Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1122

User:‎Onchigor

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 reverted a few edits from ‎Onchigor (talk · contribs) because they made unsourced changes to articles like Blini and marked them as minor edits, for example: [1][2]. I gave them a couple user warnings for this and they decided to respond with You a spammer and mass editor [3] and go on a revenge reverting spree. Apparently I do not know Ukrainian orthography[4] although I am not sure why Ukrainian orthography is relevant here. At this point the edits are now vandalism.[5]. Mellk (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

He may not be acting in bad faith, but it looks like a deadly mix of WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Ostalgia (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the aspersion of me being hired for this destructive editing and vandalism[6] here on ANI after multiple warnings including one for personal attacks[7] there should at least be a block for that. Mellk (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The user seems to have stopped editing entirely. Maybe cooling off will do him some good. Ostalgia (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Staying on the original topic would be good, lads.

You don't get it, it's not vandalism, they are just trying to de-colonize the pancakes./lh a!rado🔫🦈 (C✙T) 06:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC) I wonder what will be next. Mellk (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Next will be "mlyntsi". Because blin comes from proto-slavic "*mlinъ" ("mill" where flour is produced). See at "Etymology" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blini. "mill" by Ukrainian is "mlyn" and therefore "mlyntsi". According to Похлебкин "Слово «блин» — искаженное «млин» от глагола «молоть»." and "Позднее над «патриотами», желающими объявить блины чисто русским блюдом, посмеялись и в России." https://litresp.ru/chitat/ru/%D0%9F/pohlyobkin-viljyam-vasiljevich/o-blinah Not only you have the right to tell the truth. Onchigor (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC) In English it is always called "blini". See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:EN. And this does not excuse your disruptive editing. Mellk (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Maybe. Onchigor (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC) No, it's not "maybe". Michael60634 (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Why are you massively changing many articles in wikipedia the words "Kyivan Rus'" to "Kievan Rus'? This is vandalism. This is just your personal opinion without proper sources. Because language and words matter?. "Kyivan Rus'" in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyivan_rus and many sources, such as http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/64039/excerpt/9780521864039_excerpt.pdf or https://gis.huri.harvard.edu/golden-age-kyivan-rus Onchigor (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) No, I am reverting IPs that change "Kievan Rus'" to "Kyivan Rus'" because the article is Kievan Rus' and this must be consistent unless there is good reason to use a different name (there is also consensus at WP:KIEV). Your reverts were undone by other editors as a result. If the issue is WP:CIR then a block will be necessary because I only see disruption being continued. Mellk (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Ok, exist "WP:KYIV", but not exist "WP:Kyivan Rus". And articles with "Kyivan Rus" already exist. Your destructive editing distorts the articles. Onchigor (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Again, the article is Kievan Rus'. The result of the last requested move was a snow close.[8] Mellk (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC) You changed all the words "Kyivan Rus" in the article "Ukrainian language" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_language. This is an article about the Ukrainian language, not russian, and therefore the terms are written in Ukrainian transliteration. The article says "Kyiv" and "Kyivan Rus", but you changed it to "Kievan Rus". Maybe you were hired for this destructive editing and vandalism? Onchigor (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC) See WP:REVERT. But since you are now casting WP:ASPERSIONS I think you will need a block now. Mellk (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Yes, probably according to WP:REVERT, my actions were wrong. Onchigor (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC) After a brief review of their edit history, their comments about other editors, and the clear WP:IDHT view presented in their comments here, I'd support that. Michael60634 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC) This is just your opinion. World-renowned Ukrainian historians do not think so. Onchigor (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC) World renowned Ukrainian historians without any published papers detailing their views? Strange. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Nice DARVO, Onchigor. Well done. Anyway, back to the original point everybody. — Trey Maturin™ 19:29, 28 February 2023 (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:BLUDGEON and WP:DONTGETIT by IP Editor User:121.133.40.84

121.133.40.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I have had enough with this IP editor as they would not listen to reason and just keep reiterating their point. The keep arguing on Talk:WJSN and varies users talk pages. I need them to stop. They have a history of this behaviour as can be seen by their contributions. I am going to sleep now so I may not reply in a timely manner. Lightoil (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm telling the truth. But he or she doesn't admit it. Why i am to be ignored? It's so unfair. I brought a number of reliable sources to prove the facts. But this user ignored me and reverted my edits. Including User:Lightoil, they are discouraging the will to contribute to right editing. I'd like to be Arbitratied. 121.133.40.84 (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

surely, I don't know where you live so i don't know your sleep time. How can I know? 121.133.40.84 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

About telling the truth, please see WP:NOTTRUTH. About being arbitrated, try WP:DRN, Arbcom will not waste time on that. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 16:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I already verified the fact from various sources. but he or she just ignored it. 121.133.40.84 (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit-summary aspersions

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

Prolonged reverts and attempt to include something into article without consensus and without sources has led Coldtrack to resort to this kind of edit-summary dismissive tone and name-calling since December (in descending order):
blatant troll
troll's nonsense
earlier troll
deliberate trolling
trolling vandalism
blatant troll
I would rather to avoid being called troll by editor whose arguments imply that sources used are western propaganda not everyone is willing to swallow, to paraphrase him (1, 2, ). I am trying to enjoy my favorite hobby, and I am certainly not here to troll editors who believe we should put genocide denial and skepticism in the same sentence because, regardless of sources, he has an opinion on Bosnian war and genocide (3, 4, 5) - if these long tirades are not sign of right-greet-wrongs attitude, I am not sure what is. But to stay on track focused on issue of unacceptable usage of edit-summary, I will stop here. If he can't restrain himself while reverting on such a sensitive matter like Bosnian Genocide/BG Denial and Srebrenica, in such a sensitive scope like Balkans, which is under ARBEE / ARBMAC, then, under condition that you find described unacceptable, editor should be restricted in a way you find most appropriate.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• I left them an "only warning"--this is ridiculous. If there had been earlier warnings I'd have blocked--and of course they should know that such edit summaries are unacceptable. If another admin thinks I'm being too nice, by all means drop a block. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I would like to thank Drimies on swift response, but this is a months-long abuse of edit-summaey with almost every single revert being used to label me and/or my participation as described, and it is happening on article(s) with extremely sensitive matter, which is part of the scope under WP:ARBEE. There is no reason to think that such a strong editor's POV on the matter, which he expressed in in those long exposes, will allow change in attitude. However, I didn't come here thinking any draconian measures should be applied, but array of limited restrictions at community disposal range is wide, starting from really very mild with scope limited to specific subject matter. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    • There had been earlier warnings. The Discretionary Sanctions warning was on the page; Coldtrack knew this was a contentious topic. I have instituted a pageblock on the Srebrenica massacre per the Contentious Topics restriction at WP:ARBEE and formally warned them that more stringent sanctions would be forthcoming if they continued to edit tendentiously and attack other editors. --Jayron32 16:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
      • User:Jayron32, I appreciate you, but the DS warnings cover a wide variety of behavior and this was very a very specific issue. Thanks for the pageblock; I hope it helps. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Please see this recent block where Santasa99 is concerned which he didn't volunteer in his complaint, then please examine his recent behaviour on Srebrenica massacre. I believe I had a reason to identify his behaviour as trolling. If it wasn't, then I will refrain from using that word in future. In the meantime, all I can say is that this editor is removing something per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because there is a list of alternative standpoints, and not all of them are "denial", and what's more, Santasa99 has been pushing this POV for four years even though gong back almost 20 years, there have been many alternative titles for the subsection which have been balanced. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
      • If you have reason to identify someone's behavior as trolling, then ANI is the place to do so. Edit summaries are not. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Please see new thread below. The conduct of Santasa99 has been far from blameless here. The sanctioning really ought to be distributed even-handedly both ways. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Juicy Oranges, if you think sanctions ought to be spread around, you might ask User:Jayron32 to look into the matter. I am here for the very narrow matter of the harassment. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment not sure Coldtrack compatible with this project, based on this post to Drmies talk.. YMMV-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  • It is the choice of the admins/community what they wish to do with my account. I'm not going to use the term "troll" any more to any editor. I was accused of vandalism and yet my wrongdoing has been personal attacks which I withdraw outright. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Not to put too fine a point on it, but we define WP:VANDALISM thusly: " editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge". Well, harassment obstructs our purpose. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Strange behavior from 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.

---

I"m not sure if this is even actionable, however I"ve noticed some strange behavior from the IP 195.244.164.66. Recently(ish) they seem to have been posting some sort of rant that varies between posts, something to do with Russia and Wikipedia. I'm not sure what it's about or if it's even actionable, however I figured I would post here just in case. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. Blaze Wolf, next time, please link to the IP —like so: 195.244.164.66— rather than just writing it in plain text. El_C 20:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Thanks for blocking them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:25, 4 March 2023 (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.

Mattythewhite

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 admin reverting without any discussion (and committed 3RR) as well as accusing and blocking several IP addresses for block evasion without mentioning which user evaded. 2001:448A:50E2:513C:28FA:9CDA:FF60:2EB6 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

links to 3RR violations? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems a rangeblock may be in order. See This IP which is blocked for block evasion and on the smae range as the above IP. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

/64 range blocked. Got to love how block evaders will come to ANI with a giant sign saying "Look at me!" RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

They are VERY smart. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't every IPV6 block be a /64 range block? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

At least. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2023 (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.

Severe AIV backlog

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

---

The "Bbb23 sucks" LTA is active, and is vandalizing ancient IP/user talk pages from many different IP addresses. I'm having a hard time keeping up with the pace of the vandalism, and AIV is severely backlogged because of the sheer volume of reports I've had to file. Could I get more eyes on this? I suspect the IPs being used may be open proxies, but I don't know how to check. Apologies if this thread isn't keeping with the spirit of WP:RBI. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have worn themselves out, at least for now. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@SamX: I glanced at several by following your contribution history, and most of them make one edit and then are blocked by Materialscientist as webhosts for a very long time. I saw one that had not been blocked but still has made only the one edit. I'm curious how you find them in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't think it would be a good idea to draw attention to this onwiki given that the vandal seems to be aware of our behind-the-scenes processes, so I've sent you an email with that information. I'd be happy to send any other administrators or RC patrollers a similar email if requested. — SamX [talk · contribs] 15:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Received the e-mail, SamX, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2023 (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:Anne Ammundsen

Anne Ammundsen (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. Section header truncated as a courtesy. No further discussion needed here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anne Ammundsen (talk · contribs) is a descendant of Charles Asgill, a British soldier who was briefly condemned to execution during the Revolutionary War in a series of reprisals between loyalists and patriots (Asgill Affair). This is her primary subject of interest on Wikipedia. In recent months, she has been aggressively trying to insert material she published about the situation basically anywhere she can. I and several other editors (primarily Victoriaearle and Drdpw) have been pointing out that her edits fail to understand Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to judge due weight and what makes a reliable source (among the sources she's trying to add is her own work published in a local history journal, interviews with herself, and an 85-year-old book by a noted very racist historian, which is probably not what you want a modern wikipedia article to be based on). Her edits to the articles have mostly been to create massively unweighted articles that extensively quote letters and fail to understand summary style, focused on trying to play up Asgil's imprisonment with purple prose to "correct" the perceived shortcomings of other biographies. Myself and many others have tried to explain the problems with her edits to her, to no avail. She has continually bludgeoned RfCs and talk pages (she came to my attention after she posted on Wikipedia:Closure requests about a discussion on Talk:George Washington, in which she refused to accept or understand consensus and what an RfC closure actually resulted in,[9]) and despite a number of uninvolved editors agreeing there were issues at a COIN thread last month, the issue persists. Anyone who edits contrary to her wishes to stuff her journal articles or letters into articles is spuriously accused of having a bias towards Washington. This, coming from someone who clearly cannot edit impartially about one's ancestor, is pretty rich, but it also shows that she's just refusing to get the point after people have repeatedly explained the problems with her edits. Given she is unable to edit impartially and is on a stated mission to right great wrongs, I'm recommending a topic ban from all the related articles, including Asgill Affair, George Washington, Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet, Josiah Meigs, Moses Hazen, etc. so that disinterested editors can improve things. And maybe give her a enforced opportunity to read our policies and guidelines quoted above, because explaining it to her is like talking to a brick wall at present. ~~~~ Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) At the minimum we need a topic ban from US and British history from 1754 to maybe 1812 to just be wide enough to completely wall off the entire period... and quite frankly I'm more inclined to an indef block for disruptive editing than such a topic ban. Courcelles (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I saw this matter when it was the COI Noticeboard, when I was there for a different matter (that is, I am not involved). The bludgeoning and failure to get the point has just gone on and on with this editor. I'm inclined towards agreeing with Courcelles; the obfuscation seen at the COI noticeboard means it's unlikely anything less will work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC) If this is how it ends, so be it. If Wikipedia does not welcome 'experts in their field' - which after 20 years is inevitable in my case - then that is your affair. I admit that my IT abilities are not up to scratch, but that is a generational disadvantage (for me) and one I am unlikely to be able to improve. I thought Wikipedia was a cooperative, and that with reference formatting (my greatest dread) help would be on hand? However, it frustrates me beyond words to see vital information buried deep down an article, instead of being honest and up-front and admitting that this episode was Washington's greatest error of judgement. Peter Henriques's words, not mine. It caused an international crisis and nearly derailed the peace talks. Other aspects of the story dismissed as irrelevant and unimportant because they do not put Washington in a good light. I am really exhausted from this battle, and it isn't one worth fighting any more, because if nothing else I am massively outnumbered, so how can there possibly be the "consensus" Wikipedia is so famous for? If you fight your corner alone, without support, then that is what happens. My book, to be published by one of America's leading academic publishers, Lexington Books, about it all is likely to be out by the end of the year, and I must accept that that will be the pinnacle of my success. I must also accept that Wikipedia will continue to be out of kilter with the new story surrounding these events, because it does not fit with other editors agendas. This is down to the fact that I found information never found by anyone else, and people don't like it. Except Lexington Books, who say they are "very excited" by my findings. It is a shame Wikipedia dismisses me as being of no value. Anne (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) There are plenty of instances of a book author finding things out that nobody has found before. That doesn't make their findings suitable for an encyclopedia unless and until they are confirmed by a substantial proportion of others who are equally expert in their field. If Wikipedia had existed in 1905 it wouldn't have published anything in Albert Einstein's papers of that year until they had been accepted by others. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @Anne I have not been involved in any of the discussions though I had a chance to familiarize myself with your conduct in several talk pages. I honestly do not believe anyone here has at any point tried to discredit your contributions or intentionally prevent you from making edits that conform to WP:NPOV and WP:V. I do think, however, that there is still a big misunderstanding on your part as to how consensus functions here. The work of a single scholar should not be used as the definitive source on any subject, let alone a topic that is as complex and wide-ranging as this one. I realize that Peter Henriques is a very accomplished scholar, but it seems like you are giving undue weight to his publications, along with a review of one his books from the National Review by Michael Knox Beran, to support a certain historiographical (and methodological?) angle that closely aligns with your own research. Many very experienced editors have expressed concerns about your persistence in relying too heavily on limited literature as opposed to scholarly consensus (the term preponderance of scholarship has been used quite a bit). Surely, it is reasonable to expect that someone with serious research experience, such as yourself, be receptive to constructive criticism of this kind. Moreover, I am astounded by the tendency to repeatedly describe an academic publisher as "leading" just to bolster one's own academic credibility. Can you imagine someone seriously arguing that their book is superior only because it was published by Chicago rather than a smaller university press? Perhaps taking some time off to reassess and determine the best way to contribute here will be beneficial. For that reason, I'd support a limited (not indefinite) TBAN in areas OP mentioned. Ppt91talk 23:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I support a topic ban from US and British history from 1754 to 1812 based on what I have just read and the clear COI especially ahead of the publication of the book which could easily lead to further COI editing. As an aside, I expect that information from the publication of the book will slowly percolate into various Wikipedia pages via the standard editing processes once it enters the marketplace of ideas. Gusfriend (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I had hoped that the discussion on the COI noticeboard would encourage this user to turn over a new leaf, but I see that after a short period of quiet the same bludgeoning and personal attacks have resumed. A block or topic ban does seem needed at this point. - MrOllie (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Support topic ban enough is really enough at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support topic ban from US and British history from 1754 to 1815. This editor is highly intelligent, highly educated and highly motivated. She is a single purpose editor with a family based conflict of interest who is here to right great wrongs about her ancestor, as she alone perceives them. Her edits amount to tendentious axe grinding in the service of her cause, which is pushing her own personal point of view about these events. The time to mention her unpublished book is after it has been published and reviewed by academic historians but she keeps bludgeoning discussions with mentions of her upcoming book, as if her unverified claims to have written a groundbreaking book grant her special powers. Like almost all productive American editors, I am not a blind defender of George Washington, who built his wealth on the backs of enslaved Africans and their descendents after all, and I want his biography to be neutral. And I have zero animus toward Asgill and am glad that he did not get hung. Other innocent men like Joshua Huddy actually did get hung by pro-British loyalists but this editor shows little interest in that particular war crime because it does not advance her narrative. War is hell. As MrOllie's diff shows, Great Big America throwing her weight about is a comment that reveals her battleground mentality, and she seems to be discussing American Wikipedia editors and American historians. I would never make that kind of comment about the United Kingdom in a debate with British editors, and it is truly unacceptable behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I don't wish to participate in this discussion, but it is necessary to mention that I had no part in writing The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society VOL. 120, NO. 3 WINTER 2019. Lancaster thought I should be credited, nonetheless, because I had brought Asgill's 18-page-hidden-for-233-years letter to them. If anyone can see it from my point of view, through my eyes, it seemed insanity to accuse me of self-citing or righting a great wrong. The professionals in Lancaster did all that, so to me, the accusations seemed totally unwarranted. The research was all theirs - they were the ones to discover several "missing" "withheld" or simply "vanished" items of correspondence. I found their work quite fascinating and was thankful it was them I chose to give the letter. I also don't think anyone is giving any thought to what it has been like, for me, to fight Asgill's corner (now we know what his corner looked like) - single-handedly - up against an army of American editors who do not like the story being changed because there is now "the other side of the story" being made available after 2.5 centuries of being misreported in GW's favour. It has been incredibly difficult for me to be up against a brick wall of antagonism at every turn, for several years. The weeks and months of my life spent on Talk Pages where I am the supplicant have been humiliating at best and soul-destroying at worst. My begging-bowl only having one edit request at a time - often lasting weeks and weeks to be resolved. Now years of those final uploads have been wiped clean from the articles (many many articles). I have felt like a trapped cat and, at times, have no doubt behaved like a trapped alley cat. When people treat me well, I always thank them. I rarely see the word "thank" typed out on WP, except by me - but there is a secret way of clicking a link of thanks where nobody but the recipient will know it has been sent. What does that do for one's morale? Nothing. That is why I type my thanks to those who deserve it. Just as Asgill's point of view has been sidelined, so is mine. The message I convey, via the research done in Lancaster, is not a popular message, I know, but all sorts of accusations hurled my way are mitigated (only by me, it has to be said) by the fact that I am only the messenger, and the messenger is now being shot. As GW once said (unrelated to Asgill) "truth will ultimately prevail where pains is taken to bring it to light". I cannot begin to explain the amount of pain my desire to bring the other side of the (now published in Lancaster) story to Wikipedia has inflicted on me. The accusations seem so unfair - to me. For years, this website has caused my mental health to suffer - badly. I hope some of you participating in this tribunal will read this, which is no longer than the OP, or other contributor's posts. Anne (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Is that not the article you describe on your user page as "My second published article (with co-author, Martha Abel)"? Brunton (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC) That's what is printed on the front cover, yes, but you could always check with Lancaster as to what exactly I wrote? My contribution was simply a reprint of an article written in 2007 (printed in 2011), which, by 2019 was out of date. Feel free to check it out, why don't you, since you obviously think I am lying. Anne (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC) It's not just printed on the front cover, but you claim it as your own on your user page. Wikipedia is based on published sources, not phone calls to the Lancaster Historical Society. As a fellow sufferer from mental health problems I would advise you to take them to a qualified professional, not to blame Wikipedia editors for them. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC) P.S. I am British, and live in Britain, so have no reason to worship George Washington. @Anne Ammundsen @Phil Bridger brings up a really important point that is besides any editing concerns. I have been alarmed to see several allusions to your deteriorating mental health and other editors might also become genuinely concerned. I sincerely hope you are well and if not, I would urge you to follow @Phil Bridger advice. Ppt91talk 20:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, my physical health is bad, which has no bearing on WP, but what has happened here has certainly impacted my mental health, and especially sleep. My husband continues to be concerned about my welfare and, like me, hopes that the flow of unpleasant comments about me will stop, now, and the decision be made. I do not know why this has to continue - is it part of WP rules to bring a person down as far as is possible to do? Is demeaning me part of the punishment? I appear to be a criminal or a vandal or worse. Anne (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) And, to be blunt, the more you heap on such hyperbole, the more you drag this out. There never would have been an issue if you had simply followed relevant policies and guidelines concerning original research, conflicts of interest, bludgeoning and tendentious editing. This never would have gone to ANI if you had simply resolved -- once this became an issue -- to follow those policies and guidelines henceforth. There wouldn't be near-unanimous support for a tban if you'd done so here. No one compels you to keep arguing here -- just like no one has called you either a "criminal" or a "vandal" -- and no one has prevented you from accepting an all-too-predictable outcome with as much grace as can be mustered and simply walking away. (And, come to that, no one compels you to keep "fighting Asgill's corner" against all comers to the point of "humiliation" and "soul-destroying" anguish, while we're talking about hyperbole. No "expert historian" would be ignorant of the need for a relatively thick skin when it comes to changing the historical narrative.) Ravenswing 01:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Support total ban for reasons stated above. On their user page the section User:Anne Ammundsen#Mission accomplished shows clearly this is a SPA on a RGW mission. They are NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to create a hagiography for a trivial historical figure.  // Timothy :: talk  10:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support topic ban at the very least. Courcelles' and Cullen's suggestions for a broader topic ban seems wise. I followed the original discussion at COIN quite closely at the time. Many editors attempted to explain to Anne the issues at hand and how to properly address them. I had thought perhaps the situation would resolve itself when Anne agreed to step away from the topic area in early February, but it is clear that Anne is now continuing the behaviours that led to the COIN thread. I am particularly unimpressed by the aspersions cast on Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet (example)—these are not conducive to further editing in the topic area. /wiae /tlk 12:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC) The lie of the land is very clear, since there have been only plaintiffs and no defendants, so hardly a fair trial! This condemned prisoner makes two requests. One, let's get this over and done with a.s.a.p. and Two, instead of being asked what would I like for my "last meal" - I believe that is the norm on Death Row (and my crime is not quite as serious as murder) - I hope you will do me the courtesy of removing my real-life name from the heading on both COI threads. I trust that will not be too big an ask? Anne (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support topic ban per David Fuchs who lays it out well. The articles need repair, which can't be done under current circumstances. I agree with everything in Cullen's post who said it better than I can; and also agree with Ptp91's post, again who said it better than I can. Also, whatever happens here, the terms need to be spelled out very clearly in my view. Victoria (tk) 17:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support topic ban: Despite Ms. Ammundsen's oft self-proclaimed credentials as an "expert," her CV shows her to be little beyond a dedicated hobbyist ... which describes thousands of editors on Wikipedia, some participating in this thread included. Even were she a celebrated and widely-acknowledged authority in the field, though, that would not immunize her against the requirement to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines against bludgeoning, against conflicts of interest, against tendentious editing, against WP:IDHT, and since it seems too onerous for her to do so here (as well as, plainly, too much for her to simply acknowledge her intent to follow such policies and guidelines from here on out), a tban is in order. As far as the request to remove her real-life name from the thread goes, it was Ms. Ammundsen's choice to use her real-life name as her username. I expect such instances can be changed just as soon as she goes to WP:CHU and has that username changed to something less identifiable. Ravenswing 17:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you for that advice. I have applied, and hope it will be approved and will automatically change the name of the two threads? Anne (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I'm not seeking to be absolved of my sins, because I consider that I have been provoked, many times. I am hoping that my punishment will be swift, though, because all this is doing my wellbeing no good whatsoever. I have spent £35,000 on my research, which has included finding a letter which had been hidden for 233 years - discovering the never-before-known location of Asgill's confinement - finding a never-before-known portrait of Asgill's wife and photographing the original Hoppner portrait in a private collection - getting a memorial erected to James Gordon at Trinity Church, NYC, 239 years after his death, and so much more besides. This investment means I find it very distressing to have the results of my work deleted. For instance, Asgill's wife's portrait removed; the image of the location of Asgill's confinement removed (in spite of obtaining copyright approval and the image uploaded by the copyright owner - who has even provided pdf. proof of that ownership to Commons) and the image is already in the Journal anyway. Furthermore, it is not allowed to have Appendix II of Mayo's book linked to its upload on Wikisource. This is the most comprehensive eyewitness account of what happened as the lots were drawn. It has not been published (Appendix II that is) in America, so it stands to reason that it would be a worthwhile link - but no - not allowed. When Lancaster was researching for their 2019 Journal, they had to source Appendix II from the UK. So, anyone taking this story seriously, in America, is unlikely to even know it exists. Professor Peter Henriques does not appear to know about it, and his is one of the more recent publications. Wikipedia has in the past hosted a link to that Wikisource, but it has been deleted. Weeks and weeks of work went into getting it all sorted out. Also, not allowed are Asgill's own words regarding why he neither sent GW a thank-you letter, nor felt he wanted to seek revenge either. This seems one of the most important section of his long letter, given his reputation is that of a cad for not having sent thanks to Washington, who randomly selected him to suffer the death penalty. These are simply touching on recent examples of what has caused me so much stress, given the amount of work which has gone into having these things both published and linked. I emphasise, these are just examples. Anyone in my position would, like me, be tearing their hair out over all this, and stress and tiredness has caused me to lose it at times. Because of my COI situation, it took weeks of my life to get the above-mentioned items accepted - all deleted in split-seconds. So, I wonder if anyone here understands all this from my perspective? Probably not, so the very best would be to publicly punish me, and publicly humiliate me, as soon as possible. Then you can congratulate yourselves on the satisfactory outcome of getting rid of me. Anne (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC) (Wrote an extensive response. Determined it was just muttering into a gale. Deleted said response.) Ravenswing 03:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Anne, you are far from being the only Wikipedia editor who also does research, historical or otherwise, and who has made exciting new discoveries that have not yet made it to Wikipedia. I too am such an editor. But what I and most other editors in this situation realize is that 1) the conflict of interest between being the discoverer of something important and being the person who writes about this discovery on one of the world's most widely read websites ... is huge and pretty much insurmountable. They also realize 2) that if they aren't going to write the relevant Wikipedia content about their own discoveries (as they really just shouldn't), it may take a long time, anywhere between one and twenty years or longer, before someone else is going to write that content. But what they also know is 3) that if their discoveries are actually worthwhile, and if they have been published in a journal or book that scholars are able to access, their discoveries will be picked up in the literature, and they will eventually make it to Wikipedia. If one is a researcher on a certain subject it will often be very helpful to edit Wikipedia in that general subject area, but when it comes to the actual focus of one's own research, and especially when it comes to one's own novel theories and discoveries, one really ought to let others (first other scholars, then other Wikipedia editors who pick up your name in the works of other scholars) judge their merit. This shouldn't stress you out. A fair assessment takes up time, and for better or for worse, in the world of historical research it habitually takes up a lot of time. Not all of your efforts is lost, only what you have done to get your work published on Wikipedia first. That was a mistake: it comes to Wikipedia last, and normally not by your own effort. I realize that it's been sixteen years, but you have also made progress outside of Wikipedia, and in any case sunk costs should not be held relevant. The sooner you accept your mistake and resolve to move on, the better your chances of succeeding in your goal of getting your research out there and read by the relevant scholars. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Of course I know I have been shown the door - I'm simply waiting for the door to be slammed behind me. I must have said that at least 3 times. I gave examples of items deleted which had been on Wikipedia in some cases for decades - with copyright sorted out - all ALREADY published. Did you look at the examples? Why should my image of Sophia be removed? Why cannot Appendix II be made available to everyone, not just the UK as now? Why cannot Asgill's reason for not thanking GW be given - it has been there for several years until an editor decided they didn't like it. There are NO GOOD REASONS for the deletion of my work. If you cannot understand how distressing this is for me, then what can I say. My work is not vandalism - and EVERYTHING I WANT RETURNED is entirely reasonable on my part. Of course all this has upset me terribly. How could it be otherwise? As for my exorbitant costs - how could that possibly NOT have an impact on ME - but naturally none on YOU. Anne (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Good reasons have been proffered; you just don't like the reasons. As may be, but you have been on Wikipedia long enough to understand that edits made by other parties neither require your personal approval nor are subject to your personal veto, however loudly or repeatedly you state it. Ravenswing 09:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I have objected to specific deletions made without consensus being requested, nor achieved. The edits removed had passed the COI process when uploaded to Wikipedia years ago. Yet one person can 'not like them' - for instance a link to an Appendix II unavailable in the US - so removes it - without consensus. I have had to go through so much to get edits put up, with consensus, it is soul-destroying to have those decisions wiped in seconds - without consensus. The consensus for kicking me out is overwhelmingly in favour of doing so. So, just do it. Now. Today. Let me out. If you think I think this fair, think again. If you think I should apologise to those people who destroyed my COI-approved work - ironically, I think it should be the other way round. Anne (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Support topic ban: WP:competence WP:Not here WP:NOT THERAPY. The conscientious and sympathetic editors who have contributed to this thread have gone beyond the call of duty to cajole its subject into editing in a collegial manner. To no avail. The only solution is a ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC). Unfortunately. One of my catchphrases is that in a consensus-driven environment such as Wikipedia, sooner or later everyone will find themselves on the wrong side of consensus, and their only viable option in that event is to lose gracefully and move on. Those who prove unwilling or incapable of doing so often wind up here at ANI, and it seldom ends to their liking. Ravenswing 07:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I'll say for the 4th time - I know I am going - what more do you want of me? Are you waiting for me to send you a thank-you letter for kicking me out? Is that what is causing the delay in slamming the door on me? My perfectly legitimate / published work / which has been on WP for years - has been arbitrarily removed for no good reason. This has been exceptionally distressing for me, given how long it took for approval for upload in the beginning. One editor suggested I apply for a name change (to Camp Follower) but this has been denied because of my MASSIVE TRANSGRESSIONS (I don't see getting upset at my work being deleted without cause as being massive transgressions) SO ALL THE WORK I HAVE DONE IS TO BE INCINERATED AND MY LASTING 16-YEAR LEGACY ON WIKIPEDIA IS TO BE SHINING DOWN THE CENTURIES IN MY OWN NAME AS BEING A CRIMINAL. THIS IS NOT FAIR AT ALL. I am not ashamed of who I am, and thought I could trust Wikipedians with knowing who I am - but when one's work - perfectly and totally legitimate work - is deleted for no good reason - of course this stressed me terribly. After I am dead and gone and the door has slammed behind me - I hope that someone will just do me the favour of following through my request to be "Camp Follower". Anne (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I don't really understand why you appear to be complaining about a delay in "slamming the door" on you. Editing Wikipedia is a voluntary hobby. No one has to be here if it doesn't suit them, and especially if it's causing them distress. See WP:RETIRE. DeCausa (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think you have grasped the situation. It is not about what is happening here - it is about what happened which led to here. Not everyone needs to be present to determine the outcome. I do not appreciate the time it is taking to achieve that end. Unless deliberately piling more stress on me is what is desired? Since not one single editor has grasped anything I have said, (my defence, if you like), the sooner it is over the better.Anne (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I don't believe that continuing this discussion is doing anyone any good. Can someone who knows how close it? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

SPA keeps recreating Delma (watch manufacturer)

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:DrewLNG keeps recreating variants of this article under slightly different names, even after it was deleted at AFD. Given this behavoir, it seems that they are WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia. Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Editor indeffed as an advertising only account, article CSD'd, pages watchlisted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2023 (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.

2001:56A:F9B5:8800:0:0:0:0/64

This is looking like a long-term abuse situation with this particular /64, with a decent amount of vandalism across a number of articles over a number of months at least, including those related to the Billboard Hot 100 charts. This is the most recent example that had me reverting their edit [10]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

36.82.230.247, 114.5.102.79 and others

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Heading added. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• 36.82.230.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.5.102.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.5.104.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 36.90.109.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 36.82.231.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 61.94.87.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 36.90.109.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

A batch of IP addresses used by SPA (identical articles on Batak Lutherans), there are some more I believe. Does not intend to communicate, constantly makes small edits that are disruptive, if the "talk" is blue that is definitely a warning. Constantly switches addresses (probably a network thing). Is there an option for a device ban, or something similar? Juxlos (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

SportsGuy789 violations of WP:CRYSTAL and personal attacks

SportsGuy789 made edits to List of NCAA Division I men's basketball season scoring leaders, List of NCAA Division I men's basketball season blocks leaders, and related articles and navboxes despite the fact that the 2022–23 NCAA Division I men's basketball season doesn't actually end for another month when the NCAA tournament concludes and because the NCAA counts postseason tournament statistics towards overall leaders these additions were not official. When I reversed these additions because these are not official yet and therefore a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and messaged him on his talk page to let him know, he was combative and re-added the unofficial and premature information. When I replied that he would likely have to form a consensus regarding adding unofficial statistical leaders prematurely currently runs afoul of CRYSTAL, his reply was a personal attack. I sent him a warning regarding WP:NPA, he removed it and doubled down on insulting me in the edit summary. SportsGuy789 appears not to care about editing according to policy and apparently has no need to be civil when interacting with other editors. I am requesting that a warning be issued by an administrator (both on adding unverified information and on personal attacks) because he doesn't seem to take concerns from regular editors seriously. GPL93 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Civility in edit summaries by 76.255.200.95

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.

---

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

This user has been warned multiple times to cease their personal attacks against other editors, and continues to be make these attacks to the point of being directly disruptive - looking back through their edit history it seems most (if not all) of their interactions have been quite uncivil towards others. Jguglielmin (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Already dealt with. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2023 (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 threatening to report me to Indian authorities because I gave him a warning about including the contentious term "terrorist" on biographical articles

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 recently left a warning on the talk page of user Nirjharz regarding them adding the phrases "terrorist" into a biographical article and another article about a recently deceased individual. For the problematic edits in-question published by them, please see: here (a WP:BLP article) and here (article about a recently deceased individual). You can see they did not attempt to build consensus nor did they include any source to warrant the inclusion of this term in these articles.

They proceeded to respond hostilely to my attempts at dialogue with them and mentioned that they are a solder in the Indian military (perhaps as a means to intimidate me). They also made baseless accusations against my motivations for reverting their problematic edits and warning them. I tried my best to ignore their attempts at getting into a personal argument and decided to stick to pointing out why they are in-breach of Wikipedia policy. They are threatening to report me to Indian authorities (specifically the "Intelligence Bureau"), claim I am in-breach of Indian laws for some reason, and continued to go on an undecipherable nationalistic rant.

Can anything be done about this user? They do not appear to be here to improve the encyclopedia at all (WP:NOTHERE) but rather to vandalize articles of individuals they may personally dislike and are bashful and insulting towards those who attempt to educate them on why their malpractices and behaviour is not allowed on the site. Also, this is not a new pattern from this user, you can see their talk page littered with past incidents. Thank you, ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely for making legal threats. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Femke Thank you very much. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2023 (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 by BeanieFan11

BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has notified 24 Sports WikiProjects of an ongoing RfC related to Olympians who competed between 1896 and 1912. The issue is that seven of these WikiProjects were not relevant to the articles being discussed:

1. Biathlon - Not part of the Olympics until 1960
2. Basketball - Not part of the Olympics until 1936; a demonstration event was held in 1904, but no basketball players are being discussed, and as far as I can tell we have never had articles on the individuals who played in that event.
3. Baseball - Not part of the Olympics until 1992; a demonstration event was held in 1912, but no baseball players are being discussed, and as far as I can tell we have never had articles on the individuals who played in that event.
4. Badminton - Not part of the Olympics until 1992
5. Cricket - Part of the 1900 Olympics, but no cricketers are being discussed
6. Ice hockey - Not part of the Olympics until 1920
7. National Football League - Never part of the Olympics; a demonstration event was held in 1904, but no American football players are being discussed

These notifications to irrelevant projects make it clear that this was not an attempt to bring relevant editors into the discussion, but an attempt to canvass editors to the discussion to influence the result.

I also note that after seeing these notifications, but before I noticed that some of the Wikiprojects were not relevant, I posted a request on BeanieFan11's page as I had some minor concerns about the wording; their response to that was to say that they were almost done, and continue issuing new notifications (WikiProject Sailing, WikiProject Running, WikiProject Rowing, and WikiProject National Football League) with their message rather than a neutral template. If the wording was the only issue I wouldn't have opened this discussion, but it is relevant, and the failure to use the template after the request to do so particularly so.

Canvassing concerns related to BeanieFan11's WikiProject notifications were recently discussed at User:BeanieFan11 and WP:BATTLEGROUND at NFL AFDs. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• You couldn't have discussed this further with me? You really had to bring me to ANI over this? Also, what's non-neutral about saying "You may be interested in a discussion regarding the mass draftification of a thousand Olympians"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  As for the notifications – having something like this approved would be major and could affect many other projects if similar proposals were made then citing the Olympian precedent – I felt active sports editors should know about MAJOR things going on in sports. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't think that such a discussion would be productive; the last discussion at ANI was only two weeks ago, and in that discussion you were uncompromising and dismissive of the concerns raised.

  The issue is that it lacks context; by itself it is shocking and sounds unreasonable, and will generate a knee-jerk against the proposal, but when put in context is less so. However, as I said, my concerns there were minor. BilledMammal (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  How would you prefer it to be phrased? While I personally don't see an issue with the phrasing of their notification, maybe Beanie would be willing to update their notifications. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would prefer Template:Rfc notice be used. BilledMammal (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Would you have opened this ANI had they used the Rfc notice and notified the exact same group of projects? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes; the only reason I opened this thread was because they notified the irrelevant projects. If the only issue had been the wording I would have limited my response to the message I posted on BeanieFan11's talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for answering that. I thought as much, but I just wanted to be sure. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• An ANI thread over whether a few too many Wikiprojects were notified of a discussion in a way that is factually neutral is overkill. This entire thread is -- at best -- a mountain over a molehill and completely unnecessary at worst. Courcelles (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• While you could argue some notifications as unnecessary I don't see a problem with the notifications themselves. They're neutral in tone and they don't appear to be trying to sway a group one way or another. Isn't the point of canvassing that you're trying to sway the vote one way or another? I don't see any attempt to do so in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  The message isn't the only way to sway the vote; it can also be swayed through the audience. BilledMammal (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent - I don't see an issue with the tone of the notifications, but I understand you feel it doesn't paint the entire picture, which it doesn't. But you can't paint the entire picture of this discussion in a few short words. Any more included in the notifications and it could be argued that they may be trying to sway the discussion.

  Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion... - May I ask how you see them as selectively notifying (groups of) editors? Even though some of those projects don't have athletes included in the nominated list they are still Olympic sports and may have an interest the overall discussion. The only project that didn't have a stake in the Olympians discussion in the NFL project imo. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  "may have an interest the overall discussion." seems to explain "how they you see them as selectively notifying (groups of) editors?" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oof, that was a silly grammar mistake on my part. I guess I'm interpreting the text as picking out specific editors, or leaving out specific groups because of knowledge of how they may vote. I don't see this as cherry picking, but that may just be my opinion. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I respect your opinion, in the larger sense I think this is a grey area that would benefit from sustained community discussion but on the specific issue here I think after the last ANI discussion BeanieFan11 should have known better than to push it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• We just had a big ANI about, in part, Beaniefan canvassing. As for this proposal, first Beaniefan opposed it, then he asked to delay it, then he tried to pre-empt it before it was launched, and now he's canvassing again by notifying WikiProjects for which these articles are not in scope... why those WikiProjects? Because they're sports-related. Because they will bring likeminded voters. Not cool. Levivich (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, do you see all 7 of these projects as being out of scope? I ask because, not having reviewed the articles Lugnuts created, I could see several of those listed by BilledMammal as having an interest in the precedent that this could set. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and the explanation is right in the OP: none of the sports notified were Olympic sports for the years at issue. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see the problem with the audience. I was made aware of the proposed mass deletion as a result of BeanieFan's neutrally-worded notification, and I am someone who has consistently voted to delete many, many early Olympian sub-stubs. (Indeed, I have nominated many such Olympians for deletion.) This is an important sports-related discussion, and it seems reasonable to notify sports-related projects to solicit input from knowledgeable and interested editors. It simply is NOT the case that all sports editors are wide-eyed inclusionists. See, e.g., Levivich, Alvaldi, and me. Sports-related projects are a natural group from which to solicit input. I would, on the other hand, be open to suggestions as to how to render the notification more neutral. Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't see the problem with limiting the audience to sports pages? The Olympics is both a sporting and political event, why was WikiProject Politics or WikiProject International relations not notified? These are primarily biographies, why not notify WikiProject biography? Isn't that actually the most pertinent wikiproject of them all? Think about that for a second, notifying 24 sports pages but *not* WikiProject biography. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Come on, now. The Olympics is a sporting event, and a non-neutral notification to those projects is not canvasing IMO. Your characterization of the Olympics as a "political event" is dubious. Your contention that notice should have been provided to WikiProject International relations is also dubious -- I certainly wouldn't have thought that the International relatins project should be notified. That said, if you or others think a non-neutral notice should be provided to that project, they are free to do so. Cbl62 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion about keeping politics out of sports notwistanding what do you think of the failure to notify WikiProject biography? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think notifying the Biography project is fine, would not be canvasing to do so. However, I don't see that the "omission" of that project is a "failure" let alone a violation of any guideline or something that warrants any sanction. Cbl62 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

So you feel that when notifying the community of a discussion about sports biographies it is appropriate to notify 24 sports projects but not a single biographical project? If we were having a discussion about Christian statues and I only notified religion groups and not art ones that would be a problem, so why is this ok? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the notifications. It seems like a plainly preposterous proposition that BeanieFan carefully curated these specific groups to sway the discussion, where the alternate explanation, that BeanieFan mistakenly notified a few projects about sports that weren't at those early Olympics in good faith, either not knowing they weren't there, or more likely, not thinking it was all that important to even check. I'm not sure most people would have known that those specific sports were outside the strict scope. I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG WP:TROUTing to the OP for a rather blatant WP:AGF violation, but otherwise, there's nothing to do here. --Jayron32 17:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• I find Jayron32's analysis convincing. That the user went down a list of Olympic sports and notified the projects of those Olympic sports seems fine. The objection to the inclusion of WikiProjects focused on demonstration sports is odd (surely, those could be relevant), but I do find it more likely than not that notifying the badminton, ice hockey, and biathlon WikiProjects was a good-faith mistake rather than some sort of malicious attempt to canvass the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am skeptical of that explanation because this behavior fits into a pattern of pushing the boundaries of WP:CANVASS; in the last discussion we see them criticized for their choices related to notifying WikiProjects, and here they push the boundary further by notifying irrelevant Wikiprojects.

  Regarding demonstration sports, the participants aren't Olympians. This is also why we have never had articles on them - database like olympics.com and olympedia.org limit their coverage to Olympians. BilledMammal (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding "in the last discussion we see them criticized for their choices related to notifying WikiProjects", there was no consensus that notifying the NFL WikiProject about NFL players was inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  There wasn't, but there also wasn't a consensus that it was appropriate. Considering this, their decision to push the boundaries of canvass even further is problematic and a behavioral issue. BilledMammal (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• We just had a massive ANI thread which included BeanieFan11 promising not to canvas or to undertake activities which could be construed as canvassing. If that conversation hadn't just happened I would be with Jayron32 and Red-tailed hawk on this one and say that it was an honest mistake from an honest editor but it did and we can't just ignore that. AGF is not a suicide pact. This is an ongoing behavioral issue and needs to be addressed as one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  My take as well. If it was anyone else, wouldn't blink an eye. But this is part of an ongoing pattern. The selection of projects (all sports, but not Olympic sports (NFL isn't Olympic sport), and not the projects actually tagged in the articles, not WP:BIO, etc.), and the non-neutral wording (framing this as the deletion of almost 1,000 Olympians, which is not really accurate, as these aren't "Olympians" as we think of them today, because back then anyone could compete in the Olympics, and none of these people won a medal), are the continuation of a general problem of canvassing and trying all kinds of tactics to "win" deletion-related disputes. For Beanie, it seems it's not enough to just !vote in a discussion, he has to try other methods, and it causes disruption, it takes a lot of time up from other editors, and it skews the consensus process. This is what we saw with canvassing and "IAR keeps" a few weeks ago, and it's what we're seeing with this RFC now. We're moving in the wrong direction. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Neutral notifications to interested WikiProjects should not skew the process (indeed, you and I both were drawn to the discussion and voted to support it). To the contrary, neutral notifications to interested/knowledgeable wikiprojects are beneficial to the process. Indeed, WP:CANVAS expressly authorizes and encourages such notifications: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Whether that wording always permits notification of WikiProjects which "may have an interest in the topic under discussion" is debated. However, that wording isn't relevant here because seven of the WikiProjects they notified, particularly WikiProject NFL, have no interest in the topic under discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at Beanie's contribs, I don't see a list of "interested WikiProjects", I see a list of "sports WikiProjects", which isn't the same thing. (Some WPs that were notified are not interested, some that are interested were not notified.) I also don't see the notification as neutral. If it was neutral notification of interested WikiProjects, I'd have no problem with it. What I have a problem with is non-neutral notifications of non-interested WikiProjects. But mostly I have a problem that non-neutral notifications of non-interested WikiProjects is just the latest tactic in a series of tactics deployed to try and stop the RFC. Levivich (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This is even less of a big deal than the previous RfC, which ended in no action. It should come as no surprise, then, that the same people are responding to this one with the same hyperbole as before. This should just be preemptively closed and BeanieFan11 should be left alone. Toa Nidhiki05 18:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Close this, it will only create more heat. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) Per WP:SOFIXIT I have added notices to WT:WPBIO and WT:POLITICS, implementing the suggestions above. (I would have used {{rfc notice}}, except it didn't seem quite suited to notifications of a Village Pump RfC—it would have linked to the talk page instead of directly to the discussion.) Shells-shells (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• This seems like a possible oversight in not notifying a broad enough diversity of projects, but it's very hard to see any malice or deception here. Sure Beanie could have notified other projects, and maybe should have, but it's petty to quibble about "why not THIS project??" --Animalparty! (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• I would describe this as concerning but not actionable. BeanieFan11 is well aware that they're under scrutiny for WP:GAMING behavior regarding this very specific area of "inviting editors to discussions relating to the removal of sports biographies". Getting heavily involved in this specific RfC was extremely inadvisable and suggests that they either do not understand the concerns that were previously raised or that they are willfully ignoring them. There's no clear policy violation here, but unless something changes, it will be one more data point to show a pattern of behavior when this ground is inevitably retread at ANI in the near future. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not canvassing to post a simple notification to WikiProject pages associated with the Olympics. If you find yourself engaging in a research project to cross-reference those neutral notifications with the precise year in which various Olympic sports transitioned from "sports" [and thus, apparently, completely irrelevant to the RfC] to "Olympic sports" in order to try to say certain notifications are canvassing, and thus to take someone to ANI where much community time/effort can be expended... you may be in too deep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not canvassing to post neutral messages, and it is disturbing that this is even being suggested. --Rschen7754 17:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Egregious personal attacks by Amardions

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.

---

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

Pretty sure this user is a sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chamroshduty), which would explain the random hostility. Anyways, I've told this user multiple times to refrain from making comments towards me [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], reminding them of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS too, but to no avail.

• "Please have no illusions."

• "Wikipedia is not your personal sketchbook."

• "Wikipedia is not your personal notebook. I added the source you requested. Your work is blatant destruction."

• "Insulting and slandering is your business. The basis of your work is destruction, insult and distortion. I answered all your questions. You know nothing about interaction, This is not a battlefield. I don't want to repeat it again. You asked and I answered that Khalifa Sultan is from the Marashian family of Mazandaran and has nothing to do with Isfahan. This is your work to distort history."

• "You do not know respect and rights."

Can we please block this user? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Insults, destruction and widespread attacks by HistoryofIran

HistoryofIran, Within the first second of entering Wikipedia, it began to insult and destroy my activity as a law-abiding user. Even now he calls me a sock!! Which rule in Wikipedia allows a user to target another user's effort?!! I made an edit in Khalifeh Soltan which was not to his liking. Instead of asking for a source, this person addressed me with bad words, but still, I brought more than 20 sources so that he would stop destroying and distorting history, but it was useless. insists in many places that Khalifeh Sultan is Isfahani, while the person himself said in his autobiography and other sources that he was born only in Isfahan and is of Mazandarani origin. I invited them to constructive and friendly interaction, but they repeated their work with Wikipedia:Edit warring. This user confuses Wikipedia with the battlefield. In another message, this user calls me a coward and not men!! [16]. At the end of each message, I called him respectable, but he insists on making my message look destructive. Here [17] I introduced more than twenty references to him, but instead of constructive interaction, this time he considers my message insignificant and says that I did not get my answer!! Isn't this destruction obvious?! Amardions (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not call other users "it". -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears you failed to notify HoI of starting this thread. As you were supposed to. I take the liberty of doing so now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

In another message [again], he calls my view and activity irrelevant and absurd. I respectfully have a question for Wikipedia administrators, who allowed this person to act aggressively and destroy the article and expel the new user from here?!!! Amardions (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I had no such intention and if it was so, it was unintentional. I intend to interact and be friends, not fight and enmity. with respect. Amardions (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

More WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA, with zero diffs to show of my so called "Insults, destruction and widespread attacks". I rest my case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but while we're talking about ASPERSIONS ... HistoryofIran, you're here at ANI a lot to complain about editors. Have you filed against as few as a dozen different editors in the last few months? Now sure, there've been justified complaints, and sure, you operate in fraught areas where discretionary sanctions are in place, but at some point, we have to ask whether it's really the case that so very many editors unreasonably choose to pick fights with you, or it's that you're jumping on everyone else's backs? Ravenswing 17:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a very unfair comparison. HistoryofIran is one of the most diligent editors in the topic-area. That the topic-area attracts a lot of POV pushers is not HOI's fault by any stretch. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not gonna argue with you, Ravenswing: If you think I am doing something wrong, by all means, report it, start an investigation, whatever. If it's of any help, I am also pretty active at WP:SPI and WP:AIV. Wikipedia sure can be a thankless "job" sometimes. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: I have had HOI's userpage on watch for a number of years and in >99% of cases, those that turn up to attack HOI are either socks or new editors who are insistent on inserting something non-useful into one of our articles. Sometimes, those users escalate to ANI. So, yes, it is "really the case that so very many editors unreasonably choose to pick fights with" them. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Well said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have moved this section up, to tackle the entire situation together. Salvio ^giuliano 16:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing:, that is a really poor comment by you. From all I've seen, HoI works tirelessly in an area with lots of POV and lots of socks who seem to target HoI relentlessly. I find it admirable that HoI puts up with it and continues to edit diligentky and take the time to report the socks. Your comment shows none of that diligence and deserves a juicy trout. An apology from your side would seem in order. Jeppiz (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked Amardions as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  (eyeroll) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2023 (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.

