Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deepfriedokra (talk | contribs) at 15:47, 30 May 2021 (→‎User:Tellyring: utrs 43900). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page;

    pinging is not enough
    .
    You may use {{    subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile

    I am here to address

    WP:WPTC/IMG
    ) for images of tropical cyclones, as well as edit warring.


    Here the user changed this infobox image with an inconstructive comment, which was later reverted for being a lower quality image.

    The edit here looks to have been made to just attack another user instead of explaining why this image was changed. Soon enough, the edit was reverted and instead of seeking consensus, the user edit warred between the user who reverted, as seen in diff 1 and diff 2, where he also made yet another comment.

    Also during around the time of the edit war, the user reverted a

    the guideline
    which states that the source he was using was not reliable (the user in question was new around this time).

    More recently, the user also unexplainedly changed the infobox image on 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, the image which was personally created by the user who originally put it, which was also later reverted for being rather inconstructive.

    More recently, the user had attacked me off-wiki on a Discord server (which, if is even contributive to this? I'm not sure) and told that he 'would get into beef' with me as I disagreed that his Commons image was a higher quality, albeit respectfully. He changed the infobox image, as revealed by this diff and after another user changed it back explaining that the image change was un-warranted, he proceeded to change the image again as proven by this diff but tried to disguise the edit by saying he had "Fixed a typo".

    Possibly unrelated, but I'd also recommend looking at the user's talk page which gives a better look at warnings and notices other users have given him recently, a majority of which were based off edit-warring or giving rude comments which were calmly responded to... which were completely ignored. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of
    advisories/damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Adding on, as for the blocks, all three of them were related in some way to
    🌀 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Fleur has continued to
    WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [1] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [2]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. NoahTalk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    While Fleur's most recent instance of attacking other editors on-wiki was in March, he has continued to do so regularly on a Wikipedia Discord server, as recently as just a few days ago.
    🌀 12:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Let's not forget that just last month, there was a discussion about this exact topic that basically went nowhere at all. Just thought I should let you guys know. This is also the 4th discussion on either 3RR or on ANI regarding Fleur. However, I have had a few encounters in which the editor was rude to me, such as [3], and [4], when I was still a relatively new editor at the time. However, aside from those edits, I haven't had many issues with them, and though they have reverted me in the past on different pages, they were for valid reasons. However, If there is not enough evidence to support a block from any of the above users and the evidence they have provided, the least we could do on my watch at least would be to have them enter some sort of Mentor-ship program, maybe similar to how Chicdat (talk · contribs) and MarioJump83 (talk · contribs) are doing it? Maybe that way one could have more control over their actions on-wiki, and maybe they'd learn how to stop attacking and warring with people, as well as learn how to better use edit summaries and discussion. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This makes sense. Maybe instead of just leaving warnings and then reporting FDO, someone can try mentoring him. I'm not experienced enough, but maybe other users could be open to it. I do believe, however, that if, even after or during the mentorship, Fleur continues this disruptive pattern of behavior, that is grounds for a block or topic ban.
    advisories/damages 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    True. I am not experienced enough either, but I think it would still worth a shot for someone who has been around for a lot longer to try it out. I agree with CodingCyclone here though, if a mentorship weren't to work, and the editor were to go back to their old ways, then I think that it would be justified to enforce some more consequential actions. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly disagree. After being blocked three times prior and STILL not learning your lesson on civility/disruptive editing, there is obviously a chronic problem going on here which has no excuse. There is no good in letting an injured bear continue in the wild. Thus, there is no good in letting a disruptive editor continue their unacceptable behavior which personally has made me want to quit making Commons images altogether. Whos to say he would even want a mentorship? Most friendly notices have been completely ignored and is just
    WP:IDHT. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I am just putting out alternative ideas to blocking the editor, so that there may be a wider range of choices when it comes to what the possible consequences are, and because they do occasionally make good edits. I am sorry to hear that you have considered quitting the Commons, I sincerely hope it does not come to that extreme. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My idea is to propose a formal restriction from editing tropical cyclone images, broadly construed. However, I'm not going ahead if there's no further disruption from this editor. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    just mentor me already FleurDeOdile 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that request or a demand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or a threat? — BarrelProof (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a request. But I'm not open for more adoption right now. They'll need another mentor for this. MarioJump83! 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Before you get mentored you need a self-ban on changing tropical cyclone images. Either that or you need a block. This is ridiculous behavior which requires consequences. Why should he get off the hook for this? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe a mentor would be appropriate for this situation. Given the statement above, it is quite clear Fleur doesn't really care. A mentor is for newer editors who are making mistakes without knowing they are, not for established editors who simply don't care. I would rather see Fleur be topic blocked from editing mages on WP than blocked from editing period since images seems to be the only issue here. He should be able to upload his own work to commons, which is quite useful in many instances, but the behavior on WP in regards to images and changing them is quite appalling. NoahTalk 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on board on the idea for a topic ban in editing tropical cyclone images. Though, there's no such thing as "topic block", instead it is a "topic ban". MarioJump83! 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then let's ban them or block them. Either way, some kind of action is needed, and having now seen the comment they put, you're all right that they obviously don't care at this point, and they need to either be topic banned, or blocked. If they are also harassing users off-wiki on discord, then they need to be removed/banned from the server or servers in which they are involved at. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I doubt Fleur should get a mentorship in this situation. He clearly does not care at this point, and I doubt a mentorship will help anything. Most likely, after the mentorship, he's going to go straight back to his old ways. Plus, I doubt very many people will be willing to mentor him anyway. I think we should have a topic ban for him from editing related to tropical cyclone images, as that would solve most things. Off-wiki, we also suggested a self-ban from editing the "Image=" parameter on infoboxes. As for action off-wiki, I think Fleur should be removed from the WPTC Discord server. He is very uncivil, insulting, and rude with their comments on other people off-wiki. If you search for "garbage" or "trash" in his messages on Discord, he has sent over 50 texts in the past year insulting other users. He has been warned several times to be civil and kind to other members off-wiki, and never listens. His only response has been "Civility doesn't apply off-wiki.", which is clearly not valid. As some action, he could be removed from the Discord server.
    🌀 16:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Proposal: Topic ban (FleurDeOdile)

    Given the evidence linked above, concerns from several people about civility (in relation to image edits), and Fleur's lack of care regarding his behavior, I propose a topic ban be instituted. The ban would cover all image-related parameters on articles and discussions related to images on the English Wikipedia. NoahTalk 17:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I agree with this. The user should still be able to upload to Commons, but may not be able to edit at all related to tropical cyclone images on enwiki. If disruption continues in other areas, or if the user violates the topic ban, the user should be indefinitely blocked.
      🌀 17:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    As for the ban from the Discord server, I 100% agree. The user has been warned multiple times to be civil and refuses to listen. More of his texts are insulting rather than constructive.
    🌀 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Someone should do it at this point. MarioJump83! 08:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @LindsayH: As an outside user previously involved, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this latest ANI discussion.Jason Rees (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the ping, Jason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayH (talk • contribs) 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at his contributions since the previous ANI outing in which i also commented, and at this time i oppose a topic ban for FDO. First, there is a smallish number of edits, about three dozen, which does mean that (even if it's unbelievably frustrating) any disruption he is causing is quite limited and easy to correct. Second, i am pointing no fingers, but i am concerned at what reads to me as piling on by those i assume are members of the WikiProject; i would very much like to see some outside opinions (which is why i'm delighted that i was pinged here; as a complete outsider, i hope to offer an unbiased opinion). This does not mean, however, that i see no issues; i do. FleurDeOdile, i am very disappointed to see that you do not appear to have read or digested the opinions and advice in the previous ANI outing; in particular, your use of misleading, rude, and straight-out inaccurate edit summaries is not collegial, and is liable to lead to a worse result than a topic ban if you don't change. I also see an issue with the way you are changing images which appears to be contrary to consensus; i have no idea which images are better ~ to me a typhoon is a typhoon is a hurricane ~ but your colleagues have opinions which you really need to take into account. I do not, as i say, think a topic ban is currently appropriate, but clearly some action is necessary; i would suggest some kind of mentoring, if it were possible. I did note that above someone said that they're not available to do so; is anyone? I would offer myself, in some form, but i may well not be acceptable, as i really know nothing about the WikiProject which is FDO's interest, so any support i could offer would be purely on behaviour, nothing to do with content. I hope this offers a helpful outside view; happy days, LindsayHello 22:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This AN3 report from November 2020 administered a partial block for edit-warring over an image in Hurricane Eta.
      On a furhter note, I don't think this is limited to images, though their conduct in that area is unacceptable in its own right. For instance, I notice that this diff form May 2020 is in the same topic area where this incident happened, but that it is about redirecting, not images. There are more recent warnings, such as one from August 2020 about this diff and one in January 2021 about edits like these at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season, which are also about content or data removal. Since FDO edits exclusively on hurricane-related articles, I'm hesitant to propose a hurricane TBAN as well, but wouldn't oppose it if other users deem one necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per all above. Although I would not support a tropical cyclone topic ban.--
      🌀 12:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    User:Triggerhippie4, user:Gidonb, user:SoaringLL

    These 3 users have engaged in

    WP:HARASS
    me.

    The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement. However, user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."

