Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118

For the last 3–4 months, Jodmar is repeatedly adding made-up/unsourced origin-related detail in

• (Non-administrator comment) Having reviewed the edits and other contributions I would agree that some sort of action needs to be taken here, possibly a topic ban to prevent further issues, otherwise maybe a temporary or indefinite block is necessary to address these problems. As above, it seems that the user isn't here to contribute constructively or lacks the competence to edit in a manner that isn't disruptive. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment – They have done the same disruption yet again: [12]! I guess this is their way of showing that they are
  WP:NOT HERE. - NitinMlk (talk
  ) 19:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I am seeking an admin intervention to finally put an end to constant wikihounding by user Trangabellam. I am really tired of this user's relentless pursuit of me, aggressive rhetoric, incivility and never-ending bad faith assumptions.

I do understand if some users track other users' edits for collegial or administrative purposes, and with good cause, but the aforementioned user tracks me everywhere with a sole intent: to cause irritation, annoyance, and distress. This sticks out of a mile when you check his/her attitude and these mocking statements directed at me such as (you keep writing nonsense.., you won't learn anything..., The OP exhibits a IDHT attitude and is unaware of where his competencies lie) . Besides, this user has recently posted an over-the-fence “no-edit order” at my t/p (diff 1), which grossly violates

A couple of days ago (I took it as a point of no return and the latest evidence of her wikihounding on me, after which I decided to take my concerns here), Trangabellam again tracked me and cattily joined the discussion (diff 2) at the t/p of the page, which again, has never ever been edited by him/her since that article was created in 2005 (diff 3) (search for user Trangabellam if you find one). Trangabellam, as expected, sided against me and threw away such mocking adjectives as “ridiculous”, without presenting a reasonable argument to defend his/her stand on the issue.

This wasn’t the first time it happened. For instance, I got in on the act to figure out the reason behind the revert of my contribution by user F&F at this t/p diff 4. Just after I made my case known, Trangabellam was there before you know it, responding first and quickly siding with user F&F, again without providing any argument for doing so:

[Detailed reply incoming]. Broadly, I am in agreement with F&F. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

As expected, this user's detailed reply is still on its way since July 5, 2022. (diff 4.1)

According to

Trangabellam wouldn’t discontinue this, and after a short passage of time he/she again falsely accused me of edit-warring here (diff 10), and distorted facts from my discussion Talk:Babur#Verse from Babur's poetry. There was no edit-warring, I didn’t undo the revert even once. The history of the page is for everyone to see (diff 11) (see June 5th, 2022). In fact, it was another, experienced editor who undid the revert (diff 12), diff 13) and actually supported my addition to that page. Instead of Trangabellam’s imaginary edit-warring, I decided to find a compromise and created a whole new section (diff 13.1) in that article, which definitely improved the page. But of course, this user won’t ever mention that and my other similar contributions.

I’m open to work and collaborate with everyone, but in a healthy, mutually respectful environment. I proved it this when recently Trangabellam claimed that addition of translated material (even if a little re-worded) was against Wikipedia’s policy on plagiarism (diff 14). I presented my opinion regarding that with civility and immediately stated that if proved wrong by a competent admin, I would have no objections to removing those sentences. This was not a deliberate disruption, since even the complainant admitted that this was in fact Wikipedia’s grey area (diff 15). Also, one of Wikipedia’s long-serving and in my opinion, outstanding editors, user HistoryofIran, also cast his doubt whether this can qualify as plagiarism (diff 16).

I strongly believe that all of the above bear a close resemblance to

Furthermore, this user's ominous "I will keep a tab over your editorial activities" diff 18 posted at my t/p is basically a confession in Wikihounding for me.

Finally, this user's actions are accurately summarized in

I kindly ask admins to take their time and look at every single diff carefully. This behavior does cause profound stress, is disruptive, and should be stopped. Thank you, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• When you are mentioning other editors like @
  WP:BOOMERANG. Some examples can be found in Talk:Tuqaq#Maintenance_Tags, Talk:Turkoman_(ethnonym) etc. TrangaBellam (talk
  ) 08:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  TrangaBellam, I was just looking at one of the diffs and noticed [14] and I wondering if you could explain what you meant by might I suggest that any improvements to Magtymguly Pyragy is an exercise in futility? Simply put, there does not exist enough reliable sources to write an encyclopedic biography of the subject. Gusfriend (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, @Gusfriend.

