Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1098

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

As outlined in the rollback usage policy,

• [3] Fixing a red link to point at an article the editor just wrote is a productive edit, this should not have been reverted at all, use of rollback was inappropriate.
• [4] [5] Adding links to a potentially notable TV shows is a useful edit, these should not have been reverted at all.
• [6] This was a good faith attempt to expand the article, use of rollback was inappropriate.
• [7] Changing "Newscast" to "News broadcasting" in the infobox is not vandalism or an edit where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear, use of rollback here was inappropriate.
• [8] Adding a list of "Fill-In Anchors" is not vandalism or an edit where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear, use of rollback here was inappropriate.
• [9] Piping a link so it matches the name of the TV station is not vandalism, use of rollback was inappropriate.
• [10] Adding a wikilink to an article is not vandalism, rollback was inappropriate.
• [11] Moving Armenia and Azerbaijan from "Asia" to "Europe" is not an edit where reverting with default rollback would be appropriate.
• [12] This edit by an IP was a good faith, though unsourced, attempt to update an article. Use of default rollback for reversion was innappropriate.
• [13] Splitting a paragraph to form a standalone section is not an edit where reversion by default rollback would be appropriate.
• [14] Adding genres to an infobox is not vandalism, use of rollback was innapropriate.

The diffs above only go back to the 27th April (i.e. the last 3 days) but show the problem. This kind of misuse of rollback appears to have been going on for years. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you mind checking the edit history of those editors I rolledback? Most of the given examples here are added by either longterm vandals or their socks. Also, most of them are IPs that are doing these edits are not reading the warnings I post in their talk pages and they pop out the next day using a different IP. -WayKurat (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

First, to follow on to WayKurat, in which case, per

WP:ROLLBACK

.)

Second, mistakes happen. People aren't actually perfect. If a rollbacker makes a mistake, the expectation is that they fix it (unless it has already been fixed), acknowledge the error and so long as they do that, no issue.

Third, this seems the wrong venue for this,

WP:AARV is probably more appropriate. Mako001 (C)  (T) 

🇺🇦 13:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

WayKurat is a very experienced editor, but they are not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks, I was aware of that, however, isn't AARV also for review of actions using administrative tools, such as rollback? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right - I never paid much attention to AARV as I thought it was a joke from the get-go. The IP is right. It's dead.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't do anything these days, it's been completely dead for over a month. There was an push to turn

WP:AARV into a place which would review usage of any advanced rights (including rollback) not just administrative actions, despite the massive number of RFC's held about it I don't think anyone managed to agree whether it was in scope or not before the place died. 192.76.8.70 (talk

) 13:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of

WP:SPI

, why was it appropriate to use rollback on their link additions?

Mistakes do happen, but the shear number of problematic reverts here is enormous.

WP:AARV is both completely dead and a complete waste of time so going there is pointless. 192.76.8.70 (talk

) 13:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO, unless WayKurat comes up with a way better explanation of their apparent rollback abuse they probably should lose it. Given the number and length of time they've been misusing it, combined with their initial response, I'm not convinced this is a situation where we should give them another chance even if they demonstrate a clear understanding that they've been wrong and need to change what they're doing. IMO might be better to remove the permission and let them convince an admin they will do better sometime in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the rollback rights was given to me by an admin after seeing me reverting a lot of vandal edits done by User:Bertrand101 since this vandal is an IP hopper. The rollback rights have been a helpful tool in restoring pages vandalized by these kind of users. Examples are Bertrand101, User:Joshua Saldaña, User:Philippinesfan, User:Shame on PJ Santos, all of them have a history of creating new accounts when blocked or using different IP addresses when editing. Right after 192.76.8.70 posted this ANI, a vandal by the name of User:Joshua Saldaña started an editing spree and restored every single edit he made while using a previous IP address. The old IP 180.194.49.27 was blocked for three months, while the new one 49.146.27.228 is currently blocked for 48 hours. If my rollback rights will be removed, chances are if the same list of vandals will go on an editing spree once again, it will be difficult to restore the pre-vandalized versions. -WayKurat (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• My 2 Eurocent: WayKurat is sysop on the Tagalog WP and knows more about cross-Wiki (Tagalog WP -> English WP) vandals from the Phillippines than any sysop on en-WP, and has been regularly removing such vandalism here for several years now, so he should definitely not have his rollback rights removed. And based on my multi-year experience of WayKurat and Phillippine vandals I'd say there's a 99.999% probability that the OP is one of the vandals/sockmasters that WayKurat has been regularly cleaning up after here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  @

  aspersions

  ?

  Use of rollback for reverting vandalism and LTA's is fine, that is what rollback is for as laid out in policy. What is not OK is WayKurat's misuse of the tool to also revert edits by IP's and newbies that are not vandalism and are often correct and constructive. I Provided plenty of examples of this in the OP, but if you want more here you go.

  • SuperZ003 is not blocked, has not been vandalising and does not appear to be a sock puppet. They made some typical newbie edits adding unsourced information to articles. What is the justification, then, for WayKurat to mass revert all their edits using rollback? [15]
  • Ryle Eddily Tugade is another typical newbie making changes to articles that occasionally break things. They do not appear to have been vandalising and do not appear to be a sock. what justification is there for doing a mass rollback of all their edits? [16]
  • Moving a news special from a section called "specials" to a subsection of "news" is not vandalism - this should not have been rolled-back [17]

  etc. etc. etc. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  • The edits of both SuperZ003 and Ryle Eddily Tugade are typical for the type of cross-Wiki vandals WayKurat regularly reverts: making totally unsourced edits to articles about actors, TV-series etc from the Phillippines, changing "antagonist" to "protagonist", changing years, replacing the name of a TV-channel with the name of another channel, etc etc. Doing such edits once or twice could be honest mistakes, making lots and lots of such edits is not good faith editing. So stay away from areas you obviously know nothing about, such as vandalism. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 06:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Thomas.W: IP192 (whom I think of as "the Oxford IP", as their IP is assigned to the University of Oxford) is a quite experienced editor and has been active in projectspace things for years. They've started a number of very helpful threads on this board in the past. If you don't have evidence for your claim that they are a sockpuppet, please retract it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    why these long term IP editors don't create accounts is entirely beyond me

    casualdejekyll

    19:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Thomas.W Are you going to provide any evidence for your aspersion that I am a sockpuppet? This is the second comment you've left here full of Ad hominem attacks, first I was a sock, now I know nothing about vandalism?

    Did you actually look at the history of what had happened with those two editors? SuperZ003 added a statement to Magandang Gabi... Bayan that the tv show would be returning on various channels in 2022 [18]. Something that can be verified as mostly correct per reliable sources (the host has started a new show with a similar format on the TV channels listed in the edit, though with a different name) [19]. WayKurat decided that this was a blatant hoax [20] then proceeded to do a mass rollback of all their edits. This edit is not "changing" years" but adding an end date to the airing dates [21]. This edit was adding the second half of a name to a TV show [22]; a look at the official Twitter account of the show [23] shows that yes, they do use a second clause and that the full name of the show is "The Healing Eucharist TV Mass". This edit adding an international broadcast section [24] is correct and the dates can be verified in a variety of sources, e.g. the network's own website [25]. This edit is just copying information that is already in the infobox into the article text [26]. etc. etc. etc. None of these edits were vandalism. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/87.196.72.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Portugal persistently makes up their own criteria for race percentages in populations. Using the IP range Special:Contributions/87.196.72.0/23, they change numbers without references, or they change the way mixed races are counted. Despite many warnings, this person has never communicated by talk page or even edit summary. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I saw someone (and I think they were using an IP address in Portugal, fwiw) reported here a few months ago for doing the same. Could this be the same editor? Maybe someone with a better memory can tell me what I'm talking about.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days, but I wonder if the communication issues are partly

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Galobtter (pingó mió

) 06:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

When the official statistics are published by ine.pt... [insert joke here]. Cabayi (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Amigao has been warned and blocked before for problematic mass edits without consensus, and a similar problem is happening again. The user is mass-changing "Communist Party of China" to "Chinese Communist Party", even though both forms of the name are common in reliable sources and it is perfectly fine for different forms to be used in different Wikipedia articles.

