Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

• PlatinumClipper96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chingford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I today reverted an edit by

In apparent retaliation the editor has trawled through my edit history over the last month or two, and just reverted my edits on 20 pages, these being:

1. Fulwell, London
2. Goddington
3. Morden
4. Plumstead
5. Hatch End
6. New Addington
7. Kevington, London
8. Newyears Green
9. West Heath, London
10. Harlington, London
11. Bickley
12. Longford, London
13. Sundridge, London
14. Plaistow, Bromley
15. Derry Downs
16. Pratt's Bottom
17. Ramsden, Orpington
18. Kenley
19. Bexleyheath
20. Hayes, Bromley

This is not an isolated behaviour. This editor repeatedly reverts to his preferred wording and this is

My view is that this editor is knowledgeable about some aspects of London, and other edits they make are valuable, but this issue is endemic. It is not going to go away, and their method of reverting and not seeking consensus asks questions about whether they are

Id personally also like to support this, having seen multiple edit wars by the same user over multiple years over countless articles with tens of users. The tactic appears to be to frustrate users into giving up, as many of the pages involved are low traffic and unlikely to have many contributors at one time. Every time i see this user, their "contributions" are simply reverting edits and pushing political ideologies which are contrary to guidelines as described above. Whats listed above is mostly one days worth of edits, and this happens on a frequent basis - This is not their first edit war, and without intervention it will not be their last. Garfie489 (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the accusations Sirfurboy has made here. Utterly defamatory and lacks important context. I would strongly encourage administrators looking at this discussion to view this talk page discussion at WikiProject London for context (specifically today's contributions).

My edit to Chingford took into account the talk page discussion Sirfurboy cites, and I made a bold edit to the article today with slightly different wording, using LondonEast4's suggestion of including the historic county of Chingford in the second paragraph. Sirfurboy reverted this bold edit 9 minutes later. I made no further edit, and took it to the linked talk page discussion he suggested I take further discussion to after I suggested discussing this dispute on his talk page. Extremely misleading, if not slanderous, to say "I requested he take it to talk. He did not.".

Having made this edit [6] to Croydon last month, Sirfurboy made a number of changes [7], resulting in the only mention of Surrey in the lead being that Croydon "was formerly an ancient parish in the Wallington hundred of Surrey". Guidance at WP:UKTOWNS clearly states that the lead of UK settlement articles should include the place's historic county if different to ceremonial county. I restored my wording, as Croydon ceased to be a parish long before it became part of Greater London in 1965 (when Sirfurboy argues it left the historic county of Surrey). Sirfurboy effectively restored his wording, and I made no further edit to this article.

Sirfurboy then begins to trawl through my edit history, beginning a long series of edits (many of which are reverts to my edits) to historic county wording in articles he had no prior history editing, starting with Romford, Leytonstone, Edmonton, London, Ilford and Stratford, London. He does, however, start a series of discussions across talk pages, some of which I contributed to (including Talk:Woodford,_London#Woodford_is_not_in_Essex. He then begins mass editing Greater London place articles with stable wording, most of which neither of us had ever edited, using, by his own admission, Google Search to find articles that did not include his preferred wording. I outlined my objections to his wording on both his talk page and today at WikiProject London. I have today reverted many of these bold edits, highlighting my objections and pushing for discussion rather than continued mass edits, which Sirfurboy continued with today.

The reverts I made today were not a "retaliation", but a response to a series of similar bold edits he made today at Kenley, Ramsden, Orpington, Pratt's Bottom, Derry Downs, Plaistow, Bromley and Sundridge, London. I made my objections to this new wording in the relevant edit summaries and on the WikiProject London talk page discussion linked in my first line. I then reverted similar bold edits he had previously made, which had not yet been changed. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer some specific points in that response: I already linked to the WikiProject London talk page above. Agree that it provides context. There is also context on my user talk page User talk:Sirfurboy#Counties... where PC96 attempted to raise the content discussion there and I signposted to the Wikiproject London page. The editor has 3 times accused me of trawling his edits, but, on the contrary, it is clear by looking at these 20 reverts listed above, that 19 of them were on pages that PC96 had never edited before reverting my edits. [8]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute is only the latest outburst in a very long and seemingly endless dispute about how best to treat historic counties in the UK, in England especially. The cause is the poorly constructed guidelines from over 20 years ago that allow no room for compromise of any sort. I have intentionally kept out of this current argument. PlatinumClipper96 is not a disruptive editor pushing a point of view without any substance. The guidelines that state We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries are nothing more than opinion. There is unambiguous evidence, in statute law and in quality secondary sources that shows the historic counties have never been altered (in any relevant way), never abolished and never had boundaries changed. The issue is whether they hold any relevance to the point of being notable in today's UK. The guidelines do not cater for that discussion but instead assert a factually incorrect opinion that is of peripheral importance. So finger pointing at an editor for correcting factual errors as best as possible is unhelpful and unfair and I would say contrary to wiki policy. Incidentally, it is also misleading to imply that PlatinumClipper96 is part of a small minority. There have been regular and many very high quality editors who have also questioned the current guidelines going back many years. I regard Sirfurboy also as a quality editor and I am tentatively engaged with him in what seems to be a reasonably open minded discussion about this HC issue. Time will tell if it bears fruit. By way of a general observation, the issue is both simple and complicated, not helped by freely used ambiguous words and phrases, and, IMO, by a cohort of old school editors with entrenched minds (opinions all expressed in good faith of course and no offence intended). Besides that old-school group, there will always be clamoring newbies eager to leap into the fray thrusting daggers into those editors who dare to think outside the square and question established doctrine. In summary, I cannot comment on the technicalities of this presumed edit war, but the subject itself is not about one person pushing an isolated opinion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, thanks, but ANI is not the place to discuss the content dispute. This report is about editor behaviour. The editor has trawled through my edits and reverted my edits on 20 pages, 19 of which he had never edited before. This is not the only issue either.

PlatinumClipper96 mentions the Croydon page, so to examine that: his bold edit was here,[9], I and Dave Biddulph attempted to adjust the edit - without reversion -to a form of words that did not assert Croydon was in Surrey: [10]. PC96 reverted to his version [11] on 14 Nov, 11:01. I then immediately took this to talk, posting at 11:39: [12] GrindtXX pointed out the established guidelines and Spinney Hill made an edit that resolved the situation [13], consensus established, guidelines implemented. With a clear editor consensus, PC96 did not edit that page again.

After that, and despite it already being clear to this editor what the consensus and guidelines say, PC96 has reverted my edits on other pages at:

Romford [14], and [15], I initiated talk: [16]

Enfield, London [17]

Woodford, London [18] and [19], I initated talk: [20]

Whitechapel [21], I initated talk [22]

Fulwell, London [23], I initated talk: [24]

So in each case the editor does not discuss in talk before editing against a consensus he is aware of (in Romford, his edits removed a comment on the page asking editors to discuss in talk before putting in an edit that says Romford is in Essex). He simply reverts to his preferred version, forcing the case to be re-opened in talk pages time and again. This is a huge time sink, which appears to be a strategy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not this shit again. Easy resolution - simply block (or topic ban from county related articles) anyone from the co-ordinated little group who continues to push the fringe views about historic counties and refuses to follow the quite reasonable guidelines on this subject. That will sort the problem out until the next account turns up. A typical previous total waste of everyone's time can be seen at a previous ANI here. Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact... if I were not literally about to leave for a few days over Xmas, I would block PlatinumClipper96 for their behaviour here. Going back reverting another's contributions is one thing, doing it in violation of topic guidelines is quite another. PC96 - if you do this once more, I will block you. If any other admin thinks it is deserving of a block anyway, please feel free. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sirfurboy, yes, I see your point and perhaps I did stray off topic. I was just trying to support someone I saw backed into a corner. But, as I said, I have kept out of this latest dispute and so cannot comment on any detail from either side. Incidentally, I need to thank Black Kite for his most illuminating contribution: informative in many ways. A true ambassador for what makes Wikipedia the institution it has become. I too look forward to that imminent Christmas break: surf, stubbies, slip, slap and slop. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I continue to be befuddled by this back and forth about historic counties and the drama it creates. I agree with Black Kite that TBANs may be needed for those who refuse to drop the stick... firefly ( t · c ) 09:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are befuddled by the back and forth nature of this (never-ending) dispute is evidence enough that the guidelines need to be clarified. Not referring to the current PC96-SB spat, acting contrary to consensus that contradicts policy is not grounds for a block. Rather, it is grounds for urgently revisiting the guidelines with fresh thinking. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's grounds for making sure the irredentists who refuse to follow Wikipedia guidelines don't waste any more of our time. This issue has been discussed ad nauseam, so it's time for those on the "losing" side to either accept the result or stop editing Wikipedia.

Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

And those guidelines seemingly are being addressed through the proper channels, not by reverting edits and edit warring as PC96 has done on multiple occasions. As already mentioned, a discussion about updating guidelines is very much separate to the discussion of edit warring to force ones belief of what guidelines should be. I feel Sirfurboy's put this already much better than i can, but going through an editors history deliberately to undo and war their contributions when said contributions are in line with all relevant guidelines should never be tolerated.