  There are many subjects who are deserving of proper historical scholarship but as of now, lacks it. The only way of writing something decent on our subject is using sub-optimal drivel sources from Turkmenistan. VC had once used such sources to push the article past GA before I critiqued the sources alongside the inaccuracies in the content; a Community-Reaasessment was launched by me, and was failed by an uninvolved editor. That section is worth reading in entirety; for every criticism I made of the content, VC subjected me to random accusations like "negative opinion against Turkmenistan arising from my stay at the country", "fondness for some [Western] scholars" etc. Despite the tonne of criticism that I presented against state-sponsored scholars of Turkmenistan, he remained oblivious to their unreliability. Though, in fairness, VC did apologize to me a year later for their "frustrating response to [my] decent remarks".

  So, a month ago, when I spotted VC devoting another round of efforts to the article (once again, using mostly-vernacular sources), I left a note. Does that satisfy you? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  That makes sense. Can I suggest, were such a situation to arise again, giving the GA context, perhaps something like sufficient for the article to reach GA status." at the end? Gusfriend (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, that is very agreeable. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Gusfriend In the meanwhile, I am adding to User:TrangaBellam/VC. Will like to hear your opinion. Ty! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hey TB, just a note: After you've finished gathering evidence [which I presume you'll post it here or AE or somewhere relevant?], would you mind

  deleting that page? :) — DaxServer (t · m · c

  ) 13:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Dax, I will be moving a boomerang proposal shortly. Thanks for the pointer to U1 though. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Now that I clicked on every diff mentioned in the OP's post, it appears that the comments, which the OP took as "a point of no return", were misunderstood (do not ask me, how) to be against them, when they were actually in the OP's favor. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's irrelevant as it doesn't cancel the fact of your latest wikihounding me.

You were quite right when you mentioned that I had apologized to you initially and gave props to your respective remarks. You knew I was open to cooperation and work with you to improve those pages (diff 2), I even posted 3 similar messages in your t/p (1, diff 3, diff 4) and waited for your positive response. Little did I know back then how mistaken I was that your true intent was not to collaborate, but undermine and ridicule as can be seen through your derisive language and uncivil rhetoric in the messages you posted at my t/p (diff 5), Tuqaq's talk page (diff 6) and countless other places (see the above diffs). Who would choose to cooperate with you after all this or reply to your respective inquiries when you always assume bad faith and exhibit patterns of disruptive behavior? Accordingly, I have decided not to respond to your latest walls of messages, but your latest tracking me to Kutadgu Bilig's talk page was "enough is enough".

Besides, I believe that all your above-mentioned reasons and explanations don't grant you an exclusive right of wikihounding others, undermining or taunting them. I am not a serial plagiarist, vandal, POV-pusher or under a temporary unblock truce to deserve the kind of monitoring enough to try the patience of a saint. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 15:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You engaged in the same behavior with me, accusing me of roughly the same things, a year ago. Then you went on a year-long break, came back after a year to concede that your editing and responses was indeed inappropriate, and went back to similar editing. Shall I expect you to do the same now or shall I proceed to initiate a boomerang?

I expect that editors, irrespective of their skills, have integrity. That they shall not misrepresent sources. That after using machine translations, they shall not claim to the contrary. Writing must be enjoyable but only for those who can write without resorting to academic malpractices. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I am active in similar topic areas. My view is that while TrangaBellam has been hounding Visioncurve to some extent, this has been done in good faith; the latter's edits needed to be brought to administrator attention sooner. Visioncurve is supremely unwilling to change their editing habits, most importantly their proclivity to misrepresent sources. This can be seen in this very ANI post, where they misrepresent the community consensus at
  WP:BOOMERANG needed — Visioncurve is capable of producing good content, but seemingly prefers not to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk
  ) 18:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, I agree with your characterisation. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• The Original Post by Visioncurve is
  boomerang proposal in a little while. Robert McClenon (talk
  ) 06:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

(Later: I am striking some parts of the following because while they are true in the context of the complaint I am writing I cannot fairly ascribe them to TB, who is the sole person in this complaint. I should probably have done this last night but was uncertain what to do about the wrong-subject-of-the-verb problem But in an ANI I need to be completely fair to the person being scrutinized and I apologize for not figuring out sooner how to amend TL;DR=1st AfD, Kautilya3 2nd TB and Kautilya3) But there is no question in my mind that TrangaBellam engaged in hounding(Kautilya3) and biting a new editor named Minaro123 all through a number of related articles over some sort of political point that apparently in TB's mind amounts to righting the great wrongs of Hindu nationalism.