I've asked Amigao to get consensus before continuing the mass edits[47][48], but to no avail; they have stopped responding on their user talk page but are still[49][50] making the edits. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@

talk

) 11:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources, in which both forms of the name are commonly used. If you or Amigao disagree and think all Wikipedia articles should use the same form of the name, we can discuss that content issue (maybe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China?). I brought this to ANI because of the behavioral issue: Amigao is persisting with the mass edits without getting consensus. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think I have said that all Wikipedia articles should use the same form of the name. If there is a particular topic area where the official name dominates over the common name, I would say that this would not be the case. What I am asking is whether or not such a topic area exists. —

talk

) 11:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, the proper venue for naming convention on China-related stuff is probably the talk page of

talk

) 11:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point – I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles to address the content issue. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Amigao hasn't joined the discussion, but it looks like they've stopped the mass edits. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Reem898 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rabia Balkhi - Changed 'Persian' to 'Arab', no edit summary nor added source [51] [52] - Removed sourced 'Persian' [53]

Vaballathus - Added 'Arab', no edit summary nor added source [54]

Ibn Duraid - Added 'Arab', no edit summary nor added source [55]

Abdelaziz al-Malzuzi - Added 'Arab', no edit summary nor added source [56]

Refuses to engage in the talk page [57]. This seems like

• Comment Another example. Here[58] user:Reem898 added "Arab" to the lede of the
  WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia.- LouisAragon (talk
  ) 14:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• I agree these edits are problematic, but have we tried less strident methods of dealing with the situation than indeffing the user? At this point, no one has actually explained what is wrong, and no one has tried to discuss the matter with them. This looks like terribly misguided, but still good faith editing, and I'd like to at least try having a civil discussion with them before reaching for the banhammer. --Jayron32 15:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should indeff him either, but he keeps doing the same type of edits and is still not using the talk page. I have already told him what is wrong several times, and also asked him to use the talk page. The only time he has ever posted in a talk page was a

WP:OR reply in Arabic to a well written comment supported by sources [59]. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 16:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I can’t find where you reached out or communicated directly to them, and if you haven’t, that’s the next move. If you have, please provide the diffs so we can not waste any more time and block them indefinitely. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I have asked him to use the talk page thrice [60] [61] [62] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, "Reem" is a feminine Arabic name, so chances are this user is not male. Better to use non-gendered pronouns unless you know, for sure, in the future. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe any blocks or sanctions are appropriate at this time. I think these edits are in good faith, and just a bit misguided. Not on the level of vandalism for sure. I say and admin should give them a firm warning and some direction. If they refuse to cooperate and the behavior continues maybe a topic ban could be a good idea. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I think a better solution is to impose an extremely narrow restriction on making this very particular kind of edit in the future (ascribing ethnicity to historical personages), rather than a slap on the wrist that most are unlikely to even remember. It isn't overly restrictive, and would allow them to expand their editing repertoire without it being focused on this likely good-faith POV-push. This isn't a topic ban (it's essentially a warning), and it's not punitive, but preventative. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

After finally sitting down and discussing with this user, I can confidently say that it's pointless [63]. They seem to have

• Yes, the very title of the talk thread Reem898 opened (Talk:Rabia Balkhi#Rabia is an Arab) points to a tendentious attitude. However, part of the concerns they raise over the article seem valid: Rābiʿa bint Kaʿb al-Quzdārī is an Arabic name, yet it says Persian: رابعه بنت کعب; her epithet Zayn al-ʿArab means "Ornament of the Arabs", but for some reason this is not explained in the article; the source quoted at the talk highlights that she is reported to have descended from an Arab family, yet the lead only says that it is reported that she was a native of Balkh in Khorāsān (present-day Afghanistan).

In fact, Rabi'a's epithet Zayn al-ʿArab seems to indicate that already in her own time her Arab ancestry was somehow considered important (perhaps not wholly unlike some

MOS:ETHNICITY

).

In view of all that, HistoryofIran's confirmation The source calls her Persian, thus that is the correct information, and thus that is what write. You not liking it (

WP:JDLI) is not gonna change that. [64] seems somewhat lopsided. Surely we're not going to simply replace the word "Persian" with "Arab" (as it may be important to note Reem898 in fact repeatedly tried to do [65] [66] [67] [68]

), but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a more subtle imbalance in the article which needs to be addressed. Perhaps working with that in the talk thread would have alleviated some concern on Reem898's part.

That said, it's clear that Reem898 has engaged in tendentious

block. Please focus on something else. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉

) 12:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure there is more that needs to be adressed in the article, it's a mess. But that was not what the subject of the discussion was about. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Good evening.

I'm here to report an article disruption issue. I'll be brief since the details have already been laid out on the history page, and it's a straighforward situation that administrators will have seen a zillion times already: A) An article about a battle B) A user very obviously deletes or adds information that helps him portray his side in the best possible light and the other side in the worst possible light; C) Arbitrarily claims that all sources and authors that dispute him are invalid D) Avoids addressing criticism; E) Insists that other users validate his edits made in poor-faith through discussion.

I'm hopeful to see a speedy resolution to this problem. Wareno (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There is only one source in question that was deleted and it was tagged for months requiring a better source as support. It is a Portuguese text published by the Academia de Marinha, the cultural agency of the Portuguese navy. The article is about a naval battle between a Portuguese and Chinese force. The partisanship issue should be obvious but I also could not find an English text that verified the claim of the cited material. My own additions were taken from sources already existing in the article with direct quotations that were deleted by Wareno with the reasoning that they were "Very pro-Chinese." Qiushufang (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

And I will point out that the author of the source, Prof. Vítor Gaspar Rodrigues is one of the most reputed researchers on the field of the Portuguese navy. A source being "tagget for months requiring a better source as support" and you not finding a text does not necessarily mean you should or can remove it. You say the Academia de Marinha, one of Portugals most esteemed institutions is "the cultural agency of the Portuguese Navy" and arbitrarily claim that it is biased, based on no arguments to be seen. All the edits of user:Qiushufang are very pro-Chinese partisan for the reasons already stated before, and all seem to ultimately contribute towards painting an unbalanced picture that heavily favours the Chinese side, which seems to suggest to me a case of

WP:NOTHERE, which is a bannable offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wareno (talk • contribs) in <diff:1086891593>

on 00:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the case below. You deleted mentions of kidnapping and only kept the part related to purchase of slaves in the first place : [72]. I added both views of kidnapping and purchase which have again, been reverted by you: [73], [74]. You reverted me with no explanation to begin with: [75], and refused to engage in the talk page created for further discussion: [76]. You violated the 3RR: [77] and then accused me of trying to get out of being reported by you when you refused to engage in talk discussion and proceeded to immediately report me. You accused me of falsely deleting content which I had not and in fact offered more balances views of from both Portuguese and Chinese sides. Qiushufang (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

To expand on the matter, the intentions of the user:Qiushufang became clear after his first set of edits to be reverted: He sought to remove references of the Chinese willingly selling their countrymen; he refers to the Portuguese as "pirates"; he removed references to the Portuguese offering terms via diplomacy; he removed sourced information that explained that the Portuguese were poorly armed and why. The edits of the user were very clearly made in bad faith, yet he now wants users to engage with him, and tries to get out of repercussions by whatever means of damage control possible. Wareno (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

In my "first set of edits" where apparently I "sought to remove references of the Chinese willingly selling their countrymen," I added that both kidnapping and purchase of slaves occurred [78], prior to your unexplained reversion right aftewards: [79]. "Pirates" was what they were called prior to your changes two years ago: [80], when you deleted any mention of the kidnapping made by the source. There were no changes to the sources either or an edit summary so I can only assume that either the sources were wrong or they were arbitrary. Clearly the source provided contained both mentions of kidnapping and purchase, which was why I added it in direct quotations: [81], which you reverted. What is your reason for that? Pro-China bias? There is no material in the article outside the lead about any pre-battle diplomacy by Mello, so why would it be in the lead? Qiushufang (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wareno's accusation of referring to the Portuguese as pirates also doesn't hold water given his extensive history and experience editing the article. Ex. both of the versions in which he made extensive changes to the article in 2016 [82], [83] already contained a citation to piratical activities practiced by the Portuguese expedition: [84]. The same source and note on piracy by Simao (the party in question) has existed since 2011 [85] and still exists in the current version [86], yet he takes issue with the usage of the term "pirates." His logic is that they should not be referred to as pirates. The article just says they practice piracy. The lead had said the Portuguese party in question were pirates, given that they practiced piracy, since at least July 2017 when Wareno edited the article [87]. And he was ok with this all the way until April 2020 when he suddenly changed the wording [88] with no additional sources to say otherwise or contradict the currently existing source or content, which explicitly states the Portuguese engaged in piracy. Doesn't this seem ridiculous? Qiushufang (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Relevant passage: They also ordered the mandarins in Canton to expel the Portuguese in Tunmen. The second reason is that the Portuguese piracy in the coastal areas greatly infuriated both the Ming Court and the common people, which largely explains the initial Portuguese failure to set foot in China.