The fact this is just one example in years worth of similar conduct shows something at least needs to be done to prevent future misconduct. This user has been previously reported for bad faith edits according to their talk page by Uakari [[25]] along the same issue last year and seemingly did not learn from this. In fact, PC96 summarises the removal of their previous warning from the talk page as "Removing rubbish" according to the talk page edit history. Maybe after continued edit wars by PC96, its time we take out the trash? Garfie489 (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy - utterly misleading yet again. On Romford, the comment left on the page was "PLEASE GO TO THE TALKPAGE BEFORE CHANGING THIS TO ESSEX". There have been several occasions over the years where editors have replaced "east London" with Essex. This is not something I have ever tried to do, and this comment was irrelevant to whether or not, or what tense, the historic county is included. I removed this comment as my edit introduced wording that clearly distinguished the fact Greater London is the current ceremonial county and that Essex is the historic county. As for the Croydon edits last month, Dave Biddulph did not join you in "attempting to adjust the edit - without reversion -to a form of words that did not assert Croydon was in Surrey" - his edit solely corrected a spelling error [26].

"So in each case the editor does not discuss in talk" - another falsehood, just like your claim that I did not take your Chingford revert to talk. I cannot be expected to have the same discussion about the same topic on each relevant article. I engaged in talk at Talk:Woodford, Talk:Romford, Sirfurboy's talk page, and WikiProject London, amongst others. In the midst of discussion, and without engaging in content discussion with me, you continued mass editing your preferred wording, using Google Search to find articles (most of which neither of us had ever edited) that mentioned historic counties in a way you disapprove (as you admit here [27]).

As you seem to have an issue with me reverting your bold edits, it is worth mentioning again the way you trawled through my edit history. You had never previously edited Ilford, Chingford, Romford, Woodford, Edmonton, London, or Enfield, London, amongst others. My reverts to your bold edits (making the same changes on articles about the same topic) are justified. Your mass edits, which you continued making to dozens of articles despite ongoing discussion, were disruptive.

@Black Kite - Sirfurboy's mass edits were bold and the topic of discussion. He continued carrying out mass edits to stable wording across Greater London articles neither of us had ever edited regardless. I fail to see why I was wrong to undo his most recent bold edits and encourage further discussion. I fail to see why it is acceptable for him to carry out reverts to bold edits having looked at user contributions, but not me.

Many of Sirfurboy's bold edits were in violation of topic guidelines. As I point out on WikiProject London and Sirfurboy's talk page, Sirfurboy removed all mention of historic counties from a range of Greater London place articles.

WP:UKTOWNS

topic guidelines are crystal clear that the historic county of a UK settlement should be included in the lead where ceremonial county is different. Other bold edits introduced misleading wording claiming places ceased to be in their relevant historic county in 1965, which is factually incorrect. There are no consensus or guidelines stating this is correct or what should be written.

Some of these reverts were made because Sirfurboy's version constituted a violation of topic guidance at WP:UKTOWNS. The rest were made because the wording Sirfurboy had introduced was factually incorrect (nothing to do with guidelines) I had never previously edited the majority of these pages, so I was reverting to existing stable wording, not my versions.

The guidance that says "We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries" is in

WP:UKCOUNTIES, which is topic guidance for county articles. Saying a place is in a historic county in a town article does not mean historic counties exist "within their former boundaries" or not. I would argue my edits are not in violation of the guidelines, except the line in WP:UKCOUNTIES (guidance for county, not town articles - big difference) saying "use language that asserts past tense". This is currently being discussed, and, as Roger 8 Roger said, these guidelines have been subject to question from a large number of editors. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Garfie489 - That was when Justgravy reported me on the 3RR page for accusing them of edit warring. Here's the report. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Garfie489 Thanks for linking that past discussion. I see that Uakari stated that MRSC had also mooted a topic ban be petitioned for over this. I also note this very pertinent comment from Uakari in that thread: You (PlatinumClipper96) are aware from all the links I and others have provided to guidance, RfCs and ANIs, that the consensus does not align with your belief in the persistence of historic counties, yet you and a small number of other editors have taken it upon yourselves to disregard the consensus and edit your own chosen selection of articles to match your belief anyway. That is bad-faith editing, which is what this comes down to, irrespective of the fact your belief in the persistence of historic counties is false. You realised you weren't going to get your way by discussing, so you decided to change the articles anyway. I don't really have anything more to say to someone who thinks that is an appropriate way to approach editing Wikipedia. I expect administrators will step in from here, to take action regarding your deliberate disregard for consensus and to clear up your vandalism to the London areas articles in particular, which in the end has added nothing of any import and has simply caused a lot of work to rectify. I'll just wait until that process is complete, and do my best to restore the articles at that stage - I'm in no rush!Uakari (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

And incidentally, PC96 is also making this bizarre claim that I am mass editing; even, elsewhere, wikilinking the page

WP:MASSEDIT. This page defines mass eddting thus: "Mass editing is editing that occurs when a single editor makes the same change to a large number of articles, typically employing the assistance of a tool such as the AutoWikiBrowser." My changes are bespoke, made over a protracted period to a small number of pages (maybe 25 or so thus far), and are often accompanied by other edits to improve the pages (e.g. [28] ). So like his other accusations of my alleged bad faith, I really don't think this term applies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Garfie489 "going through an editors history deliberately to undo and war their contributions when said contributions are in line with all relevant guidelines should never be tolerated" - the edits were bold and the changes were the same. Previous wording was stable, and had not been edited by me on 19 out of 20 of those pages. Again, the reverts were to address Sirfurboy's new wording that either violated WP:UKTOWNS guidelines by removing the historic county entirely, or introduced factually incorrect information (saying a place was in its historic county until 1965, as if the creation of Greater London in the London Government Act 1963 impacted the set of what are known as historic counties).

Sirfurboy went through my edit history in a similar fashion following my proposed new wording at Croydon he disagreed with, before beginning a series of edits across Greater London articles to implement his preferred wording, rather than engaging with discussion. If the fact I used Sirfurboy's list of contributions to find and revert the same bold edit he made across articles is an issue, why should Sirfurboy's use of my edit history be considered acceptable?

Again, my reverts were to bold edits Sirfurboy made across articles he found using Google Search, about an issue in the midst of discussion. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy went through my edit history. Fifth time you made that accusation. It still isn't true. Demonstration is above. So again, 19 of these 20 retaliatory reverts are to pages you never edited before. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is welcome to view your edit history following my edits to Croydon on 14th November. You immediately began making retailatory reverts and edits to articles you had never edited before, including here at Romford [29], here at Enfield [30], and other articles I mention further above.

To address your quote from Uakari, I'd encourage anyone to take a look at the context of this dispute in August 2021 on this talk page. It includes the "consensus" referred to (specifically citing an RfC proposing that county articles primarily be about historic counties, and the guidelines in question). PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UKTOWNS guideline not fit for purpose and said they would launch an RFC, they have not done so and both guidelines remain. NebY (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks NebY for linking. Roger 8 Roger's RfC specifically proposed making the historic county the default meaning of "county". Consensus against this does not mean consensus is against inclusion of the historic county alongside current ceremonial county in town articles.

Often disputed is the tense of this inclusion. I'd argue present-tense wording does not imply historic counties exist or not. I'd also argue that the WP:UKCOUNTIES guidance that they "no longer exist within their former boundaries" is inaccurate and does not reflect the wikivoice (not sure there is any clear consensus, as this discussion is frequent and loud on both sides), but irrelevant to the issue of mentioning "is in the historic county of" in town articles as "historic county" distinguishes it from current administrative boundaries, and does refer to a specific set of boundaries.

Discussion needs to continue, perhaps here, and an RfC initiated with the aim of updating these guidelines to ensure they reflect consensus. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion needs to continue. Sigh. No, Filibustering with walls of words every time you're challenged needs to stop, and you need to stop editing and edit-warring contrary to guidelines in order to force clumsy text into the first sentence of articles in the pursuit of some bizarre political correctness. and an RfC initiated? Initiate it. NebY (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support this entirely. It seems ironic that in an investigation over bad faith edits, PC96 is engaging in bad faith edits as their defence. As Sirfurboy states, theyve made the same disproven accusation 5 times - and they appear well aware of the correct procedure's for consensus on their opinions, and Wiki policy.... yet still still choose not to pursue these methods and instead default to edit wars. Unless i have anything to contribute, i will refrain from further comment because its clear filibuster by PC96 will just fill this page to the point its hard to moderate. Garfie489 (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. The edit history shows a pattern of

WP:NOTHERE. Disruptive editing on a single topic and endless forum shopping. Should be blocked. MRSC (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Black Kite, MRSC has reverted my reverts to Sirfurboy's bold edits at Kevington, London, Hatch End, Bexleyheath and New Addington, in which he removed any mention of the historic county.

You said if I were not literally about to leave for a few days over Xmas, I would block PlatinumClipper96 for their behaviour here. Going back reverting another's contributions is one thing, doing it in violation of topic guidelines is quite another. PC96 - if you do this once more, I will block you.

