say enough. Maybe they should try editing at Simple English for a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

---

And now we have this. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2022 (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.

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.

---

Back again as User:Carletteyt3. I'm involved. Can somebody block this person? BusterD (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done I want them to become a productive editor at some point. But this has to stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2022 (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.

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 81.110.199.80 NOTHERE

This may be premature as 81.110.199.80 (talk · contribs) has only eight mainspace edits, but it already seems quite clear they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They have already been warned for a number of things on their talk page (regularly blanked), and to that mix, toss in a dollop of antisemitism.

• 1082725217 – vandalism at List of earthquakes in Pakistan
• 1082725807 – vandalism at Balochistan; reverted by Dawnseeker2000, then IP doubled down
• 1083747879 – ‎removal of sourced content about Israel, at Blood type distribution by country
• 1084373864 – at List of militaries by country, having approx. 200 sections with one country each; user removes Israel section only (edit summary: "No citation")
• 1084373963 – at List of airlines of Asia, having 46 sections with one country each; user removes Israel section only (edit summary: "No citation")
• 1084372415 – a possibly good faith edit to expand LGB initialism, except that it altered a direct quotation, and after Acroterion reverted them and left them a UTP message, they doubled down.

It's early on, but it's hard to see any prospect of their becoming a net positive with time. Mathglot (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and placed a fairly short block. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Acroterion,@Mathglot: after all that junk, I agree that a 48 hour block isn't going to have much effect. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocks are easy to reinstate and extend, and we generally don't go straight to long blocks when the IP's only been active for a week. I'm keeping an eye on them, they blanked their talkpage, so they've seen it. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's hope the wake-up call turns them around. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

5644Khorasani

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.

---

5644Khorasani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps attempting to add a questionable map into Ethnic groups in Afghanistan, replacing the original map which he simply dismissed as 'wrong' and 'trustless' [39]. He has been told by three users (including an admin) to stop reverting and discuss/take the map to WP:RSN [40] [41] [42], yet keeps edit warring [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I have pblocked the editor from that specific article for 48 hours so they can cool down a bit. The rest is a content dispute and the editor is at least responding to other editors. Oz\^InterAct 20:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, he is responding. But err.. they're not the best ones [48]. I have restored the long-standing map, hopefully he will take his concerns to the talk page and/or join the WP:RSN I opened [49]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks HistoryofIran for actually starting a discussion and Oz for quenching the edit-war. Sorry I didn't notice the message on my talkpage. DMacks (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2022 (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:Telex80 (second post)

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.

---

About a week ago I posted here about Telex80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who adds material to articles that is simply gibberish. The report is here. They were blocked for one week by User:El C, but very shortly after the block expired, they continued exactly as before. They never gave any acknowledgement of the block. So, perhaps further action is necessary to stop them further harming English Wikipedia. 82.132.212.222 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• I would have to agree that User:Telex80 is indeed doing the same thing before being blocked by User:EI C. It is clear that User:Telex80 is not using his talk page either. Chip3004 (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • User:Telex80 just edited their talk page yesterday.[50] Possibly a case of "They can't hear you"? It appears all of the user's edits are on mobile.Jahaza (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• I read Special:Diff/1084585887 and wondered what a time zone bumper could be. But yes, there has been communication on the user talk page now, at Special:Diff/1084691101. Uncle G (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • They have posted something to their talk page. But what exactly are they communicating? 82.132.212.173 (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• I am so far reluctant to indef-block given they are making only mobile edits given WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. But it's getting close. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Apparently 82.132.212.222 is continuing to harrass User:Alexander Davronov See [[51]], Just like 192.76.8.70 said 82.132.212.222 is WP:LTA/BKFIP, This ip (82.132.212.222) has been blocked before as well. Chip3004 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Similar IP != same person. The IP 82.132.212.222 has indeed been blocked, but it was more than six years ago. Is there some relevance you see in that? 82.132.212.173 (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• 82.132.212.222 is WP:LTA/BKFIP. See also continued harassment of user:Alexander Davronov from the same range [52]. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Evidence-free assertion, completely irrelevant to the problem of User:Telex80 adding gibberish to articles. 82.132.212.173 (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  The geolocation, edit summaries, and general attitude are consistent with BKFIP. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2022 (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:Baseball Bugs

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.

---

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've asked this editor multiple times to leave me alone. The editor continues to stalk my edits, either undoing my edits or by editing pages the user has never edited prior to my edit, or by leaving messages on my talk page about my own edits.

This stems from several months ago during an issue at a television show article. Since then, the user continues to leave messages on my talk page following edits I've made and undoes edits where I've removed content that does not meet WP guidelines. The user then labels my edits "ownership" in edit summaries.

The user has been blocked six times for personal harassment and personal attacks, and has other topic bans based upon disruptive behavior. [53]

Earlier, the user made this edit to Talk:List of The Mary Tyler Moore Show episodes—a page never edited by the user—immediately after my edit. The user made this edit to The Mary Tyler Moore Show—another page never edited by the user—immediately after my edit.

I edited The Beverly Hillbillies on 11 and 15 April, removing cruft about character "abilities" and in-universe details about a fictional house. [54] Later on 15 April the user left a message on my talk page about a person I removed from the "guest stars" list of The Beverly Hillbillies. [55]. The user had not previously edited The Beverly Hillbillies article.

I asked the user to leave me alone and stop stalking me on the same day. [56]. On 17 April, the user undid my edits to The Beverly Hillbillies with the edit summary "Reverting attempts to own the article." [57] The user then left a message on my talk page stating "Every editor, me included, has the right to read your edits and comment on them." [58] After I again posted on the user's talk page asking him to leave me alone, the editor made another edit to my talk page "warning" me of ownership. [59]

AldezD (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There is some history here [60][61][62][63]. There is a lot of incivilty in that from both sides. On the 13 August 2021 Bugs asked Aldez not to post on their talk page[64]. Since then Aldez has posted five times that I can work out with two of them ANI notices. Over the same time Bugs has posted 17 times on Aldez's page (Excluding Aldez there are only 6 other non automated posts during that time). Yes I guess asking someone not to post on your talk page does not mean you can't post on theirs, but this is taking the piss a bit. And seriously both of your archiving systems are terrible. This seems to fall within the scope of WP:Hounding. And some of the other edits clearly show following. Maybe just 2-way iBan both and be done with it. Aircorn (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, so Bugs has posted 17 times on my talk page despite my repeated asks to leave me alone. And the user continues to WP:HOUND and WP:STALK me. I want this editor to stop this behavior. It's Wikipedia—a free encyclopedia/#hashtag repository of minutia. This editor is going out of their way to bother me, revert edits, and labeling my removal of cruft as "owning" an article. It's a long-term pattern of behavior that the editor has been previously been blocked multiple times. I'm responding on the editor's talk page when they confront me. I'm not stalking the editor's revisions. Now the editor labels my edits to a page I've never edited previously as "ownership", and continues to harass me. Nonsense, stalking, obsession. AldezD (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure as an administrator, I have a very peripheral involvement in this content dispute, as the primary author of Sierra Railway 3, the actual operating steam locomotive that portrayed the fictional Hooterville Cannonball in the related sitcom, Petticoat Junction. So, I am curious why a beat up fictional pickup truck is described as a "character" in the article about one 60 year old situation comedy, while a fictional steam locomotive is excluded from the character list in another 1960s sitcom. That is perhaps worthy of debate elsewhere. "Should mechanical machines be included in character lists for works of fiction?" So, the solution is to discuss the content issues at the articles about the various American 1960s situation comedy shows mentioned here, informed by an awareness and an understanding that this is an argument about obscure trivialities, and that disruptive editing about trivialities is especially unacceptable. The OP should, of course, take to heart the advice at WP:OWNERSHIP, and Baseball Bugs should back off, and instead ask for input from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) AldezD is correct that Baseball Bugs never touched The Beverly Hillbillies until AldezD edited it and only found this by going through AldezD's edits. Baseball Bugs continued to hound AldezD ([65]) after AldezD told him to stop ([66]). Most of the hostility (from what I can see) is being perpetuated by Baseball Bugs. Given the history, Baseball Bugs should not have been going through and reverting AldezD's edits, and seems to be carrying on a dispute with AldezD from months ago. I see in the previous ANI thread, user:Ched suggested that Baseball Bugs and AldezD avoid each other, but that sort of suggestion is ineffective unless both users are willing to abide by it (or forced to abide by it). That being said, I agree with Ched that both users are better off avoiding each other, but I also think there should be a discussion about whether Baseball Bugs is baiting AldezD. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mythdon: I have avoided this user. The interactions are one-sided. I've repeatedly asked the user to leave me alone. The solution from Ched is ineffective since Baseball Bugs continues to harass me. I haven't interacted with the user outside of asking the user to leave me alone. Re: "that sort of suggestion is ineffective unless both users are willing to abide by it", one of us is abiding by it. Baseball Bugs continues to stalk my edits, post to my talk page, and revert edits to articles the user has never touched. It's a long-term evidenced pattern of harassment and personal attacks, previous behavior that has led to multiple blocks for the user. AldezD (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• simply noting that I've seen the ping. However, I'm not up to speed on this particular .... debate. I'm also not active enough, nor inclined enough, to get up to speed. Therefore I can't offer any substance of value. — Ched (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe both would be happier with a no-fault 2 way tban with autoexpire in a year. I was once a victim of stalking when I was new and it was really harmful. Easily disguised as "just following the rules" where it reality it was going far beyond the norm. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: I don't feel this should be a two-way ban since I am explicitly going out of my way to avoid interacting with this user. The only time I communicate with the user is when the user stalks me and posts warning messages on my talk page. Banning both of us from editing each other's talk page doesn't stop the user from continuing to stalk me. AldezD (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Stalking your edits would definitely be in violation of an interaction ban. --JBL (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Circling back to the Beverly Hillbilly edits - AldezD's first edits to remove the trivia are on 4/11, (MOS:TVCAST, unsourced nonsense), then more on 4/15, (A prop is not a member of the cast. recurring/MOS:TVCAST). 2 days later Baseball Bugs reverts all that, citing "Reverting attempts to own the article". How is this possibly an issue of WP:OWN when the person has only ever edited the article twice over 4 days? 4 minutes before B. Bugs reversion, they posted this. I have certainly looked at an editor's history to see what they're up to, but it invariably stems from an actionable reason, like they made a bad edit on a page I'm on, an untowards talk page entry, and so on. I'm not getting any "this guy is sus" vibes from AldezD's edits that'd call for a combing. On its face this is kind of coming across as stalking. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely hounding, but Bugs has over 100k edits, so we should allow it like we would for other experienced editors. 2600:387:F:4011:0:0:0:4 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Experienced editors get sanctioned too for hounding. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is an IP editor who has not edited since 29 September 2021 now randomly finding this specific ANI and commenting, supporting Baseball Bugs? Similar edits were made by 174.244.243.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in August 2021 supporting Baseball Bugs. AldezD (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's one of my "fans" trying to dupe you into (again) falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry. I've been stalked for over a decade. You have no idea what real "stalking" is. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The IP is trolling and is not supporting Baseball Bugs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Could you please respond here to the substance of this thread? Unless I've missed it, you've commented about the IP, but not about the original concern that was raised. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The OP's complaint has no substance. To use one of his favorite terms, it's "nonsense". The general issue is the same one as last summer: The OP wants to take ownership of articles and resents any scrutiny of his efforts. What started this particular one is his mass deletion in an article,[67] which he termed "unsourced nonsense". First, the specific episodes were listed. But if he had said simply "unsourced", that could be a reasonable argument. The problem is the "nonsense" part. The first item on the list happened to be Leo Durocher. I posted 3 examples of Durocher's appearances on TV sitcoms of the early 1960s, including the one from the Hillbillies. He also called those items "nonsense". Considering he doesn't seem to know what real stalking and real sockpuppetry are, it's possible his definition of "nonsense" is similarly warped. But even forgetting that, too often he reverts stuff without giving any rationale at all. To me, that's article ownership. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What I removed in this edit does not make sense and is mostly ungrammatical fancruft.

This edit removed content that fails MOS:TVCAST ("Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary") nor Wikipedia:Notability (fiction):

Extended content

====Other Well Known Guest Stars=== Leo Durocher – in Series 1 Episode 29, the coach of the LA Dodgers appears as himself. Jim Backus – in Series 1 Episode 31, the Gilligan's Island and Mr. Magoo star appears as Mr. Drysdale's boss, the chairman of the bank board. He ends up at the Clampetts for dinner and a hoe-down, something he really enjoys. Natalie Schafer – Backus's Gilligan Island co-star appears in Series 2 Episode 29 as a dress store owner. Kathleen Freeman – She appears in Series 1 Episode 32 as the wife of a conman who both try to get $100,000 off Jed in a court action claiming they were injured when Jethro ran into them outside the bank. She also appears in Series 4 Episode 9 as a new neighbour's maid. She also appears in six episodes in Series 8 and 9 as Flo, the wife of Honest John Shafer (Phil Silvers – see above). Roy Roberts – He appears in the same episode as Kathleen Freeman as the judge. Later he appeared in a number of episodes as John Cushing, President of the Merchants Bank, a rival to Mr Drysdale's Commerce Bank. Rob Reiner – played a college protester in the first two episodes of season 8, "The Hills of Home" and "Back to the Hills" (1969). Hayden Rorke – the star of I Dream of Jeannie star plays a chauffeur in Series 1 Episode 36. Henry Gibson – plays the part of Granny's television idol, Quirt Manly. He is supposed to be a big western star but is revealed to be short and very unmanly. Robert Cummings – was an announcer in Series 2 Episode 20. Mel Blanc – the cartoon voice appears in Series 2 Episode 33 as a taxi driver. Sheila James – later a star in The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis and a politician, she was in Series 2 Episode as bank employee Ginny Jennings. She also appears in Series 5 Episode 19 as the same character, but this time she is a college student. Don Rickles – appears in Series 3 Episode 20 as Fred who gets Granny into gambling. Alan Soule – the star of Jet Jackson appeared in Series 4 Episode 15 as a drug salesman. John Carradine – appears in Series 4 Episode 23 as Marvo the Magnificent, a magician. Julie Newmar – appears in Series 4 Episode 27 as actress Ulla Bergstrom. Wally Cox – appears in Series 4 Episode 28 as Miss Jane's date, birdwatcher Professor Biddle. Gloria Swanson – appears as herself in Series 5 Episode 12, she is selling her house and some possessions and donating proceeds to charity. Edy Williams – appears in "Luke's Boy" (season 3, episode 31) and "Jethro's Pad" (season 4, episode 28) along with Phyllis Davis. John Wayne – appears as himself in Series 5 Episode 20 when Granny thinks Indians have attacked Bug Tussle. Two come to Beverly Hills to make peace with Jed. Mr Drysdale gets some actors to attack the house so Granny can fight them off and not go back to the hills. Ted Cassidy – former cast member of The Addams Family, he appears in "The Dahlia Feud" (season 5, episode 30), as Mr Ted, a celebrity gardener. Granny thinks he is a hitman. Paul Lynde – appears in Series 6 Episode 1 as an immigration agent as the Clampetts leave LA for London to visit their castle. Alan Napier – best known as Alfred from Batman, appears as a chemist in "The Clampetts in London" (season 6, episode 2). Dave Draper – Mr. Universe in 1966, he appears as himself in Series 6 Episode 8. Granny thinks his muscles are some sort of disease. Richard Deacon – appears in Series 6 Episode 9 as a cemetery plot salesman and Series 9 Episode 6 as Dr Klingner. Mike Mazurki – appears in Series 6 Episode 23 as the father of a TV wrestler, The Boston Strong Girl. Granny beats her and her parents in a tag team wrestling match. Hans Conreid – appears in Series 6 Episode 25 as famed classical violonist Stromboli. John Denher – appears in Series 6 Episode 26 as a soap opera character, Dr Rex Goodbody. Pat Boone – the singer appears in Series 6 Episode 26 looking to buy a house. The Clampetts think he is a down and out singer. Sammy Davis Jr. – appears as an Irish New York cop in Series 8 Episode 8. Charles Lane – appears in Series 9 Episode 20 as landlord. Mike Minor – as well as appearing as his Petticoat Junction character, he appeared in Series 9 Episodes 22–25 as Dick Bremerkamp, a penniless actor.

...and removed in-universe fancrucft and non-sensical descriptions such as "*Owl Soup – made from owls obviously", "Features of the Clampetts' House", "Clampetts' Abilities", "Misunderstandings", "Clampetts' Food" and "Granny's moonshine"...

Extended content

==Features of the Clampetts' House== Cement Pond – this is what the Clampetts' call their swimming pool. They pronounce it "SEE-mint". Root Cellar – this is where Granny keeps her "vittles" and moonshine. Jed and Jethro dug it early in the first series. Fancy Eat'n Room – this is actually the room that the Clampetts eat meals on special occasions and with valued guests. They eat on the fancy eat'n table, actually the billiard table (pronounced billyard). They use "pot passers" (billiard cues) to pass various pots across the table. On the wall is the head of a rhinoceros which they think is a "billyard", hence the name of the room. For some reason, the billiard table has no pockets for the balls. The balls are thought to be huge eggs. Oven – in the first few episodes, Granny tries to light a fire in the gas oven using wood. She is not impressed by the lack of a flu. Water Taps – in the first few episodes Granny and Pearl are unimpressed that the water pump does not work. The "pump" is actually the water outlet in the sink. Refrigerator – when they first move in they cannot understand why there is frozen food in the cupboard. This turns out to be the "cooler box". Tennis Court – in Series 1 Episode 5 Jed buys some stock and puts them inside the tennis court as he thinks it is a stockyard. He is not happy with the middle fence though (the net). Chandelier – the chandelier in the main lobby is thought to be a broken object; they do not appear to be aware it is a light. Television – Mr Drysdale gives the Clampetts a TV for Christmas. Granny thinks it is a washing machine. Telephone – at first the Clampetts do not understand how a telephone works, they eventually realise you have to "spin the dial" and someone will answer. They pick up how to use it pretty quickly. ==Clampetts' Abilities== Shooting – All the Clampetts are excellent shots, being able to light matches at 200 feet (60 metres), even shooting over their shoulder and using a mirror. They can shoot clay pigeons using rifles and sling-shots (Elly May). Throwing – Jethro and Elly May are expert throwers of rocks and other things. Jethro impresses the LA Dodger coach, Leo Durocher by throwing a baseball at a golf ball caught in a tree hundreds of feet away and then putting a baseball into a tree trunk knot at the same distance. Jethro later throws a ball at Mr Durocher who is knocked into the cement pond by the force of it. Elly May also knocks him into the cement pond by doing the same thing. ==Misunderstandings== Civil War – Granny believes that the South did not lose the war and it is still going. She does not believe that Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant or that General Grant later became President. Confederate Money – Granny thinks this money is still valid for use in the USA. Film Stars – the Clampetts believe that film stars from the silent era of the 1920s and 1930s are still the current stars. They also do not know about talking movies till the series are well advanced. Golf – In Series 1 Episode 29, Jed and Jethro are invited to "shoot" a round of golf with Mr Drysdale and Leo Durocher the coach of the LA Dodgers. They surmise that "golfs" are some animal that lives in the holes and can fly (since Mr Durocher shot four birdies one day) and lays eggs (golf balls). Golf bags are used to carry the dead golfs and golf clubs are used to club the golfs after they are shot. Skeet Shooting – The Clampetts are roped into an interbank skeet shooting competition by Mr Drysdale. They think that the skeets are some sort of bird or animal. Once they see them, they think they are not worth shooting to eat. Of course all four of them are experts, Jed and Jethro using a rifle, Granny a shotgun and Elly May with a sling-shot. Door Bell – In the first two series, whenever someone comes to the front door and presses the doorbell, a chime plays throughout the house. At first they do not know why it is playing, but eventually they declare that whenever the music plays, someone comes to the front door stopping them from finding the source of the music. MD – Whenever anyone talks about an MD or Doctor, Granny says she is an MD as she is a "Mountain Doctor". Jethro thinks "MD" means "Mr. Doctor". Mrs Drysdale – In the first series, the Clampetts think that she is a drunk but really she is a hypochondriac. Granny tries to treat her to stop her drinking. Buy Good Stock – In Series 1 Episode 5, Jed buys cows, pigs, chickens and goats when he misunderstands Mr Drysdale's advice to "buy good stock". He puts them in the tennis court which he thinks is a stockyard. Halloween – At Halloween they see some children with masks on and think they are the homeliest children they have ever seen. They are also mistaken as being in Holloween costume when they go visiting their neighbours and return with lots of "presents". Double Barrel Sling Shot – Elly May is given a bra to wear with good city clothes. She thinks it is the best "double barrel sling shot" she has ever seen. Flamingo – They mistake a flamingo in their grounds as a strange chicken. Topless Restaurant – The Clampetts think that this must refer to restaurants where the staff do not wear hats. They open one to serve mountain food. Parking Tickets – Jethro gets a $5 parking ticket from a Police officer for parking in front of the bank. He tells Jed it lets him park there now. Aircraft – when the Clampetts go back to the hills by plane, they think they are on a bus. When it goes very fast Granny says if it goes any faster, it will take off. Possum Day – the Clampetts believe that LA celebrates Possum Day but a day later than they do back in Tennessee after Mr Drysdale puts on a Possum Day Parade for them. Kangaroo – a kangaroo escapes from a zoo and Granny thinks it is an over-sized jack rabbit. The others think she has been drinking moonshine. Frogman – Granny believes that Mark Templeton who is courting Elly May is half frog, half man. He is really a Navy frogman. ==Jethro's Professions and Inventions== Over the series Jethro Bodine decided to use his "sixth-grade education" to take up various professions. Double Naught Spy – he decides that as 007 James Bond is so successful with women, he will become a "double naught" spy. This is in Series 2 Episode 21 and Series 4 Episode 4. Brain Surgeon – another of Jethro's short term profession aims. Car Telephone – Jethro decides to add a phone to his truck. The only trouble is the wires that run from the phone pole he mounts in the truck run out just after leaving their property. Talent agent – from Series 7 Episode 17 to Episode 19 Jethro runs JB Enterprises on the 5th Floor of the bank building. As usual, he is not successful. ==Clampetts' Food== Owl Soup – made from owls obviously Grits and Jowels – Grits are made from ground corn, typically from less sweet, starchy varieties often referred to as dent corn. Grits were originally consumed by Native Americans and have been a long-standing staple across the American South. Jowels - Pork jowl is nearly identical to belly bacon in terms of look, texture, and flavor profile. Similar to pork belly. Possum Pie/Baked Possum – one of their favorites Collard Greens – Collards have dark green, fan like leaves with tough stems. They're a member of the same group of plants that includes kale, turnips, and mustard greens. ==Granny's Moonshine== Granny makes her moonshine in a wood-fired still next to the cement pond. Two sips will cure you of whatever ails you, although she says it will not cure you of rheumatiz, but it will make having it pleasurable. She is forever afraid of the "revenuers" coming and catching her at it. She has dozens of names for moonshine. The following are some: moonshine, mountain dew, rheumatiz medicine, Tennessee tranquiliser, white lightning and more.

...and an entire section of crossover episodes left unreferenced for six years, and which should be in the article:

Extended content

== Crossovers == Season seven (1968–69) was packed with strategically placed, multiple-episode crossover stories in which the fictional worlds of all three Paul Henning series overlap. The Clampett family makes several trips to Hooterville (which was first mentioned in season one episode six when Jazzbo Depew attempts to sweet talk Jethrine Bodine), Sam Drucker visits Beverly Hills, and Granny does two guest appearances on Petticoat Junction. In season eight (1969–70), the Clampett family visits Hooterville one last time for a two-part episode. "Granny Goes to Hooterville" (season seven, episode six) – Granny leaves for Hooterville upon hearing distant cousin Betty Jo Bradley (Linda Henning) just had a baby. The only Petticoat Junction cast members in this episode are Sam Drucker (Frank Cady) and Uncle Joe (Edgar Buchanan), seen talking to Granny on the phone. (The story continues on the Petticoat Junction episode "Granny, the Baby Expert".) "The Italian Cook" (7:7) wraps up the three-episode Hooterville story arc featuring Betty Jo, her husband Steve Elliott (Mike Minor), and Sam Drucker. "The Thanksgiving Story" (7:10) – The Clampetts visit Hooterville and mingle with the Petticoat Junction cast. This includes a silent, split-second insert of Eddie Albert and Eva Gabor of Green Acres. Jethro pretends to be a Hollywood producer and tries to romance Billie Jo (Meredith MacRae) and Bobbie Jo (Lori Saunders) Bradley. This arc continues in the next episode, "The Courtship of Homer Noodleman" (7:11), with the Clampetts leaving for home following Eb Dawson's (from Green Acres) falling for Elly May. "The Week Before Christmas" (7:13) – The crossover aspect is limited to two scenes in Sam Drucker's general store with the Bradley sisters and Drucker talking to Granny over the phone. The same broadcast week, Petticoat Junction aired "A Cake from Granny" with shots of Granny and Jane Hathaway (Nancy Kulp) in Beverly Hills baking a cake. "Christmas in Hooterville" (7:14) reunites the Clampett family with the Petticoat Junction cast. The follow-up episode, "Drysdale and Friend" (7:15), has appearances by Sam Drucker and Green Acres regular Fred Ziffel (Hank Patterson). "Sam Drucker's Visit" (7:23) – The final season seven crossover with Sam Drucker dropping in on the Clampetts in Beverly Hills. Drucker and Betty Jo share one scene set in his Hooterville General Store. In season eight, "Buzz Bodine, Boy General" (8:15) and "The Clampett-Hewes Empire" (8:16) comprise the last two-part crossover of the series. The Clampetts return to Petticoat Junction in a story featuring Steve Elliott, Betty Jo, Sam Drucker, and a rare Hooterville visit by Miss Hathaway and Mr. Drysdale (Raymond Bailey). During season nine, after the cancellation of Petticoat Junction, Lori Saunders appeared in three episodes playing a new recurring character, Elizabeth Gordon.

@Baseball Bugs: Removing this unsourced cruft and content that does not follow WP guidelines is not taking "ownership of articles". If you have an issue with something removed, WP:BOLD, revert and discuss. Instead, you revert, post messages on my talk page that you're watching me, and then continue in the same evidenced pattern of behavior. You only first responded here after I pointed to the similarities of your edits to unregistered IP users. Your lack of response to Newyorkbrad's request that you respond here to your WP:HOUNDing and stalking further demonstrates WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:GETOVERIT, and that you will likely continue this long-term evidenced pattern of behavior. AldezD (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Bugs you cannot claim that WP:OWN applies based on a single edit, is applies to a pattern of behavior, this is a strange misreading of a policy page. Also, the defense against stalking the users' edits seems to be "it can't be called that since I've endured much worse". Bad behavior isn't a win-or-lose footrace, there can be degrees of badness. Zaathras (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Going back to where I first ran across this character last summer, in List of Jeopardy! contestants and the debate over Matt Amodio, if someone were to add current champion Mattea Roach, who has now won 12 straight games [now 16] and is in 11th [now 10th] place in regular game play, I can imagine the OP would fight it on whatever grounds he can think of that day: that Mattea is a nobody, that it's uncited, that the citation is not properly constructed, that her run isn't over yet (because he is the sole arbiter of what criteria can be used)... or that it's "nonsense". --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

None of the talk page there looks like ownership, as multiple editors seemed to agree to hold back including Amodio until the run was complete, as well as making sure a minimal attempt at MOS standards were met (BB apparently not knowing how to format citation templates seems very odd). I'd argue from that view, BB is being obstinate here and seems to have a chip on their shoulder rather than reviewing the merits of the changes. --Masem (t) 14:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

If I have a chip on my shoulder about this user, maybe it's because he accused me (twice, now) of sockpuppetry, and never apologizec for it or acknowledged his error, despite being told by other users that it was a false accusation. (Like the one a few lines above.) If there's to be any sort of Iban, it should be two-way. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"Going back to where I first ran [this] this character", BB is stalking my edits following Talk:Jeopardy!#Inclusion of Mike Richards in infobox and Talk:List of Jeopardy! contestants#Matt Amodio. The user has WP:HOUNDed me, newly edits pages following my edits, and threatens me on my talk page. I've repeatedly asked this editor to leave me alone, yet the editor continues to post messages to my talk page and revert my edits labeling them as "WP:OWN". Editor has been blocked six times for the same behavior. AldezD (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Where's your apology for your false accusations of sockpuppetry? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Bugs, I like you, but the best time to stop arguing about this is now. You did well, for a while, to a degree, by not responding, but all you're doing now is confirming the accusations. Ask me? The OP has a point and you should stop being a dick. Regardless of that you should be clever enough by now to know that mud-fighting won't end well... Begoon 13:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

How is he allowed to get away with false accusations of sockpuppetry? As I recall, I told him last summer that if he apologized for that, he would never hear from me again. He was advised by an admin to open an SPI. He never did. And he didn't learn from it, either, as he repeated the same accusation earlier this week. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs For the benefit of others in this space, can you put the diffs where sock puppetry was alleged. Techie3 (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Last week there was this: [68] Eight months ago there was this: [69] --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the are many components to this. Maybe overly high-handed editing by AldezD mis-identified as ownership, some two way history. Baseball Bugs somewhat admitted that such may be fueling whatever they are doing now. And yes I think Baseball Bugs is hounding which IMO is a very harmful thing. But probably nobody here has the hours to totally learn the history. I think a two way voluntary no-fault 90% Iban for a year or an official no-fault-determined one autoexpiring in a year would be a good move. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No comment on the specifics of this case (I've had too many run-ins with one of the participants to be impartial), but as a general principle, I don't think that 'voluntary Ibans' are appropriate solutions for such situations in general. Since they are voluntary, all too often they tend to get ignored as soon as a participant finds it convenient, leading to a recurrence of the original problem, only with added drama as people argue about whether the 'voluntary ban' has been breached etc. If an Iban is necessary, it should be imposed, and enforced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A one way IBAN would probably be preferable, seeing as Baseball Bugs is the only one (still) going out of his way to follow AldezD around and that he's the one not willing to drop this and let all of this go. Insofar, all of the evidence provided shows that AldezD did not interact with Baseball Bugs again until after Baseball Bugs started reverting AldezD's edits and posting on AldezD's talk page and all of the interaction by AldezD (leading up to this thread) was AldezD telling Baseball Bugs "leave me alone". I fail to see why AldezD should be banned from anything regarding Baseball Bugs when Baseball Bugs is the one not letting months-old events go and continues to hound and follow AldezD around. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Also agree with @AndyTheGrump that if such a ban is proposed, it should be a forced measure, not voluntary. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree that nothing actionable by AldezD has been established or even hinted. That's why I said a "no fault" one, and the only reason I brought it up is hints there might be some type of two way battle going on and possible complexities from dropping a one way ban into that situation. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

How do you figure that false accusations of sockpuppetry are not actionable? --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I should have not included "or hinted" in my post, I should have said "Agree that nothing actionable by AldezD has been established" And what I meant by that at this point there has been no sufficient process / discussion here to even conceivably support/justify an "at fault" finding/restriction. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: @Newyorkbrad: @Masem: Where are we headed in terms of a resolution? The ANI has been open for seven days. Other than obfuscating the user's hounding/stalking by referencing a current game show champion, the user's only response is demanding an apology for pointing out two IP users who have only posted support for Baseball Bugs in a dispute. The user still has not addressed the basis of this ANI. AldezD (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@AldezD: Have there been any more problematic edits in the past few days? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Since I have been pinged, I will say that I think that it would be a "really" good idea for Baseball Bugs to stop insisting on an apology and stop following AldezD around. If Bugs has, then that's good. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It might be instructive to count the total number of edits I've made to either the user's talk page or to his articles within the last month. By my count, it's 4. Also, the OP continues to refer to the IP trolls as if they were anything; and to refer to my block log, the last egregious event having been 8 years ago. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Outside of my own edits, you are the top editor to my talk page. Stop stalking me and leave me alone. AldezD (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop bringing content disputes to ANI. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: @Newyorkbrad: @Masem: The above response further demonstrates WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENT. The user is carrying on a grievance by stalking me and is calling a request for this behavior to stop a "content dispute". Counting the number of edits to my talk page or editing an article after I've made an edit does not address the stalking behavior. It's a long-term evidenced pattern of activity. AldezD (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They probably meant for you to provide diffs of Baseball Bugs continuing to hound you since this complaint was filed. As Newyorkbrad said, "Have there been any more problematic edits in the past few days?". This complaint was filed 8 days ago, so unless you can provide diffs of Baseball Bugs continuing to revert your edits and post to your talk page since April 17, it's more likely now any suggested action would get seen as punitive rather than preventative, given from what I've seen, admins don't tend to issue blocks over stuff that happened a week or so prior. If nothing else this complaint has pretty much gone stale and it could very well be the case that Baseball Bugs will continue to hound you once this complaint gets closed, but the way ANI is (and the community in general), diffs have to be from closer to 1-2 days ago (not a week or more) for action to actually be taken. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Well the possibilities discussed go all the way from "absolutely no action" to "must be a mandatory restriction". Maybe something in between like both sides saying that they will avoid any rough / pointy contact between each other for a year. Debates purely / only about content are fine. And it's OK for them to send each other wiki-beers and move on and have some fun. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

While I think a 2-way would be easier to enforce and less trouble further down the line, considering Bugs thinks this is a content dispute (there is clear evidence of hounding) I am more inclined to a one-way ban at his stage. Hounding is serious enough that I don't think asking for more evidence of it happening over a few days, during an open ANI no less, is very relevant when it has been shown to have occurred over months. Especially as there has been no indication that the person accused of hounding is willing to voluntarily stop. Aircorn (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If the OP acknowledges he was wrong about his sockpuppetry allegations, he'll never hear from me again. If he's not willing to do that, make the Iban a two-way and our paths need never cross again. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

He should never hear from you again no matter what. Do that voluntarily or the rest of us will make it a requirement. He suggested twice you were a sock: get over it, and stop hounding him from here on out. Hounding is harassment (while two false socking allegations is not), and your statement above makes it sound like you're doing it on purpose to punish him for calling you a sock, and that you intend to continue doing it until he apologizes. I'm gonna AGF that was just a poorly drafted statement on your part and you didn't really mean that. But I mean this: hounding is harassment and it has to stop, even if--and I want to be absolutely clear here--even if he twice called you a sock and hasn't apologized for it. Levivich 20:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd add that BBugs still being hung up on page ownership claims (the "his articles" comment from 24 Apr above) when there is agreement no page ownership is happening is also concerning, and this should be a warning to BBugs: someone going in to an article to make large changes is not the same as page ownership, where the editor general refuses to work with other editors. Aldez seems to have been very open and cooperating with others on these other pages, and so definitely not owning them. --Masem (t) 20:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone should probably make a proposal, seeing as how much the discussion has continued on and the consensus seems to be favoring some sort of IBAN anyway—seeing as Baseball Bugs still as of yet has not demonstrated that he'll leave AldezD be and continues to defend hounding AldezD. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

4 edits since August. 4. Some harassment. But to be safe... before I edit any article, I should be sure the OP has not edited it, so I won't get schlepped back here again. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

So I see an allegation of hounding, and a balanced one of casting aspersions (regarding the sockpuppet claims). If BB agrees to avoid AldezD, and AldezD agrees not to make claims against BB that they can't back up, can this be put to bed?

Would that be fair, @Baseball Bugs and @AldezD? Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Soytenly. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. AldezD (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2022 (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.

Hamkar 99

User Hamkar 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the text with sources from the article Hazaras. I added information (about the ethnic ties of the Hazaras with the Mongols) verified by reliable sources, including secondary (among the authors are PhD (Elizabeth Emaline Bacon, Barbara A. West, Sabitov), candidates (Yuri Averyanov, Elbrus Sattsayev) and doctors of sciences (Lutfi Temirkhanov)) and tertiary sources (such as Great Russian Encyclopedia). All authors meet the requirements prescribed in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Calls for consensus on talk page were unsuccessful. The talk page is currently being ignored by him. During the discussion, he unreasonably called secondary sources incorrect. And also without explanation calls my edits unacceptable . I think such accusations are WP:DE and a violation of the rules prescribed in WP:CONS, WP:NPV, WP:RSPRIMARY. Previously, the user was already blocked due to the edit war. I ask you to take action and warn the user about the need to comply with the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks.--KoizumiBS (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no policy reasons for your edits to be reverted. Your edits are adding additional detail, references and sources not changing the character of anything or representing them as anything not already mentioned and sourced in the articles. I've asked Hamkar 99 for a policy reason that they keep reverting your edits, as they don't seem to have been forthcoming with one so far. Canterbury Tail talk 20:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

So I've looked into this a bit more and it seems that Hamkar 99 has an issue with the Hazaras being associated with the Mongols, despite all the reliable sources supporting it. They've already been blocked for edit warring against this kind of edit twice now, and at no point have they ever offered anything approaching a policy based reason for the reverts. It smells completely of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and some of their comments seem to imply WP:OWN tendencies with this one indicating they think the edits are unapproved. Unapproved by whom I have no idea, and they haven't been forthcoming. It seems that since they've been blocked for edit warring on this very thing twice now they potentially need a topic ban on it, or they could well just end up being blocked if they continue their current editing patterns. Yes at heart this is a content dispute, but Hamkar 99's behaviour is questionable, as is their editing history. Canterbury Tail talk 17:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail Hello! No, it is not. Mistakes and errors occur from time to time. But there is no reason for me to be punished for my past edits. I now follow the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks--Hamkar 99 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Previously, there was a consensus with Canterbury Tail on the talk page that the deleted text should be returned. However user Hamkar 99 continued the edit war and removed sourced information. During the discussion I have not seen a rationale for deleting my edits from user Hamkar 99. I guess It's meet the definition of disruptive editing. I currently believe his edits are net negative for Wikipedia.--KoizumiBS (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User talk:BobNesh impersonates admin to libel, threaten, intimidate

User talk:BobNesh left realistic-looking warning complete with stop symbol and false libelous accusations of policy violations on my talk page threatening I will be "blocked from editing without further notice" if I do not obey. The user is not an admin. I never interacted with user before. BobNesh made his first edit of article he mentions to remove content he personally did not like, then left message appearing to impersonate admin to intimidate me from editing with threats of administrative actions he has no authority to make. Some people might fall for such deceit and be intimidated into silence out of fear of being blocked, when user has no right to engage in such bullying and deceptive threats over any apparent personal content dispute. (To be honest, based on user's past, and due to my edits pertaining to Ukraine/Russia current events—like merely creating the article in question: this seems to fit a recent pattern of being ganged up on and targeted by politically-motivated pro-Putin/Moscow-biased users trying to game system using technicalities to harass and intimidate as part of Kremlin information war to shape message on Wikipedia...) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Inqvisitor (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't yet examined this matter but I can say that one need not be an admin to issue warnings. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've provided the required notice for you; it appears you placed it on this page by mistake, instead of the editors talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think libel means what you think it means. I recommend the op heed warnings and get a big ol' trout. This is a pointless thread. CUPIDICAE💕 15:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in our guidelines prohibits non-admins from using user warnings, not even the highest level 4 and 4im ones. To paraphrase a comment I made from yesterday time, writing what you don't want to hear ≠ libel. If you really do have any valid complaint of that, you're free to take it to court (since libel is actually criminal); just don't expect to be able to edit Wikipedia if you do. As demonstrated, aspersions such as accusing editors against you of being Kremilin POV-pushing without evidence is incompatible with how we work here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG for Inqvisitor. I've looked into what led the OP to get warned, and discovered the following:

• Between April 11 and 14, Inqvisitor got into a bit of a content dispute at Denys Prokopenko. I haven't looked too much at the content dispute itself, it's the behaviour afterwards that is concerning.
• On April 14, the other editor in the content dispute started a discussion on the talk page about their content dispute with Inqvisitor. In an initial reply, Inqvisitor called the the other editor a "Kremilin POV-pushing" editor, a "biased Russian imperialist", and concluded his reply with "And don't give me orders, I ain't your serf.".
• The other editor raised WP:NPA and said they were politely asking Inqvisitor to strike out their personal attacks. Inqvistitor replied by continuing to infer the other editor was pushing a POV, without addressing the personal attacks.
• It turns out the subject of the article's grandfather fought for Finland Soviet-Finnish Winter War. So over the next few days after the above discussion, Inqvisitor decided to add a very lengthy content about the history of that war even though that has nothing do with the subject of the article.
• BobNesh reverted those edits, noting in the edit summary that it had nothing to do with the subject of the article, and placed the warning on Inqvisitor's talk page.

All in all, not great behaviour from Inqvisitor here. Singularity42 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Only reason I made edits to add sourced historical details (which I had always thought should just be referenced by links to articles about the subjects, e.g. Winter War) was because it was demanded by other editors disputing the historical events which the article's subject (Denys Prokopenko) alluded to in referenced quote. It's not so widely known history what happened during and after Winter War, and I assumed the critique was made in good faith even though it wouldn't apply in most other cases where history is referenced. It would be like if an article subject who had relatives killed in Nazi Holocaust says in a quote they are angry at what Nazis did to their grandparents—and some editor comes along demanding sources proving what did Nazis do.

But in any event this was not about any article edits—I did even not revert Bob's edit or anything. Bob never said anything to me; we never interacted. Bob just dropped warning on my page of being blocked without further notice, while making false accusations of violations (which Bob did not even explain) broadcast on my talk page. I do not want controversy. I rarely even create pages outside of Wiktionary. I just don't see how Bob's conduct was meritorious—user could have left normal talk message. Other younger editors might get scared away by such ominous warnings dropped out of the blue with no explanation on their talk page by someone with whom they had never even interacted—having a chilling intimidating effect. That's all. Thanks. Inqvisitor (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Inqvisitor, invoking a Think of the children argument does you no favors. To avoid a WP:BOOMERANG I suggest that you withdraw this complaint. Now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Noting also that your deletion of the warning message (plus another editor's helpful comment) with an edit summary that reads, in part, removing deceptive "only warning", further undermines your position. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to clarify something: I believe what Inqvisitor is referring to by other editors disputing the historical events which the article's subject [...] alluded to in referenced quote is when I put a {{fact}} tag on a sentence referring to the Winter War. That seems like an unfair characterization of my actions, given that I actually made sure to specify in my edit summary that I wasn't disputing the historical veracity of the events, and was just putting the maintenance tag on there so that an editor more knowledgeable about the event could patch up the text-source integrity. If I had been less busy, I probably would have found a source myself. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• BobNesh left Template:Uw-biog4im on your page, Inqvisitor. Anyone who feels that a template warning is needed can utilize that template, not just administrators, and I've done it many times with the other templates at WP:WARN and WP:WARN2. So no, there was no 'administrator impersonation', 'Kremlin information warring', or 'libel' from what is a common warning template, and like JJA said, you need to withdraw this complaint, because this is an extreme overreaction to a template warning. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• As mentioned, in the talk page of that article Denys Prokopenko a few days ago, I explained to Inqvisitor why I removed some of their edits. In response they resorted to personal attacks against me and even though I asked them not to do that and very clearly reminded them of WP:NPA, they continued with this. Now I see that this behavior has not changed by still calling other editors politically-motivated pro-Putin/Moscow-biased users who are part of the Kremlin information war... instead on ANI. Mellk (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• I personally think it's better when warnings are issued by someone who isn't actively involved in the dispute with the editor so the fact there was allegedly no previous interactions between Inqvisitor and BobNesh is probably not the bad thing Inqvisitor is making it out to be. As others have said, anyone is free to leave warnings, it's not something restricted to admins. And if an admin is involved in the dispute most of the time they shouldn't block the editor themselves anyway. So warnings should not be taken as a threat to personally block the editor, unless the editor makes it clear this is what they are saying. Even if the are, it's IMO mostly moot. The warning is either justified and the behaviour may lead to a block if continued or it's not, who will do the blocking doesn't matter. I have not looked into the content dispute but BLP is a serious issue and I personally often issue 3im or 4im warnings when people make serious BLP violations. Especially if they've done it more than once but not been warned yet or at least not warned in a clear way. So if Inqvisitor did violate BLP and to be clear I'm not saying they did, they should not be surprised to receive such a strong warning. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Well, Inqvisitor once again refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing. In my eyes, this aggressive behavior including personal attacks will only continue since this editor refuses to take responsibility. Mellk (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• This whole thing needs to be read in the context of the diffs at Denys Prokopenko. First direct attacks were by Mellk, characterising Inqvisitor's language choices as "propagandaistic" in edit summaries here and here and as "puffery" in an edit summary here. Mellk then opens a talk page discussion with this and I invite you to read it for yourselves. Inqvisitor, who's clearly new to Wikipedia, proceeds to respond with a similar level of hostility that he's been shown by those he's met and I think that's understandable.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I described the language that was in the article as "propagandistic". For pushing a POV that discards internationally recognized and undisputed borders in favor of "ongoing occupation", it can definitely be described as propagandistic language. And there was definitely puffery in the article about "heroic" leadership role. No personal attacks there. Only Inqvisitor made personal attacks and doubled down on them when asked to stop. Using insults such as biased Russian imperialist, Moscow Kremlin chauvinist and casting aspersions here is completely uncalled for. Inqvisitor began editing in 2008 so this is definitely not a "new" user. Mellk (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, he definitely raised the temperature. It was already pretty hot when he did, though. I think it's fair to call him "new" because his behaviour, edits and complaints show deep unfamiliarity with how Wikipedia works. What's needed here is for a sysop to provide support and direction and restore order on the page. I don't currently see grounds for any use of the block button.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I agree that I could have been better with my edit summaries there and I do not think that a block is needed here, but I think that Inqvisitor needs to recognize that any personal attacks are inappropriate and it is disappointing that he still has not, or even recognized that this complaint was unnecessary. So I am concerned that he may just continue on with this. Mellk (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack and insults

Personal attack and insults by user JohnGalidakis against me [70]. JohnGalidakis wrote (in Greeklish) in my talk page that "I suck dicks" (Perni pipes). Please, note that the same user has been blocked in el/WP for the same reason plus the legal threats they made against me (see [71] & [72]) (same applies for the sock they created; cf. [73] & [74]). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

PS. JohnGalidakis keeps abusing my talk page, and attacks users (admins at el/WP) Kalogeropoulos (called "f*ing Gypsy") and Diu [75]. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked JohnGalidakis as nor here to build the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Might be worth blocking their TPA given this charming tirade.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I would have revoked their talk page access but I was busy off-Wikipedia when that all went down, and El C cut off their talk page access. Subsequently, I received an email from JohnGalidakis, sent through Wikimedia Commons. I am not a mental health professional and so I will not use diagnostic language. But the email was threatening, bizarre, convoluted, lengthy and intimidating, packed full of numerous grievances, anti-semitic hate, and demands to right great wrongs. If Russia attacks North America with nuclear weapons, apparently history will judge that I was the responsible person. I immediately forwarded the email to WMF Trust and Safety. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

And on Yom HaShoah no less. El_C 02:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

History is cool122222222

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.