Version history:

2011: [89] - source, [90] - another one mentioning piracy by the Portuguese

2017: [91] - Wareno edit by which time the Portuguese were described as pirates in the lead

2020: [92] - Wareno changes the lead omitting mention of pirates and kidnappings

2022: [93] - my reversion of that Qiushufang (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wareno accused me of "removing all references of Chinese selling other Chinese to the Portuguese" here: [94]. This is blatantly false since part of the deleted material outlined in red that he reverted blatantly states in the lead that "Portuguese pirates had been conducting slave raids on the Chinese coast, kidnapping and buying children to sell in Portuguese Malacca." You can even see it in the first link he showed. He was also the one who originally removed content saying the opposite in April 2020 with no additional change to sources: [95]. Qiushufang (talk)

I also later added from the source which Wareno took issue with that the Portuguese historian considered the slaves "purchased" while the Chinese considered it an act of seizing: [96]. Wareno has once again deleted this [97] with the same reasons despite being warned of the 3RR [98], making this his fourth revert. Qiushufang (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Karma1998 is a problematic user who has been banned several times and then permanently[99] in september 2021 on the Italian Wikipedia, which was caught to use 2 sockpuppets[100] (this is the English SPI[101]): user:Climacus2506 and user:Rampart5555. These are his last messages from him, while he was confronted with the Italian community that asked him for explanations of his behavior (I didn't participate once in these discussions, I didn't know him):[102] "I officially withdrew from the Italian Wikipedia. Do whatever you want with my profile, I don't care in the least. I wish you could become a decent encyclopedia someday, even if I doubt it! :-D Farewell! [...] I'm afraid you have not understood that I am indifferent to your decisions. Since I have already retired and have better things to do, I don't think I will even reply to your messages anymore. Do what you want, goodbye! :-D". (Italian: "mi sono ufficialmente ritirato dalla Wikipedia italiana. Fate pure quello che volete col mio profilo, non mi interessa minimamente. Vi auguro di riuscire a diventare un'enciclopedia decente, un giorno, anche se ne dubito! :-D Addio! [...] Temo che tu non abbia capito che sono indifferente alle vostre decisioni. Siccome mi sono già ritirato e ho di meglio da fare, credo che non risponderò nemmeno più ai vostri messaggi. Fate ciò che volete, addio! :-D")
Instead, these are the first comments I exchange with this user here on the English wikipedia:[103]: "wait a sec, I know you. You're that Russia-supporting guy on the Italian Wikipedia that was obsessed with changing the page about the Odessa Trade Unions House Fire. I see that now you're active here as well hahahah."
--Mhorg (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of personal attacks on enwiki. Keep in mind absolutely everything is a personal attack these days but on here we differentiate on things, even if other sites do not. Oz\^InterAct 09:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Inter: this is of one of the first comments a get from this user, ever.[104] If this is the beginning, I don't know what they will do in a few days. Mhorg (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how that is a personal attack. Anyhow, per their assurance below, would you say to give this a chance? Oz\^InterAct 09:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Inter: I don't find it welcoming to call a colleague just met as "Russia-supporting guy" "obsessed" with laughter around. I took a look on the Italian Wikipedia about his behavior, and it seemed right to report what I found here as well. Honestly, I would prefer to avoid collaborating with people who are on the encyclopedia with this behavior, I will try to keep contact to a minimum. Thank you for your answer. Mhorg (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg That is fine and completely up to you. @Karma1998 If you can live with this, we may not need to take any further action. Please let me know. Oz\^InterAct 10:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Good morning. I deny being a problematic user: in fact I have been working on Wikipedia for 5 years and I have been praised by several users for my cooperation in improving Wikipedia; I have received two barnstars for my efforts. My sockpuppetry problem was quickly resolved when, talking with the administrators, I told them the name of my other accounts. As for the Italian Wikipedia, I only wrote those words you mentioned after months of personal attacks by other users and even administrators of that wiki, who even went so far to attack me for my religion. Luckily, the English Wikipedia has proved to be much better. As for the comment to you, I probably went too far. Unfortunately, I have a friend in Ukraine under Russian bombs and I am very susceptible on the argument; I will control myself.-Karma1998 (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruption by user Musiclaborotry

BAGGED AND TAGGED

 Blocked and tagged by Ponyo via SPI. --Jayron32 13:01, 13 May 2022 (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.

---

Quite a new user Musiclaborotry, but already caused plenty of trouble. I first came across them when they had removed AfC templates from a pending draft (now deleted), and pretended to be an AfC reviewer (here and here). When queried, I received no explanation, other than requests to approve their drafts, cancel speedy requests, etc.

One of their articles has been moving between draft and main spaces several times, and has now been taken to AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Uncle Waffles). In the less than an hour since that opened, they've gone twice to blank the AfD discussion page, the second of which was after receiving final warning.

Would a short block be possible, or at least a ban from the AfD discussion, to stop further disruption?

Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I reported to AIV and SPI. They're a spam sock but they're also disruptive. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Are we allowed to block people just for having obvious and painful typos in their name? :) Canterbury Tail talk 17:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• CU results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevence SA.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:28, 12 May 2022 (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.

Sock rampage

Account blocked. Awaiting CU results at the SPI report to check for sleepers/underlying IP. Nothing further to do here. --Jayron32 13:07, 13 May 2022 (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 Fellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can we block him asap before he does more damage? It's clearly a sock of Əzərbəyəniləri

The Fellow [106] - Sock [107]

The Fellow [108] - Sock [109]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I've also filed a report at SPI ([110]). We may need to

WP:ECP all of the pages he keeps returning to vandalise. — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

16:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged, also request a checkuser look for sleepers or an underlying IP to block. I'm not sure ECP would work necessarily, the scope of articles this person is willing to war on seems vast, and ECPing any of his recent targets a) just drives him to new ones and b) removes a good honeypot for identifying them. I'm open to the idea if it really is just a small number of articles, but my impression is this is an ethnic warrior bent on writing his POV into a wide swath of Wikipedia. --Jayron32 16:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right; he vandalises one or two new articles with each new account, so we'd probably end up ECPing an entire topic area. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:53, 12 May 2022 (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 edit warring by blocked user and their IPs

There has been an ongoing edit war in

Greeks for the Fatherland [1] by the indefinitely blocked user Αθλητικά who has returned under multiple sockpuppets: Opinion Poll, Derzki, Παραγάδι to name a few. Furthermore, there are lots of IP addresses that appear to be linked to the blocked user (check the edit history for more) - same interests and editing patterns have been observed. Can someone please lock the article? It has been weeks since this edit war started. NikolaosFanaris (talk

) 18:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Page has been protected by Wugapodes yesterday. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Something strange happens on the Iasi Pogrom page

Multiple Accounts have been constantly changing it from a recent version. It might be a case of vandalism and stockpuppeting as some of the accounts are new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiGrande (talk • contribs) 16:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone should open a

casualdejekyll

18:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Fully Protected by Black Kite. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Repeated addition of misinformation at Uyghur Americans

There has been a persistent effort primarily by True story off, but also Police Patroul and a few IP addresses (all of which I suspect are the same editor) to replace very well cited population figures with ludicrously inaccurate numbers of their own with no source. They have reintroduced these changes at least 20 times in the past week. Both of the user accounts have received numerous warnings about sources and edit warring, and I've attempted to give them an opening on the article talk page, but nothing has gotten through. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, oops, looks like True story off was given a very short block yesterday, which further explains the IP edits today. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is the most recent edit connected to this sockpuppeteer. The edit includes shouting directed at Fyrael and misrepresentation of a source. They also changed a decade in the reference. In this edit they also attribute the figure to non-RS, including the Russian Wikipedia — there is no equivalent ruwiki article for Uyghur Americans, and the article ru:Уйгуры quotes a statistic of at least 1,800. Obvious serial hoaxster is obvious. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the sock accounts. Oz\^InterAct 09:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: it's possible they were referring to this article on the Azerbaijani wiki, which shows the same numbers (including that "1960s" bit they keep changing to), and was created right in the middle of when they were changing things here. Not sure what to do about that other article. Propose for deletion? I don't know if anyone feels brave enough to PROD an article in another language. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I've now attempted to let a couple editors there know it should be deleted, but for all I know I've pinged a couple of bots. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