Has MRSC not, by your logic, reverted in violation of topic guidelines, which clearly state the lead should include the historic county if a place's current/ceremonial county is different? PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's very simple really. I was born in
  Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  When I saw the word Middlesex I almost moved this to the "pregnant person" thread. EEng 20:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The East, South, West and Middle Saxons gave their names to Essex, Sussex, Wessex and Middlesex respectively; but what became of the North Saxons? The answer is that they settled in Nosex, and failed to thrive. Narky Blert (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If it wasn't the season of goodwill I'd tell you to get your coat.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

@

user:Phil Bridger, you said, "It's very simple really. I was born in Middlesex, but my birthplace, Pinner (where, as it happens, I could see Hatch End from my bedroom window), became part of Greater London two days before my seventh birthday, and it has been so since." Yes, I agree. So what? What is your point? Forgive me, but this sort of thinking amounts to background clutter from editors who do not really xxxxxx (well, I will leave what I was about to write to your imagination). Comments like this made repeatedly by different editors make me dispair. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Then despair. Regardless of anything else, the edit warring and retaliatory editing of PC96 deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would accuse Sirfurboy of doing exactly that, but on a much larger scale. It took him 9 minutes to revert my bold edit to

topic guidelines

by removing any mention of the historic county. Just to reiterate Black Kite's comment: Going back reverting another's contributions is one thing, doing it in violation of topic guidelines is quite another. Does this not apply to Sirfurboy? And why doesn't he discuss my objections to his new "until 1965" wording instead of reverting reverts to this new wording (which would be factually incorrect whether historic counties were abolished or not)?

He is now continuing to rummage through Greater London articles, either inserting this new wording (e.g. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]) or removing any mention of the historic county from an article (e.g. [36], [37], [38]). Take a look at Sirfurboy's contributions and see for yourself. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Phil Bridger "yes the London borough", "We have given the fringe editors more than enough opportunity to deny the reality as it has stood for more than half a century, so it's time now to get them to accept it" - of course Pinner is in London, the London Borough of Harrow and Greater London. I would argue Pinner was in London before it became part of Greater London in 1965, when it was, by all means, in Middlesex. I am certainly not one of those editors who try and claim a place is currently in their historic county instead of London or Greater London. I'd just like to see ceremonial counties and historic counties clearly and accurately distinguished. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

And why doesn't he discuss my objections to his new "until 1965" wording a few thoughts here:

1. PC96's claim that the 1965 wording is new is incorrect. The wording was already widely used on pages, and I was seeking wording that had an established consensus, so used that. A couple of examples are at Mill Hill and Edmonton Hundred. PC96 only reverted 20 of my edits, after I reverted one of his. He did not revert any others;
2. PC96 reverted to a form of words he knew was not compliant with the guidelines, rather than making any attempt to improve the wording. This is not new behaviour. In this edit,[39] PC96 reverted back in wording he knew had been challenged, and knew was not compliant with guidelines under the pretext that the challenge removed other information that had not been challenged. The other information was changing the word "northeast" to "north". There was no attempt to improve or find a compromise. Clearly a resonable action would have simply been to change northeast to north again, rather than to edit war in challenged material. Objections are just a smokescreen to cover attempts to re-insert this material. He used the same tactic here,[40] and no doubt other places. Again, this looks like a strategy;
3. This report is not about the content dispute itself, it is about editor behaviour. A long running campaign by an editor to insert wording in many articles for reasons of
   WP:POVPUSHing that introduces a litany of edit wars (e.g. his 18 attempts to assert the wording over a 20 month period at Chingford, most recently being opposed by LondonEast4 among others). I have quoted Uakari
   above from previous disputes where he has said That is bad-faith editing, which is what this comes down to, irrespective of the fact your belief in the persistence of historic counties is false. You realised you weren't going to get your way by discussing, so you decided to change the articles anyway.;
4. I note that throughout this case, PC96 has failed to acknowledge an issue or apologise for these actions, but he has doubled down on them by attacking me. I expected that attention, as I brought the ANI case, but there is plenty of evidence above that this editor has warred with very many editors over a very long period. His attempts to ask "what about..." (whataboutism) rather than acknowledge an issue with his own behaviour suggest that the issues raised here are not resolved.

I have never brought an ANI case before, but I believe this issue has been so persistent, and the behaviour sufficiently uncollegiate, that I would like to request the community consider a topic ban. I am at least the third editor (evidenced in this thread) to have made that suggestion. Plenty of others here have argued for a block. I am not looking for an indefinite block of this editor, but I do feel his actions warrant a restriction of some kind upon editing about historic counties.

I am not sure what the process is for requesting a topic ban, but at this point I will address PlatinumClipper96 directly and ask: would you agree to a voluntary topic ban from making edits regarding historic counties, broadly construed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all points made, however i feel a topic ban will just end up with us all being here again before not too long. PC96 has already previously had people accuse them of edit waring, and threatening to open ANI's in years gone past. Yet still their attitude remains, with some articles being warred against multiple contributors over many months as suggested in point 3.

The thing for me is, the defence by PC96 - as bad faith it may be - has demonstrated clear and extensive knowledge for the rules and regulations of editing on Wikipedia. They are aware what they were doing is wrong, and have made no apology for it. This is a clear, deliberate attempt to push a POV into a narrative across potentially hundreds of articles with flagrant disregard for guidelines or consensus. Not only is this attitude highly unlikely to change on a polite request, PC96 has demonstrated in this entire ANI they have no intention to do so - rather accusing others of similar actions and fabricating provably false accusations.

We certainly now need to work towards a resolution. Previous ANI's on the same issues by the same user simply resulted in the page being protected for a limited amount of time, and this clearly shows the amount of contempt PC96 has for admin sympathy. Heres a previous ANI report against PC96, the action of this was to protect the article he was edit warring for 1 month - this was carried out by @EdJohnston on 14th Feb 2021 to the Bexleyheath article [[41]] - and yet on 15th March 2021, near exactly 1 month after we immediately see PC96 revert the article to reflect their POV once again, and @EdJohnston had to protect the article once again 2 days later - and PC96 later went on to do the same actions on the same article months later.

Unfortunately, this is the contempt we will have to deal with if we give PC96 any room to move - they are highly aware of Wiki policy, and extremely willing to exploit it in any way possible to further their POV in these articles. As i said at the top, simply topic banning will end us up back here before not to long - as theres been no attempt to reconcile for the actions that have led to this. Garfie489 (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is no consensus that the set of counties known as the historic counties changed in 1965. The ceremonial and administrative counties, which formed the main structure of administrative geography, changed. Yes - the example you provided at Mill Hill is an example of the wording you have been adding to dozens of articles across Greater London. The wording is new to those dozens of articles, as you introduced it to those articles. You claim that this wording is used at Edmonton Hundred. It is not. In fact, I would not dispute the wording of this article at all - "Edmonton is one of six hundreds (obsolete subdivisions) of the historic county of Middlesex, England. A rotated L-shape, its area has been in the south and east firmly part of the urban growth of London. Since the 1965 formation of London boroughs (see Greater London) it mainly corresponds to the London Boroughs of Enfield, a negligible portion of Barnet and a narrow majority of Haringey. Its ancient parish of South Mimms (including the later civil parish of Potters Bar) has since 1965 been part of the Hertsmere district in Hertfordshire. - perfectly accurate. Note the use of "is one of six hundreds" - present tense, but still clear it does not persist.

2. The wording I reverted to is perfectly compliant with the guidelines.

WP:UKCOUNTIES - topic guidance for county articles. This guidance states We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries.. Although I disagree with this guidance, I would argue that wording that says a place "is in the historic county of..." makes a clear distinction between current ceremonial county and historic boundaries, and certainly does not imply that "historic counties still exist with the former boundaries". Just like the present-tense wording at Edmonton Hundred Sirfurboy linked above. I am certainly not the only editor to believe this. @Dr Greg, who restored such wording at Chingford [42]

, commented that "this sentence isn't about the current boundaries of Essex, it's about the historic boundaries (that's what "historic county" means)". "Was in the historic county of" or "in the historic county of...until 1965" implies the set of counties known as historic, changed, and that the settlement may have moved to another historic county, or that Greater London is a historic county.

3. "a litany of edit wars (e.g. his 18 attempts to assert the wording over a 20 month period at Chingford" - you are aware that this number includes reverts of indef blocked and sock accounts campaigning to remove HC information. I was not the only editor to restore this wording.

4. To reiterate what I said above, I would accuse you of edit warring and retaliatory editing on a much larger scale. I've already made my criticism of you clear. It is perfectly reasonable to question and criticise your behaviour, especially when your behaviour amounts to exactly what you accuse me of. To reiterate, you have accused me of violating guidelines by reverting your WP:BOLD edits, because you felt the existing stable wording you changed on dozens of Greater London articles violated the guidelines. Many of your edits violated WP:UKTOWNS by removing HC information entirely. As you are aware, I reverted some of these, and you reverted these reverts to your WP:BOLD edits. This constitutes reverting in violation of the guidelines - exactly what you have accused me of, except your behaviour was in violation of BRD.

