Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058

• User: Wikiuser100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User made changes that included softening the tone of the Council of Conservative Citizens and Lester Maddox, both of which are articles relating to American white supremacy. This user, in both cases, downplayed the nature of white supremacy in the purview of these articles (removing it entirely from the CofCC lead and portraying the view as coming from one organization), as seen with this diff from the CofCC. User's edits on Lester Maddox were reverted here by User:Symmachus Auxiliarus with the edit summary I'm sorry, but much of this appears to be subtle whitewashing of some aspects of the subject's bio; i.e., false balance and softening the language surrounding his pro-racial segregation stances, violation of the Civil Rights Act, and founding of the Council of Concerned Citizens.

On the CofCC talk page, the user left four responses (one, two, three, four) that were blatantly rancorous in nature, accusing

• Agree with topic ban Wikiuser100 says that neutrality requires that we use to the self-description of white supremacists instead of reliable sources, which they consider biased. But the policy actually says the opposite. Editors who are unable or unwilling to follow content policy should not contribute and the personal attacks they made make this worse. I suggest you clearly phrase the topic which the editor should be banned from. TFD (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Perhaps articles relating to American conservatism? Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Warned. AP2 alert also issued. El_C 17:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Overreliance on first-party/SPS sources are a problem, but the user is not wrong in the matter about how the tone about these type of articles, which can be addressed without adding content from those sources - we're supposed to write impartially and neutrality about these types of people and groups even if they have detestable views per

WP:OUTRAGE. --Masem (t

) 18:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about all that, but regardless, their tone and tenor is a problem. El_C 19:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Given the near-complete dismissal of what seem to be very valid complaints about the article's state, the tone may be harsh and dipping just into the edge of NPA, but can be rationalized and is no worse that I've seen typical in these types of discussions on other pages that go by unaddressed or are left without concern. I do agree with a caution that they're on the line related to tolerance of civility and need to step back. The edit warring is something to be concerned about (tagged with the AP2 warning). --Masem (t) 19:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Masem, I don't view there being any mitigating circumstances to ameliorate the nature of my warning —as a last chance saloon, final warning— in any way whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact. El_C 21:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "very valid complaints"?? So you think they weren't trying to whitewash a well known white supremacy group by removing a label that RS applies to them? Whycome do you only care about article tone when it's about white supremists or conspiracy theorists? If you think these were very valid complaints then perhaps you should step away Masem. This is getting rediculous having watching people waste their time rebuffing your rediculous arguments. I don't care if this isn't appropriate, this above comment is just too much. Valeince (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no whitewashing. NPOV and LABEL requires us to not speak labels in Wikivoice, but to use attribution, which is part of the edits they made to attribute it and move it to the second sentence of the lede. (I fully disagree with most of their other edits, the subsequent use of the group's own sources to create the false balance otherwise) The problem is that WP is required to have a dispassionate and impartial tone per NPOV, and speaking any of these terms in Wikivoice and throwing those as the first things said about a group or person is absolutely not dispassionate or impartial, regardless of sourcing. We don't do that for politically "left" labels, we don't do that for "positive" or other favorable labels, it is only this drive (likely due to the political climate) that editors force this on the right and far right areas, perhaps out of a RIGHTGREATWRONGS sense of need, and it clearly stands out as a major problem with our coverage in this area over the last 5-6 years. And when editors just seem to dismiss complaints like the case here, that's not helping at all, it creates a cycle that feeds on itself. Again, Wikiuser is not 100% in the clea of wrongdoing here, but the refusal to address valid complaints on the talk page and claiming their edits are whitewashing is BS behavior that is not helpful. --Masem (t) 22:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, you do not believe there was whitewashing, but the editors in the consensus discussion on the talk page do not agree with you. You seem to want to mandate how consensus discussion must be carried out, since you've now repeatedly described the contributions of multiple editors in that discussion as "dismissive" or otherwise impugned their value -- saying that the editors were attempting to "RIGHTGREATWRONGS" -- or have implied that they drove Wikiuser100 to take actions out of frustration, even though the evidence -- which I've pointed out below -- does not support that thesis. As to this being part of some anti-right wing drive by nefarious forces, well, this is merely a repeat of the age-old "cabal" argument, which rarely had any value, and certainly doesn't have any value now, in a consensus-driven project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I have never said there was a cabel; but I do believe there's a broader echo chamber problem related to how we've handled politically right topics on WP that is far more difficult to break, which the behavior at that article's talk page towards Wikiuser negatively reinforces. --Masem (t) 22:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no doubt there has a been an "echo chamber" problem on Wikipedia, but only of an echo chamber of the right, where Trumpism, the alt-right, Fox News and the right-wing media have combined to create one. Fortunately, it has been mostly contained in the encyclopedia by judicious semi-protection of articles, stalwart watchlisting and defense of the truthfulness and neutrality of those articles affected.

Although such claims have been thrown around, these is no appreciable "left wing echo chamber", because there is no left-wing media of national importance, nor any influential "leftist" leaders in the US who go beyond advocating a tepid democratic socialism.

I will admit that a white supremacist attempt to subvert the Constitution and do bodily harm to our elected representatives does raise hackles, but that's only natural, and it's unfair and rather insulting to label heightened concerns as attempts to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you believe that the editors involved in the consensus discussion on Talk:Council of Conservative Citizens#Whitewashing are NOTHERE to help create and maintain an encyclopedia, I suggest that you open ANI reports about them individually, and present whatever evidence you may have. Otherwise I think it would be best if you stop broadly WP:Casting aspersions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That's the wrong echo chamber. I fully agree in the political world about the concerns of the dangers of the echo chamber related to Trumpism and white supremacy and all that, but as soon as we put on our WP editor hats, we are supposed become dispassionate and impartial to that, and WP's voice and tone needs to reflect that impartial tone. WP can't take a side here no matter how detestable those poeple have been or have acted. We're not supposed to be writing articles in a passionate manner reflecting our concerns even if that's the way the media wants to present the topic - we are suppose to stay to attribution and keep WP's voice out of it, as otherwirse your're engaging in RIGHTGREATRONGS. Doing this right, these groups will still come out with articles that will not reflect well on them for the reader, capturing the key points the media has made early on, but in manner that still treats the topic neutrally and impartially. But the echo chamber I speak of is that too many editors involved in these articles let the media's aggressive tone echo into Wikivoice and forgo the proper encyclopedic treatment that we use on every other equivalent topic. The specific accusations towards Wikiuser of "whitewashing" and "softening edits" which are 100% in-line with NPOV are thus complete inappropriate since they are trying to correct this echo chamber problem. (this is not 100% absolution of what Wikiuser has done, as explained already). --Masem (t) 14:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Your understanding of policy is perfect, but your interpretation of how policy applies to this dispute is very far off the mark, and you insist on casting aspersions against the multiple editors who disagreed with Wikiuser100's edits in the talk page consensus discussion, which I do think you ought to stop doing, you being an admin and all. In point of fact, there are -- as I and other editors have stated above -- no "valid concerns" about either the tone of the article or about the behavior of the other editors in the consensus discussion, while there are real, serious questions about an editor who attempts to soften articles about white supremacists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that what's on the talk page is only local consensus and not yet evaluated for more input (which seems to be what Wikiuser was trying to do but made poor judgement and missteps that they should have know better given account age), the statement "there are real, serious questions about an editor who attempts to soften articles about white supremacists" is extremely troubling because WP is not supposed to take a side and is supposed to be amoral and dispassionate about these topics even if they are an afront to a large portion of editors/readers/sources/etc. per

WP:OUTRAGE. Taking the view that we should not soften how we write articles on these topics of outrage is completely inappropriate and aligns with RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It is certainty possible to go too far in softening the POV on such, which would be, for example, injecting false balance from first party sources like Wikiuser did include, or completely removing the "white supremacy" term outright (which Wikiuser did not do). But we should be letting the sources speak for themselves and not force that into Wikivoice in both a factual nature nor in tone if we are staying neutral and dispassionate about the topic, and this is exactly what Wikiuser was trying to argue on the talk page for. This is exactly the same type of BS (including personal attacks towards me) I was getting during the whole GG article situation just for trying to argue for a neutral tone, hence why I'm sensitive to what's being thrown at Wikiuser here just for trying to argue neutrality. Again, there are other things Wikuser has done beside arguing for neutrality that are of issue to be considered in terms of mainspace edits, but the argument that a user is not allowed to challenge the local consensus related to neutrality given polices around neutrality and the current state of the article are pretty much nonsense. It is very much an allowed point of debate. --Masem (t

) 19:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support AP2 topic ban, especially considering edits of a similar nature on
  WP:RS descriptions of the organization, and is therefore neutral by definition. To soften those descriptions is non-neutral, especially when primary sources from the organization itself are used to do so. There are no "very valid concerns" here. Beyond My Ken (talk
  ) 19:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)]
  • WP:YESPOV There is appropriate room for discussion on this matter, it is not a done-and-done, no-questions-asked policy matter as implied by the replies on the talk pages to Wikiuser. --Masem (t
    ) 19:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I'm saying that the tone of the article is neutral. Obvious, you disagree, but editors on the article's talk page disagree with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Predicating that edit warning and near-NPA are not acceptable and thus are points to be concern here, the behavior of Wikiuser in response to the complete dismissal of discussion on the talk page is not something that I concern actionable. Wikiuser probably is having problems figuring out a proper dispute resolution pathway here (I see they went to the EW noticeboard which is not right here) but they were trying to seek resolution and editors on the talk page refused to engage in that and in fact shunned any attempt to resolve dispute. --Masem (t) 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, your conclusion is not supported by the evidence, since I pointed them to the talk page both in edit summaries [1],[2] and on their user talk page. [3]. Further, the edit warring notification I put on their page [4], also directed them to the article talk page. There was absolutely no chance that Wikiuser100 couldn't have known what the proper action to take was to resolve the dispute, especially since there are numerous other edit warring notifications on their talk page, dating back to August 2015. In addition, an explicit pointer to using talk pages to resolve disputes was given to them earlier that year, in January 2015.
          This is not a newbie editor, they've been here for 13 years and have almost 54K edits. [5]. Their going to
          WP:BATTLEGROUNDy tactical decision than the action of a confused editor. Beyond My Ken (talk
          ) 21:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - though it's not the most out-and-out slap-a-yikes-on-that editing I've ever seen, this user doesn't seem to be approaching the extremely delicate topics of white supremacy with nearly the right tone or approach to their fellow editors. Articles on contentious topics need to be some of the most carefully-constructed articles on Wikipedia, and in that regard, this user seems to be WP:NOTHERE based on their Talk page activity. If a considerably more serious issue came up in the same topic in the future, could they be relied upon to respond neutrally and constructively? My answer, and my best guess, is no. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Way overboard for the two reverts on the one article and none of the second. The subjective parts of tone for articles is not a reason for a topic ban. Also the idea of nothere seems baseless. PackMecEng (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I proposed the TBAN not just because of the content of the edits (really? whitewashing RSs of white supremist orgs is "subjective tone"?) but also because of the inability of the editor to civilly discuss when consensus is clearly not in their favor. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, I just think it is a step to far at this point. I stand by my response. PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly support an indefinite topic ban from post-1992 American politics. The big problem with this editor isn't tone or civility, it's a) their insistence that the most neutral and accurate information about an organization comes from their own self-description, and b) the tendentious editing that follows logically from this insistence. People have explained to them that self-descriptions are not reliable sources. (We have a
  WP:ANEW, and the reverts are a very small part of the point. Wikiuser100 refuses to understand, or genuinely can't understand, our sourcing policies. Bishonen | tålk
  09:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC).

  Part of the complaint on the page itself was a charge of edit waring. Not sure what ANEW has to do with that? Did you look at the history of the page in question? As to the rest while I agree they relied to much of

  WP:ABOUTSELF in this situation I don't think it goes far enough to warrant a topic ban. I was a little surprised by the leap in logic it takes to get there. PackMecEng (talk

  ) 14:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose tban based on evidence presented here. Even if this is POV pushing, it appears the editor was warned. If they continue then a tban may be the correct answer. However, if they listen to the warning then any additional sanction would be purely punitive. Rope has been given, let's see what happens before pulling it tight. Springee (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose tban - this user has a clean blocklog, and I'm not seeing anything in his edits that is worthy of a t-ban. The OP's accusations that the editor is "downplaying white supremacy" is pretty far-fetched based on the diffs provided, which simply demonstrate the editor's attempt to comply with NPOV in a dispassionate tone. Pretty much the same words are being used, just rearranged so that they read dispassionately. For as long as I can remember, there was never anything subtle or ambiguous about white supremacy; it's blatant and easy to recognize without having to dig for evidence or argue that it's so. Implying that an editor is a white supremacist based on nothing more than one's POV is where the focus of an admin action should be per WP:PA. I can't help but wonder how things went down when the article about Hitler was created, and promoted to GA. I can only imagine what those editors went through to end-up with a GA. Perhaps it should be used as a case study for editors to learn from and to help them acquire a better understanding of what comprises NPOV, regardless of the subject or how we may personally feel about it. We are not here to RGW. Atsme 💬 📧 16:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What? No one -- myself included -- has implied that the user in question is a white supremacist based on the actions that caused me to file this report. I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you or if you are misunderstanding me but suggesting that this was done as a personal attack is

Godwin's Law now? Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record}

) 17:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose tban and possibly a
  wp:trout boomerang for people who have lost their cool. Let's try to avoid casting personal attacks, as Whycome do you only care about article tone when it's about white supremists or conspiracy theorists? certainly seems to be. Civility is free, folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrxBrx (talk • contribs
  ) 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose tban Being neutral and dispassionate is a requirement, no matter the topic, yet this editor is being punished for doing so? Articles, no matter how objectionable the subject, should not require editors to choose their language in order to pass a virtue test. If there are remaining issues with regard to dispute resolution and failing to use RS appropriately, then allow the editor to correct these. RandomGnome (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  "Dispassionate"? Did you read the same talk page consensus discussion that other editors did? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the basis of this incident report, in which Wikiuser100 is accused of softening the tone and downplaying white supremacy in articles. As I stated above, with regard to the additional issues raised concerning dispute resolution behavior and tone on talk pages, if the community feels these are valid concerns, then the editor should be afforded the opportunity to correct this behavior prior to a tban, in my opinion. I'm concerned that a block is being zealously pursued prematurely by the opponents of Wikiuser100's article edits simply because they disagree, the behavior on talk pages being used to flesh out the 'rap sheet'. RandomGnome (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not an unreasonable request given the sourcing and POV problems at the two articles mentioned. With regard to the basis of this incident report, you will notice that I also mentioned their

personal attack of calling us McCarthyists?). I certainly do not favor a topic ban as stringent as some have suggested but at least a temporary topic ban on American conservativism is not an unreasonable recourse. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record}

) 22:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the LTA previously raised here has returned with another edit here. It's different text from what I remember but clearly the same guy. --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision deleted, IP blocked for 3 months. Thank you, Paul. Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC).

Looks like this edit by 49.15.154.132 might be the same person, but my guess is that it's a highly dynamic IP and blocking it might be fruitless. Perhaps the impacted articles need some page protection? In this case it was Government of Delhi and Supreme Court of India. Shritwod (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. El C did semi the articles that he dealt with before, but it's very easy for the disrupter to move to another article. We can't exactly semi everything to do with Delhi / Indian politics. I considered a rangeblock for the obviously connected IPs 49.15.156.126, 49.15.144.1, 49.15.73.164, and 49.15.154.132, but 49.15.0.0/16 is too big to block (I did check its contributions, there's naturally a lot). But I know Indian IPs are an enigma wrapped in a mystery. Is anybody out there good with them? Bishonen | tålk 10:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC).

It seems like an edit filter should be able to catch them? Particularly bits that appear to be personal data, I think an EF would be appropriate for. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Back again vandalising Government of Delhi and Delhi High Court (example) from another cellular IP of 106.67.89.89. I reverted the two, but again they'll just come back on another IP. Shritwod (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• This person has been active since, I think, October 2019. I suggest monitoring Special:Contributions/49.15.0.0/16 and Special:Contributions/112.110.0.0/17 (drop these into your user space - I have them in my sandbox - and check them periodically). Very easy to spot. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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

I stumbled upon this editor making several hundred unsourced changes to vote counts (among other changes) on county (and other) articles. When asked about the changes, they ignored the talk page request and continued editing, including undoing the revert, only narrowly avoiding 3RR. When they finally did respond to the questionable changes to votes tallied, their initial response was a vague lie regarding what changes they had made, followed by another unrelated response regarding only one year's worth of numbers being changed. When they were once again asked for a source for the changes, they simply offered a link to an online calculator as an explanation. Followed by another source that did not provide the historical numbers they were changing, and finally a source that only lists the 2020 results. Within a few days, I noticed the user was continuing to change historical data (numbers of votes cast), citing the source which only provides 2020 data. I asked the user to explain the continued edits, was ignored, gave a final warning for disruptive editing (uw-disruptive4), which has also been ignored. This entire time, I was not the only editor asking the user to explain their questionable edits. According to their talk page, at least 2 other editors were concurrently having the same issues with their unsourced changes and ignored requests for comment.

Upon reading the user's talk page, and researching what to do about them, I noticed they have been brought up at ANI three times previously, and was blocked less than a month ago for this exact same scenario (followed by a second block apparently for sockpuppetry during the first block). I'm not sure what more to do at this point, the user clearly either does not understand how Wikipedia works, or just does not care. But it would appear some kind of mass rollback is required, or someone more experienced than me in the area of historical votes does some major cleanup/sourcing/verification. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a case of simple disruption. I did some digging on one of their edits earlier in the week, and I did find a source to support the data. The problem is with behaviour: I had to dig to find a source that supported their edits; they didn't cite the source they used. They've been reminded of the need to source their edits repeatedly.

They've added a number of maps that they created and uploaded to Commons today with county-by-county results for an election. Guess what's not mentioned in the description for the graph? So, effectively, we've got more unsourced data creeping into articles, after they've been told repeatedly to cite their sources.

I think this is reaching the point of willful refusal to cooperate. I've asked them to cite their sources for the maps. I'll give them two edits to see the notice of the talk page message, but if another map goes in at that point, I'm ready to block the user indefinitely until they engage in discussion on their talk page and convince us that they understand the need to cite sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Today's are not the first images, I did the same thing two days ago... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

At User talk:TylerKutschbach#Penobscot County, Maine, I engaged in an exhausing back-and-forth trying to get this editor to disclose the source they used. TylerKutschbach finally disclosed their source, which in fact did not support the edit. They then led me to another source which did. Just yesterday they made this edit to Hunt County, Texas, adding 2020 election results from a source that had been accessed in 2018, and which did not show the 2020 results for Hunt County, Texas. I reverted the edit. TylerKutschbach then added the 2020 results back into the article here, this time citing this vague source. I looked through that source, but could not find a link to data which could support this edit. Do I start another grueling back-and-forth with TylerKutschbach to find out where they actually got these numbers from? My real concern is that TylerKutschbach is a very active editor, having made 13,865 edits in 2020. Thousands of city and county articles in the United States have large chunks of election data added by TylerKutschbach, and I have found it difficult to find sources to support a lot of it. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

TylerKutschbach is edit warring today at Hunt County, Texas, claiming their edit is sourced by "Dave's Atlas". Back in December I asked this editor where in "Dave's Atlas" to look for county-level election results, and got just a run-around reply. This eventually led to a block for this editor, yet here we are again doing the same thing. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) "Dave's Atlas" seems to be

WP:RS? Narky Blert (talk

) 19:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I struck my comment above. I located the 2020 election results. My previous concern with "Dave's Atlas" was with historical results. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I will only provide my experience with the user. In the past three years, the user has made many what would seem to be automated edits when it came to population updates. The user would rarely provide edit summaries on their edits. It seems like the user moved onto voter records after being told numerous times to provide sources and at least replied to comments on their talk page. The first block they received in 2018 was to get their attention. Their edits have more-or-less not changed since the previous ANI discussions. I want to assume good faith but at this point, there is

no more rope to give. It shouldn't be a hassle to ask for verification for sources. – The Grid (talk

) 16:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

While we are discussing this, the user continues their unsourced edits... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This isn't the first time that this user has been a subject of ANI: [9], [10], and [11]. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Eight Short Preludes and Fugues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Francis Schonken has been edit-warring at Eight Short Preludes and Fugues and many, many other articles (see recent contribs) about the addition of Authority control templates by Tom.Reding. These are generally added without incident, and as far as I have seen are usually considered mostly harmless. I note that this user has a rather long block log for edit-warring, with the most recent block being for a year; perhaps the next one should be permanent. Graham87 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is worth noting that Tom's edits, in addition to adding {{Authority control}}, are conforming these articles to best practices on a lot of other minor points (using spaces instead of underscores in piped links, eliminated stray spaces after paragraphs, direct links to template titles and parameter names, etc.). Reverting these additions often means reverting these common fixes. BD2412 T 15:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There's also this comment by Francis Schonken (which was made while I was filing this ANI), which provides more context, for what it's worth. Graham87 15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Authority control templates in general are dubious, and in these cases, where they link to Muscbrainz, a wiki which repeats Wikipedia and sometimes has user-added text as well, are silly at best (and sometimes simply wrong). E.g. Francis Schonken removed this addition of AC, which linked to here instead of her. This is a relatively minor error, I have seen worse, as we rely on an external wiki (Wikidata) with minimal correctness and vandalism control (even compared to enwiki) to add these links to another external wiki (Musicbrainz), and then hope that they are correct anyway. Edit warring over them is rather fruitless and pointless though, as the AC lobby has won and these templates are added everywhere, no matter how useful they are, no matter what's in them.
  Fram (talk
  ) 15:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with Fram. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • FWIW I've fixed it on the Wikidata end (though I'll leave its addition here to somebody else if they so desire), but I'll admit that Wikidata can certainly have problems (see my comment there). Graham87 16:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• While I don't agree with FS's reverts (thank you to those restoring my edits), I am respecting them & blacklisting those pages so as not to accidentally add {{
  dgaf
  )  15:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  What part of Fram's statement do you take issue with, @Tom.Reding:? Tiderolls 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @Tom.Reding: Re. "I am respecting [FS's reverts] & blacklisting those pages so as not to accidentally add {{Authority control}} in the future." – apparently not, on the same article:
    1. 15:31, 27 January 2021 ("+{{Authority control}} ...")
    2. After my revert, 21:12, 28 January 2021 ("+{{Authority control}} ..."

  Sorry, you don't do what you promise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@

dgaf

)  22:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: no, you didn't keep your promise, neither with nor without nuance. Don't add where I'm a major editor, if that is indeed the nuance you're trying to make, and if you say you don't redo after a revert, then don't redo after a revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just looking at the first mentioned article: the template provides useful links to the French and German National libraries, and WorldCat. One questionable link among them seems no good reason to revert. Is there project guidance about the topic? Tom.Reding, if you see articles without the template where I am a major editor, please add it, - thank you for those where you did! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @
    dgaf
    )  16:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I started editing this page in 2008. I saw Graham87 on my watchlist: there were plans for
      Eight Little Preludes and Fugues has been copy-edited by User:Graham87 and I will continue editing the snippets about each short preludea and fugue. I had hoped to add a creative-commons clavichord audio file, but regrettably it is labelled "non-commerical use". Mathsci (talk
      ) 06:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  New day: I think it's not a good idea that principal authorship of controls whether our readers receive the information or not. What do others think?

  Francis removed it BWV and others today. I understand that denying readers access to information by a principal editor in "control" of an article is a practice supported by some, but I'd like to see that examined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  For clarity, I don't like the idea of editors "controlling" a Wikipedia article. Not at all. The idea disgusts me, it is more often than not an impediment to sound development of an article. If there's a point on whether or not to include a template in an article, take it to the talk page, and try to reach

  WP:USERGENERATED list itself is incomplete, doesn't distinguish properly between differences in the several editions of the BWV catalogue, haphazardly names a few "artists" connected to some of the works (not by far the most memorable performers of these works), and lags behind on recent information: in short, it is quite inferior to what Wikipedia has on the subject. BTW, not providing a direct link is not "denying" readers access to whatever: two clicks from Wikipedia's BWV page (instead of one) brings you to the same MusicBrainz page. We don't link to whatever information the internet is churning out, that's an editorial choice, not "denying access" too loads of low-quality material. As an identifier for multiple versions of the BWV, MusicBrainz's "(series/)d977f7fd-96c9-4e3e-83b5-eb484a9e6582" identifier is "exotic" (as in: not commonly used anywhere else). Further, the "External links" section of the BWV article already contains an "Authority file" entry, which makes an additional authority control system completely redundant. --Francis Schonken (talk

  ) 10:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining, only: I don't have the time to look at each individual article. The normal place where I - as a reader - would look for authority control is where the template is, not within the other external links. I guess readers are educated enough to judge whether to follow any link in it or not. I suggest to use the ac template and remove the other to avoid duplication. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  Re. "I don't have the time to look at each individual article" – nor do I. Maybe trust my judgement for the few I looked at for this aspect, and updated accordingly? Thanks. Saves you the trouble to look at it (for which you don't have time anyway). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

About Authority Control

• Unrelated-related: as I queried elsewhere, Wikidata — who here understands what it actually is? And can you spare a few brain cells? El_C 16:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It is a WMF project that is effectively a large queryable interconnected database that stores information on the encyclopedic topics and their various "properties" (for example, the "composer" of "Symphony No. 9" is the encyclopedic topic "Ludwig von Beethoven" from which other properties can be looked up) This database can be used by various scripts and tools across WMF projects to generate human-readable output based on the encyclopedic topic (such as this authority control template), as well as for external tools that help with the semantic web. It is meant to run parallel to how we editors here prepare information in places like infoboxes and elsewhere into human-readable organized forms. --Masem (t) 16:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • To add specific to this, part of the Wikidata for songs include the details of entries for those songs/compositions in major world music catalogs (alphanumeric codes or URL links) which is how the authority control template is populated by pulling the relevant data and formating the proper URL callouts for each catalog. --Masem (t) 16:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Masem. That should be in the article! Next rabbit hole: Semantic Web (new concept for me); wondering if the robot in-charge will want to be my friend...? El_C 16:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
        • If you go to Google and search "Symphony No. 9", Google pulls some of our data to fill that box to the right to tell you who composed it and when. That's part of the external features. But you could also do, in Google or possibly your local home assistant (Siri or Alexa) "Who wrote Symphony No. 9?" and that's where the semantic web comes in, the backend systems using natural language processigng to figure out that you are looking for 1) the song "Symphony No. 9" 2) that by "wrote" for a song, you mean "composer" and 3) using Wikidata tools to identify the composer as Beethoven. Perhaps a simplified example, but the idea is there. And as Tom Reding points out below, the idea is to make this all centralized rather than project-by-project. --Masem (t) 16:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
        • El_C, I've tried out half a dozen non-WMF wikis that used the WMF software, or a derivation of it.

One wiki I spent some time on was a Darpa project, focussed around counter-terrorism. It used an extension of the WMF software, where ever wikilink could specify the relationship between the current article and the linked-to article. So the article on Lief Ericson would say something like:

Explorer Lief Ericson's father [[Son-of::Eric the Red]], the Norse explorer discovered [[Geo-place::Greenland]]. Ericson, would, in turn explore the coast of [[Geo-place::Labrador]] in [[Geo-place::North America]].

The metadata before the "::" was the relationship between the two articles. So, they didn't need a separate project to support semantic links.

Related articles with a semantic-link to the current article could be listed at the end of the article, sorted by the relationship.

I stopped testing that one out about 8 years ago, because, while they supported this cool extension, they didn't support essential core templates, like {{

cite}}. I'm afraid, at this particular moment, I can't even recall the name of that wiki, I do recall it was a weird name. Geo Swan (talk

) 07:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• With the flipside of course that this way, you can just as easily vandalize all wikis, instead of having to do so one-by-one. Or not vandalize, just by mistake introduce errors which get duplicated all over Wikipedia, without most editors noticing this in recent changes, without appearing in page histories, ... That vandal and error control at Wikidata are dramatic is their problem: which, if any, entries to allow in AC, and which pages need or want an AC, is our problem and not an issue with Wikidata in itself (they offer it, we are free to accept or reject it). AC adds wikis, adds databases with no use at all for most pages it is on, and adds some good info as well. Look at e.g. Jan_van_Eyck: not only has it a MusisBrainz link[13] of absolutely no value at all, it is also very dubious that anyone on Enwiki will be helped at all by this, this, this, this, this, this, this (not available), this, this, this, ... All these are probably perfect for Wikidata, and this is not a plea to change this over there: none of these are of any use on enwiki, and duplicating all these authority control links is not using Wikidata for its strengths, but diluting it.

Authority control, just like lots of things Wikidata is used for on enwiki, is essentially lazy editing, adding heaps of stuff automatically without care whether it is useful, wanted, needed. It's available, so we use it. It should be either trimmed to keep only the essential ones (essential for enwiki that is), and/or it should be replaced with more tailored templates: for artists it would include RKD, for people from or with a link to Japan the Japanese national library, for subjects with a link to Czechia the Czech one, and so on. That might turn it into a useful template with a lot less objections, a lot less clutter. What we have now, ugh, no.

Fram (talk

) 17:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I tend to ignore everything in/past the "External links" section. Tends to become a dump of misc stuff much of which is of dubious usefulness to an article. Authority control is one of those things, the things on the right about "X project may have more" is another, and navboxes, many of which are just mass-added and tend to not be tailored for usefulness or relevance. TfD decides to delete subset navboxes (smaller ones which may be useful) as "duplicates" or "redundant". There are some articles where it's carefully curated to be useful, eg

WP:NOTPAPER", or other suspect arguments which advocate clogging an article up with everything possible. And it's simply not worth spending time over arguing over stuff on that part of a page, imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 17:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! I learned tons about this branch of science. I am fascinated by this ongoing debate (a much as I am able to parse its various components), though am not confident enough to opine in any way at this time. I might gently note that I wish the Wikidata article itself could provide the clarity that a few brief comments here were able to — yes, there's simple:Wikidata, but it's quite spartan. Anyway, carry on! El_C 17:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As an example, I have created

This looks like a good direction, but I am not an expert on the issue, and we should hear from librarians, pinging some I know about: @

ACArt}}? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk

) 16:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@

Fram: tried it & like it! Thanks, looks like we might be getting somewhere after all with this protracted issue. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 11:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it's exactly correct to say that Wikidata is " a unified, cross-language database on every(ideally) page on all wikis". It's a unified cross language databases of every definable object or concept,, which includes of course everything that has a page in any of the wikis, or that is mentioned in any of the wikis, or in any other reasonable source. I consider it very dubiously reliable for authority control of any sort:. If it takes its information from the wikis, it's no more reliable than we are; if it takes it from external databases, it's as reliable than they are. I don't know how it works for music--classical music seems a reasonably definable field, with good external databases, so it might be a good place to use it, but I am not a specialist. .

I do know how it works for authors, at least US authors. It takes the information from enWP, and from the Library of Congress database. (OCLC is just a unreliable derivative of LC as far as authority is concerned; ISBN is a publisher's database) Library of Congress was an excellent authority for many years, based on expert research, until around the 1970s , when it started resorting to simply copying whatever the publisher wrote on the book's title page or put on the copyright form. In the 2010s it deteriorated further, and if it had no other source, for an author's name or birthdates , it has been using Wikipedia. All the while, if we have no other source for an author's name or dates, or if there is a conflict between sources, we use LC. (VIAF for American authors is a copy of LC). Wikidata uses them all, and unless I am mistaken, has no real mechanism for resolving conflicts--certainly no automatic mechanism. Our habit of listing all possible authority control databases for an author strikes me as absurd, for they copy each other. (But I trust the German national bibliography for German language authors better than LC, just as I trust deWP more than enWP. I am unsure about the others) .

WD is potentially extremely valuable, for collecting everything in one place, and already it is remarkably helpful as the much-needed multilingual index to the various WPs. . It has not yet come to terms or even acknowledged the lack of exact semantic equivalents between languages; it has not yet come to terms with the unfortunate fact known to all WP editors that it is much harder to document data than to copy it. I am particularly concerned about circularity of references; the circular references of Google andWP is already a serious problem, and additing WD into the mix does not make it better. Every year that we do not definitively solve this, it will become more difficult.

and fwiw, I too am among them who tried to develop a specialized true semantic wiki--as the scale increased ,the work became more than I could handle. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Compositions of well-known composers usually have catalogues to identify them. For such compositions, any other authority control system is usually (in the best case scenario) redundant, if not exotic of sorts and/or copied from a less reliable source (such as Wikipedia). For compositions that have no unique identification via a composer catalogue (by a less studied composer, with a contested attribution, etc) another system would be welcome, but through the unreliability of the general databases in such more difficult cases (often contradictory, while based on user-generated content etc.) the usability of these general authority control systems is also of limited value. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@

An editor whose IPs geolocate to the north-east of England persists in adding poorly referenced dates of birth for living people, their most recent IP is 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:989A:5809:8777:508D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) but they have also used others recently such as 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:29D1:7AFE:FA15:D336 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:8158:1E8E:E0B3:434 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The "reference" they are using is raw data, and has been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#House of Parliament raw data for dates of birth of living people and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#House of Parliament raw data for dates of birth of living people and the consensus is that it cannot be used for the date of birth for living people. Given the IP hopping and history, it's probably a bit too complex for AIV so decided to bring here instead. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Now active on 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:73:3110:564D:47F (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) FDW777 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

CLOSED

content dispute, volunteer to provide 3O —valereee (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

User:Seryo93 changing coat of arms. --Vlixes (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• volunteering to give
  Wp:3O : To save some of the admins time and effort. It seems it's a common content dispute, 3RR hasn't been breached. - Kevo327 (talk
  ) 23:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Hi Bob! I've blocked this IP user for 36 hours for

disruptive editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

09:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah! Thank you--I'm hoping some editors will also have a look at the content, and see if the changes were merited. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd appreciate further thoughts about edits like this [16] at Lila Kedrova. My impression is that there's no definitive date of birth. I'm also curious about the change in birthplace name. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Pages that are mainly affected:

• Leon Draisaitl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ted Lindsay Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It all started on January 31, 2021, when Belevalo made edits to multiple NHL BLPs by adding explanations to the tables (for example,

Note from the accused.

User:Sabbatino has been shadowing me and deleting my edit. And even when called out and proven wrong, (example in the case of the List of largest sports contracts and the subsequent updates to the Mike Trout, Patrick Mahomes

articles) he made modification to said edits so he can have the last say. I can't say i care for the fact that he has to have the last say, but the behavior is toxic.

I have a lot of pages on my

talk

) 19:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And there it is. If you don't care for it, why follow me to them and revert me? Those are some of the most looked after pages on wikipedia. If i made any wrong edit, it would've been corrected. But no, you just wanted to undo my work. Making those pages into

WP:Battleground in the process. Belevalo (talk

) 19:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what a Watchlist is on Wikipedia. But I am not going to elaborate on that if you are refusing to understand certain things. –

talk

) 19:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't care, but you have them on your watchlist. You don't care but you followed me to hem to delete my edits. Belevalo (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

First, Belevalo, stop with the bad-faith accusations. People have articles on their Watchlists for all kinds of reasons, even topics they're not necessarily interested in. I personally follow some articles just because they tend to be vandalized, others because they've been sources of debate before & I want to weigh in as an outside viewpoint when that happens.

There is nothing to indicate Sabbatino was Watchlisting those article to "follow" you. They already had those pages watched, saw your edits, and reverted them.

Second, Sabbatino is correct in that references generally do not belong on the lead. The lead of the article should summarize the article's contents, and those contents are where you find the citations.

Third, you are both getting too far into

bad faith argumentation, even in the edit summaries. Knock off the insults & unfounded accusations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

21:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:POINTY cited in their block log. Lengthier re-block is warranted.—Bagumba (talk

) 00:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware that the editor has recently been blocked for similar behavior. –

talk

) 07:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Groguyoda

BLOCKED

Indefinitely blocked by GorillaWarfare for

legal threats. (non-admin closure). Jack Frost (talk

) 08:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

Groguyoda has been edit warring across multiple articles to include the opinions of a John Bannon, sourced to self published books written by Bannon. 100% of their editing activity so far has been to insert mentions of Bannon. They've been reverted by multiple editors, and have now escalated to making legal threats (see edit summary). -

MrOllie (talk

) 02:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely per

WP:NLT. GorillaWarfare (talk)

02:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

A few editors have been reverting all edits which replaced a questionable source with other reliable sources such as espn.com.

Above all else, this report is of an exceeding length. It also makes unwarranted speculations about established editors in good standing. The OP is cautioned against copying the same comment across multiple talk pages, instead of finding a central venue, like a Wikiproject, to discuss something affecting more than one page. Much of this conflict seems to involve a content dispute that has yet to see much recent discussion. Again, all of that at a glance, because this is such a lengthy complaint! Please remember that everyone here is a volunteer, too. El_C 13:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Even though there is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#Sherdog.com, which was closed with: The consensus seems to be that the source is less reliable than ESPN and other sources rated generally reliable. Some editors believe that Sherdog is reliable for some basic information, especially fight information and results, but not other information. Overall, the consensus is that the source should be used with caution, on a case-by-case basis., NEDOCHAN, Squared.Circle.Boxing, Cassiopeia reverted the edits which were made by multiple editors and IP users who replaced sherdog.com with reliable sources such as espn.com. It seems the editors in question who made the reverts actually took part in the rfc, opposing the eventual result of the rfc (Apperantly Squared.Circle.Boxing changed their thoughts later). They also were informed about the rfc in question multiple times by different editors in the edit summaries of the relevant edits.

A few weeks ago, an editor (78.190.164.254) wanted the help of mine and other editors, who took part in the rfc. They claimed (NEDOCHAN, Squared.Circle.Boxing, Cassiopeia enforce the usage of sherdog.com which wasn't found reliable at RSN, on the articles of Tony Ferguson, Dan Henderson and Conor_McGregor. I didn't really care much about it at first, But a few days after, one of the editors who were accused of some kind of wrongdoing, NEDOCHAN, replied to me in a very odd way. When I asked them what did they mean with that comment, they didn't reply. This raised my suspicions but I didn't look much into it. In the last few days however, when I saw them reverting an edit on the article of Tony Ferguson, I started to review these articles when I had free time, and I found multiple reverts of multiple editors and IP users which eventually has kept sherdog.com as the major source on these articles.

Since the closure of the rfc;

They have made reverts between 10 January 2021 - 3 February 2021 at Tony Ferguson.

They have made reverts between 29 november 2021 - 11 January 2021 at Dan Henderson.

The relevant reverts that were made by NEDOCHAN:

On the article of Tony Ferguson: 1 2 3 4

On the article of Dan Henderson: 5 6 7 8 9

The relevant reverts that were made by Squared.Circle.Boxing:

On the article of Tony Ferguson: 10

On the article of Dan Henderson: 11 12 13 14

The relevant reverts that were made by Cassiopeia:

On the article of Tony Ferguson: 15

In the last few months, they have eventually reverted the edits of; Chuachenchie, Theleekycauldron, Maximus Castiglione, Legendstreak0, Magnus Dominus, and a lot of IP users who replaced sherdog.com with other sources. Mostly espn.com and ufc.com. They also reverted the edits of those Wikipedia editors, which conflicted with sherdog.com but weren't properly sourced, hence I didn't list them here.

It seems even before the rfc, they reverted those that replaced sherdog.com with confirmed reliable sources from

WP:MMA. They accused a few IPs and some editors of evading a block as the sole reason for their reverts, even before there was any SPI about them. Apperantly one of those editors who was found to be evading a block by CU, Legendstreak0, actually tried to reference sherdog.com on the article of Conor McGregor

, not the other way around. Other editor, Maximus Castiglione, was suspected of being a previously banned user according to the sockpuppet log. I guess even the SPIs for these editors was opened after their edits were reverted multiple times. The SPI for IPs however, is still open.

As for Chuachenchie, Theleekycauldron and me, no SPIs have been opened yet. Their edits were simply reverted by a couple of reasons: "per sherdog, already sourced or

WP:MMA

.

In order to understand if these editors in question act in accordance with each other or not, I reviewed their talk page histories and found some connections.

Between Cassiopeia and NEDOCHAN:

diff: Cassiopeia seems to know NEDOCHAN pretty well.

User talk:NEDOCHAN/Archive 1#A_barnstar_for_you!

User_talk:NEDOCHAN/Archive_1#New_message_from_CASSIOPEIA

PabloLikesToWrestle, PrivateHazzard and NEDOCHAN about how to deal with BLPs of a couple MMA fighters in these two different sections in the talk page of NEDOCHAN

.

Between Squared.Circle.Boxing and NEDOCHAN:

User_talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing#October_2020,_revert_/edit_war

User_talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing#SPI

User_talk:NEDOCHAN/Archive_2#Ridiculous_nonsense: Without NEDOCHAN's consent, Squared.Circle.Boxing moves NEDOCHAN's comment to responses section of the sherdog.com rfc, to increase the count for the first option. Apperantly there was a problem with that and Squared.Circle.Boxing mentions it to NEDOCHAN to get their consent. NEDOCHAN even thanks for it.

User_talk:NEDOCHAN#SPI: They talk about the SPI which one of them opened about an editor, and an IP later, who replaced sherdog.com with other sources or the other way around for some reason. They were having a conversation about how to deal with those editors. They eventually even mentioned me here. Apperantly, they weren't happy with me mentioning on my talk page that I would take a quick look into those articles to search for any wrongdoings at the request of someone else. They talked about how they tried to search for any clues to link me with a previously banned user. One of them mentions they couldn't find any convincing evidence, "unfortunately".

It seems they even argued against the suggestions of those editors who tried to inform the acussing editor about how to proceed, including me.

User_talk:Nil_Einne#Sherdog.com_RfC_Closure_Has_Had_No_Effect_on_Wikipedia_Because_of_a_Small_but_Organized_Gang_of_Editors User_talk:Girth_Summit#Sherdog.com_RfC_Closure_Has_Had_No_Effect_on_Wikipedia_Because_of_a_Small_but_Organized_Gang_of_Editors

User_talk:Magnus_Dominus

Today, after I reinstated the edits of Chuachenchie, which replaced sherdog.com with ufc.com as the referenced source, NEDOCHAN reverted my edit and "not to my surprise" immediately tried to reach out to Squared.Circle.Boxing 16, and Cassiopeia 17, to do something about me, blatantly accusing me of being another editor in their talk pages, and inviting them to open an SPI about me. They also talked to me in my page 18 but this time they only "implied" to my face I could be another editor, because apperantly my nickname was half latin and another editor that was banned long time ago had a nickname which resembled latin although it could be seen as an english name. Oh, apperantly I created my account "some time" after that editor was banned. So, I create my account a considerable amount of time after the banned editor, edit Wikipedia for months about various topics which were not related to these articles and only a few weeks after someone requested the help of mine and other editors on these articles, I simply reinstate the edits of Chuachenchie. Out of nowhere, I was blamed with being a sockpuppet. It seems to be their usual tactic to keep sherdog.com as the main source on anything related mixed martial arts.

Long story short, there's a clear pattern of refusal to accept any reliable source but sherdog.com. They usually go to block evasion excuse which themselves decide on if the editor in question doesn't have an old account no matter how irrelevant that excuse sounds. Otherwise, they simply state it's already sourced, per sherdog, WP:MMA, like there's not a closed rfc out there. So far I have only analyzed these three articles but considering they're pretty active in various BLPs of mixed martial artists, I assume the three editors in question have been trying to keep sherdog.com as the major source on all of mixed martial arts related articles, which conflicts with the result of the rfc: sherdog.com. I don't know if they're related to sherdog.com or simply advertising it or there's another benefit in this, but as you could see from the appropiate links I shared, I found some kind of connection and relation between these editors. Does it mean they're organized or they simply share one common practice? That's up to interpretation. However, their desire to enforce sherdog.com as the main source on these articles, on the contrary to the RFC result at RSN, is very clear.Magnus Dominus (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kent Bargo

As a regular UFC editor on the ufc pages. I like to condemn Magnus Dominus for this ANI and for some reason approves this Disruptive RFC sherdog "closed by @Buidhe:. (Magnus Dominus only been here since October 2020) I opposed many of their changes in past. It upsetting to continuing to drag @Squared.Circle.Boxing: @Cassiopeia: @NEDOCHAN: on this issue. Kent Bargo (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think like a lot of the community, I find these MMA article fights boring and am sick of hearing them. Frankly I have no idea why they are so infested with socks either. But as I've mentioned both on my talk page and an article discussion, the way to challenge an RfC is to ask the closer to re-assess the close or open a new one or to use some other appropriate process to establish that the RfC consensus no longer stands. You cannot simply ignore an RfC because you dislike or disagree with the result. It is unfortunate that the RfC was started by a sock, but it's also unfortunately true it not the first time nor will it be the last. A sock starting and RfC doesn't automatically invalidate the RfC because RfCs are intended to be discussions which establish community consensus on how our policies and guidelines apply to a certain specific issues, and indeed AFAICT, most of the participants of that RfC are AFAICT, clearly not socks. I don't know if Magnus Dominus is a sock, but if the RfC result had been overturned or if it was clear it was being respected, this ANI could easily be completely ignored. Unfortunately the fact that there seems to be some validity to the claim the RfC result is being ignored means it's not so easy to automatically dismiss this complaint. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

These MMA article got alot of MMA fans, but basically same as Trump supported articles or others categories. It does make the RFC questionable when the sock got caught. In my view, when I look at that RFC, it look like it was to disrupt the UFC pages with a old case that already be discussed. That sudden name change "from same user" almost made it look it was another person with a strong support of the RFC. Kent Bargo (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Kent Bargo; now I checked the block log of the editor who started the rfc. They were not a sock but apperantly a legit user at the time. The block log stated they were banned because of edit warring, false accusations, personal attacks, battleground attitude and similar stuff about 5 days after the rfc was opened. So I don't think there were sockets involved with the rfc, except perhaps the last IP user who had only one edit, but it's pretty obvious their opinion didn't really change anything. I actually don't care too much about this MMA stuff and don't think I will involve with anything about it in the future, but when one of the accused editors in question blamed me out of nowhere although I wasn't involved, I couldn't resist the urge to review the claims of the IP user who accused them. Anyhow, I agree with Nil Einne that rfcs, especially at the ones at RSN, should be respected and there's a clear violation of that policy in this situation.Magnus Dominus (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Allah der Berater

Stale incident. Please feel free to re-list if that changes. El_C 13:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Allah der Berater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User has only created an account (

WP:SPA) to troll (vandalise) on the article about Islam in Montenegro. Please intervene to prevent this in future. --Koreanovsky (talk

) 11:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-adninstrator comment) @Koreanovsky: When you report someone here, you're required to notify them on their Talk page (per the big yellow box when you edit this page). You didn't, so I've done it for you on this occasion. Also, this report is stale. The editor you're reporting made a handful of (admittedly bad) edits in the space of a few minutes, ten days ago, and hasn't edited since. It's hard to see what action can be taken now. Neiltonks (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent non-MOS editing by User:68.132.99.144

BLOCKED FOR 60 HOURS

(non-admin closure)IP blocked for 60 hours by CambridgeBayWeather.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

This IP has repeatedly edited

MOS:CONTEXTBIO

, which states that:

Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality

should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

I have repeatedly given warnings to the IP on

my talk page (which I moved to the article talk page

, but no consensus was reached. The IP in question rationalised the edits as follows:

[H]e is a public figure, [thus] describing him as American implies he represents America[,] which marginalizes minorities[.]

At least to me, this logic makes no sense and is still against the MOS. As this is not quite vandalism, it would be improper to file a report at

WP:AIV

, so I believe that this is the better forum to seek administrator intervention. Thank you.

—

Talk·Contribs

] 01:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC) (Edited 01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC))

Leave it out, per Twassman.

This may or may not be the same user who was blocked for after edit warring on this IP a few weeks ago, but the style certainly suggests it is to me. It's contested material that seems to be against MOS and the IP continues to restore despite user talk page warnings, no consensus on the article talk page, and this ANI thread. The IP broke 3RR, and made yet another revert after being informed of this ANI thread. IP should be blocked. Meters (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Mathsci Iban violation

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

User:Mathsci has since June 2018 a 2-way interaction ban with User:Francis Schonken (FS for short) (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Bach editing), and has been blocked for violations of this Iban in November 2020.