---

History is cool122222222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Removed sourced info [76] [77] [78]

Replies to warnings with comments such as Shut up and Are u bot or human --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indef for vandalism-only account. Next time, these ones can go to WP:AIV Oz\^InterAct 19:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2022 (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 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.

---

2603:7080:A400:CB2B:59B4:F2EE:E60A:2D51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - needs a block as WP:NOTHERE. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2022 (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 edits to Essendon Football Club

Many new accounts and IPs are making disruptive edits to Essendon Football Club. Protection already requested at WP:RPP but disruption is ongoing. FozzieHey (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Page is now protected, not sure if anyone wants to check the accounts / IPs. FozzieHey (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It was childish vandalism related to the outcome of a recent sports match. The sad part is the Collingwood supporters that don't even know how to spell Jack Ginnivan's name. Not much to be done about the IP addresses, but the single-purpose accounts are blocked, in the hope that the point about not coming to Wikipedia to scribble over an opposing team's article is made. Uncle G (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Possible disruption/vandalism by 135.0.252.54

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 editor doesn't seem to be here to improve articles. They make minor edits (ie. space) to be the last editor. No edit summaries and mass remove warnings on talk page. Anytime somebody edits, they follow up with petty edits. (changes spelling, add spaces & sentences are reworded.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/135.0.252.54

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:135.0.252.54&action=history

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Who_Do_You_Think_You_Are%3F_episodes&action=history

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

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

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

Hope Admin will keep an eye on the IP per future issues. Just wanted someone to check into it. Seems unproductive

DJgood2go (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I remember this IP coming up on my radar before, and I checked some edits. I sampled eight edits just now. What I see is a large number of small edits ranging from a tiny improvement to (most of them) neutral edits of little value. I haven't seen the case where the article has been made worse. You have to be careful ascribing motives, such as wanting to be the last editor. My two cents: I don't see any activity that would be worth surveilling. If a disimprovement is introduced, it will likely be caught by page watchers or recent changes patrolling. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Understood but some were "made worse" and reverted (including misspellings). Wasn't sure if it's deliberate/intentional or not. Seems odd but could be a coincidence so i'll assume good faith. DJgood2go (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

For sure. I expect if I looked at all the edits, I'd find some that made things worse, given that almost all are borderline neutral, having negligible value or no value whatsoever. That's why I think the standard oversight (page watching, RCP) is enough, and there isn't any special attention that needs to be paid.

As for deliberate/intentional, I don't even go there. The very best trolls ride that fine line between are they really that dense? and no, this editor is just trying to disrupt things. You can never tell, so it's better to just concentrate on whether edits are good or bad. Calling out a troll usually gives them their strange, masochistic reward: being thought useless and annoying with good intentions, then revealed as useless and annoying with bad intentions. I don't claim to understand it, either. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, however, I find the minor "current" edits a bit strange. I would have never came here had it not been for the abundance of violation warnings reverted on their talk page. It is what it is. Best wishes! DJgood2go (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

(I only noticed this because of the edits I made on Natasha Leggero. Twice the IP edited after me. Then I checked a few other articles and noticed a disruptive/unproductive trend. Oh well.) DJgood2go (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: This can be closed. DJgood2go (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2022 (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.

Unregistered editors "masking" their signatures in talk pages -- is this against the rules?

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.

---

Is it against Wikipedia's rules for an unregistered editor to alter the code in their autogenerated signature in a way that masks their IP and makes them look like a registered editor?

So, for example, let's say an unregistered editor alters the standard signature code in a talk page post, and it produces an illusory username (as an example, let's say "Aaron") that links directly to their IP contribs page, rather than the userpage of an actual Wikipedia account named "Àaron".

Is that against the rules? Especially if they are not the registered user Aaron? Is it considered suspicious? Would it override the restriction against using that person's IP to compare against registered users in SPI?

I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time, I just can't find any info about this in the behavioral guidelines. - Hunan201p (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but there is someone with a signature name that isn't their actual user, and they are an administrator. Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs! 07:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Viewer719. I have no doubt that it is permissable for registered users to do this, and didn't mean to cast aspersions on any registered user who does this. I am only wondering about unregistered editors who do this by creating illusory usernames, especially if those illusory usernames may be coincidentally registered and operated by people unrelated to the signature spoofer. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• That would seem to me to violate the spirit, if not also the letter, of WP:SIGFORGE. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, but people without accounts have been putting their names into signatures almost since we got MediaWiki. It's not really forgery to add "Aaron" to a signature if one is, in fact named Aaron. It's only in the wacky worldview of Wikipedia where it becomes impersonation of a pseudonym, and only one person in the world gets to be named Aaron. Actually linking to the pseudonym's page would be, but in the aforegiven hypothetical, the signature still links to the actual IP address. Given that we go around saying that people can edit without accounts, we need to not be unreasonable and Kafkaesque about people who do and then, as people do in the rest of the world, put their actual names into signatures. Uncle G (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Uncle G: If someone has the technical knowledge to alter Wikipedia's code to create the illusion of a hyperlinked username, then they certainly have the technical knowledge to create a Wikipedia account. Why then, would somebody painstakingly edit their signature every time they post a talk page comment? Why not sign up as "Aaron2" or "Aaron_Biden24"? It's super suspicious and, in the case I'm looking at right now, possibly related to socking. I can't think of a legitimate reason for somebody to do this, and even if there is one, it doesn't outweigh the nefarious reasons to do it, since most people don't have the technical know-how to do it. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

      It is not allowed to make a signature that links to another user due to impersonation. And I don't think it relates to socking. Viewer^{719 Talk!}/_Contribs! 09:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

      • Thanks, Viewer719. However, in this case, the IP editor created a fake-username hyperlink that simply links back to his IP contribs page. The fake username is identical to a registered editor, but nowhere does the IP link to that registered editor. The choice of fake username here was probably coincidental. It is still suspicious to me that the new IP editor would do this. It could be linked to socking because there does appear to be coordination between them and another user, although this could be coincidental. Nevertheless, it is still suspect to my eye that somebody would do this, because it does look like concealment of the fact that they are an IP editor. The IP editor posts information that could be perceived as anti-US government, and their IP geolocates to a hostile country. - Hunan201p (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        Might be a sock then, since thats the only possible reason an IP knows so much about how Wikipedia code works and is new. Viewer^{719 Talk!}/_Contribs! 09:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        There are plenty of experienced IP editors who are not socks. Knowing stuff is in itself not an indicator of a misuse of multiple accounts. Regards SoWhy 10:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        How can we possibly know with certainty that they are not socks? In this case, the IPs first edit was to this talk page, and their only edits are on this talk page. - Hunan201p (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        He said the IP is a new editor. Viewer^{719 Talk!}/_Contribs! 10:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        Thanks, Viewer719. Yes, this IP editor is just a few days old. - Hunan201p (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        IPs change regularly. The fact that they've only been editing from that IP for a few days doesn't mean they're only a few days old. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

      • It's only "super suspicious" to people who erroneously don't adhere to the Foundation Principle that people are not required to create accounts in order to participate. Over the years I've seen people on article talk pages put their first names as signatures many times. Not creating an account is not an inherent mark of bad faith. It is highly skewed thinking to think that someone opening giving you both xyr own IP address and xyr own name in a signature is somehow contributing in bad faith because of that. A person putting xyr name to the bottom of something is a quite normal thing for humans to do in many walks of life, in many ways.

        And decide whether you are talking about a "let's say" "for example" hypothetical or something real, please.

        Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

        • I am talking about a real case of this actually happening. I have no idea why you think an unregistered user would show up on day 1 with this knowledge and use this bluelink trick, if something nefarious wasn't going on. The fact that they have this knowledge means that they aren't a new user, and the fact that this is happening in the first edit means they must have posted under other IP addresses.

          I can think of no reason why such a person would need to IP edit to protect their anonymity, because they've already identified themselves by a name. Doing so allows them to edit with the false impression of being a registered contributor, while being able to hop across IP addresses at will, making them nearly impossible to track, and immune to checkuser investigations. You're advocating for a gaping hole in this website's security that can be cleverly exploited by sockpuppets. My way of thinking says you can IP edit or you can be a registered contributor, but you can't do both by creating hyperlinks that make it look like you have an actual Wikipedia account. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

          • Openly hyperlinking to an accountless IP address in one's signature is not pretending to be an editor with an account. That should be obvious. Not only are you making the wrong assumption that editors without accounts are editing in bad faith because they openly tell you who they are and that they don't have an account, you are compounding this by saying that editors without accounts who might have had another IP address and know what they are doing are obviously editing in bad faith. You have entirely the wrong way of thinking about people without accounts. Several long-time ones watch this noticeboard, and I'm sure that they're horrified at your assumptions of bad faith. Read Wikipedia:IP editors are human too and m:Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle for starters. Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing anything actionable here. Can someone close this? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry if this was the wrong place to post this; I was hoping to get an answer about whether or not this was even considered a violation of anything before posting my diffs or emailing an admin. - - Hunan201p (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I think this should be closed by an admin but I will say, I am allowed to, at my choosing, alter my signature to whatever name I desire so long as it doesn't violate username policy. It links back to my user account. I don't do it often but have done it, changing ARoseWolf to Asareel. An IP is no different. I have seen some well established editors, in joking, link their signature back to a Wikipedia article relevant to the joke they were making. There are some quite hilarious examples. If these are not violations then an IP editor changing their signature to a name but linking back to their IP contributions shouldn't be a violation either. I appreciate the question and even the concern. I appreciate Hunan201p's desire to protect the encyclopedia . I also appreciate the sentiments of Uncle G. Part of assuming good faith is not to publicly assume something before we have the evidence to support it. It's my unadmin opinion but I see no actionable offense of policy here. --ARoseWolf 16:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    Even if it's annoying to try and ping someone only to find out that's not their username in the signature verbatim, there are ways around it: for example, one could enable navigation popups or the script Convenient Discussions, the latter of which pretty much does away with signature customisation and leaves the actual username. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Look, there have already been a few calls to close this down. I want to give the OP one last opportunity to provide some diffs. This board doesn't deal in hypothetical discussions. We deal in real situations. Provide us with the diffs showing us the problem so we can comment on it with the right amount of knowledge, or we can close down this discussion because we don't have enough information to respond knowledgeably to the issue. --Jayron32 18:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC:

Thanks @Jayron32:. Please close. I will not post diffs based on Uncle G's comment that some people may be "horrified". Thanks to everyone for the help and again, I apologize for taking up your time. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2022 (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.

Help - Retaining bad sources on Harry Styles 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.

---

Hello!

Over the course of many years, the Harry Styles personal life section has been repeatedly twisted to intentionally imply Harry Styles is a straight man posing as gay for clout, when in fact he does not label his sexual orientation and has been open about this for the past five years. Recently in an interview with Better Homes and Gardens magazine, Harry discussed how reporters harassing him about his sex life when he was in One Direction caused him much distress, and implied a very specific article used as a source for his sexual orientation haunted him. You can see discussion of this on the talk page. See also on the talk page, a long discussion over what it "means" to be "out" that generally goes in circles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harry_Styles

People have tried ad nauseum to change the personal life section on his Wikipedia page to be more respectful because of this. Prior to today, the google feature of this article bolded the terms "I am pretty sure I am not bisexual" - something that intentionally implies he is straight. It is a serious problem because thinkpiece writers and clickbait writers very obviously use that section of his page to research his sexuality and paint him as a duplicitous attention seeker when he simply does not label his sexual orientation, something he expands upon philosophically in the new article. Additionally, the source for him initially not labeling his sexual orientation both does not really explain why (he just explained for the first time) and it is a secondary source relaying what The Sun (a tabloid!) said. This is not respectful, or even good citing.

Harry's music and art very clearly is in conversation with queerness, which people can view cynically if they like, but this seems to be quite the value judgement - and is Wikipedia really the correct place for these value judgements? Why are editors being allowed to prioritize an interview Harry gave when he is 19 as the be-all-end-all statement on his sexual orientation, and allowing this (intentionally, I think) to reverberate through the discourse? In my opinion, this is no less than heterosexism and biphobia (which can affect any person expressing fluid sexuality - I am not trying to say he is bisexual, this is just how this works.)

Is there a way to set a more value neutral precedent on the page so that this does not remain a forever war as it has for the past decade? It just feels cruel at this point.H-influenzae (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This looks to me like a content dispute fought in edits and reverts. I'd suggest you take this to WP:RFP for a discussion. Then the article may be protected at a consensus reached version. Oz\^InterAct 17:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If you've been editing ... since 2014, how come your account was only created in January 2020? You deleted the part where you said you would make new accounts to implement your preferred version if you were to receive a block. Is this something you've done before? KyleJoan^talk 17:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I fell off editing for a bit, forgot my password for my old account, and just decided to make a new one. Previously I was also involved with editing fan wikis, including substantial edits to the It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia fan wiki several years ago. I realize this is not the same notability as Wikipedia but it is still experience.

Nice seeing you again, Kyle! H-influenzae (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not something I have done before - I simply feel passionate about this issue and typed something that I chose to delete out of fear of sounding too extreme. Thanks for searching through the history though to try and make me look bad! You are as ever a winner on that front. H-influenzae (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This does look like a content dispute; if you have questions about sourcing, WP:RSN is the correct noticeboard to get extra eyes on the article. --Jayron32 17:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron! H-influenzae (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2022 (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.

Veiled threat at Talk:Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis

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'm a tad concerned by this edit, which is the only (non-userpage) edit made by Big Facts For You. Aside from promoting Kremlin propaganda, the part which concerns me is We can figure out which editors did this by looking at this page's edit history. This user strikes me as a clear WP:NOTHERE case. — Czello 21:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Cullen328 for resolving this near-instantaneously. Mind-boggling responsiveness. — Czello 21:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor as not here to build the encyclopedia. The above quote was bad enough, but Wikipedia will likely be swept up in the upcoming mass obliteration of Nazi collaborator organizations was much worse. How can any of us collaborate with a person who wants to send us off to the new death camps? Cullen328 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2022 (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:AbsolutelyFiring

• AbsolutelyFiring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Suicide Squad (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 3RR complaint about The Suicide Squad (film)

Over the last few months I have had several disputes with AbsolutelyFiring, primarily at The Suicide Squad (film), which did not go their way after numerous reverts and discussions. Last week they raised a WP:ANEW claim against me which they manufactured by combining diffs from many different issues involving many different users and many different talk page discussions over those months. The claim was closed and referred here (see archive of the claim at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive450#User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:AbsolutelyFiring (Result: Referred to ANI. )). They did not take the issue further, but have continued to re-revert me and ignore talk page discussions at other articles in what is certainly starting to feel like intentional harassment. The two most recent issues are:

• The Batman (film): the user added details to the lead that are not clearly supported by the body of the article. I reverted this change with an explanation, but they chose to ignore WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, re-revert me, and leave a talk page comment that used information from outside of the article to support it being in the lead and accused me of having "instinctively reverted without checking". I responded to this comment by clearly explaining that I had checked, that I do not have it out for this person as they seem to think, and that their change is still not supported by the article, but to no avail. The unsupported content is currently still in the lead.
• Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom: I reverted an IP editor that added an unsourced synopsis to this article, and this user came out of nowhere to revert me stating that a source was not needed. This is obviously not the case and should not be a controversial revert at all, which I explained properly in my next revert. The user then reverted me again, and simply named a MOS section that does not support their case. Another user has since removed the unsourced content from the article, for now.

Normally I would not take action against another user like this, as I would prefer to just move on and spend my time on Wikipedia more productively, but is difficult when even the most straightforward and uncontentious edits are reverted for no good reason. The first issue is not an uncommon disagreement for film articles and almost always gets resolved after the discussion is completed, but that seems unlikely when the other editor is just assuming that I am "instinctively revert[ing]" them and isn't willing to engage in good faith discussion. I even suggested the ideal next steps for resolving the issue but they dismissed this as too much work. To have the second issue happen at the same time, with blatant edit warring over clearly unsourced material in a different article where they weren't originally involved, makes it feel like I am being targeted. Add to that all the unnecessary edit warring, bad faith assuming, and talk page ignoring that this user has been doing over the last few months and I think it is clear that something needs to be done.

I'm not even sure if this is the right forum or what the correct outcome should be here, I just came here since the ANEW closer suggested it. The ideal outcome for me would be for this user to stop harassing me and learn how to work in with other editors by following good practices such as WP:BRD. I don't get to spend as much time on Wikipedia these days as I used to and the last thing I want to be dealing with is a user who can't handle being reverted (something that most of us had to learn about a long time ago) and who edit wars to force other users to give up so their version gets to stay without consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The user Adamstom.97 is into ownership behavior and imposes his edit version by force. He especially seems to target me deliberately. I'm tired of edit-warring against him. I usually edit DC film articles so noticed his revert on The Batman (film) and later Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.

He targeted me out of nowhere claiming the criticisms of the film I added to the lede weren't mentioned in the "Reception" section [79]. Even after explaining to him that the "Reception" section does and citing the quotes from reviews. Instead he denies it and in bad faith claims I'm cherrypicking and biased. Tells me to read and add more reviews just to satsify him. When the point is thag the criticisms were made by "some" criticise, not all.

Later I reverted him on Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom while checking that article. Because it's a plot addition and common knowledge, and doesn't require source per WP:PLOT. [80]

Although I've restrained after being reverted on both articles by others. [81] and [82]. So Adamstom's claim that I want to force other users is untrue.

He doesn't bother to discuss himself and then accuses others of not discussing while telling them not to edit again using BRD or STATUSQUO which aren't even policies. I made a complain of long-term edit-warring against him here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive450#User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:AbsolutelyFiring (Result: Referred to ANI. ). He also made uncivil comments against me earlier. Plus this user has been blocked for edit-warring twice before, see their block log.

I've already self-reverted multiple times or let the situation go so as to not create more of a dispute on The Suicide Squad (film): [83], [84], [85], [86]. I'm tired of him. I don't have any problem with discussion and consensus, but he always creates a dispute and an edit war until h3 is satisfied or I give up. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added indentation to the post above so that the thread doesn't come across as an unreadable wall of text. The plot summary added to Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom is a copyright violation. WP:PLOT says nothing about needing or not needing sources. The relevant guideline is WP:FILMPLOT, which says sources are required for films have not yet been released. Rotten Tomatoes provides a ready-made summary of a film's critical reception. For popular films, industry magazines, such as Variety, often post more in-depth coverage of what critics thought. It is trivially easy to find reliable sources that describe the critical consensus of a Hollywood blockbuster. Wikipedia editors should not cherry-pick reviews and synthesize their own Rotten Tomatoes-style summary in the lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

As AbsolutelyFiring has noted in their own reply, multiple other editors also reverted them and the same applies to many of the previous disagreements that this user has escalated. If this was a case of me targeting them then those other editors probably wouldn't see the same basic issues that I am seeing. NinjaRobotPirate has very simply laid out the answer to both of these issues, they clearly did not need to get to this point but AbsolutelyFiring turned them both into silly edit wars anyway. Accusing me of "ownership behavior" is ridiculous when I have put so much effort into explaining why the changes were not correct. Reverting an unsourced copyright violation is not ownership behaviour. Reverting lead changes that are not supported by the article body and asking the user to follow WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO is not ownership behaviour. Having to fight every time this user makes a bad edit because they would rather edit war than discuss is not ownership behaviour. They may be "tired" of being challenged over their bold edits, but I am sick of them thinking they can do whatever they want without discussion or courtesy. I have been editing film and TV articles for more than 10 years and every now and again someone comes along who thinks they don't need to work in with the rest of us, this appears to be one of those cases and it is sad since it is so unnecessary and avoidable. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Other editors reverting me doesn't exempt you from the fact that yes you are targeting me. They reverted because there was an edit-war going on. You however claimed that what I added was not in the "Reception" section. Which was outright false as I didn't add anything that wasn't in the section. When I pointed that out, you transitioned to "cherrypicking". Whether someone feels like I've cherrypicked is another thing, that wasn't my intention and I'll hold off the edits then. What's important is that you did misrepresent my edits without checking the "Reception" section. The previous time you dismissed my claims of you edit-warring claiming bad edits can be reverted and thus it's not an edit war [87]. You are clearly a dishonest user. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

There you go again, trying to make it out that I was wrong to say "bad edits can be reverted" when that is a very simple fact. Do you seriously believe that you are exempt from being reverted because you think your edits were correct? The fact that multiple other editors have said they are not should tell you that you are in the wrong and need to discuss rather than re-revert. The same goes for continuously adding controversial information to the home media section at The Suicide Squad (film) despite knowing full well that other editors had taken issue with that content and were still discussing it at the talk page! When you are an editor on Wikipedia there are always going to be times where you get reverted and have to discuss your changes, and times where you need to hold off on making bold changes that other editors have already objected to and are currently discussing. You don't just get to ignore the process and do whatever you want. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It was just you reverting me on The Suicide Squad (film) and I pointed out explicitly that what you were doing at the time was an edit war. You refused to recognize it and claimed it's not.

Also while you tell others to not revert while discussing, it is notable that you don't apply that to yourself and don't restrain from reverting during an ongoing discussion. For example you revert here despite replying to a discussion at the talk page of The Batman (film). And this was your 2nd revert. Per WP:3RR (an actual policy) you're not exempted either from not reverting. It's you ignoring the process yourself.

The others who reverted me on The Batman (film) didn't make up false claims like I added something that wasn't in the article. Or shift goalposts later like you did when I pointed out that what I added is in the article. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Multiple editors opposed your bold changes to The Suicide Squad and consensus ended up being against you, no matter how many times you continued to add disputed content to the section while it was being discussed. The revert diff you linked above and the revert made by the other user were also completely consistent with the point that I have been making (follow BRD and STATUSQUO). You keep trying to talk around the fact that you don't want to follow these two very simple guidelines that are designed to make working in with other people easier and less contentious. As I have been saying continuously, re-reverting everyone who disagrees with bold changes that you make and then accusing them of edit warring is not the way to work in with the community here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

AbsolutelyFiring blocked as a sock puppet of LéKashmiriSocialiste. Logged-out edits make the connection even clearer. There were several other accounts edit warring across a few topics, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The now-blocked user left a pretty nasty personal attack at their own talk page, which I reverted, but I think it should be revdeleted as well: [88]. —El Millo (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have analyzed the situation, and want to offer my input on the situation. Adamstom did NOT break any protocol and assume bad faith. He simply told AbsolutelyFiring to follow WP:UNDUE and simply offered him a clear and precise explanation on why he reverted the edits, which he just arbitrarily decided to add. User JoeBro64, who is also a common editor on the article, also was in line with Adamstom's idea, and I agree, as I believe Firing did not read the reviews. I can be technical on why I believe Firing was wrong, but I do believe that this necessarily yet. I have somewhat followed their edit conflict on TSS film talk page, and did see that Firing did go against the WP:STATUSQUO and constantly reinstated his own edits even despite the consensus being against him. Judging from the situation on TB, Firing did definitely initiate the situation, as he began by accusing him of WP:BADFAITH and calling him biased, even though he never said anything along those lines, he simply told him to examine the reviews closer. I also don't think that he exerts any "ownership" or "imposing" behavior, he is simply doing his task as a Wikipedia editor in adhering to all the policies and improving the quality of the article by removing redundant information, and should have a strict stance on unconstructive edits, as they should not be within the article. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring, WP:IDHT, personal attacks, misrepresentation of other editors, science denial, and complaints about "FAKE NEWS" from 47.205.198.247

Nobody ever lies on their deathbed wishing they'd spent more time at ANI, but here I go again.

• 47.205.198.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 47.201.194.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Last year, an IP editor from Clearwater, Florida was blocked for edit-warring at quantum entanglement, then came back after their block to insist that all physicists are part of a conspiracy and to try pushing the same content again that a bevy of editors had rejected. They then switched to the related topic of Bell's theorem, where they made demands at the Talk page instead of presenting arguments. For the past month, they've been edit-warring content into Bell's theorem over the objections of multiple editors; see the Talk page for attempts to explain by Headbomb, Tercer, and myself. They have falsely claimed, repeatedly, that I suggested rephrasing their content and restoring it. They have indulged in insults that are bizarrely unmoored from the facts of the situation, saying that I pulled [a scientist] out of the text but stupidly forgot to remove the footnote to him, apparently not realizing that the scientist in question was cited in an endnote. They have called the Big Bang nonsense that should not be presented by Wikipedia as facts. Also, James Webb Telescope will destroy your ridiculous big bang theory and you will eat your ignorant words. I must admit I got a chuckle out of Wikipedia has a serious credibility problem, just like the New York FAKE NEWS mass media does.

I asked David Eppstein a while ago to close a discussion at Talk:Bell's theorem as an uninvolved editor, to try to curtail the going-nowhere (and to prevent myself from getting pointlessly snippy, too). But it has continued since then, and it is wasting time that could instead be going into improving an article on an important topic that needs work. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Well that's certainly something... the editor seems to have a fixation on Karl Hess. I doubt a topic ban would work. And I do not see any user talk page engagement by either IP. A block would be appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we have enough evidence here to have a site-ban discussion. This person is clearly not here to work collaboratively, and is instead just trying to push their own fringe viewpoints; that they don't have a username we can pin the ban to is irrelevant. We should absolutely just have the site ban discussion so in the future we can just block them on site. I think we've had enough of this nonsense. --Jayron32 18:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The nonsense has continued at Talk:Bell's theorem (e.g., You really do believe in it don't you. The universe once fit in a nutshell. hahaha. How gullible!) after I notified them of this ANI discussion. I don't think we need to drag it out any further. XOR'easter (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I've just blocked their current IP. At this point the user is just outright trolling and it appears they have no interest in genuinely improving the project. In the future the best way to deal with trolls is WP:DENY. Canterbury Tail talk 18:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wait.. What's with the "deathbed" stuff? casualdejekyll 21:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they're actually on their death bed. It's just a comment that ANI is an infuriating waste of time, and that they won't look back fondly on all the time they spent here. Reyk _YO! 22:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Correct. None of my various health problems are fatal, to my knowledge; I was thinking of this, actually. I have been trying to finish up and wind down a heap of deferred projects so that I can take a good long break from this place, duration of said break as yet unknown, but that's a different story. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Report of harassment and libelous unsubstantiated accusations

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.

---

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

Reporting user Unbh for undue harassment and libelous unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry

This situation started when I was responding to a third-opinion (3O) request for the discussion at Talk:Hospitality Club, where I responded with my thoughts regarding the subject matter.

As you can read in the discussion for yourselves, Flexman pointed out that he thought it unproductive of the accused to revert edits against consensus without engaging in the discussion prior.

I agreed with this statement and aimed to inform Flexman of his further possible course of action to best have consensus enacted regarding the change being discussed. It was never my intention to assume bad faith on the part of the accused during this time period, although I do admit poor phrasing on my part making it seem like I accused him of edit warring too. However, I do not see this as proper grounds for what ensued and the course of action the accused took in response.

Next, the accused involved me being a soccer referee as hobby (he evidently got this information from my User page) in the discussion on the Article Talk page where it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. He also remarked he was glad I 'have never refereed a game he played in', which obviously doesn't make sense in the given discussion.

A discussion ensued on the Article Talk page where he claims me to be a, quote, 'WP:PRECOCIOUS editor'. He also makes several allegations saying I'm a sockpuppet despite not requesting a WP:SPI or providing any evidence to substantialize these claims.

I informed him multiple times, through warning templates and discourse on the Article Talk page, that what he is doing is not right and asked him to stop vandalizing my Talk page and to cease and desist with the baseless accusations unless he can back them up. Despite doing so, he again accused me of using a sockpuppet to 'stir up trouble' today at 04:30 (UTC) on the Article Talk page.

I do not necessarily wish punitive action to be taken against the accused, nor do I make this incident notice to pursue such a course of action. I simply wish to be able to exercise my rights as an editor to offer a third opinion where one is requested and to not be accused of sockpuppetry while I am in fact not.

I have many more things to say, none of which I consider conducive to the argument since they're speculatory and I do not wish to return that favor.

I declare my best efforts to write this incident report according to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; and accept liability for claims made contrary to the truth and await your review.

I shall refrain from further comment towards the abused prior to review, save for notifying them of my report. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 12:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Notified: User:Unbh, User:Flexman, Talk:Hospitality Club. ~~~~

★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 12:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Viewer^{719 Talk!}/_Contribs! 12:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Viewer719: Thank you for responding. Below is the list of relevant diffs. I'm probably missing some but these are most relevant.

Involving me being a referee

Needless precocious editor accusation

Needless precocious editor accusation

Sockpuppet accusation

His warning to me

Another warning to me in response to me warning him

Him removing my warning, not itself relevant but notice the accompanying comment: "quack quack quack. Take your obvious sock puppet elsewhere"

Note: Diffs noted here aren't in chronological order. Again, I'm not looking for him to get in trouble but I'd like to be left alone and not baselessly accused. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 15:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You encouraged another editor to warn and report me and claimed without any evidence that I was editting against consensus (I was restoring per WP:BRD, and I was engaging in the discussion). You claim I've broken policies, and then repeatedly ignored my requests that you explain which policies and what consensus. The reference to being a football referee was an aside hat was meant to be a joe, based largely on the fact that you turned up and immediately escalated a situation, which isn't exactly the fair an balanced response one would expect from someone who makes a lot of noise about being a referee on their profile. I have clearly responded badly, but when I'm accused of editing against policy and consensus without any evidence being presented to back it up after repeated requests it's pretty frustrating. Unbh (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

As I've mentioned in the initial report I shall refrain from commenting on the content of your message pending administrator review. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 15:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused by the legalese in this report. Libel? You swear to tell the whole truth? You accept liability? What? Are you trying to give a sense that there is some sort of legal process here? Are you trying to intimidate the reported user by playing like this is a court? 107.115.5.2 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@107.115.5.2: I’m not trying to intimidate anyone. This is more or less just the manner in which I speak, especially given this is the noticeboard for admins so I like to keep it formal. I didn’t swear to keep the truth either, just declare that I do my best not to tell falsehoods basically. If you have any questions as to what I meant anywhere feel free to ask. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 18:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You should read the room. Accusing someone of libel here is likely to result in a WP:BOOMERANG due to WP:LEGALTHREATS. I swear to tell the whole truth... is a well known legal oath used in American courts. It isn't formal speech. 99.145.163.110 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This is largely irrelevant considering I never said those words to begin with. I simply meant to declare that I meant to tell the whole, full story without lying or omitting things. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 20:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

(Disregarding the tangent about how Amadeus1999 words things) In Talk:Hospitality_Club#inactive_/_not_working_anymore, the discussion had barely begun when Flexman requested WP:3O. While Flex and Unbh are edit-warring in the article, Ama joins the talk page discussion and declares their opinion. Ama did accuse Unbh of editing against consensus and policy[89] then refused to state what policy Unbh had violated. Ama is editing precociously, but Unbh's "quack quack" was uncivil and unnecessary. The back-and-forth between the Ama and Unbh on the talk page basically just escalates, with neither looking completely blameless. Amadeus1999 should be less eager to jump to reporting and taking offense, and should be prepared to back up their claims when saying another editor has done something wrong; Unbh and Flexman should continue their discussion about the wording in the article without either edit-warring; Unbh should avoid any accusations of sock-puppetry against other editors (if you have evidence, file a report) and avoid personal references about other editors. I don't believe administrator action is called for. Schazjmd (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that I'm edit-warring. I reverted the removal of the information once since there was no input on the talk page, after the WP:3O I added the text we agreed to on the talk page. User Unbh however deleted this again without any further discussion ignoring that not everyone sees this as WP:OR. According to the Archive of the users talk page he already got a warning for edit-warring. Flexman (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Flexman, in the past 3 days, you've made 5 edits to restore your preferred wording. Close enough to an edit-warring approach to be cautioned for. You asked Ama for suggestions how to address the issue in a better way just before the talk page discussion got derailed. I don't see any text agreed to in the discussion, it was still ongoing. I'm suggesting that you both return to the talk page and actually reach a consensus before either of you edit the article again. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. One edit (changing "is" to "was") was undisputed, one edit was just a date correction of the prior edit. So it was 3 edits about the concerned issue, first one where I added the source (since it was removed because of a missing source), then the revert (since there was no opposition on the talk page) and then the rephrasing according to the discussion (which didn't have any new constructive input since and still has a majority for adding that information). Flexman (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'd like to stipulate again that it was never my directly accuse Unbh of editing against consensus and I already apologized for phrasing it this way, it was meant to be purely a potential, to be worded "If it is true that <x>, then <y>". ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 20:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Also, I'd agree fully that this doesn't warrant administrative action if not for the fact that despite my best efforts to de-escalate the situation overnight, Unbh still found it necessary to accuse me of being a sockpuppet for the nth time after our initial discourse/conflict had ended. I'd be perfectly content to leave this at "Stop going at each others' throat" because frankly I'm too busy (and admittedly proud) for fruitless discussion like this where I can't interact anyway because I can't possibly disprove I'm a sockpuppet. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 20:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Then we'll wait and see if any administrators care to weigh in. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Amadeus1999: I’m curious. Your 141st edit was to WP:3O and your 252nd was to ANI. How so? I don’t think I was even aware of those parts of WP until I clocked up a couple of thousands of edits. I don’t think ANI would have been on my radar in the first week of becoming a registered user. May be I misremember. DeCausa (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: If you're concerned about me being a sockpuppet too, feel free to request an investigation. Sorry for assuming the worst but it seems likely when you're pursuing this line of discussion/reasoning. It is also not relevant to this incident in my eyes at all. I'm a fast learner and I wish to help out to the best of my ability so that's what I do. Also, having Twinkle and Ultraviolet/RedWarn helps navigate the board, initially I checked out WP:TASK and picked up doing things there. I don't even know why I'm explaining myself at this point, and uttering my frustration about it probably just makes me look more guilty, I realize. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 21:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

As a new user you may not be aware that if you open a thread here part of the “deal” is you open up your own behaviour to scrutiny. You don’t appear to me to have answered my question, however. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I'm not afraid of scrutiny. I also don't see your question. Is it "How so?" because if so then I definitely did address how so. Also I believe the "deal" is that I open my behavior up to scrutiny with regards to this incident, not a DIY sockpuppet investigation, but feel free to ask anything if you have anything specific. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 21:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you don’t get to limit the scrutiny to what you self-define as “this incident”. And you haven’t answered my question. Having Twinkle and referring to WP:TASK is no explanation of how you ended up at 3O and ANI almost immediately after registering your account. WP:PRECOCIOUS is exactly what you are. DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Sorry my explanation isn't sufficient to you. I shall be more concise so that you understand:

• Go to WP:TASK
• Scroll down
• Find WP:Third opinion and click on it
• Scroll down to Active disagreements
• Click on the Article link and participate
• Click More Option in the top right if you use RedWarn/Ultraviolet
• Find "Report on AIV"
• Go there and find the link to ANI for these matters instead

Hope this helps. And thanks for your feedback about me being precocious. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 21:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I only take from that your continuing obfuscation about your WP editing prior to registering your account. Clearly you have prior experience - which may be legitimate (as an IP for instance) or you may have an editing history you are hiding. What you say about WP:TASK is not credible for a new user. So the question is why aren’t you being candid. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m being as up-front as I can be. Yes, I do have some very limited experience as an IP prior to making my account. I’ve included this in my request for certain permissions on WP elsewhere. I didn’t include it here because at first I didn’t consider it relevant for the discussion, and later I felt I’m being questioned on ridiculous grounds. If I was really a sockpuppet I’d be a helluva lot better at hiding my supposed sockpuppetry. Also, what accounts do you or others believe I’m a sockpuppet of? What would I stand to gain or what creates the impression based on objective findings in my edit history (problematic or seemingly conflicting interest ones)? I don’t understand the line of reasoning at all here. As I understood it anyone is to be judged on their ability and competence, not on the age of their account. I feel I’m being unfairly subjected to questions due to rash judgment. However, as I said before and I will maintain, I’m absolutely open to any amount of scrutiny you’re willing to throw at me. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 23:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Between how silly your talk page is and the silly legal quotes here, it seems more likely you are trolling than here to improve the project. All questions are fair here, and you already know that. 2600:1700:12C4:A1C0:44F2:9CB2:124B:EA5F (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

A'ight here's where I draw the line. I won't continue to address claims of trolling or sockpuppetry I seemingly can't refute anyway unless an admin requests it. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 00:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Aight? I thought you promised to tell the whole truth, the full truth, etc. Now you are suddenly informal, and unwilling to tell the truth. You haven't presented yourself in a trustworthy way, which is why nobody trusts you here. 2600:1700:12C4:A1C0:44F2:9CB2:124B:EA5F (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa I'm not connected to Ama and have no part in this report, but I did want to say that a new user being aware of ANI, 3O, and other incident reporting/dispute resolution options shouldn't automatically make them suspicious - I'm a slightly older (time-wise) but also much newer (edit-wise) editor, and one of the first places I became aware of outside of article space was AN and the associated boards. Why? Because I wanted to see what not to do, how to handle (or not handle) disputes, and what kinds of things I should be watching for. It also taught me about the site jargon I was most likely to encounter, and what kind of etiquette to keep in mind when I made my own edits. I can't speak for Ama, but I'm sure I'm not the only newbie who wandered over here to learn about the site's moderation by seeing it in action. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

DeCausa, I started editing in July, 2009 after spending literally months reading and studying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and delving into the back scenes of the project, including reading things at WP:ANI and WP:AFDT before I ever made a single edit. I wanted to understand the project before I got involved. I signed up and made about 15 minor edits before I wrote Dirk van Erp and then rapidly, a whole series of biographies of California mountaineers of the 1930s to 1960s era. Since then, I have written over a hundred new articles (and I do not write stubs) and have expanded many hundreds more. I had never edited a wiki before, but came here with a sincere desire to contribute to this encyclopedia and to do it properly. WP:PRECOCIOUS is just an essay without the force of a policy or guideline, and I had never heard of it until you mentioned it. Here is a quote from your favorite essay in this conversation: But the user may not be a sockpuppet, and might instead be one who has prior experience with IP editing, has carefully read instructions, policies, and guidelines prior to editing, has worked a lot on other sister projects or has previously edited other websites that use MediaWiki, has read a book on Wikipedia such as Wikipedia – The Missing Manual, or has been coached by another editor known to them. I have bolded the passage that applies to my early days of editing. While you are repeatedly citing a little known essay, have you read and fully internalized the widely accepted behavioral guideline, Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 It’s not my “favourite essay”. I’d never heard of it either until the OP referenced it and denied that it applied to them at the beginning of this thread. That was the specific context of my subsequent reference to it. I never claimed or thought it was a policy and I can’t see the relevance of your comment on that. Have I read Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Yes. I couldn’t tell you exactly when or how many times though. Have I internalized it? I wasn’t entirely sure what you meant by that so I googled it and found this definition: “make (attitudes or behaviour) part of one's nature by learning or unconscious assimilation”. That seems a marvellous aspiration to have, but I wouldn’t have the nerve to claim that for any Wikipedia policy. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to close the incident report. The discussions at hand aren't particularly relevant to the incident in my opinion. I have no problem keeping it open but it seems fruitless and I think the message is clear per Schazjmds message. Further administrator involvement is probably not necessary in my view. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 13:51, 29 April 2022 (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.

Strange behavior of an 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.

---

99.33.117.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has put an RfC tag on at least two pages without any content or context [90] [91]. They were also disruptive on my talk page. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The talk page message is definitely trollish, but the other stuff doesn't really doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. The IP replaced the blank RFC with a requested move. If the IP does anything more disruptive, you can report it to WP:AIV. I'll stick a warning on the IP's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2022 (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:Goweser and WP:NOTHERE

Goweser has, as their only three contributions to Wikipedia, been revert-warring to restore a blatant WP:NOTFORUM post by an IP (1, 2, 3). The user has made no other contribution, is not signing the IPs comments as their own, and has made no justification for why such NOTFORUM violations should be retained. I am hoping to avoid Talk:Israel becoming a forum to discuss one's personal views of a "no you started it" level, and I cant imagine an editor revert-warring to include such comments without making any other contribution to this place shouldnt be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. nableezy - 14:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I prefer more data points for a NOTHERE block. I'm going to block the account temporarily for disruptive editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Immediate indef block needed for Charlieo308

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.

---

Charlieo308 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Immediate indef block needed here. See this tirade. After a history of problematic editing in Nazism articles, this has now gone way over the line. Consider revoking TPA? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Taken care of, however in the future this could be taken to WP:AIV as well. User indef'd and edits/summaries were revdel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:40, 29 April 2022 (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:RS6784 should be immediately blocked he has caltered two pages completely

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 continous disruptive editing by a user User:RS6784. He has changed entire content of the page without any consensus and removed many info like Name of Ahirs in Haryana. The account seems to be single purpose account and for degrading community like Ahir, Yadav and Jat People. Please expiernced editors have a look and revert the changes until any consensus is achieved. Please have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaminthdas (talk • contribs)

This is a content issue that should be discussed on the talk pages. Doesn't appear to be ANI-worthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks most of these are supposed sock accounts which gets created instantly and they report an editor to discourage normal improvement of pages. You can see the edits on Yadav, Ahir page, I have been trying to improve the pages with more WP:RS references like here [[92]], similarly anything removed by me can be verified ( a lot of them are WP:QS). The point is whatever I have added or removed, all that can be verified and it doesn't violate any rules at Wikipedia. On the other hand such pages have lots of puffery as well which needs some corrections along with addition of reliable references. I think this is an attempt by new accounts who could be possible socks to hound an editor as part of WP: HOUNDING. Recently, I was wrongly accused by another new account which got created on the day itself and then directly reported me and please for everyone look at the Admin comments on the same: [[93]], In my view, Admin needs to look into some of these accounts. RS6784 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

He has completely changed everything he needs to be immediately blocked Kaminthdas (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah no, this isn't how it works. Go to the talk page of the article. Discuss the changes you want to make. Come to a consensus on them. And I'll be blunt, a brand new user's 2nd ever edit is to go straight to ANI? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Kaminthdas: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The user has added anything without consensus in a controversial topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baidy540 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay. So apply WP:Bold, revert, discuss. They boldly added content. If you disagree with that bold addition, remove it. If they want to restore it there will been to be a discussion. That's the entire Wikipedia model. Singularity42 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2022 (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.