While I might even agree that the latter is a problem. I noticed the dispute I am describing when TB Kautilya3 tried to AfD an article (Aryan Valley) over its content. While doing due diligence, I noticed TB Kautilya3 removing material in another article as "OR" that was in fact sourced to Al-Jazeera. I found, on talking to the newbie, that nobody had as yet explained the reliable sources policy to him. TB Kautilya3 had just serially removed material while citing it. The editor, btw, is responsive and trying to do the right thing, and his work has vastly improved since I first began to work with him.

When the AfD for Aryan Valley closed as keep, TB essentially bulldozed the article's content, leaving only a discussion of how the inhabitants of Aryan Valley are not actually Aryan, which btw the article specifically had not claimed. This was cited to a genetics article. Uninvolved editors had already explained to TB Kautilya3 at the Aryan Valley AfD that the genetics source was irrelevant to an article about a location, but apparently TB Kautilya3 did not hear that.

Then a sock (since blocked as such) filed another AfD for an article about a subset of the region's villages, Dah Hanu, which is still open, and where TB taunted me for objecting to TB's behaviour, begging me to file a complaint and claiming that DS sanctions are not in effect with respect to the India-Pakistan line of control. I believe that I got the acronym wrong, and perhaps someone can educate me on this point, so that I can file that complaint as requested, in the proper venue.

If admins would prefer to focus on one thing at a time I can understand that, and will confine myself here in the meantime to suggesting a second look at whatever the problem is here, since I find it entirely plausible that TB has hounded and dismissed a new editor in a very high handed manner, and soon will be officially saying so. I am busy RL and probably won't have my diffs together for about a week, if that helps anyone to decide whether to ask me questions here about what I am describing. But seeing this post made me wonder if there is a pattern beyond just opposing any mention on Wikipedia of a small and remote ethnic group, and gaming AfD to remove mentions of it that do make it in. Elinruby (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• I wonder what happened at the article t/p. Maybe two longstanding editors — Kautilya3 and JoshuaJonathan — supported my edits?
  Btw, that Minaro123 has edited a single article till date, hard to prove that I was hounding him. Anyway, "gaming AfD" is a serious charge and I will prefer that you open a fresh thread with all the evidence than hijacking one. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere, I did not ask *you*. It is indeed a serious charge, and I stand by it. But I am not going to go into it in this thread unless asked. I have had a bit of a look at this now and it looks complicated enough, and with enough of a learning curve, that it probably should be dealt with without additional moving parts. Nor does the the OP look blameless, though I am still reading. And yet there is an echo ...you seem to have claimed that "drivel" Turkmeni sources should not be used for an article about a Turkmeni writer. Surely you aren't saying that all Turkmeni sources are drivel. Who better to discuss the father of Turkmeni literature? But don't answer that, I am still digging; I find I have some time on my hands unexpectedly and am quite interested suddenly in your views on ethnic identity. Cheers. Elinruby (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a public forum; I have a right to reply to your baseless accusations that ignores a t/p consensus in my favor. That aside, do whatever without derailing the thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hahaha. I am not taking that bait. I have said I would not reply further unless asked a question. However there is an error one of my facts, I have since realized, and I feel the need to mention that. However, on reading this thread and its links, I do see a familiar pattern, particularly the fixation on certain sources as correct while dismissing others. But this complaint is complicated enough on its own, and probably the two matters are better handled separately. I just came back here to note the error. I also feel a need to add that I question whether all Turkmeni sources are drivel.Elinruby (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess that I shall thank you? You are obviously free to bring a separate thread against me.

As to the latter question, it is probably worthy of being discussed at RSN. Fwiw, I do wish to correct you that I did not claim all "Turkmeni" sources to be drivel (that will be racist) but rather "sources produced by scholars affiliated with Turkmenistan government in any manner" (which, in an indirect way, equals all Turkmeni sources after 1992) to be "drivel". I stand by my characterizations.

Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

yes, it does sound very bigoted, but more importantly it's a misunderstanding of our policy on sources. A source can be reliable and still be wrong or biased or mendacious. We discuss that, we don't suppress it. Elinruby (talk)

I've had a look at about half of the OP's diffs in context. In several places, TrangaBellam comes across as brusque or unnecessarily bitey: such tone should ideally have been avoided, but it's also not unrelatable. That Visioncurve would be frustrated at the attention TrangaBellam has directed at their contributions is also understandable, but I don't see that attention as unwarranted given what appears like a long history of sourcing problems. – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Boomerang for Visioncurve As AirshipJungleman29 notes above, "Visioncurve's edits needed to be brought to administrator attention sooner. Visioncurve is supremely unwilling to change their editing habits, most importantly their proclivity to misrepresent sources [..] Strong

WP:BOOMERANG needed."