Now, in the above section

WP:ANI#Francis Schonken edit-warring, they edited on the 29th[17] and again today[18]

. I noticed this latter one, indicated that this was an Iban violation, and further discussion followed. It seemed more practical to have the discussion about the Iban as a separate section though (it was distracting enough when it moved from FS to authority control to Mathsci, but then Mathsci tried to make it about me, so better to not let it degenerate further).

Mathsci and Francis Schonken have very closely aligning editing interests, making it not unlogical that they edit the same articles. However, it looks as if by far most of the edits are Mathsci following FS around, including Mathsi reverting edits by FS, which is explicitly disallowed by

WP:IBAN. I already gave the example of this revert by Mathsci

, 1 February.

But there is e.g. also what he presented as part of his defense: "the stub BWV 53 has been a collaboration of User:Nikkimaria and myself". Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 was created in 2012, and first edited by FS in 2014, who edited it occasionally over the years. On 9 January, FS starts a major editing spree of this article, making 11 edits and adding about 10Kb to it[19]. 45 minutes after the last of this series of edits, Mathsci makes his very first edit to this pageremoving the in-use tag. A revert on a page you never edited, the day after your Iban-editor starts making a series of edits? Seems like a clear Iban violation.

They have many, common articles, with often hundreds of edits, so it's not always easy the patterns. If there are instance of FS doing the same to Mathsci, feel free to post them and take the necessary action in that direction as well. But it clearly needs to made clear to Mathsci that he is not allowed to follow FS around, to revert him, to join discussions about FS, ... Whoever makes the best edits or has the most editors on their side is not relevant here: if Mathsci feels that the Iban should be lifted, they should have made a request for it. Simply ignoring it months after being blocked for violations of the same Iban is not on though.

Fram (talk

) 14:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing a stale in-use template probably falls under non-controversial maintenance (although Mathsci might have done better to be patient and let the bot do it). Although in this case, replacing it with

something Wikipedia is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 15:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

An in-use template is hardly stale after 45 minutes. And that's simply one example, showing that the current violation is not an unlucky one-off but part of an ongoing series. Their interactions are problematic, and when we are discussing issues with the editing of one of the two, it is definitely not helpful if the other one turns up to give comments which aren't about the other but just happen to be in a section about the other, about articles edited by the other. The Iban was imposed to end (or at least reduce) such problematic interactions, and should be enforced no matter if either of the two parties in the Iban complained or not (in fact, it is often seen as best if the editors in an Iban don't complain about violations, as a wrong complaint may be seen as a violation on their part instead).

Fram (talk

) 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

An in-use template should be used for when one is in the midst of an active editing session and likely to make multiple edits within a short period (so as to avoid edit conflicts - in this case the in-use template had been there for over 24 hours). Under construction is better for longer-term; lower intensity actions such as this was here. Anyway, I'm not keen on rules and bureaucracy so I'm not going to argue this any further. If only we could have such rapid admin interventions at AIV and other, actually pressing matters... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: it's perfectly possible that someone could take 45 minutes to submit an edit from when they started to when they click submit. Heck I can take 45 minutes to finish a reply. This doesn't work on highly active recent event articles but it should be fine on a fairly obscure one. P.S. I'm fairly sure I hit that mark with the edit below which I'm submitting with this and I'm 90% sure I didn't intentionally do it to prove the point. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocked – for a period of one month. Which should really be viewed as a last chance saloon. Mathsci's three IBAN violations in the course of one year is too much. El_C 15:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) The timing of Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 seems very suspicious although I'm generally reluctant to draw conclusion from one incidence of questionable timing I'd like to here Mathsci's explanation. The ANI thread seems to be a clear cut violation to me. I guess Mathsci is claiming that they weren't commenting on Francis Schonken's edits just on the general question about authority control inspired by that thread but they can't when the main question is over Francis Schonken edit's. If Mathsci is unhappy about such limitations they will need to reform their behaviour and convince the community of this so we don't need the mutual iban. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the second one, he was following up on a comment from me, not to Francis Schonken. El_C, if that edit was the deciding factor, I consider the block unjustified. DGG (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

DGG, it was not the deciding factor. Further explained on Mathsci's talk page (diff). El_C 17:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

understood. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: Note I never said anything about who Mathsci was replying to. It's irrelevant AFAIAC, as I strongly disagree that makes it acceptable. As I mentioned the main thread was clearly about Francis Schonken. The followup subthread was on the related issue (concerning the contested edits) of the utility and use of authority control templates and wikidata data. Because the main thread was obviously about Francis Schonken, as even the title made clear, Mathsci needed to stay away from it completely. If people said general stuff that Mathsci disagreed with and felt they wanted to reply or clarify, while I understand the urge as someone who also dislikes comments which they feel are inaccurate or misleading and often also has a strong urge to reply when they see them, it's still not acceptable. That's what it means to live with an iban. If Mathsci isn't happy with that result, tough luck. I'm assuming they are partly responsible for the result they are unhappy with, since mutual ibans are only generally imposed when both parties appear to be contributing to the problem in some part. Likewise it's also partly with their purview to fix the result by reforming their behaviour and convincing the community of such so the iban is no longer needed. Testing the edges of the i-ban is definitely not helping. The only case where it would have been acceptable for Mathsci to reply to a thread about Francis Schonken would have been if someone said something that was about Mathsci (including of course if it was about their iban). Otherwise Mathsci's on Wikipedia concern for anything that goes in a thread about Francis Schonken has to be completely zero as long as the iban remains in place. Privately if they want to monitor the thread in the hope it results in a long term block of Francis Schonken, while I don't think it's healthy, that's their choice. Of course if they do so they need to resist the itchy-finger urge to reply when someone says something they feel is wrong, misleading or otherwise needs a reply, even if it doesn't concern Francis Schonken directly, which gets back to my main point. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Prompted by El C's comments on the talk page, I looked more carefully at the Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 case and agree the editing there is another clear cut violation since regardless of the timing and sudden appearance of Mathsci, there was direct interaction. Even if I'm very generous and claim that a single removal of a recently inserted in use template qualifies as "uncontroversial maintenance" and so is exempt from the iban, getting into an edit war over it is clearly not [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Note that although the tag was later re-added for the last edit [25], this doesn't seem to be a concession that they should not have edited given the edit summary and their followup edits.

I'm going to assume that Mathsci was well aware of Francis Schonken's involvement in that article by that time since they had to self-revert multiple times when they tried BRD on edits by Francis Schonken [26] (at least I think despite the confusing edit summary that is supposed to mostly be a self reversion of [27], if not we have a bigger problem) [28] [29].

Then there's also this [30] which was never self-reverted and yeah most or all of those edits were by Francis Schonken [31] which shouldn't be surprising as that edit spree seems to be mostly edits by one of the 2. I think it's clear that Mathsci should have been aware that Francis Schonken was editing that page by that time considering that they'd been editing it for a while and there was even an RfC by that time which they had both participated in. Frankly even when they didn't cite BRD, a lot of Mathsci's editing to that page seems to be in directly changing stuff Francis Schonken had just edited.

An i-ban for two editors with very similar interests is always a bit difficult to manage although for obvious reasons these tend to happen a lot. It's accepted that these editors will sometimes edit the same page and this isn't an automatic i-ban violation. But the sort of editing Mathsci showed on that page is clearly quite far from what we expect.

To be fair, this also means Francis Schonken's editing had problems, IMO once Mathsci got so heavily involved they probably should ask admins to deal with it rather than just continuing to edit ignoring the fact that they were now effectively battling against Mathsci. However AFAICT, Francis Schonken seems to have mostly just kept editing rather than intentionally reversing or modifying stuff Mathsci had done and I'm not going to support sanction of someone because the other i-ban partner ignored the i-ban.

All this means even if I AGF that Mathsci suddenly came across the page by some means other than following Francis Schonken's edits, once they realised Francis Schonken was actively editing it, they needed to take a lot more care than they did. Considering how active Francis Schonken was on that article, they probably should have just avoided it completely except maybe for RfCs and other stuff on the talk page but it's their choice how they manage their iban provided they manage it which they didn't.

I don't understand Mathsci's defence. Francis Schonken didn't create the page but they got actively involved in it before Mathsci. Because of that the onus was far more on Mathsci to take care to avoid iban violations if they suddenly wanted to edit it. Friends of Mathsci being the early editors to the page doesn't mean Mathsci somehow has more "right" to the page. A key point here is I make no judgment on Francis Schonken's edits. They may have been crap, maybe they were ignoring consensus on the talk page, I don't care. If there were problems, other editors needed to deal with these not Mathsci. Francis Schonken damaging the work of User:Gerda Arendt and User:Nikkimaria is of zero on Wikipedia concern of Mathsci (if that's what they're trying to say). Again, that's what living with an i-ban means.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged and replied on my talk. In a nutshell: I intentionally didn't even look at

BWV 1 being big enough), and now have to blame myself.--Gerda Arendt (talk

) 08:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Robert McClenon

I have been pinged in a closed thread here, and on Mathsci's talk page. My involvement, as noted, is that I put together an

interaction ban, between Mathsci and User:Francis Schonken

. I have been aware that editing in the area of classical music is often intense with conflicts, and that one of the reasons is simply that many of the editors are passionate in their love of a great art which reflects the passions of its composers, and they allow their passions to dominate their reason. (Sometimes, when the editors become angry, they ought to put on one of their favorite recordings and read a novel, another great art, rather than editing.) I tried to provide a calming environment and may not have succeeded.

I would like to see the RFC closed, by an administrator, but that is a different subject.

The editor whom I thought engaged in what I observed as disruptive conduct was not Mathsci but Francis Schonken, who created a sub-article on the sexuality of Chopin immediately after the RFC began waiting for closure. That has been taken care of by redirecting and fully protecting the sub-article until the RFC is closed. I did not observe a violation by either editor of the interaction ban.

I have no opinion as to whether Mathsci should have been blocked or whether Mathsci should be unblocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing from User:LED BodyBuilding

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

I found

WP:NOTHERE

behavior. To wit:

• An incoherent composite of articles at User:LED_BodyBuilding/sandbox.
• A duplication of said incoherent composite at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law,_Sport,_And_Science.
• An incoherent draft at Draft:Kamille_Brickhouse.
• An incoherent rambling with flagrantly false accusations of gender bias and disability hatred.

What say you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite confused by this user's contribs. But they clearly are not constructive. Blocking indef until user can articulate an understanding of Wikipedia's basic purpose and

competence. EvergreenFir (talk)

01:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I think the complete gibberish drafts mentioned above should be speedied. Do you think you can do this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I discovered this user through AfD and had to blank most of one of their articles for being nonsensical.

WP:NOTHERE I think is an inaccurate way of characterizing them, but their confusing contributions and the unilateral creation of an incredibly broad and redundant WikiProject demonstrates their lack of understanding of how things go here (also at one point they said they were contacting the London Police to get their thoughts on an article, which was very odd). I do think I recall seeing in one of their edit summaries that they identify as disabled. Sadly, I think they are actually incompetent per our standards and are too handicapped to constructively contribute here. -Indy beetle (talk

) 09:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Is User:Britcouple007's Cam a sockpuppet of User:LED BodyBuilding ? They're writing similar nonsensical articles (e.g. their sandbox) and there's a huge amount of editing overlap, e.g. on Draft:Farm Security and the aforementioned Wikiproject. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be confirmed and blocked by NinjaRobotPirate along with another account. Pahunkat (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• This user's contribs are fascinating because they look like - very like - early training of an AI. There's a lot of similarities between the way nonsensical articles are phrased and the way various 'feed in a source, get out an bad article' websites work. This could be what the editor was doing... or it could be the start of AI bots being set up to edit Wikipedia. When that happens, we're all going to be very busy reverting. ◦ Trey Maturin 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistent deletion of content at Arabs in Pakistan

• Arabs in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since there's been some block evasion there, I'd appreciate some eyes on the most recent edits. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

STSC has engaged prohibited canvassing on Talk:Taiwan and disruptive editing on Taiwan

• STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Taiwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 23 January, 2020, STSC created an RFC on the talk page for Taiwan regarding whether or not the first paragraph should mention its contentious international status. Soon thereafter, STSC left messages on multiple user talk pages (diffs: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]) to notify select users of the RFC that they created.

Three-quarters of users that were selected to receive the message have have made prior comments indicating that they would be inclined to agree with

WP:VOTESTACK

.

Other users, including

talk

) 20:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for tagging me Mikehawk10. To this I would add making unsourced additions [40] and using misleading edit summaries [41][42][43][44][45]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would like to refer to the statement I made on Talk:Taiwan#Allegations_of_misconduct. STSC made an initial suggestion which was overwhelmingly rejected, but nevertheless opened an RfC, and when that turned against his favor as well – despite his attempts at canvassing –, disrupted the article (see [46] and [47]) to make a point. intforce (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Of the last 250 edits on Talk:Taiwan, 59 are by User:STSC.[48]. (Previous is a live link and the count will change over time. Not sure how to do a fixed link.) The majority have to do with arguing about whether or not Taiwan is a country, and what if anything the lead should say about who recognizes it.[49][50] His or her edits on Taiwan, while thankfully less numerous, focus on the same issues.[51][52] Furthermore, User:STSC has a history of being sanctioned for pushing pro-PRC and Pro-CCP points of view. [53] [54]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing this up – as they have removed those notices from their talk page (which is their right, but usually not without motive), I had no idea. Perhaps a partial ban on all topics related to China is in order. intforce (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I've investigated this case as an uninvolved admin and would like to report the following findings:

1. The notification diffs provided in the first comment do appear to comprise improper canvassing
2. As identified in the first comment STSC added citation needed tags to Taiwan's status in the lead of Taiwan (Special:Diff/1003356866, Special:Diff/1003309363), while an ongoing discussion on the talk page had an overwhelming consensus in favor of the status quo wording, making these edits rather POINTy.
3. As identified by Intforce, opening an RfC when there was clear consensus against the proposal was not appropriate. This is particularly the case when we consider that a well-attended RfC 7 months ago was closed with a consensus to call Taiwan a country.
4. While the diff of an unsourced addition identified by Horse Eye's Back does appear to be poor form (Special:Diff/1002867162), further discussion on the talk page ([55] does not suggest that this is a matter of ongoing disruption, and I don't see any evidence that unsourced contributions are generally a problem with STSC's edits
5. The edits described by Horse Eye's Back as misleading edit summaries appear to be edits with the summary "archived" (sometimes with typos) when STSC was simply deleting the messages. I don't think that this is something that needs to be considered when evaluating the need for sanctions.
6. Regarding the AE case identified by Adoring Nanny (Special:Diff/717448271), the case was about tendentious editing related to Falun Gong and does suggest that STSC was actively trying to insert pro-PRC content into articles. I note as well that a key piece of evidence in that case was this comment by STSC, where they express support for the elimination of Falun Gong on a talk page. I do not note any comparable breach of civility regarding Taiwan on the article's talk page or in diffs presented here.
7. Regarding the edit warring block identified by Adoring Nanny (Special:Diff/806174819), I don't think that a 3-year old edit warring block without any further blocks has much bearing on this case.

All told, in light of the canvassing and point-y behavior at Taiwan, and the past history of POV editing, I think that a 3-6 month ban from topics related to Taiwan and China, broadly construed, is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Rosguill makes a convincing case with his diffs showing problematic POV pushing from this user. I agree with the topic ban of 3-6 months.Jediting1 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from China-related subjects due to long-term POV pushing – STSC is already subject to an indefinite topic ban on Falun Gong, a religious movement banned in China. They were also (long ago) banned from participating in the Senkaku Islands naming dispute. When I complained in 2019 about their editing, the discussion was concluded with this comment by an administrator: "There is a consensus among editors here that STSC has fallen short of [NPOV and BLP standards] in the past and that future issues may result in blocking or other sanctions." Considering STSC's recent conduct on Taiwan, it is evident that they have not changed their behaviour despite the warnings, topic bans, and blocks incurred over the past decade. Citobun (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: He should be banned from editing all Hong Kong-related topics too. He had tried to assert that the Holy Trinity Cathedral is located in China and disrupted that article. 223.197.170.231 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I put the country as China; Hong Kong is not a country. There's a discussion on the talk page. STSC (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reply to Rosguill

1. I followed the guideline which advises me not to notify too many editors. I therefore left out most of the editors who had been active in the discussion, and they did join in without my notification. Amongst the editors I notified I think it's about 50:50 in terms of different opinions.

2. I didn't make edits on the content itself. At any time I may challenge the sources by applying the tags. Nothing improper here.

3. As I've already mentioned in the discussion, I don't object calling "Taiwan is a country". My RfC is different from the previous RfC, it asked whether additional information should be included in the first paragraph as in State of Palestine and Somaliland.

STSC (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I saw your answer #1 as your response to canvassing allegations at Talk:Taiwan and find it to be an unconvincing explanation, as the perspectives on the content dispute shared by the editors you notified is a distinct outlier when compared to editors' overall perspectives expressed in both the RfC and the talk page discussion prior to it. Your responses #2 and #3 strike me as trying to abide by the letter of policies while ignoring the spirit. It should have been clear from the prior talk page discussion that there was no need for the inline tags and no need for an RfC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have followed the guidelines in

RFC and other policies. STSC (talk

)

Please don’t fudge the truth, thats not the question you asked. The question you asked was the highly ambiguous "In the article Taiwan, should the first paragraph contain the international status of Taiwan (Republic of China)?” which makes no mention of Palestine or Somaliland or additional information to be included in the lead. Its also too ambiguous to be a good RFC topic, for instance I agree with the question as asked because I think that out first paragraph *already does that* but not the question you meant to ask which was clear from the preceding discussion and your continued refusal to accept the wording of “country” without a modifier. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I accept your criticism about the RfC; it wasn't well constructed but I did mention Palestine and Somaliland in the discussion. STSC (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. We have a common thread of problematic behavior in at least three areas (Falun Gong, Taiwan, Senkaku Islands), all relating to content preferred by the PRC. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Apsngh

harassment (after warning). Revdeletions, too. El_C

14:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

This new account was provided feedback related to

WP:3RR. In response they posted an uncivil comment which was ignored. After reverting another edit, I provided feedback again here which resulted in this nasty response. Some action please. Thanks Vikram Vincent

13:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Warned. IPA alert also attached. El_C 14:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Post ANI notice, the user wants one on one combat. Vikram Vincent 14:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It's combative alright (just removed independently of this), but not sure about it intimating actual combat... El_C 14:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No no that was in humour. Missed the emoji :D Thanks Vikram Vincent 14:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170

• Not yet blocked ip. e.g. (there are more ip meat but these two are most fitted to the disruption category)

220.246.55.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

14.0.236.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Already blocked range/ip. e.g.

124.217.188.0/23 (talk · contribs · 124.217.188.0/23 WHOIS)

219.76.16.0/20 (talk · contribs · 219.76.16.0/20 WHOIS)

218.102.122.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

218.255.11.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Set one: country related

• Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  ) (vote stacking and revive decade old thread)
• List of lighthouses in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (vote stacking)
• Military of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  ) (vote stacking)

Set two: cat spamming

• Category:Ma Tau Chung
• Ma Tau Chung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sung Wong Toi Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Family Planning Association of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Admin already blocked 3 ip ranges but it seems it is not enough / not effective, as new ip POV edit from new ip range emerged yet again . Some admin suggests a soft block to HK ISPs (including mobile network ) would be a solution, some suggests protect articles one by one. But really how to deal with these POV pushing edit: revive 100 years old obsolete place name Ma Tau Chung. Or piece by piece try to change Hong Kong or Country definition to slip pieces belong to dependent territory to Country-related article one by one? Or just vote stacking in talk page? Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Forget to mention, some of the meat not really willing to provide any reliable source and some involved in personal attack. Matthew hk (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The issues are simple. First, Matthew hk does not appear to be a speaker of the English language and is struggling on one hand to express his thoughts and ideas in a clear and organised manner, and on the other to comprehend what others put forward to him in their edits and especially in the talk pages (the meaning of "produce" in "produce the evidence", e.g.), when people give in to his insistence of his own points of view over the entries he has tried hard to own (such as, most notably, that Ma Tau Chung has died as a topographic name to refer to the neighbourhood). Second, he relies on Cantonese-language sources to argue his cases and defend his positions, and provides no or little translations and even he does so translations that are hardly comprehensible, while at the same time disregards English-language sources presented to him. Third, he fails to understand that according to its conventional meaning the English word "country" is used to refer to both sovereign states and dependent territories (of course, the inhabited ones with organised governments). This conventional meaning has been supported by an Australian federal court in September 1997 in Tjhe Kwet Koe and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (FCA 912), which is cited by

Talk:List of countries without armed forces got "vote stacking", when there's apparently none - There's never been any vote lately to talk with, or that Hong Kong's population is 99% Chinese. 223.197.192.15 (talk

) 16:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you guys have issue that admin bad faith with your edits so that

WP:Verify and not POV battleground without provide a RS citation. If you use your own emotional enemy / friend mindset in wikipedia you don't went any further but block. Matthew hk (talk

) 09:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And offtopic on 99% Chinese. The context was regarding Chinese-language publication such as map / atlas of Hong Kong which my figure that recalled from memory was rebut the "claim" that HK has a lot of English/ bilingual publications. There are a lot of domestic helper in HK so that if include them the figure may be not 99%. Also, Chinese (華人) can means Chinese (Cantonese/Mandarin) speaking culture group / ethnic group instead of citizenship / self-identity sense (self-identity figure can obtain from

Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute) . If you want to frame me as "not constructive" please provide reliable source. Note that there are 451 183 non-Chinese minority in HK in 2011, or 6.4%, but a lot are domestic helper.^[1] This figure already rebut your low claim of only 92% people are Chinese culture group. The government report lists the figure so badly that there is no concreate figure of domestic helper, but at least table 7.2 and 7.3 shown if excluding domestic helper (hired from aboard), the non-Chinese minority is down to 194,854. (And i need to dig out the correct denominator to calculate the actual %, so that it may be ~96/98%? ) Matthew hk (talk

) 10:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That would be about 95 to 96% isn't it? Still quite far from 99%. And after all domestic helpers are inhabitants there. Most of them are long-term residents. They aren't slaves as you might have unfortunately implied and they are always counted towards population figures. 223.197.192.15 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is to confirm that the problem is real, and the IP edits are mostly disruptive, but I do not know what the best solution would be.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  What was disruptive? For talking too much? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"New" issue. Ask for unprotect the talk page yet again. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Talk:List of countries without armed forces. Matthew hk (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

More newer issue. Start to POV pushing other dependent territories:

• List of borderless country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) bold change redirect target
• Military of the Faroe Islands ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  ) (ask for article at talk page for a deleted article )
• Borderlessness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Matthew hk (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

What's been wrong with my edits to List of borderless country and Borderlessness? You don't seem to be able to understanding what'd happened and what you did was apparently disruptive. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

At Bordelessness, you removed a redlink to Borderless country. That redlink was likely placed there by someone who thought it was a subject that could support an article. And you did it without leaving an edit summary, so no one knows what your reasoning is. And given the edit history of you and your fellow meatpuppets, no one here is likely to give you much more benefit of the doubt than we already have. You've all proved yourselves quite willing to be incredibly disruptive, which wastes the time of well-intentioned editors. If you actually want to contribute productively, you probably are going to need to create an account. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The red link was an old article that was moved into personal user namespace and the redirect generated as a result of that relocation was deleted many many years ago. There had been no new article in its place. Is there any chance that someone might think an article might develop? Irrespective of that why can't that be pointed to a relevant, existing article?

As for allegations of sockpuppetry, I am afraid there is no sockpuppet and there's been no solid evidence or conclusive investigation. Having an account or otherwise is irrelevant to whether anyone is sockpuppet or whether someone wants to contribute productively. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• This has been an ongoing problem for six weeks also at Talk:List of lighthouses in China. I believe there is a forum somewhere that is whipping up Hongkongers who believe registering an account will make them more vulnerable to Chinese surveillance and sending them in here as meatpuppets on various articles. I hate to semi a talk page, but I'm not sure what else to do. —valereee (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  Pinging @Atsme, who's seen this at various articles too. The IPs have followed to my user talk and to SPI investigations. They seem to think they're upvoting. —valereee (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's a serious problem that needs to be resolved, because if what they're doing works successfully for them, it will spread like wildfire and allow for the ultimate takeover of WP by IP unions. It may seem far-fetched at this point in time, but our policies have already laid the bedrock for something like this to occur right under our noses, and with no resources to stop it unless we change our policy. Atsme 💬 📧 12:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  IP unions? Are you thinking way too much... As a matter of fact it was you who sparked off all these trouble around these three lists of lighthouses. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  You believe? So where's that forum post? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  There's indeed nothing strange[58] given what'd happened here over the past two years. And these were what'd happened just over the past couple of days...[59][60][61][62] 220.246.55.231 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  And now.[63] 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have looked into the edit history of Country, the very first case you mentioned in your submission, back to early to mid-January,[64] and have been surprised to learn that the issue is kind of irrelevant here. It had been all around the statuses of the Holy See and the Vatican City State. And 124.217.189.34/124.217.189.124 had been right if the articles on the Holy See and the Vatican City are correct - The former is the sovereign entity and the latter is the country the former governs. So Matthew Hk would you please clarify what'd been the issue with that article so that you brought it up here (and a few other noticeboards too)? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, above admins, feel free to block 220.246.55.231 first....I don't think the ip is willing to make constructive edit. It just purely for POV battleground. Matthew hk (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Just look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#List of borderless country. Matthew hk (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, any admin able to protect Ma Tau Chung? The ip don't wanna add any citation and flood the article with list of building that they think they are part of the historical area, and i keep asking and they still fails to show a modern map that have that place name or have a boundaries of the alleged area. Matthew hk (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Has this article on Ma Tau Chung got anything to do with what 220.246.55.231 mentioned above? And no it was just you who keep refusing to consider what are submitted in the talk pages of relevant articles (such as Sung Wong Toi Garden, Sung Wong Toi and Holy Trinity Cathedral) or what are added to the article as citations. "The ip don't wanna add any citation ..." is clearly a false claim. You simply lied. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I protected the article a few days ago and will protect it again if disruption resumes after the protection has expired.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@1.64.46.31: Where is a map in English that publish after 1960s (as alleged by ip, they exist)? I never saw one and all i saw are borderline OR. Matthew hk (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

For example, i agreed that

WP:UGC historic photo and its caption, which credit the area next to the church was called Ma Tau Chung, to assume the church is also located in an area that modern day still call Ma Tau Chung. You can easily find a map that Hong Kong was part of Bao'an County, but we never called Hong Kong is part of Shenzhen in modern day. Also, quite a lot of place name in HK are retired or substituted due to land reclamation or demolition of hills, or other reasons (Tai Wo Shi v. Tai Po Market v. modern day Tai Wo). And quite a lot of road that named after place name is not part of that place. E.g. Tai Po Road and Castle Peak Road have a large portion that outside Tai Po District and Tuen Mun District (Castle Peak). It is another original research that whole of the Ma Tau Chung Road belongs to Ma Tau Chung neighbourhood, unless you cite a secondary source. Matthew hk (talk

) 04:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem of ALL HK neighbourhood articles is there is no postal code or official tessellation in HK (Here is ABS example for Australia https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC80016) If there is a lot of secondary source that state X is located in Y or the official address state the building is located in Y. It does not need original research to add it to wikipedia. However, base on the logic of X is next to Y and Y in 1900s was stated locate in Z, so that X must locate in Z, is original research or synthesis of sources. The limitation of official address is sometimes company mis-state it, or on purpose to do it, such as Central Plaza is located in Wan Chai not Central. Citing a shop inside Sky Tower which uses Ma Tau Chung as address, seem pale compare to way other reliable source that either credit Ma Tau Kok, Kowloon City or To Ka Wan. What i pointed in the RFc in the talk page of the Church, if such dispute exist ( Ma Tau Kok? To Ka Wan? or the poorly sourced Ma Tau Chung?) then it just better use the base administrative unit Kowloon City District instead of argue the boundaries of neighbourhoods which does not have any legal or reliable source that try to define it. Or even worse, keep on making disruptive edits without provide any reliable source. Matthew hk (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Lastly for map. Sino United Publishing may have censorship or POV problem (e.g. , they have their special Chinese wording for 1967 riots of HK), but without stating a better source and then claim map by the subsidiary of Sino United Publishing not reliable, would only making there is no reliable source as citation (as the ip never gave example of company that "reliable " to them for HK map) (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#Category:Ma Tau Chung). I knew zh-wiki has serious problem that most article are OR and /or without any citation. But i don't think it is acceptable in en-wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd suppose it's more to do with incidents and behavioural issues for discussions here on this page, rather than the actual content for the relevant articles. From what I came across Matthew hk's problem is that he can't actually comprehend what are mentioned in discussions. He's been told old maps aren't UGC, and that he's also been told he may refer to maps published by other more trustworthy publishers of Hong Kong maps, such as UP. He was also referred to plan no. LK 10/18/4. He simply ignored all these and has kept on pushing forward his POVs by making things up, e.g. vote stacking in a talk page where there's not even any vote taking place. With such a level of proficiency in the English language, as well as reference to "To Ka Wan" (as opposed to To Kwa Wan) I would have much reservation towards his claims that he's a Hongkonger residing in Australia and that he's familiar with the Hong Kong-related matters he edits on Wikipedia. False claims would of course be the much bigger issue here than where he actually comes from. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

for "LK 10/18/4", you still haven't quote it in order to allow other editors to verify it. Matthew hk (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, stop ip hopping and claim live in Hong Kong is the only definition of Hong Konger or use "Hong Konger" as the criteria to edit article. The problem of you/ they/ ip hopper, is fails

WP:V. Matthew hk (talk

) 08:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter would you please protect the article against Matthew hk's disruptive edits instead? He cannot actually contribute to encyclopedia entries in proper English, to the extent that there are even spaces before full-stops occasionally. And he removes references to old maps and calls them UGC just because the site which hosts these maps accept submissions of UGC. Many thanks. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Third party comment: If you (singular? plural?) created an account and cut down on all the snide remarks regarding English proficiency then I think it would be much easier to have a constructive discussion regarding the issues at hand. Citobun (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:RSN and then MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist) to formally black list gwulo.com. Matthew hk (talk

) 08:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(More on gwulo.com. It accepts upload of map (or just fragment of a map that original legend is missing, which impossible to reader to determinate original publish date and publisher) with unknown origin. Uploader just claimed as old and "genuine". This re-publish action itself is counted as "Self-published source" in wikipedia and the caption added by uploader is UGC . It is different from a reliable author which includes an old map in a book and wiki editor cite the map / book.) Matthew hk (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, for the history of Ma Tau Chung POW camp , i don't believe HKU or Oxford University Press or whatever reliable publishing house , did not have books about that part of history. Instead of spamming wikipedia with UGC, facebook, forum or other not reliable source (the guideline is

WP:RS), just borrow or bought a book and cite it. Offline source is acceptable in wikipedia and i often do that by digging out "offline" physical copies of books that related to HK, from SLWA and UWA libraries, or ordered second hand out of print from ebay and amazon. Matthew hk (talk

) 08:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

More off topic on biased source. Yes citation may be biased but usually out of scope of wikipedian to make original research to determinate . The argument of map are censored by Chinese government company, but without provide their own list of citation (which i think 齡記 had published a few student atlas (at least before 1997), not sure it uses maps that derived from the colonial HK government or not, but yet again no one willing to have a look by borrow one from HK library; sorry not i HK so that i tried to access as much offline source as i can edit: see below), is not constructive. Clearly biased source, such as recently published comprehensive history of HK, by Our Hong Kong Foundation, already have criticism by independent historian and academian[2] so that wikipedian does not need to do themselves. In case people claims all news article routine mention of place name and their belonged neighbourhoods are all wrong and their unsourced version are right, i am afraid this is not an acceptable behaviour in wikipedia. Yes, it can be wrong for news article but the more appropriate way is citing book and other news articles. Matthew hk (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If in case you don't already know, public libraries in this country are closed. They've been closed for most of the time since early 2020, only managed to open for a few short periods. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You can buy digital book in Google Book store anyway instead of using non-reliable sources as citations. Matthew hk (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, the already broken slogan "one country, two systems" means China is the country. It is not constructive to POV pushing in wikipedia that HK is a sovereign country, or the general context of "country". HK is a "country" more commonly in the context of "country of origin" and the HKSAR passport in fact is a subset of Chinese passport while BNO passport is a subset of British passport. Matthew hk (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Citobun, the problem obviously isn't about English proficiency but the tendency of unfortunate and repetitive miscommunications. And the quality and readability of his contributions and comments. False statements would be another equally important matter. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Still offtopic. Ling Kee maps^[3] for whatever reason, are somehow similar to modern government map, does not have the place name Ma Tau Chung. So that i really can't find a source that prove the place name is still commonly used. HK people do retire some place name such as 青山 Green Hill (Castle Peak's Chinese name) and use Tuen Man instead. So that i really don't know the agenda of the ip? Some kind of restorationist? Matthew hk (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this allegation a fabricated one..? Restorationist? What is "Tuen Man", btw? 223.197.192.15 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, yet another ip hopper. It is a typo. I have problem of not proof read and hit enter (so that most of my minor edit has typo as edit summary). Tuen Mun. Also read "香港地區史研究之四：屯門". It is yet another book by Sino United Publishing (since it is the dominant publishing house of HK) but the author are lecturer and professor of HK universities. Matthew hk (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What point of view are you referring to? So are you disputing the fact that the Vatican City State is a country whereas the Holy See is the sovereign entity which administers this country, Matthew? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, ip hopper, please ask why the SPI filer places Country in the reporting. Matthew hk (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So you just copied and didn't try to understand what'd happened? You just claimed that there is a POV issue but you don't know what's that POV issue is? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Thematic Report : Ethnic Minorities 2011 HK census website
2. ^ https://www.dw.com/zh/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E5%BF%97%E6%83%B9%E8%AE%AE-%E5%AD%A6%E8%80%85%E6%89%B9%E6%AD%AA%E6%9B%B2%E5%8E%86%E5%8F%B2/a-56411893
3. ^ https://www.lingkee.com/hkmaps/

WP:BATTLEGROUND

behavior

India's

WP:POV labels like "fundamentalist" [65] and "supremacist" [66] and using non-encyclopedic explanations (such as the group that was "crushed" [67]). I've attempted to ask CheckersBoard to discuss their proposed changes on the article talk as opposed to engaging in an edit war [68], after which CheckersBoard simply steamrolled along with their largest changeset yet [69], and responded that editors need to "research my activity" [70]

Some problematic behavior during this encounter beyond potential content issues:

• Personal attack in edit summary, right off the bat [71]
• Practically blanking lede after I asked the user to discuss proposed changes [72]

CheckersBoard has a history of generally unhelpful edits and exhibits continuous disruptive

WP:BATTLEGROUND

behavior:

• Blocked by NeilN (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing [73]
• Topic-banned after multiple complaints were lodged against them [74] (Many of NeilN's concerns with CheckersBoard's account continue to apply)
• Took a hiatus, then gloated on NeilN's user page and misgendered NeilN [75]

Considering the lede blanking, personal attacks, and user history, I feel like this user doesn't have any business editing an article like

talk

) 15:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Warned. IPA alert also attached (déjà vu!). El_C 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Request IP range block

2001:14bb:440:9e16::/64 blocked for 1 week. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Most recently,

WP:NOTHERE. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk

) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, LuK3. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Dodgy block behaviour

Obvious trolls were obviously blocked. Nothing needing doing here. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Recently blocking activity by an editor who is blocking user who clearly no edits in their log.

• Colinphilip11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TBNRCoding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are only two examples. A look at the log of blocks show many more entries. Some may be for in improper username, but often the target account has no edits. Either the account is compromised or the person is blocking excessively simply because he can for the fun of it. 12.252.159.10 (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Or, more accurately, they were blocked because of their attempted edits that were blocked by the edit filters. FDW777 (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

True but you can’t assume bad faith. This person might be used to editing to an extent that everyone is supposed to know policies. At leave have the common sense to give a warning or message and block only as a last resort. 12.252.159.10 (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There has been a massive surge in people responding to TikTok videos to insert non-notable names into location articles. If this is part of that, the agreement is to block on site and ignore. Canterbury Tail talk 13:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

can you post the link here for reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.252.159.10 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Colinphilip11 was a typical unexciting TikTok vandal who tried multiple times to save their edits despite being denied by the filter. TBNRCoding was, unusually for recent times, a run of the mill copy/paste yolo crap vandal who was also caught by the filter. Neither will be missed. Also, IP, when you saved this report there was a ruddy huge bright orange banner saying you must notify the editor you are discussing on their talkpage; somewhat inexplicably you seem to have missed this. I have done so for you. —Jack Frost (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Notabality of Khin Thiri Thet Mon

Does not require administrative intervention at this time. I note that a one-line, one sentence bio with sources whose

notability issue. Also, as a bit of a cheeky aside, Praxidice (singular) is the Greek goddess responsible for exacting justice. El_C

18:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: looks like the user changed their mind about the redirect, and also about their username (changed). But they have also since announced their retirement. Please feel free to re-open or re-list if further problems arise. El_C 18:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Khin Thiri Thet Mon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As I'm an experienced editor from Myanmar, I understand Wikipedia's notability guideline as well. I just created a stub article

talk

) 16:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I redirected it before seeing this. However ANI isn't the place to hash this out. CUPIDICAE💕 16:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 16:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So lets discuss about her notabality. I will accept redirect the article if senior editors give their opinion.

talk

) 17:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Again

See [79]. I have translated content from this source [80] with using machine translation. But @

talk

) 19:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)

Phoela14, by policy at the top of this page and when creating reports on here, you must notify the editors in question at their user talk pages. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 19:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi I already did it at his talk page. But he removed my notice.

talk

) 19:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I note that you've called CommanderWaterford "a stupid editor". Please see

WP:NPA. Pahunkat (talk

) 19:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I called him "a stupid editor" because I was very angry. Sorry for that. If he continues to do so, I will be left from the en-wiki. Burmese editors are very rare on en-wiki.

talk

) 20:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You did not notify him of this discussion. You informed him of the first discussion you opened, and of this one only after you were told to do so. An explanation of the COI concerns can be found

Phoela14, per your previous username, do you have any connection to Nay Shwe Thway Aung? Grandpallama (talk

) 20:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If I'm Nay Shwe Thway Aung, my English skill is better than yours. He attended the International School.

talk

) 20:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That's great since it means there's no doubt when you said Add my portrait, a file you uploaded to commons with a similar description [81], you understood you were saying that you are Nay Shwe Thway Aung. It's fine to have a COI, but when you have a COI as you clearly do, you need to ensure your editing follows the recommendations for editing with a COI e.g. not editing articles where you have a strong COI directly. Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's think, Well "I'm going to create an account with a public figure name "

talk

) 20:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Btw I have only one edit on NSTA article.

talk

) 20:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If I was NSTA, I would not be wasting time on the wiki during this military coup.

talk

) 20:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(EC) That would not be the only article you would have a strong COI with. Other editors have raises concern about your COI editing, and you seem to be ignoring those concerns. The ultimate point is that you were clearly identifying as Nay Shwe Thway Aung at one time. Since you have renamed your account, whether you are or aren't is ultimately not something that concerns us provided you properly handle any COI you have. BTW, if you call yourself Paing Takhon, and edit the article Paing Takhon, there's a good chance you'd be blocked until you verify your identity. As it stands, if you are now claiming you are not Nay Shwe Thway Aung, that raises great concerns about your copyright compliance. (It may be on commons, but it would concern us here to if you're so careless with copyright.) When you uploaded that image with the description "My portrait photo, only use for article" you listed it as your "own work" and the author as "Nay Shwe Thway Aung". So either you are Nay Shwe Thway Aung the author of that portrait photo or you aren't and were misleading when uploading that photo which raises concerns about whether you actually respect copyright or may be violating it. Notably, you've said you are translating stuff with the help of machine translation. That's fine provided you ensure the work you are translating is appropriately licenced generally stuff from other Wikipedias. If you are translating stuff from other places e.g. news articles which is not under a licence suitable for Wikipedia, and including it on Wikipedia directly that's a big problem. (Even if the material is appropriately licenced, you need to ensure you comply with the licence terms e.g. attribution.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Now translation and source problem is fixed because creator Hintha has been expanded and copyedited.

talk) — Preceding undated

comment added 20:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The number of unrepentant personal attacks at this point, COI concerns aside (and I see a non-denial, alongside reason for healthy skepticism of any potentially forthcoming denial), are leading me to think we're entering block territory. Grandpallama (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What ? are you bullying me? I already apologize for My PA being of my angry on above. How much do you need? — Preceding

talk • contribs

) 20:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The "sincerity" of the apology here is at odds with what you said

here, not to mention the odd rudeness about English skills. Added to the questions around your connections to the articles you've been editing, I'm not buying it. Grandpallama (talk

) 20:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

1. I marked the article with a COI Tag and Unreliable Resources (the only given resource at this time was an activist radio station) without mentioning the Editor at all 2. He moved today two times articles which were moved for good reasons into draft (not by me btw) with comments fairly offensive back into mainspace directly afterwards. 3. I did not remove not a single notice but the Editor seems to like to ask ANI at every single content dispute so I have two notices of which the closed one was archived. The Editor has obviously some political COI in his edits, see WP:NPOV and WP:NOTFREESPEECH, please have a look at his Contribs with his current and especially previous user account, btw he answered that he is NSTA after being asked for on his talk page in 2018.

talk

) 20:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

well well, NSTA is the highest rank in my country above the top military leaders. He will not edit in the wiki for his times and doest create articles for his grandfather's junior Min Aung Hlaing's daugter. LOL

talk

) 21:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Btw you should proud because you have talking with NSTA. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

talk

) 21:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Btw,

talk

) 21:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Really was I'm a lady and Wikipedia's most wanted person. LoL ..Bye Bye time to sleep.

talk

) 21:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Editor persistently adding unsourced claims to Delta_Cryogenic_Second_Stage

• Jostcom2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and some IPs

On 27 January the editor added a controversial but unreferenced claim to

WP:NOTHERE applies to this editor. Ruslik_Zero

20:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm on it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Colombian music vandal still going after eight years

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/CaMI!oWave2015.
• 186.31.144.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

A flurry of recent activity shows that long-term vandal CaMI!oWave2015 has no intention of letting go. Can we get a block on the /21 range? Recent disruption from 186.31.148.82, 186.31.148.82, 186.31.213.242 and 186.31.148.57. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:50.201.195.170

• 50.201.195.170 (talk · contribs) is behaving strange, for example on Template talk:Infobox drug. Annoying. Can you see a pattern? -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Norschweden repeatedly adding non-free image List of designated terrorist groups

WP:NONFREE in the slighest. FDW777 (talk

) 23:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

dropped a note on NFC use in lists (read: not allowed) on their talk page. --Masem (t) 23:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

user:Taurus Littrow

GONE

Blocked in every way, global lock requested, we're done here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Taurus Littrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has quite a history of abusive comments (to show a few: [1], [2]), he's already indeffed in two wikis for such. Now he finally comes up with this at my talk page. The video shows a man who says (in Russain): "I'm drunk and I don't give a f*ck!", and that is supposed to be a reply to my questions. @Ymblanter: you'll see how abusive it is. — Mike Novikoff 23:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no opinion one way or the other about the addition or removal of stress marks on Russian words in the English Wikipedia, but I do have concerns about a brewing feud among editors. Mike Novikoff has the right to express his opinion about this matter in an essay. Taurus Littrow, you have the right to disagree and to explain your reasons why, but you do not have the right to personalize the dispute, dominate Mike Novikoff's user talk page, or come up to the very brink of harassment by posting that link to a stupid and vulgar YouTube video there. That was a really bad idea and you should drop the stick. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I somehow ended up seeing quite a lot of feuding regarding the issue and have been wondering whether to issue a last warning or a block to Taurus Littrow. Their approach was toxic and involved making claims about Mike Novikoff with only hand-waving regarding the underlying issue. The fact that Taurus Littrow is indeffed on two other projects comes as no surprise and I would be happy to make it three. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: you do not have the right to... dominate Mike Novikoff's user talk page — I never did that: his essay was only userfied two days ago; until then, it had been on wiki space (Novikoff personally insisted on that). As to that video, it is just a joke: that guy says "I don't give a f***" 20 or so times, and I don't think any Russian male would ever be offended at this. You can see it from the 816 comments to the video: everyone just makes fun of it ("I often remember and quote this wise man", "this is my stand in life", etc.). One has to be extremely thin-skinned to get offended at that. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Taurus Littrow, Wikipedia is not some social media site and not a place where you get to have fun by sharing this type of video on the userpage of an editor you are in a disagreement with. Since you have doubled down even after the other editor has told you that they consider it abusive, then I am giving you a formal warning: The next time you engage in this kind of behavior on English Wikipedia, you will be blocked for harassment. Please adjust your behavior accordingly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I repeat: there is nothing wrong with that video. It's not harassment. 1,000 comments to the video prove it. Every Russian male considers it a joke. Is it not evidence to you? Oh well, you can block me right now. I have no intention to stay in a place with such abusive and arbitrare attitude from admins. Novikoff is the one who should have been warned and blocked, long time ago. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I wonder why you are so harsh at me; I have always been very polite with you (as well as with all the other users save M.N.), and always tried to explain things. Oh well, whatever. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: UPDATE. I edited my reply before you answered to it. This is the new text I wrote: 1) Also, Novikoff personally insisted (several times) that I give my reasons for keeping stresses. Until then, I kept saying that those reasons had already been given by another user. The fact is that I didn't want to start long and useless discussions. 2) IMO, what really should worry everyone is Novikoff's behavior. For years, this user has been removing stress marks from dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, even if nobody asked him to do so and there clearly was no consensus to do this. What is worse, he continued doing so even after several people asked him to stop. Furthermore, he wrote an extremely biased essay which he insisted upon putting in common space, and he kept referring to it when he removed stresses (thus, falsely making people believe that it was some sort of wiki rule or guidance). Also, he reverted the edits of those who tried to put the stresses back, and he intimidated and harassed those users by placing warnings of vandalism (!) on their pages. If anything, vandalism was what Novikoff did by removing useful info (stress marks) under the false claim that they were something wrong and outdated (they aren't). Also, he attacked the entire Russian wiki in his essay. So I believe, what should really worry us are Novikoff's actions, not some innocent joke. Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you, Taurus Littrow? We are discussing your behavior here, not the Russian word stress mark controversy, which is a legitimate content dispute. And now you are making false accusations of vandalism on top of it? Please stop digging yourself deeper into a hole. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh well, just fuck off. What a bunch of complete morons, you, John-something and Novikoff. You can shove your warnings up your ass. Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Taurus Littrow for one week for harassment and personal attacks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Damn, I was going to try my block message of "Eric Corbett can get away with it, but .... actually, he can't get away with it either. Cheerio." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I just received an email from Taurus Littrow containing a vile, personalized death threat. Obviously, I did not respond to the email, indeffed the account and blocked their email and talk page access. I am a little bit rattled and would appreciate advice about what else should be done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I forwarded the email to the WMF's emergency email address. Should I do anything else? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting Wikipedia and I'm sorry that means receiving troll abuse. If anything further arises in connection with this, I suggest doing nothing other than privately contacting someone such as me if follow-up is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the first project that indeffed this editor for harassment. I've requested a global lock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this interaction, except tangentially through commenting on the accent-mark dispute, but it appears

Anatoli Ivanishin, removing links to an article on a trilogy from the articles on the individual volumes, -- that is, improvements and corrections and not just disputes in opinion (such as reverting cross-article harmonization of the name Istrebitel Sputnikov). Since Taurus' block is for behaviour, not for the content of his edits, I'd advise them to check that an edit isn't an improvement before reverting it. — kwami (talk

) 02:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Pacific swift - Today's TFA receive high level of IP Vandalism

SWIFTLY PROTECTED

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Pacific swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 10:16 UTC, Pacific swift becomes a today's Featured article (TFA) for February 4. But shortly after that, it receive high level of IP vandalism as it has too many vandalism and reverts due to more people watching the article. Please protect it because vandalism become more persistent. 36.68.194.127 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:HunsletMid: NOTHERE?