Gerald Ward (biker) and user:Grasshopper1970

I came across the article Gerald Ward (biker) while correcting cite errors, and just manually reverted it back. The first ref I came across was <ref>Mr. Ward </ref>[94], and the second <ref name=":0">Mr. Ward did not buy any drugs from the Hells Angels.</ref>[95]. I went to user:Grasshopper1970 talk page to leave them a message, but there are three messages already there about the same subject. They don't appear to understand how referencing works, or what Wikipedia is for, and I suspect they have a close link to the subject. I think it would be a good idea to partial block them from the page until they showed some more understanding, or a willingness to respond to messages. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

All their edits appear to be mobile. I'm wondering if this is a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? (Also, anyone else getting increasingly frustrated with this issue?) Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I personally believe the mobile client should have the ability to edit non-talk pages disabled until the communication issues are addressed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It's completely ridiculous, and noone appears to be listening. Maybe we should block the Devs until they fix it. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That has been seriously proposed before. As I remember, it gained some support. casualdejekyll 21:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What is more astonishing is that the devs who have commented WONTFIX on the Phab tickets don't appear to actually understand why it's an issue. This suggests that the mobile interface may be improved soon, but not the apps. Perhaps simply blocking any edits from IP app editors (which would be trivial via an editfilter) might make someone in the WMF actually take notice, but I doubt it. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Block all app users with a notice directing them to the phab ticket, see if they'll fix it when they're getting unending messages. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is my personal peeve. I have been editing on Android smartphones for over ten years, and I use the fully functional "desktop" site, which works perfectly well on almost all contemporary mobile devices. I have written and expanded hundreds of articles including several Good articles, all on my phone. I have long been one of the most active hosts at the Teahouse and also highly active at the Help Desk, all on my phone. I agreed to run for administrator, succeeded per WP:300#Requests for adminship on my phone, and since then, have blocked thousands of spammers, vandals and trolls, all on my phone. My user talk page has an archive with 87 sections, and a large majority of those discussions were on my phone. I have proved that the misnamed "desktop" site, which should be called the general purpose site, works on modern smartphones. For at least ten years, experienced editors have known that editors struggling to use the mobile sites and apps are severely restricted in their ability to collaborate on this highly collaborative project. Not on purpose. The vast majority of them have no way of knowing that there are problems that should be discussed with their fellow editors because there is no effective way for them to communicate behind the scenes. The WMF just automatically directs them to a shitty site instead of a fully functional site available instantly, for free. So, ten years have gone by, the mobile site and app developers are all drawing paychecks, presumably generous ones, and the underlying problem still has not been solved. Cullen328 (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

And then I get condescending feedback like "you must have excellent vision" or "nobody other than you can possibly edit that tiny type", as if people cannot swipe diagonally with two fingers to enlarge type, like they do all over the internet. The fact of the matter is that I have had serious vision problems in one eye since childhood, and increasing vision problems in my other eye. My problems include but are not limited to amblyopia, glaucoma, cataracts and complications of cataract surgery. And here I sit, prolifically producing text on my phone, as literally billions of people do worldwide on countless social media websites. Somehow, my ability to edit Wikpedia's desktop site on a phone at age 70 is seen as something strange, when it should be seen as routine if the WMF was really welcoming of new editors, instead of continuing to employ failed careerists working at lifetime "mobile editing" sinecures. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm the same all my edits are on mobile, using the desktop site. It works perfectly well on mobile. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Screw the WMF, hold them hostage until mobile app is solved :))) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Complete agreement: this is an absurd situation, and I really don't want to think that the WMF just doesn't want to put any obstacle in the path of the poor darling smartphone users, but what else is there? This just plain pisses me off. If I just willfully ignored all talk page messages, I would (sooner or later) be blocked until such time as I got off my ass and communicated with other editors. Period.

  IMHO, the path to a solution is this: ANY time a mobile editor gets taken to ANI for failure to communicate, the MOMENT WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU gets cited, automatic indef block. Once enough mobile users stopped editing Wikipedia in consequence, perhaps then the WMA and the devs would be motivated to do their damn jobs. Ravenswing 05:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Seems to me the far more sensible solution is just to treat them like other editors. If their lack of communication becomes a problem we block them as necessary. This is generally not indefinite unless it's been enough to require that. As someone who has used the mobile web editor a fair amount and prefers it in some situation for editing, (and most situations for reading), IMO for cases like this with accounts people assume too easily it must be the problem. While I'm not saying the current setup is good enough, in reality it's something a lot of people notice. And a lot of people either don't notice or ignore new messages on the desktop site too. We really have no way of knowing why this editor hasn't responded to any messages. (For the mobile web with IPs that's different.) I mentioned email below, IIRC email notification for new talk page messages is on by default. None of this is to say the system shouldn't be improved, simply that "editor hasn't responded - it's the WMF's fault" that we see all the time is a little silly IMO. I'm also not saying there's anything wrong with mentioning theycanthearyou when this issue comes up, many editors still aren't aware of it and it helps editors to understand possible problems. (Ironically I seem to recall before the helpful guide existed I think in 2020 or maybe 2019 one time when there was a fuss over blocking an account which was permanently using the minor flag because maybe they just never saw the messages I pointed out that it was a little weird everyone was so concerned because at the time we seemed to block IPs without considering such things even though for them the situation was far worse. How things have changed since then...) Nil Einne (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Alternative proposal: Disable use of the mobile site and the mobile apps on the English Wikipedia until WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU is fixed. We might be able to implement that for mobile site users ourselves, but the rest we would need to go to WMF and point at a consensus for it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  It is not that difficult to implement responsive design, even the Monobook skin has that feature. Try it! It works like a damn charm. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

And this is why the right noticeboard for BLP problems is the Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. There's less chance there of getting diverted into a discussion about the Wikimedia Foundation and losing sight of the fact that an editor with an account is challenging biographical errors in a biographical article that claims someone to be a part of various criminal enterprises, and all that any other editor is doing is using vandalism reversion tools. Uncle G (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I would usually try engaging with users in this situation, and your right that BLP should be the main concern, but how to do that when the user can't see any messages left for them. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The account of concern seems to have e-mail enabled so if someone feels we really need to communicate with them they could try that. But I'd mention that at BLPN we often have people complain about articles. Sometimes they stick around, often they leave a post and never come back or at least not for a long time. Similar to WP:DOLT we should try our best to help them if possible. If they just say there are problems without specifying what they are, there's often not much we can do unless it's obvious but if they give some indication of problems we can look into them. In this case the editor has made a bunch of changes, often with edit summaries explaining their concerns so we do have something to go by. For example, one of the issues which is probably least important but was the first thing the editor tried to do is change the year of birth to 1947. This was reverted for being unsourced which might be fine if the 1948 year was sourced. But it seems to lack any inline cites. (This is one of my pet peeves which happens at BLPN. Someone complains that the date of birth or year of birth or something simple is wrong. Someone else tells them we need sources. But you check the article and find there are no sources for this info.) While IMO it isn't required for BLPs, I had a quick look at several of the online sources we used and none of them seemed to give a year of birth. One [96] did give an age which doesn't seem to rule out 1947 as the year of birth if born after March (I said before in my edit summary, sorry got confused). I also removed the place of birth which also lacks inline cites. (Another thing which comes up a lot at BLPN and something editors need to be careful with since people have a tendency to assume where someone spent their early life was where they were born.) There are other stuff which IMO are probably simple to deal with. E.g. anyone with access to Langton may be able to help with the year of birth dispute and especially whether "Starting in 1965 when he turned 17" which our article says is accurate or the 18 the editor wanted is. If Langton doesn't specify either with a precise date of birth and time of conviction OR an age at first conviction, we should just remove an age at 1965 since the online source just says 1965. Langton would also help deal with this [97]. Someone can confirm it says he didn't know how to ride a motorcycle in 1997. Of course as always, sometimes we just don't need to do anything, e.g. the article seems to make clear he joined so [98] isn't necessary IMO although by the same token also seems harmless, and [99] seems to come from something the editor of concern wrote. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually reading more carefully, it seems likely saying he agreed to join in 1997 is likely inaccurate since the article suggests his chapter wasn't formally part of the Hells Angels until 2000. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

BTW checking sources I found another issue mentioned by the editor I dealt with (including the sources having died in the ~1 month or so since creation) as outlined on the talk page. Anyway mostly wanted clarify I'm not saying there's anything wrong with telling an editor who wants a "correction" to some allegedly wrong info that they need sources if none were provided, I do it myself. However especially in the case of a BLP and even more when it's someone who says they're the subject or similar, we normally shouldn't stop (or probably start) there. Instead, it makes sense to check that our current info is cited. If it's not then, just remove it & tell the editor that. Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Although I agree about the absurd situation this creates, an incident on WP:ANI is not the place for this discussion. I'd suggest starting a discussion on meta, although it's already discussed a bit on the aforementioned phab. That ticket is still open by the way. Oz\^InterAct 08:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Now for the matter at hand. I have pblocked the editor from that article for 48 hours to see if that gets their attention and will investigate why they can't edit. Oz\^InterAct 09:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

A related discussion about the communication issues with mobile editors is currently pinned on WP:VPWMF. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Smathers90 Nazism

On the page Michelangelo (computer virus) he made the comment that "the Jews run the News. More fear = More Shekels! Wake up sheeple!", as you can see here. This is a clear violation of WP:NONAZI which says suggesting "That there exists a massive or even global conspiracy to enrich Jews at the expense of others" counts as Nazism. Please block User:Smathers90 immediately. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Indef blocked per WP:NONAZI Oz\^InterAct 18:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

References

User Julian Alden and SaucySoup posting link to a possibly phishing site

Julian Alden (talk · contribs)

SaucySoup (talk · contribs)

Both users are changing links on HSA Bank. While this might be some normal vandalism, my concern is that they are changing the link to [https://myaccounts-hsabank.com/login.html this site] that is very similar to the official login page that can be accessed by going to the official site of the bank. The phony login site is similar to the official login site, I am suspicious that this is a malicious attempt to get the login information of HSA Bank customers.

While this is just standard vandalism, I feel that this could have an impact on the public in general, and request admin action for an immediate block of both users, and if necessary, do a revdel on their edits. SunDawntalk 15:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Working on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That does look decidedly dodgy. I have blocked, and I think I will revdel those edits as pure disruption. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit beat me to the blocks. I did revdel the websites as likely phishing EvergreenFir (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the very prompt response Girth Summit and EvergreenFir! SunDawntalk 15:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Are these compromised accounts? One of them was used to make a couple of childish "I hate studying this at school" edits 2 years ago, and the other account was made 3 years ago but wasn't used. It might also be worth adding the site to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, it's already been added to the global blacklist [100]. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I asked martin to add it as a result of this thread - which brings me to my next task, figuring out a way to prevent this from happening again. It's not the first time I've seen similar edits to banking articles, and I think we've gotta figure out a way to prevent this whether it's by filter or something else. Especially on smaller projects. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to 192.76.8.70 for pointing out the age of those accounts - I confess I didn't look too hard at them when I blocked. Looking at them again, there's not much more I can say - from a CU perspective, they are  Confirmed to one another, but there are no other accounts that look similar operating out of the same range, so I can't connect it to anybody else. Can't say any more than that really. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit There's a whole load more accounts in the recent history of HSA Bank trying to get people to go to the same link via reddit. [101] These also all seem to be compromised, ancient accounts with normal looking edits that have been hijacked for spamming, are these the same person? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

There's also accounts spamming the same stuff into user pages, e.g. User:Buccherese/sandbox 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the steer, 192. I have just blocked a lot of old accounts. This is obviously coordinated, but CU doesn't help - please let me know if you see anything else. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@PRAXIDICAE: there are antiphishing sites that offer an api for automated requests. Wikimedia could cache the current list of "OK" sites and query the api for new sites. For example, https://www.ipqualityscore.com/threat-feeds/malicious-url-scanner . You could block attempts to add phishing and perhaps autoblock the user/ip address as well. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipelli and Globalism

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 reason to believe that user:Wikipelli is secretly a paid editor employed by the World Economic Forum, as evidenced by his/her reverts to my contributions. CorkZone (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

A look through CorkZone's article edits convinces me that they are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Schazjmd (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Your IP address is an Israeli one, isn’t it? CorkZone (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes they have already been reported at AIV for adding original research despite warnings. Dove's talk (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Dove's talk. Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

CorkZone, if you have, "reason to believe", please articulate that reason here. I have reverted several of your edits and my reasons are all stated in the warnings that I've left on your talk page. I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia, secretly or otherwise. Wikipelli ^Talk 23:59, 29 April 2022 (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 evasion - Jonnyspeed20

• Jonnyspeed20
• 81.98.196.96

I suspect that blocked user Jonnyspeed20 (see previous ANI - [102]) is evading their indefinite block by making IP edits.

81.98.196.96 has been making edits indistinguishable to those of Jonnyspeed20 on the same UK town articles, removing information associated with counties, and using the same wording. Also worth noting is the fact the IP has edited R/GA, a page frequently edited by this user. The user has previously resorted to IP edits (see previous ANI), and IP blocks for this user have previously been made. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonably likely to be block evasion based on the behavioral evidence. In the future, sock puppets should be reported to WP:SPI with evidence in the form of diffs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Heavy Off-Wiki Canvassing

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 currently a very intense AFD discussion about a person called Gonzalo Lira (AfD discussion). From what I can gather, the subject is famous in the Incel community and fringes of the alt-right and far-left (contradictory as that might be; the common demoninator seems to be anti-mainstream, anti-society, pro-Putin and some conspiracy theories). None of that is ANI-worthy, but what stands out is the extreme off-wiki canvassing going on. In more than ten years at Wikipedia, I've never seen so many WP:SPA accounts in the same discussion, all of them shouting that the page must be kept (whereas most established users point out the lack of WP:NOTABILITY.) To be clear: while all SPAs shout 'Keep', that doesn't mean every 'keep' comment is a SPA. A handful of established users also say keep, and that's of course fine Given how heated the discussion has become, with heavy personal attacks from of the SPAs, and the sheer amount of off-wiki canvassing, some admin overview might be needed before it completely spirals out of control. Jeppiz (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Do you think it's bad enough that semi-protection is warranted? I just skimmed through the discussion, and while there are a lot of unregistered users commenting and a couple newer accounts, I think a closing admin would be able to parse who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't in trying to judge consensus. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Considering this AfD would also fall under Eastern Europe/Balkans sanctions as the subject has vlogged quite a bit about the war, I'd recommend erring on the side of caution. I don't think any of us want WP:EEML redux. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    • User:Jéské Couriano - Didn't we already have something close to WP:EEML with Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes?
• I actually tried to draw some attention to this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Football-related AFDs. Levivich there was talking about making a case with 2 sources, which I repeatedly pushed for people to do in this AFD discussion. I think that a closing administrator won't have trouble filtering out the non-policy rationales. I had to reverse some early refactoring attempts directing people to "vote" and moving comments out of chronological order such as Special:Diff/1083954787.

  Yes clearly this is an influx of novices who haven't a clue about our content standards, supported by regular editors who should know better, but are sadly doing the usual thing of waving at search engine results and not actually citing, or reading for themselves, what the search engines turn up. But an experienced closer should recognize that. I certainly do, and I always try to push such people to do better, and not put in such zero-effort contributions, because they actually do end up being given less weight.

  I've had more than ten years too. I've seen this pattern many times before. This isn't anywhere near the worst that I've seen, though. There were reasons that {{notavote}} et al. were invented in the first places. ☺

  Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  • @Uncle G If you discuss an editor here (as you're clearly doing since you've used the same language here[103] and in your reply to me there[104], you have to notify them.--Jahaza (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Really? How's that? What's under discussion is whether this AfD has gotten enough out of hand to require admin supervision/semi-protection. (Since this is one of the worst cases of SPA-bombing I've seen in the many hundreds of AfDs in which I've participated, I'd say it does.) So far, the conduct of individual editors is not under question. The requirement to notify editors is yoked to the potential for those editors to be admonished or sanctioned. This is not the case here. Ravenswing 10:38, 27 April 2022 (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.

Definition of "live edit"

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.

---

Probably not the right place to ask this, but someone here ought to have an answer. There's a simple request for help at User talk:interstatefive, who is asking for the definition of "live edit" as a qualifier for Arbcom election voting. I thought it meant any non--automated edit, until I read Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections. Two of the four qualifiers to vote is both (not either/or):

• has made at least 150 mainspace edits before 00:00, 1 November
• has made at least 10 live edits (in any namespace) within one year of 00:00, 1 November

Now I'm curious. How does a live edit differ from other edits? — Maile (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK live edits are the opposite of deleted edits, i.e. edits which were made to pages that haven't been deleted. For example, my XTools stats say I have ~30k live edits and ~300 deleted edits. Also, asking these kinds of questions on the help desk in the future would probably be better. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 01:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep, Isabelle is correct. Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2022 (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.

Unreferenced content: BradRob16

Requesting block on user User:BradRob16. This user has persistently added unreferenced content to the page The Rising (TV series) and despite having been warned twice and reverted several times, they continue to make repeated identical posts. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Let's see if that gets their attention. In future, these types of reports can go to WP:AIV Oz\^InterAct 14:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

2A01:73C0:500:63B5:0:0:2941:C9AA canvassing

This IP is canvassing users to a requested move in the ARBPIA topic area. One of the canvassed users has so far obliged. Dollars to donuts it’s Yaniv. nableezy - 00:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

2a01:73c0:500::/40 has been CU-blocked for a period of 3 months by NinjaRobotPirate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:ADMINCOND of Hammersoft

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.

---

It is with regret that I file this request against an administrator.

On 28 April, Hammersoft made an oppose vote in Tamzin's RFA. In doing so, they described Tamzin's beliefs as disgusting in the extreme, despicable views and horrifying.

Earlier this evening, Hammersoft expanded upon their previous remarks, urging Tamzin to withdraw their candidacy. In doing so, not only did they ping Tamzin, they also used language that in my opinion is tantamount to bullying. Primarily: But, do you really want to be an administrator given that the community, since the revelation, is clearly not supporting you?.

In response to Hammersoft's comments, particularly those made this evening, both GeneralNotability and myself asked Hammersoft to reflect upon what they had written, and in my case I included an urge for them to strike the second comment citing my belief that the words used were bullying. In doing so I cited WP:ADMINCOND and both GeneralNotability and I additionaly included reference to the nine principles listed on Hammersoft's user page.

In reply, Hammersoft demonstrated little to no reflection upon the words both GN and I wrote, nor the words they originally wrote. I cannot see a good faith interpretation of I am not commenting on the person in particular when comparing it to the words Hammersoft wrote on 28 April. Additionally I am gravely concerned that an administrator is not taking seriously concerns surrounding bullying, especially when they defend their choice of language as It is calling it what it is. I have seen and had personal experience of many bullies throughout my life using that exact phrase to defend their actions.

I realise that this RfA has become tense over the last couple of days. And I hesitate to bring it to a noticeboard as active as this one, given the potential for a Streisand effect like raise in awareness. However I also need to weigh this concern against the harms that the words Hammersoft has chosen to use to describe Tamzin may/will have had upon their physical and mental wellbeing.

I have no other comments to make about Hammersoft outside of this context. Until this evening I had not to my knowledge had any interactions with them. It may be, and I hope it truly is, that in other contexts and discussions they have not said words as targeted as this. However I feel I must speak out on this, as RfA is already a toxic nightmare for candidates to navigate without current sitting administrators adding onto that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I've notified Hammersoft and GeneralNotability of this thread. I am hesitant to notify Tamzin due to the stress they are undoubtedly under, however I will do so if it is felt as if it is required. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we not do this? The RFA has 150+watchers, undoubtedly dozens of which are admins, and had 10k views yesterday. I think there's enough eyes on it and the conversations. I don't think pinging someone and expressing an opinion is worth creating even more drama.

Best case scenario, this gets closed almost immediately as no action. Worst case, it generates 200kB of text, then gets closed as no action. Can we take the easy path, just once? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully there is a difference between pinging someone and expressing an opinion, and pinging an RfA candidate urging them to withdraw their candidacy after describing that candidates views in a manner that in any other context on enwiki would be considered a blatant personal attack. Now imagine for a minute that you are the candidate in the RfA, and someone (admin or otherwise) has made these exact words in relation to yourself. How would you feel? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

200kB it is :( ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"But, do you really want to be an administrator given that the community, since the revelation, is clearly not supporting you?"

I'm sorry, but in what way is this representative of a 'blatant personal attack'? Not to be condescending -- I genuinely don't see a connection. Pointing out a wave of opposition showing up, and questioning somebody regarding their dedication to the RfA at hand, doesn't seem very personal attack-y to me. Rin (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Per the original vote made on 28 April: This lock-step belief that a person can't be trusted if they have political views opposing the candidate's isn't just troubling, it's disgusting in the extreme. and That we would embolden a member of this community with such despicable views is horrifying emphasis is from Hammersoft. In the first quotation, Hammersoft is describing Tamzin's opinions as disgusting in the extreme. In the second quote, Hammersoft is describing Tamzin's views as despicable and horrifying. Those are personal attacks on Tamzin. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone back and forth over the past fifteen minutes about how I want to respond to this, particularly on the question of whether it's ANI-worthy or not. I don't think I have an answer to that, so I'll just leave you all the other thoughts I have. I can't say I'm happy with Hammersoft right now, and frankly I find their "I'm commenting on the candidate's opinions, not the candidate" stance disingenuous. However, I'm also a member of the "talk about the importance of civility on your userpage" club and I am certainly not in a position to cast stones at Hammersoft. We all have days where we get things wrong and we all have things that we get worked up over, and as far as I can tell this is not a pattern of behavior. I also remind everyone here that RfA is probably an admin candidate's most stressful week on Wikipedia, every oppose stings whether merited or not, and major drama does not help with that. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I've not been impressed with Hammersoft in this RfA from their hyperbolic initial oppose, and it's certainly arguable that pinging a candidate during their RfA and asking them to withdraw on spurious grounds is a breach of ADMINCOND. But this should have been discussed on Hammersoft's talk page, as they indicated they were willing to do so. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• To prevent a possible derailment of the RfA: Suggest moving the oppose discussion to the RfA talkpage & closing this until the RfA has commenced. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Because I feel constructive discussion will not be possible here if everyone can only speculate as to my feelings, I'm going to give a brief statement and then ignore the rest of this thread: 1) The initial characterizations of my views as "despicable" and "disgusting" hurt me. 2) I was upset by the decision to ping me while I was already under a good deal of stress, especially since it served to call attention back to that initial statement. That's just my feelings; I express no view on whether either comment constituted a violation of any policy or guideline. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What about the people that you hurt by your statements? Do they not matter? BilCat (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

BilCat, genuine question: has anyone said as much? Not "I think Tamzin's statement is inappropriate for a potential administrator," but "I am one of the people Tamzin is referring to and I am hurt by it" GeneralNotability (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2022 (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.

TÜRKMENISTANI ENJOYER

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.

---

TÜRKMENISTANI ENJOYER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is clearly the account of the disruptive IP that has been rangeblocked for 3 months

Added 'Afshar dialect' as a language; IP [105] - user [106]

Replaced 'Azerbaijani' with 'Afshar'; IP [107] - user [108]

Both removed mention of 'Azerbaijani'; IP [109] - user [110]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Needs immediate block: see their edits to this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

what even is this 晚安 (トークページ) 07:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yall dumbasses, before xou revert something you shoukd research it, the Javanshir family and thus the whole Karabakh Khanate was Afshar, it is even written in wikipedia, so why you mention the azeri language even though the afshar one would be correct and why pan-azeri kansasbear reverted edits on qara qoyunlu even though beshogur agreed with the edit?he ididnr even showed any prove!🤦🏻‍♂️ Geneially if you go under the edit versions of aq and qara qoyunlu rulers you will see they are only edited by people of azerbaijani descend!🤦🏻‍♂️ Wikipedia got a biased puece of shit anf I have to fix it BY TÜRKMEN ENJOYER

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.

Defender of turkish von

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 Defender of turkish von:

New user. Made a number of suspicious edits, which were not constructive. I reverted a number of them, for example: [111], [112], [113].

I thought that the user is new and decided to help him, so I left the message on his talk page and offered my help. But he reverted my message with insulting comments. Then he started spamming insulting comments on my talk page ([114], [115]), and reinstating previous insulting comments from other anonymous users [116].

Please take action.

--Abrvagl (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Pro-Armenian edit warrior, clearly on one side of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Probably should be indeffed. Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed. I have no idea what is going on here, but leaving bizarre personal attacks on talk pages, calling people cockroaches, and weird stuff like this within 40 edits sum to NOTHERE. firefly ( t · c ) 09:07, 1 May 2022 (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.

Egregious personal attack by 213.233.155.140

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 rant apparently based on a few consensus' going against them is essentially a long personal attack, complete with death threats and incorrect assumptions. Normally, I would leave a warning but this is so egregious that I thought it should go straight here. I don't believe any second chance is deserved here. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The IP range is range blocked, took me a while to figure out that talk page post, but it is actually Morse code! I agree that after decoding it that it is egregious.--Mvqr (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Would someone like to translate? I've merited a mention here but Morse isn't my first language. Or is it so bad that a translation cannot be posted here? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The message went something like this: [names a group of editors] [Comment about their conduct and how it made the IP upset or something] [comment about F1 drivers and their relatives, some content dispute apparently?] [comment about the relevance of the prior comment] [very lengthy comment about some Irish Troubles related dispute] [something about the editors "attitude", and it changing when a rocking horse defacates] [something about the injustices that this users seems to think they experience] [oblique death threat] [comment about the targeted users supposed ethic, and socieconomic background] [another somewhat less oblique death threat] [names editors again] [closing with another reference to the editors ethnic and socieconomic background]. Throw in a liberal sprinking of profanity between every second or third word and yeah. Let's just say I'm not going to repeat it in unabridged version here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: just use this. 晚安 (トークページ) 13:27, 1 May 2022 (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.

Nazi 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.

---

Could someone have a look at [117] and do the necessary? Many thanks! Elemimele (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Elemimele—Blatant cases like this should be reported to WP:AIV. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 12:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeap, but blocked anyway. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remember next time. Thanks for blocking. Does it need revdelling? Elemimele (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It's been revdelled, so I'd say the answer is "yes"? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:04, 1 May 2022 (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.

Draft:Pepul (social network)

Got an interesting situation here. A few days ago, Draft:Pepul (social network) was created by Muthukumarsivan (talk · contribs), and on the 30th was moved out of draftspace and into articlespace by one Athiselva (talk · contribs). Ordinarily I wouldn't second-guess a reviewer, but looking into it gives me the impression that (1) Athiselva shouldn't be reviewing any drafts and especially not this particular one, and (2) Muthu is a sockpuppet of Athiselva.

Two previous drafts existed on or around the 23rd, both made by Athiselva, but were both deleted as G11 and a WP:UPE warning given. Cue Muthu popping up on the 26th to re-create the draft, and Athiselva "reviewing" it with their autoconfirmed account on the 30th. Both users are only interested in this article. I'm currently assessing its sources right now, but given the apparent deception here I'm asking for blocks (ideally pblocks) of both Athiselva and Muthukumarsivan from the draft and mainspace titles to prevent any further moves. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 11:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I have pblocked both users from both the draft and the live article pending investigation into sockpuppetry and SPA. Oz\^InterAct 13:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Danke. SPI filed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

And it seems to have come back as I figured, plus two less-used accounts as well (Ramae013 (talk · contribs), Selva2pepul (talk · contribs)). I'm now asking for outright indef blocks of the lot of them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Star Mississippi 16:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Ochta~enwiki Nazism

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.

---

Ochta~enwiki has written on their user page:Hail Hitler. This is Nazism. Please block them immediately. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I requested to delete the page in order to help. PAVLOV (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe @Ochta~enwiki must be blocked immediately due to WP:NONAZI. Deleting the page isn't enough. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this account is obvious a NAZIS spambot... PAVLOV (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, AIV is greatly faster... PAVLOV (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• OK, so the account hasn't edited for about 15 years, so I'm not sure just how much blocking it will actually achieve, but meh - we don't tolerate nazis, even inactive ones: blocked, userpage deleted. Mr Reading Turtle, please take a look at WP:DENY - even for people like this, it's better not to use confrontational language on their talk pages, you risk feeding a troll. Neutral, formal (ideally templated) messages are usually better. (And PAVLOV, please don't close threads instantly like that, at least give us a minute to write a response!) Girth Summit _(blether) 17:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Addendum

In looking at this user's contribution history, they once made an edit to User:NSM88. Though it is quite old, It too should be deleted as a pro-Nazi polemic. Zaathras (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

User:NSM88 is also a Nazi, albeit a blocked one, and I have nominated the page for for deletion. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

however, this seemed not a U5 page but some G11. PAVLOV (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

deleted PAVLOV (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2022 (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:2600:8806:4905:1400:B138:840A:1879:1785

In their first edit, this IP deleted multiple paragraphs from the lede of a well-sourced article, replaced it with unsourced nonsense, and threatened to “find a way to shut down” Wikipedia, which strikes me as a clear legal threat. I highly doubt that this user can be constructive if this is the very first they’re doing. Cpotisch (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

/64 blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Persistent Subtle Vandalism/Misinformation from IPs in 49.196.0.0/16

The IP range 49.196.0.0/16 appears to be engaged in a lot of subtle vandalism by changing factual information on pages. This range has partial block from editing Pete Smith (announcer) which I noticed when reverting fact changes on Shane Warne that came from two IPs in the range. Looking at edits coming from that IP range, there seems to be a number of cases of subtle vandalism or uncited changes of information that'd be likely to go unnoticed, such as tweaking the runtimes of films by a few minutes (see Diamond Girl and Another Cinderella Story). Reviewing these is likely to be annoying and I suspect many would go unnoticed by standard recent changes patrolling. It seems likely a single user is making some of these edits but it's unclear if other users might be contained in the CIDR (and of course, a v4 /16 is pretty large). Not sure what the right action is here but thought I'd notify admins. (Also, I'm putting the ANI notice on User talk:49.196.227.4 but have no clue what the right way to notify an IP range is, if there is any) Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a deluge of small edits from that range but I couldn't see any that are definitely wrong. Something strange is happening at User:Sampyu/sandbox (see its history) but strangeness is normal at Wikipedia. If anyone can see a bad edit please produce a diff. While I would favor requiring shifting IPs making unexplained changes to communicate, there is not yet an appetite to enforce that given no evidence of bad edits. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Some changes do seem to be definitely wrong; changing the death location on Shane Warne disagreed with sources (this is the one that initially caught my attention), and on Jacob Muir they changed the birthdate on from "2002" to "2010" in the infobox only (existing sources disagree, but also, it's unlikely a professional footballer is 11). The adding of leading zeros on single digit months and days in birth/death date templates is weird—it has no visible effect on the page, and may be masking subtle vandalism by burying it alongside "good" edits, though who can say for sure. That said, I agree it looks more strange than malicious, and the range definitely has also made good edits (like this birth date change on Mitchell Ryan, which is corroborated by the NYT obituary). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Over at Brad Wira, they changed his position to peanut, that's vandalism. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Vikramkarikalan

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.

---

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

User's talk page is filled with warnings asking him to stop adding unsourced information / altering sourced information, yet he ignores them and keeps on doing the same.

Some examples; [118] [119] [120] [121] [122]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, his editing history is highly problematic. He seems to take the attitude of "because I say the sources are wrong, I can change the data to whatever I want". That's not how Wikipedia works. --Jayron32 11:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I've pblocked the editor from Article space for a period to prevent further disruption. Maybe that will make the editor engage in a more productive discussion. Oz\^InterAct 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Right after his block expired he proceeded to do the same [123]. This was his reply to his block [124]. This is problematic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

More [125] [126]. One may begun to wonder if WP:NOTHERE applies. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

And again [127]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Inter: Sorry for bothering you, but this user is still at it big time [128] [129] [130]. I think WP:NOTHERE applies here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like that did nothing. I have blocked the user. Oz\^InterAct 11:53, 1 May 2022 (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.

S201050066 and COVID-19 timeline pages

S201050066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been told by multiple editors that the addition of Ontario (and to a smaller extent, Quebec) cases, recoveries, and deaths to an international COVID-19 timeline page (e.g., Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020) does not have due weight, and had been given the suggestion to improve COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario and COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec instead. To the best of my knowledge, Andykatib had been working with them to improve those articles, and I thought that was that. Their grasp of the English language is tenuous at best, and I am not sure they fully understand what other users are telling them (the introduction and readdition of grammatical errors, and not understanding how to sign or use talk pages correctly). It's only today that they learned how to use the reply button.

Yesterday I was pinged by 220 of Borg at User talk:S201050066 about the user's persistent additions to the timeline pages, and I went through those pages to remove those lines and make other small changes. S201050066 then reverts my changes without an edit summary several times while I discussed this on their talk page. For example, on Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020:

• First reversion
• Second reversion
• Third reversion

Though none have gotten close to breaching 3RR like the aforementioned page, reversions have also occurred so far on:

• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in July 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in August 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in September 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in October 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in November 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2020
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in February 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in July 2021
• Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in August 2021

for which one can find the reversions on the history pages.

If the issue was only edit warring, I would've gone to the edit warring noticeboard (warning given here), but their conduct extends beyond that. After that, S201050066 gave me a templated warning for making personal attacks, though nowhere have I done that. After giving them a firm warning, they removed it and my reply, claiming that they would do better with [their] behavior for [sic] now on. After admonishing them one more time for their conduct, S201050066 said I was free to re-revert their reversions and that they were leaving Wikipedia, and after I did so, they changed their mind and started reverting my reimplemented changes with a fuck you; I gave them a warning for that. They finished with a "leaving Wikipedia for good" comment.

Addendum: S201050066 left a veiled threat. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

what is wrong with you guys if you had let me continue putting the Ontario and Quebec covid references on the timeline pages we would have not had been in this mess I think you guys had owned me an apology it should've never came down to this S201050066 (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I reverted another month of the covid 19 timeline page S201050066 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

For someone who said they were leaving Wikipedia forever, you seem to be hanging around. You do not get an apology, as multiple editors have said that Ontario is too insignificant to be on the international pages. Canada as an entire country is fine; Ontario as a province is not. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

False user warnings, edit warring, and editing against consensus are all disruptive to the project. S201050066, why should you be permitted to continue to contribute to Wikipedia? Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

if you guys don' want me on Wikipedia anymore just block my account forever and that is it S201050066 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Should that be taken as an admission that you have no intention of changing your behaviour? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Schazjmd so what happened was that I was putting the CP24 references into monthly timeline pages and then I went to bed I woke up in the morning and I saw the edits so I undid them and they kept doing it and then I decided to resign I did not resign from Wikipedia and resigned from the COVID-19 project and then they reverted edits again and they kept doing it and I fired back at them and told them to stop but they didn't listen to me Tenryuu then threated to report me I feel like I am getting harassed on Wikipedia and my right to edit was just getting trampled on and I don't know what to do. S201050066 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Last November you acknowledged the problems that other editors had identified with your edits: thank you for letting about the policy I know it was not an easy decision to make but at the end of the day it national cases only I should've listened to you guys back in July when this was brought to my attention.[131] Yet you're continuing to repeat the problematic edits (such as adding Quebec and Ontario to global COVID articles). On your talk page, I see multiple editors have put in a lot of effort to try and help you improve. If you're not willing to listen to them, learn, and improve, you're simply making a lot of work for other editors who have to fix errors that you introduce. Your comments here don't give me any confidence that you're going to make any changes in the way you've been editing. Schazjmd (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: no one has a right to edit; it's a privilege that can be rescinded if it's being abused. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

when did you guys change the policy of allowing non country's onto the monthly timeline pages and who told on me about the issue S201050066 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 Update: S201050066 has reached the 3RR limit at Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2022 (1 2 3), and has received an edit warring warning from Manticore. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

...and they've breached 3RR. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that S201050066 is continuing to put Ontario data on the timeline even now, along with some other trivia (e.g., football players getting COVID). I believe an indefinite block is needed until we get a sincere demonstration that the disruptions will not continue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The disruption[132][133][134][135] is just too much Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Being a wimp, I have issued a final warning at User talk:S201050066#Warning. Let me know if further action is required. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq, they just reverted again.[136] (and again[137][138][139]). I'm afraid they don't intend to stop until they're blocked. Schazjmd (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

They're continuing to edit war. See Special:Diff/1085521191 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

They've also done something like 5 reverts in the last hour. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, was just about to report here I was immediately reverted without explanation in violation of 3RR after the final warning. Needs an indef block and a cleanup of all these edits. Singularity42 (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops, they've done it again! I'm not going to try to fix the page yet again, as it'll just be reverted by them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This reversion has a misleading edit summary—Undid revision 1085522041 by Rsjaffe (talk) no Ontario references should be on here—where they reintroduced said Ontario references. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if that was a missing comma? ("No, Ontario references should be on here") Singularity42 (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This has become kind of sad. I feel sorry for the user, but I don't think the user is rehabilitable. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This person definitely seems to need a timeout. Zaathras (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq, we may need admin action here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Leave the Ontario References on there S201050066 (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@S201050066: You have been told multiple times that references to Ontario should go in COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, not the timeline pages that cover multiple nations. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Latest in a volley of reversions by S...: Special:Diff/1085535343 "Tenryru started this war and I will fight until the very end" — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I filed this at the edit warring board to make it formal. Zaathras (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for edit warring across multiple pages, and declaring that they had no intention to stop. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Live long and prosper. 🖖 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely topic banned S201050066 from COVID topics, broadly construed. Sorry I was away from keyboard since my last post. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I find the discussion at User_talk:S201050066#Message a little concerning, where @Andykatib:'s well-meaning but misguided notion about getting the topic-ban lifted when it hasn't even been a day since. Doubly-so in that S201050066 does not acknowledge that they did anything wrong, and even requested Andykatib restore the material being edit-warred over! Zaathras (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's approaching WP:PROXYING territory, and the doublespeak from this comment (I will stop with the COVID case reporting from Ontario and Quebec on the monthly timeline pages from this point going forward) and this one ([...] I will put the Ontario COVID Cases back onto the monthly timeline pages at a later date [...]) does not instill me with much confidence that S201050066 understood what has happened, and I will use it as evidence if they try to appeal their topic ban. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that S201050066 is gradually becoming WP:NOTHERE. After making a comparison between me and Donald Trump for threatening to report and claiming they have free speech here on Wikipedia, they are starting to spout nonsense about being affiliated with a fictional hacker group and allegedly had their account hacked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Update: S201050066 is now threatening to violate their topic ban (and restore the content that they wereedit warring over) as soon as their block ends tomorrow: [140]. Singularity42 (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  That entire talk page discussion is a violation of their TBan; I don't think they really understood what a TBan is however, so I've warned them to desist. If they carry on, the next block will be substantially longer. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Mm. So, their response to my warning about that was this. Indeffed, with TPA revoked. I think we're done here. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am sorry for what has happened. It seems I was deeply mistaken about believing there was still good in S201050066. Their unwillingness to see the error of their ways and personal attacks on other users shows that they are not willing to play by the rules. I am not going to do anything for S201050066 given the amount of disrespect they have shown to other Wikipedians and their disregard for rules and warnings. I think they are slightly unhinged given their statements and threats. Will be careful to avoid violating WP:PROXYING in future interactions with S201050066 and other troublesome users. Andykatib 21:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  I was impressed by your patience, Andykatib, I'm just sorry your faith in that editor was misplaced. I'm just glad that Girth Summit put a stop to it all so everyone can get back to more productive stuff. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

2001:7E8:C473:B401:6DA9:5074:70D4:81A Racism

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.

---

2001:7E8:C473:B401:6DA9:5074:70D4:81A said "The vast majority of Irish immigrants to Britain are terrorist supporting bombers." as you can see here. This is blatant racism and defamation. WP:No racists says that both "Various conspiracy theories about other racial groups" and that "Other races seek to destroy theirs." is racism. This could fit into either category. Please block them immediately 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (/64). El_C 23:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2022 (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.

Content deletion on Russian-themed articles

In recent hours, an anon 2603:7000:2143:8500:50AC:3B7E:65AD:BF9E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been deleting large sections of Russia-related articles on the grounds that they are unsourced (although leaving intact other unsourced statements). See here. I don't quite know where to put this: although such deletion falls within the strict requirements of WP:V, so isn't technically vandalism, I think it is more usual practice to put {{Citation needed}} tags on unsourced text, at least for a while. If every unsourced claim is removed from the encyclopedia it would be a lot thinner! Also I looked at a few and there is no talk page discussion. Can anyone figure out why they should be so targeted? Incidentally there are no other contributions from the /64 range. I'll add a notice to the talk page. David Brooks (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I have encountered this user in RCP before. It does seem that most articles they are removing the content from have a dated {{more citations needed}} template, but I think they should be encouraged to find references for those claims instead of completely removing them, which could be considered disruptive. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 05:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

2603:7000:2143:8500:19EE:4BCD:4D10:E1D3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has the same pattern and is presumably the same user. Spokoyni (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

See also my earlier ANI on the same user: (from two days ago) --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

There was a comment, they seem especially useful in a topic area where information warfare is being waged using our beloved encyclopedia as a battlefield. The user is not only abiding by policy, but is actively protecting and improving the encyclopedia by removing unreliable and unsourced information. I do not like how this sounds.. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 07:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I had also 2603:7000:2143:8500:6030:709B:3761:F435 (talk · contribs · 2603:7000:2143:8500:6030:709B:3761:F435 WHOIS) on my watchlist, and the series of their edits in Primorsk, Leningrad Oblast was not good. I will probably go through the contribution of this one and see whether it needs to be reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and now I realized that a few days ago I had an IP troll at my talk page (see User talk:Ymblanter#wp:burden) who tried to convince me that WP:BURDEN allowas any user to indiscriminately remove any material they believe is unsourced from any article any time. If this is the same farm, we should probably roll back all of their edits. Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

After inspecting a few of these IP's edits, I will roll all of them (in the mainspace) back. Some of the things they do might be good, but we do not have enough resource to go through all of their edits and see what is good and what is bad. This way of working is just unacceptable. Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to make a fuss about this, it's very easy to counter the kind of edits 2603 is making: just provide sources. 86.4.163.59 (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

2603 is not a content policeman. Before removing the material they do not like, they must make a reasonable effort to find sources or to get convinced the sources are not available. This is written in WP:BURDEN. Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It takes a person 1 minute to remove uncited material. It take a lot more time to find and add sources. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 08:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Disclaimer 1: I do not have an updated opinion on this user, the following is just information and opinions I think might be useful.
Maybe I misunderstood the there are no other contributions from the /64 range line in the main post, but there is indeed a lot of contributions in the </64 range>, hundreds if not thousands, including:

• some scattered IPs here and there which COULD be other people, but could also be them: <1>, <2>, <3>, etc...
• some contributions (likely by this user) where they AREN'T just removing content from articles: 32 edits, <1 edit>, 34 Jakob Junis related edits (<29 edits>^(art.1) + <23 other edits>, <1 edit>^(art.2), <1 edit>^(art.3), <3 edits>^(art.4)), etc...
• some contributions adding AND removing, hmmm: <7 edits>.
• but the majority is, recently, unsourced content removals(likely by this user), not exclusively targeting Belarus-related articles, only mostly(and I have no will too look for examples).

In fact, I have come across this user in this range as far back as <12 April 2022> and this user has likely been active for months if not years before that, not sure how long they have been removing stuff though, possibly some time after the invasion of Ukraine.
The context for my situation with them is that they deleted a particularly random(to me) part of an article that was entirely lacking in sources, and didn't even tag the article as lacking in sources (<this article>), and another deletion of their in the future cause me to start that nice discussion in their talk page (the date link).
To their credit, unless I just caught them in a particularly odd day, they do add more tags and remove content that already had citation needed tags more nowadays than they did that far back. Disclaimer 2: Again, this might be outdated.
My concerns with them from a vague view of some of their edits here and there (because I concur with Ymblanter that going through all their edits would be way too much work), are the following:

• 1. They are recently going on deleting sprees, which can be very noticeable in Recent Changes depending on your filter, and in those sprees sometimes they do not appear to show enough concern for actually considering if the material is likely verifiable, which is a part of their favourite policy that they lean heavily on (WP:BURDEN), quote:

If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

— WP:BURDEN, in reference to WP:PRESERVE

I do not know if this is a pervasive problem scattered across their edits (although sometimes their speed at removing unsourced content puts that very much in doubt), or even if they have taken my words at face value and now try to follow preserve, which brings me to concern 2

• 2. They are very difficult to hold accountable as a ever shifting IP range. While their contributions would be just as voluminous and mostly require individual study to see if it's worth editing or not, communication is a big problem, as if they had an account concerns could pile up in their talk page and other people could easily see any potentially disruptive trend (if any) that the user might be engaging in, by using those as a reference. As it is, with talk pages spread across various IPs, with edit summaries that are very brief and often similar, verification of their edits is very difficult, their tendency to only respond with a stonewall of "You are violating WP:BURDEN" to any attempts at reverting them, no matter how valid, only make such a process more difficult.

