Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

• 2001:4455:364:A800:69ED:98AE:B3B4:FB90 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Onel5969 recent behaviour includes:

• Personal attacks and incivility.
• Mass templating and redirecting articles for self-admitted reasons that conflict with
  WP:ATD
  .
• Edit warring across multiple articles to keep redirects in place after they have been disputed (
  WP:ATD-R
  ).
• Switching his reasoning in the second or third revert as an excuse to keep edit warring.
• Edit warring to keep notability templates in place after they have disputed and ignoring attempts at talk page discussion.
• Even in discussions, filibustering by repeating the same claim over and over without saying anything new, even after it has been addressed numerous times (
  WP:STONEWALL
  ).
• Canvassing (
  New Page patrollers to a wholly unrelated dispute to gain supporters (in a notification that wasn't even neutral
  ).

The next day, Onel5969 signed into his account and reinstated several of the templates and redirects: [42], [43], [44], [45]. I reverted him again, advising him to take the matter to

I reverted him again ([55], [56], [57]) and he reinstated his edits again ([58], [59], [60], [61]). At this point, I dropped an edit warring warning on his talk page ([62], [63]).

Someone else opened a third talk page discussion to encourage discussion and curve the edit war: [64]. However, Onel5969 showed up simply to make spurious allegations and claim that he wasn't really edit warring

• Evidence of weird policy gymnastics: [70], [71], [72]
• Onel5969 ignoring more advice to open an AFD per
  WP:BLAR: [73], [74]

This was resolved when another user intervened on the Kayako page ([75]), and I stopped replying to the stonewalling and simply demonstrated what I was saying about WP:BURDEN (while adding a new section for good measure): [76], [77]

I left an additional warning on Onel's talk page about engaging in disruption in the future and was prepared to let the situation be. However, he wasted no time making personal attacks and continuing the exact same behaviour elsewhere: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]

Darkknight2149 02:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Onel pretty clearly violated
  WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behavior. Either that, or an apology for the personal attacks and a commitment to no longer reinstate contested redirects without consensus. Mlb96 (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC) I should clarify that the initial redirects were fine. It's the subsequent ones after they were contested that were not. Mlb96 (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It's self-contradictory to say that someone "violated alternatives to deletion" by not nominating something for deletion and enacting one of the alternatives instead.

    And "sourced to the book" (actually a movie in this case) is not the case for content like "Yoichi is very independent and quiet for a boy of his age", "The only person he seems to have a close relationship with is his maternal grandfather", "Yoichi is very similar to his father in looks, behaviour and feelings; both are aloof and suppress their feelings. Despite their estrangement, they appear to have a special connection, in which they can sense when they are both in danger. He clearly loves both his parents,". This is character analysis, being performed by Wikipedia editors directly in Wikipedia, based upon what is "clear" and what "seems" and "appears" to them. It isn't summary. "Sourced to the book/movie/television show" is not a wholesale escape clause for articles about fiction.

    This sort of squirming around the Wikipedia:no original research policy is how these disputes arise, time and again. We could avoid the disputes in the first place by actually writing character analysis that is verifiable. How a character appears to a Wikipedia editor watching a movie is not a verifiable thing.

    Uncle G (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • But Onel did not simply remove the parts which they alleged were unverifiable, they alleged that the entire article was unverifiable (which is patently false) and then BLARed it. BLAR has the same effect as deletion: the material is no longer on the page. No editor can unilaterally delete an article unless a CSD applies. The purpose of the sentence at
      WP:ATD-R is to require consensus to redirect articles. It essentially makes BLAR the same as PROD. If the redirect is challenged, it has the same effect as challenging a PROD: send the article to AfD. Everything else is secondary, NPPers are not given the ability to unilaterally delete articles without a CSD applying. Not even admins may do that. It doesn't matter how bad the article is, if the redirect is contested, it must go to AfD for consensus. Or at the very least, it should go to the talk page, which did not occur until after Onel had already reinstated the redirect twice more. Mlb96 (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• The redirected articles consisted mostly of straight plot summary […]

  If people actually wrote the encyclopaedia articles being hidden behind the Wikipedia-editor-made plot descriptions, the lists of fictional mentions, and the lyrics dumps, you all wouldn't get into these disputes in the first place, you know. Time and again this has happened over 20 years, and time and again it has been the case that writing an actual encyclopaedia article ameliorates the dispute. I've done it more than once myself, and the world isn't short of expert sources for movie, television, music, and literary criticism that discusses both character and plot. It really is time to learn. Uncle G (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149, you have also made serious accusations against editors other than Onel. As far as I can see, you have not even pinged them. Please leave talk page notices for all editors you are accusing of misconduct. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This report specifically pertains to Onel5969. That being said, I did point out that John B123 engaged in dishonest tag-teaming with Onel5969, who is now pinged. Darkknight2149 07:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the versions that Onel turned into redirects, they all appear to be violations of

WP:OR, which states Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. It seems that Onel's actions were appropriate, and should not have been reverted without the addition of non-primary sources; when that was finally done, it appears Onel stopped turning the articles into redirects. BilledMammal (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I think most editors are aware that articles require secondary coverage. However, that in itself isn't a

WP:AFD, as he was advised to do) was not appropriate. Frankly, neither were the several other cases of disruptive behaviour mentioned aside from the redirecting. Darkknight2149 07:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If Onel was edit warring, so were you - and while being right is not a defence, edit warring to restore content that violates core policies across multiple articles is very

disruptive. It would be inappropriate to sanction Onel without sanctioning the editor whose behaviour was more disruptive. BilledMammal (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with Uncle G and BilledMammal here. An article about a topic with a plot sourced only to some random Wikipedia editor's plot summary is a piece of crap that really ought to be removed from the encyclopedia post haste. That argument implies that any topic with a plot deserves a Wikipedia article if only some editor coughs up an plot summary. The fact of the matter is that countless works with a plot are not notable, including various science fiction short stories that I wrote in the 1970s and photocopied and distributed to my friends. Any competent editor can ensure that such an article will be kept by adding references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. If such articles cannot be properly referenced, then they should be deleted. On my own user page, I list hundreds of articles that I have expanded and improved and in many cases, saved at AfD. I take great pride in these articles. But I would take no pride in fighting to save an article that clearly does not meet our notability guidelines, despite the efforts of good faith editors to find proper sourcing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we put our soapboxes away and only look at policy, then Onel5969 was unambiguously in the wrong. The deletion process is how we determine what topics are notable and what aren't. The policies are clear that if you redirect an article and someone disputes that redirect, then you have to seek consensus instead of continuing to reinstate the redirect. Do reliable sources on the topic exists? An

WP:AFD

can easily determine that.

This has been addressed numerous times, but the articles in question were mostly plot summary cited by

WP:V without saying anything new should be wacked in the head with a sausage :/ Darkknight2149 08:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I linked to

Fram (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Until this and this, I hadn't seen that part because of Onel5969 edit warring on so many articles. There's a reason it didn't get restored with the other two (because that already-short article would become a stub). That being said, Onel5969 should have removed the original research specifically, instead of blanking multiple whole articles and refusing attempts at discussion. Darkknight2149 — Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter how bad the articles were, because

WP:ATD-R is one of my biggest pet peeves is that it happened to an article I wrote once, and when I finally convinced the user to bring the article to AfD, the result was a unanimous keep. So we don't make exceptions for when a user really truly believes that they are right, we require them to get consensus no matter how bad the article may seem to them. This is completely normal for a contested PROD, so why would a contested BLAR be any different? Mlb96 (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thank you,
  Tin Heng Estate, Tin Ching Estate, Shun On Estate, and Lai Yiu Estate. I discussed this with Onel5969, noting that blanking-and-redirecting the articles a second time violates the deletion policy. I asked Onel5969 to self-revert their edits but they have not done so. They said, "Actually it's not a violation". When I followed up asking why it is not a violation, they did not respond. I would like Onel5969 to stop blanking-and-redirecting articles after being reverted. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection does not make an exception for allowing re-blankings for articles that are poorly sourced or have original research. If editors would like there to be exceptions, they should amend the deletion policy. In any case, the articles about the Hong Kong public housing estates were well-sourced. Cunard (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It appears that those articles about public housing estates are also sourced entirely to primary sources, which means that Onel's actions here are also attempts to bring the articles in compliance with core policy. To do it twice on four articles doesn't appear to be out of line, particularly when the objection is as obscure as "Redirect not obvious". BilledMammal (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection does not have an exemption that allows editors to blank-and-redirect a second time Hong Kong public housing estate articles that are sourced to government sources. Cunard (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia:Edit warring does not have an exemption putting the creation of redirects under 0RR; four singular reverts is consistent with seeking a consensus through editing, and not an issue worth discussing on ANI, particularly when those reverts were attempts to bring articles into compliance with core policy. BilledMammal (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that reverting four times while refusing to discuss isn't an edit war? That's the very definition of an edit war. And while

WP:ATD-R actually does. You're avoiding the subject with all these arguments about the quality of the articles. The fact is that Onel violated policy, engaged in an edit war, and then attacked the individual who tried to point it out. And this isn't an isolated incident; judging by Onel's talk page, this is a pattern which they have refused to address. It is appalling to me that so many users are defending Onel's behavior. Mlb96 (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies, I should have been clearer. Four different articles, with one revert each - I believe this is appropriate as an attempt to obtain consensus by editing, and certainly not worth bringing to ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if not for the fact that Onel appears to have reinstated the challenged redirects multiple times and acted rude and condescending when informed that they shouldn't do that. It is not unreasonable to request that Onel no longer do this and to apologize for the rudeness.

WP:ATD-R, and while it may not have been worth bringing to ANI by itself, it does establish a pattern in combination with the instances the OP brought up. Mlb96 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

IMO part of the problem is you're using terms in inaccurate ways. There's no 0RR for all redirections,

WP:BRD. Yet no one will suggest this means we actually have 0RR or 1RR or imposed BRD or whatever. So all ATD-R is really saying we handle it like we do with most disputes. For a variety of reasons in most cases we have a hard limit of 3 reverts in 24 hours but also forbid edit warring in general. If someone makes a change and it's disputed, generally they need to try an address the objections and so modify their changes (which probabyl isn't possible with a redirect) or discuss and try to achieve consensus. Note I specifically didn't say "start", since a lot of the time the person who disputed ideally should have started the discussion anyway. But while these are what happen in an ideal situation we recognise that it can get complicated and so explicitly do not block editors just because they don't follow the process although may block them depending on precisely what they did, how many times they did it etc. If it's a back and forth between two editors especially if it's on multiple articles and there's no bright line broken by either, both editors may very well find themselves blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• This seems to be a content dispute between people who think every patch of land that ever had a house on it needs an article, and those who think street directories and real estate brochures based on primary sources should be deprecated. IMO Onel is correct on the policy question and, although some of his language has been less than optimal, I think getting exasperated is a natural response to endless meddlesome obstructionism. Reyk _YO! 22:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the correct take from this. For example, let's look at some of the articles that DarkKnight2149 repeatedly edit-warred to restore. I've only picked two, but there are more - this one, edit-warring to restore an article with nothing but primary sources, but wait ... this one, edit-warring to restore a version with no sources whatsoever. As User:Cullen328 said above, "An article about a topic with a plot sourced only to some random Wikipedia editor's plot summary is a piece of crap that really ought to be removed from the encyclopedia post haste.". Meanwhile, this is relevant. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang

I came close to bringing this to ANI myself after

Onel5969 raised the subject at NPP in a neutral tone and with a link to the discussion[87]. This seems to be an

If 3 experienced editors told you that you were wrong, most people would either look again at what they thought, or even if they still thought they were right, would accept consensus. Not so with the OP, who simply dismisses this as tag-teaming.

The OP has made much of a 'template war' at

I could bring up a lot more but I'm sure everybody else is as bored of this as I am. I am offended that my integrity has been brought into doubt when trying to give an opinion of policy as an uninvolved editor at that time.

Whilst I'd hoped the matter would die a death, it's clear that isn't going to happen. What's happened has happened and I'm not sure that everybody's time is well spent dissecting the details. Suffice to say people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. Moving forward, something needs be done to stop the vendetta by Darkknight2149 against Onel5969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John B123 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: John B123 got a few things wrong I would like to address.

as in Darkknight2149's last reinstatements of the articles they had added sources, obviously trying to conform with

WP:SOURCE

.

I thought that the whole issue would die a death naturally

So did I, until Onel5969 continued the same behaviour elsewhere ([90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95]). I didn't want to have to file this report.

The OPs justification of

WP:BURDEN

, then he should have removed the specific bits of original research instead of continuing to blank the whole page.

Onel5969 raised the subject at NPP in a neutral tone and with a link to the discussion[96]. This seems to be an

vote-stacking

.

When myself and Buidhe posted our views we were accused of not actually read through the exchange above or clicked through the diffs

This wasn't an accusation, I suggested that the two of you may not have read through everything. The reason for this is that, after Onel continued filibustering by simply repeating the same point over and over (without responding to anything I was saying), you and Buidhe replied the next day simply to repeat his one already-addressed point ([99], [100]). Other editors above have noted this: "Reading through the talk page discussion at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, it does feel like everyone is completely ignoring what the OP is saying" and I myself pointed this out to you several times at

WP:NPPR. See also: [101], [102]

(which you didn't reply to).

would accept consensus

Wikipedia is not a vote. Two editors repeating a pre-addressed point without responding to anything isn't a consensus. Onel5969 was also advised by other editors to stop edit warring and discuss here, to open an AFD here, and his template warring at Kayako Saeki was reverted here

.

Not so with the OP, who simply dismisses this as

WP:NPPR

was "neutral" is even more evidence of that. The User Interaction tool also revealed that you are a frequent collaborator of Onel5969's, which normally wouldn't mean anything by itself. But coupled with everything else.

Meanwhile, this is relevant.

Based on the canvassing, tag-teaming, you and Buidhe being part of Onel's user group at

WP:NPPR, and your responses at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa

, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that stealth-canvassing may have taken place. However, I'm not going to outright claim that without proof. You mistake a question for an accusation.

I could bring up a lot more but I'm sure everybody else is as bored of this as I am.

If you are looking for a boomerang sanction, I would recommend doing that. Darkknight2149 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: I note you haven't responded about your claim that the IP who originally redirected the articles is the same person as Onel. Please share you evidence to substantiate your claim. --John B123 (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this now: redirection is NOT directly comparable to deletion, both of the complainants seem to be justifying everything on the basis that his redirection represents summary deletion. It doesn't. All the info is still there in the redirect history for anyone to find and build on. The correct response is to find sources for unsourced articles, and rebuild the article, not to revert the redirect and just claim that an article sourced purely to primary sources is A-OK, then try to Wikilawyer your way out of restoring an article that clearly fails what Wikipedia is not.

Do I think Onel could have been a bit more circumspect in his edits? Perhaps. Do I think he is the one causing the disruption here? No. At worst I'd give Onel a slap on the wrist for not communicating more clearly why he has done what he has done (in the case of the Hong Kong articles anyway). As for @

or here) 01:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

if you think someone is a disruptive editor in one area, they're likely going to be disruptive editors in other areas. Many times I have encountered vandalism, checked the user's contribution's history, and found far more to revert. Not saying they wouldn't be hounding if they stalked Onel's contributions and mass-reverted a bunch of them, but sanctioning someone for merely saying that they're going to watch someone's contribs for disruption doesn't seem like a good interpretation of

WP:HOUNDING. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

or here) 11:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

To be clear, you would support a boomerang sanction because I:

• Removed a question from my talk page and answered it in an edit summary.
• Said I would keep a cursory glance on Onel5969 to make sure he doesn't engage in this behaviour again elsewhere (which he immediately did: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]).
• "Wiki-lawyered" by citing policies correctly.
• "Stonewalled" by addressing all of Onel5969's points, even as he kept repeating the same thing over and over no matter what (without responding to anything I said). Something that others here have also pointed out.
• "Edit warred" by attempting talk page discussion multiple times.
• Simply complained and made threats instead of... Taking the matter to
  WP:ANI
  ?

With all due respect, your reasoning is odd and the things you are saying don't reflect how policy works. For instance, how am I "lawyering" these policies? By following them literally and complying with the spirit of the deletion process and dispute resolution?

Per

WP:ATD-R

:

A page can be

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.^[1]

Per WP:Dispute resolution:

When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to

edit war

.

Per

WP:ATD

:

If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.

topic-banned

editors who have serially created biased articles.

Per WP:Edit warring:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

Pertinent

Per

WP:PRIMARY

:

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

The policy

WP:3RRNO are also relevant. Darkknight2149 06:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Insertcleverphrasehere point on deletion is a good one and one I was thinking from early on in this thread. We do not treat turning an article the same as deletion because they are not the same. Deletion prevents anyone except admins from seeing the history or restoring the same version. (If you have a copy of the article before deletion you can technically restore the article but unless you're the only substantive contributor doing so would be a

WP:PROD is a one time thing and completely overriden by objection (including future objection) or previous deletion discussion, it's a lot more complicated for redirections. For example, if an editor turns an article into a redirect, someone objects and then no one bothers to do anything further then 15 years later with the article still in a sorry state and perhaps whatever changes in notability 15 and some new editor turns it into a redirect, merges with proper attribution and adds new content into the target, the editor is unlikely to have done anything wrong, indeed people will probably be thanking them. (The earlier editor or some other editor could still object and it will need to be discussed but if the editor takes part in the discussion and doesn't edit war, anyone who complains about their behaviour is going to get short shrift even if they find 100 times it happened.) If an editor prods an article and someone objects, 15 years later someone prods it again any admin should reject the prod and if they don't people will (generally) rightfully say they shouldn't have done that even if most agree we shouldn't have an article. If someone find an admin did it 100 times, again we may be considering an arbcom case or at least a strong reminder to the admin.