So, without further delay, I wish to attract the attention of the community and its administrators to this subpage

, where I document a multitude of misrepresentation of sources alongside use of unreliable sources, pushing of fringe POVs etc. Accordingly, I seek for appropriate sanctions against Visioncurve.

• Support as nom - I propose that Visioncurve be banned from editing any article on history for an indefinite period; however, they can propose edits to the articles using talk-page. On a succesful probation of six months, Visioncurve can appeal before the community at AN/ANI for repeal. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. The problems outlined are serious and cast serious doubt on the editor's ability to contribute acceptable content in this topic area. Much of the problematic content was originally added in 2020 or 2021, but there are at least two edits that were made in the past month [15] [16]. Visioncurve, I would like to hear what you may have to say here. – Uanfala (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Uanfala Fwiw, Visioncurve took a eight-month-long break from October 2021 to June 2022. That explains the scarcity to an extent. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  AirshipJungleman29, I wonder how you'd explain then TrangaBellam's mocking rhetoric at my t/p (diff 1), bad faith assumption (when he/she called my (Soviet and Turkish) sources "shabby" and failed to recognize a well-known Soviet historian, later embarrassing him/herself) and expert on that issue (diff 1.1) (diff 2) and ended with him/her embarrassing him/herself, and false accusations of adding "nonsense" (diff 3 (diff 4), (diff 5) when it was actually his/her addition to that page (diff 6) and of edit-warring when it has never happened (diff 7), (diff 8) (see June 5th, 2022), (diff 9), diff 10) as well as maliciously joining discussion to just oppose me (without providing any argument for his/her stand on the issue) at Talk:Mughal_Empire#Persian_influence as a good cause wikihounding?

  Robert McClenon, I believe that's the reason why a couple of editors I'm happy to know advised me not to take my concern to ANI, because they believed that usually first complaint (and its respective diffs) were not thoroughly checked, and that it was better to read immediately-posted replies or the last lines of discussion, or counter accusations (like Boomerang), as in your case.

  TrangaBellam, as for you, your allegation regarding misrepresentation of sources or lack of sources were left without my attention, since:

  1) I told you before that I refused to reply to your inquiries because of your long history of disruptive behavior towards me;

  2) As the admin, and by chance, GA Reviewer of my page Lee_VilenskiLee Vilenski rightly noted: (when you rushed to his/herthat user's t/p after he/she had presented my page with GA status) and employed similar aggressive rhetoric towards him/her (calling him/her "oblivious" and suggesting that he/she doesn't understand English) (dif 11) - you were not a nominator of that page.

  However, I have come to conclusion to respond to your latest "allegation" in order to prove my stance. Besides, I hope respective admins would notice that your inequitable request to indef block an editor (with a probation of 6 months) who hasn't vandalized, made personal attacks, constantly edit-warred or committed similar gross violations of Wikipedia policies basically proves your true intent and disruptive attitude towards me. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  You made the same allegations when you opened the thread against me. More importantly, why are you indenting this post as a reply to me/Uanfala? What a mess. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I will address the only new concern raised against me which allegedly proves my "true intent": first things first, I did not request any indefinite block but rather, an indefinite T-Ban.

  Leave me aside. Why do you think that Uanfala, who has no bone in the dispute, finds that [t]he problems outlined are serious and cast serious doubt on the editor's [Visioncurve's] ability to contribute acceptable content in this topic area? Or, AirshipJungleman29, who found that you have a proclivity to misrepresent sources? Do every other editor - me, F&F, Uanfala, AJM - has some kind of axe to grind against you? Have you read

  WP:1AM? TrangaBellam (talk

  ) 14:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hmmm. Although that reply is a mess, and some of it doesn't make sense, there are some good points in there. TrangaBellam should have brought your issues to administrator attention sooner, instead of doing what can probably be defined as hounding, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Visioncurve, I appreciate that it may be annoying or even upsetting to have TrangaBellam go after your edits. However, what I'm interested in hearing from you here is your take specifically on those of the points that TrangaBellam has made on this page that relate to those two of your edits: [17] [18]. You can reply whenever you have the time and headspace, I'm not in a rush. – Uanfala (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, Uanfala, and thanks for your understanding response. AirshipJungleman29, my apologies for the last post of mine being indeed messy and comprised of a number of flaws; it was written in a hurry. I've amended it now without altering the core structure of my post. So, my apologies again. Regards, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 06:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Visioncurve, I did say I was not in a hurry, but I am expecting your response to the issues outlined by TrangaBellam. – Uanfala (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I have reverted VC's edit which tampered with their previous posts, after they had been already replied to, for violating

  WP:TALK#REPLIED

  .