Late to the party, but before this archives I just wanted to add that yes, besides a sock Amardions was also an incompetent POV-pusher (I've reverted/cleaned up a number of their edits too), and yes, the great majority of accounts reported by HistoryofIran are incompetent POV-pushers, and yes, often these accounts are picking a fight with HistoryofIran because it's HistoryofIran who got their previous accounts blocked.

Sometimes HistoryofIran does get trouble with a good-faith user, on rare occasions even with one that is also competent, because HistoryofIran is an editor of the 'grumpy' (as seems to be the emerging wiki-speak term) type, patrolling tirelessly but precisely for that reason not always without losing their patience. It comes with the job description, as does the indeed thankless nature of stewarding thousands of Wikipedia articles, day in day out. I think that 'grumpiness' is something that should be held in check, but on the other hand 'grumpy' patrollers (and there are many others out there; you know who you are) do have my thanks and appreciation at least. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

IP range from Poland, trouble with one article

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

---

• 5.173.192.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

I'm having a content dispute at Weedkiller (album) and the other party is breaking 3RR with different IPs from Poland. Can we throttle this dispute back a bit by partially blocking the range Special:Contributions/5.173.192.0/21 from Weedkiller (album)? My hope is to hash it out on the article's talk page. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I blocked that range from that article for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2023 (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.

Appeal of Wikipedia Image deletion

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 facing a chronic and intractable problem caused by the repeated removal of this WikiMedia Commons imagen from the relevant and appropriate entry on Wikipedia:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MLK_Universal_Rights_Scholarship_Launch.jpg

This image captures the launch announcement for the MLK Educational Initiative by the MLK Jr. Advisory Council of Georgia at Stone Mountain, GA on the 50 th Anniversary of the Death of Martin Luther King, Jr. (https://www.dca.ga.gov/node/5022). The image has been inappropriately removed over 6 times by users WhinytheYounger and Melcous.Melcous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)WhinytheYounger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The media image has been individually removed, as well as much of the content on the Wikipedia page itself that featured the image. Matthew Daniels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because the image captures an important moment in the history of this educational initiative, our board is now considering legal action to address the abusive removal of this image from the relevant and appropriate entry on Wikipedia. However, our legal counsel has advised that we first exhaust any internal appeal process before commending legal action against the editor and/or Wikimedia Foundation for the abusive removal of this image.

Thank your for reviewing this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPL2022 (talk • contribs)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.NPL2022 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@NPL2022, the image was deleted on Commons for copyright issues. Your concerns need to be brought up at Commons, not on Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:NLT.

the image was deleted on Commons, and would need to be appealed there (see undeletion requests). Sounds like a licensing issue. Commons doesn't host everything; just images with a documented free license. If you own the image (if you took it yourself or have had the copyright formally transferred to you) and want to release it with a free license, since it's been uploaded elsewhere, you'll need to go through the VRT process. Only once the image is undeleted is there even a discussion about whether to include in the article, and that would be made through discussion on the article's talk page. You haven't said what "board" you're speaking for, but no board (not even the Wikimedia Foundation's board) has authority over the content of a Wikipedia article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia does not have jurisdiction over images hosted on Wikimedia Commons (which the image you are talking about happens to have been). As such, please file a request on c:Commons:Undeletion requests and/or send a message to the Volunteer Response Team with evidence that you are the copyright holder of the image, so that they can evaluate the licensing of this file. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, as the filer has failed to post the required ANI notice on the relevant user talk pages, I have done so for them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

One more thing to take into account here, it seems that the OP is purely here to promote Matthew Daniels and the image that's being discussed here is one that includes said Daniels for PR purposes. So even if it is undeleted, I don't think it's appropriate anyway as it's only being used to promote said person. Canterbury Tail talk 17:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Ummm ... one more thing to take into account -- and I'm surprised no one's done so yet. The OP has made a legal threat, and that warrants an immediate block. Ravenswing 17:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely (as a regular admin action). --Yamla (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the first two sentences of Matthew Daniels are ... somewhat contradictory (Matthew Daniels is an American academic and human rights activist. In the late 1990s through the 2000s, Daniels campaigned against the proposed recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States...). Weird. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Our board? Does this not suggest WP:UPE? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh I think that's pretty clear just from their edits never mind that comment. Canterbury Tail talk 20:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

UPE and legal threats, name a better duo. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio and racism? Canterbury Tail talk 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I must've missed an important tidbit in this whole thread. Copyvio, sure, but racism? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You asked us to name a better duo, it wasn't in context to this user just a better combo. Canterbury Tail talk 23:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

And, apart from all of the above, I would advise the OP to get different legal counsel. The idea that legal action could be taken over the removal of an image from an encyclopedia is utterly ridiculous. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attack, POV pushing, and threatening of "sanctions" by Aman.kumar.goel

User:Aman.kumar.goel and myself were in the midst of a content dispute about 2 hours ago that quickly escalated. He insisted on removing unflattering information from Muammar Gaddafi, which I objected as "POV pushing" and "whitewashing." Throughout the whole process, he has shown no interest whatsoever in compromising and instead resorted to name-calling and personal attack. More recently, he has threatened me that he would "look for additional sanctions on you." [18].

Some background: About a month ago, I began the ambitious and painstaking process of writing and improving Muammar Gaddafi and other Libya-related articles, including single-handedly created the following articles: Bashir Saghir Hawadi, Ali Kanna, Abdel Moneim al-Houni, Tayeb El-Safi, Mustafa Kharoubi, Mohammed Najm, among others. I thought my ability to read English, French, and Arabic sources and my experience as an academic researcher would be an asset for Wikipedia. Throughout the entire process, I took great care not to remove pre-existing content out of respect for other editors' work. I worked quietly and diligently without issue for over 3 weeks until User:Midnightblueowl apparently took issue with the length of the Gaddafi article (perhaps because I did not remove any pre-existing content) and made 19 edits on February 21st all to remove content. All of this was done without any discussion on the article's talkpage. I objected to the removal and asked him to explain himself in the talkpage. A compromise was reached after User:Horse Eye's Back created Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi and Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi, which I was fine with. I also explained we needed to come to a consensus and a consistent standard on what to keep on the main Gaddafi article and what to move to the new articles (Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi and Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi) that User:Horse Eye's Back had created. There were some additional discussions about sources being overused or too old, but none of us tampered with the article after February 26th as a consensus was seemingly reached.

User:Aman.kumar.goel got involved in the Gaddafi article earlier today and immediately began to remove content without any discussion on talkpage. When asked to explain himself, he immediately assumed bad faith, called my edits "disruptive," falsely smeared my previous attempt to reach a consensus with others on the length of the article as WP:POINT, and misrepresented both my position and the positions of User:Midnightblueowl and User:Horse Eye's Back (who had their own disagreements). He also almost immediately violated WP:3RR. Throughout the entire dispute, he did not show any interest in contributing to the writing of the article and did not compose even a single sentence. I reported him to the 3RR noticeboard, but it delved into a circus as he continued to hurl insults and personal attacks at me there. I ended up getting page-banned from Muammar Gaddafi while he got away scot-free, perhaps because the blocking admin only took a cursory glance at the editing history of Muammar Gaddafi and somehow concluded my conduct was worse? The blocking summary itself was false as it accused me of WP:OWN for a month when I quietly edited without incident until Midnightblueowl's demand to trim down the length of the article on February 21st and quickly came to a compromise/middle ground days later. Aman.kumar.goel is clearly gloating about this as he seems to believe he has the upper hand and admins are on his side; he has since openly threatened to look for addition sanctions on me. [19] in a cynical ploy to boot me off the project.

Anyway, I'm not here to forum-shop. I am merely here to appeal to admins to examine and scrutinize the cynical conduct of Aman.kumar.goel. As I do not want this discussion board to become yet another mudslinging soapbox for Aman.kumar.goel like the edit-warring noticeboard, this will be my only comment on AN/I on this subject. Regards IceFrappe (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I advise you to withdraw this complaint before it boomerangs back on you further. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with 331dot. IceFrappe, you were lucky to have posted the above, with its "gloating" comment, just before my personal attack warning on your page, or you would now be blocked some more. Incidentally, what is the "name-calling" by AKG? Don't say stuff like that without providing diffs. Also, saying "I'm not here to forum-shop" does not make it so. Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC).

@IceFrappe You have failed to notify Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs) of this report, even though the red notice on the top of this page clearly require you to do so. I do note that you successfully notified them of the report on WP:ANEW, but a separate notice is required for this noticeboard. I have done so for you here this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bishonen: 😲 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra the ANEW result was to partially block IceFrappe from the article for a week. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Abuse of power by the admin Maile66

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.

---

When posting my opinion on English Wikipedia policy regarding administrators and the rules affecting them, the admin @Maile66 apparently felt so personally threatened by it that he INDEFINITELY blocked me under the ridiculous pretext of me being blocked for ONE SINGLE WEEK on the English Wiktionary – an in my opinion unjustified block I've appealed. Apparently I am not there to build an encyclopedia, even though I near 3000 edits, over 80% of which in articles.

This is the most poetic, the most symbolic argument in favor of holding admins to account for their actions, that I have ever seen. I'm not even sure if this request is correct, as a part of me believes Maile66 is a subtle genius trying to help me in my cause.

But in doubt, I have to request the competent people to take a look at this, and judge whether such impulsive behavior is worthy of someone with administrative privileges on the – by far – most consulted encyclopedia in the world. I wonder how many fellows have received such "treatment". And once again, this all because I posted in favor of a more direct procedure to hold admins to account for their actions... what is so foul that warranted me an indefinite block? Synotia (moan) 21:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have given Synotia an only personal attack warning for their last post to the RfA, which I also reverted. Synotia has not notified Maile66 of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  I assume this is the diff in question? What part is a personal attack?

  And I believe I have notified Maile 66 using @? Synotia (moan) 21:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Pinging them on this page is not notifying them in the slightest. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  What template must be used? Synotia (moan) 21:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  {{ANI-notice}}, as would have appeared in the edit notice when you started this thread. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  That template is at the top of this page and appears every time you edit this page, not just the first time.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  On another note, there is no longer a need to notify them of this thread; @Mackensen has already done so on your behalf; but please remember to do this next time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

They rescinded their block after others criticised it as wholly inappropriate. WP:ARC is thataway if you want to make a federal case out of this. (On a related note, one of the most compelling arguments against allowing something like fr.wp and pt.wp has is utterly screwing administrators who DO work in arbitration enforcement, since they're working in some of the most polarised and polarising areas on Wikipedia.) —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing can be done in this forum, ask for arbitration if you are determined to claim a scalp. Yes, that was a personal attack, there is no reason to checkuser anyone over a badly-chosen block, nor to accuse anyone of "corruption." Given the level of vituperation on display here and disruption of RfA to make a point, I would favor a topic ban from RfA for Synotia. Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me for not knowing where to file such a complaint since this is my first one. Synotia (moan) 21:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion I have a question. Between badly-chosen block and claim a scalp, I think you're sending mixed messages about administrator accountability. Mackensen (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I think the block was wrong. However, I perceive this complaint as an attempt to claim a trophy for what I hope is an isolated incident. If this is something that is a pattern of conduct, that's different, but arbitrators are not going to take action over a single problem, quickly (though grudgingly) reversed. Acroterion (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I admit I have no idea on whether this is a pattern among that person's edits or not – I don't hound people's activities on Wikipedia, let alone cross-wiki.

But as they say : when there is smoke, there is fire. I don't want Maile's scalp, I just "file a complaint" so that others know this happened. Synotia (moan) 21:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That's what's bothering me. This was appalling judgement on Maile66's part. The block is bad on its own, worse in context. However, it's not bad enough by itself to justify doing anything. Meanwhile, the OP is being threatened with an indefinite block by another administrator, and if we keep this thread open long enough someone will probably goad them into saying something that'll justify that action. This is Maile66's fault. Administrators should de-escalate.

Leaving aside whether they face consequences, the important thing for me is they agree they were wrong and learn from the experience. Part of that process is their fellow administrators being willing to say, without equivocation, that they disagree with their judgement and give their reasons why. Instead, we use bureaucracy as a weapon (look at all the stuff about notification above, as if it really matters), and start coming up with a reason to block the lesser party. We can and should do better. Mackensen (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you are escalating as much as anyone here. Not that I disagree with everything you say, but your use of hyperbole is a bit much.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You agree it was a bad block, then? Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I see a badly-considered act of petulance at RfA that accomplishes nothing helpful from Synotia, and an overreaction to that from Maile66. If someone can point to similar actions from Maile66, then arbitrators may want to have a look. On review, Maile66 has relatively few block actions in the past year, and they all look like fairly straightforward vandal blocks, so I see no recent pattern of problematic blocks. It may be that this incident should stand as a a caution against petulance on all sides. Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I thank you for assuming good faith.

I only wanted to use the RfA (Requests for Adminship, right? Not for Admins?) as a platform for my own opinion. Is this not allowed by some policy, or is it only you personally who doesn't like this? Synotia (moan) 22:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:POINT is a relevant guideline. We have plenty of forums for discussing and suggesting policy changes, protest-voting at RfA is just flamebaiting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Well how could I know so many Wikipedia members had this mob hostility raging inside them. My innocence has been forever tarnished. Synotia (moan) 22:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You really should have already taken Mackensen's advice about not making jokes about your rhetorical opponents. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Synotia, if you keep making comments at RfA like the one Bbb23 reverted, you're going to get blocked and it's going to stick. That does not of course provide retroactive justification for the original block. Blocking someone making a pointless oppose vote at RfA is such an intensely bad idea, right or wrong, that it really does make me question their judgement (especially given the very grudging nature of their response). This shouldn't happen again. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I did not understand your point here. Who do you mean acted poorly? Me, Maile, us both? Synotia (moan) 21:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Making jokes about Saddam Hussein isn't a great idea, even if people think you're funny. I don't think people here think you're funny, also some folks probably want to block you and you shouldn't give them a reason. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the honest advice! (: Synotia (moan) 21:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The entire thing isn't it. The RfA thread is one users crusade on not allowing 100% success rate. Their attitude appears to be aiming for just below the line and irritating anyone around them. That being said, the block wasn't great and I would prefer admins not blocking users for conduct on other wikis and instead leave that to stewards on meta. Overall, Maile66 shouldn't block in this manner again, and if Synotia continues to walk the line (Not so carefully) they will end up with a valid indef... Terasail^[✉️] 21:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• The user is now claiming on their Talk page that the corruption CU comment was a "joke".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Everyone knows that including ';)' makes any comments completely acceptable afterall... Terasail^[✉️] 21:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I agree with Mackensen: bad block, but there's no reason to clamor for or expect a de-sysop over one block that was self-reverted when contested. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Jesus. While this is an odd block, your comment on that RfA isn't good at all. Just because you think the RfA system is unfair (we all know it is, don't worry) doesn't mean you have to oppose every single RfA. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

In an academic sense (meaning that I'm not commenting on this particular situation) - if someone has gotten a block on another wiki then there is no need to give repeated warnings to someone and let things meaninglessly play out in a futile exercise. Usually this goes in the other direction - they get blocked here and go to a smaller (usually English speaking, or Wikidata/Commons) wiki, but sometimes it happens the other way around. The bar for a m:Global ban, by the way, is very high. --Rschen7754 22:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Though - indefinite here for a 1 week block elsewhere does seem disproportionate. --Rschen7754 22:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I looked at what I thought was a pattern overall, and I made a block. Others pointed out to me it was a bad block. I lifted the block immediately. That's about it. I didn't engage in any arguments with the editors who called it a bad block - I just accepted their perspective and lifted the block. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Synotia: I don't want Maile's scalp, I just "file a complaint" so that others know this happened. Okay, you've done that. Is there anything else you seek here? Otherwise, we can close this thread and all of us move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why so eager to close a discussion about a bad block before anyone else in the community has had a chance to comment? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion about administrator behavior needs to be left open for longer. There are important issues at stake. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC).

Proposal: Maile66, please refrain from blocking anyone off your own bat without someone else asking you to do so for 3 months because you appear to have temporarily lost perspective and could use a break. Synotia, please refrain from opposing individual’s requests for permissions for reasons unrelated to the individual in question for 12 months because you appear to have temporarily lost perspective and could use a break. — Trey Maturin™ 00:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have long supported the right of editors to post even frivolous opposes at RfA, but this is different. Synotia's oppose is a naked violation of WP:POINT and patently disruptive. It should be either stricken or hatted. If they don't understand why their oppose is disruptive, that raises serious questions in itself. While I agree that the block was precipitous, albeit done in good faith, a formal warning to Synotia is justified here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't believe there was any violation of POINT because there was no apparent intent to disrupt. Personally, I thought the oppose was silly on its face, but the bottom line is that the editor was simply expressing an opinion, the (predictable) response to it was minimal, and was quickly moved to the talk page.
  On the other hand, they really should have thrown in the towel here much earlier when it was apparent from responses from multiple editors that they had no case. That behavior, on this thread, has been more disruptive than their silly vote on RfA. I would say leave the comment in place, there's much worse things in the world than not being made an admin by unanimous vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  Unlike vandalism, intent is not required for edits to be disruptive. I do agree that the block was a bit hasty, but this was not an abuse of power so much as an over-reaction to a legitimately disruptive edit that was quickly self-corrected. And FTR I do not believe any formal sanction for Synotia is called for, at this point. But if they make a habit out of this sort of thing, they run the real risk of being either blocked or TBanned from RfA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  The actual disruption or harm caused was negligible, essentially zero. It would have been better to follow WP:TYFYV from the beginning. This user is hardly the first to oppose RfAs with invalid opinions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think when people say "disruption" they mean denying a candidate a perfect RFA. I'm not sure if I think that's disruptive or not, but I bet candidates would think so. Levivich (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think allowing such !votes may encourage others to do the same in the future. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Nythar Unless I've missed something, people can !vote however they want at WP:RFA. I am however very troubled by the block/unblock that was enforced here, no matter how briefly, and at a minimum I think the block/unblock should be purged from @Synotia's block log. They've done absolutely nothing wrong. Nobody is owed a "support" !vote at RFA. Just because you don't like someone else's opinion doesn't mean they get to be blocked for it. If Synotia had been engaging in personal attacks or violating WP:CIV, I'd start to understand. But simply disliking why someone !votes the way they do? Absolutely not. Also, I saw you reference WP:RGW elsewhere, can we not misapply content guidelines to project space? We don't "right great wrongs" editorially. We're more than welcome to advocate for them within the project itself however. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  Locke Cole: Please read the rest of my comments below; they'll provide more context. And linking RGW was a mistake on my part, I was just referring to Righting Great Wrongs as a concept. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  You haven't missed anything, Locke Cole: there's a very long and sordid history at RfA of opposes based on all manner of idiotic/irrelevant reasons. No one purged any of those hobby horse/bullet votes, no one purged opposes based on noms foolishly thinking that "optional" questions were anything of the sort, and good grief, any RfA veteran from years ago surely remembers Kurt, who was as disruptive to the process as any editor in Wikipedia's history in any area. Then we have the longstanding syndrome that weasel-wording "!vote" was nonsensical when applied to RfA: for one of the RfCs on the process, I did a survey of every RfA over the previous few years.

  And my finding was this: that in every single RfA where the Support total hit 75%, and the candidate did not withdraw, the RfA passed. In that same time frame, only three candidates passed with under 75% support, and none with under 70%. That bureaucrats had the technical power to pass candidates anyway was the case and may still be, but the fact of the matter is that they had never done so. The process was absolutely a popularity contest then based solely on head count, and I'm phrasing it in past tense only because I haven't paid any attention to RfA for a few years, out of disgust. Ravenswing 07:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think the block was certainly incorrect. However, it was reverted within just 26 minutes. I have to agree with Acroterion. This post appears to be nothing more than an attempt to collect a trophy for what is likely to be an isolated incident. If there were multiple incidents like this, maybe that's when we start talking about ArbCom and desysopping, but nothing is going to happen over a misguided, self reverted, one-off incident. Additonally, I agree with others that the !vote is extremely inappropriate. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I hope that Synotia may consider striking the vote themselves. There is absolutely no reason to vote against a good faith editor who wants to help out as a sysop because you don't agree with our processes. Do better. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• I think this was a bad block, for sure. It was also self-reverted quickly, so I don't think any further action is necessary. We should remind Synotia that disrupting processes to prove a WP:POINT is likely to result in a very legitimate block. We should also remind everyone else that the single Oppose vote is incredibly unlikely to have an impact on anything, and would probably be discounted if the RfA were on the cusp. Ignoring or thanking them was the better option here, and there's a reason we have the essay WP:TYFYV. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Trout slaps to be offered to both Synotia and Maile66 should be sufficient, for the same reasons as Trey, but I do not believe there is a need for the community to ask them to refrain from repeating their actions at this point. – robertsky (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• I should be allowed to vote oppose at any RfA I want to. There's no right to a "perfect RfA". RfA is one of the only effective checks and balances the broader community has over administrators. Any warm fuzzy feeling potential admins get from their 100% approval score is outweighed by the need to prevent a chilling effect on possible oppose voters. People should be allowed to speak their mind at RfA about the process, and I see much greater harms coming from people feeling they don't have a good enough reason to oppose than benefits from an admin getting a 100% instead of a 98%.

And for that matter, if we're banning votes not based on the candidates, I'd love to see people warned when they support because "not enough admins" or Support for no reason other than to counteract the hostage-taking opposition vote. The double standard for oppose votes versus support votes is problematic for sure. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Chess: The users who are want Synotia's !vote stricken aren't concerned that the admin won't get 100% support. The problem is that Synotia's oppose !vote at that AfD is slightly disruptive. AfD is not a venue for proposing changes or WP:Righting great wrongs; these things should be proposed elsewhere. Synotia said in their !vote "I will systematically vote against any admin election as long as the system is not reformed". This isn't what RfAs are designed for. You should evaluate the candidate and vote depending on the result of your evaluation (either with prior experience, diffs, or just "no big deal"). However, declaring that you will oppose every single candidate at RfA until you get your way is a violation of WP:POINT. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 05:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar: And the person who said Support for no reason other than to counteract the hostage-taking opposition vote is acceptable? This is absolutely about getting 100% support for Synotia. If it wasn't, we'd be pressing for that vote to be stricken as well since it's even more clearly about making a WP:POINT. I don't see anyone out here support-badgering, and this precedent will almost certainly be enforced against oppose voters. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chess: Hmm. I think it's generally considered normal to support an RfA even for meaningless reasons, but it's considered disruptive to oppose an RfA for meaningless reasons. (Some users even "oppose" as a joke, when they actually support the candidate. Imagine the opposite of that happening in the "oppose" section of an RfA.) Most of the community wants RfAs to pass, so meaningless supports are considered to be okay, but meaningless opposes are subject to greater scrutiny. So, I don't disagree with you. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's not about disrupting the 100%, then how is a meaningless oppose disruptive? What is it disrupting? Levivich (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Meaningless (or non-explanatory) supports and opposes are disruptive, IMO. Everyone should provide reasons for why they support/oppose even if the reason is one short sentence, or just say "support per Username" or "oppose per Username". — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: How are meaningless support/oppose !votes disruptive? Here's an example: A user is planning on supporting an RfA which is at 78% support and 22% oppose. If they support per "combating the sea of brainless opposes", that makes their vote disruptive. Why? Because they are stupidly, artificially boosting the RfA's support percentage, which decreases the importance of the actually meaningful oppose !votes. This works the same way with oppose !votes. Now, I understand that in this case it's a waste of time to try to strike Synotia's !vote. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:25, 6 March 2023 (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.

Return of the UNESCO extinct language template

See last year's report at [20] which explains the issues. @Kanguole, Largoplazo, and Botterweg14: were involved then and Botterweg14 notified me of this yesterday. This is being done by [21] whose IP details match last year's IP. I've temporarily blocked them from article space to avoid this continuing. I'll go to their talk page now and inform them of this. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Also every one of those edits violates MOS:SMALL and MOS:SMALLFONT. Nevermind the insertion of regular images into map parameters against the infobox instructions. Canterbury Tail talk 18:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Doug, i reviewed all the contributions of the IP, and made the necessary reverts. If i recall correctly, only in a couple of cases was the respective language/dialect included in UNESCO's Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger; thus, i didn't revert those. Furthermore, Botterweg14 made certain partial reverts; preserving the image, but removing the reference to the Atlas. I didn't want to touch these, until consensus was reached. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993 thanks. The only reason I didn't ping you was that I didn't think you were around. Doug Weller talk 08:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this! My partial reverts were just me being nice. I don't have any particular preference about the template. Botterweg14 (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a heads up that the same editor seems to have used [22] and [23] for similar edits on other occasions. I suspect the editor is not recieving these warnings/messages on account of what's likely a shared and dynamic IP (see [24] for instance). I've left what I hope to be a sufficiently conspicuous comment in the hopes that it will reach them. Botterweg14 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Trj2002 and anti-abortion POV pushing

Trj2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, I reverted this user's contributions, which consisted of changing "anti-abortion" to "pro-life", believing the former term is "politically charged". When I sent them a {{uw-npov2}} template, they replied with Um, I will continue to push for the truth. The truth is not my political ideology, it is the truth. I would report to AIV, but this isn't exactly vandalism - however, it's obvious that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, regardless of the topic of abortion being contentious. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The user appears to have made a total three good-faith, though mislead, edits. This isn't vandalism or clear disruption. At this time, I disagree with the OP that this user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Let's not bite a newcomer. @Trj2002: pro-life is not considered to be neutral wording, we use "anti-abortion". If you wanna say that's biased, I want to let you know we also don't say pro-choice. I think you should read up on WP:NPOV and other policy and guidelines. If you continue to edit this way you will likely be either topic banned or blocked from editing entirely. Welcome to Wikipedia. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 23:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I dunno. Saying "I will continue to push for the truth. The truth is not my political ideology" is so much of a textbook example of WP:RGW that we actually have it as the third bullet pointed example. Regardless of whether we should block for NOTHERE, or give enough WP:ROPE to demonstrate that they can edit within policy, I've issued them with a CTOP alert for abortion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention: it isn't their first time, as they did it as an IP before (1 2) and did it as the same IP after I sent the NPOV warning on the account (3). So we got one instance of editing while logged out (assuming it is based on behavioral evidence). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks a bit bad, and whenever anyone claims to edit based on WP:TRUTH it rarely ends well. Still, even though I believe Liliana is correct, it's hard to find policy support for Blocking (yet). Jeppiz (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is intentional but this seems like a misleading edit summary to me. DanielRigal (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. I also saw they marked one such change as minor, so I left a warning at their talk page over that. Jeppiz (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say WP:ROPE should apply for the time being. The user has been instructed by Checkers above (which I will repost on their talk page) why their edits are not neutral. I would judge their status on Wikipedia by their next few edits. If they show they understand why the explanation is neutral, then the situation is resolved. If they persist then I agree that WP:NOTHERE applies. — Czello 11:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that logged-out edit, the amount of WP:ROPE remaining is more like a thread. Any further disruptive edits or POV pushing should be enough. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 at Srebrenica massacre

I held off making this report yesterday after seeing User:Coldtrack made a revert, but abstained. I am sorry but it simply is no longer possible to work with User:Santasa99. Not very long ago, he was blocked for edit-warring - having violated 3RR not once but twice, and still refused to self-revert when given half a day to do so (in which time he was active). After a relatively long period of stability, Santasa99 recently returned to remove "sceptisism" from the article (the very subject for which he was blocked before) here. No consensus. No discussion. Then again on 20 Feb, and today. Per the report I have linked at ANEW, Santasa is the only editor who has been hell bent on this one revision going back to 2019. A couple of points of interest: his "defence" in late 2022 accused Coldtrack and me of WP:TAG TEAM which the two of us demonstrably denied, and argues also that there is no consensus for the addition of "sceptisism". There within lies a veiled confession that he is alone against two who approve the other revision. Not an all-out consensus, but certainly no excuse for the way Santasa has behaved either. Well his TAG TEAM argument will not work in the current paradigm because I have not touched the article in 2023. This leaves the question of WP:ONUS. Now bear in mind that going back 15 or so years, many times a variation that I and CT approve has been on display (as adumbrated in linked ANEW report). As it is we who have the encumbrance of ONUS being the ones to approve inclusion, we believe that ONUS was satisfied based on the list which predated either of us editing the article. Satasa is aware of this, which is the reason he sought to conceal the sceptisim aspect of the list by removing some of the bugbears to the revision which suits his ambition. The article appears not to be in need of protection at the moment, but I strongly recommend either a topic ban for Santasa, or indeffing him. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - This is interesting case, which could end with WP:BOOMERANG. I am experienced editor and I rarely fall into a trap like this or pushed myself to the brink of being warned let alone blocked for disputes like one we had on genocide denial. I do manage fairly successfully to navigate all our guidelines and policies while editing in Balkan scope under WP:ARBEE; so far, beside this entrapping, I managed to edit for 15 years without a log warning let alone blocks. And although I have made a mistake and miscalculated timeframe making one more revert minutes earlier then I should have, there is more to this case than it was reported by Juicy Oranges. The filing editor obviously missed to inform community about not that innocuous way they and Coldtrack participated. We had dispute on the article Gazimestan speech. The moment I left that article and its TP discussion, Juicy Oranges and Coldtrack followed me to article Srebrenica massacre with this edit by Coldtrack, and Juicy Oranges chipped in with this edit, and from there on started reverting me there, and followed at Bosnian genocide denial with first Coldtrack's edit, and then at Proposed Croat federal unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina first edit Coldtrack and first edit Juicy (confirmed here), with reverts. There should be noted that Juicy and Coldtrack never edited in these three articles until they decided to follow me from Gazimestan speech, and for all intents and purposes tag-teamed and used their same POV to take turns and edit-warred across all three articles, while evading a risk of being themself reported for 3RR. Whole this time they were very well aware what they were doing: see edit-summary with a message by Juicy Oranges to Coldtrack; soon enough Juicy Oranges informed Coldtrack leaving him directions what to do (or not do) literally shielding him from breaching 3RR. Sometime in September they were already exchanging these kinds of messages here, which is interesting because now Juicy informed Coldtrack that they owed them for something they missed back then, to which Coldtrack replied like this. After Juicy Oranges filed the report Coldtrack noticed that report was idle for few hours, so in the message to Juicy they thanked them and informed them not to "exacerbate things" by making more reverts, but left two provocative edit-summaries referred to me with "blatant troll", and "troll, vandalism"; or that I should have my eye checked because I refused to accept his accusation that what I am doing is "egregious and stiff-necked behaviour to sell a point". Later, they were thanking to Juicy.

I actually intended to go straight to ANI, while fully acknowledging my miscalculated 3RR and by fully accepting responsibility for that misstep, and file a report on both editors who are showing some clear signs that they are now taking things into their hands to start fixing great wrongs within Balkan scope, skipping consensus and labeling RS as "so-called reliable sources" and referring to sources with "simplistic narrative sold by mainstream media", only to came across my 36 hours block at the time. At Gazimestan speech TP, just hour(s) earlier, I received blunt ad-hominem from Juicy Oranges.

Two editors never acknowledged that they need consensus to include or change something so controversial in such sensitive articles.

౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I refute the above about "following" Santasa99 anywhere. This concerns his defence of December 2022 and BOOMERANG is not in order as I have neither touched the article in 2023 nor have I violated a policy. Reading the above in full, all that matters is one thing, Santasa was blocked for a certain behaviour, and he persists in that very behaviour. I see from the above that a circus has been built around CT calling Santasa99 "blatant troll". Please be advised that this thread is not about what CT has said and and from what I can gather, has been sanctioned for. Calling someone a troll is wrong, but it does not excuse this editing behaviour from Santasa99. This thread is to look into the behaviour of Santasa99 taking into consideration his block in December. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Without comment on the broader complaint, the line that "although I have made a mistake and miscalculated timeframe making one more revert minutes earlier then I should have" makes plain that the user still does not understand the spirit of WP:3RR, i.e. "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." and "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot will usually be considered edit warring." This above suggests that the December block was not a learning experience for the user, but, on the contrary, they are of the mindset that they just need to edit war 'minutes later'. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears that you are missing the point, which is not that surprising if we have in mind our bitter (in quality terms) dispute on some unrelated topic few months ago. In light of possible consequences you are here to induce, whatever you may think they should be, it strikes me how little of concern is to you a whole background of that old 3RR case, or how little or no evidences is presented by filing editor and Coldtrack, or you simply did not trouble yourself with it and didn't read any of the posts explaining entire affair. My point was that my fourth rv could have been avoided if I was unethical and calculated editor, instead by assuming a WP:GOODFAITH I didn't realize in time that two editors have been in contact all along and were reverting me, without discussion and without a consensus, taking turns one after the other with a very calculated and specific goal in mind. It was retaliatory entrapping by two extreme POV pushers, who continue (after previous ANI which resulted in Coldtrack block a day earlier) to express retaliatory mentality even now with this ANI based on same old 3RR, without any substance and new evidence behind it. I am sick and tired of this retaliatory and opportunistic harassment. I would be imploring admins to check this out if not for these blocks of text that obviously repeal uninvolved editors. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oh dear - dismiss as worthless As almost the only other editor regularly editing at "Srebrenica massacre" recently (apart from Coldtrack, Santasa99 and Juicy). I can confirm that Coldtrack and Juicy did NOT have consensus for changes one or other of them has been seeking to make since early December to the article. Mainly in the 'Denial' section and many of which had the effect of disputing whether a massacre took place at Srebrenica. Juicy hasn't substantially engaged on talk about the changes he seeks, I'm not even sure what they are, yet he says that he simply is no longer possible to work with User:Santasa99, citing the massacre article about which he says I have not touched the article in 2023. How can the two claims be reconciled? I agree with Juicy that the title 'Denial' imperfectly reflects the contents - but no better one has been suggested IMO.

Coldtrack and Juicy had an interaction on Juicy's talk in which Juicy appears - to my eyes - to be hoping Santasa99 'messes up' so that an ANI can be filed. I joined it to the extent of pointing out to them that they didn't have consensus for their changes, as my stance had been - and is - somewhat 'between the two 'camps'- and they might have misunderstood my position. I am no fan of Santasa99's and find him sometimes over zealous and often apparently unaware of his shortcomings in basic English (though he has no problems with more 'Academic' English) - I am no fan of Santasa99 but this is wholly un-merited iro the Srebrenica massacre article. I cannot comment on any other articles since I am not and have not been involved in any way.Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - There is nothing much to add to Pincrete's posting, except that exchange linked by Pincrete started with "I owe you this". I believe that this is worthy for admins' to take a look, and if my assumption is reality based, then Juicy deserves at least a good solid logged worming per WP:BUNGEE. Juicy thought it is OK to dismiss my participation first with this ad-hominem, and then quite openly expressed this kind of battleground and righting great wrongs mentality: here (Note how Coldtrack and Juicy perceives my participation: I know and you know he has fought this battle singlehandedly since about 2019 and sees some personal gain from what he is selling.; and here openly expressing their intention to fix things based on their own world view. After Pincrete's attempt to inject some reason, Juicy turn on him with this tirade, which shows extent of their project-wise misguided attitude, and possibly intent, if not at least warned, to turn our project in this sensitive area (under WP:ARBEE) into a stage for ethno-national narratives, hands free, while RS are being perceived as "so-called" and "western"..--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Observation: All that is relevant here is that Santasa99 was blocked for edit warring in December. He claims he would have "self-reverted", however, if you follow the evidence submitted by JO in his ANEW report, you'll see that Santasa99 was advised that he was in breach of 3RR, then given copious time to self-revert, and in that time posted one message of defiance, and only after that did JO report him - by which time Santasa99 had made a fifth revert inside of 24 hours. As such, there is nothing I or JO could have done to cause Santasa99 to "slip up". He is responsible for his own input. So, he was blocked, then the block was automatically lifted, and then he returned to the behaviour that got him blocked and remains as defiant and adamamnt that he is right. One more thing, up until a short time ago, Santasa99 was the only editor in four years to represent his revision. I accept that Pincrete is now a second editor to support his version. Per JO, the claim of the two of us forming some alliance is utter hogwash. There may be just one occasion early on in the dispute that we made two reverts each in 24 hours but this can hardly be said to have persisted given JO has not touched the edit button on the article in 2023. So Santasa99 was using TAGTEAM to conceal his knowledge of the fact that two of us agreeing with one revision trumps his one-man battle until yesterday. Essentially, that is closer to consensus than what he has got. But now that Pincrete mentions consensus, I'd like to draw attention to Wikipedia's policies. For something as simple as the inclusion of one term (in this case "scepticism"), it is not consensus that is required but rather WP:ONUS. Had JO or I constantly removed "Denial" then the onus would have been on Pincrete and Santasa99 as contenders for "denial" to find sources to support it. The term is supported by ten pre-existing entries to the list, so I (and JO) do not remove it. Similarly, at present two if not three (as well as more that can be found if we tried) demonstrate examples of 'sceptisism' and we have cited these myriad times, therefore we have satisifed ONUS. As such, the consideration for any admin is simple: what do you do with an editor who gets blocked for five reverts, and then makes a sixth, seventh and eighth after his block is lifted? --Coldtrack (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  When you bring certain accusations up, you also need to offer evidence - it's a common practice within the project to avoid WP:ASPERSIONS. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct, which is why I refer admins to the evidence in the opening post and in particular the full thread of JO's link where Santasa99 was blocked. Doesn't require duplicating. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

But you and Juicy now WP:FORUMSHOPPING for some new block by presenting as evidence my 3RR block from December? You are just yesterday blocked for WP:harassment, and now you and Juicy by pressing with this frivolous report harassing me again. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My alleged "harassment" has been dealt with and I am indeffed from the article where the "offending" remarks happened. If you believe my sanctioning was too lenient or that I have continued in the same vein, you are welcome to collate your evidence and notify the blocking editor. There is no further discussion here. This thread clearly demonstrates that you have previously been blocked for a flagrant infringement, and the examples provided submit that you have done nothing to remedy that conduct - to the contrary you persist in that level of behaviour. Now if JO got something wrong (ie. inflated the number of revisions by using one on more than one occasion, or if you were not restoring the one and only version he says you were), then you are welcome to make representations to that effect. Otherwise, you're basically just stamping your fist every time you post here and saying "yeah I stand by what I have done and refuse to change". You've got nothing on me any more, and JO is clean as a whistle never ever having come close to violating a policy. --81.148.214.74 (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC) (Coldtrack (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC))

Is it alleged "harassment" or harassment established as a fact, were the "offending" remarks offending or not. The sanctions against you, as strictly related to the case I presented in earlier ANI, are appropriate imo, and the only other thing that I would dare to ask and hoping to get in situations such as this is a decent apology, but it appears that would be too much to ask and hope. Because, however, now I have to come here again, to defend myself against this frivolous and empty report, filed by Juicy in retaliation to my ANI in which you received your block, and in which you have taken part of your own volition with as much frivolous and empty Observation and subsequent replies. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I was myself unaware of much of this 'background' until yesterday, and would have likely edited "Srebrenica massacre" with more caution, and/or started an RfC had I known about it. I don't intend to comment further in this thread, but would be happy to clarify anything, should the need arise. Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  You haven't done anything wrong there, for a long time your participation there was nothing but principled, in keeping claims unsubstantiated with strong RS out. Imo, regardless of what you think of me or if you may or may not like me, you have always been an ethical Wikipedian, and probably solid editor, and that's all our project need from its contributors. In case that you ever felt that I was exploiting your cited qualities in any way, you are well equipped, in all regards, to at least thwart any of such eventuality. You must be aware that if they were successful in their attempt to inject euphemisms, known to be used to promote fallacy and legitimise questioning genocide and Holocaust, such as "skepticism" and "alternative analysis", "alternative views", etc., into section's title along with existing Denial, that that would definitively set a stage for turning that section into place where denial itself would than get a wikivoice. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Joshua nick

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.

---

• Joshua nick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): One track mind with spam links, WP:NOTHERE.

♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be better to just report straight to WP:AIV instead of here. Carpimaps (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2023 (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:Venessa Ferns promotional / non-neutral disruptive editing on Chetan Bhagat

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.

---

• Chetan Bhagat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Venessa Ferns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So this user was previously reported at COI/N in December 2022 for suspected COI and very promotional looking edits, the result being a two week block from the article after no communication from them. However, since the block has expired, the user has continued to make the same edits to Chetan Bhagat again, and has seemingly not addressed any of the concerns expressed by the users in the previous COI thread, as well as those reverting this editor's edits, instead continuing to restore their edits pretty much as-is. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 month Left her a "PAID" notice. Any admin should feel free to unblock or modify as they wish..

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring, canvassing, incivility, and disruptive editing to make a point

CMD007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

CMD007 appears to have trouble understanding that they need talk page consensus to insert new material after their edit is reverted and to communicate with others in a mature and respectful manner. Instead they:

• edit-war[25]
• refuse invitations to join the talk page discussion

  There isn’t anything to discuss other than your need for power. You aren’t powerful. This is nonsense.[26]

• canvass other editors to support them[27][28][29] [30]
• throw around accusations of bias, abuse, and harrasment[31]
• mock other editors

  You’re really obsessed with me aren’t you? I’m asking others for help so we can come up with sources to appease your highness. Get off my talk page.[32]

  I have also received a warning from my pal that I should stop edit warring or will be blocked.[33]

  Will it hurt you personally if Maximilian’s article uses his portrait? ... Do you have an axe to grind?[34]

• disruptively edit other articles to make a point about the one they care about[35][36], admitting the intention[37] and then repeating[38]

All in all there is a considerable dose of battleground mentality here that I feel should be addressed. Surtsicna (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

If everyone would like to know what is occurring, it is all on Talk:Maximilian I of Mexico. This user is using old issues to bring forth smoke and mirrors to cover what is happening. He is deleting sourced material for cherry picked articles, and reverting my edits using the same rules he used against the cherry picked ones. He can do it, but I cannot. He has told me to go to the talk page numerous times and then doesn’t respond until probed. He says that there is consensus to delete ancestry charts on certain articles while not allowing me to delete those same charts on other articles. Please read the Talk Page. This is hypocrisy and he is abusing his privileges on this site. CMD007 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It has also come to my attention that either Surtsicna has multiple accounts, or he is secretly in contact with others through a different forum, because I sarcastically thanked a different user for a related edit reverting my deletion of an ancestry chart (which I never do) and I was sarcastically thanked by Surtsicna (which I never receive either). All within this hour or so. That is fishy. CMD007 (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2344) On the contrary, it's quite simple: You're trying to insert information that partly has no relevance to the subject of the biography and partly has NO reliable source to support it. In a pique, you went and deleted sourced material out of a couple of random biographies as a bizarre revenge. A quick look through the core discussion reveals you're suffering from a strong case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you miss that none of those articles have BIOGRAPHICAL sources attached to those ancestry charts? That is the argument for non-inclusion according to Sertsicna. However, the argument for non-inclusion is also NOT a rule and no consensus has been reached. You both say the same thing over and over. It still stands that 1) if we need biographical sources, then the ancestry charts at Elizabeth II and Charles III as well as Maria Theresa should be deleted 2) if we DON’T need biographical sources (and any source will suffice) the ancestry charts at Maximilian I of Mexico and Salvador Iturbide y Marzan should be RESTORED. This is about consistency. You all have turned it into something else. CMD007 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That's all a big red herring. None of it is an excuse for what you've been doing. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s odd, because that is the only reason we’re here right now. A post from November isn’t why we are here. Like I said, smoke and mirrors. CMD007 (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the reason we are here is your behaviour, as evidenced by Surtsicna above. And, no, he didn't make you act that way. You had other alternatives. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

No it’s not, we would be here anyway, except I didn’t report him first. All of you. You can read exactly what’s going on, and yet you don’t stand up and say that, yes, this is hypocrisy. The issue from the beginning has been about deleting ALL or NONE of the ancestry charts in question. By reverting my edits, you went against Sertiscna’s own policies. Yet you haven’t owned up to that yet. You are all being hypocritical. CMD007 (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The content dispute is a content dispute that's not the issue. The issue at this thread is your behaviour which is clearly unacceptable. When you deleted the chart from Charles III your edit summary read "Delete ancestry section per guidance from one lone User:Surtsicna without RFC and no consensus. Please refer to Talk:Maximilian I of Mexico for discussion". If that isn't WP:POINT I don't know what is. If there was any doubt, when I reverted with the edit summary WP:POINT you both sent me a "Thank" and reverted me. How on earth is that not POINT? In your edit summary for the revert you managed to add WP:CANVASS: "I am not making a point. Per discussion the sources must biographical (sic), and the source is not a biography. Perhaps you can lend your voice to the discussion." DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

My behavior? Trying to follow guidelines is bad behavior? Can you understand how frustrating this has been to not be given a fair guideline?? I’m just told the same thing over and over, but what they tell me and what they DO are two different things. Whether I add one ancestry chart I’m reverted and whether I delete another ancestry chart I’m also reverted. They can’t BOTH be possibly correct, that is IMPOSSIBLE. Which guideline do I use??? I reverted you because I was told that there needs to be biographical evidence, which is why I said “I am not making a point” and explained WHY I reverted you. The user who reported me is the exact user WHO TOLD ME to use biographical sources ONLY. So I used that guideline, even though he is not the policy maker on this site. When I did I was reverted. So I figured if they reverted that, it is wrong. So I RE-added the charts to other articles AND WAS STILL REVERTED. THEN REPORTED. He is playing games. He deleted two ancestry charts on royals from Mexico. He didn’t delete anyone else’s, skipping over the English royals. That doesn’t make any sense and is biased. This is not a small problem. Also, the suggestion that you should lend your voice is NOT canvassing since I have no idea whether or not you would like to remove or keep the ancestry charts and I don’t care. However, I DO care about concrete guidelines and article consistencies. He’s the one up to funny business. I’m merely trying to make articles match. CMD007 (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be mixed up between how we agree content and how you must abide by behavioural policies. Although there are policies on issues like what constitutes a reliable source etc in general terms what is added or removed from an article is determined by WP:CONSENSUS. Generally that's determined locally at each article. What's agreed at one article won't automatically apply to another article. There may be very good reasons for a difference or there may be not so good a reason. But there it is - one of the joys of Wikipedia. It seems to me you need to read closely WP:CONSENSUS and also WP:ONUS to understand your situation. Wikipedia is inherently inconsistent. But none of that matters here. The behavioural policies/guidelines such as WP:POINT, WP:CANVASS, WP:NPA, WP:EW and others are site-wide, should be applied uniformly and are what's exclusively looked at at this noticeboard. These are what you have infringed. DeCausa (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I do understand. I have read at Wikipedia:Consensus which says that “A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised.” My concerns have never been taken into account. “All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries” That is exactly what I did in my edited which was reverted and which gave him the idea to report me. “most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position.” He DELETED my entire sourced ancestral paragraph because he admits, “it shouldn’t say inherited”. How is that also not a policy breach?? “If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns.” This is why I changed course, and instead of including the chart, took his advice about non-biographical sources and edited accordingly. “Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under edit warring, except for specific policy-based material” There is no page in which I reverted anything more than TWICE. He has reverted inclusion of the charts more. “try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense” This is where he goes off the deep end. He neither provides his sources for solid policy nor uses common sense that if he demands a biographical source for one, the others must also be demanded of. And on and on. “What's agreed at one article won't automatically apply to another article.” So then what is the point of policy? Are there rules that extend site-wide or are there not? You also say consensus is local, yet another source says do not rely on local consensus, rely on site policy. If I ask others for help about this I’M CANVASSING. Quoting the arbitration page, “While it is fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view”. Did I know you’d be favorable? Or anyone I “canvassed”? Do you understand this hypocritical situation I’m in? CMD007 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

CMD007 should aslo be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there's much to be done here. CMD007 should have discussed the changes in TALK and the behavior towards the other editor was unfriendly. I do find the canvasing claim here to be a little weak, but again, CMD007 should applied that energy to a discussion in TALK. A warning to find consensus and to treat other editors with respect should suffice. Nemov (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I had been on the Talk Page prior, and still am, but there is nothing happening there except superfluous dialogue that isn’t getting to the heart of the matter. I would invite you to read what’s been said lately, which is of little help on their part (or his part if this is sock puppetry) and a bit of mocking. I’ve requested policy guidance from the help desk, I hope it should be sufficient guidance to lay this to rest and stop the double standards of “these” users. CMD007 (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Not all of the outbursts shown above are recent or directed at me. This is a whole behavior pattern, and I wonder if you seriously believe it will change after a warning. Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hasn’t it changed? Have I reverted any more edits? I’m being provoked while orderly inquiring about policy. Are you afraid something might happen? You seem to appear at the same time others do and disappear as well. CMD007 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that a lot of behavioral issues are unravelling here, but I hope this unceasing assumption of bad faith will not go unnoticed. Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope nothing goes unnoticed. CMD007 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's not let this charming gem go unnoticed.

The response to the warning isn't promising, either. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It isn’t my fault if you cannot see the issues at hand as far as sources and policy go. Read the page again. I stand by everything I wrote there. You are also seen in there trying to provoke with comments that are superfluous. CMD007 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

IP editor circumventing temporary ban on prior IP to harass and insult editors whilst vandalizing articles

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, an IP editor was previously temporarily banned for using foul language towards another editor. They seem to have switched to a different IP address to continue their antics. See their edit summary published here and here. They are as quoted: "THETHPUNJABIDIMAADIBHOSADIWICHMAAREYALULLA" (using foul words in Hindi to insult me) and "Bhosadiwalon" (more offensive language in Hindi). This is the exact same behaviour on the exact same article the prior IP address was temporarily banned for, see here for that edit. Can this be escalated to a longer ban since they are now contravening their ban? ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• This article has been a target of vandalism for a long time now. The last semi-protection was 6 months, so this one is a year. I have also blocked the original IP (which has a number of issues) for 3 months - their last block was as recently as 27 February. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2023 (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.