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

Morning Admins, can I make someone aware of the user known as HunsletMid, appears to be NOTHERE by the quality of their edits on EN wiki and rather crude uploads on Commons - if anyone here is an admin over on Commons could they take a look? I have nominated two of their additions - one is a copyvio. Courtesy pinging SK2242. Thanks Nightfury 11:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Also adding term on their user page is an English term for a sex offender. Would advise it be removed/revdel'd. Commons contibs have all been removed. Nightfury 11:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow that term has changed since I was a kid, when it just meant the same as numpty, wazzock, pillock etc. Canterbury Tail talk 14:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Originally prison slang, that meaning has been well-known in UK for about 40 years. I suspect it came into common knowledge through TV dramas; possibly including Minder. It was certainly well known by the time of Brass Eye#"Paedogeddon!" (2001); in which several celebrities were taken in by the idea of a spoof charity called Nonce Sense. Narky Blert (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Well in Northern Ireland we didn't always end up with the same changes that happened in Great Britain. Heck the 1980s have only just arrived :) Canterbury Tail talk 17:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

In bits of it, only the 1680s... Narky Blert (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my typo :) Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that the prison slang is defined as a second use: wikt:nonce - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur with what Nightfury has said above. Does not seem the user in question is here to contribute. SK2242 (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheadle Hulme - Today's TFA receive high level of IP Vandalism

• Cheadle Hulme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please protect this page because after it was becoming TFA, it had been receive high level of IP vandalism. 36.68.194.127 (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Has something changed that this is becoming a daily occurrence? Also should these be reported at

WP:RFPP? Not looking for bureaucracy but wondering if an edit note should be added when an article becomes TFA directing editors where to report. Slywriter (talk

) 22:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I quickly checked, and while there's been a good amount of activity (particularly in the last few hours, in the evening in the time zone the article covers) the majority of IP edits have been productive. Yes, there's been vandalism, but there are plenty of eyes on the article. Personally I'm not seeing a need for protection, it's currently operating as a good example of a TFA that gets editors involved. ~ mazca ^talk 23:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

See the open discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. Narky Blert (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:207.5.93.150

207.5.93.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly inserted 'David Hyatt' and 'Hyatt' into biographies over the last year. However, the frequency of it is not high enough to warrant a block.

The reason I bring this up here is that the user will likely to continue to do so in the future as the user's behavior has not stopped even after previously being warned in the talk page. What preventive actions should be taken about this? ~ Ase1este^t@lk_c0ntribs 03:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one year. I don't see another way. I'm open to alternatives, though, I just am unable to conceive of what these could be. El_C 05:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe trying to do some SEO by making his name seem important through wikipedia mentions? ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 08:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

With a slow trickle, though? Also, your first ANI post and it's on a report I attended to — what are the odds? (Actually, the odds are not that bad, seeing as I'm kinda everywhere.) El_C 10:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting only sysop move for Indian farmers(') protests

On 25 January 2021, there are attempts in the their talk page to rename the article from 2020-2021 Indian farmers(') protest to 2020-2021 Indian farmers protest (without apostrophe) and that consensus to not moved. But i'm afraid if someone request similar page move to this will become more distruptive in the future, so i requested the page to move by administrators only or sysop page move in order to prevent any distruptive page move without consulting from administrators. 36.68.194.127 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It seems El C changed the protection level a few hours ago per arbitration enforcement. Is that still insufficient? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:ECP is fine. Note that though the page has been otherwise protected for 6 months, I set the (ECP) move protection not to expire. El_C

00:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion ECP move protection is insufficient, due fact that the page move would be more distruptive because more repeated requested move. I originally plan to ping MelanieN for this because it is a admin who originally protects the page. 36.68.194.127 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with the changes made by El C. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, I think you might be misunderstanding how move protection works: only users within those groups are able to actually move the page; anyone else that meets the edit protection levels for the talk page can make a move request. Are you perhaps suggesting a moratorium on move requests? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

My intention is, i want to ban any users except administrators for renaming a controversial page like this without consensus on talk page. I believe this article is so controversial so i don't want any ECP users to move the page. i slightly disagree with El C about this page move protection. 36.68.194.127 (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Admins don't really handle content disputes like this. Since it's so controversial, any extended confirmed user who moves the page without establishing a solid reason that other page watchers are okay with is more than likely going to get reverted very quickly. As a suggestion to your claim of more distruptive [sic] because more repeated requested move, you could propose a

request for comment) on the article's talk page, which would ask users if they feel vetoing any move requests for a specified amount of time is the best course of action. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 07:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to hopefully spare everyone any further time spent on this. I'm not seeing there being a need to throttle

WP:NO-PREEMPT components it can be seen to have had, I don't see a reason to take that any further right now, so the request to upgrade the move protection from ECP to admin level is declined. Thank you. El_C

10:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

CLOSED BY OP REQUEST

Intends to try DRN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

I have posted many sources but the users C.J. Griffin and Rklahn have both removed my edits. I posted only peer reviewed scholarly sources after they said my first sources werent reliable. Now they are simply disagreeing with my edit because they dont agree (because of their opinion). They are showing they accept a single source for the controversial contested subject of european colonization but they dont accept mine because they simply dont like it.

The discussions took place here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes Danielbr11 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits like this aren't going to help your case. Grandpallama (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you an admin? They started the edit war deleting my posts so that link is irrelevant to the topic at hand.Danielbr11 (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Per policy written at the top of this page and when creating this report, you must notify the editors in question on their user talk pages. You may use {{

your behaviour, so yes, it is relevant. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 20:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize i missed that but i just posted on both of their talk pages. I hope now admins can discuss the content of the sources for the article..Danielbr11 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The material is currently under discussion on the article's talk page, where it should be. Note that the OP is continuing to restore his desired version [83] even after receiving an informal edit warring notice earlier today [84]. He appears to have broken 3RR and I have left a formal 3RR warning. Meters (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The OP was also pointed to WP:Edit warring on the article's talk page [85], and responded to that post and the informal edit warring warning on their talk page before restoring again. I think an edit warring block is warranted. Meters (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree, but think a block should take into account the personal attacks, as well. Grandpallama (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that an edit warring block is warranted, but may not be appropriate. I suspect that even though

the five pillars

(TL;DR: 2 and 5) and keep on trying.

For the record: I have questioned the reliability of one source, but think I did so in good faith. I have not said if I agree or disagree on the edit itself. I do not feel like Ive been attacked, personally, but do think that Danielbr11 is not being civil. My (only) revert was done because of a lack of consensus. Rklahn (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess "Now YOU are engaging in hypocritical bias" where the YOU is ME is a personal attack. Im still catching up here. Rklahn (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok i will not add the edit again until a conclusion is reached i just thought they were edit warring because they were reverting my edits. My question is to you guys: what conflict resolution am i supposed to do at this point where we have discussed the topic at length in talk and i met their demands for a reliable source but now the two of them just dont want to discuss anymore because they simply dont agree with my edit?Danielbr11 (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"I just thought they were edit warring because they were reverting my edits" isn't a great way to think. You didn't follow the proper procedure for discussion and continued to edit war. You can't continue a war and then complain when it occurs! As for your question, You are to follow the correct procedure that has already been outlined in this discussion. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I just added a few comments in the thread above, and a read of them may be needed for context. I think there is a fundamental disconnect here. You don't seem to know what an

List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, but the topic is sensitive, and is someplace where knowing Wikipedia policy really helps. I suggest you follow the advice Ive already given. Rklahn (talk

) 00:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok Rklahn i am not going to add the edit again until we reach consensus on the talk page. I apologize if i said something personal but the other member Griffin accused me of having a bias as well. Will you please continue the discussion with me on the talk page as to how my source is not reliable or why isnt my addition allowed compared to the other items on the list? I hope we continue to talk there instead of me being ignored or brushed off when we should be able to make relevant edits.Danielbr11 (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC) So we began discussing in the talk page again and Griffin continues to ignore my peer reviewed sources while he started accusing the sources and me as biased. Is there nothing else the admins here can do or do I have to use the dispute resolution notice board? If so can you please close this so I can proceed to the dispute resolution notice board.Danielbr11 (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The DRN is probably not going to work out for you. We don't decide if sources are reliable- and we can't force editors to accept your sources. You really need to listen to what they are telling you about the sources and try to find ones that fit. If you have questions about what makes a source reliable- try the RS noticeboard or the teahouse. I also suggest you stop using such agressive language- telling people what they will and will not do or can and cannot do. Instead of ordering- try negotiating, asking, suggesting. People will be more inclined to help. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please I request this post be deleted as I was supposed to put this request in dispute resolution notice board since it is in regards to content.Danielbr11 (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Can't get an editor to communicate

I'm sorry to even bring this here, but I've been asking this editor repeatedly (once, twice, thrice) to handle a template correctly, and they ignore me and do the same again and again and again. I keep having to clean after them. Maybe administrator intervention will help them understand the need for communication? Thanks in advance. --Muhandes (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

All of their 1600 or so edits have been on mainspace (no talk pages) and none have had an edit summary! DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Muhandes, These sort of editors turn up every now and again. I wish I knew what their problem is with communicating - most of them aren't here to push a POV, they just edit the encyclopedia and don't seem to know there's any way other people are watching them. Either people get fed up, or they blocked, never to return. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Muhandes From the editnotice at the top of this page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I've notified them for you. jp×g 23:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, they did. Look at that user's talkpage two sections above your notice... Jack Frost (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, man, above the ArbCom election notice! Whoops. jp×g 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

We're too used to people ignoring the MASSIVE YELLOW BANNER, heh. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 07:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've been here long enough not to ignore that banner and I thought placing that notice right after the warning might be more constructive. Other than the empathy, maybe I can get some help? My experience is that an administrator leaving a warning usually does the trick, and if not, a 24h ban definitely does. --Muhandes (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Muhandes, I'm going to give something a go. I've blocked with a custom template message that says "Click here to read your talk page and respond" that ought to be pretty difficult to miss. As soon as there is communication, anyone can unblocked. I'm trying this, because a standard block rationale of "Disruptive editing, failure to discuss" means something to us, but nothing to them, and there's no other way of customising the block message to make it more user-friendly.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Since this is overall a constructive editor, I hope they just respond, get unblocked, and we can go on with our beneficial editing hobbies. --Muhandes (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

On the handful of occasions I've done this in the past, the editor disappears forever (Exhibit A, Exhibit B) and I'm left scratching my head wondering what's stopping them from communicating. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Stix1776

• Stix1776 (talk · contribs)
• Holodomor in modern politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been working on cleaning up and improving the referencing for Holodomor in modern politics since yesterday after Stix1776 attempted to remove material from the article [86]. Since then I have been working at it, have asked this editor repeatedly to stop while I add references, but to no effect. They continue to remove stable sourced content [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92],

Now an IP editor is suspiciously doing the same: [93]

I have reverted changes this editor has made more than 3 times to add references. Let me know if I should cease, but then I cannot continue to add references to content that has been removed. Again I have left messages on the talk page, this users page, edit summaries, page tags, etc to let them clearly know I am working on references.

It is going to take time to look up resolutions in dozens of languages. These mass repeated deletions of sourced content is disruptive, and make it impossible to improve the article. The article needs work and this editor is impeding it.  // Timothy :: talk  06:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My browswer, without my knowledge, logged me out of Wikipedia. I apologize about the IP edit. It wasn't intentional.

TimothyBlue is claiming that it's old material, but it's content that he added not 2 days ago (edits on 18:08-18:12 on 31 January).

The content he's adding is poorly sourced (original research) and the admin on the page agrees with my assessment on the talk page.

Expecting to hold a Wikipedia page for several days while an editor looks for sources is unreasonable, especially for an issue on a contested topic. Stix1776 (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Stix1776 concerns seem reasonable to me. Wikipedia articles should be precise about exactly who is recognizing what. I would suggest separating out declarations of genocide from declarations that do not use the word "genocide". Furthermore, we shouldn't leave up unverified content indefinitely while editors work on finding sources. It can always be restored later if sources are found. The in construction tag should not be misused to shut out other editors. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• The under construction tag is not being misused. I agree the article needs improvement, but the content is sourced already. I can't improve the article if Stix1776 keeps removing content.  // Timothy :: talk  07:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Clearly it's already sourced and that Stix1776 isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Removing mass content isn't allowed, specifically when hyperlinks in other articles can be used as a source, if the article being hyperlinked is well sourced, which it is. Des Vallee (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  I just checked one diff[94] Stix's edit summary is correct, I checked the source and the resolution does not mention "crime(s) against humanity". It is therefore false, or at best WP:OR to say that this resolution recognizes the Holodomor as a crime against humanity. I see you've repeatedly restored this incorrect content so I would recommend being more careful about citing sources correctly. (t · c) buidhe 09:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd recommend you read the article and references more carefully. The note is a list of resolutions and the resolutions are listed below with references. Its sourced and it is accurate.  // Timothy :: talk  10:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Also I've been working on this for 2 days, the content has been there for years, it can wait a bit as editors work on it.  // Timothy :: talk  08:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I guess everyone can see how tedious it is working when TimothyBlue. The UN has never "passed" any of the resolutions you are citing. A little humility and consideration with editing is appreciated, so everything doesn't have to be resolved by administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• The references are there. You're just ignoring them. I've been very patient with your reverts.  // Timothy :: talk  14:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I swear I've read through your references. Joint statements and declarations signed by 30 something countries do not count as "passed" by the UN. This is tedious. I genuinely feel bad for admins that need to go through your edits.Stix1776 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I am still working on the article, but Stix1776 DE POV editing is only getting worse and making it difficult. I believe this is intentional to wear down editors trying to improve the article. See Talk:Holodomor in modern politics, [95], and my talk User talk:TimothyBlue/Archive 2#Sorry, I unintentionally made an IP edit again for the latest exmamples.

Mzajac posted helpful comments and I used their feedback, I hope some other experienced editors can join the discussion. I think it is clear this editor simply wants to delete the content they do not like, not improve the article. If there is a consensus my efforts to work on the article are not constructive (no one is perfect), I will step back and hopefully others will save the content from Stix1776.  // Timothy :: talk  16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the reverts made by User:Timothy Blue speak for themselves. Especially those when he was reverting edits removing unsourced ideas and original research. Guy, use the talk page if editors disagree with your content. Reverting edits while ignoring the problems listed is just edit warring. I apologize to the admin for having to deal with this. Stix1776 (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

My work on the page does speak for itself and so does Stix1776 deletes. And you provide no diffs.

As I stated earlier, if a consensus of editors believes I should step back and allow you to delete the content, I will. // Timothy :: talk  12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

More removal of sourced content by Stix1776

Stix1776 is continuing to remove sourced content to fit their POV:

• Removal of sourced information: [96] with misleading edit summary.

Added content directly refuted by sources in article: [97] with misleading edit summary.

On the talk page they are arguing to remove nations such as Albania from the list of nations which "recognized the Holodomor". The content is sourced to votes in both the United Nations and the European Parliament. But they are still claiming Albania has not recognized the Holodomor. See [98]. (Albania is the first of a list of nations from Europe that the editor is trying to remove).

I continue to work with Mzajac on the article but this needs to be addressed. This is a serious POV pushing problem and is disrupting editors that are working to improve the article. Actually it is more serious than a POV editing, it is removing clearly sourced content.  // Timothy :: talk  04:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, Stix is right on the content issue. Albania does not recognize the Holodomor unless its national government, either the legislature or the executive, does so. No reliable source says that the UK has recognized the Armenian Genocide even though some of its representatives have voted in favor at the European Parliament and Council of Europe. Please cite secondary sources to avoid OR and do not label their editing as disruptive without addressing the underlying issues. (t · c) buidhe 07:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you t. In regards to [[99]], the two sources that Timothy cite don't say that 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide"'. As for the first edit, [[100]], the source literally states 'The U.S. government has not recognized the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide,"'. I feel bad for the admin having to deal with this. So much of your edits have huge POV issues or source issues. The two edits above (that you reverted) are examples of this. Also you kept reverting this even though it was obvious plagarism [[101]]. Or this [[102]] when no source said that "The United Nations has passed multiple resolutions commemerating the Holodomor as a man made famine".

I'm kind of a n00b with Wikipedia. I did want to do more stuff about Computer Science and Education (my degrees). I'm sorry to pull the admin into this editing war. Should I create a edit war report on the admin noticeboard? Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the article and the post above will again show Stix1776 is playing POV games to delete content. One example from above is their comment regarding Radio Free Europe [103]. This source does incorrectly state the Holodormor has not been recognized as genocide, and the fact of the recognition is referenced to the public law at Congress.gov, where the it is labeled a famine-genocide in a public law. Congress.gov > Radio Free Europe as a source.  // Timothy :: talk  08:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Timothy, cite a source so we know what you're talking about. Stix1776 (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In the article and in the diff.  // Timothy :: talk  08:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Timothy, thanks for being helpful. This is the source from congress.gov [[104]]. Here's the source from Radio Free Europe [[105]]. Per radio free Europe: "In the U.S. Congress, simple resolutions are nonbinding, passed by only one chamber of Congress, and don't become law. Typically, they are used by lawmakers to usually back a pet project or endeavor, or a potentially political controversial issue without forcing a more public vote." A resolution is not an official policy of the US government, and your source doesn't say otherwise.Stix1776 (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You are again distorting to push your POV. The public law on Congress.gov is not a simple or non-binding resolution and RFE does not call it such.  // Timothy :: talk  09:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Per the text at[[106]]

The Senate "recognizes the findings of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine as submitted to Congress on April 22, 1988, including that...'Stalin and those around him committed genocide against the Ukrainians in 1932–1933,'" it said.

Millions of people died in the famine, which many Ukrainians consider to have been caused by Soviet central planners as an act of genocide, aimed at wiping out Ukrainian farmers.

In the U.S. Congress, simple resolutions are nonbinding, passed by only one chamber of Congress, and don't become law. Typically, they are used by lawmakers to usually back a pet project or endeavor, or a potentially political controversial issue without forcing a more public vote.

Timothy, you are more than welcome to that opinion, but you need to SOURCE your opinion for Wikipedia. Stix1776 (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's plain you are trying to mix up the source about the Senate resolution and the source about the public law.  // Timothy :: talk  09:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

False accusations of plagiarism

Stix1776 has made unfounded accusations of plagiarism against me [107], [108]. There comments also contain other serious accusations.

The content has been in the article for a while.

Instead of fixing the minor amount of plagiarism and saving the sourced content, they deleted it [109]

I restored it because it was sourced content [110], and was easily able to remove the plagiarism and save the content.

This false accusation of plagiarism against an experienced editor cannot be left unaddressed, especially combined with their other accusations and POV pushing. The accusations should also be redacted.  // Timothy :: talk  09:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Your revert[[111]]:

The United States Government received numerous contemporary intelligence reports on the famine from its European embassies, but chose not to acknowledge the famine publicly. Similarly, leading members of the American press corps in the Soviet Union willfully covered up the famine in their dispatches. In both cases, political considerations relating to the establishment of diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R. seem to have been critical factors in this cover-up.

• The text from this website [[112]]:

The United States Government received numerous contemporary intelligence reports on the famine from its European embassies, but chose not to acknowledge the famine publicly. Similarly, leading members of the American press corps in the Soviet Union willfully covered up the famine in their dispatches. In both cases, political considerations relating to the establishment of diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R. seem to have been critical factors in this cover-up.

OMG, just fix your plagiarism instead of reverting it (now solved).Stix1776 (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You are making false accusations.  // Timothy :: talk  09:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid that, as presented, this is verbatim copying from a non-free source. I can, in principle, be presented as a quote, but we can not really keep this without further explanations.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The easiest would be probably not to edit the article directly, but to make something like Holodomor in modern politics/temp, discuss it at the talk page of the article, amend according to suggestions, and then move to the main namespace (merging the edit history).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, the text was not mine, I performed the revert to restore the uninfringing text and sources and then immediately copy edited it to remove the copyvio. I was fixing the copyright issue.  // Timothy :: talk  11:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I will revision-delete it later. Well, then we are again back to a (unfortunately, too) commons pattern of a newish user with 100+ edits appearing out of nowhere to make false accusations. Not really good and very tiring.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Mzajac and I are working on improving and expanding the article and your words very tiring fit. You can see from this editors response to your DS notice, they don't have an interest in this area, they are just deleting content they do not like and making life exhausting for others.  // Timothy :: talk  11:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I kept repeating this as reverting back the plagiarism, not "your plagiarism". It wasn't my intention to accuse you of plagiarism, but of edit warring by reverting back without fixing. I did unintentionally say "your text" above, which is now edited to "your revert". Can we please be nicer to other editors?Stix1776 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You're lying, [113] "is making unsourced edits, original research, plagiarizing, and edit warring". You've been playing word games on the article, and you doing it here.  // Timothy :: talk  12:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for not being specific enough. I should have said "repeatedly reverting planarized text". If you look down in the edit, it says "Also you kept reverting this even though it was obvious plagarism" which to me makes the meaning obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also untrue. I reverted it once, not repeatedly, and for the permissable purpose of salvaging non-infringing text and references and immediately copy editing the passage to remove the small amount of text which was the problem. As soon as the problem was noted, I fixed it. I didn't report it for reaction immediately, because there could be other cases and in that event a collective report would be easier and faster for admins to redact from.  // Timothy :: talk  12:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that the copyrighted text was there before Timothy showed up, and that is now fixed. I am generally quite unimpressed by Stix' handling of this, such as adding an edit summary of "lol" while posting here on ANI and trying to retaliate against Timothy in the thread above, plus being generally combative. Now, I might be biased because I have mentored Timothy for a good while, but when Timothy says something about a source I would generally trust it. Timothy's work on sourcing is very impressive (see his many bibliographies
  WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior continues, I suspect it will not end well for you. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓
  16:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Solavirum and Shusha

[Shutting this down this AE minefield before the inevitable downward spiral.] Well, it looks like the

WP:ONUS, the status quo ante version should be the version that is displayed until the dispute is resolved with a clear outcome (or lack thereof). El_C

18:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

Solavirum removed [114] the boldface for the significant alternative name "Shushi" that I added [115] to the lede of the Shusha article, which I presented a clear rationale for in my edit summary.

In the edit summary of his edit, he argued that the matter had been brought up in a previous discussion: [116] on the article talk page as a rationale - however the topic of that discuission was the very presence of the name and its status as a significant alternative name per Wikipedia guidelines.

I reverted [117] his edit and explained on the talk page [118] that he did not present a valid rationale for his edit. I provided my original rationale from my edit summary on the talk page with relevant links. I believe the rationale I presented was pretty straight-forward, while referring to Wikipedia guidelines that are clear about the matter (

MOS:BOLDSYN

).

He then carried out another revert [119] pointing to his answer on the talk page which referred to that there is a consensus about the matter from the previous discussion, which is hard to grasp since the issue of boldface was not discussed.

He then said he was too busy to respond and would get back to me tomorrow. I don't want to engage in an edit war, and since I would say that his behavior is not constructive or prudent for a Wikipedia editor, I would appreciate administrator input regarding the matter.

AntonSamuel (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 17:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jerm: The main issue that I wanted to raise here was with regard to the behavior of the user, but I wanted to provide context regarding the matter so I included an extensive explanation to avoid confusion. As I mentioned, I don't intend to engage in an edit war - I only carried out a single revert - which I believe was justified with regard to the lack of a reasonable rationale for the removal of the boldface, and I also opened a discussion on the talk page. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Texan681

I have stumbled upon this rarely used account which although inactive for the last three weeks seems to be very problematic. The account mainly edits around racism in France, though the views are so idiosyncratic it's hard to know whether it's pro-racist, anti-racist, or a parody of either. Here are some of its just sixteen edits:

• [120] accuses a French anti-Islamophobia charity of fuelling the murder of Samuel Paty. Unsourced. This has been alleged by many figures but AFAIK not proven.
• [121] calls same group "soft terrorism"
• [122] accuses a black actor of being a hypocrite who ignores crimes against whites
• [123] accuses sister of police brutality victim of being a criminal
• [124] invents an imaginary NYT article that says that crimes by non-white people were done by far-right Germans in disguise. The reverting editor called it a "good faith" addition that forgot to cite the article, but the article doesn't exist, period
• [125] writes in a non-neutral but POSITIVE manner on the same victim of police brutality

As you can see, it's impossible to tell if this is a pro- or anti-racist account, but whatever it is, it's not writing neutrally or using sources. I don't know what the procedure is with accounts with only 16 edits, whether they're given rope until they hang themselves, but I've seen brand new accounts get blocked within minutes because they prove they're

WP:NOTHERE

by this kind of editing.

If there's not sufficient grounds for a block, I at least propose a topic ban on the subject of racism and anti-racism, broadly construed. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's usually expected that before you ask for a sanction, there is some evidence you actually tried to discuss the matter with the user first.
  talk
  ) 20:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this is my first time using the board, and I assumed that there already being three warnings on a user's talk page (a user with 16 edits I may add) was enough to say that this user is aware of what they're doing. I don't see why it's different if I'm reporting them but didn't give them those warnings myself. But maybe the user hasn't edited for three weeks because they're bored now, maybe not. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

DJ JAYLON is NOTHERE

promote an online radio station (and not even a good one). On the AfD for the article, tdl1060 mentioned that DJ JAYLON was "an LTA vandal

of radio station articles, using multiple accounts and IP addresses to add content about fictional radio stations." So, a checkuser might be necessary.

Spiderone nom'd the article for deletion, I took it a step further and requested it be deleted, per G3. I'll let you all deal with the editor. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:17 on February 6, 2021 (UTC)

They deleted some of the comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WCC-FM which I have now reverted. It's worth keeping an eye to makes sure he doesn't try doing it again. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for advertising, being unable or unwilling to comprehend basic policies, and spamming "why they deleted my article" messages across half the project.
  talk
  ) 20:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, can we get a block on their IP

chatter

) 21:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

And a dig back on

chatter

) 21:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that all seems pretty darn clear. I'm on it.

talk

) 22:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done bagged and tagged.

talk

) 22:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it's appreciated.

chatter

) 23:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Other accounts they have used include 85.5 STAFF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is indef blocked on Wikipedia but is still being used on Wikimedia Commons, and 85.5 FOR LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is also indef blocked on Wikipedia.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As the account 85.5 FOR LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created 14 April 2019, it is the oldest of the bunch, so the other accounts should probably be tagged as socks of 85.5 FOR LA.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• My sleep schedule is a mess, just wanted to say "Thank You!" to everyone who commented and took care of everything. Much appreciated! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:08 on February 7, 2021 (UTC)

Please delete page created by sock of mikemikev or other white supremacist paid editor

Emil Kirkegaard

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#RationalWiki_too_negative_against_Emil_Kirkegaard is definitive proof.

Emil is a white supremacist far right antisemite. None of the article is true. All his credentials are fake. The account that wrote it is paid to write it or a sock of Mikemikev. He admitted it on rational wiki. Please delete it. This is part of an ongoing harassment campaign and whitewashing campaign spanning many sites. I have been doxxed by this person and his stupid goons. 218.232.76.181 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the article should be removed per sock-puppet concerns, it had already been deleted. There are many discussions about this currently, see for example [126] and [127]. Mikemikev is a banned sock-puppet [128] who has used Kirkegaard's name on this website [129]. If Mikemivev or some other meat-puppet did create the article it should be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And fully protect it. And watch out for whitewashing on OpenPsych. 218.232.76.181 (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The article has been draftified by DGG.Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations at Talk:David

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

I Am the Very Model of a Biblical Philologist
"In print I wrinkle brows of any lib-er-al that wrinkles mine / And counter all the theses of that vigilante Finkelstein" EEng

ISBN 978-1-108-58837-9., which has been called a polemical writing [132]. Their edits may be interpreted as WP:Advocacy for Kalimi's POV. They have formally denied being a paid editor: [133]

.

Same editor wrote I decided to read the rest of Ahlstrom's paper and was disgusted by the sheer dishonesty of your claims. There is clearly no limit to what you will manipulate in order to establish your sheer and utter propaganda. [134]. They have been blocked once for violating

WP:NPA. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 00:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This again? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Don't accuse someone of paid editing if you don't have any evidence.
  talk
  ) 02:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  My idea was that they were doing promotional edits: for Dever/Kalimi and against Finkelstein. Therefore asking them if they were paid for such edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If you knew the editor had already denied being paid, why would you even bring it up in this report?

talk

) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Err, I have written the above message in several steps. At first I was unaware they will deny. After learning that they denied it, I stated clearly that they did deny. Anyway, saying that Israel Finkelstein is both incompetent and insane made me wonder if they have an axe to grind against him. That's why I thought they edit promotionally. You may see all the steps of my message at Special:Contributions/Tgeorgescu. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is obviously a content dispute, and you are putting so much effort in having this editor blocked, so that you'd be the one to come out on top in the dispute. The fact that you had already made a previous report against the editor and about the same article

talk

) 03:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't find it normal that Finkelstein gets called incompetent and insane. I thought that is against

WP:SPI reports were successful. So it's not like I would cast aspersions without any reason. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 03:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't care if the editor thinks the source is good, bad, reliable, unreliable, that is an argument for the article talk page, and your past successful SPI cases have nothing to do with this report. You have been editing for many years, yet you couldn't start an RfC?

talk

) 03:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I do know something about the editor, but

WP:OUTING does not allow me to say it here. Anyway, my take is that that discussion should have been closed long ago, it no longer has anything to do with the article David. And I guess RfCs are not for closing discussions. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 03:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there is no secret that I wanted Editshmedt blocked. But I am not desperate about it; I'm more likely bored by it. It is not so much that it would be because of disagreeing with them, but the inability of them to find a common idiom with the other three editors at that talk page. Bona fide editors recognize

WP:ENEMY. But that has not happened at Talk:David: what Editshmedt says failed to convince three of us and what three of us say failed to convince Editshmedt. I sincerely believed that it is not done to call Finkelstein names. So yeah, Editshmedt pleads mostly their own understanding of archaeological papers, claiming an elusive consensus of archaeologists that the United Monarchy has truly existed. To this we replied that there is no smoking gun in that respect, all we have is a tiny, broken, multi-interpretable inscription which says something about the House of David. And we don't have even that much about Solomon, a king who according to the Bible become the head of a wealthy empire through maintaining military prowess and through international trade and diplomacy. It was a shock for me to learn that Wikipedians are allowed to call top professors names. We are supposed to be civil with each other, but everyone outside the Wikipedia Community has been declared fair game for casting aspersions against them. A Wikipedian just has to comment upon a source and boom, all dirty words become allowed for persons living outside of Wikipedia Community. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 03:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 12:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Has there been any attempt to bring the dispute (behaviour notwithstanding) to the

WP:DRN? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 03:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, that discussion is about the archaeological evidence for the United Monarchy especially in respect to the Low Chronology of Finkelstein. So, if

WP:DRN is needed, it is needed for another article, not for David. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 04:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:BLP violation? Tgeorgescu (talk

) 07:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, it is an important question, so I asked about it at

WP:BLPN. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 09:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Answered with:

How is calling a very famous (in his field) professor emeritus insane/incompetent not defamatory? "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Or do you mean such opinions are relevant to content choice? Doug Weller talk 11:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Tgeorgescu, you seem to be making a lot of accusations against Editshmedt without providing supporting diffs, including that the editor is an "anti-Finkelstein troll, furthering a wiki-feud" and engaged in paid editing (although Editshmedt has never edited the Israel Finkelstein page itself).

@

WP:SPA for demeaning Finkelstein's Low Chronology. See their edits at Talk:David

, where they insist time after time that the Low Chronology is the single reason why scholars don't accept the United Monarchy and that the Low Chronology is patently false. That even after we all told him that the Low Chronology is not that all-important as they think.

E.g.:

The article isn't about the Low Chronology. The article is about David, a legendary biblical figure. The supposed point of the section in question, "Historicity," must be to present a) what evidence exists for this legendary figure and b) the scholarly consensus on what conclusions can be drawn from that evidence. I agree that the section is not very good, but I don't think your edits are improving it. I think the section should resemble the Historicity section in the article about King Arthur. In both cases are we dealing with legendary figures that may or may not have existed and whose deeds may or may not have been greatly exaggerated. ImTheIP (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing you can do to change the fact that the overwhelming majority of archaeologists have rejected the Low Chronology. The Low Chronology, in turn, is the only basis on which you can disentangle the SSS, LSS, and all the other structures we've discussed from the 10th century. But please keep telling me about how William Dever and Amihai Mazar are maximalist religious fundamentalists in order to preserve your precious, if fragile views.Editshmedt (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, except for your obsession with the Low Chronology, do you have

WP:TE

at worst. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Low Chronology is the only basis on which the six-chambered gates, ashlar palaces at Megiddo, fortification of Beersheba, construction of the SSS and the LSS, and so forth can be placed in the 9th century rather than the 10th. Unless you defend the Low Chronology, I'm simply going to assume that they're all 10th century. Editshmedt (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Modified Conventional Chronology, or any other Chronology – it's not important to this article. I fully accept that "Iron IIA pottery is continuous from the 10th to 9th centuries BCE". I'm sure this problem is not limited to Iron IIA pottery either. It is only your determination to perpetuate the Low Chronology strawman that hinders progress here. I found it interesting how you tried to trick me into "defending" the Low Chronology. Mmmmmmm.
Finally, you put huge emphasis on the "Solomonic" six-chambered gates, but you neglect to mention that other six-chambered gates existed outside of Solomon's territory – including a six-chambered gate in Ashdod, where Solomon would never have ventured. How did all these cities have near-identical gates, when Solomon (assuming he existed at all) never built things in Ashdod? Who did control both Ashdod and Megiddo in this time period, along with many other places, and came from a monumental-building culture? Who could it possibly have been? Oh wait, was it perhaps Sheshonq? Could it maybe have been him? He did erect a stela at Megiddo ... I wonder if ….. Wdford (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you not see that it is clearly the Low Chronology which is patently political? Mazar has never written a populist book in his life. However, almost at the outset, Finkelstein published The Bible Unearthed constructing a whole system on his Low Chronology and made tons of money. Since then, Mazar has forced Finkelstein into numerous concessions which I can list out. It's game over for the LC. Once Finkelstein retires, it will be forgotten.
The only candidate for a 10th century construction of these six-chambered gates in Megiddo, Gezer, or Hazor is Solomon. All the relevant strata are Israelite in their material culture. Got any more escape hatchets?Editshmedt (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

... and every other ad nauseam repetition of Finkelstein's chronology, Low Chronology, or 'low' chronology at Talk:David. See also User:Editshmedt/Commentary on the United Monarchy_debate which makes his POV against Finkelstein crystal-clear: Bibliography of publications that have rejected Finkelstein’s Low Chronology and his rejection of the United Monarchy and/or accepted the United Monarchy.

Conclusion: Editshmedt claims that the falsification of the Low Chronology is a done deal, but they just try to fool us in that respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jerm: Editshmedt's POV is that the Low Chronology has been busted (like in MythBusters). That's imposture. And seek Talk:David for the word insult: others have seen the same thing I am telling you here. They quarrel with everyone who tells them that the United Monarchy isn't consensually accepted (we offered them verifiable quotes and arguments). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say, almost everyone one of the opinions attributed to me here by Tgeorg is exaggerated/false. According to Lester Grabbe, the Modified Conventional Chronology "seems to have been fairly widely accepted" (the revised edition of Ancient Israel, pg. 84). But I am sure that, as usual, the literature just counts as my "opinion" when it says something inconvenient. I also found it funny that Tgeorg had to clarify to everyone that his dozens of attempts to get me banned over a series of months ranging on a whole variety of accusations including but not limited to paid editing (based on nothing) is actually just him being "bored" rather than "desperate".Editshmedt (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI is not the correct noticeboard for resolving content disputes. talk ) 16:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong again. I know it's a form of wishful thinking that the non-Low Chronology perspective is represented by Dever, but it's not. If there's any "one" representative to it, it's Amihai Mazar. Another big contributor to the discussion is Avraham Faust, and Dever has written less than either of those on this particular debate. There is no one face of the conventional chronology viewpoint because it is represented by a wide number of scholars across numerous publications. On the other hand, and I kid you not, Finkelstein has written more of the Low Chronology papers than every other advocate of the Low Chronology combined. It's a one-man show. Chronologies are certainly falsifiable and most scholars believe that Finkelstein's Low Chronology is falsified enough. IMO, it is better called the 'Finkelstein Chronology' than the 'Low Chronology'.Editshmedt (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC) I stand by that claim. Can you tell me more about that "paid editing" you think I'm doing? I also noticed above that you cherry-picked from a review alluding to Kalimi's "polemics", as if a certain someone hasn't engaged in polemics themselves. The review goes on to conclude that "Kalimi offers well-reasoned work on the biblical texts, and his examinations of the archaeological and epigraphical data is a delightful bonus. No one who is seriously interested in the texts about King Solomon should overlook this volume." Always got to double check things with you, don't I?Editshmedt (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC) So, did Kalimi offer any archaeological attestation of King Solomon (smoking gun)? Guessed so! Archaeologists inferred that David existed based upon a fragment of a broken stone. Even that does not exist for Solomon. I respect to paid editing, I stated in two places that I have no longer pursued that accusation after you have replied that you don't engage in paid editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Pp. 69-76. If someone else affirmed your view instead of you being met by widespread rejection, you would still be claiming I've been doing paid editing to this day. That you could even come up with that claim speaks volumes. Editshmedt (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Let me rephrase: House of David is attested upon 1 (one) fragment of broken stone; that's all archaeological evidence about David. Solomon is attested upon 0 (zero) stones, bullae, pottery, and so on. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Solomon is attested upon 0 (zero) stones, bullae, pottery, and so on. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Your confusion on what counts as evidence does not interest me. As I said, see pg. 143 of The Bible Unearthed and pp. 69-76 of Kalimi's book. There's no room in any relevant or serious conversation for someone who boils down all history to what is found in inscriptions.Editshmedt (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Sad, you cannot separate between conjecture and empirical evidence. I may even agree with Finkelstein that both David and Solomon existed, however that will never amount to one ounce of empirical evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC) I'm not even surprised that this content dispute has leaked here at ANI. As interesting as this sounds, ANI is not the right venue for handling content disputes. I've already provided my input on the issue above. I can't see any admin action happening, just a warning to both of you to keep the dispute civil and discuss the issue on the correct noticeboard. With that, this case should be closed. talk ) 17:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC) I agree. One moment ago, Tgeorg was insisting there was no clearly Solomon. Now that he has learned that Finkelstein thinks otherwise, he instantly changed his mind. I think it's obvious what source Tgeorg solely relies on to distinguish between evidence and conjecture. Certainly not on the basis of archaeology.Editshmedt (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC) I have never denied that Solomon existed. And per WP:OR my own opinion is irrelevant for Wikipedia. However, my opinion is conjecture, not empirical evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk ) 18:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Yeah, you did. "Archaeologists inferred that David existed based upon a fragment of a broken stone. Even that does not exist for Solomon." You may have already managed to convince yourself otherwise, but the simple fact is that, upon seeing Finkelstein disagreeing with you, you instantly changed your mind to fit Finkelstein's claims.Editshmedt (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC) I bought Finkelstein's bestsellers long ago and I have read them many years ago. What do you seek, proof of purchase? It does not enter your mind that I have the belief that Solomon existed, based upon educated guessiology, but at the same time recognize there's not one shred of archaeological evidence about Solomon. False dilemma. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC) No proof of purchase needed. One moment ago: "Hahahaha no inscriptions mention Solomon we have nothing for his existence nothing!!" and now "Well, I don't REALLY think Solomon didn't exist since, you know, Finkelstein wouldn't be pleased to hear that!" In any case, Finkelstein says that we can "archaeologically" say that Solomon existed. So it seems that Finkelstein agrees with me: "archaeological evidence" can't be purely reduced to what is explicitly mentioned in surviving inscriptions. That's just not how the discipline works.Editshmedt (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Finkelstein does not have a shred of archaeological evidence about Solomon; nobody has. I have the belief that Solomon existed; it isn't knowledge because there is no evidence. Why there is no evidence? Because Solomon was a lowly peon and nobody cared to write about him. The Israelites were unable to write during David's and Solomon's reign. And no one else cared to write about him. That's conjecture. There is no evidence they could write, states need writing, so there is no evidence they had a state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 1. Archaeologically, David and a large majority of the other Israelite and Judahite kings in the Deuteronomistic history have been confirmed. Imagine we have a report that says "First King A reigned, then King B, then King C, then King D, then King E, then King F". Now imagine inscriptions confirm "First King A, then unknown, then King C, then King D, then unknown, then King F". The initial report, both in terms of the specific kings and their sequence, appears to be archaeologically reliable. This is what we have with Solomon and the Deuteronomistic history. 2. There is an extensive description of Solomon's building of the Temple on the Temple Mount in the Deuteronomistic history. We can archaeologically confirm that the architectural description of the Temple is mirrored in many other sites across the Levant and even other sites in Mesopotamia. In fact, the architecturally closest excavated structures from Israel are from the 9th century BC and earlier (whereas those later get less similar). We archaeologically know that a secondary Judahite administrative site in the 9th century BC, Tel Motza, had such a temple design. If a little secondary administrative site had a temple, then the capital of the kingdom, Jerusalem, obviously would have had to. We also know that, archaeologically and from an abundance of surviving inscriptions, that kings from the ancient near east only attribute their construction achievements to themselves. It therefore makes little archaeological sense to say that someone other than Solomon built the Temple but not only did not attribute that construction to themselves but to an earlier king. 3. The plain facts for this point are not universally recognized, but they appear to be recognized widely enough (definitely a majority by my reading). Archaeologically, we can say that the only monumental architecture in Palestine in the 10th century BC is known from Jerusalem, Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer. That exactly mirrors the neutral and plainly worded description of Solomon's construction feats in 1 Kings 9:15. 4. It appears as if the historical geography of 1 Kings 9:11–14 has been archaeologically confirmed as well. It therefore is clear that there is more than enough archaeological evidence for Solomon to convince any rational archaeologist. Editshmedt (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC) He who finds there a building stone containing built by King Solomon or something containing belonging to King Solomon will be the next winner of the Dan David Prize. That's evidence. What you have presented above is guessiology. Samaria Ostraca is the earliest consensually identified as Paleo-Hebrew, even earlier inscriptions are owing to doubt. No writing, no state, as simply as that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC) You have once again committed the fallacy of reducing archaeology to what is explicitly stated in surviving inscriptions. In reality, all of the above is clear, unambiguous, and decisive archaeological evidence for a sizable core of the description of Solomon's reign in the Deuteronomistic history. You are also plainly wrong about the writing to a degree that is incoherent. I can also see right through your fiction on writing. Just because Hebrew hadn't evolved yet doesn't magically mean that the Davidic and Solomonic states weren't using the precursor Canaanite language to write. Three inscriptions are known from Israel/Judah in the 10th century BC: the Gezer Calendar, Tel Zayit inscription, and the Qeiyafa ostracon. The description of the invasion of Shishak obviously goes back to state records from that time, and we know that Samuel and Kings are drawing on earlier written sources/state archives - they name them explicitly.Editshmedt (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC) You conflate conjecture (mere possibility) with evidence (actuality). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC) I bet you sure are hella amazed you made such a giant error of logic. You magically took that Hebrew had not yet fully developed as evidence that the language precursors were not used for writing in the 10th century BC by Israelite's when there are in fact several examples of that being so. So much for your "No writing, no state" baloney!Editshmedt (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Even if I am wrong about that, you still do not distinguish between evidence and conjecture. Chris Heard, Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University on his Web site called "Higgaion" claims that while a single supposition is not an invalid tactic, Jacobovici uses a chain of suppositions to support each subsequent claim, often using commercial breaks to move from "it could be possible that" to "now that we've established that," a misleading rhetorical trick. Copy/paste from The Exodus Decoded. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC) What we have is a text written some time in the 8th-7th centuries BC with significant archaeological verifiability, even when describing Israel and Judah under the reign of Solomon. In addition, we know that the author(s) of the Deuteronomistic History had access to earlier records, apparently state archives, as is made evident by the description of the invasion of Shishak. Access to state archives and earlier written sources is mentioned in Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18; 1 Kings 11:41; 14:19, 15:7. The only way to deny all of this and wishfully claim that all this mass of archaeologically verifiable information is "conjecture" is to automatically and wilfully believe that the discipline of archaeology can be boiled down to what is explicitly stated in explicit surviving inscriptions. I even have Finklstein on my side on this one, who usually reaches to find alternate explanations as various scholars have pointed out. I am afraid that your definition of "conjecture" sounds like "archaeology when it says things I don't want it to say." Editshmedt (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Archaeologically, there's no problem in saying random Egyptian soldiers killed random Canaanite villagers at that place, approximately in that year. The problem is attaching a name to the king. Let's assume we all agree that the king was called Solomon. When did he live? When did he rule? Did he rule over a major empire or did he rule over a tiny village? These are questions which archaeology cannot answer, since there is no hard evidence connecting this or that skeleton to the historical Solomon. All we have is legends, apparently written as biased nationalistic propaganda and not sine ira et studio. Archaeology could tell you if there was an empire, it cannot tell you it was Solomon's empire. Without having any evidence about the person of Solomon, archaeology cannot tell his birth year and his death year. All that is speculation. That's why some archaeologists try to place his reign 50 years later than reported in the Bible. If there is no evidence about when that reign was, how could one show they are wrong? It's not falsifiable, it's all guessiology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC) You're so close to admitting that archaeology says Solomon existed (per Finkelstein). You write "Archaeology could tell you if there was an empire, it cannot tell you it was Solomon's empire." In fact, William G. Dever writes “If we had never heard of a ‘Solomon’ in the biblical texts, we should have to invent a 10th century B. C. E. Israelite king by another name.” That settles that. The textual evidence that it was Solomon is archaeologically verifiable. The rest of your comment is kind of confused. You claim archaeology cannot say if Solomon ruled over a village nor an empire. In fact, even an introductory course would inform you that archaeology has proved it is neither. Not knowing the exact years of Solomon's reign is irrelevant because we can get an approximate guess using the simple archaeological concepts of upper and lower anchors. Namely, we have an upper and lower anchor for when Solomon could have reigned. The lower anchor is obviously Shishak's invasion which happened around 925 BC. So Solomon's reign happened before 925 BC. The upper anchor is the reign of David. We know that the Israelite state was founded by David early in the 10th century BC, and he would have ruled for some number of years. Deductively, he his reign could have ended as early as 980 BC (but I can also imagine a scenario where he went on until as late as 940). So Solomon's reign happened after, at the very least, 980 BC. So Solomon reigned for some amount of time, we have no idea how long, between our upper and lower chronological anchors: 980 and 925. It could have been 5 years, it could have been 50. (The biblical number of 40 is obviously ideological). Editshmedt (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Ancients defined knowledge as justified true belief. So it might be true that Solomon existed, but it isn't knowledge because it isn't justified, since there is no evidence. One could play all sorts of number games with Solomon's reign, but we simply don't know when he reigned. Archaeology could tell if at year ... there was a state or not, but it cannot say Solomon ruled that state or chiefdom. Maybe there was a Judahite state, but only after Solomon died. Can't prove me wrong, since there is no evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC) 1. Archaeologically, David and a large majority of the other Israelite and Judahite kings in the Deuteronomistic history have been confirmed. Imagine we have a report that says "First King A reigned, then King B, then King C, then King D, then King E, then King F". Now imagine inscriptions confirm "First King A, then unknown, then King C, then King D, then unknown, then King F". The initial report, both in terms of the specific kings and their sequence, appears to be archaeologically reliable. This is what we have with Solomon and the Deuteronomistic history. 2. There is an extensive description of Solomon's building of the Temple on the Temple Mount in the Deuteronomistic history. We can archaeologically confirm that the architectural description of the Temple is mirrored in many other sites across the Levant and even other sites in Mesopotamia. In fact, the architecturally closest excavated structures from Israel are from the 9th century BC and earlier (whereas those later get less similar). We archaeologically know that a secondary Judahite administrative site in the 9th century BC, Tel Motza, had such a temple design. If a little secondary administrative site had a temple, then the capital of the kingdom, Jerusalem, obviously would have had to. We also know that, archaeologically and from an abundance of surviving inscriptions, that kings from the ancient near east only attribute their construction achievements to themselves. It therefore makes little archaeological sense to say that someone other than Solomon built the Temple but not only did not attribute that construction to themselves but to an earlier king. 3. The plain facts for this point are not universally recognized, but they appear to be recognized widely enough (definitely a majority by my reading). Archaeologically, we can say that the only monumental architecture in Palestine in the 10th century BC is known from Jerusalem, Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer. That exactly mirrors the neutral and plainly worded description of Solomon's construction feats in 1 Kings 9:15. 4. It appears as if the historical geography of 1 Kings 9:11–14 has been archaeologically confirmed as well. Solomon clearly reigned at some point between 980 and 925 BC, although we cannot be more specific. Editshmedt (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC) The archaeological evidence narrows it down to two options. Either there was a Solomon who reigned and did something approximating what was said of him, or there was a different Israelite king, who reigned in and about the exact same time that Solomon reigned, who did all the stuff that Solomon is said to have done, but we just arbitrarily refuse to call him "Solomon" (even though the identification of his antecedent as "David" is also now archaeologically confirmed). The latter option is obviously special pleading, fanciful, and not entertained by mainstream archaeologists. Therefore, it is as Dever put it: “If we had never heard of a ‘Solomon’ in the biblical texts, we should have to invent a 10th century B. C. E. Israelite king by another name.”Editshmedt (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Your arguments are shallow, are conjecture, and we (three opponents) provided you with quotes that show that. Let's not lose focus on what the topic is - the historicity of the Bible's description of David. Historians believe that neither the United Monarchy existed nor David's empire. In other words, the Bible's description of David is completely wrong. This is not controversial. Finkelstein & Silberman argues that David can't have existed for reasons X, Y, Z, and so on. Here X is the sparse population of Judah, Y the unfavorable location of Jerusalem, Z the relative dominance of the Northern kingdom, and so on. Of course, not all of their arguments are uncontroversial. They say "The absence of A indicates B" and one of their opponents say "But C indicates A so maybe not B!" Controversy! But this doesn't change the big picture; if David existed and if he ruled in Jerusalem then his domains was relatiely small. The "controversy" is, more or less, over whether they fitted in a kingdom with the radius 20 km or maybe 40 km. ImTheIP (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC) You simply chose to ignore our WP:Verifiable quotations. Tgeorgescu (talk ) 22:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Ah yes, overwhelming archaeological evidence straight from the literature is "conjecture" when it disagrees with you, and instead we must rely on the "verifiable" quotations from ImTheIP, a user not competent regarding the literature on the subject, who in turn bases everything they believe (or believed?) on what Finkelstein says, which, in turn, according to Lester Grabbe and William Dever, is widely rejected. Gee whiz, so verifiable! Let's take a look at the "X, Y, and Z". X is the sparse population of Judah. In fact, estimates put the population of Judah was between 25,000-50,000. Dever writes; "Such statements ignore the evidence of several investigations and surveys showing that tenth-century Jerusalem was probably at least 10 acres in size, with an estimated population of some 1,000, or even up to 25 acres and a population of as many as 2,000–3,000. And in the surrounding countryside of Judah, surveys by Ofer have mapped at least 270 tenth century sites, with a built-up area of some 5,000 acres and a population of up to 50,000" (Dever, Beyond the Texts, pg. 281) Y is the unfavourable location of Jerusalem. In fact, this is confused and the location is only unfavourable in the absence of a united monarchy. That Jerusalem was the capital only makes sense if you assume that David ruled over both north and south, as Kalimi explains; "Moreover, the very selection of Jerusalem as the capital by David (2 Sam 5:4–9), which is historically indisputable, only makes sense under a United Monarchy. As the capital of Judah alone, it was too far north; it only makes sense under a leader who ruled the northern as well as the southern tribes. Certainly no later king of Judah would have founded his capital here, if David and Solomon had not already ruled from Jerusalem, so the incontrovertible fact that Judah’s capital was in Jerusalem – and not in Hebron – itself implies that this is the remnant of a once larger United Kingdom" (Writing and rewriting, pg. 87) Booya. Z is the dominance of the north. This is in fact just more confusion and only applies to the 9th century BC, not the 10th century BC. In fact, in recent years, even the supposition that the north had a dominance in the 9th century has been questioned by Nadav Na'aman. Na'aman writes: "Contrary to common opinion, during the Omride dynasty Judah remained an independent kingdom and it was free to pursue autonomous policies (provided that these did not clash with the interests of its strong northern neighbour)." (Na'aman, "The Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BCE: Text Analysis versus Archaeological Research", Tel Aviv (2013), pg. 247) Earlier, I demonstrated the archaeological evidence reduces the legitimate possibilities down two options. The first option is that Solomon existed and the broad aim of his reign resembles what is described in Kings. The second option is that there was a king who reigned exactly when Solomon reigned, who broadly did what Kings attributes as Solomon doing, but we refuse to call him "Solomon". This is special pleading and makes no sense.Editshmedt (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC) In fact, there is no three opponents versus me. There is one: Finkelstein. All I saw was three different users parroting and repeating the claims of Finkelstein, nothing more and nothing less. When you debate five different creationists who repeat everything they saw Kent Hovind say, you are in fact debating one person: Kent Hovind.Editshmedt (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Again, that only points to the fact that you're waging a wiki-war against Finkelstein. The three of us quoted scholars who don't accept the United Monarchy and have nothing to do with Finkelstein. But you only see Finkelstein behind them. Basically, you see Finkelstein as the Grand Wizard who mesmerized many into disbelieving the United Monarchy, and that basically those mesmerized cannot think for themselves. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion

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

This IP has continued to revert good-faith users disruptively, reverting back to their preferred version without any intent to discuss when contested. Seems like this IP's behavior is very similar to that of another blocked IP,

WP:CIR applies here. Jalen Folf (talk)

08:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The IP listing Barney's Great Adventure, a movie that grossed 12 million dollars, in 1998 and then edit warring over it is not constructive..--Bob not snob (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This IP is evading the three-year block on Special:Contributions/107.202.235.87 and also the two-year rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2600:1700:CAD0:A390:0:0:0:0/64. Same geolocation, articles of interest, kneejerk reversions and childish disruption. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Cyberpunk 2029 (third time)

Blocked indefinitely for persistent unsourced edits and failure to communicate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Cyberpunk 2029 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), after two blocks discussed previously [here] and [here], continues to add unsourced information to articles. After returning from a 1-week block he/she has added unsourced infromation [here], [here], [here], and [here].