    User:Gidonb continues to make frivolous requests to fish my

    ip address.Catchpoke (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I raised a concern that I have on the appropriate page, then detailed it a bit following multiple public requests by multiple fellow WP volunteers (not the folks that happen to be with me in this section header). I did nothing different from the previous times that I reported something that concerned me at WP. I expressed my opinion at the discussion that the complainer initiated, disregarding all concerns, even when pressured at this point, and called names by the person who complains here against me. How awkward! In my opinion, the complainer's uncivil behavior[5][6][7] is not acceptable and, of course, one is always free to take a look at my actions. Policies apply to all. gidonb (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the TfD itself: beyond incivility, there is too much back and forth. I think that everyone should have their say and opinions should be given some space. It's not a good idea to react to everyone's opinions. gidonb (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At the SPI you started, you were asked for diffs 3,5 days ago [8]. You have not provided one even today [9]. Also, I cannot follow your logic in here: did you go to SPI because of incivility? -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I went to the SPI because of a concern of sockpuppetry that I continue to have (previously I would report a suspected sockpuppet on an admin's page who referred me to that page). I think it is a valid concern. At the very least there are very valid causes for concern. The user decided to attack me on multiple pages, including here, by my interpretation as a sort of defense. That's a strategy I do not approve of but just maybe within the complainer's rights. I hope not. I'm no expert on how these things develop or on all procedures and abbreviations. I'm not going to argue with all that is being said here or with every way my actions are misinterpreted. I do not do that in other discussions either. I mostly edit. All this is extremely time consuming and draining. Even simple discussions where you just want to provide your two cents have become that way. gidonb (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to make this incredibally short but if pressed, I can supply any reasoning required: user:Gidonb, I've included you here because user:SoaringLL is clearly a sock. Your request for a background check at
    WP:SPI was unwarranted however since you did not supply the required information for such an invasion of privacy. I don't want to comment or involve user:Gidonb further.Catchpoke (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sure I acted in good faith. But is it special? All Wikipedians with a constant record of fighting vandalism, sockpuppetry, POV, and excessive nominations on Wikipedia act in good faith. Once in a while we get a barnstar, after 12 years we receive the PumpkinSky Prize, but far more often our pages are vandalized or we are threatened or even dragged to the
    WP:ANI or other boards. I'm not a Wikipedian for any of these. I'm here because I like to edit and believe in Wikipedia's mission. If you want to edit constructively, start necessary discussions, and report a case of possible sockpuppetry for honest reasons -- that's great! gidonb (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Adding to the report wrt
      User:Triggerhippie4
      :
    Triggerhippie4 canvassing casting bad faith: [10]. They did not respond but did engage in side-issues [11] 'That's why I notified these users.' (i.e., nothing about the canvassing post).
    Triggerhippie4 entring personal attacks in TfD discussion: [12] 'False. You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even ...', [13] 'Nominator is a newbie', [14] 'You are as competent as the nominator', invoking
    WP:CIR
    , 'mindful editors please'.
    Triggerhippie4 was warned about this behaviour by multiple editors: [15] 'chilling effect of attitudes and comments', [16] 'unhelpful', [17] 'for a second time enters PAs'.
    -DePiep (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gidonb expressing PA [18] 'unnecessary procedure, ... You'll just keep precious wasting community time' (sic), a warning was added [19] 'I don't think your judgements on this procedure and on an editor's GF are sound or helpful', which was ignored [20] pretending
    not understanding
    .
    Gidonb initiated SOCK claims [21] on 20 May 2021 against two editors he was involved with at the TfD. On 19:25 21st, extra info (diffs supporting their claim) was asked per CU process. Up until this moment, 3,5 days later, Gidonb has not provided a single diff. Still they continued to post otherwise [22] and elsewhere [23][24][25] in the discussion. Finally (so far) after 3,5 days, they withdrew one accusation [26] as a 'weaker case', and adding verbose meandering thoughts again without a single diff [27].
    • All in all, I think Catchpoke has good reason claiming harrassment: here is a list of PAs (in various specific forms) and the spurious still unsourced SOCK accusation. While SPI ideally should be considered independently from other claims, ie by itself, such claims are not free and do have a chilling effect on a discussion. Gidonb must be aware of this, especially since they withdrew one name late (despite being explicitly asked to look at it), and another name is hung in the open still without proof. (I'd expect an earlier throw-out by CU clerck btw). This is gaming the system.
    I have not experienced problematic behaviour with SoaringLL. MEATPUPPETtry could be checked for. I think a block for Triggerhippie4 and Gidonb would be useful, both to stop extending unbased SPI accusations and to keep the TfD discussion healthy & fruitful. -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In their posts and responses here, both Gidonb and Triggerhippie4 do not show awareness of their problematic behaviour. This implies they are not up for changing their behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've believe user:Gidonb engaged in good faith behavior since he is in his rights to accuse me of sockpuppetry but I don't want to comment on his behavior further.Catchpoke (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with a block on user:Triggerhippie4. In addition to the facts stated by User:DePiep and I, he
    WP:VOTESTACKed and only notified keep voters on their talk pages of a previous and similar discussions.Catchpoke (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This is slander. I notified all active users from previous discussions. Point to an active user whom I should've notified but didn't. It's not my "fault" that previous nominations resulted in 'keep'. --
    Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    See
    WP:NOTGETTINGIT, to which we can add later posts. Your questioning is not negating all that — it is ignoring all that (proving the point). I stand by my proposal. -DePiep (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    My conduct is nothing in comparison to yours, apparently. I just looked at your block log, and omg, I don't think I need a lecture on civility from someone who was blocked for PAs and harassment multiple times, including one time indefinitely. You are on
    Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    O.k. Well I found this. Maybe we can move forward from this ANI and User:DePiep and I can discuss these templates further.Catchpoke (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you hiding behind others to justify you own breach of WP guidelines? Quite a non-defence. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Above, #report wrt Gidonb shows in diffs that there is more to it. Multiple personal attacks, multiple users frivolously accused of being a SOCK (as [admitted by Gidonb] themselves), and not responding to serious requests for many days (i.e., keeping the SPI/accusation needlessly open). Whether knowingly or unknowingly: unacceptable behaviour towards other editors. And don't forget: all this disrupted the TfD to the brink. -DePiep (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    >These 3 users have engaged in

    WP:MEATPUPPETry on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Template:Largest cities of Israel
    .
    The allegations are baseless, as I don't know those users. I notified Gidonb, because he's major contributor to one of the templates you started the discussion about. And I have nothing to do with SoaringLL.
    >User:Triggerhippie4 engaged in
    WP:HARASS
    me.
    I don't consider this (    [28])
    WP:CANVASS
    , it was accurate description of your nomination.
    >The intent of my nomination was to initiate a discussion about the template and several editors agree that the template needs improvement.
    The intent of your nomination was to delete {{Largest cities of Israel}}, and the overwhelming majority voted to keep.
    >user:Triggerhippie4 engaged in uncivil behavior stating "You are obviously don't know what you are talking about, can't even open and compare the two."
    I said it in response to your astounding claim "all of the cities in {{
    Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    You shouldn't even be making a comment like this when the discussion is ongoing and elsewhere. That certainly was harassment. "all of the cities in {{Largest cities of Israel}} are included in {{Largest Israeli cities}}": Did I do my math wrong? And there were 2 uses until you added it to this article.Catchpoke (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am a bit surprised that this quite simple report on two editors does not gain any traction by ANI regulars. Any rational explanation? -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nationalistic POV

    Both users seem to not respect the Wikipedia guidelines, have most probably several accounts on Wikipedia to fullfill their agenda (Assyrian nationalism), remove sourced content without providing any sources and are Personal Attacking other Wikipedia users. Please, see this case, with a lot of information of accounts carrying out their POV since at least 2009 already: [29] Reldex (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Reldex asserts I am a sockpuppet because I reject his restoration of a version of Arameans article that was originally added by a sockpuppet (Special:Diff/971044631), and, after being removed for discussion on the talk page, was restored by another sockpuppet without discussion (Special:Diff/974874117). It is poorly written, mostly unsourced, and poorly sourced and formatted when it does have references. There needs to be consensus for it to be added, not to remain. The article is currently being brigaded, as one can see from the high number of IPs restoring this poor edit, and I have requested page protection. Mugsalot (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Reldex has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. (Non-administrator comment) dudhhrContribs 21:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mugsalot, actually that's not the reason. I have mentioned all the reasons above in combination with the diff. I have added. You keep claiming that Arameans are part of the Assyrian people however there is no consensus on this topic. You keep removing and replacing the term Aramean even when it is sourced and the sources speak about Arameans. Thereafter you summarize it as (Reverted POV edit; For modern "Arameans" see Assyrian people) [30]. That's not something you can do and especially since you are fullfilling this agenda since 2009 I am concerned about the neutrality and quality regarding these articles. Reldex (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Mugsalot is has gotten into an edit war at List of maphrians:

    1. Special:Diff/1025416100
    2. Special:Diff/1025429400
    3. Special:Diff/1025631620
    4. Special:Diff/1025633457
    5. Special:Diff/1025633640
    6. Special:Diff/1025634216
    7. Special:Diff/1025634540
    8. Special:Diff/1025634804
    9. Special:Diff/1025635272

    The other user,

    third opinion may be needed from someone familiar with this topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

     Done (t · c) buidhe 09:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vauxford again

    I just recognized that I just put this to AN instead of ANI. I hope it's okay, to move it over here. For the history of the discussion please see history of AN. I'm sorry. Mea Culpa.--Alexander-93 (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I propose to reconsider lifting the topic ban of Vauxford in January 2021. In the previous weeks I added some of my and some of other users photos over his more or less bad images, since I think they are an obvious improvement (some of them are even featured as QI) for this Wikipedia ([31], [32], [33], [34]). Today he reverted these edits with arguments like Previous was fine, take your blurry mediocre images elsewhere. I think he did't grew up since his topic ban about replacing and adding his own images to articles was lifted in January. IMO he is still defending his images over everything, which is also shown here. Furthermore he still replaces other images by his own, although he was told to stop with this behaviour in March 2021. His defiant behaviour harms here and makes a constructive work impossible.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (I will add more info soon) Firstly Alexander-93, you are not active here. You only drop by dumping your photographs in the articles, most of which are mediocre to say the least. Most importantly you are extremely hypocritical wanting to put a topic ban on me again. The reason why the topic ban was because I was disruptive when self-inserting my own images on 50 different Wikipedias which I stopped doing and focused only my native one. You on the other hand, not so much:

    Audi A4 Audi A4 Ferrari 330 Ferrari 330 Audi Q8 Bitter CD Bitter CD Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Lancia Hyena Hyena