81.0.163.51: edit-war, violates BURDEN, personal attack against me

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 tried to explain to User:81.0.163.51 why their behaviour was unacceptable in my reverts [39], [40]. I have also warned them at their talk page.

The user is unwilling to discuss, and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. The user:

• has purposefully added back back unsourced content, violating BURDEN: one before he was warned about BURDEN [41], twice after he was made aware of the policy [42] [43]

• has actually stated they were edit-warring and intended to continue doing so: I tried being nice. You don't get to decide what is fact and what isn't. There is sufficient evidence that it is Turing complete. If you want an edit war I'll give you one. [44]

• was warned once at their talk page, and reacted by shrugging it off: I have provided sufficient evidence. You didn't like the source, that's not my problem. I added a citation needed as a compromise. If you don't like that, that's not my problem anymore [45]

• has attacked me and restated their willingness to edit-war: Nah mate, your god complex ends here. To war. [46]

Veverve (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for one week for openly admitted edit warring, persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content, and a combative attitude. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2023 (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:Nml25

• Nml25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also

• @Daranios, Onel5969, Onetwothreeip, and Daniel Case:

Concerning:

• Sexton Blake bibliography
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 2: 1912-1945
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 3: 1946-1978
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 4: 1979-present

Nml25 has created four articles with massive amounts of unsourced original research. Multiple editors have made an attempt to remove unsourced material. Nml25 continues to add this unsourced material back into the articles.

They were blocked by @Daniel Case: [47] for edit warring on 11 February 2023. Since the block has been lifted they have continued the editing behavior they were blocked for, reinserted unsourced material without adding references to independent reliable sources and reverting editors that object to the unsourced content.

These four edits restoring the unsourced material were made the day their ban was lifted:

[48], [49], [50], [51]

More (see article histories for all)

[52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57],[58]

See discussion here: Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Splitting the article and Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Draftify?  // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I had hopes after the initial block that they would learn, but unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. A longer block is warranted, but the length I am not sure of. The last time, as soon as the block was over they returned to the same behavior which led to their initial block.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what TimothyBlue is talking about. I have restored content after communicating with Daniel Case, who put in place the block and provided guidance on content. On February 19th I posted the following communication to him:

Pages have been restored and revised with more detailed citations as per Daniel Case's' suggestions.

Title info has been included to meet standards of verifiability as put forth by Daniel Case

"Sexton Blake tales were all independently published in story papers, (usually 1 paper 1 tale) with the title of the tale used as the title of the issue of the story paper, therefore it is necessary only that their existence be verifiable."

Example

1955

The Sexton Blake Library (3rd Series) 348 || The Case of the Frightened Man || Anthony Parsons || ||

Year, Magazine Title, Issue # Title of Story, Author

Here is the link that verifies it, easily finadble with the information provided.

https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=60576

ISBNs have been provided for all modern publications.

Comic Books plus has three pages of digital files for the Sexton Blake Library

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=2177

and a page of Union Jack titles as well

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=732

If citations are needed I ask that you use the citations needed function for guidance. Nml25 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I received no message from Daniel Case that the material was inappropriate. From Feb 19 to Feb 26 I have received no message from anyone that there was aproblem with the information provided in the Sexton Blake bibliography pages. Other edoitors made tweaks on the page. On the morning of Feb 26th I discovered that Onel5969 had hidden three of the pages. No explanation given. So I reverted it back. Then TimothyBlue reverted the pages. So i reverted it back. Again TimothyBlue gave no explanation and he appeared to have no knowledge of the communication with Daniel Case.

To recap:

I took advice on board from Wikipedia for citation of sources on the four pages in question, I corrected citation of content to meet that advice, I notifed Wikipedia that new content was posted, I requested I be notifed for any errors in citation through the needs verification function. Other editors looked at the pages, found no issues and tweaked content for more than a week.

What excatly did I do incorrectly?

@Daniel Case @Daranios

And again: The material is not unsourced. There are 9 citations in the Compiling the Sexton Blake Bibliography section of each page which describes where the material comes from.

TimothyBlue and Onel5969 have made the creation of this page a highly toxic experience.

It's all viewable here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANml25#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion Nml25 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Just wanted to say that I believe that the disupted content is "unsourced original research" is incorrect. Everything else can be read in the discussions linked by TimothyBlue. Daranios (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Some of it's sourced, most of it isn't. Restoring contested content without sourcing is disruptive per WP:BURDEN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I informed Daniel Case, the admin that it had been revised and restored on Feb 19th to comply with his guidelines. There was no objection. TimothyBlue and Onel5969, who had not participated in that conversation, decided unilaterally to take down three pages. No examples as to how the content did not meet the guidelines. Nml25 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

They contain massive amounts of content that is not sourced and is against WP: NOTDIRECTORY, as it would appear your other articles do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue "These four edits restoring the unsourced material were made the day their ban was lifted:" I'm confused. Diff 63, at least, includes references. I didn't check the others. David10244 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment and additional material: I believe these are additional examples of unsourced original research in articles created by Nml25 and should be considered:

• The Exploits of Fidelity Dove
• The Sexton Blake Library, The Nelson Lee Library
• Harry Blyth, Nelson Lee (detective)
• William Murray Graydon, Robert Murray Graydon, Francis Addington Symonds, John William Staniforth, George Hamilton Teed

 // Timothy :: talk  18:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

TimothyBlue you're coming across more like an obsessed stalker than an objective editor.

All of these pages were approved months ago by other editors. And true to form you make broad general claims without specific examples. Nml25 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Question to everyone: Is there any actual doubt about the accuracy of the content? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: Thank you for this question hitting heart of WP:Verify. Unsurprsingly, I myself have no actual doubts about the accuracy of the content, also seeing as most of it can be double-checked at the Blakiana website. Daranios (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, but it's difficult to be certain without sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Aside from Blakiana, some of the old magazines are also available at archive.org, like Detective Weekly 251 I had linked here. In case you want to check out accuracy exemplarily yourself. Daranios (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable or not, great big lists without any real context are against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The four articles starting this thread are just republishing the lists compiled by the Story Paper Collectors' Digest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point, but this criticism that the lists are drawn directly from another publication seems inconsistent with the criticism above that the lists are unverifiable OR. Also, don't we frequently include bibliographies in author biographies as well as articles about prominent fictional characters? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't usually include weekly or bi-weekly magazine publications over many years in a biography section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We have list articles that are each many times the size of main articles, those lists include extra details that are unsourced (and could well be OR, I've made no comment on the OR issue). So no there is no inconsistency in my comments. What is seemingly inconsistent is the enforcement of WP:BURDEN after the content of these articles has been challenged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: With regard to "seemingly inconsistent is the enforcement of WP:BURDEN", the thing is that the ongoing discussion is about if the citations are not already present for publication information and plot-summary. There is only a small percentage of uncited "extra details". WP:BATHWATER applies then. Daranios (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We obviously disagree with how much is unreferenced, it's certainly not "a small percentage". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: I have explained why I think the vast majority is referenced - though not by footnotes - in detail at Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Draftify?. Maybe you would like to explain why you think otherwise or where you think my argumentation is wrong over there. The other participants of the discussion have so far refrained from doing that. Daranios (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

When multiple people's arguments haven't explained the problem, maybe the the issue is your not hearing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The other ongoing discussion is whetber these should be merged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Which entry do you think is inaccurate? Pick one. Nml25 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Check the section for fans. The title is "FOR ALL SEXTON BLAKE FANS" It"s on all four pages (the section title is formatted manually instead of as a section title, (which would appear in the TOC) so you need to search for it.  // Timothy :: talk  12:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm staring at the wrong item, the "section" in question is not so much a section but the heading of an announcement that the editor copied verbatim into the article (with proper referencing). I have no opinion on the dispute, or on the editors involved, or on Sexton Blake, but I just thought this was worth pointing out. Ostalgia (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Timothy has a history of not reading things closely.... or at all. Doesn't stop him from having an opinion though. Nml25 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - despite the large wall of texts above, the editor continues to add large blocks of uncited material to articles, which is why Daniel Case blocked them for a week the first time.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  According to the block log, the block was for edit warring, not for adding large blocks of uncited material to articles. Perhaps Daniel can clarify. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: NML25 continues to add material to the articles, but still has not added references or sources or addressed objections by other editors. They continue to claim that comic book collections, fan clubs, and personal websites are independent reliable sources, which they are not. After further looking at the few references supplied for the lead material, there is also a problem with SNYTH and PUFFERY which needs cleaned up.  // Timothy :: talk  08:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• The bibliographies cited, although not from academic publishers or the like, include compendious compilations of bibliographic information by people knowledgeable about the subject. This type of source is often used on bibliographical articles (for example of second-tier authors and comic-book characters) and sometimes necessarily so. These articles could use some clean-up, but if we are going to have a Sexton Blake bibliography, and I don't see why we shouldn't, what other sources does anyone suggest could be used? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• I don't understand what the problem is. Can somebody drop a diff of an OR/unsourced/synth/puffery/whatever edit, post-block? Levivich (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

TPA revocation needed

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.

---

193.39.158.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This school IP has been blocked from editing for 8 years. Please also revoke their TPA. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

More bludgeoning at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aoidh

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aoidh § Oppose
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aoidh § Chess' oppose

Since the previous post here on "WP:ANI#Abuse of power by the admin Maile66", more bludgeoning has occurred at said RfA. More specifically, the administrator Tamzin kept accusing me of deliberately attempting to troll/disrupt the discussion [59] [60] [61] [62] and the user Nythar keeps implying that the only reason for my oppose is spite based on the aforementioned ANI thread. [63] [64] I don't believe that being a wikt:contrarian is disruptive and I would like to see a warning from an uninvolved administrator that bludgeoning the opposition like this is unacceptable, mainly so that this doesn't happen a third time. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

All five comments I've made have been in response to pings, three of them from you. (You've made eight comments in that thread, if we're keeping score.) I accused you of disrupting/trolling because you were. You even admit in one reply that you often troll discussions (a remarkable admission that perhaps bears further scrutiny). If I and others have stopped taking you seriously because of your history of trolling, you have only yourself to blame. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I love trolling discussions on places where it doesn't matter (internet forums, reddit, my userbox User:Chess/based claiming I don't understand what being "based" is, or putting trouts under "awards" on my userpage) but I wasn't trolling at that RfA nor have I at previous RfAs or Wikipedia discussions. That is what I said in my response, which is that I genuinely believe in what I said. If you were offended because I sarcastically referenced your pseudo-support, I could've easily removed your name from my vote had you asked (I offered to do so, and that offer is still on the table). Otherwise, you offered no evidence or claims for your assertion that I'm disrupting Wikipedia.

The reason why I reply-pinged you is because you told me that my oppose reasons were bottom of the barrel, and so I asked Do you have any specific points on why my reasons to oppose are "bottom of the barrel"?. Your response was that to refute any part of your vote would require it to contain a single coherent point capable of refutation. When a third party told you that this seems to be on the edge of breaking the 4th pillar, you double down and flat-out accused me of trolling. At no point did you even attempt to refute any part of my oppose vote, despite people asking you to give any kind of feedback. You just resorted to accusing me of being disruptive (and still are) despite not providing a single diff to support your assertion. This is a textbook case of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe.

This idea that your behaviour was justified because you were "calling a spade a spade" is illogical. There are literally hundreds of ANI threads full of people complaining that their incivility block was unjustified because they were "telling it like it is". You can't accuse me of disruptive editing without any diffs, and I really dislike that you doubled down on it multiple times after you were warned that your behaviour was unacceptable. All I want here is a warning/acknowledgement that your behaviour broke civility guidelines. An apology would be nice as well, but that has to be freely given. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

One doesn't need to provide a diff for disruptive editing when replying to the disruptive comment. Now, for the second time, stop pinging me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to assert that my vote is disruptive, you should provide a reason. If you think I troll other discussions on Wikipedia, provide diffs of the other discussions that I've trolled. So far, you've cited WP:SPADE, called my points bottom of the barrel, claimed my vote did not contain a single coherent point capable of refutation, complained that you were forced to treat Chess' trolling as legitimate discourse, and said Well, it would start with the part where he opposes per my support (joke-oppose). And continue to... every other word in the comment. To believe that any of that was meant sincerely would be an insult to Chess' intelligence.

The only takeaway I got from you is that my comment was so stupid, that for you to engage with it in WP:Good faith would be accusing me of being an idiot.

If you can't see how that's a flagrant violation of WP:NPA I don't know what else to tell you. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Chess, you literally said in an ANI thread that "Any warm fuzzy feeling potential admins get from their 100% approval score is outweighed by the need to prevent a chilling effect on possible oppose voters." You then !voted to oppose Aoidh's candidacy with one of the most bizarre explanations I've seen. According to you, Aoidh shouldn't be an admin because their regret of having had a dispute with another editor 10 years ago makes them somehow responsible for the editor's later disruption, because they were too weak to pursue the dispute. So, is it Aoidh's fault for what they did in the future? I just pointed out what was obvious: A bizarre !vote preceded by the quote I just linked. However, I didn't say your comment should be stricken or anything like that. I then told you "I don't want to get into an argument with you since you're a generally a fine editor". I don't want a battleground. You also accused me of bludgeoning after I had replied only twice in the RfA. You also added, "Tamzin bludgeoned me, and now you are emboldened to be more aggressive", which is not true; I wasn't aggressive at all there. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If we want to go into the weeds here, I opposed because their takeaway was that they had "thin skin", not that the other editor had a problematic attitude. The candidate had a right to be offended at being insulted, and the idea that editors should ignore/tolerate insults by getting a "thick skin" is something I disagree with (which is why I opened this ANI thread). Other editors at the discussion were able to see this point, even if they didn't like my oppose vote.

It's strange that you said "I don't want to get into an argument with you since you're generally a fine editor" after saying I know why you're doing this. You are convinced that the editors replying to the oppose votes want 100% of the !vote to be "support", so you're "fighting" this by opposing this candidacy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I was able to reasonably see beyond the point you were making at RfA, back to the conversation we were having at ANI. You were so vehemently against the idea that editors would respond to oppose !votes: "This is absolutely about getting 100% support for Synotia" (you meant Aoidh) and "their 100% approval score is outweighed by the need to prevent a chilling effect on possible oppose voters". You then !voted to oppose only 30 minutes later. It was reasonable for me to suspect that you !voted to make some sort of statement. And anyway I didn't ask for your vote to be stricken, didn't ask for sanctions, and didn't want to get into an argument. You're the one escalating. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As is usual for RfA oppose drama, everyone sucks here. Chess's oppose is an absolute dumpster fire of a rationale, and people responding to it are feeding the flames so that they can get their boot in. Y'all go back to your corners, and let's chalk this up as an L for everyone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

In my view majority of the blame lies with the one who started the fire, even if others did fan the flames. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you and Lepricavark below on that; the !vote was that bad. Not sure how helpful weighing out the precise levels of blame is at this stage, purely for the purpose of reducing drama, but I do take your point. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Writ Keeper that there is no point in feeding the flames by arguing with this type of oppose rationale, but I'd place greater responsibility on the shoulders of the the OP. Whether the !vote rationale was intentional trolling or not, it was so flawed that it honestly isn't worth the effort to explain why it was flawed. And people have a right to respond, even if it's unlikely to accomplish anything. The diffs cited as evidence by the OP are hardly sufficient to warrant a filing. I'd urge the next uninvolved admin to close this because it isn't going anywhere good. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Just going to say that Tamzin baited this drama to continue rather than responding productively to the substance of what seemed to be a dismissive and snide response after I called them out on it. If Chess' response is that bad, let the crats see it for what it is. What good does calling it "bottom of the barrel" do to help build consensus or clarify anything? It just seems to be incendiary. Crazynas ^t 09:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

So, wait, you are an internet troll elsewhere, but just a contrarian on Wikipedia, and in playing said contrarian, you cited someone's support vote that jokingly called the candidate fallible as your reason for opposing. That could be considered trolling on two different levels. You mentioned that voter in doing so, and when when they didn't care for being... contrarianized, they calling your behavior trolling so you took them to ANI? The line between contrarianism and trolling can be pretty thin, it seems, and may just be a matter of perception. This is without getting into the decade-old "you should've known this person would get banned later" rationale. To be clear, Tamzin could've just ignored it (or ignored subsequent responses at some point), but as Lepricavark says just above, I wouldn't say they were the problem here (to the extent there was a problem). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I sincerely believe what I said. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Neddo23.nr

Neddo23.nr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the article Transfiguration of Jesus, this user wrote that the event is "mythological" here, here and here. I'm not saying such religious beliefs should be considered to be true; however, the added content is unsourced and POV. I tried discussing this with them but they stated "It is mythological" and "If it’s not proven as fact by evidence, it is mythological by deduction.", which is a violation of WP:SYNTH. They do not at all seem open to discussion. Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you attempted dispute resolution? This board should be the last place to go, and we only address conduct issues here, we don't settle disputes. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

They don't seem to have even a basic understanding of Wikipedia policies, like WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:Citing sources. I'm don't know what to discuss with them. I was simply patrolling recent changes and I saw an unsourced statement, and I found out they wouldn't accept my explanations. That's all. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've pageblocked them in resposne to the AN3 complaint, so they can learn about the relevant policies. Also, this is edging into the historicity of Jesus topic area. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Was the historicity of Jesus ever subject to discretionary sanctions? I know that it has been a contentious topic in the usual sense, but I thought that it had never been defined to be a contentious topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't see anything in the logs or what I can find of expired sanctions. Jesus has been semi protected by various admins repeatedly and often since 2005 with vandalism as the primary reason, no mention of community action/sanction. Historicity of Jesus seems to have a few short protections and Transfiguration of Jesus has never required admin action.Slywriter (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I had somehow gotten the impression that there had been some kind of sanctions regime concerning the historicity of Jesus, but I can’t find anything either. Not sure how I formed that idea, maybe there was a long-ago kerfuffel that never made it to arbitration, or was a thread on the drama boards. Acroterion (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion: it did make it to arbitration Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus but DS wasn't a remedy and received very little support Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Proposed decision#Discretionary Sanctions. A single editor remains topic banned although was apparently already community topic banned before that anyway and has been fairly inactive since 2018 (and wasn't really that active even then). Theoretically pseudoscience may cover some aspects of historicity, even more of the transfiguration; but since it's only pseudoscience and fringe science rather than generic fringe theories, only in a very limited fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Ayush Suthar - net negative

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.

---

Ayush Suthar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Almost all the edits done by them are reverted. They extend from unsourced info to unexplained removals. I don't see any positive edits coming out of them. I believe this is a WP:NOTHERE case — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite block by Vanamonde93 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2023 (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.

Clearly not-here IP hopping editor

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

---

There is an IP user using a slightly roving IP address within a very modest range (so far, that I know of 43.242.178.247 and 43.242.178.241) that has so far dedicated themselves almost solely to trolling talk pages - all the edits are pretty much the same, either unconstructive or nonsensical, and all blatant trolling. Today they then popped up on this address spewing the same nonsense and dodging an earlier talk page reversion by dumping the nonsense in the edit summary. Range block? Plz. They're a time sink. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Anonblocked the /24 for a month. Courcelles (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2023 (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 copyright violations by User:TarifaXxx

TarifaXxx (talk · contribs) has been (re)adding copyrighted pictures without permission to Roger Schmidt (footballer); user won't stop, even after pictures are deleted from Commons for copyright violation. [65] [66] [67] [68]

I suspect TarifaXxx is Nxlo03qda (talk · contribs) and its multiple sock accounts, who had the exact same behaviour at João Félix. (too many diffs to post here; see between 25 September 2019‎ and 4 July 2019) SLBedit (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You might find someone who'll block from here, but this should be filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: TarifaXxx is edit warring at Roger Schmidt (footballer), now with another copyrighted picture. User will not stop until it gets blocked. SLBedit (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Do not call users "it".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Account equals it, i.e., until his/her account gets blocked. I will continue reverting his/her copyright violations, as those reverts are exempt from 3RR: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." SLBedit (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

TarifaXxx has been edit warring for days now, readding copyrighted pictures. SLBedit (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is ongoing. User won't stop. SLBedit (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Then file a damn WP:AIV report for vandalism or WP:SPI to see if they're a sock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

My WP:SPI report was ignored. SLBedit (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Years-long history of WP:NOTHERE from User:Mick2

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.

---

Mick2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this user while they were engaged in an edit war ([69] [70] [71] [72]) over at Luc Montagnier.

I then went into their contribs history, and found it is almost exclusively dedicated to WP:RGW disruptive edits in favor of WP:FRINGE POV pushing (9/11 trutherism, David Icke Reptilian nonsense, New World Order conspiracies, anti-vax covid, etc. etc.)

Some examples

14:57, 7 March 2023 -/- "conspiracy" .... now that FBI and energy department are endorsing it 09:25, 23 December 2022 slander- it is really interesting to see how much this person has changed, according to Wikipedia, in a single year: [link] So sad that wikipedia is being abused for politics and slander. How can somebody who advocates taking vaccines be Anti-Vax ? 09:19, 23 December 2022 adds cn tag to clearly well-sourced body content about anti-vax advocate. 09:40, 16 December 2022 WP:COPYVIO directly copied paragraph from source 13:00, 31 July 2022 Whitewash biography article of a conspiracy theorist against consensus. Related: [73] 02:48, 6 January 2022: POV pushing on ivermectin 02:27, 6 January 2022 POV pushing on hydroxychloroquine 01:38, 6 January 2022 POV pushing on anti-vaxxer 01:56, 5 January 2022 misuse of edit summary, cites youtube conspiracy mills despite warning [74] repeatedly [75] [76][77] fails to understand WP:V and WP:NPOV [78] 04:35, 8 December 2020 POV pushing on 9/11 trutherism 07:02, 24 March 2020 COVID conspiracism 22:33, 9 September 2019 (adds pro conspiracist note about 9/11 truther documentary: edit sum: anon ... curious if the perps will delete this info 03:02, 24 June 2018 POV pushing on David Icke, noted holocaust denier and believer of reptilian conspiracy theories, saying such things as: I think the LEAD should voice what wikipedia thinks, not what some random critics say inside or outside reliable sources WP:RS and There is not a shred of evidence that David Icke would express anti-semetic opinions (despite him criticizing some of Israel's leadership and some millionaires of jewish and non-jewish descent), or would deny anything about the Holocaust. That some critics have these delusions is certainly noteworthy, so mention of their view should be in this article... it should not be in the WP:LEAD where it suggests it is a Wikipedia consensus opinion. It is a fringe opinion, held by some Wikipedians as well we can see above. If anyone disagreeds, please provide a quote from David Icke himself, either from Primary Source or a Quotation in a WP:RS attributed to him. There exist 7 billion opinions on this planet, and other peoples opinion should only be in the WP:LEAD if there is some merit in it. [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]

They are often described as WP:SEALIONing: [86]

They also appear to often accidentally edit logged out in the same discussions they start logged in, e.g. Special:Contributions/81.204.112.85 Special:Contributions/81.206.43.232. And interestingly have crossed paths with User:Icewhiz in the past (but maybe that's a mark of how prolific a disruptor IW was, not anything about this user): [87] and have described their own concerns back in 2013 with "1 natural person, an agent, could control half a dozen socks without wikipedia realizing it, and could even control multiple admin accounts."

There's a long thread from 2018 on WP:AN about blocking the user after it became clear they wanted access to all the many FRINGE-conspiracy things that are deleted from Wikipedia for "for freedom of expression and freedom of collaboration" reasons. This was actually the second such thread they had started, after having their pseudoscience-ridden article Spiral Dynamics deleted back in 2015.

When denied that right which is only given to select WMF and admins, they posted this to their user talk:

Adopt me?

I have come to learn that special interest groups hire students and agents to promote their viewpoint on wikipedia. This might be promoting a firm or a single person, or promoting an entire idea, or slandering the opposition. Combatting this and 'keeping' Wikipedia value-free and fair is very difficult, because when funds are large enough these agents can learn the rules, start Wikilawyering, become Admin, and influence innocent wikipedia editors who are a bit naive and follow the herd. Money can buy a large herd.

I would be happy to learn how to help wikipedia counter these practices. Who will help me?

and this: Wikipedia is 'astroturf' (corporate and special interest fake grass roots).

This user, as far as I can tell, has a contribution history that is ~90% them pushing conspiracy-friendly POVs in various BLP and other articles, fighting the "good" fight against the cabal. And ~10% unnecessary edits which do not improve the project. What do they actually provide to the project? As far as I can understand from these contribs, this user does not understand the essence of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, or WP:V. They are an excellent example of WP:NOTHERE. It seems they skate by with multiple warnings because they edit so infrequently. Why are we tolerating this? competence is required. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink You have failed to notify Mick2 (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as the red notice on top of this page clearly requires. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Was just finishing the thread (you'll notice I'm still editing it) before I did so with a most updated link, thanks for the help. I wasn't trying to pull a fast one on anyone, I promise. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologise. I was just working off the signature time (which, at the time I did that, was about 20 minutes since I read it), and didn't expect that you would prioritise editing over delivering the notice as required. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Textbook NOTHERE. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

More see also spamming on foreign relation pages

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

---

2A02:FF0:331C:DC31:905A:B0B5:6C3E:542A (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This has happened at least twice (first, second). Now they're on an IPv6, 2A02:FF0:331C:DC31:905A:B0B5:6C3E:542A (talk · contribs). This is the "bilateral relations troll", apparently. IPs of this person that were blocked include 88.230.104.114 (talk · contribs), 5.176.188.115 (talk · contribs), 5.176.185.154 (talk · contribs), 176.30.230.118 (talk · contribs), etc. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Welp, by the time I finished typing this, @Drmies took care of it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

User:LilianaUwU, it's all in a day's work--and I threw in another range, for free. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Heck yeah, free range blocks! LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:27, 8 March 2023 (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.

Pervezmusk. (talk · contribs)

This user is using factually wrong information on the infobox of Golden Horde, and edit warring. He says [88] Please do not delete my editing please discuss before deleting my edit however he doesn't even reply to the talk page. His only talk contribution was [89] Please do not delete my editing please discuss before deleting my edit on Talk:Ilkhanate without a reasoning. Beshogur (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This user seems to be making arbitrary and often unsubstantiated changed. Qiushufang (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Admins vandalizing the ZeroNet article

Some WikiPedia administrators literally vandalized the ZeroNet article, spreading malware and fraudulent cryptocurrency scammer versions of another software on it. Authors of other "forks" have repeatedly vandalized the ZeroNet article. The multiple requests to protect the page were manually removed without discussion. I request that the article be immediately locked at the highest level of security possible.

Please secure the article with the following recent edits, which restore the original article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZeroNet&oldid=1143408236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.91.162 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You've been rather unclear about which links might be scam/malware (I've asked you twice elsewhere). Some of the content you removed was clearly not a scam, and seems to have been done so for political reasons (based on older talk page messages by 5.143.55.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - I presume this is also you). Nonetheless, I've removed all but two of the external links - the original official website (which also shows up highest on a Google search) and the page's GitHub. If you have reason to believe anything else is malicious, you need to be clear which links and why. — Czello 15:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The article had a bunch of external URLs in the body, I've removed them per WP:EL. Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I can see these all linked to the official GitHub and so shouldn't be malicious - but fair point on WP:EL. — Czello 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• No, Wikipedia administrators did not vandalize the page in question. The article is subsequently undergoing an overall to remove content that was vexatious.. A little WP:AGF would have gone a long way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2023-03-07 (UTC)

Vandalism has a specific definition on Wikipedia; it is defined as deliberate attempts to damage the encyclopedia. Notably, it does not apply to edits made in good faith, such as those restorations of content. Accusing other editors of vandalism is a serious breach of assumption of good faith, and could be interpreted as a personal attack. Also, please ensure that you provide specific diffs of actual "malicious" links, including a clear explanation as to why. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It's all cleared out, now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:CARLITOAHUISA

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

This editor has had 11 articles moved to draftspace, 10 articles rejected at AFC, 2 speedy deletes, and 3 AFDs and have received a warning regarding improper article creation last month (see User talk:CARLITOAHUISA). They do not appear to be taking any of the advice given in their talk page and they continue to create articles with the same issues.

I think they have good intentions, but this should be looked at as they do not seem to be taking the talk page notices to heart, perhaps they need a mentor.  // Timothy :: talk  11:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: sorry to say this but it looks like they've just created another problematic article just now, Dapeng Airlines. Would perhaps a mainspace block on new articles be appropriate? This would still allow the user to use AfC should they wish. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

and a rude response Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Gomati Sharma still adding original research despite warnings and previous block

Gomati Sharma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They've had three stage 4 warnings for adding unsourced content to articles since returning from a 2 week block for the exact same behaviour. Edits like this one are exactly what this user was doing before; adding wives and mothers to historic Indian figures and then creating an unsourced article, usually a copy and paste from an article that they themselves wrote on Bharatpedia earlier this year. Gomateshwari on Bharatpedia would appear to be the same editor as the articles created are the same and with the same content. Just this morning I had to revert this edit as well.

Just before they block they created OR/hoax articles Rachnadevi, Devamala (Shunga dynasty), Bhanumati (Kushana Empress), Kimveka (Mahabharata) and shortly after return they have created more of the same content, just with different kings associated Jayalakshmidevi, Shubhapradha (Rashtrakuta Queen), Tarinidevi, Pushpavati all of which are, at best, OR, and, at worst, hoaxes.

I'm not seeing any improvement, unfortunately. Also straight up denial like this and pot calling the kettle black like this apparent tongue-in-cheek comment, gives me no confidence that things will get better. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've indeffed them. They can try and convince an unblocking administrator that they'll change, but they're just deliberately ignoring all calls for sources which is not acceptable. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I couldn't see this going any other way, sadly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just re-opened this. I'm concerned about this edit summary. @Spiderone: have you seen any evidence that would suggest this is actually a block evading or multi-username user? Canterbury Tail talk 16:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

There have been a few discussions in various areas about this user and possible socking. I've tried to compile some of it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shravani Chatterjee. User:Utcursch has informed me that they have some more evidence of possible links with other blocked editors and will submit this when they have time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, boomer

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.

---

According to our article, this catchphrase has been used "to dismiss or mock attitudes typically associated with baby boomers [...] Considered by some to be ageist, the phrase has developed into a retort for resistance to technological change, climate change denial, marginalization of members of minority groups, or opposition to younger generations' values."

It seems clear to me that addressing a fellow editor with this, as Mr rnddude did here, is a type of PA, especially considering that it was directed to someone actually belonging to the baby boomer generation. I redacted accordingly, with a brief explanation.

However, according to Mr rnddude, it's "not a PA" (undoing the redaction) but "a standard turn of phrase that is widely used online and in the real world" and so "not what RPA is for".

I would like to ask for some third opinions here: is it okay to address fellow editors like this or not? Should I in the future use {{RPA}} for similar cases or not? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Of course it's a PA. Not sanctionable in any way as a one-time occurrence, but still inappropriate. Jeppiz (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Ageist. Completely inappropriate. Hostile and non-collegial. Sanctionable if repeated. I support a warning. —Alalch E. 13:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Sure, it's a personal attack, but... I don't know, it's drawing an overly broad line. For example, would whippersnapper be considered a PA? What about calling a younger person "kid" if they're in their 20s/30s?--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Also quite inappropriate. Dismissive and non-collegial. —Alalch E. 14:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The other thing too is that this is taking place at WP:RFA which is already an overly heated environment. This particular one for Aoidh has now spawned two or three separate ANI threads and two discussions on WT:RFA. We can focus on individual personal attacks, but we also should be looking at ways to address the longer-term issue there. (I know, I know, we've tried before and it didn't work...) --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL: take a real-life check and be professional. If someone told me "ok boomer" or called me a kid in real-life working setting I would not take this person seriously anymore as a good-faith collaborator. "Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project." WP:EQ: "We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia." —Alalch E. 14:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• It's not a PA. It's like calling somebody a "jerk". Rude? Sure. Sometimes called for? Sure. (Though I didn't think it was in this case.) Worth an RPA or ANI? Never. Levivich (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Meh. For me, this falls into the category of uncivil but not sanctionable (I believe it is still the case that "f*** off" is not sanctionable in and of itself)). It strikes me as having a similar valence to "get off my lawn." Not the kind of comment that I personally think Wikipedia should be policing, but then I some times find myself on the less sensitive side of such things. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks all for your replies. I of course agree that this is not sanctionable as a one-time occurrence. The question is rather more whether {{RPA}} applies, which in mind is directly related to whether we should accept and even expect second, third and further occurrences. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Whether it can be considered an actual personal attack or just uncivil, it doesn't warrant being removed and replaced with {{RPA}}. —El Millo (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment probably does not rise to the level of a PA but it is dismissive and not collegial. I also occasionally make remarks like this and they are rarely helpful. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This is my feeling as well. In this context it's more dismissive of the comment than the person making the comment. Springee (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Uncivil and uncollegial? Yes. A "Derogatory comment" or "egregious personal attack" that would merit removal? Not remotely. CMD (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  If it's not a derogatory comment based on age (as explicitly mentioned in WP:PA), then what does it mean to point out that someone is a 'boomer'? What is then uncivil about it? The fact that it is based on a personal characteristic like age is what in my mind differentiates this phrase from something like 'jerk'. I'm glad to hear an opinion that it doesn't warrant removal, because if enough editors share that opinion I'll know not to remove it in the future. But that must be because it's not egregious enough rather than because it's not derogatory at all, right? Note that while WP:PA advises removal for "derogatory comments", it advises sanctions like blocks or bans for "egregious personal attacks". The discussion here was explicitly meant to be about whether it qualifies for the former, not the latter. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's definitely a derogatory comment based on age, intended to dismiss or discredit another's views in an ad hominem manner. —Alalch E. 15:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a personal attack. Yes it is incivil. No, we aren't going to instablock anyone for saying it. Tell the person to stop doing it, move on with your life. --Jayron32 15:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment by the subject - I must keep my participation in this space minimal, and particularly so as it is past midnight here. You will have to suffer a less that fully considered reply, as by tomorrow the train of AN/I may well have derailed, and I am quite weary. I will not, however, be accused of succumbing to the dreaded flu.

The context for that rebuke – and that is what that comment was: a rebuke – is an invective-laden post from an admin invoking cruel, deceptive, and unethical behaviour (repeatedly in the same post) and the obliterat[ation] of one's credibility for engaging in one of the most uncivil behaviors imaginable of... 'trolling teh forums'. A generally inane matter without consequence undeserving of that vitriol.

As I said elsewhere on that same talk page, that manner of engagement is the exact vehicle by which the 'toxic atmosphere' of RfA is actively nurture[d] and uph[e]ld and is not warranted even when [none] of the standing opposes are merited – and make no mistake, they are not merited at that RfA. They still should not engender the levels of vitriol displayed regularly there.

For context, the aformentioned invective-laden post is this and for clarity I use invective in the sense of 'highly-critical', not 'abusive' referencing the OED: insulting, abusive, or highly critical language. The post is worthy of dismissal, but nothing more. Let me repeat that: the post is worthy of dismissal. And it is the post, and I said that explicitly with this is the sort of empty hyperbole that invites the reply, that I deemed worth that rebuke.

Edit-conflict requiring a clarification: that the editor is apparently of the baby boomer generation did not factor into my reply. It's the exaggerated shock at the scandal! of freeing one's ankle- 'xcuse me, I mean 'trolling teh forums' that elicited it. A foolish behaviour that the younger generations invented and engage in for a variety of reasons, usually mundane. Trolling can, of course, be done with malevolent intent. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

While "ok boomer" originated as a slight against the older generations, it has since become a general term for dismissing someone for having outdated beliefs. Zoomers use it with each other on a regular basis now. Any ageist implication has long since eroded. So, it's not polite, but it's not an egregious personal attack either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Do we really have to discuss a throwaway comment in such depth? I have had this phrase directed at me by another Wikipedia editor (who likes to be known as a stickler for civility) and I haven't dreamt of complaining. I guess that marks me out as a boomer. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• There's a genuine, intractable problem buried somewhere in here, the kind of chronic reflexive rudeness that permeates everywhere on here these days. And, as one of the very last of the Boomers, I did feel a spark of annoyance - just as it was designed to. But we aren't going to solve the problem - or even make a dent in it - by having long ANI threads about a comment that's probably in the 25-50% percentile of jerky comments made yesterday. Mr rnddude has now been made aware that several people think he was being a jerk. He doesn't care. Oh well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• That last bit is presumption, if warranted. I refuse the influence of crowds, however, I accept that views differ widely – as is the case in those expressed here – and tolerate their expression. I don't care if it's disagreeable to me. You are entitled to your views. I will not attempt to censor them, and will reject unwarranted censoring of them. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• It was an ill-advised throwaway comment that doesn't warrant a thread here at ANI. There has been way too much drama over a pair of inane oppose !votes that clearly won't affect the outcome of the RfA. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2023 (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 several IPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those IPs are chasing my edits, falsely accusing me of disruptive editing and reverting my edits repeatedly based on his/her false accusation.[90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97] Probably these actions made by one person who abuses multiple IPs. I beg administrators to sanction those IPs. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The first two and the last two IPs appear to be proxies.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 00:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect/false grammatical edits with frequent changes of meaning: User:DepthDwellingX

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.

---

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

User:DepthDwellingX is a recent account focussing entirely on edits that incorrectly or falsely purport to be grammatical corrections. A worryingly high proportion of these edits are objectively wrong (obviously so to anyone with an idiomatic knowledge of English), and many also change the meaning in fundamental ways. I suspect that that this editor may be deliberately vandalising. But even if not, given their total lack of competence and their failure to respond in any way, some action does seem to be called for. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

On a pseudo-random selection of a few of these "corrections" they range from questionable to plain wrong. That coupled with the absence of any communication look very much like an editor trying to game extended confirmed status. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I have now informed DepthDwellingX that responding to these concerns, here and/or on their talk page, is required before continuing to edit in the same way. If it happens anyway, please add a short message on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Looks like they didn't listen. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notification. Blocked with a link to their talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2023 (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:SushiTuna

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

---

Can someone get this TPA off this user please? Evidently they've been using their talkpage for vandalism. I believe their editing is similar to the IP User:190.208.45.244 and they created the account to evade scrutiny. Sheep (talk • he/him) 15:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Already was doing this when you posted. All taken care of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2023 (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.

Chronic disruptive editing from UK Virgin Media IP ranges

• Special:Contributions/213.107.0.0/17 - Blocked until July 11, 2023 - Reason: Disruptive editing: Persistent unconstructive editing of several kinds, including multiple childish personal attacks, block-evasion. Also has a history of blocks going back to November 2021.
• Special:Contributions/62.254.0.0/18 - Blocked until March 15, 2023 - Reason: WP:DE. Was previously p-blocked from various pages until July 11, 2023 for "Persistent unconstructive editing of several kinds, including multiple childish personal attacks, block-evasion"
• Special:Contributions/213.104.126.0/24 - Not currently blocked (at the time of this report) but some individual IPs in the range are blocked (usually short-term) or have been in recent months.

IPQualityScore (via Proxy API Checker) reports all of the IPs in these ranges (or at least all of the dozen or so IPs I checked) as "Proxy" and "VPN" and many (most?) are also tagged with "Recent Abuse" and "Bot" (i.e., on spam blacklist).

The disruptive edits for the last 3+ months include primarily adding unsourced claims to articles about films and actors. Some of the edits are obvious vandalism (examples: changing |years_active= for an actor to 2020–2083[98] and 2020–2036[99]), but others are plausible changes, albeit unsourced, like adding claims of Blu-ray release dates to films. Frequent targets include Bebe Bettencourt, Eliza Scanlen, Neve Campbell, The Vanishings at Caddo Lake, IF (film), et al. Some of the target articles were protected for a period, but the disruptive editing just moved to different targets and then returned after protections expired.

1. Since the disruptive editing hops around and is currently operating in Special:Contributions/213.104.126.0/24, can we add a long-term block for that range?
2. Would it make sense to extend the blocks on the ranges out a year or more? While there might be some collateral impact, I note that even on the ranges that have been blocked already for some time, I have not seen on user_talk pages any unblock requests or questions asking why they are blocked.

 — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

User creating poorly written and verified stubs

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

---

Resolved

 – N1k1taKozhk1N233 has been indefinitely blocked by Bbb23 for undisclosed paid editing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

User talk:N1k1taKozhk1N233 has a talk page full of notes about declined submissions and deleted articles, and those articles/drafts/stubs are just very poorly written and verified. One of them is up at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Drift 3D. The editor doesn't respond to any talk page notifications and doesn't seem to have learned how to write encyclopedically on notable topics using reliable secondary sources--their attempt to improve the article at AfD was this. At some point it probably has to stop: poor AfC submissions are a time sink. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2023 (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 making tons of pointless cosmetic edits

Benawu2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making tons of pointless edits to various pages, doing things such as updating the month in a {{Use British English}} template, or adding completely pointless whitespace. It appears that they are doing this so they always have the latest edit on certain articles; if you check the history of these two examples, they always make a cosmetic edit shortly after another user makes an edit. I asked them to stop a few days ago, but they did not reply to my message, and have continued making these pointless edits since. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not happening on a particularly bad scale: I can see somewhere around 10 such edits per week, so I don't think any sanctions are necessary. However, such edits are cosmetic (i.e. they don't affect the reader-facing rendered page), and are largely unhelpful, because they end up on the watchlists of other editors, forcing them to review the edits, and they also clutter the article histories, making it more difficult to figure out how an article's content has changed.

Benawu2, would you be able to please avoid making such edits in future? If the reason you make them is to set up personal reminders (as you say here), then there are other ways to do it. For example, you can create a list of articles on a subpage inside your user space (say, User:Benawu2/sandbox or User:Benawu2/Articles to keep an eye on). – Uanfala (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I will stop updating the dates. The white space however improves the page when editing. This shouldn’t be an issue as a look through my history of edits shows that once a page looks clean to edit i don’t put any further white space in there.

Cheers.

Benawu2 (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Repeated COPYVIO

Despite being formally warned about uploading copyrighted text (on Shusha massacre), Nocturnal781 continues to add copyrighted material with 70% similarity (from this source), this time, in Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921), where prior to their warning they had also added copyrighted material (from this source) and reinstated it after it was reverted, thereby violating WP:COPYVIO. – Olympian ^loquere 03:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I used anything copyright without changing text to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. I am not perfect and I try my best to go by the guidelines and I am very confident what I added is not against the rules. Can you please show or specify what you mean? Because even for the last part I reworded the entire sentence before I used it is this not allowed? Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Nocturnal781, are you familiar with Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, and do you fully understand it? Cullen328 (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am starting to familiarize myself with close paraphrasing and will read the rules and do better in the future with paraphrasing. Nocturnal781 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Hi I just checked the page for copyright and it's in the green area with only 13.8% which is very low. [100] Am I misunderstanding something? because it seems like this isn't much of a copyright violation? I am a bit confused because the close paraphrasing is still new to me but the copyright detector does not show issues in the article but a very small percentage. I tried to paraphrase as much as possible but if it is not enough I'll do better in the future. Nocturnal781 (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You're checking the whole article, instead, try checking the COPYVIO percentage of your own contributions which are allegedly copy-pasted from another source. – Olympian ^loquere 23:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So the information you are showing was added before I was warned for the first time not after the fact. Also I checked the tool and I see no violation unless like I said I am missing something. Olypmian please show me the comparison in where I am violating the rule because I want to make sure this never happens again... I take this very seriously. Thank you. Nocturnal781 (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Re-read the original report comment I made, you made another edit adding copyrighted material after your warning, it's the second wikilinked diff. – Olympian ^loquere 00:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks, canvassing and wikihounding by Wes sideman

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.

---

Wes sideman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wes sideman was apparently antagonized by some of the edits I made on the page Libs of TikTok. This user has now:

• Repeatedly accused me of nefarious motives for this edit I made
• Canvassed a user to discuss a talk page section I created
• Canvassed another user to discuss reverting a different one of my edits
• Followed me to Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, to criticize me there
• Followed me to the article Barry Loudermilk, to revert my edit; then, after I made a compromise edit that resolved their stated objection, reverted my edit again

By the way, here's a glib response they made to someone else on the Libs of TikTok talk page, so maybe I should take heart that it's not just me.

Anyway, this seems to be a clear pattern of abuse, and I hope some sort of action results. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There's ample evidence that Korny is purely editing to either remove negative information from articles about right-wing people and organizations, or to soften the impact of such negative information. To me, this is the very definition of POV editing, and I'm certainly not the only one to notice it. The evidence can be found in their contributions page, and the evidence of others noticing it can be found in all the talk pages of articles where Korny's changes are discussed. Invariably, consensus agrees that his changes are unwarranted, and some have even commented on it, like @Zaathras: in this comment. There's no hounding - just took a look at their edits to other articles and noticed a pattern. Not much else to say. Wes sideman (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"There's ample evidence that Korny is purely editing to either remove negative information from articles about right-wing people and organizations, or to soften the impact of such negative information."

That is completely in character for him and I would support a boomerrang if you want to pursue it. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:BC6F:265C:C696:3D1E (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a WP:1AM situation there at first glance. You get reverted a lot, argue a lot, and the cycle repeats. ValarianB (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That's somewhat, but not entirely true (I've been able to make a lot of changes to the Libs of TikTok page), but anyway it seems irrelevant to this discussion, unless personal attacks and wikihounding are now an accepted way to deal with disputes. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Of note, this is not the first time Korny O'Near has become a problem on this article.

This is part of a repeated pattern of pushing anti-LGBT beliefs, arguing in support of race-based intelligence, and generally polite-POV pushing in favor of far-right rhetoric.

For full disclosure, Korny previously brought me to ANI for pointing this out (and I admit I was unfortunately less-than-polite when doing so). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is also this edit-war currently happening. Korny is attempting to remove the category anti-drag sentiment from a page about a mass shooting that targeted a queer bar which was hosting a drag show at the time of the massacre. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Good freaking grief. Those edits are what you claim to be repeated accusations of nefarious motives?!? I will be a great deal more explicit than Wes sideman seemingly got: either you really do have nefarious motives, or you are deliberately insulting our intelligence, or your notion of what constitutes personal attacks requires major recalibration. Ravenswing 21:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That's Korny's MO: make deliberately provocative comments, then cry foul when people get understandably mad. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

These are some odd responses. What are the deliberately provocative comments I made? And do you think those justify canvassing and wikihounding (both forbidden, last time I checked)? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh come off it. We've done this dance before, I'm not indulging in your sealioning. And you know damn well how WP:BOOMERANG works. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The diffs you provide do not appear to substantiate your claim of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Shells-shells (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This user followed me to two separate pages, to revert and/or insult me. That's literally the entire definition of wikihounding... Korny O'Near (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You tried that argument against me, too. It backfired then, as well, because I was editing those pages before you were. I'd have thought you'd learned after that, but here you are attempting the exact same tactic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I never accused you of wikihounding. (There are plenty of other things I could accuse you of, of course.) Korny O'Near (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you called it "harassment." Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Your rhetorical games are not as clever as you think. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because you were harassing me. Much like you are now, BTW. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, pointing out your behavior on an ANI you initiated is "harassment." That's not going to work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. In my view, it is plausible that Wes sideman had an overridingly constructive reason. Shells-shells (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd love to see the argument that there was anything constructive, let alone overridingly so, about reverting an entire edit because of one word it contained. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on just a casual reading of the talk page, I agree that Korny comes across as a lot more tendentious than Wes does. When the talk page is almost entirely one editor arguing against every other editor, that's a suspicious sign at the very least.