Final thoughts:
That said, this is only a problem if they really are violating WP:PRESERVE or being disruptive in other ways, as as much as it would have been greatly appreciated if they had an account to group their edits and talks when they get questioned, that doesn't seem to be a requirement for editing Wikipedia.
And as much as they might be violating preserve, all I have is that single encounter with them that I mentioned in which, funnily enough, the only thing in the entire page that actually was mentioned in the one (external) link in the page, once I recovered it with webarchive, WAS the part that they deleted. I think mass rolling back their edits is very premature, although it appears that that hasn't been done except for one of their most recent IPs.
At any rate I hope some of this is of use. – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:81FA:88BC:6235:36BC (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this is certainly of use. In my experience, they have removed yesterday from a number of articles on which roads connect certain cities with other cities - which is easily verifiable by checking the map, but some effort would be needed to reliably sourced it as maps are not secondary reliable sources. This is disruptive. Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

First, I apologize for that /64 claim. It was late and I probably misread the result of the modified contribs URL. Second, yes, I did notice the pattern of deletions in a filtered RCP query, but RL prevented me from flagging them immediately. David Brooks (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC) ETA: Sorry, another observation that I have to say out loud. Given the millions of uncited claims in WP, and the current international climate, it is...interesting...that Russian-related articles would be specific targets. David Brooks (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess the justifications provided by this anon try to explode the ticking bomb at the heart of WP:V and {{Citation needed}} ("...most editors are willing to wait at least a month to see whether a citation can be provided."). I am sure I'm not the first to notice and I'd appreciate a pointer to any previous discussion. They have expressed both the maximalist position - remove all text from a paragraph that isn't terminated by a citation - and the only slightly less thorough - drop in a {{cn}} and then delete text before a cn that's over a month old (over 433,000 articles). And, before you think of writing a bot to do the first, consider that I am under halfway through providing inline citations for the EB1911-sourced articles that were part of Wikipedia's inflationary epoch in 2005, mostly have only general references, and hence would lose their entire text. Just kidding, of course; 7 out of 10 clicks on Random Article produced pages that would be entirely blanked by the first claim. None of which is related to their Russian focus. David Brooks (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks and uncivil comments from LRP19PT

LRP19PT (talk · contribs)

This editor recently came to my attention following this talk page comment for which I issued them a level 2 warning for personal attacks.

They were also challenged on the article talk page, however persisted with making further personal attacks. As such, I issued a level 3 warning.

The user responded to me on their talk page, and continued to make uncivil comments.

I responded with a personalised warning explaining why their behaviour was not appropriate, and the impact it could have on other editors. I considered that this personalised message was in the place of a level 4 warning, and I advised that I would report them if the behaviour continued. They blanked these messages, so I'm aware that the user received them.

Since that time, they've continued with personal attacks and uncivil comments on talk pages, doubling down on their earlier contention that their messages are not inappropriate; see 1, 2, 3, 4. It's for this reason that I'm raising this issue at ANI.

It's also worth mentioning that this user has been indefinitely blocked on fr.wiki and is currently blocked on pt.wiki per Special:CentralAuth/LRP19PT.

I've notified the user of this thread. Thanks for your assistance. — Manticore 11:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the reported user. How is calling somebody's viewpoint stupid and ignorant a personal attack? Uncivil wording, maybe (or maybe not), but certainly not a personal attack. – ².O.^Boxing 12:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Civility is policy here, Squared.Circle.Boxing. Also, "ignorant" is a quality inherent in a person, not in a "viewpoint". I have blocked for 60 hours. Bishonen | tålk 12:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC).

I feel the goal posts for what is a "personal attack" have been moved somewhat last 20 years. Thanks Internet. :> That said, I support Bishes viewpoint. Oz\^InterAct 12:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

They've also vandalized a talk page when in a disagreement, and deleted an ANEW discussion about them. Edit warring with mild BLPvio in the summaryhere, dummy edit to make more BLPvio statements[141]

Basically, their editing is significantly disruptive, and if you disagree with them, you're met with edit warring and personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool beans. They still weren't personal attacks though. – ².O.^Boxing 12:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't really buy the difference between "uncivil wording" and "personal attack", but the example below crosses the imaginary semantic bar. There's plenty more disruptive editing as well.

Calling other users "ignorants" while edit warring, specifically targeting contributor not content [142][143][144]

Admitting to being banned on another wiki for the same behavior [145]

Saying they won't read discussions [146] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If I said your viewpoint is stupid, that would be borderline uncivil (depending on how stupid said viewpoint was). If I said that you are stupid, that would be a personal attack. The OPs initial diffs weren't personal attacks (the three you provided above are, but I'd question the user's understanding of the word 'ignorant'). I would say that any opinion to the contrary, IMHO, is silly. But that would apparently be a personal attack, so I'll just face palm and shrug. . – ².O.^Boxing 15:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on if biting my thumb is the same as biting my thumb at you, sir. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to criticise that analogy in case it's construed as a personal attack. Oh, the times we live in. – ².O.^Boxing 17:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

IMO it's fine to call the silly thing uncivil rather than a personal attack. I'm far less convinced about the "ignorant" thing. If an editor says someone's viewpoint is racist or homophobic or whatever, from my experience this will often rightful be dealt with under the bounds of NPA rather than civility. Saying it only applies to someone's "viewpoint" doesn't make it less of a personal attack. One complexity is that similar to the way we deal with "vandal" or "vandalism", we will normally consider whether such statements are reasonable. If an editor says something which most editors agree is racist or homophobic and is called out for it, we aren't generally going to block the editor who called them out. OTOH, if an editor says something innocuous like 'I don't think there's strong evidence to support the notion if most ancient Egyptians were alive in the present day, they'd be considered "black"' and someone says it's a racist viewpoint, that's something which we are unlikely to just let pass. Unlike with incompetence which is specific term of art here which has and does cause offence but we're likely to keep, I'm not sure there's any use for calling someone generally "ignorant". If an editor doesn't seem to know something, it may be okay to say they seem ignorant of something specific. It's not quite as bad as low intelligence, still not something we should tolerate IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, when I say something specific I mean if someone outlines something an editor is ignorant of. For example saying someone is ignorant of BLP IMO is probably not the best thing to say, but IMO isn't necessarily a personal attack. Saying someone is ignorant of US politics likewise. Saying a viewpoint is ignorant, that's not specific. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I've recently become involved in discussions about 160 year old photos of members of different castes in India, and I wouldn't have considered it a PA for someone to point out that I was ignorant of the issues surrounding using the photos, because I was (and still am to a fair extent) ignorant to the considerations at play. That said, it's always better to explain a topic to try and educate editors who aren't familiar with a topic or the considerations around it, rather than just call them ignorant. That's neither here nor there for this type of behavior though. That's just a general insult because they aren't getting their way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree. There's a lot of shading to incivility and personal attacks. Also, in my opinion, the ratio of uncivil/PA style responses to not is a large consideration as well. If the only responses to disagreement are calling another editor's ideas stupid, or calling them ignorant, then there's a problem. If in the course of a substantive discussion someone were to say that a particular idea was stupid, or another editor was ignorant of part of the topic under discussion I don't think that would be a problem. YMMV of course, which is why civility issues are so difficult to handle. I don't even report obvious incivility, because generally, I just don't care enough. If someone brings up a disruptive pattern of it, however, it should probably be addressed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think this is an issue of WP:NPA, but an issue of WP:CIVIL. I think a very harsh warning or temporary block (week or less) should be given. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 11

Special:Contributions/219.77.200.0/22,please El_C block it,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 05:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Mass removals of content from articles without any attempt at constructive editing

An IP editor occupying the following range: 2603:7000:2143:8500:454C:4914:BC97:487F/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been on a crusade to purge all articles related to Belarus and Russia (mostly, but not exclusively) from of data that has citation needed tag, and has been doing so at an alarming rate for the past two months, with barely any attempt to actually add anything. User has received multiple warnings regarding this, spread across several of his IPs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc), and even engaged in a somewhat of a discussion (here), but their only response to everything is playing wp:burden card. This makes me wonder if they're actually wp:nothere to improve the wiki. --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

And yet WP:BURDEN is a thing and Citation needed tags are a courtesy. What I see are several editors re-adding unsourced content with belief that a cn tag is sufficient to allow unsourced material to remain. Along with editors mis-using templates to warn an editor whose edits are proper. Now, there choice of topic ares may be a concern, but that would be a discretionary sanctions issue. I don't see how it is WP:NOTHERE as editing includes ensuring the encyclopedia is verifiable.Slywriter (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Please just block immediately, for gaming the policy. They are not helping. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:4671 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is a valid policy. "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" is in no way vague. In this topic area, during this time of war, unverifiable content has a very high risk of being misinformation.

Their edits would be valid in a vacuum. Their edits would be valid in any topic area, from vintage trains to bulgarian atoms. However, they seem especially useful in a topic area where information warfare is being waged using our beloved encyclopedia as a battlefield. The user is not only abiding by policy, but is actively protecting and improving the encyclopedia by removing unreliable and unsourced information. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• This conversation continues, with one of these same above editors, but not with Slywriter or ☢️Plutonical☢️ or 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:4671, or User:Ponyo who is mentioned in a link in the below linked conversation, in the below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Content_deletion_on_Russian-themed_articles. 2603:7000:2143:8500:6030:709B:3761:F435 (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  @2603:7000:2143:8500:6030:709B:3761:F435: Would you like to defend yourself in the discussion linked, or do you just want to troll? 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 08:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  They have no need to defend themselves against anything. They could quite easily say "Yes, I'm guilty as charged, of upholding WP:V". Just like you could say "Yes, I'm guilty of making a personal attack (calling someone a troll with zero justification), just because I don't like their edits". 86.4.163.59 (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Please comment on the other (linked) conversation. Commenting here will just make the conversation have to be repeated. – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:21D9:DCEA:CAAC:2DF6 (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Stanford Shaw 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.

---

This historian is a serious scholar who wrote many important books. He didn't agree with the Armenian characterization of the Ottoman World War One revolutionary uprising and subsequent deportations as 'genocide'. His page is vandalized by mass sources of Armenians saying he is 'pro Turkish' and lacks 'factual accuracy'. He is a serious scholar who came to his views based on his interpretation of the facts, which we should admit. However, his entire life work is being judged by a group of pro Armenian users who have cited a group of pro Armenian reviewers of Shaw's work (led by Marc Baer) to fill his page with their opinions. This is not a neutral article. It gets even more insidious because Shaw was the victim of an attempted assassination by Armenian terrorists. Armenian students called him slurs (as per Daily Bruin article and Shaw's own interviews) due to his scholarly work and threatened to kill him if he didn't stop printing his book and giving his lectures. He continued and a bomb was planted in his home that went off prematurely. Shaw regarded this bombing to tied to the threats made on his life by Armenian students. This article has been edited to belittle this fact and makes light of the bombing. This indicates that whoever is controlling this page sympathizes with the Armenian terrorists who tried to kill Shaw. We do know who it was because there was/is an active Armenian terrorist movement in the area (ASALA, JCAG) and this gives some context, and Shaw cited death threats by Armenian activists.

I attempted to fix the page and corrected many errors. I was then reported to an admin and the page has been reverted. Please judge for yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_J._Shaw

I believe pro-Armenian activists are destroying his biography page with their opinions of his work. This is deeply troubling. The page should be a neutral facts-based summary of his work/life. Not a hate-blog of his career by people who sympathize with people who tried to kill him.

I am formally requesting that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yerevantsi be blocked from editing the page and his reverts of my corrections be reversed.

This edit should be restored :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanford_J._Shaw&oldid=1085760028

As for the reasons/sources given in the current edit, they are low quality news opinion sites: "armennews.com" or the opinions of Shaw's academic nemesis (Marc Baer) presented as if they were factual statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ungitow (talk • contribs) 09:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ungitow: You are supposed to inform the involved editor about this discussion as stated in the red box at the top of the page. I have done that for you this time, but please remember to do this in the future. Jolly1253 (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

As you have been told already everyone should follow the WP:BRD cycle. You made some bold edits to the article. People who disagreed with them reverted. You then started some discussions on the talk page. That is all good. What is not good is for you to reinstate your edits without waiting for people to respond on the talk page and come to a consensus about the content. Just do that, with the article for the moment being in its long-term state, rather than call for admins to block someone who has disagreed with you. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Frankly that user seemed content with my edits, I think it was someone else who reverted them. Ungitow (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

What happened is that a user reverted all of my edits on every edit I made after he disputed my changes to the Arapgir wikipedia article. The change the user didn't like consisted of me reading the actual demographic source citation and correcting the text on that basis, which nobody had done apparently. This user Semsuri then reverted my edits on the German racial policy page, claiming I didn't cite a source ( I did). Ungitow (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Article content is not an ANI issue. The only behavioural problem I can see here is that you, Ungitow, appear to be edit-warring with a bunch of people on that page, and that your contributions to the English Wikipedia seem to primarily focus on removing things related to the academic works of Marc David Baer and downplaying Turkey's involvement in genocides – not just on Stanford Shaw, but also elsewhere (e.g. [147]). --Blablubbs (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@BlablubbsSo this is what happens. I made some changes, they reverted without explanation, I reverted their revert with explanation. They left it, and then some admin/mod came in and reverted my edits claiming I didn't get consensus. My edits are obvious and quite basic. I don't really care about Marc Baer but people have gone around to every person or thing mentioned in his book and edited those pages to include Baer's views and to cite Baer in saying that the existing page is completely incorrect. This isn't chemistry. Baer has strong opinions but they're not facts, and most of these edits people made consists of: Baer thinks this is unlikely, therefore it is false. Not, Baer has proven this is false, or much less, this is actually false. Baer made an argument, a weak one, and a few users took the time to update every article on wikipedia with Baer's opinion of that topic. Ungitow (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

As for 'genocide'. I don't mind including that Armenians believe Shaw 'denies' their 'genocide'. Sure. He does. He regards the Armenian uprisings (Fedayeen, 300k strong in favor of the Russian army in ww1) to be the primary reason there were deportations. This is his view, and it's shared by a lot of people in Turkey and elsewhere too -- Sean McMeekin has made the same argument based on a reading of Russian military archives (they corroborate the Turkish claim that Armenians engaged in a revolutionary uprising in 1915). So that's all fine, but it's not ok to say Shaw is a bad scholar because he disagrees with what Armenians thinks. That's the tenor of that article. Shaw is 'factually incorrect' because he has different interpretations than the revanchist ultra nationalist Armenian lobby. Ungitow (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@BlablubbsThis is a topic of some interest to Turkish scholars and sources. So the article as currently written takes Turkish support for a view as evidence that the view is false. Should we start re-writing all articles about the US and say that anyone who uses American historians or agrees with them is 'factually incorrect' -- you must only cite Russian authors and historians on every American history page? This is the expectation of the pro Armenian editors here. Ungitow (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@BlablubbsAs for user behavior. There is a pattern here. Extremely low quality edits made by people, and then vigorous guarding of the edits. They are citing a circular cast of people who are known factors in the world of historical academia. They cite pro Armenian historians and the article becomes (this is not the only one like this) a blog post index of what every Armenian blogger(literally they are citing Armenian opinion articles on Armenian news organizations to source 'facts')thinks about it. Or what a select number of pro Armenian authors think. 'Think' being operative here, as in their opinion of this person. Not: substantive useful information about this person that contributes to the article, the growth of human knowledge, or a neutral writing tone. Ungitow (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blablubbs I want to add: Shaw's page and many similar pages are now solely: repositories of various Armenian and pro Armenian opinions about those figures. "This guy is wrong" -- Armenian author. Really? Can you imagine the wikipedia of Heidegger being filled solely by, "Heidegger was wrong on this and that" -- Analytic philosopher?

The point of the article shouldn't be to attack the man's views, but to explain them. Yet these topics on Armenian-related issues are entirely written to display Armenian opinions about the figure. Shaw studied the breadth of Ottoman history and yet the article is twisted on the basis of what some pro Armenian users think about it because he touched on the early 20th c Armenian revolution. This is also undue weight. Shaw's page should be about his views, and about the significant assassination attempt on his life. Yet currently it is interspaced with constant interpolations of "Shaw was wrong here, Shaw was wrong there" and belittles the assassination attempt. Ungitow (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Ungitow is currently up to four reverts at Arapgir. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. Read that actual source on the 'Turkish' town population and tell me what it says. Also, if ARAPGIR Armenian-descendants want to make a blog about their memory, it should not be the Wikipedia page for that currently-very-much-inhabited town. This is like turning the entire page for 'Topeka Kansas' into a post about the Filipino community there. It's undue weight and irrelevant. Yet, aggressive guarding of their bad edits. Ungitow (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  ANI is not for content issues, and I'm not involved or interested in the content. I really suggest you read WP:BRD and WP:3RR. The only way to make changes on Wikipedia is by working with others, including those who disagree with you. If you try and force your changes your time here will be short. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  So if I read the source cited and it says the opposite of what the current edit says, I should do what? I posted on the talk page, waited a bit (20 minutes), and then fixed it. Then I fixed the rest of the article. Why is my fix somehow considered noxious but the current disaster of the page is A-OK? Ungitow (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I do not care about the content issue. Other editors in good standing having reverted you, you now need to working with them if you want to implement your changes. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am. I posted extensive talks for all my edits and edit summaries. Nobody commented. I waited more than a month on my Shaw talk page suggestions. Some of these reverts posted nothing and never engaged with me. Then I was reported by them and the 'editors in good standing' just reverted me. I will wait for feedback and then fix the Shaw article again. I assume if anyone cares about that page, they will engage with my arguments here and there. If they don't, then should they have a monopoly on that page just because they are a laconic sphrinxes with trigger fingers for the admin-report? Ungitow (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Post-closing  Administrator note: OP indeffed for continued edit-warring and hostility towards other editors. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2022 (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.

Unconstructive edits on health and Nigeria-related pages

• Woka Henry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nosakhare Okuons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ikoabasi Umoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

These three users are all making very similar edits to health and Nigeria-related pages, adding citations or wiki links. Most of these edits are redundant citations ([148][149]), or overlinking ([150][151]). Woka Henry has already been warned by Escape Orbit, EngineeringEditor and Arjayay for adding citations to dictionary definitions of random words in the article. All the accounts also have similar user pages and edit summaries. I would like to AGF and assume that these accounts are part of some editing contest or event, such as Wikipedia:Meetup/WikiForHumanRights 2022 in Nigeria; however, there are no edit summary tags being used this time. I am requesting admin assistance in dealing with this since there is a high volume of edits, and they cover many pages. Yeeno (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a problem covering a number of editors, not just those listed above. They are all editing the same articles, medical and Nigerian, and are dropping references in at random with little thought to their relevance or need. A case of competence rather than anything else, they seem to be confused about what references are supposed to be. But it is covering a fair number of articles over the last month. Because these are inter-spaced with each other, and with other editors, rolling them back is time-consuming. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ljvdp will not get off my talk

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.

---

New editor Ljvdp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly posting on my talk, despite being asked not to.

Their initial post today was at 16:41. asking me a question. [152]

I declined to answer, because I had been around this before: see User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#One question. So at 16:46 I replied[153] asking Ljvdp to get off my talk.

Despite that clear request, Ljvdp has posted 8 more times on my talk: see their contribs. Each time, I have replied asking them to go away ... and each time they come back again. This is harassment.

I don't know the answer to their question. I have no interest in the question. And it is nothing to do with me.

Please can some admin make this harassment stop.

Also, I wonder why an editor is so concerned about an article appearing on Google. Is there maybe some promotional aspect to this? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Since I started writing this ANI complaint, Ljvdp has posted again on my talk: [154].

That latest post is pure bullying. I am sick of it -- please make it stop. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Any admin convinced of this user might be helpful may do normal adminny things. Izno (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Izno, for the prompt block. And to everyone else for their support.

That was nasty, and I am very glad it is over. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The block seems well deserved. And I agree the desperation for the article to appear on Google makes it sound a lot like there may be some promotional aspect so I've asked them about any possible conflict of interest. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Harassment in spite of WP:NOBAN

Ljvdp is repeatedly posting ([155],[156], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&diff=prev&oldid=1085644204],[157],[158],[159],[160],[161], on User:BrownHairedGirl's talk page despite some pretty vehement requests not to and a warning from myself pointing out he is expected to address her request. His comments include questions as to to metanal health: Oh my God. You are very violent ‌. I am a clinical psychologist. Please be calm baby. I do not intend to threaten you. If you have a problem, you can contact my clinic.. I don't think the project needs this guy; do you? SN54129 17:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Izno. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• This is a bizarre pattern of editing and does constitute WP:HARRASSMENT. However, to be fair, I think an indeff may have been an overstep. This editor is new and inexperienced, and after reviewing each of their edits, none of them were on the level of threatening or what I see as particularly hurtful. With that said, the last few comments were mildly creepy and problably are personal attacks (but I'm not sure if they were personal attacks with a bad intention). I think they may have just had a question, and were deeply confused on how to handle it. BrownHairedGirl did you make an effort at any point to direct this user to the Teahouse? I think a temporary ban would have been the best call. Probably between 1 day and 1 week. That would also be more consistent with WP:Harrassment#Blocking for harassment. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  For this user, there are more than three problems, threat and harassment, undisclosed COI and nothere, all could lead to a permanent block. For their threat, even could lead to a ban by community... PAVLOV (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @PAVLOV: where is a specific threat? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  What is really an example of disrespect to you? I am a psychologist. Your colleague seems to be under the illusion of conspiracy. I did not really disrespect him. He himself became nervous. I even gave the address of my clinic to talk to ‌Ljvdp (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Is this not a kind of harassment or personal attack? I really don't want to repeat them. PAVLOV (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes that is part of this users harassment and constitutes a personal attack. However, I don't think it's a threat. It's not super important because this users conduct was bad either way, and something needed to be done about it. I'm not saying an indeff block was beyond reason, I just thought it was a harsh considering that both WP:NPA and WP:Harrassment discuss blocks that get progressively worse, with few exceptions such as death threats, and it doesn't appear this user ever made a threat on anyones well being. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Mildly creepy? It doesn't take Wikipedia experience to not talk like that to someone. And it's not an account full of productive edits. CMD (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:

  1. No, I made no effort to direct them anywhere else, because the question they asked could not be answered. I did not want to waste anyone else's time with repeated demands to explain the status on another website of an unidentified Wikipedia page.
  2. Ljvdp's conduct was very bad in two ways:
     a) there were two rounds of this, two weeks apart, which felt like stalking;
     b) round two was sustained harassment in response to 9 clear demands to stop
     c) Classic gaslighting: two explicit attempt to depict me as mentally ill for objecting to sustained harassment. That is viciously nasty behaviour, and it is a clear threat to someone's wellbeing. In real life, that is arrestable and jailable conduct in my part of the world (see the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 §10). If this had happened off Wikipedia, I would have called the Gardaí well before round 9.

  As to the idea that we should wait for actual death threats before indeffing someone who engages in such nasty bullying: God help us.

  And the absolute pits is @Iamreallygoodatcheckers's comment I'm not sure if they were personal attacks with a bad intention. Nine requests to go away, and Ljvdp responds by trying to depict me as mad for resisting the harassment ... but @Iamreallygoodatcheckers can't see the clear bad intention. WTF? On what planet does anyone do that without bad intent? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ljvdp was clearly out of line for Wikipedia policies, but I'd still like to point out that their first response to you telling them to go away (<link>) included the page they were questioning about. And yes, this doesn't justify their behaviour, I just think you may not have seen it as they prefaced it with an annoying variation of the "calm down" argument. – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:21D9:DCEA:CAAC:2DF6 (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  I did see that. But it was not their first response. It was their fourth post on my talk, the first two being as an IP at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#One question.

  It came over two weeks after I had first pointed out that the pagename was needed. By that stage I reckoned that Ljvdp's repeated failure to provide that basic info was enough to conclude that even after the belated revelation, any further dialogue would equally pointless: either a) it was all a wind-up; or b) I was dealing with someone who had some difficulty with communication or comprehension, making any further dialogue exasperating.

  Just to be clear: if Ljvdp genuinely took three rounds to understand that an answer to the question "what happened to X?" requires identifying X, then there was some severe barrier of communication or comprehension. If they did understand that, it was a wind-up.

  When viewed alongside Ljvdp's later claim to be a clinical psychologist (a high-skill occupation based on communication), then it is very hard to assume good faith incompetence. Any psychologist (even a v bad one) would understand that repeated requests to one person to cease harassment are not in any way, as Ljvdp claimed, "the illusion of conspiracy".[162] The harassment was real, and I made no suggestion or implication of conspiracy. So either the claim to be a psychologist is false (a misrepresentation which would breach the WMF ToS "Engaging in False Statements"), or this was a psychologist abusing their skills to add professional weight to demonstrably baseless allegations.

  I am trouble that some editors do not seem to recognise how deeply vicious that behaviour is.

  Back to the immediate point of that diff[163]: after three successive failures to provide that basic info, I concluded that Ljvdp had already had enough of my time, and had been told to "get off my talk page".[164]

  Their choice to ignore that instruction and provide the answer only at that late stage just strengthened my view that giving more attention to this person would not be a productive use of my time.

  This was a horrible episode, and I now just want this issue closed. Please may I ask that editors kindly refrain from dragging me back into it repeatedly? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 2 May 2022 (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 by Asho123456

Asho123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is as WP:SPA whose only activity has been several months of POV-pushing on the article American Whig–Cliosophic Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Their edits report as fact claims by conservative commentators that "The Society has struggled to grapple with censorship and anti-conservative bias". Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, such claims should be attributed.

I first encountered this page back in Feb, when Asho123456 reverted[165] one of my drive-by bare URL-tagging edit[166].

I restored my edit[167], but then Asho123456 restored[168] a lot of PV commentary which had previously been removed.

I reverted that[169] on 23 Feb, but that just started a slow-mo edit war:

• [170]: 19 April, Asho123456 restores POV commentary
• [171],: 19 April, I revert
• [172], Asho123456 again restores POV commentary

I have tried discussing this at User talk:Asho123456#American_Whig–Cliosophic_Society, but the replies don't seem to get the problem. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I am pulling from publicly available information on American Whig–Cliosophic Society . I don't think the page should be hiding information. Asho123456 (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This user is pretty inexperienced, and I'm not certain this is being done in bad faith per say. At the worse this is a case of WP:Civil POV pushing. I think a firm warning should be given about NPOV as well as some guidance about sourcing and how to give attribution. If the behavior continues, then a topic ban could be needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have page blocked this editor from this specific article. They are free to make persuasive, well-referenced edit requests at Talk: American Whig–Cliosophic Society, but they must gain consensus there, and another editor will implement proposals that gain consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Cullen328. That sounds like a good solution.

I agree with @Iamreallygoodatcheckers that this is probably a matter of unfamiliarity with en.wp policies. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Sharontse121 and WP:NOTHERE

Sharontse121 (talk · contribs) is WP:NOTHERE, their talk page is a compendium of serious warnings stretching back to basically their first edits which pile up unaddressed until blanked. They repeatedly push hardcore PRC doctrine such as here earlier this month where they changed the lead of Taipei to "Taipei officially Taipei City, is a city in eastern China located on the Taiwan island. While internationally recognized as in the People's Republic of China, the city is under the de facto administration of the Republic of China, which claims it as its capital city."[173]. Just today they sneakily (no edit summary) edited out a key aspect of the history of the [[East Asian Youth Games] [[174]] [175], again Taiwan related. Going back to their early edits we find significant disruption to a number of China related pages like 2022 Winter Olympics [176], Uyghurs[177], Kazakhs [178], Xinjiang internment camps [179], List of mosques in China [180], Hotan prefecture [181], Tashi Lhunpo Monastery [182], 2022 Winter Olympics opening ceremony [183], etc. I really could go on forever, the majority of their edits appear to be disruptive. I propose an indefinite block for Sharontse121 as they are an extreme net negative to the project and are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the need for an indefinite block, as Sharontse21 has long been violating WP:NOTCENSORED and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. - Amigao (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Premature closure of Talk-page discussion

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:Dronebogus prematurely closed a discussion on a talk page and committed a bad-faith accusation of "POV bludgeoning" while a discussion on how to improve an article was going on between me and another user, thereby making it impossible to continue working on the article. The other user, in fact, even made a comment (shown here) in-between User:Dronebogus messing up the closure (shown here) at first and the subsequent fix of the closure. (shown here) - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:94D0:961:396:A743 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not an ANI issue. What are you expecting an admin to do here? Just remove the collapse and leave a talk page message next time. Dronebogus (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Dronebogus tried to close this discussion, even though they are involved and the subject of the complaint [184].—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I was acting in good faith as I highly doubt this is going to go anywhere as a non-admin-related issue, but I agree I should not have done that. Dronebogus (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• I’ve reverted my edits to the relevant page. I apologize for assuming bad faith with a new user. What exactly needs to be done here beyond that is unclear. Dronebogus (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Since Dronebogus has reverted the close in concern, I think this issue is now mute. A procedural close of this discussion is likely needed. Ultimately, the close probably wasn't even that unreasonable because it was re-hash of what is already established consensus on that page. With that said, Dronebogus you may want to be more careful of accusing a user of POV pushing or BLUDGEONING, especially in an article talk. It often only inflames a situation, and the best way to handle suspected user misconduct is to bring it to their talk or a noticeboard (see ArbCom's decision located at WP:Casting aspersions. The arbcom ruled: Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page.) I don't believe any sort of sanctions are need against Dronebogus. They seem to understand what they did was not good form and have apologized to the reporting user. Hopefully, this is a learning lesson more than anything else. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2022 (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:Son of Kenway

• Son of Kenway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of commercial nuclear reactors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user Son of Kenway exhibits highly disruptive and problematic editing practices. While editing the page "List of Commercial Nuclear Reactors" I have seen the following done by Son of Kenway: arbitrarily changing referenced numbers and data, failing to make an edit summary to make others aware of his intentions, blanking out content, removing working references and re-arranging words unnecessarily (changing word size over and over again on the same piece of text). This behavior has been exhibited across a broad range of articles. I have undone his disruptive revisions and provided a lengthy edit summary as to why I did so yet he never changes. In March of this year I took a step forward and created a new section on his talk page informing him of his disruptive actions and advising that he make edit summaries, yet he does none of this. Infact, his talk page is littered with dozens of messages just like this from others about the same type of behavior. With the continuation of his disruptive practices, I believe that he is intentionally trying to degrade the quality of articles or hide information.

I hope my request will result in some sort of action taken against this user, while I aim to improve wikipedia, this user clearly has different plans. North747 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

For examples of this see:

<- talk page full of warnings <- removing content on commercial nuclear reactors list

References

RFPP

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'm formally requesting more admin eyes on WP:Requests for page protection/Edit and WP:Requests for page protection/Decrease - we're getting a flood of WP:ARBIP drive-by partisans spamming requests for The Kashmir Files on those two pages, and the arguments boil down to Hindu nationalism. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

And on a related note, I'm also seeking a block for Propoganda Killer (talk · contribs) for these edits. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You have not notified the user of this ANI. Oz\^InterAct 10:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Please don't misguide people by spreading false information & then if someone questions than you misrepresent them by saying Hindu Nationalist. Jeske Couriano has been continuously accusing me unnecessarily & bullying me continuously. This sort of behaviours is totally unacceptable & Wikipedia should look into previous messages from him to understand it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Propoganda Killer (talk • contribs) 10:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If that is the case, provide diffs. Also, the diffs provided by the OP show you are dangerously close to legal threats, which is taken very seriously here. Oz\^InterAct 12:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

May I know what are those lethal threats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Propoganda Killer (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 May 2022 (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.

Apologies for not notifying Propoganda Killer; I wrote this late at night and was exhausted from dealing with this crap most of that day. Also, kudos to Favonian for their help on the RFPP end of things. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

User: CreecregofLife

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'm not entirely 100% certain if this is ANI territory, but user User:CreecregofLife's history of belligerent and pseudo-modding behavior has once again reared its head in the Talk:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness talk page. Thanks to the article itself being protected, neither he nor anyone else can really engage in any vandalism or destructive editing, but it doesn't change the fact that his presence in the talk page has elevated its already very-heated debate regarding sources to downright toxic levels. He seems to be under some delusion that he has authoritative say in what goes on, and even brazenly removes comments made by other editors that he personally disagrees with. One look at his edit history and talk page shows that...well, he has a pretty varied history of this sort of tomfoolery. I myself encountered this when he, without rhyme or reason, removed a vetted and approved source from Vincent D'Onofrio's filmography. I can't pin his behavior down on any one single thing - pseudo-modding/admin...ing(?) comes closest, but I think some sort of proper administrative presence and intervention might be necessary. --TheOrbFromDown (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not authoritative to invoke policy when necessary. The only comment I removed from that talk page was a passage that included a direct personal attack. One that I was encouraged to remove. Your "Vetted source" on D'Onofrio's page was about a leak. Not officially confirmed information. Did someone actually approve that specific article as a source, or did you think it was auto-approved just because it was CBR, who's low on the ladder? How did my presence on the MoM talk page elevate it to toxic levels? There were several people in that thread and they had no issue, but here you are, observing from the outside and calling me toxic. Why are you the only person who has an issue with this? And if you really had a genuine issue with it, why didn't you come to me first to discuss your issue? CreecregofLife (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let's work down the list. A) It's not quite policy when it's still under discussion or contemplation of being altered - that right there is a tentative and fluid position, and the very reason why discussion and deliberation exist. And even then, policies are open to discussion and alteration based on consensus - they're not written in stone, they are not the good word from the good book. B) Fair point, that did include a personal strike against you, but all the same it was making a statement counter to your position. If it was a personal attack and nothing else, sure. But it's just in bad faith to blank the whole thing. You deescalate and logically and calmly present your case - maybe they'll take, maybe they won't. All the same, you'll have the higher ground because you chose to take it. You didn't, and you have a history of taking action without explaining yourself. C) That "vetted" source doesn't strictly meet the definition of a "leak" as you are familiar with - it was a production employee (confirmed and vetted) who overstepped her contract and shared information she was ignorant the surrounding the restrictions of on her personal resume (which too is confirmed and vetted). And yes, it was approved when it made the rounds across the site to the rest of the pertinent articles. "Leaks" come from unconfirmed, unproven, unreliable sources. This was a mistake from a confirmed, proven, reliable source. D) Again, your authoritative behavior is what's toxic. You're literally going at this with a "my way or the high way" attitude, and to your "genuine issue" question....no, I am not the first. In fact, let's do a count: This is your third ANI, on top of three previous warnings, and that's just on your talk page. I'm willing to bet people have had things to say elsewhere. Which is precisely the reason why I decided to take this here right off the bat - you don't exactly share the collaborative spirit, and you automatically go on the offense when someone presents you with something that is not to your liking. TheOrbFromDown (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

CreecregofLife had the right to remove that Comment since it counted as a personal attack (WP:NPA) and you should first went to CreecregofLife to discuss the issue with him, instead of coming here first. This is a waste of time. Chip3004 (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the specific issue raised here, but I was recently pinged by another user via Cree's talk page on another ongoing issue regarding Liz Sheridan (see ping here), and unfortunately, the article history shows more involvement in edit warring from the user. As BD2412 pointed out, this is following two previous ANI threads, from this past February and March, the latter coming quite close to a proposed 1-month block.

The only thing I will point out regarding the specific issue raised here (regarding Talk:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness) appears to be regarding this IP's comments/edits, and it seems like based off of this edit, this IP is TheOrbFromDown.

However, going back to the Liz Sheridan issue mentioned above, it seems at this point a single month can't pass without this user's involvement in an/multiple issues. It definitely seems like the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality raised by other users in the previous ANI discussion is still ongoing. Each new issue seems to indicate that a block of some kind is going to be necessary, as multiple editors continue to have issues with this user, supported by both the previous two ANI discussions and now this one. Magitroopa (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

About that! That IS my IP, but...strictly speaking it's not...me. It's complicated haha. Let's just say I'm stepping in for someone in my household's behalf. But all the same, it IS my IP, so I will apologize and accept responsibility and any punitive action if it's deemed necessary. TheOrbFromDown (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The Liz Sheridan issue? You mean the one regarding BD making edits on an assumed consensus they did not have? In the midst of a weeks-long discussion. They jumped the gun, I point that out, and I'm the edit warrer? Why is someone who is blatantly circumventing the rules getting off scot-free? I keep changing my behavior to be better, but it is never enough for you. You keep claiming IDONTHEARTHAT, but at this point, the only one not hearing anything are the people who claim previously raised behavior concerns haven't changed. You have no proof that IDIDNTHEARTHAT and BATTLEGROUND still apply. If you keep applying the previous ANI reports to paint my entire picture, I'm never going to change in your eyes. I've done so much to be better. What more can I do? CreecregofLife (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The previous ANI discussions kept getting brought up because you don't seem to have learned from them, as the same issues keep occurring over and over again. And here we going again with the combativeness- completely denying any wrongdoing whatsoever on your part. This is exactly what is meant by the IDIDNTHEARTHAT/BATTLEGROUND mentality, as that is still continuing on here, and likely in many other discussions elsewhere on Wikipedia. Magitroopa (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" is practically the catchphrase around here, so I will be the first to admit...I did not do that. Perhaps I should have come to him first, but perhaps that would've been an even bigger waste of time given his history. The personal attack that...that my IP launched against him was indeed inappropriate, and I'll apologize for that, but all the same, the reason why I went here first was because he doesn't exactly have a history of a shared collaborative spirit. One look at his talk page is enough to tell you that going to him directly would not have resulted in anything constructive happening. TheOrbFromDown (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

STOP IT. JUST STOP. MY HISTORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND. Invoking my history at every turn is you not considering my growth or allowing it to happen. "One look... is enough" NO IT IS NOT YOU DO NOT KNOW ME. CreecregofLife (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Your history has everything to do with this because said history is repeating itself, and it's now, evidently, being compounded with emotional volatility. TheOrbFromDown (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I have been pinged here. I do not intend to get drawn into the muck. I only have a few observations. This editor, in their zeal to revert the addition of content that they disagree with, has been careless to the point of reverting the addition of sources supporting content that was already in the article (while leaving the unsourced content behind). I don't think they did this on purpose, but out of aggression and carelessness. User:Bilorv and User:Debresser specifically requested to be notified if this editor was again the subject of an ANI discussion, likely due to the same kinds of concerns.

I also note that User:IJBall stated in the last ANI discussion, "this editor seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem, which does not seem to be improving". Well, here we are again. There has to come a point at which the number of editors disagreeing with your approach indicates that your approach is not working on this project. I fully expect that the response will be attacks directed at me, rather than any self-examination. BD2412 T 05:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur with BD2412. Although I certainly believe this editor has good intentions, I may have given them some bad indications when I removed some vandalism on Talk:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Perhaps they looked at that as confirmation to remove a statement falling under WP:NOPA? Either way, they appear to be somewhat ignorant of editing policy, and the emotional outbursts are an indication of that. If this editor wants to remain party of the encyclopaedia, I suggest they just drop the stick and never get involved in any more disputes. I suggest this be their truly final warning. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You have exactly zero proof that nothing has changed. I am allowed to be frustrated that a frivolous ANI report has exploded into another opportunity to drudge up behaviors I've been trying to move on from. I have already done the self-examination, but none of that self-examination matters if you're going to treat me as if I never did it. All this has become is a place to kick me down and then kick me while I'm down. I am fed up with being told I'm the problem and having to do all the work while everyone else works off of preconceptions without ever doing the right thing. At this point this is all a violation of WP:NOPA CreecregofLife (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Dude, that's exactly the kind of attitude that the people around here, myself included, are calling attention to. No one here is making a concentrated effort in being an ass towards you out of spite or ill will. In fact, quite the opposite - they want *to help you.* If they can successfully help you become a better editor, then you can successfully make the things you contribute to better. It's a circle of positive vibes! But all the same, there IS a structure to it that requires a degree of, day I say, professionalism. Decorum. Tact. And you constantly going on the offense helps no one, especially not you. If people "attacked" me the way that you perceive they did you, speaking purely personally, that wouldn't be some giant realization that it's me VS the world, it would be a sobering moment of reflection. "What am I doing wrong?" "It's gotta be me, right?" "What can I do to fix this?" But instead, you double down on it. Look at the talk pages of some of the people here. The ones "attacking" you. Look at their edit histories. Do they really, seriously seem like people who take pleasure in bullying others? Of course not! Some of them might seem high strung at times. Some of them might come off as overly serious. But none of them are bad people by any measure. I actually looked! I gandered! It's a weird thing I do, wanting to know who I'm dealing with. And you want to know how I know? Because everyone here has been constantly giving you additional chances to improve your conduct, while you never give anyone else the same courtesy. To you, they're just enemies out to get you, and that's plain wrong. TheOrbFromDown (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

See, the thing is, I had the sobering moment. Last time. I changed. You haven’t proven otherwise. That’s how I know you didn’t take a substantial look at my edit history. You can’t keep saying “You have to change” but then keep bringing up my history. “Seem not to learn” is not the same as not learning. I’m not the one forming battlegrounds bu claiming that I should be punished. If you weren’t out to get me you’d listen to my pleas instead of ignoring them. You literally gave everyone else the benefit of the doubt you refused to extend to me, created an account just to throw personal attacks at me because I reverted your edit a couple weeks ago, and then put me on the noticeboard for following the rules and removing the comment where you made the personal attacks. This was not a good faith post you made, this was flat out revenge, and you are trying to scold me for believing I’m the problem. You literally came here to spite me, and BD stated as much on my talk page and was willing to tag everyone else with grudges to do so, and he did. If there was a behavior I needed to genuinely change from this time to last, nobody has stated it. Professionalism? Decorum? I have shown it but you’ve torn it all the way down and you do not get to claim that I never had it CreecregofLife (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You just removed the ANI notice on your talk page, as if somehow that's gonna make everything go away, and once again you're attacking BD2412 on your talk page because he's trying to help you. Sorry, but this is definitely gonna need administrative intervention.12:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC) TheOrbFromDown (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

An ANI notification can be removed from the talk page, there's nothing wrong with that. As for once again you're attacking BD2412 on your talk page, that is misleading; when BD2412 added a new comment, he also restored comments that Creec had previously removed; it's not an attack for Creec to protest BD reverting Creec's removal of those comments. Schazjmd (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I agree that the subject has the right to remove comments from his talk page. It raises an eyebrow, however, when that subject removes some comments in a discussion while leaving others, so as to change the tenor of the discussion in their favor. If you write on someone's talk page that specific behaviours are problematic, and two other editors note their agreement with you on this point, the subject removing only those additional comments makes you look as if you are alone in thinking there is a problem, when it is actually of concern to several. BD2412 T 17:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comments are considered an acknowledgment of the comments left. I didn't need you collaborating to report me to ANI on my talk page, showing that your attempts to "help me" were deceptive and disingenuous. The entire reason you're here is because you're upset that I rightfully reverted your edits. You were "helping" me by trying to get me out of the way. You don't get to decide my motives for me CreecregofLife (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If I had intended to report you to ANI, I would have done so. I tried to help you by not doing so. I commented in this discussion because I was pinged by Magitroopa (who, it should be noted, is not the editor who filed the report). I would take it that you acknowledge that Bilorv and Debresser had similar concerns about your conduct, and asked to be notified if an ANI proceeding was indeed brought against you. BD2412 T 17:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

They weren’t concerned about my conduct, Debresser said he was offended and called me a mistake. If you were actually trying to help me, why did you repeatedly talk around me? Why were you so smarmy when you were talking directly to me? You literally followed me to the Obi-Wan Kenobi series talkpage claiming to seek consistency when the two situations were not the same. You showed no actual signs of helping. Telling me you’re refraining from harming me is not helping when you harm me anyway. It’s your conduct that’s the issue, but somehow because I was following the rules, it’s my fault. I was told I wasn’t using the talkpage enough, but you ensured that talk page discussions don’t matter, because you jumped at the first sign of victory where there was none, making it all moot. CreecregofLife (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife: it is strange that you think you can tell others what my opinion is when I have not told you. I was indeed concerned about your conduct for all the reasons previously expressed. If you wish to continue editing on Wikipedia, I would suggest you drop the attitude and speak to people on Wikipedia the way you would speak to them in real life, face to face. — Bilorv (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. I assumed everything needs to be kept on record. TheOrbFromDown (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheOrbFromDown: you say that you were led to do this by somebody in your household who edits without an account, if I understand correctly. (I am not convinced I understand the full story.) This is a type of meatpuppetry, in my view, and has the opposite of your intended effect because it will not lead members of the community to take this report seriously, and in doing so makes it harder for someone to file a genuine report. — Bilorv (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I read through the discussion at Talk:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and I don't see anything wrong with the vast majority of CreecregofLife's participation in it (except Oh my god you can't be this naive edges toward personal aspersions). An IP in the discussion began protesting that Creec "isn't a mod" when Creec would make a definitive statement, when Creec said nothing to indicate that they had any authority other than that of an editor. If there are issues on other articles, those should be dealt with, but using this report by TheOrbFromDown to support a claim of ongoing behavioral issues is inappropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The IP in question is them. See this edit summary “Oh hell. Removing someone else's talk try is brazenly, blatantly against the TOS. Consider your ass reported.” As you can see, they followed through, logging in to do so CreecregofLife (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty disingenuous to completely disregard the contents of the complaint simply because you aren't satisfied with the circumstances surrounding it. Even after you stated this, there was yet another editor who lobbied a grievance with Creec down below, and by putting down a blanket statement like "using THIS report to take any action is inappropriate", you're effectively stating that anything they (or anyone else) has to say doesn't matter because they chose to say it in the same space as I did. That is ridiculous, and downright offensive. TheOrbFromDown (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I recently ran into this editor at Talk:Obi-Wan_Kenobi_(TV_series)#Dubious_milestone_in_feminism_on_the_Star_Wars_front. In that discussion, this editor has made a bad faith assumption and has distorted my point of view to make me look bad. I requested nicely to retract his comment on their talkpage at User_talk:CreecregofLife#Request but was met only with a further bad faith assumption. In short, I agree with the WP:BATTLEFIELD accusation. In addition, the removal of certain warnings and posts from their talkpage also indicates IMHO that the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT concern may be justified. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As I told you on my talkpage, one can assume good faith and be proven wrong by subsequent comments in the discussion. I did not make any bad faith assumptions, and I did not break protocol. I have every right to remove comments from my talk page, it does not make me stubborn or indicate that I’m not listening. It is becoming increasingly clear that I’m being held to different behavioral standards than everyone else, that I’m not extended the same luxuries CreecregofLife (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC

That is precisely your problem! You do not understand the standard of behavior that is expected from any editor here. You are simply not fit for community editing. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

As someone somewhat involed in the reason for this report, I wanted to weigh in with my thoughts. I have been an editor here for the past 15 years. Within that time, I have seen cases where I was subject to an ANI discussion due to either a misunderstanding of my conduct or for petty reasons. I have also been subjected to harrassment by editors both on and outside of Wikipedia. I have adopted as a key focus of my work here the idea that "we can disagree without becoming disagreeable." With that in mind, as a witness to what went down here and how it was handled, in my biew, it is unfair to invoke times in the past when there has been misconduct in an active discussion about a current issue.