188.164.221.8

188.164.221.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked twice before, in October and November 2021. They never stopped their disruptive editing since then. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Robby.is.on, When you start a discussion about someone you have to leave a talkpage notice so I've done that for you, in the future please try to comply with this requirement on your own, thanks. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This is not my first time, I just forgot. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

It happens, not a major issue, and easily remedied. Since 188 has not made a single edit outside of article space, attempts at communication may well be fruitless anyway. It's likely that they are either insufficiently conversant in English to engage, or some kind of THEYCANTHEARYOU applies. Still never hurts to try. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE

by Jeep singh16

Jeep singh16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Battle of Amritsar (1757), this new user has attempted to alter the result of the battle 4 times, even though it is sourced in the body of the article [111] [112] [113] [114]

He also attempted to do the same at Battle of Jamrud [115] [116] [117]

Clearly

WP:NOTHERE

.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @HistoryofIran: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Issue with editors on Suresh Joachim

There have been one editor Arulanantham and some IPs trying to add unsourced content to Suresh Joachim, all of it really promotional like this and this. You then have 45.72.129.73 try to put it back, 199.7.157.67 try to add it back and then 142.116.50.224 who is the original IP that appears to have added all the unsourced information. 142.116.50.224 ended up continuing to edit war with TheFeds before the page then got auto-confirmed protected. That is when I came across the article and had to keep reverting 142.116.50.224 and once 199.119.233.158 who popped up. I assume these are all the same person, linked to maybe Arulanantham and all either Suresh Joachim himself or someone close to him. I'm not sure what else I can do here, I asked for the page protection to be upgraded but I don't see them quitting as Arulanantham then went and just posted it all to the talk page here. So they don't seem to be learning at all, that the information doesn't have to be on the page as much as they want it and don't seem to be finding sources for it even if it was to be added, some advice or help please.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 06:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering if the users would engage on a talk page, add some sourcing (given ample warning and some time to think about it), or if they would persist in reverting without discussion. In the interim, other users (whom I thank for their assistance) also attempted to deal with the issue. I see

WP:SOCK

issues, among others.

Also, there are a couple more potentially involved users, all of whom behaviourally resemble each other: Arulanantham (talk · contribs), 45.72.129.73 (talk · contribs), 199.7.157.67 (talk · contribs), 142.116.50.224 (talk · contribs) & 199.119.233.158 (talk · contribs) mentioned above; but also 76.68.126.135 (talk · contribs), 67.71.39.89 (talk · contribs), 64.229.113.9 (talk · contribs), 64.231.41.78 (talk · contribs), Suresh Arulanantham (talk · contribs), 69.196.151.57 (talk · contribs), 167.88.23.9 (talk · contribs) and 199.7.157.79 (talk · contribs), each of whom I noted at the article talk page. I have procedurally notified all of them of this discussion on their talk pages. TheFeds 03:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Geeky1127

Hello,

User Geeky1127 (Geeky1127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been adding sections to various politicians and election pages in an attempt to denigrate candidates they do not support. The sections added are poorly written, poorly sourced, and not written from a neutral point of view.

Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4

Some of these edits have since been corrected by other users. I removed a section they posted to

Donald G. Davis

but the Geeky1127 has added it back. I do not want to engage in an edit war, but the posts by this user deteriorate the quality of the articles.

Attempted to fix issue by posting to article talk page (

Talk:Donald G. Davis

, user responded but added the section back.

Assistance would be appreciated. I do not have the knowledge or availability to correct every edit this user makes.

Thank you, Wiki9814 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked once before by

SPA. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!}

22:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to pull the trigger on a total block, but I threw in Donald G. Davis. User:Geeky1127, do you realize how close you are to an indefinite block? And will you show your dedication to the project by, for starters, rigorously proofreading every single edit you make, including your response here? Because if you don't, and you don't respond, that NOTHERE block gets closer and closer. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I just mostlu use the language in the suorce itself and if it is denigrate the politican should not do those bad things in the first instead of deleting information from credible media. As to grammar problem it is okay to discuss it but the full content should not be deleted simply because of grammar. Geeky1127 (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I think there are 2 roblems:1 as to denigrating I do not think my edits are anything other than stating facts. In fact of the 3 examples that he listed other than Don K Davids page 2 satisfies the rule of wikipedia thus are kept till today. And in This case my source is from medias with high credibility and the official website of NC legislature. As to neutrality I do not think quoting the source itself without adding any opinion from myself can make it not neutral.

2 as to quality I think we can work together to improve it including writing quality or linking quality, But all those should be based on keeping the content unless it is from non credible source. Geeky1127 (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It really isn't the job of of editors to clean up your bad grammar. A stray typo, sure. Subject-verb agreement, tense issues, maybe, if they aren't too bad. But dude, "Davis claim to pro choice but his vote record shows he is pro life..." would make every English teacher you've ever had weep in despair. Zaathras (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @

WP:NOTHERE and being an SPA. It seems as though your intent is to promote certain candidates and to hurt other candidates. Wikipedia is not meant to be a campaign tool. There is a line between citing negative aspects of candidates and campaigning against them, but I believe that line has been crossed repeatedly. In addition, some of the content was large sections lifted directly from news articles without in-text attribution (see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copyrighted sources only). The content that was not plagiarized from sources is not of high quality due to major grammatical and spelling issues. While I can understand English not being someone's first language, contributions to Wikipedia should be proofread and corrected before publishing. If you are not capable of following these guidelines, perhaps you should reconsider contributing to Wikipedia. Wiki9814 (talk

) 01:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIR--a guideline that is frequently cited in the block log of indeffed editors. I asked you to proofread: you did not do that, and if you did, you did not do it in a way that renders your prose understandable or palatable. Drmies (talk

) 02:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You seems do not even follow the instruction on WP:CIR and also I do not think listing credible media report is biased, if the candidate feels hurt or promoted they should do things that will give them positive media report instead of negative report. Geeky1127 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Geeky1127 as

not here to build an encyclopedia, since they are here only to push their own POV that certain politicians are bad, and otherwise lack competence. The comment that politicians need to do things that earn them coverage that Geeky1127 deems positive is deeply troubling. And then there is their utter lack of ability to write clear and comprehensible English language prose. Drmies asked the editor to proofread before replying, and either they did not do so or are not competent to to so. What we get from this editor is borderline gobbledygook that bears only a passing resemblance to actual English language prose. Cullen328 (talk

) 03:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will continue to monitor the pages in question to check for block evasion. Wiki9814 (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki9814, that is a good idea. Please do not hesitate to inform me if you observe disruptive behavior on any of those articles. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Disrespectful behavior from /u/Peaceray

I have experienced a pattern of consistent violently disrespectful and pointedly anti-information conduct from /u/Peaceray during my interactions with her on the Harry Styles Wikipedia page. I would ask for some assistance as she prevents constructive discussion of content with her tone and genuine bad faith approach to editing that particular page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.195.52 (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you care to point to a specific example? All I see on the talk page is you being told to use better sources to support your opinion about a celebrity relationship, and there is nothing that looks to be "violently disrespectful". Zaathras (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

IP editor: Your complaint is wholly unjustified and nonsensical, and you appear to be simply being over-sensitive. I note you have complained about this at two other places, too. Peaceray (whom you should have informed you are complaining about here at ANI) has made just this one response to your post at Talk:Harry Styles. Their response was reasonable, as was the way you put forward your initial opinions. This is just a content dispute over sources and inferences, so please continue to discuss respectfully at that talk page and gain a consensus there, and please don't go taking your complaints to other fora when things don't quite go your way. It simply wastes everyone's time and is quite unhelpful. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor was offended by my comment: Please come back when you have a reliable source that definitively indicates that they are not in a relationship. I sincerely mean that this editor is welcome with any reliable source that contravenes the existing three citations in the current version of the Harry Styles article that support the attestation that he & Olivia Wilde are in a relationship.