    I'm going to repeat what I said on your German talkpage when you tried to stir up trouble towards me:
    There is many, MANY more diffs I can show you to prove you are no better then I am. You do the exact same style editing and behaviour, and the fact you pointed fingers at me on my main Wikipedia site for this and made everyone on their scrutinised me. Why aren't people calling your editing a "personal vanity project"? Why aren't people telling you "you're degrading wikipedia with your mediocre photos"? You get NONE of that and you left another user who is very much does the same as you do to suffer. I'm not saying all my edits are justified but it the upmost sheer hypocrisy that you started this ANI to get me put on another topic ban. I had enough people wanting me gone as it is, scapegoating me all the time and removing my photos simply because it is "Vauxfordy". --Vauxford (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I am as active as you are here. And yes, I'm able to communicate in English, so why shouldn't I edit here? Yes, in the past, I also replaced images, which were not so fine - maybe not that much like you did - but I did it in a way that I would say today, was not okay. But I stopped that already at least one year ago. The edits you mentioned above are all from 2019. And some of them are even okay.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexander-93 Then what are these? You did all these less than a 1 or 2 months ago so clearly you haven't stopped your mass adding. --Vauxford (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mazda MX-30, Mazda MX-30,Mazda MX-30, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, BMW M3, Audi Q2, BMW X3, Citroen C4 Cactus. Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Golf.
    Disputes like this just make me feel that we would be better off without images altogether. They are nearly all original research and what image we include in an article often just depends on who can muster the most supporters for "their" image. Do they exist for the benefit of readers, or are they more to stroke the egos of photographers, who are now just about anyone with a mobile phone?
    Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oh and don't forget his editing history, some are which were from less than 2 months ago! Ukraine, WikiData, Japanese, Polish, Finnish, French, Arabic or though he hasn't touched that one for about 6 months, Russian. To put it straight forward, I am not innocent but at least I quit the disruptive habit that got me a topic ban, if you look at my edit history on the Wikipedias I mentioned they will be quite a few from 2020-2018, there is one from May 2021 on one or two of them because I reverted a 7 Series image which Alexander mass added at some point. I apologise for my passive-aggressive edit summary on the recent edits he stated above but I'm truly sick and tired with this situation and want it to end. What peeves me off greatly is the fact Alexander-93 continues to do this with little to no repercussions, nobody telling him off or reverting his edits. Why is he able to get away with the same shtick that got me into hot water? Please someone answer this because I been waiting for one for the past 2 or 3 years! --Vauxford (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits mentioned above aren't disruptive in my opinion. If I'm adding a image to a Wikipedia, where it is "needed", since it's the first which was uploaded, it's an obvious improvement. And yes, that's what I'm doing still sometimes. And sometimes I'm replacing a bad image (e.g. in case of the MX-30). But I think that's something different compared to what this thread is about: Reverting obvious improvements and replacing an image by another although there are just minor differences.--Alexander-93 (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What you been doing is one of the reasons why I got the topic ban, my reasons were the same as yours. The person who created the ANI which lead to my topic ban proposal pointed this out and people were not pleased with it. So why hasn't anybody pointed that out about you? That is what I'm trying to get across. --Vauxford (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted some of Vauxford's recent changes (at Kia Stonic and Audi Q8), as Alexander 93's pictures were clearly better. Vauxford responded exactly like he did before his ban, by reinstating his pictures and being generally abrasive. I am unsure if I have removed any of Alexander's pictures recently but I don't remember ever having to have long boring arguments with him. And while this is not a competition in "who can have the most pictures used", I completely understand replacing pictures when one takes an objectively and clearly better photo. There is no defacto ban on putting pictures up in different languages, the problem is how and why it is done.
    I, too, am heartily tired of this nonsense and I don't see much blame (if any) landing at Alexander's door.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr.choppers I might've been harsh with my edit summary and I'm sorry for that, as you mentioned I am simply drained from of all of this. At least try and see my frustration over this user who is very similar to or formerly similar to me and not gotten any backlash from it, wouldn't you find that frustrating? Imagine two users who both acted and behaved badly, one get the telling off and the other doesn't, that what I'm trying to point out with evidence. --Vauxford (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just clicked one of the links you provided above at random (French Mazda MX-30), and Alexander-93's picture is a clear and undisputable improvement over what was there before. I notice his edits, but I almost never feel that he is reinstating his own photos just because they are his, or replacing existing photos that are not undisputably of a higher quality. He does what he does without annoying people, and when others revert him he generally responds calmly if at all.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr.choppers I don't understand, type in his username in the VisualFileChanger and you see that they are not "undisputably of a higher quality". This is the exact same type of a so-called "vanity project" that Charles01 pointed out. There is strong evidence that he is reinstating his own image on as many Wikipedia page as he could simply because they are his, that was my motive before the topic ban and I reflected for two years why that not a good thing to do. I don't annoy people on other Wikipedias and I do respond calmly if one gets reverted. Once again, I apologise for my outburst with today's reverts, both to you and Alexander. However, he continues doing that and nobody has told him off or warned him. --Vauxford (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    General comment re images @Alexander-93 and Vauxford: - the main consideration for which image goes in an article is quality. Who took the image, or uploaded it to Commons/Wikipedia counts for absolutely nothing. It an image of yours does get used, count it as a bonus. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep @Mjroots: that's what I'm doing - or at least trying to do. I'm trying to add the best available images to an article. And if an image is not that perfect, but the very first in its category, I'm adding it too. And if there is a more suitable image of another user or also of me uploaded later, I'm totally fine, if it gets replaced (by whoever). But in the case I described above, Vauxford didn't behave like that. And that's what the people criticized even before he was topic banned. I added obviously better images to some articles, but he didn't care about the quality. If it would have been the other way round (e.g. the image of the blue Kia Stonic from me and the image of the yellow Kia Stonic from him), he would have been probably the very first who changed them. And that would have been totally okay, since it's an obvious improvment. But since his image got replaced, re reacted (at least in my opinion) defiant. And that's a behaviour that doesn't bring us forward.--Alexander-93 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that a lot of the diffs provided are to Wikipedias in other languages or Wikidata. We can only consider any alleged diruption that takes place at en-Wiki. What happens elsewhere is a matter for those other Wikipedias. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexander-93 It the same exact reason why I add mine, I do care about quality. I will say this again, I shouldn't of acted the way I did yesterday with the reverts and I ensure you this does not reflect who I am today, for the past months I been keeping my frustration to myself because of your style of mass adding your photos, there was many times that I was close to create an ANI about you but held back since I thought it would do more harm than good.
    Quite frankly Alexander, if you take a look at the photos you taken carefully, they have several problems with them, you appear to take cues from me when it comes to angles and where they are etc but 80% of the time you always mess up the focus and colour. They are always washed out and the balance is all messed up, the angle is always skewed and the vehicle itself is often blurry, and that is the reason why I reverted those edits, especially the Up! GTI because of it. --Vauxford (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to point to a comment made by User:Johannes in the January discussion which lifted Vauxford's topic ban:
    I believe that Vauxford has had some time to figure why his behaviour was considered disruptive; in case he did not figure this, the tban can be reimposed.
    I think it's quite possible that we're at that place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken I fully understand why you oppose the original topic ban lifting but you can see above my reasoning as clearly as I am able to make it, I don't believe my actions are a repeat of the past but rather seeking for the best quality images that are available from Wikimedia. Ever since the topic ban lifted, this is the only incident that happened here and I strongly regretted the action I did with the reverts and edit summary. --Vauxford (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we had the long-running Charles01/Vauxford dispute, and, now that you've been unbanned for 4 months, we have the Alexander-93/Vauxford dispute. It's obvious what the common factor is. If your response was one that any other editor concerned about image quality would do, why is it that no one else did it but you? (If someone else did, they would be pertinent information, but you haven't mentioned any such instance.) It seems to me that there's still a problem that needs to be addressed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't remember how many times car pictures have come to the drama boards, but it's definitely too many. Why not try a slightly innovative solution, since the usual don't seem to have worked so far. These two users (Vauxford and Alexander-93) could be forbidden to insert their own images into any automotive article, but be free to insert anyone else's ~ indeed, even encouraged to find those of the best quality and do so, even if they are each others'. They would still be able to create all the images they wanted, and upload them to Commons, and while they're on Commons, look for excellent images that aren't theirs to improve articles. Might it stop them picking on each other? Who knows, but it might be worth trying as a way to stop these regular ANI visits; happy days, LindsayHello 11:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring at Siddha Yoga

    An IP is continually edit warring at Siddha Yoga to promote a "Controversy" section to the top of the article. It's been going on for weeks now and needs to stop, so I think somebody should take a look at it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the controversy section entirely. Other than the obvious point that the controversy section belongs at the bottom of the page, not the top, these sources are not sufficient for these sorts of claims. The allegations of sexual misconduct are not cited to the publications which allegedly printed them, nor are they covered by third-party reliable sources. And since all of the information in this section was added by a single-purpose IP editor, there is clearly a
    POV issue here as well. This shouldn't be added back until better sources are found. – bradv🍁 01:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Random addition of sources and inflammatory edit summaries by User:Sarakhanjunglee

    Sarakhanjunglee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added sources in a random fashion to leave political statements in edit summaries such as:

    • Zionists want us killed[35] in Paracetamol
    • Palestinians are failures. Mahmoud Abbas is not even a Muslim, he's a Baha'i. Wake up Muslims[36] in Palestine 194
    • Sufi erdogan freemason only barking like dogs. All staged drama[37] in Islam in Palestine
    • No leader will tolerate khawarij extremists. Long live Widodo. What he's doing is right[38] Joko Widodo

    The sources are not or only remotely connected to the text to which they are attached. Quite strange is the addition of Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East to the see also-section of Apocrypha. The addition of a note with a Hadith text[39] after the first word in the lead of Pleurisy is less randomish, but betrays a CIR issue.