Per

WP:CIR competence includes "...the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus." This editor is obsessed with adding unsourced broadcast information to international tournaments and refuses to acknowledge warnings or communicate with other editors. Two blocks have not changed earlier behavior. Blue Riband►

18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Riband: I blocked them indefinitely. Their lack of response is problematic as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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

B. M. L. Peters will not stop editing comments that have been replied on a talk page

B. M. L. Peters persists in editing the text of their move request at Talk:United Ireland, despite the fact multiple people have replied to their initial comment. They have done this at 06:28, 4 February 2021, 20:15, 5 February 2021, and 20:22, 5 February 2021. They were informed they cannot do this on their talk page at 20:22, 5 February 2021, a message which resulted in the same editor thanking me for that message and undoing their change. Yet despite this they have once again changed their comments at 09:14, 7 February 2021. This editor has a history of disruptive behaviour on talk pages, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#B. M. L. Peters persistently removing talk page discussions. FDW777 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

After understanding that you cannot edit your own initial comment on talk pages, I thought I can add on to my previous comment without changing it, by starting on a new line, however if this is not allowed according to Wikipedia policy, I will cease doing it. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Making your comment on a new line doesn't help if you move the old signature so it's part of the new line. If you are going to modify or add to your comment after such a long time, and especially when it's been replied to, you need to make sure it's clear that it was added a later date by keeping the old signature for the old comment and making a new one for the new comment. In this case, I don't see a reason to add your comment to the top of the thread anyway. Better to just make a comment in the RM after the current comments. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger (talk

) 17:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you guys for understanding, I had no ill intent when making those changes. I will stop doing it and review the policy for talk pages. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI against user Omnipaedista

Omnipaedista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obstructing contemporary edits to Abelard and Heloise. He continually reverts edits of the Heloise and Abelard pages, preferring in particular an edition of the Heloise page in which Heloise is called "brash", in a sexist way, in her critical depictions of marriage. He continues to remove contemporary scholarship or references to feminism. Bad faith likely. The Abelard page in particular needs work to bring it to "good status". — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarTigerJLN (talk • contribs)

StarTigerJLN, the large orange caution at the top of this page says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~ to do so. Please follow those instructions to notify the editor that you have started this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks -- I informed him of a report, but I will mark it on his talk page more officially. StarTigerJLN (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you still haven't notified Omnipaedista, I have done so for you. Schazjmd (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I continue to notify him on his talk page and he continues to remove the notice. It's not my doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarTigerJLN (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The only things that they have removed are this message of yours and another one. None of the required ANI notices have been removed, and even if they were, they're well within

their rights to do so (it just also means that they have acknowledged it by the act of deleting it). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 02:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverting egregious violations of

WP:CIVIL. --Omnipaedista (talk

) 00:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Carchasm reported by Smuckola

Moved from

WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk

) 18:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an example why

WP:ANI requires notification of the editor and allows us to enforce discussion about the behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk

) 18:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Carchasm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – This account is one month old and mainly does unilateral radical changes on a mass scale and edit wars. In the rare case he responds, that is mostly in the edit comments of edit wars.[135] His Talk page pretty much consists of people telling him to stop doing unilateral unexplained undiscussed edits. He pretended to unilaterally dictate the total reformation of Wikproject Literature by declaring one archived discussion from 2007 to magically be the status quo that he needs to suddenly reset the entire encyclopedia to. He just started mass editing the definition pages of what the wikiproject is, ignoring all responses via edit comments except to blithely instruct them to stop reverting him. He declared a few days on the project talk page to constitute zero feedback and a completely dead project (actually ignoring or defying all feedback), and thus spam hundreds of edits with no edit comments, which will apparently not stop. He did all this without even initially knowing the basic concepts of wikipedia such as edit warring and BRD, but learning it hasn't stopped him. So I call that massively disruptive editing. I discovered this when he removed Aesop's Fables from Wikiproject Literature. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Smuckola - I don't see you leaving the user a query about this issue on their talk page. Can you engage with them on their user talk first? -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Fuzheado Sorry, no, the whole point is that's already been done several times by several people and he simply refuses and escalates. — Smuckola(talk) 16:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I did engage with the people who raised objections to what I was doing - I'm not sure which feedback that you feel I was ignoring or defying. I also added a discussion of the changes to the wikiproject itself. Maybe I just don't understand WikiProjects, but shouldn't the talk page for the project be the place where discussion should occur on what the scope of the project is? - car chasm (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Also maybe I've read the community wrong, but it doesn't seem to me that "which WikiProject banners are on a page" should be a controversial thing - especially to editors that aren't involved in that WikiProject. If you look at the project, it still has well over 3000 unassessed pages. Honestly the only reason I didn't mark the project as inactive rather than semi-active was that I wanted to clean it up. - car chasm (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be better to engage with car chasm, who appears to be a new, and possibly too eager editor. Carchasm should be guided not discouraged. Rwood128 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

Proposing guidance is not a valid assessment in response to a report of refusing guidance and of edit warring, and now here in this thread also childishly, aimlessly, and pointlessly casting

WP:ASPERSIONS on the veteran editor Xxanthippe simply for having tried to do so. — Smuckola(talk)

05:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Xxanthippe. I endorse the concerns of Smuckola. - car chasm edit wars over categories, persists with mass edits and does not respond to guidance. I suggest a topic ban from Categories and Literature, where the damage has been done, until they have gained more experience in editing Wikipedia before engaging in more major structural edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

Y'know, for all of the quoting

here to build an encyclopedia? - car chasm (talk

) 22:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Does this apply to all of my 17,000 edits over the last 15 years? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

I agree that the mass deletion of the literature project from author/book articles is disruptive (although based on their explanation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, I see the point to what they're doing), but I don't see them refusing to discuss on their talk page or on the project talk page. I just read through the history on User talk:Carchasm and I see the editor responding to concerns that other editors raise. If editors are solely relying on edit summaries to give guidance, that might not be the most productive approach. I agree with Rwood128 about "too eager". On the other hand, I'm skeptical on how "new" they are; their second day registered, they engaged in an ANI discussion, explaining that they'd removed a ref from multiple articles because it had been added by an account circumventing a block, linking to an archived SPI. Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Good point. I don't know if there's a basis for initiating a sockpuppet investigation because there is no point of comparison to another user. But how on earth does someone know what ANI is, knows how to install user scripts, knows what WikiProjects are and is obsessed with pretending to just take one over, but who says they don't know what BRD and edit warring are? What can be done? — Smuckola(talk) 05:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Let User:Carchasm be asked if they have previously edited Wikipedia under another account. Who knows what the answer, if any, will be. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC).

But answer came there none. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC).

Agree with Xxanthippe's proposal for a topic ban. — Smuckola(talk) 05:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor making mass changes without consensus to do so

WP:FILMPLOT

is an editing guideline promulgated by WikiProject film. It has never been approved by the community via a community consensus discussion, and remains a quasi-private editing guideline. It is not mandatory, and it does not have the community's imprimatur. It has solely been agreed upon by the members of the WikiProject.

It is settled WikiPolicy that WikiProjects cannot control the content of the articles which they take to be withing their area of interest. WikiProject, by itself, cannot mandate what can and cannot be done to film article, they can only make suggestions.

Today, an editor

WP:FILMPLOT. The vast majority of classic film articles (not so much for current films) contain the names of the actors in the film plot section, in the form "Detective Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) meets the beautiful Brigid O'Shaugnessy (Mary Astor

)..." to help guide the reader through the plot. Without these insertions, the reader is forced to read a bit of the plot section, then look down to the cast section to see what actor is playing the part, then return to the plot section to continue reading, then back to the cast section, over and over again. Having the names in the plot section is a service to our readers, the people we are supposed to be serving in writing and maintaining this encyclopedia.

I undid a couple of the editor's changes that appeared on my watchlist, then check their contribs and saw that they were making many changes of this sort, so I explained what I was going to do, and used rollback to undo more of their edits (as is allowed). They ignored by explanations, and restored their changes.

I have explained about the status of

WP:Centralized discussions

and get community approval for the mass changes they are making. Unless they've responded while I was writing this, this advice has fallen on deaf ears.

I would like an admin to tell Halbared to stop making these edits until they have a community consensus to do so, not simply a WikiProject consensus, and allow me to restore the articles they have already changed to their status quo ante in the meantime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this so well. I have responded about centralised discussion, but I suppose you didn't read it because you were busy here. I have asked for your assistance in crafting a rfc.Halbared (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page just now, I'd be happy to work with you on setting up an RfC, but not until all the film articles you removed cast members from are restored to the condition they were in before you edited them. I can do it myself if you won't edit war against me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Great, this is done. I've read your clear explanation of the whole thing now. Are you willing to make the rfc (or help, I feel you know the policies) to get an agreed aligned format? YOu seem to know the issue very well.Halbared (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed BMK's rollback privileges and blocked him for a month. Enough with the petty edit warring. And, no, you don't get to ignore the MOS just because you dislike it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure a mega-block is helpful here. The edit-warring stopped hours ago and the two editors seem ready to talk this out amongst themselves. Moreover, a month seems excessive for an editor who hasn't been blocked for edit-warring in nearly two years.

LEPRICAVARK (talk

) 06:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That's because he's almost always let off with a warning. This ANI complaint is a particularly egregious example of his years-long behavior: edit war using rollback across dozens of articles, browbeat some newer editor into submission with demands that they follow his idiosyncratic rules, and then casually throw away some community-vetted guideline because he doesn't like it. This behavior needs to immediately stop. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I would add that if you do some digging, one of his alt accounts was blocked three times for edit warring, making this something like block number thirteen for the same thing. I don't care how long they went between blocks, thirteen chances is a lot, we expect people to learn not to edit war fairly quickly, not still not get it after 12 years of being blocked for it.

talk

) 00:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It should probably be mentioned here that over on BMK's talk Ritchie333 is proposing to unblock him for "time served." P-K3 (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I wrote the following before the 06:48, 7 February 2021 comments just above which throws more light on the matter. I don't understand the removal of rollback or the block.
  WP:PLOT ends up at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film which has a MoS sidebar so it appears to have been blessed. However, BMK sounded confident and I wouldn't expect them to be wrong. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 06:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Do whatever action you think best, but I'm probably not going to be around much in the next 24 hours. Fait accompli mass changes can go both ways, such as people who use rollback to revert constructive, guideline-respecting changes. It's absurd to say that people need to get community consensus to follow a community-endorsed guideline, then edit war to keep their changes out of any articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Just out of curiosity: can someone link the community discussion that led to the approval of that section/sentence, showing that Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is considered redundant to the "Cast" section. enjoys consensus? Also, how long has it been part of the MOS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: It appears to have been added by Erik here, citing what appears to be general agreement. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  My addition is based on the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 19#Actors names in plot section? Other editors are welcome to revisit that passage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Being held ransom to delete the page unless we pay" comment at AfD

• Chronic Tacos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Akronowner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jotun-la (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From this comment by 47.147.144.26 (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronic Tacos: "Being held ransom to delete the page unless we pay."

No Wikipedia editor should be requiring payment to prevent the article from being deleted. 47.147.144.26 probably should contact the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee with information about this. I am reporting this so the community can review. Cunard (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I pointed them to the Arbitration Committee page and the email alias to contact them, on their talk page. I don't know what they specifically received but an awful lot of things that could be described as what they said, arbcom and potentially the Foundation need to engage. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Georgewilliamherbert. Cunard (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This issue appears occasionally at AFC. Reviewers there have been instructed to report such extortion incidents to WMF's legal office [email protected] -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond belief. Well, Beyond Beef anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Roger, can you ping them on their talk page with what you know about the AFC related contact protocol? You seem to know more specifics from that comment. I can tell them to mail legal but I don't know what the AFC reviewers were instructed in detail. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:WPAFC has a specific warning about this scam in the header of it's help page. Perhaps some of the still active editors who were involved in the 2015 discussions might be able to provide further enlightenment. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 15:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Feels

WP:PAID all around. On 5 January 2021, new user Jotun-la writes their first article on Chronic Tacos (polished and contains logos); seems a WP:PAID article. However, 60 minutes after publishing it, another relatively new user Akronowner puts it up for AfD. Akronowner had focused almost exclusively on AfD (and their first edits were to nominate articles for AfD using Twinkle - i.e. not new to Wikipedia). PAID editors are experienced, highly motivated, and evolve new techniques constantly to get around Wikipedia's controls. I could not see who patrolled this page. Was it automatically patrolled as part of Arkowoner's AfD nomination using Twinkle - which would be an interesting evolution of PAID. Pinging our tireless PAID patrollers - Praxidicae, and MER-C. Britishfinance (talk

) 15:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No one challenged the validity of the article prior to the AfD by Akronowner. It would seem kind of risky/elaborate to create an AfD then generate a fake accusation of extortion using an IP that geolocates to where Chronic Taco is HQ. A more simple explanation is extortionists are targeting newly created articles by apparent UPEs since they are more likely to go along with the scam (remain quiet) and pay up. -- GreenC 15:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The geolocation is interesting. It could be a coincidence though. As for "risky", well I don't know. While a lot of paid stuff scrapes by, a lot of it is also detected. Waiting until that detection happens to try any games probably adds significant additional risk. Any experience paid editor probably knows that and is probably looking for a way to increase their success. And as it stands, rather than us wondering 'WTF should we keep this possibly TOU violating creation', the AFD looks to be heading towards keep. There seems a possibility this article is going to effectively be protected from deletion forever more rather than always having a risk of deletion as a paid creation. Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Could an extortionist track a likely PAID new editor that quickly (they published that article in one go, and the second edit, 60 mins later, on the article was AfD). Arkonowner has not appeared on New Page Patrol so would not have been aware this was published. Also, paying money to an unknown 3rd party (via bitcoin) to avoid your article being brought to AfD seems odd, as they could send anybody to do it again (and you would not know it was them)? I think a different type of PAID system is at work here. Britishfinance (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

New articles can be tracked easily enough, as an extortionist you want to get them while it's fresh. Both accusers are credible accounts - one geolocates correctly, the other is a known self-disclosed entity with a history. This information can't be easily discarded as coincidence. You are right it is a dumb scam, why the victims have been posting they were approached for money. Most scams are dumb (think of a phone scammer). -- GreenC 16:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair point GreenC. Britishfinance (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It does seem like we have another spam infiltration at AFD currently ongoing. I can name two other accounts that I believe are spam socks participating in AFD, but I do not have enough evidence to block them.

Chronic Tacos was not automatically patrolled by the AFD nomination - this only happens if you are a new page patroller. MER-C 15:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MER-C for clearning that. Britishfinance (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

MER-C, Names would be appreciated, either here or via email. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Email sent. MER-C 18:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Akronowner engaging in extortion at AfD

This is not the first time Akronowner (the author of the Chronic Tacos AfD) has been accused of attempting extortion, see this comment by WriteJames from the 25th of January, in which he alleges that "it has come to our knowledge that User:Akronowner, who nominated the [ W. Mark Lanier ] page for deletion, subsequently contacted Mark Lanier via email and asked for money to keep the page from deletion. No renumeration was made and we view this as a case of extortion and encourage the Wikipedia community to look into this matter.". Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that two unrelated people have made the exact same allegation, I am inclined to think that it is true. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I reported Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akronowner (Akronowner has a number of them). There are other accounts involved. This is a criminal gang, I suspect running from India or Sri Lanka (based on some behavior evidence). Also posted about it Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_66#AfD_infiltrated_by_extortionists. Likely this is not the only scam operation that has infiltrated AfD and corrupted Wikipedia. -- GreenC 13:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that you are alleging that it's a gang, isn't it more likely that they are

WP:MEATpuppets? Which is probably why the checkuser failed last time. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 13:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to avoid CU detection it's always been a mystery to me why anyone gets busted that way. BTW the IP of the Chronic Taco accuser geolocates to where Chronic Taco is HQ. That would be difficult to fake supporting the veracity of the claim. -- GreenC 14:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The likelihood that someone who "work[s] as a marketing professional for Androvett Legal Media & Marketing" and is a paid editor on behalf of W. Mark Lanier would inexplicably make up an allegation of extortion also seems implausible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: Akronowner has been indeffed for sockpuppetry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This is not true. I never made any contact with anyone regarding nominating AFDs and deleting them. As per I see is maybe a clever trick to save the *Chronic Tacos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and divert the paid editing done there to instead blaming me for nominating it. If my nomination of this AFD has caused any issues I am sorry for that. If admins want I will stop nominating any AFD again, instead will just participate in the AFDs discussion. But in the end, banning me just because an IP accused me doesn't seem fine. It could be the user who created the page when his page got nominated for AFD, he used an IP and accused me. This could easily happen to any AFD nominator. At last, my intentions were pure and true, all I was trying is to be a helping hand in fighting against Vandalism. Akronowner (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Seems like a classic case of

1. An experienced WP editor (not using their usual account) creates a well made and good looking article about something or someone, without having had prior contact with the subject of the article

2. The creator of the article contacts the subject of the article, asks for money

3. Subject of the article refuses to pay, saying the article is already on WP, so why should they pay?

4. Creator of article nominates it for deletion, using a different account, telling subject of article that it will be deleted unless they pay...

Has happened many times before, and will without doubt happen again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

it seems like this, yes, but how strong is he actual evidence? Ifit can be substantiated, I see it as a reason for a ban from enWP. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Note Akronowner has been blocked as a result of the SPI mentioned above but not the creator who wasn't one of the accounts consider. Also the time frames seem very tight for the above scenario. I mean it's possible, but the creator would need to make successful contact with representatives of the subject and receive a rejection of their request for payment within 64 minutes for the scenario to work. Maybe more likely would be not contacting before the AfD. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed CBAN of Akronowner

Being looked at by ArbCom. MER-C 18:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Wikipedia must not tolerate the sort of behaviour described above. I propose that Akronowner is banned by the community. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

One IP and one user saying something, without having posted evidence, isn't sufficient. Let's let the Foundation legal staff dig in a bit if there were emails. And/or Arbcom. The alleged behavior is pretty bad, but allegations don't make a concrete case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The liklihood of two unrelated people making up the same very specific extortion allegation against the same user is very low. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Georgewilliamherbert - Arbcom/WMF should look into this first. There's no concrete evidence as of now, just claims. Pahunkat (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akronowner. Pahunkat (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Support CBAN or at least topic ban from deletion discussions while WMF reviews the matter in order to protect the integrity of the project. A preventive, not punitive measure. Slywriter (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we have any real evidence Akronowner is involved? I mean sure, we can say that those two people maybe really received exortion attempts. (Although has anyone actually checked the Tacos one is someone connected to the company? While the paid editor seemed to be, remember in that ANI we also initially had another editor who claimed to be the subject or someone connected but the paid editor said it was unclear who they were and they didn't seem to have any connection.) But just because two people received extortion requests on articles Akronowner AFDed doesn't mean they are behind those attempts any more than GreenC was. Admittedly two out of four or so recent AfDs does seem fairly suspicious. Of course it could be extortion "attempts" that weren't genuine, perhaps someone Akronowner pissed off by AFDing their article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban. I don't care about the details. I do care that there's a clear
  WP:IAR
  to state plainly that we don't have to waste our time or energy dealing with this bluntly obvious fraud bullshit. We can just always get lost and don't come back.

(PS, this is also just more evidence that paid editing should be outright banned. It harms NPOV, and creates a climate role for fraud and related ills. But I digress.) oknazevad (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban - Yeah the fraudulent bullshit doesn't sit well with me either. They should be shown nothing more than the middle finger and the exit door!. –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• ArbCom is looking into the issue. I suggest folks not rush to conclusions, its possible that Akronower is not involved here. Scammers, fraudsters, and paid editing companies have resorted to very nasty tactics over the years, I would not put it past them to falsely claim they had nominated a page for deletion that a legit editor nominated. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Akronowner has been indef blocked for sockpupptery regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:King Edward I (Longshanks)

The King has been put to rest. You can visit his burial site here. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

King Edward I (Longshanks) (

WP:OR to articles relating to the American Revolutionary War and England. Nearly all edits have been reverted. Been warned a total of seven times. Has blanked talk page. sam1370 (talk · contribs

) 06:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @

WP:AIV. ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs}

08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've explained to this editor what it means when they blank their talk page. Pointed towards

HELP:REFBEGIN. Let's see if there's an improvement otherwise I fear we are looking at an editor with a short career. Mjroots (talk

) 09:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

They have also attempted to blank this section...not a good response. GiantSnowman 11:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, given this I fear it may be shorter than otherwise predicted... Jack Frost (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've given this user a head's up that if they blank discussions again, there may be a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

They are still removing discussions from their talk page (fine) and editing disruptively (not fine). I think it's NOTHERE. GiantSnowman 12:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Tide rolls has done the deed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't tell if the user was trolling or just stubborn. I believe we had reached the point where that distinction was irrelevant. If they should decide to communicate then all options should probably be on the table. Tiderolls 13:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

When will they learn? If an admin puts "advice" in the edit summary, then it is an extremely good idea to follow said advice. Mjroots (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

After this response I have turned their talk page access off. I would further like to correct the assertion expressed there as I have two kids. And grrr .. it's "could not HAVE". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad Drmies didn't see that... Tiderolls 14:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Boo, these Immaculate Conception folks think they're so much better than the rest of us! And... I've just been cancelled. El_C 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Tide rolls, I don't mind that colloquialism so much. Completely ungrammatical utterances like "War Eagle", that's different. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

And Ritchie333, Tide, what do you make of this? Drmies (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge with OpenStreetMap. Seems best to have a short paragraph describing the Foundation here; better to have one good article instead of two "meh" ones. .... Oh wait, sorry, this isn't AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Trevor LaFleur persistent overlinking

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

Despite repeated reverts with explanations and several user talk page warnings,[136] the editor has continued to add/re-add links to well-known cities and countries.

MOS:OVERLINK

advises against linking "The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: *countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian) ... *locations (e.g., Berlin; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Southeast Asia"

The affected articles are mostly about musicians that only note the locations in passing and the linked place articles do not provide any useful information about them. Examples include:

• United States[137][138][139][140]
• New York City[141]
• London[142][143][144][145]

Also, they add and link political subdivisions (states, provinces, counties) to well-known cities, that do not contribute to understanding the subject musicians. These are often added in the infoboxes, where unnecessary info is discouraged because of space limitations. Examples:

• Toronto, Ontario, Canada[146][147][148][149][150][151]
• Sydney, New South Wales, Australia[152][153][154][155][156]
• Liverpool, Lancashire, England[157][158][159]
• Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands[160][161]
• Oslo, Østlandet, Norway[162]

Additionally, when the city article links already include a state, they pipe the link to just the city and add the state with a link:

• [[Astoria, New York]] → [[Astoria, Queens|Astoria]], [[Queens]], [[New York City]][163]
• [[San Francisco, California]] → [[San Francisco]], [[California]][164][165]
• [[Buffalo, New York]] → [[Buffalo, New York|Buffalo]], [[New York (state)|New York]][166][167]
• [[Baltimore, Maryland]] → [[Baltimore]], [[Maryland]][168]
• [[Long Island, New York]] → [[Long Island]], [[New York (state)|New York]][169]

Most of their editing involves this type of linking/adding extra unnecessary locations, without any sources, explanations, edit summaries, or attempts to discuss when warned on their talk page. It does not appear that they are here to make meaningful contributions. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The overlinking is cluttery, redundant, and against

WP:MOS and consensus. But what caught my attention was Trevor's changing or modifying the nationality of musicians or personalities. For example, changing British to English [170], and vice versa [171] [172]. This should not be done without consensus or sourcing, and can often lead to conflict among editors. Together with the failure of Trevor to respond on his talk page, a formal warning is in order the next time Trevor reverts, and if that fails, a temp block to get his attention. RandomGnome (talk

) 20:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Not just OVERLINKing - Liverpool hasn't been in Lancashire since 1889. Narky Blert (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: - Liverpool was in Lancashire until 31 March 1974. Therefore Liverpool, Lancashire is correct and not overlinking.

@Mjroots: But why add Lancashire at all? Liverpool is a fairly well-known city and since "England" is also included, it wouldn't be confused with the Liverpools in other countries (the dab page doesn't show other English ones). Also linking Lancashire does not provide any more useful information about the Beatles or Liverpool. It seems to be details-for-details-sake; music references, such as AllMusic,[173] apparently do not find it important enough to mention. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: - I see it this way, with the exception of linking of Canada and the use of England instead of United Kingdom, the tranche of wikilinks in the second group are absolutely fine. Depending on the historical context, countries may be linked even if the presentation of the wikilink seems counter-intuitive; for example, the pre-1923 United Kingdom is not the same as the current United Kingdom. I always link to the former, but generally do not link to the latter except where the use of flags is concerned. The third group is overlinking. I'm a lazy so-and-so and would generally not indulge in such a practice as it means a lot more typing. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: MOS:OVERLINK advises against linking "major examples of ... locations (e.g. Berlin; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London if the context rules out London, Ontario". It seems incongruous to add and link "New York (state)" after "New York City", when the city itself is well-known enough to not be linked. I would think Toronto and Sydney are also "major examples". Remember, most of these are for rather recent musician article inboxes, where this type of historical or political specificity does not add to understanding the subject. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ojorojo: My understanding is that WP:MOS is not set in stone, but editors must follow consensus. What is the current consensus for the breadth of geographic linking? How far are you supposed to 'zoom out'? Trevor LaFleur must conform to this. If there is no real consensus, then I can see how this is a can of worms. What do you think about Trevor changing the nationality of bands and individuals? This to me seems quite egregious in terms of the potential for battleground edit conflicts. RandomGnome (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:GUIDELINE

) and other music article editors apparently agree, so I believe there is consensus.

As you have pointed out, LaFleur has also been making unsourced, unexplained changes to nationalities that other editors have reverted. I'm not familiar enough with the artists to address the issue, but LaFleur, who started editing on 6 January, seems to want to do things their way, regardless of the advice of more seasoned editors. Again, it doesn't appear they are here to work collaboratively.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hotmountain1 potential undisclosed paid editing/advert-like content

WP:COI documentation also attached. El_C

17:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Look at this diff from Hotmountain1. Revamping an article with a load of fluff. Potential paid editor, and if not here to make that page a mere advert. Block please? talk to !dave 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Project MKFAWKES (minor problem that we can easily nip in the bud)

Someone on the Internet is trying to get a new conspiracy theory started.

• https://nitter.dark.fail/RadiumDanny/status/1355723625001844737
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSwGdAAByf8&feature=emb_logo
• https://www.reddit.com/user/MKFawkes

Here on Wikipedia this has resulted in the following so far:

• [183]
• [184]
• [185]
• [186]

Related: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Project MKFAWKES (is it a username violation of the project doesn't exist?)

I am thinking that a short duration semiprotection of

Project MKUltra?) will stop the disruption. Or perhaps short blocks for the IPs involved. A surprising number of IPs give up and never come back when they run into protection that only lasts a day or two. --Guy Macon (talk

) 19:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've deleted the draft article, blocked the username, and protected the 2 articles they actually attempted to add this to (I didn't protect
  Project MKUltra because no one has tried to add it there). Now I'm off to refresh my memory on how to close an MFD. --Floquenbeam (talk
  ) 20:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism at Ramsha Khan

Various IPs and accounts have been reinstating this rubbish over and over again for the past few days, and clearly nobody was interested in my AIV report. They responded a few minutes ago to my final warning with this comment (translation: go mind your own business... thinks he can go around giving warnings. You're just a normal user.) Since AIV obviously won't work, and there is a BLP at stake here, posting here for better visibility. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Ramsha Khan‎ and also Nadia Khan for some reason. Also, what it this A-I-V of which you speak? El_C 02:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Todah, El C; now I can get back to doing my homework in peace. I was rather obviously referring to a blood pressure hormone. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

.אין בעד מה * Ah, I remember homework — giving and receiving. Hmm, that sounded dirty without me even trying (which concerns me a bit). El_C 02:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, that's IrzaKhanz69 with their socks and IPs on another BLP. Pahunkat (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, Pahunkat, thanks! Please do let me know at my talk page if you have any more useful information about this master and their MO; since Pakistani television is one of my main areas of editing, it'd be useful to know what I'm up against. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BEANS - please check your inbox. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk

) 22:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Shiawase-wo and Egg-Stamp (Fabergé egg) article

• Shiawase-wo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Egg-Stamp (Fabergé egg) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lasting edit war in the article. User has no valid arguments about infobox image (I've talked with him in ruwiki in russian), he just repeatedly undo other's edits. The article by itself doesn't meet notability guideline. --Sigwald (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would support an indef. block on the grounds of
  talk
  ) 20:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• WP:V issue here as well (i.e. I am presuming that this is not a hoax article and that there was an "Egg-Stamp")? Being a single issue/topic editor is not a particular issue on en-WP, but continually inserting unlicensed images is a problem. Britishfinance (talk
  ) 21:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Britishfinance, File:Яйцо-Печать.jpg - uploaded by UnTiL Pier. Shiawase-wo created the article and then start to upload own version of that image (File:Main-egg-forever.jpg). As you can see it's almost identical except two elemets wich I believe was photoshopped. The only source that I found - artnet.se used in the article itself. Either way this "egg-stamp" is a hoax, or doesn't meet notability guideline. --Sigwald (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • What specific elements are photoshopped? If two almost identical images are being uploaded as "own works", then it seems like they are likely not freely licensed. I can't verify whether this is potentially a hoax article as I don't have enough knowledge in this area, however, I cannot find any reference to "Egg-Stamp"? Britishfinance (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

    I was going to post about this earlier, but the page was locked. The left pendent is missing in the real image. In the other image the left pendent is just a mirror image of the right pendent. You can confirm this by zooming in on the pendent and looking at the dirt around the edges, which is clearly mirrored between the two.

    I couldn't find any reference to egg-stamp either, but it just appears to be a bad translation of the type of object (it's a seal in the shape of an egg) rather than a proper noun. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• It seems to be described in Finnish at http://lounge.fim.com/antiikki-faberge/. It's a seal (used to stamp wax to seal letters) in the shape of a Fabergé egg. The images are all probably copyright violations. Fences&Windows 00:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egg-Stamp (Fabergé egg). Fences&Windows 00:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit war by user Argh

Argh is edit warring in a couple of pages. --Nitraus (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am correcting information while a couple of users, like the one above, are trying to abuse their position by claiming vandalism and misuse. --Argh (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you are making unsourced edits based on your agenda. This is exactly why you were blocked on finnish Wikipedia too. --Nitraus (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You are projecting, as in claiming I am doing what you are doing with your agenda. You have no source for your claim. I wasn't blocked, by the way. I was put on temporary editing hold by the same users who also have no sources for their claim. In short: a misuse of Wikipedia user status.

You are trying to divert attention from the fact that your claim is still without a source. It's an opinion you attempt to maintain with methods that don't allow the claim in question be scrutinized. --Argh (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Only one user has been making unsourced biased edits, that is you. And yes, you are blocked in Finnish Wikipedia, from editing the main space to be exact, so you are deliberately lying about that too. --Nitraus (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You are repeatedly making biased claims without sources and trying to assassinate my character while sabotaging me with this slander and unwarranted reporting. And no, I'm not blocked. I'm temporarily suspended for the reasons I just described. --Argh (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

(1) Don’t edit-war; discuss on the talk page; (2) we require that information in a Wikipedia article come from a reliable published source so provide a

reliable source that support what is written. --Malcolmxl5 (talk

) 14:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Paranaja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Reverted changes including a previous one that had been established by another user. Is also engaging in editing war. Argh (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you started a discussion on the article talk page and have you put forward a

reliable source for the edit you want to make? --Malcolmxl5 (talk

) 22:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nitraus, please provide details of the articles/edits at dispute, including diffs. Fences&Windows 00:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Simple /64 block needed

RANGEBLOCKED (DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN...)

/64 Rangeblocked by Widr for three months. (non-admin closure) --Jack Frost (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• 2603:6081:2302:B479:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Not sure why this fell off AIV. Months-long history of sneaky or blatant vandalism, hidden behind misleading edit summaries. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Widr (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Widr. This is a friendly reminder to any passers-by to

just block the 64. Suffusion of Yellow (talk

) 18:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Emphatically yes. ^^^^ Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

New users resuming multi-IP disruption after rangeblock expiration

• MusicFan2021 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Better Than My Life (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 67.218.119.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2601:201:280:1020:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

The IP range Special:Contributions/2601:201:280:1020:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked five times for spamming and disruption, each of the last three blocks for three months duration. Admins Oshwah, Ponyo and Materialscientist set the longer blocks. During this time, the person behind the disruption switched to the IP range Special:Contributions/67.218.119.0/21 in November 2020, continuing the same pattern.

The IP6 block expired yesterday, allowing the person to create two new usernames and resume their disruption. The new users are adding very low quality alt text, which was one of the methods of previous disruption.[187][188][189]

We usually give a user less leeway if their block expired and they resume the same editing behavior. In this case, there was a lot of block evasion prior to the new usernames, and two usernames show an obvious violation of

WP:CIR. Binksternet (talk

) 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, isn't SPI a better venue? Fences&Windows 22:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I filed this with one username known, before I saw the second one. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: the registered users were blocked by checkuser, but the IPs will probably continue to disrupt. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Request topic-ban for User:سیمون دانکرک/IP-range 2600:1700:1030:2070:*

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MojtabaShahmiri. – Joe (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

WP:OR at Proto-Indo-European homeland, Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland and Yamnaya culture, insisting on presenting suggestions of an Iranian homeland for proto-Indo-European

as a game-changing "hypothesis":

• At Proto-Indo-European homeland they have recently been removing and changing sourced info diff diff as IP, while in july 2020 they have been edit-warring under their username (see page-history for diffs; too many edits).
• At
  WP:OR of a very low level; see especially Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#'Anatolian-Iranian front as IE-homeland' - topic-ban would appropriate
  for this explanation.
• At Yamnaya culture they have started editing in a seriously biased way diff diff diff.
• They have been warned and blocked before diff diff, to no avail.
• Said user and the IP-range are admittedly the same diff.

I urgently propose a topic-ban; this editor seriously passed the threshold of

WP:TENDENTIOUS. Ping Joe Roe and Skllagyook for input. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!

08:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

As

WP:RS but apparently synthesized/rearranged misleadingly from various parts of a study preprint, as discussed here:[[193]

]).

The discussion here: [[194]]

Their IP shifted at least once (or a few times) during the discussion. First it was this: [[195]]. Then, it shifted to this [[196]], during which period they also deleted sourced material from Corded Ware culture, here [[197]] and were reverted by a user who noted that the information they had deleted was properly sourced (here: [[198]]). The IP then proceded to remove information from Yamnaya culture in a way consistent with what seems to be their POV, persistently and despite being warned by me and reverted by three users (myself, User:Joshua Jonathan, and another). The page's edit history here: [[199]]. Skllagyook (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The two-man team here should know better the BOOMERANG effect

WP:OUCH

. Their arguments are clear and excessively weak, among them:

• there is an intermittent exhausting use of a common fallacy Irrelevant conclusion,
• ignoring the latest opinions of scholars i.e Kristensen who considers a Proto-proto-indo-european language South of the Steppe in northwestern Iran which is ignored based on a funny argument that the theory is not an opposite to the Steppe hypothesis which in this case is considered to be a secondary phase after Iran being the primary phase,
• ignoring the new credible genetic archeological findings,driving notable geneticists like David Reich to the sidelines,
• devoting an unnecessary portion of the article to non-scientific understandings of an archeologist named David Anthony in the field of genetics siding with his theories and putting too much weight on his hypothesis reporting every comment and refutation from him on alternative theories disguising him as the main source of the discipline.

I strongly suggest that both of these editors should be banned for their ganglike actions i.c. monopolising the article treating it as their backyard playground, excluding any editor that they dislike while reminding everyone who confront this mischievous behaviour of their previous triumphs over other editors in this line of article manipulation. I seriously hope their passive aggressive attitude towards the scientific subject rather than a productive one be stopped through a proper decisive judgement in this matter and not repeated by anyone anywhere in wikipedia any more. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

NB: this editor reminds me strongly of User:MojtabaShahmiri, who was topic-banned 31 may 2020 from Indo-European topics for pushing the same Iranian origins pov. See also Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland/Archive 1#Proto-Proto- Steppe apologetic nonsense: thread started by 2600:1700:1030:2070:7CC4:AA35:E6DA:7CBC, the same IP-range; a reply by User:Andrew Lancaster, to which MojtabaShahmiri replied. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, please stop it, you banned me and you will ban several other ones because you are censoring reliable sources like "Proto-Indo-Europeans: The Prologue" by Alexander Kozintsev in peer-reviewed academic journal of Indo-European studies which talk about Iranian origins of Indo-Europeans, no one is allowed to mention them in Wikipedia because you will attack him/her, I have ignored this issue. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding سیمون دانکرک's response:

• No explanation what "Irrelevant conclusion" refers to; exemplary for their evasive and exhaustive way of responding and "arguing" (we're still waiting for the source of this graph);
• The suggestions of Kristensen [sic] and Reich, and also Haak, Damgaard and Wang, are referred to at Proto-Indo-European homeland#Main theories, with extensive notes:

Some recent DNA-research has led to renewed suggestions of the possibility of a Caucasian or Iranian homeland for archaic or 'proto-proto-Indo-European' (also called 'Indo-Anatolian' or 'Indo-Hittite' in the literature),[26][note 4] the common ancestor of both Anatolian languages and early proto-IE (from which Tocharian and all other early branches split-off).[5][10][27][28][13][note 5] These suggestions are disputed in other recent publications, which still locate the origin of the ancestor of proto-Indo-European in the Eastern European/Eurasian steppe[29][30][31] or from a hybridization of both steppe and Northwest-Caucasian languages,[31][note 6][note 7] while "[a]mong comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE presence and language diversity in the west."[27]

and also at Proto-Indo-European homeland#South Caucasus/Iranian suggestions, again with the extensive notes:

Recent DNA research which shows that the steppe-people derived from a mix of Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) and Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers (CHG, native to the Caucasus and Northern Iran, but also found in northern Pakistan[74]), has led to renewed suggestions of the possibility of a Caucasian, or even Iranian, homeland for an archaic proto-Indo-European, the common ancestor of both Anatolian languages and all other Indo-European languages.[75][note 4] It is argued that this may lend support to the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, according to which both proto-Anatolian and proto-Indo-European split-off from a common mother language "no later than the 4th millennium BCE."[23][9][76][77][78][13][note 5]

That's already quite

WP:UNDUE

, thanks to the insistence on the Iranian "hypothesis," for what's no more than a handfull of suggestions; suggestions which are contested by others based on genetic, linguistic and archaeological data.

• David Anthony is an accomplished archaeologist, and one of the big names on this topic.

Regarding MojtabaShahmiri's response: Kozintsev's publication was discussed at Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland/Archive 1#The Journal of Indo-European Studies, and rejected by multiple editors as "an unknown academician who has disputed views and whose views are not taken serious by other scholars writing on IE topics." Nevertheless, he's mentioned in note 7. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed articles about Proto-Indo-European are published in the Journal of Indo-European Studies, you ban editors who write about new studies and support those ones who use old articles as their references, the result is clear, new academic views are called disputed views. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Dhananjay Munde Wikipedia Page

OP BLOCKED

OP has been blocked as a sock (non-admin closure) 109.155.148.247 (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Hello,

My name is Mahesh Karve and I recently joined Wikipedia. I read all the guidelines of Wikipedia to enter information in articles. It has come to my notice while checking the 'Dhananjay Munde' page that some editors are being spiteful to the new editor and using Wikipedia's warnings to threaten them from editing this page. This is a highly sensitive matter as it may be concerned with politics. I would like you to interfere and stop these edit wars. It is my personal request as I find talking to them on their talk page results in them being unreasonably insulting. This has become an unending cycle. They are deleting and having their way. I do not wish to stay on Wikipedia if this is how you people work. Where anyone can bully and delete anything with their helping editors to spew warnings on newcomers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahesh Karve (talk • contribs) 09:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC) (moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts: Editor is now autoconfirmed. -- BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC))

Mahesh Karve Thanks for your contributions to the article. I have posted a welcome message on your talk page. Please do spend some time reading through it. I'll be happy to help you out if you need any help. Best! Vikram Vincent 17:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Mahesh Karve, is your account in any way related to VedikaThorat? I ask because you have both made identical edits. 109.155.148.247 (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

IP, that is a good catch! Vikram Vincent 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wondering if we should check this out at SPI or if it ain't an infraction yet? Vikram Vincent 06:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram The edits that I looked at were identical. I would have raised at SPI but as an IP I cannot create new reports. Do you believe that there is enough in common to do the honours? 109.155.148.247 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Vikram Vincent 13:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

One observation. It is a good idea to ask for a checkuser in a case like this otherwise the case just sits there until someone gets around to doing a behaviour check or gets dismissed as stale. I have made the appropriate adjustment. 109.155.148.247 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment:Mahesh Karve has been blocked for being a sock. The other editor has been given a chance to explain. Please close this section. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 07:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Topic ban request for Covid-in-Greece-related articles

biographical article on Sotiris Tsiodras. It was pointed out to said editor that the 'sources' cited are clearly unreliable. (Disclosure: As it happens, I speak modern Greek fluently.) The response I received was this

message; a bit incoherent but the gist is clear. Then, anonymous ISPs, all originating from Greece, started adding back the libelous & unsupported content.

I invited the user and all potential other interested parties to discuss the quality of those 'sources' in the article's talk page (here) but there has been no response there either. In the meantime, we see that the editor has been repeatedly, in their talk page, warned off articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic in Greece.

I'll quote the forensics of those 'sources' hereunder, as well:

•Kourdisto Portokali (Clockwork Orange) has been created and curated by a local conspiracy theorist, currently under indictment for extortion, known for various racist editorials (e.g. "Greeks are simply ugly Albanians who think they're Italians", here).