@Sirfurboy, I will leave it up to administrators to decide whether my activity is worthy of a topic ban. My opinion is that it is not - my reverts of your bold edits that led to this ANI are justified. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, that entire wall of text is to dig in & insist you are right and everyone else is at fault for not giving in. I expect after the holiday, when more admins are online, we'll see either a topic ban or block for PC96. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No - I was responding to Sirfurboy, directly addressing the assertions made. Refuting accusations is perfectly reasonable at ANI. An utterly unproductive, erroneous remark. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we could solve this by going the block and edit restriction route I don't think there is much enthusiasm for doing so. I'd suggest instead that Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements be updated to explictly cover this (probably by saying that the historic county should not be mentioned in the opening sentence but elsewhere in the lede but people can decide). Maybe try and turn it into a formal MOS thing. Until then there edits are technicaly all in line with the current guideline and things are too slow moving for it to really be considered an edit war.©Geni (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are not in line with the guideline, but PC96 decided not to quote that bit in the above. The guideline states: Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. All the edits he fights for assert present tense. All of them. He knows the guideline and he knows the intent of the guideline. But I reiterate what I have said a couple of times above: this is not about the content dispute itself, it is about the editor behaviour in edit warring in text that he knows does not enjoy an editor consensus. A number of editors above have mentioned blocks or topic bans above - I will leave it for admins to decide whether this amounts to "enthusiasm" or otherwise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is again simply misleading. In fact, I directly cited and quoted it. That guideline is from

WP:UKTOWNS article. As I have said above, this wording has been stable on countless articles for years, and I am certainly not the only editor in favour of this wording. It does not imply that the historic counties still exist with their former boundaries or not. Sirfurboy has, as of late, been rummaging through Greater London articles, changing this stable wording, as I explain above - sometimes in violation of WP:UKTOWNS by removing HC information in its entirety. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

So, let me get this straight: the county guideline says "don't do this," but you're arguing that edits to towns don't fall under that guideline.

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD

's cultivates interest in reading on or should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

PC96 has long insisted that their edits are in accordance with the

WP:UKTOWNS guidelines on the basis that the guidelines can be read in the order that suits them. For arguing against that, they tell Sirfurboy and me that The double standards you are both displaying are beyond belief.[46] I don't know how they can be persuaded to stop spoiling our articles like this. NebY (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This pattern of editing is hugely disruptive. I haven't seen any undertaking that it will not continue. MRSC (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP 70.123.18.238 issued a legal threat at the AfC HD: [47]. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 2 days by Bbb23 for legal threats. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like this phrase: "Wikipedia.org no longer has the right to provide information on this subject matter". David10244 (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Some people have a very strange idea of the law.

Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

If I had a dime for every time a layman shot off his or her bazoo on what they fancied the law to be (based, apparently, on a mix of wishful thinking, willful ignorance and Something They Heard From Someone Somewhere) ... Ravenswing 15:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get most of my legal expertise from Ally McBeal. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the well-known Single Female Lawyer school of jurisprudence. Deor (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has continued to rant about the formation of Western civilization at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#White_supremacy_revisionism_at_Western_world, instead of focusing on the alleged issue at hand (content added by Rim sim (talk · contribs) at the article Western world, which they allege to contradict reliable sources). They had already been blocked, as an IP, from Western world and its talk page for the same reason, and the problematic behavior is also present at Talk:Western world. They have made problematic edits ([48], [49], [50], [51]) at Western world itself, often with edit summaries accusing their opponents of White supremacy, and were blocked from that page for 1 month on December 22.

From what I can discern, their core arguments are that Western civilization began after the East–West Schism in 1054 and is completely different from the ancient civilizations of Europe, and that it is rooted in Christian colonialism and not in ethnonationalism. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note this kind of accusation dates back to more than a few weeks ago: makes me believe LaundryPizza03 is overlooking my contributions since then in November. The basis of (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've been posting a great length to an enormous thread on that topic at NORN as recently as today. The whole of your attention has been devoted to a single topic, and you don't appear to have convinced anybody to agree with your edits. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At NORN because the given political frame at the page that's about political frame exactly and not cultural, is entirely falsified in violation of

wp:NOR. What is expected instead? The basis of (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You are expected to contribute to other parts of the encyclopedia while you wait for other editors to discuss your perspectives and come to a consensus, participating when appropriate but not to the point of

bludgeoning the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

At the page it reads like national laws made the Western world: almost like if laws made the West. That's not the case though, Western world's policies are not equivalent with Western world's laws. They are two different definitions. Culturally speaking, a world is governed by laws yes indeed, but Western world is made of countries which govern law-making, and that's how it should read. The basis of (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The interpretation (I get) about Western policies as well, is that they're based in slavery from Greco-Roman times and immigration in modern-day. In conclusion, revisions from 19 November by Rim sim, divide the West into two wings (Republicans and Democrats?) like if the Western world is a parliamentary system: one is "blacks" and the other one is "whites". If this continues being accepted I don't know what I am talking about. The basis of (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the difference in laws and policies: policies are visible enacting laws, but they're dictated by historical as past events (including the existence of bad laws) thus policies are rather only visible when laws are created and amended. They're substantially two different things even while they look the same. And as well, civilizations change as policies do, not as laws do. Hope that's clear now. The basis of (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only bit of that that I can make any sense of is "I don't know what I am talking about", which seems to be true. Can't an admin just block now to stop this troll wasting any more of our time?

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Apart from indulging in personal attacks and defamatory behaviour

WP:WIAPA, the concerned editor has only dismissed every proper verifiable source that contradicted their viewpoint; instead of reading and understanding the numerous references that have been provided, they choosed to indulge in disruptive editing, got blocked and continues to rant - all of it in absurd, unintelligible language. Seems like a case for indefinite block. Rim sim (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry but, do we realize the page is based in common roots of white people's Christmas Day (was Northern hemisphere's winter solstice across ancient greeks and romans). The "West".? The basis of (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to continue your arguments here is just going to result in you getting either a topic ban or an outright block from Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've gone ahead and blocked for the confluence of CIR, soapboxing, and personal attacks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I report the user Rafaelosornio. This is clearly vandalism [52]: several users have commented that almost all the sources in the article are unscientific, manipulative, and based on POV internet sites. This is in full detail on the article's discussion page. I have deleted several fake sources individually, with individual justifications in the change comment. Nevertheless Rafaelosornio reverts all (!) reverts with the reference to a single source, which is nowhere quoted appropriately! The consequence is that a source-free Catholic fundamentalist article in Wikipedia is not changed. A user spoke of fringe-theory, which also meets the facts. Mr. bobby (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. bobby: You briefly mentioned at the talk page that they have also pushed pro-Catholic agenda at Padre Pio, and possibly elsewhere. Since you are also familiar with the Padre Pio case, which also involves a third user, can you explain the involvement of Rafaelosornio there? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It will be more effective if you don't use inflammatory language attacking other editors as fundamentalists and if you try to collaboratively edit the article to reflect the questionable nature of these studies rather than just taking them out of the article entirely. If you just take them out, people looking for reliable information about them will be left only with unreliable representations of them found elsewhere. Jahaza (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things should be called by their names. And unscientific sources should not be allowed in Wikipedia at all. If contents of faith should be reconstructed, it remains central that this is marked as religious faith and not to mix unrecognizably with scientific aspects. It is striking that someone criticizes the designation "fundamentalist", while he tolerates the action that whole passages from ultra-religious internet pages (partly without author!) are patched together and disguised as scientific investigations. Please criticize the important things, not marginalia.Mr. bobby (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 21:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You are inadmissibly distorting what my posts stand for here. I do not want to delete "all" Catholic sources. The point here is that users want to prove the facticity of miracles. They want it to be written naively in Wikipedia! For this purpose they use unscientific internet pages, which serve the veneration of saints. Or the homepage of places of worship (for example of Lanciano). These sides describe endlessly the truth of miracle reports, without sources, without scientific requirement, but all the more surely in the linguistic description. A Catholic source - for example from the Vatican - can be used to prove that someone has been canonized. But also this source could not be used for the fact that miracles took place! One must be able to keep that apart! Mr. bobby (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

pseudoscientists

.

I also found that the most recent iteration of the fringe theory was added by

talk · contribs) on December 4. Given that this also includes text copied verbatim from [53], I'd suggest RD1'ing all of the affected revisions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If Rafaelosornio is using sources for statements which are actually unsupported by those sources, then that's clearly problematic.

talk) 15:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"The material, which consists of the remains of a host and five blood clots, is said to have been examined for the first time in 1574 by Archbishop Gaspare Rodriguez. He is said to have found that the total weight of the five clots was exactly equal to the weight of each individual clot, which is why he acknowledged that the blood clots must be miraculous material. This phenomenon is mentioned exclusively on the epitaph erected in 1636. Later experiments could not confirm the alleged observation."[1]

All these alledged facts were written down in the English WP as if it were facts...Mr. bobby (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. bobby: You are from Germany and you are the one who has edited the articles in German on Padre Pio and the miracle of Lanciano to your liking, therefore I do not understand why you quote the article in German about the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. If you want to consult more about the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, consult the article in Italian language where said event took place. The article in English was a translation from Italian article and you want to remove a great part of the article and many references of said article. You spent the time eliminating almost all the Catholic sources of the article on Padre Pio and Lanciano's Eucharistic miracle saying that they were not reliable sources and that Padre Pio was a charlatan and that Lanciano's Eucharistic miracle was a fraud.

And by the way, about Giorgio Berlutti, who was an enthusiastic supporter of Mussolini, the article is about Padre Pio, not about Giorgio Berlutti who to begin with you don't say who that guy was in the first place. For that reason I removed that statement about Giorgio Berlutti in the article on Padre Pio. Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC):[reply]

You explain very clearly why I reported you here in the case of the article "Miracle of Lanciano" and why your action in the case of the article on Padre Pio is just as scandalous. You lack any awareness of what you are doing here. You want a Wikipedia that presents Catholic POV as scientific truth and proclaims it outright. That's why you have to be stopped. And I will report all your deletions and entries of this kind in the future.Mr. bobby (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Padre Pio

In short: The main actor in the recent fundamentalist changes was Sanctum Rosarium, which made various unsubstantiated changes. Only one inaccurate statement was rightly deleted: in fact, Pio did not own the company. But, and I will insert this soon from Luzatto's book, he kept lists for this company, thus worked for it. This is proven with source. (Pio actually owned a whole hospital - despite vows of poverty).