    Judging from previous warnings about similar behavior and other various issues, I get the impression this user is not here to built an encyclopedia (

    WP:NOTHERE). –Austronesier (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    (Non-administrator comment) The second one looks particularly racist, and almost all of the other edit summaries seem to be
    Islamophobic or potshots at Islamic terrorists like [40] at Abqaiq. I see that the edit summary in [41] at Bilal Erdoğan has already been RD3'd; should any more edits or edit summaries be revdel'd? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @LaundryPizza03: Actually they're not Islamophobic, but seem to loathe everything that deviates from their Sunni mainstream POV, whether it's Sufi mysticism or Salafist terrorism. Most of their edsums are not as gross as the ones I have picked for the report, so I don't think there is much more out there for redvel. And they haven't edited since the report, so this might become stale anyway. –Austronesier (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing Khazars and ARBPIA3

    WP:RS while tagteaming to revert with little focused talk page explanation (See here
    ).

    Without wishing to assert

    Ownership, I did write most of the Khazars article and the relevant sections of this page
    dealing with both its antisemitic uses and the conspiracy spun from it by fringe lunatic figures in the Ku Klux Klan and othe racist groups. I.e. I trawled through scores of scholarly texts on the topic, which survey the idea’s rise, and credibility. In this academic literature, the idea that it is intrinsically antisemitic or a conspiracy theory is rare, except to note its occasional abuse. Most scholars evaluate it as improbable. Most scholars who have taken it as worthy of scrutiny are of Jewish background, and are neither underwriters of antisemitism nor conspiracy theories. According to two new editors of this page, it is conspiratorial and anti-Semitic to its core.

    User:BasedMises on 12 May (2 days into the present I/P crisis), rarely steps out of his field of economics (user page). He provided 5 sources reacting to a tweet on Twitter by an obscure Qatari figure, Ghada Oueiss, on 22 August 2019 that the Jews qua Khazars were intruders in the Holy Land, as proof that the idea in itself is a conspiracy theory. 3 are brief echoes of a report responding to this tweet in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The fifth is from Steven Plaut, a deceased Israeli economist who was convicted of libel (lying) in an Israeli court and who was permabanned for sockpuppetry (User:Runtshit) on wikipedia. Just to give one an idea of the quality of the evidence used to justify this distortion of the record.

    A virtually inactive account,User:Alwaysasn registered in 2011, and making just 13 edits in 10 years , was reactivated on 21 May to back up BasedMises’ claim that was a ‘conspiracy theory’.

    My question is, can Alwaysasn edit an article that falls under ARBPIA3 guidelines (requiring 500 edits). When I raised this with User:Doug Weller, Alwaysasn replied that the specific header states that the ban extends only to an (undefined) portion of the page, whereas he edited in material that deals not with the I/P conflict but with ‘Jews’. However he admits that he made his edit due to an (unattested) ‘the stark rise in antisemitism . . discredit Jews around the world’ at this particular moment.

    Both editors came to the page at the beginning and end of the

    2021 Israel-Palestine crisis. Both editors cited as proof the absurd crack made by an obscure figure in Qatar
    two years ago. The original source used, the JTA, does not state that the Khazar theory is intrinsically antisemitic or conspiratorial, as the two editors claim. To the contrary the JTA text for 22 August 2020 almost certainly took its remarks from our wiki article as it stood that day, a text that has remained stable for several years:

    The theory has been used by anti-Semites and anti-Zionists to discount Jewish claims to the land of Israel. Scholars have discounted the theory

    On the 22 August 2019 our text stated (and have continued to state until this recent brouhaha altered it):

    The hypothesis has been used at times by anti-Zionists to challenge the idea that Jews have genetic ties to ancient Israel, and it has also played some role in anti-Semitic theories

    Does this content refer to the 'portion' ARBPIA covers, in which case Alwaysasn shouldn't be editing there, or is his battle to defend Jews against a stark surge in anti-Semitism in the last few weeks nothing at all to do with the contemporary flare-up in the I/P crisis? The JTA article supported by both editors specifically states what Alwasasn denies, i.e. that the the theory is abused to 'discount Jewish claims to the land of Israel'. It falls therefore under ARBPIA3.Nishidani (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing
    WP:ARBPIA4 applies. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Johnuniq: thanks, but both the edit notice and talk page notice says "A portion of the article Khazar" - I think you added the wrong templates. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: Groan, I missed that. I adjusted the edit notice and the talk page notice. @Nishidani: You will need to be more patient as we have to tolerate off-wiki campaigns reaching articles. Focus on knocking off the unreliable sources and pointing out that "No evidence from genome-wide data ..." means the author is claiming no evidence not conspiracy theory. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've shown all the sources are unreliable. I've shown that Behar (2013) is cited for the view that the theory is unscientific and a conspiracy when Behar does no such thing. He confutes an hypothesis advanced by another scientist in his field arguing on technical grounds. He does not anywhere state that his colleague is engaged in pseudo-science. A blip in a tweet and report (then copied 4 times in 1 day) cannot trump scholarship. I can't get any answers from the two editors: one doesn't respond, the other merely says my queries or analyses are all ad hominem, and he has newspaper snippets about an incident in Qatar in 2019 which call the theory anti-Semitic and a con spiracy. Obviously neither of them have trou8bled to read the relevant articles, where all of these aspects as they are analysed iin numerous scholarly studies, are thoroughly covered. It's therefore a behavioural problem (
    WP:BLP smear it contains by direct implication is that a ranking geneticist Eran Elhaik is a pseudoscientist by definition, since he tried to justify a theory that comes under that formulation. Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Exercising the patience advised above, I dropped a note on User:Alwaysasn's page, suggesting they take the contested sources to RSN. Their response was an inflammatory insult, interpreting my remarks as ‘antisemitic gaslighting’. They have since refused to strike this personal smear as I have requested. This nonsense has already wasted 3 hours in a busy life. Surely one cannot get away with that as well? Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Atharv Bakshi

    Atharv Bakshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    @Atharv Bakshi: continues to engage in content dispute/edit wars despite being told not to several times by @Number 57:. The user does not indicate any intention of stopping this. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @DaxServer, I'm only finding one warning from @Number 57 on that user's talk, and it's about infoboxes, and a single mention of edit-warring on their user talk -- can you give us some diffs? —valereee (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is disruptive and I'm not sure is entirely competent to be editing Wikipedia. Virtually every edit of theirs that I've seen has had to be reverted. Number 57 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've p-blocked from article to try to get the editor's attention/get them to discuss. Still not sure we tried hard enough, but p-blocks aren't as aggressive so I'm willing to. Actual diffs for the problem would be really helpful, though. —valereee (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Indefinite Block On Kelvinsage1

    Kelvinsage1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    Has been an editor for five years and has been using Wikipedia for purposes described in what Wikipedia is

    WP:CIR, though the former is much more plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @Celestina007: I'd suggest the best course of action here is to review Kelvinsage1's remaining articles carefully to make sure they are all neutral and verifiable. If they are paid editing, and those efforts are fruitless, that is the best way to put them out of business. Either way, it is concerning that Kelvinsage1 has not responded to the allegations expressed here, despite editing since. – bradv🍁 02:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bradv, thank you, that’s a reasonable approach. Celestina007 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term disruption on the Mount Nemrut page

    There's a long-term campaign going on aimed at shoving the word "Armenian" into the

    WP:RS and the UNESCO entry,[42] which don't mention the word "Armenian" even once, and only mention Greek and Persian/Iranian. Every time, as soon at the page protection expires, the IP hopper/LTA shows up again, completely ignoring a few dozen of Wikipedia guidelines. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Here is what the sources say;
    "In the first century BC, Antiochos I, son of Mithradates Kallinikos and the Seleucid princess Laodike, ruled over the Iranian and Hellenistic kingdom of Commagene. It is Antiochos I who was mainly responsible for the establishment of an intriguing form of Greco-lranian religious idiosyncrasy. 56 This featured an impressive pantheon that in its final shape boasted: Zeus-Oromasdes; Apollo-Mithra-Helios-Hermes; Artagnes [ WarBrayn ]- Herakles-Ares; and the goddess Commagene. Antiochos I promulgated its nomos51 and established throughout Commagene a network of major cultic spaces (hierothesia) at Arsameia on the Euphrates, Arsameia on the Nymphaios and Nemrud Dagt, as well as more discreet temene, 58 toward the celebration of the cult of the ancestors and/or the syncretized Irano-Hellenic divinities." - Shayegan, M. Rahim (2016). "The Arsacids and Commagene", page 13, you can find the work here [43]
    Gotta admit that the second one is a bit unclear and I should have put a better source (which I easily can), but still, not a single mention of anything Armenian;
    "At Arsameia Antiochus built a “hierothesion” dedicated to the dynastic cult, perì patrṓōn daimónōn, for the paternal daímones, and for his own honor (Arsameia Inscr. 1.8.f.). This expression is comparable to the Iranian conception of the fravashis. The original cult was instituted by his father but Antiochus reorganized it and made regulations concerning the days of festival and the duties of the priest responsible for the rites. An inscription from Nimrud Dag ( Dittenberger , Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae, I, 383, 1. 54f.) enumerates the deities of the dynastic pantheon. Following the dual tradition of the kingdom, the gods receive both Greek and Iranian names: Antiochus worships Zeus-Oromasdes, Apollo-Mithras-Helios-Hermes, Artagnes-Herakles-Ares, and finally the all-nourishing fatherland of Commagene. These deities are arranged according to the tri-functional system discovered by Dumézil: 1) Ohrmazd ( < Ahura Mazdā) and Mithra representing the religious-juridical function; 2) Artagn ( < Vərəθraγna), the warrior function, and 3) the all-nourishing fatherland, both collective and nourishing function, in this case another symbol for the Iranian Daēnā, the spiritual element in its collective and nourishing function (Nyberg, Widengren)." - ANTIOCHUS OF COMMAGENE, Iranica
    Honestly I could post more and more, the vast majority of sources agree that these gods were a mix of Greek and Iranian/Zoroastrian, as was typical in much of the Near East at that time.
    --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone get IZ041 to engage in discussion?