Looking at a user interaction history, I don't see a lot of evidence of hounding, but I do notice, again, that Korny edits Libs of Tiktok a lot. Which I also regard as a suspicious sign. Loki (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If Wes sideman really did follow Korny O'Near to a new article to say, "Just dropping in to confirm that the description of Korny is mostly correct, and it is, in fact, relevant; when the history of one's edits all go in one very POV direction, it's safe to get past "assume good faith" and move to "this editor has an agenda."" then I can see why Korny felt this was an issue. I don't think it's a sanctionable issue but it certainly fails WP:FOC and isn't in compliance with CIVIL. It would have been better to try to address that on a user talk page. Springee (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Explain to me what part of what I said isn't 100% accurate. Wes sideman (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Were you discussing article content or editor behavior when you confirmed "that description"? Springee (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You have "answered" my question with another question, not an explanation. Explain to me what part of what I said isn't 100% accurate. Wes sideman (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Then you have missed the point. The talk page is for discussing the article, not editors (WP:FOC). You might be right, you might be wrong. I'm not weighing in on that. Going to an article talk page to make accusations against an editor is a problem. Is not the purpose of the talk page. Those actions being on user pages or places like here. Springee (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the 3 claims, I do not think the claim of canvassing has merit as pointed out here. [101] It at most was an innocent mistake and really just normal practice. Regarding hounding, I can see both sides, but personally lean aganist that claim also. If Wes thinks someone like Korny is make disruptive edits (which right or wrong at least a few editors feel he has been) I get the impulse to want to see if they have also done that on other pages (although when some did that to them, Wes implied said user was hounding. [102]) Which gets to Korny's side where I can understand one feeling like someone is hounding them. Furthermore, Wes did not do themselves any favors on the page especially in the second post.[103] Just provide evidence like at the start and move on or you risk people taking your actions the wrong way. Personally, in neither case was a user hounding someone, but I can also understand why a user might still feel that way. Finally, about personal attacks the only one that I think could be one is the comments here [104]. As Springee points out coming back just to say that can easily be seen as such. If this was just one instance, I think just a friendly reminder would be needed, but Wes has on multiple occasions been told/warned not to assume bad faith and to be more civil in discussions[105]. Even if they think that Korny was POV-pushing or acting in bad faith they should have known better than to imply that since it only weakens their case. I do not think their actions here alone are enough for a sanction, but if people think it is I'll defer to them. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:GENSEX topic ban for Korny O'Near, broadly construed

I feel like enough is enough. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. This behavior is incessantly disruptive and a massive time sink for everyone in the topic area.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• My intuition as someone who edits in WP:GENSEX is that if a topic ban is appropriate, it would be in American politics, not GENSEX. I don't see Korny much in GENSEX articles except where the article has something to do with American conservatism. I suspect that to the extent that Korny is pushing a POV, it's a more general defense of conservative figures, not anything specific to GENSEX. Loki (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Frankly, Korny's support for far-right talking points would have me supporting a WP:NOTHERE block from the site. Their edits encompass apologia for racism, anti-LGBT topics, and generally anything anti-leftist (ie. this edit to WP:NONAZIS calling for the blocking of all users with "Communist" userboxes), which would be... a lot of topic bans. While I don't think GENSEX is enough of a topic to stop their disruption, American politics wouldn't really encompass it either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good lord - I was making a rhetorical point, to the effect that no one should be blocked from Wikipedia based on their political views. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  In support of Nazis. Great choice, that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think controversial editing/views justifies NOTHERE. Anything can be taken too far, but we also shouldn't abuse permabans to punish wrongthink. For example, I disagree with allowing NSDAP/Confederate/etc userboxes, because it's inflammatory; but I disagree on banning someone just for seeing it differently. It's true, there is a double standard when it comes to fascist vs communist atrocities, but the main concern is keeping things civil, and not being too provocative. Anyway, I do not sign off on this, sometimes warnings/second chances are preferred. Xcalibur (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  What a bad take. — Czello 11:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  @HandThatFeeds: Thinking more about this comment, and I think this is a borderline personal attack that you should strike. — Czello 12:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see him "supporting" Nazis or Nazism. -- Veggies (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  In the edit that Hand is referring to, Korny makes the argument that Communists should also be blocked, just like Nazis, from editing Wikipedia. He says he's being rhetorical (I believe he means "ironic"), to make the point that no one should be blocked - even Nazis. Which is actually worse. Wes sideman (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Once again: I don't see him "supporting" Nazis or Nazism. Just because you oppose a flat-out ban on people or point out what you think is a "double standard", it doesn't mean you support either underlying philosophy. If I disagree with someone being fired from their job for being a racist, it doesn't mean I support racism. -- Veggies (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  +1 — Czello 18:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. That rhetorical point is absolutely made in support of allowing avowed Nazis to edit Wikipedia. They're going for a slippery-slope fallacy argument and, in doing so, defend people who would absolutely use Wikipedia as a battleground for race-based ideological editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps you would support a new guideline called NONONONAZIS, stating that anyone who disagrees with the essay WP:NONAZIS is banned. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  What a childishly petulant response. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  HandThatFeeds: I strongly advise against this line of argument. You said that an editor should be blocked on the grounds of extremism, and then in the very next sentence you condemned them because they called for blocking of editors on the grounds of extremism. Besides the fact that you just did the same thing you're accusing them of, arguments like this water down what would otherwise be a pretty solid case against an editor's behavior (criticizing extremist behavior is hardly a policy violation in and of itself). WP:HID is more than enough of a justification for a ban to prevent further disruption. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think Hand is making the argument that you think he's making. Korny said he was making a "rhetorical point" because he doesn't think Nazis should be banned from editing. In other words, no matter how vile someone is (self-avowed Nazi is pretty vile), he thinks they should be allowed to edit. I agree with Hand that Korny is strongly for far-right POV, as evidenced by their edit history, and WP:NOTHERE may apply, although I fall short of calling for a complete block. I think a topic ban from GENSEX and AP would be sufficient. Wes sideman (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  You completely misunderstood my point, which Wes has succinctly summarized. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I can't speak for the rest of Korny's editing, but raising concerns about WP:NONAZIS (which is an essay, not a policy or guideline) is not only not uncommon, but also does not mean one wants Nazis to be here, nor does mean one is taking far-right talking points. It is not actionable (nor should it be), and should not be considered when discussing a TBAN. — Czello 16:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Update: after looking through his recent edits, while Korny does make edits to pages on conservative figures that are clearly informed by a conservative POV, I don't really think he's been acting tendentiously enough for a ban except for his interactions on Libs of Tiktok, where he has clearly been in a very tendentious WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY battle for many months to remove negative coverage past both the absolute upper limit of the sources and the patience of every other editor on the talk page. Therefore, at a minimum, I support an indefinite page ban from Libs of Tiktok. (I also think that his editing on topics that touch on GENSEX really is more problematic than his editing about just ordinary conservative figures outside of GENSEX.) Loki (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Can someone explain and produce the evidence that such a tban is needed. This section is lacking substance at this time. Springee (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

As ScottishFinnishRadish seems to have protected the page Libs of Tiktok from disruption caused by Korny, and also has temporarily page-blocked Korny, I feel like they're best suited for giving a description of Korny's disruptive behavior on that page. Loki (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I blocked them for slow edit warring, which continued after a warning and full page protection. The reverting back and forth while just staying clear of strict 1RR violations isn't just a problem with Korny at that page, but their behavior is the most disruptive. As an example of the slow edit warring, discussion Jan 30-31 with no consensus for their edit, Jan 31, Feb 5, warning on their talk page Feb 15, warning at article talk Feb 23, March 3, March 5, restarts discussion March 6th. Claiming consensus for the removal in their edit on Jan 31 based on a discussion where one other editor out of four supported their position is not good, then continuing to intermittently revert for a month and a half is not good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Evidently this is really the heart of the matter - I felt like the numbers were on my side on the "Satanism" issue, so I made a number of reverts based on that. Reading it over now, it looks like I misread Dumuzid's final comment ("happy to go where consensus leads") as indicating that he had changed his mind, which would have given my view a 3-2 majority; instead, I was actually in a 2-3 minority. My apologies. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by a headcount. Especially on an article with 1RR in place. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 20:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Support both GENSEX and all politics I’ve had to hat multiple threads by this user at LoTT because they’re fond of dragging out discussions with lengthy back-and-forths over some tedious disagreement with another user. They are incapable of dropping the WP:STICK with this topic. Dronebogus (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support GENSEX tban and support Libs of Tiktok main&talk pban. I have my concerns about how long WP:CPUSH is generally allowed to go on, but even that alone isn't enough to get me to support a tban. What convinced me is that some of their comments would easily be a WP:HID indef under slightly different circumstances. A tban should have been applied a long time ago, and it's generous given the severity here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from GENSEX and AP2, as well as pban from LOTT's mainspace and talk pages. To me, a user who pushes a right-wing POV on an article about such a controversial figure as LOTT shouldn't be here at all, but a TBAN seems like a good step. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support GENSEX and AP tban, and indef ban from LoTT. Their editing is disruptive at its best. They continuously push fringe ideas and raise trifling procedural points using ill-founded reasoning that often goes against the most basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support tban from LoTT, GENSEX and American politics generally. I am not remotely impressed by what I'm seeing from Korny, a hallmark of the extremist right: just keep on repeating the same old dog whistles (Insults! Canvass! Wikihounding! Insults! Canvass! Wikihounding!), devoid of any genuine evidence, and expect that the noise will drown out any other voices. I stand by my statement uptopic that Korny is either deliberately insulting our intelligence, doesn't comprehend what constitutes "personal attacks" or "canvassing," or is just generally NOTHERE. A newbie exhibiting such behavior would be lucky to escape indeffing. In an editor of Korny's longevity and edit count, there is no excuse. Ravenswing 07:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Poor nomination A tban might be warranted, but I would expect any suggestion of a tban to involve diffs to evidence problematic behavior. Again, this is in no way a defense of a user I don't know (and who may well deserve a tban), but a proposal to tban anyone without providing any other argument than "enough is enough" is rather lazy. How are uninvolved users supposed to know whether a tban is merited or not. Jeppiz (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Is it lazier than not looking at their edit history in the specified topic areas? Because that should be all it takes for anyone uninvolved to realize that Korny deserves a tban. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• A lot lazier, yes. There is literally an instruction in place at ANI to include diffs of problematic behavior in any report. And Korny might very well deserve a tban, I am in no way defending them. Are you really suggesting from now on nominations for tbans should be limited to saying "I want User X tbanned. Go check for evidence yourselves". There's a reason WP asks for inclusion of diffs, and has done so for over a decade. Jeppiz (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You want diffs? Here you go. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that as blockable in any way. I disagree with it, certainly, but do not think users should be tbanned for having different views. Jeppiz (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that substantial evidence of a long term issue had not been presented. The singular diff presented above is not sufficient. Springee (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  How about every single edit they’ve made on LoTT? Or any of the other diffs cited so far? Dronebogus (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  If that is the case it should be easy to present the diffs with a short explain if the issues. Springee (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee I've provided more difs below, no pressure to change your vote, just letting you know Googleguy007 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  I looked over the diffs. Most seem like normal content discussions. I don't see any issues n those diffs that would warrant a GENSEX or AP Tban. If there was edit warring at LoTT then that can be an article specific restriction. If you would like a more specific reply I can provide it later. Springee (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support broad tban from GENSEX and AP. Nothing this editor has added to these areas indicates they are a constructive contributor and nothing they have stated indicates this will change.  // Timothy :: talk  11:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that substantial evidence of a long term issue had not been presented per Springee and Jeppiz. A more limited measure might be in order, but the penalty proposed is disproportionate to any evidence shown above. Pincrete (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for lack of evidence. Despite several of us asking for some proofs of disruptive behavior, no diffs have been provided. By presumption of innocence, I'm forced to oppose any tban. If evidence of actual disruptions are presented, I could very well change my opinion, but this far there seems to be nothing apart from users saying 'Korny holds opinion I dislike'. I agree with them, I have seen Korny express opinions I don't like either. But last time I checked, holding different opinions was still allowed. I encourage those who support a tban to present evidence of problematic behavior; in the meantime, I see no grounds for a tban presented here. Jeppiz (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  @JeppizI've provided more difs below, no pressure to change your vote, but I figured I should let you know Googleguy007 (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for almost no evidence. Some of the comments mention conservative views? This is not a right or left liberal or conservative encyclopedia, it's an encyclopedia which is supposed to be fair and neutral. If we are to officially exile conservatives then that should be a policy. If not then this discussion should be immediately closed with an apology given to Korny. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: where's the WP:AE filing for a contentious topic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I sympathize with the above support rationales, but as others mentioned, there is a lack of a nexus between claims of disruptive behavior and evidence thereof. As much as we hold viewpoint essays such as WP:NONAZIS in high esteem and use it to drive our editing philosophy, "We don't like him" isn't a valid rationale to TBAN, and it should never be.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - well, this took a weird, Kafkaesque turn, where the actual evidence I present is dismissed as "dog whistles" (?), while those opposed to me just make basically evidence-free assertions about me. (I still think my original complaint holds merit, but I guess that's water under the bridge at this point.) By the way, in my defense: you wouldn't know it from the above comments, but even on the contentious Libs of TikTok article, a lot, maybe even most, of my edits have been uncontested improvements, like this one or this one (I could give many more examples). Korny O'Near (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I would submit that due to the massive amount of edits Korny has made to that article, exasperated editors have probably missed a bunch of POV edits. That's not "uncontested", that's WP:FILIBUSTER. Wes sideman (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to find even one. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support broad TBAN from GENSEX and AP, per the numerous editors' evidence above. To address Randy Kryn's defense, this isn't about conservatives or liberals. It's about one editor who literally only makes edits to make right-wing politicians and/or organizations look more positive, over a long period of time, and fights dozens of editors over every time they revert Korny. I would have the same opinion of an editor who only removed negative info from liberals' articles. The particular POV side they're coming from isn't the problem. It's the unwillingness to understand that this is "an encyclopedia which is supposed to be fair and neutral". Wes sideman (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• It seems most of the concern is about that page highlighting tik-tok videos. Have you read its lead? Fair and neutral don't seem to be represented, so removing an editor who is probably trying to make it fairer (I haven't studied the edits, page, or its talk page, just read some of the lead and after reading it I can say I don't recognize Wikipedia fairness there) seems undue. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, as you know, "Wikipedia fairness" comes in the form of accurate and proportional representation of the reliable sources. If you think the page does a poor job of that, then by all means, come help us out. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• The problem with asking for diffs showing CPOV pushing is the definition of CPOV pushing is someone whose behavior can't be represented with a few egregious diffs. That's why it's so hard to deal with. It's a long-term pattern full of examples that never quite cross any line. Folks in this thread may have enough experience with Korny to be able to provide testimony about patterns of behavior, but it's not going to convince anyone outside of the topic area, and that's what tends to be important when proposing something at ANI. If it were just a vote among involved parties, it wouldn't go anywhere (and shouldn't go anywhere -- after all, how can an outsider differentiate evidence-free !votes based on holistic impressions of behavior and votes to remove an opponent based on claims of behavior without evidence?). Looking at the list of behaviors at WP:CPOV, yeah I'd say a bunch of them fit Korny. They fit several people in the AP topic area. If you think it's something that's gone on too long or covers too many of those behaviors too often, decide whether it's worth taking some time to do the work of pulling together diffs. Remember that a few won't be persuasive -- it has to be evidence of a pattern to show a sanctionable kind of CPOV pushing, and that takes time. You can even use that list, providing a few diffs for a few bullets or something. As it stands, I can't support this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. At most maybe a 1-to-3-month topic ban or maybe a 1-week block on Libs of Tiktok. However, I do not think there is enough evidence for action now. Users Springee and Jeppiz sum it up best.3Kingdoms (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see any evidence of disruptive behaviour. I think some people here are confusing editorial disagreement with 'disruption' vaguely defined. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Difs Removing quote that displays LoTT in a negative light, removing text that portrays Matt Walsh in a negative light, removed information that portrayed LoTT in a lightly negative light, changed infobox type in order to remove the movement category, which included alt-right and anti-lgbt, removed "anti-drag sentiment" category from the club-q shooting, removed information that portrayed Barry Loudermilk in a negative light, removed information about LoTT lying about a satanism inspired drag queen attending a brunch, removed the anti-blm category from LoTT, removing text that portrays LoTT in a negative light. To be clear, "displayed in a negative light" does not mean "biased", also, while I do not disagree with all of these edits, I think they clearly show a pattern of CPUSH. These are not even close to all of korny's edits of this type, and im sure that there are more blatant difs I left out, feel free to add those if you like.

Googleguy007 (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

One thing that I noticed is the stark difference between those diffs and the position Korny took here and here when arguing for the inclusion of something that would plainly cast LoTT in a sympathetic light (reports of death threats against her on twitter) vs. a negative light (commentators connecting her to the Jan 6 riots.) In the latter case Korny rejected secondary coverage of that opinion in the Daily Dot; in the former case he argued for inclusion based on Mediaite, both currently yellow on RSP. Similarly, he pushed to include a statement that LoTT's personal information was revealed (something with WP:BLP concerns because it's a direct accusation against the author of the piece in question) based on his own reasoning and passing mentions in sources certainly no stronger than many of the things he rejected above. See a similar argument here where he starts from the premise that Jordan Patterson has been frequently called one of the world's most influential public intellectuals and that we therefore are justified in including obscure or low-weight commentators saying that in order to have a paragraph supporting it, or arguing here that Paterson's article should include pop-culture stuff that would normally be because it serves to underscore his celebrity and influence - exactly the sort of sourcing and weight he rejects when he disagrees with them. Individually these positions are at least notionally defensible, but taken together and in combination with the above, it's clear that his sourcing and weight concerns are being applied in way that is effectively WP:TEND / WP:CPUSH. --Aquillion (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is a change of pace: someone actually discussing my edits in detail. (Even if they're just talk page comments.) So thank you for that. On the other hand, I've read through your description, and the diffs, a number of times, and I don't understand what you're getting at. There are 5-6 different things I was discussing there, and in all but the first one, I was arguing that the article in question should contain more information - so I don't see any double standards or the like here. Is the idea that I'm always trying to make the right-winger look good? I don't know that being the inspiration for a movie villain and a comic book villain makes Jordan Peterson look good, per se. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Support TBAN from GENSEX based on diffs provided by @Googleguy007, and the slow edit warring pointed out by @ScottishFinnishRadish. TBANs should be preventative, not punitive. And based on these diffs, Randy KrynKorny O'Near has a pretty big CPUSH and POV problem in this topic area. They have continuously overlooked or ignored the parts of sources that disagree with their personal views, while having no issue comprehending the parts of sources that they do agree with.

I think this user overall is a very productive member of the encyclopedia project, and provides a valid counterpoint to some issues of POV that do happen in these spaces (including AP2) from time to time. I say that as someone who disagrees with them often. But in this particular GENSEX space, I think this user has crossed the line too many times. If they can show productive editing and an understanding of these wikipedia policies at some later point, I would at that juncture support overturning a TBAN. But this is a really really blatant set of diffs showing clear violation of our policies and norms. competence is required and this user has a big blindspot when it comes to GENSEX issues. (edited 18:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC) to fix confusion of two editors with similar names) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You mean Korny O'Near, not Randy Kryn, correct? Schazjmd (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes thank you, will fix it — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Support. Though I think a topic-ban from American Politics would help as well, this is similar to the Gamergating sealion discussion elsewhere on this page. An obstinate editor that just becomes a timesink to deal with. ValarianB (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment - thanks; some actual diffs here, finally. I encourage everyone to look carefully at these diffs, because I think they are all defensible. (Ironically, I linked to two of them myself, in my original complaint.) Let me go through a few of them: the 2nd link removed uncited information, which is why my change is still there in the article. In the 3rd one I literally deleted duplicate information - that is, the story about UW Health was in the article twice, and I removed one, so it was just in the article once. For the 8th one, there's right now an RfC on this exact subject (not started by me) on the talk page - and most people so far agree with my category deletion. The 9th one added more information - it didn't remove any info. I could go through all of the rest of these also. I think this sea of links is possibly persuasive only for people who don't actually read through them, and only read your descriptions. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I quite explicitly said that I do not disagree with all of the edits, however they demonstrate a trend that me and others have noticed of your edits involving right-wing pundits without fail leaving the right wing pundit looking better than before you made them. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If there are edits you don't disagree with, why include them in the list of reasons to have me banned? That seems extremely irresponsible of you - like that 3rd item, which removed duplicate text, but you just described it as removing negative text. Would I have been a better editor if I had not made that edit? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Because a list of edits demonstrating a trend of CPUSH != a list of bad edits. I also know that you are intelligent enough to read and comprehend a full sentence, and would appreciate it if you didn't sealion. Let me put this in a way you cant misinterpret: The list was not intended to show a trend of edits with low technical quality, but to show a trend of edits that solely result in portraying right wing pundits in a more positive light. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that it is hidden assumption that it is wrong to portray "right wing pundits" in a more positive light. If the articles are unduly negative, bringing them back to imparitiality is bringing them back to a more positive light. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Kyohyi is right - putting certain people in a more positive light is not in itself good or bad; it depends on the edit itself. In some of those linked edits of mine, I'd like to think they restored impartiality; in other cases they added information, put text in chronological order, removed duplicate text, etc. Anyway, Googleguy007 - people can judge your list for themselves, but I hope they can look past your (in some cases blatant) mislabeling of my edits. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If you cannot understand why CPUSH is bad, and that I am referring to CPUSH we have a CIR issue, if not then you are blatantly engaging in sealioning, thanks. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should read that guideline again. I've read it, and I think I understand it - ultimately it boils down to bad edits (biased writing, undue weight, etc.) and bad behavior, not "good edits that put people I dislike in a more positive light". Korny O'Near (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, to clarify because it seems we have different definitions of a bad edit; when I say bad edits I mean technically bad (vandalism, poor grammar, blatant bias, etc). My understanding of CPUSH is that it covers editors who push a POV civily, with the essay giving examples of common behaviors of those editors and explaining what makes them an issue. If you frequently make edits, and all of the edits you make regarding politics are civil, but end up promoting your point of view in one way or another IMHO that falls under CPUSH. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I will have to disagree with this definition of CPUSH. While pushing a POV is part of what makes CPUSH, the other part is repeatedly manipulating, or misapplying content policies while doing so. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a part of the essay, but IMO it is an irrelevant one as anyone who is pushing a POV, one of the requirements for CPUSH, is inherently violating NPOV. I also believe that essays shouldnt be treated as gospel on their subject, but thats a topic for another day. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Except NPOV is a content policy not a behavioral policy. If a BLP is unduly negative, it would be a POV push to bring it in line with NPOV. However, your phrasing would suggest that it would be a NPOV violation to do so. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could specify which of my edits were actually bad. By your facile reading, anyone who reverted any of my edits would just be guilty of pushing a POV in the other direction. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not playing this game with you. You clearly understand what my issue is. You clearly are intelligent enough to understand the difference. And you are clearly engaging in bad faith. Googleguy007 (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disputes that CPUSH is bad. What I dispute is that you've made a valid CPUSH argument. And ending your post with an animalistically dehumanizing thought terminating cliche doesn't inspire me to view you as having a valid CPUSH argument. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to the sealioning link above? Do you find the metaphor anthropocentric and disrespectful to the sea lion, and thus offensive? Certainly it's unfair to label someone as always engaging in a set of behaviors, but that's why folks are providing diffs. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support — Permanent ban from LoTT & temp. ban for GENSEX and American Politics; per the reasoning of Loki, FormalDude, LilianaUwU, Wes sideman and others. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've said it before and I will say it again, Korny O'Near is very very good at skating along the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable. They may take disagreeable positions but they take them in a civil and policy based way, that in and of itself is not an issue. That being said on this particular page they do appear to have gone overboard, but IMO that merits a page ban not a topic ban (or multiple topic bans). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Longterm (6 months minimum) tempban from LoTT and tempban from american politics per my reasoning earlier in this thread, Wes sideman and others Googleguy007 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support a ban from both GENSEX and American politics per the diffs above (+my comments there) and an extended pattern of evaluating sources and weight based on what seems to be whether they spport Korny's preferred conclusions. Other diffs that struck me: here, a WP:WGW argument that if he was blocked from Twitter for saying something, readers deserve to know exactly what he said; here, where he performs WP:OR to argue against a source, dismisses numerous mainstream sources as biased, and argues that his personal conclusions should be used to dictate article content (this devolved into semantic quibbling to support Korny's reading of primary sources, which shows exactly why we don't do that); arguing against describing a well-documented Soros conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory based on Korny's personal opinion that the term is "overused"; and undoing a 1RR violation, only to wait a few hours so he could reinstating the revert shortly after the window had passed, which is clearly edit-warring regardless. --Aquillion (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  In all of this your only substantial claims seem to be a 1RR violation by trying to get away with a technicality and a claim that they are inconsistent on when something should be in or out. Skirting a 1RR violation is a legitimate concern and may warrant the sort of block we would give for a 3RR violation. The claim of inconstancy is problematic. Are you willing to have your efforts judged to the same standard? If any editor found you were inconsistent in how you appear to be applying gray rules like WEIGHT should you also be topic blocked? Additionally, arguments on the talk page, so long as they aren't accompanied by edit warring are generally good for articles. It's very easy for an article to get a bunch of like minded editors who can "out consensus" other perspectives. Net result is we get an article that not only adopts facts from articles with a clear perspective/slant on a topic, but also adopt that tone rather than following an IMPARTIAL/encyclopedic tone. If there is edit warring, handle as edit warring. However, your other examples aren't great examples of disruption. They are examples of disagreement. Is disagreeing with the majority now a problem? Springee (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• In the interest of avoiding another shit show that should have been at AE, I humbly request that if you've already posted more than three times in this thread to seriously consider if further posts will add anything to the discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Using my third post here to say that I second this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - per Aquillion. Andre🚐 01:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support making the page ban from LoTT indefinite, at a bare minimum. I'd also support a tban from GENSEX and AP for the reasons laid out in detail by a number of editors above, but most succinctly by Timothy: the user's edits suggest they're not (indeed, as Aquillion shows, sometimes they're insidiously not) a constructive contributor to the project of writing an NPOV encyclopedia, and their contributions to this and other discussions (e.g. tedious threads on Talk:Libs of TikTok) give the impression that that's not likely to change. -sche (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support unequivocally based on what I've seen from this user in the Chaya Raichik discourse. Extremist talking points pushed strongly as "common sense" with no relevant application of WP policy, against both scientific consensus (relevant) and consensus public opinion (irrelevant but pretty fucking funny given the exasperated "common sense" tone of the arguments). VibrantThumpcake (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• support. with the evidence above, this user has been proven to be disruptive in the area. lettherebedarklight晚安 04:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from WP:GENSEX-related areas unequivocally, due to heavy disruption at that area. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I just want to say one more thing, which is - not to sound self-martyring, but I really think that, for some of the editors here, this vote is being used as a political witch hunt, because they perceive me as taking the right-wing side of the editing debate and want to get rid of me for that reason. I think there's no better proof of that than the fact that so many of the article and talk page edits that have been brought up here as proof that I should be banned are still reflected in the relevant article, like this, this, this (slightly modified), this, this, this (in part), and probably this (once this RfC is finished). In other words, these are (apparently) good edits and suggestions, and yet they're still somehow cause for banning. To be fair, there are editors here who simply think I've been bludgeoning and edit warring too much, which is a fair criticism, especially for the Libs of TikTok article - I admit I went overboard there. But for other editors, I think this is simply politically-motivated. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, great, but that has nothing to do with a number of other issues ... like, for instance, your conduct in the OP, where you start the ball rolling with utterly meritless accusations about entirely innocuous diffs, and accusing an editor of "canvassing" when it turned out that he was asking other users whether they thought edits of yours were objectionable. (Hell, that's what happens with any ANI complaint, isn't it? Wasn't that what you were doing with this ANI complaint?) Editors who live in glass houses shouldn't be hurling boomerangs. Ravenswing 14:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  My original complaint may be a reason to ban me, but I don't think anyone has brought it up as a reason other than you. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, I have explained this to korny many times, those edits are provided as a way to demonstrate a broader trend of korny CPOV pushing that can only truely be seen by reviewing difs on his contribs page, or by having already had experience with him, he refuses to acknowledge this and continues pretending that the difs are intended to show especially egregious behavior. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Korny O'Near, I'd be surprised if this isn't a major factor in at least some editors' decisions here, whether intentionally or not. Personally, I decided against supporting a politics tban because I hadn't seen the evidence for it, but I an also see where the WP:CPUSH concerns are coming from and I can't blame the editors that are supporting such a ban. The reason I endorsed a GENSEX tban is specifically because of this diff, which I believe shows enough evidence for a WP:HID tban. The real question is how the community will respond the next time an editor is found engaging in civil POV pushing in favor of socialist/communist/anarchist ideas. Maybe I'm just naive, but I believe that such an editor would also receive a tban rather quickly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I figure this is going to get a bigger target on my back, but considering the utter lack of evidence of behavioral issues this is the only position. Considering how active Korny is on these topics we should be seeing a lot of recent diff's of misbehavior, but the only person who provided such diffs is Aquillion. However, none of those diff's show anything particularly egregious, and in turn considering how often Korny edits there should be more of them if there is a genuine problem. People make bad edits and bad arguments. We don't topic ban them unless it's particularly egregious or is a long term and persistent pattern demonstrating a lack of understanding in Wikipedia policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  How much more evidence do you need? 500 diffs going back 10 years? Dronebogus (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

How many edits do you think Korny makes in the topic area over a month? We'll start with 10% of those edits. That's for marginally problematic edits. If you have something actually egregious feel free to include that. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You’re kind of asking a lot here, with arbitrary standards. Dronebogus (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If an editor has over 90% non-problematic edits in the topic area, and the edits that are problematic are marginal, I don't see a reason to topic ban them from the subject area. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

A better way to perhaps look at this is, show the really bad ones. The list provided by Goodleguy had at best one example that was mild. The rest look like reasonable disagreements. Springee (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support a ban from GENSEX and American politics alike, per Aquillion. I'll also echo the "this should have gone to AE" concerns raised above, but, well, we're here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2023 (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.

FleurDeOdile Cross-wiki edit warring

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.

---

An outcome was reached for a new track map color scheme in order to provide MOS:ACCESSibility for the color blind users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC after having a long discussion that took multiple months. FleurDeOdile reverted image changes three times on Wikipedia [106] [107] and [108]. After being warned that he was at 3RR by Jasper Deng [109] and given a followup reminder by MarioJump83 [110], he then proceeded to take it to commons to avoid breaking the 3RR here. He continued edit warring there by nominating three maps with the new scheme for deletion with no valid rationale. Here [111] [112] [113], he simply called the images "useless duplicates". This behavior is also present in edit summaries where he reverted edits on EN-WP as "useless" during the past few months. Further attesting to the bad faith in these nominations is the fact that he openly accused a participant of canvassing in the discussion on commons and in the priorly linked discussion on WP for the colors here while there is no evidence of canvassing having taken place. Someone else even mentioned that they were notified via the notice at Cyclone Freddy's talk page. Given the fact that multiple blocks have occurred due to this behavior and the fact that there have been AN/I threads in the past related to it, I am bringing this here. There is a right way to go about handling discussion outcomes you disagree with, however, I don't believe that occurred here. Noah^Talk 03:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Given this is a cross-wiki issue, there is a sister discussion at Commons. Noah^Talk 04:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It is important to remember that WikiProjects do not, and should not, form a local "consensus" in the way that was discussed from here & WP:ARBWPTC, unless it is done appropriately through WP:RfC process, which is the case for colors RfC. Personally, I believe that a TBAN from weather-related topics should suffice, as it doesn't seem that FDO behaved disruptively outside weather-related topics AFAIK, but cross-wiki disruption and implied off-wiki coordination is something that should be looked at. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

first of all, you never asked me for my input in all of the RfCs, you never consulted actual colorblind people for it, you seemingly struck down a better proposal that was better than the current one for no good reason, then proceeded to ignore other better proposals. and now other language wikis might never change to the current color schemes because of how dead they are. it's just a mess that should have never been started. FleurDeOdile 05:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You were asked for feedback during the proposal phase in this notice, which was sent out to the entire project. We started an official RfC months later when it came time to actually make a decision and posted notices at every weather project page. You were given sufficient notice and there was sufficient time to participate in these discussions that were ongoing from September until just around a week or so ago. Any further notifications to you or others would have been inappropriate. I would highly suggest you examine your own behavior rather than coming here and blaming others for it. Noah^Talk 05:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone has to participate in the RfC, including myself. I mostly didn't participate in the RfC for two years as far as I could know and I just got recently involved in the discussions, shortly after I reminded you. During all of these times, I didn't get a notification asking for input in the RfC as I'm no longer a member of WikiProject Weather. Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:POINT, WP:CANVASSING and WP:OWN in full as these are relevant. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@FleurDeOdile: On top of the above, you also have failed to address your edit warring and behavior, and instead still insist on pointing fingers at others. If we do not see evidence that you will change your behavior, sanctions will be necessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

guess i'll surrender... FleurDeOdile 00:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You are allowed to disagree with people. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about disagreements. The issue is you are not acknowledging your behavior as being wrong and working to correct it. Noah^Talk 04:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you actually work to improve your behavior, and more importantly, being actively responsive, including responding to your user talk page? I have doubts that you would, as has been for several years, and it appears that you may have never looked to your user talk page at all, based on your statements above (WP:CIR?). To be frank, including the fact that you haven't really changed your behavior since the last TBAN discussion from two years ago, which is not enacted as a result of canvassing, this is where I would say definitely that I support TBAN from weather-related topics, as broadly construed. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As much as I feel the points being made about Fleur's conduct are valid, this has the unpleasant connotation of a pile-on, particularly the fact that WP:WPTC members are calling for someone to be topic-banned from all weather topics broadly construed. That makes me very uncomfortable. I don't know why I feel that way, but I do think it would be useful to have uninvolved admins or editors making that call based on the above conduct. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No comment currently on the present situation; i am very concerned, however, by the behaviour of some editors here. First, as WaltCip says, this feels like a pile-on by members of the involved Project. Second, "the last TBAN discussion" referenced above (courtesy link) was not at all unsuccessful because of canvassing; read the closing statement by Wugapodes ~ there is no mention of canvassing there, simply an acknowledgement that there was no consensus for a ban. I consider the remarks made above to be in bad faith, at best, and an attempt at poisoning the well at worst. Third, as i say, i am not opining on the current request and accusations, but i have very clear memories of two previous attempts by members of a weather project to silence FleurDeOdile, fortunately both were unsuccessful, and i am tempted to assume that this is more of the same. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@LindsayH: The second discussion was canvassed by being linked to and mentioned off-wiki. That was part of the matter that went to ARBCOM where two editors ended up indefinitely topic banned from weather articles due to canvassing and procedures were adopted in Discord to prevent future canvassing. I think that had a lot to do with people ganging up on Fleur during the first two discussions. Noah^Talk 20:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I rescinded the TBAN call and striked my reply as I realized it was far too harsh. I'm leaving this call for an actually uninvolved editor or admin, but I had to say that I am no longer a member of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones and I do not plan to rejoin that project again. I still only got involved in the project on some rare occasions. I'm going to stay out of this discussion as I may have inflamed things. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Could an uninvolved editor please close this? I have filed an arbitration case due to the nature of evidence I have of off-wiki canvassing. Noah^Talk 03:47, 8 March 2023 (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:Wjemather

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

Wjemather has been unnecessarily undoing good edits from editors (myself and others ) for three years now. Editors have tried reasoning with that person over time, but that person does not want to listen. Several people in private chats have expressed their frustration with that person, simply because they don't know where else to turn to talk of their frustration.

That person's behaviour has not only been unproked, unneeded undoings of valid edits that no one else has ever had a problem with, but hypocritical also; the list is long of the times that that person would spitefully undo the very same type of edits that they themself have done before, throwing logic out the window. In other words, it's okay for themself, but not for others.

One other behaviour that makes that person unreasonable is making things up on the spot: An editor will do a good edit in the traditional way, but then this person in question will undo the edit with the excuse (paraphrasing), "Just because this is the traditional way is not an excuse to keep doing it that way.".

Trying to reason with that person has failed for years with many who have tried.

I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2007 and had never had any real problems from an editor until that one. I've been doing the same type of edits in the same way since the beginning, and in early 2020 that person came along and decided to be the first to take their own personal feelings and force feed them onto the Wikipedia community with uncalled for retractions that no one else had ever had a problem with. Nitpicking at every single turn, unJusifiably.

Most of that person's edits are undoings,, not additions, meaning the main purpose that person has had over the last three years has been to unneededly undo other people's edits, even when having to make up a reason to do so.

Simply to spite me, that person went and undid a good edit of mine on a page concerning a topic that they no absolutely nothing about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_State_of_the_Union_Address&type=revision&diff=1063538815&oldid=1063093800

Also last year, that person went back on a previously agreed upon standard for preparing the WGC MATCH Play page, one in which that person had willingly agreed to the year before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_WGC-Dell_Technologies_Match_Play&diff=1079435859&oldid=1079434098

It gets worse, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't; If you do an edit one particular way, that person undoes it and criticizes you, but then if you do the edit the opposite way, that person still undoes it and criticizes you.

I would have to go and do weeks' worth of finding and citing all the examples of that person's gross, uncalled for undoings. For now, I will show a few recent examples of the kinds of edits that no one else ever had a a problem with, but this person is hell bent on interfering with anyway:

Undoing a perfectly good preparation that is done each week on the PGA Tour, for no reason ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masters_Tournament&type=revision&diff=1141795948&oldid=1141795855

Undoing more preparation that is done as a normal thing in Wikipedia, for no reason ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AThe_Masters_champions&type=revision&diff=1141796145&oldid=1141796054

And those are only two examples of a half a dozen interference type of undoings in the last 24 hours. It takes time and trouble to go and post these here, so I'll stop there for now.

Other times, that person will try to get a page deleted, because in their OPINION the page was made "too early", something of which no one else has ever been known to complain about in recent years. There are links to show proof of this.

After three years of constant interference of spiteful, uncalled for undoings, we will not tolerate it any longer. I have been on here for sixteen years without serious trouble for 13 of them. Over the last three years, this constant hypocritical and unneeded interference won't be tolerated. Even the simple act of letting that person know, they lash back as if you are wronging them in some way, playing the victim. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If I may say something before Wjemather has a chance: It seems to me that many of the issues with JohnSmith2116 are of his own making. It seems that many/most of his significant edits consist of adding hidden text (which he calls "preparation") of a trivial nature. WP:HIDDEN allows for "Preparing small amounts of information to be added to the article in the future" but JohnSmith2116 goes well beyond that. A recent addition (7 March) was 11,801 bytes of hidden text, clearly not small. To me a small amount of preparation is ok when it is done a short period before the event and when it's relatively complex. However he's also recently added hidden text to Masters Tournament when the event will not take place for another month. I think JohnSmith2116 would have more credibility if he simply gave up adding hidden text. Nigej (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Nigej, Keep in mind a few things. 1, Until that user came along, I never got anyone to complain about how things were done. 2, That user reverts edits that I make that they don't revert when it's someone ELSE, so, it's a spiteful reverting against me (although who knows why). And 3, the only reason I hide some of the text is to make other editors happy; I used to put all of my additions in without hiding anything at all, but many editors didn't like that, so, when we started having the text be hidden, that is when certain editors stopped complaining. So, I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. Also keep in mind, none of this funny business started until three years ago when that user came along. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The point is that you shouldn't be doing either. Adding content which contains little or no useful content is generally a waste of time. Edits like this [114] are ridiculous. Wait until there is something to report and then report it. I would recommend that you give up these "preparation" edits completely, hidden or not. Nigej (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

+1 for Nigej's response. "No one complained until that guy did" applies to each and every complaint in the history of the world, so that doesn't do you any favors. As far as other hidden text created by other editors on the same pages that aren't being reverted, would you mind supplying some diffs? And -- ultimately -- you're be falling into a fallacy on your "damned if you do/damned if you don't" screed. The answer to "But how else can I get this information in?" isn't to come up with some gimmick to do so over the objections of other editors. The answer is "You don't." If you cannot obtain a consensus for these edits, then you don't make them. No one hands out barnstars for being the first person to type in the champion's name in a tournament; this is an encyclopedia, not a race track, nor a competition. Ravenswing 20:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• A couple of my recent edit summaries were a little terse, perhaps due to the disappointment in seeing the return of such pointless edits having not seen them on my watchlist for a while, but there was nothing personal in them, and certainly no spite or malice. Unfortunately, it would seem that JohnSmith2116 sometimes takes things very personally and reacts inappropriately, on this occasion with revenge reverts of verifiable content that I had added to other articles, along with inappropriate edit summaries (e.g. diff, diff, diff); the above opening message (full of attacks and aspersions) was later posted to the talk pages of multiple admins over the course of several days, seemingly moving on to another admin when not getting the response they desired from the last.

  In the past I have tried to help JohnSmith2116 to understand WP policies and guidelines with respect to problematic edits, particularly with respect to WP:CRYSTAL (e.g. pre-empting results, creating articles on events before any coverage exists to verify the content, etc.) and WP:IDHT (e.g. refusing to accept community consensus on nationality tables, etc.), in addition to WP:HIDDEN (as described by Nigej above). Their inappropriate responses have previously resulted in them being blocked (e.g. diff). It's also disappointing that they are now repeating comments about off-wiki discussions that were described as "creepy" back then (diff) and they were advised against continuing (diff). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced edits

91.216.181.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has multiple warnings for unsourced or poorly sourced edits, including a final warning less than a week ago. With this edit, they use a registry office as a source for a husband; the first Independent source doesn’t actually say she has a daughter; and the second Independent source doesn't say where they currently live. – ².O.^Boxing 21:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

They were also informed of BLPPRIMARY and blocked for the same kind of issues on 91.216.181.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ².O.^Boxing 21:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably just a kid at school horsing around, I'd support a block. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 21:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Repeated BLPvio, editing warring at Keith Raniere: assassination 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.

---

Raniere is convicted racketeer serving a life sentence.

• Evackost (talk · contribs) Inserts text: "Raniere's affidavit implying that named individiual has ordered his assassination."
  • I removed: "RV huge BLPvio accusing a named individual of attempted assassination!"
• Evackost restores the BLPvio and other edits: "RV, because User:Feoffer has never given reason for reversions here or in Talk:Keith Raniere. Every edit provided is appropriately sourced, and the demand for reopening "consensus" is silly"...
  • Evackost [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Raniere&diff=prev&oldid=1143561958 added the words "without evidence", acknowledging that Raniere's accusation is groundless.
  • Per BLP, I've again reverted

Would welcome any interventions that helps Evackost understand they need to build consensus for changes and not reintroduce extreme BIOvios. I've seen a lot of BLP vios in my day, but falsely claiming that a "hit" has been ordered is one of the most egregious, one which could have dangerous consequences, both in terms of libel AND safety. It probably should be oversighted tbh. Feoffer (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Using primary sources (ie. the court documents themselves) is a massive breach of BLP and SYNTH here - extraordinary claims like this require the most rigorous of reliable sourcing, and these edits clearly don't meet that threshold. Support removal and action taken against anyone reintroducing without consensus. Daniel (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Feoffer is just attempting to rationalize their own edit war behavior.

User:Feoffer first reverted edits to Keith Raniere that had nothing to do with anything talked about here: they were edits that properly called Raniere's brand a "monogram", that the tool used is called an "electrocauterer", and that the procedure was scarification. When doing that User:Feoffer left the totally unhelpful and Wikipedia:DICK-ish note "not an improvement" with no attempts to write what they found objectionable.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Raniere&oldid=1143413296

After reverting the edits and refining them and contributing content --as I have without User:Feoffer raising any objection-- User:Feoffer changed tactics for why they were reverting by libelling me as a murderer.

Dealing with this: Raniere has made two lawsuits against the Bureau of Prisons in which he publicly claimed that he is being targeted for assassination. This is public knowledge. It's been reported multiple times since last year. See:

• Rosner, E. (2022, November 8). Nxivm sex cult leader Keith Raniere claims prison transfer puts his life at risk. New York Post; New York Post. https://nypost.com/2022/11/08/nxivm-sex-cult-leader-keith-raniere-claims-prison-transfer-puts-his-life-at-risk/
• Gavin, R. (2023, February 28). NXIVM leader says he could die in prison like Bulger, Epstein. Times Union; Times Union. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/nxivm-leader-says-die-prison-bulger-epstein-17810579.php
• ‌MCKERNAN, E. (2020). Sat Mar 04 2023 nxivm - clip. KATV. https://katv.com/news/nation-world/nxivm-keith-raniere-sex-cult-whitey-bulger-jeffery-epstein-120-years-prison-complaints-treatment-safety-death-trophy-target-child-porn-colonie-new-york-tucson-arizona-facility
• Borbolla, D. (2023, March 3). Keith Raniere ex líder de NXIVM, asegura que Alejandro Junco lo amenza. Azteca Noticias; Azteca Noticias. https://www.tvazteca.com/aztecanoticias/keith-raniere-ex-lider-nxivm-alejandro-junco-muerte-carcel

Wikipedia:CENSOR. There is substantial information to show that Raniere is making numerous claims, and they are newsworthy across two countries.

Finally, Raniere is also the one who made this claim to begin with; it's patently ridiculous to state that he is attempting to foment his own murder.

In the end I have to say that what really seems to be happening here is that User:Feoffer has taken a possessive view of the article Keith Raniere, in which case they are perfectly free to remove some year's worth of contributions I made that nobody previously had any issue with. Evackost (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Feoffer changed tactics for why they were reverting by libelling me as a murderer. This is the sort of comment which you need to either strike or support with very strong diffs. Looking back at Feoffer's interactions with you, I assume you are referring to this edit; if so that is a grossly bad faith reading of what Feoffer actually wrote and I would urge you to strike it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

And making snarky comments about "deferrence to certain users religious beliefs" in not reintroducing a name which was revdelled as a "serious BLP violation" is at best unhelpful. (Not giving the diff because your new edit without the name in the article text is still toeing the line pretty dangerously on BLP imo, but it's in Special:History/Keith Raniere for now unless an admin revdels that too - I've alerted Black Kite, who revdelled the previous content, on their talkpage). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not striking this, and I reiterate: User:Feoffer. whether intentionally or unintentionally, falsely implied across several talk pages that I am trying to kill someone. It is literally in the title here.

User:Feoffer posted this innuendo my talk page, Talk:Keith Raniere, and here that me posting the name of the billionaire is somehow going to get Keith Raniere killed. That's awfully funny, because Keith Raniere is the one who named that billionaire in a lawsuit that he filed.

And also, why is it my problem that other people are blatantly disregarding the Mexican press? Who named that same billionaire, with none of them being sued for libel or being called murderers? Evackost (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It is literally in the title here. No. It literally isn't. If you actually believe this, you do not have the competence to edit here. The title here doesn't even suggest that you are risking harm to a living person, the claim Feoffer made on your talkpage, let alone that you are actively trying to harm them, let alone that you have actually murdered someone. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That's BS. Literally, I told him to stop being rude, and in a fit of personal spite he tried to jacket me with this disingenuous "assassination talk" garbage.

Elsewhere Talk:Keith Raniere, User:Feoffer wrote the completely bonkers claim that merely repeating Raniere's own claim "could cause Raniere's death" –in what world is it appropriate to imply that I am going to cause someone's death? Really, how dare he.

On every other point, I have clearly demonstrated that Foeffer engaged in bad faith petitfogging and edit warring.

I'll note that I abided by this group's decision about not naming Great and Powerful Billionaire Mexican Media Mogul and not a single person has any issue any more. I even got rid of a NY Post citation against better instinct, because someone wants to make a big deal about the Murdoch press. Seriously, I don't know WTF more people want anymore. Evackost (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I even got rid of a NY Post citation against better instinct, because someone wants to make a big deal about the Murdoch press

That's....not really it. The NY Post is not considered reliable by Wikipedia consensus. See: WP:NYPOST — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I got rid of it, because it wasn't necessary. You continue to talk about it because… I don't know.

But other than that: You might want to actually read Wikipedia:NYPOST because none of the issues listed there were actually a concern there. There's no NYPD issues. It's not Page Six. And the NY Post, unlike a lot of other newspapers, does actual court room reporting which was documented on The Vow. Evackost (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Evackost: The diffs above, where you tried to introduce controversial information about a living person, sourced only to court documents, is a WP:BLPPRIMARY violation, and you should not do that again. Ever. --Jayron32 14:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Jayron32, thanks for your comment. I came here because I saw some weird edits on the Rainiere talk page, and I just warned Evackost for a comment on that talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't "introduce controversial information about a living person, sourced only to court documents," I cited the accusation as it was put on RECAP/CourtListener with the appropriate Mexican news report as context (because the individual in question is Mexican, and multiple Mexican outlets are covering this story).

  To accommodate the superstitions invoked here, I removed the Template:Cite Pacer and the actual name of the "billionaire media mogul," while leaving the well-sourced text. Evackost (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Look, these are not "superstitions invoked". Wikipedia has clear rules against writing controversial information about living persons. If you continue to cast aspersions against people who inform you about these rules, it will not end well for you. When you're already in a hole, stop digging my friend. --Jayron32 17:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's also not casting aspersions to point out that User:Feoffer wrote the Wikipedia:Don't be a dick'ish summary "not an improvement" on a completely different matter before I even posted this material, then proceeded to repeatedly engage in repeated edit-warring reverts without any explanation whatsoever.

  Then they post this libellous tirade implying I am engaging in "assassination talk" when there was nothing of the sort. I'm not going to put up with being defamed, and then being talked down to when I take issue with it. Evackost (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm going to say this for the last time. In providing you with information, I was not opening an invitation for discussion. I was informing you that your actions were in violation of Wikipedia policy, and that if you were to continue them, you would find your ability to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I am not asking for a response other than confirmation that you read what I told you. Every defense you have tried to make of yourself is just self-incrimination. Please stop. --Jayron32 18:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just feel the need to say you are treading a bit close to the legal threat line here--especially where the underlying basis is such a slim reed. Best to defend yourself without the language of defamation. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am not threatening any lawsuit. User:Feoffer wrote that my writing "could cause Raniere's death." Am I supposed to thank him for calling me a murderer?

  Everyone here got exactly what they wanted out of me, which is to remove the name of the billionaire who shall not be mentioned, but people just want to make stuff up now. Evackost (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I just feel the need to say you are treading a bit close to the legal threat line here

  I agree, the user has repeatedly used the word "libel" to describe what others are saying about them. Wikipedia is not a court room, and we don't tolerate this kind of thing. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at the difs of the scenario you are describing, they reverted your changes (with explanations), which were not constructive, to the status quo, which you then continued attempting to re-add. I also cant find any evidence of Feoffer engaging a libellous tirade accusing you of "assassination talk". I would also ask you to stop using WP:Dont Be A Dick as is stated on the page. I personally also take issue with your blatant lack of respect for consensus, which is the backbone of wikipedia. Googleguy007 (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  The billionaire's name is no longer on Keith Raniere, the actual complaint is moot. I have dealt with every other issue User:Feoffer brought up on Talk:Keith Raniere. Evackost (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am honestly exhausted. I complied with everything here by removing both mention of the billionaire's name,and any mention of killing, but User:Googleguy007 took it upon themself to just delete the entirety of this text block which has none of the identified issues:

  Judge Raner Collins granted the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss the suit on grounds that Raniere failed to exhaust administrative remedies (in line with the Prison Litigation Reform Act), and his lawyer's insufficient service of process.

  Within weeks of the dismissal, Raniere filed another suit against the Bureau of Prisons that is active as of March 2023. Raniere has used the lawsuit to file an affidavit making far-ranging claims about his imprisonment, including a claim that he is in danger of a death in custody akin to those of Whitey Bulger and Jeffrey Epstein should he be transferred to a Communications Management Unit within the federal prison system. He also says "a billionaire media mogul from Mexico" is seeking to hurt him.

  I honestly don't know what will make anyone happy anymore. Enlighten me. Evackost (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Getting consensus for your disputed edits on the relevant talkpage as required by wikipedia's most fundamental policies would be a good start.

  People have explained in depth in this discussion several specific issues with your editing. You have taken none of them on board but continued to argue that you are in the right. If you want to know what people want to see from you, take a break from Wikipedia for a bit until you have calmed down, then re-read this thread with fresh eyes. You should be able to get a good idea of what people want to see from you from that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  …literally, you guys all got what you wanted (which was the removal of a name).

  That is the only complaint that reached ANI. Read the actual complaint.

  On everything else, User:Feoffer put criticisms on Talk:Wikipedia –which I answered in detail. They never replied, probably because I was right.

  My only reason for writing here at this point is that I have been baselessly accused of working to kill someone, and if I don't say something about it then I don't know how anyone in the future's going to characterize this crap.

  Meanwhile, this keeps going on for zero reason at all. You all got what you wanted, which was removal of someone's name (as though it's an unholy incantation). But whatever, that's not enough, now I have to be dragged through a wholle other process. Evackost (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  They never replied, probably because I was right.
  It's never good to assume that because others have not responded, you are in the correct. No one is obligated to respond to you, and assuming silence is consensus is a really bad idea. Wait for others, if any, to take up the banner of your arguments. If they are persuasive, someone inevitably will. It's always better to respond less and listen more in situations like this. The more often you repeat the same accusations or arguments, the less power they have, and the less convincing they will be to others.