Likewise if an article is delete under PROD, 15 years later someone asks for it to be undeleted, this will generally happen and if someone wants to delete the article they will have to take it to AfD (I'm assuming in all cases there's no CSD) and non consensus means we keep the article. By comparison if someone turns an article into a redirect and 15 years later someone overturns it, the status quo ante is likely to be considered the redirect and so a no consensus outcome is generally going to mean we keep the redirect etc.

You can come up with many other ways deletion and turning an article into a redirect are different, suffice to say if you treat them same you're distracting from possible real issues with what an editor did.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Nil Einne: Please see the policies quoted above, which are pretty clear about reinstating disputed redirects. Darkknight2149 06:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:PROD explicitly says that a PROD is a one time thing so implicitly makes it clear this is not possible with a PROD, and so if an article has been prodded (or discussed for deletion), you cannot PROD it again and no admin should honour such a request. You just need technical experience to know that as a non admin, I cannot see Nitharwal or Daisuke Nakamaki but unless they were actually deleted, I can see everything Onel5969 has turned into a redirect regardless of the current state. Note I never disputed that an editor should generally discuss before restoring redirects, simply that it's not the same as deletion, and any such comparisons are rightfully criticised as inaccurate. Nil Einne (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

or here) 10:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Negative.

WP:ATD-R makes it clear that the onus is on the person who redirected the article to gain consensus, instead of edit warring to restore the redirect. Nothing about that is ambiguous. Darkknight2149 11:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

See the long comment by @

or here) 12:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support some form of boomerang or sanction, e.g. a ban on reverting a redirect without providing a good secondary source. Their attempts to justify their reinstatements of unsourced plot summary only articles (often tagged as unsourced for years) are completely unconvincing and go against the basic elements of what enwiki articles should be. Going on an on about "but it's a disputed redirect" completely ignores "why" it has been turned into a redirect and why reinstating such articles is very poor practice. If someone was creating such articles now, they would end up with a topic ban (after enough discussions of course), no matter how much they wikilawyered. So why would it be more acceptable if someone is reinstating such articles even though issues with them have tagged for years? It seems that no discussion here can convince the editor that these articles are not welcome, so some other approach to make this clear may be needed.
  Fram (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There's a lot of soapboxing in this thread about how policies should work and the way things should be. However, if we're going by actual policy, then Onel5969 was unambiguously in the wrong. Citing policies correctly isn't "Wiki-lawyering", regardless of how much you disagree with the content. "It seems that no discussion here can convince the editor that these articles are not welcome" So far, nobody has argued that all-plot articles are "welcome" or acceptable in their current state. The concern is that Onel needed to open an

WP:AFD and gain consensus, instead of unilaterally redirecting an article and edit warring to keep it there (even after attempts at talk page discussion). I hope the closing administrator keeps actual policy in mind when closing this thread, because I have a feeling it's going to have to go to ArbCom next. Darkknight2149 09:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I did cite policy in my first comment here,

Fram (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Per

WP:V anyway. Onel5969 should have removed the original research instead of repeatedly blanking the page. My primary concern was reverting the redirects and restoring the articles themselves, not restoring the few claims in each one that weren't backed by primary source. Darkknight2149 10:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just reread

Fram (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

(

WP:ICANTHEARYOU at Talk:Yoichi Asakawa, because I responded to and addressed everything that was said there. Even though all of my points were ignored (mostly by Onel himself, who was the only person to consistently respond there). You are arguably engaging in ICANTHEARYOU right now, because you are ignoring the overwhelming number of policies

that have been presented to you and are (almost self-admittedly) cherry-picking.

• WP:HANDLE
  make it clear that if editing can be done to improve a page, editing should be done instead of scrapping it.
• WP:ATD-R
  makes it clear that once a redirect has been disputed, you need to gain consensus instead of repeatedly restoring the redirect.
• WP:DR
  makes it clear that you don't delete salvageable content just to get rid of some original research.
• WP:DELREASON
  gives a list of deletion criteria, and there is an entire deletion process and a dispute resolution process that you are overlooking.

Flaws in articles that can be solved through rewrites (such as being

WP:BURDEN. As I said before, "Per every [policy], this isn't a reason to repeatedly restore a redirect after it has been disputed. What it does warrant is a rewrite, templating, or (in this case) even an WP:AFD. These are the policies I was adhering to in my interactions with Onel5969." Darkknight2149 11:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Per the above (and the repeated "per every policy", even though this has been shown again and again to be false), and per the very similar reply to Insertcleverphrasehere below, I rest my case.

Fram (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The only policies you have named are

WP:V

, both of which have been addressed many times by now. Do I need to list some of them again for you?

Darkknight2149 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine... I'll be explicit about your points.

Per ATD-R: I've explained ATD-R repeatedly, he explained in his edit summary of the revert, he didn't re-revert, there is no edit war (3RR).

Per DR: an explanation in an edit summary may be sufficient, provided there is room, again, he didn't start an edit war, he reverted once. As per deleting salvageable text, other policies say that it is fine to delete unsourced material, so this is just advice that may apply.

Per ATD: Does not apply, redirection is not deletion, the content still exists in the edit history. In any case it says that it "may" be reduced to a stub, or may be sent to AFD, not that it has to be. Discussion via an edit summary may have been sufficient if you hadn't been such an obstructionist, in which case it would have saved a whole lot of his time (and other editor's time; AfD is a phenomenal waste of man-hours when overused, ANI moreso).

Per WP:Edit warring: There is no edit warring. He did 1RR, not 3RR. Does not apply.

Per WP:PRIMARY: May, not should and certainly not "a whole article based on". In fact you specifically cite the passage from

WP:OR

in your next paragraph that makes this explicit.

You seem to justify your actions of restoring improper content with procedural nitpicking. I would define this as disruptive editing, and, to a lesser extent, wikilawyering. —

or here) 12:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

And restoring the article, which violates

or here) 11:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:ATD-R

, no matter how you interpret that policy.

And by the way, obtaining consensus to redirect an article is a permissible use of AfD, so AfD would be an appropriate venue for the discussion. Mlb96 (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that simply repeating X and Y at each other would not be productive. Onel is a prolific editor, that deals with massive numbers of articles. Doing a single revert with an edit summary explaining why restoring the material was improper is a short cut intended to save time. I'll agree that it isn't best practice, and I've said previously that Onel could have communicated better (particularly with the Hong Kong articles, he and others actually had a very long discussion with Darkknight, he just didn't want to listen). As others have said though, ATD-R has never been interpreted as 0RR; it's main point is that you must try to gain consensus. On the other hand, what DarkKnight has done (restoring unreferenced material repeatedly and without justification other than "Because I can") is ridiculous and disruptive. —

or here) 14:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:NOT

.

We don't AfD topics that are likely notable, but we also don't keep around articles that are written and sourced so poorly that they violate Wikipedia's core policies. Redirect was a correct action here, though

or here) 11:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Per

WP:V. Darkknight2149 11:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Even if, for the sake of argument, I agreed that procedurally the correct action is stubification, how does this justify your reversion? On procedural grounds alone? Because you can? That's disruptive editing.

On a side note: whether stubification is the best option is actually something I've seen heavily debated at NPP in cases like this, as a redirect can often be more useful since it leads back to a main article where better quality info about the subject already exists (is it better to have a one line stub, or is it better to link to the main article where a paragraph already exists about the character and the reader can find more related info about the series?). —

or here) 12:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, any editor can contest a redirect. Darkknight2149 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with @

or here) 12:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• @
  bludgeoning the discussion by replying to every single comment. This is a form of disruptive editing that can lead to a temporary preventative block. I myself won't be responding to you much at this point, because I can't see any constructive reason to continue doing so. Darkknight2149 13:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comical for you to accuse someone of bludgeoning the discussion, when all you're doing is repeating the same misunderstandings of policy like a mantra. You are in the wrong here, Dark, and need to step back. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Darkknight2149: You may have missed my request above to provide evidence that the IP who originally redirected to article was Ontel as you claim. When a redirect is changed into an article, the article is added to the NPP queue. This queue is ordered by article creation date. The queue can be ordered either newest first or oldest first. As Ontel works mainly at the back of the queue, I assume they would have the queue ordered oldest first. A far more logical explanation of Ontel getting involved soon after you reverted the redirect is that these 2006 articles appeared at the top of the NPP queue, not that he was the IP. --John B123 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. This is an interaction that @

  or here) 23:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

Could someone please look at the contributions of this account, especially their attempts at getting involved in administrative areas and their interactions with blocked users? There's a distinct pattern of disruption and general lack of

Going through some potentially problematic edits in reverse chronological order

• 18th Feb - They show up at the talk page of a user that was CU blocked for joe jobbing, demanding to see the SPI that lead to the CU block [110]. There is of course no requirement for an SPI to be held for the use of checkuser tools. They follow this up with the ridiculous statment Remember, the duck test is not grounds for a CU-block. [111].
• 15th Feb - They show up at the ANI discussion regarding a user who was blocked for genocide denialism POV pushing saying that they hope they get a second chance to edit here [112]. Drmies points out that the user isn't listening [113], which obviously means they are not a candidate for an unblock.
• 8th Feb - They start a poorly thought out RFC proposing that we bulk delete all userboxes related to DS topic areas [114]. This is naturally heading towards a snow oppose [115]
• 7th Feb - A user brings a case to ANI regarding misuse and misrepresentation of sources. Plutonical jumps in incorrectly declaring this to be a content dispute [116] then gives out two completley innapropriate trouts [117] [118].
• 6th Feb - A poorly thought out bot proposal that would have spammed users with warnings about battleground behaviour if they used certain words [119].
• 3rd Feb - They show up at the talk page of an obviously upset user that had just lost some user rights at ANI (and received a short block for being uncivil in response) to warn them that content on their talk page may be inappropriate [120]. The warning itself isn't wrong, but it was completely unnecessary "pouring fuel onto the fire" when dealing with an already obviously upset and annoyed user.
• 31st Jan - they show up at the talk page of a user banned for copyvios, advising them to use synonyms and swap the order of words around (i.e. engage in WP:Close paraphrasing, a form of copyvio). They also state that they should use earwig to ensure they've moved the text around just enough to avoid detection. [121]. They return a few days later to state that they had "No idea" that using automated tools in this manner was not a good idea [122].
• 31st Jan - an attempt to join a community ban discussion after the discussion had already been closed with a largely unhelpful comment that was mostly unrelated to their editing on Wikipedia [123].
• 28th Jan - During this MFD [124] Plutonical decides that they like the page, and they attempt to unilaterally move it to their userspace - this predictably makes a mess. Once the page is put back where it's supposed to be they perform a cut and paste move of the content, resulting in a copyvio [125].

Having gone through their last 200 edits I'm going to stop, Hopefully this demonstrates the recurring problem. They do seem to have their heart in the right place and their article space work seems to be fine, but their involvement in administrative areas, especially their interactions with blocked editors, is problematic. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no dispute with this. If an administrator sees it right to issue sanctions and it's best for the encyclopedia, then so be it. It's unfortunate, but I can see that I have made many mistakes over the course of my editing career and that I might have
  WP:CIR issues. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 20:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Plutonical: I don't think that a complete ban is required, as I said your article space editing looks to be mostly fine. The issue is that you're trying to "run before you can walk" as they say, and are getting involved in behind the scenes areas that I don't think you have the experience or knowledge to be in. A more refined restriction should be possible here, but I'm not sure what form that might take. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are plenty of other forms my punishpreventionment could take. Topic bans or partial blocks or anything else in that vein. Even a Topic ban from WP-space in general. It's all up to the administrator and what they see fit. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 20:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We don’t do punishment here, under any circumstances. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dream on. EEng 18:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the user already acknowledges that have room to improve, would a Wikipedia mentor be helpful in terms of navigating the more administrative areas in a way that isn't disruptive? If the work in the article space is good and the only issue is the more arcane areas, I feel like this would be more narrowly tailored towards prevention than a block. —
  talk) 01:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think the best navigation advice that can be given at this time is to steer clear for a while. Plutonical has been extraordinarily active in projectspace, and especially at ANI, for someone with their level of experience (as I write this comment, 37% of their undeleted edits were to the Wikipedia namespace, and about 10% of their undeleted edits – 84 out of 830 – were to this board). I don't think venturing into the internal workings of the project early in an editing career is a bad thing per se, but it can lead to friction when it's too much too early, and I agree with the OP that that unfortunately seems to be the case here. However, the fact that they seem to be open to working on the issue makes me hopeful that this can be resolved without severe sanctions. Plutonical, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I would strongly recommend that you focus on mainspace editing for a few months and steer clear of policy debates, unblock requests, ANI and similar areas, unless you absolutely must comment because an issue directly involves you. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had previously given a friendly warning to Plutonical about high activity in ANI-space and attempting to reach conclusions in ANI discussions that aren't warranted by the evidence, precedence or policy on Wikipedia. Such ill-directed contributions, although made in good faith, can inflame tempers of already-degrading situations and further drag out the conflict in a manner that requires more time and effort for an admin to clean up. As I said before, I'm not going to be throwing stones on this since I also have a high level of project and Wiki-space contributions. I think Plutonical generally means well and that they ought to focus on other areas of Wikipedia that don't require a very high level of experience and understanding of Wiki-culture. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gebagebo is a user formerly editing under the name Dabaqabad.

Gebagebo received a one-week AE block for violating the March 4 prohibition in August 2021. From his comment to me in December 2021, Gebagebo seems to think this block was "because edited without indicating the source."

And in October 2021, Gebagebo's editorial policy was criticized by several people at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive295#Dabaqabad, including myself, but no particular conclusion was reached at that time.

There are a number of problems between Gebagebo and me. Most of them involve Gebagebo reverting my edits and pushing his own policy on the grounds of

Some of the pages that Gebagebo and I have discussed include the following:

• Talk:Badhan, Sanaag
• Category talk:Disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland
• Talk:Khatumo State
• Talk:El Afweyn

Although Gebagebo's argument seems plausible at first glance, I think he actually has the intention to write in favor of Somaliland and is searching for rules or sources to do so, rather than having the attitude of writing based on Wikipedia's rules and sources. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain why Gebagebo only writes in favor of Somaliland in his editing of this complex situation in the region.

The latest trouble is occurring in Talk:El Afweyn. I have tried to include information about El Afweyn in this article, but Gebagebo won't let me post it as it is "irrelevant". When I asked why it was irrelevant, Gebagebo would not respond. (Except to explain that it is "irrelevant" and "no agreement.")

I expect Gebagebo to edit neutrally, and to adopt an editorial attitude that aims for consensus rather than mere argument.--Freetrashbox (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried my absolute best to reach a consensus with Freetrashbox, however it is very hard to do so when they are being uncooperative, including threatening to re-add disputed content on two occasions despite that not being allowed by

WP:NOCONSENSUS ([126], [127]

). His accusation is completely unfounded and uncalled for.

Another interesting thing to note is the timing of this report. This report was filed just days after my report on Heesxiisolehh was concluded ([128]) and almost five hours after I informed the admin in charge of the case of his continuing addition of OR ([129]). Both users are in regular contact ([130], [131], [132], [133]) including just 15 minutes after his report was filed ([134]). On the AfD about Diiriye Guure Freetrashbox first voted delete ([135]) and then after that suddenly changing his vote to keep ([136]) after a poor explanation made by Heesxiisolehh that another editor refuted (Freetrashbox didn't even bother changing his original explanation for his previous delete vote, instead just changing the vote itself) . This indicates to me that this report was not filed in good-faith and kinda feels like tag-teaming.

Then is the fact that this would fit better as an RfC or

WP:DRN given that this is a content dispute and a Third Opinion has previously failed to solve it due to no one showing up. Gebagebo (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• If this is linked to the same topic area as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#Long running original research in Dervish-related content then this needs a wider review at a dedicated venue, such as RFC/DRN. GiantSnowman 15:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point exactly; this is a content dispute that has so far not been resolved. Therefore it should be discussed in the right venue, like RFC and DRN. Gebagebo (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I wrote in User talk:Heesxiisolehh are requests for improvement in Heesxiisolehh's editing attitude. Heesxiisolehh has not answered my questions many times and I think there is some problems with his attitude. And I have more stringent requirements in User talk:Heesxiisolehh#Your uploaded figure. If I were to defend Heesxiisolehh, I would defend it directly on the discussion page where Heesxiisolehh is being criticized, not in this roundabout way.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the thing; you have a history of contacting the user on multiple occasions, and the criticism you give him is lackluster. In addition you changed your vote on an AfD concerning an article he added massive amounts of original research to to "keep" due to his rather lackluster and unconvincing explanation that was refuted by another edit, not even bothering to change the reasoning behind your original vote to reflect you changing your stance, in addition to using

WP:WHATABOUTX to argue for the deletion of Deria Arale

(which is backed up by reliable sources).