BTW, I use he/him/his. Peaceray (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, this is likely the same individual as 173.227.72.99 who made identical claims about Styles and Wilde not being in a relationship with the same "categorical denial" language. IP editor also claimed to be Styles at one point. Geolocates to the same area. Pretty spurious AN/I complaint Cannolis (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Peaceray, Typo, I presume: "Your complaint is wholly justified and nonsensical".... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not mine, but Nick Moyes's post. Yes, I also presume it was a typo. Peaceray (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Mea culpa. My typo now fix to read "unjustified". Apols for the confusion. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Malaya Rohan and Torture of Russian soldiers in Malaya Rohan

User @

WP:COMMONNAME, Andriyrussu moved both pages to add the words "Mala Rohan", without ever giving an explanation or edit summary. I told Andriyrussu he could use the talk page to request a move, but he hasn't responded. I don't think this issue will be resolved if it doesn't get outside intervention.Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions

) 12:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 124.170.162.176

New IP user is adding redundant links to many bird species pages by linking the scientific binomial, when the accompanying common name is already linked to the same target. User continues to do so despite warnings to IP talk page and mass reversions of their edits by several editors. Loopy30 (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

consensus

• Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I tried to have

WP:WIKILAWYERING

Explanation of Incidence below:

1. All it was started, User:Aman.kumar.goel added a red wiki-link to a list at Space industry of India#List of notable companies, See the diff here

2. It was reverted by me following

WP:LISTCRITERIA, See here [118]

3. But it was again reverted by

WP:N

"

4. It was reverted by me, see here [119] to seek consensus on talk page following Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (somewhat dependable method for dispute resolution not recommended though, I accept)

5. The talk was initiated by User:Aman.kumar.goel at here

Here User:Aman.kumar.goel started judging my experience rather than talk about article issues on article talk page, told me to revert myself, accused me of being incompetent. Quoting "Since you look new enough" ('enough' is somewhat in exaggerating sense, I believe), "I'm going to revert you again if you don't yourself". Moreover, There were several links with inflexible reasons unwilling to compromise.

Here

WP:LISTCRITERIA

, what it states :

Quoting guidelines

I. "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion"

II. "Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever."

6.

WP:QUO

. Quoting guidelines, "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away"

and

WP:BRD-NOT

which states, "Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement. Instead, explore alternative methods, such as raising objections on a talk page or following the processes in dispute resolution."

Later, User:Aman.kumar.goel with some sort of irrelevant replies which were way different from the concerned topic.

First,

WP:LISTCRITERIA

.

Again,

WP:NLIST

." which doesn't make sense, if any editor removes the red wiki-links from the list, it follows the removal of the rest related to it.

Quoting : "I can't make sense of your aggression", "You just can't misinterpret WP policies and just sideline people blaming of bullying and ownership whoever explain it you", "WP:WIKILAWYERING won't work."

Now, I was trying to legitimately make a point, without disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, following

refused to accept or seek for consensus

.

Again, Quoting : "I anyway have spent enough time in grooming ISRO, created pages of Indian aerospace company and written most of this article too.", "Indeed I'm just citing my contribution on these articles which were entirely or mostly written by me, nominated for GA and DYK"

Statements with

consensus

.

Again,

WP:DR, I think this matter is too trivial for that.", with a complete ignorance in certain tone and discouraging me to bring the discussion to notice board. Sneha04 ^💬

12:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, you should sign your messages with ~~~~ as it doesn't happen automatically once you have reached a certain number of edits. Secondly, I would note that

embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list. rather than an Embedded list as part of a page of content which is on the Space Industry of India page. Gusfriend (talk

) 08:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gusfriend This is correct. An article section on companies, people, etc should include only those with their own articles. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Uh I forgot signing, I apologize for that. Sneha04 ^💬 12:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Nfitz

So for some reason, nfitz (talk · contribs) has been really hounding me about my recent AFDs and PRODs.

• " that kind of blatantly false claim, I'm not even going to waste my time checking any more references. It's a well known show that everyone in the country has heard of. This nomination is a disgrace, and making blatant false claims is surely a bannable offence."
  • If you read what I said above, I said that the second source provided by Cunard (talk · contribs) in the discussion. The only "blatantly false claim" is Nfitz thinking that I said anything about the Globe and Mail source, when I was clearly talking about the National Post source.
• "These nominations remain absurd. Can an Admin please move to topic-ban this clearly incompetent editor."
  • Yes, so absurd that I actually went to great lengths to add sources, like this, this, and this.

I especially find this funny when Nfitz has said to other editors things like "users who make baseless personal attacks should be banned!" when it's clear that's exactly what they're doing to me.

Has my AFD and PROD track record been perfect? No. That's why I created

User:TenPoundHammer/TV cleanup so I can systematically approach troubled articles and edit them as I see fit. As I pointed out above, I've gone out of my way today alone to -- gasp! -- add sources to articles. And many of my other AFDs, such as this one, seem to be clear-cut delete cases. For Nfitz to throw around words like "incompetent" and call for my banning over what is clearly not anywhere remotely close to a bannable offense is beyond absurd. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?}

) 00:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• ETA: In the process of warning Nfitz of this discusison, I found that I am not the only editor being targeted. Pinging @RandomCanadian: for their input. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah and a couple weeks ago Nfitz followed me from an AfD to a talk-page of an article they'd never edited, importing the battleground approach there. They should seriously tone it down. JBL (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's a bit of a stretch. As I don't remember ever encountering you before, and you made an unacceptable profane personal attack on

  WP:POINTy. I have no history of stalking, and I think that it's unfortunate that you've tried to imply that, ignoring your use of extreme language. Nfitz (talk

  ) 22:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• I would also note this discussion, where Nfitz calls for a topic ban against
  WP:BEFORE - usually without presenting any evidence that they failed before - and calling for a topic ban. BilledMammal (talk
  ) 01:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  I admit to being I should be a bit more diplomatic - but it wasn't me who proposed that topic ban for Ficaia. It was User:GiantSnowman who proposed it; User:No Great Shaker and I then supported it. Ficaia had a series of AFDs over 3 days that seemed to have no proper BEFORE, and were all but snow keeps. Examples are WP:Articles for deletion/Islam Tarek, WP:Articles for deletion/Ayman Mansour, WP:Articles for deletion/Leroy Paul, WP:Articles for deletion/Mátyás Balogh, WP:Articles for deletion/Stacia Joseph, and WP:Articles for deletion/Raymundo Torres (footballer). User:dlthewave then voted delete without a proper before on couple - but I realised later, that he wasn't the worst offender in that category, and I conflated him with a more egregious example, who I'll leave unnamed. Still I do think we have a problem with drive-by voting in AFDs without enough (or in some cases any ... and I'm thinking of yet another person on that) BEFORE. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Err not quite - I said "If you continue to nominate clearly notable articles without even attempting WP:BEFORE I will seek a topic ban for you", see this. I have not seen any issues since and so did not pursue or formalise any proposals. GiantSnowman 09:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the ping, Nfitz. I stand by my comments about lack of adequate BEFORE in many AfD cases. This has become a real problem needing some serious attention by sysops. The examples given above by Nfitz were all cases that should never have come to AfD and they are by no means an exhaustive list. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:RFUD#Glutton for Punishment and more - poor prods at the time. Nfitz failed to heed that today. – Muboshgu (talk

) 01:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• WP:CIR issues, at least in the DRV arena. On the other hand, they do seem to be starting all these deletions with good faith, and show a willingness to learn. Perhaps I was a harsh, and I apologize for that - but it's frustrating to look at what's going on in the project, and find there isn't much sign of improvement. I don't think however my comments were completely baseless.. Nfitz (talk
  ) 01:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've already been warned about the prods. The main issue was "don't do 300 in a day ever again because not a lot of people monitor the prod queue", and many of my prods have been more methodical and done in good faith. If someone wants to

  attacked and having you state, multiple times, that I should be banned for something that isn't even close to a bannable offense. And again, I'm clearly not the only editor you've made such overstated accusations about. I want to see proof that you're not going to go off on such histronics again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?}

  ) 01:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Others main message may have been don't do 300 prods again in a day. My bigger concern is the lack of quality. Four AFDs on April 24 - all keep (but one redirect). Two on the 27th - both keeps. Four on the 28th - two were keeps. What's interesting looking through, is there's so many on the 27th and 29th (they day I expressed concern to you), that I'm having problems counting them - but all the Television ones appear to be keep, while the record is far better on other subjects. Two keeps on the 30th. Most of these keeps were unanimous - with some speedies. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Since Nfitz admits that they "should be a bit more diplomatic", perhaps they will do just that going forward. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Nfitz's comments were inappropriate. That being said, I am concerned by the rate of TenPoundHammer's PRODs and AfDs, and their track record of nominations that end in "keep". Had I not intervened and spent my night deprodding well over a hundred articles, many notable subjects would have been deleted. Yes, they have now set up the list of problem articles, but it still seems like many of the deletion nominations made by TenPoundHammer end in "keep". I wish TenPoundHammer would be a bit more careful in nominating articles in the future.
  talk
  ) 11:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Aspersions at AFD

Nfitz has agreed to be a "bit more diplomatic", but there is a general issue here that needs to be discussed; editors casting aspersions at AFD. Typically, this involves claiming that nominator has not conducted a

WP:BEFORE

.