  You sound (understandably) very heated about what happened here, and that may be clouding your judgment. I echo the recommendation of others here in saying you should probably step away from wikipedia, come back with fresh eyes, and see if you feel as upset about this then as you do now. My guess is that you will not, and you'll have an easier time understanding the advice others have given you here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Please, be more condescending. Evackost (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Evackost: You'll notice that a lot of other people in this thread have replied now, and told you that you were not right. Feoffer's response is not particularly relevant anymore. As Shibboleth has noted, you're personalizing this matter excessively; it would be best if you just took some time to gain some perspective and let it drop for the time being. --Jayron32 19:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  FFS: can you actually read the complaint and the actual circumstances? I let it drop. The last work of mine that someone summarily reverted contained none of the Wikipedia:BLP material.

  I am now banned from editing the page anyway Not because of the Wikipedia:BLP issue (as stated), but because someone had to take action to justify their own investment after instigating and prolonging this drama. Evackost (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I give up, congratulations on winning the Edit War

Evackost (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

References

• Blocked I have partial-blocked this editor from editing the article. They may still edit the talk page. Enough is enough, really. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! Adios, enjoy yourselves! Evackost (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Evackost has attempted to remove a declined block request whilst block, which is a breach of policy. I have restored the template for this once. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: Evackost has been indef'd (with talk access revoked) after a short period of many disruptive edits across their talk ([115][116][117][118][119][120][121]) and the article talk ([122][123]). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by Aketu?

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

---

A bit borderline, but this ("This matter will also be submitted to the proper legal venue that has jurisdiction over such matters.") could probably be construed as a legal threat, esp. in the broader context of ranting and RGW. I know Whpq and Deepfriedokra have eyes on it already, but thought I'd flag it up all the same, in case they missed it. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2023 (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.

207.72.1.104: has been vandalising WP for years

User:207.72.1.104 appears to have vandalised Wikipedia for years and to continue to do so recently: see the IP's talk page. Recently, they have attempted to promote and online store. I think this IP needs to be blocked for good. Veverve (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and possible canvassing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vach (2nd nomination)

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.

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vach (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a current AfD for an article in terrible condition. From my observations, every "keep" !vote has been cast by newly created accounts. There's also User:Info Rail who created an account 30 minutes ago and was editing random topics before closing the AfD, and I shouldn't even need to explain how wrong that closure was -- it was done the same way I'd expect an inexperienced canvassed editor to close an AfD. They subsequently blanked my warning without even responding and just carried on editing. That behavior is quite suspicious, but I can't be sure of anything. Can an admin please review this? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Info Rail making 10 rapid fire edits to meet the autoconfirmed requirement to edit AfD, then closing the AfD, needs significant further investigation. Blanking your talk page enquiry on this topic also breaches the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT (which I would argue applies to anyone closing an AfD discussion, administrator or not). Daniel (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

And here on their user page they admit they aren't new. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Might be worth adding to the existing SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Memohwiki.-KH-1 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

SPI came back positive unsurprisingly. As the sockmaster was already indeffed I've deleted The Vach and Justin Jin per CSD G5. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:08, 11 March 2023 (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 Flibirigit labeled a wrong article as AfD and accused me on the AfD discussion of taking down the AfD notice because I took down the incorrect one

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 was aware I was on the autism spectrum prior to pulling this disgusting trick, an interpretation of putting both articles for deletion cannot exist because it can’t be fully applied to group non-AfD articles with AfD discussions, my talking about this could only lead to a separate AfD notice for the second article therefore he has intimated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweisz94 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. I've done this for you. I assume this has something to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999, and you'll need to provide links, diffs, and context. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Dweisz94, I'm confused as to why you are bringing up autism. It's not relevant here. --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

All I will explain is that July 16, 2021 Larry Sanger explained that Wikipedia is no longer a reliable source of information, people like you are part of the problem why this brilliant idea can't work just like communism Dweisz94 (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks. See WP:NPA. I strongly recommend you drop this whole issue. Otherwise, WP:BOOMERANG may apply. This isn't a threat, this is a recommendation based on the lack of merit of your complaint here. --Yamla (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen As far as I can work out the series of events is as follows:

• Two articles Dweisz94 created were nominated for deletion in a bundled discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999
• Dweisz94 responds to the discussion with the comment “appropriate” reasons are not suffice to describe the incompetence with reasons listed here being happy with less information, the article is beneficial to people such as myself on the autism spectrum, and I believe this wasn’t well thought about by the supposedly “fair” social thinkers listed above, insulting the participants at the deletion discussion and implying that the article has been proposed for deletion on the basis of discrimination.
• Dweisz94 tries to remove the AFD notices from the articles [124] [125]
• Flibirigit responds to the removals of the templates with the polite message Dweisz94, removing the template from the list is incorrect. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process. Have a great day..
• Dweisz94 starts accusing Flibirigit of threatening them for asking them to comply with policy [126].
• Dweisz94 files a thread at AE trying to get Flibirigit blocked [127], Euryalus explains to them on their talk page that the complaint is meritless and in the wrong venue [128].
• Dweisz94 repeatedly tries to reply to their closed AE thread [129] [130], Drmies tells them to stop on their talk page [131].
• Dweisz94 starts an ANI thread about the same issue (we are here).

It seems that Dweisz94, as a an newbie editor, made a mistake at AFD, and rather than listening to the polite messages trying to explain what they're doing wrong decided to go full scorched earth and try to get another editor blocked over nothing. This has resulted in them making a mess of baseless administrative threads and a load of uncivil comments towards other editors. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Dweisz94 is not a newbie. They've been editing for well over a decade and have a few hundred edits. That said, the AfD process can be confusing, as can many of our processes. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

They may have been here for 10 years, but they've only made 600 edits and have never set foot in project space prior to this AFD. Sure, they're not a newbie in terms of "time they've had an account", but they are a newbie in terms of editing experience, especially in project space. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There is no case to answer here. Flibirigit nominated two lists (List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999 and List of first ice hockey internationals per country: since 2000) for deletion in a single nomination (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999). Dweisz94 improperly removed the nomination template from one of the articles (diff). Flibirigit correctly reinstated the template (diff), and politely advised Dweisz94 that removing the template was not the correct way to dispute the deletion (diff). Dweisz94's response to this was to report Flibirigit to Arbitration Enforcement (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Flibirigit), and then when that didn't work, to come here. Flibirigit has done nothing wrong, and Dweisz94 should take heed that this kind of behaviour is not collaborative, and is becoming disruptive. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'll also mention here and the end of the thread, July 16, 2021 Larry Sanger explained Wikipedia is longer a reliable source, and this brilliant idea has been ruined exactly by people in this thread Dweisz94 (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Alike in this thread* Dweisz94 (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2023 (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.

NOTHERE

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

---

For a half a year, User:Turktimex3 has been creating BLPs for barely notable people and cussing at other editors whenever they were questioned about their edits. Many of their article creations, including the latest one (Lisa Schurer Lambert), bear the hallmarks of promotional editing--they're articles on people who'd never pass the GNG, written up in promotional language. The Lambert article, for instance, is nothing but a resume with a couple of web links. (I am not continuing fighting with them over that article: listing published articles for academics is resume writing, and the claim that Lambert has a named chair at U of Oklahoma, which might satisfy NPROF, appears to be a bit skewed: her position has a name, sure, but it's just the name of the business school at a satellite campus--even the "satellite" part is obfuscated in the piping of the article. In other words, all that is deceptive already, especially if they cite NPROF, "a major institution of higher education and research"--whether Oklahoma is such a major institution is an interesting question, but the satellite campus certainly is not.

The bigger problem, besides the edit warring and the likely promotional editing, is a NOTHERE attitude; the talk page presents plenty of evidence. They accused me of vandalism four times, and said "you are not here to write an encyclopedia, but edit war". Well, I'm also here to hang out and have a good time, but that's beside the point. Pinging previous editors and administrators they have cussed out and accused of various things: User:Rosguill, User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, User:Zaathras, User:Some1, User:Ohnoitsjamie. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a great look for either side here, frankly. Turktimex3 has been pretty hostile to others, and it's shocking they still don't realize it's not acceptable to call basic content disputes "vandalism". A trip to ANI was probably inevitable. But the pings to "people I think the person I'm reporting may have wronged over time" is pretty close to canvassing and you're both over 3RR on that article. As for the content of the article, "barely notable" is notable. A named professorship at OSU, even a satellite campus, is still pretty typical for NPROF#5 as far as I've seen. It's a weakness (or a feature, depending on one's perspective) of NPROF: we have articles on people who have, say, a named professorship, but have to rely on primary sources because there isn't GNG-style coverage. If it's too close a call, AfD can solve it. In any event, Turktimex3 didn't actually create this article. This is the extent of their edits. Which, yeah, they shouldn't add a list of non-major works, but that's what a ton of relative newbies do? Looks like they even removed the "Awards" header, which isn't typically what people do when they're trying to promote the subject, and the rest is fairly standard for these kinds of NPROF-but-not-GNG pages. Turktimex3 and has ... not received a warm reception on enwp thus far, but also doesn't seem to be very receptive to disagreement, either. The reality, Turktimex3, is that even if I think there are times when you've been treated improperly, your response to people's criticism and disagreement isn't ok. If you find yourself the common factor in a series of hostile exchanges, the reality is a block probably isn't far away (especially if someone decides to ping everyone who has a problem with you like happened here :/ ). You really need to dial it back, err on the side of discussion, and for crying out loud stop calling things vandalism that aren't vandalism (people really don't like that here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've moved the article back to draftspace, as there are no reliable INDEPENDENT sources provided. CVs do not qualify as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A thorough survey of all of that user's new page creations (as well as their serial edits to particular biography articles) should be done with a jaundiced eye toward notability. I don't think every article is non-notable, but there is certainly quite a bit of dubious dreck all throughout. -- Veggies (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Ya, this person getting taken to ANI was an inevitability, their general demeanour is rather off-putting. Turktimex3 came to my attention via Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Cartoon_portraits, where many of the recent additions of low-quality, amateurish images that were adorning BLPs were added by them. I and several others removed images, they reverted, images were removed again by myself and others. A final warming by an admin seems to have sobered them up and the edit-warring ceased. I suggested, practically implored that they join the discussion at the WP:NOR board, but this was declined. I'm still not 100% clear on what this threat of retaliation was supposed to accomplish, but all in all this adds up to a Doesn't Play Well With Others" attitude. I haven't really followed Turktimex3's subsequent article creation super-closely, other than taking the occasional peek at the output to see if any cartoon caricatures were reappearing (none have, thankfully). Zaathras (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: My experience is that Turktimex3 brings a hostile attitude to many discussions, which is in breach of WP:5P4. There are several examples on their current Talk Page. Often this includes making unjustified WP:ASPERSIONS that others are vandalising the encyclopedia. Also, their behaviour also seemed unusual for an account which has only been editing continuously since September, but my question on their Talk Page was reverted by Turktimex3 without an answer. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked Turktimex3 for two weeks, for a variety of infractions that I have described on their user talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2023 (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:Nybygger reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Disruptive, promotional editing. Posted multiple votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCIV.NET; most recently put back an edit of theirs that was deleted! [132] [133] [134] [135] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:COIN yet? Lizthegrey (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Harassment by 73.24.189.66: Repeated User Talk posts after being explicitly asked to stop

Can someone please have a word with User:73.24.189.66? They have repeatedly placed messages on my User Talk page after I have explicitly asked them to stop, once in an edit summary and once in an explicit post on their User Talk page (with an explicit link to WP:USERTALKSTOP so they understand that this an acceptable practice). Another editor also warned them against this practice yet they have continued. This has gone beyond boisterous disagreement to harassment and it needs to stop. ElKevbo (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Posting on the User Talk page was directed by @ElKevbo himself for all edits related questions.I apologize if it constitutes harassment, as it's certainly not my intention. The objection to his Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia should be better channeled elsewhere. 73.24.189.66 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The passage in question and I apologize again that I didn't know how to report this:

== Conflict of Interests ==

Please stop spam editing the Wiki page of University of Delaware. It's a clear violation of conflict of interest, and you should know better.

This is an encyclopedia, not a personal webpage; we adhere to a neutral point of view. It is an important context for other editors to see, when they inevitably get directed here. Whether you are sabotaging other universities' reputation to boost your own employer, nobody can tell It's a terrible look on how University of Delaware operates regardless. 73.24.189.66 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If you really believe that a user is violating WP:COI then the place to report it is WP:COIN. But please look at the content of the edits first to see if they are really spam. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the reporting resource. I was directed by @ElKevbo himself to post on his Talk Page initially, as any one can see on his User Page.

The objection was to the aforementioned editor repeatedly deleting important information in other universities' Wikipedia articles despite multiple pleas for reasoning in the Talk page, while keeping the exact same information (NSF Research Funding & Ranking) on his own employer's page at University of Delaware. He claimed that he's unable to edit the page of University of Delaware but the evidence is contrary. While I do not believe it's his intention to sabotage peer institutions, his stubbornness in hiding such relevant information from the readers while highlighting it at his employer institution is damning. 73.24.189.66 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

According to your own link, ElKevbo has not edited the University of Delaware page at all in the last 9 months, and they have edited it just twice in the last 2 years, both times to make minor stylistic corrections. Can you explain how this is "spam editing" that required you to give them a COI warning today? CodeTalker (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The harassment is continuing here in this noticeboard ("his stubbornness in hiding such relevant information from the readers while highlighting it at his employer institution") and elsewhere. Please bring it to an end. ElKevbo (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The harassment continues as they have now explicitly removed critical information from my current employer's article and my undergraduate alma mater. This is clearly targeted harassment as they have only edited four articles and they're clearly making these specific edits to attempt to get a rise out of me. ElKevbo (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Iheartbrownbananas

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.

---

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

The new user Iheartbrownbananas has been making the same continuous disruptive edits since they created their account on February 4, 2023 even after being reverted almost every single time and with talk page warnings to stop. They continue to leave their edit summary blank after being shown how to use it and does not respond to any editor. If an admin could step in to either temporary block until they start responding or perm block if they don't stop. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

As most of us will be unfamiliar with this issue, could you share some diffs and explain why they're bad? --Golbez (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if you look at their contributions, almost all of them are reverted and they do alot of the same things like

• this edit on Dan Akryod - they rowspan in columns that are not allowed after being told repeatedly to stop. They change the standard notes from "Also writer and producer" >>> "Writer & producer" after being told it's not an improvement.
• this edit on Hugh Jackman - again with rowspans, and replacing "Also producer" with "And producer"
• this edit on Matthew McConaughey filmography takes out rowscopes and replaces with rowspans which has been told it's against MOS:DTAB.
• edits on Peter O'Toole lots of rowspans, changing the standard "Television film" to "TV movie"
• edits on Alan Rickman again removing rowscopes and adding rowspans.

Are these edits vicious? No, but any communication trying to correct this editor goes unanswered and with no change to their behavior. LADY LOTUS • TALK 22:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

there is this new edit on List of Brendan Fraser performances that I reverted. They immediately undid my revert which I followed up with another explanation of why it was reverted again. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of what should be done about the named user, I suspect that Special:contributions/2600:1700:4488:80:0:0:0:0/64 is the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• I've indeffed the named user and blocked their IP range for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2023 (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.

Tbf69 mass merging Userboxen and other issues

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.

---

Tbf69 (talk · contribs) (a relatively new and inexperienced editor) seems to have created his own pseudo-guideline at WP:MERGEUBX and then just started going ham. A ton of userboxen, even ones that are in other peoples' userspaces, are being blanked and redirected with no discussion. In other situations, he's just changing the appearances of other people's boxes such as here, after he's already been told not to do. One of his changes to Template:User male, transcluded on 2300 pages, was reverted and the user was told to seek consensus before making edits to commonly used templates here, but then he went ahead and reinstated his own change. He's also tried starting many RfCs about policy issues he fails to understand, such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (conflicts and protests). User talkpage is full of people asking him to slow down and discuss things before jumping in to areas he doesn't understand. He seems either unable or unwilling to do so, but either way it needs to be stopped and cleaned up.

I've tried undoing some of his edits, starting with the merging of the "male" templates, but there are a lot more to sort out and it's getting very late for me so help would be appreciated. I haven't issued a block yet with the hope that he'll pause and discuss here, but if he resumes then I have no objections to anyone else doing so. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Possibly a good start would be to take that pseudo-guideline to MfD; it'd be a good jumping-off point to getting it into this fellow's head how thoroughly obnoxious blanking and redirecting other editors' userboxes is. Ravenswing 08:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to try and defend my position:

• I don't see any guidance or policies which state that performing a WP:BLAR on userboxes isn't allowed. I understand that it's controversial, so I've limited it to duplicates. WP:MUBX isn't a guideline, and the tag at the top clearly states it hasn't been "thoroughly vetted...".
• User talk:Tbf69/Archive 2#Template change was about the documentation, which I reinstated on the userbox template, see Special:Diff/1144117121.
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (conflicts and protests) is an RfC on creating a policy which I see as already being policy de facto on Wikipedia.
• I've started 4 RfCs in total. The other 3 did see some level of clear support from other editors (see: 1, 2, 3), so they can't all be ridiculous ideas.
• I was criticized over making bold moves to pages, and told to slow down at my user talk page. I then took that advice, and learnt how to use RM, successfully proposing a move at Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present).

- Tbf69 🛈 🗩 09:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You should leave other people's userspace alone. What you did there is at best rude. —Kusma (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:USERTALKSTOP specifically says "In general, one should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages". This specifically refers to other editors user pages and user talk pages, not subpages which are userbox templates. - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 09:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

But those subpages/userbox are in the userspace, no? – robertsky (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This kind of wikilawyering response just reinforces that HJ Mitchell's block was a sound one. Ravenswing 17:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've indef'd Tbf69. Their talk page history and this thread show a clear consensus that their edits are disruptive and yet they appear determined to carry on regardless. I feel this is a case of competence is required. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Good block. It's an injustice to Tbf69 but letting him carry on would be a greater injustice to the Wikipedians his well-intentioned but bloody idiotic decisions were affecting. Remove the time sinks.—S Marshall T/C 10:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, blocking is meant to protect the encyclopedia from disruption, not to mete out justice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  So, where we are now is that the user has asked to be unblocked, saying he now understands that disrupting userboxes was inappropriate. It's good that he sees that, but if it was just the userboxes, HJ Mitchell would not have blocked and I doubt if other admins would have either. The problem is this pattern of doing things that use up extraordinary amounts of other editors' time. Volunteer time is Wikipedia's only limiting resource, so what that means is that this editor is amazingly expensive.

  Tbf69 has started four (4) RfCs, and RfC is likely our most time-consuming community processes. Three of those RfCs were obvious snow fails. And then he's started very unwisely screwing around with templates. Tbf69 is clearly learning, but he's learning by breaking stuff. We can tolerate that in editors who're focused on content because reverting them is easy. We can't tolerate that in editors who're focused on policy or templates or other back-end areas. Any unblock must come with a condition restricting this editor to editing mainspace articles and their talk pages only. No community processes such as AfD, no templates, no files, no RfCs, nothing else at all.—S Marshall T/C 13:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Seems like a good idea. —Alalch E. 17:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Good block I'm astounded by the wkilawyering over something as unconstructive and as inappropriate and as wasteful of time an energy as mucking about with userboxes. One does not need a rule to prohibit every possible unconstructive and inappropriate and wasteful of time an energy act. A simple, "please don't do that" should have been sufficient at best. (now I gotta go check mine)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Good block. Good grief! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Seems like a solution in search of a problem, like, whether or not there's duplicate userboxes out there is not at all a big deal. Let people decorate as they like. I'd say though IF this user sincerely pledges to fully drop the subject matter and never touching anything like it again, an unblock could happen. Zaathras (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  I find it hard to believe that the user is intentionally being disruptive, so while this is a good block, I do also agree that an unblock (possibly with restrictions) would be the right choice if the user does make such a pledge. – Popo Dameron talk 16:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, I just saw [136] and [137] coming a few hours after this warning [138], and I'm now finding it a bit harder to continue to assume good faith. – Popo Dameron talk 17:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's hard for them to accept that they are indefinitely blocked. They behave like it has been some mistake that will soon be remedied, and in the meantime they'll keep demonstrating how useful they are by soliciting proxying. Seen it a million times. Not indicative of bad faith. The editor just doesn't fully understand the situation. Being indeffed can be hard to absorb, and people need some time for their thoughts and feelings to settle; it can take months. —Alalch E. 17:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've removed talk page access following the continued attempts to use their talk page to canvass and circumvent their block. I've also declined the second (!) unblock request posted today as inadequately addressing the concerns raised here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's a shame, but it was good call. Their talk page comments were yet further evidence that they don't understand why their actions were disruptive (even if they didn't intend them to be) and therefore that the block (IMO) is serving a necessary preventative purpose. I'd suggest a UTRS appeal after a period of self-reflection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Having first encountered Tbf69's self-evident inability to take note of other people's legitimate concerns, in relation to the Prime (drink) article, where Tbf69 seemed to think that unilaterally moving the article [139] in the middle of discussions about notability and sourcing, while justifying the move by making entirely unsupported assertions about the subject matter, I am entirely unsurprised about the block. This isn't an issue with userboxes, it is all-round cluelessness and stubbornness, as can readily be seen from their talk page. An indef per WP:CIR seemed only a matter of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Above noted. Not knowing what one is doing can be harder than flat out vandalism to deal with. The vandal knows they were making unacceptable edits. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking of which, UTRS appeal #70651 (deeper sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2023 (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.

Anticommunist POV-pushing on Finnish Civil War topics

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.

---

Vapsussota1918 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is engaged in disruptively labelling the Red Guards as traitors and terrorists and manipulating numbers without sources. They've also made one BLP violation. No diffs because it would just duplicate their contributions list. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 11:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I was just thinking about taking this here based on their earlier edits to Finnish Civil War (1, 2, 3), a talk page filled with warnings, and lack of any engagement with said warning. I'll just note that name is a misspelling of "vapaussota", a (relatively archaic) Finnish language name for the 1918 Finnish Civil War, which the Red Guard were one side of. The way I see this, even the most charitable read of the situation is that the user is a single-purpose account with a competence issue. Ljleppan (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Noting that the BLP-violations have continued since this thread was started: Special:Diff/1144211694. Ljleppan (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2023 (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.

Jewish categories sprayed over too many bios

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.

---

• 46.116.69.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

An Israeli IP editor has been adding Jewish categories to a wide range of biographies including many with scant connection to Judaism. I reverted this editor several times[140][141][142] but they are still going at it. The editor says that having any Jewish ancestor means the person is Jewish.[143]

The word "Jewish" can mean any or all of three things: Jewish blood line, Jewish cultural belonging, and Jewish religious belief. To me it looks like Wikipedia's stance is that only those who embrace Jewish culture or religion should be categorized as Jewish. Those who acknowledge their Jewish bloodline but nothing more would be categorized as having "Jewish descent". Our Israeli friend is using a larger definition. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

See: Jew-tagging. Curbon7 (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

As the author of that piece says, "Jew-tagging" can be done by anti-semites or by people who wish to boost the profile of Jews. Wikipedia should join in with neither. If I thought that more than a negligible number of readers even look at categories I would get worked up about this. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

IMO its just the wikipedia version of "Naming the Jew" (the idea that every unique mention of a Jewish person must also include a mention of their Jewishness... E.g. "The rapper Drake, who is Jewish, just bought two Bugattis for his pet parrot") which is a prime pastime of both anti-semites and Jewish mothers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That article raises some good points. I've noticed that there seems to be an obsession with ethnic background by some editors, and I also have noticed that ethnic background is sometimes not sufficiently established for categorization. Coretheapple (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

an obsession with ethnic background by some editors Indeed. An endemic issue on Wikipedia. Trying to deal with it is a monumental time sink. The only real solution would be to eliminate such categorisation entirely per WP:WIKIPEDIAISNOTANETHNORELIGIOUSDATABASEGOSTARTYOUROWNSOMEWHEREELSE, though I can't see the community going with that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Probably not an issue if the IP had consistently selected their targets correctly. But a number of them information about their religion like "their mother was Jewish" (Joe Nussbaum, Andrew Bujalski), "born to a Jewish family" (David Frankel), "secular Jew" (Jesse Moss), "family was Jewish" (Claudia Weill), and so on. That's not really good enough for BLPs. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the point.

Perhaps we should split the plain "Jewish" and "Jews" categories into three segments to separate ethnic heritage, cultural belonging, and religious practice. That would be a lot of work. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Give the obsessives more things to argue endlessly over? What could possibly go wrong... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I fear WP:WikiProject Subcategorizing Jews may be misinterpreted. Levivich (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem highlighted in the Kosner article is that religion is noted inconsistently. I've sometimes seen ethnicity mentioned at the very top of articles. "John Doe is a Jewish-American attorney..." Coretheapple (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm personally horrified that Wikipedia has these types of cats and lists. Cats about nationality are objective, cats about ethnicity / religion are subjective / transitory. As far as suggestions for breaking cats down further, I suggest using an astrology sign.  // Timothy :: talk  20:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Cats about nationality are not always objective, and are hotly disputed for some subjects. All identity cats are. Levivich (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is an LTA sock, which I've now CU blocked. I can't name the master, but all of the edits can be reverted per WP:BANREVERT.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me it isn't User:Bus stop... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2023 (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.

Racist WP:PA

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.

---

"you fucking retarded shitskin gypsy serb" directed at another user. --Griboski (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. For now. It can be reduced or extended without consulting me. By the way Griboski you should have mentioned this section to them. Done it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the context of their user page? It's coming up as Albanian for "hang me karin". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

No idea about that. Sorry, forgot to notify them. My feeling is indef is proper here but of course it's up to the admins, because the shitskin is a reference to dark skin and the Gypsy = Serb thing is Nazi racial theory stuff. They don't appear to edit much but clearly not here to build an encyclopedia anyway.--Griboski (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

+1. Racist PAs should = indef every time. It's not like when someone presses the undo button too many times. Levivich (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather it appears to mean "suck my ..." (http s://forrestgump.wordpress.com/2007/08/25/swear-in-albanian/). Karin definitely corresponds to the last word in the phrase. —Alalch E. 17:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the interpretations. I have extended the block to indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

And deleted the user page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the quick mop work. Levivich (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2023 (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.

Hateful sniping from Texas IPs

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.

---

• 2600:6C56:6408:71:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The Texas IP range Special:Contributions/2600:6C56:6408:71:0:0:0:0/64 has never been blocked, but the person has an edit history showing about 90% disruption. The person has made hateful comments about biography subjects such as "Obviously a jew nose", "his small penis", and "what a piece of shit". I don't think they are worth the trouble. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Range block. /64. 1 week. Any admins should feel free to unblock or modify as they wish. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Increased to a year - the hateful misogynistic and anti-Semitic sniping has been going on since 2021. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2023 (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:Matiullah Jan is WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Matiullah Jan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly just here to promote their blog. They continue to submit drafts that are copyright violations taken from their blog postings; namely Draft:Matiullah Jan, Draft:Research process steps, Draft:Tricks to reduce world count in research or How to reduce world count in research, Draft:SELECTING A RESEARCH TOPIC: HOW TO CHOOSE A RESEARCH TOPIC:, Draft:Tricks to reduce world count in research. Their talk page is full of notices and warnings which they've ignored. Bennv123 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The user in question has now been blocked indefinitely by Cullen328. AP 499D25 (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2023 (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 making major changes to rail articles without discussion

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

User:Micga has a history of making disruptive moves without discussion, and was blocked in May 2021 for it. They have since accumulated numerous warnings about copying without attribution and further undiscussed moves. Today, they made massive changes and moves to Rail transport operations, Railway infrastructure manager (almost entirely unsourced), and now they're making changes to Rail transport company, no edit summaries for any of this. I left them a talk page message asking them to stop doing this and communicate with others, but they're actively editing now without responding. As they apparently have no interest in editing collaboratively, I believe this needs administrator attention and action. If this was the first time they'd done this, I wouldn't go to ANI, but there's clearly a persistent pattern in this user's actions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Some editors don't always check their talk messages regularly, so I'm willing to grant some leeway on the continued edits after the 14:53 notification, but if they don't come around soon, a block may be necessary to get them to come to the table and to prevent further disruption. Depending on their response, and other issues raised, some sort of topic ban may be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Nothing disruptive about the edits, they were for clarification. I moved from rail transport operations its contents related to infrastructure to railway infrastructure manager, while the remaining contents related to service and rolling stock were renamed under railway undertaking. Rail transport company is in turn the umbrella article describing differences between the two, as well as outlining regional variations in their organizations (split vs combined).Micga (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, took a quick look at your edits today, and:

• This edit to Basel Badischer Bahnhof changes "located on Swiss territory" to "part of Swiss territory", but I think the rest of the text makes the point that it's not part of Swiss territory. I'm not sure which is correct because nothing is sourced in that section.
• There are more unsourced changes to that article, like one, two, three. Can't tell if these are good edits or not, I don't know enough about the subject.
• It's not just trains, though. I saw Anti-Russian sentiment among the contribs from today; that's a topic I know a little about, and I'm finding more serious problems there:
  • Maybe OR and non-NPOV addition of "In contrast to countries such as Germany" (in a huge unsourced passage)... is there a source that points out this contrast between Russia and Germany?
  • Adds the unsourced text: "The first one of these views has ultimately been completely discredited in a humiliating manner after 2014..." Also adds to that text the phrases "precisely specified" and "it was inherently flawed". Without citing a source, I question whether that's OR/non-NPOV
  • Adding Belarus and Poland to text about Generalplan Ost in an article about Russia. Why call out Belarus and Poland? Ost was about more countries than just Russia, it was also about many more countries than just Russia, Belarus, and Poland... but it's an article about Russia, so why mention any other countries, and if we do mention other countries, why specifically those two but not the other countries? You also added the text "in these countries", but it wasn't just those countries.
  • In this edit, changing Untermensch's translation from "subhuman" to "inferior human" is a mistake; the term is almost always translated as "subhuman" because it means not human, and that's a key part of Nazi propaganda: they didn't think Jews, etc. were inferior humans, they thought they weren't humans at all. In the same edit, I don't understand the addition of "foreseen", or the removal of "pre-existing anti-Russian sentiment within the German population", which seem to contradict the sources cited therein, unless I'm misreading it
• No edit summaries makes it hard to understand these edits

I suspect in some cases, you are copyediting articles without reading the sources? Please don't do that, you will end up unwittingly misrepresenting sources. In other cases, it seems you're adding unsourced text, which shouldn't be done, either. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

On the subject of Belarus and Poland - the original text implied that the Generalplan Ost dealt only with Russia, which is false.Micga (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

If (before version) In Nazi Generalplan Ost, Russia was designated... is false because it implies Ost dealt only with Russian, then (after your edit) In Nazi Generalplan Ost, Russia, Belarus and Poland were designated... is also false because it implies Ost dealt only with Russia, Belarus, and Poland. Levivich (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Added the missing refs to the citations from Anti-Russian sentiment mentioned above.Micga (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The cited edit on the Basel Badischer Bahnhof was an intermediate one among many “in making”, the final text is quite unambiguous. But sticking to the subject, what’s the problem with the rail articles? Micga (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the combined diff for Basel Badischer Bahnhof. "Unambiguous" isn't the problem. Why are there no sources for these changes? Or are there? Levivich (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

On the rail articles specifically, you made major moves which changed the entire meaning of articles without any explanation, moved massive swaths of text around, much of it unsourced, and refused to use edit summaries to explain your changes at all. Had you actually explained what it is you were doing, we might not be at ANI right now. You also persistently violate our rules on copying without attribution. ANI is not limited to whatever concerns are brought up by the first comment in a thread; both your and my behavior is fair game for discussion here. I hadn't fully examined your other edits; I came here because the rail articles you made major changes to were on my watchlist. I was just going to stick to a talk page message until I saw the history of multiple warnings and a block, which raises this to firmly within ANI territory. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Popping in to say that I noticed this discussion because I still had Micga's Talk page on my watchlist from when I wrote this: [144]. Looking at their recent contributions, they seem to have taken this one to heart, which is good, but they're still doing something similar, that is, making large numbers of small edits to a single article, burying a much more substantial edit in the middle. Combined with the lack of edit summaries, this makes it quite difficult for editors watching articles to notice that larger edits have occurred. As an example, here's an unsourced edit that was dropped in the middle of 20 different edits done over the space of an hour and a half to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe: [145]. Depending on other editors' watchlist settings, they'll either have their watchlists blown up by all these edits, or just see this presumably unobjectionable one: [146]. I don't mean to allege bad faith or to say that making multiple edits to an article is inherently disruptive. But in the context of this ANI discussion it seemed worth pointing out. -- asilvering (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Like Special:Diff/1141799904, specifying Luhansk and parts of Donetsk and Kharkiv as being outside the Pale of Settlement. Levivich (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Micga you are copying without attribution, which is a real problem besides the others raised by Levivich, and aren't recognizing the problems with your edits. Unless something changes, I'll be supporting sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Where?Micga (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of unexplained content removals and addition of claims not supported by the added references in Talk:NATO–Russia_relations#Section_ordering_and_repetitive_content in the past. The edit comments weren't communicating the scope of the changes made, similarly to the asilvering's example above, and Micga didn't respond despite being pinged. The comment in the edit that removed a half of a section was outright misleading, leaving an impression that content was added rather than removed in the edit.

The content added by Micga to Anti-Russian_sentiment#Russophobia_vs._other_types recently is a largely unreferenced essay. (Most of the references are from the lead that has been removed by Micga; none appear to directly support the 'types of Russophobia' discussion.)

The identical issues with Micga's edits in a different topic area were discussed at ANI previously. --PaulT2022 (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Micga did not address the concerns here and has simply continued with the same kind of editing. In post-Soviet states now they made unsourced changes and moved around text without explanation,[147] which I reverted, then they restored the changes adding a couple refs in an edit[148] which do not fully support the changes and then proceeded to make a bunch of changes, again without using the edit summary, which are unsupported and hard to follow. Where is "Pax Russica" in this edit mentioned in the sources? I could not find this. If there is a history of this kind of editing, then action should be taken here, because it is clear this kind of editing will just continue. The edits on anti-Russian sentiment look particularly problematic. I am counting 127 edits on that article since 24 February, with major changes without any discussion and the edit summary used only for one of those edits. How is someone supposed to follow these changes? It is not possible and so probably no one will bother to check. Mellk (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I am one of the participants from the previous ANI discussion in November 2022. It seems like this is an on-going issue with Micga. Following the last ANI, admins neglected to take any action and surprise surprise here we are yet again. It seems that Micga's generally non-constructive editing tactics have and will continue indefinitely unless admins impose some sort of sanction. If this happened for the first time, I'd call for WP:GF leniency, however, based on Micga's talk page history, past ANI and block, this user has had several warnings from countless editors. We are way past the point to call this a "GF error". Micga has had ample opportunity to improve their editing methods within this time period. In most cases, Micga continues to make dozens and dozens of rapid edits without providing any edit summaries and often without any WP:RS. Even during this discussion, the user continues to edit, in my opinion, recklessly without any explanation and without sources. Myself and Subtropical-man, among others had expressed concern about this exact situation in the last ANI. Seeing as how this seems to be an on-going issue, I too support sanctions. Otherwise, I fear we will be here again in a few months. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

After I made this comment I see that Micga made almost 40 edits to Russian world, not one of them using the edit summary, which again involve making unsupported changes. In this edit they re-use the same refs as before (as in [149]) to write different statements unsupported by the sources (which looks like WP:FICTREFS). I see that Johnuniq pinged Micga here asking for a response but they decided to continue with those edits instead despite the concerns raised. Mellk (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to take action at the moment but someone else may like to. I left a final message at User talk:Micga#Warning. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Except for the initial edits which affect the substance, albeit being supported by the necessary references, the majority of these 40 edits are related to language polishing. I often read multiple times the inserted passages as well as admit to having, as a non-native English speaker, endless doubts whether I used the proper sequence of the syntax. However, I still have no clue in regard to allegations of copying without attribution. Micga (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Where in the sources is the denial of the Belarusians, Ukrainians and Rusyns as nations or the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Rusyn languages, reducing them merely to dialects of Russian language mentioned or even anything about this doctrine? I do not see anything about dialects or even languages. All I see is you used the same sources for the statement about the "near abroad" from post-Soviet states and used them for completely different statements in a different article. Including using previously cited sources from the post-Soviet states article including ones from 2001 and 1994. Mellk (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Also none of the sources you cited mention autocephaly[150], so it looks like WP:FICTREFS. Mellk (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk: I can see that Micga's reply above does not engage with the details and does not address my comment below at 02:24, 5 March 2023. However, if I'm going to indefinitely block Micga, it would be better to make a water-tight case first. Please focus on edits made after Micga's reply above (after 10:19, 5 March 2023 UTC) and reply here if you believe any make a claim that is not supported by the reference (preferably something that I can check). I'm looking for one clear and recent example that I can ask Micga about. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to beat on a dead horse, but he's still editing everywhere without edit summaries, without sourcing his contributions, and making several tiny edits with a bigger one in between. Ostalgia (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I also observe that no one has, at any point during this or the previous ANI incident, mentioned anything positive about Micga's edits. Regarding the ones since the last warning, I don't edit in this area so I can't immediately recognize if any of these edits [151] are howlers, but they are certainly unattributed changes. These others [152] include some changes to the wording that don't seem likely to be controversial, but the edits to that first paragraph appear to change the meaning, and I can't check that URL to see if they agree with the source - it just times out. -- asilvering (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Micga: Whether or not your edits are helpful is hard for outsiders to quickly assess. What we can see however is that several established editors say that there are problems. What is your response to that situation? Is there a discussion somewhere showing that some agree with your approach? For those reporting here, I recommend that a wikiproject be involved with a discussion focusing on a small set of related articles. Do not make an editor the subject of the discussion—at a wikiproject, the subject should be whether a particular set of edits was helpful. Having a wikiproject involved would give someone like me more confidence regarding what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the editor continues to edit without responding to your very reasonable questions, Johnuniq. Its clear that "several established editors" have expressed concern with the users editing both here and in the last ANI (at least eight editors here alone, among others from the previous ANI and from the users talk page). So what now? Archives908 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Micga (talk · contribs) has been editing for 18 years with one short block in May 2021. They contribute frequently here and at the Polish Wikipedia. I can't indefinitely block Micga due to unclear concerns. Is it because they are not adequately engaging in discussions about their edits? Where is a recent example? Is it because they make several minor edits to an article with one large one in the middle with significant changes of meaning? Is there a recent example of a change of meaning that the sources or Micga have not justified? As mentioned above, I'm looking for one clear and recent example of a claim that is not supported by the reference that I can ask Micga about. Please only reply here if you have links showing recent issues. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I've recently asked Micga to provide a single source that would directly support the claims that a section Micga wrote (initially, almost without references) makes.

Instead, Micga added five references for a single fairly short sentence. All referenced sources are of considerable size. There are no page numbers or quotes to indicate where either of the sources may support Micga's edits and it's unclear why such a short sentence might require five references in the first place. None of the sources has a long list of events, which, as the sentence referenced to them claims, haven't been subjected to any serious public debate attempts in Russia and historiography taught in Russian schools continues either to omit these events entirely or to tell them in a version entirely invented PaulT2022 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is -- and this is a structural problem that, um, may have been mentioned before -- edits like the ones asilvering points to above (Combined 1, Combined 2) are an absolute nightmare to review. There is so much content changing there -- with no change in sources that I can determine -- that I can't figure out at all whether that's correcting the content, expanding the content, or distorting the content, and it would hours to run that content down against the sources and verify it.

Here's another way of looking at it: Compare Pale of Settlement on February 25 with Pale of Settlement on March 9, after Micga's edits. Just look at the first paragraph. These are not improvements in my view, and that's without even figuring out if it's verified, nevermind npov.

So to answer John's request for a recent unsourced diff... well, if you look at the "1805–1835" sections of the Feb 25 and Mar 9 versions, "Lithuanian governorates" was removed, and "Southwestern Krai" was changed to "Northwestern Krai without rural areas". Without edit summaries, I do not know which of the many edits between those dates made those changes, and I don't see any inline citations in the before or after to help make verification easy. So I have no idea if those are correct edits or not. Levivich (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Lithuanian governorates formed together the Northwestern Krai, while the General Government of Kiev was otherwise known as the Southwestern Krai. I just rectified the nomenclature and removed redundancies, but the substance was left unchanged. Micga (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Levivch's and PaulT2022's analysis. During this ANI discussion, Micga has made roughly 40 edits on Post-Soviet states. Not a single edit summary has been provided. Text has been added, removed, and altered without any rationale. Therefore making it extremely difficult to decipher if these are improvements or not- especially the text added with no WP:RS. These are the exact concerns which were raised in the last ANI. Micga had conducted a massive overhaul of European integration. Hundreds of rapid edits were made, with zero explanation, and no sources. It was a logistical nightmare to keep track of. Since then, the user has not shown much attempt to improve their editing methods or address these concerns. It is problematic and contrary to Wiki ethos. Regardless if the user has been editing for 1 year, 5 years, or 18 years is not a valid excuse to ignore the concerns raised by countless editors. Archives908 (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, and this is in my view a clear case of WP:IDHT. The solution is an indef, which can be lifted if Micga agrees to address concerns of other editors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone interested in taking this further may like to see more thoughts here. For context, that followed these comments. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Full context, as it includes three talk pages:

1. I asked Micga about original research in the section they wrote on Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#Russophobia_types. No response at all initially, Micga replied after being notified by Johnuniq.
2. Johnuniq and I told Micga that their reply doesn't address sourcing concerns sufficiently.
3. Micga didn't respond. Continued to edit with the same liberal approach to referencing.

Johnuniq suggested that I should keep writing to Micga to "fully test" lack of engagement. I don't feel comfortable to do so as Micga is already aware about sourcing concerns and limitations of their response. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I’ve just delivered in Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment#Russophobia_types an extended, detailed set of citations.Micga (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• As this thread does not seem to have disabused Micga of the notion that they can carry on regardless but there doesn't seem to be an appetite for an indefinite full block, I have indefinitely partial blocked them from the mainspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Ola Tønningsberg

I informed this editor on their talk page about WP:GS/RUSUKR, which means any editor who is not extended-confirmed cannot make edits to articles with content related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. This editor is autoconfirmed only. A few days ago they made the article Draft:Chechen volunteers on the side of Ukraine which was then moved to draftspace. For whatever reason they made a duplicate article Chechen volunteers on the side of Ukraine afterwards. They also made other edits in this area. I gave them one more warning about the GS on their talk page and their next edit was on that article. Mellk (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Severe LTA / block evasion and vandalism from an IP editor in Philippines

Hi all, I just wanted to bring to administrators' attention, some severe block-evasion and "abuse filter test" vandalism that has been going on lately from a certain IP editor.

Here are four articles that were recently targeted by the LTA editor:

• KOCE-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Luke fon Fabre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KLCS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Luke fon Fabre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Here are some of the recent IP addresses/ranges that were involved:

• 49.144.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:4450:81DE:500:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:4450:81A8:8200:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP range from last month:

• 112.206.112.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think there's much that I need to explain here, just looking at the edit history of the articles and contributors pretty much says it all. They only make two or three certain kinds of edits, making the pattern very obvious. One thing I will add is that this vandalism has been going on for several years now and I believe this may be some sort of long-term abuser. I am making this report as a place for further investigations and action. AP 499D25 (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Poorly sourced edits by IPs

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

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

These IPs have been editing articles on Soviet/Russian tanks since a couple months, but their sourcing habits are very poor to say the least. In the recent days, they have started replacing sourced content with their own original research [153][154][155][156], or just adding new unsourced stuff [157][158]. After several warnings on talk page, they have started sourcing their edits, but it is done in a very shoddy manner. I think it is fair to say that they are trying to find sources that somewhat support their edits, instead of adding information that they find in the sources.[159][160][161] Still, they keep adding some unsourced stuff and other fantasy designations.[162][163]

Basically, their edits are disruptive, because they are still intent on adding stuff they think is true, instead of content supported by reliable sources. Several warnings haven't made them change; their disruptive editing is just subtler. BilletsMauves^€500 10:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Hawkers994

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.

---

• Hawkers994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user edit only biased claims without providing sources in the articles about Horn of Africa. As can be seen from this user's contriburions, they is a user whose sole purpose is to make edits in favor of Somaliland, not to add information, but to delete information they does not like, and to participate only in rewriting Somalia as Somaliland.

Hawkers994's editing keeps the sources he likes (reliefweb.int/report/somalia/catching-human-rights-needs-sool-and-sanaag-after-four-years) and deletes the ones he doesn't like(reliefweb.int/report/somalia/detailed-site-assessment-dsa-sool-region-somalia-march-2022). (Both of these sources are what I sought out.) These are information from the reliefweb.int and should have the same reliability. I have explained this to Hawkers994 in Talk:Sool but they is not convinced.

In Talk:Sool, Hawkers994 claims that Sool is Somaliland because it is effectively controlled by Somaliland; but about Badhan, Sanaag, they claims that since Badhan is not in the Sool, that principle does not apply. In short, in Hawkers994's mind, the conclusion that "xxx is Somaliland's territory" comes first, and they edits the article with his assertions and brings up rules that suit them. I explained this to them in Talk:Sool as well.

Editing without sources for a particular point of view is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. Note that knowledge of Somaliland and Somalia is not required to consider this issue. The only issue is whether their are consistent with WP:VERIFY and WP:POV. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

With previous consensus[164] already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources [165] infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. WP:POV states opinions are not facts. Hawkers994 (talk)

That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages [166] [167] and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against WP:POV As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.Hawkers994 (talk)

As you can see from the Yagori revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. Tuulo Samakaab is a Sool's town near the Yagori, but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on Edna Adan Ismail and Laas Geel to the Japanese Wikipedia as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV.

The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At Sool, this user writes "Disruptive editing, use article talk page for disagreement", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit.

This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in Buraan, the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "Corrected info." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Wikipedia.

Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two reliefweb.info sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own [168] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [169] somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.

The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition by Hawkers994 on January 12, 2023:

On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. [170]

As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows:

Somaliland's Minister of Interior Mohamed Kahin Ahmed sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.

I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Wikipedia? Freetrashbox (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that WP:POV is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region [171] with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Are you satisfied as to why I rewrote your description about the topic in January 2023? Or do you still think my rewrite is unfair?Freetrashbox (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Since the explanation has become lengthy and there are items added along the way, I will summarize them once and for all.

• This user deleted the same reliefweb.info information, leaving only what he liked.[172] - WP:POV violation.
• This user had a different editorial attitude between Sool, and Badhan, Sanaag & Buraan. - WP:POV violation.
• This user says "use article talk page for disagreement" in Sool, but when the argument goes against him, he unilaterally ignores the argument and continues to edit. [173] - WP:NEGOTIATE violation.
• Almost copy-paste post from a news site. [174] - WP:COPYVIO.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned before user Freetrashbox ignores the sources in the mentioned article pages [175] and even deleting wording of sources that i have added in these articles [176] numerous times the sources make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet his disruptive editing ignores this and reverts all sources and edits to his opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if you feel that there was a problem with my edit, it is no reason for you to violate Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This user's problematic behavior is still ongoing. This user replaced Somalia with Somaliland in El Afweyn. I also believe that El Afweyn is Somaliland territory, so I have no problem with that edit itself. However, the references cited at the beginning of this article all clearly state that El Afweyn is Somalia's area. If this is to be rewritten as Somaliland, it is common sense to at least provide a source that El Afweyn belongs to Somaliland. - WP:CS violation.

This user got into an editing war with another user, and when another user committed a 3RR violation, he reverted it. The 3RR is a problematic action, but it is usually also a problematic action when the discussant reevrts it. And this Revert is also 3RR. - WP:3RR violation.

In addition, this user writed a 3RR violation warning on the talk page of the user who first committed the 3RR violation. For the first user who violated the 3RR, it would be difficult to understand why it is allowed and not allowed for his own actions, even though his discussion partner also violated the 3RR. - WP:BITE violation.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox has completely ignored all the sources in these articles and only goes by his opnions, his disruptive editing and completing ignoring WP:POV stating his opinions as facts. As the source clearly stated the town is in Somaliland [177] he deleted it and wrote somalia which has no presence in this while regionn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994:The sources you indicated mention Yiroowe, but we have not discussed this town in the past. What does this source mean? Freetrashbox (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: You don't seem to have responded, can I assume that you agree with my comments above? Freetrashbox (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [178] and previous discussions which you have ignored [179] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[180]

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [181] and previous discussions which you have ignored [182] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[183]

you have ignored all sources and have chosen to only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in these regions [184] and previous discussions which you have ignored [185] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[186] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: Does your comment above mean that you do not intend to discuss this further? Freetrashbox (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

ignoring sources and stating your personal opinions after several discussions you have chosen not to discuss but to enforce your own viewsHawkers994 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hawkers994, stop using WP:VANDALISM as an edit summary unless it's actual vandalism. As you can see from the link it has specific meaning here and the most recent two in your edit history, do not appear to meet it. Better to assume good faith when reverting and explain why. Slywriter (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter that user in multiple times removes information with no edit summary or for no other reason or discussion [187] [188] [189]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

This user has removed the additions with sources by unrelated editors. I can understand his sentiment in deleting my description, but he should not delete the edits of an unrelated person. This implies that he is editing without much content review. Freetrashbox (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox has once again after many explanations and discussions keeps adding somalia with has no presence or authority in these regions in the info boxes [190] [191] [192] even though there is a specific dispute article which highlights this [193] he needs to understand that his opinions are not factsHawkers994 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: It would be more constructive to refute my explanation above. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This user is saying as if he is writing an article based on "presence (of country)", but I find it hard to believe. For example, the town of Bo'ame, which he mentions immediately above, is the town that Somaliland acquired in 2022, as noted in the current article. By his logic, that would mean that prior to 2022, it was not Somaliland. However, this user rewrote the town's country of ownership from Somalia to Somaliland prior to 2022.[194] In other words, he does not believe that "the country that occupies a town is the owner of that town." In his mind, he had concluded earlier that this town is a Somaliland territory, and he is just bringing logic to it. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

numerous times the sources on the article pages make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing ignores this and you reverts all sources and edit according to your opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: The article Bo'ame had 3,442 bytes in July 2021 before I started posting.[195] All that was written was the location with neighboring districts and the economic relationship with neighboring cities where there were no sources of information. I have added over 9000 bytes to this article. When we read the current article, we will see how this small town has dealt with its larger counterparts in Somaliland and Puntland. In short, I wrote most of this article. I am also the one who searched for sources of information. What exactly are you trying to say to me that I am ignoring the source? In contrast, what contribution have you made to the article in this town? You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland. You are just replacing the word Somalia with Somaliland. That Somaliland is a superior country is evidenced by the fact that the Puntland and Federal Republic of Somalia governments have adopted the system conceived by the country's leaders. If you want to tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland, I think you should tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland as it is in your articles, instead of doing nonsense like replacing one word with another. If you are not capable of doing so, then you should not be adding to Wikipedia. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your false claim that I have not added any articles to Wikipedia is untrue, [196] and many other contributions you chose to ignore in your emotional rant were created by myself, similar to how you choose to ignore the sources on article pages. As for the boame article the sources [197] [198] show that it’s under Somaliland government control and cannot be ignored and that info boxes should show that. As explained before there is already a dispute article which highlights this [199] which are linked to these articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

Comment Both users, Hawkers994 and Freetrashbox seem to be locked in de facto edit wars on pages I have reviewed. Even if they do appear to avoid 3RR. In general, the wall of text and back-and-forth arguing makes this difficult to follow. Hawkers994 is editing in a strongly partisan fashion on pages like Bo'ame as an example. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your third edit? You should comment with your main account. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks CambridgeBayWeather, this is my main account however. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly not. You don't get to pretend to be new and file an ANI complaint with your third edit. Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell This is not respectful to IP editors who want to make an account. Why would IP editors want to register an account if they could not use their new account just like people with Wikipedia accounts who have been here the same amount of time as them? Maine 🦞 16:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather @HJ Mitchell Yes, this discussion went on for a long time. But I don't think that user user:You see the wet pores in his skin slough started this ANI as HJ Mitchell said; they just commented here. Were they blocked for that, or was it for abusing multiple accounts (in spite of their denial)? I could be wrong. David10244 (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither HJ Mitchell or I suggested that they opened the section. What I said was that their third ever post to Wikipedia was to this section on ANI. I found that, combined with their second edit, rather suspicious. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Okay, perhaps it was an exaggeration to say that you did not contribute at all in the Somaliland article. However, I checked your entire contribution history and found that, with the exception of the revert, you added more than 1,000 bytes only to the first edition of the 2,366 bytes article you listed immediately above. No doubt you have contributed little to Wikipedia. Also, as you can see from my explanation above, I am not talking about whether Bo'ame is in Somalia or Somaliland. Are you trying to deflect the conversation? I'm just asking you to write without arbitrarily choosing the sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Once again you’re trying to change to the subject when i have debunked your lies, info boxes on these mentioned articles will relate to the sources [200] and changing the subject to a users contributions will not change the fact that these articles have previously been edited and also changed by many other previous uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: If you are saying that I told lies, please show the edited difference. The garoweonline article you showed exactly reveals that Somaliland has effective control over Tukaraq, however Puntland is objecting to it. I wrote about it in the article Tukaraq.[201] But you removed it.[202] Can you explain the reasons for your edits? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As the source states there is no somalia presence this region, why did you ignore the source and change the info box [203] when there is already a dispute article as previously mentioned. [204] You also changed the source of the article to confuse readers [205] which i had to change back again. [WP:POV] states that opinions and not facts so you cannot just change them to your own accord.