That and the timing is too close (I mean really, five hours after I contacted GiantSnowman regarding Heesxiisolehh's continued OR?) to be a coincidence. Either way I proposed a compromise on the El Afweyn talk page, I'd suggest you take a look at it. Gebagebo (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote about Gebagebo on this noticeboard because of two successive insincere answers from Gebagebo on Talk:El Afweyn. [137][138] Gebagebo was dishonest in his dialogue with me at Talk:El Afweyn, even though he could afford to contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia. The time between Gebagebo's second response and my posting on this noticeboard is two hours.

I have only interacted with Heesxiisolehh within Wikipedia, and that relationship is available for anyone to see. I don't know why Gebagebo thought that there was a special relationship between me and Heesxiisolehh. Gebagebo seems to think that they and Heesxiisolehh are opposites, but from my point of view, both attitudes are very similar. It's just that the subject who want to argue for is different.

I thought that by talking to Gebagebo, he would realize the true appeal of Wikipedia, but as it turns out, Gebagebo is only interested in describing the wonders of Somaliland on Wikipedia, and for him Wikipedia's rules and sources are just a means to that end. I think everyone can see that from his short description above.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gebagebo: I accepted your suggestion in Talk:El Afweyn. Next time, I hope you will be in good faith even if we don't use the Administrators' noticeboard.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how Heesxiisolehh mentions this ANI and uses it as rationale for removing a user's post warning about his original research from his talk page ([139], keep in mind this was almost 12 hours before he was pinged by Freetrashbox, not to mention the very similar opinion). There is also no evidence of communication between the two on any talk page regarding this.

This seems to make it more clear to me that this is a retaliatory filing, and might suggest some form of meatpuppery going on. Gebagebo (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have given notice that I will remove the description by Heesxiisolehh. Why is it that Gebagebo interprets that as me deleting Heesxiisolehh's opponents' opinions?--Freetrashbox (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The description I posted in El Afweyn is statements of the role Puntland and Somaliland played in El Afweyn. I tried to be impartial, but the result is a description that shows that Somaliland put a lot of effort into the administration of this town, while Puntland was just a nuisance for sending militia troops. In contrast, Gebagebo says that the expression "Puntland influence" is "implying that Puntland has influence and some sort of control of the town (which it does not claim), which is POV pushing". In other words, Gebagebo considers any representation of Puntland's activities in the region, no matter what the content, to be distasteful. Honestly, I am annoyed that Gebagebo called this statement a violation of POV. Nevertheless, I have continued to discuss whether the description could be changed to something Gebagebo would find acceptable, in order to make the post more fair. I agreed to change the headline of the article from "Puntland influence" to "Security". I also moved the description from El Afweyn to El Afweyn District, accepting Gebagebo's assertion that the Puntland Constitution is about the District and not the Town. However, as the dialogue progressed, I noticed that Gebagebo did not concede his opinion at all until the other party was bored with the discussion. I think this is a enough reason to report it to the Administrators' noticeboard. (To add to that, it is also very disconcerting that Gebagebo suggests I am Heesxiisolehh's meatpuppet without any evidence. I think Gebagebo is familiar with Wikipedia discussions and knows that the community does not like private connections between POV users.)--Freetrashbox (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alpaps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fikile Mbalula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alpaps, who has said that they are one of the advisors of Fikile Mbalula, keeps re-adding copyright text copied from Mbalula's government biography, which is so promotionally written that it wouldn't be acceptable for Wikipedia even if it was compatibly licensed. I have repeatedly tried to indicate the issues on Alpaps' talk page – this was my most recent message to them on February 9, but they have largely ignored these messages and re-added the text five days ago. DanCherek (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every edit Alpaps has done has been to add or restore copyright violations. Alpaps came around editing the article substantially again after OhnoitsJamie excon protected the article for a month. In July 2021, Alpaps also came around with what I presume as restoration of copyrighted material after an IP was reverted repeatedly. It's flat out disruptive at this point, with five restorations in the past month alone. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While following a spam trail, I encountered the article Zabbix. The article was, in the form that I encountered it, a rather promotional piece with no independent sourcing of significance. The next day I decided to revisit (noticed an IP edit upating version history) and went through the history. There I noticed several accounts & IPs with a conflict of interest (probably the reason for the promotional content), and SPAs (including IPs geolocating to the Riga, Latvia area where the subject is from). A quick google search showed mainly results from zabbix.com and various blogs and no obvious material that could be used for sourcing. I AfD'd the article and tagged it with various tags. (I considered to stub it down, but with the COI editing going on I was expecting that to be countered and I sometimes find AfD then a more suitable point of reference to get something done about an article with specialist input - I do not necessarily disagree that the subject is notable but would like to see significant evidence of that).

The AfD was countered with some pretty strong points. I did not apply

They were quickly followed by Hlovdal (talk · contribs) (note that it was their first edit after 3 years), 5GZPPwkICWU (talk · contribs) (new editor solely for the AfD), larcorba (talk · contribs) (new editor solely for the AfD and the article). A quick search on internet gives this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/zabbix/comments/swoyid/the_wikipedia_article_for_zabbix_is_up_for/ (note that the opening statement was different when I found it, it has since been adapted), by u/riffic. riffic (talk · contribs) is one of the first commenters in the AfD. One of the commenters on Reddit on that thread goes by u/larcorba, whereas u/Pseudocoder3 on Reddit says they changed the article. Later Trikke76 (talk · contribs) follows as a new user, and they self identified as writer of one of the books. The Zabbix book by this writer that I encountered had Rihards Olups as co-author, who worked for Zabbix according to the biography connected to the book (note Rihards Olups (talk · contribs) is a regular on the article).

User riffic has since admitted that they are the writer of the Reddit thread, and has since adapted the thread to what it currently reads (which, to me, reads as a veiled threat). I would like to request some independent opinions on this situation, and suggestions on how to proceed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for the record, I left Zabbix 6+ years ago. In my edits before joining, during the time there, and after, I tried to be as factual as possible, and for the past 6 years my edits should be neutral (and not too frequent, too). If there are specific edits that are of a concern, please let me know. In any case, a suggestion to delete the article seems to be way over the top. --Rihards Olups (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you try to be verifiable though? This is the point that people miss. However true something is, if it hasn't been already reported in good sources outwith Wikipedia it cannot be written in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good point, thank you for mentioning that. I did try to be verifiable, but, as I was not directed/paid to make any edits, it was a "best effort" level. This is a good learning experience as well, will keep this in mind for any future edits, thank you again for the reminders and explanations. --Rihards Olups (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @

    WP:COI, if not in violation of m:Terms of Use, however neutral the edits were. And those edits continued in exactly the same way way after 6+ years ago (until about 4 years ago at least). I did a rather wide analysis of the editors on Zabbix, the COI connections go wider than what is appropriate to discuss here on ANI, but full disclosure of the accounts that do have that connection (any connection) would be appreciated. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• This article has been subjected to promotional editing for years, including edits such as this one where the editor who's comment appears immediately above mine listed his book on the article, with external link to the publisher's store page for easy purchase. The AFD, like a lot of AFDs that have been the target of canvassing, is full of arguments that have little or nothing to do with policy, including assertions that there's nothing wrong with the COI editing. I strongly feel this should be at minimum draftified (if not
  MrOllie (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Entire AfD is filled with policy and ToS violations particularly COI, undisclosed paid editing and
    WP:BLUDGEONING.Slywriter (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I can't add much more. The article is bad and the links to purchase books unacceptable, the AfD is a real mess. I don't know how we deal with something like this where we have inexperienced or brand new editors making arguments such as "Keep, this is notable software. There are books written for its use". Doug Weller talk 16:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hadn't realized it was improper to post Google Books links when contributing sources to an AfD discussion. I was just following the "Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs)" links found at the top. Feel free to unlink them. riffic (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quite clearly, M. Weller is talking about the hyperlinks direct to a bookseller's purchase-the-book page in the article itself, as added by book author Rihards Olups (talk · contribs) at Special:Diff/739538690 and by Packt Publishing (talk · contribs) at Special:Diff/684206633. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay that wasn't obvious to me, I assumed this was centered around the Google Book links in the AfD itself. Apologies! riffic (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• New editors canvass all the time. We haven't sanctioned new editors in the past for inadvertently breaking
  WP:CANVASS policies and I don't see why we should start now. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • One wonders if this is not in and of itself canvassing, given that this isn't a super neutral notification of the dispute in question. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Chess: riffic is not a new editor, they are here since 2006. Sixteen years should be ample time to understand that we have policies and guidelines to go by. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fully understand the policies and guidelines riffic (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

riffic has again changed the statement on Reddit, still missing the point however. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'm allowed to mention wiki-happenings
  off-wiki. In the future I'll be sure to disclose. riffic (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This does not fall under
    WP:INAPPNOTE under stealth canvassing, where Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions is inappropriate. This is not about disclosure, the very act of you posting on the Reddit itself is considered disruptive. SunDawntalk 03:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I deliberately chose to
      try to fix problems and a bit of transparency has in fact been effective here. riffic (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]

I think perhaps "The sources exist to keep this article alive but the work has to be done and should be done by Zabbix LLC." is the most amusing of the totally wrongheaded novice comments. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the correction @Uncle G. As you maybe have seen my account is still wearing the "this is a new user" badge. I'm genuinely sorry that I have said something which was counter productive and is considered a beginner mistake. Would you like to clarify what makes my behavior amusing and wrongheaded so I can learn from it? GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    edit where you have a conflict of interest." When you then edit anyway and do not declare that you have a conflict of interest then it becomes a violation of our m:Terms of Use. Wikipedia is high on search results, and showing off your product/company here still helps. And the problem with the trainwreck that the article was, was that Zabbix LLC (and I suspect some IPs to be of a consultancy company that was doing the same) was editing the article, as well as people who still profit indirectly from having a promotional article on Zabbix. Also I see the (unintended) irony in your remark. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • We most definitely do not want articles to be owned by commercial interests. This is an encyclopaedia,
    not a free advertising billboard. We need articles to be neutral, verifiable, and free from original research; and by and large commercial interests instead want sanitized promotional content based upon press releases, only their own statements, and stuff that isn't actually properly documented outwith Wikipedia in the first place. It's very tempting for commercial interests to come here and abuse Wikipedia as a free WWW hosting service for their own companies/products/people, but this is strongly rejected by the community of people who are here to actually write an encyclopaedia whenever we come across it. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  Alerted to this on my talk page, full disclosure: I am GavriilaDmitriev's mentor (see claim) and adopter.

  I'm slightly concerned that we're making the (subtle) allegation that Dmitriev has a conflict of interest based on one edit to the article (adding reasons why you shouldn't install the software rather than the contrary) and the AfD comments. I think no one has noticed so far and Dmitriev didn't make it obvious so I'll say it here: English is not their strong suit. No wonder their comment, "I would keep the pressure on Zabbix LLC to improve the article by themselves. The sources exist to keep this article alive but the work has to be done and should be done by Zabbix LLC.", has been misinterpreted as a statement from Zabbix LLC and not themself. Since I did have a way to contact them directly through IRC, I took it upon myself to ask them their original intent when writing that sentence, and they've said this with regards to Zabbix's COI editing of the article: "I was thinking that Zabbix messed it up and they should fix the article in time or it get's deleted." (and yes, I asked for consent before quoting that here). In case you're still confused, Dmitriev intended in the AfD comment that Zabbix LLC fix the article since their COI editors were involved in skewing its point of view (something that I've now told Dmitriev is frowned upon by the community and disallowed by the ToS). This fully confirmed my suspicion that the language barrier had caused a misunderstanding between editors (which I had already assumed after being alerted to this thread). Dmitriev has been editing within FOSS-space articles for a while now, and have told me that it is their preferred space of editing, so this doesn't come off as suspicious to me in the slightest. FOSS editors will edit FOSS topics, and especially given that article alerts are present on

  WP:FOSS

  , there's no mystery here as to how Dmitriev would have found the AfD discussion (in fact, Dmitriev had asked me yesterday how the article alerts system worked).

  I'm not a fan of drama, so let's try to put the pitchforks down for now and consider their non-native English and rookie experience in policy (of which they are still learning) before marking them as a paid editor. Chlod (say hi!) 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chlod: I did not consider GavriilaDmitriev as having a conflict of interest with Zabbix, and have no reason to think so. I fully understood it as you here now explain. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beetstra: I didn't mean you specifically, but rather Doug Weller in their talk page message to me ("They seem to be a paid editor"). Although I did read your message and at first thought it may be an accusation, I thought that maybe the subject of the "you" being talked about had changed mid-message from Dmitriev to a theoretical person, so I didn't mention it directly. Chlod (say hi!) 14:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beneficial Canvass

Before this fades away into the archives, I'd like to draw attention to this comment made mid-thread about how ignoring the rules and posting to reddit was actually helpful. Was that a valid instance of

That is also my concern. From the viewpoint of the people that wanted the article kept, they think they did it in the name of "article improvement", while others think that it is canvassing. As I note above, that Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions is inappropriate. SunDawntalk 01:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that that point of my original post has not been sufficiently addressed. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is following me about. It is relation to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring, canvassing, filibustering, and personal attacks from Onel5969, the same behaviour from the same group. Editor

I'm unsure how the ANI thread shared relates to this issue.

As we've spoken before, I have Scope creep's talk page on my watchlist and that's how I came across this article. I find the issue of stealth redirecting frustrating, which is why I also got involved in the Hong Kong housing redirects involving Onel above. I find it funny that Scope creep accuses me of following them when they have retalliated against me after I removed their PRODs in the past.

The redirect should not have been restored per

talk) 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Ironic that we got rid of the Scientology discretionary sanctions as unnecessary, but I note that the page protections remain. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what connection does

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It is the wrong link. I will fix it. scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the link. scope_creep^Talk 17:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinking @Scope creep: may have meant Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring,_canvassing,_filibustering,_and_personal_attacks_from_Onel5969 given it's also about redirects. I don't think Nemesis' !votes are always made in policy (worthy of an article, routine doesn't apply to biographies, Young player at the start of this career so likely to receive more coverage in the future.), but nor do I think they're in bad faith. There's definitely an issue with AfD wars back lately, but at least in the ones I've closed, Nemesis is more indicative of a the symptom of the issue and not the problem. Star Mississippi 17:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmmm. Seven minutes after writing here, Scope creep commented on
  talk) 18:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'd like to hear NemesisAT's good faith explanation as to how the J. Albert "Tripp" Smith article they restored meets our policies and guidelines (like NOTRESUME and NBIO). Levivich 18:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Sky News article and the Wall Street Journal article both have

  talk) 18:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thanks for the quick answer. I don't have access to WSJ. Personally I wouldn't consider the Sky Sports article to be SIGCOV, but that's a debate for AFD. In my view, there's at least enough in the Sky Sports article such that an editor could argue it's SIGCOV without that argument being totally frivolous or in bad faith--I wouldn't agree with it, but that doesn't make it a completely BS argument, it's still a good-faith argument in my view. (And if the WSJ article has similar or more content about Smith, which I AGF it does, then that would strengthen the argument further.) I might have voted to delete it, but it doesn't strike me, for example, as a CSD candidate. So I don't think it was disruptive to expand the redirect into an article with those sources. Anyone wanting to can take it to AFD, but re-redirecting it strikes me as edit warring. NPP and AFC have no special standing -- I for one don't think twice before "overruling" those content review processes (pulling a rejected draft out of draftspace, or nominating an approved draft for deletion, for example) if I think the reviewer got it wrong. We have processes for resolving these sorts of disputes, and those processes should be followed, as long as they're followed in good faith (which seems to be the case here). Bottom line: there's nothing wrong with expanding a redirect into an article, but there is something wrong with edit warring to re-redirect an article instead of taking it to AFD. And "It is all political with an agenda", without evidence, strikes me as an aspersion. Levivich 21:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem. The article has now been

  talk) 21:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It not an aspersion. The editor can't seem explain what