Rafaelrosornio constantly supported SantiumRosarium. Uch would check all the contributions of Rafaleosorni that have to do with religious things (Marian devotion, new saints, etc.) He even tried to change my entries in the German Wikipdia, but failed completely

Rafaelorsonio deleted arbitrarily:

Brunatto's publisher, Giorgio Berlutti, had been an enthusiastic supporter of Mussolini's March on Rome, and used the biography to raise Pio's profile.^[2]

[54]

The statement shows the fascist environment of Padre Pio.

In the article about Padre Pio further problematic:

The whole introduction has been transformed by SanctumRosarium and now sounds as if the Catholic Church is now behind Padre Pio, while it is about the goodwill of John Paul II and the attitude of the Italian Church. Other forces in the Church saw and see Pio as a charlatan. Moreover, outside the Church there is also criticism of Padre Pio, first of all the critical book by Luzzatto, but also other secular and serious scholars.

The better introduction is this one (was already in the article):

Francesco Forgione, OFM Cap., better known as Padre Pio and also Saint Pius of Pietrelcina (Italian: Pio da Pietrelcina; 25 May 1887 – 23 September 1968), was an Italian Franciscan Capuchin friar, priest, stigmatist, and mystic.[1] He is venerated as a saint in the Catholic Church, celebrated on 23 September. Padre Pio joined the Capuchins at fifteen, spending most of his religious life in the convent of San Giovanni Rotondo. He became famous for exhibiting stigmata for most of his life, thereby generating much interest and controversy. He was both beatified in 1999 and canonized in 2002 by Pope John Paul II.[2]

Pio taught himself the stigmata, but according to certain beliefs he received them from God. Now it says in the introduction "his body was marked by stigmata" ... This statement contains subliminally the religious interpretation that God was involved. This must be formulated neutrally and at least leave it open that Pio inflicted the wounds on himself....

The miracles must be clearly stated as "alleged". (Pio is said to have flown through the air, to have been in different places at the same time, etc... all this confused stuff and fringe theory).Mr. bobby (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of religious beliefs are not the same things as fringe theory. "...now sounds as if the Catholic Church is now behind Padre Pio" well, yes, they canonized him, so they are definitely behind him! That doesn't mean criticism of him shouldn't be in the article, but when you argue that in general the article shouldn't reflect the idea that the Catholic Church endorses one of their canonized saints, that's kind of out there. Jahaza (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the other popes and all the controversy have to be forgotten in the article introduction? And also criticism of secular opinion? Wikipdia is not a bulletin of John Paul II.Mr. bobby (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who used the present tense. "the Catholic Church is now behind" [emphasis added]. Jahaza (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church is not a monolith. In Germany Pio is almost unknown, in Italy the national saint. The Vatican under John Paul II has canonized Pio. (And it says so in the introduction.) The resistance to this kind of fundamentalist understanding of miracles and this form of Catholicism is enormous within the Church. And outside the church, too, of course. And this fact just belongs to be presented in a WP article. In the case of Pio the believed facts coincide with the development of fringe theory (ability to fly, healer, bilocation - all even in the Catholic framework fringe theory).Mr. bobby (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Religious beliefs are not all fringe, but all claims of miracles are. Any source propagating the idea that miracles are real is deep in fringe theory territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged miracles of Pio clearly belong to the fringe theory: It is claimed that he flew and thus persuaded bomber pilots to turn back. The alleged healings were refuted by the Church (long before John Paul II)! Bilocation denied even Pio himself at the Visitation etc. Mr. bobby (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is largely definitional... If something can be explained by normal scientific and academic means then it is not a miracle, it must be supernatural in order to be a miracle. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Resolved

 – Talk page access revoked Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

103.164.173.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) uploads copyvio after blocked on their talk page. Lemonaka (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I made it so only editors with autoconfirmed or confirmed access can post on that talk page. That will prevent them from doing this.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You indefinitely semi-protected an IP talk page because someone added a few copyrighted images within an hour? How exactly is this IP editor supposed to communicate with people when the block expires? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I made a mistake b/c I'd only meant to do a two-week semi-protection. I didn't want to permanently block the IP user from using the talk page b/c that would caused the issue you mention. Anyway, I just corrected the page protection.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @NinjaRobotPirate@SouthernNightsHi, maybe the better way is TPA revoked? Lemonaka (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have exchanged the protection for TPA revocation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scimernet (talk · contribs) appears to have a vendetta against putting a leading decimal on ammunition articles, and has continually inserted the same long-winded paragraph into various talk pages on multiple occasions to further this view. Seeing as this has gone on for half a year at this point (with their edit warring on the matter predating this specific issue), I believe this constitutes disruption. Although I have tried to actually engage in discussion on Talk:.50 BMG, they have shown they are not interested, and just want to copy-paste this same paragraph again and again, to no real end.

[55] [56] [57] [58] [59] Loafiewa (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read through the content are realize that the information is not correct and, quit bullying. 216.160.0.104 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Nobody is bullying you (or

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The sources are already posted. I myself am a source the scientifically have explained the miss use of the dedimal. Another source that is listed is SAAMI. Your replies are bullying as your are not giving it consideration and making it right. Scimernet (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not a source yourself unless what you say has been published by a reliable publisher, just as I am not a reliable source. That's the whole point of our

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I gave Scimernet a final warning on this behavior. Because the user hadn't been specifically warned before for talk page abuse -- their previous blocks were for edit warring, not talk page abuse -- I gave them a warning instead of a block. But any further behavior like this will result in a long-term block.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These blocks, reversals and comments are bullying. The information given is to correct the wrong information that is presented on these cartridge pages. Your repeated efforts of reversing and bullying undermine the purpose of Wiki. Please take the corrected information and make things right. Scimernet (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People don't agree with you that it's wrong information, that's the problem. For example, when you say: If one were to say/list ".45 Cal" , this would convert in inches to 0.0045", this is not something people find convincing. —Alalch E. 17:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"People" have been mislead by information posted here and elsewhere. We are referencing a cartridge in caliber and not a measurement of inches. They are closely related but not stated in the same way. See SAAMI, and definition of Caliber. Scimernet (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your line of reasoning, but I don't agree, and if someone else had agreed, they'd have said so already, which is why I said "people". There's no support for your idea, and there is opposition, which means that you should not unilaterally make changes based on said idea, because they will get reverted, and nothing will get accomplished. I hope you can see now that when someone is warned about this, it doesn't in any way resemble bullying. —Alalch E. 18:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Support for what is correct?  SAMMI?  Support is explained bu what is caliber and how it was derived and used, and not referenced directly in measurement of inches when referring to a cartridge.  You are making opinions without being educated.  Scimernet (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAMMI uses both, "22 caliber "and 5"0 Ccliber." ~You need to drop it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you have is wrong. You need to fix it. quit misleading people. Scimernet (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scimernet. Replied on your talk page as it's mainly about content. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has gone on long enough and a topic ban at least from firearms and ammunition broadly construed is in order here. Though considered that Scimernet has only ever edited articles around those topics it's akin to an indef block. They're clearly an SPA on this topic. Canterbury Tail talk 14:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have a problem with fixing the content and making it "Completely" correct. Yes it does closely relate to a measurement in inches. It is not written ore represented as inches it is "Caliber " There is no leading decimal. Does not matter how cute you think that is, or what incorrect resources are found, or any consensus or opinions. The correct way is without leading decimal. Scimernet (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since

WP:CONSENSUS is a basic foundational policy of Wikipedia, writing Does not matter ... any consensus is equivalent to writing "I cannot or will not play by the rules, so I should be blocked". --JBL (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TCHY), so perhaps a short block can draw their attention. --Muhandes (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocked for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved in the discussions, just had one of the affected pages on the watch list. It appears that user Eposty had some topics that did not go they way they wanted, so they attempted to remove them wholesale [70] and [71], followed by repeated attempts. User was warned, warnings were reverted [72]. Their most recent attempt [73] is to remove just their own comment but this is also problematic as it is a threaded discussions. Please review Special:Contributions/Eposty to note that via edit summary, this user is becoming increasingly hostile. Zaathras (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eposty appears to have "retired" from Wikipedia. PKT(alk) 20:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have enforced the retirement with an Indefinite block for disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This problem was found during my help with WP:ER Lemonaka (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary_Grey,_Baroness_Grey_de_Wilton

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

---

Resolved

 – Redirect created Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Merge or Redirect

Mary_Grey,_Baroness_Grey_de_Wilton article into William Grey, 13th Baron Grey de Wilton article as per AFD consensus (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mary_Grey,_Baroness_Grey_de_Wilton) but it cannot be done as deletion of lede triggers prohibition. 107.127.46.24 (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I've carries out the redirect for you, and left at comment at the talk page of the target. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

NigelHarris and persistent legal threats

Indeffed by ScottishFinnishRadish per NLT. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

• NigelHarris (talk · contribs)

NigelHarris was brought to the

WP:LEGAL grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes indeed. Looks like a clear case of permaban. UtherSRG (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef'd per NLT. Wording such as anyone who is ignorant of the Law of England & Wales on defamation should likewise be barred from editing the Page, lest they cost Wikipedia and themselves the price of tortious conduct is clearly intended to have a chilling effect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Height/weight vandalism on wrestler articles

In the past few weeks there has been a rash of vandalism on articles about wrestlers, from a variety of IP editors. The pattern is consistent: an IP editor with no or few previous edits will appear and quickly edit 5-10 articles about wrestlers, in each case changing the height and/or weight of the wrestler, with no sources and in contradiction to existing sources.