•My Dimosio (My Public Sector) is an "open" website where Greek citizens are "invited" to denounce anything "wrong" they see around them that concerns the Greek public sector or any grievance they have against it. In other words, it's a source that contains (mostly) anonymous claims, of various degrees of seriousness, all unsupported by reportage or evidence.

•The anonymous text from Crash Online contains nothing except innuendos and makes the connections between the alleged 2009 scandal of Greek ministry ordering an excessive number of H1N1 vaccines and Tsiodras who, again, was at the time a member of the scientific advisory committee.

•This report, by established and generally reliable newspaper Ta Nea, makes no reference at all to Tsiodras; it's in the mix most probably to provide it with some credibility. The report simply describes what the H1N1 vaccine was all about.

I request a topic ban for MadJack1974GR on all articles related to the issue of the COVID-19 pandemic in Greece, as well as for the ISPs involved, i.e. 79.107.170.77 and 80.106.185.122, whose sole contributions to Wikipedia have been adding libelous content onto this BLP. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You are a common liar and you act as a praetor, you have no proof of what you say about the sources and it is purely your personal opinion, what you say is not proven anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadJack1974GR (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I became involved with this article via a WP:RFPP request, where User:The Gnome requested full protection for edit warring at the page Sotiris Tsiodras. I observed that the problem was with a single editor, MadJack1974GR, and that that editor was apparently edit warring to put disputed negative information into a BLP. I considered applying EXC protection since MadJack is not extended confirmed. Looking further, I found that MadJack had not edited the article since being warned on their talk page, but that a new IP had appeared at the page and made exactly the same edits as MadJack! I advised The Gnome to file an ANI report, and I semi-protected the page to ward off any further IP damage in the interim. The Gnome has posted on the article's talk page explaining their position, and just now I laughed out loud when I saw that a brand-new user called GreekLivesMatter has replied there, with more and even wilder accusations against Tsiodras. The Gnome has asked for a topic ban for MadJack and the IPs. I would go further than that and suggest a site block for sockpuppetry (per DUCK) and possibly NOTHERE (MadJack has been here since October and has made more than 130 edits, all of them on only one subject: COVID-19 in Greece). -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The Gnome ask a topic ban because he behaves as a praetor or is a praetor and has no argument for what he says on the contrary he judges the sources non-objectively and certainly as a praetor of Tsiodras. I find that you do not mind this but if someone has done 130 or more posts on a topic, is it prohibited? Does it matter how many posts someone makes or if the posts are from reliable sources? I want to let you know that I do not feel guilty about anything, you can not allow me to write again anywhere on Wikipedia, I will remain a simple reader. It should be known that I am nothing more than one of the millions of Greeks who are ready to give information about the very bad situation that currently prevails in the country in terms of democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadJack1974GR (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you meant that I'm a

praetorian guard for the article's subject rather than a "praetor," a term denoting a magistrate in ancient Rome. Either way, all this is above my pay grade. -The Gnome (talk

) 09:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban of blatantly NOTHERE SPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support site block per
  WP:NOTHERE via narrow interest, disruptive, edit-warring account for Covid-19 in Greece. RandomGnome (talk
  ) 21:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• I topic-banned MadJack1974GR from Covid-in-Greece as part of general sanction, which I imposed in my role of uninvolved administrator. However, if there is a wish for site ban, this can still be considered.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Since the best thing they decided to do after they were topic-banned was to go here and to leave the above messages, I also blocked them indef per

  WP:NOTHERE. This is not a GS action and I am not going to log it.--Ymblanter (talk

  ) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

HELP !, the banned editor (MadJack1974GR) has made a large number of edits on this section of the COVID-19 pandemic in Greece article - which is largely his work alone. My suspicion is that at least 80% of Madjack's edits are poorly sourced, NPOV and WP:OR, however the skills of a Greek speaking editor, familiar with Gk online sources would be helpful in order that the baby isn't thrown out with the bathwater. I am only able to Google-translate Madjack's additions, but that is sufficient to establish that the content is pretty awful. Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter, the editor GreekLivesMatter - who may well be a sock of Madjack1974GR according to MelanieN above, [continues to make problematic edits relating to COVID in Greece]. Pincrete (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, user blocked, article semi-protected for 3 months--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Completely ban for The Gnome

(non-admin closure) No Basis, and the prosposing user is blocked anyways.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

If you are going to propose that a user be banned, you have to present some actual evidence. Overblown hyperbole is not an acceptable substitute. talk ) 20:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I request a completely ban from Wikipedia for The Gnome because obstructs the free flow of information on Wikipedia and behaves like or is the internet guard and praetor of Sotiris Tsiodras. Τhis phenomenon with supposed users of Wikipedia who are in fact online praetors of politicians or others has overrun and for this reason i call on you to take drastic measures against them.MadJack1974GR — Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) diffs on the issue will also help bolster your case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝  ) 19:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Note: For context, the above comment was made before M Imtiaz moved it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Correct, and does Bus stop mind explaining why they undid that? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) Oppose obvious retaliatory proposal not supported by evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Comment: online praetors is certainly a unique turn of phrase. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC) And I would say that it's a very good turn of phrase, but that doesn't mean that it's correct in this situation. Phil Bridger (talk ) 20:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Hard oppose no evidence whatsoever, someone would have to be out of their mind to support this with no evidence. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Oppose It would be most praetorial if you would include at least a scrap of evidence for your claims. RandomGnome (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Anubhab030119 personally attacking other editors

Blocked – for a period of one week. Level of hostility is somewhat on the egregious side with respect to outright insults. Hopefully, something which can be remedied upon reflection with the passage of time. El_C 16:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Add: softer touch also recommended on Favre1fan93's part (my note here). El_C 16:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Anubhab030119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had posted a disruptive editing warning on

personal attacks and hostility. - Favre1fan93 (talk

) 15:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

ANI against User:Kanto7

@Kanto7 was reverted many times for unconstructive edits for adding in unnecessary infobox clutter and prioritizing/removing the information to various geopolitical and history related articles and other related topics (like unsourced flags). Pinging also editors that have reverted Kanto7's unconstructive edits, Trivialist, Havsjö, Lubiesque, Vif12vf, Moxy.

It also appears that Kanto7 was involved in a previous ANI report here. [200]

This reversion by administrator Wtmitchell is one of the examples of the unconstructive edits that were reverted. [201]

Including this addition of the US flag to a UN Trusteeship: [202]

Unconstructive infobox: [203]

Edit warring here: [204]

Here: [205] (No reliable source was supplied in the talk page: [206])

Here: [207]

Here: [208]

There are a lot more but this is the final one that I will add here: [209] (Talk page: Talk:British_Raj#Flags)

And reverting a cleanup bot: [210]

I saw good faith in their edits, however their persistent unconstructive edits has pushed me to go to here. I have already warned him in his talk page, my talk page [211], and other discussion pages before and they seem to not have learned from their previous warnings by other editors. I'm proposing either a topic ban from history and geopolitics related articles since their talk page [212] is evidence that they have engaged in edit warring and unconstructive editing before. PyroFloe (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism from 102.66.137.116

• 102.66.137.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hypnotize (The Notorious B.I.G. song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mo Money Mo Problems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This IP has mostly been changing chart positions on these articles to higher positions, going against what the established sources show. 102.66.132.207 has also displayed similar behavior and has edited other pages relating to the Notorious B.I.G. but has not been active since 4 February 2021. I highly suspect this is the same person. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 15:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same person. It's just the typical sales inflation. Revert, warn and report to AIV is what I do.

(CC) Tbhotch^™

18:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Long term creation of hoax drafts

• 72.50.16.105 (talk · contribs)
• 67.224.128.43 (talk · contribs)
• 66.50.50.53 (talk · contribs)
• 67.224.128.49 (talk · contribs)
• 72.50.16.192 (talk · contribs)
• 66.50.50.241 (talk · contribs)
• 64.237.237.210 (talk · contribs)

Not intended to be a definitive list; some appear dormant, others active or recent. Appears to be one user in Puerto Rico. Most surely

WP:NOTHERE. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk

) 02:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Having had a bit of a nose around; 67.224.128.32/27, 66.50.50.0/24, 72.50.16.0/24, and 64.237.237.0/24 appear to be the most active ranges. There doesn't seem to be much of value coming out of these ranges of late, so in light of the net drain on editor time this person seems to pose at present I wonder whether a couple of rangeblocks may be in order? Jack Frost (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The number of drafts they have created for imaginary films is a bit disturbing. All of them appear to be for imaginary films, actors, production houses or distributors. Possibly (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked a few of those ranges (in one case, just a single IP), and for another, partial-blocked the draft namespace.

67.224.128.32/27 - Rangeblocked 3 months

66.50.50.0/24 - Rangeblocked 3 months

72.50.16.105 - Blocked 3 months

64.237.237.0/24 - Rangeblocked from draftspace 3 months OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, thank you. Now, I have a follow-up question: why is it taking so long for all those hoax drafts to be deleted? Is it because they're not in article space, so there's no imperative? Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There has been some discussion on the

Village pump about this, but there is a view that drafts are "where articles go to die" and are rarely looked by anybody except for a handful of reviewers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

15:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. There's also a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Luz Nazario Velez. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistent talk page abuse by IP User:35.136.180.207

BLOCKED

IP Blocked. SQL^{Query me!} 23:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

This IP has been persistently posting rants at Talk:Black Lives Matter ([213] [214] [215] [216]) and Talk:Donald Trump ([217] [218]) despite having been reverted and warned multiple times by multiple users in recent days. This user's comments on their own user talk page (e.g. [219]) seem to make clear that they do not recognize feedback from the community as legitimate. After two level-4 warnings and yet another instance of this behavior just now, it seems there's nothing else to do but bring the case here. Thanks for your time. Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I reported this IP at AIV for continuing NOTAFORUM violations after a final warning [220] but it was not acted on. The user talk page rants are just more of the same. Meters (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User said he was done with Wikipedia, but he's back at Talk:Black Lives Matter again, so let's help him off the site. Meters (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

can we make it so we can block alt right losers like this without waiting?

talk

) 22:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@

Robinmash: I hardly think that's appropriate - or constructive. SQL^{Query me!}

23:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You are a complete jerk regardless of my political beliefs this bias is appalling it’s excuse after excuse with you jerks isn’t it? Not to mention you jerks are so deep in denial over the bias it’s all the more proof that this wiki is appalling biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.136.180.207 (talk • contribs) 22:56, February 9, 2021 (UTC)

The personal attack by the IP sums it up nicely. The comment by Robinmash is also inappropriate, but I'm leaving both comments here for context. Meters (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User pretending they have unblocked themselves

 Done. Well, that's pretty weird. Anyway, I've disabled everything. El_C 16:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Account10000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has six known socks, all blocked:

• Account20000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Account30000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AidenPearcetheHacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IceWelder and Scottywong are jackasses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a delightful name, I must add)
• JimBurtson100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wrench1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their actions have been exclusively vandalous, even after multiple attempts of explaining our guidelines. Since being blocked, the user has used their talk page for further disruptive measures, such as:

• Personal attacks[221]
• Pretending to have unblocked themselves[222][223][224]
• Improper block threats[225]
• Gaslighting[226][227]

Since they actively switch between accounts (Account10000 and Account20000 have been in use today, for example), it is likely that they have the credentials for all of them at hand. After consulting with other Wikipedians, I was told to request revocation of this user's talk page access across all seven accounts. IceWelder [✉] 16:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

• @El C: but think of how much time we'd save just on unblock requests alone if we allowed more editors to pretend to be unblocked. Next time you decline an unblock, call it a "pretend-accept", and see if that works. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ha, Levivich, you may be on to something. Not to mention that green looks so much nicer than yellow. El_C 00:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ganging up on RfC starter because of previous block

Alalch Emis is

Logged AE action. El_C

23:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: note that the sanction was amended, with various sister pages also added to the partial block list. El_C 00:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Please protect this otherwise routine and functional RfC from comments interpolated above the discussion that deal with the person of the opener - me, maligning me because of a recently expired 48h block. The matter of the RfC and the reason for block are completely unrelated. Such comments reduce the orderliness and neutrality of the RfC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#RfC:_Undoing_%22bombing%22_removal_from_infobox Proposed solution: moving the thread starting with Moncrief's post (mentioning WP:OWN) to my talk page. I don't request sanction that may be deemed punitive. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You may want to read Streisand effect and Law of holes. If you had simply not responded there would be one rather mundane post expressing concern. By making multiple replies in the RfC discussion and then coming here, you are escalating the dispute instead of letting it die down. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I just hatted the subdiscussion, asking everyone involved to drop the

WP:STICK. --Guy Macon (talk

) 21:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:ACDS. You have neither the authority, nor for that matter, the experience in which to do so. ... Please remember that you are a participant like any other." Also, you should probably stop creating ANI discussions whenever your attempts to police the talk page fail. The last time you did that, you almost got blocked. And finally, I'd also remind you of these wise words that SQL left on your talk page (which you also deleted yesterday): "If multiple people are telling me I'm wrong - there's a pretty good chance that I am wrong." — Chrisahn (talk

) 21:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Bombing was added on Jan 8, so a month ago. I don't remember specifically readding it after it was removed, or that it had been removed, but I might have. Completely unimportant. I am in no way owning that edit and am absolutely happy to see consensus forming that bombing not be readded. It's an important piece of content warranting an RfC. My edits to the infobox are mild adjustments of what was there, based on existing references and text in lead and prominent places in the body. I changed execution-style murder in methods to lynching, a term supported by RS. My edits are mostly derivative and incremental. I don't think the rest of your post adds anything here. An RfC is an RfC. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Chrisahn. I'm not sure what else to add to your excellent response. Alalch Emis, my advice to you would be to heed the various pieces of advice people have given you about your behavior, if you want to avoid another block. It's perfectly reasonable to ask you to back away from your tendency towards

WP:OWN based on your actions today. Moncrief (talk

) 21:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisahn, further reply (edit conf.). Moncrief's allegation of WP:OWN dates from before edits to the infobox, and is related to a wholly unrelated situation regarding that problematic tally in the old RM (which I was trying to rescue from your premature discreditation). This perception of OWN is completely dissociated from my totally normal edits in the article. You've conflated two unrelated topics. Moncrief knows as a veteran Wikipedian that it's categorically impossible to own an article by starting a neutrally worded relevant RfC — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Please don't speak for me. You're absolutely incorrect about my motivations. When I say you are inappropriate in your assumptions and that you tend towards WP:OWN, this kind of supposed mind-reading and jumping to conclusions is a great illustration of what I mean. Moncrief (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You have given up on a meaningful allegation of my owning ths article that would be based on facts prior to your undermining of the innocent RfC — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know what that means. Please, just

WP:DROPTHESTICK. Moncrief (talk

) 22:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop eroding the normal editorial process (a formal one at that, such as an RfC) by inserting irrelevant and disruptive posts in areas that require stability, calmness and neutrality — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Racist personal attacks by IP: User:142.162.218.244

(non-admin closure) Blocked for 72 hours by Ritchie333 with leave to disable talk page upon further abuse. RandomGnome (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

IP User:142.162.218.244 removed content from California genocide (controversial change) without providing a source: [228] I restored the content. They added it back and left an insulting edit summary: “Get it through your non-European brain.” [229]

Another editor reverted their edit. I then left them a caution warning on their user TALK page regarding unsourced material. They responded to me with racist personal attacks calling me a “non-white Ebola Amerimutt”, a “deformed non-white Taco Bell customer”, and a “radiated Jew”. [230]

I left a firmer warning. They then blanked their talk page and updated it with a message calling me a “fat bitch” and told me to “Go eat more BLM McDonalds” [231]

A third warning was left on their talk. I believe this is an abuse-only account that is NOT here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to spread hatred. Netherzone (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Netherzone, Blocked for 72 hours. Any more abuse and the block will reset with talk page disabled. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Richie333 thank you for the prompt response, I appreciate your assistance. Netherzone (talk

) 22:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Warring

The

Quisqualis to stop trolling it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.170.10 (talk

) 19:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I only removed those edits because they have every appearance of being made by a blocked editor: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amisom.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, but the RFC on the talk page is pretty conclusive not to include this info. You continuing to reinsert is is a slow motion edit war against consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 02:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

YaSiRu11 – POV-pushing and other problems

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

I hope this won't be a

WP:TEXTWALL

, but there are many diffs despite only having edited on six separate days. YSR has:

• Stripped the page on 1958 anti-Tamil pogrom to just the lead and removed sourced sections on background, the pogrom itself, sexual violence, and massacres, saying that they lacked reliable citation.
• Removed multiple pieces of sourced information regarding ethnic cleansing, pogroms, bombings etc, saying that they corrected the grammar and spelling mistakes. and deleted information that lacked reliable citation and did so again on List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces
• Changed "civil war" to "rebellion" and "terrorist uprising" and called civilian deaths and casualties "collateral damage", saying that they corrected the grammar and spelling mistakes on Sri Lankan Civil War
• Appears to have just copy-and-pasted material from a website directly onto Wikipedia
• Removed sourced information, while saying that they added new information
• Again, saying they deleted unsorced infomation [sic]
• Again, saying it lacked reliable citation and added their own commentary
• On Jaffna District, removed sourced section regarding twinning with Kingston, saying No official and reliable citation were found for the deleted section. Did so again after I added an archive URL for the government source
• Added probable original research (the source did not support their claim)
• Draft:Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka
  , under as a blatant hoax, despite what seems to be over 100 sources (albeit not controlling for duplicates), including ones from Amnesty International
• PRODed Sri Lankan state-sponsored colonisation schemes and said it Contains many misleading facts that were possibly added with racist motives
• Removed section headings and a hidden note without explanation
• On my talk page claimed that a council source was no[t] [a] government link and claimed that another did not mention Jaffna as a twin city when it says it was "twinning with the city"
• Added an unexplained nowiki

To conclude, I suggest either a topic ban from Sri Lankan pages, broadly construed, or an indefinite block. Sdrqaz (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

To add to this the I suspect the user used this sock-puppet

LTTE. Notice the misspelling of the word message as 'massage' which he also misspells on his original talk page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:YaSiRu11 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oz346&oldid=1002489539

Oz346 (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply: I will say why I did that particular thing in the order he has presented them.

1. This was a mistake. I am new to this website I was just figuring things out. I'm sorry I wasn't able to undo my error.

2.I deleted the attacks that lacked credible sources. the listings which claim credibility "Department of State 2009" doesn't actually verify these claims. and many of its findings are repeated with different names on the list. for example the document states;

"Embassy Colombo reported that 58 people were killed and 143 injured due to shelling in Ampalavakanai and Mullaivakal. This may be the same incident reported by a source in Mattalan reported to HRW shelling in the NFZ and heavy fighting in the north"

but the listing doesn't clarify this. and I deleted the repeated listings.

3.I corrected the grammar and words that didn't sound right. and for the change of words, I quote this website^[1]

              "The main difference is who the battles are fought between... A revolution is a battle fought in hopes of a new system, by overthrowing a government and a civil war is fought between people of the same country."

LTTE fought for a different country. So, they had a rebellion not a Civil war.

4. I am the original writer and the photo editor of the website. I don't know why I can't publish my research-backed writing on Wikipedia.

5. The description there lacked new information so I added new Info and changed the existing. but I never deleted the existing information. You can still see both the etymology theories in my updated version. I changed its wording. that's the only thing I did.

6 and 7.I corrected a piece of wrong information. and I provided the necessary references.

8.I explained this to Sdrqaz and I still don't know why he still hasn't understood that. There is no way to confirm "the town twinning" as currently there is no official mention of this on the website.

9. It wasn't original research it's clearly mentioned in the source I referenced. I ask you to read this website to further clarify.

10. It is a blatant hoax. none of the sources support the claims. Please read the sources first. 11. I don't know why I can't do that.

12. The page was a bit messy. I made the page more clear.

13. I explained this before.

14. I literally didn't change that page.

and as for Oz346's claim, are you sure it's me because you seem to have edit wars with an awfully lot of people. — Preceding

talk • contribs

) 16:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

1. ^ https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/difference-between-the-civil-war-and-revolution.php

I don't know what I did wrong. I tried my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Just because I didn't agree with you why did you make things up to defame me?

talk

) 16:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal: I'm sorry that this has been poorly formatted, but I didn't want to create a block of text.

1. I don't find that argument plausible. Removing 75% of a page is not easily done. Moreover, an edit summary was provided for the change. That does not seem consistent with accidental deletions.

2. The State Department source does verify those claims. If you feel that there are possibly repeated entries (the source makes it clear there is ambiguity), then add a note. Don't remove both entries. It is not for editors to

improperly synthesise

sources, or reach conclusions that the sources did not reach themselves.

3. As it states in the disclaimer above, that is a student-written essay. Moreover, that essay is about the American Revolution and Civil War. Not only is that not a reliable source, it is not even relevant.

4. Please see

WP:SELFCITE

. With all due respect, are you an established subject-matter expert? Has your work in this field been published by reliable independent publications? Even if you have, copy-and-pasting paragraphs over is excessive.

5. The page history doesn't lie. 2.7kb does not just disappear with a minor rewording.

6 and 7. How are they incorrect? They were pieces of sourced information.

8. There is a way to confirm the town twinning: look at the newspaper source. Look at the archived council source. Link rot happens. It doesn't mean that we disregard the sources just because the URLs are dead.

9. The source you referenced was from Encyclopaedia Britannica. That is not that. The Britannica source does not mention substantial evidence to say that Nagas were Buddhist followers after the 4th century B.C.

10. I have read the sources, and they do support the information. Wikipedia is not censored, and includes information that you may not like. Calling it a hoax is not the solution.

11.

Casting aspersions

is not allowed. Where is your evidence for racist motives? How are the facts misleading?

12. If anything, you made it less clear. You removed a section headings without explanation, which had the effect of making it seem like one uninterrupted table.

13. Please read the sources.

14. There just didn't seem to be any rationale behind that nowiki.

In addition, YSR has accused another editor of having no ability to say what is "serious" history and whats not here.

Sdrqaz (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC) amended 02:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved administrator reviewing the above allegations, I find cause for concern with YaSiru11's editing. While some of the issues highlighted by Sdrqaz remain at the level of content disputes, overall the identified edits (particularly #1, #3, #5, #10, #11, #12 and #14 as enumerated above) suggest carelessness at best and intent to POV-push on Sri Lankan topics at worst. Either way, YasiRu11 does not appear to be able to contribute constructively to Sri Lankan topics at this time. An indefinite topic ban from content related to Sri Lanka, appealable after several months in the event that YasiRu11 can demonstrate their ability to abide by our policies when editing other topics, seems appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Support Rosguill's proposal. I am grateful that they have taken the time to sort through all the diffs. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Rosguill for taking the time. Also it may be necessary to look into Yasiru's suspected sock-puppet Kisnueque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well, it was used to slander me on my personal talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oz346&oldid=1002489539

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oz346&diff=prev&oldid=1002489539

He seems to have tried to do it with his original Yasiru account, but then had second thoughts before deciding to use the sock puppet to evade detection:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Oz346&diff=next&oldid=1002487988

Oz346 (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPI _signed, Rosguill ^talk

15:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Obi2canibe I see a message has been left by you on Yasiru's talk page regarding a sock puppet investigation, if only one account gets banned, it may not solve this perennial issue.Oz346 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Rosguill, as an uninvolved administrator, would you be able to take action? Sdrqaz (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Sdrqaz, given that Sri Lankan history isn't under discretionary sanctions, a topic ban requires a community consensus to be imposed. Although there's nominally a unanimous consensus above, I don't feel comfortable closing this myself, as I proposed the topic ban and it's received an endorsement only from you and Oz346, editors who were already lodging complaints against Yasiru11. Thus, I would ask for another admin to close this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Rosguill, understood. I hope that another admin will come along and see what is necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reply to Rosguill -

Do what you want to do I don't care. I tried my best to contribute to Wikipedia but now I have left the site. Don't just block, delete my account if you can, I don't care. You guys didn't give a damn about those pages before even though they were filled with false, misleading information. just look at here, <ref https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinduism_in_Sri_Lanka&oldid=1003288905#cite_note-Dailynews-6</ref> How in the world does that prove that Naga People practiced Hindusim. but It seems that Wikipedia only believes users who have years of experience. and It seems that the user who accused me was not well-informed on the subject because I clearly explained this.

talk

) 17:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Melcous targeting specific page of author Joseph Couture

Biography of Joseph Couture[edit] Looking back through the history of this page, it is clear that you have focused a great deal of your personal attention on this particular page. You continually revert edits, demand citations for simple and ordinary matters and keep reducing the size and scope of information about this individual. Now you have tagged it as not being a notable subject although it clearly meets the guidelines for such as both a published author, award winning journalist and famous gay activist. The pattern here appears to have an element of personal dislike for the individual or subject matter. This is an opening dialogue as per Wiki guidelines before a complaint is filed and a review of your edits requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:2012:35CE:1224:43BB (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to review my edits - if you look through my contributions you will see that I have edited a large number of articles here, so I have hardly focused a great deal of personal attention on this particular page. It is on my watchlist, and so I have noted over the last couple of years when unsourced content has been added and maintenance tags have been removed without improvement of the content and therefore reverted those edits. I have no personal opinion in this particular person whatsoever, my concern has been with wiki guidelines for biographies. If you could clearly explain which of wikipedia's notability criteria this person meets, that would be great and the maintenance template can be removed. Melcous (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. Why was this completely unrelated link to the Capital attacks added to this comment? I did not put it there and it has no relevance whatsoever to the matter at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:2012:35CE:1224:43BB (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a footnote from an earlier editor and was not added to your comment, it has been on this page well prior to you editing it. Melcous (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No doubt it is on your watchlist as the history shows that often within minutes of an edit to the page you respond. But you do not simply review the changes just made, you take the opportunity to make extensive changes of your own at that time, usually cutting larger and larger chunks. Like today, you removed his journalism award, which was in fact published in numerous places around the world and is a documented fact. As he was the only journalist in Canada to have won this prestigious award at the time, and under the circumstances he did is only one element of his clear eligibility. This now helps your case he doesn't meet that criteria as things such as winning major awards are a factor. Being an internationally best-selling author is an another example of his eligibility, which has been listed there for many many years and you did not challenge. As is the fact that he was named amongst the top newsmakers of the year at the end of 1995 for both his journalism and the award he won. That same article from the Globe and Mail (one of Canada's most respected national newspapers) mentions his award, but you ignore it and delete mention of the award because you claim another source inaccurate. As you chip away at removing the history, you slowly erode the evidence of his eligibility.

As much of this material is now quite old and was placed here long ago, it is harder and harder to find it in a simple Google search and you are burying his history and putting people in the position of having to work harder to prove things that were previously available and established- and that at an earlier time you even approved yourself. You also arbitrarily decide what stays and what goes regardless of proper and verifiable sourcing. For example, from the last two lines quoted from the same source, you leave one line and remove the second. The second happens to talk about his history of bisexuality and polyamory. You have previously removed properly sourced material on numerous other occasions, seemingly simply because you do not like it. Whether you like this man, or his history does not permit you to decide what details of his life get told and those which get buried. The fact that in raising this issue with you, you respond by immediately further removing documented elements of his history and attacking this individual even more reveals your clear bias. You obviously have had this page on your "watchlist" for a long time and many things that you later changed were there before you appear on the list of editors and you did not remove it until much later. And why only now, after all this time and all your deletions of his many accomplishments, do you now suggest the page be removed?

You have actually made it easy to demonstrate your history of bias and edit warring, a rule which was designed to protect against random members of the public who disagree, and likely not from one of their own editors who may commit such an offence. Since you not only will not cease your campaign or demonstrate a willingness for meaningful discussion, I now have no choice but to escalate this and complain to your superiors. It will be easy in some many cases by examine your history of arbitrary and capricious editing as it is well documented in the record, which, thankfully, you cannot edit out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is a great example of your selective editing:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/bernardo-author-wins-humans-rights-award/article1136923/

This article mentions in the Globe and Mail that Joseph Couture had previously won this award before author Stephen Williams and that such awards are typically only given to journalists living under dictatorships. You claim to have checked this information but it only took a quick check to prove this point as it is so well documented. This award, the circumstances, the high level of publicity around it are all evidence of his notability. Yet you continue to chip away at it. You are well aware that as time goes by more and more things slip behind pay-walls and can no longer be easily accessed by the public and only now make changes that are increasingly difficult to reverse, but easy for you delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Case in point, that link to the article with the headline that Stephen Williams won the same award is no longer found on the web, possibly because the paper is now defunct. Did you simply read the headline and conclude because it only mentions Williams that it had nothing to do with this author? As you can see from the still available link to the Globe, Couture is mentioned as having won it first. So if you read the actual article, or did your own research, you would have known that. But I suggest you are not looking for what you do not want to find. The link to the journalism committee report documenting the harassment of Couture is still active and is evidence again you choose to ignore. On and on it goes, I will be reporting you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Another important item deleted earlier was the fact that he was nominated repeatedly by his colleagues for awards in investigative journalism. Again, many of these links are gone. But this one remains:

ps://caj.ca/blog/congratulations-caj-awards-finalists-2015

I could just go on with this, but I think you should be getting the picture by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD29:1900:8442:1568:65B3:B9AE (talk)

Is there something you are trying to say with this wall of text? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Didn't read it, either (indeed,

Stephen Williams (writer) (redirect) as opposed to Joseph Couture (as in a misattribution)...? Hard to immediately tell, though. El_C

15:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Can't tell either, but a copy of virtually the same thing has been posted to three user pages. It's a copy of their posts at User talk:Melcous, where they direct unhappiness towards Melcous. Possibly (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Unhappiness that seem to have been prompted by a notability improvement tag added to the article, which, with eight of ten citations apparently being to commentary by Couture, appears to be appropriate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There are some issues with the article, and potentially some misunderstanding in/of my edits. I'm happy for someone to look over my edits and let me know if there's anything I should rectify (as BubbaJoe123456 has already done in one instance, thanks) but otherwise more eyes on the article generally could help resolve some of the issues. Thanks Melcous (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on

Gamestop short squeeze

Blocked. Daniel (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• 2600:1700:9b40:7c30:3094:b7cd:f834:5d64 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

In

AIV but it is too long to respond. 36.65.47.156 (talk

) 02:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:It's number 8

BLOCKED

(non-admin closure) It's number 8 indefinitely blocked for block evasion by Sro23. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

SPI). Please block all of the accounts listed on their userpage that aren't already blocked. --C o r t e x ^💬talk

02:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by Sro23. JavaHurricane 03:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

SPAs all over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannibal Brumskine III

Actually, I misread the date of submission (filed on the 4th), so I just went ahead and closed the discussion as obvious spam-delete. El_C 05:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

It's not an emergency really, but there is a staggering amount SPA accounts/IP addresses (10 so far) voting to keep a PAID article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannibal Brumskine III. It might be meatpuppeting, it could be one or two very active sockpuppeters, but it certainly could do with some admin oversight. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, what an influx. Semi'd for 2 weeks, just to be on the safe side. El_C 05:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Ben Carlson

Blocked for 24h. Daniel (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

This user has been adding uncited recording dates, particularly to three specific article: Mambo No. 5, It Wasn't Me, and Dear Jessie. The dates they are adding do not appear anywhere in the article text. They continue to add these dates even after multiple warnings to stop. I'm at my 3RR limit on Mambo No. 5 and decided to take this issue here to avoid breaking the rule. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 23:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've given them 24 hours off (this edit summary seems to assert they'll just edit war regardless) while I have a discussion with them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN

behavior and personal attacks after block

There is consensus in this discussion that Kyopa's pas behavior and attitude are currently incompatible with editing a collaborative project such as the English Wikipedia. I therefore apply a block of indefinite duration in my capacity of an uninvolved administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Kyopa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Greek Football Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Greek Cup finals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kyopa has already been blocked for editwarring on these articles, yet refuses to stop. Consensus has already been established that as the match was abandoned neither club should be awarded a win for the cup finals in question. Sources (including those provided by the user in question) also agree with this viewpoint. The user has a habit of attacking other editors AND authors of sources (see: here, here), displayed OWN behavior here and noted that they would wait 24 hours to avoid triggering 3RR here. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I apologize for the inconvenience. I made an effort to correct something I thought was wrong. Some users have the opposite view. I was treated hostilely and maybe I did the same. Because that leads nowhere, it's best not to dwell on these articles again. It does not mean that I am wrong. They just do not understand me. You should not punish me because users who disagree with me cooperate secretly (canvassing). User Padgriffin is negatively biased with me and please be excluded from the case. I generally think I have a group of puppets in front of me. --💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging @REDMAN 2019: and @Abudabanas: Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 07:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Kyopa has his own pov on Greek Football Cup honors and he is very persistent on this. I have a different pov and when edit war occured, I stopped reverting, opened a discussion on the article’s Talk page and called other users for help. You won’t find any reliable source that backs up his pov and that is why he was told to stop edit warring on Greek Football Cup and List of Greek Cup finals by multiple users (5-6) and blocked twice by 2 admins (48hrs and 1 week). I believe that Kyopa won’t stop until his edit is accepted and it has been proved pointless to talk/reason/reach consensus with him. I tried everything. Abudabanas (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• I came into this a month or so ago. Abudabanas asked me for my opinion on a "minor controversy" at the article in question. I had a look and found Kyopa's view at fault and said so on the talk page. Kyopa then repeatedly rejected my words and everyone else's. He made it clear that he wasn't going to stop edit warring, as shown by
  WT:FOOTY here, where Kyopa was again found to be at fault by other editors, including @Nehme1499, Crowsus, and GiantSnowman:. Kyopa has been blocked twice already for edit warring, and both times he has come back and continued, accusing all who oppose him of being puppets, vandals, or negatively biased against him for some unknown reason. I too am of the opinion that he not going to change and that he needs to be prevented from continuing his trouble-causing. REDMAN 2019 (talk
  ) 11:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef block - kyopas has made it clear by their editing history (even after multiple warnings & blocks) and by their comment above that they don't get it and won't change. The only way to prevent this disruption is an indef block. GiantSnowman 11:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

See first of all the difference in our edits [232]. The users who accuse me of lying are blatantly lying, as all the sources confirm that the final was stopped and the teams were punished. Only one journalist says he does not count on the final because no trophy was awarded. So what? The federation decided so, as in other cases it decided to share the title. They completely eliminate the fact. The federation records it normally. But from the moment he punished both teams, it means that we have two runners up. I see that they are asking for my final block. I consider it unacceptable and fascist. Ask them what is ip 195.xxx.xxx.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support The comments that Kyopa has made in this ANI, AND the talk page comment he made about how he is going to wait 24 hours AFTER a block for edit warning. AND all of the personal attacks/lack of
  Assuming Good Faith(calling the users fascist, sock puppets, vandals. etc etc), makes me support a indef block. Regardless of who is "right", the behavior being exhibited by Kyopa idetrimentalal to the collaborative environment of Wikipeida. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!}
  14:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as nom. Kyopa continues to attack users and refuses to act in a civil manner, ignores warnings, has expressed a desire to deliberately circumvent 3RR and is unwilling to partake in civil discussion with other editors despite prior warnings and blocks. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per everything I have said above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I see I am doomed. Of the 4 who have voted, 3 are directly involved in the case and normally should not have voted. But I have to accept the data. So if you decide to punish me, let it be only for these two entries and not from the whole wiki. I repeat, however, that I consider any punishment of mine to be unjust.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Question: :In a cup final we have the cup and two teams claiming it. The one who gets it and the one who loses. If neither of them gets it for any reason what should be the names of the teams that participated in the final? Is it right to cancel their participation in the final because they failed to win the cup? My view is that both should be considered runners-up. That's all.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have repeatedly gave you the answer from the beginning of all this. 1962 final stopped in overtime and never replayed (fact). Definitions: Winner (1st), Runner-up (2nd), Finalist (last 2). Olympiacos Greek Cup honors: 28 W , 12 R-UP , 1 FST. Crowsus edit is perfect. Four-five months of talking, edit warring, personal attacks and bad behavior because you are the only one who insists on 28 W , 13 R-UP for something that even if you are a devoted Olympiacos fan, can't understand. Abudabanas (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Since there are Crowsus footnotes why write 12 and not 13? Notes are entered for the above and not for the following. --💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Cause it's 12 times R-UP and a note explaining that there is also 1 as FST (not as R-UP, so that it is written as 13) for 1962 final. That's what happened, it did not come out from Crowsus' or anybody's personal view. Abudabanas (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That is, the finalist is one thing and the runner-up is another;--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - per above reasoning. Kyopa I am not involved and can see your issues here. Your not understanding the issues here, as explained above. This is about your edting behavior and your lack of accepting consensus and inabaility to work in a collaborative environment. As to your question, its irrelevant to what is being discussed here. This is about your behavior, who won some sports event in 1962, really not relevant. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Scott Thomson. Understood. So the problem is my behavior. All I can do is apologize to those who offended me, but attack me to maintain the belief that my treatment is correct. Thank you for participating.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Please can an uninvolved admin review and close? Personally I think there is consensus for an indef block given this editor's attitude and conduct. GiantSnowman 16:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

ANI against Magnus Dominus

At

Mailer Diablo was "lying." They argue that Mailer Diablo returned to SPI after a break of a few months so as to target them, specifically, by fabricating CU data. I submit to you, dear reader, that this actually is the lie here. A cursory glance shows that Mailer Diablo did a run of like 20ish different SPI reports. The notion that Magnus Dominus's SPI report was special, somehow, is simply laughable and is nothing but a provocation. Anyway, blocked indefinitely for socking, obviously. El_C

04:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

Magnus Dominus, been "suddenly" obstructing MMA pages from further changes and try use this ANI to goes his way. Edits from Oct 2020 to Feb 1 2021...looks like random edits. Strangely it something do with this RFC. This is almost like reopening same case over and over again..... Targeting same 3 person over and over again @Squared.Circle.Boxing: @Cassiopeia: @NEDOCHAN:. I want a review on Magnus Dominus behavior please. Kent Bargo (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Continuing behavior

1. Magnus Dominus doing
   WP:FILIBUSTER too much in mma pages. Special:Contributions/Magnus_Dominus Kent Bargo (talk
   ) 00:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
2. Magnus Dominus used SPI to once again targeting the same editor (sorta harassing with wild "wall of texts"). SPI Kent Bargo (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
3. Went soo low targeting anyone who question user edit or behavior. Kent Bargo (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Attempting to pay for services. HERE Kent Bargo (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
5. This disruption maybe related diff diff 2 Kent Bargo (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for SPI experts/Admin for assistance (Confirmed SOCK)

The user targeting & disagreements are getting out of control. I reported user for roadblocking articles and concern may do it on other page. I did not notice the person also being investigated for

WP:Sock

in the Lordpermaximum SPI case. "Wild wall of texts" length are similar. I like to request these SPI cases to be fast forwarded if possible.

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lordpermaximum <-- in this SPI - Magnus Dominus accuses Admin @Girth Summit: for some favoritism? (might not be the right word)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NEDOCHAN <- targeting again

Kent Bargo (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC) The user is a

WP:SOCK

via Confirmed-nc. This explains the unacceptable wall of text and behavior.

Post Behavior (Threat)

WP:SOCK Possible threat towards fellow editor @Squared.Circle.Boxing: Kent Bargo (talk

) 08:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Can @El C: or other admin closed this resolved cased. User abusive behavior has been restricted and case resolved! Kent Bargo (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Post Closure

@El C: @Squared.Circle.Boxing: and @RoySmith: Do not want go through it again, but the Lordpermaximum (100 dollars for it) is back with "wall of text" under El_C Talkpage? diff Kent Bargo (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

My talk page aka

Grand Central Station! El_C

07:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Gopher draft

Reluctant self-close. Appears to be a false positive. What I thought might be COI meatpuppetry seems adequately explained as off-wiki collaboration by new editors. Policy explained to draft re-creator. Can't see any action needed Zindor (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Would someone be able to look into the situation around Draft:Lord of Little Stambridge Hall please? It has been resurrected. The topic has been around the block, and I summarise that at a recent MfD.

The draft is synthesis based on sources about Stambridge and historical figures, creating the appearance of a notable topic. There was a keeness for early deletion (here and here), so I watchlisted it in case it popped up again.

I can't put my finger on what's going on, it doesn't feel malicious or like SPA gaming, but something bothers me. Maybe the numerous attempts to explain its not notable weren't understood. Regards, Zindor (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to add that it's possible to sell manorial lordships, so we risk being used as some kind of advertising service. A very similar draft was rejected before and several of us agreed it was a non-notable topic. Zindor (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering what I found fishy about that draft. You're right, it reads like dodgy estate agent-speak. Miscellaneous gobbets of history, and no narrative; whole centuries are missing.

Anyone contemplating the purchase of a

Lord of the Manorship should be aware that it is their seigneurial obligation to pay for every drink ordered in any hostelry in their demesne during such time as they grace that establishment with their presence. That has been the immemorial custom since ooh maybe yesterday. They will also find it useful to know that in the local idiom, "gullible" means "able to smell onions frying around corners". Narky Blert (talk

) 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Narky Blert Hi,I got a message from Zindor regarding the recreation of the page (Which led me here). I have got no knowledge of the page being remade. However I do know Fred will have remade it. If you would like I’ve got his contact details, so I can speak to him about it. On a lighter note your “meaning” of “gullible” did make me laugh, rather a lot.EvWills(talk) 21:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, EvWills, thank you for joining us. It's nice to hear you've been doing some collaborating, that's what Wikipedia is all about. I'm just interested, was creating the article part of your job or just a project? I know a lot of us are working from home at the moment. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

ZindorIt was a project for me. Can’t speak for Fred. If there’s anything you want me to do feel free to ask.EvWills(talk) 23:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, EvWills, that's everything. I hope I haven't discouraged you from editing; discussions like this are very rare. If youre interested in local history perhaps you might find something to add to the Stambridge article? All the best, Zindor (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Zindor Zindor, I know it’s not my place to say but Fred will mean no harm in the recreation and as you have questioned up above I can guarantee you it will not be meant with a malicious intent.EvWills(talk) 23:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to express your thoughts, EvWills. As I said, i didn't think it was anything on those lines, I just had a feeling something was unusual. I'm glad we've solved this. Zindor (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Can someone un-involved close this thread please? Thanks Zindor (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

FredBensen, there's little chance that draft will ever be acceptable. You musn't stitch together articles out of mentions in primary sources and no sources I can find talk about the lordship of Little Stambridge Hall in any detail so we can't have an article about it.:Some mention of Little Stambridge Hall, including its listed building status and the former church, can be made in Stambridge using appropriate sources. Some occupants might be notable or at least worth mentioning in that article, e.g. Sir James Bouchier who was Oliver Cromwell's father-in-law.

If you persist in efforts to include this lordship, that will confirm that you're only here to promote it for sale - in which case you'll likely not be allowed to edit any longer. Fences&Windows 00:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Zindor's and F&W's suggestions of adding to the Stambridge article look good to me. There's sourced info in the draft which would add local colour. Narky Blert (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences&Windows I might be missing something but carrying improving my draft page, which will likely never be submitted. Proves Im only useing wikipedia to advertise sale in what way? FredBensen (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, FredBensen.The draft space is for working on draft articles with the potential to be published. Your last draft on this was rejected, which means no chance of resubmission. That copy might have been hidden from general view but that didn't change anything. Continuing to pursue the topic would be indicative of a kind of motivation not aligned with our policies. Seeking advertisement would be one such motivation.

You're not being accused of anything. We'd like you to carry on editing, but on other topics, and have suggested a way of doing so. Regards, Zindor (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Zindor I know im not being accused of anything, my motivation is for the few that do want to expand there knowledge on the subject are able to with ease. As you for one must surely know the annoyance when searching for what you would believe is a important thing and no pages coming up. FredBensen (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I can empathise with that,

inclusion criteria is based on whether secondary sources have chosen to devote significant coverage to the subject. If we believe a topic is worth writing about, that's not enough. I have a copy of a book that was written by a neighbour of mine, and it was about the history of our village. It was interesting and included information about the local manor and lordship, but that book is where most of the information belonged; not on Wikipedia. Zindor (talk

) 11:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Apollo 14 - Today's TFA receive high level of IP vandalism and unsourced content

Semi-protected. Daniel (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Apollo 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please protect this page, at least invoking pending changes settings in the article, because i see in page history after it was posted as TFA for Tuesday February 9, it receives high level of vandalism and distruptive edits from IPs and non-autoconfirmed users which includes adding unsourced or poorly sourced content and there are too many "Reverted" tags in their edit summary. 36.65.47.156 (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for three days. I considered pending changes, but as far as I can tell every IP and most newcomer edits today have been reverted already, so the collateral damage is minimal. In future,

Requests for page protection is thataway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

11:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It has already requested at

WP:RFPP by Wretchskull, but admin respond is taking too long as vandalism persisted. But, thank you for your comment. 36.65.47.156 (talk

) 11:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Alexei Navalny, Mhorg, and ‎LauraWilliamson looking for a user to make a fourth revert

LauraWilliamson CU-blocked — thanks,

logged AE action (by Ymblanter). Finally, both Mhorg and Darkcloud2222 are deemed editors in good standing, with whatever "evidence" provided (by the sock) to the contrary amounting to nothing but a nothing-burger. I think that's about it. El_C

05:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

There is something going on at Alexei Navalny and its talk page. In particular, IPs were restoring the edit by Mhorg, which is being under discussion at the talk page. I had Mhorg at my talk page, [233] and then I semi-protected the page as arbitration enforcement. Then I had ‎LauraWilliamson, a user with 105 edits, at my talk page, asking whether I can remove the edit since they have already made three reverts today.[234] When I asked them do they want me to be their proxy to avoid 3RR, they said no.[235] At the same time, I see that they went to Nicoljaus to ask the same.[236] I really have no time now to look into this, but we probably need some blocks). From my expert knowledge of the area, the information which Mhorg tries to add is certainly valid but I have no opinion whether it should be in the lede or in the article at all. I would much appreciate if someone can have a look at the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi just to add, that summary is mostly correct but I would just add that I asked Nicoljaus to revert because the question of the content's inclusion is still being discussed on the talk page, so I didn't think it was right for new IPs with no real edit history to spring out of no where and reinstate the content. Perhaps I should not have asked another user to reinstate the status quo, sorry for that error on my part, I just thought it was right to have the status quo back while the issue is being discussed at talk. LauraWilliamson (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Laura, the problem with your messages to

what vandalism is not). El_C

16:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course if I have inappropriately canvassed users then that is my error, and apologies. I wasn't sure whether it would qualify as vandalism or edit warring or something else if new IP's came along and started reinstating the disputed content that's still being discussed on the talk page, but I thought that the usual guidelines were to restore the page to to status quo until the conclusion of the discussion. That was why I asked other users to restore the status quo - but I didn't realise that would come across as canvassing. So in that case, apologies for my ignorance in this instance. LauraWilliamson (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I think it's fine, Laura. Just for future reference. Not sure I'm seeing those IP/s as immediately suspect (possibly). But IPs are allowed to edit the page — well, at least they were until the page was protected by Ymblanter. About retaining the

Consensu required restriction. Hope this helps. Regards, El_C

16:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• First of all, I did not make "4th revert". I made completely different changes on this page which I think would be needed per
  WP:BLP, and I explained them on talk page. I do not see any problem. I edited this page previously many times, and I do not mind if LauraWilliamson or anyone else informs me about anything. Let's encourage, not discourage communications in the project. My very best wishes (talk
  ) 16:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• No, no — again, the reference is to the "clear vandalism" messages (plural) when viewed in their entirety. You may not see a potential problem with that, but I do. Or did, at least — because, in any case, it seems resolved now, so I suppose it's of no further moment, either way. El_C 16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I am increasingly convinced that there is some sockpuppetry going on with the page. Firstly, a sudden wave of brand new IP's have sprung up to either repeatedly reinstate user:Mhorg's disputed edits or push for other users to take action against me. They are all IP's that have never contributed to Wikipedia before today: (except in one case not since 2006!):

• 220.253.99.152 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/220.253.99.152
• 120.16.121.41 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/120.16.121.41
• 102.176.108.200 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/102.176.108.200

And now, there is another editor, DarkCloud2222. The reason why I think this user also could be a sockpuppet is because they are not only [comments on the talk page of Alexei Navalny supporting Mhorg's point of view], but they also just added another comment supporting Mhorg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia#Is the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI) a supremacist organization?, a debate in which Mhorg is also arguing in right now. Most notably, [edit history] shows they have edited similar pages to Mhorg - pages to do with Italian things, and in particular pages related to Italian communist groups or figures. I really do feel that this is all not just a coincidence. LauraWilliamson (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get an administrator to look over this?