  Fwiw, a new case of misrepresentation, about a month old, has been discovered at User talk:Uanfala#Note. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I've restored that edit: it didn't change the meaning of the post (if it's about the bit about "embarrassing", that was repeated from earlier in the sentence). TrangaBellam, you're

  involved here, so please don't try clerking the discussion. – Uanfala (talk

  ) 10:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Noted, Uanfala. But I am unhappy about the removal of the qualifier "embarassing"; VC alleged that I had "embarassed" myself while challenging the source, which was since discovered to have been misrepresented at the thread on your t/p. I will leave to your discretion. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  The "embarassing" bit is still there, it's just not repeated twice in the same sentence. – Uanfala (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  After all what's said and done, it surprises me that you still try to contest me even at such minor and insignificant things as my previous edit which attempted to bring order to my own mess, comprised of the same repeated words, broken links (Lee Velinsky one) and gender pronoun issues such as he/she. Moreover, you didn't embarrass yourself by challenging the source; you humiliated yourself with failing to recognize a well-known Soviet ethnographer and historian, while trying to showcase yourself as a history ace or hotshot, initially making fun of his name and calling him "shabby" (diff 1), (diff 2). Uanfala, I am really sorry for taking so long, but I will start posting my response regarding those two edits of mine you identified above, starting from tomorrow. Thanks, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 13:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  "Making fun of his name" - Huh? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, Visioncurve, the points in question are #2 and #10 from the current revision of this page. They pertain to two of your edits from December. – Uanfala (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I've removed the collapsed evidence listing: it duplicates the subpage linked above and causes hiccups with the automatic archiving. – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Visioncurve has responded to the first of those two points; the response and the follow-up discussion are now on

topic ban from content work in the area of history. In my opinion, the only thing that can avert that, Visioncurve, is for you to take the criticism on board. It's up to you to reflect on things and figure out what can be done so that these problems don't arise again. And you really need to be more receptive to legitimate criticism of your work. – Uanfala (talk

) 16:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear Uanfala, first things first: I really appreciate your comprehensive and constructive opinion and how impartially you have approached this issue. I would also like to thank you for your honest evaluation of things in your comment about my original post that seems to have gone unnoticed (diff1) Unfortunately, I haven't been able to reply to the second of those two points you asked me to, since unfortunately again, I’ve been a little occupied with other important things in life. However, you have correctly mentioned that the point at issue was brought up by TrangaBellam him/herself at Talk:Tuqaq#GA_Reassessment last year. The reason for not posting response to it back then was perhaps more of agreeing with the point than brushing it off. To this end, I later tried to re-insert it to the article with a view to have a contradicting opinion, but as you have rightly noted, occasionally we all do make mistakes in understanding sources. Still, I would like to re-assure you that all the issues displayed at User:TrangaBellam/VC can more or less be explained and were not meant to disrupt Wikipedia just as my latest response to one of those two allegations in the aforementioned list. I have always stated that I was open for constructive and civil collaboration; I posted this several times at TB's talk page in the past with the last one published at my own t/p (diff 1.1). However, TB's aggressive rhetoric and constant bad faith coupled with never-ending wikihounding turned the working environment into an unbearable one. Therefore, later I chose not to respond to her walls of messages even though I did have reasonable explanations for most of my contributions just as I have shown with my latest reply. I also believe any editor has rights to remove mal-cited content in any article, and that there is no need to publish every arising issue at article’s t/p, apart from the cases when there’s edit-warring. And as you know, I have never reverted TB’s edits that undid or corrected my contributions, not even once.

Regardless, I would also like to assure you that I have carefully read the last lines of your message and taken your advice to reflect on things in order to prevent similar problems from happening in the future and me being ended up here.

However, what still surprises me is how TrangaBellam could manage to get away from this thread without getting at least cautioned for aggressive rhetoric and incivility he/she has resorted to while addressing some of the editors. I believe you also noted that “in several places, TrangaBellam comes across as brusque or unnecessarily bitey: such tone should ideally have been avoided”. Even if my original complaint and its respective diffs above have been shrugged off, say for the issues listed in User:TrangaBellam/VC, I can’t believe that TB’s disruptive behavior and disrespect directed at my latest GA Reviewer Lee Vilensky (diff 2), and the plight of user ElinRuby in support of user Minaro (see above) fell on deaf ears.