The number of articles affected is large. This is just a sample. In most cases, each of these articles was vandalized multiple times:

T-Bar (wrestler), Taka Michinoku, The Blue Meanie, The Godfather (wrestler), Titus O'Neil

.

The edits come from a variety of apparently unrelated IP addresses. Here are a few. In all of these cases you can see that the only activity from each of these editors is to vandalize the wrestler articles, so I don't think diffs are necessary.

• 1.239.177.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 39.7.57.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.84.146.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.242.31.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 175.211.224.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.222.2.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 183.97.240.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 218.52.15.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what solution is appropriate. Given the large number of IPs involved, I don't know if this is one editor IP-hopping or if there is some off-wiki coordination going on. Blocking these IPs might just result in new IPs appearing and doing the same thing. And it's a large number of pages to protect. But I wanted to bring this to wider attention in case someone has any ideas for handling this beyond the current whack-a-mole game I and other editors are playing to notice and revert these as they happen. I have notified each of the above IPs on their talk pages. CodeTalker (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another incident just now from another IP, 121.164.25.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CodeTalker (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of disruption is a long-term common problem, it ebbs and flows. There's an edit-filter that tags them. See [84] DMacks (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that professional wrestling promoters routinely lie about the heights and weights of their performers, to puff them up. It is called "billed height" and "billed weight". Perhaps the best solution is to eliminate height and weight from the pro wrestler infobox, so that the encyclopedia stops spreading this particular kind of lie. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the same goes for nearly everything else about professional wrestling. Isn't it time we applied the basic content policies (

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

To your list of P&Gs I would add

WP:RS. Many or most "sources" used in pro wrestling articles are just soap opera digests hyping their idiotic kayfabe storylines, which our articles regurgitate as fact. It's incredible, for example, that we still allow childish in-universe garbage such as The Undertaker#Undertaker gimmick, identities and character evolution to embarrass the project. EEng 02:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Atara123

• Atara123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Persistent unwillingness to communicate about file copyright status and continues to upload files with bogus licenses despite warning. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

lack of communication on Atara123's part. I see no issues with their article edits not involving files, though I don't know if they're aware of discussion pages (having made zero contributions to discussions anywhere on WP). As such, I propose a partial block from File namespace to prevent potential copyright infringement and hopefully draw their attention to this specific issue – and suggest an indefinite partial block so that they have to address the issues raised at their talk page if they wish to continue uploading files. (And in this case, a similar partial block should be implemented on Commons.) ^Complex/_Rational 16:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@ComplexRational: Support a partial block on file namespace here. As for doing the same on commons, partially blocking someone in the file namespace is effectively doing a full block. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 01:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and partially blocked them – also seeing as no objections have been raised here – they have every means to communicate if/when they wish to do so. ^Complex/_Rational 02:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese-language legal threats about a real-world event

УагаПесар (talk · contribs)

ЕсарУагаП (talk · contribs)

This user (there is obvious sockpuppetry going on here) created and blanked two user talk pages, with edits protesting a plan to demolish a Sogo department store in Kure, Hiroshima, called Sogo Kure [ja], which accordong to the jawiki article closed in 2013. They threatened to sue the city of Kure and two other parties if the plan to demolish the building and build a new one goes through.

Summary of edits

Edit	Contents	Google Translate
Special:Diff/1130741383 (page text)	旧そごう呉店解体反対	Against the demolition of the former Sogo Kure store
Special:Diff/1130741383 (edit summary)	呉そごうが入ってた建物は絶対に解体するな。福山そごうなんか跡地にテナントが入ってたのに呉そごうは空き店舗のまま。	Never demolish the building that Kure Sogo was in. Fukuyama Sogo had tenants on the site, but Kure Sogo remained empty.
Special:Diff/1130741476 (edit summary)	呉そごうが入ってた建物を解体したら、呉市と解体業者を訴える。	If the building that Kure Sogo was in is demolished, I will sue Kure City and the demolition company.
Special:Diff/1130741827 (page text)	広島市立中央図書館エールエールA館移転反対	Hiroshima City Central Library Yale Yale Building A Relocation Opposition
Special:Diff/1130741827 (edit summary)	広島市立中央図書館はエールエールA館への移転ではなく、現在地での建て替えにしろ。	Instead of moving the Hiroshima City Central Library to Yale Yale A Building, rebuild it at its current location.
Special:Diff/1130741910 (edit summary)	広島市立中央図書館をエールエールA館に移転したら、広島市と国を訴える。	If the Hiroshima City Central Library is relocated to Yale Yale A Building, I will sue Hiroshima City and the country.

atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Fukuyama Sogo [ja] was a Sogo location in Fukuyama, Hiroshima that closed in 2000. "Yale Yale A" is a mistranslation of a building in the Hiroshima Station South Exit Redevelopment Plan [ja]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocked both. DanCherek (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SPI Lemonaka (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:UAA. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Please created a new one. Lemonaka (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report user Apparition11

(non-admin closure) Nothing more to do here. Troll and promotional user has been blocked. Amaury • 19:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I am writing to bring to your attention a violation of terms on Wikipedia by user Apparition11. It appears that this user is purposely promoting their own agenda and attempting to put down a topic of interest, specifically "Eyelash Extensions."

In addition, this user has falsely claimed that I am promoting my own content on Wikipedia. I want to assure you that this is not the case and that I have obtained permission from the artist and the business to post their work.

It seems that user Apparition11 believes that the current, highly unflattering image on the Eyelash Extension page is humorous or acceptable in some way and is going to great lengths to keep it as the main image. I believe that this image does not accurately represent the topic and request that it be replaced with a more suitable image. All images I've uploaded have been uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons.

I hope that this letter brings these issues to your attention and that appropriate action can be taken. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Eihsok Eihsok (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have also attached an image here: https://i.imgur.com/fr6cjYb.png: He said that I should not mention the " Place " where the photo was taken however, in the description it clearly states to add that. Eihsok (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG would be more appropriate. Meters (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Per the red, bold notice at the top of the page "you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page". This was not done, and I will do so for the OP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 08:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP-reported on Common by me as spam-only account. Lemonaka (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eihsok, you uploaded multiple images as your own work on which you own the copyright, but you source them to https://www.secretlashclub.ca/ and above you state that you "have obtained permission from the artist and the business to post their work" So which it? Is this your work, or do you have permission to use someone else's work from the website? It can't be both. Meters (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Eihsok is unable to discern between objective prose and the puffery derived from unacceptable sources they add to articles. I'd suggest checking for copyright violations, as at the eyelash extension article, where at least some content was taken verbatim from [85]. There may be further rev/deletion necessary in their edit history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody has any questions as to why I made any of the edits that I did, I will be happy to answer them, but I believe Eihsok's edits speak for themselves. For the record, I could not care less about the current image and have no objections to it being changed to an appropriate image or even removed. I do object to it being changed to a picture of the "Cosmetic Beauty Room made by Secret Lash Club"... Also, in regards to the description, the Imgur link is talking about the Commons image description, not the image description in the article like I was talking about. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 13:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparition11 has done nothing wrong. Keeping Wikipedia free of spam is a positive action. The filing editor (currently blocked) has repeatedly tried to promote a non-notable business by inserting it into various articles. They claimed it was a service club which is complete BS. Then tried to add it back to the article mixed in with other businesses. And then the addiiton to eyelash extensions article which seems to have prompted this ANI filing. I was going to nominate the images on Commons as spam, but Lemonaka beat me to it. This entire complain is meritless. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

POV mass-editing of corporate pages over Ukraine war

I have run across a pattern of NPOV-violating "controversy" sections on company pages, using what appears to be a drop-in template that chastises companies that did not immediately take a stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. These edits were made by anonymous IPs and SPAs, each targeting a handful of articles. They all cite a Yale activist page that (formerly) listed all multinational companies doing business in Russia, and assigned them a grade based on their current stance, with the expectation that they cease business operations in the country. The actions of the users I have personally witnessed can be seen here: Special:Contributions/90.179.194.55 and Special:Contributions/Diuuuuu. I think it's likely that there are many more. Note that prior to realizing there was a pattern of these edits, I had performed an NPOV pass of the Riot Games page. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know anything about this particular case, and I am not in a position to take an administrative action, but may be my comment in my role of a long-term editor in the area who tries to be neutral could be useful. There are parties which push pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian agenda, and these parties have been active here since at least 2014. Most of pro-Russian users tend to be