If this issue can be resolved, then the issues that are currently emerging at AFD can be resolved before we need a fourth thread at this noticeboard (one, two); editors need to be reminded that casting aspersions is unacceptable, and if they believe an editor is making inappropriate nominations or !votes they should first discuss that on the editors talk page, and if that doesn't address the issue then they should open a discussion here - the issue should not be discussed in the AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Quite frankly, bringing stuff here is often ineffective. I've seen more than one thread about TenPoundHammer here - and yet they continue to repeat their mistakes. I thought we were making more progress with them by not dragging it here ... though I admit I was too harsh when I popped in for a first time in a while, and found them regressing. In my experience ANI is not a particularly balanced process. Nfitz (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think that several editors need a stern warning at the very least. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mervat Rashwan would be a prime example:
  • GiantSnowman: "Keep - another poor nomination with no evidence of BEFORE being carried out; international player"
  • No_Great_Shaker: "Keep per GS and MF. Obviously notable. Yet another bad nom."
  • Nfitz: "Keep - international player, lots of coverage. Another poor nomination. Given how poorly female African players are covered in Wikipedia, and that this player easily meets long-standing consensus, we should avoid WP:BIAS."

  Note that this was closed as Delete because sufficient SIGCOV sourcing was not found, and no credible evidence was presented to support the

  WP:BEFORE accusations. This really takes the wind out of this discussion where GS accuses Ficaia of nominating "clearly notable" articles for AfD (with no evidence) and NGS cites the aforementioned Mervat Rashwan

  AfD as a prime example.

  Several of Ficaia's recent AfDs have been closed as Keep after sourcing was found by others, but this is a very common outcome at AfD and isn't proof of a BEFORE failure. If editors do see a pattern of bad noms after a warning, they should discuss their concerns at ANI, not in AfD comments. Considering the multiple noticeboard discussions leading up to this, it's certainly time to start handing out warnings. –dlthewave ☎ 02:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  And yet the 6 AfDs of theirs I listed above were highly questionable; I'm not sure so much if this is aspersions, or a case of 'crying wolf' or a 'stopped clock'. I hadn't seen that this one closed - I'm a bit surprised about the flurry of deletes at the end, and do wonder if they (or at least 2 out of 3) looked beyond the source assessment table, rather than the better sources that had been used to improve the article - two are still arguing there are no significant sources - though surely this one was. We do have problems with drive-by voting; though none of the 2 or 3 really egregious offenders are here, and I'm loathe to expand this further. Back to the source of this thread, the quality of the prods and AFDs of TenPoundHammer in the area of Television have been very poor. Most of the recent prods (and that's hundreds of them) have been overturned - some by me, but most by others. For an experienced editor far too many of the 70+ recent AFDs (in the television project alone) they did are snow keeps, or almost snow keeps. Looking at the deletes, participation is low on many of them; it's just overwhelming, and leads to low-quality debates. Not to mention hours spent by many trying to keep up. I think if there's going to be an extraordinary effort within a project to delete hundreds of articles, there needs to an extraordinary level of before. And I don't even see a standard level with many of them. Nfitz (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  Looking at those AFD's, most of them appear to be reasonable nominations, although the comments by some editors within them are problematic. Most problematic is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayman Mansour where GiantSnowman and No Great Shaker claimed that the nom had failed to do a before despite being unable to find sources themselves, and despite no sources being presented by others at that time.

  The issue is that editors are discussing these concerns at the AFD, and they are discussing them without evidence. This is casting

  WP:ASPERSIONS, and it needs to stop. BilledMammal (talk

  ) 05:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  You are casting aspersions on

  WP:NPA; I really don't see what this has to do with the debate in hand. Nfitz (talk

  ) 06:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  They accused an editor of failing to complete a

  WP:NPA

  . Further, given that they did not include sources in their reply, or add sources to the article, it is reasonable to assume that they made this accusation without having found sources.

  And what this has to do with the debate at hand is the pattern of accusations of failing

  WP:BEFORE or similar; these accusations need to stop, and while a warning might not be necessary at this time, a reminder certainly is. BilledMammal (talk

  ) 06:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you look at the two examples that the complainant used. The first, WP:Articles for deletion/Bumper Stumpers, was a snow keep, that they withdrew - and BEFORE wasn't mentioned. The second was a prod for The Bronx Is Burning, that they apologized for after someone else previously noted there was no BEFORE. There were no aspersions in either example - unlike your comments about GS and NGS (there's no requirement to provide evidence or sources, and the comments were accurate). You only get to Aspersions by making assumptions about what they did; instead of assuming what they did, you'd be better to assume good faith. Nfitz (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you look at the Bumper Stumpers AFD, while I didn't use the term "WP:BEFORE", I did highlight the attempts I made to find better sources. I was initially unconvinced of the strength of the sources that Cunard found, and it seemed like everyone else was just saying

  WP:SOURCESEXIST. But a second look at Cunard's sources showed them to be suitable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?}

  ) 16:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Basically, this is a clash between people having trouble accepting the changed consensus about

Fram (talk

) 09:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Fram The case was raised by TenPoundHammer who hasn't participated much, if at all, in the area of sports articles. It was Television articles where the issue arose. The sports issue is really a different issue - and I'm not sure why some are raising it here, as it only muddles the process. Nfitz (talk

) 16:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the issue is casting

WP:TAGTEAMING

.

I agree with Fram that this isn't at the sanction level yet, but I do think we are at the level where you should commit to focusing on content not conduct at AFD's. BilledMammal (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Which is really a separate topic. I've already committed to being more diplomatic - so why try to expand the discussion, rather than bringing to closure? We all need to be better in these discussions. Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

And yet here you are, still picking fights left and right. JBL (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think committing to being more diplomatic will address the issue, as the issue is the discussion of conduct at AFD, rather than how you discuss conduct. This doesn't apply only to you, but I think what is needed is a commitment to not discuss conduct at AFD, and instead focus on content. BilledMammal (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

At first it seemed like an attack on short stub articles, but there are two straight up facts as far as I can see, the first being against stub bio's or articles severely lacking in citation depth. There is nothing wrong with a stub article, yet for some reason at times these older articles that are stubs which have been on wikipedia for a long time or not, they don't get noticed so easily so don't get improved until they reach AfD. Take

George Buckley

, (I found one source posted at AfD stating there was little information to be found on that person) two different stories, two different outcomes. At first I thought the whole process an attack on sports projects, but in the end, it doesn't bother me that much.

The second, there are too many ego's, stubborn people that don't like change that seem at odds with each other. Over what, wikipedia's GNG! Wikipedia is just an open program digital workspace for people to add encyclopaedia articles, people just need to comply with what this project is, or go do a different hobby all-together! Govvy (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This you? JBL (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• We (including me) definitely need to be careful accusing editors of thoughtlessness, incompetence, not following BEFORE, etc., but sometimes it's appropriate to ask. There are many nominations where clicking find sources, find books, etc. clearly has not been done. When it's an inexperienced editor, they often need to be given some direction, and asking about BEFORE is helpful. When it's an experienced editor who has been doing this for years, and yet still nominates articles with shabby excuses of rationale, we need something more. We have at least one of those who has shown an inability or unwillingness to do due diligence and has been featured at ANI countless times. Whether it's incompetence or just a form of incivility, it's a horrible waste of our time and resources. Jacona (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

IP socks

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

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

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

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

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

These IPs are clearly the socks of the indeffed user Əzərbəyəniləri, as they keep restoring/mimicking his edits. Can we please make a range block this time?