    IZ041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted my annotated removal of non-reliable sources on a beauty pageant article [44]. When I asked why, they deleted my question on their talkpage with a single word summary "ridiculous". I think maybe they need help understanding how collaboration works here. Beauty pageants are under discretionary general sanctions. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a fairly straightforward content dispute. Another source might be https://www.gala.fr/l_actu/news_de_stars/miss_france_genese_d_un_concours_de_beaute_140397 Fences&Windows 16:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bsy950707 repeadtly adding controversial category without consensus

    WP:NONDEF 5) It just doesn't make sense—why Xi and not the 100s of other members of the CCP? They have resorted to edit warring and have been reverted by myself ([45], [46], [47]), Buidhe ([48]) and CPCEnjoyer ([49] [50]) as well as failed to express anything in the relevant talk page discussion. The article history on dictator appears to have them edit warring (with no sources) as well, now over if Hirohito should be listed as an example. They have now left an edit summary of "So, do youd deny Uyghur genocide?" [51] directed towards me—a comment that is grossly insulting and has, frankly, pissed me off. Aza24 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The editor doesn't seem to favor the concept of discussion using a talk page, evidently shown by his ignorance of the article talk page, his own talk page and this noticeboard. I personally do not want any administrative sanctions for
    right great wrongs. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I can confirm that this editor does not seem to understand the collaborative nature of this project (given their refusal to listen to concerns and instead simply reverting edits by others without giving a reason in the edit summary), and they've also not quite participated in any talk page discussion. A partial block from mainspace, until they bother to answer on talk pages, given the disruptive nature of their edits, might be an option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    Communication is required. Please take part in the discussion here to address concerns about your editing and how it can be remedied. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    User:EndRacismNow2021

    WP:NOTHERE, responds to constructive attempts to help with hostility and personal attacks. Citobun (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I've warned them. Let's see if there's any positive response. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The username doesn't make me optimistic. — Ched (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Perceived legal threat at Talk:Pasi (caste)

    Per

    WP:LEGAL, I'm bringing this up here for the proper action to be taken (if any). IP user 2409:4043:2189:5FF7:0:0:2912:50A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made what I believe to be a legal threat at Talk:Pasi (caste) in this diff while requesting for two terms to be entirely removed from an extended-protected article. (Otherwise we will be binding on the court to resort.) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 03:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    It's a pretty straightforward legal threat on a well-referenced topic. /64 range blocked for two weeks. Acroterion (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Some LTA block report

    Hey, Sammi Brie has started an LTA page for Mexican media image vandals called Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mexican media image vandal. So here you go:

    • Edits entirely via IP addresses in the 187.232.x.x and 187.233.x.x ranges and more recently in IPv6.

    IPv4

    IPv6

    Block them all since the LTA page still says Present in the Wikilifespan. Just in case, some of these dynamic IPs are inactive, but still needs to be blocked so they won't go active again. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 03:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The contributions overall for 187.232.*.* and 187.233.*.* are huge ranges that show really minimal activity, only a few edits a month. They don't all seem to be this user, either.
    The IPv6 range is covered by 2806:103E:2:0:0:0:0:0/48 and does appear to be consistently this user, but i'm still struggling to see what it is about this user that's so disruptive that it requires an LTA page and preventative blocks. There really isn't much activity. ~ mazca talk 10:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There have only been a handful of edits from the last half year. Plus, their disruption has been mild. If anything, this seems like a below-average sockpuppeting and vandalism case; it's not what I'd consider long-term abuse-worthy.
    T•C) 18:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    T•C) 02:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    WP:MFD would be needed to delete it. Sorry to not be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    User FatemehKhalili copying other user accounts

    I'm not entirely sure how to address this, or if it's considered a problematic behaviour at all, but user User:FatemehKhalili has copied my user page into their own. I don't think they are impersonating me, precisely, but the fact that all the content of my page now shows up on theirs is somewhat disturbing. Additionally, they are a disruptive editor, as can be seen on their talk page, and this just seems to exacerbate the issue. Please let me know what should be done. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    When you asked them about this, what did they say? --Jayron32 16:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, almost all elements of my userpage were shamelessly jacked from other people's pages. Now, I didn't copy mine wholesale from someone else and did note attribution where applicable, but borrowing a page is hardly a crime. Otherwise, edits aren't great, but more than anything they could use some helpful advice that isn't just templates. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they used the formatting and layout and some of the same phrasing, but it seems more like they were using it as a template than ripping it off. For example, on yours it says "Hello, my name is David, welcome to my page 😄" and on theirs it says "Hello, my name is Fatemeh, welcome to my page 😄". Doesn't look like bad faith, but it does certainly seem a little gauche. jp×g 23:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Intransigent new editor User:DagneyGirl

    This incident began when I found 34 articles on my Watchlist had had linked place names changed with either no edit summary or simply "Spelling" given. When I clicked on DagneyGirl's talk page, I found several editors had already commented on her entitled attitude and poor EngLang skills. There followed a prolonged discussion between myself, Keith264, and a couple of other editors trying to persuade DagneyGirl to conform to WP consensuses. When she did not ignore or deflect our statements, she lectured us on how WP should be run. She is wedded to the idea that she is the only person who knows the true names of these locations, and that they must be the most modern iteration, regardless of usage a century ago.

    When we got to the point of her third revert to my edits, I went to the Help desk, and posted the below:

    I find myself in an edit war with a Belgian editor over place names. She insists that Belgian place names take priority over those found in my English language sources, and gives no source for her changes. She insists on destroying links in numerous articles I created tying the source place names to the modern place name. Several veteran editors, including myself, have used her User talk page to make good faith efforts to persuade her to follow the consensus to use English. Her behavior has been consistently defiant in stating her opinion is correct, although her language skills are lacking. I picked List of aerial victories of Gotthard Sachsenberg to serve as a test case. She has now made her third set of reverts to this article, though not in a 24 hour period. Her User talk page and the edit summaries in the Sachsenberg article tell the tale without my writing anything further.

    I am unsure if this is the correct forum for this problem. Please advise me of the proper forum if I am in the wrong place.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

    You want to go to
    WP:Request for comment. BeenAroundAWhile (talk
    ) 04:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    A I am not from Belgium and b Georgejdorner so called 'English language sources' claim is not holy true. The sources that Georgejdorner uses on pages like List of aerial victories of Gotthard Sachsenberg do not English names only, not even English from that time but uses names from documents, that can be English, French, German and Dutch names but also misspellings and phonetic spelling.
    Georgejdorner just introduce these spellings on the pages with results that that on one page you find that spelling and an another spelling for the same place. Mistakes in documents are not corrected because taking one on one from the source. For example the misspelling 'Nieuwscapelle' is introduced on Wikipedia from the main source that is used to fill this pages, theaerodrome.com. There's no need for that. Same goes for the German word 'Uberschwemm', Georgejdorner added there (flood), so Georgejdorner knows that is not a English word, but did not correct the term or use the actual meaning in this context, flooded land. So text means that the fight was taking place over flooded land. On List_of_aerial_victories_of_Walter_Göttsch Georgejdorner decided not to always copy the name from the source one on one, heaerodrome.com. But that resulted in a mistake, making one place two places, 'Schaep-Baillie' to 'between Schaep and Baillie'. The actual place name is Schaapbalie. On List of aerial victories of Paul Billik it was spelled as 'Schaep Baillie', as spelled on heaerodrome.com page of Billik. On List of aerial victories of Eduard Ritter von Dostler there is the spelling 'Oostroubeke' directly from theaerodrome.com dostler page and this the only place where this spelling is used, apart from a forum that uses this name. We all make mistakes, but importing mistakes and different spellings for the same places not so helpful. DagneyGirl (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