WP:NOTHERE. On the other hand, pro-Ukrainian agenda editors are coming here en masse mostly driven by campaigns organized on social media or, sometimes, in Ukrainian Wikipedia. They are passionate about their cause and are ideology-driven. This activity significantly intensified after the beginning of the invasion, for obvious reasons. There are some pro- or pseudo-Ukrainian LTAs in the areas (and, to be fair, I am not aware of any pro-Russian LTA), such as Jafaz, Dolyn, and a couple of others, for them I sometimes do not even know whether they are having fun or are really POV-driven and have no interest of complying with our policies. Unfortunately we also have some long-term editors who are happy to support any disruption which looks even remotely pro-Ukrainian, local consensus here often overrides global consensus. This is the landscape everybody working in this topic area has to have in mind. When there is an Arbcom case about the topic area, I will probably make a similar statement. Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Socketpuppet engaged in extreme vandalism

Hello there is a socketpuppet who has remerged on wikipedia after being banned over a year ago. We have begun making new shape files for the election maps and he has been making account after account in rapid succession reverting them back to the old style. I have reported his numerous accounts on commons and they have been banned. i to try to slow down his vandalism by uploading new files identical that way he can't just revert the files in rapid succession and now unfortunately he has gone even further and made accounts here on english wiki and is now manual reverting the maps. I have just about given up and it is frustrating as editor who has worked hard on these new maps. I am requesting we add protection to the election articles for now to try and slow him down, specifically the ones he appears to target the most such as the gubernatorial and senate race articles of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Ohio, and Arizona. Here you can find a discussion with an admin with the numerous accounts he has made, and this isn't even all of them: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huntster And here you can find an example of one of the backup maps i made that he had rolled backed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania Putitonamap98 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna point out that the sock is Smith849, and they're a sock of TylerKutschbach. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this was ClutchPlayer who is already blocked. Smith849 has no edits (also no deleted edits). Ymblanter (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter Their edits are on Commons. I'm assuming @Putitonamap98 reported it here due to the sockmaster having a SPI case on enwiki. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gjonesagain

Gjonesagain indeffed by Daniel. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 11:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

WP:SPA returned from a recent block[86] and is right back to making the same tendentious warring edits[87][88][89] Andre🚐 01:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Andrevan Continues to use his own commentary, his own point of view, and his own political bias to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Russia investigation origins counter-narrative and Mueller special counsel investigation you may be blocked from editing. Gjonesagain (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding
  Close paraphrase: [90] Andre🚐 01:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Gjonesagain apparently came to a conclusion at some past point and has no interest in reading anything new from “left leaning news sources” which we deem RS, or engaging in good faith discussion. As is usual, it is difficult to deal with someone who knows “the truth”, and therefore feels a duty to edit war. The editor does not seem to have taken to heart the block of four days ago on the same subject.
  WP:IDHT O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Same behavior as before block. Doesn't understand how to vet sources for reliability and just rejects all RS as being left-wing. The issues are related to CIR, BATTLE, NPA, FRINGE, ADVOCACY, NOTHERE, EDITWARRING, ad libitum, ad nauseum. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• More reverts [91] [92] with no explanation Andre🚐 02:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely for being a single-purpose account engaging in disruptive editing. For someone with only 40 edits, this editor has caused a disproportionate number of problems - more than we should be expected to tolerate. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Continued disruptive editing by User:GigachadGigachad

GigachadGigachad has continued their constant pattern of false or misleading edit summaries, unjustified removal of content, and poorly worded prose that multiple editors (including myself) have very patiently called them out for over the past several months. The user was blocked for these problems a few months ago, and since being reinstated, has basically relapsed into doing all of it again. One example is this edit in which they used the edit summary "added link", despite not adding a link and instead removing an entire sentence with notable content. They also continue to add unsourced self-described "trivia" despite multiple editors warning them not to. I recommend scrolling through their talk page to see all the difs that various editors have pointed out. This user has continued to show that they are incapable of learning or improving, so I don't see why they should maintain editing privileges. Cpotisch (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That editor's talk page is a mess of warnings and at least one temporary block. It's starting to look like WP:CIR to me. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Hey @Zzyzx11: or @Muboshgu:, can you take action on this? Cpotisch (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP

This user, 114.198.30.253, is being very disruptive on certain pages. Their edits serve no real need on the pages they keep disrupting. No matter how many times I've had to revert their unnecessary edits, they keep coming back in a disruptive manner. I've reported them to an admin, but the admin doesn't seem to think that the user needs to be dealt with. The page the user seems to be disrupting the most is Sydney Entertainment Centre. I've had to deal with users like this for far too long. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute. Have you tried discussing your concerns with them? I see you dropped a template on them for vandalism, but I couldn't find any obvious vandalism in their history. 166.205.97.102 (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I already know exactly what they'll say to me. They'll say "but this information is completely necessary for this page because it's my opinion and you're wrong for thinking otherwise". Like I said, I've dealt with users like this for too long and every time its the same thing that they say to me. This user obviously doesn't care about what others think about their edits, because they believe their right and everyone else is wrong. I really wish that someone could do something to make this user stop their disruptive edits. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have (9) reverts in two hours on that page. You inappropriately templated someone for vandalism. Have you considered that perhaps you are also being disruptive? If you aren't willing to discuss your position with the other editor, you should disengage from that edit war. 166.205.97.102 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're trying to help, but you're really not. So if you're not going to be helpful, than please leave this issue to someone higher up who can deal with it. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dipper Dalmatian But it is helpful that they pointed out 9 reverts in 2 hours. David10244 (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support boomerang Edit warring and a direct unwillingness to work with other editors. The IP likely needs a warning for edit warring as well. 166.205.97.102 (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will give them an edit warning template on their talk page. Thanks for being helpful. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are now at (16) reverts on that page. I'd also like to call out your forum shopping [93] [94] towards the boomerang I support here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.97.102 (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't delete my comments again [95] 166.205.97.102 (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:3RRNO Wikipedia:Canvassing, the one ought to be boomeranged is you, not OP. Lemonaka (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure canvas means what you think it does. Please provide a diff of me alerting anyone of this discussion, anywhere. 166.205.97.102 (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User: Willform, chronic

WP:V

violations, will not communicate

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

Two months ago, I warned Willform about adding unsourced material to articles. The edit in question falls under

WP:ARBDS as American politics. Willform's user talk page is plastered with warnings going back two years and throughout his editing career, yet Willform has made only 10 edits to talk pages this whole time, and also doesn't use edit summaries. One editor was so irate at the lack of edit summaries that they reported directly to ANI about it. Just now I spotted a new addition sandwiched in before a reliable source which doesn't include the information Willform added. I think the user talk page warnings have piled up enough and it's time for some TLC. Elizium23 (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

OP-blocked for WP:DE. Lemonaka (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long-time registered acting like a vandal

X750 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems like being a registered user with undoubted imprint to the Wikipedia doesn't mean sometimes people won't act like an ordinary trolls and vandals. This guy has simply reverted my four regular edits: [96], [97], [98], [99], without any comment, explanation or discussion. What's more, first two of these were just ordinary update of data, with good sources provided, as the rest of two were just clarification that mentioned cars can't be "unveiled in 2022" as it hasn't happened yet. Is it an official Wikipedia guideline to put in trash someone's edits just because it's not don under a nickname? Very poor action. Not first actually. Hope you'll warn this dude as this activities are unacceptable. Hope not to hear whataboutism either... 83.21.101.90 (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You already have left them a message on their talk-page...perhaps give them a little time to answer? Also please remember to notify them that you have started a thread here. Lectonar (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@X750: Lectonar (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion but I think if you guys discussed your reasons on talk pages instead of through edits trying to win against each other you'd both provide a lot more value and this tit-for-tat could be avoided. Rally Wonk (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was asleep when this report was filed, hence my late reply. Here is my response. There has been an attempt to engage in discussion per

WP:BRD on the IP's talk page. [100] The IP simply replies "nah". Waddles then asks the IP to refrain from making the edits if they are not willing to make an explanation. The IP user then promptly belittles Waddles for his age on their talk page and in edit summaries [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]. Then keeps on reverting. IP has also insulted Rally Wonk here. Yes, Sable232 is right, I reverted those edits because I believe they weren't constructive. I have not approached 3RR but I will stop accordingly. Sable is also right in the sense that this is a content dispute. Yet today, I find myself accused of vandalism on my own talk page without an attempt to engage in constructive discussion (not to mention Seems like you overestimate your role, thinking if somebody is unregistered means you can treat their imprint like trash.). I don't overestimate my role, and neither should you. We're both here to build an encyclopaedia & I'd sure as hell hope you'd act like someone who's here to do that. Thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relevant previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#83.21.158.88. Mackensen (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have started with a content dispute over whether "introduced in <year>" applies to only production cars or if it applies to concept cars as well. The IP editor's uncivil remarks related to that dispute probably prompted X750 to presume that the rest of their edits were disruptive.

The edit to Cupra Terramar added poor grammar, and it is not normal practice to call a regional subsidiary the manufacturer. The sourced information on the assembly location could have been left in place, but I'd guess that X750 didn't trust the edit and therefore reverted it all.