Administrators and others: The conversation is going in circles. First, please give me your opinion on whether the copy-paste edit ("On the beginning of..."[206]) that Hawkers994 mentions immediately above is a violation of Wikipedia's rules or not. If this is not a violation of Wikipedia's rules, please your opinion on whether my rewrite ("Somaliland's Minister of Interior..."(the same link)) constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You lied about me of not adding adding any articles to wikipedia then when i debunked your lies [207] you said “Maybe its an exaggeration” and when confronted your changed the topic to Individual user contributions while trying to confuse users that info boxes should relate to sources. It seems you are the one going around in circles.Hawkers994 (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Then, I will talk about this one first. I have reviewed your history for the past 500 edits or so (about 2 years) and concluded that "You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland." But you had an edit in the past that was over 1000 bytes. You made the edit 5 years ago and it is only 1 of your 900 previous edits. Given this situation, can we say that I told a lie? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Both of you need to quit making contested edits for a minute and read Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent Sennalen (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that I was not cool with the editorial with Hawkers994. For this reason, I have now stopped editing the article disputed with him regarding the nationality of the town. I have called for dialogue with him on Talk:Tukaraq, Talk:Wadamago, Talk:Bo'ame, Talk:Yagori, Talk:Sool, and Talk:Hudun, but he has not responded. Currently, these articles are written to his liking (except for the articles that have been further edited by another person). Dialogue is effective only when the other party responds, and is meaningless if the other party does not respond. I think just editing without responding to dialogue is a sufficient violation of Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's a step forward. Now, isn't ownership of these areas part of the Puntland–Somaliland dispute? If so, the articles should just say that, instead of the two of you trying to fight the war on Wikipedia. Sennalen (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve mentioned that there is a dispute article [208] many times on here for this region which these towns come under, yet this user ignored this as well as the sources which show control of these towns. Its pretty straight forward that info boxes should relate to that. User Freetrashbox does not need to change and deflect the topic.Hawkers994 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Haven't you also pursued a campaign of assigning ownership of disputed territory to just one side? Sennalen (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No, i mentioned that there is a dispute article for all these pages, and that the info boxes should relate to the sources that show control of the towns and are present on the ground since all these articles already mention that its disputed.Hawkers994 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Please thread your comments.
2. If I'm reading the diffs right, Freetrashbox wants to claim things for Puntland, and Hawkers994 wants to claim things for Somaliland. You both recognize that there is a dispute when it comes to adding claims, but you both have also removed claims.

Add sourced claims, removed unsourced claims, and quit being partisans for a side. Sennalen (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

What I would like to say to Hawkers994 is to write based on sources, and don't erase it just because it is a bad source for him. Hawkers994 also claims that "the town is Somaliland because it is under the control of Somaliland", therefore, I have given examples where Hawkers994 edited that it is Somaliland even though it is not under Somaliland's control. I am not claiming that these towns are Somalia (or Puntland); I am pointing out that Hawkers994's editorial stance is wrong as an earlier matter. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What i would tell Freetrashbox is to let the sources speak for these articles and infoboxes, as these articles already mention them being disputed in the article info section and the local governments that run these towns. Your editing attitude should also be straight forward without being indirect about users editing contributions.Hawkers994 (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: I think such a topic could be resolved on the article's talk page (of cource when you join the discussion.) However, your attitude of editing without sources, deleting sources you don't like, and your double standard by the article is unacceptable to me. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You have made multiple violations including WP:POV on these articles as well as lying about user’s contributions as your previous replies show. Choosing and ignoring sources to your liking and stating your opinion as fact goes against wikipedia rulesHawkers994 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I always explain with evidence, your opinion is always just some impressions... I don't need to tell you which is more contrary to WP:POV, describing one or both in a description of where there is a disputed. Freetrashbox (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide some comments on whether Hawkers994's behavior is problematic, or totally acceptable, or problematic but within acceptable limits? Freetrashbox (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox avoiding sources and deletion of articles must be stopped, he has been warned many times in talk pages and doesn’t seem to care of the consequences. Wikipedia is not a place were you can do as you wish. His earlier replies indicate his behaviour wont change will be continue to ruin sourced articles Hawkers994 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate any comments as to whether I am correct, Hawkers994 is correct, or both I and Hawkers994 are wrong... Freetrashbox (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If there are no comments at all, do you all think this is just a form of article warfare? As you all know, there are so many pointless editorial battles in the field of the Horn of Africa rewriting Somaliland to Somalia and Somalia to Somaliland. I think the only way to prevent this is to ensure source-based editing.Freetrashbox (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The two of you have dragged this out on this page for over a month now. No administrator has seen evidence that their intervention is necessary. It's time to drop the stick and move on to something else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. As long as Hawkers994 does not make any problematic edits in the future, I will forget about this.Freetrashbox (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Hawkers994 has no intention of changing his editorial attitude.[209] As usual, he has not added source to his edits. The editorial rationale for "unexplained removal of content" is also inappropriate... Freetrashbox (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

once again your lies are exposed, a user who joined 1 day ago with only 2 edits made a no edit summary [210] for absolutely no reason and when i corrected it here you are lying for the 3rd time in this discussion.Hawkers994 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Your editing attitude is no different than this only 2 edits user... Maybe it's impossible for you to understand the rules of Wikipedia... Freetrashbox (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Looking through the diffs here, I see a mixture of failing to assume good faith and other bad behavior from both Freetrashbox and Hawkers994 (to pick a trivial example on each side: Hawkers994's first response here is to claim consensus with a link to a discussion that does not demonstrate any clear consensus or directive, meanwhile, Freetrashbox's most recent accusations of Hawkers994 not sourcing edits at Buuhoodle are clearly an example of reverting an IP vandal, with the situation of Buuhoodle in Somaliland confirmed by a cursory glance at the article's references list). Somaliland and Somalia related articles are contentious topics per WP:ARBHORN, which means that editors are expected to be on their best behavior and administrators are authorized to enforce that. Neither of you seems to have been notified of this in the past; now you are aware. Further instances of tendentious editing in Horn of Africa or other contentious topics can be reported to WP:AE, which is a separate, more formal process than ANI, and will likely result in a prompter response. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comments and advice. But unfortunately, I am not convinced. As you can see from Buuhoodle's article, the town is not currently under Somaliland rule. Buuhoodle citizens did not participate in the Buuhoodle mayoral election. (Where else in the world would you find such a strange town?) I am not arguing that Buuhoodle is not Somaliland because of that, but it is not a simple matter of deciding that Buuhoodle is Somaliland. In short, there is not a bit of difference between IP users who say Buhoodle is Somalia and Hawkers994 who say Buhoodle is Somaliland, in that both are writing biased opinions without providing sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

But then here you are [211] [212] [213] making a no edit summary. You are no different than these random IP address yourself who are biased.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

The question of what Buuhoodle should say long-term should be discussed and resolved at Talk:Buuhoodle. I don't know which perspective is correct there and it's not my job as an uninvolved administrator to figure that out for you. My job here is to get you two to stop edit warring, to stop frivolously accusing each other of bad-faith editing when the evidence you are providing are justifiable responses to driveby IPs and other uncontroversial edits, and to get you to work towards consensus in a collaborative fashion either by talking things out between the two of you and/or appealing to a community-based dispute resolution process. I should not have to block or ban either of you to accomplish this, but that is what will end up happening if you can't play by the rules. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

References

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

Need Japanese-speaking and maybe admin help

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.

---

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

I feel the need to amplify a cry for help I've just noticed dated February 3 at WP:PNT, titled Himetataraisuzu-hime. It is extremely unusual to have several people asking for help with a particular editor. I am emphatically not competent to evaluate Japanese translation and past experience says that Japanese is one of the languages machine translation truly does not handle well.

I know nothing about any of these people btw, and would be delighted to find out that they are wrong. However the idea that a "prolific" editor who does not speak Japanese is producing machine translation from Japanese is very alarming, and likely this is causing not just ugly English but serious errors of fact. Cleaning up such work is a huge and tedious time sink for people who actually speak the language in question, and I would know having just listed one from French out of sheer exasperation. Elinruby (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

(a bit later) It looks like the article has gotten some help, and it's two editors not three but the questions raised are still alarming, so I am quoting the meat of the plea:

29 January 2023 (UTC)

Himetataraisuzu-hime Edit The initial language of this article was Japanese. Auric talk 19:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The current "translation" is a travesty of bad machine translation, worked over primarily by a human editor who doesn't understand how to do translation, doesn't understand how to look up terms, doesn't understand Japanese at all, cannot read the phonetic parts of Japanese writing, and is wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter. This user is prolific, and nearly all of their content is generated the same way -- machine-translating articles from non-English Wikipedias, and then badly reworking the result. Various editors, myself included, have attempted to advise them to stop utilizing this deeply flawed process. See also User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#Dongyue_Dadi and related threads in their Talk page archives. About the Himetataraisuzu-hime article itself, I am not sure if this is sufficiently notable for English-language readers. About the user, I have followed them for some months, and I am convinced that their editing activities here result in a net negative effect for the Wikipedia corpus: so much is wrong, and so many of their newly-created articles are for niche topics that few other English-language editors will see, and if they see them they may not be able to recognize them as bad, let alone fix them.

I am much less active here than on EN Wiktionary, so I am much less familiar with process. My recommendation is that some kind of administrative intervention is needed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look but my (mediocre) strength is conversion, not text. But I know the grammar and such EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You can read an earlier version at Draft:SiliconProphet/Himetataraisuzu-hime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)--Auric talk 15:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

As a Japanese-speaking admin, I agree that there is a significant problem here that needs to be handled at this venue. I simply have not had time to bring it to ANI myself, and may not be able to produce a complete summary now. When the issue was raised on my talk page, I wrote the following: "I believe the editor is acting in good faith, but since there are a number of policy violations involved (WP:SOCK given the history of overlapping use of accounts, WP:C as noted in the deletion discussion—the history of that page still needs to be handled, and there may be many other copyright issues on other pages) as well as behavioral concerns (WP:CIR, particularly the part that requires "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up") and content concerns (WP:CITE, WP:F, etc.), that is likely enough for the community to reach a decision on how to proceed without worrying about the problem of whether there is a meaningful corpus of "reliable sources" in this area of Japanese prehistory. Still, I feel it would be better to establish community consensus here. I was treating this as a slow-moving problem since I have not brought my concerns to the editor directly, but as you note, others have raised the issue, and complaints were also made on the talk page of the previous account." There are several issues involved, only one of which is the machine translation:

• There are copyright problems involved in the direct machine translation of non-free texts; I raised this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuhitobe. As noted above, machine translation involving languages the editor is not able to read are resulting in significant factual errors. Japanese is not the only language for which this is occurring.
• There is overlapping use of accounts, although only one is currently active, and this is being used to push through a set of articles that were draftified; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SiliconProphet/Archive, at which I mentioned the case of Himetataraisuzu-hime specifically: "Looking at Himetataraisuzu-hime may give a good summary. This is a real, but very obscure, topic in Japanese mythology. The article was created by SiliconProphet on October 12, 2021. It was edited extensively by SiliconProphet, but was draftified per talk page consensus on October 14. It was moved back to article space by SiliconProphet on October 22, and SiliconProphet continued to edit the article, followed by extensive edits from Scientifical Poet. It was then draftified again by an uninvolved editor on January 13, 2022. Immanuelle then submitted it to AfC without significant changes the very same day. Immanuelle continued to edit the article and it was approved at AfC by an uninvolved editor on May 3, but a recent edit by an IP editor still notes: Overall, this section is dreadful and clearly the mangled product of autotranslate, but I don't have time to fix it all. I doubt the process would have gone this way if clearly dealing with a single contributor to the translation."
• The history of having these drafts and articles objected to goes back further than the current account, due to the switching of accounts.
• When draftification occurs, the editor is merging inaccurate information into existing articles rather than improving the drafts; see User talk:Dekimasu#Help with a particularly problematic user and recent examples at Fuhitobe, Ichidaisotsu, and Girl Temple.

I would have liked to go through these items individually and clean them up for presentation here, but problematic articles continue to be created, so I will put this out there now in the hope that others can begin to evaluate what's been gathered together so far. The editor does not seem to concede that there is a problem, and I agree with the evaluation at the top of the section that this will end up creating a massive amount of work for other editors trying to clean up past contributions. Dekimasuよ! 05:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

To attempt to convey the scale of the potential problem: I primarily rehab articles from French, *a language that is related to English* and which is my language of education. There is a huge backlog of machine translated French articles created by a single user about military history, one of which, for example, translated something along the lines of "it was not until (1943?) that the unit saw combat in WW2" as "the unit did not see combat in World War 2". Some errors are more subtle than that, and I knew to look for that one, as that particular sentence construction is frequent and not intuitive for English speakers. A superficial copyedit by someone who does not speak French would not have spotted it. I have seen artist Joan Miró become Joan Looked. It gets much worse from there, the more divergent the language is from English. I've had four semesters of Japanese and do not consider myself literate in the language, just (possibly) able to get through counting, verbal greetings and thank yous. Hopefully this explains my alarm. Thank you for any brainpower applied to this. Elinruby (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

[214] is an example of what Dekimasu is saying about overlapping accounts. The article was reported at WP:PNT a year ago by the same user (@Eiríkr Útlendi:), and nobody responded. Other examples of how there just isn't enough bandwidth to allow this stuff at [215] and the CTX subpage here Elinruby (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't comment on the accuracy of the translay from Japanese, but I came across many of these articles due to referencing issues. Many had missing or partially corrupt referencing, as well as wikimarkup in article text. The way of dealing with this by SP was to simply delete anything that the machine translation had broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Immanuelle has added a user page comment stating, "In case it was not clear I retired on translating pages from Asian languages recently." However, previous retirement statements on the User:SiliconProphet account (here and here and perhaps elsewhere) simply resulted in switching to the current account, and Immanuelle has continued to edit the same set of drafts based on translations from Asian languages since making the new statement. In light of this, and since Immanuelle has not taken part in the discussion here, I propose the following remedies for this case:

• 1) Immanuelle will be limited to one user account. Other accounts including User:SiliconProphet and User:Scientifical Poet will be blocked indefinitely.
• 2) Immanuelle must not create new drafts using machine translation from any language, including Western languages, and must ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright.
• 3a) (Option 1) Immanuelle is prohibited from self-publishing articles to mainspace or reverting draftification. Any new articles must be submitted via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.
• 3b) (Option 2) Immanuelle is prohibited from creating new article drafts.
• 4) Immanuelle must not merge content into other articles as a response to having a draft declined or an article nominated for deletion.

Violating any of these rules would result in blocks. To me, this is a very lenient set of remedies. The problem of the articles that have already been altered by improper and/or inaccurate machine translation has yet to be resolved. However, these measures would help limit future damage, and the results of these remedies could be monitored more easily than under the current high rate of output. Dekimasuよ! 08:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support (Non-administrator comment), taking reports above on faith as I don't know Japanese, and voting to support based on my experience with translation from other languages, and the heavy burden created when editors "translate" from languages they're insufficiently familiar with. This needs to stop, and these remedies will help. Mathglot (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• In determining which of options 1 and 2 is more appropriate, it would be helpful to know if there is any evidence of productive writing from Immanuelle that does not fall into this pattern. Just skimming over their created articles, all I've seen are translations and copies from Simple English Wikipedia. (I'm checking by comparing reference sections between wikis) And if they're also using an LLM to create articles as mentioned on your talk page, that’s not really much better. small jars tc 16:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, with preference for 3b over 3a. This is hardly the first time someone's enthusiasm has vastly outpaced their abilities in the Japanese topic space (the meat of lumps, souped in soup example comes to mind, along with its hundreds of machine-translated companions from that article's creator). In addition to the obvious problems with machine translation output, eager "translators" who don't actually speak/read the language cannot judge the quality of the input, so they often do not realize that the Japanese (or other language) Wikipedia article they're "translating" is terrible, and they plow ahead regardless. Frankly, I would prefer a more straightforward "no machine translation" or even "no AI-assisted editing" remedy. But I fully support the current version as well. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support this will also help address another issue not yet discussed here: Immanuel is using ChatGPT or another AI to create articles and make additions. I tagged one with info on what the problem was, but Immanuel deleted that draft and continued working with AI text additions. The issue has not been fully discussed with them, but 3 a or b would simultaneously solve most of that prob anyway. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• (Belatedly) Support, for all of the measures outlined above. I don't see 3a and 3b as mutually exclusive, and both appear to be appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support (Non-administrator comment) - anything to stem the tide. I would also be in favor of explicitly forbidding machine translation and ChatGPT for this user to make it clear what the problem is here, and encourage reviewers to go a little deeper with this user's contributions, even if at first blush they seem ok-ish. I don't really know how that process works, but it seems like we're hoping AfC will catch the problems. They are catching quite a few based on the user talk page, but considering the potential nightmare we are contemplating... But we should definitely implement this proposal at least. Elinruby (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. (Non-administrator comment) So glad to see this here. I left a message on this user's Talk page about the Simple English translations here: [216], suggesting AfC, to no reply. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I don't speak Japanese, but I know Eiríkr Útlendi from en.Wiktionary and trust his assessment that this is a serious problem, especially backed up as it is by a few other Japanese-speaking editors above. Frankly, given how hard it might be to enforce a ban on machine translation (how do you prove the user machine-translated and didn't just ineptly human-translate?), and given that the user has apparently said they'd stop doing this only to then switch accounts and continue, I wonder if a block would be better, in terms of preventing harm / the creation of copious incorrect and/or copyvio content that needs cleanup. -sche (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • -sche, WP:BEANS applies here, but at least for Japanese, machine translation produces characteristic errors that differ from the kinds of errors that humans tend to make. I can immediately think of a couple of grammatical structures that a person with low-intermediate Japanese ability could easily understand and translate properly, but that machine translation will reliably translate incorrectly. While this isn't 100% definitive on its own, there is a supplementary method, which is to ask the editor how they came up with a particular translation in the event of an apparent error. People who rely on machine translation typically cannot explain their thinking about translating from the source text at all, for the obvious reason that they did not actually think about it in the first place. That said, you may be right about the block, but Dekimasu is offering them a chance for course correction, which I agree is worth trying. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

In French, certain prepositions and pronouns have multiple possible meanings that no human being would confuse, so when the wrong one is chosen that's a big clue. Or missing a certain grammar construction that reports a claim without endorsing it. Probably most languages have similar tells. But it's not the use of machine translation that I object to, it's not being able to evaluate the output. And the ai concerns me. Elinruby (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

how do you prove the user machine-translated and didn't just ineptly human-translate? You can just try machine translating the original yourself and compare. There are at most like 5 services that people actually use, and it's nearly always Google translate anyway. Of course this might not work as well if they're doing superficial rewording as well. small jars tc 09:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I object to the mainspace creation part on the basis that I do create articles without machine translation, and have made several recent articles without machine translation such as Pehuson. Last draft I made that contained any machine translation was Draft:Oyagami. Last one in mainspace was Tatarigami, although I added content to Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov which was machine translated more recently.

I wish to be given some time to try to improve my pages I created before they are mass proposed for deletion. I'll propose ones for deletion if I think fixing them is beyond my ability as I did with Echizen dynasty. Because I think I am able to improve them dramatically.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 09:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Either way AFC seems to have high delays but low quality filter. Himetataraisuzu-hime got through it fine. Secular Shrine Theory before its overhaul got through it just fine. Draft:Shukubo has been in it forever despite being in a current state I’d argue is superior to either article. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 10:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Due to all the issues outlined above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional remedy proposal

Based upon the first five responses above, I suggest adding one of the two remedies below regarding AI and LLM use. During this discussion, as just one example, Immanuelle has created Draft:Confucian Shinto and wrote in an edit summary "used AI for a start". I am not an expert on Confucianism, Neo-Confucianism, or Shinto, but I immediately notice the following problems with the draft: 1) it is labeled in present tense, whereas the Japanese Wikipedia article on this topic labels it explicitly as something from the Edo period; 2) the Kokugakuin source in English is being used to claim that Confucian Shinto "helped to shape the moral values and social norms of the samurai class", but the cited source never connects the samurai class and Confucian Shinto in any way, only noting the earlier influence of neo-Confucian scholars on the samurai, whereas Confucian Shinto arose later (the sentence linked to this source reading "In the 18th and 19th centuries, Confucian Shinto became increasingly popular among the samurai class, who saw it as a way to reconcile their duty to the emperor with their Confucian ideals of loyalty, honor, and righteousness" appears to be completely made up); 3) Kaibara Ekken is labeled as a scholar of Confucian Shinto, but our existing articles on him links him to Edo neo-Confucianism (the draft seems to think these are the same topic, and the linked George Mason excerpt purported to be a Confucian Shinto text does not refer to Shinto practices, gods, or kami at all; the Japanese Wikipedia article on this topic does mention Kaibara Ekken, but Immanuelle claims not to be translating from Japanese now). This is just a few lines that I picked out in a few minutes, and I have no confidence in the rest of the draft. Overall, while the article reads as good English compared with the machine translations from Asian languages, this looks to be an inaccurate mishmash, created in the very middle of the ongoing discussion here. And several other similar drafts have continued to be produced since the editor was referred to ANI. Given that insufficient judgment is still being used in evaluating the products of machine output, the following additional remedies are proposed, which would supersede #2 above:

• 5) Immanuelle is prohibited from using any AI-assisted editing tools, or machine translation from any language, in any article or draft and must ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright.

A different remedy limiting Immanuelle more completely seems possible in light of the comment above asking whether the proposed remedies already cover all of the editor's contributions, or the possibility that it may become more difficult to determine whether individual edits are machine-assisted, but for my part I would prefer to start with this. Dekimasuよ! 03:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support this one too, with thanks to Dekimasu for taking the time to craft proposals that give the editor a chance to adjust their behavior. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support This addresses the concern I expressed above and I thank Dekimasu for his considered approach to this issue. I would never have caught those errors at PNT. I am so glad for your help with this. Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support They aren’t using those tools with appropriate care. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, though not sure how enforceable it is. Poorly checked LLM/MT output is not constructive. small jars tc 22:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• In case it was not clear, I support all of the points I've proposed in these subsections. I just did a short check of another article on an unrelated subject, Ḱérberos, and found that Immanuelle had added an "AI lede" which 1) included synthesis not supported by the underlying sources; 2) changed suggested analysis by one cited author into a statement of fact; and 3) employed extensive close paraphrasing bordering on outright copyright violations. There were problems in every one of the sentences labeled as AI contributions. I think the consensus here is clear, but I would appreciate a close from a different uninvolved admin. Dekimasuよ! 04:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support prohibition on AI and machine translation. Immanuelle clearly doesn't have the skills to use the tools, and because their current use of them is disruptive. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support but refer to my comment in the main section above. -sche (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. (Non-administrator comment) I would also suggest that all of the translated articles that have not been significantly improved by other editors be speedy deleted. There are so many PROD, AfD, and draftification notices about these articles already. We lose nothing by deleting articles that were more or less instantly generated, especially the Simple English "translations". We lose a lot of other editors' time if we clean them up or go through deletion discussions. And in the meantime, for all we know these could be full of factual errors that we are now propagating across the internet. Better to just TNT them. -- asilvering (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I also strongly agree with @asilvering's suggestion above for application of WP:TNT. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't followed much of this, but my takes are here: I've stopped translating articles due to issues with it. But also some of the articles have been low quality while others have come out much higher quality. Many of the low quality ones are ones I hadn't done much improvement on since creation. I intend on improving these articles to the standard I hold myself to now. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Please can you point out some examples of articles meeting the standard I hold myself to now? I had a brief look through your created articles, but due to their number it's hard to find examples which the concerns described in this thread don't apply to. Apart from machine translation, do you intend to continue using forms of machine-generated text in your contributions? small jars tc 23:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels Omiki, and Miki (Okinawa) are two such examples of the standard I hold myself to now. I wish to improve my articles to those standards. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@SmallJarsWithGreenLabels as far as LLMs are concerned, I see them as being able to address what I see as my biggest weakness in editing: not being very good at writing prose myself. I think using them more will actually help mitigate many of the issues of incomprehensibility I've had before. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If the consensus is that you shouldn't be using those tools anymore, would you be able to switch to writing articles that use awkward prose but are otherwise well-researched and verifiable, and then just tagging them for human cleanup? small jars tc 10:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support this and the above remedies. I commented on the SPI about this editor recently. My position was that their use of multiple accounts in isolation wasn't enough to justify sanctions, but that there are broader conduct issues that should be addressed at another venue such as ANI. I share the concerns raised above about machine translation and use of AI, and I don't find Immanuelle's statement about "the standard I hold myself to now" convincing considering that they were adding factually incorrect AI-generated content to articles as recently as this Monday (see the example above about Draft:Confucian Shinto). There have been other instances of poor behaviour. For example, after Onel5969 draftified some of Immanuelle's articles, they indiscriminately reverted dozens of Onel's draftifications in what appears to be retaliation [217]. Frankly, I'm not convinced that specific restrictions on machine translation and AI usage are enforceable, and I question whether this user's approach to editing is broadly compatible with the project. However, I support these restrictions as a start. Also support WP:TNT deletion of machine-translated articles that have not been improved by others. Spicy (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• The WP:TNT issue is worth sorting out, even if it is done after consensus for editing restrictions have been found. I regret that the time of several editors is being taken up by issues like this. Sure, that has been improved to be a more accurate translation, but I'm not sure it means it should be kept (see my more detailed comments on the article below). Sorting through things is going to take a long time, and I'm not sure who is going to have the energy to do it. Dekimasuよ! 04:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support all of the above. Would just like to mention that this editor has recently (within the last 2 months or so) switched from Japanese articles to Indian (particularly Metei) articles.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Onel5969 I did and have not translated a single thing from Meitei. They are all articles from simple English wikipedia that I found abnormal for their absence on English wikipedia. None were originally in Meitei, but one was flagged as a rough translation, likely as the original author had English as their second language Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Immanuelle started the article Echizen dynasty on March 7, writing in the edit summary "Created by translating the page '越前王朝'". That's an article from Japanese published directly to the mainspace three days after writing that there would be no further translations from Asian languages, and while this thread was open. The theory is cited to the work of a single historian, and while the historian himself is a relatively reasonable source, the theory itself probably qualifies as WP:FRINGE and has only about 70 total Google hits in Japanese aside from Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Harima dynasty has the same issues, and was created the same day. Kawachi dynasty was also created the same day, and is much longer (because the Japanese page is longer) but precisely because of that the translation needs more work and I doubt that one meets our standards for inclusion either. This is a continued focus on Japanese prehistory which it is hard to characterize as a net positive for our coverage. I continue to hope for a close here soon so that measures can begin to be taken because the problem is continuing to expand. Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Dekimasu actually those articles are just almost exactly a year old. I would be perfectly fine with their deletion. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry for my mistake. It is true that you were editing your year-old article today, not adding a new one. Thank you for responding to my error in a civil way, and for replying to the threads here. It would be helpful to have your response to the more recent Confucian Shinto issues, which are similar to issues that have been raised in the cases of other articles. Dekimasuよ! 06:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Dekimasu I don't see that has having really been an issue at all. I used an LLM to generate a draft, then verified the sources, and removed everything I couldn't find a source for, except for two claims which I thought looked good enough that they could be citation neededs. I have since removed both claims, one of which was false, the other which is probably true but is vague enough finding a source is not likely.

  If I understand the policy of Wikipedia:Large language models correctly, you are allowed to use them as long as you do not put them uncritically into articles and always declare your use. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  First off, that’s a draft policy, not official, though I fully support it. Second, the cautions about using it are much stronger than what you expressed. For example Editors should have enough familiarity with the subject matter to recognize when an LLM is providing false information, and it appears you do not meet that level of subject expertise in the example you gave above. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, this is really the crux of the matter: a certain level of background knowledge is necessary in order to evaluate the output of machine translations and other LLM output. Several editors have raised concerns about whether Immanuelle's additions in these areas are a net plus for the project, since they have often been shown to contain avoidable errors. This is an indication that the level of critical analysis of the machine output is insufficient, but to this point the concerns have not been assuaged or addressed sufficiently. That leads us to this discussion. I hope I have not thrown us off course through the struck comment a few days ago, but we do need a close here. Dekimasuよ! 11:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support this remedy and I also strongly agree with the suggestions above to WP:TNT all rough machine translated articles. Per the precedent at WP:CXT, Raw or lightly edited machine translations have long been considered by the English Wikipedia community to be worse than nothing. This principle goes back to at least 2003. I propose we reactivate WP:CSD#X2 to handle machine translations. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I oppose making machine translation in general a sufficient cause for deletion because of one editor who does not know their limitations. I was involved in sifting the last list of machine translated articles, and there were many many ok articles on it and quite a few that were really very good. I don't want to bludgeon this thread on why I oppose that specific proposal but I would be glad to discuss how we can prevent another Immanuelle in a venue of anyone's choice. Meanwhile, I do not think that this editor can be relied on to fix their mess and I fully support mass-TNT of all of their articles, the sooner the better. The proposed sanctions give the editor a second chance, which I respect, but they do not yet seem to understand. Possibly a mentor is in order; I am not certain how that works. Also, we should probably be more aggressive about AfDing from WP:PNT Elinruby (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ideally we could tweak the criteria to be something like "poorly translated" or "raw or lightly edited machine translation" where it isn't just a simple fix to tidy it up. I was also around for the Content Translation tool drama and I recall killing dozens or hundreds of them. Machine translation can be a useful tool when used as a starting point by somebody who knows what they're doing, but by that point they're indistinguishable from a regular article and the criteria would not apply. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I really want to support this idea - I think these kinds of articles waste a lot of AfD time and often end up simply being "laundered" by well-meaning editors who clean up grammar without checking the sources to see if the statements are correct in the first place. Not to mention that it's common for AfDs to end with "topic is notable, AfD isn't cleanup", so taking them to AfD isn't likely to succeed. But I worry about speedy deletion being used for this, especially if NPP start tagging articles under these criteria, since I think it could really discourage new editors who could otherwise become productive contributors. Getting one of your first articles sent to AfD or redraftified is already pretty demoralizing, and having them suddenly and quickly deleted would be much worse. There is surely some kind of approach that will balance these concerns. A translations noticeboard? In short, I think it needs an approach that isn't as instantaneous and isolating for the offending editor, but isn't as intensive or notability-focused as AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Machine translation can be a very useful tool as a start point when translating ban article, but to complete the process successfully requires an understanding of language that isn't shown here. Badly translated articles, whether done by machine or by an editor, are "worse than nothing". The issue is not how it's done, but the result. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd support bad machine translation as a criterion, with the caveat that some means of identifying it should be discussed. There is no question that bad machine translation does exist, and I have seen plenty that I could not decipher without consulting the original. I myself tagged quite a few CTX articles as "kill this with fire" or the like. I've also seen some tagged as rough translations that were merely very technical.

A translations noticeboard is a good idea, although we'd have to work out some details like how does an article get approved for tag removal. It might attract some badly-needed new translators. Afaik there is currently nobody working with Russian, Ukrainian, Greek, Arabic, Urdu, Hindi, Chinese, Korean or Japanese, let alone anything more unusual like Finnish or Serbian. It is true that many translated articles are poorly referenced and therefore so are the translations. But if the translation is good, bad sparse references no longer make it a "bad translation". As someone that's seen this a lot in French/Spanish, I am not averse to a protocol mandating the "refimprove" tag once the translation work is done, where applicable. But this is getting away from Immanuelle. Maybe we should start a separate thread for the larger procedural discussion, as I would like to keep an eye out for AI creations as well and am not sure how, for example. Getting back to Immanuelle, the reaction this is getting from them reminds me of the creator of all those French Foreign Legion articles that we're still dealing with years later -- a profound failure to see the problem. Elinruby (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2023 (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.

Admin attention needed

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 would like to report about Christopheronthemove. This user has made 106 edits so far and has participated in 22 AFD discussions [218], which is extremely unusual for a new user. Note that this happened within just three days since they had joined. I have opened an SPI against them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jehowahyereh. Checkuser results say that they may be a possible sockpuppet, but no admin action has been taken yet. I am raising this issue here because their massive participation in AFD discussions could potentially impact the outcomes of these AFD discussions if they are proven a sockpuppet due to the backlog at SPI. I have provided additional evidence at the SPI. I urge someone to review it and take appropriate action. Akevsharma (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Akevsharma - Could this not have been handled at the SPI? If you have evidence suggesting they are a sock of a specific user, that's where it should go. (Non-administrator comment) casualdejekyll 22:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

They have filed. The CU is done and labeled possible. Needs behavioral review/admin action. Slywriter (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter - Yes, I was under the impression that this is a matter for comment on the SPI page that doesn't become an "admin attention needed" direct-to-noticeboard type deal unless there's some sort of backlog or odd circumstance. (And even then, that'd be the other AN, right?) casualdejekyll 23:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

They have participated in many AFD discussions and eight of them have closed. I'm uncertain to what extent their vote influenced these closures. Akevsharma (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Reply carry on. Admins please note this Akevsharma, is also a suspected sock at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Farzanfa007 . Please check the page Christopheronthemove (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC) .

  Note that @Christopheronthemove: twice posted a new case to that archive. I reverted them the second time. As I explained on their talk page, I'm not going to directly help them file the case give that it may be a retaliatory filing by a sock. So if their case has merit hopefully them or someone else is able to properly open a case. Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  User_talk:Akevsharma/Archive_1#User_account is definitely concerning. SPI can have fun unwinding it all. Slywriter (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Reply Wikipedia seems very less helpful to new users like me, I seeked help to two users who messaged my page related to posting the sock investigation request in archieve page. I finally found the right way and have rightly posted it.I have corrected the link above. Sending the link again for admin attention - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Farzanfa007 . Please check Christopheronthemove (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

CLEAR EVIDENCE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akevsharma/Archive_1 From this archieve its so clear that he is a multiple account abuser. From the discussion seen in the above archive link, he agrees there that he has another account user:manjappada as well and he also signed comment as Farzanfa007 (blocked sockpuppet) . Clearly sock without doubt. Please check and block to prevent abusing wikipedia Christopheronthemove (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Additional Admins please check the NON ADMIN closure of this AFD of the page Jithin M S user:Akevsharma created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jithin_M_S . Just being curious if non admin closure of AFD is valid/acceptable ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopheronthemove (talk • contribs) 17:21, 14 March 2023 (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.

Deletion and POV-Pushing

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.

---

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

While out on patrol I came across this edit which I reverted. The user in question removed +7500 characters from it and also added some POV-pushing text to take its place. So I reverted and when he asked on the talk page, I told him that it was better to wait for the other users to come forward before undertaking such a major modification alone. He seemed to accept it but then went to cancel my revert, and, faced with another cancellation from me, forced to force through. AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I've attempted to explain the following repeatedly:

• I made two edits to the page.
• The first edit reorganized the lede, which needed it.
• The second edit (which, incidentally, I stand by) removed content which was not relevant to the page, and already existed on a different page.
• If you disagree with the second edit, please roll back only the second edit, rather than both.

I am genuinely unsure what POV you think I'm pushing. I attempted to discuss this with you on the talk page, but you were unwilling to do so, stating that you didn't know anything about the topic. Moriwen (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I said on the talk page that I let other contributors discuss this, as I don't have the knowledge to suggest, or not, editorial changes on the page. However, deleting such a volume of text is not trivial, especially when it comes to your first interventions on this page, which you have not touched before. AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that you didn't wait to start an edit war to keep your edits in place, both of them. AgisdeSparte (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

And (while I think the deletion is correct) I think that's a reasonable stance, and don't object to you rolling it back. However, you continue rolling back both edits, rather than just the one you disagree with. Just roll back the second one.

(Also, I'm pretty sure using rollback on this is inappropriate in the first place; it does not fall under any of the categories under the guidelines for rollback.) Moriwen (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Moriwen, you should use dispute resolution instead of edit warring. Perhaps a third opinion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I really don't want to edit war -- I am happy to let his rollback stand! -- I just want him to only roll back the edit he actually disagrees with! I don't know why he's unwilling to do this. Moriwen (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

(I also don't understand why this is an edit war on my side and not his side, especially given that I have attempted to discuss it on the talk page and he has refused to do so, or even to tell me what POV he thinks I'm pushing, but that is perhaps a separate question.) Moriwen (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a 3 times rule. Well, if you think you can revert the deletion of the text and ask for that (as you did btw), I have no problem.

I won't intervene more on the article that is in question, since we already moved a lot of stuff, so maybe keep your text without deleting the rest.

Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Cool on my side then. :) Moriwen (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This looks like something that can be resolved using the talk page, given good faith on both sides. @AgisdeSparte: the amount of material removed is not by itself a reason to revert something, and @Moriwen: if your edit is reverted then wait for discussion on the talk page to conclude before reinstating it, per WP:BRD. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Will do! Moriwen (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2023 (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.

ADifferentMan's disruptive editing

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

---

user:ADifferentMan has made multiple edits on Sino-Vietnamese conflicts (1979–1991) against a long-time consensus (about the casualties section[219]) without any explanations (e.g. here [220], [221], or [222]). I've asked him to express his reasoning on talk page within my reverts but haven't received any reply. Since then I propose the article to be restore back to the version prior to his edits. 117.6.92.15 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

If I may respond here, I don't see any "long-time consensus" on the discussion you linked. ADifferentMan (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@ADifferentMan: Any version or editing that has persisted for a long time can be presumed as consensus. According to WP:CON, "[e]ditors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit."

Whatever consensus is, it shall be achieved through discussion, and you're supposed to discuss on talk page before if you want to challenge others' point, which you have failed to do. WP:CON clearly states that "[w]hen editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." Any repetitive edits that are not explained through discussion shall be considered disruptive editing. 117.6.92.15 (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No, no, no. While a version that's persisted for a long time can be presumed to be consensus, that doesn't immunize it against future editing, and such edits sure as hell aren't grounds for an ANI complaint. So far, you seem to be engaging in an edit war, without YOU attempting to discuss it on the talk page, or proffering any reason for objecting to ADifferentMan's edits beyond "the issue about casualties has been settled for long time" in an edit summary. Ravenswing 06:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Why I have to restate anything on the talk page since the reasons for what appears on the article has already been there????[223] It is him who's supposed to explain on talk page, since he has made an edit which is disputed, and "discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus". 117.6.92.136 (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Btw I have said something on the talk page, although I feel it's totally unnecessary. 117.6.92.15 (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2023 (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.

Af420

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.

---

Af420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Rumi, Af420 initially made several attempts [224] [225] [226] to remove Rumi's birth place being the present-day Tajikistan city of Vakhsh, which is cited by WP:RS (one of them being by the Oxford University), replacing it with Balkh, conveniently a city related to his country of origin (Afghanistan). After being warned of getting reported, he stopped removing sourced info, but still went ahead and added Balkh [227], cited by random, non-academic sources such as rumibalkhi.com

Despite that, during all this time he so richly kept making WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA to me;

• Just because u are from Iran doesn’t mean everything belongs to Iran! (this was very their very first comment towards me)

• Dear HistoryofIran please use some sources before adding your personal opinion!

• what’s your problem, why do u think everything on Wikipedia should work the way you want it to work? Furthermore, instead of just writing your feelings, please add some good sources!

After being unable to demonstrate that his random websites were WP:RS, he backed out from the discussion and said that I can do as I please; BTW, not everybody has so much free time, so I’ll not be able to discuss this situation with you anymore, you can absolutely do as you wish

And thus I reverted back to the original revision, however he then reverted me again, randomly saying that No sources were provided!. May I be so bold to call this trolling at this rate? Anyhow, this user in a short span of time has violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ONUS, WP:RS, WP:STONEWALLING and probably more. They're not exactly new here, having edited since 2016, so they should be well aware of this stuff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at those diffs and your edits, it looks like a regular content dispute. Their sources (not the rumibalkhi one) are just as good as the current ones. And it looks more like them getting frustrated with your WP:Stonewalling and not assuming good faith. That's what it looks like to me. Could be wrong tho. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong indeed. The first diff [228], for example, was literally their first comment towards me, in response my previous comment; rv, sorry, but you need WP:RS for this, not random (news)websites. Two of the three cited sources are news articles written by non-academic, non-historians. The third is just a random site (that is the rumibalkhi one) - see WP:SPS. If you’re gonna accuse me of stonewalling and not assuming WP:GF, please at least this properly read into the issue. This user keeps accusing me of stuff and refusing to continue the discussion which barely even started, yet I am apparently the one stonewalling and not assuming good faith. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Af420's latest (attempt at provoking) comment after their revert and this report [229]. Still think I am the one WP:STONEWALLING? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear @1AmNobody24:, You are right, I just told him to use sources that can prove his point, but instead of doing that, he got serious with me:))

Af420 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This is just baiting at this point. Can an admin please deal with this person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I agree that User:Af420 has probably violated a few policies. But you called the UN a random news Website. And that's just completly wrong. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I could have been more precise in that regard; I was referring to their news article, which doesn't qualify as WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Request closure

As demonstrated in this report, Af420 is amongst many things blatantly WP:STONEWALLING the dispute, openly saying that he won't take part anymore and that I can do what I want, whilst contradictory still reverting me. And now he has just resorted to taunting me, not even bothering just address one bit of this report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Af420 does appear to be taunting HistoryofIran at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear, @HandThatFeeds: the reason I didn’t bother to answer is because Mr. HistoryofIran basically thinks everything belongs to Persian history, and he puts Persian above everything, here are some of his logs:

• he thinks Backgammon a Persian game:
  • Just wanted to add what it's called in Persian, it is a Persian game.

————————————————————

• He took the the Azari language from the top and and then put it under Persian
  • here is the source

————————————————————

• He took away the text that says Azerbaijani people are Turkic people, instead he wrote that Azerbaijani people are Persian people.

• • I putted sources on, the Azerbaijanis people once spoke a Northwestern Iranian language called Old Azeri language. But the Turks forced the Azerbaijanis to speak Turkish. The genetics of the Azerbaijanis are very close to the Persians.

And much more!!! Af420 (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

How is that evidence and have anything to do with this? This dispute still has nothing to do with Iran, unless you think Tajikistan is located there. Those are literally random diffs from 10 years ago (yes, I am not even kidding, he seriously went all the way back to 2013). And I also highly doubt you even knew of these diffs before now, which shouldn't justify your violation of multiple rules anyways. This is just more WP:ASPERSIONS by this user, if not also lack of WP:CIR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran is a long-term user with a good record of edits. None of what you posted is egregious, and seems to reinforce that you're here to push an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The UN and The New Yorker appear reliable to me. Either or both parties should seek input at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard instead of edit warring. I see some low-grade incivility from Af420, but he seems prepared to follow NPOV recommendation of presenting all views found in RS. Sennalen (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No need, as they're not reliable per WP:SPS as mentioned up above. I fail to see how constant insults and taunts is only "low-grade incivility" and demonstrates that he is ready to "NPOV recommendation", even though he was also removing sourced information as mentioned above. Can an admin please address this? This is frankly getting ridiculous, is this how we now treat fellow users and engage in disputes? Is instant WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA, edit warring, WP:STONEWALLING, taunting, the way to go in a dispute? Since it seems to be working. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no clean hands here. One of the three sources was SPS. The appropriate resposne would have been to remove that one citation and WP:PRESERVE the claim and its other two citations. Sennalen (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Kindly don't put me at his level, in no way did I behave even as remotely as him. Despite his persistent attacks and taunting (including in this very report), I have tried to maintain a calm and nice tone, only to get comments like "There are no clean hands here." This is what SPS says; "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". In other words, two news articles written by non-academic, non-historians are not WP:RS. Either way, sitting here and discussing what is WP:RS and what isnt is pointless, since Af420 didn't even bother to do that himself, instead resorting to well.. I rather not keep repeating myself. The report here has more than enough evidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, discussing it here is pointless. Discuss it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sennalen (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not helping. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn’t get archived. HistoryofIran (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Tritto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This has been up for almost a month, way longer than it should be. I'm not a fan of constantly bumping an article, but I'd like to see something done, whatever that may be. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support indeffing user:Af420. Said "user" is displaying some serious WP:CIR-ish behavior. And I don't think any of it should be WP:AGF'd. The fact that he digged to HistoryofIran's edits dating back to 2013 (!), i.e. a decade ago, i.e. years prior to him even registering on Wikipedia, and tried to use it against him when confronted with a bunch of awful edits made by himself, is quite telling and reveals the intent of said "user". The fact that the says he doesn't want to take part in further discussion is the cherry on top of the cake. I don't think the community benefits in any way by having such a user. Much less so when taking an actual look at the edits he made that resulted him in being brought to ANI. Said user has barely made 600 edits over 6 years[230] and is now trying to convince us that his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits "were actually correct". How is user:Af420 editorial pattern a net worth to this project I wonder? Take a look at the thousands of disruptive accounts that have made a few edits here and there and have wasted the time of the community and that of veteran users, and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Were the edits correct? Sennalen (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support. Editors who are here to "win" need to go. Maine 🦞 16:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support as the one who created this report. If Af420 had been more active throughout these 6 years, they wouldn't even have been on Wikipedia for that long, cause they would have already been indeffed. This is not how you act on this website, or in general for that matter. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support per LouisAragon. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, this is a content dispute that has gotten out of hand. I will point out that in the version HistoryofIran reverted to, you can see that in one of the sources used to support Vakhsh as place of birth, the author writes, quoting a book by another scholar, "[h]e further states: "Bahâ al-Din may have been born in Balkh, but at least between June 1204 and 1210 (Shavvâl 600 and 607), during which time Rumi was born, Bahâ al-Din resided in a house in Vakhsh (Bah 2:143 [= Bahâ' uddîn Walad's] book, "Ma`ârif."). Vakhsh, rather than Balkh was the permanent base of Bahâ al-Din and his family until Rumi was around five years old (mei 16–35) [= from a book in German by the scholar Fritz Meier—note inserted here]" (see here). This, coupled with the article on the UN website leads me to believe this situation is not as clear-cut as described, which in turn dissuades me from indeffing Af420. Yes, he is primarily to blame for inflaming this dispute, but, for my money, HistoryofIran is not entirely blameless either. He should have followed WP:DR and taken the issue to WP:RSN. The rest of the disruption coming from Af420 is insufficient to support an indefinite block, in my opinion, once we rule out that his edits violated WP:TEND. Yes, he cast aspersions and, from the very first interaction, he was confrontational and personalised the dispute, and for that I can support closing this with a stern warning that continuing to engage in that sort of conduct will lead to sanctions, but I feel that the best course of action is to concentrate on the underlying content dispute. Salvio ^giuliano 09:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Approach RSN for discussing whether a press-release of UNO and a blog are decent sources for a biography on Rumi? I have no idea on why the situation is not clear-cut but it is consensus among scholars that he was born in Vakhsh. Will post some sources at the t/p. All I see is aggresive POV-pushing from Af420 using low-quality sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's not only a press release and a blog, one of the two sources currently used to say that he was born in Vakhsh actually reads "Bahâ al-Din may have been born in Balkh", although it goes on to add that "Vakhsh, rather than Balkh was the permanent base of Bahâ al-Din and his family until Rumi was around five years old". Now, I am completely unfamiliar with the topic and it's possible the consensus among scholars is that Vakhsh was definitely the place of birth and that's why I suggest following WP:DR, but I'm not seeing Af420 pushing a ridiculous claim, rather I see a nuanced content dispute. Salvio ^giuliano 18:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Can something please be done? This has been up for over a month. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2023 (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:SEALIONING at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

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

---

This user, who can’t seem to decide whether their name is Bigdan201 or Xcalibur, has been pushing unanimously unpopular fringe takes on Gamergate incessantly, despite repeated warnings against bludgeoning. Evidence:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#Suggestions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#Another_idea
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)&diff=prev&oldid=1139814652
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#insurgency/asymmetrical_conflict

I think this problem has gotten tedious enough to require a topic ban from the article and its talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

On top of this, their talk page also shows a long, LONG history of WP:IDHT on fringe theories. This is extremely problematic and may require an outright block. Dronebogus (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.