I have recently observed that if someone was of a mind to, they could likely find and bring to light past indiscretions or missteps on my end that would make me look back. I can't and won't address the past issues being cited against this individual. I was not involved in those matters, and as an impartial observer here, it seems to me unfair to judge someone involved in a present issue by their past conduct. The issue at hand here is the removal of the comment on the page in question, and that should be the only germaine and relevant consideration for this discussion. I have only recently been contributing to articles to which the user in question has been a longer-term contributor.

From my interactions with the editor in question, in such cases, the editor has been known for citing policy to defend changes he makes, and for the most part remaining civil, with a conduct aligning well with established policies. In the particular matter in question here, the editor was personally attacked by an anonymous editor. The editor removed the attack, which was then restored by the anonymous editor who published it originally, along with a coarse threat: "Consider your ass reported." I removed the attack, which should neer have been restored.

Yes, Wikipedia takes conduct violations (perceived or actual) seriously, as it should. But throwing past mistakes in anyone's face actually reflects more poorly on those doing that than it does on the person who made those mistakes. If Wikipedia administrators are truly impartial, it should be obvious to any sane person that, in the incident in question, the editor in question was pushed, pushed back, and was reported for doing so. It might have perhaps been wiser for the editor to step away from the matter or to ask someone else to handle it in this case, but in tense moments, sometimes it's best to try and act on the situation and let the chips fall where they may. If the editor does have an "extended history" of long-term conduct violating policy, that does need to be addressed.

But it is not fair, just, or even consistent with assuming good faith to bring up past incidents, especially those long-since settled and no longer relevant, to bear on the present situation. In recent interactions with this editor, as someone who is just starting to contribute to the articles on the editor's watchlist, the conduct of this editor has always been consistent with policy and well above approach. And it's been my experience that dredging up negative stuff from any individual's past reflects most badly on those doing the dredging. In this issue in question, the editor was not at fault. This report should never have been lodged, in my view. Unfortunately, the product of being an "online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" allows far too many to cause problems for articles or editors while hiding under the cloak of anonymity. The fact that the editor registering the complaint didn't want the complaint connected to a traceable, trackable user name is telling, to say the least.

Rather than "piling on" past indiscretions and using that to measure the conduct in the matter in question, it should be observed that the editor making the report was not only anonymous, but clearly violating established policy. The piling on of past missteps, which the editor in question has learned from, should not have occurred. hope these observations, such as they are, are helpful and germaine to this discussion. Thanks to all who took time to wade through this comment. Brevity was never my strong suit. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm only adding on to say that the reason the previous ANIs are being brought up is that the same issues/concerns raised by users in those previous discussions are still continuing on, mostly regarding IDIDNTHEARTHAT/BATTLEGROUND. If the same issues/concerns weren't still going on, and/or if this were an entirely different/unrelated thing, then it likely wouldn't be getting brought up. However, that does not appear to be the case, and the responses in this discussion once again showcase what has been mentioned numerous times- completely denying any wrongdoing whatsoever/blaming all others for for any issue they are involved with. Numerous editors have voiced the same concerns regarding combativeness- there comes a time when maybe you need to take a step back and reevaluate your own behavior/actions, and this is certainly one of them.

The other thing worth pointing out regarding bringing up previous ANIs: It would be one thing if it were bringing up past ANIs from however many years ago. The two previous ones being brought up are from just this past February and March, with the same concerns being raised once more. At this point, it's clear some sort of administrative action is needed here, as the same behavior/concerns is continuing with little improvement. If not, can't wait to be writing similar comments on the next ANI discussion about this, because it seems bound to happen... Magitroopa (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Your partiality is showing. You have no evidence that the issues are reoccuring. You came in here to feed your confirmation bias. I can't control other people's concerns. You are still blaming me for this, saying I can't deny any wrongdoing when no wrongdoing occurred. You are blatantly handcuffing how I'm supposed to defend myself on this platform. I've changed. Clearly you haven't. You're calling for administrative action on the literal victim of a petty report. In the past, you've called me out meritlessly for using such language, a previous attempt to muzzle how I defend myself. Just because you perceive me one way doesn't mean I am that way. You kept saying I should self-examine, and you got angry at the mere suggestion at doing the same. Your behavior has been truly unacceptable, and to me, you're upset you were called out on it CreecregofLife (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. You're refusing to even acknowledge the fact that there are people with genuine grievances here regarding your conduct, and are going all out the IDIDNTHEARTHAT denial train. I would ask someone to direct me on how to escalate this up the chain, but I'm pretty sure someone as green as myself has taken this as far as I could. I've made my point, as have....let's see, 1, 2, 3, 4, four others have. But as the only mod/admin here who showed up can't even make the effort to care - doesn't even want to read the rest of the posts - I guess that means you're free and clear. TheOrbFromDown (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Petty grievances aren’t genuine gripes. You filed a frivolous report out of revenge, logged out again to revert your poorly sourced information, and you still think you’re in the right. What have I actually denied? If anything it’s you and Magitroopa who are actually practicing IDIDNTHEARTHAT, as I have explained in detail. You kept making claims, none of them had merit. CreecregofLife (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheOrbFromDown: re: "the only mod/admin here who showed up can't even make the effort to care" — to whom are you referring, exactly? BD2412 T 22:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412 Forget about it. Not worth the trouble. CreecregofLife has dug his own grave, as these things usually play out, and I say good riddance. Now all we need is to wait for somebody to close this thread. Debresser (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2022 (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 film plot bloat from Western Pennsylvania

• 2601:543:4404:94A0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:547:1:84B0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050#Excessive plot descriptions from Pennsylvania IP6s
• 2021: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077#Excessive plot descriptions from Western Pennsylvania IPs

Can we get another rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2601:543:4404:94A0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2601:547:1:84B0:0:0:0:0/64, something that takes into account the multiple years of this person's disruption? They like to add film plot descriptions, but they keep bloating select film articles beyond all reason, in violation of the 700-word limit set by WP:FILMPLOT. They have been warned many times but they don't respond. They were discussed here two previous times, and blocked once for a month (far too short).

They keep coming back to a handful of films with excessive plot text:

• White Water Summer[185][186]
• D2: The Mighty Ducks[187][188][189]
• One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film)[190][191]
• "Master Harold"...and the Boys[192][193][194]
• Good Burger[195][196][197]

Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

6 months each. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Stricter block for Indian IPv6 ranges due to sockpuppetry

Several IPv6 ranges in India have been involved with talk page vandalism and/or test edits for a while (and also performing edits that violate WP:FORUM and/or WP:PROMO). This can't occur in AIV alone as it involves multiple ranges. If someone could block the Talk namespace (not the Article namespace) for the range(s) for several months (or maybe indefinite?), that would be greatly appreciated. The IP ranges had vandalized Talk:Instagram so much after the previous lock expired that I had to request protection for the talk page again. Please see and review these diffs (all of them occurring in a talk page) from each IPv6 range I listed. I am pinging every admin who have been involved with (partially) blocking these ranges before. All listed ranges in this section have the same ASN and ISP (Jio). Even though the ranges made a few constructive edits to the talk pages, most do not.

@Jake Wartenberg and Ohnoitsjamie: 2409:4042:0:0:0:0:0:0/36 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 diffs in the past two weeks, or more precisely, since April 18 00:00 UTC.

@Deor, LuK3, and Yamaguchi先生: 2409:4053:2D00:0:0:0:0:0/40 - 1, 2, 3, 4 diffs in the past two weeks. The last one is a template talk.

@Ohnoitsjamie and Primefac: 2409:4055:0:0:0:0:0:0/33 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 diffs in the past two weeks.

@Doug Weller and Girth Summit: 2409:4060:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 - Even though this range does not vandalize talk pages, it is still partially blocked due to evasion. Can be used as part of SPI.

@Bishonen, DMacks, and NinjaRobotPirate: 2409:4071:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (affected by partial CheckUser block; another reason why I filed at ANI because again, it could be used as part of SPI) - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 in the past two weeks. Diffs 11, 12, and 14 show that the changes were not made in English. 2 and 26 show file talk pages. Even more peculiar is that an IP from this range vandalized a category and its talk page (1, 2, and 3) almost a month ago.

@Daniel Case and Doug Weller: 2409:4072:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 in the past week, that is, since April 25 00:00 UTC. Diff 21 is a personal attack. There is also a subset of this range which is partially blocked, 2409:4072:6000:0:0:0:0:0/36, where it has made edits to two pages relating to sockpuppet investigations, here (sock owner Harish_MDU, SPI archives here) and here (sock owner Blogs19, SPI archives here). Pinging other blocking admins Drmies, Oshwah, and TheresNoTime.

I have added the talk namespace to the partial block. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I can't send mass messages to IP ranges regarding this ANI thread. — B. L. I. R. 18:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Those are all very large ranges, and I doubt very many of the edits are coming from the same user(s); it looks largely to be a broad assortment of WP:CIR edits from many different anonymous users. I'm not going to lose any sleep if we block some or all of them (my own mobile provider is almost always fully blocked), but I'd rather fully block any of those without some additional community consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely seems to be related to WP:CIR. All the diffs I listed from these ranges concern the Talk namespace (or file talk or even category talk), not the Article namespace. It would be best to have a partial block of the Talk namespace lasting months or infinite as almost every edit in Talk from these ranges is unconstructive (not a complete block since some of their edits in the Article namespace are useful). — B. L. I. R. 01:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If you look at any wide IP range, you'll see a large number of disruptive edits. This goes doubly so for Asian mobile network operators. Check List of mobile network operators, and you'll see that some Asian mobile network operators have more subscribers than the population of the United States or the European Union. These ISPs are huge. Comparing the amount of disruption that comes from one of these ISPs to Western ISPs is like comparing the crime statistics of New York City to Moose Jaw. It's going to seem like a torrent of disruption because so many people are using those ISPs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I get it. However, there are two major concerns with that. First, the majority of Indians access the internet and edit Wikipedia through their phones, unlike those in the United States. They see the mobile version of Wikipedia, not the desktop version, and don't really think about viewing Wikipedia through the desktop version. Second, many of the diffs shown above have the same pattern and are regarded as edit tests. Jio's allocation of IPv6 addresses is ultra-dynamic, and someone can change their IPv6 address just by restarting their phone. A potential solution would be to post warnings to an IPv6 talk page, but the person who performed that edit wouldn't be able to see that because they got assigned a different IPv6 address. Someone isn't able to send messages to all IPs in the ranges because it's not possible. If it was possible, the editor would greatly surpass Ser Amantio di Nicolao with regards to number of edits. Both concerns lead to Ohnoitsjamie's point about WP:CIR. Included in this policy is this:

“ the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up. ” — What is meant by "Competence is required"?

and this:

“ When all else fails: Sanctions such as blocks and bans are always considered a last resort where all other avenues of correcting problems have been tried and have failed. Before bringing an issue to the incidents noticeboard or another similar venue, you should have exhausted all reasonable attempts to communicate with the user and correct their behavior. Use their talk page, explain things to them, and demonstrate how to do things correctly. On rare occasions, however, after a pattern of behavior has been well established and a user shows they are unlikely to do things correctly, a block, topic ban, or full ban may be the only solutions that minimize disruption to the encyclopedia. ” — Responding to suspected lack of competence

In this case, there is no possible avenue other than (partial) blocks and/or sanctions for months (or possibly indefinite) for the Talk namespace (I'm not encouraging at all to block the Article namespace since some edits there are useful) because:

1. We are dealing with IPv6 ranges, not just a single IPv4 or IPv6(/64).
2. If someone posts a template warning to the IPv6 talk page, the user on the other end may not read it as they could possibly have a different IPv6 address as the allocations of IPv6 addresses from Jio is ultra-dynamic.
3. By applying the policy to these IP ranges, they are not competent with the Talk namespace per the above diffs.
4. Ohnoitsjamie's "mobile provider is almost always fully blocked".

Because partial blocks exist on Wikipedia, an admin can add targets to IP ranges without worry of collateral damage. But I'm not sure about that, and there is no Wikipedia policy on how we should react on a major situation like these Indian IPv6 ranges, as there is no agreed consensus by admins about this. It's strange since this is not a new issue, as there is a previous thread in AN a little more than a month ago about Indian IPv6 addresses.

— B. L. I. R. 05:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Bigmaninthebox

• Bigmaninthebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Coaching film director (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Football coaching film director (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Note that these two drafts were initially created in article space before being moved to a draft.)

I initially came across this via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigmaninthebox, where I initially assumed that it was a case of unauthorized account access by the alleged sockpuppet. However, I found that to not be the case (both users were  Unrelated). However, I find it highly concerning that Bigmaninthebox, who has both 'autopatrolled' and 'reviewer', is creating articles like this, which clearly needs significant work. (Also, end-running a declined draft around the review process as mentioned in the SPI is concerning to say the least.) Accordingly, I believe that these permissions should be removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment While the accounts are technically unrelated, some sort of WP:MEAT is going on because both of the Bigmaninthebox articles were created in the mainspace after the other account created Draft:Video Directors and after that draft was rejected. Also, after I left this message asking for clarification, an IP took up editing the drafts and also made edits that were personal attacks against me (here and here. I believe a block is appropriate. GPL93 (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

In view of User:Bigmaninthebox's inactivity for over six years up to Monday, I have formed the view that they are not an appropriate holder of autopatrolled or reviewer permissions, and have decided to withdraw them. If they are wanting to receive these permissions in the future, they may apply for them via the usual process. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

On my DYK contributions

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.

---

Summary of DYK process on Wikipedia

Background: A user (hereafter nominator) nominates an interesting fact from an article. The interesting fact is known as Did You Know (DYK), and is nominated on a template subpage. Another uninvolved user (reviewer) reviews the fact, checks the quality of the article, Points the problems(if any) on the subpage. Nominator gets chance to fix the problem. Once satisfied with improvements the reviewer approves the DYK. Fact is displayed on DYK section that is transcluded on the mainpage. At the end of this, the nominator is said to have earned one successful DYK Credit, and it is noted on the user talk page of the nominator. Quote from Wikipedia:Did you know (or WP:DYKRULES) 29 December 2021 Review requirement (QPQ) – For every nomination by a user, he must review one other DYK nomination (unrelated to nominators submission) ‍—‌this is called quid pro quo or QPQ for DYK nomination. Exception: If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nominator is exempt from QPQ.

Below are the dates when I had accumulated the so called "DYK credits".

Table for Successful DYKs [198]

Date	Successful DYK (DYK Credit) Diff
14 January 2022	1
22 January 2022	2
16 February 2022	3
2 April 2022	4
14 April 2022	5

The WP:DYKRULE originally said, "users without 5 Successful DYKs were exempt from making DYK reviews" and I have understood it as new users "lacking sufficient expertise of the compliated DYK process to conduct proper reviews". Anyone who looks at the dates on these diffs above, would agree that until 14 April, I was not eligible for making DYK reviews for nominations by others. Yet in the past two-three weeks I have faced continuous harassment and threats for blocks, topic bans etc for allegedly gaming the system. Those users seem to believe that I am against doing reviews, even though I am already doing reviews, as I am expected to do.

Please review the timeline of events below and let me know if the uninvolved users believe I have erred and liable for sanctions as some are baying for. My expectation in bringing this complicated matter to ANI is to seek an end to this ongoing harassment and denigration by some users.

My entire DYK contributions timeline

My entire DYK contributions timeline Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? [199] 16 Dec 1st DYK nomination submitted for review, later closed as unseccessful as improvements were not done in one month time 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [200] 17 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 10 Jan) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [201] 22 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 10 April) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [202] 27 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 18 Jan) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [203] 27 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 11 Feb) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [204] 11 Jan DYK nomination submitted for review, later closed as unsuccessful by Narutolovehinata5 as timely improvements were not made 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 1 14 Jan First DYK credit successful 1 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [205] 15 Jan DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 1 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 2 22 Jan 2nd DYK credit successful 2 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [206] 10 Feb DYK nomination submitted for review. later closed as unsuccessful on 10 Feb 2 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? 3 16 Feb 3rd DYK credit successful 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [207] 23 Feb DYK nomination submitted for review 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [208] 22 Mar DYK closed Narutolovehinata5 did an involved closure of the discussed he participated in, as unsuccessful. I requested for a review, but was ignored by Narutolovehinata5. Other users pointed involved closure, I asked to re-open, my request ignored By Narutolovehinata5 who did not undo the close. I gave up pursuing this. 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [209] 23 Mar DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 4 2 Apr 4th DYK credit successful 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [210] 4 Apr DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [211] 6 Apr DYK Rules changed the WP:DYKRULES werr changed by Theleekycauldron from checking for DYK Credits, to check for "nominations" (successful or unsuccessful or whatever) [212] 7 Apr DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [213] 7 Apr DYK Rules restored I objected to the change as no new RfC had been done and the change required an RfC. I asked the proposer to conduct an RfC for the proposed change. My request ignored. No RfC started. Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? Reviews done [214] 19:28, 7 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk even though not expected to review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 1 [215] 22:31 7 Apr Harassment New thread started by Schwede66 to attack me over my objections saying that I am a newbie with strong opinions. Schwede66 Made several inaccurate statements, admonished me for not reviewing DYKs and at the same time admittedly conveniently ignoring that 3 hours ago, I had already done my first review following the changed rules. Schwede66 started a thread claiming that I was not reviewing DYKs and yet calls the fact that I had already started reviewing, as "irrelevant" and not worth commenting. In this comment Schwede66 wrongly accuses me of saying "I don't need to do QPQs" he gave no diffs and I never said that. Schwede66 continued later, [216] [217] 1 [218] 8 Apr Rfc Started to discuss DYK Rule change No RfC was started for a day, So I go ahead and start the RfC linking the diff and seeking opinion for the new change of WP:DYKRULES, and I note my objections as oppose !vote. The new rules essentially demanded new users without successful DYK credits to review other nominations 1 [219] 8 Apr Rfc closed in 12 hours Several users voted as support and oppose, yet the RfC was inappropriately closed within 12 hours of starting. I did not object to this closure, even though I believed the closure was not appropriate. Essentially I WP:DROPped the WP:STICK 1 [220] 12 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk even though not expected to review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 2 5 14 Apr 5th DYK credit successful 5 QPQ expected Nominator expected to review DYKs 2 [221] 14 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk 5 QPQ expected Nominator expected to review DYKs 3 At the time of writing, I have 5 Successful DYK nominations, 3 unsuccessful and 4 are awaiting review.

Policy disagreement on a recent change of rule

DYK rule were changed on 6 April without seeking wider consensus for a big and controversial change. The question due to the change was "Should users without successful DYK Nominations be asked to judge other DYK Nominations?"
Until 6 April, users who submitted DYK nominations were asked to judge a DYK Nomination if the nominator had 5 or more 'successful DYK Credits' (aka 'DYK credits' checked using this tool). A proposal to change this rule was made on 4 April , where it was proposed that users with 5 or more DYK nominations (Successful or unsuccessful or pending) be asked to start judging DYK noms that others have filed. The change demanded users with 5 unsuccessful nominations, to start judging DYK nominations. Asking people with failed nominations to judge is a major change in WP:DYKRULES and deserved wider community consensus before implementation. In my opinion I noted that nominating a DYK is mostly just clicking buttons and it does not give sufficient experience to the nominator. Getting the DYK through the finish line does. The reviewer need to be experienced, which is what the old rule demands. This change in rule was significant watering down of the requirements without considering the ill effects.

So clearly there was a policy disagreement between users on WT:DYK. Accordingly I tried to follow Dispute resolution. I let the RfC lead the policy disagreement to a conclusion, but my efforts for a consensus via RfC were thwarted and the RfC was closed within 12 hours. (diffs in the table above)

Harassment

After my RfC was closed 10 days ago, I yielded and did not continue my objections on DYKRULE any changes further, also started reviewing DYKs as per the changed rules. Since I have given up and complied with the new rules, this inappropriate harassment against me should have ended. Yet the scheming against me and attacks on WT:DYK continued as of today (since 4 April). And now I see another attack thread based on misleading timelines and changed rules to confuse the readers and to seek sanctions against me on ANI.

To conclude, there is no ongoing (or ever) disruption by me on Wikipedia, nor have I expressed intentions to start any, there are no grounds for attacking me and this ongoing witch hunt being pursued by some of these users against me, must end. Venkat TL (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you add diffs for the scheming, harassment, and attacks on you? Schazjmd (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd It is in the collapsed table on row 7 April. I will add some more in next 5-10 mins. Venkat TL (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

My apologies; from the collapse header, I thought it was just your DYK work. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added few more diffs in the table row 7 April, Some attacks with factually inaccurate statements and slander are these [222] [223] [224] [225], in the last thread Joseph2302 attacks me and claims I have started tonnes of QPQ discussion threads when they were started by Narutoloveninata5 or Theleekycauldron. The only thread I started was RfC for seeking dispute resolution. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"I was criticized" ≠ factual inaccuracy, let alone slander. Stop whining and arguing and go do something productive instead. --JBL (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone wanting the context of this thread should look at the two discussion threads Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#QPQ_freebies and especially Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Article nominators and other editors removing comments by others on a DYK nomination. The idea of a topic ban for Venkat TL has been floated there by several editors. --JBL (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Context threads User talk:Narutolovehinata#QPQ and
  Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive_185#RFC: Should users without successful DYK Nominations be asked to judge other DYK Nominations Venkat TL (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

In Venkat's table above, labeled as "harassment", are Schwede66's comments at Special:Diff/1081517890 and Special:Diff/1081535891. I'm more concerned by Venkat's comments at Special:Diff/1081527663 and Special:Diff/1081539768.

The content/policy discussion at WT:DYK can handle the WP:DYKRULES issue; that's not an ANI issue.

I am as concerned at others about Venkat's intense focus on the QPQs, and whether he does or does not have to complete them. That is such a strange thing for someone to focus this much attention on. Even stranger for a new editor, whose account was created in August 2021. But then Venkat's made over 20,000 edits in these last nine months (that's about 75 edits a day, every day) [226], of which only about 4,000 are semi-automated [227]. That leaves me wondering if this is a continuation of some older dispute. Anyone who can put out 16,000 non-automated edits in 9 months (that's about 60 non-automated edits every day!) would not be trying to delay doing a QPQ for DYK.

I think a TBAN, if the DYK regulars want it, would help reduce the disruption they have to deal with. Levivich 17:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, There is no ongoing dispute, as I have given already given up 2 weeks ago. There is no ongoing disruption at WT:DYK, I have never ever said that I did not want to do QPQs, The WP:DYKRULES before it was changed said users without 5 Successful DYKs were exempt and I understood it as "lacking sufficient expertise to conduct proper reviews". As noted in the collapsed table, at the time of writing of this comment, I have already done 3 QPQ reviews of nomination by others. Accordingly I have considered myself not eligibile to review DYKs of others and Some users are a conflating this as "Hostility in doing reviews" and while doing this they keep ignoring the fact that I have already done 3 reviews and listed them as QPQs. The policy disagreement is over, and I see no reason why these users even after 2 weeks continue to pursue that against me. Venkat TL (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• This looks like a classic case of "Self-governing area of the 'pedia makes a minor change to its internal rules, user refuses to accept the consensus for that change, others in that area get frustrated, and the user runs to ANI." The "harassment" diff does not look like harassment, or even really incivility. If there's something I'm missing there, please point it out; otherwise you should rescind your accusation.
  DYK is an entirely optional area of Wikipedia. (Well, all areas are optional, but DYK is particularly optional.) It's also an invaluable area for encouraging content creation, and time spent arguing over procedural minutiae there is time taken away from its maintainers' work reviewing, promoting, and enqueueing hooks. If a significant portion of your time on-wiki is being devoted to arguing over meta-level things at DYK, you may need to reconsider how you're spending your time. If you've reached the point of thinking that a wiki-wide consensus was needed to change "fewer than five DYK credits" to "previously nominated fewer than five articles", you may be in too deep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Please notice carefully and you find that none of those meta discussions on QPQ (you are talking about) were started by me. Others started those thread naming me in the original post and enforcing their own unwritten rule, clearly different than what was written in WP:DYKRULES of the time. You may have your opinion on the policy disagreement, it is more than what you claim it is, my position on it is explained at the RFC thread. In any case I have moved from past, and not pursuing any point from the two week old threads/issues and I expect that others should also move on. Venkat TL (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Tamzin is correct here. DYK is supposed to be an enjoyable area of Wikipedia, where editors can get credit for their work, but is not so important as to be a topic for such wikilawyering, a word which, if it hadn't already been invented, we would need to invent for such behaviour. Just get on with editing the encyclopedia, Venkat TL. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  ... And I have already moved on. My last comment on WT:DYK was a week ago, so I am not responding there anymore, I even unwatched WT:DYK page, to stay awy until I was pinged yesterday on a plan to escalate it to ANI. Even now, in this thread I am not pursuing any of those past issues, Pray tell me @Phil Bridger how am I supposed to advertise that I have moved on? Venkat TL (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  You started this thread today. If that's moving on, then I'm a banana. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Why have you started this thread? It advertises that you have not moved on. —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict with the two above) Not to be snide, but it would be a poor advertisement an editor has "moved on" to introduce a thread claiming harassment by DYK volunteers. This is gaming, and exactly the sort of behavior which has plagued this editor's DYK nomination templates. BusterD (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger Kusma This thread coming to ANI was a forgone conclusion, Please check the thread linked below BusterD. The ANI posting was ready. The thread created by folks at WT:DYK uses a table with twisted timelines to build a false case against me. In this thread I have shared a clear timeline of the events so that folks can see that certain events I am being accused of happened in a certain sequence, when the rules were something else than what they are right now. If it helps you, I am willing to close this thread, since I am not pursing anything other than peace for myself and others. But all signs at WT:DYK show that the post "shooting for topic bans" was imminent, and if it does, then I would rather that this thread remains open. Venkat TL (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems likely that User:Venkat TL has seen this topic ban being drafted by DYK regulars and is trying to make their case before such a ban is discussed. I have had little direct contact with the user, but have seen sufficient to think a DYK topic ban is becoming necessary. DYK (like everywhere else on Wikipedia) is staffed by volunteers; if those individual volunteers were to choose to simply ignore any further DYK submissions from this troublesome contributor, it might be POINTY, but not totally out of line. BusterD (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I was pinged on that draft thread. In my original post I have said "And now I see another attack thread based on misleading timelines and changed rules to confuse the readers and to seek sanctions against me on ANI." The diffs are in the table. Yes I am referring to it. Venkat TL (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG

• Proposal: Topic ban, of duration to be decided, from all things WP:DYK, until Venkat TL can demonstrate proficiency elsewhere on the 'pedia, preferably mainspace, and a willingness to drop both the issue with DYK and their less than collegial approach to other editors in such a small corner of the project. Let them adjust to a project-wide perspective before returning to procedural minutaie. SN54129 19:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  [228][229] You are proposing a topic ban without any ongoing disruption or evidence of disruption. In the last 6 days I have not posted 'anything' on WT:DYK. How is that for a demonstration? In my opening post above also I have noted that I am not pursuing either of the said issues. Those issues and incidents from 2 weeks ago and earlier, were only posted here to give a context, not to re-litigate anything. I have moved on. . So please clarify what "ongoing disruption" do you seek to contain by proposing this topic ban? If any type of BAN is imposed without clear evidence of ongoing disruption, then I assure I will abandon editing altogether. I am not contributing here for any sort of winning or defeats. Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. I believe a retirement would be ultimate demonstration of WP:DROPping the WP:STICK. --Venkat TL (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Personally when I move on from things I do it by not opening threads at ANI, and then not responding to every critical comment. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Shouldn't you ask folks who are building up ANI case at WT:DYK (using events that happened 2 weeks ago) to move on like me? This ANI thread would never have happened if I had not been pinged yesterday at WT:DYK. Venkat TL (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Notice that those people aren't here making absolute fools of themselves trumpeting how they've "moved on" while responding to every single comment critical of them? Here's how you can prove me wrong: by writing "You know, you're right, my behavior here is the exact opposite of what the phrase 'moving on' denotes; I'm going to stop now and let this thread run its course without any more input from me." (And then doing that.) --JBL (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban of limited duration as suggested above (ALL things WP:DYK, including new content submissions). Gaming and battleground behaviors are undercutting the energy and industry of this otherwise promising new editor. I want to encourage Venkat TL to think less of winning, and more of helping. BusterD (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Venkat TL displays a combative attitude, wikilawyering, refusal to drop the stick (while hilariously proclaiming to have done so). I think BusterD is spot on with his comment about "winning". I'm not sure a DYK topic ban is the best possible remedy for this, but I can't think of anything better right now. —Kusma (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  You can count me as a supporter of the developing consensus for an indefinite topic ban with appeal no earlier than six months. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I also support (and agree with both of the above that a time-limited ban might be appropriate in this case). Venkat TL seems to need some assistance with moving on. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) *I have to note that the editor's civility issues on DYK were not just limited to the diffs link above. For example, on one of his DYK nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/Mann ministry, he removed comments I made on the nomination regarding QPQ as well as a concern unrelated to QPQs (in this case, me noting that his preferred term at the time, "greenhorn", was jargon and probably needed to be replaced by a more easily understandable phrase). In another of his nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka, he accused DYK editors of having, quote sadistic pleasure in closing the DYKs and trimming the DYK list after it was noted by me and other editors that the article was unstable at the time and was unlikely to pass DYK. After I closed said nomination due to stability concerns, he started Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 185#DYK closed without proper review, where he continued making bad faith comments against me and others. To be fair, in said discussion, other editors did note that my closure was perhaps out of process as I had previously commented in the nomination and thus may have been too involved to make a proper closure, to which I apologize for. Nevertheless, other editors, including those same aforementioned other editors, noted that Venkat had engaged in bad faith and/or personal attacks throughout the proceedings, with quotes such as Please do not make this an ego issue and all you did was close the DYK with prejudice based on past interactions or my comment on DYK. In addition, during said discussion, the editor referred to all comments regarding their behavior as "off-topic" rather than addressing them.

To me, what is shocking about the editor is their lack of good faith when discussing with other editors, not to mention making personal attacks over disagreements. At the very least I'd support some kind of restriction such as a topic ban from DYK, mainly for the incivility shown and how it appeared that they continued to engage in such incivility and problematic behavior despite multiple warnings. As for the length, I don't know if indefinite would be advisable given that the editor had nominated some nominations that largely followed the processes and he has even started providing QPQs. I'm actually leaning more towards a temporary ban (perhaps at least six months), but my concern is that this limited topic ban would not address the wider attitude issues the editor has expressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I just realized that just on this very thread he has been expressing the behavior that other DYK regulars had expressed concerns above, as seen by the above comment Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. For the record, his retirement from DYK was never our intention, and the only reason ANI was ever considered on WT:DYK was due to the aforementioned battleground behavior that multiple editors, including several admins, had observed. If anything surprises me, it's that this wasn't brought up at ANI sooner. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If you would have wanted resolution you would have opened threads on my User talk and not on WT:DYK which is sort of noticeboard for all things DYK. From my perspective, there was never ever any battle to fight. There was a Procedure disagreement that I had clearly WP:DROPed 2 weeks ago. Venkat TL (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You are missing the point here. The reason you ended up in this situation wasn't your opposition to the QPQ rule or even your disagreement of the Hijab nomination being closed. It was your attitude and lack of good faith, as seen by your multiple comments accusing editors of "pushing" you to retire from DYK, or accusing DYK editors of having an "ego" and failing nominations for "sadistic pleasure". Indeed, multiple editors had requested you to apologize for your comments, something you have repeatedly declined to do. Had you made an effort to apologize for the "sadistic pleasure" comment and made an effort to have a less accusatory behavior, as well as heeded the advice of multiple editors regarding your attitude, I don't think Schwede66 and the others would have considered a topic ban in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

None of the stuff you commented here are recent. I am not revisiting month old comments. If there is something that 'I had done' and you found disruptive and worth BLOCKS and TOPIC BANs in the last 2 weeks, I will be happy to discuss. Venkat TL (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, even when those comments were new you declined to acknowledge them or apologize for them, even going as far as calling the requests for apology "off-topic". For example, Schwede66 and BlueMoonset both asked you to apologize for the "sadistic pleasure" comment (and may I add that both requests for apology were made less than a week after the comment was made). The "sadistic pleasure" comment was most certainly not a "month old" when it was brought up by those two editors and yet you didn't apologize for it even then. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As for actions comments that can be considered disruptive or worth blocks within the last two weeks, your comment removal from the Mann ministry nomination (which was done on April 8th, so within the last 14 days) could at the very least warrant a warning, not to mention the battleground behavior and assumptions of bad faith in this very thread, notably with comments such as Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, the comment was 'moved' to Article talk page, you raised this diff, by starting a thread on the WT:DYK noticeboard (instead of my user talk) and I replied there. I did not contest it when it was restored. If you would have asked this on my user talk, then also I would have self reverted. I have nothing new to add here than what I already said in that thread. Venkat TL (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You should not have moved the comment in the first place, even if you disagreed with it. The comment was on-topic to the DYK and raised concerns about the hook wording. Why did you move the comment in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As I replied in the diff, I linked above. At that time, I (wrongly) assumed that thread to be offtopic from DYK as it was about QPQ and you explicitly noted that you were not reviewing the DYK. QPQ was being discussed at WT:DYK. Article talk page is the place to discuss article improvements, so I had moved it to article talk page. When others restored it and disagreed with my wrong assumption. I agreed with the restoration. I apologize if my moving of comment caused you any trouble. Would I do it again? No. Venkat TL (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

there was a context to my comment you quoted, that is being ignored in this thread. My observations for which you are taking an offence were made more than a month ago, in that thread, I was upset that my DYKs were being closed without getting proper 'review-and-fix-cycles' as is expected with DYK nominations. Looking at the hindsight, I think I shouldn't have made it, I have not made any such comments since, and I will never make such comments again. Your objections about moving the comment to the article-talk-page, is valid, and I have agreed, but I believe it is probably an over reaction to use that incident to ask for blocks and bans on what admin Maile66 called "a prolific editor". In summary, I have moved on from what has happened in past. Neither have I repeated, nor do I don't expect those things that you found offensive to be repeated. --Venkat TL (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

In regards to where Venkat_TL has linked my calling him a "prolific editor". What he links that to, the reader needs to scroll up to where Schwede66 says "It does not usually happen that we have a newby with so many active nominations just as the QPQ requirement is about to kick in." My comment was in reference to her statement. — Maile (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I generally think "indefinite with appeal no sooner than six months" is better than a six-month topic ban but I support either per mine and others comments above. Levivich 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef DYK topic ban with appeal no sooner than six months. It was me who drafted the ANI notice at DYK but Venkat has beaten me to it by posting something themselves. Schwede66 22:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Like Kusma said in this subsection, Venkat TL "displays a combative attitude, wikilawyering, refusal to drop the stick", I can confirm this with my first-hand experience with them. From that experience I can also say that they either look down on other editors, or consider themselves superior than others. Because of such attitude, they had taken me to ANI not so long ago, where Abecedare had mediated. I support indefinite topic ban with appeal no sooner than six months. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, it's this doofus! Makes it seem less likely that a topic ban will be sufficient, unfortunately. -- JBL (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Jet Bropulsion Laboratory then there was this encore special:permalink/1077702496. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  also, this doofus who chastized me for using plain texts and not links...by doing the same. I'm not active at DYK, but I concur that a topic ban will just move the problem elsewhere vs. solving it. Would support one though based on evidence here. Star Mississippi 01:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out in conjunction with what JBL said above, this is clearly a user whose battleground behavior extends far beyond DYK. Just on these noticeboards, there are numerous examples ([230] [231] [232] [233]) displaying clear battleground behavior, bludgeoning discussions, and making everything personal; all of this can even be seen in this thread. Curbon7 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support any kind of topic ban although I generally favor indefinite to be lifted on an appeal showing clue. DYK is a very important part of Wikipedia and should be protected from people who devote too much time and energy to arguments. Whether the details of Venkat TL's statement are correct is not relevant—life is not always smooth and we have to live with what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from DYK, to be appealed no sooner than six months. Venkat TL is warned that taking this type of behavior to other areas of the encyclopedia is likely to lead to an indefinite sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. Venkat TL seems entirely unable to grasp that DYK is supposed to have a collegial atmosphere and is completely incompatible with their battleground attitude. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban/appeal in 6 months possible. Evidence is clear that Venkat TL's battleground mentality and incessant wiki-lawyering over what is supposed to be a light-hearted part of the encyclopedia is creating a hostile working environment over there. --Jayron32 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Commnet I do not support an outright ban. A limited ban is appropriate. I also think that if Venkat TL agrees to abide by the rules and stop being argumentative, it would go to greatly shorten the ban. --evrik ^(talk) 00:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as above. I already suggested this on the DYK talk boards, but I had been leaning towards the thought that maybe the discussion there might have convinced Venkat TL that their battleground approach was unproductive and to back down, making this step unnecessary. Unfortunately, Venkat TL's behavior in bringing this to ANI preemptively before someone else brought them there makes it clear that the battleground behavior is still ongoing. That is incompatible with the cooperative process needed to make DYK (or really any of the rest of the encyclopedia editing) work. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from DYK or Support topic ban from South Asia per diffs provided by Curbon7. The battleground mentality and comprehension problems with the user extend beyond DYK. I don't think that letting him off with a topic ban from mere DYK will do enough good given the continued display of WP:IDHT and battleground mentality in this sub-thread alone. GenuineArt (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Note I have made a recent reply hereVenkat TL (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  and before that comment, there was this. It looks like Venkat TL is using words of Vice regent. It also looks like they are under impression that this thread is about only the incident of comment removal. From their comment, and Maile's response, it looks like either: Venkat TL is taking the comment out of context, or: they still have mentality "admins are above everything, and everyone, rest of the editors are worthles and/or idiots". —usernamekiran (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that their apology only talked about the Hijab nom closure discussion but not about their attitude in other places, including this very discussion, I think the comment is a case of too little, too late. Had he realized it earlier and apologized for all his words, I don't think this discussion would have happened in the first place. In addition, I would note that although he mentioned that "I have not made any such comments since", he continued showing battleground behavior in comments made after that discussion, including in this very thread. At the very least I am inclined to support the topic ban with the possibility of appeal; if Venkat is sincere that he has learned from his experiences and has vowed to change his on-wiki attitude, he can prove so in other areas of the Wikipedia, then when he has successfully proven it in practice, he can always appeal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

yup. I think they are failing to understand the difference between incivility and battleground behavior, or the reason for topic ban proposal (this subsection, and the discussion on DYK talk). —usernamekiran (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• I hope the admins reading the 'entire' thread are able to see this slander campaign being run using over exaggerated recycled old stuff by users having an axe to grind. --Venkat TL (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Battleground mentality unabated, I note. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Despite the comments above claiming that they have moved on or have learned from their experience, their comment above still showing the incivility and lack of good faith that got them into trouble in the first place only further makes me feel that a topic ban is necessary. In fact, given their attitude in this discussion despite the promise to change and improve their behavior, not to mention the diffs raised by other editors, I'm wondering if a DYK-only topic ban is sufficient or if a topic ban from Indian politics broadly construed is also necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• @Venkat TL: Do you know what a topic ban is? Or what this particular proposal is about? Your recent comment confused me. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as above. Their inability to AGF and refusal to apologize for their negative characterizations of others even when their uncivil behavior has been pointed out shows no sign of abating. Since "retirement" can end at any time, the ban should go forward. It can always be lifted a significant period of collegial behavior. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• I came here from Venkat TL's talk page. I oppose a topic ban since they have apologized and said they would move on. Considering their successful DYK nominations, I would recommend giving them second chance. - SUN EYE 1 05:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Considering they made a comment above claiming that editors had "an axe to grind" and accused them of "slander", and said comment was made after their apology, I have some doubts if their apology and desire to move on are sincere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Suneye1: the topic ban is not proposed because of one incident, it was proposed, and is supported by other editors because of their overall behavior, like comments "sadistic pleasure", and battleground behavior. It is a topic ban, a very narrow one at that. They are free to edit rest of the Wikipedia which is around 99%. Nobody is stopping them from that. Like BlueMoonset said right before your comment, [the ban] can always be lifted [after] a significant period of collegial behavior. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Given what is here and what is there in the archives at DYK, I support an indefinite tban for Venkat TL. In case, they learn from this (no less than six months), I'd support for the removal of ban. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC) (Note: I'm changing my mind per VR's comments below. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 16:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• I support a warning at this time, not a topic ban, as Venkat has apologized for their behavior and promised not to do so again ([234][235][236][237]). Venkat has been a prolific contributor so I'm inclined to give them another chance. If a topic ban is supported, I would recommend a shorter appeal time (3 months?). This is clearly a user who, as Levivich noted above, who makes a lot of edits and from their comments it seems they're a fast learner. So if they are able to demonstrate more friendly behavior in a shorter period of time they should be able to make an appeal.VR _talk 16:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support T-ban. Paul August ☎ 01:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as a first step. However, it seems to me that the WP:BATTLEGROUND approach which Venkat TL has displayed wrt DYK is less about DYK and more about Venkat TL's difficulties with collaboration. So I think we need to be alert for the possibility that the same conduct will reappear elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Any restriction should be limited to DYK. My experience of Venkat TL was that he/she was a good, helpful editor and I never had any difficulties collaborating with him/her.^{Interaction Analyser} I did not do DYK, so I think that the "problem" with his/her approach must have been limited to DYK.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs is not pertinent to QPQ

I see this list used in error at the top of this whole thread. Please be advised, that this is not a list used to calculate who is eligible for QPQ. This list is compiled by individual editors of how many DYKs they have already had on the Main Page, and the list is used to award the editors according to the numbers they have there. On the far right-hand side is a column where the editors link to their user space pages where they've done their own list of what they have created.