The category removals are, in essence, a content dispute; I've always believed those categories to apply only to production vehicles but I also don't know of any consensus one way or the other. This should be resolved through a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. --Sable232 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already suggested to this IP editor to seek out consensus at the relevant WikiProject, it seems they have taken the liberty of completely ignoring it. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it with this editor. (User:ControversiesEditor)

Bbb23 said it best: "I've indeffed the user without TPA.". (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

It started with a question in my mind about who owns the copyright to a tweet and

WP:UNDUE material added under a "controversies" section, but It got into personal attacks quite speedily.([110], [111], [112]) Kleuske (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Just for shits and giggles: this gem. Kleuske (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've indeffed the user without TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

vandalism

OP checkuser-blocked as a sock. Daniel (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=1131138645 Vandalism of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=1131138645 Vandalist editor deletes information on page for a month with no basis - sound infromation User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/205.239.40.3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WritingForTruth (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unregistered user seeks to delete entire section with well-sourced information from sources like the Atlantic WritingForTruth (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Daniel I have asked for m:SRG, this user has a history of email bombing, so please turn off email from brand new editor if you don't want to be the target. Lemonaka (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Debartolo2917's Failure to listen to warnings.

This user has been repeatedly warned for lack of usage of the edit summary bar and marking all edits as minor. I am a recent changes aptroler, and I came across a recent edit of his that he addid something like 115 edits to an article, but marked it as minor.

Lechuga I AM A RECENT CHANGES PATROLER 21:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your signature include a Recent Changes Patroller userbox? Canterbury Tail talk 21:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the userbox so it stops breaking the layout. Lechuga, please do change your signature so that (a) it doesn't have a userbox and (b) it contains a link to your talk page. Thanks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chance to defend myself. Don't think I've ever made 115 edits on a single page and marked all minor. I do mark pages major where major changes are made (though have accidentally clicked minor out of habit before), but when I simply add a link to a name, that is not sufficiently major, nor is it when I alter a link. Also, the description for a recent changes patroller says "users use the recent changes section to monitor what others do to Wikipedia articles, and revert or undo the changes if they are identified as vandalism." I've been accused of vandalism before but have never vandalized a page. I think the most recent was when I messed up changing a link, was marked as vandalism, then fixed it. But I'll let the discussion play out. Debartolo2917 (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lechuga, you're going to need to much more coherently explain what the issue here is. I can't begin to make sense of exactly what you're complaining about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Justyouraveragelechuga's edits, I think there's a real competency issue. Canterbury Tail talk 02:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Lechuga, there's a mix of ok and very bad edits. Then there's a series of edits he's done that have been revdel'd, though it is not clear why. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Debartolo2917 does make lots of edits marked minor. A quick glance shows that the majority are appropriately tagged, though there are some edits that, while small, do not qualify as minor (e.g., adding another name to a list). But I don't see any issue qualifying a referral to ANI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation here, I think. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are suppressions, to the user's user page and talk page. So let's not speculate about stuff above our pay grade. I've turned one of their draftified articles into a redirect and given them a pointer about including sources, and both Canterbury Tail and Isabelle Belato have pointed out the user box thing is disruptive, so possibly all we need now is for them to answer the question about the problem they see with Debartolo2917's edits? Maybe they misread the history? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing he misunderstood what "+115" means here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my guess. Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin Yes, that is what I meant. Could you explain the +115 to me? Also, after that, I have nothing else to say, so I guess its resolved.Lechuga I AM A RECENT CHANGES PATROLER 14:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Justyouraveragelechuga: That's how many bytes the edit introduced to the page. Every edit has a byte count, and some of them can be negative if they remove a net amount of content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tenryuu How do I figure out how many words were added to an article then?--Justyouraveragelechuga ^talk 16:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that @Justyouraveragelechuga would benefit from having a mentor. He definitely means well. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rsjaffe You could! --Justyouraveragelechuga ^talk 16:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues and lack of communication from User:FireDragonValo

This editor's talk page is full of unaddressed warnings about fair use rationales and multiple other issues, stretching back over a decade. Despite this, FireDragonValo has generally been unresponsive to feedback. I think this has become a

WP:CIR issue at this point. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Legal threat from Astoriaaldrich

Blocked indefinitely by DMacks per

WP:NLT. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

After neglecting to provide any citations to back up their desired changes and complaining about longstanding cited content, this user has indicated they plan to sue Wikipedia over it. Such remarks are flat out inexcusable regardless of whether one agrees with what an article contains. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'ed, immidiate trigger was NLT, but they've been substantially disruptive and various types of incivil/borderline-threats with warnings prior to that. DMacks (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very grateful for the block! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

ERAM - article copyvio + other issues

Not sure if AN/I is the right place for this (please let me know if there's a better place to tag articles for experienced editors!), but I noticed ERAM appears to have portions that are copyvio from here. The bullet point list is nearly verbatim from that site. The ERAM article also appears to be in need of major editing - it's written almost as a press release, has a section that talks about upcoming implementation in 2006, 2007, and 2009, and basically does not cite any in-line references. Can some more experienced editors help fix this article? Thank you! 2603:9001:7900:144A:88C:24C:A7D0:A88B (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon

WELP

OP blocked for sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

The extreme vandal Jpgordon banned me permanently for no reason as a "vandal" even though none of my edits have ever vandalized Wikipedia. They did not even care to inform me that they banned me, let alone why. They only unbanned me and apologized after being pressured by at least two administrators, although with a ridiculous claimed reason for originally banning me. It seems they have something personal against me. Jpgordon is wildly abusing severely long bans to witchhunt users they personally dislike. Jpgordon is the real vandal and and should be banned. Lively Toad (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes mistakes happen, which is what seems to have happened, given their "I'm not sure why I blocked you either! Sorry about that, it was obviously a mistake" unblock message. What more do you want here? Zaathras (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a little over the top? Most administrators have mistakenly blocked people at some point, and you are making wild accusations that this is a pattern of conduct with no evidence. Have you considered accepting his apology, rather than taking umbrage? Your denunciation at AIV is even more shrill [113]. Acroterion (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever blocked someone by mistake, though I've certainly rolled someone back by mistake. Looking at User_talk:Jpgordon#Lively_Toad, I don't see anyone "pressuring" Jpgordon, just two users wondering what was up. He apologized and reversed himself. Mackensen (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it, and promptly apologized. Nobody has demanded that I be banned for it. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU Now, Op-blocked for sockpuppetry. Lemonaka (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User adding irrelevant copyvio to random talk pages

User:Yamihle Mali's contributions show a pattern of nothing but editing irrelevant/general discussion text in various talk pages, such as this edit to Talk:New York City.

I was curious, so I found from a search that two recent examples of this are copied (albeit with introduced spelling and other errors) straight from various sources.

Two examples:

edit, source (Ctrl+F for "the new world of work")

edit, source (article is paywalled, but the first sentence is an exact match in a way that doesn't happen by accident)

I expect this is true of almost all their contribs, though I haven't checked all the rest.

I think blockable for

WP:NOTHERE, but if the copyvio is a concern then revdel may be needed on likely almost all their edits. CharredShorthand (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Not a single constructive edit, and not even an attempt, just as you say random pasting of copyrighted text. Indeffed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User attacking me after recent block in another wiki

Mohammadiaba (talk · contribs)

Hello. User mentioned above is blocked on fawiki for disruption and using multiple accounts. Now they came here to attack me on my own talk page: Special:Diff/1131340919 (calling me a "Fascist" and a "Racist"; use a translator please, sorry about that).

BTW is that a common incident here that users blocked on other wikis come here to attack blocking admins or is it just me? This happened to me multiple times.

Thanks. Jeeputer ^Talk 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed. It can happen, unless it's the same account that ends up being globally locked there's not much we can do about it other than whack them if they appear like any other account. Canterbury Tail talk 18:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: Thank you. :) Jeeputer ^Talk 18:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: Can you please block 2A01:5EC0:2000:18D4:7C99:2BFF:FEFB:542E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) please? It's used to for block evasion. Thanks. Jeeputer ^Talk 20:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Canterbury Tail, but I did block the /64 range for obvious block evasion and harassment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I posted a request to meta for a global block. They're doing it on multiple wikis. I think this thread can be closed. Thanks again. Jeeputer ^Talk 21:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali banu sistani (part 2)

• Ali banu sistani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user continues to make random, unfounded attacks again other editors [114]. Don't even get me started on their

WP:OR edits. Back in November, I reported them for the same behaviour [115], which became stale due to the inactivity of the user. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even more unsourced changes by Rayane 77

Link to the previous ANI: [116]

Despite a short block, Rayane 77 still does not understand the basic principles of how sources work. They have kept making unsourced changes, even when several cited sources backed up the original content: [117][118][119]. At this point I would argue that they are

WP:CIR issue with them. BilletsMauves^€500 20:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have indeffed them. If they can reply with a reasoning in their unblock and show they understand what they are doing, I'd be willing to unblock. Right now though, this has to stop. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by GigachadGigachad

I posted this a few days ago and no one replied. I've been having issues with GigachadGigachad for months and months, as have numerous other users, and they continue to ignore these warnings. Their edits frequently consist of false or misleading edit summaries – for which they were blocked a few months ago – as well as unjustified removal of content, and replacing well written material with terribly worded prose. In recent months, GigachadGigachad has refused to even respond to most editors who have raised these issues. One example is this edit in which they used the edit summary "added link", despite not adding a link and instead removing an entire sentence with notable content. They also continue to add unsourced self-described "trivia" despite multiple editors warning them not to. I recommend scrolling through their talk page to see all the difs that various editors have pointed out (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and I could keep going). At this point, it's a clear WP:CIR issue. Cpotisch (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]