    Immediately after this posting, she deleted her Talk page to eliminate the ongoing discussion of her misbehavior. However, the above quote gives a sample of her deleted responses. She also deleted her Contributions page to disguise the articles she had edited. I hope some admin can prevent her from further damaging Wikipedia. I am willing to aid the admins in any action they wish to take.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To my knowledge it is not possible for an editor to delete their contributions page, and DagneyGirl's contributions page remains available here. I do agree that the editor's English skills are not excellent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally nothing has changed on the user's talk page either. So really not sure what is being referenced above. Perhaps Georgejdorner mistyped their username or something is the only explanation I can think of. Canterbury Tail talk 23:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed "foreign" from the title of this section. I am an American, which means that every English-speaking British, Australian, Canadian, or New Zealand-based editor is technically a "foreigner" to me, as are all non-American English-speakers from other countries. The problem being reported has little to do with the editor being "foreign", but to the quality of their English skills. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Slightly off main topic, "Uberschwemm" is neither a place name nor a valid German word in its own right, but most likely an abbreviation of "Überschwemmung" (flooded land). This is not something we will be able to source, and the best guess of a native speaker is probably the most useful option. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    Incidentally, Georgejdorner, I'm surprised you missed the bit at the top of the edit screen for this page where it says in big letters "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I clicked the user name in the title of this section, and did not find DagnyGirl's Talk page or Contributions page. Now that another editor has found them, I will post the requested notice on her Talk page. I also withdraw the accusation that she willfully deleted them, and apologize for my careless use of the term 'foreigner'.
    I stand by my methodology of linking source names to articles with the present day names when needed. It does not promote archaic names; instead, it helps explain them. However, if there is a consensus that this is a faulty methodology, I will cease doing this. If nothing else, that would save me the extra work of searching out links.
    Now that I have been raked over the coals, how about giving equal attention to the subject of this complaint? The editor whose good work is marked with nonexistent or vague edit summaries on her Contributions page? The rude editor with deficient English skills? She was the object of this complaint, you know. And there are several other editors who share my opinion. Why not read what they have to say on her Talk page?Georgejdorner (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now belatedly posted the ANI template on DagnyGirl's Talk page. Please allow her some response time before critiquing her.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw in the original post that you said she had deleted her talk page and contribs and meant to comment on it, seeing as she is not an admin, we do not generally delete user talk pages, and it is literally impossible to delete your contribution history.
    talk) 05:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hi, Georgejdorner. The summary text 'spelling' doesn't seem vague to me, it says exactly what the edit does, spelling correction (s). One of those things that has been mentioned here and on my talk page is that you have used sources that use not only archaic names, but also foreign names, misspellings and phonetic names.
    The main source you use uses the names of the original documents which are in different languages. That means that you have to 'translate' the information so that it knows what it is about for the general reader of Wikipedia. Just because the source has decided to use document names does not mean that you should copy that one to one for another platform with a different purpose than the source.
    As mentioned above, introducing incorrect names does not help the reader. You hadn't linked many of the misspellings either. Besides the fact that linking alone does not directly help the reader. Clicking on a link can distract the reader from the topic but in some cases create confusion if the name is too different.
    Writing out information helps the reader more than just linking a name. It also distracts the reader when different spellings are used on different pages, as indicated above. Or when the information has been incorrectly entered by the user, as for example in the case where a place became two places.
    Much more troubling than a user's level of language knowledge, it seems to me when a user just does not have sufficient knowledge of the subject on which they would like to write articles. And although it may be your passion to create these types of pages and get encourage for it, it can sometimes help to be open to help from others.
    As others already point out here, good guidelines have been drawn up that are quite clear how to deal with spellings and (place) names. Sometimes this can be deviated from. For example, to use a specific name for specific time periods. This then goes via the guidelines, so that other users can also follow this and it is also clearer and unambiguous for the readers across the various pages. Even then, good transcription of information can be more informative to the reader than just a link.
    It is all not intended personally, if it came across as that, my apologies. My goal is only to get the reader better informed when they read something, partly through clearer use of names (and spellings), whether or not across different pages, such as endorsing the Wikipedia guidelines and sometimes to clarify what it is about and sometimes what alternative spellings are used by the sources if one wants to delve further into the information. DagneyGirl (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DagneyGirl is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Words in common use in English like Ypres or Roulers (
    Ieper) for example. English wiki shouldn't be a battleground for internal Belgian politics. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hi, Keith-264. I am not changing still current English names like Ypres, even more I changed spelling Ieper on different pages to Ypres because of it. Roeselare is a another matter, the article is named Roeselare not 'Roulers'. Roulers as stated on the article is French. In the article there is nothing to indicate that Roulers is still wildly used in modern English enough to warred a mention. If you think you this is wrong maybe change this on the page itself, preferably backed by modern sources or start a conversation about on the talk page, even more if you think the page should be named differently.
    Another example would be Sint Elooi, there it clearly stated that St. Eloi is still well know enough and used in modern English, and I personally would not change St. Eloi where this is used.
    As I explained on my talk page using the 'now'-option is not a good option. This because it indicates that the name of the place itself as changed instead of the usage in English. So using 'Niewport (now Nieuwpoort)' would indicate that the place itself was renamed from Niewport to Nieuwpoort, but what it exactly should be indicate is the usage in English is changed, so simply using 'Nieuport (Nieuwpoort)' is better. The depending on the context, it also can be used as 'Nieuwpoort (Nieuport)' or 'Nieuwpoort, back then know as Nieuport in English,'
    I do agree with you on the point that the English Wikipedia shouldn't be a battleground for 'internal Belgian politics'. As stated already, I am not from Belgium. Even more I want to avoid the 'internal Belgian politics' by using the current English naming of places. Wikipedia has good guidelines on it, we should use that instead everyone doing there own thing, because that can be politically charged or motivated. DagneyGirl (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:0d You have not explained anything, you have asserted a point of view and altered names unilaterally. If you want examples, all you have to do is consult the bibliographies of the articles you have edited. Nieuport (Nieuwpoort)/Nieuwpoort (Nieuport) [depending on the term in the text] will satisfy me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Behaviour of User:Mbroderick271 on the article Louis C.K.

    The following concerns:

    Mbroderick271 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Louis C.K. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    This begins May 4, 2021 when Mbroderick271 claimed a WP:NPOV dispute on the page Louis C.K.. This was announced on the talk page here: Talk:Louis C.K.#NPOV dispute. Major changes were made to the article without gathering consensus. I reverted some of the user's edits but drew back not wanting to engage in an edit war.

    On May 6, 2021 after searching for other editors that had been active in discussions on the talk page archive - I pinged a number of them. Some responded, others did not.

    On May 6, 2021

    WP:STATUSQUO
    .

    Mbroderick271 had been warned by Bilorv about various violations here: User talk:Mbroderick271#May 2021.

    WP:VANDALISM
    in the same thread and on their talk page.

    The conflict calmed down and Bilorv and I had one or two conflicts but attempted to settle things on the talk page. We began discussion until recently when Mbroderick271 began editing the article again without consensus. I believe they are

    WP:BLP
    violations.

    In short, I'm willing to take a step back from editing the page or engaging on the talk if other editors can come to a consensus and/or blatant

    WP:BLP
    violations are kept at bay. Hence this noticeboard incident.

    Thanks.

    CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that sanctions here would not be necessary and so I'm not sure what outcome is desired. There is discussion on the talk page, which Mbroderick271 has demonstrated interest in engaging with, and Mbroderick271 should be advised to stop editing the article directly, but we are all acting in good faith here. I would advise CaffeinAddict to let some of these earlier things (like the "undisclosed paid editor" comments) go where the user has apologised for them or understood someone else explaining why these things are not acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I have screwed up a lot on this Louis CK thing. I am frustrated that CaffeinAddict has expressed sympathy for a sexual predator and continually minimized this predator's actions, as I have many friends who have been sexual assaulted and I myself have been a victim of domestic violence at the hands of a comedian who later lied about and distorted the events after the fact (should note said comedian is neither famous nor successful in case anyone reads this and thinks I'm talking about someone they might know). However, Bilorv has been kind and patient enough to remind me that you have to work with editors of all different perspectives on Wikipedia, even editors whose views one may find odious. I am committing to approaching this article with a less personal and more professional style of communication moving forward, as ultimately my goal as a former fan of Louis CK is for the article to accurately represent both his achievements as an artist as well as his many offenses against his female coworkers, and his lies and attempts to cover up said offenses. Mbroderick271 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry about your personal experiences, Mbroderick271. My comments will always be based on my reading of secondary sources, not my personal view of C.K., but I am also a former C.K. fan who was outraged and depressed when I learned about his sexual misconduct, and though I've never been victim to sexual violence I have seen the effects it has through people close to me. — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is part of the problem here - I don't believe any editors are approaching this article unbiased. The facts need to be presented in a
    WP:NPOV tone. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Are you saying that I'm unfit to edit the article because of my personal experiences relating to sexual violence? Because you don't seem to have a problem with people expressing their personal opinions on C.K. or the reliable sources that should inform the article content: the articles that focused on C.K.'s assassination of character in 2017 overstate and maximize the consensual private sexual conduct of a man made very public (Special:Diff/1021506846) and This event is obviously a largely topical and important event in the comedian's life but is a blip on the actual history of his long and prolific career. None of his actions were or will be criminal and this completely hogwash attempt to blow up what remain "he said she said" allegations that reminded the masses that even the very important #MeToo movement had it's [sic] limits (Special:Diff/1021693699). — Bilorv (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing - Slake000

    There is a user by the name of User:Slake000 who has been messing around in some pages, and also has a poor command of English. His edits began on the Sylheti Nagri (a South Asian script) article, where he removed a lot of information and instead added pretty much the same information worded in a poorer manner with innumerable spelling mistakes. The point I am trying to make is that his edits have not really been contributory, rather they have downgraded the layout, format and structure. Other than myself, it appears that other users have also attempted to undo his edits on the stated article.

    Putting that issue to the side, it seems that Slake000 has realised that the habitual contributors to the page are not keen on his edits so he created his own article titled

    CSD-A10, I marked his article for speedy deletion and notified him on his talk page. Instead of responding and notifying me, he continued to abuse Wikipedia by copy and pasting random excerpts from different pages. This includes copying infobox templates from biographical articles such as Sadeq Ali, tables from Syloti Nagri (Unicode block)
    and publishing illogical lists which make no sense at all.

    Now, I understand this noticeboard does not deal with speedy deletions, but this sort of behaviour that is being shown is unacceptable. I urge you to penalise this disruptive user. UserNumber (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) @UserNumber: Please provide the diffs of the alleged disruption. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Austronesier, You've looked at this editor's work, and maybe you have some opinions on their edits on Chittagonian language. I don't yet know if there is validity to this, and to this being an ANI complaint, but I can see that there are some issues with these editors. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: In Chittagonian language, it's a mix of everything (CIR, cherrypicking plus synth[54]). The editor inserted big chunks of text without a source, and only provided a ref[55] after I had placed an urs-tag. I have just noticed that the source is rather poor in quality: it's an article in a local academic journal, which cites WP and WP mirrors. I think we have to explain them the do's and dont's again (they've been welcomed) gently and cleary, including copyright policies[56]. –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Concern regarding User:Jeas116 and suspected related accounts

    I know these editors haven't edited in a while, but my primary concern regarding all of them relates to persistent inappropriate usage of their Talk page. The only thing that makes me think all 3 are connected is that their contributions include editing each others' sandboxes. Is an admin able to possibly monitor these users for further misuse? Even though I know there was one that had an encounter with at least one of these users. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi JalenFolf, thanks for describing the concern. The behavior seems to be pretty harmless. In May 2020, I had blocked Jearbne for a week because they persistently used the "Template" and "User talk" namespaces for experiments that should have been done in sandboxes instead. The user Jeas116 was warned about possibly operating a shared account in March 2016 at User talk:Jeas116 by JBW. If their response was to create separate accounts per person, that would not be sockpuppetry but rather an appropriate response to the account sharing warning. It is also perfectly fine for a group of friends to work on article drafts together.
    Feel free to notify me if they continue to use their user talk pages for their experiments; perhaps a partial block can help. The drafting itself, when done in sandboxes, doesn't concern me at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Stalking

    The user "SadirahFierg" is almost stalking, rather than he leads to the discussion side of the article (Sri Chinmoy). I asked him to stay from my user side. But he also posts his strange theses on my private side. In this article, some sock dolls were discovered and is regularly operated vandalism.