User:102.176.108.200, has, notably, just been blocked as well for disruptive editing related to this issue. LauraWilliamson (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Laura, I'm still here. Just had to deal with

CU feels like sparing us the bother...? El_C

17:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

LauraWilliamson, I inform you that DarkCloud2222 is a well-known user from the Italian Wikipedia, it's funny you're trying to portrait him as to my sockpuppet. As I said before, here, the only strange thing is a [user registered from 27 January 2021], your user, (with around 13 days of activity, mostly about Navalny's article), that knows every complicated Wikipedia rule, and acts like an expert of Wikipedia. A user that act aggresively and only back other user comments likely in a coordinated way and that clearly doesn't want to discuss, but to win: you started deleting my RS, and at the moment, on the Navalny's discussion you're trying to delete 5 RS. You even not try to find sources that support your position.--Mhorg (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: comparing the edit histories of Mhorg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mhorg and Darkcloud2222:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Darkcloud2222, I would note the following editing similarities.

Mhorg's edits pages related to Italian/USSR/Russian politics, such as:

• Communist Party (Italy) e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_(Italy)&oldid=805138556
• Talk:Stepan Bandera (edited by both accounts, including in same debate to make same points), e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stepan_Bandera&oldid=999950619
• Stepan Bandera, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepan_Bandera&oldid=1002434840
• Front of Communist Youth (Italy), e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_of_Communist_Youth&oldid=956658373

While Darkcloud2222 has also edited suspiciously similar pages, such as:

• Front of Communist Youth (Italy) (Edited by both accounts), e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_of_Communist_Youth&oldid=800728640
• Communist Party of Italy (2014), e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_Italy_(2014)&oldid=800724338
• Communist Party (Italy) (edited by both accounts), e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_(Italy)&oldid=800728925
• Talk:Stepan Bandera, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stepan_Bandera&oldid=999277080.

Definatley not a coincidence - especially when looking at how both accounts were used last month to edit the same debate at Talk:Stepan Bandera. LauraWilliamson (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Woah, that's incredible, you discovered that two users who take care of the same "categories" end up editing sometimes the same articles (how many times?). Who cares if we have millions of edits that have nothing to do with each other and extremely different years of activity... And congratulations again on your skill anyway, in just 13 days you look like an administrator. After 5 years I still don't know how to open an

WP:RfC. You know, the more I notice how you move the more I think there is something extremely unusual. In 5 years of activity on Wikipedia I have never seen a user behave the way you do. It almost makes me think that those anonymous edits were made by you, to turn up this whole mess (and I'm so sorry for the accusations, but you were the first to make them to me). --Mhorg (talk

) 17:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS.--37.147.251.233 (talk

) 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, here's some other articles both accounts have edited on:

• Hammer and sickle
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia
• Talk:Alexei Navalny LauraWilliamson (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(

single-purpose account such as yourself certainly muddies the waters and places a magnifying lens on you as much as (if not more than) anyone else. El_C

18:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I may be a new user but I can see that this is the same person using two accounts. The similarities in their edit histories are such that it cannot be a coincidence. If no one else is going to file a sockpuppetry report then I'll find out how to do one myself. LauraWilliamson (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure why linking to Darkcloud2222 is proving so challenging for all involved (myself included), but here is their contributions on en: Special:Contributions/Darkcloud2222, and here they are on it: it:Speciale:Contributi/Darkcloud2222. El_C 17:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:LauraWilliamson is a sock of a particularly irritating longterm disruptor; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordimalo/Archive. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

LauraWilliamson, wait, Darkcloud started in 2009, therefore I am the real sockpuppet, because I started in 2015.
Drmies please tell me this is the truth, because these days have become a nightmare for me, and I want to wake up.--Mhorg (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El_C and Drmies, hopefully we are done here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Editor adding lots of copyvios

Blocked from article-space to force them to the user talk page. Daniel (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Marshjosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be only contributing copyvios. These are being reverted, but the behaviour continues, and there has been no response on user talk page despitre messages from Materialscientist, Diannaa, Sphilbrick, and myself. DuncanHill (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd say a speedy preventative block is in order. If you dont get one here, try a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Jusdafax (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• P-blocked from article space to see if we can get them to discuss. —valereee (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ta, DuncanHill (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Alfredokudai1 persistently adding uneferenced content

Partial block. Indeed, enough is enough. El_C

18:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Alfredokudai1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked twice for the persistent addition of unreferenced content at Coverage of Google Street View (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Since their most recent block expired, they have continued in the exact same way as before with the follow unreferenced additions.

• 22:39, 7 February 2021
• 15:19, 8 February 2021
• 00:50, 9 February 2021
• 14:30, 9 February 2021
• 17:38, 9 February 2021
• 19:36, 9 February 2021
• 14:41, 10 February 2021
• 15:14, 10 February 2021

It was made clear at 14:53, 10 February 2021 should they restore the content again without references this would be the next step, they ignored this and added it back again. FDW777 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Gina Carano

Article has been semi-protected

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

---

High volume of editing, with much vandalism mixed in, over the recent dismissal of an actor from a popular series. Article may need protection and a good going-over to clean any residual disruption. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Semi-protected by administrator Spencer. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Self-coup

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 02:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

This article needs some form of protection, either as arbitration enforcement for American politics (there's plenty of vandalism about the failed self-coup by Trump et al.) or as straightforward protection against further disruption, since there's also an IP who constantly adds the deliberately wrong statement that the events in Myanmar are a self-coup, which is not supported by RS; and well I can't just always be there waiting to revert the next one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There is already a thread requesting protection for this same article at

Contact me | Contributions

). 02:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Turguniev600's behavior

kind of stale, but I've warned them that anything like that again will result in an indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Hello!

If you look at his talk page, he has attacked someone. I suggest taking a further review on this user. Darubrub (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Those comments were directed at an experienced admin, so he can probably deal with it himself.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 15:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok! Darubrub (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Lunar New Year

User has been blocked for 48 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Another article with a deluge of cross-editing, some of it culture warring, some of it copyright violation. This, too, may require protection to slow things down and a sorting through, complete with rev/deletion of copied content, much of which I tried to remove. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I have flagged the copyvio for removal. – robertsky (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed and warned. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Would have to trouble you with another copyvio removal. IgnisFFFF strikes again. I would argue for a block on the editor, but let's have them defend themselves here I think. – robertsky (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm feeling generous and given them a 48 hour block. If anyone wants to block longer or reduce the block feel free. Huh, I actually froze my skin. Haven't done that in a while. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:JG4236

Reported user has been blocked for one week. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

JG4236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello. This user continues to add unsourced information and sometimes outright fictitious or disruptive editing despite many warnings. Recent examples of addition of unsourced content:

• [237]
• [238]
• [239] This was made to Mike Pence a controversial person and an article with lots of views. This addition isn't acceptable
• [240]

Examples of disruptive editing:

• [241]
• [242] Unexplained removal of content

Repeated warnings can be seen on the user's talk page. It also appears that the user doesn't acknowledge or reply to these warnings as some warnings go as far back as 2016, and yet the user is still adding unsourced information in recent days. I've also had a look at some very odd userpages created by this user, and I'd just like to make others aware of these:

• [243] Predicting the outcome of the 2032 presidential election.
• User:JG4236/2024prez likewise for the 2024 election
• User:JG4236/2028prez and the 2028 election
• User:JG4236/alternatehistory something weird going on here.

Kind regards,

ping

}} me in replies) 09:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, too many final warnings, but never sanctioned. Inexplicable edits like this one from a month ago, definitely raise

WP:CIR alarm bells. Obviously, latest unsourced edit show they have no concept of living up to that imperative, despite a pervious final warnings to that effect. Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C

10:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Edit warring, told to "fuck off" by Arcturus

comment has been dealt with. Arcturus has apologized. All parties have been advised to use normal

dispute resolution processes and seek wider input before proceeding. --Jayron32

13:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Alexbrn. This is a result of over a month long issues of discussion surrounding the issue at the Wuhan Institute of Virology article. After engaging in edit warring, Arcturus made a section on my talk page entitled "Fuck off you arsehole" diff. Arcturus has displayed numerous competence issues in my time interacting with him, and I think a topic ban from COVID-19 may be necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 12:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia Apologies for the "fuck off". It was out of order, completely. I've deleted it. On the subject of the article, I don't think two users get to make a consensus. A lot of work has gone into that article, and you're just trying to delete it without discussion. Please discuss any issues you have with it on the Talk page. Arcturus (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, I've redacted the comment in question and dropped some advice on Arcturus' page. I'll leave the wider dispute to the rest of the community. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Glad Arcturus has been "dug out of that hole". Good job we're not stuck in Iran. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

... or on the football terraces. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Especially those at

Shadwell Town. Martinevans123 (talk

) 12:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's usually best to refer to Arkell v. Pressdram directly to avoid misunderstanding. Shritwod (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

AFD me fav'rite page, woul'ja?? "You what? You what? You what, you what, you what??" Martinevans123 (talk

) 13:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Issues with Arcturus's editing in the COVID-19 topic area

Disagree with the close of this discussion and I think Arcturus’s editing conduct in COVID-related areas should be examined closely. I’m not sure the conduct rises to the level of topic bans or serious sanctions quite yet, given that it took so long for SS to be tbanned and SS was actually an SPA, but I still think their editing is disruptive and their POV so strong that it stops them from being able to neutrally edit in accordance with sources. I presume the closing admin is not aware with the history of this dispute given the referral to DR; practically every DR process has already been exhausted over the past few months and most uninvolved editors are so sick of this that participation on wider advertised matters is dwindling, amongst uninvolved editors. Even when consensus is reached, a content fork happens and the discussions start from scratch, on the same matters. I disagree that there’s a legitimate content disagreement here, rather continuous editing that is not in line with accepted standards. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that "their POV so strong that it stops them from being able to neutrally edit in accordance with sources". The cyclical arguments surrounding the "Lab leak theory" have gone on for over a month now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. GPinkerton (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think all of you know that saying it does not make it so. Granted, there's a chance that an uninvolved admin familiar with the dispute will step in, but it's probably a small chance. For those of us on the outside looking in, how would any of you suggest we peer into this most effectively? Not necessarily volunteering, but just saying that, if I had the time and inclination, not sure I'd attempt taking this on on-the-blind, in that sense. El_C 16:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what any admin can do. These fringe/ conspiracy theories are inserted by editors of all kinds from newbies to veterans, so protection levels won't solve it nor will any particular editor being topic banned since another is likely to arrive the following day with the same theory. An admin babysitting half a dozen articles with a heavy hammer sounds nice, but also overly harsh.

Perhaps an RfC (or ArbCom clarification?) about the inclusion of the theory to get community buy-in to editors ignoring/reverting, rather than engaging the latest editor proposing changes (or vice versa telling us that we are misinterpreting COVID DS by excluding this information). Slywriter (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There are only a couple of editors responsible for the primary issues. I suspect if they’re tbanned the issue will resolve itself. RfC won’t help because the issue isn’t one piece of content. Even if an RfC on the matter of “is the lab leak conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory?” was held, with an obvious affirmative answer, it doesn’t fix all the various other issues. For example, the selective quoting of Richard H. Ebright‘s general 2017 comments on Chinese labs and trying to spin them as his endorsement of the conspiracy theory, when he’s explicitly disavowed it (of course the now-blanked article avoids mentioning that part). Say we get an RfC on that too, then there’s the next sentence and the next and the next... And once all that’s resolved, a new POVFORK will be created and it repeats all over again. These are all slightly but materially distinct from the “is it a conspiracy theory?” RfC question. It’s one of the biggest time sinks for this reason. The solution is warnings and bans, because this is a conduct issue. I’d like to think I don’t bring frivolous concerns to ANI; I’m only reopening this thread because I think this is highly disruptive and has wasted countless hours of editor time over the past few months. I think most editors are just fatigued at this point, with the mountains of text across several talks with exactly 0 substance, and can’t be bothered to respond [anymore]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

PR, don't think frivolous at all. I find following the Wuhan Institute article tiring enough and have hesistated to dive into all the POV forks especially as MEDRS v RS is an area I have little knowledge of policy/practice. Thanks for pointing out the whack-a-mole issue that RFCs would cause. Slywriter (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, I don't think it's frivolous at all, and I'm willing to help. I've full-protected that redirect for a couple of days to give the community some time to decide what to do. Would you be willing to start a subsection here with a proposal for what needs to be done? Like EI C I'm not familiar enough that I can just wade in and start handing out pblocks, but if we can get even a few editors to agree that's what's necessary, and for whom, I'm willing to do it. —valereee (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Linking in a forked discussion on my talk which may be of interest: User_talk:ProcrastinatingReader#AN/I. The best outcome imo, as with any conduct issue, is for the parties to recognise and rectify. So my first choice would be sourcing restrictions and a period of seeing if that results in an improvement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Admins Jayron32, how many Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines does this statement violate? It should also shed some light on why Hemiauchenia opened this ANI and why ProcrastinatingReader attempted to reopen it. With such tactics, is it any surprise that new and returning users (like me) find Wikipedia to be so hostile? ReturningMuser (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Puffing up Michael Jackson's stats

IP range has been blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(

WP:RFPP. Logged GS action. A 2 week range block was also applied by Widr. Please feel free to re-open or re-list if there are other pages beyond List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson. El_C

06:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• 2803:7380:C67A:0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Some IPs from an island in the Caribbean have been puffing up the sales and awards of Michael Jackson[244] for the past 12 days. Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2803:7380:C67A:0:0:0:0:0/64? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Widr (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! And thanks for taking care of Shanine lee who popped up to do the same stuff. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Speaking of Michael Jackson's status, is he still dead? EEng 21:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain he's still a goner, but apparently his stats is being puffed up, so maybe there's hope yet. RandomGnome (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threats and removal of referenced material

lblocked. El_C 07:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Editorsabahborneo has been removing referenced material [245] from Jeffrey Kitingan while doing so he has repeated stated as part of his edit summary "all vandalism will reported to MCMC and Police Department. Please Take Note and we are taking this seriously."[246]

I warned him against using legal threats here, however he quickly resumed doing so.[247] Greyjoy ^talk 07:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Jack-in-USA

reported user indeff'ed by Floquenbeam. Nothing more to be done here. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, I noticed something fishy while reviewing NPP. Jack-in-USA, who registered in 2018 but started editing from today, has been purposely creating/contributing to pages that i had previously made contributions to. They created two articles under different names which were previously created by me (Kangaroo Kids Education Limited (KKEL), Lina Аshar [248]). I am not sure where they copied the content from (probably from Wiki mirror sites) but these articles look quite similar to that of created by me two years ago. I am pretty sure Jack-in-USA is not here to improve the encyclopedia and registered to solely attack me.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is another article which I had nominated for deletion and they posted a delete vote on purpose.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oddly enough, a user who started editing today, is marking articles for speedy-deletion and tagging pages for additional citations using Twinkle([249][250][251][252]). How can a new user know so much about Wikipedia and how it works? This is pretty obvious they are not a new editor and must be a sock of someone. I request an immediate attention to this.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• 3 year old account that had zero edits until today, makes exactly 10 nonsense sandbox edits to get confirmed status, immediately creates an article, uses twinkle. Certainly seems like it's a sleeper account of someone. Slywriter (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• @
  WP:CSD#G4. I'm having a harder time tracking down the article they used as a basis for Lina Ashar. Can you point me to the previous article? --Floquenbeam (talk
  ) 14:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait, what? Need coffee and a think. What is difference between Lina Аshar and Lina Ashar? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I've deleted the newer version; there is, I think, one or more characters in the first article (Lina Аshar) that are non-standard, but I don't know how to tell which one. The use of funky characters to evade scrutiny just used up the remaining 0.1% good faith I had. Blocking User:Jack-in-USA as a troublemaker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

    Floquenbeam, Thanks for taking a prompt action, much appreciated. Regards. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

    @Umakant Bhalerao: Going out on a limb here, but I wouldn't be too surprised if this is someone attempting a joe job on you; trying to look like your sock. I notice that you recently nominated an article by Walrus Ji for deletion, and they've since been ArCom banned. Maybe it's unfair of me to extrapolate like this, but might be worth a Checkuser needed? In any case, if you see any more new users who seem to be following you or impersonating you, let me know. Or let another admin know and point them to this thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam:, You read my mind. That's exactly what i was about to suggest. We should perform a CU in order to find out the Sockmaster. If you have noticed i have received personal attacks on my talk page from various IPs ever since I have nominated Munawar Faruqui for deletion, created by Walrus Ji. They have been forcing me to pull out the nomination although the subject clearly fails the notability criteria. That article has been heavily edited by editors with COI and multiple accounts & IPs being used to post keep !votes to save the page from being deleted. I think that too needs an attention. A user recently closed the discussion too as non consensus and then reverted when i objected[253].--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - The user comes back to an IP, which I ran the range for as wide as I could. I could find no other accounts. Sorry, I tried... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: OK, thanks much for looking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - You bet. Sorry that I wasn't much help... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam:@Oshwah: Thanks again for all your help and support. You have gone above and beyond to address my concerns. I will let you know Floquenbeam if i run into such users as Jack-in-USA.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Umakant Bhalerao - No problem! Sounds good! Keep in touch! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Volunteer fabricating policies

NAC: OP threw

boomerang at kangaroo that wasn't there. OP is indef-blocked. Robert McClenon (talk

) 11:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )
• Danielbr11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nightenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightenbelle#Arbitration_Notification And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll_discussion

User Nightenbelle has been fabricating policies In the first link she pretends to quote the reliable sources page by saying “ the very first line of the reliable sources policy says, “ Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” that is what your sources fail. The reliable source page actually says Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered

In the second link she states “ But you are not adding different viewpoints- you are trying to add cold hard facts- and for that, you need unbiased peer reviewed sources.” And “I'm saying the sources are not reliable because the publisher is biased.“

For context I Stated this directly quoted from policy pages “https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Danielbr11 (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nightenbelle

I literally copied and pasted from the policy to my talk page. Not re-typed- copied. And. Pasted. This user has been forum shopping and making personal attacks on the article talk page, at the drn, and on my talk page because they don’t like what multiple editors have told them about reliable sources. And for the record- I have been participating in this discussion as an editor- not as a drn volunteer. I specifically recused myself from mediating the drn case because I had commented on the sources and asking this editor to debate sources not make personal attacks on the article talk page. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

−

This user has, in the last couple of days opened up an ANI, an ArbCom Request, Opened and closed an RFC, and a DRN on this same issue. On the talk page

WP:RS overview- they decided I was fabricating and making that up- and here we are. This is beyond ridiculous. I've asked repeatedly that they stick to arguing the sources and stop making personal comments- they refuse. I've asked them to go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.... they refuse.... I know I'm a sarcastic crumudgeon- but I've stayed dang calm in all of this and not used any sarcasm, let alone personal attacks. This report is silly! I almost feel like they know they are wrong, and they are posting here before myself or Rklahn report them for the personal attacks. Nightenbelle (talk

) 04:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You have made a strong and false claim about Nightenbelle here. Perhaps this link will help you see

WP:Boomerang. Slywriter (talk

) 04:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with

please do not bite the newcomers applied, but now I have no idea. I must admit, I've lost my objectivity and patience here, and cant be neutral. Rklahn (talk

) 04:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rklahn: - Danielbr11 has been around since May 2016. Not that many edits, but has been around long enough to know what Wikipedia is about. Mjroots (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well slyriter than it is more of a content dispute so I can drop the stick. May you close this request as I will discuss further with them civilly.Danielbr11 (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose close at this time. This is the third time I have seen Danielbr11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) initiate a discussion about another editor. The other two are:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

In my opinion, this needs to be resolved one way or the other. Closing now will most likely result in another filing in the near future. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Danielbr11:, Not my call; you have devoted half of your edits to this topic and found this board twice in a week, some scrutiny by the admins and other editors is likely. Slywriter (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

This started as a content dispute about the list of human inhumanity to humans.

Mass killings under Communist regimes

, which is the subject of its own article. Two other editors disagreed, saying that Danielbr11's sources were unreliable and biased. They filed an RFC, and then withdrew it. They filed a previous ANI, which was closed. They filed the first DRN, which was closed because other disputes were also pending.

They filed a second

civil

), and researched the sources, and agreed with the other editors that the sources were not reliable. Danielbr1 became hostile to Nightenbelle, and I failed the mediation.

At this point I recommend a 24-hour block on Danielbr11 for personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The filing party, User:Danielbr11, has also filed at ArbCom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Editing_List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll On the one hand, there is no need for ArbCom to accept the case when it is also pending here. On the other hand, the community should not close or dismiss this case, and ArbCom will probably say that the community should resolve it.

When I closed the case at DRN (a few hours ago), I said that moderated discussion (which is voluntary) had failed because the editors could not reach an agreement. I stated that there were at least four possible ways forward:

• 1. Any question about the reliability of sources can be taken to
  the Reliable Source Noticeboard
  .
• 2. A neutrally worded
  Request for Comments
  can be used.
• 3. Disruptive editing can be reported at
  WP:ANI
  . I did not recommend that option because there was no disruption at that time.
• 4. The party who was in the minority, Danielbr11, could accept that they are in the minority.

Here we are at

WP:ANI

, which was option 3. Now that this thread has been opened, I recommend against premature closure, because this filing has been the disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

When Nightenbelle said "In the second link she states “ But you are not adding different viewpoints- you are trying to add cold hard facts- and for that, you need unbiased peer reviewed sources.” tell me where that is stated in policy?Danielbr11 (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

TLDR version

Danielbr11 has been repeatedly trying to insert a statement into

talk page, but then deleted it (outside of themselves, nobody else supported the source). Danielbr11 then decided to bring his case to DRN, ANI (twice), and now ArbCom. Britishfinance (talk

) 13:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement from Deepfriedokra

• With all due respect to Robert, my inclination last night was to site block Danielbr11 for a week for disruption, forum shopping, and personal attacks, and to partial block from the article indefinitely/until no longer needed. I still feel this way, but hopefully, they can now proceed calmly and civilly. Gonna walk my dog now. Tschau. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and i apologize deepfriedokra i will only discuss this civily in the reliable sources and neutrality pov noticeboards as i was advised to do in the dispute resolution noticeboard. I hope they can review each source i provide and inform me why each one is unreliable per policy.Danielbr11 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

And Danielbr11 When they don't will you attack them again? I'm sorry- but you have said that you would be civil before- and if what you did over the past 24 hours is your definition of civil- I'm concerned. You owe me and every other editor involved with this, an apology for your behavior. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize Nightenbelle to you and others for any personal attacks. I wish to have all my sources reviewed in the reliable sources noticeboard. It just feels that only the first one is focused on and then im dismissed.Danielbr11 (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

THank you. I'm sorry you feel we've brushed you aside- If I haven't been clear that I read every article you posted up to the University of Hawaii Professor's list of numbers- I'm sorry I wasn't clear- I read each of them. All the way through. I hope you get a more clear answer at the rs noticeboard and they can answer your questions in a way that makes more sense to you. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I am a regular on RSNB. I saw Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Editing List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, which contains the usual walls of text typical of any thread where Danielbr11 participates, so I created a subsection at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rudolph Rummel where we could have a general discussion about the reliability of Rummel without any material related to Danielbr11's edits. That subsection has resulted in some excellent analyses. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed ABAN and TBAN

The OP threw the

boomerang

at a kangaroo that wasn't there, so we should close this.

I propose an

topic-ban

on the filer from communism, broadly construed, both applying only to article space. (That is, the filer should be allowed to request edits in talk space, where the requests can be ignored.)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support- for a time as they are still trying to throw unreliable sources up there to push POV and inflate numbers. Although- they are being civil and more collaborative. I think in time they will learn the critical eye for sources. . . Or I'm just having a bout of optimism. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• comment Editor has now threatened to open yet another arbcom over not getting their way at RSNB. [254]. This is never going to end short of a block or ban. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support amply justified by their behavior. (t · c) buidhe 19:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support bans, or just block indef. The thread on
  MrOllie (talk
  ) 20:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, and their glaring personal attacks in the previous ANI filing should've immediately resulted in a block. This is tiresome. Grandpallama (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Note: partial blocked indefinitely from
  List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll as they are now trying to add abortion to it. I suspect the communism topic ban may not be enough here, this is simply disruption. Black Kite (talk)
  00:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree with nearly everything already said. The exception is that I think Nightenbelle was being too optimistic. I have been on the dirty end of the stick for a few days, and will admit that Ive lost my objectivity, but an indefinite block is justified here. Rklahn (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I suspect this needs an even stronger solution to prevent a continual time sink. Britishfinance (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• First choice: Indefinite block. Second choice: Topic ban from communism and abortion (including talk pages and noticeboards), broadly construed. This editor is clearly here to
  WP:BLUDGEON everyone with walls of text. I agree that the partial ban from the one page is not enough to stop the disruption. --Guy Macon (talk
  ) 12:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support first choice A recent user talk page edit sequence has me convinced that the editor is not here to
  build an encyclopedia, but rather wants us all to accept their world view as truth, end of story. Here: [256], here [257] and here [258]. I could accept second choice as the consensus if thats what other editors end up thinking. Rklahn (talk
  ) 15:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice how it always circles back to "abortion is murder"? They have a problem with the number of dead due to communism in China because the numbers don't count abortions. They think protestant countries have more government-sponsored deaths than catholic countries (most of which have made abortion illegal). A clear case of

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. May we please have an uninvolved administrator evaluate the community consensus above and snow close this? --Guy Macon (talk

) 19:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support I had hoped that the partial block would have sufficed, but user's subsequent edits show that this isn't going away. We've had days of edit warring, bludgeoning, personal attacks, righting great wrongs... I doubt that adding a topic ban is going to be sufficient, so I also support an indef. Meters (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have already been banned from editing the list article page and i have not made any article edits since then. But if i am banned so be it :)Danielbr11 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Simply a timesink, and the last two major edits [259] [260] show that there is no desire to contribute collaboratively here. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I've already voted but the editor has definitely revealed they are here to right great wrongs, not edit productively- maybe its time to close this with necessary administrative action. And to be clear, at this point I support full indef ban. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

DDP-Trooper1777

harassment, at worse. El_C

23:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

DDP-Trooper1777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a user who is trolling, incompetent, or both. Their talk page history is littered with various warnings for disruptive editing - but my experience is as follows:

1. I leave them a message about adding unsourced content to a BLP;
2. They approach me to ask if they can help with my 'To Do' list (which is a list of my draft pages);
3. I decline;
4. 2 minutes later they remove my talk page post;
5. They then proceed to move a bunch of my drafts into mainspace, many of the moves were botched - see histories of User:GiantSnowman/Isaac Drogba, User:GiantSnowman/James Finnerty and User:GiantSnowman/Toby Edser;
6. I revert the moves and warn them;
7. I then block them (as I misread the time of diffs and thought it was ongoing after my warning) and then immediately unblock them (when I realised my error and that they had stopped after my warning);
8. No interaction between us for nearly 2 weeks until tonight, when they again move some of my drafts (User:GiantSnowman/Liam Morrison and User:GiantSnowman/Jake Hirst) into mainspace;
9. I leave them a further warning, which they then remove 4 minutes later;
10. They then move their user space into mainspace;
11. They then leave me a message claiming they are "helping me".

I think a competency block is in order. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 22:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have had my eyes on this editor since they joined. I am going to go out and say they fail competence is required. I’ve come across many bad edits, they’re had a huge percentage reverted by many editors, but I’ve not seen anything that’s outright vandalism. I think they’re not competent enough to edit the encyclopaedia and are causing much wasted time and effort by other editors. Canterbury Tail talk 22:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

They also seem to have a very, very poor understanding of copyright. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I second the issue regarding copyright. They are causing extra work for the rest of us (example: Draft:Stuart Bloom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). I recommend, at a minimum, a mainspace-block until competency in composing drafts is demonstrated or 6 months have passed with no issues, whichever comes first. I will not address the other issues raised, as I have not interacted with the editor enough to be competent to say anything (pun intended). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Suggested alternative to a full block
  • A very short-term full block until he reads and attests to reading key
    Wikipedia:Copyright, Wikipedia:Core content policies, Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset, and Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia
    .
  • Interaction-bans with any editors that request them.
  • A block on editing in "mainspace," reviewable after 90 days and 500 edits from now.
  • To prevent moving pages: If possible, remove "autoconfirmed/confirmed" status, with a review after 90 days and 500 edits. If that is NOT possible, have him agree to not move pages at all until a review is held, no sooner than 90 days and 500 edits from now.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

This looks pretty fishy

NAC:Fish spotted by BMK, were identified by ToBeFree and EvergreenFir as socktrollfish, and were speared by Maxim. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Just adding this to give proper credit to User: S0091 who spotted the fishiness of this before I did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Sarah A. Matthews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah A. Matthews
• SarahAMatthews1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ogg Uploads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An editor named User:SarahAMatthews1 as their second edit to Wikipedia created a 18K draft article about Sarah A. Matthews, the former deputy press secretary to President Trump. The entire article is not built bit-by-bit, but is made in a single edit, all in proper form, with multiple references, all this from a supposedly brand new editor. Seven minutes later the editor User:Ogg Uploads, who hasn't edited since mid-October -- and has a pretty checkered history of editing, judging from their talk page -- moved the draft into mainspace.

Since a deputy press secretary does not fulfill the requirements of

WP:NPOL

, I've nominated the article at AfD, but that's not the real problem here. The creation of the article has all the earmarks of paid editing -- or at the very least proxy editing -- by someone with a past history of Wikipedia editing, with sufficient enough experience under their belt to write an article from scratch. And Ogg Uploads' involvement is just strange -- how did they come across this brand new draft 7 minutes after it was made, and then moved into into mainspace when they've never done anything remotely like that before?

There's something very fishy about the whole thing, enough that an admin might want to look into it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Who and what on earth are you, why don't you go back to trolling people about nazis. You are dead wrong. This article fulfills TWO of the required "NPOL" criteria: #4. The person has been elected or appointed to serve on a given country's legislative body or legislature on a national or subnational level. AND #The person is a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage outside their specific region. Which would be clearly apparent if you actually read the article you obnoxious, trolling idiot. This account has no affiliation with the object of the article, as stated during the non-autobiographical disclaimer. Wikipedia needs to dismiss this spam and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahAMatthews1 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The above comment was posted in a newly-created section called "This suggestion is SPAM", but since it was a response to my comment, I combined the two.

And in answer to the person, a deputy press secretary is not elected, they are appointed, and they're not even confirmed by the Senate, it's just a flat-out hire by the President. They fulfill none of the requirements of NPOL -- but that won't be decided here, that's what the AfD is for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@SarahAMatthews1: What, if any, previous accounts have you edited under? The personal attacks need to stop regardless of your answer. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

100%

WP:UPE case (even fully aware of BMK's habits and WP:NPOL). Britishfinance (talk

) 00:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

OggUploads is also the editor who uploaded the photograph of Matthews to Commons. Schazjmd (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This article fulfills 2 of the so-called "NPOL" required criteria: (#4). The person has been elected or APPOINTED to serve on a given country's legislative body or LEGISLATURE ON A NATIONAL or subnational LEVEL; And (#7). The person is a major local political figures who have RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT PRESS COVERAGE OUTSIDE THEIR SPECIFIC REGION. This account has no affiliation with the object of the article, as stated during the non-autobiographical disclaimer. This is a viable article pertaining to a political official who has served in four consecutive posts at the national level, and been headlined in the Washington Post, Times of India, New York Times, and various television outlets. There are several pages which reference less noteworthy and published figures, such as "TJ Ducklo", "Brian Morgenstern", "Judd Deere", "Eric Schultz" and numerous other White House aides and secretaries. This article is equally as notable as a repeated precedent of the notability and noteworthiness of Presidential aides and United States National figures. This article is tremendously well sourced by reputable outlets which both contribute to and support this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahAMatthews1 (talk • contribs)

@SarahAMatthews1: This is not the place to argue about the article. The topic is you. Please answer (1) are you being compensated for your edits and (2) have you ever edited under another account on Wikipedia? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Robert McClenon

There are at least three questions here:

• • • Whether
      AFD
      , and need not be further discussed here.
    • The extent to which there is
      conflict of interest
      , and what should be done about the conflict of interest.
    • The conduct of User:SarahAMatthews1.

I think that

not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia

, and should be indefinitely blocked.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support, I actually have an outstanding request a
  WP:UAA for User:SarahAMatthews1. They have stated here they are not affiliated with Sarah but their username suggests differently. They, nor Ogg Uploads, have addressed the core issues raised both on their talk pages nor here. S0091 (talk
  ) 00:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked boldly per DUCK. I don't think we need to watch this play out further. The user's comment below quoting from a 6-year-old Reddit post and refusing to answer questions about paid editing or COIs should tell us plenty. The user can address these on their talk page if they desire in an unblock request. Unblocks are cheap. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  May we have a look at Ogg Uploads? They moved the draft to article space within minutes of it being created. S0091 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  They've been blocked by ToBeFree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Robert McClenon: she is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, and should be indefinitely blocked. 'Support' as proposer." This kind of censorship and pile-on attacks are baseless and unhelpful. If anything Robert McClenon is not only not contributing constructively to the site, but is also actively destructively harming other users. This is a needless, unnecessary bully. A troll. And should not be heeded or taken seriously. This is the first post to wikipedia, and this kind of pile-on of attacks, exclusion, and censorship is hardly encouraging or acceptable. It has been said before: "Some of these top users in my opinion are a problem though. For example, they may be marking dozens of pages a day for deletion but spend unreasonable amounts of effort defending their own crap. I'm a pretty regular wikipedia editor and dealing with these power users is an absolute nightmare at times. There's good folks out there but there's many who are a pain." <----- 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahAMatthews1 (talk • contribs)
• As described at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ogg Uploads, this is not purely about having published the blocked account's page; I found additional evidence by comparing Commons filter and upload timestamps with the content and timing of "SarahAMatthews1"'s edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I would be tempted to delete the article as well, given that there's a 99% chance it was created by a previously blocked editor, together with the socking and UPE issues. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  As the normal deletion discussion seems to approach the same result, and a general decision about the subject seems preferable to a behavior-based one, I wouldn't take any speedy deletion action for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the concerns have been confirmed in Special:Diff/1006654063 by Maxim. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Hard Rock Genre Warrior Who Capitalizes Everything

RANGEBLOCKED

/64 Rangeblocked by Widr for two weeks. (non-admin closure) --Jack Frost (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• 2001:569:BDB7:AB00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody using IPs from Victoria, Canada, has been

genre-warring in music articles for the past nine months, in many cases adding the hard rock genre, and in every case Using Far Too Many Capitals.[261][262][263][264] This person has been warned many times but has never communicated by way of edit summary or talk page. Can we get this person's attention by blocking Special:Contributions/2001:569:BDB7:AB00:0:0:0:0/64? Or whatever you think will work. Binksternet (talk

) 17:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Widr (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior — MSBS Grot article

Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Warned Military Galaxy Brain on curbing misconduct. Left an article talk page note for further emphasis. El_C 06:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

I'd like to report disruptive behavior on the FB MSBS Grot article. User Military Galaxy Brain has re-added disputed text [265], which was recently added by IP 91.237.86.201 and subsequently reverted for reasons stated on the article's talk page. What's most concerning are the personal attacks involved, first by the IP (as summarized in an earlier admin report, here [266]), and now by user Military Galaxy Brain, who started throwing around accusations against me, alleging that "Polish Nationalists have vandalized this article" [267] and asking rather confrontational questions which border on personal attacks, such as this one: "I'm also curious as to why you're vandalizing an English language Wikipedia article when you're a Polish speaking Polish person"[268]. Also, what's unusual about user Military Galaxy Brain's account is that it was dormant since 25 Oct 2018, only to reactivate now for this discussion and to re-add all of of the disputed text which was originally inserted by IP 91.237.86.201. I'm not sure if this may be a potential sock, but there are similarities in the use of personal attacks, and the re-adding of the disputed text without gaining a consensus and without addressing the specific concerns which were raised regarding the new additions. --E-960 (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Wrong namespace, confused user

USERFIED

Article moved back to userspace. (non-admin closure) --Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• WP:Asadwrites
• User:Asadwrites
  (gets redirected to the same article above)

I found this article while fixing CS1 errors, the user seems a bit confused about namespaces and submissions, some guidance and a speedy delete might be needed. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Kevo327, I've moved it back to his userspace, as it's not ready for article space. Adam9007 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam9007: thank you for responding. - Kevo327 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Bernard A. Maguire - Today's TFA suffered persistent vandalism

• Bernard A. Maguire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please protect this page because after it was posted as

RFPP. 180.242.47.91 (talk

) 21:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I beieve this is the third TFA in three days which I have protect from vandalism (either being asked here or at RFPP, because, surprise-surprise, TFA of the day receive a lot of vandalism. They are preemptively move-protected by bot, may be we should also preemptively semi-protect them for this day they are on the main page?--Ymblanter (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me, but I can also see the negatives and contradictions in how newbie editors are put off when discovering that they can't edit the featured article on the main page of the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit'. RandomGnome (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

How about creating a custom Editnotice to display on protected featured articles, explaining why the page has been protected and pointing them to places they could look to help out? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have always thought the TFA should be semi-protected while it is on the main page. We claim we are leaving it open so newbies can edit it, but how is that a positive experience when newbie edits almost always get immediately reverted? Not necessarily because they are vandalism, but because the newbie doesn't know anything about editing Wikipedia - what we allow, what we don't, how to do it. They are more likely to walk away in disgust than to be excited about having edited an article. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion (started 2 February 2021) open at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. Narky Blert (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Point taken. I have no doubt that a brand new editor is very likely to have their edit reverted on a featured article. But it would be great if we could capitalize on that edit, turning it into a positive for the newbie by providing some tactful and effective tuition and advice to help them on their way to being a good editor. Becoming a good, seasoned editor seems to almost always be a baptism of fire rather than a welcoming, nurturing experience. RandomGnome (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't this already discussed in June last year, when we were suffering an LTA TFA vandal... Re. pre-emptive pending changes for the day might do better? It keeps both options (preventing vandalism being displayed, while allowing edits which are good, additionally having a second set of eyes on any potential edit by newbies, thereby maybe effectively providing some "tactful advice") available. Of course, if we end up regularly having to semi-protect them, that's a different story. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Continued unsourced edits

Reported editor has not edited for a week. Have posted on their talk and invite any follow-up there. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

You're My Only Destiny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite multiple warnings, including 3 final ones as well as personal pleas (on their

WP:V as my attempts are seemingly not succeeding. Robvanvee

07:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a bump in the hope that an admin could assist with this please. Robvanvee 05:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

BLOCKED

(

legal threats. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 19:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

By

talk

) 12:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Parler

Logged AE action. El_C

01:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Parler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please semi-protect this article, because vandalism has become more persistent and

WP:RFPP. Pending changes already invoked in the page but there are still many vandals on it. 36.68.187.181 (talk

) 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

anti-Semitic remarks directed at editor?

Bad faith report, just someone trying to make HEB's life incrementally harder. IP rangeblocked by NRP as a blocked proxy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Does this remark by Horse Eye's Back directed at PailSimon classify as covert anti-Semitism? The topic at hand was unrelated to Hebrew/Judaism/Israeli topics, but one that is related to slurs on an article (anti-Georgian) that is currently disputed between the two. As a Jew, I can't count enough times as to when a non-Jewish person have used phrases like those as an ad hominem attack to put down someone with Jewish ancestry or when discussing about Jewish topics. Thank you. 172.93.146.211 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to the use of the Yiddish term, Oy vey (translation: "woe is me!")? I have used it myself, and I am neither Jewish nor anti-semitic? Britishfinance (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be absolutely shocked if this was a new user. I’d be even more shocked if they can make a cogent argument that the way I speak is anti-semitic but I’d like to see it made, I’d find it infinitely amusing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No. It's entirely possible HEB is a Mel Brooks fan. There is a point when we have to just accept that not everything that could be offensive in some context is always offensive. Springee (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Oy vey" seems too incidental to be considered an anti-Semitic remark. Would saying "For Pete's sake" be considered anti-Christian?—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• The built in geolocation tool indicates the OP is a proxy. Shouldn't it be blocked? 174.212.222.24 (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  It is, but it's a range block, so doesn't show up in that specfic IP's block log: [270]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  I exclaim "Oy Veh" from time to time. This seems like a qualifying occurrence. And yes, I'm a Mel Brooks fan." Oy Veh" is (I suppose) derived from or similar to the German, es tut mir weh. More commonly, I say, ";Du tust mir weh''. That does not make me anti German-- far from it! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Problem editor

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 22:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

An editor named Fumarolo has been making largely problematic edits to articles over the past week. Most notably, they insist on adding the phrase "hash dealer" to the introduction of Doug Ford, ahead of even mentioning the political office that actually makes him a Wikipedia article topic in the first place, and have repeatedly editwarred over it anytime anybody has reverted them — however, they've also insisted on adding the phrase "convicted drug dealer" to the introductions of marijuana legalization activists who were convicted of mere technicalities (like passing around one joint in a social setting) during the transition phase around the legalization of marijuana in Canada, adding content to Justin Trudeau that alleges he's a closet bisexual just because he once held a meet-and-greet in a gay bar during Pride, claiming (without sources) that Canadian politician Hazel McCallion is not known as either "Hazel" or "McCallion", but only by a monomymous use of her maiden name "Journeaux", and other weird and non-neutral stuff. In just one week of editing as a registered member, they've already accumulated one 31-hour editblock, and very few of their edits have gone unreverted by somebody.

However, as a person who's been involved in some of the reverting, I don't want to just impose a longer-term editblock myself, so as to avoid the appearance of misusing administrative tools to get the upper hand in an edit dispute. Accordingly, I wanted to ask if somebody else could review their edit history to determine if a longer-term or permanent editblock is warranted. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a

WP:CIR situation. The editor-in-question should be blocked. GoodDay (talk

) 20:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated unsourced edits

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 10:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

Since the recent creation of their account, this user has

WP:CATV), this user has flat out ignored me and continues relentlessly. This, the most recent. Here are some other examples of their disruptive behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. In the last example (no 5) they are changing sourced info to their own unsourced addition. I'd greatly appreciate some administrative assistance. Robvanvee

09:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on TFA Grant Memorial coinage

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Another TFA semi bites the dust. El_C 23:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Grant Memorial coinage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please protect this article because after it was posted as

WP:RFPP. 36.68.187.181 (talk

) 22:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC).

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

Block evasion by User:Rage476

Sock blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

(See sock investigation here.)

Made an edit request regarding the "parents of Timur" on the Teahouse[271] as Rage476's previous socks had done.[272][273][274][275] Also note the similar English language difficulties.

I had opened a sockpuppet investigation a few weeks ago regarding this, but it didn't get any attention. I'd normally drop the matter, but looking at the history and talk page of an article they created, I'm seeing several editors having their time wasted trying to clean up JUDDHO's work.

This besides the fact that the user has serious competency issues[276] and has a habit of removing deletion tags.[277][278][279]
Alivardi (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks,  Confirmed, done. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Neveselbert

Perhaps someone else can educate Neveselbert (talk · contribs) about Wikipedia:Canvassing (specifically "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions"), per [280], he claims it's perfectly OK to only notify one side of a discussion. DrKay (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay: I have reverted my notifications to said side, in respect of policy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

They've already received notifications. They can still read what you wrote on their talk page by looking at talk page history. It's blatant canvassing. All editors who previously contributed must be notified not just one side. DrKay (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not doing that, DrKay. Should I notify them all now? I have struck through the comment I made on my talkpage, which I recognise was in contradiction of canvassing policy and again, I apologise. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on Parler

Logged AE action. El_C

01:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Parler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please semi-protect this article, because vandalism has become more persistent and

WP:RFPP. Pending changes already invoked in the page but there are still many vandals on it. 36.68.187.181 (talk

) 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by 70.114.31.252

• 70.114.31.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:8081:500:F700:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IPv6 range is repeating the same behavior as the now-blocked IPv4, disruptively adding wikilinks to redirects and adding unsourced material among other similar edits. User continues to refuse to discuss when contested, resorting to edit warring their preferred content. Geolocation of both the blocked IP and the /64 range (especially the latest IP) match one-to-one. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert AfD nominations

Over 24 hours since the last substantive content, and there is clearly no appetite for sanction/s against

relevant noticeboard. (non-admin closure) ——Serial

21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

User:Johnpacklambert (JPL) has been the subject of at least one prior ANI discussion about his AfD nominations. That discussion resulted in their being "indefinitely banned from nominating any articles at WP:AFD to a maximum of ONE article in any given calendar day." See here. Yet, JPL's recent track record in making AfD nominations continues to be concerning. Their most recent 17 nominations are:

1. David Garst: Closed as “Keep”
2. Jack Wasserman: Closed as "Keep"
3. Gordon Salkilld: Closed as "Keep"
4. Shaquille Walker: Closed as "Keep"
5. Miriam Marx: Closed as "Keep"
6. Hinarere Taputu: Closed as "Keep"
7. Barbara Radecki: Closed as "Keep"
8. Bekhan Tungaev: Closed as "Keep"
9. Outer Drive: Closed as "Keep"
10. M. Brendan Fleming: Closed as "Keep"
11. Marie Yanaka: Closed as "No Consensus"
12. Dick Martin: Closed as "No Consensus"
13. Leon Lissek: Closed as "No Consensus"
14. Berwick Grammar School: pending, currently 4-0 to "Keep" Closed as "Keep" (prior AfD also closed as “Keep”)
15. Jack Schlossberg: pending, currently 5-2 in favor of "Keep" Closed as "Keep" (JPL's prior nom of same article (here) also resulted in a consensus to "Keep")
16. Silas Bartsch: pending, leaning "Keep" or "No Consensus" Closed as "Keep"
17. Brenda Liz Lopez: Closed as "Delete"

While > 80% of AfDs are sustained, JPL's recent nominations (based on closing decisions and current trends) appear headed toward a rate as low as 5.8% (1 out of 17). To help with this disconnect, I and others have suggested that JPL redouble their

WP:BEFORE efforts. See here and here. Moreover, I recently offered to provide advance feedback if they would like it prior to nominating additional articles. See here. In each case, JPL has not responded to these suggestions or offers. In the most recent case, he simply deleted my offer from his talk page. See here. I believe that JPL is acting in good faith and has good intentions. However, a recent AfD endorsement rate of < 10% indicates that further guidance is needed. My suggestion is that someone (probably not me, as he may now view me as antagonistic) be appointed to work with JPL in mentoring them on the WP:BEFORE efforts that they should undertake. Or perhaps others can come up with another remedy to help address this. Cbl62 (talk

) 21:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've been accused of being a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth deletionist monster a few times, and I have to agree that at a glance this is a terrible record. However, I just pulled up a random sampling and what I'm seeing is well-explained, reasonable nominations being refuted with "Appears to meet GNG" or Keep per
  talk
  ) 21:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't look at all of them, but the first few were actually quite improved. I do get the sense that people are working particularly hard to source things JPL nominates. That said, JPL is under an editing restriction in an attempt to get better nominations. They don't appear to be putting in enough effort to get these right. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• To me this is utterly unfair. The Garst article had sat for over a decade sourced only to the website of the company he founded. I did a legitimate attempt to find additional sources and found none. I have been attempting to identify possible sources. This is an unfair narrow look at my nominations that treats having a failed nomination as a mark against me. I am trying to improve Wikipedia with my contributions. I have tried to do background sources and not rush into things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I also found it curious that the list stops at the 17 most recent. Kind of an odd place to stop. Why not stop at 20? So I looked, and that changes the math, with two more deletions and a redirect result. Bump that up to the last 25, and it adds in three more deletions, a redirect, and a merge. Going up to thirty adds one more keep result, two more deletes, and another redirect. Sample size seems to have been used to cherry pick here. Note that the restriction is from 2017 and the last 17 noms go back only a few weeks.
  talk
  ) 22:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• I have a proposal. From now on with each nomination I will explicitly explain what searches I have done and what results have come up in those searchs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've seen JPL's comments at many AfDs, usually "Delete - a non notable [x]" and it's got to the stage now where I ignore his comments for the purposes of consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Of the 500 most recent nominations for deletion at AfD by JPL, in 61% (306/500) the results were "Delete", [281] as determined the AfD Statistics Tool. When Speedy Deletes and Redirects are counted, the number rises to 70.4% (349/500). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have seen failed AfD nominations of BLPs in the Academic section that have disturbed me but I am not in a position now to give chapter and verse. I suggest that JPL rein in his enthusiasms and act with more temperance. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC).
• In all, it is my honest opinion that @
  WP:BEFORE search, present your findings & explain how they do not do meet any notability criteria, so like I said that is a positive move on the part of JPL. In summary i oppose any sanctions whatsoever on JPL. It’s really horrible how we treat honest veteran editors who have dedicated their time to serve this collaborative project. Furthermore @Ritchie333 what you just said above is rude, unnecessary, & uncalled for. Celestina007 (talk
  ) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  Celestina007, No, it's just honest straight talking. Actually, I checked a bunch of AfDs I closed last week and saw JPL's comments are getting more substantive, so as he says, there might be improvement. I didn't make any comment on sanctions (because I haven't thought about whether they're necessary or not). PS: Is this comment of yours polite? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  Celestina007 Not really - I will take any AfD comment with less weight if it says "Delete - non-notable" in the same way I would do the same for "Keep - definitely notable" or "Keep - has sources" etc. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite, I understand crystal clear what you are saying & I’m not justifying that sort of !vote. In-fact, policy makes it clear those sort of !votes aren’t to be considered. My point was & still is the manner in which @Ritchie333 casually made the condescending remark. You just said the same thing but in a mature manner an admin should do. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

My comment was not intended to offend and I apologise if it did - I was just stating my opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's not just the nominations, but it's the way JPL casts his votes in AfD discussions. I don't think he has any interest in association football which I am around that area a lot of wikipedia when I have the time. Yet a lot of the time I've seen him vote for the sake of voting and nothing more. As Ritchie said he just ignores JPL's comments, do all the other admins disregard him also? I am surprised his hasn't had a perm topic ban from the AfD environment. Govvy (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  We're going to need to make a loooooooong list if we are going to start topic banning people who make the cookie cutter votes at AFD.

  talk

  ) 01:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The list would be shorter for the serial offenders. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC).