As I said, there was no reason for you to prematurely close discussions. It seems like you didn't even read what was said -- I was brainstorming different ideas each time, and the last discussion led to a productive edit (although there was a hangup with the RS). I wasn't "pushing fringe takes": first, I suggested "describing the false claims in more detail", then describing their political views further. As it happens, consensus was against these, and the second point was addressed in the article already. I considered detailing more about the history, but consensus sees that as UNDUE, so I let it stay deleted. My latest brainstorming avoided these issues and moved in the right direction. Discussion would've went fine without this overzealous policing.

As for my talk page, yes, I've had issues before, but since an editor gave me a helpful reality check, I've been trying to improve. IDHT on fringe theories that's not really accurate, though. My disputes were mostly not about FRINGE (although admittedly, I was too stubborn then); the exception is a noticeboard discussion that escalated, and didn't even involve article edits!

I note that your talk page indicates that you have a habit of arbitrarily closing discussions that you don't approve of. This is not helpful, and certainly wasn't in my case -- closing should only be done for lengthy discussions that have run their course, or which are obviously not viable or relevant, neither of which is the case here. This is an overzealous response. Xcalibur (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

discussions that have run their course, or which are obviously not viable or relevant

Those discussions absolutely fit these criteria, and the fact you cannot see that makes it very clear you need to step away from the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is another example of Bigdan201/Xcalibur proposing the same false balance stuff from back in 2020, and not getting anywhere then, either. At this point it does look like they need some help staying away from this topic. A topic ban would be appropriate in my opinion. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

there was a significant time gap, and once the consensus was clear, I accepted it. Still not seeing any validity to claims of false balance or bludgeoning. BTW, I believe sealioning involves intrusion, especially by following ppl to other areas and platforms; not trying things out on a relevant talk page. Xcalibur (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Bigdan201 - are you aware that this topic falls under the WP:CTOP rules? If not, I will post a notification about it on your talk page so that you have the relevant guidance. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a 2018 notice from the DS era on their user talk, and a modern one from last month here MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I see that Doug Weller notified him in February. WP:AE might be a better venue for this complaint. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe sealioning involves intrusion - dude, are you honestly sealioning a discussion about whether you're sealioning? --130.111.39.47 (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

😲 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am learning towards thinking Bigdan201 needs an topic ban from the gender and sexuality topic area under the contentious topics procedure. Courcelles (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Did not want to be the first to say it, but Support topic ban from the gender and sexuality {contentious topics)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• I think a topic ban is actually too weak, IMO this [231] appears to indicate that they see themselves as a soldier and this as a war. That would be clear WP:NOTHERE and should result in separation from the project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Asymmetrical warfare? On an encyclopedia? Gag me with a spoon! No objection to WP:site ban. Look, "all we are saying, is give peace a chance." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd support a topic ban at minimum, and a site ban would seem appropriate for comments like JK Rowling receiving threats/harassment/stalking just for publicly disagreeing with trans.. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Can you provide a diff for that, so we can see the comment in context? I mean, it's poorly phrased, but JK Rowling has received harassment for her public comments in that topic area. I don't think we should be automatically jumping to a site ban based on a comment like that. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's in the diff Horse Eye's Black provided above. Simply describing transphobia as "disagreeing with trans" is ... well, "yikes" is the best way I can put it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  That context helps, thank you. Certainly, that was a very strange line of argument. At the same time, nowhere does our article say that her views are transphobic in Wikipedia's voice - just that they have been described as that by various commentators. I'm not saying that I agree with Rowling's views, but I don't think that we can start site-banning people for failing to call them transphobic. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No opinion on the site ban, but I have topic banned for a year as an AE action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If I may respond here: yes, I'm aware that it's a contentious topic, obviously. I thought I was behaving myself, just brainstorming to get a feel for consensus, then moving ahead to edit. It was Dronebogus who was completely overzealous in closing topics IMO. I see that a fair discussion is not to be had here. I hope those who prosecuted me here actually read my comments instead of jumping to conclusions, eg the asymmetrical topic was about the structure and operation of the movement, not editing itself, as you seem to believe, and it led to a productive edit (we have an article on the topic, btw). "yikes" I was trying to be fair & neutral instead of condemning wrongthink. Lastly, I won't get baited by that IP. I guess this is what passes for fairness? Xcalibur (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll just be blunt: Wikipedia does not work on fairness. Like academia, ideas are questioned, criticized, and sometimes attacked. We operate on what reliable sources say, and neutrality is based on those sources, not "balance" towards the subject in question. While we assume good faith in other editors by default, that doesn't mean editing choices are treated "fairly." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I've acknowledged that controversial topics can't be a pro/anti split, but follow the RS. I was referring mainly to the deliberation/discussion here. For reference, my posts led to this edit [232], which has been ironed out to [233]. I would tweak the wording further, but now I'm not allowed. I'm trying to say that the thread closures, and this ban, are a disproportionate response. Xcalibur (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The thread closures were absolutely appropriate, and the ban is because you kept insisting on reopening them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess that's the key issue, then. I thought it was justified, since I kept trying new ideas, but at this point, other editors are too riled up for me to work productively there. This felt like a kangaroo court, especially with editors grossly misunderstanding my point about asymmetrical/insurgency -- I was referring to Gamergate, not editing wiki! I thought Dronebogus went too far, but consensus says that I went too far instead, so I'll have to accept that. Xcalibur (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Formal vote on topic ban and block

I think Bigdan/Xcalibur’s behavior has gone far enough. They have been warned countless times that their fringe sealioning antics are unacceptable and responded every time with variations “okay, I’ll work on it” that obviously were not taken seriously. I propose a topic ban from sexuality and gender, a topic ban from fringe theories, and an indefinite block from the wiki. Dronebogus (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

An admin has already issued a topic ban for GENSEX, and I accept that judgment. There is no reason to keep escalating this into disproportionate penalties. Again, I have in fact made an effort to be less stubborn/experimental, and my only FRINGE issues were in a discussion away from article space. The troublesome edits in this case were because I thought your thread closures were excessive, but consensus is against me. Anyway, since an admin has already made a ruling (topic ban, not sitewide), I request that this matter be closed and not pursued. Xcalibur (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep insisting that you’ll improve your behavior but then just move on to some other topic to continue it. You have officially exhausted the community’s patience. Dronebogus (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The community has spoken, with a topic ban: [234][235] and then, hours later, you posted this thread [236]. A decision was already made, so while your earlier actions may have been justified, this is veering into BATTLEGROUND territory. Also, while I caught it quickly (since I was lurking), you did not notify me of this escalation, as you should have. Overall, this motion should be closed for being excessive & redundant. Xcalibur (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dronebogus Failing to adhere WP:AGF is a casus of block. I strongly urge you to strike your comment. 95.12.113.130 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

See also Don't link to WP:AGF. Bishonen | tålk 23:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC).

I don't think this is quite true; let's say, arguendo, that I see a comment and think to myself "that editor is a gaslighting jerk." I stew about it all day and harbor horrible thoughts. I can be blocked for that? Dumuzid (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Dronebogus Andre🚐 01:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

support this remedy. lettherebedarklight晚安 04:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support an indef block. — Matuko (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. Had Bigdan201 been more civil and receptive (as they claim they are trying to be) during the course of this ANI it might not have come to this... but their statements of I see that a fair discussion is not to be had here., I guess this is what passes for fairness?, ...other editors are too riled up for me to work productively there., and indirectly suggesting that editors who prosecuted them were jumping to conclusions all point to Bigdan201 not accepting that other editors may reasonably disagree with them. It's just too much deflection and blaming, and stubbornness is notoriously a behavior that doesn't shift easily. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit, this is a fair critique. I did in fact get too stubborn and defensive (although partly that was in response to a couple editors grossly misinterpreting my posts). I can accept disagreement, and I can accept a topic ban fairly applied for excessive brainstorming on a talk page. Friendly reminder to all that WP:NOPOLLS and WP:NOPUNISH are relevant here. Xcalibur (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a reaction to serious years-long violations of WP:FRINGE and a near-constant problem of WP:IDHT no matter how many editors warn and complain about you. We really cannot keep kicking the can here. Dronebogus (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block. CJ-Moki (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2023 (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.

Michael Pocalyko

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.

---

We need IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATOR ATTENTION on this article. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 20:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editors have been blocked and the article has been semi-protected. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, the article has since been extended-confirmed protected. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:12, 16 March 2023 (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:Rorschach making questionable copyedits

Rorschach has been making several copyedits that might need a closer look. I noticed this one where there are a few good changes like commas and that -> who, but also changes like are -> arse and some that just insert gibberish. Normally I would just revert and leave a message on the editor's talk page, but they've made several edits like this mixed in with a lot of good copyedits, and I think closer examination is necessary here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s oddly like Rorschach is testing us. — Trey Maturin™ 20:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

{{uw-rorschachtest1}}: Hello, I'm Levivich. An edit that you recently made appears differently to each person who reads it... Levivich (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for a week for vandalism, and asked them to explain what's going on. Cullen328 (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

So, I guess we're aren't locked in here with him, after all. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Ha ha Dronebogus (talk) 22:15, 15 March

Syriac563

Syriac563 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suret language: Changed sourced info and a literal quote by an author twice 12 December 2022 8 March 2023

Aramaic: changed sourced info [237]

Turoyo language: changed sourced info [238]

Arameans: removed sourced info [239]

Seems to have a thing for "Assyrian nationalists", a word he throws around a lot, including to our fellow users;

"With al due respect, @shmayo is an Assyrianist who tries to Assyrianize the Arameans in all possible ways. I already asked before if it is possible to block Assyrian nationalists from editing the Aramean page. Shmayo tries to make it look in all possible ways that modern Arameans don't exist and he tries to confuse readers by limiting/minimizing/manipulating information about Arameans to avoid that this name/identity gains any popularity."

"Seems like you are obsessed with your Assyrian identity. Your changes where you change Aramean into Assyrian confirm that you try to Assyrianize the Aramean people by name, identity etc."

I could bring out more diffs of the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour of Syriac563. But meh, I couldn't bothered. Hope this is enough. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Aside from this case, I have one question: Are there sources that very specifically, without the need for SYNTH, state that Arameans do not exist? And if there are, how do they reason their way to this conclusion? Are they clear about how they do that? As you know, there are people today that continue to speak modern Aramaic and identify as Aramean. Are there sources that specifically state that they don't exist? The Arameans "were an ancient" indicates they no longer exist. That is in addition to the fact that at least one government recognizes their existence. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Relevant question. I will try to keep my answer short. I will assume that you have not been involved in similar discussion here before; this is a very complex issue to solve here (or anywhere else for that matter). As I have been involved in these discussions and RFCs here for 10+ years, I will try to add some relevant points here. True statement, some Syriac Orthodox adherents identify as Arameans (mainly in the diaspora, Aramean-Syriac or Syriac-Arameans being common alternative terms they use in the English language). However, the article "Arameans" is the equivalent of, for example, "Assyria", i.e. the ancient peoples. The modern people (in its simplest form defined as Middle Eastern adherent of four major churches, all identifying themselves as Sur(y)oye/Sur(y)aye in Neo-Aramaic) is described in this article. This article, previously under names such as "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" (as you can see, even more terms are used, Aramean probably being the fourth most common in the English language when referring to the modern people), is today named "Assyrian people" per WP:COMMONNAME. However, this article is already in the lead mentioning the different terms used. "Terms for Syriac Christians" is a good complementary article on the identity subject, also referred to in the article in question. I would like to refer to old discussions (e.g. regarding the WP:COMMONNAME) or RFCs, but there have been numerous during the years. But to summarize earlier RFC discussion, or discussions regarding new articles; separate articles for a modern people with an "Aramean-Syriac" (or any alternative term) identities have been created (mostly by now blocked users and their socks) earlier, however all these are WP:CFORKS. Here is one example of an old discussion on deletion of a WP:CFORK, but there are plenty more. Multiple articles (or forks) for the modern people would lead to edit warring in an even larger scale as we have seen earlier (in all articles referring to the modern group, whether it's people, or areas, or any other subject relating to the modern group). Shmayo (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Shmayo, so, you aren't disputing the fact that they do exist? You're just saying they are part of a broader community which is not discussed in the Arameans article, right? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 20:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this would be an interesting discussion at Talk:Arameans, but my concerns are about more Syriac563's unconstructive edits and behaviour. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll want to hat this small discussion, then? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to stop you guys. I just hope the admins are aware of my reasoning behind the report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Who are you referring to here? This modern group definitely exist, where a portion of the people belonging to the Syriac Orthodox Church identify themselves as Aramean/Aramean-Syriac/Syriac-Aramean in English. Correct, the article "Arameans" concerns the ancient people, for all the reasons I listed above. Shmayo (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Shmayo, thank you. I just wanted clarificaiton on that because I didn't understand what the issue was with that article. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 08:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Can something please be done? A block, a warning, anything. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and block indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE. Syriac563 has a clear battleground attitude, the diffs show serious disruption, and I see no indication that they can or intend to edit constructively. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent research

Can I get a review of this? In the absence of the Editor in Chief, and despite numerous people, including myself, askign for it to be held until next issue because it both A. prejudges an active Arbitration case and B. has BLP issues regarding posting attacks on two Wikipedians, it was published anyway.

Should this be unpublished? Any harm mitigation is kind of dependant on quick action. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 18:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't agree there were any "attacks". The review of the academic paper named two enwp accounts that were mentioned in the paper. The Signpost even linked to their rebuttals of the paper.

This request presupposes that there is a policy basis for some kind of "gag rule" regarding an active Arbitration case. There is no such policy that I'm aware of. The Signpost regularly covers active arbitration in our longstanding "Arbitration report" (although this was published under a different article title, the principle is the same).

BTW I ran the publishing script and take responsibility as acting E-in-C as the regular E-in-C has been absent without explanation since March 1. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, unpublish it. Now. Is it too late to add this blatant attempt to preempt due process to the ArbCom case? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

When The Signpost published a critical review in the last issue, nobody complained, but when they publish a positive review, it's a blatant attempt to preempt due process. Levivich (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither should have been published while the ArbCom case is ongoing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone say that about any of the other arbcom cases covered by the Signpost in the past, which I believe include all the arbcom cases in the past. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the original post until now, I'm not aware of previous postings, I would have objected to them as well. Editorial postings by editors about ongoing deliberations are only going to generate more heat, without being of any benefit to resolving the issues at hand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost has a regular section called "Arbitration report". Levivich (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's not apparent, and for the sake of clarity, I don't regularly read the Signpost. So that's of no relevancy to my point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's apparent. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a habit I'll definitely be sticking with. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

At least to me, the difference is that this article plainly repeats and endorses claims that one side in the ArbCom case is describing as violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS. Doing that directly involves the authors in the case; I don't see how they could possibly avoid being added as parties now. I don't think we can decide for ourselves whether they actually deserve sanctions (that would require resolving the case itself) but given the extreme severity of the negative claims leveled against editors here - they are accusing people of intentional distortions of the Holocaust! Based, essentially, on a single source! - I do think that people who took such a step ought to become involved in the case itself, including the possibility of serious sanctions if it goes against them. People need to be more cautious about potential WP:ASPERSIONS, at least at the level of severity shown here; being added to a case sucks, yes, but it's important that it works the way it does to discourage people from throwing oil on troubled fires, so to speak. --Aquillion (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I have explained here in detail why I do not agree with this kind of criticism (blatant attempt to preempt due process to the ArbCom case). Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If you don't agree with criticism, I suggest you stop dishing it out, in Wikipedia's voice, in Signpost articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not in Wikipedia's voice, it's in the Wikipedia: namespace (where nothing except maybe policies is in Wikipedia's voice), and it's clearly a review in the voice of the author of the review. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

JPxG has been active on both Twitter and Mastadon in the past few days. Perhaps someone should reach out to him to ask what's going on? Just A Regular Kind Of Zeppelin (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The author of this article and the acting editor of the Signpost should be included in the Arbcom case - The Signpost should not be used as a vehicle to win content disputes or to harrass other editors.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Also, editors posting evidence (any evidence, against or in favour) should be automatically included as party in the ArbCom case. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think the best place to seek binding resolution of this would be at MFD which has a structured environment and confines back-and-forth to a single dedicated page. There's precedent for "keep and blank" results, and arguably what's being sought is the projectspace version of draftification. Admittedly the standard runtime is 7 days but if it doesn't snow there its almost certainly not going to snow here either. As a general point, when disputes sprawl over multiple high-profile pages the number of people who are aware of the material underlying the conflict increases sharply which is counterproductive when the dispute is over whether the material should be available. Just a thought. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

For the record, this review saw extensive discussion (likely the most ever for any Signpost piece) before publication where many concerns (some valid, many not) were listened to and addressed. So any claims that it was somehow rushed or otherwise bypassed the Signpost's process are rather preposterous (see also my more detailed response to Adam here). But in any case, as far as I'm aware, ANI is not for alleged violations of the Signpost's internal process customs.

As for WP:BLP, we took such concerns very seriously with this review. If Adam can name specific parts of it that he thinks violate this policy, then I'm happy to address that. For now I'll just point out that this peer-reviewed academic paper's central thesis that seems to be the main point of contention ("attacks") was already featured prominently in the last Signpost issue (where the entire abstract was reproduced and two Wikipedia editors that the paper criticizes were named); also, of course, its claims have already been cited and discussed in numerous other venues without causing allegations about violations of WP:BLPTALK.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

alleged violations of the Signpost's internal process customs are very much within ANI's remit. It is simply absurd to suggest otherwise. 'Customs' cannot override policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The alleged violation of the Signpost's internal process customs that this ANI complaint opens with consisted of Bri moving a Signpost story from "draft" to "published" status [in] the absence of the Editor in Chief instead of postponing it to the next issue as Adam had wanted to do. Regardless of whether this violated the Signpost's internal guidelines about how to proceed in case of an absent EiC, can you explain in more detail why you think this kind of disagreement is very much within ANI's remit? Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Just adding, it's totally unclear what the alleged transgression is here. If it's publishing a link to the research itself, that happened already in previous issues and in the Arbcom notices as well. If it's mentioning parties to Arbcom cases, that's also happened repeatedly and uncontroversially in The Signpost. If it's naming the two enwp editors connected to this specific research, that happened already in in February, also uncontroversially. If it's publication review and discussion, I think HaeB covered that topic just fine. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The transgression here is publishing, in Wikipedia's voice, material that not only preempts arbcom in essentially asserting as fact allegations of distorting the History of the Holocaust, but in doing so fundamentally violates WP:BLP policy. Wikipedia absolutely must be open to external criticism in regard to its coverage of the Holocaust, and it is entirely appropriate (even essential) to take particular regard to academic critiques. Doing so in this manner is however grossly inappropriate. 'Signpost' articles are seen as the 'voice of Wikipedia', and publishing a 'review' which takes a single source as evidence of guilt would be improper even if it were not easily demonstrated that (a) the Grabowski and Klein article contains errors of fact, and (b) the Grabowski and Klein article is clearly and unambiguously derived from material gathered by a globally-banned ex-contributor heavily involved in the topic under discussion. Hit-pieces in Signpost aren't going to solve Wikipedia's issues with Holocaust coverage (which undoubtedly exist, and go well beyond the immediate issue being discussed here). Proper internal discussion just might help, but not if it is going to be dominated by partisan point-scoring and fawning regurgitation of poor scholarship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedias voice", to me, is text in WP-articles. The Signpost is not that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you are massively overstating the importance of the Signpost. The Signpost is not an Official Party Directive, agitprop, or corporate press release. The Signpost does not "speak for Wikipedia" in any capacity. The article in question is clearly not in "Wikipedia voice"---it has the author's byline clearly at the top and it simply does not read like a Wikipedia article. As for "preempting" Arbcom, I doubt the majority of committee members are assiduous Signpost readers, and even if they were, they are not a sequestered jury. They're allowed to read things and form their own opinions about them on any topic at any time for any reason. The notion that a Signpost article has some magical power to singlehandedly sway the outcome of a case by hypnotizing the Arbcom members is ludicrous on its face. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of "how many editors actually do read the Signpost??" (the only times I have are the two issues for which I was personally interviewed, both a number of years ago), the premise behind ArbCom is that they are selected people to whom the community has placed an unusual level of trust. Axem Titanium is dead on in pointing out that they are not a sequestered jury. They can see opinions from any spectrum on any issue they please -- whether or not that happens to please your own political or moral viewpoint -- and your sole recourse against ArbCom members whose stances displease you is not to vote to reelect them. Ravenswing 04:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This request is connected to an intense campaign seeking to censor discourse critical of Wikipedia's coverage in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland. As the author of the review, I must point out the enormous labor that I (and @HaeB even more so) put into the extensive discussion. Now I have to deal with continuing threats to bring me before ArbCom or to unpublish my work. All this creates a strong disincentive for academics like me to review Wikipedia-critical work for the signpost. Consider how powerful the chilling effect would be if these threats materialize.

We should ask: Are such barriers to publishing positive reviews of Wikipedia-critical research in the Signpost good for Wikipedia? How do they reflect Wikipedia's current health as an institution and encyclopedia project?

By the way, is there any Wikipedia policy against "prejudging" an ArbCom case? Or is it just a purported custom that the Signpost not do this? Groceryheist (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of "an intense campaign seeking to censor discourse critical of Wikipedia's coverage in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland". As for academics not liking criticism, most people don't. For any academic worth reading though, it should go with the job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Re evidence: I could point to your own posts on this page?

I'm talking not about about criticism, but efforts to silence. Groceryheist (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Sure, you can point at that, if your intention is to demonstrate how utterly ridiculous your claim of an 'intense campaign' is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe that their intention would be to demonstrate an intense campaign seeking to censor discourse critical of Wikipedia's coverage in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland and that linking to your edit history would be evidence of that. For what its worth I also think that they're correct, your edit history is WILD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This request is connected to an intense campaign seeking to censor discourse critical of Wikipedia's coverage in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland. I assume post isn't required to go by WP:AGF or WP:NPA? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not seeing how I'm not assuming good-faith or making personal attacks here. Groceryheist (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

At the moment you seem to be implying that anyone who disagrees is part of a conspiracy to silence criticism of Wikipedias coverage of the Holocaust in Poland. If that's not what you are implying maybe you should clarify. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

To briefly clarify, I don't mean to allege "conspiracy" or even coordination. I mean that a number of actors (mostly, I presume, acting in good-faith), have for various reasons sought to influence my review to be less critical of Wikipedia or more negative towards G&K than would reflect my views. A lot of the extensive discussion was productive and resulted in improvements to the review. A lot was uncivil, perhaps WP:SEALION, and created extra work for Haeb, I, and others. Groceryheist (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So, essentially this 'intense campaign' consists of a lot of people disagreeing with you. And no, for the record, I'm not trying to 'influence your review'. I'm trying to get it removed from Signpost, since it should never have been posted there in the first place. Like anyone else, you are entitled to your opinions of the merits of the K&R article. It is not however appropriate to use something which presents itself as speaking for the Wikipedia community while doing so. Post material in Wikipedia space (which includes Signpost) and you can expect to be criticised for what looks very much like an attempt to preempt ArbCom. This sort of behaviour will, in my opinion, make it even harder to deal with the issues concerning Holocaust coverage that Wikipedia clearly has. The issues need in-depth analysis, not regurgitated toxic Icewhizzery. The issues are deep, and structural, and won't be solved by rounding up the usual suspects and running them out of town. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"which presents itself as speaking for the Wikipedia community" The Signpost?! Hahahahaha. Levivich (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Groceryheist: As I said repeatedly, this was something that we had to get right, and didn't. A delay might have allowed a right to reply, or we could have censored the Wikipedians' names, at least, to lessen the BLP issues. We didn't, though. There's a host of issues brought up on the Signpost talk page. We could have waited and taken the time to make sure everything was in place. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: This horse is long gone, unpublishing it now would probably bring up more concerns than it solves.  // Timothy :: talk  20:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  and if proper procedure wasn't followed, then that should be looked at, both to prevent future issues and to determine if some bias was involved in publishing.  // Timothy :: talk  20:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• While I think the opinion piece is too harsh on some of our editors, I don't agree that it violates our WP:BLP policies, not at first glance at least. I also think that WP:MFD would have been a better place to have this discussion, as previous Signpost articles have been dealt with through that board. I'll note, though, that when an article that hasn't been published yet receives a lot of pushback from fellow editors, the people responsible for publishing them should reconsider whether they should do so, and maybe ask for a third opinion to more closely follow our philosphy of consensus. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there is any reasonable doubt about whether something violates WP:BLP, you don't publish it anyway, and discuss it at WP:MFD afterwards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• I largely agree with Isabelle--the article isn't contra-policy, but the decision to rush to publish over the concerns of several editors seems counter the spirit of consensus. Yes, publications have deadlines, but sometimes that means an article doesn't make it into this issue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's simply wrong to suggest that there was a deadline-driven rush to publish over the concerns of several editors. To the contrary, this Signpost issue had been scheduled to be published on March 5 (as always, one day after the writing deadline on March 4, the day the review was posted to the draft page) [240]. But the pre-publication discussion went on for several more days, achieving what is very likely an all-time record size - no other Signpost draft in living memory has received this much effort to address feedback. Yes, in the end some of the people who weighed in still strongly disagree with the reviewer's conclusions, but that's in no way because of a "rush to publish." Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  From the talk page discussion of the review itself: As a practical suggestion, no an independent newspaper cannot [call an RfC on whether an article should be published]. We've got deadlines, we sign our work, we do not publish mainspace articles. We've been operating in this manner for 18 years. I'm not asserting that there was no review, or even insufficient review, but I have yet to see a compelling case be made that there was an actual consensus to publish. I'll note that I don't even disagree with the sentiment from the quote: a newspaper cannot hold an RfC on a piece several days past issue deadline. But perhaps when one is in a situation where it seems like an RfC would normally be needed to sort out how the community would feel about it, the Signpost is not the venue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'd also like to note that The Signpost is not actually an independent newspaper. They are still subject to oversight from the community, and I can think of two occasions off the top of my head where the community forced content to be removed from the Signpost (one was just blanked). Both incidents caused a ton of drama. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  It seems this is confusing two different meanings of "independent". Yes, of course the Signpost is bound by community policies, and as always these are being enforced by the community. But in the comment that Rosguill quoted from, Smallbones didn't mean "independent" in the sense of being exempt from policy - in fact, in the very same comment he explicitly acknowledged that community members are free to take it to ArbCom or wherever you think is best in case they think there was a policy violation.

  If you want a "real-life" analogy (with the caveat that wikis are not countries), the New York Times might be considered an independent newspaper in the sense that when it reports about a study that finds evidence that a company has violated safety laws, that company is not entitled to reviewing the NYT's article before publication, or to vetoing its publication until it agrees with that article's content (unless the company also owns the New York Times, say, in which case we would no longer consider it an independent source on this topic). But of course that does not mean that the NYT is exempt from libel laws, for example. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Some points:

1. What you call "attacks on two Wikipedians" is actually peer-reviewed literature.[241]
2. The Signpost's charter is to inform the community about such things, and that it did.
3. The author did not opine on the impending ArbCom case, and even if he did that would be acceptable, as long as the paper also gave suitable space for dissent - and it did.
4. The editors also made considerable efforts to accommodate suggestions and criticism, despite attacks against themselves.[242]
5. TBH, editors seemed to make unusual effort to refute the essay's claims (and by extension the review), even delving into such questions as "how does one define the Holocaust", which are entirely outside the scope of the publication and everyone's expertise.
6. On the matter of BLP violations, surely you will agree that one of those Wikipedians' repeated assertions that the authors were dishonest and "lying", and that Icewhiz "co-authored" their paper, are blatant BLP violations against them? It's beyond me why we let accusations like that pass, while fighting to no end to defend some Wikipedians' feelings and reputations.

François Robere (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leave it up but tag it as the opinions of the authors and not the Wikipedia community as a whole, or as factual statements. It was probably a mistake for the Signpost to publish it in the latest edition. It was also probably a mistake for parties to the arbitration to contribute to writing it. But by this point, the barn door is swinging in the breeze and there's no sign of a horse. BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure an analysis piece in our internal newsletter is what's intended by that. Still, it should be tagged as an opinion. In the future, Signpost articles shouldn't be rushed to publication if there's doubt still being discussed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  tag it as the opinions of the authors and not the Wikipedia community as a whole - the reviews in "Recent research" carry a byline for this very reason (see the "Reviewed by" on top), as do Signpost stories in general. From Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About:

  Unlike most Wikipedia pages, each Signpost article carries a byline to indicate its author, and is edited by at least one other team member. We welcome post-publication edits such as grammatical and spelling corrections to articles, subject to review by the Signpost team; we value our readers' efforts to correct simple mistakes and provide needed clarifications. Anyone may submit articles; suggestions and news tips are welcomed on our suggestions page.

  HaeB (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking of bylines, the article currently states that it is By Nathan TeBlunthuis, Piotr Konieczny and Tilman Bayer. Is that correct? Do all three of the named contributors agree with the opinions expressed? I ask, because it seems somewhat unlikely that this would be the case, and if it isn't the case, Signpost should certainly not be implying that it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leave unchanged This isn't even in the same galaxy as a BLP violation. It's well-sourced criticism of the public, on-Wikipedia actions of editors. If this was actually a BLP problem, then literally nearly every discussion in AN/ANI/RFA is an even worse BLP problem; the vast majority of actions of editors do not have academia writing papers about them. And the Signpost is explicitly *not* in the voice of Wikipedia. As for the arbitration case, taking it down for that reason is the equivalent of ad hoc law, and in any case, we don't sequester our arbitration panel from all discussion of cases. If you think an arbitrator is unduly influenced by outside discussions, then the proper solution would be based around that arbitrator, not censoring discussions because of some fear of temptation. That this discussion is actually happening on the level, around these lines, is much more concerning than anything written in the Signpost right now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is, we don't sequester our arbitration panel *in order to provide an additional layer of security* from discussion of cases. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Remove. Failing that, prominently tag as an editorial. Incredibly poor judgement has been exercised here by publishing what essentially constitutes an attack article against editors involved in a long-term NPOV dispute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Remove per the incoompetence of the Signpost editors.

This request is connected to an intense campaign seeking to censor discourse critical of Wikipedia's coverage in the topic area of the Holocaust in Poland

What a laugh! What ballistic naivity. This is almost certainly about intense campaigning. To understand the context of that, which should have made the wikijournos wary of rushing in where angels fear to tread, Antony Lerman's new book,summarized here, should be background reading. A brief account- Lerman was right in the thick of government monitoring and interference with any discourse of this type in global media- is here. Too much time is being wasted by careless disattention to the kind of games countries and people play in these hot-topic areas. It's dopey reportage in any case that boosts a piece of tendentious scholarship tossed up in the midst of a chronic political standoff between Poland and Israel, of which the wiki editors have zero awareness. We should all shut up and leave it to Arbcom.Nishidani (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm misreading you, but to clarify for those reading along, it sounds like you're suggesting that Somehow, the Israeli government is campaigning to unduly influence naive Signpost editors. And that this is a reason to retract the review. Groceryheist (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Another good example of your inability to read straightforward prose. Technically it is a misprision. I said you were unwary and naive, because you appear to be unfamiliar with the extensive documentation of Israeli government meddling in media representations of that state, via numerous supportive diaspora organizations. Newspapers like the Guardian have reported instances of organised tutorials in Israel to teach people how to register on wikipedia and influence articles towards a pro-Israel position. Lerman devotes a full length book to the details of how this is organized. That is the larger backdrop and which you and the other editor appear to have zero knowledge of. And, in your confident nescience of that, one of many factors, you lauded a research paper, commended its results as though they were factual and not just one of many interpretative hupotheses. I know that paper is cranky because if you use their methodology, you could write up an academic paper asserting either that (a) Israeli or pro-Israeli editors have engaged for decades in a concerted effort to manipulate wikipedia in order to buttress their country's position regarding Palestinians (usually by editing in, with poor sources, anything about the latter's terrorism) or (b) argue conversely that the I/P area has been dominated by antisemitic, antiIsraeli congeries of assorted editors who coordinate to defame Israel and distort the facts (people like myself). I know (b) is ridiculous, though claimed onwiki frequently, and offline by the usual dickheads. I know that there is some evidence for the former, and I couldn't really give a fuck about it, because I know this encyclopedic can cope with it by the normal procedures. Every (social) scientist is taught in their sophomore year that if the same methodology can produce diametrically opposed conclusions, then what is causing the dissonance is the respective assumptions of those who use it, not the data. Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how a. and b. are diametrically opposed conclusions. A campaign to misrepresent and whitewash violence against Palestinians on Wikipedia would be bad. But it can certainly exist at the same time as a campaign to misrepresent the Holocaust in Poland. Actually a paper using or building on G&K's methodology to study misinformation about Palestinian history on Wikipedia sounds like a great project! Maybe it would help shed light on some of the same structural issues with Wikipedia as G&K's paper. Groceryheist (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't apologise. Your inability to grasp the simplest arguments is now confirmed. I mentioned the misprision above, and now you repeat it by misunderstandinh my analogy. I spoke of a method producing diametrically opposed results analysing editing in one field, the I/P conflict. You skew this by taking diametrically opposed as an opposition between some putative abuse by one side in the I/P area, and the asserted abuse of one side in the Polish/Jewish WW2 articles. Frankly, that misapprehension, or failure to grasp a simple point about methodology, starkly underlines why you are not capable of understanding what your interlocutors are arguing. Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

^ As a discussion about WP:NPA progresses, the probability that someone will make a PA worse than the one being discussed approaches 1. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's the stupidest thing that I have ever heard. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• What the Wordsmith said. Leave it up as the horse has bolted, but tag it as opinion. The Signpost is an opinion page. It's not Wikipedia's "official voice," and if it wants to take responsibility for highlighting a piece of Icewhiz apologia then I guess there's nothing stopping it. There's also nothing stopping the rest of us unsubscribing from The Signpost in response (a highly recommended course). Outside of that: Arbcom can certainly cope with having this issue raised during a case on a related topic, and questions of publication timing and internal approvals are matters for The Signpost team. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave unchanged I don't understand what kind of content the Signpost should publish if not things like this. Since the topic is too hot and controversial (past and pending ArbCom decisions, etc) we don't talk about it - this doesn't make sense to me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

In terms of what kind of content The Signpost should publish, perhaps it could have less gushing commentary about an article that uncritically repeats accusations from a banned harasser, and more testing of those accusations against the reality of current en-wp pages and other scholarship in this field. The issue is not the topic area, which is entirely suitable for Signpost commentary. The issue is the external authors' apparent acceptance of Icewhiz as a principal and unchallengeable source when his previous misconduct surely disqualifies him from this role.

Of course this is just my opinion and everyone is free to disagree with it. But the "recent research" column is also only an opinion, and should be labelled as such lest it be mistaken for an official Wikipedia view. Alternatively, as I suggest above, those who disagree with the editorial approach of The Signpost are free to simply stop reading it, as I'll certainly be doing following this issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagreee with your the external authors' apparent acceptance of Icewhiz as a principal and unchallengeable source: the article was written by two reputable academics, published in a prestigious journal and, as far as I know, is based on excellent scholarly sources. What you mean is not that Icewhiz is the source, but that G&K conclusions are identical to Icewhiz's. But this is not a convinging argument: Icewhiz, the banned harasser, was banned because he was a harasser, not because he was wrong. Regarding Icewhiz and this line of reasoning ("Icewhiz said the same, so it can't be right"), I've expressed my point of views here, if anyone is interested. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Sure thing, this Signpost article does not look to me as a critical and fair review of the publication by G&K. It uncritically repeats the "central claim" by G&K that WP has promoted antisemitic tropes, such as Żydokomuna, "money-hungry Jews" controlling Poland and Jews bearing responsibility for their own persecution (Four distortions dominate Wikipedia’s coverage of Polish–Jewish wartime history: ... antisemitic tropes insinuating that most Jews supported Communism and conspired with Communists to betray Poles (Żydokomuna or Judeo–Bolshevism), that money-hungry Jews controlled or still control Poland, and that Jews bear responsibility for their own persecution., G&K say). Well, I do believe that G&K has resorted to tricks (such as looking at the old versions of pages and edits by banned users) to prove this point, and they failed to prove it. Simply looking at corresponding WP pages, I do not see any antisemitic tropes promoted by WP. But whatever. If they want to paint the project and other participants that way, this is probably the right of the author. I have seen a lot worse in modern-day Russian press. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

If WP promotes such antisemitic tropes (there are three of them), then it must be obvious for an educated reader of pages listed by G&K, no significant expertise should be required. Do you see it? I do not. Yes, there are tropes, but they are clearly described as such on our pages. We are looking for a black cat in a dark room, but the cat is not there. Hence, based on our page Black cat analogy, this is not science, but theology. Or maybe witch hunt. Or maybe a self-criticism session. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leave it be: You don't like the piece? Then rebut it. As mentioned above, the Signpost welcomes contributions, and if the article is as flawed as all of that, you should have no issue with getting the chance to set the record straight. But keep on pushing in this respect, and the boomerang's coming hard and fast. Ravenswing 04:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave it as it is Anyone can leave opinions as they would like as long as it is not veering into personal attacks, hate, or harassment. This has not crossed the line. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave unchanged per Coffeeandcrumbs, who sums up my arguments well enough that I don't need to repeat them in their entirety. --Jayron32 12:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Require better notice - The Signpost is anomalous compared to most other cases, because one editor has a huge presence advantage over every other editor - a rebuttal in the comments wouldn't ensure as many eyeballs. Individuals noting that the affected editors (and, for the sake of clarity, I think the review had substantial issues, some but not all related to them. There were also reasonable judgements about said editors) could rebut it by writing their own signpost article. On which - when did the signpost article reach a fair level of content fixation? Did that leave enough time for a reasonable editor to write a rebutting article for the same release? I'd advise Signpost articles about other (active & unblocked) editors have a last submission day 3 days earlier than normal, to allow sufficient time for rebuttal. While it may not have breached BLP, it does make accusations in non-neutral language that should have a full chance to respond - and those responding need an equivalent chance to do so to OP. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave as-is Censorship is the last refuge of the coward. If one does not agree with it, then feel free to go there and give a rebuttal. ValarianB (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Leave as-is per ValarianB. The horse is indeed out of the barn, and certainly I don't believe the Signpost ever purports to be the singular collective voice of Wikipedia. That said though, this thread as a whole should be considered a fair warning against jumping headlong into a highly controversial area without at least providing the opportunity for rebuttal or comment. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I would suggest that the two editors who published this and are not already named in the Holocaust in Poland arbitration case now need to be added to it, since they have put their names to insinuations against other editors on-wiki (and in Wikipedia's voice). Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  That has been suggested already above (see User:Nigel Ish comment) and I yes, absolutely. ArbCom needs to receive a formal request to include two editors who published this to be added as party into the arbitration case. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I would suggest that the editors who criticised G&K's article also be added to the arbitration case, since they have put their names to the "Intentional Distortion", so that the ArbCom case becomes a total mayehm: the final Armageddon. A fair criterion for inclusion: if you express your views on the case, you're party to the case. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• This. Some people are saying that it would be (axiomatically) censorship to take it down, and that isn't necessarily true. WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS apply to the signpost just like everything else on Wikipedia; and if it has violated those, then the authors need to be sanctioned. I'm not sure whether it has, and I'm skeptical that the community can decide whether it has given that that would require analyzing the underlying debate. Therefore, the appropriate remedy is to toss this into the ArbCom case, rather than to try to take down the piece in question - if that case does determine that the article is so inaccurate as to violate those policies, then uncritically repeating it may be sanctionable. Additionally, many people in this discussion have raised concerns about people potentially influencing an ongoing ArbCom case - there is no policy against that, but it is true that if you involve yourself heavily in an ongoing case (especially by repeating and endorsing claims that have gotten other people added as parties already), then you risk becoming a party yourself. --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  WP:ASPERSIONS means that An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence. How exactly does that apply to reading a peer-reviewed academic paper and then stating that one finds its arguments persuasive overall?

  Also, since it seems that you are accusing (at least) Groceryheist of violating WP:CIVIL, please provide concrete evidence - which of his statements in particular are in violation of that policy?

  Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leave it up - I get why the parties here and elsewhere are upset about this piece. I myself have been maligned by journalists in the past, and I hated it. I wanted every single false thing they'd said to be retracted and a correction published. But, with time, I realized that I was upset and didn't see the thing for what it was: an opinionated thing, published by one person. There's a reason WP:RSOPINION is treated differently. This review piece on The Signpost is probably wrong in a lot of ways, I could count a few. But it is one editor's opinion. Not the voice of the SignPost, not the voice of Wikipedia, etc. In the future, I would tell the SignPost to be more careful about things like this, but I absolutely do not think we should take it down now that it's already out there. I don't think BLP applies here since no parties are named, and no one is accused of committing any crimes, etc. I do see some places where antisemitism may be showing in the piece,I do see some places where there are inaccuracies in the piece, and I would tell the author they should probably correct this. But I do not think we, as a community, should intervene here. I agree with Nosebagbear that the SignPost should welcome rebuttals in the next issue, and in the future, the same issue as things like this. (edited 20:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC) to reflect that i was wrong about any antisemitism, that was actually in a comment in reply to the piece, not the piece itself. I've pointed out some inaccuracies I saw in the piece in a discussion with the author on my talk. Anyone is welcome to discuss there as always.) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Add the authors as a party to the ArbCom case. The core question here is whether the piece violates WP:CIVIL, especially via WP:ASPERSIONS. These are not things we can actually decide ourselves without deciding the case at hand; but since the article seems to fairly directly accuse specific, named editors of intentionally distorting the Holocaust, it seems fair to say that that the authors' conduct is something that ArbCom should examine as part of the larger case - clearly the authors have made themselves parties by publishing it. Taking it down would be meaningless at this point; the important thing is to stick to the precedent that editors need to be careful when making or repeating such serious accusations against each other, and that doing so right at the start of an active ArbCom case about that very question is naturally going to put your words and conduct under analysis there. --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm, yes, especially if it is "evidence". Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  These are not things we can actually decide ourselves without deciding the case at hand - it seems that you are overlooking the without evidence in WP:ASPERSIONS. Discussing a prima facie RS (a peer-reviewed academic paper - published in an academic journal that had seen no prior reliability concerns as far as I'm aware - which makes its case with an extensive collection of evidence contained within 317 footnotes), and stating that one finds its conclusion persuasive overall, is not making claims "without evidence". Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've seen enough crap in peer-reviewed papers that I'd be reluctant to make accusations on the basis of a single one of them, no matter how many footnotes it contained. Even if we grant that (a) the people who hang out at ANI can make a meaningful judgment about the case at hand, and (b) that judgment validates the paper's claims, WP:ASPERSIONS makes repeated invocations of appropriate forums. The policy linked there says that these include User Talk pages, topical WikiProjects, and various noticeboards, but it doesn't say a thing about the Signpost. XOR'easter (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've seen enough crap in peer-reviewed papers that I'd be reluctant to make accusations on the basis of a single one of them, no matter how many footnotes it contained – I'd go a step farther and say that this should be reflected in our rules on reliable sources for contentious claims. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• The evidence must be appropriate for the accusation being made. Accusing someone of intentionally distorting the Holocaust is about as serious of an accusation as you can make on Wikipedia, and requires a similarly high bar; I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that a single recent academic paper is insufficient, when the veracity of that paper is currently in dispute at ArbCom. Neither do I believe that the Wikipedia Signpost is necessarily an appropriate forum for airing grievances against individual editors - it has no hope of directly producing any sort of reparative outcome or enforcement, so it effectively serves only to damage their reputations. Consider the possibility of if ArbCom finds completely in favor of the accused editors - determining that the paper's core accusations are completely groundless. That is at least a possible outcome of the case. Would it be appropriate to publish an article in the signpost afterwards, bemoaning the outcome and continuing to directly accuse them? Absolutely not; that would be fairly severe misconduct. By putting the accusations on blast, and supporting them, when that question is still in dispute, the authors have therefore clearly tied their fates to the outcome and should be added as parties. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The article does not directly accuse specific, named editors of intentionally distorting the Holocaust. Rather, it seems to me that the article is a sympathetic review of an essay that directly accuses specific, named editors of intentionally distorting the Holocaust. I agree that there may be an element of impropriety (rather than breach of policy) in publishing a review such as this while the ArbCom case is still pending. But the best way to address this concern is for the Signpost to publish an article of comparable length that presents the "distortionists'" (so to speak) point of view on the issue. On the other hand, I don't see the value in adding new parties to the case. The parties in the case should be editors who participated in the editing, talk page discussions and AE/ArbCom disputes that led to the alleged distortion; unlike Groceryheist, they have first-hand knowledge and direct involvement in the case. What's the point of adding people to the case who have only expressed an opinion on the case? If I say "G&K are totally right", am I casting aspersions on VM and the others? And if I say "G&K are just copy-pasting Icewhiz's slanders", am I accusing Klein of being a meatpuppet of a banned user? Such an expansive reading of the notion of "party to the case" would make no sense, other than to silence our internal debate. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you please not refer to other editors as "distortionists", even if you hedge your bets against accusations of WP:NPA by putting it in quotes? In fact, I'm gonna ask you to strike that. Volunteer Marek 19:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

How would you suggest we call the group identified by G&K? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Add the authors as a party to the ArbCom case. I am going to try to say this in a way that takes no stance on whether the authors' statements were wholly justified, partially justified, or completely unjustified. If the Signpost item had instead come out as a few wall-of-text posts at a noticeboard, I think we would consider the editors who made those posts to be "involved parties". If someone wrote an essay based on their interpretation of the dispute and tried to get it adopted as a guideline while the dispute was still ongoing, we'd regard them as an "involved party". In the past, ArbCom has considered writing a Signpost item part of a dispute. It's participation in a somewhat unusual venue, but it's still participation. Even if it isn't an attempt to speak "in Wikipedia's voice", it is staking out a position in a historical record of sorts, before that episode of history has reached a breathing point. Wikipedia is not an experiment in deliberately unregulated, unmoderated, zero-consequence speech. XOR'easter (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  What is it you folks think adding someone to an arbcom case is going to accomplish exactly? Who at ANI is going to do this? You guys sound like... a mob. "He said Jehova too!! Add him to the arbcom case!!!", they yelled in bold unison. I wonder if some of you realize that anyone can already be added to an arbcom case. I wonder how many of you have actually read the paper or clicked on any diffs. I wonder if those calling for adding the "authors" of the signpost piece realize there is only one author. Levivich (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Well said. Whole thing is more than a little bit ridiculous. Lulfas (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Having a statement about the role of the Signpost in Principles and/or a Finding of Fact that people involved with this situation exercised poor judgement could be useful since it isn't the first time the Signpost's failure to regulate itself has resulted in issues with Arbcom (at least this time it wasn't an actual Arbitrator causing the issue directly). I don't think anyone really believes it will result in actual sanctions based on what we see here, at most an admonishment. The point of adding parties is that if there are future problems like this, it is easier to show a pattern and lead to a more decisive outcome the second time. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would be embarrassed to be calling for Arbcom to criticize Signpost because Signpost published a review with which I disagree. There is not one sentence in that review that is a PA, aspersion, BLP violation, or otherwise violates any Wikipedia policy or guideline. The review is a review of a peer-reviewed paper in the section where we review peer-reviewed papers. Everybody involved is a freaking PhD. Professionals giving their professional opinions. Wikipedia's response: take them to arbcom!! Levivich (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Close down the bloody Signpost and everyone do something more productive. SN54129 14:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree per WP:ILIKEIT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

  Untrue. The argument is not whether I (or your good self) like it or not, but that this so-called organ of record is an embarrassment, with a well-founded reputation for BLP vios and general of our two most important resources. Cheers! SN54129 16:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that this would have benefited from more editorial oversight, and it seems like many people here think the same thing: whose job was that again? If there is anyone who should be given hell for this (i.e. added as a party to an arbitration case, yelled at here, sanctioned, or the like) it is me. I am the editor-in-chief, and I allowed this to be published in its current state. jp×g 15:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Well, you weren't around at the time. --Andreas JN466 15:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I had given this some thought, and even if it had been solely your decision to publish this, I don't think the editor-in-chief should be held responsible for individual controversial essays, even if they violate conduct policies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

    I agree, the editor-in-chief who was absent should not be held responsible for individual who decided to publish it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• User:Groceryheist, in the interest of transparency and for the avoidance of doubt:
  • Did you discuss this review with any WMF staff or WMF consultant prior to posting it on Wikipedia?
  • Were you compensated for writing it?

--Andreas JN466 15:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The answer to both is "no". Groceryheist (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to have those questions asked and answered. Andreas JN466 19:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? François Robere (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, curious why these two questions came up. What are you implying? dwadieff ✉ 11:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

A number of people have commented on Groceryheist's low edit count and wondered how he came to write this Recent Research review (note that it was not his first).

In addition, Groceryheist has worked as a contractor for the WMF in the past (see also the CV he links on his user page). HaeB collaborated with him at the time as a WMF staff member. So there is enough WMF linkage for conspiracy theories to arise and in my opinion it's best in such a case to address that head-on and get it out of the way.

Groceryheist has now assured us the WMF was not involved.

As HaeB explained earlier today, he offered Groceryheist the opportunity to write the review because Groceryheist had commented on the essay, he was familiar with Groceryheist' academic work on Wikipedia and he'd given him a review slot before. That seems like a satisfactory explanation to me. Andreas JN466 14:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Where did you see a conspiracy theory arise? dwadieff ✉ 17:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories can be found at the Unmentionable Place, whose accursèd name we dare not speak. Folly Mox (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It really seems like no straw is being left unclutched at here. But yes, Andreas' summary is correct. (I'd also like to point out just in case that it's been almost four years since I have been working at the WMF; and that I had been a volunteer Wikipedian for over seven years when I joined WMF in 2011.)

It occurred to me that I have so far failed to remind people about the way the Signpost's "Recent research" section (doubling as the research newsletter) has been operating for over a decade now. By now we have covered almost 1800 research publications for the community, and around 90 Wikimedians have contributed a bylined review like Nate here. (The majority of papers don't make it to a full writeup, but are instead featured with a short note under "Other recent publications".) We continuously look for new research publications to cover (generally posted first on Twitter). Once a month I post a public invitation/reminder like this in the Signpost newsroom to contribute to the upcoming (or a later) issue by reading one of the many interesting papers on our todo list. (The list for the upcoming March issue is being drafted here btw.) That doesn't mean that anyone can contribute anything without quality control - reviews are to be submitted in draft form so they can be review-reviewed by me and the Signpost EiC. And I have at time reached out to potential reviewers proactively for particular sensitive or important papers. But I don't recall ever having prevented a Wikipedian in good standing from calling dibs on a particular paper on the list. We also used to send a targeted outreach invitation every month to previous reviewers and on the Wikiresearch mailing list, but have failed to do so more recently for lack of time. (However, last month we had several volunteer expressing their interest to help out with various clerical tasks on the editorial side, who are starting to help out now, so we may soon be able to restart that kind of more systematic reviewer outreach.)