To summarize, I am not a supporter of counterattacks or boomerangs as it’s called in Wikipedia, nor am I good at it, but I would like you to note this user has also been accused of exactly the same things: misrepresentation of sources (diff 4) (diff 5), usage of inaccessible sites (diff 6) (I'm convinced there is a lot more, since these were found by spending only a few minutes) and etc. I’m not saying anything with it; I just want to confirm your statement that we all do mistakes. 217.174.229.250 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 started the thread on Goldman/Truschke; he might (or might not) choose to say something on my "misrepresentation of sources". I would have pinged the other editor but regrettably, he had been indeffed on my request. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This thread is sadly in need of attention, but I do not have the time for it at present. I will note in response to the ping that the comment I made being quoted above was substantively a content dispute, not a conduct matter: fundamentally it was a debate over which sources to use. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell revisited

Initial issue dealt with, the thread is now not serving a useful purpose, to say the least. Black Kite (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2023 (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.

---

October 2022 block of Doug Coldwell

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1108#Doug Coldwell and self-promotional editing

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#User Doug Coldwell at Haskelite Building and 801 N. Rowe Street

The discussions above are long (record-breaking?) and hard to decipher when one can't see deleted versions, but I understand that a) there were enormous problems with copyvio, too close paraphrasing, misrepresentation of sources, and self-promotion with Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs · logs); b) Coldwell is from Michigan with a connection to a library there; and c) Coldwell is blocked and topic-banned from GA/DYK.

I missed the ANI, but had independently discovered a very large problem throughout the Ludington family series of GAs by Coldwell, which promoted the notion of Sybil Ludington as a "female Paul Revere" based on self-published family accounts categorized by Hunt, a scholarly source, as less than reliable. The Ludington family account was authored by Willis Fletcher Johnson, but published privately by the Ludington family. It should be understood that Hunt implies, although does not directly state, that a profitable tourist, book and promotional industry arose around the notion of this "female Paul Revere", so there is a potential motive for continuing the less-than-reliable Ludington family accounts. I rewrote those articles in the second half of 2022 to include Hunt and other sources which question the Ludington family account. And a fine job of promoting those accounts Wikipedia had done.

Having been largely absent from Wikipedia for seven years, LordGorval (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) surfaced in January to significantly expand (as in DYK potential) Willis Fletcher Johnson. Much of the content added [19] was an UNDUE and biased account, minimizing the conclusions drawn by Hunt.

Editing by

WP:CWW

, btw).

• September 16 to 19, 2019 Trahey's sandbox on Delos L. Filer from Ludington, Michigan
• September 20, 2019 Trahey's Sandbox2, also Delos L. Filer
  • A GA published by Doug Coldwell on October 1, 2019, with the same content as the Thomas Trahey sandbox
• September 20 to 24, 2019, Sandbox 3 on John Mason Loomis, also from Ludington, and
  • Also published by Doug Coldwell on October 1, 2019, with the same content as the Thomas Trahey sandbox

I don't know what I have stumbled upon, but we have two editors making questionable edits to an article that formed the basis of a series of dubious GAs by Doug Coldwell, and we have similar gibberish content, misrepresentation of sources, and too close paraphrasing, so I hope those familiar with Coldwell's editing, and the past discussions, will have a look. I may have missed a lot in the lengthy discussions linked above, but something seems off in this sudden interest in rewriting Fletcher's article with a slant towards the Ludington family view. (Notifying Coldwell, Gorval and Trahey next.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding: Both Gorval and Trahey remove content cited to Hunt that the Ludington account was published by his grandchildren, and replace it with original research about the printer, DeVinne Press.[20] [21] We can't use our own research to refute a scholarly source and the title page of the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to note that the image of the library on Thomas Trahey's userpage was uploaded by Coldwell which obviously is proof of nothing but just... c'mon.... Xx78900 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems like SPI might be the right venue for this. (t · c) buidhe 11:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe, I am questioning whether a) the DYK/GA topic ban is sufficient, b) whether it should be extended to other editors (whose editing is surely too old to be considered at SPI), and c) whether the CIR issues in current editing at the Johnson article also need scrutiny. There's more than SPI going on here. Re-reading some of the linked discussions above, the extent to which Coldwell's work was defended by GA/DYK regulars is shocking, considering the severity of the problems I happened upon merely by seeing a "doesn't pass the duck test" post on Facebook about "the female Paul Revere", and finding Coldwell had spread this across perhaps a dozen GAs, by misrepresenting the Johnson source as being published by Harvard University. The work I have seen is perfectly summed up by this post from EEng. One wonders if the level of competence issues would have been uncovered sooner had Coldwell submitted to FAC. At any rate, the whole situation is odd, and I posted to here to get more eyes from those familiar with a mess too big for me to digest without access to deleted versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, the Trahey/Gorval edits have Willis Fletcher as a descendent of Samuel Johnson (not what the source says) and have him graduating from New York Unnversity, when the source says he didn't graduate ... along with the original research about the publisher of the Ludington memoir. (I suspect I've only scratched the surface of the issues at that article ... noting that the Ludington series was GA'd by Coldwell several years after the 2015 Hunt paper, and there are other sources discrediting that story, which were omitted). What I uncovered in the Ludington issue does not speak well for the rest of Coldwell's GA/DYK work, or the fact that most of this was apparently missed, and later defended by some at the ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• A quick Google-search on their names +Ludington shows that Coldwell and Trahey are two real-life individuals (of different generations) cooperating to promote their hometown, Ludington, MI, and not socking (per the strict definition of it), and even
  WP:MEAT would be very difficult to prove. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk
  15:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Two basically inactive editors (one of whose work was previously published by Coldwell) turn up to promote the author of a piece that is the basis for a series of Coldwell GAs, and also misrepresent sources, create poor content, and closely paraphrase; what is difficult there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