• I agree with
  WP:BEFORE check to notability prior to every time he casts a vote in an AfD thread. --Soman (talk
  ) 01:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that he should be banned from AfD discussions. He does not spend any time reviewing the article or discussion before voting delete based on flimsy rationale that was already addressed or obviously refuted.[282][283][284][285] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• On that basis, as Beeblebrox says, we should probably start with the significant number of people who vote "Keep" every time with similarly flimsy rationales ("I found it mentioned on Google") and whose AfD stats scores are somewhat worse than JPL's. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• OTHERSTUFF, but I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, we should probably start with people who were already sanctioned over similar behavior[286] and violated that sanction afterwards.[287] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I’d like to draw this noticeboard’s attention to JPL’s participation in series of CFDs as well. He has voted these two categories for deletion based on some kind of intuitive sense that they shouldn’t exist, which is perfectly fine but after being presented with evidence that these classifications are abundantly present in academic literature, he doesn’t change his vote or even reply to my contribution. It’s possible that he hasn’t had time to even reply because he’s been to busy participating in other deletion discussion, but this by itself is cause for concern. Links:
  WP:BEFORE nomination) -—Prisencolin (talk
  ) 03:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this was an earlier discussion on the noticeboard about reaction to his category edits.[288] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That’s quite eye opening, I had heard of this controversy long before I became an editor on this project myself. It gives me even more confidence that the nomination of this category was not made in entirely good faith, however I discontinue commenting on this particular ANI thread if JPL further explains his reasoning behind his deletion arguments in that CFD.—-Prisencolin (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am trying to make Wikipedia better. I will strive to do more in depth reviews of articles before nominating them for deletion. That is all I can do at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That’s great that you wish to improve. I will ask that you at some point reply to my comment on the CFD listed above. If you don’t want to wade through the paragraphs I wrote here’s all you need to know: my category meets the criteria for inclusion because “reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having,” and these sources are listed in discussion. I can list them out here or in your talk page if needed, thanks for your cooperation..—Prisencolin (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Complaints about the lack of
    WP:BEFORE were made for AfDs in 2017[289] and PRODS in 2020[290]. Has the striving gotten better since then? Morbidthoughts (talk
    ) 09:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• The user has a habit of rapidly !voting in AfD discussions one-after-another, sometimes performing three and even four delete !votes in one minute of time. This suggests that
  WP:BEFORE source searches are not necessarily being performed, and that the user is !voting per their personal preference for BLP articles be reduced on English Wikipedia. The user's contributions in Wikipedia namespace on 19 January 2021
  provide one example, which consist of mostly rapid-fire deletion !votes for BLP articles. The same pattern can be seen by changing the dates in the Search for contributions search box.

Regarding the user's subjective desire for BLP articles to be reduced, see this post, where the user states, "Currently there are 973,163 articles in Category:Living people. The category will have to have a net growth of 266 per day to reach the dreaded 1 million by the end of the year". I suspect the user may be posting mass, rapid-fire delete !votes per this bias they have demonstrated, in hopes of reducing the number of "dreaded" BLP articles present.

Additionally, the user seems to ignore

WP:NEXIST, in favor of basing notability upon the state of sourcing in articles, rather than basing notability assessments upon the availability of sources. See this AfD discussion for one likely example. This may be further demonstrated via the rapid delete !votes alone, whereby it is unlikely that WP:BEFORE searches are being performed in the first place. North America¹⁰⁰⁰

14:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000, Wikipedia is a collaborative project with each editor and their own idiosyncratic nature, bringing to the table their own quota. If JPL has chosen to path of weeding out non notable articles (which is quite daunting I must say) I don’t see the problem in that, imo, the real problem here is people do not like the fact that JPL would most likely !vote a delete than a keep but In this very collaborative project we have serial keep !voters but no one seems to tackle them in the manner this collaborative project has vilified and incapacitated JPL. It is as though every year the community finds new ways to try and incapacitate JPL & at this rate we may lose a great editor over relatively trifling errors. Celestina007 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Every year? Seems more like the Inclusionist Pile-On of JPL is a quarterly event. JPL gets singled out because he is active, that's all. The quality of his AFD participation is better than most. Any analysis of a representative sample of his contribs shows that. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't post much at AFD either as nominator or !voter - because it's hard work. I estimate that it takes me a minimum of 10-15 minutes to propose or support deletion, even in the most
  WP:NBIO
  because of such-and-such a citation, already in the article".

As !voter, you must

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Narky Blert (talk

) 16:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Personally I don't have an issue with his nominations however his occasional Delete !votes puzzle me, I get the impression at times he !votes Delete purely for the sake of it (There's been 2-3 clear cut Keeps yet he's !voted delete), That being said I don't see nothing sanctionable here and I'm happy that he'll put more effort into his !votes. –Davey2010^Talk 16:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• I think JPL's commitment to affirmatively disclose his WP:BEFORE efforts is a good step and shows a willingness to improve. In opening this discussion, I acknowledged JPL's good faith desire to improve the project. JPL has also been, historically, a dedicated content creator, e.g.,
  Public relations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Peter M. Johnson, Gary P. Gillum, and Michael Otterson. I understand they may have been deterred by deletion of some of their articles, but I encourage JPL to redirect more of their very significant energy back to building the encyclopedia. JPL - if you want to collaborate on creating or expanding an article, I'd be willing to help in any way I can. Cbl62 (talk
  ) 17:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose [with mixed feelings] sanctions on the basis just of the most recent 17 nominations. Anyone as active in one area as he is can have a bad stretch. JPL's last 500 nominations are out of line with consensus 24.8% of the time. That's not ideal but also not so bad. And his !votes overall are out of line with consensus only 9.6% of the time, which is very low (I consider the "red cells" most telling in the afdstats page). So as for nominations, I say we take JPL's offer to increase due diligence regarding WP:BEFORE. JPL can be frustrating at AfD for the rapid !votes that seem to defer to the judgment and due diligence of the nominator rather than doing a thorough search for sources, but that's not what this section is about, and when those !votes are so frequently in line with consensus, there would need to be a lot of evidence of a problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm glad at least one admin ignores Lambert's comments when it comes to closing an AfD. I have no problem with anyone putting through a well thought out rationale for delete on any topic, but Lambert just works through the AfD log and tags dozens and dozens of articles within a VERY short space of time with the same delete !vote. This does not show that any
  WP:PROD, he's just moving that issue to AfD instead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}
  17:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick look at contributions on 5th Feb shows at least 30 delete !votes between 14:02 to 14:57. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm still not sure how JPL has actually harmed the encyclopedia? It's possible I guess that somebody who put a lot of work into writing an article, only to see him say "Delete - a non notable blah" might get upset, but either a) The AfD won't close as "delete" or b) Other people will have put more substantive arguments to delete in the AfD anyway. Then there's the point that his weak !voting rationales can annoy the closing administrator, but I find it much easier to deal with that than, say, an AfD with two people going "
  It's notable! No it's not! Yes it is! No it isn't!" for two pages. And plus "he's annoying" is pretty much the worst possible reason ever to sanction somebody. So I'm not sure what we should do, other than take him at his word that he's going to improve? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  18:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be highly concerned about JPL's AFD record, if it weren't for the fact there are serial "keep" !voters with similar or worse records. They can be weighed appropriately at AfD; I don't see what else needs to be done here unless we want to make voting against consensus a sanctionable offense and start at the top of the heap and work our way to him. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@David Fuchs, your comment above is very much apt & summarizes everything! Celestina007 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is the third response I've started to this, partly because I keep finding myself being drawn into discussing of what I see are fundamental structural issues with AfD as it stands, but when it comes down to it, unsubstantiated "delete" votes are routinely dismissed, and I personally find myself in agreement with JPL more often than not. Considering the crap I have had to deal with in the geostubs cleanup, this is extremely small potatoes. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: JPL has caused no harm, therefore a ban will is not prevenative.

AFD needs systematic reform (along with the almost useless PROD process). Whatever "standard" is supposedly being applied here is being applied selectively to a single editor, ignoring others with worse problems, as well as the overall problems at AFD, such as:

• voting based on personal opinions, essays, and likes and not policys and guidelines,
• using completely unfounded claims that "sources exist",
• "me too" voting,
• voting with a complete disregard for what guidelines state about what is an independent reliable source
• votes based on a complete disregard for what significant coverage means,
• abuse use of the word "presumed" in guidelines to mean "guaranteed",
• Keep mobs that form to derail noms for their favorite topics/areas,
• closing based on vote counting or keep mobs as opposed to arguments based in guidelines and policy,

and other issues.

Numerous editors that frequent AfD and at least two admins that routinely "Vote" keep have far worse AfD records than JPL. If the above mentioned well known problems had been addressed instead of ignored (they all favor the Keep voters), JPL would have a better record, and many of the editors voting against him would have a worse record. Everyone can improve, but selectively holding nominators to some vague interpretation of a standard, without holding voters, keep mobs, etc accountable to the clearly definted existing guidelines, will only drive nominators away, which along with allowing a defacto lower notability standard for inclusionists, is what I think this is about.

I support reforming AfD and clarifying notability guidelines, which will be far more productive than the continuing attacks on single editors. If someone wants to make AfD better this is the proper place to start. It will also make AfD stats useful; if guidelines are ignored, stats become useless because nominators have nothing to base their noms on and even the best nom can be derailed by a keep mob.

JPL has caused no harm, therefore a ban will is not prevenative.  // Timothy :: talk  19:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, I'd like to see some case studies and diffs of your evidence, particularly of your accusation of two administrators who do not follow the deletion policy correctly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I did not name names for two reasons: those individuals are uninvolved here so this is not directly about them and fear of retaliation (not from you). I will strike admins if you believe I am being dishonest (or name the admins). I know some editors like to bash admins, I am not one of them, and did not state what I did to bash admins. I believe my points are on topic, but I do not think this is the proper place for an extended discussion about general problems at AfD, but if you feel I would be justified in supporting my points with diffs and case studies here, I will do so.

I would really like dicsussion that could focus on issues at AfD and the issues I raised above.  // Timothy :: talk  21:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would also strongly oppose any sanctions. JPL starts discussions at AfD. Starting an AfD does not mean that the article will be deleted, it means that its notability is being questioned and an editor wishes to start a discussion about it. I am also worried about this obsession with 'conversion rate'. It puts people in an unnecessarily bad light who try to start honest discussions on the notability of topics that some other editors might feel strongly about. This obsession with having a good conversion rate will only lead to people putting articles up for AfD that should be speedied to improve their rate or people only using AfD for stuff that is so uncontroversial that it should be PROD. AfD is an important process and shouldn't be censored nor should we be discouraging people from taking part just because you find them annoying or you don't like the fact that they vote 'delete' more often than not. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

He's already been sanctioned over this type of behavior in 2017.[291] Given your stated rationale, would you have objected to this sanction back then? He apparently violated that sanction very recently within those 17 listed AfDs.[292][293] He has not violated this since 2019.[294][295] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support rationing AfD contributions. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC).
• If we're going to bolded comments, then fine I oppose, per my above comments, along with Ritchie333 and David Fuchs on-point remarks above.
  talk
  ) 22:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment –Ultimately, administrators need to consider the strength of the arguments presented in deletion discussions relative to various policies and guidelines. !Votes that provide absolutely no valid rationales (e.g. the word "keep" or delete" with nothing else) should be given no weight, and those that provide very weak rationales should be given very little weight. Problems can occur when folks show up at AfD and cast a bunch of "per nom" !votes, in either direction, to retain or delete, wherein it is at least possible from time-to-time that absolutely no research has occurred to qualify their validity.

A problem is that when users cast !votes sans any research, it has the potential for articles that actually do not meet various notability guidelines to be retained, and vice versa, ending up in the deletion of articles that actually pass. Regarding the user being discussed here, see this AfD discussion for another example, whereby at the time another user (Nfitz) questioned the validity of the user's !vote there, stating:

Hang on User:Johnpacklambert, in the two minutes you had after your delete vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Snellenburg (2nd nomination), how did you have time to look at the 21 foreign language references here, and determine that they were all "too newsy" to meet GNG? That's not possible, and I once again have to question your competence to edit in the AFD area. Can you please explain your justification in detail, as I really think your topic ban on AFD participation needs to be expanded. Nfitz (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Upon receiving some input from Scope creep regarding the matter, Nfitz later stated:

AGF has limitations - I've pointed out these 20-second judgements time and time again, but nothing changes. At some point, it becomes a question of competence. See also the discussion at their topic ban - since then, they seem to have replaced the creation of far too many AFDs with voting delete at discussions with no discrimination and clearly not enough time for judgement. Enough is enough - this one is particularly blatant given the number of Spanish articles they'd have had to have looked at, in no time. I'd like a better understanding. Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The point here is that, regarding input in AfD discussions, the user has demonstrated an ongoing tendency to !vote rapidly, and likely at times, per this rapid rate, without performing any source review that involves actually reading the sources, as well as not performing source searching, essentially 1) !voting for deletion for the sake of deletion, and/or 2) only basing notability upon the state of sourcing in articles, which is against

WP:NEXIST

, a key point of the main Notability guideline page. Unfortunately, these types of actions serve to deteriorate the integrity of the deletion process on English Wikipedia, whereby inaccuracies are presented that can lead to results that are actually incorrect.

Furthermore, it states at

WP:AFDFORMAT

regarding AfD discussions that:

But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider a dispute resolution process outside the current AfD.

So, if this sentiment is never going to actually be enforced, then should it therefore be removed from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, if the issue is enforcing users not appropriately evaluating articles before commenting on AfDs, there are far more demonstrably disruptive and contrary-to-consensus editors out there. Why is JPL a unique problem? If we're going to deal with bad !votes you need to deal with all of them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

He's not unique, but he is by far the worst offender in this area. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Ritchie333, David Fuchs, Spiderone and Beeblebrox whom have collectively articulated my thoughts far better than I could myself... --Jack Frost (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per rationale of User:TimothyBlue. Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unless we're going to look at the entire problem of cookie-cutter AfD "voting" or until evidence is produced that doesn't require cherry-picking a prime number sample size. Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions whatsoever. It’s my opinion that good faith editors who have the projects interest at heart be allowed the privilege of editing without feeling subliminally restrained or “shadow marked”. If a change has to be implemented it would have to be a total AFD process overhaul/reformation. Celestina007 (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support AFD ban The point of JPL's existing sanction logged at
  WP:RESTRICT was because he was nominating articles that would never be deleted at a high rate. The sanction was specifically to limit him so he would take more time over his nominations instead of wasting multiple editors time having to deal with him. There has been no improvement in the quality of his nominations and he is still wasting other volunteers time having to deal with him. Its entirely a self-centered approach and this is the point to say 'thanks but no thanks'. By allowing him to continue, it is actively supporting disruptive behaviour. There will be no downside to banning him from AFD, and the upside is that every other volunteer who has had to deal with him gets more time to be productive. Far too many of the !votes above completely ignore other volunteers or suffer from whataboutism. This is a problem that is easily solved, allowing it to continue does nothing. Only in death does duty end (talk
  ) 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see a lot of editors claiming that JPL's AFD participation is out of sync with consensus, but the data shows that's just not true. His numbers are within acceptable parameters (and better than some of the people who are calling for a sanction here). Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions; these were good faith nominations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It would be one thing if JPL was doubling down and becoming argumentative when consensus doesn't go his way, but unless I'm overlooking something his occasional replies to Keep !votes are always polite and policy-based.

I also disagree with the idea that these deletion discussions are a waste of time. Of course AfD is not cleanup, but sources found during AfD are often used to improve and expand articles that would have otherwise been overlooked.

It's silly to put too much weight on AfD statistics, and the cherry-picked set of 17 nominations deserves a trout. –dlthewave ☎ 23:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Absolute agreement with dlthewave comment about AfD discussion and statistics. Stats can be easily manipulated, they provide a black and white picture of something that is nuanced, they discourage discussion and openness to consider others point of view at AfD, they bolster the feeling that a editor must "win" as opposed to finding the best answer. The point "AfD is not for cleanup" is too often abused as a way to squelch discussion about alternatives or a hammer against good faith editors. AfD shouldn't be cleanup, but good faith nonimations that result in an article being improved is a positive. The adversarial attitudes that permeate much of AfD needs to be replaced by attitudes that encourage discussion, consensus building, and collegiality. Nominators should be enouraged to find consensus, not seek "victory".  // Timothy :: talk  10:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose blanket ban, it appears that he is capable of making well thought-out nominations. However, if possible it would be nice to see extra scrutiny placed into nominations JPL makes which are obviously low effort by the closing admins.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I think JPL makes useful contributions to AFD. I don't think a person should be banned from making AFD nominations unless their nominations are utterly tendentious, and JPL's nominations are not. Mr248 (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: In my (limited) history of participation in AfD, I often find that JPL has been there before me, and on many occasions, has given an opinion on why said article should be deleted (there are many, easy to find) instead of referencing policy and giving reasons related to aforesaid policy and standards. These are verifiable observations. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Celestina and Timothy, among others. If closing admins think that John has made a comment too hastily or too generically, they can simply not give it weight. Caro7200 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Whiteguru and Only Death. JPL almost always votes delete in AfD and gives his opinion on why the article should be deleted without mentioning relevant policies. His comments at
  WP:BEFORE search. His nominations have expanded since then but only going off of what sources are found in the article, nothing else. JPL still does not seem to understand the AfD process and its policies related to deletion. Given his past behavior it's likely that this will continue and further be a disruption to the community. JayJay^{What did I do?}
  20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per TimothyBlue. SK2242 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above, and concerns raised by others. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Οppose any kind of measures to be taken against
  WP:BCDD
  that elaborates on the AfD process does not place any such obligation on contributors.

As to JPL giving succinct suggestions, this is never a violation of policy, nor a breach of etiquette. The contributor's only 'sin' seems to be that, more often than not, they agree with suggestions to delete. In other words, JPL to some seems like an enemy of inclusionism, while to others, such as myself, a rather strict aficionado of quality in Wikipedia articles. The collection offered by the nominator confirms the latter. After all is said and done, this reads like an airing of grievances without substance. -The Gnome (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• According to the last 500 AfDs that he participated in,[296] he had 4 yes votes, three of them after the first posting of this ANI complaint. So definitely "More often than not". These nomination or delete rationale were also concerning: "American is not a monarchy. We have no heirs presumptive, and as Massachusetts showed last year people have stopped bowing to the Kennedy family and their false presumptions they are better than the rest of us" [297] and "This is a massive example of POV-pushing" on a list of first openly LBGT politicians. The POV pushing mentioned by Indy beetle shows up there making him no "strict aficionado of quality". Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Greetings, Morbidthoughts. Allow me to list qualifications that are not required for Wikipedia editors to participate in AfD or other discussions, since many contributors here seem to think the opposite. The participant need not:

•Have a net-positive record in their nominations (see nomination). [Nope. Nowhere is this a formal requirement, nor should it ever made to be.]

•Be likeable! ("It's the way JPL casts his votes in AfD discussions"!) [No further comment needed on this.]

•Submit suggestions for the sake of something more noble and high minded than "just" offering their opinion. ("I've seen him vote for the sake of voting and nothing more.") [Wikipedia work is work noble enough on its own; no need for fantasies of grandeur.]

•Devote a lot of time to each & every AfD ("tags dozens and dozens of articles within a VERY short space of time") [Wikipedia is full of articles that evidently should not be here. New articles are created every day at high speed. Accordingly, we often have to deply the scythe in an effective & expedient manner. Why?

Because of the obvious worthlessness!

]

•Have done research on their own before making suggestions. [Nope. It's a highly recommended practice but not firmly required by

WP:BEFORE

, which is about the nominator.]

All in all, JPL has done nothing more than be imperfect, e.g. using strong language against the Kennedy family. (Full disclosure: Despite pretensions to the contrary, I am imperfect too. ) Otherwise, as even supporters of sanctions admit, JPL's a net positive presence here. I suggest we move on. -The Gnome (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for not being able to respond to your framework of how you view these grievances, but addressing them line item without breaking the framework would be too confusing. However, the original complaint is whether JPL's nominations have been disruptive and considering the net outcome of his contributions is not really relevant. I believe his prolific, indiscriminate, and pov-pushing nominations demonstrate that he does not do

Waterloo. Morbidthoughts (talk

) 22:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose formal sanctions. I don't always agree with JPL, and he does tend to favor deletion, but that's not a crime. On the whole I still think he is a benefit to the project in this area, though some of his AfD noms could use more forethought, such as this anti-aristocratic rant: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (2nd nomination). My main concern is that POV sometimes leaches into his AfD participation, with the previous example and in this other case from 2018 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinshasa Democratic Republic of the Congo Temple (2nd nomination)) where he uncharacteristically bent over backwards to save this article on a nascent Latter Day Saints Temple in the Democratic Republic of Congo even going so far as to claim bias against Africa and proclaim that sources probably existed even if we couldn't easily find them (something I've never seen him do elsewhere). I strongly suspect this had to with the fact that he is a member of the LDS Church, and I hope he will be mindful of this in the future. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Also WP:Articles for deletion/Juan A. Uceda and earlier ones, lost in the mists. Thincat (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, that actually shows that there might be more of a problem here concerning their treatment of Mormon topics altogether. The comment I also see no evidence that people have scoured Spanish-language sources I find particularly irksome, both generally in AfDs and particularly from him, as it is a incredibly lazy way of asking others to do all the work for you. In the Congolese example above, when they declared that someone ought to check Congolese language sources, I suggested they check the list of resources I had complied at the WikiProject DRC page and me and another editor explained the actual realities of the Congolese resources (JPL said that material probably existed in print, which was convenient for there argument, since that implied we didn't actually need to find a specific source since that would require traveling to the country in hand, when another editor helpfully pointed out that most Congolese media is online). I eventually decided on my own to search all the Congolese media sources I had compiled for mentions of the Mormon temple, and found one. JPL took this as a sign that there was probably more sourcing in the Congo, whereas me and the other Congo-topics editor took it as a sign of its relative lack of importance. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I largely oppose sanctions at this time as the problems aren't serious enough, IMO, to require a ban from AfD. It would be nice if folks who think he's a net positive would take him under their wing and help him to reduce the cookie-cutter !votes. He's shown he can learn and improve, perhaps he just needs help to do so. I should probably do the same with some of the cookie-cutter keep !voters at AfD... Hobit (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @The Gnome: I realize you were likely trying to be helpful, but please don't edit other's comments, especially at places like AN and ANI. I meant what I wrote and you changed the meaning of my comment. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Timetravel12: an adept of gay-Jewish conspiracy?

Obvious provocateur indeffed. An unambiguous

WP:RBI matter. And that's that. El_C

20:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Timetravel12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Someone brought my attention to Talk:Iran (an article I have no general interest in, it is not on my watchlist), and I found there this. The user has between 100 and 200 edits. (It looks I am becoming an expert with a very narrow specialization on users with between 100 and 200 edits). I was thinking whether I should block, in particular because I was not impressed by their contributions at Iran, and found this. Now I am almost sure we should block indef but would welcome some feedback here, may be there is something I do not see?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I do check ANI a lot. I think a block would be a good idea, given the ad hominem attack in the first diff, and it seems like he might be

WP:NOTHERE. 4D4850 (talk

) 19:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This [301] is a bad look , and this [302] is worse. Acroterion (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@

NOTCOMPATIBLE --Deepfriedokra (talk)

19:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Great Ghu!. Personal attacks and a lack of AGF in this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the fact there was the quite reasonable possibility that he was

WP:NOTHERE, I hoped his actions were in good faith, rather then just plainly assuming or not assuming good faith. I also kindly notified him about his being discussed here, given he hasn't tried to defend himself yet. (Forgive me for editing my own comment, I hope it qualifies under one of the scenarios it's ok to edit comments.) 4D4850 (talk

) 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to wait. Because of the evidence free personal attacks and spreading of conspiracy theories, I have indefinitely blocked this person as NOTHERE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

<humor> I wonder how close the thread was to releasing a poisonous gas, killing all of humanity </humor> 4D4850 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy to be of assistance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• A good block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Possible CIR editor

BLOCKED

(

Related accounts have also been indefinitely blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

New non native English speaking editor who, besides constantly violating 3RR, also repeatedly adds unsourced info to music related articles. They have been warned by a variety of editors to refrain from edit warring as can be seen on their

WP:V have failed. Again, their talk page will give some idea of these attempts. Their tendency is to add unsourced or questionable info and after an experienced editor reverts with an explanatory edit summary (1, 2, 3, 4, 5

) they simply revert back to their preferred version with an edit summary such as "confirmed information" or "information Confirme" or "information and reference confirme" without actually referencing the content in question.

Examples of problematic edits:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

I'd greatly appreciate some assistance please. Robvanvee 06:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this editor is not capable of writing in coherent English. It appears English is not their birth language. That's the biggest problem. The next problem is that the person keeps relying on gossip websites and data-scraping pages – poor sourcing for BLPs. Finally, the person puts too much emphasis on how much money is reportedly made by the BLP subject. Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

They have violated 3RR (despite warnings about edit warring and 3RR). I think they are at six reverts at Don Omar at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 10:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Have they given any reason as to why they appear to be using other accounts as well? See User:Draskoll and User:Drells. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No. As far as I can tell they'd make the edits there, get a warning and move on to a new account. For some reason they have stuck with this account. Robvanvee 14:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that this constitutes multiple account misuse so have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drells. Please add other accounts if you spot others. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I just blocked 'em all. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. Robvanvee 15:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Arthur Smart

(

H:RV at his own leisure. El_C

17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Hi admins.

January_6th 3 times in 24 hours here, here, and here. I placed a 3RR warning on their talk page and opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_12#January_6th to resolve the issue. They objected to my placing the 3RR tag on their talk page, claiming they didn't make three reverts. Well they removed the redirect 3 times, so technically that is three reverts. Normally I would leave it at that, but now the user is mischaracterising my 3RR warning as vandalism and making personal attacks here. So I would like to bring to your attention. Polyamorph (talk

) 15:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:3RR's bright line is four reverts within 24 hours. El_C

15:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know which is why I simply placed a 3RR warning on their talk page.Polyamorph (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Polyamorph, ah, well, this (4) may have not been impressed on Arthur Smart, though. At any rate, I have snow kept the RfD, so I think this has been basically wrapped up. El_C 15:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm very glad to have this venue to point out the fact that Polyamorph's second alleged revert here wasn't a revert at all. It was a good faith edit to achieve what I had hoped would be an amicable compromise. Therefore, I consider his 3RR warning to be vandalism, and further, that only people who can correctly count to 3 should be issuing 3RR warnings. On his talk page I asked him, and got no intelligible answer, how he defines the word "revert". Apparently he considers any edit at all to be a revert. Question: Is there any way to appeal a falsely alleged 3RR warning? Polyamorph could have been a good man about it an admitted that his second alleged revert wasn't a revert at all. He should have apologized. But rather than do the right thing, he chose to continue his false accusation. I welcome an answer to my questions about the second alleged revert, as well as how to appeal a false 3RR warning. Thanks in advance. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 15:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You removed the redirect three times. This is 3 reverts. Please do not mischaracterise my good faith attempts to stop you getting blocked, and helping resolve your dispute at

WP:RFD as vandalism. Thanks Polyamorph (talk

) 15:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so you admit that any edit at all to a redirect page constitutes a revert. There is no way to edit a redirect page without removing the redirect. My 2nd alleged revert contained the target page of the redirect, so the redirect was preserved to the extent that it was possible to do so. Just to be clear, you allege that ANY edit of a redirect page constitutes a revert. Do others here agree? Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 16:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I do not believe any edit at all constitutes a revert. But consistently removing the same content of another user, which you did, does. Polyamorph (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND, because nothing here is vandalism. Woodroar (talk

) 16:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Doesn't "reverse" mean to put it back to the way it previously was? Agreed that the 1st and 3rd "undids" were reversals, but the 2nd one was a good faith attempt at a compromise. It was new content, not a reversal at all. Please clarify. Thanks very much. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 16:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

We're not talking about a dictionary definition of "reverse" here, but Wikipedia's policy of

WP:EW. Your edit removed the redirect, so it was a revert. Woodroar (talk

) 16:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Your reference reads, "A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit." The 2nd cited example does not fit that definition. My 2nd edit was brand new, not restoring the article to a previous state in any way. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 17:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You reversed the action of the other user by removing the redirect which they restored. Polyamorph (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is also clear you were aware you were in an edit war, given your edit summary. The 3RR warning was for your benefit. A further revert on your part would have made you liable to being blocked - it was clearly not vandalism so please strike that allegation from your talk page. In future it is probably best not to ping someone with a personal attack after an issue has been resolved but not gone your way. Polyamorph (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Pedro Pascal

The article

(CC) Tbhotch^™

04:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I reviewed some of the edits and consider some of them to be

WP:UNDUE with respect to his father's scandal when they were sourced to references that do not mention Pascal. Morbidthoughts (talk

) 05:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Horse Eye's Back

The user in question has a previous history of

WP:WIKIHOUNDING and was in fact blocked for two weeks for it on their previous account. He has continued this with me which establishes a pattern of behavior and a failure to alter their behavior even when given a lengthy block. I have mentioned this to the individual

in question on their talk page but to no avail. He seems to have a personal vendetta against me, just as he did with the previous user he exhibited the same behavior with and was ultimately blocked as a result of.

Examples of him following me to articles and/or reverting when followed to article include: 1 2 3 4 5 6 PailSimon (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Might I point out that your first diff is to a talk page that you have never edited? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Malcolmxl5, actually, it followed a mainspace edit by PailSimon less than an hour before (diff). Also noting that HEB has edited Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation before PailSimon has even joined the project. That said, Horse Eye's Back, please don't follow PailSimon around. That is inappropriate. El_C 01:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, I see. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that my use of their edit history is well within the allowances enumerated in

WP:BOOMERANG applies and we should be examining the totality of the interaction history [306]. I don’t know about you but I see almost no blue in PailSimon’s column on that editor interaction report and there is a shocking amount of overlap for an account with less than a thousand edits. I also note that this post here appears to be retaliation for comments I made at Talk:Anti-Georgian sentiment and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 01:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Horse Eye's Back, that's a fair response. Obviously, any (longstanding) watchlist items are fine. But, as far as that SPI report is concerned, as I note there, the behavioural evidence you've submitted strikes me as rather weak. Might I suggest that both of you stop with all of the back and forth there.? Seems markedly unhelpful for all concerned. El_C 02:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

In regards to the SPI report I had been watching that page for some time and can prove it because I thanked the OP [[307]] long before PailSimon was either informed of the report or commented on it. I ended the conservation there hours ago, it went on much longer than I’d planned and I have no plans to restart it. The evidence might be weak, but PailSimon is also strutting around wikipedia claiming BRD overrides BLP etc much like the socks did. Can we agree on its own that claiming that a policy exists and then failing to provide evidence for it as they did at Talk:Anti-Georgian sentiment#I made this just for you PailSimon (yes in hindsight I do regret naming that, I was feeling piquant at the time) would be an issue regardless of stalking or socking? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I also assume you’ve seen it but between the first time PailSimon threatened to take me to ANI on Talk:Anti-Georgian sentiment and them making this post a now blocked IP opened an ANI case (above under "anti-Semitic remarks directed at editor?”) which viscously misconstrued a lighthearted comment I had made directed at PailSimon and attempted to paint me as anti-semitic. After that section was closed and the sock blocked PailSimon opened this discussion. That is an amazing coincidence. They also edited my talk page repeatedly [308][309][310] (I'm not counting the notice for this post, but that is a nice way to get a last punch in after being told not to post on a talk page anymore) after being told in no uncertain terms not to[311][312]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Theres a lot of claims here.

1. "I’d also note that PailSimon disrupted wikipedia to make a point with this series of edits" That whole nonsense I have addressed on your talk page and it is inaccurate, I would poinit others to it.
2. " They professed innocence last time and I AGF" I frankly laughed out loud when I read this. You did not assume good faith you were very rude and said "Don’t play stupid and don’t disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. " Assuming good faith my ass!
3. With regards to the whole anti-semitic thing and the motivation for me filing this report. If I wanted to report HEB for "antisemitism" I would have simply done it on my own account, not used a needless proxy IP. I decided to make this report after HEB encouraged me to do so himself!PailSimon (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I called a spade a spade, I did however eventually accept your word as you are well aware. I wonder if you might name that policy were invoking over at Talk:Anti-Georgian sentiment (you know “You need to understand that just because you think you're right that does not give you an excuse to edit war without a consensus, please follow wikipedia policy and stop the

WP:NPA with those comments. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 03:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

1. "I called a spade a spade, I did however eventually accept your word as you are well aware" - Another lie. You ended the conversation with "Nobody is laughing along with you. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point."
2. " I wonder if you might name that policy were invoking over at Talk:Anti-Georgian sentiment" - As previously said I don't engage with bad faith editorsPailSimon (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe you ended the conversation by not responding, you would have known if I didn’t eventually accept your rather extraordinary argument about how you found yourself on that page because a report would have been opened here. You’ve been engaging this whole time, seems like an awfully convenient time to stop. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, you need to take a step back, maybe two. The fact that you link to Talk:Anti-Georgian_sentiment#I_made_this_just_for_you_PailSimon proves to me that you don't really have a concept that, just as a section header, that's not okay. It is combative. It is adversarial. It turns the discussion into a battleground, so you need to start reigning it in better. There's no other way. El_C 04:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What part of "yes in hindsight I do regret naming that, I was feeling piquant at the time” proves to you that I don't really have a concept that that's not okay? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a reading comprehension failure on my part. Stricken. Still, taking a step (or two) back would be a good thing. You're antagonizing PailSimon, getting into all sort of rhetorical back and forth with them. All the while there's that questionable SPI looming large — how are they suppose to feel having to deal with you when that's ongoing? The problem with SPI is that it is often abused (unwittingly and otherwise), with a poor evidentiary basis serving to basically harass. CU is

not a fishing expedition. El_C

05:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. They bring out the worst in me and I really need to avoid them. I didn’t open the SPI case, I don’t think that its being used for harassment here but I do agree in general that SPI is an imperfect system on a lot of levels. Perhaps I am antagonizing them, it feels like I’m the one being antagonized but then again it would wouldn't it? The back and forth over the made up policy is silly, I’ve just never seen someone make up a policy and then stick to it for that long. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You are, indeed, not the filer. Another reading comprehension failure on my part. What is with me today? Not to mention that upon a closer look, maybe that SPI report isn't that out there after all. Those Lori Mattix edits give me pause. Hmm, maybe I'm the one who should take a step back. Hey, we can do it together! El_C 06:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:HistoryOfTurkic

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

1. Wrote to a veteran user that he's as a "'lying stupid mullah".[315]
2. Says to the same user once again that he's lying.[316]
3. Writes "why are you Iranians Iranizing everyone?" to another user.[317]
4. Adds heap of unsourced information to the Aisyt article. No edit summary/explanation.[318]
5. Removed well-sourced content from the Afsharid dynasty article that stated that the dynasty was Iranian. No edit summary/explanation.[319]

Looking at the compelling evidence, i.e. the major violations of

not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk

) 13:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Also do we think this is an account created solely to harass User:HistoryofIran? Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for

WP:NOTHERE. And agreed, this looks like this is an account solely to troll/attack HistoryofIran. RickinBaltimore (talk

) 14:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about the exact origin of this (though I don't think it really matters), but I am of the opinion that this recent wave of harassment against HistoryofIran —see User talk:Ali banu sistani (final warning) and User talk:KY-Acc (indeffed with talk page disabled)— is to be dealt with extreme prejudice. El_C 14:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll keep an eye on it, however my editing areas don't much cross there. I'll add HoI's talk page to my watchlist just as a lookout. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I've done the same. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• This [320] looks similar to the reported account.
  talk
  06:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Just blocked, but then realized that it's stale (a few weeks since the last edit). Meh. Anyway, as I said, with extreme prejudice. El_C 06:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Maradona page

NO ACTION

(

edit request. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 19:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Maradona’s last words are incorrect, but I do not have permission to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.144.179.224 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

To request an edit, put an edit request on the talk page of the page in question, rather then on ANI. I hope this information helps you. 4D4850 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I am using the mobile version and see no link to the talk page.

Please see https://www.news.com.au/sport/football/diego-maradonas-final-words-before-death-emerge/news-story/93049b15c23ac2ca588c83f50dce832a for the correct quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.144.179.224 (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It's at the top of the page in mobile view, right above the thing that says languages and right next to the tab that says article. 4D4850 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:FORUM violations by User:DukeyDukeyDoo

Report user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

WP:FORUM with a string of talk page discussions they started. I was first alerted to their behavior with this discussion, which popped up in my watchlist. Unbeknownst to me at the time, they responded by deleting a legitimate talk page discussion here

. Also unbeknownst to me was that the talk page discussions were a long-term behavioral pattern. In order from newest to oldest:

• Tom & Jerry (2021 film)
• Polly Pocket (TV series)
• Kappa Mikey
• Nickelodeon Kart Racers 2: Grand Prix
• Tooned Out
• DeviantArt
• Dragon Quest X
• Hi-C
• The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance
• Looney Tunes Dash

User also violated

WP:NPA at Draft talk:The Bugs Bunny 80th Anniversary Collection#Make this Article Exist, Damn it!

, and has made some rather questionable comments:

• "I will do what I want, when I want and how I want it done! And nobody, no matter what they say about talk pages and or article talk pages, will tell me what to or what not to do!"
• Edit summary for this edit to Looney Tunes Cartoons: "I just got word from Animation Historian Jerry Beck on when the series will premiere. And if none of you believe, you can find a way to protect this article from further editing. Because I ain't-a gonna stop until these edits stay."
• Edit summary for this edit to Looney Tunes Cartoons: "If this Geraldo Perez dude was smart, he would make this article semi-protected or have it protected in some other way. That way, one of us would be able to edit it."

I feel like something needs to be done about this user's behavior, but I think the scope would be too broad for

WP:AIV. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message}

) 20:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This user has some

WP:CIR issues at the very least. I reviewed edits from the past year and see no net positive. Most potentially constructive edits were unsourced. Blocking until user can show they understand Wikipedia's standards and practices. EvergreenFir (talk)

20:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated unreferenced edits

The pages involved have been protected. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Despite repeated warnings[321], this editor continues adding unsourced content to

Wynnum District SC[322][323] and to Capalaba FC using two different IPs. When one of the IPs got the final warning, they started using another and again added the same non-referenced para.[324].--Umakant Bhalerao (talk

) 13:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Pages protected. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

New IP range block needed

Range has been re-blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• 2600:1003:B0A0:0:0:0:0:0/44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1003:B02B:4C90:0:32:68C3:7101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A six-month range block on 2600:1003:B0A0:0:0:0:0:0/44 expired a few days ago and they're right back at it. It also looks like 2600:1003:B02B:4C90:0:32:68C3:7101 is making the same kind of edits (example) but isn't captured by the original range. I'm not too familiar with how IP addresses work so not sure if the range can be easily expanded. Best, DanCherek (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Reblocked range for 1 year. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

POV-pushing at Aung San Suu Kyi

3RR exemptions apply). These sort of violations are to be reverted on sight, with an immediate warning attached — I'd start with {{uw-error2}} and escalate from there. Anyway, I have warned the user to cease from engaging in fabrications. El_C

02:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Zhong ST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's an editor,

Talk

00:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)

Tartan357, could you notify them of this report on their user talk page per policy at the top of this page? You can use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 00:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk

00:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the reported users contributions I noticed that they also went to the talk pages of two administrators declaring Tartan357 edits to be illegal. At the very least their judgement should be under question since I can’t see how the reverted edits could be possibly breaking any laws.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if they mean Wikipedia "laws" or real-world ones... ― 

Talk

00:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The two diffs in question. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll also point out that they accused me of being an agent of Burma's military in the comment at the first diff above, and also went to a third editor's talk page with that claim: [325]. ― 

Talk

00:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, you (Tartan and Zhong) are both technically edit warring. On the other hand, that shouldn't change the net balance of the conversation and repeatedly changing the Wikipedia article in what may be an attempt at historical revisionism possibly qualifies under one of the exemptions for 3RR, so I'm for a block of Zhong ST due to the ad hominem personal attacks/attempted rumor spreading. 4D4850 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk

01:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, especially since both parties are involved, but I'm not sure that the 3RR exemption for reverting obvious vandalism qualifies, as a casual reader might come along it and either not check the info or would just think it's out of date. So I'm on your side, I'm just not sure a strict interpretation of 3RR is on your side. 4D4850 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Both

edit warring on the Aung San Suu Kyi article. I've left warnings for the both of them about this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

02:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk

02:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 - Yes, if the edits are deliberate attempts to add false information to articles. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

02:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk

02:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

conflict of interest and other problems, but not a bad-faith attempt at adding false information. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

02:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk

02:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 - No worries; I'm glad that you understand the difference now. This is one of the reasons why this noticeboard is here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

02:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk

02:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk

02:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 - The user is now partially-blocked from editing the article for one week. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

02:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I just rv'd their last edit, so I only did 2 rvs, so I'm not breaking 3RR, and I'm helping Wikipedia. 4D4850 (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from User:PlainAndSimpleTailor

Blocked indefinitely. Because, obviously. El_C 02:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

There's various I recall but don't have diffs saved, but two most recently stand out as egregious to me and the editor does not seem to wish to desist.

• diff. stop lying just because you don't like something. Can't you do something constructive with your life FDW88 rather than just bulldozing other people's work? Try to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, I sure you're probably not a bad person at heart, far to arrogant and prideful but have you considered counselling? is this behaviour a result of a lockdown? warning
• Their response: Given the way I've been treated since I started here you have the audacity to warn me? The toxic mansplaining is constant and I think FDW88 is geniunely on the verge of being an incel if he isn't already given his behaviour. Calling another editor an incel is way off the mark.
• here and here accusing the editor of being a nasty piece of work and of willfull ignorance
• Condensending comments. Various accusations of misogyny, etc etc.
• POINTY editing

See UTP history for other issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) PlainAndSimpleTailor has been indefinitely blocked by El C. Not sure if any further action needs to be taken on the IP? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, in regards to the IP, it is otherwise Stale. El_C 03:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Continuous warring at Korean New Year

I think this is the second time I've brought this here in the last week, and Oshwah has kindly protected the article twice. The main issue, aside from an abundance of cross-editing of various quality, is a nationalistic edit war (something similar has happened at Lunar New Year). Some sources credit the origin to China, and editors keep stripping that content out. Unfortunately, the sourcing appears to be Chinese, so I can't read it, and I'm not having much luck with English language sources online. More eyes and some consensus would be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Complaint from Microthought2021

BLOCKED

(non-admin closure) Microthought2021 indefinitely blocked by DGG for advertising. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Magnolia677 threatened us when we made a simple post- we ask that he be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microthought2021 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Two things: A: Make a new section for a new complaint, and B: It isn't a threat if you're told you might get banned for promotional use of Wikipedia,

because banning people who do that repeatedly is policy. Meanwhile, the person you complained about has a squeaky clean record. I also checked your talk page, and I wouldn't consider what they posted to be a threat. 4D4850 (talk

) 20:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. 4D4850 pretty well summed it up, though I try to be

more polite --Deepfriedokra (talk)

20:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to be less hostile to newcomers in the future. 4D4850 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, there is discussion on OP's talk, but I'm hungry. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

OP is requesting "removal of all the newspapers listed in the media section on your platform" because they can't have their site in the External Links section. Running a COIBot report on the links, it will be interesting to see what it comes up with. Looks like a case of

WP:NOTHERE though. Pahunkat (talk

) 21:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

And threats on their talk page. Pahunkat (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way, what does OP stand for? I can guess what it refers to from context, but why OP rather then some other acronym? 4D4850 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

4D4850, OP stands for "Original Poster" in this context - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations. Pahunkat (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured I'd ask here, given now the discussion is at the OP's talk page. 4D4850 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, what did you get on the COIbot report, if it has been finished yet? 4D4850 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

COIBot's being stubborn right now - it processed one link, but it hasn't done the other two. See User:COIBot/Poke. Pahunkat (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretty certain that the links are related though, given the similarities of the domains. As for the extent of the spam, I can't tell until COIBot generates the report for the other two. Pahunkat (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Never saw who "we" is. (sigh) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I find it unlikely it's a meatpuppet failing at disguising themselves. 4D4850 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As for the COIbot report, all the IPs for the websites are identical, so either they're on a proxy, server, or ran from the same computer. 4D4850 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, no reports of COI for townatlanta.com from COIbot, if I'm understanding everything correctly. 4D4850 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: Whatever else happens, with all the "we"s, "our"s, and "our offices", this is also clearly a violation of

WP:SHAREDACCOUNT... - Adolphus79 (talk

) 22:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The editor edits on behalf of a news aggregator based in Florida. Three editors had already warned the IP being about spam, after which the IP created this account (named for the company). That's why I started with a final warning. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, so "we" is the staff of the news aggregator. 4D4850 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:UAA

as a promotional user name with promotional edits.23:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Done. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't post a report on the other noticeboards if there is already an open report here, it can be seen as

WP:FORUMSHOPPING... I actually posted a report on UAA first before I knew this report was here, then self reverted the UAA report when I left the message here... - Adolphus79 (talk

) 00:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic but per FORUMSHOP, this isn't necessarily forum shopping: Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.. Rgrds. --

talk

) 02:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not bloody forum shopping. I asked them to take it to UAA 'cause I did not want to be the one to add the SPAMU block and this is not the venue for SPAMU blocks. Unless some other admin wants to take care of it here. And no other admin has taken any interest at all in this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I did the block. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and sockpuppetry by 186.11.114.171

Blocked by User:Ohnoitsjamie.