Just an example, there are loads; Əzərbəyəniləri [121] - IP [122]

Not only that, but they also use grim language;

"Is youre brain busted?.. ...Digga is you patriotic?"

"Its funny that an stupid azeri like gilden reverted it since its actually sourced content that i call vandalism shame you azeri propaganda boy i maje sourced infirmation and you brainwashed kid destriy everytging"

"Its funny how this edit gets reverted by a brainwashed 14 year old azeri dig whi spreads propaganda!he ke persian its even on his wiki page you dumbass azeri"

"I WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT IM RIGHT JUST RESEARCHE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND YOU DUMBASSES"

EDIT: Looks like I found another IP range he also uses;

"Rv vandalism from hobby historian"History of Iran"whos mind is to short to get the truth", making more or less the same edit as the previous socks [123] [124] [125]

EDIT PART 2: He is using another IP now, restoring Əzərbəyəniləri and co's edits and making more grim remarks;

"You moron!They were turks it gave qajar afshar bayat north and south azerbaijani rulers, saying mostly azerbaijani is a falsification, but cause yo dont know history yo will nev3r understand!dumbass"

"Idk why you delete this fact just cause you think that im a sock of an azeri!If you think its useless its hypocracy cause you are the most useless moron ive ever saw"

"Youre an walking L man!Hiw can a human being be this disresoectful with my research and dumb at the same time?"

"Youre so dumb!I invested in this reserch so much time and you try to delete it without any statement?Shame you you brainded hobby historian!"

"...of course it was spoken there you moron"

--HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPI. 0xDeadbeef (T C

) 13:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

SPI will not connect IP addresses to named accounts. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As noted above, you should learn about SPI before incorrectly directing people there. When you aren't sure where the roads go, don't appoint yourself map maker. 73.6.77.46 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

... and another admin has blocked 5.146.248.0/23 for a month anyway. Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not quite right, while the checkuser tool cannot be used to publicly link IPs to named accounts, behavioral investigations can still occur at SPI (just don't request a checkuser in these cases), though in fact obvious block-evasion is actually best handled at AIAV, when a duck is quacking into a megaphone close behavioral analysis is not needed, and ANI is sometimes best for cases of obvious BE that are just a bit too lengthy for AIAV to handle. In short, this was fine but an SPI would not have been inappropriate either. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Definitely need a range block. I keep having to report a new alt account/IP of this user every 2 days and it's exhausting. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Another alt account of Əzərbəyəniləri got banned today (User:Şahanşah of History). This, not even a day after he used alternate IP addresses to edit. They need to be range-blocked and all of the articles they keep on vandalising require an extensive semi-protection (perhaps even extended-confirmed protection). — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

May be worth semi-protecting those articles for a bit as well. Canterbury Tail talk 14:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits by Avish773 by going against consensus of talk page

• Avish773 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuously making unconstructive edits on Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Anupamaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by going against consensus of talk page discussions. He never replies and keeps doing same thing with interval of few days. I have issued several warnings to him. Even several other editors have issued warnings to him but he never replies and keeps doing the same thing. This is to be noted that the the consensus in Anupamaa about which I mentioned is at Talk:Anupamaa/Archive 1. Administrators please look into this matter. Pri2000 (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

A very obviously NOTHERE editor

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

Their first edit contains some rather egregious personal attacks against not only one editor but the community as a whole in the edit summary (per Google, in Turkish); their latest edits seem to be some form of POV pushing; and those on Charles V's page again seem to be more some form of POV crusade/"right great wrongs of the [biased] Wikipedia community"-type of stuff... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any "must be stopped now" problems with their (very limited thus far) editing. This edit seems perfectly reasonable, though their edit summaries leave a LOT to be desired. Other edits look to be in good faith (if not in good results), but the changes are not unreasonable. I think a stern (NOT TEMPLATED) warning against editorializing and a reminder to

WP:AGF are in order, but I don't think this user cannot be encouraged to speak more courteously. --Jayron32

14:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Their summaries do more than "leave a lot to be desired"; they're directly attacking other editors and the community (I added some information that was not written or not wanted to be written; the first one [translated per Google} Look at me, the disease called LouisAragon. Who are you man? You say it's unsourced, but look at your own maps, you have so many garbage maps (I'm calling out to all general wiki workers.)). Digging through their edit history, they're clearly the same person behind this IP range; and the edits there show more evidence of editing Wikipedia with a clear aim of some form of pro-turkish POV pushing (and well, this edit, which clearly picks the most pro-Turk outcome - despite two options being clearly described in the #Aftermath section; and this, which clearly describes things from a Turkish POV; seem to confirm this).

Also, courtesy ping @LouisAragon: - this rings any bell? Beyond the edits on the Treaty of Zuhab page, you encountered anything similar before? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If there's a history with an editor under a prior identity, you should have said so initially. If I am being asked to only assess the one account you linked above, I wouldn't say it needs anything more than a stern, written note (not a template) explaining them to tone it down a bit. However, if this is another prior editor returning under a new identity, that completely changes things, and you probably should have done a better job explaining the history. --Jayron32 17:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This edit summary seems egregiously offensive. Calling another editor an illet - meaning malady or disease. AusLondonder (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Some sort of edit request flooding

[126][127][128][129][130][131] Anything that can be done about new accounts and random, likely compromised/botnet IPs flooding the edit request queues? First time I've seen something on this scale, from such a wide variety of IPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you

requested semi-protection? Drive-by edit requests that have no chance of being implemented are grounds enough for a semi-protection of a talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori}

18:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's been on different pages, so semi-prot wouldn't help at this point. My concern is it's the same request on many pages from different IPs and accounts, so it may be some sort of vandalism attack ramping up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a good candidate for an edit filter. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed this on a couple of pages as well. Something odd is up. Does the edit request wizard automatically insert the word 'please' to start the request? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe so, no. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish The template was updated today so that a blank edit request now contains "please ..." by default [132] 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

And Special:AbuseFilter/987 which is supposed to warn newbies when they try to save a blank edit request wasn't updated to match, so now it's broken. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@MSGJ you may want to revert this until the filter can be updated as well. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

MSGJ, could you revert that edit, please? Also, I don't think prefacing with Please ... is an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Filter has now been fixed by zzuuzz. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. I've started adjusting the filter, and it should currently work either way (although be warned: temporarily disabling warnings is part of the filter update process). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

[133] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

About a week ago I and an admin (I don't remember who) went through about 6 random ranges that had tons of edit reqs like this. RfPP would be useless since it's targeting any talk page, not specific articles or categories. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've undone the change and since this is now a discussion of their actions I've informed MSGJ of this thread.
  talk
  ) 19:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. In general I don't think automated politeness really means much, and the vast majority of requests are irredeemably malformed, so throwing a please ... in front of a malformed request isn't going to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Since it's been reverted, I've restored the filter as was. If the wording changes again, poke an EFM. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  @

  WP:EFN, but I think it's relevant to this discussion so I'll post it here. Is there a reason why filter 987 isn't set to disallow? It seems like it'd solve the issues raised here; looking at the recent filter hits, there seems to be a few edits posting empty edit requests, despite the warning. FozzieHey (talk

  ) 21:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  The most recent EFN discussion was probably this one. A well directed RfC somewhere, presenting a suitable disallow message, would probably get the change made. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for reverting, and apologies for the disrption! I had no idea it would affect a filter. Just a gentle hint to encourage folk to be more polite, but I accept that wasn't really going to work — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  It was a good thought, but after handling thousands of requests I don't think it would help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

User:DarthKalEl91

DarthKalEl91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are obvious

WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior when notified of their non-constructive editing ([138] [139]). All-in-all, this user is completely unproductive. Curbon7 (talk

) 02:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked DarthKalEl91 for severe BLP violations. I am not a member of the Matt Gaetz fan club. Far from it. But this editor's additions to that article were beyond the pale. It gives me a bit of pleasure to enforce BLP policy on articles about people I do not like personally. The bottom line is that every single living person is covered by this policy. (Even Putin). Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas – topic ban violation