  WP:BLAR. He simply doesn't care about quality at any level.scope_creep^Talk 22:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• It seems that a more correct statement of this is that a
  Craigie (Perth, Scotland) should be in the area where the Craigie school, Craigie post-office, and Craigie church all are (where the Ordnance Survey map on Bing Maps puts Craigie, I observe) or over by Upper Craigie. Uncle G (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The coordinates edit was two days after the article was created. How many pages of "new" articles would that be, roughly? Seasider53 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likely one, as the current extent of Special:NewPages is 500 entries in one and a bit days right now, and back then was Christmas Day when things are slower. Special:NewPagesFeed is of course infinite scroll and doesn't come in pages. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree; it seems highly unlikely. Seasider53 (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Seasider53: This is what new page patrollers do; they review new articles to see whether anything's obviously wrong with them. They're instructed to look at the older pages as well as the newer ones, in case there's something lurking there and it drops off the back end of the queue. It isn't just Tagishsimon; I looked at the history of your talk page to see whether they'd been leaving you a lot of notifications, and I only see 3 in the first page, which goes back to 22 January, but that led me to this snide edit summary by you, and then to Ari T. Benchaim, who says on his user page that he's a recent changes patroller, PROD'ding Wetter House 9 minutes after creation (I note you are now starting articles with "in use", and I agree that was a bit fast, but the article was very unprepossessing when you first saved it). I didn't see Tagishsimon anywhere in the history of that article, so I looked at it. It had an enormous gallery, no Commons category; and I started seeing other things, beginning with the huge biographical section, and wound up checking most of the references on the house and discovering you'd misunderstood/misrepresented what the books said. So then I looked at an article where Tagishsimon had flagged the gallery issue to you, St Serf's Church, Dunning (I got it from your list at Tagishsimon's talk page, since checking a page 24 hours after creation didn't seem offensive in itself), and not only had you reverted their edit removing the gallery without giving a policy-based reason (and as my edit summary shows, I consider only one of those images useful; and again, you hadn't added the Commons category), but the Dupplin Cross is mentioned twice, and there was more info about the church in one of the sources. You're giving us articles on some good topics, and I know what it's like to create an article and have somebody come along and carp about it, especially if I've had to do a hurried save (I created some articles on down-time at work, living dangerously), and some of the MOS rules are very picky (and many of them there's disagreement about), but throwing in a bunch of pictures isn't a substitute for actually writing up the information that's there in the sources (and it's important to get it right!), especially when the Commons category is available to send the reader who wants lots of pictures to a collection of all the ones we have, viewable at full size. That isn't one of the guidelines that's worth fighting, especially not for Historic American Buildings Survey shots from every angle. (I reduced the gallery for the Wetter House to 3 different views, but someone's probably going to come along and replace it with one captioned pic of the balcony ironwork.) If you were doing a great job with your articles, I'd recommend you apply for the autopatrolled right, which removes your articles from the unreviewed category, but based on those two, your work still needs checking. And remember, new page reviewers—and recent changes patrollers—have no idea what they're going to see when they open a new article. It could be an attack page, it could be copyvio, it could be written in a foreign language; we need those folks, they do a hard and necessary job. And your edit summary that I've linked above was uncivil and uncalled-for; as I've shown, not just Tagishsimon, others are checking your work too, this is a collaborative project. This edit summary that they complained about on your talk page is assaholic, too. I think you owe them an apology, actually; they've linked to the policy in question and have not picked apart your articles, as I wound up doing. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mostly just wanted to document his/her following me around. I will add to the list of examples as necessary, but I think their feathers have been sufficiently ruffled, for he/she hasn't responded to my communications before now. Progress, at least. As for apologising, you'll note that he/she gives as good as he/she gets. (I know, I know: "That was ten years ago. Let's assume good faith," etc., etc.) Seasider53 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the past few weeks, there has been an editor who appears to not have a static IP address who has been repeatedly adding the same "Controversy" section on

Since the user doesn't have a talk page, someone will need to explain how to give proper notice of this incident to them. Kire1975 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since they are actively reading the talk page, we can link this section there in a comment? — BriefEdits (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I'm not sure if there is a template to use or what. Kire1975 (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure if this is a vote, but I agree with this summary and assessment. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have semi-protected the article for one month. Please let me know if the disruption resumes, and it will be three months next time. Cullen328 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It does seem odd to have the casting of a forthcoming Disney movie in a biography article of someone who isn't being cast in it, and symptomatic of the perennial tendencies of some Wikipedia editors to wrongheadedly shoe-horn everything into biographies. Perhaps you should have explained this point more directly. I once did it with a pretty coloured box at Special:Diff/133146202#Arbitrary_Section_Break. Uncle G (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There wasn't any need to protect the page! Should have never been this discussion or arguing! I think I was right when I said I was victim of a hypocritical bias! I followed all the instructions, the objections, the reasons of the objections, I always edited and edited, removed and removed, added sources and added sources to validate and confirm the reliabilty of the content, omitted sources and omitted sources (following the list I was given), always slightly modified phraaes because apparently didn't sound neutral enough (facts or not facts, source or not source), always trying to (uselessly) satisfy the users (I won't name any for my own security) but it was never enough and there was always a reason to erase and revert all my work indiscriminately and now even request to block the page...and it was blocked! It's clear there's something personal here or something special about the article in question, 'cause I've never had problems like this before for similar articles! It's absolutely ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.36.18.130 (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you were editing against consensus - repeatedly. That is unacceptable conduct. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. IP tried to remove the latest edition of the
   MOS:ISLAMHON, and to add the deprecated "shattariya.blogspot". Edit summary: "last reliable version"[140]
2. IP tried to revert XlinkBot at the Badi al-Din article, in an attempt to restore the same edit. Edit sumary: "last reliable version"[141]
3. IP tried to remove Brill/EI3 referencess from the Badi al-Din article, calling it "link spam" and "reverting paid link promotion" in their edit summary[142]-[143]-[144]
4. More attempts by said IP at restoring doing the same material at the Badi al-Din article.[145]
5. Comment by IP at my talk page "I see you are promoting, paid link from Brill online, can you please stop it<, because paid link are usually not cited as reference. Since Wikipedia is not the vehicle for promotion. Thank you. "[146]
6. Comments IP left at Talk:Badi al-Din, in reference to Brill sources "I see someone spamming paid link from Brill online, can you please stop it?" and "Since most of the content is based on Brill online, I am restoring it to last stable revision"[147]
7. Issued IP warnings on several occassions[148]

It appears said IP is on a

WP:RS, reverting Wiki bots, etc.). - LouisAragon (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

More: It is interesting note that IP 37.111.218.109,[149] which is clearly operated by the same user, tried to add the exact same "shattariya.blogspot"[150] to the Badi al-Din article, but was likewise reverted by XlinkBot[151]. The same user then, used another IP to revert XlinkBot yet again.[152] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More2: Now they've started to use even more IP socks as we speak[153] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This editor (seems to be paid editor) never tried to discuss the issues at the article's talk page, rather he/ she has reverted back to back to his/ her preferred version, anyways I am trying to address the concerns of Honorifics and Original Research, by going against paid and excessive promotion of Brill Online. Thank you. 37.111.217.215 (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2 The Link which this user is adding is only accessible to paid members/ or need special access which is against Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. 37.111.217.215 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's only for the external links section. Citations that are supporting article content are allowed to be behind a paywall, see

MrOllie (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It is terrible that the editor or his/ her sock/ meat [154] do not wait even few minutes to revert, even though the article was tagged with inuse, it clearly explain their COI. I will again remove that paid link and will try to add better source relevant to Sayed Badiuddin, against Wikipedia:Spam 37.111.217.215 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP, thanks for responding here. There is nothing wrong with using sources that are behind a pay wall, provided they are reliable. Brill is a respectable academic publisher, I see no problem with that source. Please stop attempting to remove it - your changes are contested by multiple editors. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:, I think both the user who have reverted me possibly the same person, can you please refer to Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kansas_Bear. 37.111.218.223 (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• AGF as seen here, it really gets aggravating. On top of all this, the IP is clearly not a new user, so it's not like we could regard WP as a place for them to learn about Brill et al. I recommend a temporary range block, to be extended when necessary. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The IP must be the same person as the disruptive IP who used IP socks at Tariqa, where also attempted to do something akin (and also starts with the IP number 37.111), including the use of shattariya.blogspot [155] [156]. I did already report him but to no avail [157], even though he kept attacking me in the very thread as well, just like what he is doing now to LouisAragon. Think it's about high time a range block is made. He does not bring anything to Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, the 37.111.218.179/24 range that was disruptive at Tariqa posted in this very ANI thread. May need to be blocked in addition to the 37.111.219.0/24 range. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 12:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note Administrator must note that the User:LouisAragon, has past history of abusing multiple accounts, can check their Block log 37.111.217.56 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can say the same thing about you IP hopper.

talk) 12:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not my problem, that my IP changes frequently, it might be the provider issues. 37.111.217.56 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the term 'IP hopper' is not very helpful. A lot of editors with accounts may have an IP that changes just as frequently, and it's not in any way of the user's choosing how dynamic the IPs allocated by their local internet service providers are. It's in my view a very good reason to disable IP editing, but that's another discussion. Add 37.111.217.0/24 to the ranges on which this user is active. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the malformed, bogus SPI. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user came to

personal attack, but the IP user went ahead and recreated the thing. For some reason they used the talk of the SPI before, but now they also posted a duplicate bogus report on the SPI page itself. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

 IP blocked 72 hours for personal attacks in light of the reinstatement noted by Apaugasma. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't hold, so I've also blocked the underlying /18. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historiantruth

WP:NOTHERE

Resolved--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

Almost all of this user's edits consist of removing well-sourced information they don't like with edit summaries such as:

• [158] "Why is Non Samaale descendants im assuming Daroods always try to lie on Samaale lineage? Hawiye and Dir elder agrees that they are descendant from Samaale who also was descendant from Ham the son of Prophet Noah!"
• [159] "Fixed the misinformation"

More recently they started to remove sources without explanation [160] [161] or with rather more aggravating edit summaries such as:

• [162] "Theres a source white man saying Daroods were pagans"
• [163] "Wlh if this Fiqishini edit doesnt stop i’ll post a colonial sources were they were saying daroods were pagans and etc since i know for a fact its darood editing this! Wlh stop whilst you can. I am Fiqishini and we are Hawiye, Habar Gidir Cayr.. what a confused white man saod is irrelevant. Its me now saying Dhulbahante sub Cali Gerri is Duduble even tho there is a source from the white man! Like i said this false narrative better stop before i go ape shit and start posting L..."
• [164] "Source that Fiqishini are HG, lets not fucking edit otherwise or bs wlh some of yall are mentally tapped"

There's also a legal threat: [165] "Wallahi yall have agenda on Samaale and Hawiye lineage! Im literally in Somalia and asked Hawiye traditional elders and said they never claimed arab and that they are not! Wlh legal actions will be soon taken if this propaganda edit will not stop! Lying about lineage and origin of my people will not be tolerated!"

They seem to have a specific issue with the idea that Somali clan genealogies generally claim origins among early (Arab) Muslims, a fact about which scholars are univocal. They have repeatedly inserted or restored a line ([166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173]) instead claiming that Somali genealogy "dates back to their Cushitic ancestors 5000 YBP", in blatant contradiction with what the source cited after the line actually says (Ioan Lewis, pp. 11-12 here).

Most recently they have taken to editing logged out on Dir (clan) and Garre (note the nice edit summaries).

I believe there's nothing to be hoped for here, so indef is probably a good idea. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeffed. I blocked the /64 of the IP as well. Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for the swift action! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the wording of the rule of accounts with Truth in their name? Anyway, another proof. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it bears similarities to the rule about countries with "Democratic" in their name. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

IP 31.15.188.144, Russian POV pushing and disruptive editing.

A quick look at the contributions of

WP:NOTHERE. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

At least some of the edits are correct, so we may need to examine them one by one.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highly embarrassing rename request of article about ongoing Russian invasion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Requested_move_24_February_2022 seems very obvious close that would allow to remove embarrassing rename template. Originally proposed at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests under "if it appears unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move"

At the very least user completely misjudged situation. Given that they just renamed from "Nastyasholr927" and have few edits I suspect that is not just a bad judgment Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go outside and touch grass instead of getting defensive over an article with a name that literally nobody uses (besides for the conflict that began today) Wikiman92783 (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I do not think this is a good response for somebody who has less than 100 edits and has just opened a RM likely to be snow closed as completely inappropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be noted that the user also used an r-slur to address another user. As seen in their reply to this thread assuming good faith is difficult. TangoFett (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I will block now.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming autobio across multiple wikis

I'll be brief: this man Draft:Joilson Melo and Draft:Joilson Junior de Melo has been spamming multiple wikis with his autobio. He's been banned using several accounts in Portuguese wiki (there's no IP editing there) and he's been trying to get an article up somewhere else to be able to use interwiki for a notoriety claim. He's had over 20 articles deleted in Portuguese, in French and in Simple English (there's one there right now pending elimination). In Portuguese he's tried at least 4 different article names with slight variations. All of his sources are paid promo pieces. The mere fact that he has not one but two drafts up in here should be enough to show you what he's about. Please remove the drafts and ban these articles from being created, lest he continues spending precious editors time around the world. Thanks! Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts can be removed by nominating them for deletion at

Title blacklist. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

We love you Wikipedia

{(non-admin closure)No, we're not going to unilaterally protect all subject-matter articles. And no, that does not mean Wikipedia is biased towards the other side of that subject matter. Singularity42 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Please protect all Ukraine related articles. Humble request from Ukrainian — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThanOther (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No point, Wikipedia is flooded by pro-Kremlin propagandists who will spread age-old Kremlin propaganda anywhere they can. Wikipedia is no longer a neutral encyclopaedia, it is simply a platform for Russian propaganda... H2ppyme (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Repeated copyright violation

(

storm28 21:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

ShayaGoodman has created the draft article Draft:Reaping the Informational Surplus in Bayesian Persuasion four times, each instance a copyright violation. They have ignored all warnings and show no intention of stopping. I think a block is in order. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and salted. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kitty Is Not a Cat disruptive editing by IP hopper

• Kitty Is Not a Cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some people have been dealing with this IP hopper in Italy. They mainly

WP:OVERLINK things and disruptively edit (including adding fanfiction episodes to Kaeloo, which resulted in the page being protected). When an editor reverted their additions to Kitty Is Not a Cat, they attacked them by saying "Fuck You!". (They also told someone

to "Shut Up!")

They use the following ranges:

• 5.169.113.64/26 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 158.148.192.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 79.22.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 5.168.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

And the following IP addresses:

• 93.45.125.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 95.250.142.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I went to RFPP, but considering the backlog, I think this is a more urgent manner. wizzito | say hello! 19:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the article for a month. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour

I would like to appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Emir of Wikipedia: Just to let you know, you now have a nice clean table for you to lay out your appeal  :) SN54129 16:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re fora

Hat process wonkery per WP:NOTBURO (non-admin closure) SN54129 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's a block, partial but still a block. Standard practice is to make an WP:UNBLOCK request on your talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 21:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ] I was blocked because of discussion here. Do I have to use template on my talkpage? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Per Jayron32, and in answer to the OP's question: No, he doesn't have to use the unblock template. (non-admin closure) SN54129 13:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Yes, blocks - even partial blocks as a result of ANI discussion - would still be a request on the user talk page first. It may be possible that the reviewing admin may bring it here for further consensus or not. Singularity42 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] To create a unblock request: copy and paste this: {{unblock|reason=your reason here}} ~~~~ Remove the "your reason here" with your own reason to be unblocked. If it is not adaquately explained, it may be declined, even if it is a partial block request. storm28 21:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ] That just says it is the preferred way. Will nobody it accept it if I do it here? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] If you do it on your talk page through the template it will be added to the Open Unblock Requests lists that many admins will monitor. It will not get lost as it can do here. Canterbury Tail talk 21:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] ( storm28 21:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ] Would there be another page I could appeal my block other than my talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Is there a particular reason that you're reluctant to use your talk page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Just that I have not been keeping it tidy and would prefer to sort it before I go adding more to it. It is the like the Wikipedia version of an overflowing email inbox. I did not imagine I would be the first person in the history of this project to have preferred to use somewhere else. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] (shrugs) User talk pages are where blocks are appealed. I don't think many admins care all that much how "tidy" the page is, or that its tidiness (or lack thereof) has any material effect on your request. In any event, I've certainly seen many talk pages far less tidy than yours. Ravenswing 21:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] ( storm28 21:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ] I did not mean for the admins, but for myself. I am not under any false delusion that how tidy my page is will affect my request. Totally understand that not wanting to do it my talk page will be interpreted by some as selfish or self-centred, but at least I have asked first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Asking once is neither selfish nor self-centered. Repeated "But will no one take my request anywhere elses?" is less than helpful. Ravenswing 22:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] I was asking a question. Someone responded with something I was already of, i.e. the standard way. What I was asking was if there was anything else, i.e. another way. I hold my hands and apologise that I did not explain clearly in my initial request. On a somewhat related note can you request a WP:SELFBLOCK anywhere other than your talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ] Comment: just would like to point out that even before Emir has applied for the block to be lifted, he has left a message on the Talk page at Amber Heard (the article which he is currently blocked from editing), and another on the article on Johnny Depp, asking people to contribute to Depp v Newsgroup Newspapers (the other article he is blocked from editing).TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] I am blocked from the articles (at the moment), not the talkpages. Nice WP:WIKIHOUNDING though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ] Is there a page besides EoW's talk page where I can decline his unblock request? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately, no. storm28 00:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ] I disagree. If a sanction is a COMMUNITY sanction, no single admin has the authority to oveturn it anywhere. It requires a community discussion. I'm quite lost as to how this discussion is going. Doesn't matter if the community sanction is a block, a ban, whatever, it has be appealed to the same authority (or higher) that imposed it. An admin declining or granting an unblock is against policy, the community outranks them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] It doesn't appear to be a community sanction. To a report, WP:PBLOCK, and El C said done. Then Jayron32 endorsed. Just a run-of-the-mill admin block, no? Schazjmd (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ] Not really run of of the mill, which wouldn't solicit other input (most of our blocks are completely solo), but it really isn't community either. Not that I thought it had a snowball's chance, but the way it was presented led to mistakenly believe there was more community input. Struck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Just to note since this was hinted above, but not directly stated, any appeal even an appeal to the community and no matter where you do it generally needs to give reasons or an explanation. With very few exceptions, failure to do so is likely to lead to failure of the appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] @ tendentious in nature—unencyclopedic wording, misrepresentation of sources (intentional or otherwise), edit warring, and casting aspersions against those with whom you are in a content dispute (e.g. accusations of "censorship" or "trolling"), just to name a few things. Even if this unblock request was made using the proper channels, it is highly unlikely for the block to be lifted by any administrator at this time, as it was in the very recent past and covered a pattern of contributions going back several months. My advice is to continue on as you've been doing, editing other articles for the time being, and then after at least six months or so, you can post an unblock template on your talk page where you make a case for why you should be allowed to resume editing those two articles—or at the very least, why keeping you blocked from editing them is no longer necessary. Kurtis (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ] The discussion of venue above is entirely incorrect. Everyone commenting is unequivocally wrong that one must use the unblock template to request the removal of a page block/partial block. There are no such requirements, and never have been. Literally, the page WP:PBLOCK states "If editors believe a block has been improperly issued that affects them, they can request a review of that block by following the instructions at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." It does give them the option of using the unblock template, but the first bit of guidance it tells them to go to AN. Since Emir of Wikipedia can request the review here, he's quite allowed to do so. There is not now, nor has there every been, any rule that says that he has to go through the unblock template. They just invented that. That being said, Emir of Wikipedia has not yet given a rationale for removing the partial block, as Nil Einne notes. Emir: Why do you think the block should be removed? --Jayron32 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ] I agree entirely with Jayron32, both on the procedural question and the merits. A cardinal rule for requesting an unblock is that you have give some kind of rationale--the block was improper, I'm sorry and I've learned my lesson, the cabal (TINC) is out to get me. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to see a rationale as mentioned by by other editors here. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] To the extent that I was one of the editors who said it should be a talk page template, I agree that was incorrect. I missed the part in WP:UNBLOCK#Routes to unblock that referred to partial blocks. (I would suggest that that be made clearer in the policy page, but that's a different discussion.) Accept full mea culpa on my part. Singularity42 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ] It's all good, we all make mistakes. Honestly, it helps one to avoid making such mistakes if WP:NOTBURO becomes a guiding principle. Following processes and procedures for their own sake, when there's a perfectly good way to do it otherwise, isn't helpful to anyone. --Jayron32 16:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply ] By the way, should we start a new sub-section (or give this its own sub-section) so that Emir of Wikipedia can give reasons for the pblock appeal? :) Singularity42 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]  Done SN54129 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing awards and honour, Persistent

disruptive editing

This SaNaNtha Hegde sockpuppet of [[174]] is back reverting and vandalism with disruptive edits over the pages. At Meena (actress), Vani Bhojan

with unsigned IP 27.61.27.250 at Meena (actress) - [[175]] at Vani Bhojan - [[176]]

with signed IP SaNaNtha Hegde at Meena (actress) - [[177]] at Vani Bhojan - [[178]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.88.20 (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated deletion of talk