The tool used to calculate QPQ can be found by opening any nomination, and selecting "QPQ Check' from the upper right-hand corner toolbox. Then input the user's name, and it returns the number of DYK's they have been given credit for. I believe there is also another tool, but someone else will have to list that. The one for Venkat TL says he has five credits already. — Maile (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The new tool, which counts nominations rather than credits, is at [238], although it's still a work in progress. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Maile66 I have copied the quote about WP:DYKRULES as it is, from the link I indicated in the original post. this is the link I copied the quote from. I have already shared the link of the tool to check successful DYK Credits. That link can be found as a diff on top of the table of successful DYKs. Venkat TL (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Understood. Just so you know, that list that Wikipedians update themselves is not the gospel of stats. I haven't updated my own stats there for a while. Some of those people listed haven't participated at DYK for years. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL has retired from Wikipedia

Venkat put a retirement template on his talk page and appears to have retired from Wikipedia. I do not know if this makes the topic ban proposal moot or if it will continue regardless, I am just mentioning this here out of transparency. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

ANI flu. Star Mississippi 01:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If somebody compiled a list of Wikipedia editors who posted a retirement banner and then came roaring back, it would be a very long list. Nobody should place much credence in a retirement notice by a Wikipedia editor or a rock and roll band. Cullen328 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

or an NFL QB with five letters in their last name? Star Mississippi 01:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I would have chastised you harshly for using plain links and not WP:ANI flu, but the only reason I am using soft words is that you are an admin. ^{/end rhetorical sarcasm.} —usernamekiran (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hah! Had no idea about the actual page. Well done @Ritchie333 @EEng et al and thanks for flagging it @Usernamekiran. Back to my corner for me. :) Star Mississippi 13:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Nixon loses 1962 election: "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more." → Richard Nixon 1968 presidential campaign — Maile (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Would it be time to close this discussion? It's been almost a week since it started and the consensus seem to be largely in favor of a DYK topic ban for Venkat. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it will get closed soon. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've listed it at RFCL. BilledMammal (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• I am curious, what happens when a user retires when he is on the verge of getting blocked? Does the community goes on andblock them? Akshaypatill (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  They never used to. In the past, they would usually just drop the proceedings against that user and then proceed to lament the fact that their sanctions led a productive user to quit Wikipedia. Now, of course, it's become common knowledge that users who retire during an ANI usually come back when sufficient time has passed and thus return to their disruptive behaviors. As a result, retirement is usually acknowledged but otherwise ignored. WaltCip-(talk) 12:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• bump. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• bump and bumper. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  bumpier? Anyhow really an admin should please come and assess consensus here. JBL (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  And please let's not reward flouncing out. If an editor is sincere about retiring then blocking does no harm. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  for the next bump, I was going to use "bump and bumperer". —usernamekiran (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2022 (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.

Zamindars of Bihar, 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.

---

I have started a discussion on the Talk Page of the Zamindars of Bihar relating to an unreliable Hindi language source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zamindars_of_Bihar&diff=1084449503&oldid=1019850101

I also started a discussion on Wikipedia noticeboard for reliable sources with consensus being that it is not a reliable source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=1084582085&oldid=1084572904

The user @Heba Aisha: has previously reported me (on frivolous grounds) for being a sockpuppet (which failed spectacularly) and seems to have an issue with every edit I make. After I removed the source, he started calling me a vandal. I feel like admin intervention is needed as this user is repeatedly trying to start a fight even after discussion indicated it was not a reliable source.RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"Unreliable" and "Hindi language" are totally independent of one other. The language a source is written in reveals noting about its reliability. So some Hindi-language resources are unreliable, just like some English resources are unreliable. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

RuudVanClerk, reporting any editor for assuming similar behaviour compared to a blocked editor is not any policy violation. The WP: Sockpuppetry is made for this only. Second, i reverted you on Zamindars of Bihar as you seems to be unaware of WP:RS, Hindi sources are also reliable and can be used. I would like to draw admins attention on some of your edits, which amounts to lack of competence and as according to WP:CIR, you should made yourself aware of basic editing policies

1. When you put the discussion on Reliable source noticeboard, you got [239] this comment from an editor and he also says that he has no reason to believe that that was not a reliable source. You should have waited for more comments, as these discussions could go longer.But without getting proper consensus, you removed it citing wrong consensus in edit summary [240] .
2. I would like to draw admins attention on WP:CIR issue with you. Let me just give an example: in an article related to politics you were putting image of agricultural caste group and despite being told about MOS:LEADIMAGE, you were not getting it [241], the image was finally removed by TrangaBellam [242] and you refrained from reaching that talk page again as you had no conclusive argument. Besides this you were involved in edit wars to restore same image on different articles without understanding properly about WP: MOSIMAGE, here [243] ,[244]
3. Also, i assume that you will bring me here anyhow as [245], here when the Sockpuppetry investigation ended, you were eager in asking the admin about any sanction in order to book me.
4. It seems that many a times you involve in WP:GAMING on talk pages. Like here you reverted and brought the matter to talk page [246], later admin himself jumped into the matter to disagree with the image you tried to use in the article. [247]
5. seems to have an issue with every edit I make, now this statement is totally frivolous as looking at your contribution and mine one can easily see that i have reverted one or two edits of yours and not following every edits of yours on various articles. After ending of Sockpuppet investigation, i reverted the edit on Zamindars of Bihar only and that too because you made mistake there. I didn't touched other pages where you are editing.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
6. About Sockpuppetry investigation i filed earlier: I don't consider it my fault. Both the users were editing and backing each other in such a manner that it was normal for anyone to think that they are related. Recently, i made this comment [248] on talk page of Zamindars of Bihar and anyone can see that this is a normal comment related to articles of same topic area. But, i was surprised to see the behaviour of both these editors.[249][250].
7. Don't Know why he is so eager. They filed another report here meanwhile we are discussing their conduct here [251]
8. Recently, I came across an article nominated for delition by @RuudVanClerk:, the article is about Churaman Ahir. Here, i came across this comment in the deletion discussion [252], this comment also clarifies that RuudVanClerk is novice with respect to various policies, in particular WP:GNG here. I would like to propose topic ban in the "South Asian social group" category as per WP: Boomerang for RuudVanClerk, untill they learn the basic policies. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

   Would probably help your case if you knew how to spell “delition”… Do be aware that this is the English-language Wikipedia and general competency in the English language is required. RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

We have WP:GOCE for correction and writing an article is a tough task unlike just reverting. Currently, i am not able to comment properly because of other reasons (i am on cellphone). But, with this comment you are getting involved in Persona attack. Please read WP:NPA. Requesting admins to topic ban RuudVanClerk to give him proper time to learn about Wikipedia and it's policies. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

So after a failed attempt to have me banned for sock puppetry accusations, you are now attempting to have me topic banned for a notability template. We are also seeing off-topic comments on a deletion request involving me and threats of “scrutinising” articles I have edited. Looks like WP:Harassment to me. RuudVanClerk (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't filed this report. Please, be aware that the behaviour of all participants in this discussion can be scrutinized. I can see you disrupting a lot of pages, that's why it is necessary to give you time to edit other topic areas untill you learn basic guidelines.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Harrassment, urgent admin attention needed please

I have tried to get admins involved in this dispute with no luck and the situation has now developed further.

The user in question, @Heba Aisha: created a frivolous sockpuppet investigation against myself which failed (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kroshta/Archive). Following this they are now attempting to have me topic-banned for merely posting a notability template see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1085301718

They are also posting off-topic comments on a article for deletion discussion that borders on personal attacks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Churaman_Ahir&diff=prev&oldid=1085300935

They are also threatening to “scrutinize” articles that I have previously edited as some sort of tit for tat see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zamindars_of_Bihar&diff=prev&oldid=1085302717

As this demonstrates, I am being targeted on all angles and the admins seem to be turning a blind eye.RuudVanClerk (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion already going on above titled "Zamindars of Bihar, unreliable source". I don't see the purpose of putting several notices on my talk page for minor issues and accusing admins too of being biased. I don't know, why you are so eager.You should be aware that discussions need time to reach proper conclusion. For the admins who visit here, i would like to request that they should visit the earlier discussion first, where i have provided evidence misbehaviour and lack of competence on the part of user @RuudVanClerk:. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2022 (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:Davidgoodheart

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, I've just noticed that User:Davidgoodheart has been messing around with the categories on the external links section of various pages. I am concerned that this user will continue this disruptive behavior, and if they should be blocked or not. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:8997:5070:71C8:71D (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is your specific complaint here? DGH is a respected user who has been editing since 2013, I highly doubt whatever they’re doing is block-worthy. Dronebogus (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There have been a few incidents that they have completely messed up the order of the categories on certain pages, but they have been reverted. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:8997:5070:71C8:71D (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Provide WP:DIFFs please Dronebogus (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

On January 19, 2022, they messed up the order of the categories on Jessica Alba. Here is the proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Alba&diff=1066753753&oldid=1066687882 2001:569:7F96:EE00:8997:5070:71C8:71D (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not a blockable offense. Dronebogus (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but I find this a little disruptive though. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:8997:5070:71C8:71D (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to point out that D's edit is not an offense or disruptive in any way. While many editors like them to be numeric then alphabetic that is not required by the MOS. Also per Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#In what order should categories be listed within the article? the rational for that edit falls within the guidelines. It should also be noted that the OP posted a demand on D's talk page rather than discussing it and then posted here, thus, creating unneeded drama. MarnetteD|Talk 22:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Personal preference would not be an acceptable reason for deletion, so why should it be acceptable to deem a user as requiring a block? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Does this mean that there is no right or wrong way regarding the order of categories? 2001:569:7F96:EE00:6DC4:3611:D0ED:2AC3 (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Minor note: please indent your replies by using a colon (:) or asterisk (*), or better yet, use the reply link made available on every comment. Anyway, this is probably no different from a conduct dispute and is not appropriate for discussion at ANI, so I recommend closing it with a recommendation to discuss on Davidgoodheart's talk page. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:00, 2 May 2022 (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 on a rampage

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.

---

Şah Niki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A sock of a indeffed user (who has socked before) has returned and is currently on a rampage. I have filed an SPI ([253]), but it's probably gonna take at least an hour or two for it to get resolved, whilst this user is disrupting multiple articles. Can someone please deal with him? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

All edits reverted as reincarnation of a banned user or stuff like that. PAVLOV (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Noice. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2022 (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.

Editor that is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia

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 noticed a user named BFCFoley. This person's only edits were on the article for Bishop Foley Catholic. All this person did was add irrelevant information relating to the school's namesake, John Samuel Foley, which is important, but for a Detroit high school? Also, the information almost directly matches up with the rulebook of the school. Take a look:

Article: "From 1888 until 1918, Bishop John Samuel Foley headed the Catholic diocese of Detroit. As Detroit's first American bishop, his 30 years of leadership remains the longest for the Archdiocese of Detroit."

Rulebook: "From 1888 until 1918, Bishop John Samuel Foley headed the Catholic diocese of Detroit as Detroit's first American Bishop, his 30 years of leadership remains the longest for the Archdiocese of Detroit."

This person directly contradicts the rule that states "Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Therefore, they should be subjected to disciplinary action. Thank you.

Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You are asking that someone that made only two edits, back in 2011, [254] should be "subjected to disciplinary action"? What exactly would the point of that be? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2022 (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 of user:台灣警察

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 account is evidently a compromised account. This user reported himself as a compromised account on Chinese Wikipedia. On w:zh:User_talk:台灣警察, they said "我是帳號被盜的", translating in English means "my account was comromised."

They has gone rogue recently on Chinese wikipedia since April 21st, vandalizing a lot of pages and was blocked there. Now need a compromised block to stop him from going rogue here.--PAVLOV (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@PAVLOV It would be best to go to meta:SRG and request that the account be globally locked as compromised. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Already reported to SRG but need some time for stewards to take action. PAVLOV (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

English Wikipedia administrators can't do much in this situation since there is no recent disruption on enwiki. I think waiting for a glock is the best bet. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright... Let's wait. PAVLOV (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Then just wait for the stewards to lock the account. If you've already asked for them to be blocked globally it's a waste of time to ask for them to be blocked on each individual project too. The account hasn't edited in two weeks so there's no urgent rush here. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2022 (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.

Desertambition's hostile edit history

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.

---

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

I hoped this would go away by limiting my interaction with Desertambition, but it hasn't and my original notice got lost in the shuffle[255]. Desertambition continues to be hostile to me and to other editors. It seems this editor's entire[256] edit history is arguing with others in bad faith[257]. My interaction has mainly been on the Flag of Alabama. It hasn't been positive. Desertambition is hostile to anyone that doesn't agree with their edits. I've been accused of over and over of going against Wikipedia guidelines while trying to steer the discussion towards consensus. Desertambition simply cannot work with others in good faith. Given the editors actions it was a mistake to ever lift the original block. The editor hasn't learned from previous mistakes and will continue to be hostile. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know if a new block is needed at this time, but at a minimum I think it is appropriate to topic ban them from making accusations about editors behaviour outside of ANI, with a warning that making accusations at ANI, if found to be baseless, may also result in a block; Desertambition is an editor that rather than understanding that editors may disagree with them in good faith instead accuses those editors of violating behavioural policies. I've presented these examples before in the ANI thread they raised against me on March 29, but they are an excellent example of this; on March 1 they accused three editors who had disagreed with them primarily about article titles of WP:STONEWALLING and WP:HOUNDING, without having presented any evidence before or since; myself, Spekkios, and Toddy1.

I see that there are also many examples of this at Talk:Flag of Alabama, with Desertambition accusing editors of STONEWALLING, BADFAITHNEG, TAGTEAM, and BATTLEGROUND behaviour - and I expect that I've missed a few other accusations, either on the talk or in edit summaries. I would also note this commentary on their user page, about what they consider a common interaction with editors and admins.BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. I note that they have already been blocked twice for this kind of behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Nemov and Spekkios have been WP:STONEWALLING on the flag of Alabama page for weeks at this point by creating a WP:TAGTEAM. I have barely edited the page and engaged in extensive discussion on the talk page. BilledMammal is another user who has tried to get me blocked repeatedly. I have not made more ANI posts or engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

I have made many efforts to create consensus and discuss the issue without edit warring and Nemov has refused to engage or build consensus: Here [258] and here [259]

I always try to write very clear edit summaries and discuss disputes on the talk page while following sources and consensus. However, Spekkios and Nemov have exercised complete control over the flag of Alabama article while removing information about Confederate symbolism and writing misleading edit summaries.

Spekkios writes "ditto here" when removing Confederate flag from the page after this edit removing "controversial content" and telling editors to discuss on the talk page while they continue to implement their own interpretation and wording of sources. [260]: [261]

Spekkios, prior to removing the Confederate flag, had removed the description of the Confederate flag by saying it was "too long" without elaborating here: [262]

Nemov falsely claimed the New York Times in 1906 said the flag of Alabama had no historical connection here [263] In fact, another newspaper had published that piece and seemed to be using clear WP:POETIC wording rather than saying "the flag has no history" which is pretty nonsensical as everything has a history.

Nemov falsely claimed that an understanding connecting the state flag to the Confederate flag only came 20 years after the flag was adopted here: [264]

After I added a source exactly the same way Nemov did, they remove it and replace the wording with blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations. I added the source here: [265]

Nemov then said in their edit summary: "Cleaned up the first few sentences for clarity. The link to the Montgomery Advertiser source isn't formatted correctly and I can't find it in another archive. Can you please clip it and source it correctly? Thanks." [266] Then put their own WP:SYNTH and WP:OR into the article "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy and local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is inconclusive."

Nemov then "fixes" it by writing "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy. Local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is unclear. One newspaper says the flag was a suggestions of the Confederacy and another stating the flag had no historical connections." [267]

Today, Spekkios scrubbed the word "Confederate" from the image of the Confederate flag without any sort of consensus here [268] and offered their own interpretation. Which I should add was incorrect because the image is not just a "saltire" but rather the actual battle flag of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

I have not broken the WP:3RR after my prior block although BilledMammal has here: [269] [270] [271] but I know that's not the focus of this post.

It is so frustrating to deal with these constant reports and attempts to get me blocked. I continue to engage in good faith discussions with editors about these issues and often they are unwilling to build consensus. Desertambition (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've never called for you to be blocked - above, you will see that I am suggesting a limited topic ban that will allow you to continue contributing to your chosen topic area - and while you haven't opened a new ANI thread since March 29, it has only been a week, and the issue here is your habit of casting aspersions against editors you disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I had a conversation about these exact issues at User talk: Cullen328#WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on flag of Alabama on March 27. I, too, am very concerned about this editor's right great wrongs variety of POV pushing. Their attempt here to argue the content case is yet another example. The purpose of this noticeboard is to deal with behavioral issues, not to adjudicate content disputes. This editor consistently argues, in effect, that all the many other highly experienced editors they interact with are in error, and only Desertambition is correct. This editor seems incapable of self-reflection and self-correction. I agree with the succinct assessment by Ad Orientem above: This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Firstly, I appologise for this block of text but this isn't an accurate summary of my actions. I performed a major reversion because there had been 23 edits and about half of them were reversions. I rolled back to a previous version because there was obviously a dispute about the article content as shown by the number of reversions, hence my edit summary. I would have reverted to an even earlier stage before the flag was added, however I elected not to because another user had performed some article maintenance that I didn't want to revert. Therefore, I selected the version just after said maintenance was performed and manually reverted the remaining content, hence my second edit summary "ditto here". I posted a section in the talk page notifying editors of the rollback I performed. I shortened the description because it was very long, and further discussion occurred about the caption on the talk page. I didn't remove the image entirely because I think it needs to be there, but the caption was very long and could be shortened. I did actually elaborate in the edit summary. Finally, the flag was restored to the article by another user for a valid reason. I adjusted the flag caption, because as I said before the previous was too long, but the current just states what the flag is. The caption I selected linked the flag image to the article. Desertambition reverted that edit. After a little discussion on the talk page I selected a new caption which was again reverted.

I apologise again for that large explanation of what is essentially a content dispute, but I just wanted to show how wildly different Desertambition's version of events is. They believe that Nemov and I are actively engaged in some sort of conspiracy to "remove confederate symbolism" to the point where a good-faith edit to improve a caption (which was being discussed on the talk page) results in an accusation of "scrubbing" the word confederate from the caption. Desertambition has accused us of engaging in historical revisionism including making an accusation of me "preventing almost any edits about Confederate symbolism". This is blatantly untrue. Anyone can quickly read the article and find an entire section on the origins of the flag, including ties to the confederate flag. The word "confederate" and "confederacy" have been mentioned 8 times each in the (relatively short) article. I have been supportive of including the confederate battle flag in the article. I have been supportive of edits improving the article and adding more context to the time in which the state flag was adopted. To paint me out as a historical revisionist, implying that I'm a confederate sympathiser is absolutely not productive nor in good faith and something the user has been warned about in the past. --Spekkios (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• In reading through the varying diffs, and having seen prior ANs involving Desertambition, I agree that the editor seems unable to deal in the collaborative fashion Wikipedia requires. He's received multiple blocks in a short time, and has had more than one "This is your wakeup call to straighten up" warning. The warnings seem to be flying over his head. In particular, him flinging the TAGTEAM charge is objectionable -- as if there must needs be something sinister inherent in multiple editors disagreeing with him on a particular point. Unfortunately, this seems to be his default SOP in content disputes: to accuse the other side of collusion, chicanery or immorality when he cannot otherwise build consensus around his POV. At what point is enough enough? Ravenswing 12:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• I came across this editor a month or so ago and was distinctly unimpressed with their conduct. The first time I saw them was after they created a couple of completely ridiculous PROD nominations for things that are obviously notable (at least to the level where a PROD would be inappropriate) but which they don't like, one of which I reverted [272][273]. I saw them again a couple of days later when they made this completely ridiculous comment baselessly accusing ymblanter of admin abuse [274]. This seems to be a fairly obvious case of an editor who is simply WP:Not compatible with a collaborative project. They seem to have joined up with the intention of editing with a particular POV [275], while I hope everyone here can agree that racism is bad in this case Desertambition's views seem to be getting in the way of them editing neutrally and making objective judgements about things like notability and common names. They are still acting like everyone who disagrees with them is an abusive rulebreaker or a racist, they are still approaching every discussion here as if it is a battleground and they are still edit warring and being disruptive to try and get their way. They already had an indef block for this behaviour and a last chance unblock on the basis that they would improve their conduct, unfortunately it seems that there has been little to no improvement since the original block. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment From reading the various responses I understand that my conduct is not where it should be. Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith? I really hope that my edits are useful the majority of the time and I would like an opportunity to continue editing. Whether or not what I said is true is clearly not to be decided here. There is no real point to ever posting to ANI again or alleging any kind of bad faith editing. Some admins/editors have said multiple times how much they would prefer I stop editing, "crying wolf", etc. and I really do get the point. I do think that I am WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. I don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point and most of these controversies happen during discussions or on talk pages, not on the articles themselves. I have not, despite multiple comments here saying I have, been calling users "racist" or "Confederate sympathizers". I believe this is largely a response to my user page where I say "racism bad". Some users have accused me of "anti-white racism" or turning articles "into the Mein Kampf of Anti-racism." [276] I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. I will do whatever best resolves this conflict. Desertambition (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No one is saying that "racism = bad" is an unacceptable stance. Where your behavior is objectionable is that you seem to presume that you're editing on the side of the angels, and therefore those who disagree with you must be doing so out of foul motives. And that just simply is not the case. To put it bluntly, no one elected you the arbiter of what is or is not a "racist" edit. We are all the arbiter, collectively, and we arrive at those decisions through consensus. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're on the losing side of the argument, and when that is the case, the onus is on you to lose gracefully and move on. What best resolves this conflict is for you to get that. The patience of the community to wait for you to do so is finite, if not already exhausted. Ravenswing 00:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

D received an indefinite block that was lifted with WP:ROPE as justification. Then the editor was blocked a few days later. It's the same pattern. Hostility, accusing everyone, and then begging not to be blocked again. I can understand lifting the block the first time. The editor was given two more chances after the last chance. The editor has proven why they were initially blocked. It's not going to get better. Nemov (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It was two months later, not "a few days". The block was for edit warring, I was not paying attention to my reverts and broke the WP:3RR. I readily admitted and accepted that. Desertambition (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Every time you respond you reinforce the issue. You were blocked 40 days later for reverting edits. After being told that you have one last chance to work with others in good faith. Instead of listening, you accuse others and make excuses. You haven't readily accepted anything. After the block CaptainEek pointed out you were still not accepting what had happened.[277]. I agree the sentiment that You have some good points and editing inclinations. But if you can't follow the rules, you'll find yourself banned again. Not because of some months old accusations, but because of current failure to simply play nice with others. That's exactly been the case. After failing to comply so many times, why should we waste any more time hoping you'll figure it out? Nemov (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That isn't an accurate summary of the situation. Toddy1 warned you that you were at five reverts, but despite being aware of that you chose to make a sixth. Then, when they opened a AN3 report you said Toddy1 keeps falsely accusing me of edit warring. After you were blocked you accepted you were edit warring, but the fact that it took a block for you to come to that conclusion is not good. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not made an allegation of racial bias since I was blocked months ago. I do not think I am perfect and not all of my edits are helpful. I will readily admit that. I have not said anyone is making "racist" edits. I have said repeatedly I will not make allegations of racial bias in any capacity, that was made clear months ago. I am fully aware of the need for consensus and I do not believe two users deciding amongst themselves constitutes WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to take my concerns to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, as has happened on many move requests. I have a desire to include information on Wikipedia that accurately reflects reliable secondary sources, not push an agenda. Desertambition (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, as has happened on many move requests also is not accurate, as can be seen with your habit of making repeated move requests for articles whose discussions produced a consensus against you with minimal time between them. For example, Mafikeng was moved to its current title after a discussion on 3 December 2021. You disagreed with that consensus and opened a new request on 7 January 2022, and then another on 31 March 2022. While consensus can change, and it is appropriate to open new move requests after a suitable period of time, three move requests in four months is far too many and an example of refusing to get the point. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. less than a week ago your talk page contained a list of "Users with clearly problematic/racist/racially biased posting" [278] which was described distinctly less than favourably by the admin who unblocked you [279].

Here you say that another editor is very attached to pre-apartheid names and only seem to take into account white South Africans and flat out accuse them of "racial bias" [280]

Here you "completley don't accuse someone of racism" by asking them what their opinion of white nationalism is [281] 192.76.8.70 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

That list was created four months ago and was collapsed by an admin. I have not made allegations of racial bias since the block and do not plan to. No one would be able to tell what was in there without opening it and I didn't think about it. Deleted it the second a user requested me to. Desertambition (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Desertambition wrote above: Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith?^{5 April 2022}

• When he wanted to be unblocked, he/she wrote: I understand why I was blocked due to disruptive editing^{16 January 2022}
• But after he had been unblocked, he/she wrote: I had an admin make up false reasons to block me when I brought up racism and then I was not given a chance to appeal.^{19 February 2022}

That is not showing good faith. The second statement is completely untrue. The first statement was from his unblock appeal (the one he/she says that he was not given a chance to make).

Desertambition habitually accuses other editors of bad faith:

• BilledMammal 1 March 2022 29 March 2022
• Nemov 25 March 2022
• Spekkios 1 March 2022 25 March 2022 4 April 2022
• Toddy1 1 March 2022 2 April 2022
• Ymblanter 19 February 2022 23 March 2022 23 March 2022 24 March 2022]

Maybe he/she cannot help doing it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Proposal?

There seems to be a fair bit of support here to do something. What should we propose as a path forward? On WP:ROPE basis the editor should be banned, but maybe a topic ban at the very least? Nemov (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The editor seems to seek conflict. He/she gets it through move discussions, articles where racism is an issue, and ANI. It is not reasonable to ban him/her from ANI, because it would make him/her vulnerable to bullying. But topic banning him/her from (a) undiscussed moves, (b) move discussions, (c) deletion discussions, and (d) racism broadly construed for nine months might bring out a more positive side to this editor. (As far as I know he/she had not misbehaved in deletion discussions, but we do not want to move his/her conflict-seeking behaviour from move discussions to deletion discussions.) I think a year is a bit long, and 6 months too short, so 9 months sounds right to me.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't take pleasure in banning users and D has shown an ability for research. I support your idea. Nemov (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with time-limited bans. I think that if a ban is imposed, whatever it is, then it should be indefinite - otherwise, the editor doesn't need to improve, and instead can just wait the clock out. Further, an indefinite ban might be shorter than a nine month ban; they might demonstrate sufficient improvement in three months for an appeal to be successful.

I would also suggest something similar to "racial issues broadly construed" rather than "racism broadly construed", as I feel the latter is slightly narrower than the area their behavioural issues exist in. BilledMammal (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Regardless of what sanctions I do or do not deserve, it hardly feels fair for editors I have active conflict and disagreement with to decide on my sanctions. Desertambition (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

I have not had any prior involvement here, and so have not had any active conflict or disagreement with User:Desertambition in the past. So, this should feel fair when I propose this:

User:Desertambition is topic-banned from undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America). They may appeal these sanctions, in whole or in part, in 3 months. Contravening the topic bans will result in an indefinite block, which must be appealed at this noticeboard. They are also cautioned against polemic conduct, casting aspersions, personal attacks, edit warring, and adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing.

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that a significant amount of my edits are concerned with move requests and discussions, that does not feel like an appropriate sanction. It is also unclear what "racial issues, broadly construed" would apply to. Desertambition (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the issues with your editing are also in those areas. Let's just say that you aren't going to be getting out of this without a restriction on your editing of some sort. You can appeal in three months, which is relatively soon, often such bans last at least 6 months or more.

"Racial issues, broadly construed" would involve any topic related to race and racism, since that is where the issues lie.

Basically, the advice is, if you aren't sure if a given edit would fall into that category, don't make it, without at least asking an admin if it would contravene your TBAN. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I will take whatever sanction admins feel is appropriate. It does seem like I am the only one being discussed here. Are the other editors completely faultless in these interactions or am I the sole problem user in your view? Desertambition (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It does seem like I am the only one being discussed here.

Yes, that's appropriate since you're the editor under discussion. There's also a long list of editors who have provided numerous examples of your conduct. This is why some are not hopeful that any temporary measure is going to work. You are seemingly incapable of acknowledging and taking responsibility for your actions. Nemov (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Every time I have come to ANI the discussion comes back around to me so it seems frustrating that there is no critical evaluation of other users. What I have done does not excuse this conduct from Nemov: [282] [283]. We are in active disagreement so there is an obvious COI with Nemov recommending sanctions for me. Desertambition (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, well, that's the way ANI works; Nemov is no more debarred from commenting here than you are from commenting here ... surely by your own stance you aren't a neutral party either, right? (And seriously, you think that Nemov asking for a citation to be rendered properly is inexcusable conduct? Really?) With that being said, I support the sanction as Mako001 set it forth. Ravenswing 07:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

They were not just asking for a citation. They were 1. Saying I was arguing in bad faith and 2. Refusing to discuss the issue and come to consensus. Seems to be a very uncharitable reading of the diffs I provided. Desertambition (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning the constant WP:BADGERing from BilledMammal.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Desertambition#Deprived_of_context

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2022_April#Queenstown,_South_Africa_(closed)

3. Following me around on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East_London_Airport#Requested_move_10_April_2022

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Makhanda,_South_Africa#%22Also_known_as%22

These are only a few examples of many. Desertambition (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it is OK for Desertambition to reply to BilledMammal's comments, but it is not OK for BilledMammal to answer back? But if BilledMammal does, then Desertambition MUST have the last word. Who is badgering who?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition: And that right there is why you are here in the first place. Whenever issues are raised with your editing, you promptly go on the offensive and engage in what-about-ism, casting aspersions, and such. The "it wasn't me it was everyone else" route will not lead anywhere good. I sincerely caution you not to keep pushing your luck on this, as you are lucky to get off with just a TBAN. A siteban wouldn't be completepy unreasonable, given how many times you have been told not to engage in combative behaviour, and still continued to do so.

Of course, you can always just double down, never admit that you have ever done anything wrong, and keep casting aspersions without substantial basis, but if you do, just let us know that you intend to do so now, as it will save everyone's time. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Support indefinite ban This last exchange has exhausted my faith that this editor will ever learn. Every prolonged exchange ends in hostility. This user will be right back here once a temporary ban is over. The first ban didn't work. The second ban didn't work. A threat of a topic ban hasn't worked either. I see where this is eventually heading. It's just gonna waste other editor's time getting there. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

- Edit: Amending vote to support indefinite ban after reviewing the examples below. I don't think a topic ban is going to solve the temperament issue. Nemov (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to repeat again that we are in active disagreement and there is a blatant COI here. Desertambition (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Comment I found this thread after encountering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ora (currency), an AfD that followed this PROD attempt. In both cases, the rationale does not appear to be based on notability, but on the editor's opinions of the topic at hand ("non-currency... non-English sources, and the article seems to exist largely for WP:PROMOTION...one step above monopoly money"). They have also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orania Representative Council following a similar PROD attempt, the deletion rationale of which appears similarly based on opinion on the topic rather notability. Concurrent edits to first article feel problematic as well, with the user removing sourced text apparently because the source is dead (the text in question is trivially sourceable too, eg.), while adding unsourced text that reflects the AfD rationale. Particularly concerning is that the AfDs and edits occurred after this AN/I discussion was opened, where the PRODs mentioned had already been brought up, which makes it hard to understand Desertambition's assertion above (also before the AfDs) that they "don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point". If an AfD nomination citing the use of non-English sources is not meant to disrupt to prove a point, then there is a lack of understanding that would appear to warrant a topic ban. CMD (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  You should probably wait a bit before making an WP:ANI complaint as the Ora request has been withdrawn and I have added citations to the article. Hardly seems blockable to make an WP:AfD request that may have mistakes. I also stand by the Orania Representative Council nomination. Again, none of this seems to break guidelines by any measure. There is also nothing wrong with creating deletion discussions after a PROD attempt has failed, in fact that is the entire point of deletion discussions. Someone asserting that they disliked my AfD/PROD requests is hardly grounds to stop editing in good faith. You may have misread my request for the Orania Representative Council as it was absolutely based on notability, I'll repost it here for your convenience:

  Article about a non-notable pseudo-governmental body that was created in 2017. Article is replete with false information that is not supported by sources. Many of the sources are misleading, not in English, or just not relevant at all. Nothing about this council necessitates an article of its own. Anything that is of note is mentioned in the Orania, Northern Cape article. Orania has been an integral part of Thembelihle Local Municipality since 2001 from what I can tell. Information on the council was largely added by one user and fails WP:GNG. The article is extremely misleading and filled with WP:WEASEL words that imply Orania is a separate municipality. In fact, residents of Orania vote in local elections along with every South African. Strong suspicion this was created with WP:PROMOTION in mind. Desertambition (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Could you explain how that rationale relates to WP:Notability? CMD (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  After I posted the above, Desertambition reached out on my talkpage under a section titled "‎Reaching out in good faith". After I replied, they stated they did not feel I was acting in good faith. I find it hard to read the intention behind this, as if it was deliberate trolling given this AN/I it could not be more on point. CMD (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Despite everything above, Desertambition is now edit warring their changes I mentioned above into the Ora article, with an edit summary opening with "Stop edit warring" to boot. Given that and the previously mentioned items, I have shifted my comment above to support, as explicit sanctions appear to be needed. CMD (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am not breaking any guidelines. This is a weak attempt to get me sanctioned because you personally disagree with my edits. First you recommend I be blocked because you disagreed with two of my deletion discussions (???) then you refuse to discuss article related issues on the article talk page after failing to thoroughly examine what sections of the article were changed/removed and why. Brute forcing your preferred edits with no arguments rooted in existing guidelines/policies is edit warring and "no u" is not a cogent argument rooted in existing guidelines and policies. I have created a section to discuss issues with the article if you would like to begin discussing your specific grievances in depth. Desertambition (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  You are edit warring, again. You have accused me of bad faith, which seems to be another pattern. There does not appear to be an understanding of notability, along with misunderstandings of sourcing policy. On the content, I have noted issues above, on the AfD page, and on my user talkpage. Your new post on the article talkpage does not appear to have taken any of those into account, and I do not see why raising issues in a fourth location is productive at this point. CMD (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I literally did not accuse you of bad faith, I said "It does feel a bit like you are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH." Very uncharitable way to view what I said. I was trying to WP:BENICE and reach out. Article issues should be raised on the article talk page. I see no reason why I need to track all of our discussions and tie them back to the article talk page. Desertambition (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Now, pretty much all recent contribution of the user is edit-warring and removal of the warnings from their talk page. Could we please put them back to the indef block they belong to? I think it is clear that they are incapable of collaborative editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  "All" is a bit of an exaggeration when I have not broken the WP:3RR and am engaging in extensive discussion on the talk page. You have made it extremely clear that you feel like I should have never been unblocked and trust me, I hear you loud and clear. I do not believe I am incapable of collaborative editing and have engaged in discussions extensively that have lead to improved articles and stronger consensus. Clearly users have nothing positive so say about me but I am not vandalizing or editing for the sole purpose of being disruptive. Many times consensus has been opposite my position and I have complied. Desertambition (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am afraid what you believe is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is what the closing administrator believes. Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  Desertambition, you appealed your indefinite block on the basis that you understood why you were blocked, and were sorry. It was NOT on the basis of the block being unjustified. Yet some time after you were unblocked, you posted on your user page to the effect that you were wrongly blocked. That statement on your user page more-or-less says that you were wrongly unblocked. If I were you I would ask that the statement on your user page should be revdeled.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't want this topic to get auto archived again. Can we get more comments on this issue so it can be resolved? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposed topic ban to address the disruption, neutral on the indef. I am concerned by them making one statement to get unblocked, and then effectively retracting that statement afterwards, but not enough to support the indef at this time - a final last chance could be beneficial to Wikipedia if it turns them into a productive editor who can collaborate with those working in the same space as them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would however suggest allowing them to participate in AFDs that cover articles they have created, if such AFDs are opened. BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Support indef. Today, they made an allegation that myself, Spekkios, FOARP, Ale3353, HTGS, and Ficaia are sockpuppets of Johnpacklambert. When this report was rejected, they doubled down on the rejecting admins talk page, and when that was rejected they doubled down again.

  This editor is incapable of understanding that editors can disagree with them in good faith, and that a consensus can form against their position in good faith. Instead, they believe that there has to be something nefarious going on, whether it is STONEWALLING, HOUNDING, TAGTEAM editing, or one of the greatest, most elaborate acts of sockpuppetry in Wikipedia history.

  I now fully agree with the assessments by Ad Orientem and Cullen328 above; This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. The best thing we can do at this point is show them the door and move on. BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for notifying me of this sockpuppet investigation request. I would like to say quickly that I have purposefully remained out of this discussion after posting my rebuttal above, as I believe that the user can contribute to this project, and because my last negative interaction with this user was a month ago, which lead me to believe they were able to reflect on this discussion and amend their behaviour. This sockpuppet investiagtion request has of course ruined that notion, and while I will not !vote (as I am not a neutral party) I will say that I am disappointed and concerned by this latest event, and I also agree with Cullen and Orientem. --Spekkios (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Jesus wept! Desertambition posted on my talkpage earlier today, but thought no more about their comment, and I don't believe I've come across them before now. Then I see this thread at the top of ANI. Now while I might not be inviting BM, FOARP and JPL to a Friends of Lugnuts Celebration Evening anytime soon, to say they're all one and the same user in a huge sock-fest would be the biggest conspiracy theory since the single bullet! That whole SPI is laughable at best. Mercy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support proposed topic ban (though I would have preferred one limited to 9 months, instead of one he/she had to appeal). Since he/she got blocked on 22 March after making 4 reverts in 24 hours, he/she has mostly restricted him/herself to three reverts when edit-warring, and even self-reverted a 4th revert on 10 April after being reported. So Desertambition is capable of learning. He/she still has not understood why we have to put edit warring notices on his/her talk page after he/she has made 3 reverts to a page in 24 hours.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • There were four reverts on 12 April at the Ora article, but either way I do get the impression 3RR is being seen as an allowance rather than a limit. CMD (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - looking through the examples (is this the worst we've got), I'm not seeing much that's actionable at a topic ban level. The edit warring seems more serious than hostility. Riot act has been read - move on. Nfitz (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support: If this has been going on for a while, and no lessons are learned after several last chances, I don't see what else there is to do. I have seen some of their activity on this board and the accusations, in fact I was insinuated myself by this user today of wanting to get someone blocked in bad faith, and falsely accused of accusing someone of sockpuppetry when all did was saying I found the timing and circumstances suspiscious not directly accusing anyone in this ″friendly advice″. Support topic ban not indef. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with you based on what I have seen from Desertambition, but regarding your link to the discussion where you see he accused you of wanting (Me) blocked for my edits, he never actually accused you of that. In addition you did actually call me a sock puppet of Desertambition, by slyly assuming such due to editing in similar times. June Parker (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

    How about we keep focus on what it should be on this report, your false accusations have a seperate thread. TylerBurden (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Looking into this there seems to be a repeated and egrigreous violation of the rules here, as well as bad manners. As TylerBurden mentioned, he messaged me on my talk page trying to give me "Friendly" advice just because I so happened to make edits on racial issues and got into a content dispute. He's also shadowed some of my edits. I don't see what he has to do with the dispute I had with those users or what he had to gain from it but it was just really weird. June Parker (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef per the above, also it’s absurd to accuse that I am a sockpuppet of User: Johnpacklambert. User:Desertambition needs to learn that people can disagree with their opinion without being racist or a sockpuppet or whatever. Ale3353 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Closure needed

Can an admin please close the topic ban proposal one way or another before this gets autoarchived?-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Bumping again... There's numerous examples and comments on this issue. Can we get a resolution on the proposal? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't had much to do with Desertambition and I opposed the AfD nom they made for Orania Representative Council. I considered the topic notable, but wouldn't consider the nomination disruptive. I think the comments on their userpage about racism on Wikipedia are unnecessarily critical. Something that suggests we actually don't tolerate racism was an ANI thread they initiated on 12 April regarding a long-standing, previously respected editor spreading white genocide conspiracy theories. Action was taken and the offending editor indeffed. This suggests we do take racism seriously and also shows Desertambition can bring legitimate concerns to community attention. I would say I disagree with some overly critical comments that have been made above. Desertambition has made some decent contributions and I note in their favour that they behaved appropriately at the AfDs that did not go their way (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orania Representative Council). This doesn't seem to me like an editor unquestionably unable to work with others, even in case of disagreement. I think what we do need is commitments from this editor to remember the importance of civility and keep serious accusations such as racism for when it is deserved. I don't think anything can reasonably come from this discussion now and I'd honestly suggest a close with a clear warning regarding civility. AusLondonder (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Desertambition has now restarted edit warring on the Orania article. CMD (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  Feel free to revert edits you disagree with. Editing != edit warring. Please provide reasoning on why you disagree when reverting and be specific as well please. Desertambition (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  These are edits you have made before, have already been reverted before, and already has a talkpage discussion. Please understand that this is edit warring. CMD (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Amazing how despite all the evidence, an administrator is let alone to even make a comment about what should be done. Bump indeed. TylerBurden (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of TylerBurden insinuating I am sockpuppeting (from the discussion below):

1. [284]

2. [285]

3. [286]

4. Right before posting on ANI: [287] Desertambition (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice attempt to try and deflect away from your own report, start a seperate thread if you feel I have violated policies by mentioning that I was suspiscious about your relation with June Parker. TylerBurden (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Should I make a WP:RFCLOSE request to resolve this issue. There does appear to be consensus here, but there's a lot of back and forth that makes it difficult to follow. Nemov (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Go ahead. This has been open for 21 days now. Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs! 16:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I've initiated a request. Nemov (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Preventing this from archivation. Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  still pending? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'm perplexed as to why this taking so long to resolve. There's plenty examples above and the behavior keeps happening over and over. D has now accused multiple editors of being sockpuppets. No disagreement can be in good faith. There's always some nefarious plot. Then D argued with other editors when the request was removed. This isn't an editor that is learning to play nice. What's the hold up? Nemov (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment Please do something and close this already. I have said my piece and you can read the many, many criticisms of me. I feel like I have made edits that have been helpful and have tried to build consensus in good faith. Clearly I have approached some issues incorrectly and many users want me perma banned. A thread on top of ANI filled with critiques of me that has been open for almost a month is demoralizing. I have not vandalized or edited just to disrupt. I want to continue improving the encyclopedia without this sitting in limbo with users constantly editing it so it doesn't get archived. I have wiped my user page, which many users brought up as too critical of Wikipedia. I have not brought problems to ANI unless the evidence was overwhelming. I made a mistaken sock puppet complaint with evidence that I now understand to be worthless. I have heavily reduced the number of edits I make and frequently engage in lengthy talk page discussions. I do not personally see how an indef block would be helpful but I am not an admin. Desertambition (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2022 (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.

m:Requests for comment/Global de-adminship for Jusjih

A user is requesting to "global de-admin" (sorry I really don't know how likely if this could be happened) @Jusjih: which in requestor's claim, has many disruptive and abusive behaviors in several Chinese-language projects and Meta-Wiki, the requestor is also mentioned en.wikipedia here where Jusjih is also an administrator, but didn't say anything else on their en.wikipedia's behaviors. Do any of our adminships that may or may not familiar Jusjih's works know how to resolve it? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• I am primarily familiar with Jusjih through working with them at Wikisource, where we are also admins. They can be a bit of a pill at times, but nothing that I would consider disruptive, abusive or otherwise rising to the level of de-adminship. BD2412 T 06:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for trusting me so much. Yet I found an abusive page as Meta has a request to suspend an abusive administrator pending an orderly discussion.--Jusjih (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Looks like WP:MFD is the place to discuss, if that page is abusive? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  • User:Zhxy 519/sandbox seems to be an attack page to me, and thus deletable as such. Anyone else concur? Mjroots (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

User: GhostlyOperative

User: GhostlyOperative is recently exhibiting problematic behaviour in Generation Z in direct violation of the established talk page consensus (continuation) between various Wikipedia users such as User:BappleBusiness and User:Some1. Any changes made to the date range section must be discussed to reach talk page consensus. The user is ignoring the talk page consensus and resorting to reverting revisions, edit warring, and making personal attacks and accusations. Any changes that aren't discussed are removed per the talk page consensus that was made. Additionally, WP:AGF, WP:CON, and WP:CIVIL are important Wikipedia policies but this user is making provocative accusations on my talk page and elsewhere (using his IP address and main user account): [288] & [289] & [290] & [291] More evidence: [292] & [293] & [294] & [295] & [296] & [297] & [298] Agrso (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

We have discussed multiple times about the United State's Library of Congress's decision. Agrso has a repeated history of committing edit wars on the Generation Z wiki page as well as vandalism by adding outdated sources for unknown reasons. Agrso Wiki Talks page shows this history. They have been reported by other editors in the past as well. Agrso even falsely accused me of "Sockpuppetry" when I'm my own person. They didn't even warn me before making the report. But I did. I was about to report Agrso after giving them the warning, but now I don't know if I should wait. The source that I put is from the United States Library of Congress as of 2022 and has been added to the Talks page for discussion. GhostlyOperative (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not have a history of disruptive editing and I have never been blocked from Wikipedia. In my talk page, I previously received the same repetitive message by User:Zillennial who has already been blocked twice for disruptive editing, edit warring, ownership, and personal attacks in Generation Z. I recently received a message by an IP address that seems to be you (I did warn you about the sockpuppet investigation in your talk page). The talk page consensus in Generation Z was reached unanimously by the users who regularly edit the page and this is evidenced by their actions: [299] and [300]. Changes were agreed upon after years of edit warring, and a source should only be added if it provides significant and any changes to the date range section should only be made if there is a consensus on the talk page. Agrso (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I was accused of "Sockpuppetry" which I consider a false accusation. You did not warn me but went ahead and reported me when I warned you about edit warring and was about to make a report. My account was created 2 years ago, and I'm not Zillenial if that's what you are implying. You can check my history. I have added the 2022 United States Library of Congress citation to the talk page consensus, which was not available before this year. Agsro has been deleting my other edits from other Wiki articles, such as for Generation Jones. Someone has falsely put 1995-2009 for that article as well as any outdated citations, which I have updated with the Library of Congress. The Millennials wiki page even has the 1981-1996 age range in the first paragraph. The Wikipedia article for Generation Z in the United States has the 1997-2012 age range which has been put by someone else. Agsro has edited the Generation Jones Wiki article as well and falsely states that the United States Census will determine Generation Z when they become older, which is factually false. They only officially recognize Baby Boomers and no one else. Someone is vandalizing the wiki pages by either forcing the 1995-2009 date range or even taking it out completely along with the sources if it does not meet their criteria. This example can be seen on the Generation Jones article edit history. The United States Library of Congress citation is from 2022 and from the federal government. It's not a made-up citation or a random source. GhostlyOperative (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment :::I also want to state that Agrso is a hypocrite. They keep claiming of the talk page consensus on Generation Z, established talk page consensus (continuation), yet were fully aware of The Generation Jones article still having the 1995- 2009 date for a long time (and even a 1995-2015 at one point). Later, suspicious anonymous accounts kept changing it back when I changed it, still with no citations. It was until I added the credible citation that Agrso suspiciously immediately took it down. In the edit comments history, they made false statements about the American Census Bureau making the final decision. This is my first time being something part of this while Agrso has been aware for over a year judging by the talk page consensus history. They also have a history of citing outdated sources for a long time. I will not change the citations after a decision is made, however, I want to make you aware that Agrso has been incredibly sketchy with other Wikipedia articles and I don't understand why anyone has made them accountable. At least I don't erase my edit history or comments. GhostlyOperative (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

User: Just hoagie

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.