Bruno Rene Vargas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from moving pages, broadly construed, as a result of this ANI thread from last September. This sanction was imposed because he would repeatedly move others' articles out of mainspace in order to create articles of his own in their place, thereby getting "credit" for creating them. He was blocked for a week in February per this ANI thread for violating the topic ban. Today, he moved Mr. Morale & the Big Steppers to draftspace (see this log entry) and replaced it with an article of his own. I certainly understand that it's frustrating when someone else beats you to creating an article, but moving pages simply to get your name first in the page history is disruptive and, more to the point, a clear violation of the topic ban. The one-week block doesn't seem to have done the trick, so a longer block is needed, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not only is it a violation of the topic-ban, but precisely the behavior he was blocked and topic-banned for. —El Millo (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked x 2 weeks by Cullen328. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  I have blocked Bruno Rene Vargas for two weeks for this clear violation of his topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  He seriously needs to explain that he understands this, otherwise we're in indef territory as he seems to wait just long enough that he thinks no one is watching. Star Mississippi 00:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is there a way in the software for someone to be blocked from moving pages at all. I wonder if that is a potential solution to this problem. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  No, it is not a dumb question, JCW555. If it was possible and I knew how to do it, I would. I am not a particularly tech savvy administrator, but when I read Wikipedia:Partial blocks, I do not see any technical way to prevent this editor from violating their topic ban, other than escalating blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  The idea was brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1078#Proposal: move ban, but it was decided that an edit filter wasn't worth it, and there were additional concerns of cut-and-paste moves that a technical restriction wouldn't be able to stop. DanCherek (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: This feature is live on testwiki (see testwiki:Special:Redirect/logid/282949). I'm not sure if its lack of implementation on enwiki is for want of consensus or due to oustanding technical issues, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is cold comfort for this situation (since we aren't sysadmins, so we can't change the permissions system), but sysadmins can add a special, say, "banned from moving" user group and add the right to

  Contact me | Contributions

  ). 02:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Civility issue

B.Velikov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -

Editor has been leaving personal attacks in more than a few edit summaries. Listed a few here with one noted complaint [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] and a NPA Warning Thanks FOX 52 ^talk! 05:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah these summaries are no good. I have warned the user, let's see if they respond. Oz\^InterAct 09:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism on Akcent

CONTENT DISPUTE

the OP is strongly advised to read

WP:DR for some tips on how to solve these matters if the talk page is not working. No block is needed at this time. --Jayron32

12:06, 12 May 2022 (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.

---

Hey there! User @

Romanian Top 100 when in reality it only peaked at number 2. The song further does on appear as a number 1 on the List of Romanian Top 100 number ones, a qualitative and complete article. The number 2 peak is also sourced, but the user seems to completely disregard that by the argument that "the latter did peak at no.1 i remember the charts from 2005,but sadly it cannot be recovered as it was a long time ago so you will have to take my word on it". This is an obvious case of vandalism and I also tried to contact the user on their user page, without reaching an agreement. I would appreciate if appropriate action against his edits is taken. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk

) 07:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems that Akcent2007 is continuing to be adamant about what he said as he has changed the peak position (and removed the additional source added) once again Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Moved this discussion up again since there has been no imput. I would very much appreciate if the user was blocked to prevent further reverts from their side. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason you haven't reported this edit war at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? – ².O.^Boxing 10:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This is more a content dispute. I also see you have made an entry on

WP:AIV. Oz\^InterAct

10:59, 12 May 2022 (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:Portugaltheo20 – disruptive addition of unsourced content with francophile bias

I'm requesting a 48-hour block of new user Portugaltheo20 (talk · contribs) for disruptively adding unsourced material to articles relating to France, and to French history, economy, culture, or language. As an alternative to a block, a TBAN from everything related to France broadly construed might be an alternative.

Virtually all of Portugaltheo20's edits involve adding content relating to France which demonstrates a francophile bias, either exaggerating their military or economic contributions, claiming French citizenship for binational athletes, claims of French language as official in countries where it is not, exaggerated GDP or other economic indicators, and so on. These edits are rarely accompanied by sources, and when they are, they are defective in some way. In a handful of cases, he got the sourcing right.

I've been patiently trying to communicate with Portugaltheo20 at his Talk page, to no avail, indicating what the problems are, trying to get him to up his sourcing game, and pointing out the (rare) good edits. There has been only one response on the page, but not to me, rather pushing back on 4 May (diff) at Sir Sputnik's warning about an unreliable source.

There are dozens of possible diffs I could add here, but as they are all listed already at

selectively transclude

the relevant discussions)?

By the time I find another problematic edit and finish adding a message to his talk page with appropriate diffs, he has made several more edits, so in fact, what you see on the talk page represents only the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that all of his edits may need to be mass-reverted to protect the encyclopedia. I'm way behind looking at his edits, and I'm sure there are now dozens of cases of original research all over French articles, and even spending 100% of my time monitoring his contributions I can't keep up. Plus, I want to get back to what I was doing before. He's not a vandal, just someone (possibly a patriotic lyceen?) who wants to

spread the good news

about the glory of France, and thinks this is the way to do it. Maybe Wikipedia is not the right place for him, I dunno, but I don't seem to be getting through to him at all.

One small item on the plus side of the balance: I wrote him this message about using currency conversion templates in his economic article edits, and he started to use them; although he then seems to have self-reverted in some cases. So, at least I know he's reading his page, even if he hasn't responded since 4 May. Please lmk if I need to paste or transclude diffs to this report, but there are plenty of them in these discussions:

• User talk:Portugaltheo20#Verifiability, sourcing, and citations
• User talk:Portugaltheo20#WARNING: Transfermarkt redux, and a pattern of unreliable sourcing, and
• User talk:Portugaltheo20#Maintaining a neutral point of view, and francophile bias

I've tried my best, but it isn't working. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's one diff I missed before: this edit of 23:43, 10 May, where he fakes data about the number of millionaires in France in order to make France move to #5 atop the UK on a List of countries by number of millionaires. Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, that last edit you added seems pretty egregious - I checked too and there's no way to get that from the source. I'm pretty impressed with your patience trying to explain these things on the talk page - I probably would have reported after one message didn't work, let alone three. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 02:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I blocked indefinitely. All that holds Wikipedia together is trusting that editors don't falsify information, and that edit regarding millionaires in France is very bad, and not the only time they add information not supported by the source cited. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Their edits probably should all be reverted as you mentioned, I don't think we can trust any of them to be correct or neutral. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone through a great many of them and reverted, but it's exhausting, and is too much too spend on one user; if there's some tool an admin can use next time, I could save myself the trouble. Also, they've been active on other Wikipedias: ja-wiki and it-wiki one each, I think, and es-wiki around three dozen now; I left a message at Spanish ANI about him. Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I was going to raise this editor here too. Given the number of times they have deliberately used sources that do not support the content being added, they are being clearly disruptive. I first noticed then adding a line about French nationality to articles about footballers with no clear link to France, using a source that did not even mention the player concerned. I have gone on to revert a number of other edits, which seem to promote France / Paris. Spike 'em (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that this user was also a sockpuppet of AlanCity20, so I’d keep an eye out for another name showing up to evade the block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Metal Asylum 94

Metal Asylum 94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has replaced either full article contents, or existing redirects, with redirects to different pages.

Diffs:

• Before first talk page warning: 1 2 3
• After first talk page warning: 1 2 3 4 5 6

The edits since the first warning was posted appear to have been made on mobile web, but the edits up until the warning appear to have been made on desktop. It is possible that they may not have seen the warnings due to

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. FozzieHey (talk

) 20:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This might be a minor

WP:CIR issue. I've left a more explicit note on their user talk page explaining the problem, and giving them a stern final warning. If they start up again, ping me or leave me a note on my user talk page, and I'll handle it. --Jayron32

16:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat in edit summary by User:PureButter

Apologies if this report isn't valid, but

WP:BLP violation, but as far as I could work out, that doesn't matter as we allow no legal threats at all? I'm not ruling out that this is a possible COI editor, and if anyone knows how to nudge them into a better way of handling vandalism to this article, feel free to talk to them... EditorInTheRye (talk

) 18:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@EditorInTheRye: Blocked. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Vineyard Gazette: Charges Follow Dine-and-Dash Spree This sheds light on recent disruptive edits. Cullen328 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruption of consensus building process on List of political parties in Italy