    • Rubric:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riquix#I_have_sent_you_a_note_about_a_page_you_started

    • Version:

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

    Can you end this?--Riquix (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have warned the user to stay off your page, Riquix. Please let me know if they should ignore my warning as well as yours. Bishonen | tålk 11:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

    Vietnamese IP's constant edits on UAE national team

    There is this Vietnamese IP constantly editing and reverting edits on the

    UAE national football team article and has been doing so for a year, he's been acting like his edits are final and must always be preserved, whenever anyone tries to change his edits, he'll return to edit it back, he's refusal to corporate with other wikipedia users is pretty rude. He thinks his reasons are valid but they're very subjective like how he believes having a rivalry section is "redundant" or using the term "golden generation" is biased and not nuetral. He only seems to target the UAE national team and no other national team article but states that other articles are badly written despite the fact that I provided him an example of a good article (Croatia national football team
    ) that looks nothing like his ideal style of a national team article. Can we block this user from making too many edits before he starts doing the same stunts to every other national team article?

    Here's some examples:

    --Badass Flare (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

    dispute resolution. Please involve relevant WikiProjects and noticeboard to reach consensus on the disputed edits. Fences&Windows 15:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    About CMHS Radio Caibarién and our permissions blocked

    Not an English Wikipedia issue, advice has been given. Fences&Windows 15:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, I am writing here because we are unhappy with the situation on Wikipedia [es] with our CMHS Radio Caibarién article. This article had a neutrality issue and a user flagged this article for removal. We wrote to some bureaucrats to help me with the article and they just deleted it and blocked my permissions to publish. Our account is owned by a local broadcaster but the article was never written with the aim of promoting or publicizing our praise. That the developed article has had a neutrality problem is certainly a problem but I think that it has been very hard with the measure and I think that an article with a historical character, with placed and categorized references, should not have been eliminated but edited with time, duly pointing out the elements that prevent it from maintaining its neutrality and from being part of the educational and historical content that Wikipedia has. None of the bureaucrats have focused on helping nor have they unlocked the permits. I can resubmit the article for evaluation. We hope they don't take it the wrong way and help me with the problem.

    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Emisoracmhs (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately as this article was on the Spanish Wikipedia, we on the English Wikipedia have no control as to why or how the article was deleted there. This would need to be taken up with the admins on their site. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How can I send my unhappy situation on the Spanish Wikipedia ? Thanks!
    Emisoracmhs (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted, you will need to contact the admins there. If you are blocked, you will have to address that using whatever process they have to do so. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks for your answer. I goint to write to support on Wikipedia. Really we as institution are very unhappy with this situation. Thanks you and the rest of the admins for your answers. Emisoracmhs (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Taichi: - pinging the blocking adminstrator on the Spanish WP. I've left a small (hopefully not too clumsy) message on what appears to be their equivalent of ANI. The block on Spanish WP is for, as you'd have guessed, persistent promotional editing. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but this is our first publication, we never persistent to do a promotional editing or publishing. We would like to make an article on Wikipedia [ES] and that this article will take a neutral status but it set to delete and blocked our permissions is a action to strong for us.  :( Emisoracmhs (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    neutral point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Good morning. I am an administrator in the Spanish Wikipedia; I have just denied user:Emisoracmhs' request for unblocking. I don't know how you manage here to deal with self-publicity, but in our WP we have decided to deny every one of theses creations and editions ...and we receive a ridiculous amount of them, as you can see here: most of the undeletions asked there are the same kind of autopublicity. This case was exactly the same kind: a single-purpose account with an inappropriate username, editing in a conflict of interest about the broadcasting for which he or she works; the article was correctly erased. The user could have been invited to change his username and even blocked only for editing that particular article, but he clearly showed off that his only purpose in WP was insisting in that article, and even made som kind of lobby trying to find at least one administrator to restore the page. So he was definitively blocked, and that was all.
    I am sincerely sorry to read that he feels unhappy, but I can see he misundestood the nature of Wikipedia: we are not a place to publish advertisings for free, we are building an encyclopedia. Have a nice weekend. --Marcelo (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    NOTHERE

    User:IMCS231 indeffed by Floquenbeam for not fucking off in 2019. Bishonen | tålk 21:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

    IMCS231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    • 1 Sept 2019 - [57] - first edit ever
    • To Khamba Tendal: "Tell me this.....Are you an active participant in global humanity?...or Are you just a guy who likes to read about it and then spout out ill-informed conjecture as if it's fact?"
    • Today - [58] - second edit ever
    • To Acroterion: "Find a pretty girl that shares your interests and values and work up the nerve to kiss her. If you do I think you'll find much more gratifying ways of filling your time than policing Wikipedia. Should it further serve your ego to anonymously engage users of Wikipedia then feel free to lash out at me in response to this message. I would be happy to berate you if only to make obvious your meak and likely lonely existence."

    There's no need for a third edit.

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I was out at the market with my wife and the dogs, shopping and having lunch, and missed all this. This reminds me of the animal from Seuss with a very slow nervous system who bites its tail so they will wake up eight hours later when the pain registers. It took two years to get back at me?
    In speedier times a rambling talkpage forum post and sniping at the person who removed it and warned them would merit a moderate warning. I eagerly await their response in 2023. Acroterion (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the internet is just really slow where they are? Levivich 17:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, your comment reminds me of the wonderful science fiction story Light of Other Days that I read as a teenager. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Acroterion: I'm so happy that you found that companion who shares your interests! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Useless person blocked indef. I 100% guarantee that warnings will have no effect. Sorry, tolerance for assholes is lower than usual today for some reason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It the "12.75 Years Syndrome", a recognized medical condition. After 12 years and 9 months of editing Wikipedia, one's endocrine system stops manufacturing the hormone that allows one to tolerate assholes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:75.115.18.34 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

    Spamming my talk page with utter nonsense. [59] [60] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mvcg66b3r, Am I missing something? Reads like good faith questions, even if not your responsibility to answer. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor repeatedly moving punctuation to incorrect placement despite warning

    Tejedora (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly moving punctuation inside quotation marks. Despite been reverted at least six times in the past couple of days, and despite being warned, with explanation on his talkpage , he is persisting. 17 hours after he was usertalk warned, he moved another comma inside quotation marks [61]. Fully one-third of his entire edit history is making these incorrect edits (edit summary is always "Fixed typo") [62], so he needs to be stopped. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm guessing the user hasn't seen your message. Something to do with
    WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU (if I've got the right column, the notification would be there but so incidental they might not see it). This edit 9 years is not an indication they know how to navigate user talk pages with intentionality or that they would notice another person's message there. Since that seems to be their only non-mainspace edit and {{User gender}} is null for them, I don't know how you know the account is owned by a man. — Bilorv (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I've always put punctuation inside of quotation marks so I was surprised to see this here, and I'm usually pretty adept at reading technical documentation but I went cross-eyed reading a 5,600 word essay on a comma preference. Is this covered concisely by a proper style guide? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be interested to know where the supposed consensus the essay alludes took place exactly, since this essay is the first I'm seeing about this issue. Also why is it in an obscure essay and not, say, the MOS? - Aoidh (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:LQ Schazjmd (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yes, I also grew up with punctuation going inside of quotations, but LQ makes a lot of sense. Certainly when editors deliberately choose to take the option of putting punctuation outside of the quotation marks, their choice should not be overridden by another editor (and vice versa). LQ is not mandatory, it simply offers an optional choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We have to avoid
    MOS:LQ, which by the way reflects most of the world's usage. It is mandatory if it either already exists that way in an article or if anyone corrects an article to abide by it. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    A situation with IP/New account contributor on gun-related articles

    Last week I requested page protection on

    WP:SYNTH in the edits the contributor is making. The contributor often actively rejects sources and arguments requiring them. (ex:[63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]) They are the expert; it's entirely possible there's more than one "expert" in this situation. Hostile and aggressive edit summaries seem common with this contributor. I'll point out the condition of the USCWWeapons template linked on 2 July 2020 and the version as of this datestamp. A vast number of these changes are redirects to sections of articles already linked. The template bloat is not an improvement. All this background is intended to call attention to this sockmaster/logged-out contributor who resorts to bullying and cursing in edit summaries when pressed. This evening the contributor is complaining about capitalization (tonight presenting sources) at User talk:Dicklyon. I don't think this is a straight sockpuppetry situation but the constantly changing IPs and new accounts ARE making the situation more unmanageable. BusterD (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Disruptive editing, use of unreliable sources, user is now forging signatures

    Tony1811 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User:Tellyring

    Could I ask for some admin eyes on

    WP:BLP violation. Despite multiple editors warning them about the copyright and BLP violations involved in their editing, they have edit warred to keep this inappropriate material on Wikipedia. Their one interaction on their talk page is this which doesn't address anything. They are clearly going to continue violating BLP and copyright until action is taken to force them to stop. Laplorfill (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The same copyrighted image has now been removed from Draft:Vansh sayani seven times. It has been deleted from Commons once as a copyright violation, and the re-upload is up for deletion again. I was under the impression that we took copyright violations seriously. This user has been reported to AIV twice for repeated vandalism and copyright violation without any action being taken. Now this report is being ignored. This is a very serious WP:BLP violation and repeated, blatant copyright violations. Does anyone care, or should I just give up? Laplorfill (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTHERE and WP:INCOMPETENT. pinging other who have interacted with this user @David notMD:, @Amakuru:. Polyamorph (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Tellyring is pretty much single-purpose editor, persistently edit wars, and writes useless edit summaries ("I have made some changes") despite being advised to do better. I agree with Not Here. David notMD (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:LISTEN

    Let me begin by stating that I believe this user is absolutely acting in good faith. However they have been totally disregarding the MoS on Julie Wojta and ignoring numerous warnings on their talk page about improper use of external links in the body, failing to use edit summaries, and not following the Manual of Style generally, which is why I've come here. They've offered no engagement back, and just continue to work on the article, adding in what myself and other editors have reverted. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 01:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Terreberry and Singles

    Steve Terreberry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Let me preface this with I have distanced myself from the first discussion as I haven't made left comment in a number of days. The first discussion stemmed from the singles in Steve Terreberry's discography being put in a table format. It was reverted a number of times. The issue is now a separate discussion on singles between

    Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Thanks for raising this issue. Fishhead2100 is correct. I had three concerns: 1)
    MOS:TABLES that a list like this should not be in a table. I don't know if Fishhead2100 and Mbdfar agree or not. 2) I was under the false and unfortunately archaic perception that a single was only one if released to radio or charted in some other way. A member of the songs project and Fishhead2100 have convinced me that I was wrong in that regard. 3) The sourcing is inadequate. https://open.spotify.com/artist/752rmY08pvHpub4FyIXp0n will change over time and does not display of the songs it claims to support as singles. I was planning to convert to a list and low-quality references like https://open.spotify.com/album/0YdemwyAzhnkL8K8L1cHTx to support the fact that songs were released as singles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm not sure how you see this as deflecting. Explaining that you and Mbdfar were ignoring that the sources did not prove the content was the ultimate issue and it takes two to edit war. So, ye, I take full responsibility for the song=single problem, and for reverting per WP:V, but nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also not deflecting, but making statements that I like "to start beefs with people. He thinks he is always and everybody else is wrong." Doesn't this make you an involved editor? In short, Thanks for raising this issue and for stepping away from the article. I do not like to start beefs, I like to make sure the
    WP:V is followed, as well as MoSes and editing guidelines. I do not always think I am always [right], as can be seen from my acknowledging I was wrong about something and learning from it. I do think many other editors have much to teach me, but I need to be convinced, not edit-warred about such things. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    There's no need to go to RfC for trivial disputes. Since Mbdfar has explained that the editor can see the content in a mobile view, and it cannot be seen in desktop it clears up the second-last issue for me. Mbdfar wasn't going to actually correctly source the singles, so I have indicated that I will. In short, if you want something done right, you sometimes have to do it yourself. That seems to be the case here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah my computer has been out of commission so I'm on mobile. I'm not dealing with those sources on this thing. Some of my words were petty, and for that I apologize. For what it's worth, I tried to be direct and rational. But to be honest, having Walter jump around in arguments from the table formatting, to debating what a single is, to worrying about the sourcing, made me assume bad faith. I thought he just wanted to get his way of removing the table and would argue any avenue to get there. I've been clear, I don't care about the formatting, but the way Walter seemed to be bullying Fishhead and KullyKeemaKa a few days ago, and him seeming to base arguments on feelings instead of MOS, rubbed me the wrong way. Frankly this whole situation was a waste of time and I'm sorry for prolonging it, but I just wanted consensus based on guidelines and not arbitrary decisions. Mbdfar (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Abnormal level of renaming and page moving at P-pop and associated pages

    I just noticed some very weird stuff going on at

    Pakistani pop music and Pinoy pop), but socks have liked changing it to an article for Pinoy pop
    .

    Normally, I would just revert the changes and warn the user since consensus is that P-pop is a disambiguation page, but since pages were moved all around, there may be some cleanup / restoring to do that I don't know how to do.

    Also, definitely let me know if I should post this somewhere else. Thanks! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 01:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As an update, I think many, if not all, of the pages are fixed now! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 02:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I was trying to restore the pages to the pre-move version and was getting very confused. It looks like it's cleared up now. Is User:Hyunsukie a sock? If so, I'll be happy to block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohnoitsjamie: They probably are; previous confirmed Philippinesfan socks have had done similar things (also note the current open report). SkyWarrior 02:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough quacking for me (I noticed the other two moves from rejected drafts into article space). Blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by Ratnahastin by fake warning template, following up my edit and frivolous cases

    Disruptive editing and content blanking on various pages like

    talk) 04:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Lmao.🤦‍♂️ from next time write a more coherent report and.cherry picking few 2 notices sent on your talkpage 4weeks ago,and secondly i've not edited Rathore Hada chauhan page more than twice that too with an interval of 1week how is this edit warring? i've only sent 3 u-w templates on hebas page till now the first 2 were from 21days ago and latest one was because of personal remarks made against me in SPI of an unrelated user. and i've only
    WP:WIAPA. Almost all your claims are baseless. and around 5warnings you spammed on my talkpage within 20minutes (5warnings within 20minutes for utterly no reason) is not miss use of twinkle and dubious edit warring report you filed against me just 15minutes ago is not Harassment of mine? (see
    ) heba has filed 2 SPI's against me til date. Im tired of this i have no interest in your edits , you're actually following my edits when you made those personal remarks against me on the spi i filed against chariot rider who is no way related to you. please admins ignore this crap.

    Ratnahastin (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I ws searching for right place to end up this. I have removed complaint from there as that was not right place. You need to stop following and harassing me and other editors with whom you donot share your view. You have been warned earlier that this is not a
    talk) 05:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    And now you're calling me a crap? See
    talk) 05:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Crap is this report and 3other baseless reports you filed against me this monthRatnahastin (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed after the end of investigation against me. You anyhow visited all the pages where i went and even involved in edit warring with editors like

    talk) 05:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Bad Behaviour and unnecessary page moves by User:Lugnuts

    Hi. Hope that everything is well with all. Lugnuts is falsely repeatedly saying me a sock, sock and sock. He is repeatedly saying me a sock and reverting my edits to his articles or pages with an edit summary of "rv sock". See this diff. Here Lugnuts reverted my edit saying in the edit summary rv sock, although the edit was constructive, he wrote rv. However, he again added the same content that I added, so the revert by him was pointless. The unnecessary reversion of the article says all the future. Because reverting it, Lugnuts already considered that I am a sock and perhaps, he will revert all my future edits to his articles. If he wants to prove me a sock, then he may hold an investigation, but is just assuming. Even, if there is any investigation, I am well confident that there will be no result against me. Let me tell more about background of the incident: He first moved

    Julian de Mey (cricketer), although the disambiguation was unnecessary. But I was surprised when he again redirected Julian de Mey to List of Netherlands Twenty20 International cricketers. Thus both the articles Julian de Mey was also about a cricketer (as the redirect is about cricket), and Julian de Mey (cricketer) was also about a cricketer. So, two articles with different titles was created, although both articles are about a single cricketer. I assume that Lugnuts took this strange action to take the credit of creating article. Or, Probably, Thinking me a sock, he moved the article created by me, because generally articles created by blocked users are deleted, although there is no sock puppet block of me. Prior to that strange action, he had also taken another strange action to this article by moving to draftspace. But then he again created the same article in the main space with a redirection to International cricket in 2022–23. So, that time also, probably his motive was to take the credit of creating article. So, due to his unnecessary page moves, I left a message on his talk page saying to stop. See this diff, this diff and this diff. In this diffs, he also told me a sock thrice in the edit summary. I am still just a high-school student, and it is very distressful for me when one puts pressure on me saying a sock falsely. Please block Lugnuts for some days because this is a kind of personal attack.— A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I really appreciate Lugnuts's contributions to Wikipedia. But seeing his block log, I observed his past blocks was also due to behavioural problems. He again said me a sock when I left ANI notice on his talk page. See [72] edit summary. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 09:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are apparently many more such examples here. An editor cannot continually make unfounded accusations that another editor is a sock. If an editor believes another is a sock then they must go to
    WP:SPI or a CheckUser with their evidence (note this is a redlink). If they refuse to do so then it's simply personal attacks, and in this kind of frequency borders on harassment. The weirdness with the page moves and suppressions also doesn't make sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No comment on the conduct side of this, just noting that I've now filed the OP at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cambria Math, though. --Blablubbs|talk 09:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. It IMO doesn't excuse the conduct but probably makes the report non-actionable. It is poor practice for an editor to unilaterally decide someone is a sock and keep making the accusation without taking their claims and evidence to the appropriate venues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I first raised my concerns here when the OP requested the Auto-patrol rights, including my thoughts on why this is not a new user. For the record, I also emailed an admin who is a checkuser yesterday evening (about 7.30pm UK time) with some more diffs as evidence. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Lugnuts had reported A.A Prinon as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ImSonyR9 three months ago, and a checkuser found them to not be a sock in that case. That Lugnuts decided to treat them as a sock anyway, prior to having any sort of determination and with a distinct finding otherwise, is harassment territory. Does the end justify the means? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as that is who I believed was the sock-master. Apologies that I'm blunt and to the point - I admit that's one of my failings. However, I don't throw round sock accusations for the sake of it - when you have a
    gut feeling, you stick with your gut. I had been gathering evidence, most of which was contained in the email I mention, above, and some of that has now been posted in the SPI case for Cambria Math. A point of interest is that the initial editor I thought was the sock-master did edit for the first time months only ten days ago, with AA editing about 20 minutes later. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I have been unblocked because I am considered a good faith editor. And Cambria Math was created just 1 month before A.A Prinon account was created. Lugnuts was trying to know how I know about most of Wikipedia policies despite being a new editor. But as Cambria math was created just on December 2020, it is clear that creation of that account has no impact on my knowledge of WP policies. If Lugnuts again reverts my any edit saying it a 'rv sock', I shall report him at ANI again. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 12:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "and it is very distressful for me when one puts pressure on me saying a sock falsely" (my emphasis) and yet the evidence (at WP:SPI) is that you were socking, and therefore not being honest when asked a direct question about other accounts. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CLEANSTART) as well as operating a legitimate and disclosed alternate account. It's hard to describe the pattern I see but if I say it looks clumsy, I think other checkusers will be able to see what I mean. So from this might understand that there are some good reasons for my use of multiple accounts. — A.A Prinon  Leave a dialogue 13:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    VIJAY DARSHINI pasting copyvio into multiple articles

    MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I've cleaned everything up given a final warning. Please let me know right away if the problem persists.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed indefinite block of Axtoche for
    WP:NOTHERE

    The user

    WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvasing

    There's a continuing disruptive behaviour on the part of User:Red Rose 13.

    Namely, Red Rose 13 continues to

    canvas other users, even though they've been noticed on 26 April 2021, that such behaviour is disruptive and goes against Wikipedia's policies. [80] Red Rose 13 has been asked to refrain from such behaviour in the future [81] and asked to follow Wikipedia's guidelines to try to contact other editors via RfC or through relevant WikiProjects. [82]

    On 27 May 2021, Red Rose 13 continued to canvas other users. [83]

    Here are examples of canvasing before the notice: [84], [85], [86], [87], [88] and after the notice: [89].

    --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1025959165"