---

Just hoagie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently engaged in some extremely blatant pro-Russia vandalism in articles related to Russia-Ukraine conflict: [301][302][303][304][305] Was warned on 6 April [306] but behaviour continued.--Staberinde (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

User blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. In light of the editor having older edits which do not look like vandalism, I have not indef blocked. If they continue after block expiry, report it to WP:AIV for expediency. Oz\^InterAct 19:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Good call. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2022 (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:Jack M E 01

Jack M E 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) consistently edits without edit summaries, has never edited a talk page and has repeatedly added unsourced (or poorly sourced) content to articles. Despite numerous warnings on their talk page, they continue this behaviour. To be clear, I think *most* of their contributions are perfectly valid, but I want some acknowledgement from them about whether they know some of these edits are problematic and if they're working on improving, so I'm hoping this discussion will prompt them to do that.

Some diffs on their recent problematic edits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. FozzieHey (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like I already gave him a final warning. What's so wrong with those edits, though? Obviously, I was upset over something, probably unsourced birth dates or real names in a BLP. That's what most of my BLP warnings are for. One of the edits looks like it's replacing a citation to the IMDb. The IMDb is listed in WP:USERG as the canonical example of an unreliable source. The website cited says "Adriana Sivieri, attrice (100 anni)", which is "Adriana Sivieri, actress (100 years old)" according to Google Translate. What's the problem? Is it that the website is unreliable? What's the point in reverting back to the IMDb, then? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that IMDb is an unreliable source. I probably should've spent more time looking at what sources were being replaced for that particular edit (the Roma Daily News one looks fairly reliable (more so than IMDb anyway, I think the argument here is whether the article says that they were alive then, or whether they've simply just got a list of birthdates and published it based on those), so I've now restored that, the other one in the edit seems more like a personal website) but the purpose of posting those revisions was simply to highlight that the editor continues to add either unreliable sources or no sources at all despite them being warned about it repeatedly for many months. As I said, the majority of edits are completely fine (hence I raised this here, and not at AIV) but for the few that aren't, they should be relatively easy to solve with a simple discussion. Obviously this is the whole point of talk pages, which I'm hoping we can get them to participate in with this discussion. FozzieHey (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jack M E 01: Given that you've continued to edit mainspace since this discussion has started, it would be good to get some kind of acknowledgement here. You should see a reply button next to this comment which makes it easy to reply. Otherwise, if you're not sure how to edit talk pages then make sure to read Help:Talk pages, basically you can just add your response directly below this comment, make sure to sign and date your comment using four tildes (~~~~) FozzieHey (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

So, I count eighteen attempts to communicate with them on their talk page, every one of them ignored. I've issued a partial block from article space and asked them again to comment here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: thanks. They have responded on their talk page. FozzieHey (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Tennisedu

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

Tennisedu joined Wikipedia as an IP user in April 2019, and immediately started making edits to the article of tennis player Lew Hoad. He created his account in January 2020. Despite early and repeated warnings about WP:NPOV and WP:V, he has continued to this day to add false information, speculation, and WP:FRINGE interpretations of well-understood facts in order to inflate Hoad's achievements and diminish those of his rivals. A full quarter of his 7300 edits have been to Hoad's article or talk page, with his other edits being primarily to statistics articles featuring Hoad, or to the articles of Hoad's contemporaries, indicating that he is acting as a WP:SPA, with the single purpose being to boost Hoad's standing on Wikipedia. His relentless promotion of this player through any means possible requires perpetual monitoring and correction to stop all articles in this subject-area (pre-Open Era professional tennis) from "going down the drain". An enormous amount of knowledgeable-tennis-editors' time is wasted countering this biased editing that could otherwise be spent substantially improving Wikipedia.

Evidence

Warnings given regarding WP:NPOV and WP:V violations
1) May 2019, 2) Jun 2019, 3) Jul 2019, 4) Jul 2019 (2), 5) Dec 2020, 6) Mar 2021, 7) Jun 2021, 8) Sep 2021, 9) Nov 2021, 10) Feb 2022, 11) Apr 2022

Hoad inflation (key examples)

• Falsely claimed that Hoad, not Rod Laver was first to reach $1 million prize money based on original research. [307] [308] [309] (proof the $1 million is widely accepted: [310] [311][312][313]) (relevant discussion).
• Repeatedly added mid-career prize money tallies after consensus among other editors [314] concluded that these were unnecessary bloat: [315] [316]. Added false information that Hoad made $140,000 in just six months in 1957: [317]. Again he misused one source, in contradiction to all other sources (proof the real figure was $33,600).
• Added the false information that Hoad held the record for most major doubles titles: [318] (proof this is false is in The History of Professional Tennis, Joe McCauley, (2000), pp. 256-257).

Hoad rival diminishment (key examples)

• Removed Rod Laver's landmark achievement of being the first to earn $1 million prize money [319] under the guise of "consistency" (relevant discussion).
• Repeatedly changed name of several editions of the U.S. Pro Tennis Championships to "Cleveland World Pro", thereby attempting to strip them of their major status (Hoad never won that tournament) [320] [321] (proof this is false) (relevant discussions: 1 2).

Other false info (key examples)

• (2022) Repeatedly added the false information that amateur tennis players were actually professional before the Open Era, e.g. added to Ramanathan Krishnan the claim that he was a "registered professional" before 1968 [322] [323]. (proof he wasn't: Krishnan participated in Wimbledon, a Grand Slam, in 1967, but "until 1968 tennis was divided into professional and amateur circuits, meaning those paid to play were barred from competing in the Grand Slam tournaments" [324]) (relevant discussion).
• (2022) Misrepresented a source for Pancho Gonzales' prize money in mid-1965 by adding $8000 to the figure listed under the assumption that it excluded prize money from the Dallas tournament [325] (proof the source lists $18,945 not $26,945). Also added false, unverified speculation that Gonzales was the top earner for the year [326] (proof he wasn't), and used this as justification to remove the true statement that Gonzales wasn't the top pro from 1965-1967 [327] (relevant discussion).

50+ other examples of editors correcting false info or removing bloat added by this user from Lew Hoad in the past ~12 months

• Not all of these are major, but they collectively show the need for constant monitoring of this user's edits.
  [328][329]*[330][331][332][333][334][335][336][337][338][339][340][341][342][343][344][345][346][347][348][349][350][351][352][353][354][355][356][357][358][359][360][361][362][363][364] [365][366] [367][368][369][370] [371][372][373][374][375][376][377][378][379][380][381][382][383][384]

25+ other examples of editors correcting false info or removing bloat added by this user from Hoad-related pages in the past ~12 months
World number 1 ranked male tennis players: [385][386][387][388][389][390][391]; Pancho Gonzales: [392][393][394][395][396][397][398][399][400]; Jack Kramer: [401][402][403][404][405][406][407][408][409][410][411]

Relevant talk pages

• Talk:Lew Hoad/Archive 1, Talk:Lew Hoad/Archive 2, Talk:Lew Hoad/Archive 3, Talk:Pancho Gonzales, Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 5 Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 5 Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 6 Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players/Archive 9 Talk:World number 1 ranked male tennis players

Therefore, as he has demonstrated over a period of years that he cannot edit neutrally within this topic area despite repeated warnings, we request that he be topic-banned from articles related to Lew Hoad, broadly construed.

Signed:

• Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Krosero (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Letcord (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Reply

The issues raised above were resolved long ago, and this complaint made above is not about recent editing. Many of my recent edits were related to other tennis articles such as World Number One, Tennis Pro Tours and Tournament Series, Tony Roche, Bob Bedard, Jack Kramer, Luis Ayala, Frank Kovacs, Pancho Segura and many other tennis players. I made some edits recently to the Major Professional Tennis Tournaments article showing a record achievement for Gonzales, a pro-Gonzales discovery. I have received "Thanks" notices from other editors, such as ForzaUV, Wolbo, Tennishistory1877, Fyunck, Rard, and other editors as can be seen on my notices page. The recent edits which I made to the Hoad article have not been challenged by anyone. I would like to know why this issue is being raised now, when recent editing has not been challenged. The attempt above to revive old arguments is irrelevant. The issues surrounding conflicting newspaper reports about earnings were not relevant to the article and nearly all of the financial discussions were removed from the Hoad and other tennis biography articles by consensus, some time ago. Why should someone try to make an issue of this now? The attempt above to renew these old discussions is not relevant to current editing. I notice that someone above claims that we are still debating the status of the U.S. Pro at Cleveland, but then adduces evidence taken from discussions in 2019 and 2020. That is old news, the discussion has moved well beyond that point, with new evidence, as can be seen on the U.S. Pro article tables which we currently have and which are apparently accepted by the editors above. If consensus has been achieved, as on this point, there is nothing to be gained by dredging up old arguments and trying to create an issue.Tennisedu (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The most recent of the major issues listed in the complaint was last week. There have been regular problems with this editor throughout the three year period he has been editing on wikipedia. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The amount of material I posted with which there is no problem is enormous, and all the issues you have attempted to dredge up from previous years were resolved. That is how responsible editing proceeds. Take a look at the Kramer, Hoad, Tennis Pro Tours, and other articles where I have posted material recently, I do not see any unresolved issues there, despite the large amount of material added. I notice that you referred to the Hoad article where last week you removed the reference to the Sydney Herald, that was not a false edit on my part. You just did not think that it was a good enough reference. That is a matter of personal opinion, but I did not make an issue of it. Why you would try to make a "major" issue of that now is beyond my understanding. You seem to be searching hard for something to complain about. However I notice that you "thanked" me on my notice page, Tennishistory1877? Obviously you must see something of value in my edits. Tennisedu (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Tennisedu: To make this easier for everyone, have you made POV edits to the articles in concern in this discussion or were every single one of your edits in your view good faith edits with no agenda? I have a feeling (though I can't guarantee it) if you admit that you've done wrong there would probably be leniency for you and you would be given a second chance to be better. I know you like editing in the area. If you are found to be POV pushing, you'll likely be slapped with an indeff topic ban on the articles you've shown much interest in. With that said, if you truly believe you haven't done wrong hold your ground. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

There was never an intent to promote or POV push, but I did see a lack of content in the Hoad article and found quite a bit of material which I believed should be included. I did notice that many of Hoad's most important achievements were not mentioned in the article, and elsewhere I managed to find sources which described those achievements. That might appear to others to be POV editing, but I think that it was more along the lines of discovering achievements which were not previously noted in the standard tennis histories. Because it was new material, some other editors perceived it to be agenda or POV based. However, I think that those additions have now been sufficiently sourced and citations given to establish their place in the article, plus other articles which deal with tours and rankings. I have taken the same approach with other tennis biography articles, such as Bob Bedard, whose article was extremely short on data before I added some new material, and also with the articles on Frank Kovacs, Jack Kramer, where I added new material which was well sourced. I do not see any current issues with this material, which now appears to well accepted in the Hoad article and the other articles.Tennisedu (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

This editor has apparently engaged in some POV pushing in this area. Many of the edits appear to be promotional content, and I understand the reporting users burden of having to monitor this users edits. This could potentially be a case of WP:Civil POV pushing, which generally makes it more tricky to identify, but the reporting users have provided a good array of evidence. With that said, I don't know what remedies should be done because I just don't know how egrigious this users conduct is since I'm not an expert in this area (Tennis related stuff). I would like to some more content-experts voice their opinion here or another relevant forum (see point 2 at WP:Civil POV pushing#Suggested remedies) before any sort of sanctions are imposed. If civil POV pushing is established firmly in this case, I believe a topic ban of tennis related topics broadly construed would be a good call to make; maybe with like 6 month to 1 year expiration date since not all of this editors edits are bad. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Reply

The vast majority of my recent edits have been on pages not related to the Hoad page, however the complaints above are focused on that Hoad article. I would suggest that the Hoad page be frozen for a six month period, no further editing done on that article for that period of time. That should resolve the source of these complaints, and focus attention on other tennis articles where the bulk of my attention is currently directed. I do not see complaints related to my edits on the Jack Kramer, Bob Bedard, Tony Roche, Ashley Cooper, Frank Kovacs, or other tennis articles such as the Tennis Pro Tours article, where I have made many recent contributions.Tennisedu (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, it is good to hear you admit that there have been issues with your editing, because there is a very long list of your problematic edits that Letcord has listed in this complaint (and that is not anywhere near a complete list by any means). I do not think admins like to lock individual wikipedia pages for long, so I do not think that is a viable option. When I asked for and was granted a page lock on Hoad last year, the page lock only lasted a few days. There are two main issues with your editing. Firstly there are your unintentional errors, which effect most of the pages you edit (including pages such as Bob Bedard) and require correction by other editors (often me). Secondly there is the biased editing which effects pages for Lew Hoad and his rivals (this also extends to other major pros in the pre-open era, ie Jack Kramer, who were successful at winning the annual world pro tours which Hoad never won and you seek to belittle these tours at every possible opportunity). I am tired of your biased narrative on Lew Hoad and associated pages, from major factual errors right down to the slight alteration of a sentence so that it favours Hoad and if I could be sure that you were no longer editing these pages this would be a very big step forward. I have noticed on the pages that are not connected to Lew Hoad's pro career (ie Bedard) when I have made corrections to your errors, you have accepted these and you have not restored your edits and you have not argued. This is in stark contrast to Hoad and associated pages, where you have restored your edits and argued cases on talk threads with myself and other editors without any evidence to back up your cases many times. This has wasted a lot of my time and caused me a lot of stress, as I detest daily rows of this kind. I do not trust you to voluntarily stop editing on Hoad and his rivals, so I propose the following: that you are banned from editing the Lew Hoad page and also the pages of Pancho Gonzales, Jack Kramer, Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Frank Sedgman, Bobby Riggs, Don Budge, Fred Perry, Roy Emerson, John Newcombe, Manuel Santana, Neale Fraser, Ramanathan Krishnan, Ellsworth Vines, Hans Nüsslein, Bill Tilden, Frank Kovacs, Pancho Segura, Tony Trabert, Ashley Cooper (tennis), Mal Anderson, Alex Olmedo, Andrés Gimeno, Butch Buchholz, World number 1 ranked male tennis players, Top ten ranked male tennis players (1912–1972), Top ten ranked male tennis players, Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era, Tennis pro tours and tournament ranking series, Tournament of Champions (tennis), Australian Pro, Wembley Championships, French Pro Championship and U.S. Pro Tennis Championships. You have edited most of these pages already and I can foresee problems with those on my list that you haven't edited if you were to start editing them. This leaves you still able to edit many hundreds of pages for male amateur players, quite a number of pages for minor male pros before the open era and all male players that began their careers in the open era plus all female tennis players. Also, the majority of the pages I have listed for you to be blocked from editing are pages that have been substantially upgraded already and should not require any further substantial edits. In exchange for you being banned from editing those pages, I will voluntarily agree to leave all of these pages alone from now on. I can not say what other editors will do, but most of these pages do not have many substantial edits made to them often. That is my proposal. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers, a couple of years ago I linked to the Civil POV essay as the best way I could think of to describe the situation on these pages, so I'm pleased you've linked to it yourself. The essay describes good editors dropping away from such an unsustainable situation, e.g., "disillusioned by the never-ending problems," and that's been my main worry about these pages from the beginning. My own activity has dropped off for the better part of the last year, and do not see myself being active again without some sort of solution or step forward. I've watched @Tennishistory1877 growing ever more frustrated with the constant necessary monitoring, and though I think his proposal to drop out altogether is too high a price (he's our best historian, and never posts misinformation), I won't oppose his proposal if others agree that's the way to go.

I feel it's almost needless to say, but freezing any pages means placing restrictions on users whose edits are not a problem, so I couldn't support such a freeze. I agree with the list of pages given above by tennishistory1877, as far as any block that might be decided upon. Our petition above explicitly refers not just to Hoad's page but to pages about Hoad's rivals; our list of reverts come from a wide range of pages; and our list is not intended to be thought of as a full list of all problems.

As for your request concerning tennis content, we are a very small group here, posting on a subject that is not widely studied, and I'm not sure how many others will be willing to drop into a proceeding of this kind which can be intimidating, but I'll try to find others who can speak to the tennis content issues.

The more specific you can be with what you want to know or would like to see in terms of the tennis content, the better I may be able to provide it. Krosero (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the pages that Tennishistory1877 refers to are essentially complete and probably do not require any further editing. It is difficult to see where any further edits are required on those pages, so I am agreeable to staying away from those pages. I still see some possible further need for editing of a few players, such as Tony Roche, Bob Bedard (I am still looking for some further information) whose articles were extremely short and needed more material before I added substantial material. I have already added much to the other articles mentioned in Tennishistory1877's list, so I think that we have enough there. That sounds like a good list to me of articles to stay away from, so I am agreeable to that list. I hope that no one takes it upon themselves to obliterate the valuable information which has been assembled there at present. There has been some removals in the past which required extensive discussion to arrive at a conclusion, which conclusions are now present in those articles and seem to be acceptable to everyone at this time.Tennisedu (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• So here's the thing. If this is still up this weekend, I may sit down for a couple hours and review all the evidence to see if I believe civil POV pushing is present. I'm being cautious because I don't want say a user is POV pushing when they actually have good faith content ideas that are just not always accepted by the community, and this user has not strictly made bad contributions. Even then, I'm not an admin, so I can't really doing anything about this, but I can make a recommendation. If a solution can't be resolved here an appeal to the arbitration committee may be the next best option. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that we may have reached a resolution above. I do not see a need for further editing of the articles mentioned by Tennishistory1877. I am willing to not edit these articles further. I hope that other editors do not take it upon themselves to obliterate the material which is currently there, and which entailed much hard work by myself and Tennishistory1877, that would create an issue. I suggest that this represents a suitable agreement to end whatever problems still exist with this material.Tennisedu (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Krosero, but it never was my intention to remain a regular daily editor on wikipedia forever. I have added the information I wanted to add. Before Tennisedu and I began working on these tennis pages on wikipedia, many of these player pages remained much the same for many years, so if the two main editors who have been working on them over the past two years cease to edit them, I can't see much changing in the articles. If there should happen to be problems with editors arriving and obliterating large amounts of material, we can discuss the issue again. I thank you for your agreement above, Tennisedu, but I would still like to push for you to be banned on the pages listed, because I do not want to have to keep checking whether you have kept to your word and I believe there is sufficient evidence for a ban. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that a ban is necessary, and that it's sufficiently evidenced. Krosero (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I am agreeable to not edit the above pages further, I think that we have done sufficient work on those articles. But I would hope that other editors who have expressed concern do not take that opportunity to remove important material from those pages. That would represent a problem and would represent a cause for complaint. And I would expect that this current discussion is not being engaged in for any other purpose than to bring closure on the editing of the above articles. Tennisedu (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• In my view, even with the agreement offered by Tennisedu, a topic ban would still be warranted—again, assuming it is established they've engaged in POV pushing. For 2 reasons: (1) The reporting users would still have the burden of checking the articles (2) A topic ban would only serve as a enforcement mechanism for the agreement, which is undeniably good. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly nothere of User:Babe Gigi

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:Babe Gigi test editting everywhere and use a lot of talk pages as chat, even after several warns were given. All of their edits have been reverted and I'm very suspicious that this user is not here to build or wp:CIR. Could any sysop take a look of their contributions?--PAVLOV (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You're a little late in reporting her as she hasn't edited since May 1, but I've nonetheless blocked her as VOA.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be earlier next time. PAVLOV (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2022 (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:Topic ban violation by User:Roqui15

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.

---

Roqui15 was indefinitely blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY mainly affecting List of largest empires and its talk page (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive). The user was later unblocked following this discussion, one of the conditions being a WP:TBAN, broadly construed, for List of largest empires, including the talk page. This has now been violated by editing Talk:List of largest empires (diff) and posting to WP:DRN about the page (diff). TompaDompa (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

They also filed a report at WP:DRN on the same topic. I would concur this is a clear violation of their topic ban regarding that article. Pinging @Deepfriedokra:, who drafted said restrictions, for their input. I'm leaning towards a sanction of some sort as needed here, given the WP:IDHT nature ignoring the sanctions placed as a condition of the unblock. --Jayron32 14:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It was clearly stated to me that I was free to edit what I wanted. Although I was ok with the topic bans, nothing was directly told to me that I was not allowed to do eny editions on the list of largest empires talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roqui15 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Roqui15 It was clearly stated to me that I was free to edit what I wanted. - This isn't true at all. The administrator who unblocked you [412] made it very clear that you were under the restrictions laid out here [413] the very first point of which is a WP:TBAN from List of largest empires. A TBAN means you are not allowed to touch that page: you are not allowed to edit that page, you are not allowed to edit its talk page, you are not allowed to discuss it elsewhere on the site, etc. You should read WP:TBAN carefully to make sure you understand what a topic ban means. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ima probably block partially for List of largest empires and Talk:List of largest empires. Not surprised. merely disappointed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You know I cannot remember and have to check. I found this in the unblock request. For this unblock it's ok for me to be banned from participating in the discussion or editing on the List of largest Empires page,. Which is kinda how I remember it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The user who unlocked me clearly stated "While there wasn't consensus for a one-way interaction ban with TompaDompa you should be aware that any interaction may be carefully scrutinised for any sign of harassment" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roqui15 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That means you don't have an interaction ban with TompaDompa. You still have a topic ban from the List of Largest Empires page, talk page, and related pages. You agreed to that and it was part of the conditions of your unblock. --Jayron32 14:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Who stated you were free to edit as you wanted. It wasn't me ( I hope ). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Roqui15: See your user talk page. At 04:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC), Deepfriedokra (talk · contribs) proposed a series of unblock conditions, which includes "WP:TBAN, broadly construed, for List of largest empires, including the talk page." At 23:08, 16 June 2021 you, Roqui15, stated "I'm ok with all of the unblock conditions above." Your account was unblocked at 20:01, 28 October 2021 with the stipulation by the unblocking admin Cabayi (talk · contribs) "The discussion has concluded with an acceptance of your appeal subject to the conditions set above Special:Permalink/1051763803#Proposed unblock conditions/unblock discussion." Are you disputing this? It is right on your user talk page for all of us to read. --Jayron32 14:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I said it was ok! But like it was a consensus about my topic ban was not made and I was still free to edit the page in question. I was not topic banned, therefore I assumed I was free to edit it. But sure, do as you want, block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roqui15 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Roqui15, I'm sorry but this is simply not true and is arguing in favour of an indefinite block (though I'm not proposing one at this time). You very clearly agreed to the topic ban and the topic ban is in force. I'm absolutely stunned that you think it isn't. This raises serious WP:CIR concerns. And it isn't just that single page and the associated talk page, the topic ban is "broadly construed". You are also subject to WP:1RR and all the other conditions you accepted. --Yamla (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I apologize. It's been months. I really thought it was OK since I made an edit in the same page in December and nobody told me anything. I'm sorry, I won't make any edition in that page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roqui15 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

OH, God!. That was the condition of your unblock. And you agreed to it. Just to make matters crystal-clear. I have partial blocked the article and the talk, as a regular admin action, that can be modified or undone aby any admin. I see no need for a further sanction-- at present --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

meh. Wishful thinking sometimes causes us to forget. Best --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure! Wishful thinking indeed. But yeah alright, I'm totally fine and I'm sorry, I really am. As long as he lives Roqui15 won't make any edition in list of largest empires page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roqui15 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved adequately. Roqui made a serious, but good faith, mistake and misunderstood the conditions of their unblock. They understand them now, and to help them remember DFO has issued the appropriate page blocks. The one matter that needs to be left is for someone to please close the inappropriate thread at WP:DRN. That page is a bit arcane for me, and I don't want to screw up closing a discussion in a way that will interact badly with the maintenance bots. --Jayron32 14:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one, and "arcane' means a lot coming from you/ --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I've closed the DRN request as being about a topic that the filer is topic-banned from and being about pages that the filer is partially blocked from. (I've also recommended that any future dispute about this page be looked at with caution by other volunteers.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2022 (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.

Koqkpa

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've come here in regards to the editor Koqkpa. I think there might be some WP:CIR concerns here as not only have they created copyvio drafts 3 times now, but there are also some other concerns about them on their talk page. I'm not exactly sure what should be done here (which is why I've come here). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Koqkpa#Slow down seems to support, from my reading, that the editor in question thinks that copyright only applies if you copy and paste it, and if you type it manually than it's not a copyright violation.

No, that's not how it works. casualdejekyll 15:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The editor has also previously said that since they changed two characters it's not a copyvio. casualdejekyll 15:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by @Bbb23 - but immediately went and requested an unblock with a WP:BRO defense. I have a bad feeling that somewhere down the line a TPA revoke is in their future...

EDIT: To be clear, I don't mean that they should have TPA revoked now, but we can all see what's likely to happen here, right? casualdejekyll 16:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know that I've ever seen a WP:BRO used unironically. First time for everything, I guess. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I've seen it once before at the Teahouse. Editor was eventually unblocked for other reasons, but it's still a somewhat popular excuse. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

TPA might need to be revoked since they basically just threatened to start socking if we don't unblock them in 26 hours (which won't happen). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a TPA revoking type deal, it seems. Tagging @Bbb23 since they're the blocking administrator. (Also, the more we peanut gallery this, the more WP:DENY starts to kick in..) casualdejekyll 17:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Once TPA is revoked (if it is) could this discussion please be closed since there probably won't be much more to discuss? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:30, 5 May 2022 (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.

Harassment by User:2600:387:15:15:0:0:0:B

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.

---

2600:387:15:15:0:0:0:B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user left a message on my talk page here; "Hey man, pathological liars like you need to be hunted and destroyed. Make you first positive contribution to the world, Thiel loser, remove yourself from it." Note that the section title they chose was "(Redacted)".

This was in response to me reverting their changes on Eric Weinstein and asking for a source to add this (controversial) information. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm - email emergency@wikimedia.org @Hey man im josh casualdejekyll 17:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @casualdejekyll, I did read that page but didn't feel as though it was applicable in this case because I don't feel as though I was being threatened. Just the target of someone's hate, so I didn't want to add anything extra to the emergency mailbox since it doesn't really feel like an emergency. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh - "you need to be hunted and destroyed" is pretty blatant - If I were in your situation, I would email. casualdejekyll 17:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I moved the talk page comments to the bin (with some help), and obviously blocked the IP. The Trust and Safety Team are the people paid to do something related to this type of thing. Otherwise, poke an admin. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What a terrible thing to say to someone. I'm very sorry that you experienced that here, Hey man im josh. I think you should take the advice of others here and report it.--ARoseWolf 18:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you zzuuzz, I appreciate it and consider this matter resolved now that a ban has been implemented. I also appreciate those who are suggesting that I submit an email to the emergency mailbox, but I'm going to choose not to do so on this occasion. While they are vile words that were said, I don't believe they were threatening me, just wishing harm upon me. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2022 (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.

Menudo (Group) vandalism

Hi! The Menudo (group) page should be watched and probably protected. There has been a recent case of multiple attempts at vandalism in this page, mostly in the "list of members" area. It's getting tiring having to undo this every day. Thanks and God bless! Antonio outrageous and controversial Martin (por aca) 19:50, May 5, 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there's an excessive amount of vandalism going on on the page and it hasn't been edited in a week. And no disruptive editing in 2 months, so not sure why this thread is here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

March 20 and April 13 edits (and some before that date too) listing names like "Enrique Lagaste" or something like that. I checked the April 13 edition's editor and his edits are 66 percent vandalism at least. He should be blocked for a week at least. Thanks! God bless! Antonio Androgynous Spirit Martin (por aca) 20:20, May 5, 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP described above for a year; it's a school, and nothing but vandalism since the previous 1 year block expired. I think Canterbury Tail's point is that "It's getting tiring having to undo this every day" is patently untrue. By all means, report vandals at WP:AIV. But please don't post at ANI saying you're reverting vandalism on an article every day when you're doing it, at most, once a month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive editing from IP(s)

Several articles (including Onward (film), Sing 2, The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, Up (2009 film), and Ice Age: Continental Drift- just to name a few) have been targeted several months by multiple IPs- likely the same person- doing the same exact change(s), getting reverted each time. They are currently at 173.220.31.26 and are already blocked for 6 months at 96.246.195.10, so block evasion as well.

Going to the history of Onward (film), for example, and checking the history of the article, all of the edits are very clear from the same +9 byte change in each of the edits:

• 96.246.195.10 - 5 January 2022
• 71.167.56.30 - 1 February 2022
• 160.72.82.18 - 3 March 2022
• 104.218.180.35 - 8 March 2022
• 104.129.88.230 - 8 March 2022
• 173.220.31.26 - 10 March 2022
• 173.220.31.26 - 10 March 2022
• 104.129.88.230 - 29 March 2022
• 173.220.31.26 - 4 April 2022
• 173.220.31.26 - 12 April 2022
• 96.246.195.10 - 13 April 2022
• 108.58.88.194 - 19 April 2022
• 173.220.31.26 - 3 May 2022

With the many IPs being used and continuation of this- as well as complaints of reverted edits ([414] [415]), I doubt this is ending anytime soon. Would page protection of main-targeted articles be the best option here? Or possibly blocking the most-used IPs (such as 173.220.31.26) and block ranges if needed? Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, as per this, 2601:5C4:4300:93E7:0:0:0:0/64 was previously blocked to prevent block evasion as well (though they seem to have returned to the range...) Magitroopa (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

And appears to now be continuing the same disruptive edits under 96.250.50.162... could either page protection(s) or block(s) be done here?? Magitroopa (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the pages you listed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat from Marwin122022

Threat is from Marwin122022. It's in this edit summary. agtx 19:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you can get any more unambiguous that that. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It's unambiguous, but also more silly than chilling. I've asked for a retraction on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's silly (which is why I invited the perpetrator to take legal action against me, and my userid is easily identifiable with a real person) but remember that many people do find such things chilling, even when they are silly. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

He's ignoring my request for clarification, so if someone feels meaner than me today, I'm washing my hands of this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, has continued to add promotional content but has ignored the request to retract the threat. Even if they do they'll need to stop adding promotional content. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA by Dylan620

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 am sorry to report that Dylan620 has been making WP:NPA by inserting disruptive template onto talkpages, as in this edit: [416] FourGLTE (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@FourGLTE: Not only was that not a personal attack, but the standard warning template was appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred, review FourGLTE's edits. This just seems to be trolling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, this should be over quick. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Jeez, does Dylan620 have a grudge against Maine-related articles and ANI? FourGLTE (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

FourGLTE indef blocked. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:33, 6 May 2022 (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.

Administrator threatens blocking and prevents any editing of wikipedia 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.

---

This dispute was escalated from DNR as it involved an administrator making block threats. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=1086001864

I reverted Graham87's mass deletion of information on the Sayre Area School District article. I objected to the deletion because although there was in fact too much excess information on the article I had made significant efforts to update, move, and remove information. There was also relevant information in the context of a wikipedia article that had been deleted. Upon this reversion I was threatened with blocking and arguments of "seniority" on determining what is applicable content were made. Despite my efforts to resolve this through the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sayre_Area_School_District) and DNR, Graham87 has prevented me from making edits and insists on any changes must go through him.

The DNR lead to comments on Graham87's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Graham87) which asked for clarification on his hard line stance, as he is an administrator. He did not address these questions/concerns and instead added a few sentences back to the school district page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delphinium1 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much more to say than what's already been said at Talk:Sayre Area School District, Wikipedia:Teahouse#Level of information on a given wikipedia page, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Sayre Area School District. Also, at the user's talk page, I rescinded the block threat. Graham87 20:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparent Block Threat by Involved Admin User:Graham87

Here is my view of what happened.

There appears to be a long-running content dispute at Sayre Area School District, which was being discussed at the article talk page, and had a slow-motion edit war. The disputants appear to have been:

• Delphinium1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Graham87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator

Graham87 posted the following notice on the talk page of Delphinium1:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delphinium1&type=revision&diff=1082098039&oldid=1078932312&diffmode=source

It appeared to be a threat to use admin tools in a content dispute. It refers to:

• Raindrop73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Raindrop73 has the following contribution history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Raindrop73 What is troubling is that Raindrop appears not to have edited for three years, and appears to have been blocked out of the blue, without discussion, for edits that, rightly or wrongly, were not discussed before blocking.

Perhaps User:Graham87 is apologizing for the admin warning. If not, I would suggest that should be the next step. The applicable policy is administrator accountability. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• The version that User:Delphinium1 is trying to restore has large amounts of data that is completely out of date, and also has BLP issues. It's basically a hit job on the subject of the article, and it can't be allowed to stand. However, this version was created by User:Raindrop73 five or more years ago, and they haven't edited since 2018, so I'm unsure why they've been blocked. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I explained why I blocked them at User talk:Raindrop73#Blocked. I did this as a preventative action (in case they come back again ... we aren't allowed to have user watchlists. I regret making the block threat to Delphinium1, given their previous engagement on the talk page. I think this discussion is a bit premature and the section titles are a touch inflammatory, but I'm obviously way too involved to do anything about that directly. Graham87 20:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I came across this purely by accident through reading the Teahouse version. What's happened here does seem a bit weird, particularly in relation to Raindrop73, who is still blocked, and shouldn't be. (1) As I understand it, admins use blocks to deal with immediate threats. Lesser mortals who ask admins to block someone will get short shrift if the editor hasn't edited in the last week or two, let alone several years. (2) If the idea of admins not having watch-lists of users is to avoid editors feeling pursued/harassed, I wonder whether getting blocked, and warned that the admin intends to audit all your other edits (User_talk:Raindrop73) feels any less like pursuit and harassment? It's not in the spirit of avoiding user-watch-lists. (3) Raindrop73 may be actively editing as we speak, after forgetting their old password, and starting fresh. If so, the new block will look bad should anyone ever associate their old and new accounts. It will look like evasion although they haven't been banned from anything and may be blissfully unaware of the block. (4) although the block isn't eternal, only indefinite, many of us have mess-ups in our past. We are forgiven, we read, we learn, and we do better. It doesn't create a great impression when our sins of many years ago are visited on us much, much later. It's not right to assume that if Rainbow23 logs on tomorrow, they won't be a very different editor to how they were when they logged off, those years ago. Okay, this is a trivial thing because Rainbow23 has probably vanished for ever (who knows??) but if the past must be dredged up, it shouldn't be dredged up wrongly. Sorry to make mountains out of molehills but the block on Raindrop73 looks to me like a very bad one. Elemimele (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

      I also don’t want to make mountains out of molehills because the immediate practical effect of the block is nothing. However, WP:NOPUNISH and WP:BLOCKP are explicit and I can’t see how it’s not objectively a bad block under the policy. The block itself may not be too concerning but it is concerning that an admin would flout rules that they should know like the back of their hand. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

      • Like Swarm and Elemimele, I do not want to make a big deal out of this, but it is worth pointing out that the blocking policy says Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia. In this case, the blocked editor has not edited in well over 3-1/2 years. For perspective, they could have been a an imminent university freshman packing their luggage when they last edited and are graduating with a bachelor's degree right about now. Their offense? Adding excessive referenced detail to school board articles. I do not think that that is an actual offense, let alone a blockable offense. Graham87, I am confident that you were acting in good faith and am grateful for your contributions. I know the challenges that you face. But please review WP:BLOCK and WP:INVOLVED. A person who last edited in 2018 is hardly an imminent risk of damage to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it isn’t my place but I have several concerns: 1) casually throwing around block threats and “resinding” them. 2) blocking inactive users and desiring watch lists 3) willingness to engage in an edit war (I realize I am no saint here but I am rather inexperienced with how to handle content disputes. Per direction I brought the question to the tea room.) 4) Per directions on the talk page not “allowing” me to further edit and requiring an extremely high burden of proof for precedent on what a wiki article should contain (see the example of strikes in a district in Mass.) 5) not answering clarifying questions to the DNR on their talk page 6) ignoring 3rd party input onto what content is valuable until the issue was escalated to DNR 7) referencing my experience as an editor as reason to ignore my opinions Delphinium1 — Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Delphinium1, your concerns are valid and you have the right to express them here. Now, let other uninvolved editors evaluate them. Cullen328 (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Graham87: I'm a little confused. How did you even know to block Raindrop out to nowhere like that? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: To answer your question, I used WikiBlame to find out who added [some inappropriate text I found and went from there. Graham87 07:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I've unblocked Raindrop73 per the overwhelming consensus here. I knew it was unusual to block dormant accounts like that but I didn't know it was basically forbidden. I would bet just about anything that Raindrop73 is an adult well out of university. They edited as an IP as early as at least March 2009 and probably as early as March 2007. I would also bet just about anything that this user didn't come back after their last edit as Raindrop73; I spent about two months auditing their work under their account and their IP's (about 20,000 edits in all; see [this edit summary search) and would have known if they'd returned. I take a very dim view of single-purpose accounts, especially when they pad articles with highly ephemeral bureaucratic minutiae about grades of school students in standardised tests, tuition fees for students from outside school districts, and property/real estate taxes and how obscenely high they are according to this user, all in evidence at the above-linked revision of the Sayre Area School District article. Graham87 06:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Looks like Graham87 got a little over-eager in a good-faith effort to deal with some misconduct, made a few mistakes, fixed them, and regrets the error. We don't expect people or admins to be perfect. We expect them to respond to feedback and repair their mistakes, and Graham87 has done that. No need to overreact. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, misconduct? I certainly don't think it's appropriate to insert detailed statistics about the number of reported cases of potential child abuse into our article about Northumberland County, Pennsylvania; I think Delphinium1 was displaying poor editorial judgment by trying to insert that information. Part of what's happened in this instance is that we've treated poor editorial judgment like we treat vandalism. I think that potentially does amount to misconduct, and not on Delphinium1's part. But I also think Stifle is right when he says that there's no need to get overexcited about Graham87's decision there. The frowny face and waggy finger of mild community disapproval will suffice.
    Delphinium1, it's OK if Raindrop 73 was your account and you've abandoned it. Our rules say you can abandon your old account and starting a new one as long as you don't use two accounts at the same time. Was it you?—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Just a clarification: Delphinium1 wasn't editing the Northumberland County page; they were trying to turn the Sayre Area School District article into this and judging by the conversation at Talk:Sayre Area School District, they are not the same person as Raindrop73. (Stranger things have happened, of course, but I'd be absolutely flawed if I was wrong). My block threat was based on stretching "New accounts that engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context ..." beyond its limits and probably warping it beyond recognition. I made the threat in the context of stumbling upon the reversion of my cleanup at Sayre Area School District while going through the top edited pages by a Raindrop73 IP. See my contribs at the time ... I didn't get a notification about it when the revert had been performed. I was not exactly happy to discover the revert and I probably let my emotions get the better of me. Speaking only of Raindrop73, I for one think consistently poor editorial judgement over many years with no redeeming features can become almost indistinguishable in effect from vandalism, but maybe that's just me. Graham87 09:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    As Graham said, I'm absolutely not Raindrop73. I find it strange to insinuate given that I have stated I agree that Raindrop's versions of the school district pages were inappropriate. The fundamental disagreement was on how to best approaching fixing the issue. Delphinium1 (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• non-admin comment (since I was one of those who complained above): so far as I'm concerned, the matter's over. And I do have a lot of sympathy with the view that consistently bad editing can be as disruptive as genuine vandalism. I'm grateful to all admins for the work they do. Elemimele (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It sounds by Graham87's reply you have invested considerable time into the auditing of this editor's work, which leads to obvious emotional involvement, which again explains your actions. Although the threat of blocking is serious and a breach of policy, an apology was issued and if the offended editor accepts it, I do not think any further action needs to be taken here. As has been pointed out, the offended editor is not a saint either, per their reply above, so I see this as a kerfuffle you may learn from. Oz\^InterAct 12:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The complaint discussion seems to have devolved into blocking of Raindrop, which wasn't even my initial concern.