I do recall a few times where I had to defend a somewhat opinionated review (including on one or two occasions, ironically, by Piotrus, who as an accomplished academic himself with various peer-reviewed publications about Wikipedia is also a longtime valued contributor to "Recent research", including in the current issue). And we have covered lots of papers that heavily criticize Wikipedia, also sometimes naming names and focusing on sensitive topic areas. But never any reaction like this. There could be several possible reasons for this, for example that we failed especially badly here at doing our usual work, or that there are certain topic areas on Wikipedia where things are very particular. I wish ArbCom success.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

(←) Speaking only for myself...

• Yes, the individuals on ArbCom read the Signpost. Half of us are subscribed directly and the other half probably sees the watchlist notification when the SP is delivered to the first half. (I have read the Signpost for the better part of the past decade at least.)
• ArbCom decides who are parties to a case, not anyone or any group at AN(I). Voting on it here means precisely nil.
  • Corollary: The way to request someone be added as a party is to file a case request at WP:A/R/C, add a statement at an existing case request, or submit evidence in a case that implicates that editor.
• The Signpost, and indeed the wider community discussing current cases and related material is nothing new. I'm sure my fellow arbs follow many different pages potentially discussing a particular case. While I'm sure this causes some bias in one way or another, I'm also quite sure the set of people on ArbCom are good at knowing what commentary is reasonable and what isn't and making judgements about a case accordingly. The size of ArbCom separately makes it difficult to screw up a case solely based on the chatter that the community freely engages in.
• If you are certain the Signpost article itself is so damning as you believe it to be regarding its authors, WP:MFD is over there.
  • Of what I read in the article itself and the authors' statements here and elsewhere, I do not think that effort will be successful. But it is an available path.
• If you believe the things the authors have said is sufficient to earn them a spot in the case, feel free to request it as indicated above.
  • I do not expect they will be added as parties, but I am neither a drafter presently nor do I speak for the whole here.

I might suggest this discussion be closed accordingly. Lots of smoke and not a lot of light in it. IznoPublic (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with almost all that @Izno: says above, and second his suggestion that this discussion be closed.
• It probably won't be closed. Discussions on this matter have gone on for a very long time with an almost endless number of words. I remember a previous discussion about 3 years ago on The Signpost's discussion(?) page which was accompanied by a similar amount of xxxx in my email inbox. Do everybody a favor and close this.
• Feel free to add me into any ArbCom case if other Signposters are added. I'll be happy to politely and concisely tell everybody what I really think.
• It's clear this won't go anywhere - so why not just close it? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leave it up and thank the author for their hard work The article was basically a recqap of the subject article and a small section on rebuttals to it. 95% of what was in there is a recap of what others said and clearly attributed as such. A confusing 5% wasn't and perhaps the author could tweak that a bit. It's a major story regarding Wikipedia and it would be unthinkable to not cover it just because there is an arbcom case. My 2 quibbles with it are the "5%" and that the article should have more clearly identified what it was which was "a recap of the subject article and a small section on rebuttals to it." . It's not an editorial, but it's also not overall coverage of the topic. North8000 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Joaziela on Taras Shevchenko

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

This editor is edit-warring on Taras Shevchenko, having made nine reverts within 24 hours, and Krajina, with two reverts so far. They also have a clear civility problem, using edit summaries and talk page messages to accuse others of vandalism and, yes, edit warring. They opened a section on Talk:Taras Shevchenko but continued reverting and accusing others of vandalism. They have previously been blocked once for edit-warring. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello I'm a victim here! @Lute88 is editing without taking part in discussion here Talk:Taras_Shevchenko#Ukrainian poet, Russian writer born in Russian Empire and even remove it from his page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALute88&diff=1144227993&oldid=1144223358 Even more its looks like he also used dynamic IPs @93.75.254.213 and @194.44.253.74 to continue editing war. To topic its been changed Shevchenko place of birth from Russian Empire to Ukraine (country that was created in 1991 almost 150 years after his life) and most of his prose was written in Russian including his autobiography and only some of his poetry was in Ukrainian language. I understand there is war, but there not a reason to rewrite history and remove his in Russian work and his place of birth Joaziela (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100%, Madeline.--Aristophile (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I blocked Joaziela for a week. Lute88, who is at four reverts, probably needs to be blocked as well, but I am involved with this user and will not block them. Another administrator will need to look at the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've merely restored the consensus version. Nothing to look at.--Aristophile (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:3RR only makes exception for vandalism and BLP violations. Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Bilateral relations troll at it again

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

The bilateral relations troll (previous discussion here) has returned on a previous IP. Can an admin take care of it? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Was blocked for a week and just came back to do the same? 1 month it is. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It ain't even their only IP. As per the previous discussions, there are other IPs that person uses. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

They are back at 88.230.103.57. Might consider extending the block to 88.230.0.0/17. It doesn't look like a lot of collateral damage.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 10:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've put a short block on that range. If they're still on it in three days' time, I'd be happy to make it longer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Legal threats / harassment by User:81.100.188.197

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 report of the IP user:

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

for harassment/threats, and possible POV pushing, on the following article:

• Shola Mos-Shogbamimu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The edit summaries give me an impression that they are going to report someone (though I don't know who) to the Police for 'misinformation'.

AP 499D25 (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2023 (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.

WikiEditor1234567123

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.

---

• WikiEditor1234567123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vladikavkaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

writing again, for this I can file a complaint with the administrator due to the fact that you are vandalizing the article. Oh well, the same for falsification.

• curprev 16:12, 10 March 2023‎ WikiEditor1234567123 talk contribs‎  28,825 bytes +222‎  Undid revision 1143877510 by Elbrusoid1507 (talk) Vandalism and removal of 3 sources. I ask administrators to protect this page. undothank Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit

Elbrusoid1507 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elbrusoid1507, Requests for page protection should be submitted at WP:RPP.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 18:23, 14 March 2023 (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.

London rangeblock needed

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.

---

• 2A00:23C6:9923:CF01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in London is having too much fun vandalizing articles.[243][244] Can we get another rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2A00:23C6:9923:CF01:0:0:0:0/64, blocked for one month last November? All of their edits are disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done x 6 months. Looks like a vandalism only IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2023 (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:Jasper Deng’s closing of a 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.

---

Moved to WP:AN

Jasper Deng recently closed Talk:Hurricane Orlene (2022)#RfC - User created map or NHC Map as an non-admin, uninvolved closure. In the closing comment, Jasper Deng singled me out saying me stating a neutrally worded RfC was “inappropriate and disruptive”. Per Wikipedia:Closing discussions, the closing comment sure be neutrally worded. In the discussion, there was previously no mention of the discussion being disruptive or inappropriate. I then attempted to work the situation out on Jasper Deng’s talk page in User talk:Jasper Deng#Request for a strikethrough. My request for the comment to be made more neutrally worded (with support from myself, the RfC starter on the closure) was met twice with no. Based on their full wording of the discussion closure, “Elijahandskip In light of the RfC we already had, this is inappropriate and disruptive. At the least, this is the wrong forum; such a change would have to be projectwide and discussed at WT:Weather. We will not be using the NHC-made maps.”, I highly suspect this user should not have closed the discussion as they appear to be biased and refusing to stay neutral in their closing remarks. The comment sounds more like something you would see in a RfC comment, not a closing discussion remark. In closing discussions, one person should not be singled out under any condition, let alone being pinged in the closing remarks.

As such, I request the closure to be overturned and request a new person to close the discussion (As noted on Jasper Deng’s talk page, I support the closure of the discussion). Jasper Deng also appears to not have any idea about how to properly close discussions, so a potential warning or topic-ban from closing discussions should be considered until they can properly show that they understand how to stay neutral in closing discussions. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. The RfC was procedurally closed with a WP:CONLEVEL rationale, premised on a WikiProject being superordinate to talk pages of individual articles in the WikiProject's scope. This is not an urgent incident or a sign of a chronic or intractable problem, but it may need a serious review. RfC closes are reviewed not here but at WP:AN. —Alalch E. 23:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Alalch E., should I copy this over to WP:AN or what would be the next step since this is the wrong venue? Elijahandskip (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd let someone else answer that, give it some time maybe. —Alalch E. 23:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Closing this discussion and pasting your statement at AN (with a link back here for transparency) should be fine. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Stating the objective fact that this attempted RfC was disruptive does not make my close biased or non neutral. This thread is baseless and should be closed before a WP:BOOMERANG strikes the OP for keeping the WP:STICK raised.—Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Technical Closure Request: Discussion was moved to WP:AN, seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Jasper Deng’s closing of a discussion. Can this discussion be closed so comments may be posted at the correct location? Elijahandskip (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Elijahandskip:  Done. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:25, 15 March 2023 (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.

Dweisz94 continued disruption and not respecting AfD consensus

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

---

• Dweisz94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For context, see this ANI thread from a few days ago. The article ended up being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999 but, within moments, Dweisz94 posts the same content into a different article to effectively bypass the deletion of their article. They then violate NPA policy in the subsequent AfD for the new article. They then also abuse the privilege of editing while logged out to make multiple !votes here and here. When I point out that the IP editors are SPAs, Dweisz removes this here and here. This is all behaviour that Dweisz was warned could result in a block in the previous ANI thread. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to admins that dealt with the previous issue. @Girth Summit:, @Yamla: and @Mackensen:. Dweisz has been notified too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Here are some interesting notes from the history of their talk page: 1, 2, 3. Take note of their talk page history. AP 499D25 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Article speedy deleted. Was tempted to indef, but thought it prudent for them to have a chance to weigh in so I have not. If someone thinks we need to indef, don't wait for me to wake up in the morning. Star Mississippi 01:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all I’m likely finished editing Wikipedia, second of all it is unacceptable that you accuse that two votes where my own when logged out. Dweisz94 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

because these uninvolved editors just happened to know if your dispute with @Flibirigit? Please don't lie, have better respect for your fellow editors. Star Mississippi 02:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No your claim isn’t correct, mostly due to the page getting taken down. Dweisz94 (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Since the previous ANI, Dweisz94 has accused multiple users of not liking him [245], accused multiple users of bias against him [246], accused multiple users of bullying him [247], and accused multiple users of ganging up on him [248][249], all of this without any diffs or evidence provided. He has also engaged in personal attacks towards myself, calling me "sick" and not welcome on his talk page, and says that I need "IQ". He was previously warned about personal attacks in the previous ANI. Flibirigit (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Another personal attack here. Flibirigit (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This is unacceptable and I’m not even reading this, this Flibirigit user indeed requires some sort of assistance to back away from stating whatever possible fact could make me look bad, some which are facts, most which are exaggerations and some lies Dweisz94 (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have never said anything personal about Dweisz94, nor do I have anything personal against him. I have no intent to make anyone look bad, and all of my arguments for deleting the lists are based on policies of Wikipedia. Flibirigit (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Indeffed Enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  + 1, having now read the prior ANI and AE, long overdue. Editor unfortunately lacks the competence to edit here. Star Mississippi 02:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Endorse. I would have blocked this editor myself, but I took a break to cook dinner. Cullen328 (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2023 (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.

Extreme 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.

---

Hi Admin, article Economy of France is vandalized by User:Backwardsnap this user is constandly changing GDP data without providing any source. I even reported at WP:AN3. He is not willing to listen at all. The GDP data are mentioned as per IMF source and he's changing is randamly. Unbale to control this freak.--2405:201:800B:684F:FD8E:C59C:D77F:A0F0 (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You have failed to notify Backwardsnap (talk · contribs) of this ANI report, as the red notice on the top of this page clearly requires. You haven't even done so for the AN3 report either in fact, even though that noticeboard requires an equivalent notice. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @TheDragonFire300: please block this user for 1 week he will continue to change the GDP data. He is not willing to discuss this issue. Neither he can provide any source. Do something so that he stop such acts. Thank you!--2405:201:800B:684F:F5B3:27C1:742E:ACE8 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the Economy of France page has been semi-protected for a week now, and there appears to be discussion started by User:Backwardsnap on the article's talk page too. AP 499D25 (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Update: both editors have been blocked 48 hours and the Economy of France page has been semi-protected for a week, following the outcome of a report at ANEW also by the same IP nominator.

AP 499D25 (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2023 (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.

Denver IP range making trouble

• 2601:282:8100:3BB0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using Denver IPs has been editing disruptively, making BLP violations,[250] adding excessive plot description,[251] and edit-warring over a ridiculously vague quote at the George Romero film director bio,[252] previously adding an unreferenced elopement.[253]

Note that this /64 range falls inside the range Special:Contributions/2601:280:0:0:0:0:0:0/26 partially blocked by Tamzin for disruption at the film page Talk:2000 Mules. Neighboring /64 ranges such as Special:Contributions/2601:282:8100:BC00:0:0:0:0/64 show the same editing style, for instance large plot additions with only "m" as the edit summary.[254] The person I'm reporting may be the same as the 2000 Mules zealot; the one is interested in dystopian films, the other is concerned about false voter allegations in the US 2020 presidential election. Both of those interests come together in thrice-blocked Special:Contributions/2601:282:8100:5AA0:0:0:0:0/64. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know who you are or what your beef is, however, several of us are part of a film club and co-opt that likes to occasionally contribute from our Colorado theater group space, which doesn’t make us a disruptive user or even the disruptive user you are implying. Hence, AGF.

We can’t police people everyone who uses this cinema cafe IP as the computers are public- allowing everyone access from our audiences, local artists, customers and even the homeless in our town. Otherwise if you think this is a sock puppetry issue, then it looks like you’ve been around long enough that you should know by now that you need to open a proper SPI instead of playing an inquisitioner here- starting with the premise that someone is guilty until proven innocent. Everyone sounds like everyone online long enough if you’ve been doing this for too long.

As for the contributions themselves, it’s not “defamation” if it’s true and well documented as Savini and Romero’s scandals have been in the book cited by author Lee Karr and the several witnesses interviewed including fx guru Greg Nicotero in said book. Otherwise should we also WP:CENSOR the Bill Cosby article or even the Donald Trump page for facts about their documented crimes and abuse? Give the readers the information and let them decide instead of WP:GAMING as you are.

The rest of your whining falls into the realm of speculation, hyperbole and matters of personal taste about what constitutes a long plot or meaningful contributions. For instance, Cronenberg and Romero are deeply “philosophical” storytellers so that’s an essential part of their art and contributions. To exclude that is to deny essential notable information for the reader. That’s why I politely warned you to get consensus from all editors if you don’t like a particular contribution, and have a friendly debate on the talk page, rather than running to what feels like your version of what you hope is the Wikipedia KGB to enforce your personal agenda.

As I pointed out above, it looks like you’ve been around long enough to know better- i.e.that with such light weight controversy over the meager contributions themselves in the first place, it comes off as passive-aggressively engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS for vanilla contributions you maybe don’t like for personal reasons or matters of subjective taste. 2601:282:8100:3BB0:F58C:915C:AD9B:26CC (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging 331dot and Doug Weller who blocked nearby range Special:Contributions/2601:282:8100:5AA0:0:0:0:0/64 which was interested in dystopian film articles[255][256] just like our new Denver friend, as well as the more problematic disruption related to 2000 Mules and the US presidential election in 2020. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a whole bunch of personal attacks for someone under scrutiny, 2601 IP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin do you want to add this to your partial block? I don’t want to try on my iPad. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That /26 is quite a large range, so I wouldn't assume anyone on it is the same person as the 2000 Mules editor (Ethiopique) unless there's clear behavioral connections—and that should be filed at SPI. I would treat any concerns about this specific person as being about a new editor, absent such evidence, and have no opinion at this time as to whether this conduct merits sanctions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Can I get a sanity check? The background is that I objected to the use of Science-Based Medicine for statements of fact about the scientific consensus in this edit here, after which Bon courage reverted it and opened a talk page discussion. In the ensuing discussion, which spanned all of 30 minutes(!), Bon courage managed to accuse me of not reading three separate times (1 2, 3), then said that I was either WP:PROFRINGE or WP:CIR afflicted (here), after which they decided to just reply to my reasoning with the one word response "wrong" (with the edit summary "read the article").

I'm not going crazy here, right? I've been editing here for a bit over year and have made a bit over a thousand talk page edits, and I have never ran into behaviour this... idk, bizarre and inflammatory? This cannot be the appropriate way to engage with other people. Endwise (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Why did you 'noping' BC? Have you notified him properly? - Roxy the dog 04:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep. I did it just because I remember someone else formatting it that way. I can convert it to {{u}} in the header if you'd like though. (edit conflict) Endwise (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Endwise, neither the diffs you present in isolation, nor the entire discussion on talk in context, support the statements you use those diffs to support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't call 'you' that, but was referring (in another part of the thread) to the editors another editor invoked who would have difficulty with a certain situation. I am happy to clarify this is not a specific reference to you. Bon courage (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I came in and objected to the use of SBM, Iskandar323 said that editors are going to continue doing that, and you said that such editors have either PROFRINGE or CIR issues. I don't really see how that doesn't mean me given I'm the only one who came in as a new editor and objected to the use of SBM, but, whatever, I guess I'll have to accept your statement. Endwise (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Well if any editor started to rock up at articles on fringe biomedical topics and deleted all uses of WP:SBM on sight from ledes because it's "a blog" that would be an issue, especially since pretty much all of those article are WP:CTOPs. Yes?

To be clear I think the issue is not so much your opening edit, but Adoring nanny's reinstatement[257] of it, complete with spurious reasoning about needing 'first-tier' sources at the top of the lede.. That editor had been party to all the long-drawn-out discussions about this, and knew what the prevailing consensus was. Bon courage (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is the reasoning about "needing 'first-tier' sources at the top of the lede" spurious? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• If your first and only edit to a contentious topic article is to remove something that has been repeatedly discussed and obtained consensus for on the talk page, then you're probably the one in the wrong. And I don't think very minor statements of "you're not reading the source" and usage of PROFRINGE and CIR are negative or actionable here at ANI. It's not even a statement about a person, but about editing. Which is an appropriate thing to call out considering your actions in the article. All you had to do was apologize for making an edit that was against consensus and go on your way, since as you said yourself, this isn't an article you had edited before or were invested in. Silverseren^C 06:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that consensus was never obtained on the talk page, the result was a no consensus which left the status quo active. The current rough consensus on the talk page is *not* to use SBM in the lead but instead to use a high quality source as befits the seriousness of the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

For reference there has was an RFC at RSN about the source in 2018 that found it was generally reliable and not a self published source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 256#RfC on sciencebasedmedicine.org. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

While I don't think calling other editors PROFRINGE has ever been helpful at reaching consensus or defusing contentious discussions, I don't see any edit here by Bon courage that merits sanctions. Their defense of an RSN-vetted source seems appropriate to me. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Tikgeit and WP:ENGVAR

Today, I reverted Tikgeit (talk · contribs)'s edit to Blind Faith here when they changed "were" to "was" and removed the comment telling them not to do that. I noticed they have been asked about this before [258], [259]. I was thinking of an attention grabbing block, except 1) They don't really edit often enough for a time-limited block to be effective, and an indef is akin to cracking a nut with a sledgehammer, and 2) As they were editing an article I've made significant contributions to, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and can't take any action directly. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I would not take action. Although within Wikipedia it is regarded as correct English usage that bands be referred to in the plural, in the Big Wide World of English usage by real English writers, they are not always treated so. The Evening Standard, for example, writes "The Clash is the greatest punk band the UK has ever produced."[260] (although to be fair, this journalist does mostly refer to bands in the plural). What real English writers and speakers do depends strongly on the band and the context. Yes, it is better to be consistent. Yes, it is a waste of time to piddle around changing unnecessary things like this. But it doesn't mislead the reader, it only grates on a few readers who know the rule, and as Wikipediacrimes go, it's a minor one. It's not a hill I'd want to die on, but nor would I want to sacrifice someone else on that particular hill. I don't think Tikgeit is making a useful contribution, but since they've only got 10 edits in the last three years, they're not a threat either. Elemimele (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the collective noun should be used though, it's that the editor continues to do so even when asked to stop and against messages in the article. It also appears to be the only activity the editor carries out, even if they rarely edit. Neither do they communicate with other editors who try to communicate with them. The user has never editted a talk page or any other page outside of main space, and communication is a required part of Wikipedia. An indef block until they answer other editors could be needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Support indef. All this editor appears to do is "correct English". Some of it is good but some of it goes against WP:ENGVAR, which is an important guideline. An indefinite block is proportionate relative to the editor's overall contributions, in light of all the warnings related to this issue. This preventative action will grab their attention when they come back to edit. They can then appeal and say how they will keep correcting English more correctly. —Alalch E. 13:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Support indef in order to get this editor's attention and to require engagement with community concerns. It should not be acceptable to blindly press ahead with this sort of contentious edit while both ignoring WP:ENGVAR and understanding so little about modern grammar as to describe that as a minor edit "Correcting fashionable non language." Even though they do not edit heavily, the editor is deliberately being provocative, and needs to be stopped, or at least brought to the table for discussion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked them indefinitely so that they can find their talk page. Zero edits to any kind of talk page. Any admin can unblock once it appears they've begun to interact with other editors. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• Good block to get their attention, but this case makes me miss the old style "You have new messages" orange bar that was impossible to miss; the little blue number is just too easy to overlook even for an old salt like me, so if this person does respond, in any non-disruptive manner, I hope the unblock will be swift. Courcelles (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just an FYI, there's a Gadget and a script that restore that functionality. MediaWiki:Gadget-topalert.js for a smaller but very noticeable orange notification on top, and User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar to restore the full Orange Bar of Doom. I've been using the gadget and it works well. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on rail-related modules and articles

Need a rangeblock for 2600:1700:B971:1930:B8C2:E223:29B0:E024/50 or a similar range,

IP has been warned repeatedly for the on-again off-again disruptive edits. IP never leaves edit summaries and constantly introduces false categories ([261] [262], unsourced edits ([263] [264] [265] and non-notable redlinks to disambiguation pages ([266] [267][268]).

Some prior warnings were given here:

• User talk:2600:1700:B971:1930:101:73A3:4F10:8D76
• User talk:2600:1700:B971:1930:FD5D:AC07:63C3:F42E
• User talk:2600:1700:B971:1930:E962:B35F:26B8:D2AB
• User talk:2600:1700:B971:1930:2CD8:B68F:C39:BAE6

Previous blocks can be found here.

Cards84664 17:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This IP address.

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

---

Special:Contributions/114.30.100.222 This IP address keeps undoing vandalism on a closed discussion. Can any administrators look into it? Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 06:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 06:55, 15 March 2023 (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 by Ентусиастъ/Statskvinde

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.

---

On 3 October 2022, User:Ентусиастъ was blocked indefinitely for personal attacks against other users.[269] Just over two months later, in December 2022, the User:Statskvinde account was created. Statskvinde has since admitted to having previously been blocked on a different account in an edit comment,[270] and even posted their old username in a talk page discussion with another user.[271] So this would appear to be an intentional case of block evasion. -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2023 (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.

Abusive edit summaries from Unregistered IP 130.105.197.222

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.

---

An unregistered IP has been editing an article on a Philippine locomotive. However, their edit summaries are abusive and contain threats of violence, including:

• "i can smack your face"
• "I will slap the builders plate of 903 and 904 on your face"
• "to the idiot who reverts"

This should be taken care of by admins.

Thanks!

— HiwilmsTalk 14:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. If they can't dispute content without lobbing personal attacks into the discussion, they won't be able to edit Wikipedia constructively. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated and stay safe! HiwilmsTalk 14:31, 15 March 2023 (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.

Dwasirkaram User

Hi sorry to bother you, I'm requesting administrator intervention as this user has gone through many of my edits across multiple different pages and undone/ edited them with no reasons provided. I've tried communicating with them on the relevant talk pages of each page and also on their personal talk page for a constructive academic conversation for the benefit of wiki readers however they never engaged. And now they've responded on the talk page of 'keffiyeh page' and have accused me of things I haven't done and also brought in what they alledge to be my ethnic background as grounds for removal of my contributions. They've gone through a string of pages removing sourced images and texts and replacing them with their own. Even when I tried making an edit that would incorporate both of our sources and contributions they just wanted their own narrative. This seems to be a personal attack and I feel like admin intervention here would be greatly appreciated as I did what was in my power in terms of trying to engage in a constructive conversation but they just chose to make personal attacks and accusations.

Some of the relevant pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dwasirkaram https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keffiyeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_of_Saladin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_cuisine

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic10 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. I have provided reasons for all my edits. You are constantly adding unsourced information to pages (most notably Iraqis, and Keffiyeh), and causing edit wars, and removing my sourced additions. These are examples of your consistent pro-Kurdish political POV which is clear through your account's entire edit history, which is harmful to Wikipedia as it is unfair from a factual and historical perspective (proof of this; adding unsourced Kurdish names to countless non-Kurdish pages, adding unsourced Kurdish names, and deleting sourced information regarding other ethnic groups.)

Regards. Dwasirkaram (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Crystal Ball edits by IP

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

Can we please take action on this anonymous user, consistently making disruptive edits to various sports articles that violate our policies against WP:CRYSTAL editing, yet ignoring our warnings and pleas on their Talk page) (the latter of which repeatedly results in the user blanking their Talk page in acknowledgement, an easy WP:IDHT case.) Jalen Folf (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• I blocked for one week for disruption. Really, this problem goes back farther. I counted twenty-one reverts over about six weeks. Any admin may unblock or modify as needed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Kaiseredit

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

Seems to be a not-here account that (in essence) is engaging in a slow edit war over at List of wars involving Bulgaria to push a pro-Bulgarian POV. In fact there is a whiff of SPA about them.

Examples

[[272]] [[273]]

This had been going on for at least 2 years.

[[274]]

And on many other pages as well. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Additional comment: Kaiseredit does not participate on talk page to explain their edits or present sources, even though the explanation for their reverts from several editors were given a week ago examples [[275]] and here [[276]] instead they keep edit warring, 2) Kaiseredit′s post are mainly WP:OR with significate inserts of weasel words, written in non encyclopaedias way i.e [[277]] or here [[278]], 3) there is a suspicion that Kaiseredit uses multiple accounts for which they have been warned on their talk page previously, but still some one purpose ip are appearing and making same type of edits as they do i.e [[279]] or this one [[280]] both have same geolocation, 4) Kaiseredit in their summaries uses insults against multiple editors i.e [[281]] or here [[282]] basically against everyone who reverts them. Obvious case of WP:Nothere. Theonewithreason (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I added a valid image to an article but it was removed for no reason

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.

---

On Charlottesville Fashion Square, I added an image of the mall from January 2023. It was then removed for the reason of a "trolling campaign", but I don't know what it means by that. An IP vandalized it earlier but I removed it as I was looking at the article at the time. User:Ohnoitsjamie is confusing me with vandals on the page and it is frustrating. I made an improvement to an article and it was removed, and they are being hostile towards me. I wish for it to be added because it was wrongly removed. Wandering Adventurer (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Nah. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why? I am very confused right now on why I am getting treated as someone I'm not. Wandering Adventurer (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2023 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) I looked over the page history, and also fail to see why this particular edit is problematic, other than that the image used was from CWCki, the wiki hosted on Kiwi Farms. A deletion request at Commons for the image is currently in favor of keep because the image is under a free license and does not harass a specific person. (The article about Charlottesville Fashion Square is now at AfD, which may justify deleting the image if it cannot be used encyclopedically elsewhere, but not until and unless the article is deleted.) Wandering Adventurer is likely not the user who uploaded the image to CWCki, and does not have the same username as anyone on CWCki.

Based on these observations, I think that Wandering Adventurer may have been wrongfully blocked, unless you can demonstrate that they were likely indeed "brigading" from Kiwi Farms or another off-wiki harassment campaign directed at the mall. WP:HNE mentions only BLP's, not corporations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Your AGF does you credit, but their second edit summary [283] leaves little doubt that they understand the provenance and context of the image, especially given that the Commons upload names the source too. This appears to be consistent with a long-running trolling campaign. Commons can do what they want, and in many cases as long as it's not explicitly a harassing image, it will be kept if it has a valid license and is within project scope. Acroterion (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Vilaminta (persistent insertion of fabricated content)

User talk:Vilaminta has been repeatedly warned against adding fabricated and/or poorly sourced content ([284] [285] [286] [287]). They have now repeatedly added a bunch of completely made-up flags to States of Ambazonia, despite multiple requests to either prove their usage or refrain from re-adding them. At this point, it is clear that they are not interested in listening. Requesting an admin's review. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC) (I filed this report on 11 March, but bots mistakenly archived it twice)

Having looked it over at your original report, I don't feel the States of Ambazonia should exist at all, other than maybe a redirect to the main article. This isn't even a functioning sovereign government; this is a guerilla separatist movement. While its website's declaration of "states" might warrant a sliver more credibility than that of a microstate or a fantasy roleplaying creation, it's still pretty much based on primary sourcing. I'm taking it to AfD to seek a redirect. Ravenswing 21:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/States of Ambazonia Ravenswing 21:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: That's fine (I have previously suggested a merger), but I believe that the persistent insertion of fictional or poorly sources content ought to be dealt with separately. The flags are in my opinion particularly concerning. Since I filed this report, Vilaminta removed the flags from States of Ambazonia, but at the same time they added one of them elsewhere. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Support block. This user who is obviously not happy with how Ambazonia is covered in the Ambazonia article perpetuates disruptive recreations of Ambazonian PoV forks based on pseudo-country cruft. —Alalch E. 10:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• I wouldn't oppose a block myself; there's a worrying amount of warnings and exhortations on Vilaminta's talk page, and their responses (when made at all) tend to be "thanks" or "ok," without either any genuine engagement or sense that they understand what's wrong. This is looking like a competency issue, as well as trying to pull fast ones by us, such as this edit [288] cloaked with a "fixed typo" edit summary. Ravenswing 13:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

AgntOtrth not respecting consensus/misinterpreting policy on Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols

AgntOtrth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently attempting to change a strong consensus on the renaming of Death of Tyre Nichols to Killing of Tyre Nichols.[1] They are doing so by arguing that comments that refer to the video of the killing are "biased" and should be disregarded.[2][3][4][5] This editor has a history of Wikilawyering WP:V and calling reliable sources into question when it suits their own point of view,[6][7][8] saying "context matters" when refuted,[9][10] and WP:NOTGETTINGIT when other editors try to correct them on policy.[11][12][13][14] (Disclosure: I have participated in these discussions) Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no comment on whether any sanction is justified against AgntOtrth but I've closed Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols#Article title should be "Death of". IMO it would have been better if it was closed sooner although I appreciate it might be more difficult for someone heavily involved in that talk page especially if they strongly supported the move. As I noted in my closure, it's not an appropriate thread as this is one area where we almost definitely should follow the normal procedures rather than WP:IAR or try to argue WP:NOTBURO. There's no point relitigating an RM which was closed so recently. It sounds like AgntOtrth is at least partly challenging the finding of strong consensus in favour of the current title, but even then, that isn't the right way to do a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. They don't seem to be outlining any substantial new information, which would be the only reason to discuss a move again only 3 weeks after the last RM. But in any case even if there was new information this would also be best handled via CLOSECHALLENGE (i.e. reopening the old discussion) or opening a new proper RM rather than just an informal thread. I've outlined this both in my closure and in a note direct to AgntOtrth, making it clear in my comment on the talk page they really should just drop it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Hopefully they get the message; if not I'll post updates in this thread. Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for response. It is my understanding per WP:IMR

editors should limit their requests to one or both of the following reasons:

• [Closer] did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because [explain rationale here] in closing this requested move discussion. (or/and - my addition for clarity)
• [Closer] was unaware of significant additional information not discussed in the page move discussion: [identify information here] and the discussion should be reopened and relisted.

I realize that the person attributed with the move is not the same who closed the move. And that I started the discussion in the incorrect talk page. AgntOtrth (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Lucier Raiid and promotion

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.

---

While recent changes patrolling today, I came across a user by the name of User:Lucier Raiid, who appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting a non-notable person through a WP:FAKEARTICLE user page that I have nominated for speedy deletion, but that appears to have been speedy deleted last year for being unrelated to Wikipedia's goals. Given that nearly all of their edits since they began editing in April of last year have been related in some way to promoting this individual, I have brought this matter here. I'm not sure if it's time to step in with a block or a very firm warning about promotion yet, but this definitely strikes me as WP:NOTHERE territory. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging User:Jimfbleak and User:Ponyo, who have deleted the promotional userpage at different times (including after I originally wrote this report). JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

They're making the same edits via two accounts. Lucier Raiid and Lenny Wolf ZA blocked for blatant promotion and socking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Would it be OK if I tagged them? I'm asking you first, since I didn't see sock tags on either page, but if you'd prefer I didn't per WP:DENY, I'll refrain. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There's not really a point right now unless they sock in the future; I clearly linked the connection in the block log and the user pages. (PS If you go back and add a ping after you've signed and saved an edit, the ping doesn't work).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. I just wanted to know what you thought before I did anything that might not have been necessary. (And thanks for letting me know about how pinging works. I didn't know before, but fortunately I know now.) JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2023 (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:Shivanikk

Despite several reverts and warnings, non-constructive editing has been done so far. Major removal of content and references, editing as per their own point of views and personal analyzing the guidelines, especially on Sidharth Malhotra. ManaliJain (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I request to kindly have a look at this. ManaliJain (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy linking Shivanikk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) GabberFlasted (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked per the diff, which shows that Shivanikk is a role account used by a professional PR team. If and when they address the multi-user and UPE issues, their editing record and intentions will be examined by the admin reviewing the unblock request. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Requesting block of Ghostchild for any pages related to Psyche (band)

• Ghostchild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psyche (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Goodbye Horses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ghostchild has admitted to having a conflict of interest when it comes to pages involving the band Psyche. He has identified himself as singer Darrin Huss, the lead singer of the band, several times. His recent edit warring on the page for "Goodbye Horses" has been over material giving undue weight to his band's cover version and stating that "aside from the original, only Psyche's interpretation has maintained its popularity", among other things, with no source aside from Discogs, which is considered generally unreliable and does not verify most of his additions to the page. He took to my talk page after I reverted his edits, again making claims that have yet to be backed up with reliable sources ("To this date, no other cover version of Goodbye Horses has over 2.5 million views on Youtube other than the single edit by Airborne Toxic Event", "My band was the first to cover this song, and made it famous before you could even find the original in the Internet", "As far as I know Psyche's version is the most widely known cover version out there", "We started the story before you could even find any information about the original in the internet", etc.) and instead stating that YouTube views, vinyl prices, and Amazon reviews are proof enough.

Looking at his edit history, almost all of his edits have been about Psyche, its members, and the songs they have covered, but very few of them have included reliable sources or material that is not promoting the band. I would normally wait to have a thorough discussion with another editor before suggesting a block, but the COI and frequent self-promotion suggests that this will continue without one. benǝʇᴉɯ 11:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and p-blocked them from Darrin Huss, Psyche (band), and Goodbye Horses; I agree fully with the above description of their editing and support further blocks or bans as needed to curb disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Ghostown37

Despite repeated warnings: [289], [290] and [291] User:Ghostown37 continues to ignore WP:ICON and WP:III. This, in addition to their earlier vandalism: [292], [293], [294] and [295] shows they are WP:NOTHERE. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Their sole talk page comment in this thread, combined with the outright vandalism at Edward Almond, strikes me as WP:NOTHERE. Blocked indefinitely. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This IP address keeps vandalizing/harassing others

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.

---

• 2604:3D08:627E:4F00:C938:DB80:B585:DA30 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can any admin look into these harassment messages? [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], [301] Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 08:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This user (the IP) needs a long-term block at the very least. I've left a friendly note on their talk page to try and help things out but it seems they continue to insist on attacking other editors. AP 499D25 (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the long block. This IP address won't leave my talk page alone. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 08:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@AP 499D25 I couldn't agree with you more. Waqar💬 08:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The IP was used for a little over one hour. I've blocked it for 72, by which time they'll probably be elsewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That's ok! @Zzuuzz, thanks for the help! Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 08:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Unsourced editting after final warning

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.

---

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

Warnings:

1. 12:08, March 11, 2023 uw-delete1‎
2. 18:31, March 16, 2023 uw-unsourced2‎
3. 05:12, March 18, 2023‎ uw-unsourced3 by an administrator
4. 06:51, March 18, 2023 uw-usunsource4‎ by an administrator

Here is the latest unsourced edit by the IP at Kamal Haasan filmography – (@ 01:13, March 20, 2023): That edit is also contrary to WP:FILMOGRAPHY, which says "not [to] add future projects until filming has begun as verified by a reliable source."
 — Archer1234 (t·c) 06:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

91.73.33.144's edits match the pattern of edits from a00:f29:280::/42, which geolocates to the same location (see active ANI report above for more about that IP's disruptive editing).  — Archer1234 (t·c) 06:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IPv4 for 72 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 20 March 2023 (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.

Trolling/death threats

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:Truther4424 is an unnecessary addition to the community: See their sole contrib. SN54129 14:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by HJM. Lourdes 15:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec) I think not. Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 19 March 2023 (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.

False allegations of sockpuppeting leading to users reverting my 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.

---

I have noticed three editors have decided to undo my edits on Wikipedia on the basis of false allegations. They alleged I have been using multiple accounts, however this is not the case. I would like an administrator to look into this in the hope that I can be able to edit freely without having my edits reverting for no reason. The fellow users in question that have been reverting my contributions needlessly are 10mmsocket, Murgatroyd49 and Mutt Lunker.

Many thanks in advance for any help. BlaineCreek (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• You appear to be in an edit war. Is there a reason why there hasn't been a discussion to find a consensus Nemov (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell the three editors in question are not challenging my edits content but are determined to stop me from making an edits. They claim to be mistaking me for another user who has violated Wikipedia policy. BlaineCreek (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  You didn't answer my question. If your edits are being reverted then you should discuss the disagreement. Instead you're just reverting. Nemov (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  Surely it is incumbent on them to present any evidence of their allegations or at least state their disagreement with my edits? I’ve posted here and asked clerk GeneralizationsAreBad to try to help with this matter as I don’t seem to be getting anywhere with the users who are de facto preventing me from editing on the basis of false allegations. The problem is not that users disagree with my contributions but the false belief I am sockpuppeting aka banned. BlaineCreek (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  They did, that is at the SPI case which you have already commented on. Wait for that to work through the process. MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  I’d be glad to have an administrator support my right to edit freely despite these false allegations. BlaineCreek (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  It appears the basis for their false allegations is that I have edited similar pages to this banned user who they are alleging to be me. If you look into my edit history, you’ll see that my edits are constructive and positive with no disagreement from other users apart from the three who are making these false allegations of sockpuppeting. I’ll leave this for now in the hope a considerate admin can clear up this ongoing issue. BlaineCreek (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Could it be? Is he back? Is that you, Politicalguru? — Czello 21:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Why the hurry? The sockpuppet investigation was only opened yesterday, and will probably be over soon. Are the edits you are making so urgent that they can't wait a few days? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

And gee what a shock, OP was confirmed as a sock. (I'm a poet and didn't know it) RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2023 (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.

TPA

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 revoke the TPA of the range 2603:8081:506:b6b3::/64? They're abusing their talk page access to create an article on their talk page that has been created by various socks which this range is a part of. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

A bit of background. This is about a rather lovely kids cartoon series that has (at least in Australia) gone kind of viral: I've seen young adults ask for and receive Bluey action figures (the car they came along with had recognisably Queensland number plates!) for Christmas, people who should know far better adding Bluey trivia to Wikipedia articles, and so on. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:39, 19 March 2023 (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.

Sexual solicitation

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.

---

Received inappropriate messaging (sexual nature) from IP 41.114.140.30 to my talk page. Jacqke (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

IP blocked for 72 hours by HJ Mitchell— Nythar (💬-❄️) 22:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Talk page comments recently blocked Kapanol420

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.

---

Here is there respose to being blocked: [302] and [303]. Talk page access should be removed.  // Timothy :: talk  16:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Can someone also revdel the revisions above too as per RD2 and RD3? Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, he seems nice, doesn't he? — Trey Maturin™ 17:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:03, 18 March 2023 (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.

MrOllie‎ - violation of WP:Etiquette and 1RR on blockchain article Solana

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.

---

• MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Solana (blockchain platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I attempted to add my own concerns about @MrOllie regarding WP:Etiquette and 1RR to 'Mikemaccana ‎ - violation of 1RR on blockchain article Solana' above, for the purposes of having discussion in a single place, however @MrOllie removed them. As discussed in the comments in that section, information originally considered to be off-topic by @MrOllie was re-added, with a polite explanation about how the information is relevant to the topic at hand, with two links to very well-referenced wikipedia articles proving this point. In addition @MrOllie was also contacted on his personal talk page with the same information. In response Mr Ollie simply removed the developer usag stats a second time without engaging in further discussion. My understanding is that @MrOllie's actions:

• Violates Wikipedia:Edit_warring 1RR revert 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&diff=prev&oldid=1141421417 revert 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&oldid=1145383238

• Violates Wikipedia:Etiquette specifically: good faith, etiquette, civility, not open to compromise, not willing to discuss on talk pages, and failure to discuss.

I appreciate that MrOllie has raised an issue with me for re-adding the information after explaining why the information is relevant to the topic, as he considers this me engaging in an edit war. I also appreciate this discussion is now split in two places, again, I did attempt to add this above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemaccana (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The claims here are false and this should be speedy closed as a baseless retaliatory thread.

WP:1RR is 1 Revert per 24 hours. You cannot take a diff from the 25th of Feb and a diff from the 18th March and claim a 1RR violation.

The claim of "Violations of WP:Etiquette" and failure to discuss has no actual evidence attached to it and is easily disprovable by looking at the multiple examples of talk page threads they are engaging you in [304] [305] [306]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Is the article under a 1rr restriction? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Yes, see WP:GS/Crypto#1RR. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, there is no violation of 1RR in this typical content dispute. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2023 (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.

Curse words, hate

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stroupoutsa Please protect my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη#Σε_ξεπάτωσαν ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη: It's moot now that Stroupoutsa (talk · contribs) has been blocked, but you failed to notify them of this ANI report, as the red notice on the top of this page clearly requires. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:12, 16 March 2023 (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.

Not here?

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.

---

Someone may care to have a look at this IP's contributions. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blatant disruptive editing. Given a month since it seems to be a semi-stable IP. Courcelles (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2023 (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.

Kapanol420

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.

---

Kapanol420

I've been is a disagrement over an ECP edit and RFC at Moldova [307], [[308]] with User:Kapanol420. They are now vandalizing my user page [309]. I also suspect they may be involving in sock/meat puppeting. I suggest this [310] demonstrates NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  13:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Holy s**t do you even have a life? I pray for you Kapanol420 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed

Star Mississippi 16:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Girth Summit: or any wandering admin, mind revoking TPA? This clearly indicates this isn't going to be a fruitful unblocking conversation. Star Mississippi 17:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed; TPA revoked. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:16, 18 March 2023 (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.

Mikemaccana - violation of 1RR on blockchain article Solana:

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.

---

• Mikemaccana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Solana (blockchain platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mikemaccana is in violation of the 1RR in place on all cryptocurrency related articles (see WP:GS/Crypto#1RR). I placed a notification about the GS on their talk page a few weeks ago - though the 1RR doesn't actually require notification. This is the edit they're reverting to, this is revert #1 and revert #2. Related talk page discussion is Talk:Solana_(blockchain_platform)#Number_of_developers. Discussion is minimal, but is 2 to 1 against Mikemaccana's edit. For background, this is an editor who has returned recently after a 13 year absence and now edits primarily about the Solana blockchain, and their user page carries a COI notice about Solana. Since this is a community authorized GS, I wasn't sure if this belongs here, or AE, or at the 3RR noticeboard. Please advise if I should take this somewhere else. - MrOllie (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Discussion is minimal" indeed. The reason the information about developer use of the Solana blockchain was removed was the user @MrOllie not understanding that blockchains themselves are developer platforms. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&diff=prev&oldid=1141421417

The information was re-added with a note (and links to two wikipedia pages) politely explaining why blockchains are developer platforms. I also added a note on @MrOllie' talk page explaining the same.

Rather than constructively respond to the reasons given for re-adding the content, the user @MrOllie reverted the content a second time (revert 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&diff=prev&oldid=1141421417

revert 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solana_(blockchain_platform)&oldid=1145383238). This is not constructive behaviour and my understanding is that it is in violation of 1RR. Mikemaccana (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add things over my signature. - MrOllie (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not know what the 'signature' is here, I normally expect a signature to be an item at the bottom of an article or the digital signing of a document hash with a private key. I added a link to others to help others know the users involved, and see you talk page where I originally raised the matter of your recent edits. Mikemaccana (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

As others have asked, I have merged my issues with your actions in regards to this article to this item. Mikemaccana (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Since my edits were also to let others know I am accusing you of violating wp:1rr and wp:etiquette I have added a separate item to this noticeboard as it seems you would prefer the discussion happens elsewhere outside of this item. Mikemaccana (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

So why did you twice call MrOllie's edits vandalism? It isn't. Acroterion (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Acroterion for joining the conversation. Are you an arbitrator? I'm not sure how this process works.

I don't edit Wikipedia very frequently, so I appreciate wikipedia may have a different definition of vandalism than the common one. Given that information was provided to MrOllie explaining how the referenced information was relevant to the topic, and he responded by simply deleting the information, I'm not sure what else to call this behaviour. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions @MrOllie's behaviour could be considered a lack of good faith, etiquette, civility, not open to compromise, not willing to discuss on talk pages, and failure to discuss. Mikemaccana (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Further to @MrOllie's introduction, as @MrOllie is likely aware but not mentioned here, there's a general sense that the wikipedia page for the Solana blockchain is generally used as a smear campaign against the Solana blockchain - this has been bought up repeatedly on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solana_(blockchain_platform) Mikemaccana (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mikemaccana For an definition of vandalism on wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. MrOllie's removal of content was not malicious, and they clearly explained why they removed it in the edit summary, so it is not vandalism.

Acroterion is an administrator, not an arbitrator. This board is for dealing with user conduct issues, not for resolving disputes over content.

You have been edit warring in a topic under community sanctions, while talk page discussion is ongoing and while having a COI, and have now filed a ridiculous retaliatory thread full of nonsense claims. I would advise you to take a step back here. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

> MrOllie's removal of content was not malicious

I'm not sure how you can know this.

> They clearly explained why they removed it in the edit summary, so it is not vandalism.

The reason the content was re added was specifically provided to @MrOllie -

My message in edit history: "Undo removal of developer statistics - as discussed in the Talk page blockchains are developer platforms - see the [blockchain] and [Decentralized_application] pages for details on this topic. The amount of developers is a a clearly notable aspect of any developer platform"

My message on MrOllie's page: "You recently removed developer stats for the Solana blockchain. As mentioned in the edit history when this information was re-added, the majority of modern blockchains are platforms for distributed applications - a blockchain being popular with developers is indeed a notable aspect of the blockchain. See Blockchain and Decentralized_application for more on this topic. Note I did not raise the importance flags re: Melania Trump. However I did remove the information per the flag"

@MrOllie's response was not constructive at all:

Rv edit warring about stats from unreliable source combined with deletion of actually reliably sourced information

This is very clearly not engaging in discussion. Mikemaccana (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

> now filed a ridiculous retaliatory thread full of nonsense claims.

Please be constructive and polite in your engagement with others. Mikemaccana (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can know this. WP:AGF. Our default position is we assume an edit was made in good faith unless evidence is presented otherwise. You have provided no evidence that this is anything other than a disagreement over whether this belongs in the article.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with the reason MrOllie gave for removing the content, the important thing is that he provided a reasonable explanation regarding the relevance of the material and standard of sourcing - the edit, therefore, cannot possibly be vandalism.

Please be constructive and polite in your engagement with others. Indeed, so please stop accusing other people of vandalism and improper etiquette without evidence. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't resolve content disputes here, we deal with problematic behavior, which in this case appears to be yours. MrOllie isn't a vandal, and thinking you're right isn't an excuse for edit-warring.Please work this out o the talkpage, and I strongly advise you to withdraw the accusations of vandalism here. Acroterion (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@mrollie's behaviour in refusing to discuss changes, in a way that harms wikipedia's output and actively engages in conflict-based behavior to a user that simply explained:

1. Why some content was relevant to the topic

2. that a third user had marked somethin as being irrelevant

Absolutely corresponds to Wikipedia:Vandalism's:

> The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Mikemaccana (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you insist on doubling down with assumptions of bad faith here at ANI, you're blocked for a little while. If you resume personal attacks of this kind, the next block will be longer. Learn to use talkpages to discuss disagreements, using published sources, and stop treating other editors as opponents. Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Addressing @mrollie's response to my statements he has violated 1RR and WP:etiquette:

> WP:1RR is 1 Revert per 24 hours

@mrollie OK. I didn't know that. Happy to learn, as I only reverted your work once today with an explanation before you began the edit war.

> The claim of "Violations of WP:Etiquette" and failure to discuss has no actual evidence attached to it

Yes it does. Repeating:

> As discussed in the comments in that section, information originally considered to be off-topic by @MrOllie was re-added, with a polite explanation about how the information is relevant to the topic at hand, with two links to very well-referenced wikipedia articles proving this point. In addition @MrOllie was also contacted on his personal talk page with the same information. In response Mr Ollie simply removed the developer usag stats a second time without engaging in further discussion.

Your actions in this matter are very clearly a violation of good faith, etiquette, civility, being open to compromise, and being willing to discuss - you didn't attempt to respond to the reasoning given to you in two places - the edit history and your personal talk page - about how the information you deleted was relevant. Instead you just reverted the changes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemaccana (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFS to support your claims that MrOllie violated WP:Etiquette. You cannot just vaguely handwave "I left messages on the talk page prior to reverting, so WP:Etiquette violation". Where did he violate the policy? What did he say that was uncivil? Where was he impolite? Bear in mind that talk page discussions can take a long time, you are expected to give other participants a reasonable time to respond to questions. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I see this user has been blocked, but I'll state here anyway that whatever response he is referring to here was not written by me. MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie see #MrOllie‎ - violation of WP:Etiquette and 1RR on blockchain article Solana below. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2023 (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.