Talk:Yitzchok Hutner

, in which I discuss my attempts (also undone) to add alternate (and preferable to my mind) anglicizations (Yitzchok, Yitzhok, such that appear in the New York Times and in Hutner's own English articles, and elsewhere) of his Hebrew name.

   curprev 21:45, 24 February 2022‎ 2a0d:6fc2:43d0:9200:950a:acd8:fce:779b talk‎ 49,673 bytes +107‎ →‎Spelling: new section undo
   curprev 19:53, 24 February 2022‎ Nerguy talk contribs‎ 49,566 bytes −835‎ No edit summary undo Tag: Manual revert
   curprev 06:31, 24 February 2022‎ 2a0d:6fc2:43d0:9200:b4e4:6286:6dbd:170b talk‎ 50,401 bytes +289‎ →‎Vandalism undo Tag: Reverted
   curprev 06:30, 24 February 2022‎ 2a0d:6fc2:43d0:9200:b4e4:6286:6dbd:170b talk‎ 50,112 bytes +546‎ Undid revision 1073680082 by Nerguy (talk) unjustified undo Tags: Undo Reverted
   curprev 00:29, 24 February 2022‎ Nerguy talk contribs‎ 49,566 bytes −546‎ No edit summary undo Tags: Manual revert Reverted
   curprev 20:58, 23 February 2022‎ SineBot talk contribs‎ m 50,112 bytes +364‎ Signing comment by 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:B4E4:6286:6DBD:170B - "→‎Vandalism: new section" undo Tag: Reverted
   curprev 20:57, 23 February 2022‎ 2a0d:6fc2:43d0:9200:b4e4:6286:6dbd:170b talk‎ 49,748 bytes +182‎ →‎Vandalism: new section undo Tag: Reverted
   curprev 19:30, 23 February 2022‎ Nerguy talk contribs‎ 49,566 bytes −924‎ Undid revision 1073627190 by 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:B4E4:6286:6DBD:170B (talk) undo Tag: Undo
   curprev 18:01, 23 February 2022‎ 2a0d:6fc2:43d0:9200:b4e4:6286:6dbd:170b talk‎ 50,490 bytes +924‎ Undid revision 1073575673 by Nerguy (talk). Why remove discussion of the correct spelling?! Don't vandalize. undo Tags: Undo Reverted
   curprev 11:37, 23 February 2022‎ Nerguy talk contribs‎ 49,566 bytes −924‎ No edit summary undo Tags: Manual revert Reverted
   curprev 17:33, 22 February 2022‎ SineBot talk contribs‎ m 50,490 bytes +361‎ Signing comment by 2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:B0CE:21B:B5D6:7E16 - "→‎Name: " undo Tag: Reverted
   curprev 17:32, 22 February 2022‎ 2a0d:6fc2:43d0:9200:b0ce:21b:b5d6:7e16 talk‎ 50,129 bytes +274‎ →‎Name undo Tag: Reverted
   curprev 15:25, 22 February 2022‎ 2a02:14f:1fa:7d96:9c57:8635:da1a:3796 talk‎ 49,855 bytes +289‎ →‎Name: new section undo Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit

2A0D:6FC2:43D0:9200:950A:ACD8:FCE:779B (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that attempts to discuss with the other person directly have already happened, with no response. Special:Diff/1073575385 Special:Diff/1073575673. And this does appear to be a good faith attempt to discuss how the article should deal with alternative name spellings. Uncle G (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. I will stick a warning on User:Nerguy's talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block evation

Long term abuse blocked user [179] has again being evading block with new IP [180]. --C messier (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Now he uses a new IP [181]. --C messier (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked this one as well. May be someone more skillful than me can block the range.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on behavior this could be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07/Archive. The IPs reported here are mobile phone IPs that geolocate to Athens. No obvious range blocks. I would suggest that individual IPs that seem to be this guy should be blocked for at least a week. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I reblocked both for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User: ZaniGiovanni

User

WP:NOTHERE

.

Moreover, user in is editing career contribution highly involved into the reverting any changes he do not like on the AZ-ARM related topics, He holding his positions in the talk pages (not interested reaching consensus) and involved in the number of the ANIs where he also tried to push his POV. I have suspicion that it is coordinated

WP:SPA

account.

Examples:

1. With no reason he reverted the valid DRN which I raised.

2. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lachin&diff=prev&oldid=1073940146 he started the edit wars, instead of reaching the consensus on the edit he proposed, and then on the talk page he again started threatening me and accusing me "'[nearing into another ANI report if I'm being honest, this WP:SPA journey of yours is becoming very disruptive]"; "[just edit-warring at this point for the sake of pushing your POV without providing valid arguments for your removals of sourced content.]";

3. Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan [he reverted the change on which consensus reached thru the detailed discussions where number of editors were involved.]. He not spent time to read the Talk page, but instead again jumped in to straight edit wars and accusation that I make an edit by myself.

4. [started the talk page, and user, instead of the focusing on the discussion, started his reply with direct accusations.]

5. Although consensus was reached on the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan page that information is [WP:EXTRAORDINARY] and [WP:BLPSOURCE], user started new dispute and edit war on the same information on Hajibala Abutalybov page.

6. On this case, despite of the fact that I tried to explain numerous of times that information is

WP:RSHEADLINES

and either need to be removed or improved, he continues to state same argument over and over again. User clearly not interested in reaching consensus.

--Abrvagl (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) You started multiple DRN discussions without even letting the talk discussion to develop or for the mediator to respond. The recent one was couple of hours old only and from the same talk page. I don't see how that's productive, you could've waited at least for the previous one to be resolved or for the mediator to respond before dumping random couple hour old talk page discussion into DRN. You also didn't respond to my last message in that talk discussion Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Missile_strike_on_the_nuclear_power_plant_in_Armenia or provide any valid arguments for your proposal for that matter, hence I found your DRN addition unfounded.

2) You're the one actually reverting me without valid reason in Lachin, which I also noted in the current DRN discussion and in talk page, see discussion

3) I explained my rationale in DRN and waiting for an input from the mediator.

4) you're an

WP:SPA

account imo, and it was noted by other editors from your previous ANI report as well, it's not like only I share this opinion.

5) Not sure what you're trying to say when I removed the BLP myself today when an IP tried adding it back, and which other Azerbaijani users removed too [182] including 3rd party editor from BLP discussion [183]. I'm actually in talks with the 3rd party user trying to reach consensus in their talk page.

6) ??

I'm actively trying to reach consensus both in DRN and in talk, meanwhile this user edit-wars and removes HRW sourced info, basic POV push and JDLI [184], [185]. They don't provide any valid arguments in talk either, see

WP:SPA journey and pushing their single POV. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Seems like the 2nd DRN user added from the same talk page was closed by the mediator. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I started multiple DNR on different topics. if required moderators will decide to delete it.

2. I have very strong valid justification, which I already stated in the Talk page. And ah, it is you who trying to add information without reaching consensus, not me "removing sourced information".

3. You reply in the DRN not even related to the to topic of the DNR, and you even in the DNR could not manage to stick to the topic and started [WP:IMPARTIAL] discussions.

4. My previous ANI was raised by you, where you very harly pushed your POV to get me banned, but unsuccessfully. --Abrvagl (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) It was unneeded as it's another discussion added separately from the same article in the span of 1-2 hrs, and the mediator closed it.

2) No you don't and the talk discussion is evidence for it Talk:Lachin#HRW, what is this "strong" argument I've yet to hear about? It's very straight forward. We have the HRW source, you kept removing it and citing "ONUS" without actually giving your argument for it. You can't just cite random guidelines as a reason for your edit-war, it's just abuse of guidelines. You have to have an actual valid argument for removing sourced content by a very reliable source [186], [187].

3) I commented in DRN regarding both discussions in talk, including the one I suggested you to open a DRN for which I fought was important to comment on.

4) That doesn't change my point, other users have also stated that you're an

WP:SPA. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I've recently closed some discussions on this topic area and while Zani's behaviour hasn't been entirely civil in my experience I'm not sure anything past a reminder to avoid disputes and have some more

Please ping me! 18:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:IMPARTIAL

conversations. He hold very defensive position and pushes his POV, while not hearing other editors arguments which he dont like. I can see same behavior from him not only against me, but also against other users, where he holds very defensive and aggressive positions, and he were involved into number ANIs / ban appeals agains other users.

That created suspicions for me that this account is SPA account, which aims to create this ugly situations where he continuously accuse editors on things, that they didnot do, and subsequently manages to ban/block other editors or damage their reputation. For example he collected information, created ANI agains me , and extremely pushed his POV to get me blocked. while I was not even involved with any conversation or connections with Zani.

Apart from that. Can you please look at the following discussions and help us to achieve consensus? I will follow your lead. Here are the talk pages:

Talk:Lachin#HRW; Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan; Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan

thanks! --Abrvagl (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not the only one thinking that you're on a single purpose journey [188], [189], [190]. I don't mind 3rd party giving their input in talk. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAPA accusations againt me in the ANI, in order to get me banned. This all look very suspicious, like coordinated efforts number of editors to ban me. I am ready to discuss and justify every single edit proposals I did, all of them were to improve article and Wikipedia, non of them had disruptive intention. --Abrvagl (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

What are you on about with this rant? Did you even check the diffs of editors I linked? Yeah, apparently everyone is in a big conspiracy against you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did I check? For sure I did. LouisAragon, whos first reply was accusations of SPA. HistoryofIran, who not replied in the talk page, but popped in the ANI with accusations. Kevo327, whom I mentioned above. But, all off these were groundless accusations which not followed

Please ping me!, I am ready to cooperate with you to solve our disputes with Zani. Thanks for the offer. --Abrvagl (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you should do the basic courtesy of pinging editors you rant about. Didn't you open another DRN regarding that talk discussion you're saying was "never replied" and the 3rd party editor closed it and basically told you the same thing? Yeah, for some reason you didn't address this. I suggest you stop casting aspersions and ranting about your fellow editors. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editors seem to be throwing back and forth the allegation of being a

fourth pillar of Wikipedia are. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Do either or both of these editors need to be

interaction ban required (they usually do not work well), or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Robert McClenon (talk), Dear McClenon, I wont say that I dont like Zani. Really, I can not say that, I do not know him personally and I like him same as I like you and any other people here. I dont think that Zani not likes me either. What I think is that Zani prejudge me and biased against me.

On wikipedia, I putting everything aside and trying to be 100% neutral despite of anything, because I like following rules to the word and I like to ensure that others follow the rules. My point here was that it is impossible to achieve

WP:IMPARTIAL

talks when you get constantly accused in different kind of things instead of having fruit-full conversations. Zani was on of the editors, who inclined to talk accusations in his responses, instead of purely focusing on the topic of the discussion. It was like bias and prejudice against me.

To stop that I taking action from my side that I will never engage to any toxic/blaming conversations with Zani, and response him only on staff that related to the article/edit. I will just ignore any comments not related to subject of the discussion. --Abrvagl (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a Non-Mediator

I have closed two requests for dispute resolution at

DRN

, because I do not know whether there is a volunteer editor at DRN who is willing to take on a dispute that has become ugly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me! 19:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Personal attacks by User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro

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

Hi all, I feel that this user is becoming a bit of a problem and resorts to very unpleasant attacks, particularly relating to two recent AfDs for Lelo Sejean. In this incident, he calls another user an imbecile and a racist and tells them that they're not allowed to edit any articles relating to Paraguay. Sejean was sent to AfD again this month and their response was to tell The-Pope to stay away from Paraguay football articles as well. What then follows is three posts which are clear verbal abuse. It's all in Spanish but I don't think that you will need a translator: [191] [192] [193]. This verbal abuse appeared to stop for a bit but there was one more incident. Please note 'hdp' means 'hijo de puta' (son of a bitch). If you look at this user's talk page history, they have had a plethora of warnings and have made no improvement. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add canvassing for AfD.[194][195][196] Their behavior in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lelo Sejean (5th nomination) is out of line. Their comment there indicates they are using machine translation to write in English. Has made no comments on article talk pages since 2020. Schazjmd (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block the number of personal attacks has been way too many. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "I'm in charge of PGY Football Portal and PGY Articles"? The hell he is. Beyond that, someone who solely requires machine translation to edit frankly
  doesn't have the competence to edit on the English Wikipedia. I'm happy to support indef block as well. Ravenswing 20:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:CIVIL... never a good combination. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Blocked indef. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• One unblock request made so far. I've pointed directly to the diffs that are unacceptable. Uncle G (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have made another, which I have declined. Canterbury Tail talk 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comes back to

WP:CIR Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, they still don't address the issues. I've also directly asked them about the Google Translate comment. Canterbury Tail talk 21:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see at the AFD discussion for Lelo Sejean some have speculated that Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro is in fact Lelo Sejean. Interesting to note that Lelosejean was blocked some time ago for sockpuppetry. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this user has now said they will "come back with other account" to continue editing, so threatening to sock. Might be time to revoke talk page privileges. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor doing something weird with repetitive edits going nowhere

IP editor 98.16.48.211 has added and removed a single full-stop more than 25 times at Melissa Perry (epidemiologist) here: [197]. I have no idea what they might be up to? Elemimele (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 IP blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing; they also seem to be evading a block on Special:Contribs/173.184.132.157. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Maybe the IP thought, incorrectly, that they could
    game autoconfirmation or extended-confirmed status for an IP address. There are a lot of myths and mistakes in Wikipedia, some of which are held by disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

To defend him, unblock the UTRS pending user.

Admin, please. Gnisu (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Would be difficult unless some context has been provided.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think that we know the context. Special:Diff/1074060180 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeezGod Uncle G (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW, I've restored NT4M's TPA, blocked the quacking OP, and voted "d" in what may or may not be a NT4M vanity-vs-UPE piece AfD. Insomnia! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndyTheGrump

No need to prolong this.