As is stated further up Coldwell published articles written in Trahey's sandbox, so maybe Trahey wrote them all, or at least many of them, and is continuing to write, but now publishing them under his own name. A way of doing things that there AFAIK is no policy against (other than it perhaps being a case of "copying within Wikipedia", if that also covers sandboxes and not just article space; but that would be Coldwell violating the rules, and he's already blocked...). If Trahey continues with a behaviour that is an exact copy of Coldwell's, he could be blocked in his own right, but the probability of Coldwell and Trahey being two different individuals sharing the same interest is so high that I, if I were a CU (which I, thank God or whoever handles things like that nowadays, am not) would not run a check on them. As for the third account I have no opinion. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 17:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell was blocked indefinitely for cause and it's unlikely that an unblock request would be successful. If another account is carrying on similar behavior and is either him or knows him then that's not acceptable regardless of who is actually behind the account. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well. I posted here out of concern that the expansion at Willis Fletcher Johnson indicates the possibility that the intent was to aim towards DYK, and the edits appear designed to specifically support the bias/inaccuracy introduced by Coldwell throughout a huge number of Revolutionary War GAs and articles. And that there is no need or reason for an SPI here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If Trahey also repeatedly introduces bias/inaccuracies to multiple articles, in spite of being told to stop, and why, he should be blocked, but that block would be because of his own actions (as I wrote above: "If Trahey continues with a behaviour that is an exact copy of Coldwell's, he could be blocked in his own right..."), but SPI, as was suggested further up here, and what I responded to, would not be the right venue for it. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 21:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I have now uncovered cut-and-paste copyvio at Willis Fletcher Johnson. [22][23] A further similarity to Coldwell is the use of offline sources that can't be checked. And another similarity to Doug Coldwell is the failure of either Gorval or Trahey to respond to this ANI.

Because of these similarities, and the possibility of further plagiarism or misrepresentation of sources at the Johnson article, I have reverted now the entire mess, as it's too much for me to check and rewrite. It may be too many edits to request a copyvio revdel back to the first copyvio edit by Gorval: will an admin please opine and assist? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This Gorval edit, after a 6 1/2 year absence, is suggestive of content developed in sandbox that contains cut-and-paste copyvio.

This series of Trahey edits contain too close paraphrasing of the source (architect and builder intellectual and philanthropist bit, and more).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: just a quick note, while Doug Coldwell possibly did not respond to various attempts to discuss issues with their edits (I can't remember very well), they definitely did not fail to respond to the two ANIs. Actually regarding the 1108 ANI, I think many editors would argue both that they responses very unsatisfactory but more germane to your comment, that they responded way too much with such unsatisfactory responses. Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Actually for the 1108 discussion, as mentioned in the block log, Doug initially refused to take part in the ANI discussion and had to be hit with a temporary block to coerce him to join in the discussion, and then proceeded to brag about his accomplishments and make accusations when unblocked to participate. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks both; as I didn't follow it all when it happened, I was seeking more information. But my main concern remains what GA and DYK are going to do to prevent all the same from happening again, if Coldwell intends to use sock or meatpuppets to achieve GA or DYK. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Ah sorry I forgot about that block. I only re-checked that thread enough to confirm the memory I had of what happened which is that it was the thread where as you said, Coldwell seemed to repeatedly brag about their contributions as well as accuse others of jealousy and also seemed to suggest that the number of readers of their contributions proved they were fine. These repeated brags etc where why I said IMO they (ended up) responded way too. I also noticed Coldwell seemed to reply within about 25 hours of the thread starting which IMO is normally reasonable so assumed replying wasn't an issue there but missed the early discussion leading up to a block. (I can understand why it was a problem when Coldwell continued to edit with the same problems and had never shown any signs of communicating.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I blocked Coldwell as a result of the above-linked ANI, but I don't have time to dig into this right now with limited wiki time. If my block needs adjusting as a result of this revived account, please feel free. Star Mississippi 23:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a blatant case of either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, with the edits of the two accounts indistinguishable from Coldwells, including the same issues that lead to the block. Should thus be treated the same way, i.e. both blocked indef as well.