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

---

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

In

RFPP by Binksternet. 36.65.38.154 (talk

) 03:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Userid1438

WP:CIR issues and/or is politically motivated, considering their removal of 'Urdu' from the articles they come across. Pinging @Fuzheado and Arjayay:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk

) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

More POV removal of Urdu and addition of unsourced content here, [335]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring continues [336] and in Noida article, they are on the verge of breaking 3RR [337]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruption continues also in Uttar Pradesh [338]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Again removed the sourced mention of 'Urdu' here. Seems like they wouldn't stop. Pinging @Oshwah:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay i might refrain myself from removing 'Urdu' until and unless I provide some hard legal source. I thereby apologize for my unsourced edits. Userid1438 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Since Urdu is mentioned as an additional official language of Uttar Pradesh in the sources, you have to prove through latest sources/circulars that the 'additional official' status of Urdu has been revoked now. Obviously you have to discuss those sources first in the talk pages. Secondly, you seem to add original researches and unsourced content in articles, which need to stop (

WP:V). - Fylindfotberserk (talk

) 16:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This looks like edit warring. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

JohnMiller414 adding external links to personal website

In a series of edits to 24-hour clock and Talk:24-hour clock User:JohnMiller414 has added links to http://www.militarytime.site/ https://militarytimeconverter.org which appears to me to be the personal website of someone named John, who does not give a surname.

In at least one instance the description of the site, after the edit, was misleading.

In another instance the editor refactored another editor's talk page post. I will not revert any further edits by this user to avoid violating the three-revert rule. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC), link fixed 9 February 2021.

It appears the website in question has been taken offline. Nightfury 13:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Additionally such a website adds nothing not already in the article. The article already tells you how to convert (hint it's ridiculously simple) so a website that does it for you is completely unnecessary. Canterbury Tail talk 17:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Heads up

(Continuation/resurfacing of: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Users_excessively_posting_about_Caliphs_of_Islam_at_help_desk)

Google's search results have reverted back to displaying the pages on the Ahmadiyya Caliphate and Mirza Masroor Ahmad as the top results for people looking for the current caliph of Islam. Keep an eye on the edit filters, the talk pages of those articles, and on the public newcomer desks (WP:Help desk, WP:Teahouse, etc.). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 06:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

More pain for us.... Are those Caliphate Disruption filters still running? JavaHurricane 10:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

They are, but only logging for now. As far as I can see, there's no 'featured snippet' (which I think was the main reason for the disruption), or am I missing something? Pahunkat (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, just found that searching for "who is the present caliph of Islam" returns a knowledge panel. Pahunkat (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: It appears that Google's taken down the knowledge panel. Pahunkat (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact they brought it back in the first place is kinda concerning. For what it's worth, this seems to be unique to Google -

List of Caliphs instead) and both Bing and Yahoo! have what seems to be a Knowledge-Panel-esque thing at the top of their results explicitly saying there isn't one. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...}

18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A bit more investigating on my end:

• The string [current caliph of islam] returns Ahmadiyya and Ahmad as top results on Google, while DDG, Bing, and Yahoo! return List of Caliphs as the top result (and the latter two have something at the top stating that there isn't such a thing)
• The string [who is the current caliph of islam] returns identical results on Google and pushes the list article down one or two spots on the other three, with websites discussing the matter being ranked higher. Bing and Yahoo! lose the Knowledge-Panel-esque header.

So this issue is entirely with Google, it appears. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

can wiki software handle a noindex tag for just the information box? It seems google respects codes that protect part of a page. Various codes here

Slywriter (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This wouldn't help, as part of the issue is Google teturning those pages as top results. It's not entirely because of the Knowledge Panel, and even if it were Wikipedia is far from the only source the Knowledge Panel pulls from (as the occasional "My photo is wrong in Google" helpees learn in #wikipedia-en-help). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 19:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a shame teturning isn't a word, because it sounds like it would be really useful in the right situation. EEng 02:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Bori claws are not conducive to typing. Like boxing gloves. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

He’s editing my comments to make me look bad

Please can someone tell the User:Quisqualis to stop being such a stupid bully https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quisqualis&diff=prev&oldid=1006007082

He’s editing my comment on his talk page to make me look like an idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quisqualis&diff=prev&oldid=1006007082

This is clearly not allowed because the policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#EDIT says you shouldn’t do this. Make him stop please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.170.10 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This really isn't very

civil, and choosing to double down on it wasn't a great idea either. That being said, the OP calling them "stupid" is not ideal either. SQL^{Query me!}

17:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I've left both editors messages to that effect. SQL^{Query me!} 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that Quisqualis already has an open section on this very board that is unresolved, here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• To be fair, it's maybe not a slam dunk but it's fairly obvious that Quisqualis is being targeted by a blocked user, jumping to different IP addresses with impunity. In theory a perfect user would sit there and patiently take it, not rise to the bait, and wait for the SPI to go thru. It's not reasonable to expect people to be perfect. I've told socks of blocked users to fuck off my talk page before (yes, I know, conduct unbecoming etc); I see no reason to hold Quisqualis to a higher standard. How about this: I semi-protect Q's talk page for 3 days, they agree not to fake a header anymore, and we wait for the wheels of justice to turn slowly at SPI? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Хомяк1520

User Хомяк1520 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of 1Goldberg2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see ru:Википедия:Форум администраторов#Бесконечный цикл or the same block descriptions in ru:Служебная:Вклад/1Goldberg2 and ru:Служебная:Вклад/Хомяк1520. 1Goldberg2 is banned for BLP violations, please ban Хомяк1520 to prevent them. Wikisaurus (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

What is it that you base that assessment on? I'm only seeing 2 edits and I, at least, am unable to drawn an immediate link between these accounts. El_C 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The .ru links show that both accounts were blocked as part of the same sockfarm, if I'm reading it properly? Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This diff states this is an alt account of 1Goldberg2; there were no further socks at this point as far as I see. I blocked indef, since here it is block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikisaurus (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

COI and other problems at Danny Porush

In 2013 Dporush1 (talk · contribs) created Danny Porush about himself, who is notable from The Wolf of Wall Street book and film. Since then he has made repeated attempts at whitewashing the article, almost always without a reliable source. He has been given numerous warnings, including about COI. He also has edited from several IPs located in or near Boca Raton, FL, where Porush lives. Now that edits on the article require review, Dporush1 returned with the same issue here and here. I hope his account will be indeffed. I also hope the page can be semi-protected because of his use of IPs. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed from editing the Danny Porush page. This action does not preclude any admin taking further action in excess of this PBAN (i.e. it may be upgraded to a full indef without needing to consult with me beforehand). Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism by 165.230.224.80

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

In

WP:ANI to give administrator actions to it. 36.65.47.156 (talk

) 22:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Partial block. Yes, this is of a sensitive nature, so I expedited the usual. Anyway, I've directed that contributor to the article talk page, so hopefully, the matter will be resolved there. El_C
  00:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing on KS Tiga Naga

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

In

WP:RFPP. 36.65.47.156 (talk

) 00:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's been years, also did the same thing in idwiki and xwiki related to Lampung, such as people from Lampung, stadiums, companies, football clubs, etc., often changing many places to Lampung, are users paid?? Range ips that stumble 114.4.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) 114.5.0.0/16 (talk · contribs)120.188.0.0/16 (talk · contribs). --MRZQ (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor using

WP:NOTBROKEN

WP:NOTBROKEN. The AWB Rules of Use say that users must "Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices". DuncanHill (talk

) 02:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like a

WP:COSMETICBOT issue, although I will note that there are circumstances where direct links are preferred over redirects, and mass-editing to effect them (particularly following a page move of the linked page) has generally been considered permissible. BD2412 T

02:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Without knowing (or caring) about the content issue, I'm just supremely disappointed that this kind of think is being brought here, 7 minutes after your first message on their talk page, when they haven't edited since. You've always struck me as a reasonable person, I'm really at a loss for why you came running to the Great Dismal Swamp to tattle as an initial step. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  disappointed that this kind of think is being brought here – That's right, there's way too much think going on around here. EEng 16:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Fuck it then, just ignore me. DuncanHill (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill - Oh c'mon... there's no need for that. Floquenbeam was just trying to say that they haven't edited since your warning on the user's talk page. No need to throw down the towel; Floquenbeam was just trying to help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I was "just trying to help" and I get the playground omerta called on me, and find I've "supremely disappointed" someone. DuncanHill (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you had discussed this with me instead of immediately running to ANI, I would've suggested that you read all of the

WP:NOTBROKEN section, where it says "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect." That's what I was fixing. (Unlike you, who undid my edit and restored a misspelled redirect.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM

07:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't understand why this is even on the noticeboard. I've made countless minor edits in the past with the edit summary avoid

redirect attached. Mandarax's version restored. El_C

07:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Might I suggest that if fixing a typo then "fixing a typo" would be a more appropriate edit summary, and less likely to cause confusion? DuncanHill (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Why? It's a

redirect, avoid it. Anyway, you're welcome to do as you see fit with your own editing, but I'm content with precision and see no reason to alter my longstanding practice. El_C

10:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The way this was brought here is highly deficient, and the edits are mostly beneficial. Just one thing, Mandarax, if I may; here you change [[Diego Velazquez|Velazquez]] to [[Diego Velázquez|Velazquez]], which means that you correct the part no one sees, and leave alone the actual reader-facing bit: preferably, it should either be the reverse, or both should be changed.

Fram (talk

) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I do try to take care of such things, but there were a lot of changes in that edit, and apparently as I scrolled down, I missed that one. Higher up on the page I had changed "the [[Diego Velazquez|Velazquez]]" to "Velázquez", because there was already a link to him in the previous sentence (and the "the" was extraneous). I've now taken care of it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS regarding Mary Ann Mansigh

User:Ema--or seems to be getting a bit carried away with the promotion of Mary Ann Mansigh.

This involves

WP:BLUDGEON of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ann Mansigh and it's talk page, and also Talk:Mary Ann Mansigh

.

Plus more seriously,

WP:CANVASS

of potentially at least these projects:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Mary_Ann_Mansigh
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Mary_Ann_Mansigh
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Mary_Ann_Mansigh
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_scientists#Mary_Ann_Mansigh
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Alternative_views#Mary_Ann_Mansigh
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#Mary_Ann_Mansigh

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj cheetham (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is this here before any substantive discussion with the editor?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ema--or advised how to post a neutral notification of AfD's to Wikiprojects. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

And despite that, she left another non neutral notice here. I didn't look at the quality of the other ones, but there are more. There's also a

WP:POLEMIC on her talk directed at a particular editor. It's tyme for a timeout. She's still bludgeoning the AfD, even though it appears it's going to be a keep.174.254.192.137 (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Ok, seen. Ema--or (talk

) 17:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnviz, sockpuppetry

I blocked Johnviz for sockpuppetry. Johnviz plans to take this public, "we are going to use all our resources to bring this to the public and your donors". I have no opinion on Dead Talk Live or Johnviz for that matter; the block was solely for violations of

WP:SOCK. I welcome another checkuser to review the technical evidence. Any checkuser is free to lift the block if they believe I'm mistaken. Is there any reason to notify anyone else, such as press@wiki? --Yamla (talk

) 00:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be a relatively ridiculous threat, as after previous similar threats, I have not seen onwiki disruption from anyone else than the editor himself, and his sockpuppet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

While being preventative is generally wise, I'm not sure there's a need to contact press@wiki unless there's actual pertinent press activity. Myself, short of the many times I've had to contact the

WP:EMERGENCY end of the Foundation, I've never really had any contact with them in so far as activity on en is concerned. No idea about the veracity of CU data. I leave that to those with CU permissions. El_C

01:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What does this person think SAG will do for them? Force us to have a (I presume glowing) article about their web show? 331dot (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know if this statement warrants contacting press@wiki? 331dot (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @331dot: Honestly you can probably just ignore it. Type the name of his shows name into google. His show gets about 50 views on youtube. The show has 900 followers on twitter. The show has 100k "followers" on instagram but the videos there get around 500 views and normally no comments? There's no way this is going to involve the SAG, require an official WMF press response or result in any kind of widespread disruption. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Astutely put, IP. El_C 02:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Jumping in as a

WP:TPS (I have AN in my watchlist for fun). I watched their "show", and, first off, they said they were going to talk about Wikipedia for 10 minutes (as per their talk), and then they drag on and on for forty out of the sixty minutes of the show. Obsessive much? As well, they didn’t say anything new, just blah blah don’t wanna name any names (even though they said on their talk that they aren’t holding back), blah blah Wikipedia is discriminatory and all the content that people end up seeing is a result of the bias and prejudices of the administrators (which isn’t true cuz I’ve seen/written some articles that admins haven’t even touched yet), etc. Anyways, I see no need to contact press@wiki for now. However, I think someone needs to have a message on standby as they have alluded to the fact that they will be making this "public" and that Wikipedia will be one of the main focuses of their show and blog until this is resolved, which could take a while. The reasoning that it might take a while is because I’m pretty sure they just invited their viewers to edit the draft articles and "demand" that it be "listed" as an article. And then they have the audacity to say "but I didn’t tell you all to do that, just a suggestion". D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘

) 03:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Despite claiming to have 300k ""followers"" they get ~ 50 views on YouTube, about 500 on Instagram about 250 on Facebook and probably a few hundred more on the other services I couldn't be bothered to check so realistically what, 1000 active followers? How many of them are going to volunteer their time to trying to get an advert for this show onto Wikipedia having listened to a 40 minute rant instead of the podcast content they wanted to listen to? Maybe one or two if they're lucky? as I said above I very much doubt this is going to result in anything, maybe we'll have to delete or protect some drafts. A random internet nobody with 1000 viewers isn't going to need a WMF response even if they do go "Public". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

300k? Ha, try half a million. They "bragged" about it on their UTP. I found it hilarious why they would even bring it up in the first place. As well, I was the only one in their Twitter livestream (not kidding when I say that it said "1 Viewer" at the bottom). Adding onto your point: their fans are probably tired of hearing about Wikipedia for 40 damn minutes when they came for their daily dose of news. I don’t get why this person couldn’t have made a separate stream solely about Wikipedia, that way, their "fanbase" can choose if they want to listen to a grown ass person complain about one of if not the most popular online encyclopedia for 40 minutes or actual news. D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 03:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is as unambiguous a CU finding as I've ever seen; two accounts editing the exact same articles with the exact same material from the exact same IP. Conceivably, he could have been honest about this and clean things up, but instead he's lied from the start. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Having just read -- at excruciating and repetitive length -- their comments on their talk page, I think it's well past time to revoke User:Johnviz's TPA. They're just blatantly abusing the privilege and harassing multiple admins with unnecessary repeated pings to comments full of ridiculous threats. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• And what's all this blather about having a "spotless 10 year record" when they made their first edit on 22 January 2021, a little less than a month ago? Sure, their account may have been created 10 years ago, but they haven't made any kind of "record" of editing to be spotless or otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• And just having read User talk:Jarianz99, it's quite obvious these are the same person. ToBeFree revoked their TPA just a few days ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Yamla, ToBeFree, and Jpgordon: I've filed another SPI report concerning two new accounts that appear to me to be probable new socks of Johnviz. The report is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Both accounts blocked as meatpuppets. Johnviz's two draft articles speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. I think this thread can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe not as done as I thought: Yamla has blocked two new accounts, Jariosi and Javiem88, as sockpuppets of Johnviz. The give-away was their re-creation of Draft:Dead Talk Live, the article about Johnviv's media platform. Admin/CU question: is there any way to prevent the underlying IP(s) or range of IPs from which these accounts were made from creating new ones? Given the continued sockpuppetry, maybe include the two accounts blocked as meatpuppets, Ethan Lenear and Villanekhaleeci? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor Fuaacena appears to be either a prodigious "test editor" on active pages or is a vandal

Editor @Fuaacena: appears to be either a prodigious "test editor" on active pages or is a vandal. I happened across five edits to the Laura San Giacomo page made by Fuaacena which on the first view appeared to be "test edits". I reverted these changes and made a comment on the Laura San Giacomo talk page and made a comment on Fuaacena's talk page concerning these edits. Being curious about what Fuaacena might be doing, I looked at Fuaacena's edit history and saw a troubling pattern of suspicious "test edits" on numerous Wikipedia articles. Many of these "test edits" had already been noticed and reverted.

Fuaacena's pattern of suspicious "test edits" on Wikipedia articles seems to merit examination with a view toward "Administrator intervention against vandalism".

Osomite ^hablemos 01:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Osomite. Could you please link the specific diffs you are referencing, so that we can take a look? You also need to place a notice on Fuaacena's talk page that an ANI discussion has been opened regarding their editing. You can do so with the template shown at the top of this page in the red box. Pinging them is not considered sufficient notification. Thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomGnome: I did place a notice (using the template) on @Fuaacena:'s talk page at 17:56, February 12, 2021. Fuaacena deleted it at 22:39, February 12, 2021 - Dif: [339]‎. I did a previous entry on Fuaacena's talk page cautioning about possible vandalism, Fuaacena delete it, Dif: [340]. Fuaacena has not replied to me about my concerns. Fuaacena had also deleted another post that was made by User:NJZombie which cautioned about vandalism: [341]

Fuaacena's "test edits" on the Laura San Giacomo article initiated my concern. However, there are many other edits that Fuaacena did on other articles which led me to realize that Fuaacena's edits are typically problematic "test edits". So Fuaacena's "test edits" on Laura San Giacomo is just the tip of the edit chaos that has been created. A cursory look at Fuaacena's edit history will show many "test edits" that have been reverted by other editors.

On the Laura San Giacomo article, Fuaaena made five "test edits" in a row, the Difs: [342], [343], [344], [345], [346], and this is my "undo" edit to fix the mess [347]

Osomite ^hablemos 07:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't considered that Fuaacena had deleted the message, so I've learned that I need to check talk page history in future. Now that you've provided some diffs, hopefully an admin will take a look at your complaints. Thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Whether they're test edits or if this is
  request an unblock, and convince the reviewing administrator that the behavior will stop before they'll be allowed to edit. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}
  21:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

edit warring, personal attacks, threats by 181.44.116.104

Reported IP users have been blocked and the mess has been cleaned up. If any more of these users show up, report them to

AIV so that they can be immediately blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

SPA on Nation Georgaphic related topics.

• 3RR edit warring extensive changes to National Geographic Society: [348] [349] [350] [351] [352] [353]
• personal attacks: [354] [355] [356] [357]

• threats: [358] [359] [360]

And based on [361] seems to have moved on to another related IP. Meters (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

definitely on another IP now. See [362] by 181.73.146.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Meters (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Meters, another series of personal attacks [363] and [364] Ashleyyoursmile! 05:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's not Nate Speed, they're doing a good impression. These IPs are two different countries, so I don't think range blocks are going to help. Just report any new ones to AIV. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, thank you for blocking. I just reported another 81.132.219.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to AIV. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, after the block I was wondering who the LTA was. Realized after my initial post that I misread the IPs and that the IP range was far too wide for range block. Meters (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Busy busy. Blocked – for a period of one week to the original IP, with everything disabled. Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Applied to National Geographic Society, Touchstone Pictures and Hollywood Pictures. Various revisions deleted. Let me know if I missed any pertinent pages to protect or revisions to delete. El_C 05:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C:May need to protect National Geographic Partners too. Didn't see this until after the above. Meters (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's another 86.183.102.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Ashleyyoursmile! 06:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, now I'm remembering. It's that LTA, I forget the name of the master (is it Nate Speed? Bah, who cares), who mostly disrupts TV and movie studio pages and then evades blocking by IP hopping, all while delivering endless all-CAP screeds. I've blocked many tens of their IPs and protected many tens of pages (often for many months) over the years. It just has been a while. El_C 06:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, and another one 176.88.93.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Ashleyyoursmile! 06:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they'll keep going like this until they tire themselves out.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 06:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Nate Speed (or as they call themselves "Nate Spidgewood") again? They're a funny LTA - semi-censored expletives etc. And of course the (angry?) emoticons D:< Pahunkat (talk

) 21:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Imjha1 - Possible UPE, possible NOTHERE, complete failure to communicate

The reported user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Imjha1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure where else to go with this. This user has accumulated numerous level 4 warnings for various behaviours including pure vandalism, promotional editing and UPE. Their behaviour is perhaps worst on the articles that have now been deleted. I have no doubt that they have made some constructive edits but there have been a lot of tendentious edits on non-notable people like Zayn Saifi and Nikhil Sharma (YouTuber). I do believe that there is COI/UPE involved but the user has not responded to any attempt to communicate with them on their talk page about this. I also dislike their use of edit summaries, especially 'fixed typo' to imply that the edit is minor when it is anything but. User:GSS initially communicated with them regarding their paid editing and I can't see that they have responded despite clearly being told to cease editing until doing so. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Mumbiker Nikhil and Zayn Saifi, I can see that this spam has been going on for a while. Do we know if Imjha1 is a sock of any of the previous creators of these spam articles? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

User should be indefinitely blocked for violation of

WP:PAID now they’ve ignored all 4 paid notice levels. SK2242 (talk

) 23:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Marking +5,944‎ as

WP:MINOR is nowhere near the record, but it's certainly ambitious. Narky Blert (talk

) 23:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I've done the block. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Saturn (magazine)

Closing as no action needed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Saturn (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please protect this page because it has received high level of IP vandalism after it was posted as

TFA. 36.76.235.92 (talk

) 01:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am not an admin, or even extended confirmed, but I do watch ANI quite a bit. I (by the time your reading this, already have) am about to request pending changes protection on the page in question using Twinkle. Pending changes should be enough for IP vandalism. I'm going to list it as a temporary protect request, but if after protection ends it still has lots of IP vandalism, then I'll request permanent Pending Changes protection or semiprotection. 4D4850 (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Saturn has been replaced by another article, so a request seems pointless at this point.

(CC) Tbhotch^™

02:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and just noticed that there was already a different request, so nevermind. 4D4850 (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again coming to shill Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article, because this has been happening every day for years. It's going to be either PC or semi-protection, so if you want to keep up the "anyone can edit" image, take the former. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• The last incident of vandalism to Saturn (magazine) was at 21:29, 13 February UTC, so this report was somewhat stale. And the page was no longer the TFA. Nothing more to be done here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Tuka (rapper) conflict of interest edits

Reported user has been indefinitely partially-blocked from editing the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Matt Franis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This report was first filed at the AIV by Idell, but was asked to report here by admin Daniel Case. The user Matt Franis has claimed several times to be the artist Tuka (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) whose page they are making edits to : [365], [366], [367], [368]. The user has been removing sourced content from the page several times, which they felt should not be presented on their page, albeit getting reverted by several editors Eternal Shadow, Dam222, Idell, and myself. Further, they have stated to make an "official complaint" if their edits on the page are reverted again: [369]. They have been reported for edit warring on the page: This is the thread of the 3RR report, for which Matt Franis was previously blocked for one day: [370]. They have been issued a conflict of interest notice [371], and have been explained properly on their talk page by editor SK2242 that they are highly discouraged to edit their own page: [372], [373]. However, they have continued to do so after recent release of block: [374], [375], [376]. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, He wants to do the edit war again. He calls himself Artist and is removing other material including infobox. Dam222 🌋 (talk)

Their recent edits were reverted by firefly. --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, sorry, saw the report here and had a look. I can't see any justification for removing the well-sourced information. We also have no proof (nor could we request any) that this is indeed the article subject. Has anyone informed the user that they can contact OTRS/the Foundation as a last resort if they are unhappy with the community response? Might be worth doing. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If this editor claims to be the subject of the article, the easiest way to deal with it is a partial block from editing the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, they have claimed so: [377], [378], [379]. Ashleyyoursmile! 04:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Matt Franis from editing Tuka (rapper). Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Sorry to tag onto this closed thread, but I just want to recognize Bilby for seeing the problem in how this was handled: that there is an actual person trying hard to remove extremely personal information about his childhood from his Wikipedia article and getting mostly generic scoldings. Not just that, but personal information presented with undue weight, based on a single source, and partly misrepresenting that source. Yep, he broke the rules, and yep, he also made other edits, so I'm not arguing that the partial ban be lifted. Just a hat tip for catching something important and doing something about it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

User:TylerKutschbach

Blocked indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

I'm surprised this was auto-archived with no comment. Previous discussion here

I would love some feedback on this issue, if possible. The user has been discussed in previous ANI threads as well. – The Grid (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Remember, you need to notify all parties to the ANI dispute with [{{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~] (without the square brackets). The use of the notification or {{ping|Example}} systems isn't enough. I did it for you this time though. 4D4850 (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this back, The Grid. I've blocked them for disruptive editing, in the form of persistently adding unsourced content or changing figures without references on hundreds of articles. Attempts to discuss including four ANI threads and several blocks have failed - the user is uncommunicative and does not volunteer sources, and they fail verification when provided. It is indefinite, meaning they will only be unblocked if they successfully appeal. Fences&Windows 23:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Fences and windows. – The Grid (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism

Reported user has been blocked for 48 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Despite repeated warnings, including two final warnings[380], the user continues to vandalize Wikipedia by removing maintenance templates and citation needed tags [381][382][383][384]. Now just recently they have blanked out the warnings that were put on their talk page[385] and made more vandalistic edits including removing a source without explanation[386] and a citation needed template[387].--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User determined to add their non-notable friends to articles (including through hoaxing)

Appears to be resolved. Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Birdsflyinghigh123 (talk · contribs)
• 84.55.19.40 (talk)
• 84.55.20.218 (talk)
• 90.140.96.117 (talk)
• 90.131.44.191 (talk)
• Dolina Jadwigi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Frank Mortenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Birdsflyinghigh123 and their IP addresses have done very little for the past weeks apart from adding their friends to various Notable People and Notable Recordings sections.

Not only are they adding these non-notable people to articles, they're also adding blatant hoaxes that one of them served as the head of a Scottish school.

The people in question are Edwin Symonowicz and Frank Mortenson, two Polish/Lithuanian singers that have not been mentioned in any reliable independent sources apart from a school newsletter. The two appear to have some relation, as the only coverage that can be found about them are hoax sites such as this hoax news report about them, and this hoax Everipedia article about a movement that supposedly views Symonowicz as a God and whose purpose is to fight the cultural influence of Mortenson.

So, this user is determined to add these two people to articles and says that he won't stop adding them [388], as Symonowicz is surely no less notable than Donald Trump.

The user created an article on Frank Mortenson and has spent the last few weeks trying to get Mortenson into the articles Strangers in the Night and Quiéreme Mucho and Symonowicz into the article Dolina Jadwigi (anybody know how to revert OpenStreetMap vandalism? [389]) and adding a hoax that Symonowicz ran a school [390]. See also User talk:84.55.19.40 and User talk:Birdsflyinghigh123.

I feel this is verging on

WP:NOTHERE

.

– Thjarkur (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Even if the IPs are sockpuppeting, you still need to notify them on their talk page. Create their talk page, and then put an ANI notice on the talk page for the two 90.xxx.xx.xxx IPs, unless those are some of the friends. 4D4850 (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Only one of all IPs mentioned above belongs to me - this one I write from at this moment. And, as I repeated for several times, I put to Wikipedia only reliable statements about Symonowicz. It's not even statements, it's one sentence about him to his hometown page referencing to notable, reliable work of widely recognized Polish geographers where you can find this fact (WP:GNG: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.") --84.55.19.40 (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, their contributions are quite similar to 84.55.19.40. I'm thinking possibly either A: a sock puppet, B: shared account and meat puppets, or C: one person who edits from multiple areas, thus editing from several IPs (basically accidentally sockpuppeting). 4D4850 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: I'm in conversation separately with Birdsflyinghigh123 and discussing notability, article creation etc. I don't think there's anything to be done with that account, they're communicating and learning and I'm happy to help them along. Canterbury Tail talk 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violation and off-wiki canvassing by User:ScrupulousScribe

Blocked – for a period of 2 months, with email access disabled. Note that the above ping did not work, I just happened to have noticed this report in passing. El_C 17:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Per this:

Quote 1
I haven't been in this topic for a while (somebody emailed me about this due to my discussion contributions months and months ago)

and this

Quote 2
Who emailed you, Magic9mushroom? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC) It was ScrupulousScribe. I've had no prior contact with that user. SS also sent me a list of sources, which I haven't read. (I'd ordinarily be less free about handing out this sort of thing, but the circumstances here are not ordinary.) Magic9mushroom (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that

WP:CANVASS... @El C: Since you were the one that imposed the latest (just expired) block. Cheers RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 14:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Edit warring at Elon Musk

Blocked

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

---

• Flyedit32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Flyedit32 has been edit warring at Elon Musk over several trivial little things. They have already been warned about edit warring multiple times on their talk page. I posted a warning there and asked them to undo the edits, but they have ignored me. Here are some of the specific instances:

Inclusion of wealth ranking

• A user and I discussed an issue in the lede and changed it.
• I even went back and added a notice encouraging them to not revert it and instead discuss it on the talk page
• They do not dicuss it but just revert it

Biography used throughout as source in "See also"

• They add a source to See also
• I remove it
• They revert me

A specific image of his partner had been the status quo for a while

• They replace the image
• I revert it and encourage them to discuss it
• They replace the image with yet another
• A different user takes issue with the image and removes it
• I add back the original
• Then they added the other image back

This kind of thing has been going on for a while (I don't have the time or energy to get any more diffs). They were warned about edit warring on this same page last spring. I have let a lot slide, but it's getting really tiresome. They have yet to participate in a single discussion on the talk page regarding the reverts. It's especially annoying as I have nominated it for GA (I have written about 50% of the article) and worry that this may screw up the nomination. Can you just tell them to closely follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Thanks! ~ HAL333 15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for

edit warring. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

01:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Rflhtz

User has been blocked, and article has been protected. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

User:Rflhtz (a new editor) keeps restoring material to Eastern Orthodoxy by country that I had previously removed because that material cited unreliable self-published sources (namely blog posts) that did not even back up the relevant claims. Their account seems to be a single-purpose account and their editing consists in edit-warring. They also seem to engage in sockpuppetry by using multiple IP accounts. On two occasions they attacked me in their edit summaries. First they wrote "drop it, dude" in Greek and then they wrote "f*** your Christ, you idiot, you've busted my b****" in Greek. I would like to request page protection. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm for a block of Rflhtz for personal attacks. I know how I personally would respond to the personal attack in Greek. 4D4850 (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Also remember to notify all parties to the dispute with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for personal attacks of an especially abhorent nature. Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A couple of offensive revisions were also deleted, as well. Omnipaedista did notify Rflhtz of this complaint, but placed the notice on their user page by accident, which I have since fixed. El_C 16:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User refusing to talk or collaborate

Reported user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Stephen C Taylor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Checking the user's talkpage, this user has multiple warnings for adding unsourced content, adding speculation, edit warring, and repeatedly marking non-minor edits as minor. There are many more examples on Formula One pages where warnings weren't given as well. This user makes absolutely no attempt to engage with other users, and these behaviours have been going on for months, showing a clear

WP:NOTLISTENING. Joseph2302 (talk)

16:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I will second

WP:OR information to many articles without any explanation whatsoever. He also marks a large percentage of his edits "minor" when they are demonstrably not. <sigh> Any help will be appreciated. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^( T @ C

 ) 16:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Remember to put an ANI-notice to notify all parties to the dispute. 4D4850 (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I did, it's just that warnings have been given since then. And I put it in the section with the warnings, not at the bottom of the page, as it's the most relevant place. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

And he's still at it, making a trio of unexplained edits to Rogue One that broke the infobox (see [391]). I reverted them and warned him (again). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is classic
  talk
  ) 19:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Bad-faith political edits by IP

IP address has been blocked for two weeks and the articles have been semi-protected. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

IP

WP:RSP red source with negative content about a BLP), with no sign of stopping. — Bilorv (talk

) 16:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I'm for a block of 86.139.255.58 for personal attacks, or at least a level 3, 4, or 4im warning. 4D4850 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

harassment. Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Both articles. El_C

16:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Silesian Wars

Appears to be resolved. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Silesian Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please semi-protect this article, because there is increase activity of editing after it was posted as

TFA, which majority of these are vandalism and reverts, even ClueBot NG also involved to reverting vandalism on TFA. 36.76.235.92 (talk

) 21:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 3 hours. The TFA is going to change in a few hours anyways, so a longer protection isn't necessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:OUTING

of user at the RSN

Matter has been handled. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Someone with a very similar username to the globally banned Icewhiz is attempting to out Volunteer Marek at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Can this immediately be oversighted? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia - No problem. Next time, you'll want to contact the oversight team privately to report such things - we don't want to report oversightable material publicly. You can do it by following the directions on the top of this page or this page. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I have redacted the last edit summary from Hemiauchenia. As you complained about another editor telling you to fuck off in an edit summary, it's only fair to expect the same if you do it to a different editor, regardless of standing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Fine, I was fairly flustered as I simply wanted the doxx gone as quickly as possible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Another new account has repeated the doxx, which I have sent to oversight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:DENY. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

23:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, In the future I will report to oversight directly and not involve ANI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Harassment of a new editor

OP is blocked as a webhost. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

I want to report that a couple of established editors, DVdm and SpacetimeIsCool are harassing IP editor 99.239.158.18 through spamming passive-aggressive warning messages on the IP user's talk page and falsely accusing the IP of edit-warring for his or her good-faith edits on Minkowski space. They also used a tag-team strategy to violate the 3RR rule in reverting the user's constructive edits (see the page history). It appears these editors are maliciously attempting to provoke the IP editor into misbehavior in order to get him or her banned.

IP user is clearly a new contributor whom we should be welcoming to the project, not driving away with hostility and trolling.

Admins, please intervene to defuse the situation and sanction the two named users to discourage further toxic behavior of this nature. Thanks, 103.150.187.3 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The IP was edit warring and using obscene and abusive edit summaries. They were correctly blocked. This does not require anyone's immediate attention. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.150.187.3 (talk)

IP may have been provoked to the point of incivility but the initial harassment was entirely unjustified. It seems like these two editors (or maybe one user and a sockpuppet) just arbitrarily decided to troll a new user, and they succeeded. This kind of toxic behavior is killing Wikipedia and admins need to intervene. 103.150.187.3 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

If you keep casting aspersions like that you will face sanctions. The IP was edit-warring and abusive in the face of normal warnings for removal of sourced material and replacement with unsourced content. The editors are not sockpuppets. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

OP blocked by NRP. It's pretty clear that the complainant is the same as the aggrieved party. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Harassment? I think not. The IP editor's first ever edit was bold and was reverted. Their second edit included a condescending edit summary that ended with "Educate yourself and stop faking and presenting this as a religious dogma!" Their third edit had an edit summary that consisted of ALL CAPS ranting and screaming decorated with triple exclamation marks. Their fourth edit had a belligerent edit summary that included an ALL CAPS F-bomb, with their now familiar triple exclamation marks. In other words, the IP editor rapidly blew their stack. The two named editors were consistently polite, and recommended talk page discussion. The OP's complaint seems to lack merit, although I express no opinion on the underlying content dispute, lacking knowledge of the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Help with an IP

Appears to be resolved. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

I have been dealing with an IP address in regards to an issue at Britt Reid (American football). I have advised this user multiple times to leave the page alone until the Chiefs announce he has left the team, per NFL Project policy. The user continues to change article based on anonymous sources from NFL insiders. I have provided the policies to the user and as well. This user has continually ignored this, advised of intent to be willing to edit war, and most recently, appears to have made a legal threat on my talk page. I will stop communicating with this IP, outside of advising of this ANI post regarding them, until this gets resolved. Thank you.--Rockchalk717 14:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Copied from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, where it would have languished; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 16:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"My client will pursue legal action." Sounds like a legal threat to me. IP blocked for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this IP static? Or a public place? Reviewing the contributions over the long term and seems only a handful of edits were useful with the rest being nuisance or editoralizing. Anyway, just wonder if the block should be longer or if some way to monitor the IP long term (besides following their talk page and checking on them every so often) Slywriter (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Political rants, and personal attacks

2 editors blocked, one as a sock. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

A new pro-Turkish user has appeared and has decided to make personal attacks, make partisan edits, and go on unrelated rants. I have tried to be as welcoming as I can, giving them friendly advice on their talk page, as well as responding to them as best I can, despite this they have not changed.

They seem to an inexperienced Turkish user, who is use to the partisan environment of places like Twitter or YouTube where constructive debate is futile and meaningful debate is a time sink. This user can't operate in the collaborative environment required of Wikipedia. They are unwillingly to learn, collaborate, listen or even be slightly civil. I have tried to get him to be more civil but it seems a waste of time.

Warned over 9 times on their talk page by four separate editors, and told to cool off. Despite this, he is not desisting from making disruptive edits.

Some kind words he has stated at Talk:Operation Claw-Eagle 2:

A list of charming repartee

"Des Vallee is a PKK troll don't listen to him" "Des Vallee is a troll" "Please exclude him from the article" "That guy Des Vallee is imo definetly a pkk troll" "Des Vallee is a troll, undo every vandalism he is doing here!" "That guy is a joke." "You said Turkey was defeated, when Turkey is so powerful and strong. Ha, PKK troll, Turkey bombs everything!" "Shadow4dark and Des Vallee are pkk trolls." (He has now expanded the PKK Trolls to me, ShadowDark and Jim Micheal) "They deliberately push pkk agenda by refering to pkk-media!" "These guys can't even differ between an opinion and news" "How often do I have to say it? He is a pkk member trying to push an agenda." I visted Turkey once I don't know any Turkish or Kurdish, and I live in the US, so sure. "The hypocrisy of Des Vallee!" "Say one time again that multiple sources claim turkey to be responsible although none of the sources you provide are reliable, you will see what happens." "Please look how hypocrite he is" "Vandalism of Des Vallee" "He's extremely POV pushing!" "If Wikipedia has a single credibility left, they may ban this pkk member." "Des Vallee is a pkk-troll, be careful"

Partisan edits here and here, more unrelated ranting here. This user clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Des Vallee (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. I am pretty sure this is a sock anyway, but the edit-warring, personal attacks and threats have saved an SPI. Black Kite (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Duck is quacking here [[392]] and [[393]] similair rage [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Claw-Eagle_2#Des_Valle_using_this_source_for_drone_killing]] [User:Shadow4dark|Shadow4dark]] (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shadow4dark: See also the discussion at User_talk:Drmies#Turkish_long-term_abuse - apparently they're unrelated, despite the quacking. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Addition of unsourced content by Galatic1

Indef blocked. Large overlap in edited articles, same pattern of unsourced content, created Richmondjosephlegisma was blocked. Fences&Windows 13:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Galatic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In

AIV. 36.65.38.154 (talk

) 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

IP 50.203.100.36

Appears to be resolved. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

The IP user 50.203.100.36 is currently engaged in disruptive editing with a slow edit war on the article Not evaluated, where their edits have been reverted by several other editors. Although recently warned once, their behaviour is identical to previous IP editors to this page, including 50.203.99.102 who received multiple warnings culminating in a one year block in November 2019. Loopy30 (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I've put a partial block on that article for the extremely tiny range 50.203.100.32/29, which is where all their edits in the last year have come from. They're free to edit the talk page if they want to have a discussion about this, but I agree that this is an unhelpful slow edit war. ~ mazca ^talk 13:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You need to notify all parties with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Stephenfryfan making personal insults after being warned not to.

Blocked indefinitely.

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

---

There's been a bit of hot-editing over at both Death of Harry Dunn and Talk:Death of Harry Dunn by a number of editors - myself included. Common themes are insertion of detail by Stephenfryfan, and removal of it by other editors, and discussion regarding it on the talk page.

Stephenfryfan has taken a dislike to both DeFacto and Martinevans123, resulting in him leaving this message on Martin's talk page, and calling DeFacto "defecate". He was warned here for the attack on Martin, and Level 4 here for the "defecate" comment. After I warned him, he made this comment, again referring to DeFacto as "defacate" - his typo, not mine.

Editors informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional, I also requested at an informal level that StephenFryFan remove his insults here, but no change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• What a charming person. I think there's a 95% likelihood that talk page access will be removed with their very first post-block edit. Earlier in their career here, they were adding gems like "Arabs are infidels and illiterate" at least 3 months ago. Let's give people like this a much shorter rope. Or better yet, no rope at all. Someone who types that as an edit summary is never going to end up a productive editor. RBI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• I was previously unaware of this editor, who has been here only since 26 September 2020 and hasn't made that many edits. I must admit that, after reading their first addition to my Talk page, I assumed they had recently consumed some kind of illegal substance(s). But the second post was almost helpful and I had hoped they were beginning to moderate their somewhat outlandish style. Having now seen Floquenbeam's post above, however, it seems the correct action has been taken. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC) p.s. I feel sorry for Mr Fry.

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

OWNBEHAVIOR

, warring & MOS misuse after warnings

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log
  )
• Jamie Raskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

OWNBEHAVIOR at Jamie Raskin

.

• It started with this sourced edit. Which
  User:wallyfromdilbert reverted here.

• Then continued here. Which was changed here.

• Then here.

• Then here.

• Then here.

• Then I tried to politely advise
  User:wallyfromdilbert that we were in 3RR territory with: "Hello Wallyfromdilbert, Do I really need to issue you a formal warning about warring on Jamie Raskin?"

• User:wallyfromdilbert's response was: "considering you are brand new to the article, it would be nice if you could contribute to the article's talk page before putting in additional section headers contrary to the guideline at WP:OVERSECTION."

• This was when I finally realized what was going on. The user's objections of my minor edits had nothing to do with me, but everything to do with OWN. So I said as much: ""Brand new to the article" is about as relevant as last week's lunch. It reeks of OWN. Especially coming from a user who's been here all of a couple years. See article talk."

• Back to the article I again asked the user to not 3RR. The response was to just revert again.

• At this point, it was clearly
  OWNBEHAVIOR
  disguised as a content dispute.

• Then the user creates a new talk page section called "WP:OVERSECTION".

• My response was to try to lower the temperature. I noted" "I don't think it's a good idea to be warring.' I tried to tell you that, yet you persisted. Also, you need to understand that you are misusing OVERSECTIION. It is an MOS, not a policy. Meaning it's just a guideline, not a policy. It's never a good idea to treat guidelines as policy." Then I discussed the sections in question.

• In response, despite what I said, the user was only fixated on the MOS.

• Then I gave a very long explanation about why the guideline was being misapplied and gave literally a couple dozens examples in BLPs that showed the heading was perfectly fine, in fact common. I even offered the user an opportunity to come up with an acceptable alternative.

• Instead, the user wasn't interested in offering anything. The user just wanted to leave their preferred edit up.

• So I just returned to the article - in another entirely different section.But even THAT was instantly reverted, using an inapplicable MOS! And yes, I said so.

• So finally, I'd had enough and gave fair warning on the article's talk page. "As I've amply demonstrated, your MOS vigilance is misinformed. You still don't seem to understand the difference between a guideline and a policy. I invite you to prove me wrong. Also, your latest BIB complaint has nothing to do with my edit. I've really tried to AGF and work collaboratively, but the fastest way to find yourself at ANI is to continue reverting my edits for OWN disguised as flimsy MOS excuses."

• Then finally, since we had discussed the minor heading issue and there was no reason for there to be any problem with restoring my edit, I put it back here.

• So the user reverted it, claiming we were still talking - when we were not.

• Then the user posted this at talk: "Please stop reverting the page to suit your preference contrary to MOS guidelines..."

Whew! So I've seen my share of MOS fanatics, but none who are so stubbornly and blindly determined to ignore the difference between guidelines and policies - nor one who so consistently misapplies those same guidelines - nor one who exhibits the persistent, textbook OWNBEHAVIOR of this one. The user also refuses real collaboration, compromise or AGF, and thinks nothing of repeated 3RR vios. This is beyond ridiculous. And

OWNBEHAVIOR

Actions and half the OWNBEHAVIOR Statements. And again, that's without all the rest. So make no mistake, this is not merely a content dispute. This is a user in need of serious WP policy education, behavior modification and sufficient discipline to make the points stick.

In the past few months wallyfromdilbert has already been blocked 72 hours for warring. Obviously that instruction didn't stick. Because the behavior has gotten worse. So any new response should reflect that. X4n6 (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see WP:OWN here. It looks like you made changes and wally disagreed with those changes. At that point, the burden is on you to find consensus on the talk page. Edit warring to restore your changes, then telling the other person not to edit war before even going to the talk page, isn't typically persuasive. If you think wally is wrong or disagree on interpretations of MOS, it's probably a good idea to solicit a third opinion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I was never aware the style guidelines at

talk

) 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I know I included lots of links here, and it's a lot of reading that likely invites skimming. But if you go through it, chronologically, the OWN becomes pretty blatant. But the bulletpoints are: I explained my edit to the user[394]; invited the user to discuss rather than revert[395]; went to the user's talk page to repeat that request[396]; never issued a former 3RR warning; invited the user to offer their own compromises[397] - they declined[398]; warned the user about OWN[399]; so I invited the user to RfC rather than edit war.[400] Instead, the user edit warred.[401]. X4n6 (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

this seems like a good example. If I understand correctly, you're reinstating your preferred version that wally disagreed with (and which differs from the long-standing section heading). But you're operating under the assumption that your version is the default, and that the burden is on wally to convince you or run an RfC rather than the other way around.

WP:BRD. I'm not saying it's not a totally frustrating position to be with, dealing with people with strong opinions about MOS, but BRD still applies here. It's on you to find consensus for the change (whether through normal discussion, soliciting a 3O, RfC, or whatever). — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 22:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's start here, since this was the original edit that started it all. There's nothing controversial about it. Certainly nothing that should have required prior discussion or consensus. Actually, if you read the paragraph, which was mainly about the subject's education, including education in the heading was common sense. So the question becomes, was there a problem with the edit? The user changed it with this. New info and new heading. Perfectly fine so far. But now the heading did not include all the information in the section. So I did this. Then I realized there was enough content for two sections, so I split them and did this. Well that was apparently a bridge too far and the user reverted to the original heading despite all the new information and said this. That put us right back to the original heading, which, now with the new info, was even more inadequate. So I did this. From there I was reverted, tossed a misinterp of MOS and told I needed to talk to discuss this obvious - and obviously minor edit. Seriously? Sorry, by that point that's not RfC. That's OWN. But don't take my word. Read the first line under Actions. And if there's still doubt, this comment is an almost perfect mashup of lines 3, 4 and 8 as described in Statements. X4n6 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You are definitely correct that you did not need "prior discussion or consensus" to make the change.

WP:OWN is a very hard case to make here concerning active contributors, for better or worse. My take is that this is premature -- there are dispute resolution tools that haven't been used yet such that, absent a pattern across multiple articles and over time, I don't think you'll have much luck with WP:OWN claims. That said, I'll shut up and let other people voice opinions at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 23:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Having just become

WP:OVERSECTION - even when I quote the language of that guideline to him. With that said, I agree with Rhododendtrites that this issue should be worked out at the talk page. More people might be inclined to join the discussion if they aren't put off by each comment becoming an endless, repetitive argument - approaching bludgeoning. -- MelanieN (talk

) 00:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Listen, in one sense, I've actually already achieved two of my three objectives here. One was to simply point out to folks - and to this user - that they were being... what I'll charitably call problematic. And to say that certain behavior will land you here. Which is never any fun for anyone. But when it becomes clear that the other user isn't really warring with you - so much as they're acting as the "guardian" of their views about an article - or a rule or guideline - that needs to be addressed or "enforced," then you've got a real problem. So, many thanks to Rhododendrites and MelanieN for your input. Especially to MelanieN, because you actually dipped your toe in the water and saw firsthand what I was dealing with. But the third part of what I wanted still hasn't happened? What happens next with this user? If all that happens is we all agreed with nary a word or action re: this user, then what was the point? And what exactly does he learn going forward? And what incentive or deterrent is there moving forward? As I said early, I noticed this user got a 72hr block for warring just a few months ago. But that obviously didn't alter behavior. I haven't done a dive into his edit log, but everything tells me this wasn't some isolated recurrence with just me. I'm guessing there are lots more alleged WP/MOS grievances, and unreported warring. And if nothing happens now, there'll certainly be more. And this kind of stuff is a prime reason why folks get chased off the project. When their joy in editing gets unreasonably disrupted. X4n6 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)