WP:TBAN) from medical articles. I had warned them recently, a warning which they did not heed. AndyTheGrump: warned. No consensus to block, and last block was 2013, but this is nonetheless very poor form. Next time, bring your concerns to a public forum, like here. Or, if you were aware of my recent warning to CycoMa1, you could have just come to me. Oh well, live (long) and learn (stuff). El_C 13:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

I think the self-admitted incivility in these diffs (1, 2) speak for themselves, but a tl;dr - an editor blocked several times previously for personal attacks and harassment thinks more of the same will help Dr. Wikipedia save lives. --Equivamp - talk 13:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because obviously 'civility' matters more to this project than killing off readers with grossly misleading medical content created by semi-literate obsessives cherry-picking poorly-sourced content they clearly don't understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't see how intimidation and insults removes, rectifies, or prevents the misleading presentation of MEDRS content on Wikipedia. --Equivamp - talk 13:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nothing else seems to prevent misleading 'medical' content either, maybe the answer is to stop creating such dangerous garbage entirely. Or at least ensure that articles are assessed by someone who has a fucking clue what they are looking at. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two things can be true here: an editor can be adding bad information that should have been caught by the AfC process and wasn't, and you're being grossly, inexplicably uncivil. One does not justify the other, and in fact the one probably undermines dealing with the first since it distracts from the real issue. Mackensen (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's inexplicable, the name is right on the tin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Interestingly, I notice that you were able to raise this issue with the person who approved the draft without the same awful behavior. That user's fault is arguably greater. They're specifically entrusted with the responsibility to understand MEDRS guidelines and their failure caused the Draft to actually be indexable by search engines. But no threats or name-calling were posted to their talk page. You've had disputes with CycoMa1 before, it seems - would that have anything to do with it? --Equivamp - talk 13:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'real issue' here, beyond the obvious one of potentially killing readers through misinformation, is that the project is being damaged by an obsessive and incompetent 'contributor' who is utterly incapable of recognising their limitations, and who refuses to take note of civil advice regarding their behaviour. So yes, I've had issues with CycoMa1 before. Which is the only reason I discovered this particular spectacular example of incompetence. Would you have preferred that it went unnoticed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest anyone killed by Wikipedia content should write in and complain. But it is a worry. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What I would have preferred is that such issues be caught in the filter it went through, AFC. Barring that, I would have preferred it had been discovered by an editor knowledgeable enough in the topic area to put the statistic into the proper perspective, rather than merely blanked by an editor armed only with a five-minute web search. Barring that, I would prefer the editor who removes problem material control their behavior when addressing it, equally when dealing with an unknown editor as they do one they have previously been in disputes with. --Equivamp - talk 14:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a thread here about CycoMa1's general competence and misusing and misrepresenting sources only a couple of weeks ago? I think it was related to Talk:Furry fandom#Gross misuse of a source. and Talk:Furry fandom#This article has deteriorated drastically in quality during the past few months. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but that doesn't actually matter here, as it doesn't justify harassment, intimidation, or name-calling. --Equivamp - talk 14:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the big problem here is that we're at risk of "missing the forest for the trees". The big problem here is that we have an editor that clearly does not understand medical topics writing gibberish articles full of poor quality sourcing, incorrect information and synthesis. The fact that Andy finally lost their temper and told them to stop writing such poor quality articles is only a small part of the problem here. I've been here long enough to know that in the world of wiki-politics the way you say something is just as important as the actual substance of the comment, but I don't think it would be a good idea to sanction an editor for being rude without considering why a long term established editor felt it necessary to leave such a message in the first place. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy should raise those issues at appropriate venues, such as ANI or AE, instead of posting the way he did at the editor's talk page. No where in

WP:PA does it say that editors are allowed to harass or personally attack others in name of the project. Isabelle ^🔔 14:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

(edit conflict) I am aware of CycoMa1's editing weaknesses. See Talk:Detransition for an example in the MEDRS area where I was involved. I have seen people lose patience with him in a variety of ways, but I have not once seen anyone use such frustration to treat him or anyone else in such a disgusting manner. --Equivamp - talk 14:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I do not think that Andy's comment was acceptable and there are much better ways of dealing with these kind of issues. My point is that normal people do not just go around leaving messages like that for no reason, and I think it is a good idea to look at the circumstances surrounding the message. If Andy had instead collected together 20-30 diffs and put together an ANI report briefly explaining the issues with each one the discussion would probably be heading towards a topic ban or CIR ban for CycoMa1. IMO Andy needs some kind of warning about personal attacks and dealing with issues with other editors, and CycoMa1 needs a topic ban from medical topics. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) You're thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#Competence issues regarding User:CycoMa1 which was started by AndyTheGrump. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, there was a previous ANI thread. [198] Which seems to have had no effect whatsoever, given that CycoMa1 is now engaged in creating another semi-literate poorly-sourced content fork of the article discussed there. [199] Not that I consider writing vacuous furry-fancruft drafts to be remotely as damaging to the project. It the rest of the furries amongst contributors (there seem to be a few) are happy with such drivel, I'll agree to ignore it, if you like... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at AtG's 'telling it like it is' "unfriendly advice". People have been killed by insane nonsense (drinking bleach, taking vermicide intended for horses, etc). No matter how much we declare that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and that readers should read the citations, they have come to trust that Wikipedia articles on medical topics are fact-checked, that MEDRS works. So an editor who is willing to ride on that reputation to publish dangerous nonsense deserves nothing less than a tirade of abuse. This is not a just a question of 'competence is required', it is much more serious than that. AtG deserves a barn-star, not time on the naughty step. --

talk) 14:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, please. What AndyTheGrump removed was hardly the touting of poison as medicine, but the repetition of a statistic as reported by various RS, eg this. And aside from the complete AGF failure required to assume here that the edit was done to "ride" Wikipedia's reputation in order to get something published,

WP:CIVIL makes no endorsement of abusing editors who are wrong. Even when it's serious. --Equivamp - talk 14:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for confirming that you don't understand the statistics either. AndyTheGrump (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more like you don't understand what I said. --Equivamp - talk 14:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit like reporting the survival rate for leaping from an airplane without mentioning that the persons sampled were wearing parachutes.

MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

OTOH, people can get on an airplane without having any trained parachute professionals involved, but nobody can get this diagnosis without having their own personal, licensed physicians involved, and presumably those doctors will be saying things like "Yes, the five-year survival is basically 100% if we do this surgery, and it's a bit less than 100% if we don't". This is a characteristically slow-growing cancer, and sometimes you look back at the mammograms and discover that it's been there, and been the same size, for five years before diagnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe it would help if AndyTheGrump changed his name to AndyTheLovableCheekyChappie?
  Phil Bridger (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Support. Theknightwho (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  support but I personally favor AndyTheGump. I mean, who’s more likable than Tom Hanks? Dronebogus (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree with
  WP:CIR issues. The statistics presented in the tubular carcinoma article for creation were indeed grossly misleading and dangerous. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Catfish Jim and the soapdish, I'd like to learn more about why you think those stats were grossly misleading and dangerous. Can you give an example? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Prognosis is 93% to 99% survival rate at the ten year mark if identified and surgical intervention takes place. CycoMa1 stated that there was a near 100% survival rate and one person was known to have died. This gives the impression that it's not a serious condition. It would be nice to think that people didn't believe stuff that they read on the internet and listened to doctors and scientists, but I'm afraid I stopped believing that in the last two years. A schoolkid trying to avoid doing his homework should not be writing WP articles on cancer. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A 99% survival rate is generally considered to be "a near 100%" survival rate. If we wanted to be absolutely precise, we'd have to specify that this is the time since diagnosis rather than time since genesis (a woman diagnosed at age 65 has probably already "survived" 5 to 10 years of cancer by the time of the diagnosis), and whether the number given is all-cause mortality (older patients die of unrelated health problems all the time) or disease-specific mortality. Or, indeed, whether those numbers are "survival" (the 99% number is always overall survival) or "disease-free survival". But at some level, since most people's mental model for cancer is "cancer in general", and since the 10-year non-breast-cancer survival rates running around 50% for cancer, anything in the high 90s is pretty much interchangeable in practice. Tubular carcinoma of the breast is cancer on the level of non-melanoma skin cancers, which are considered so non-dangerous medically that they don't even bother keeping statistics on them (they have a 98% disease-specific survival rate). The story in the doctor's office will be "You have pure tubular carcinoma! Feel relieved! This is good news!" And the patient will probably go home and cry her eyes out for a week, and resolve to do all the pink ribbon stuff, because all she remembers is that cancer is bad, and she really has no idea that in the context of cancer, this is not just not that dangerous. It's worse than the flu, and it's worse than DCIS (that's the form of breast cancer that actually increases your five-year survival rate compared to the general population – they're talking about reclassifying DCIS as a precancerous condition because of this), but I think there is a risk here of editors feeling cancer=dangerous!!!!11!! without actually understanding that cancer runs on a very wide spectrum, and this is very far down on the less-dangerous end of it.

  More practically, it sounds like your main concern with that sentence could have been solved by adding "with treatment" to the end of that sentence. This would have been a simple clarification for anyone to add. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps. I have other concerns after looking through their contributions, like editing numerous articles about intersexuality and gender identification after making a statement like this [200]. Yikes. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: dude I was new plus I was merely joking back then and I have already been called out on that before. To be honest right now I’m still debating to myself whether or not I should leave.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of his first edits over 2 years ago, with 20,000+ since. There have been no issues with civility in his editing in that topic area since then. He would have ended up here for it if there had been. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely open to the idea that CycoMa1 should be asked to stop writing medical articles (and that perhaps HitroMilanese should stop accepting them at AfC), but ATG, when you find yourself tempted to create a section header "An unfriendly and uncivil word of advice" and start the para with "Stay the fuck away", it's time to go do something else for a while. valereee (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. Ignore it. The WMF will survive for a few years even if we lose a few readers to treatable breast cancer... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say ignore it. I said go do something else for a while. Once you're back in control of yourself, leave a civil warning. Something like a section header of February 2022 and an opener of "I think you need to stop creating medical articles." valereee (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that 'civil warnings' would get anywhere. Can I ask how you arrived at that conclusion given CycoMa1's history of making excuses, saying it won't happen again, and then going back to doing exactly the same thing? (See also [201]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe sanctions would be in order. People can understand you getting frustrated by this, especially when people's health is potentially at stake. But sweary comments can sometimes just inflame vandals? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ATG, that diff appears to be an announcement of a wikibreak from about a half hour ago? valereee (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been involved in the topic area, but pretty sure I'd prefer a gruff advocate for sound medical science over the quacking of fringe advocacy. People are getting hung up on the wording of the message, when the message itself is on the nose. Also not a fan of filing ANI reports on behalf of other users. If this CycoMa1 (who should be promptly banned form creating medial-related articles IMO) has a problem with AndytheGrump, then they can be the one to raise it here. Zaathras (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the incivility was also directed at me, so I should be considered Sufficiently Involved to raise concerns over AndyTheGrump's behavior. --Equivamp - talk 15:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was uncivil to you. Had you actually shown the slightest concern regarding the issue that led to my comments to CycoMa1, I'd no doubt have been more polite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How broad does this circle extend before you no longer consider such behavior justified? Does this self-imposed limit on your civility mesh with any warnings you have received before, during, or after your previous blocks for similar things? --Equivamp - talk 15:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Andy if you cannot contribute in a civil way perhaps you need to take a break from editing Wikipedia in general. This is a collaborative project, with one of its
  Pillars being, Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility. You are clearly unwilling or unable to do that given the diffs provided and your behavior here. What do you plan on doing to correct that behavior? PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I think that, at least in part, this is due to the continuing interaction between AndyTheGrump and CycoMa1 that led to AndyTheGrump blowing his stack. I would propose a temporary interaction ban between the two to let this cool down. Other people can oversee CycoMa1 (and I do believe he needs oversight). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue is not simply between these two editors, as can be seen at this ANI thread and at his response to Equivamp. An interaction ban between Andy and a user that appears to be quitting Wikipedia is not the answer. Isabelle ^🔔 17:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please ping me! 17:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• There's a bit of a pattern with AndyTheGrump:

1. Andy attempts to deal with a problem user civilly
2. He is ignored
3. The issue doesn't get resolved
4. Andy blows his stack and gets taken to ANI
5. The underlying issue gets resolved as a side effect

If you want Andy to behave with civility, how about taking him seriously when he does so? 207.38.145.230 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A step that could be followed is that after Andy's advice is ignored by a user, Andy can bring the case themselves to AN/ANI as appropriate rather than trying to handle it themselves and then running into the latter problems. Warning the user, finding the user unresponsive, and reporting the user is absolutely within scope we expect and easily a means to keep civil. --Masem (t) 18:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because people need to learn if they don't snap to it, Andy will blow his stack? I don't think that's a great training program. valereee (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do? As this is a recurring issue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's try this: Warning: AndyTheGrump, please stop leaving uncivil warnings on user talk pages. If a warning is clearly needed but you cannot come up with a civil warning yourself, please post a diff to AN/I for someone else to handle. WP appreciates your hard work and diligence, but you need to get the incivility under control, and now. valereee (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a warning for AndyTheGrump is the bare minimum that should happen here. It's one thing to politely say to an editor "I think this set of contributions is problematic" either directly to the editor on their talk page or at one of the relevant noticeboards, it's another thing entirely to say Stay the fuck away from articles on medical topics.[202]

WP:5P4. If Andy cannot bring himself to being civil to other editors, and past history may allude to this being a long standing issue, then something stronger than a warning is warranted. The issue that caused the outburst is in no way proportional to the message left on CycoMa1's talk page, nor the contributions between Andy and Equivamp in this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Andy has been warned multiple times. As we can see, it has zero effect. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, then I'm of the opinion that Andy should be blocked per

WP:BANPOL, for persistent personal attacks. A quick look at Andy's block log does show a history of personal attacks. Though they are all from around ten years ago, the pertinent question is, has Andy shown any signs of changing over the last ten years? Or is this disruption likely to continue in perpetuity? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I think a one week block might do it.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you often see step 1, or mostly just the others? SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy has been here for over a decade and he’s listed as 2295th by the number of edits.

Don’t you think he should have learned by now how to not blow a fuse when something doesn’t go his way?

I just have a hard time sympathizing with him because he’s clearly an experienced editor but hasn’t learned to control his temper.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teapot, meet kettle. You've been here over 2 years and are 4631st in edits, yet are having significant

WP:CV issues, at the least. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you seriously comparing 2 years of experience with an decade of experience?

I admitted to y’all I was 20 which basically means when I first started editing I was literally a teenager and I also admitted to y’all I’m neurodivergent as well.

Andy is clearly older than me and has more experience. Yet he continues to break one of the five pillars

WP:5P4.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Also with the whole

WP:CV I already learned my lesson from that. You are just bringing up past mistakes and act like they are still relevant.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The cries of "but I am right" do not excuse their behavior. "I wouldn't beat my wife if she didn't deserve it" does not work in this day and age. He is an adult and completely responsible for his own actions. Period, full stop. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps clarify who you are comparing to a wife-beater, and how you think such comparisons are compatible with civility? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is being compared to or being called a wife-beater, it is a metaphor. PackMecEng (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if I described someone as an asshole for using such metaphors, that would be synecdoche. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look, it's cocktail hour... valereee (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles topic ban for CycoMa1

• Apparently CycoMa1 is taking a break from Wikipedia until April 9. I suggest it would be useful if they find they are topic-banned from medical articles when they return. Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would. And I'd suggest that maybe someone familiar with Wikipedia copyright policy might be asked to look at their broader content too. From what I've seen, CycoMa1's content tends to fall along a line between very close paraphrasing of sources, and illiteracy. The latter is (barring bad medical advice) just Wikipedia's problem, but the former might possibly be of more significance. Mostly the cherry-pickings are short (and lacking context), but some might step over the line, maybe? Not my field of expertise, but some of it looks questionable to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban, of indefinite duration, from all MEDRS-articles, broadly construed, for CycoMa1 on the grounds of gross
  be pointless. Per BlakKite: It would be useful if they find they are topic-banned from medical articles when they return. SN54129 15:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Normally I'd want to see input, also, but while I do think their taking a break sounds like a good idea, I don't think this should go away in the meantime. I have no objection to them appealing upon their return from their break. valereee (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per SN54129. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Guys I haven’t even touched medical topics in a long time anyway. Like I didn’t even touch that draft that was accepted by AFC. You guys are going around suggesting a topic ban over a draft that hasn’t been touched in a long time. Plus have you guys seen my other medical articles. No one has issues with those other articles.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Plus that draft was deleted anyway.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually nevermind I decided to retire Wikipedia takes too much of my time and its gotten boring.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Instead of that, perhaps just agree to a voluntary restriction? i.e. you simply pledge to stay away from medical topics, rem0ove them all from your watchlist, etc... Then go about editing topics that are less controversial that interest you. Zaathras (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No I’m quitting because apparently an uncivil editor like AndyTheGrump can just get away with uncivility and he acts like he’s the boss yet he’s been blocked so many times. Plus this site has gotten boring for me anyway and it takes up too much of time. I have better hobbies than this and I should get onto doing school work.CycoMa1 (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind about quitting to be honest.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. The community seems to be supporting a ban not just because they see disruptive editing in the past, but because they expect that pattern to continue into the future. Replying that the community's concerns are not relevant rather than admitting your shortcomings will only weaken the community's expectation that you can learn how to edit MEDRS constructively,

  Please ping me! 16:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  By 'a long time' do you mean a week? -

  MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support although I haven't crossed their path recently, it appears as if they are still being difficult, and I have every sympathy with AndyTheGrump... and yes, it is my real name. -RoxAndy the Grumpy dog. wooF 16:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and suggest we do indeed have a look at his other medical articles. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Cancer recurrence), concern is warranted. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  And Banki syndrome contains text copy/pasted from a US Govt site without attribution: I've fixed that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With Banki syndrome I didn’t even do much of the work on that anyway.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox with the copy/paste without attribution was one of your contributions, CycoMa1. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I warned CycoMa1 for copyright violations recently (not just unattributed use of public domain content, but copying from an obviously copyrighted source [203]). Looking at the cancer recurrence article, I quickly found another instance of unacceptably close paraphrasing (article: local recurrence after surgery with curative intent is regularly observed within 2 years for a majority of patients; source: Local recurrence after resection with curative intent is frequently observed within 2 years for the majority of patients)... just a trivial swap of two words. I worry that the issues with this user may extend beyond their editing of medical articles. Spicy (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CV. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