I still think there is a fundamental disagreement on appropriate content for the page (and similar pages) and I honestly have little faith that Graham87 will work with me to come to a consensus. He mostly ignored 3rd party input on DNR and tea house. He has (sort of) apologised (more like tried to unring a bell). His emotional investment causing threatening and "pulling rank" on a dispute about what is relevant for a topic's page (that is extremely far removed from him and not his area of expertise) still concerns me. Per his recommendation, I looked for simple open ended guidance on content guidelines and wiki conflict resolution practices on tea house and he inserted himself into the conversation in a hostile manner. I don't want to get into the content dispute too much here, but Raindrop's edits, although highly problematic, have also contributed greatly to my knowledge of school districts, education, and government in PA. I wished to preserve this information in an appropriate form, and began to do so by creating "Teacher Strikes in the United States." I'm honestly nervous to do ANY work in wikipedia anymore as I feel there is now a target on my back. From my perspective, Graham has shown some introspection about his past actions but zero assurances that he won't continue them going forward. As other's have previously weighed in on this, the burden is on him to justify large edits if someone objects and it should revert and be further justified. Instead of engaging on the talk page an edit war was started. Obviously, his reasoning has now been fully flushed out but I want to be clear that my second revert removed half of the content as I took into consideration what Graham was trying to do. I have seen the issue and been willing to compromise from the beginning, all while being bullied by an admin.

I feel I have not been assured going forward that there won't be a target on me. Graham has picked through my entire wikipedia history (including finding my old abandoned account Jalsing88 I mentioned offhand) and criticised my previous (quickly and peacefully resolved) editorial choices with the teacher strike page. Delphinium1 (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

In light of the behavioural patterns from the below comment, I at least would like to hear from Graham on this. Oz\^InterAct 13:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is not happening for the first time. Back in September 2020, Graham87 had blocked an editor who made nearly 1,200 edits, after edit warring with him.[417] The editor's talk page access was revoked by Graham87 after he mentioned that WP:INVOLVED is being violated by Graham87.[418] This happened after he was already criticized back in May 2020 for imposing indef block on an editor with more than 15,000 edits after edit warring him.[419]   I am confident at this stage that Graham87 does not understand WP:INVOLVED.  Srijanx22 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I was not aware of the history here. I see that Graham87 apologised and unblocked in at least one of those situations, but this pattern is troubling. Oz\^InterAct 12:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I just stumbled upon this on Graham's talk page as well as far as a history of behaviour add. Maybe not my place but the "we don't care" seems concerning to me. Delphinium1 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Reading through the above situations, it does seem like Graham87 toes the line far too often on WP:INVOLVED than I am comfortable with. I would like to see some concrete assurances from Graham87 indicating how they intend to avoid these problems in the future. Yes, admins make mistakes, and yes Graham has, from time to time, cleaned up after themselves, but I would like to hear how they are going to avoid the mistakes in the future, now that we've seen a clear pattern of problems. --Jayron32 14:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

To respond to various points:

• Delphinium1, as long as you don't trigger a revert/mention notification on my end, I will not seek contact with you, except in the course of normal editing (i.e. I stumble upon an article you've written and copyedit/tweak it, I end up doing vandalism/spam reversion on one of your pages, etc.) Re the Raindrop73 edits, I think it's incredibly unwise to revert to them ... as I said at Talk:Sayre Area School District, if you're going to use them as a reference point, please either user your userspace or your own text editor for that. I don't *want* to be taken back to Raindrop73's pages if I can help it. Re your old account: you said you'd forgotten about it so I thought it was OK to bring it up again. I also think it's a good idea to model new content off similar articles in other states/countries.
• Wikipediocracy is a wonderful thing. Re the September 2020 block of श्रीमान २००२, the thread there provides a better summation of what actually happened than I ever could. Re the May 2020 block (also mentioned on Wikipediocracy), yes I walked that one back after sleeping on it and apologised for it.
• I have once again read and reviewed the WP:INVOLVED policy. If I feel too close to a dispute to perform a block myself, I will ask other administrators for assistance. I have done this previously (example) and would do so again.

Hope this resolves the major concerns here. Graham87 15:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Graham87: If you read WP:INVOLVED like you said then you should unblock this user. You indeffed this user right after you edit warred with this user and revoked their talk page access despite no abuse of talk page. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

::@Srijanx22: No, I shouldn't. I don't understand why you are only taking in this user's side of the story. I revoked talk page access because, do to this user's nonsense justification of their refspamming (which was the final straw in a long list of problems with that account), I thought subjecting the people who monitor Category:Requests for unblock to more of that would be cruel and unusual punishment. They did appeal to UTRS twice but were knocked back (admins, see UTRS appeal #34865). Graham87 04:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Graham87: You are justifying your actions the same way you were justifying your block of Raindrop73. I am only stating that you violated WP:INVOLVED by wrongly issuing indef block and wrongly revoking talk page access of the user you were edit warring with. Your diff says I agree I had to avoid reverting you but your block violates WP:INVOLVED.[420] There was no abuse of talk page per WP:GAPB but clear indication of remorse by the user over his action and correct mention of you violating WP:INVOLVED but even after so many lectures above and your own claim that you "have once again read and reviewed the WP:INVOLVED policy" you still don't seem to be understanding WP:INVOLVED. You are supposed to undo this involved block and leave a note to the user's talk page that you have unblocked them. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I was not involved in the WP:INVOLVED sense because I had no disputes either with the user or on the page. Even if I were, that policy provides leeway for blatant vandalism, which is what link-spamming is. I will not take this order seriously unless it is endorsed by at least two admins or highly established non-admin users who are well-known to the community on a major process such as the admins' noticeboards, featured article candidates, etc. I know, that's more of an I know it when I see [sic] it definition, but you certainly don't qualify for it. I will not be entertaining any more messages from you on this issue. Graham87 12:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you understand that you just revealed that you don't understand what is a WP:VANDALISM? None of your explanation prove that the user was engaging in vandalism. This edit was not a vandalism, but you abused rollback to revert it two times.[421][422] While I am sure that they had to use a better source than Youtube link, the information they were adding is a well-known fact,[423] and you were edit warring over a reason that couldn't be considered anything more than content dispute. Yet you indeffed the user and revoked their talk page for saying I agree I had to avoid reverting you but your block violates WP:INVOLVED[424] and it shows that you engaged in textbook violation of WP:INVOLVED. Your rest of the explanation only shows that you won't accept your clear-cut mistakes until drama ensued. Nevertheless, I can ping Jayron32 and Inter to verify my statements that you violated WP:INVOLVED. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Um, those are from 2020, almost 18 months ago. Perhaps until this thread started, Graham did not fully understand WP:INVOLVED, but you dragging up old blocks from several years ago doesn't change anything we've already established here. I've already noted that Graham needed a better understanding of involved, and also needs to have a less "itchy trigger finger" when it comes to blocking users, but dragging up additional examples of the same problems Graham has already been chastised for and has agreed to work on fixing does nothing to help the situation. In short, we already acknowledged the problem exists, and Graham has already agreed to improve going forward. Bringing up more examples, from my point of view, doesn't really help us move forward. It strikes of being "out for blood", and I don't really like that. Yes, Graham has exhibited problematic behavior as an admin. They screwed up. Let's stop belaboring the point and see if they have learned by backing off and letting them get back to their job. If they screw up again in the future we can deal with that. --Jayron32 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC) 

@Graham87 & @Delphinium1 I support @Jayron32's opinion concerning the block history if you feel the non-content grievances have been properly addressed and aired. As I have mentioned before, the next step in this process is a big one and I for one would see if it was possible to come to an understanding given the assurances from Graham. I would also like to add that we all screw up, but at least some of us try to learn from it and move on. I am not fond of any three strikes you're out rule in these sort of disputes but they do add up and will hopefully be a reminder. Oz\^InterAct 19:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I do want to say that I acknowledge Graham's pattern of WP:INVOLVED behavior has been problematic for a while, but they've also never been called to task about it. I don't, in my view, think this is an emergency situation that requires immediate action, like removal of the admin bit, or anything like that. Graham had never been so admonished in the past, and now they have. This discussion is a document of such admonishment, and as such, I propose it's is probably time to close the discussion down, let Graham get about their business, and if there comes a time to revisit this issue because it hasn't been fixed, then we can discuss such problems. If Graham does what they are supposed to do and becomes a better admin as a result of this discussion, nothing has been lost, and much has been gained. --Jayron32 12:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Delphinium1 @Graham87 @Jayron32 I concur with this assessment. Oz\^InterAct 16:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a convoluted and difficult case, with many opinions of what exactly has been violated and what hasn't. There's also two parts to it, the edit warring and the blocking. This discussion evolved into focusing on mostly the present and past blocking of which I was probably a driver for. I feel I have made my thoughts and concerns about this behaviour very clear. I think also most people who frequent this board, whether admins or editors, know what the potential next step would be. As we serve the community, in my view, the community should decide this one. Feel free to disagree, but the mediator heart in me is as ever cautious. Oz\^InterAct 16:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• I originally closed the DRN case, but rolled it back when I realized it was an admin and passed it off to Robert as the most experienced DRN volunteer- but I am also concerned that in the light of the larger issue of blocks and threats of blocks- the WP:OWN behavior will be overlooked. Specifically- this comment here [[425]] where they say that Delphinium1 is an unestablished user and implies they are not qualified to edit an article. This behavior is distressing in any user, especially an admin. Length of time and number of edits alone should never be used to disqualify an editor from editing. While Delphinium is certainly not as experienced, they seem to be making good faith efforts to improve pages and should be encouraged instead of this. I would appreciate Graham87's assurances that this type of behavior will not continue as well. WP:AGF applies to admins as well as us mere mortals. However, I do believe Graham had the best of intentions, they just are going about it wrong and too aggressively. I appreciate the above assurances- but beyond this one case- will you also agree to avoid the appearances of WP:OWN moving forward as well? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  (Here's a diff of my comment rather than a revision link, which is more convenient to view). Yes, I will not make such broad sweeping statements about an editor's fitness to contribute to an article based on their seniority. What I was trying and failing spectacularly to convey was that more senior editors have more nuanced ideas about what is and is not worth adding to an encyclopedia. The other side of the coin is that more senior editors can be more jaded re this sort of thing, and I guess that's at least partially what happened here. Graham87 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You may say it is unwise to revert them but third party opinions in DNR disagreed. I believe since you have played editor and admin on the same article, you should abide by the 3rd party decisions of DNR. I don't appreciate being further dictated to. Delphinium1 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Graham87 I appreciate the assurances and the clear message of being more careful in the future. What have me concerned is the troublesome behavioural pattern. Given that this has happened before more than once, what makes this time different? As I am sure you know, and which Delphinium1 have pointed out, being in an argument with an administrator over content/anything may be intimidating for a regular editor, hell, other admins may feel the same. In light of that, it's very important as an administrator to stop and think before speaking and especially before acting. In my opinion blocking somebody then "sleeping on it" and in the morning unblocking are very emotionally invested decisions. I hope you see what I am trying to convey here. Oz\^InterAct 18:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I will take the gravity of blocks/block threats more into account in the future, especially with content disputes. Graham87 04:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Also see this new thread on the teahouse. Graham87 13:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I closed that thread down. The teahouse is poorly suited for discussions about user behavior. It also unnecessarily splits the discussion into two venues. --Jayron32 16:22, 5 May 2022 (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:WeAllSeekTheTruth is not here to build an encyclopedia - ethnic slurs and personal attacks included

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 is a user I've encountered who seems to be here with a clear WP:AGENDA, largely by promoting pro-CCP propaganda or other authoritarian talking points. I first encountered this user on Democracy in China where they edit warred to introduce PoV. They've also made politically biased edits to Taiwan and Donetsk People's Republic. They've also shown hostility to other editors ("fuck you lmao") and the project at large ("this hellsite", "yall at wikipedia do be drinking the koolaid"). I could see the direction the user was going, so I left them a message advising them to reconsider their edits, and the response was do it pussy go on, continue to consume the State Department rhetoric like the lapdog you are, all while promoting Western propaganda, you khokhol[426]. Keep in mind "khokhol" is an ethnic slur. In short, I can only conclude this user is WP:NOTHERE and would rather engage in racist personal attacks and pushing of anti-Western propaganda. — Czello 15:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. And the rule that any account with Truth in its name will inevitably be indefinitely blocked in short order continues. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

might change my name to "casualdetruth" just to prove you wrong ^[Humour] casualdejekyll 15:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I was considering "Truthmuzid," but I get the sense I would, in fact, be blocked. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmph! Truth69420 (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2022 (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.

Harassment by Knight N529

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 sysop on french wikipedia. User:Knight N259 blocked indefinitly there is harrassing me here. See [427], [428], [429] so I warn him to stop before coming here. Then he continues and at least, warns me... Please do something, it's enough. What is done on french wikipedia should not come here with harrassment. Supertoff (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

he says you blocked him for no reason?can you please tell me what happened? Airtransat236 (let's talk) 17:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Supertoff blocked me beacause i made a helpul edit (vandalism for this user) :(( Knight N259 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked as they are not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE) but only to harass someone who blocked them on another wiki. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2022 (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.

Smuckola and AIV

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 can consider this diff: [430] acceptable? The unblock is over seven years old, and the edits that triggered the report are not vandalism. As such I think that Smuckola should be blocked. ConcordGrapes (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

ConcordGrapes, in the 13 minutes your account has been active, every one of your eight total edits has been to defend the sloppy edits of User:RMc, who has just returned from an eight year block, and was quickly reported by Smuckola at AIV. Are you familiar with the phrase, "quacks like a duck"? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:RMc was blocked for three months. Furthermore I am no duck, and CheckUser can confirm this. Cast your aspersions somewhere else. ConcordGrapes (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

CU does not indicate that you are RMc. It does, however, indicate that you are evading a block for BLP violations and trolling, and so this is a poorly executed joe-job. Buh-bye. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

So, who’s the real sockmaster? Huh, you figured that one out yet? 2600:100E:BF16:E69:F06E:A80F:1363:3E0D (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And so my theory that ANI filers who can't even follow some really basic instructions to notify the reported user of the discussion actually being at fault/WP:BOOMERANG-eligible continues. Quite grand. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

You have failed to notify Smuckola of this ANI report, as required by the top of the page. I have done so for you this time. Additionally, you have not presented any credible evidence of why this is a policy violation, nor why would we block them per our blocking policy, which requires an editor pose an urgent or continuous threat to the project. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

ConcordGrape did actually give the appropriate notification.[431] Schazjmd (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I apologise for not checking the history. I have undid my own ANI notice and will be striking out my related comments shortly. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:36, 7 May 2022 (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:Ceahjlazco1882 - NOTHERE

Ceahjlazco1882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly WP:NOTHERE - they've made several edits recently adding unnecessary vandalism notices, changing redirects to random, unrelated articles, and other minor vandalism, despite having received numerous warnings. — Chevvin 06:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think they should be indefinitely blocked. Their account is nearly exclusively disruptive editing or vandalism. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEONING again by Telanian7790

A while ago on this page User:Telanian7790 was told by an administrator to stop bludgeoning discussions. He/she has a real problem with one article College of Policing and has a history of edit warring that has led to a block and numerous warning by various administrators. Telanian7790 is not a stranger to this page. The most recent comment by an admin to Telanian7790 about bludgeoning was in relation to his/her behaviour in an RFC that is open at Talk:College of Policing. Today Telanian7790 has popped up on the talk page and effectively removed my (perfectly valid) comments on the RFC. He/she has reinstated a {{Hat}} inserted by @JulieMinkai (diff) that had removed Telanian7790 responses to another user's RFC comments and (in my opinion) mistakenly hid my response. I reverted JulieMinkai's edit. Her response was to thanks me (see Thanks Log). She did not revert my edit. However today, Telanian7790 has repeatedly reinstated that Hat, thus removing my RFC comment. I tried politely engaging on Telanian7790's tak page (diff), and his/her response was to delete my user talk page comment and reinstate the Hat yet again. This is not an editor who wants to play nicely. I have made a good faith contribution to the RFC and I believe it should stand. --10mmsocket (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the hat to cot and limited it to the side-discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate that. I hope someone can have another chat to Telanian7790 about behaviour, especially civility. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

And I apologise for getting dragged into an edit war. I should know better. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It can happen to any of us. Assuming good faith, I'm going to presume that Telanian7790 was restoring the tags the way they were because that's how Julie applied them and didn't realize that it can be adjusted to only include a small portion of the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Schazjmd. I would just like to make four brief points.

I thought that what Julie did was the official outcome of my previous complaint. If I was wrong, I apologise. My perception, rightly or wrongly, was that 10mmsocket was simply unilaterally ignoring that outcome. In any event, it plainly has to be right that false accusations of dishonesty should not be permitted to derail the discussion and so should be removed from it.

It is rather rich of 10mmsocket to be suggesting that someone should have a chat with me about civilty. The whole point here is that that side-discussion has been closed because Hippo43 (implicitly supported by 10mmsocket) was falsely accusing me of dishonesty. You can't get more uncivil than that!

10mmsocket has already made an official complaint on this subject and been told by an admin that my conduct is perfectly appropriate and not uncivil: see link here: [432]. It is surprising that he continues to renew this complaint when an administrator has already rejected it.

10mmsocket's framing of the instant complaint is misleading, in that it suggests only I was found to be 'bludgeoning' previous discussion. That is incorrect. Hippo43 was also found to be 'bludgeoning' them as well, and we were both directed to leave the discussion for a while. Telanian7790 (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

He's at it again (diff) --10mmsocket (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Hippo43 is continuing to try to re-insert his baseless accusations of dishonesty into the page, in open defiance of Schazjmd's decision. His behaviour obviously violates the rule that good faith should be assumed [433]. Frankly, this is all getting very silly, and one might even say childish. I just want to be able to contribute here without suffering these utterly baseless and nasty attacks. Can someone please tell Hippo43 that this is inappropriate and has to stop. Is that too much to ask?Telanian7790 (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Sailee5 - WP:NOTHERE

Sailee5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user clearly has a COI with https://aniruddhafoundation.com. The last 7 edits made this year [434], [435], [436], [437], [438], [439] (and every other edit in all the other times) is simply promoting that website/foundation and their preachings thru WP:CITESPAM. Clearly WP:NOTHERE — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems pretty clear-cut. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Reporting Mohammad asfaq

A recently created account (23 days ago) of Mohammad asfaq kept on doing disruptive editing in articles under Discretionary sanctions. They were warned by Sajaypal007 before on talk page but to no avail. Please, take a look on some of their disruptive edits and removal of scholarly sources without proper discussion on talk pages. Take care, Thanks.diff, diff & diff. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 07:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You're first diff has them adding text from an existing source in that article, what is your objection there? The other edits seem within policy as well, though there may be some disagreements; the talk page is needed to hash this out. By policy, contested material does not have to remain in an article. Per WP:ONUS, "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (bold mine). Merely having references does not protect some information from being removed; maybe it belongs, maybe it doesn't, but I don't see where you've politely requested a discussion on the talk page and waited for a response before running here. You really need to do that first. This looks like a normal content dispute, and I don't see any behavioral issues from the person you are trying to report, just normal editing behavior. If you are disputing their changes, then use talk page, try dispute resolution procedures if necessary, and give the process time to work itself out. --Jayron32 14:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: So according to you pushing for preffered version, although not correct from history point of view is normal editing behaviour ?? Look at their recent edit history at Paramardi Special:MobileDiff/1086422466, Special:MobileDiff/1086309584 & Special:MobileDiff/1086243821 they don't mind responding on talk page either (discussion which I started) Special:MobileDiff/1086240982, They were warned of three revert rule on their talk page to no avail Special:MobileDiff/1086198799, Special:MobileDiff/1086264228. This is obviously disruptive editing. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 03:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for anything. I have no dog in this race. What I am saying is that, when there is a dispute over the inclusion of some text in an article, the default is to leave the text out. You, or them, or anyone else, can still be blocked for edit warring to enforce that. Perhaps the person in question is misbehaving. But the mere fact that they removed text is not a priori a misbehavior, even if that text has sources. Other behaviors may actually be problems, but in your initial post, you made no mention of any other misbehaviors than "removal of scholarly sources"; I was just telling you that that, in and of itself, is not a misbehavior. If there is a problem, please restate the issue so we can deal with an actual problem. --Jayron32 12:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: No issues, We can discuss the issue again. Thanks. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 14:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Logokalog

Logokalog (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Vandalized my page with stuff like this [440], abused other users in edit summaries like this , this and this (used abusive language in Hindi plus some nationality related attacks) plus There are constant claims of Working for Turner [441], [442], [443], [444] . Sid95Q (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Please translate what the edit summaries say; Google Translate doesn't do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: In the first one they are saying that user should handle their Pakistan, there is no need of them on India pages and why are they there to get their ass fu__ed on India Pages. In the second one they used words like bsdk (child of a sex worker) mc (Mother fu__) kutte (Dog) and they are saying "Why a Bangladeshi is here to get their ass fu___ed on Indian page, Go handle your Pakistan and Bangladesh page I will write whatever I want to write on this Indian page as I am a proud Indian" and he used words like "Gandu" (a__hole). Third one is same cuss words plus go edit your country's page stuff. Sid95Q (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've indeffed them for that and other reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Spamming and Socking over at Chaos Magic

tl;dr - Spam was added twice to the Chaos Magic article. A new user accidentally revealed they were the person who readded it. A quick look at the basics shows... Let me pre-redact.... originator of the spam.

Original spam add [445]

the readd [446] [447]

the signature change to reduce scrutiny [448]

A thread where the potential spammers account is discussing the article which was spammed can be found here: [449]

If this wasn't clear enough, I can send further confirmation of /stuff/ out of band.

This account should probably not be allowed to edit in this general subject area at a minimum. 73.6.77.46 (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If it helps gain any traction, the editor is editing from the same city as the previous person to add the same spam. The spam is for a subscription to learn magic to help you get rich, and was used as a source. The person who runs the scam magic lesson site lives in the same city as the two ips. That person runs a podcast and is now using an account to avoid being noticed as the person dropping scams in the article. This may get redacted. 73.6.77.46 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:समता1988 and repeated re-creation of articles about Uday Mandal

Previous instances of articles about Uday Mandal have been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uday Mandal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uday Mandal (2nd nomination). The editor was warned about recreating articles about this person: [450], but another instance was then deleted as a CSD G4 repost, after which Sdrqaz marked the title as requiring administrator access for re-creation. The editor has now created another instance under a variant title at Uday Mandal (Bihar Politician), indicating an unwillingness to accept consensus. AllyD (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I suspect socking as well Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uday88mandal — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Date format audits

As some may have noticed (and plenty that don't) I do a ton of date format maintenance in the DMY space. I've been doing this since July 2019 and have amassed an absurd edit count in the process. There are times when uninformed editors post a query on my talk page on the ins and outs of what I'm doing and I had one in the last 24 hours by admin Nihonjoe. I'm staring at my screen with very wide eyes at his response to my response.

• Page history [451]
• Nihonjoe's talk page User talk:Nihonjoe
• My talk page User talk:Dawnseeker2000

Dawnseeker2000 00:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the original edit in question. Dawnseeker2000's edit summary was "date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script", but all they did was change the date from "November 2012" to "May 2022". The edit summary was false, and there was no valid reason for changing the date like that. That particular template has the date in it to indicate when it was originally placed there so people know when the date format for the article was set. Dawnseeker2000's edits are basically disruptive since the edit summary is blatantly false (no date format was changed, just the date itself) and the date in the template shouldn't be changed in the first place. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, it looks like I'm not the only one being confused by these edits. It appears SSSB has also expressed concerns about these edits. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Fyunck(click) above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like you read the template documentation for {{Use dmy dates}} as Dawnseeker suggested you do in his message on your talk page. The second sentence of the docs says: Use the parameter date for the month and year that an editor or bot last checked the article for inconsistent date formatting and fixed any found. Colin M (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears you are correct. I had understood it as I described above as that's consistent with other such templates with dates. I apologize for the misunderstanding, Dawnseeker2000. In the future, I'd suggest including such an explanation in your edit summary (something like "checked article for inconsistent dates, updated date last checked" as it's definitely more than me misunderstanding your edit summary. Again, I'm sorry for the confusion. I've removed the warning from your userpage, Dawnseeker2000. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The edit appears valid per Colin M, and I find Nihonjoe's use of a template at User_talk:Dawnseeker2000#May_2022 to be unnecessarily condescending for an long-time editor, and the threat of a block highly unnecessary escalation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the only thing to ultimately come out of this is that Dawnseeker2000 your edit summaries could be a bit more informative that's all. Maybe append an "updated the last checked date" or something to make it a bit clearer. Everything else is good here I think. Canterbury Tail talk 12:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is that Nihonjoe exclaimed that he knew how date formats worked even after I provided a link to the information that would have settled the issue, but instead he doubled down. That is contempt prior to investigation and is unsettling coming from an administrator and bureaucrat. Everyone understands that the initial edit [452] was done via the MOS:NUMDATES script that is maintained by Ohconfucious, right? At this time I am unable to accept Nihonjoe's apology (and may speak to him directly about this) but if he (or anyone else) truly believes that there is an issue with the edit summary for the tool I would suggest speaking directly with Ohconfucious. Now, I'm a fan of his work and support him when I can, so this isn't about me throwing him under any sort of bus. It's the idea that the supposed issue is being thrown back in my face rather than acknowledging the egregiousness of Nihonjoe's words and actions (thank you Colin M and Gablotter). Use this talk page to contact Ohconfucious about that particular tool: User talk:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates. Dawnseeker2000 14:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've chosen not to accept my apology. As I said, I was wrong in this case, and I'm sorry. It would have been helpful if you'd pointed me to a specific location on the page you linked rather than tell me to go look at a fairly long page. Regardless of that, you have my apology. Do with it what you will. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've suggested a change to the automated script at User talk:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've now modified the script edit summary to read "script-assisted date audit and style fixes per MOS:NUM". Hope it's a bit clearer, although judging from the exchange above, a clearer edit summary is no substitute for fellow editors reading the script or template documentation. Hopefully the issue can be resolved with a trout -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 19:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:TheKurgan

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

User:TheKurgan has been harassing me. I usually pay little attention to these things, but this editor won't stop.

• May 3 - [453], said that removing information from an article is "the height of white supremacy" and "people who don't know these things shouldn't edit these things about which they do not know".
• May 4 - [454], inferred that User:Floydian and I are white supremacists.
• May 4 - [455], cautioned by User:Floydian.
• May 5 - [456], angry message to me.
• May 5 - [457], angry message on my talk page.
• May 5 - [458], I replied, "Your edits are abusive and harassing. Please stop."
• May 6 - [459], TheKurgan contacted another editor who they saw on my talk page, and with whom TheKurgan had never communicated, "Saw you had a tiff with Mr. Holier Than Thou. Sorry that you had to deal with "Mr. Edit War" himself. People like him suck the joy out of everything. He's a narcissist and a bully who thinks his bodily waste doesn't stink. Well, I say, "Let him have his personal virtual fiefdom." After all, children should be allowed their toys. Cheers for now!"

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll just add that when I asked them to redact their allegations of white supremacy, it was met with deleting the entire talk page section in a huff with a tinge of WP:OWN (diff). While I can sympathise with this editors frustration, I feel they need to realise that a Wiki is collaborative by nature, and that taking your ball and going home isn't going to change that. The user is clearly learned on the topic and has much to add, but needs to work better with others. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

While they seem to be correct on the content issue and calling something "white supremacy" isn't the same as calling someone a "white supremacist", ANI isn't for content issues. There is a behaviour issue here - we're not required to be kind or polite, but we are required to be WP:CIVIL. TheKurgan - civility isn't optional. When you get angry at perceived injustice, you need to take a break and remember that we're all here for the same purpose.

Floydian and Magnolia677 do need to grow a thicker skin, and stop taking comments about the effects of their actions as a personal slight. It is white supremacist that most of our articles start about places in the Americas start with European "foundation" and ignore the entire history up to that point. Taking personal offense at structural critiques isn't helpful. Guettarda (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

"Your white-supremacist views have no place in deciding what is or is not in this article." Seems pretty clear cut on the personal attack front, and the place to right great wrongs is not on Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of the area or the city, but the content that TheKurgen added (same diff as the personal attacke above) appears to be more about the sounding area and not the city. So there appears to be a question of WP:DUE. As every the place to discuss such matter though is on the talk page, with a lot more WP:AGF and a lot less calling people white supremacists. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I am taking a break. In fact, I have chosen to chuck the entire matter. I will no longer edit the Sarnia article nor any of the articles associated with it. As I told the person who was civil to me on my talk page, both my mental health and blood pressure are far more important to me than being "right." Magnolia677 and Floydian bullied me and accused me of impropriety that was simply not the case. That's the reason I bristled. What I should have said was that they were ACTING like narcissists and bullies and not that they were such. They most certainly acted that way and did not assume good faith. I choose no longer to engage with either of those two editors or with the page that has taken hundreds of hours of work over the last 10 years since I brought the article to "good" status. Regarding "taking my ball and going home," that is what I choose to do, so that is what I'm going to do. To Magnolia677 and Floydian, I apologize. Have a good day, all.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested No, that's not a personal attack. And while "righting great wrongs" gets thrown around a lot, that's not what WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is about. Wikipedia's mission is to right a great wrong - that of unequal access to information. And the idea that's it's important to counter systemic bias has been around far longer: the WP:CSB page dates to October 2004, and the importance of the idea is, iirc, quite a bit older.

As far as WP:DUE goes - you're probably right, but as I said, this isn't the place to make content decisions. That's what the talk page is for. But taking a comment about a systemic issue and using it to bludgeon an editor - that's a different issue. Guettarda (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I could never accept that saying someone has white supremacists views, when a good faith agrument can be made for their decision, is anything but a personal attack. But as you've said the situation appears to be resolved. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of "block" threat from administrator

Per WP:BLOCKNO. I referred to the repeated changing of a series of train station articles to inaccurate names in spite of references suggesting otherwise to as "vandalism," mostly because of the repetitive nature of the edits. An administrator proceeded to go to my talk page and threaten to block me, calling this a "personal attack," and suggesting that it is inappropriate for me to characterize any edits as vandalism at all.

If this user thinks this doesn't constitute vandalism, they are free to explain why, but this seems a bit ridiculous given the circumstances. I don't really need that stuff on my talk page, and it's not really clear why this administrator is being so aggressive. Thank you.

Talk page discussion: User_talk:Middle_river_exports#"Vandalism". --Middle river exports (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism has a highly specific meaning. Any editing in good faith is not vandalism, and repeatedly calling an editor's good faith edits vandalism is generally a bad idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I used the term "borderline vandalism" once to describe edits that were not made in good faith, before this admin started posting on my talk page. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Acroterion is correct. It appears from your usage, you are using the word "vandalism" to mean "edits to Wikipedia that I think are bad". That is not what vandalism is. Vandalism is "edits to Wikipedia that the person who does them thinks is bad". You should never call vandalism anything which the person who did it thinks they are trying to help out and make Wikipedia better. There are literally dozens of different ways someone can screw up at Wikipedia, but almost none of them are, stricto sensu vandalism. To call edits vandalism when they are not is a violation of WP:AGF, because you are claiming that the person in question is trying to damage Wikipedia intentionally. If the person in question is damaging wikipedia, but doing it through ignorance (they don't know what they are doing is bad), bullheadedness (they are not willing to learn what the right thing is), or really anything else where the person in question thinks they are right, it is not vandalism. Vandalism means doing stuff like writing random curse words in Wikipedia, replacing the text of articles with gibberish, etc. etc. If the other editor in question is editing tendentiously, if they are edit warring, if they are ignoring established consensus, if they are feigning ignorance, or if they are actually ignorant, if they edit articles with an inappropriate level of bias, if they don't provide sources, none of those things are vandalism. You may call out and warn other editors for any of those things, and if the evidence supports it, they may be sanctioned. If you call it vandalism and it isn't, then what happens instead is angry administrators will lecture you on misusing that term, and will ignore any misbehavior by other people, until such time as you acknowledge the correct meaning of vandalism, and agree to change how you use the word. See also WP:NOTVAND for more information. --Jayron32 12:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not what I mean by vandalism. I definitely did not call anything vandalism which was done with the intent of improving the content at hand.

> , if they are ignoring established consensus, if they are feigning ignorance

> if they don't provide sources,

These three items are the primary issue, and I am fine to agree if those don't constitute vandalism for the purposes of this site. The admin in question did not provide this distinction, nor did they really have much basis to resort to telling me I should get blocked for the disagreement. There are plenty of edits to Wikipedia I think are bad which I have not called vandalism, as I stated it was the repetitiveness of the edits for which I was inclined to use the term. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

None of those things justifies calling other editors vandals. That is the point you're consistently ignoring, and watering it down with "borderline" doesn't provide you with absolution. Please stop, and listen to the advice and admonishment of other editors, rather than just talking past them and setting conditions for your own satisfaction, or filibustering. You are treating everyone who disagrees with you as an opponent. That, too, is disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You never made that point to me, your point was about vandalism being writing "poop." I have not talked past or set conditions and so on, I think I have been fairly clear. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

<ec> As I explained on their talkpage, calling editors with whom one disagrees vandals in order to win a dispute is disruptive and constitutes a personal attack.. I expect Middle river exports to stop doing that, now that they have been warned. They have been moving pages to their preferred titles without gaining consensus, and have chosen to ignore advice from other editors on how to gain such consensus, choosing instead to quote from policy at great length, presuming that their reasoning is self-evident, and that their perceived opponents have malicious motives. I also note that they have gone on to an extensive move spree concerning Baltimore bus routes. The correctness of those moves I leave to others, but having been admonished to find consensus, doubling down on undiscussed moves is concerning. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The Baltimore bus routes in question have not been updated in years. There is no way to fix them without moving the articles. Route 40 was out of date so long that it was canceled and brought back in the years since it was last updated. I find these sort of accusations to be absurd, and the idea that there is anybody who would prefer that these articles exclusively describe the status of the routes in question in 2011 does not really have any common sense basis. I have also not violated any rules about how to gain consensus, as I regularly go through more formal channels for more controversial moves. (See London Trams heading for example.) However, I do not think anything that I moved boldly is even a tiny bit controversial which is part of what is so confusing about this dispute. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

My observation that you have made a whole lot of moves is just that. I view it as potentially problematic in view of your other moves, which have been repeatedly reverted. They may be correct, though the right way to do it would be to methodically go through and update the article and then move them one by one, rather than just simply moving them and leaving the content for later. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure you appreciate how challenging it is to edit out of date bus articles without moving them first. If the same route has been referred to by several numbers, and there's a 50 of them, it becomes very confusing trying to find which route to update with the information you have if you have a list of 50 numbers which don't match the current ones. I think the fact that it is so difficult is the main reason they haven't been updated in so long.

For example, I was able to put an updated photograph I had set aside of LocalLink 80 (BaltimoreLink) in very quickly after moving it - before it would have been difficult to tell which of the several links would have been the correct one to put it in.

I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while and only a few of my moves have ever been reverted. The Baltimore Light Rail ones are unusual in that regard. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You do realize that changing the names of a bunch of articles without changing the text in the body at all just results in articles that don't make sense and confuse readers? The onus is on you to make sure that you are properly changing the text in articles when you move them. LocalLink 80 (BaltimoreLink) still says Route 91 in the body and makes no reference to the name change. This is poor editing practice and part of why other editors are raising objections to your moves. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This in progress and will take some time as I can only edit one article at a time. Part of the reason why they have to be moved first is that bus route number changes overlap each other. Route 29 pre-2017 for example is not route 29 post-2017. If you edit the bodies before changing the titles, you end up with two articles called route 29. The result of that situation is quite a bit more confusing to both readers and editors than the bodies temporarily mismatching.

If you are genuinely interested in making the process go faster, I would be happy to send you some resources to help you do so as I would like to update everything as fast as possible as well. Editing is of course always better than arguing about nothing.

The main reasons other editors are raising objections are likely unfamiliarity with bus routing and editing related articles, which is fine, but if they had more familiarity with the subject they wouldn't have found the moving of articles first unusual as that is standard practice for avoiding naming conflicts. I think most of this is likely just a misunderstanding initiated by people making hasty edits to subjects they aren't familiar with. I was wrong to call it vandalism, rather just a user who doesn't know much about these topics was continuously making changes that weren't accurate, including mixing up the names of two train stations that already had them correct in both the body and the title. --Middle river exports (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Middle river exports' behavior – undiscussed page moves, bludgeoning discussions, and following me – is disruptive and needs to be stopped. The "borderline vandalism" comment was directed at me for reverting their undiscussed pagemove and telling them that controversial moves require an RM; relevant context is here and here. It is clear they do not believe rules (particularly WP:V and WP:RM) apply to them, and that anyone who disagrees with them is malicious. They then followed me from my talk page to Cuervo, New Mexico, where they reverted my removal of a verifiably false claim, then argued about it. (Note that the sources they've added to the article don't support their claim, as I noted – one source is about a location 230 miles away.) Now they've shown up at move discussions (here and here) outside their usual geographic area of interest – that just happen to be the last two RMs I commented on. Given that those are the only RMs initiated by others that they've commented on, this seems a lot like hounding. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no point arguing and perpetuating this "hounding" claim since you seem convinced of that despite it's irrelevance here. I have factually commented on a number of other requested moves and merges, which I'm guessing you didn't see. I didn't even notice you participated in a couple of the same ones but I don't remember your involvement on the Croydon Tram article.

Saying this to clear the air here for other people, I still have nothing against you but I would rather not have incorrect information about me or my edits floating around in here. Middle river exports (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I expressed on Pi's talk page my belief that Middle river exports was hounding him, and that was before they commented at Talk:Santa Clara station (California) and Talk:MBTA subway. That's classic hounding. I'll also note the discussion at User talk:Mackensen#Justification for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Mount Royal station, where Middle river exports shows a painful unfamiliarity with WP:BRD, despite quoting from the essay. It's not a question of whether Middle river exports' views on page names ultimately carry the day. They may well. The issue is that they don't understand policy and process and they're rushing around like a bull in a china shop and need to slow down. They're also hounding another editor, and that needs to stop right away. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Both of those articles I followed links from the move discussions underway page, not user Pi's page. I'm not sure Pi has a connection to either of those articles. If you have a problem with people other than Pi writing about transportation, this isn't really the place for that.

"They may well. The issue is that they don't understand policy and process and they're rushing around like a bull in a china shop and need to slow down."

Sorry you're frustrated but I don't believe this. Middle river exports (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak for you, but if a half dozen editors all told me that I was in the wrong I would at least consider the possibility. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I've interacted with more than half a dozen editors recently and this is the first time I have ever encountered a "dispute" like this. I would consider the possibility too, if there was a reason for it that made sense. There really isn't one here however, since quite a few of these "criticisms" hinge on arguments that are clearly not true. That I never edit outside of Baltimore is not true, that I typically use accusations as a method of handling disputes is untrue, the claim that the 80 route and 91 route are the same isn't true (one serves Garrison Boulevard and the other serves Greenspring), the claim that I'm "hounding" or particularly care what another user thinks of the MBTA discussion isn't true, or that there's a way to update a bus network's articles without moving them first also isn't true. You would run in to naming conflicts due to number duplication, like two route 29s, anyone who edits bus articles regularly would know that's the only way to do it. There's not really I can do with things that are obviously not true like that other then dismiss it out of hand.

I don't think you or anything else made anything up, I think you probably just got frustrated on behalf of a friend. It's also fairly common for people interested in trains to get possessive about the topic; I've never had anybody engage this way related to any other topic. (Even buses, as evidenced here many editors have never given buses much thought before.) I think this has run its course because if there was anything pertinent to bring up it would have come up by now, and the original concern was never addressed in favor of bickering about other articles not even related to the dispute (That it is not standard policy for someone to threaten a block off the basis of a dispute they were involved in, which is still true as far as I know). Cheers, and thanks for fixing the Lua module for the light rail Middle river exports (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I also note that they're replacing decent pictures of buses with pictures where you can barely see the buses. And in at least one case, they misattributed an upload to the person who had taken the picture they had previously uploaded. I'd also suggest double-checking the moves - the description for Route 91 in the body seems to match the description on the MTA website, not the description for Route 80. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Middle river exports is one of many Wikipedia editors who, for some reason, seem to think that they can Yell Vandalism to "win" a content dispute. The inappropriate claim of vandalism is, and always has been, a personal attack. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. I am glad that User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:Jayron32, and User:Acroterion agree that the loose use of a serious allegation must be stopped. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SarekOfVulcan I am going to follow up on this on your talk page since it isn't relevant here but there are a number of things you brought up which merit discussion. Middle river exports (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability of bus routes in Baltimore

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'll raise the question here of, are these articles actually notable? Not every bus route is notable, just because it's in a city and passes landmarks etc. Is this editing actually on a symptom without addressing the cause that the articles maybe shouldn't exist here in the first place? For instance that Locallink 80 above, what's notable about it? It has no claims to notability, no real third party sources, it's just a bus route. Canterbury Tail talk 13:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I would argue to say most of the routes in Baltimore would not meet general notability standards, as they are just that, a bus route. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd also ask whether the 'bus route' described above (Locallink 80) is even a single thing at all. The article starts off describing a streetcar route, and goes on to describe a succession of different vehicles, identified by different numbers, serving differing locations. We seem to be describing some sort of Bus of Theseus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless they have a bus route to go round the locations in The Wire. Anyone remember the pandemic...? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Prior to the OTHER pandemic, the route I took to work went right through those areas. I swear we're more than just murder or The Wire here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

They're probably not notable, but good luck trying to AfD them. Bus lovers will appear to swear that every bus route that has every existed is automatically notable and must be kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to go out a few inches on a limb the size of a sequoia and say that none of them are notable. Looking at a few of the WMATA articles, there's essentially no information that doesn't come from generations of schedules (plus, as with the case described above, the engendering streetcar line) except for some very incomplete listing of NN accidents involving buses driving that route. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on my look-see as well, I would agree. Maryland Transit Administration can easily carry any germane information about these routes (right now it basically just covers that they exist, which might be all they have.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

So who wants to take the plunge? If someone wants to start here, I'll happily do the same for anything similar in my home state. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• The OP may have a point, but ANI is really not the venue to discuss this. There are other talk pages where content and notability issues are discussed. This is not a user behavior issue, and really should not be discussed here. This may be an important discussion to have, but please have it in the correct place. --Jayron32 17:52, 5 May 2022 (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.

24.145.43.218

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 IP continues to vandalize pages that they will think are humorous, but they are vandalism. I suspect this IP to be a vandalism-only type.

Here are all of the contributions, which are reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.145.43.218

BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan: I've also forwarded the request to the specific noticeboard for vandalism reports. In future, please consider reporting problematic users there if the vandalism is clear cut, rather than here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

They have been busy, let’s give them some time off. Obvious vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV for faster service in future. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2022 (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.

Canvassing

User:Tatsuro22 added negative content to Angana P. Chatterji in the very first edit by adding random news incidents as controversy while those did not become controversial. Now has Canvassed at least three people to help in his quest.Special:Diff/1086531714 Special:Diff/1086197854 Special:Diff/1086136189 Also calls me a sock puppet of another person.101.50.2.74 (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

This very dispute is already at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Angana P. Chatterji, note. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

S201050066 has returned as Tenryuu 2.O

• S201050066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tenryuu 2.O (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#S201050066_and_COVID-19_timeline_pages

Summary: On May 1 2022, S201050066 was initially blocked 31h for edit-warring, topic-banned from Covid-19 topics, then indef blocked for declaring intent to violate the ban. @Tenryuu:, you apparently made quite an impression on the lad, as Tenryuu 2.O was created at 11:00 May 7 2022, and within 3 minutes went back to the topic area restoring all of S201050066's preferred text, and adding more. Zaathras (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

that's right I told you I would be back and wen now have 2 accounts now. Tenryuu 2.O (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And how do you envision that working out for you in the long run? Zaathras (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked and tagged the sock, as well as tagging the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I've undone some of em, looks like another is hitting the rest. Zaathras (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  I checked in case there were other accounts. This account can be considered CU-confirmed, I don't see any others at present. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The first thing I saw when I jumped onto Wikipedia today was that I had 20 alerts, so I suspected it was related to this. I personally found the edit summaries of these two edits hilarious, and am amazed that I am now living rent-free inside this person's head. Looking at my watchlist, the COVID-19 timeline pages seem to have been reverted to back to how they were before the sockpuppet's activity. I wonder if semi-protecting these pages would prevent them from being altered by these impulsive actions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Olaitan2022 self-promotion and competency issues

Olaitan2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The activity of this user has wholly consisted of adding their blog (cf. their user page) to various articles [460] [461] [462] [463] [464] and creating useless and redundant articles that only refer to their own blog as a 'source' [465] [466] [467]. While these three have been draftified, two others have lead to rather superfluous AfDs [468] [469].

I don't believe there's any ill will here, and if the only issue were self-promotion, that could probably be solved by engaging the user. But the extremely poor quality of the content convinces me that this user simply does not have the required competency to positively contribute to Wikipedia at this time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor. Cullen328 (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)