See also Wells-Jankovic syndrome, also created in September 2021. The article is a copyvio with trivial changes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I’ve found more very recent copy violations. I’m dealing with them one by one. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support After reading
  WP:CIR grounds. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I strongly suggest that CycoMa1 pick ONE area that he is interested in, and contribute to that topic only. When you see how many different areas he's tried to write articles in, you understand how he can easily go way beyond his competency, and currently appears to lack the experience that would help him understand when he is working well beyond his current capabilities and expertise. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Before blanking his userpage, he was in the following WikiProjects: Missing article, Mythology, Paranormal, Folklore, Religion, Sexology and sexuality, Biology, Ecology, Plants, Animals, Medicine, Geography, Furry, LGBT studies, History, Unreferenced articles, Missouri, and Geology. That's eighteen different projects, many of which are far afield from one another. Pick one and stick to it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support given the unwillingness to voluntarily step away from the topic area. Zaathras (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Too many excuses, not enough maturity yet. Miniapolis 01:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I can't read the underlying diff that led to this dispute so I won't give an opinion on this topic ban (perhaps the diff [204] on tubular carcinomas changes everything). But from the evidence I can see here, CycoMa's problems aren't related to medical topics in particular. They are deeper than that and as someone who commented at the furry fandom thread this seems to be an ongoing problem that won't be prevented or addressed by t-banning from medical topics. All that will happen is the disruptive editing will be displaced to other topic areas. CycoMa needs time to become more mature and understand what they are and are not competent at doing. They also need to understand when to stop talking, give up, and apologize because they thought they knew more than they actually did. This is a life lesson that will likely not be taught by a medical article t-ban. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support at the minimum, though I share Chess' concerns. Given the issues with copyvios, misuse of sources, original reasearch/synthesis and poor quality English it would not surprise me if we were back here in a few months. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block for AndyTheGrump

• This was just on this notice board two weeks ago.[205] Given the diffs here, his behavior in this discussion, and the various previous discussions on this noticeboard I am purposing AndyTheGrump receive a block. Please comment below with thoughts on the issue and a possible duration. PackMecEng (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Two weeks pre all the previous blocks. PackMecEng (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A two week block seems fine.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't believe that's necessary. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn’t Andy warned multiple times? I’m pretty sure giving him another warning wouldn’t help.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Too soon. I think we need to see the outcome of the above proposal "Medical articles topic ban for CycoMa1". Whether it's cocktail hour or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What aspect of Andy's incivility becomes lesser or greater if CycoMa1 is or is not topic banned from medical articles? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it's better to treat one issue at a time. The outcome of the proposed action against CycoMa1 is likely to sway my assessment of AndyTheGrump's incivility in that area. Sorry if you think these two topics are wholly separate. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could set a bad precedent, in that it allows for incivility directed at an editor so long as that editor is issued some sort of ban or block. I don't see any circumstances where Andy's incivility is warranted or acceptable. Frustration and anger because of the actions of another? Sure, that's part of being human. Acting on that frustration and anger and lashing out at another is unacceptable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - There are two issues at play here. Whether or not CycoMa1 should receive a topic ban from medical articles has no bearing on the disproportionate and unwarranted level of incivility demonstrated by AndyTheGrump. A glance over his block log history, and past discussions show that this is a chronic and long standing issue. This isn't an issue where only one editor is at fault. Both issues can be equally valid and need resolutions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this reply on AndyTheGrump's talk page, I think a block of longer than two week's is necessary. To say (translation)I roar/growl/howl/rage therefore I am, followed by the paragraph on an intentional disregard of civility, which is part of the five pillars per

WP:NOTHERE. Specifically per Little or no interest in working collaboratively, and Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention. I would suggest a longer term block on the order of 3 to 6 months, if not indefinite, given that Andy seems unwilling to moderate his own behaviour and actions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Having spent more time on my response to Girth Summit's comments on my talk page than was probably necessary, I'd be happy for more people to read it. And then decide whether they are going to block me for showing self-awareness, or for showing doublepluss-ungood-think with regard to Wikipedian creation mythology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and nice use of selective translation, by the way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: dare I say it, but while Andy absolutely should have brought the issue to ANI rather than taking it out on the editor, anger is a perfectly reasonable response sometimes, and dangerous misinformation strikes me as one of those times. That being said, I would strongly suggest that Andy spends some time away from disputes like these until he has a better sense for when issues need to be delegated upwards. Theknightwho (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous misinformation.

Keep in mind this is Wikipedia, teachers say nonstop “Wikipedia is not a reliable source.” Even Wikipedia itself says it isn’t a reliable source.

He has been uncivil for years with little signs of stopping. Also

WP:CIVIL doesn’t say anything about whether or not uncivil behavior is justifiable due to misinformation.CycoMa1 (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Very true, but I did actually say Andy absolutely should have brought the issue to ANI rather than taking it out on the editor. Plus the fact that a source purports itself not to be reliable isn't particularly relevant to whether or not it's reasonable to be angry at the propagation of misinformation on a website with one of the largest reaches in the world. Theknightwho (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the only reason he found out about the issue was because he was

WP:HOUNDING me. Before his outburst on my userpage the last time I interacted with the guy was like a week ago.CycoMa1 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I was hounding you by not interacting? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I believe I used the wrong terminology. But you were following me around nonetheless.

Your uncivil comment appeared like it was fueled by revenge or a grudge rather than something serious.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @CycoMa1: I don't predict that your continued comments of this nature are going to be of any benefit, either to this proposal or to the one regarding your edits. --Equivamp - talk 01:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as previous warnings about this behavior have gone unheeded. A minimum two week block should be instituted. ––FormalDude talk 01:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose AtG's heart is in the right place, I think, and I've seen too many civility crusades like this used to string good editors up. Miniapolis 01:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support. I don't have an opinion about duration - previous blocks of similar length have clearly not resolved the issue, but the last one was some time ago, and I'm not familiar with how such a thing would normally be handled. I am frankly appalled at the number of editors who seemed to think AndyTheGrump's behavior is justified because my reporting it lead to additional eyes on CycoMa's edits, or worse, because a misrepresentation of CycoMa's stub cancer article as dangerous, fringe lunacy is so terrible that he deserves verbal abuse from someone wikihounding him. This has surely contributed to AndyTheGrump's continued insistence that he acted unassailably and less than a block will merely reaffirm such an idea. --Equivamp - talk 01:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The previous two-week block for uncivil behavior (vandalizing a user talk page, multiple times, to call someone a "homophobic turd" [206][207][208]) obviously hasn't worked. I suggest at least a month minimum. The next violation should be indef. Also, I think the closer should discard Oppose votes like the one above that basically says "Incivility is a perfectly reasonable response", which clearly contradicts a fundamental policy (and pillar) of Wikipedia. Consensus cannot be based on arguments that violate policy. Modulus12 (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you really suggesting that a ten year old block is relevant to this? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And frankly I disagree with that block. The "victim" there was indeed a homophobic turd [209]. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, very reluctantly. CycoMa1 has really overextended himself and the lack of competence is notable in many of the areas he is trying to contribute to. I, too, am upset at some of the poor contributions CycoMa1 has made. That said, there is a good future for CycoMa1 if he backs away and listens to the counsel people have provided. The extreme language used by AndyTheGrump does not contribute to the encyclopedia and is counterproductive when trying to improve CycoMa1's future contributions to Wikipedia.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And for duration, I support one week. We're not here to punish someone, but to protect Wikipedia. One week should be enough for AndyTheGrump to cool down and give thought to his future actions when dealing with frustrating people. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No to cool-down blocks. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Those comments were wayyyy over the line. There were far better ways to have phrased it and it's not a binary choice between doing nothing or writing what he did. Another editor here brought up what they say to be the typical chain of events. AndyTheGrump attempts to deal with an issue civilly, is ignored, then loses his shit, and the underlying issue gets resolved at ANI as a side effect of the civility thing. As someone who hasn't interacted with AndyTheGrump very often, what exactly was stopping him from just starting another thread here at ANI? I understand that the previous thread didn't result in consequences, but that's because it was the warning thread. A second thread likely would have and currently is resulting in sanctions against CycoMa. I'll throw 1 month out of my hat because this continues to get worse. Being right is not an excuse here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Andy needs to be advised to phrase his warnings in a much less overtly confrontational and profane manner, which I have just done. CycoMa1, on the other hand, is introducing dangerous garbage into the encyclopedia, and that is a much more serious matter. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support two-week minimum block. I don’t care how fucking stupid a user is, you don’t treat them like that. AtG was and is being, quite frankly, a [redacted] meanie-butt. Human decency is one of the core values of this project. Saying someone is beneath it for being stupid and incompetent is an atrocious precedent. Dronebogus (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the difference between saying an editor is acting like an "asshole" and telling an editor to "fuck off, fuckwit"? Levivich 08:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      WP:legal threats and his verbal abuse goes beyond just calling someone “fuckwit”. He’s not just insulting someone in a moment of anger (like I just did)— he’s clearly trying to bully them off the encyclopedia (and at least partly succeeding), which is absolutely not okay. But since you politely complained I’m being polite in return and redacting it. Dronebogus (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]

WP:legal threats? How on earth did you come up with that ludicrous assertion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• • • • @
        WP:HOUNDING? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
    • He’s also already stooped to vandalizing someone’s userpage with juvenile insults multiple times, which is just pathetic and should make anyone think twice about someone’s ability to obey
      WP:CIVIL. Dronebogus (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Do you just not believe in diffs, Dronebogus? Bishonen | tålk 13:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• Support He was just here days ago for dropping the r-slur on someone. The nastiness is getting worse and there will be more victims. 2600:387:F:401B:0:0:0:B (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose punitive traffic-ticketry given the circumstances. Just because it's easy to point out a violation of WP:CIV doesn't mean we should block. Better to figure out how to stop the underlying issue of "introducing dangerous garbage" per Cullen. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The enthusiasts above might like to read
  WP:COOLDOWN. While it would be great if everyone was always nice, the fact is that people are different and they react differently when they see repeated article damage. My current strategy is to walk away because I'm busy with other things and someone else will fix the problem. Andy cares enough to stay the course and be that person who actually fixes the problem. It's unfortunate that he vents occasionally but the aim of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not offer false civility to people who should not be here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Being right doesn't mean you have to be a **** about it. —
  or here) 10:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Whilst I am sure that Andy will no doubt talk himself into a block at some point in the future with his occasional outbursts, I note that CyCoMa1 (who caused the entire issue in the first place) has been quite vocal in his angling for a block above, and I am uncomfortable with being seen to reward his behaviour on this occasion. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per no previous blocks in a ~decade and NOCOOLDOWN. The support is unconvincing, not to say mealy-mouthed. SN54129 12:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Punitive, or even puny, traffic-ticketry, per
  bludgeoning of this very discussion by CycoMa1. Bishonen | tålk 13:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC).[reply
  ]

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

Personal attack

I'd like to ask the administrators to appropriately sanction User:Jonny84 in order to prevent further disruptions, as the user continues to add disputed material to the Zabierzewo (a small village in Poland) article. This includes statements such as: "Before 1945 the area was part of Germany." [210], "Polish population brought in from the Soviet Western Ukraine and Belarus, where Poles had to leave following the previous aggressions in wars against Ukraine and Soviet Russia in the 1920s." [211], and "Till 1871 it belonged to different German States and was Part of Prussia." [212]. What makes this behavior paritaulariy problematic is that this village has a population of only 150 and apparently the only thing that matters to user Jonny84 is the need to highlight that this area belonged Germany at some point in the past. This is a clear POV push to add all this to an article which originally just looked like this: [213]

Also, when I informed the user of that this type of controversial subject matter is under discretionary sanctions he removed my message form his talk page writing: "What is the sense of this? I will not deal with a nationalist like you." [214]. --E-960 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960, you didn't open a talk page section at the article in question? valereee (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he wants sanction me, for putting in informations, which are facts.. That's funny as f***.. While he deletes German place names, which were sourced... While he puts in informations in nummerous articles without ANY SOURCE. I guess he lives in another reality.. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope E-960 will get consequences for his vandalism and his POVish edits. He tries to block me, because I'm trying to stop his vandalism. Dear Admins please think about it. Thanks. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

valereee, from what I understand the person proposing the new and disputed text should be the one who initiates the discussion and argues their case, the burden is ultimately on them to gain consensus for inclusion (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). Also, this does not address the personal attack for which I'm mainly filing this notice. --E-960 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@E-960, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to discuss at article talk before going straight to ANI. And this editor doesn't have a lot of experience, so opening a talk page section would be possibly a way to help them learn to contribute productively.

@Jonny84, you are not making me confident that a talk page section would have been productive. Take it down several large notches. valereee (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very active on English Wikipedia, because it's not much in my interest to work on its articles. But im observing since years, how polish wikipedians are trying to delete sentences about Germany in many Place Articles.. And I'm observing E-960's Edits since 4 years.. It's always the same, he deletes in hundred of articles German place names, even with source, statements about German history, even if it's a fact, and even more.. This is no coincidence. This is a really big planned vandalism since years and nobody works on stopping that. I can't ignore this mass manipulation. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny84, at this point the village has been under Poland longer then under Germany, so instead of adding stuff about Prussia, and the Germanic tribes, perhaps write something about the place now, like if it has a post office, as school, etc. Otherwise this POV push to show how "German" the place was a one point creates problems with historical context. --E-960 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, I would like to note that the statement made by user Jonny84 stating: "he deletes in hundred of articles German place names" is false. I do not go around removing "German place" names. However, recently I revised a number of stub articles, which included the problematic sentence: "Before 1945 it was Germany". So, I'd like to highlight and emphasize this misrepresentation, which was made by user Jonny84. It is simply not correct. --E-960 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't like getting into content here, but for purposes of better understanding what the asserted behavioral issue is, what is the misrepresentation? valereee (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh he still "plays his game" (everybody here can see that this is a planned provocation), trying to act innocent and ignoring everything, while giving nationalist and POVish statements like "the village has been under Poland longer then under Germany"... Totally blending out the historical fact, that it belonged to the Holy Roman Empire from 12th to 19th century. Communism is over E-960 and it will not come back and its fake history will also not come back. --Jonny84 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1)Everybody please read slowly his statement:"which included the problematic sentence: "Before 1945 it was Germany"" He just stated that history is problematic.. I know.. Because some want to create fake history instead, so thats why history is "problematic". 2) Don't tell me to contribute to articles, while you are mass deleting sentences, instead of contributing and expanding articles. Maybe to start first with expanding.. Deleting facts is not expanding, it's just the opposite. It's a reduction of articles. --Jonny84 (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny84, this is the second time you are personally attacking me by throwing around the "nationalist" label. --E-960 (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Content about the history of West Pomerania belongs in an article about that subject, not in an article about a small village in West Pomerania. Having said that (and acted on it) I see nothing wrong with including the German name.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Indeed, the former German place name was not a problem, and I have no issue with having it in the article.--E-960 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is primarily a content dispute. "Nationalist" may be an insult, or it may be descriptive. It rather depends on whether one's editing intimates it. In any case, this is all good stuff... for the article(s') take page(s). SN54129 18:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  54129, when someone says to me "What is the sense of this? I will not deal with a nationalist like you." [215] I take it as an insult, I am not a "nationalist" and I do not wish to be labeled as one. --E-960 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure you are not a nationalist lol, when it's important to you to claim multiple times, that the village belonged longer to Poland when to Germany, even if it's falsifying. You are a really good joker. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonny84. Me a joker... a nationalist??? No, just a mathematician I guess, please consider... Germany form 1871 to 1945 (74 years), Poland form 1945 to 2022 (77 years). --E-960 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you forget about the German Confederation and Prussia and so on... You're really bad at mathematics.. And there are some maps missing like these for example... But I'm a good guy, and I'm helping you at that ;) --Jonny84 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 
• 
• 
• 

Facepalm... seriously, the Holy Roman Empire and the German Confederation, were not Germany, look it up, Germany was created in 1871. You only prove my point that the original statement was out of place, and you have a vague and mixed up understanding of history. Btw, interesting touch by including the 19th century map of the Germanic tries form 2000 years ago. hmmm... this talk about the ancient Germanic peoples and their claim to the land strikes an uncomfortable tone. --E-960 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) Funny, so how comes the word Deutschland (Germany) existed before 1871 if there was nothing like that... The word Germany wasn't invented for the German Empire of 1871.. They even called it the "Unification of Germany", so how could they unifite Germany, if it didn't exist before? Ha? 2) You are trying to divide German states into parts without connection, while stating Polish Peoples Republic, modern-day Polish Republic, Poland-Lithuania, Piast Poland "as one" at the same time..(I would called it DOUBLE STANDARD = not neutral) I feel very amused. Your POV is not going to anywhere... This is blatant POV-pushing.. and creating and invention of fiction.. And hopefully it gets you banned one day.. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - whilst not having looked into the dispute in question, on Wikipedia we do not rewrite history. If a Polish village was part of Germany between 1871 and 1945, we record that fact. If said village was part of Prussia before 1871, we record that fact also. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, sure and if it was part of of the Duchy of Poland we record that fact, and if it was part of the Kingdom of Denmark we record that fact, and if it was part of the Kingdom of Sweden we record that fact. Not "before 1945 it was Germany." since the last ice age up to 1945, I guess. --E-960 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pleasse address the name calling by Jonny84, this is my main complaint here. --E-960 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny84, stop talking about editors (nationalist, joker) and start talking about edits. E-960, removing any reference to a area's history of having been part of another country does very much look like POV pushing, which is a behavioral issue. Stop that. The two of you should now be able to take this to talk. valereee (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

valereee, please consider the earlier comment by user Phil Bridger, the issue here is not removing history, but article balance, and full context. --E-960 (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Before 1945 it was Germany" from multiple articles because it's "problematic" instead of correcting the statement to something like "from 1871 to 1945 it was part of Germany" does appear to be POV pushing IMO and a behavior issue. Phil Bridger is free to discuss that as a content issue with you and Jonny84 at the article talk, but what I am seeing is a behavioral issue on your part w/re that removal. valereee (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the edit removed (this one) does suggest that the area had always been German before 1945, which is of course misleading (not to mention that it was unsourced). A sourced edit showing the correct history would have been fine, of course. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in this point you are right. But deleting it DON'T solve this. Now it's even worser, it suggests it was always Poland and never anything else. Misleading anyway. The only solution would be expanding. And i don't mean the addings of E-960, they are misleading even more. And last but not least, most of the villages didn't existed in 960, becuase they were founded by German settlers in the 13th century and were first mentioned in 13th century, so what is the sense in writing of Poland in 960? --Jonny84 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, but add what, more historical and unsourced POV nonsense like this which user Jonny84 added: "Polish population brought in from the Soviet Western Ukraine and Belarus, where Poles had to leave following the previous aggressions in wars against Ukraine and Soviet Russia in the 1920s." [216]. Lets try, because of the Yalta Conference. I ask the admins to carefully look at what user Jonny84 actually added, none of its sourced, and like user Phil Bridger stated: "Content about the history of West Pomerania belongs in an article about that subject, not in an article about a small village in West Pomerania." It's all about context, accuracy, balance and due weight. --E-960 (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a brief article about a small village. Couldn't there be a statement that refers to the history of pomerania or western pomerania and just states that the village has been part of many different countries over its history? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I can't agree with some of the statements above supporting retention of this content. There are many thousands of villages in the world that are located in places that have been part of different countries over the last few centuries. Should we be repeating the history in every one of them, even when no source has been provided about the particular village in question, and admonishing people who remove such content? Of course not: that belongs in articles about the wider region that has changed hands, rather than in each one of the village articles.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  And that is a fine discussion for the talk page. Unless someone thinks there's still a behavioral issue to deal with, I think we can close this. valereee (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which brings me to my main complaint when Jonny84 wrote this in response to me "What is the sense of this? I will not deal with a nationalist like you." [217]. I think at least a formal warning is in place, personal attacks and name calling are not ok. --E-960 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which has been dealt with. The user has been asked not to talk about editors but instead about edits. Please go discuss your content dispute at the article talk. valereee (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You accused E-960 (who I am no friend of) of POV-pushing for removing material that is not sourced to anything mentioning this village. That is a behavioural issue.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  So, when I see information in an article that isn't sourced, but doesn't seem actually dubious, but I don't know enough about that information to know where/how to find a source, I usually tag it or open a talk section or both. E-960 on multiple articles is apparently instead removing information that isn't dubious (but simply partially imprecise) and that it seems like they do know where to find sources for, and calling the actually-not-dubious but simply not-precise information "problematic". I'm trying to be open-minded, here. But, okay then. If you think this is a behavior issue on my part, I'll excuse myself from this discussion and someone else can take over. valereee (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant that you were accusing E-960 of a behavioural issue, not that there was one on your part.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Oh, sorry, Phil Bridger. The reason I said "Unless someone thinks there's still a behavioral issue to deal with, I think we can close this" was that when I earlier had said "Jonny84, stop talking about editors (nationalist, joker) and start talking about edits. E-960, removing any reference to a area's history of having been part of another country does very much look like POV pushing, which is a behavioral issue. Stop that", I thought that adequately addressed the behavior issues, which to me seemed not to require anything more than a simple "Please both of you stop, and start talking productively." I know that E-960 has still been asking for further action about Jonny84's calling them a nationalist and a joker (which I agree Jonny84 needs to stop doing, and have told them that), but at this point I don't really see the need for further action, myself. Do you? valereee (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil abuse from Ronherry

Background: User:Ronherry already has a long history of making personal attacks towards me, going back as far as September 2021, which was covered in this past ANI thread here. Previously, he has insulted my editor status, my writing capability ("not being able to write your own sentences"), accused me of not knowing what an FA is... general attacks that made me feel very uncomfortable. At the time, ANI thread agreed to drop the stick, and I felt that it was the best action going forward.

However, another dispute that has made me uncomfortable again happened. I was editing "

Do We Have A Problem?

" when I noticed that Ronherry had added unsourced information about the song's commercial performance, that didn't seem to belong there. I reverted it saying that it didn't have a source. (and the source that he later added changes from week to week.) General disagreements occur, until he takes it to the talk page and makes me uncomfortable again, by using my user page as an insult, (saying my "fan feelings" are "influencing my edits", even though the part they linked doesn't say either at all..).

I was actually going to reply, as I was open to having a discussion about the article's content, (for example, Anaconda doesn't mention Shake It Off blocking it from the top spot) but the hostility of their reply reminded me of the abuse I had received before from them. That's why I'm asking here as I feel I will be baited into an argument that will reach a dead end and just ruin my mood. I am frankly sick and tired of this hostility.

Pinging all of the people who commented on this specific dispute before in the last thread, so that hopefully they may be able to offer insight as they have experience with this. @

talk to me 19:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'd point out that you've exceeded
  WP:3RR on that article, having reverted four times in the last 24 hours (as far as I can see, though I could be wrong, Ronherry has only reverted three times, as some of their additions were different). Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The content was unsourced, that's why I initially reverted at first. Also, I didn't exceed 3RR? This was revert 1, revert 2, and revert 3. If you're talking about the initial edit, that wasn't a revert, it was just removal of content....

  talk to me 19:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Yes, but it was content added by the edit previous to it (by the IP). Anyway, regardless, I appreciate that it wasn't sourced properly because it would be out of date in a week, but it wouldn't have been difficult to do so (in fact I just have, you only need to append the date to the URL), and it is quite notable for a single by a major star to hit the charts at #2 and then fall that far the next week (it's not so unusual for more niche artists). Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be open to having a conversation about the article's content, which is what I initially wanted to do anyways at the talk page, before Ronherry threw multiple personal attacks and consistent aggression and hostility at me. As of right now that's my main concern. I don't really want to take any more insults from them, in all honesty.

  talk to me 20:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I struggle to see much difference between You cannot let your fan feelings influence your edits and this edit summary. Neither are worth the attention of ANI. – ².O.^Boxing 22:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Neither constitute as being uncivil in my opinion. If anything, I see as this thread as just bringing over the issue that should be on the talk page over to ANI. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, RogueShanghai has created a version of myself, in his head, that targets him. All I have did is safeguard

WP:NPOV in every article I come across, so when I perform neutralizing edits on those articles, some of which Rogue has edited on, he has problems with it and claims I'm biased. I also think bringing this up to ANI and making it about me without even attempting to directly address the actual dispute on the article's talk page eventhough I asked them to is just another way to deflect from the subject. ℛonherry☘ 02:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ronherry: Okay, now this is even more uncivil, you're straight up misgendering me which is ticking me off. Are you kidding me? Seriously? his head, that targets him. We have already had disputes several times before, and you've already used several parts of user page as an insult against me- how are you missing the part where it says I use they/them pronouns?

This is just more uncivil insults from you and I'm sick and tired of it.

talk to me 06:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Have you actually told Ron, directly, that you wish to be referred to by those pronouns? If not then your response above is coming across as an attempt to make something stick (which would be rather uncivil). – ².O.^Boxing 10:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you don't understand how quite triggering it is to be refereed to with pronouns that don't match my gender identity. Ronherry has already looked at my user page before using it

talk to me 12:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

To be fair, I don't know about anyone else but I generally completely ignore userboxes on people's talkpages as they very rarely provide any useful information relating to actually editing Wikipedia. I think the fact that Ronherry is presumably now aware of your preferred pronouns means that issue is now solved. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns came up in the last ANI, too, so one would think Rh could have picked them up there. Both this and the previous ANI left me very unimpressed with the behavior of both Rh and RS, I think an interaction ban should be considered. —JBL (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sergecross73

The OP was edit-warring and was blocked for it. Calling the administrator who blocked them abusive is harassing and unwarranted.

reblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

User:Sergecross73 is Wiki admin who unfairly houdned and banned me for trying prevent vandlism on the following Wikipedia article: Heartbreak on a Full Moon.

Someone recently alerted me on my talk page Link to disruptive editing and blatant vandalism on the aforementioned article; where large portions of the source article were removed without explanation or consensus. I subsequently reverted said vandalism as I've done so previously on the same article (as can be seen in the edit history of the article). Following this, a user falsely accused me of being sockpuppet account of another user. Because apparently its unheard of for multiple editors to take interest in the same articles and stop vandalism of said articles. Nevertheless, following this false accusation, multiple accounts left messages on my talk page alerting me to the sockpuppetry accusations. While this was happening, Wiki admin User:Sergecross73 started editing my talk page to remove said messages without engaging with me directly or explaining to me what was happening. The same users that were leaving messages on my talk page also tagged me in a message on User:Sergecross73 talk page. I responded to one of these tagged messages on User:Sergecross73 talk page and indicated that I was not a sockpuppet and that this was a false accusation. I also asked this admin why they were editing my talk and not engaging with me directly.

WP:HOUNDING

me, under the false and baseless assumption that I was a ban evador using a sockpuppet account. As part of their hounding, they gave me nonsensical warning of edit warring because I made 1 revert on the aforementioned article to correct for blatant vandalism.

Later in the day, I updated an excerpt on the following article Chris Brown. Mind you, the excerpt I updated on this article was previously added into the article by me. I was only updating it to reflect revised sales data using the same sources. The update was reverted by the same user who had been reverting the Heartbreak on a Full Moon article. I reverted it again to reflect the update sales data. Now as mentioned previously, User:Sergecross73 had started hounding me and monitoring my edits across articles. They noticed me updating my own excerpt on an article and ironically enough banned me for edit warring. Apparently, I was engaged in an edit war against myself (to revise a previous interation of my excerpt on an article) and was banned for 48 hours as a result of it.

They later tried to justify this nonsensical edit warring ban on my talk page. Apparently, when 2 parties are engaged in reverts, only the party that is reverting an article to its original state to remove vandalism (where large sections are removed without explanation or consensus) is engaged in an edit war. I explicitly told the admin that the real reason for this nonsensical ban was their false assumption that I was a ban evador and seeking to continue their edits. I'm simply interested in correcting for vandalism on the same articles. The admin later admitted that this was the reason for their behavior. And laughably enough, they implied that hounding users and abusing their admin powers to enfource bans based on false and baseless assumption is in keeping with Wikipedia policies. Eventually this admin did conduct a sockpuppet investigation on my account (which I had suggested in my initial exchange with them) and found that my account is unrelated to the ban evadors and sockpuppets they have had issues with previously.

Essentially, this admin operated under false assumptions to hound me and abuse their admin powers in a one-sided manner. If they believed me to be a ban evador, they should've confirmed their suspicions with an investigation beforehand (as I had suggested initially) and then taken actions against guilty parties actually engaging sockpuppetry. I simply chose to preserve an article as is and got falsely accused of sockpuppetry because of it and eventually got hounded and banned by this admin for trying to clear my name of this false accusation. It goes without saying that multiple editors can take interest in the same pages/articles and are concerned with preserving their contents; and to be clear I do have an interest in the aforementioned artist and their discography pages. As stated before, there was a clear pattern of disruptive editing and vandlism on these articles. Unfortunately, if you try to correct for vandlism on these pages you can get falsely accused of sockpuppetry and the disruptive edits remain. This is also happening on a number of other articles related to the artist, again without explanation or consensus by the same users. The main issue here is that these articles are being destroyed.

I would like to correct for the vandlism on these articles again but I won't do so until its deemed acceptable by another admin. Because quite frankly, the admin User:Sergecross73 seems to have an interest in preserving the vandlism on these articles and hounds editors who try to correct for it. Most of the evidence related to this complaint can be found on my talk page, the talk page of User:Sergecross73 and the edit histories of the aformentioned articles that resulted in the edit warring ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instantwatym (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I warned this editor about edit warring. They ignored me and kept reverting. So I blocked them. I told them they could file an unblock request and they didn't. And they didn't notify me of this discussion, I only stumbled upon it because of my watchlist. I also have no interest or history in Chris Brown or related articles. I only intervened because I was notified of a conflict unrelated to this editor. Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above the edit warring warning wasn't even justified and was based on the admins false assumption that I was a sockpuppet continuing someone else's edit war (which they fully admitted to as well in an exchange on my talk page). Again an abuse of admin powers without justification. Moreover, the edit warring warning was 1 sided and the admin also accused of edit warring between different versions of my own excerpt on another article (as ridiculous as that sounds). Following my edits across multiple articles based on a false assumption of sockpuppetry is hounding. Personally, it seems that the admin has an interest in preserving vandalism on the aforementioned articles. - User talk:Instantwatym — Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, your edit warring was unrelated to whether or not you were a sockpuppet. That had no bearing on your edit warring warning and subsequent block. You're conflating issues. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, not vandalism. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism in your opinion. It is afterall subjective. A lot of the sourced content in the article was removed and in my opinion it was done so in a biased manner and in my opinion it constitutes vandalism. Nevertheless, the edit warring warning was ridiculous and applied in a 1 sided manner, and under the false assumption that I was a sockpuppet continuing a previous edit war. - User talk:Instantwatym — Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an opinion. It's a fact. See

WP:VANDNOT. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 02:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This isn't the place to argue about your content disputes. That's for the talk pages you generally haven't been using so far. Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced you are aware of what constitutes vandalism. Aardwolf68's edit was very much warranted given the unnecessary bloat before their edit. In fact, I'd argue it was borderline

WP:FANPOV. As for the block evasion/sockpuppetry, I would need further evidence before commenting on the matter. As for the hounding, Sergecross73 was well within their admin rights to warn you of the situation to prevent further edit warring. If anything, the talk page should have been your outlet if you had issues with the content removed. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

User:Calton (1961-2022)

I regret to inform the Wikipedia community that User:Calton has passed away after a short illness. I've known Calton online for almost 30 years; the worst one could say about him is that he didn't tolerate fools well. He was an honest seeker of truth, and I'll miss him. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know, Jpgordon. I've added the various templates, protected his userpage and added his name to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, and have also arranged to have his account locked. Risker (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE

Besides their name being an obvious case of

WP:SPA Dronebogus (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

So you barge into ANI, link someone's contributions list, refuse to elaborate further, and leave. I'll look at some of these diffs since you won't link them. For instance, on the article Erich Honecker, they replaced the word "regime" in many parts with "government". [218] While obviously this user likes Honecker given their avowed "anti-revisionism", the term "regime" is loaded language so it would seem like they are removing bias (even though they did misuse the minor edit functionality). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t be so hostile. You aren’t an admin and nobody asked for your opinion. I honestly didn’t think it needed elaboration. This is about a

WP:GREATWRONGS. Dronebogus (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Responding like this with unprovoked “in my humble opinion” complaining-about-complaints is why ANI has such an awful reputation. The point of this board is to request rapid administrator feedback and action against fast-moving potential problems, not to argue with other users about who’s stupider. Dronebogus (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

boomerangs. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, I think the fact that PB is trying to justify their edits on talk pages, often extensively, is a positive rather than a negative criteria. I also note that they are capable of apologising to other editors when their rhetoric has been a little over the top. PB hasn't edited for nearly two weeks so there is no urgent problem here; I suggest that if there are future genuine issues then they are brought here with appropriate diffs. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PB in fact has edited today: Dronebogus has simply linked to the second page of their contributions. (Though their only edits today are five consecutive talkpage edits, and their last articlespace edit was over a week ago, which IMO doesn't rise to the level of "fast-moving potential problem"). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah. The point still generally applies though, to be honest - I don't see an immediate problem that needs admin action. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see anything that needs to be discussed here without seeing specific diffs. At a glance, most of the mainspace edits consist of the likes of changing "regime" to "government"... which is arguably more neutral. I'm not concerned about the user name either. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the OPs ANI participation has been like this, despite many comments about it; is there anything that could be done? —JBL (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An ANI could be opened about it? I'm a bit concerned about comments made in a different discussion above, where the OP appears to have made baseless accusations of

WP:legal threats. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Disruptive IP originating from Philippines

• 175.176.24.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 175.176.26.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This range has been going around various articles and introducing unsourced materials and/or factual errors materials since January 2020, I have warned the respective IPs at User talk:175.176.24.158, User talk:175.176.24.17, User talk:175.176.24.103, User talk:175.176.24.58, and User talk:175.176.24.34, of which they have no intention to provide even a single source nor have any intention to stop introducing unsourced materials and/or factual errors materials.

Please help to range block as they're using dynamic IP of which 175.176.24.158 and also 175.176.24.17 operates at the same time with same behavior of introducing unsourced materials and/or factual errors materials. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated at 10:36, 27 February 2022. IP hopped another range and started adding back the unsourced materials and/or factual errors materials to various articles. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And how did you know that they originated in the philippines? —

talk) 11:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Ctrlwiki Click Contribs, scroll all the way down, click on GeoLocate. Maybe not as accurate as the tools used by admins but should be more or less accurate to certain extend. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

•  Done I have blocked both /24 ranges for 3 months as there doesn't appear to be much collateral damage, and there are too many articles to be semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite Thanks a lot. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]