Fram (talk

) 08:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably, but not an admin. I am more concerned about Coldwell continuing to aim towards DYK and GA, because his work demonstrates

real problems of every kind, and the problems in Trahey's and Gorval's work is indistinguishable from those in Coldwell's work. Blocking those two accounts might stop this instance only. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 10:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This admission from Coldwell seems relevant considering Trahey's sandbox activity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It shows how he worked when he began his "career" on WP, but the "sandbox account" he refers to can't be User:Thomas Trahey, since he talks about an account he used 16 years ago, because the Trahey account was created less than three years ago.

... and it can't be LordGorval (a user account that was created in 2007) either since that account only has three sandboxes, one with general beginner's stuff, one with religious texts and one that has never been edited. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 11:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:DUCK: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"). - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk

13:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Fram and Star Mississippi. I'm not an admin and not in the position of deciding whether a block is worthy here; I'm presenting what I know as I discover it, and if you keep repeating the same points, you make it harder for admins to see the forest for the trees. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 15:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: If you truly want to help admins decide you'll have to post diffs of identical or at least almost identical edits made by Coldwell and Gorval and/or Trahey side-by-side, so that anyone can see that Gorval and/or Trahey are continuing what Coldwell was doing, and not a link to Coldwell describing how he did when he started editing. Which is what I have hinted at all the time, it's the edits they make that count, and can get them blocked, and it's up to whoever reports something to provide diffs for those edits. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 16:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC) (Sorry if I seem less friendly than before, but the same goes for you...)

Thanks for sharing. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 16:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have CU blocked both. I am convinced both by technical data and at least one non-technical item that the LordGorval account is operated by Doug Coldwell, besides the above listed behavior. The technical data, at least one non-technical item, and the behavior above also point to the Thomas Trahey account being operated by Doug Coldwell, but it also could be meatpuppetry indistinguishable from socking with the technical data in hand. I've put the data on CU wiki for anyone who wants to take a second look as well as the specific items that lead to the CU blocks.

I agree that this should have been filed at

WP:SPI. Izno (talk

) 07:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thx, Izno; I was hoping to get broader attention to the bigger picture re GA/DYK, and at the outset, was not that sure this was a sock/meat situation (it felt like an editathon at a library or some such). As I kept looking, it did become clearer ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers making sure you saw this thread, as you copyedited immediately after both Gorval and Trahey's edits, and uploaded a photo from the source they used. As I reverted the lot for all the reasons given above, you might be interested in repairing whatever you can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: — Yes, I noticed the mass deletion on the Johnson article and was inclined to restore some items, but figured it best not to make any edits until the smoke cleared around here. Perhaps this is not the appropriate forum to be discussing article improvement, so I'll leave comments and questions on the Fletcher Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Color me disappointed. I had Coldwell down as working in good faith but lacking some necessary level of awareness of what is appropriate use of sources and what is too much copying. It is hard to see socking block evasion as a good faith action. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

When looking at the caption in the image at the top of his user page, it occurs to me that there was also a glaring miss on understanding copyright. Per

WP:EL, Wikipedia is not supposed to host copyright violations. How would his local newspapers feel about those scans of the articles from his local newspaper he uploaded to Flicker and posted to Wikipedia? Reading those articles gives an interesting look into the personaggio.

"I happen to be one of the top Wikipedia scholars", He said.. Wikipedia scholars are the roughly two dozen top contributors to Wikipedia, Caldwell said.[24]

In reading through more of the older stuff, it's pretty shocking how many times his copyright violations were detected and never acted upon. The other alarming thing is that this is about the fourth time, IIRC, of similar coming out of the reward culture furthered by DYK. The addiction seems too hard to break.

Does that caption need to be removed from the image per Wikipedia hosting a copyright violation? SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 09:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think he's blocked, his socks are now blocked, and there's really no reason to chop up his userpage to make a point. The wiki won, all is good. Parabolist (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether a Wikipedia user page can host a copyvio (in this case, in an image caption, @

WP:POINT)-- this is one of the things that makes ANI so toxic.

@RoySmith and Izno: have you read those articles in the image caption, and is CUWiki aware that Coldwell uses three laptops side-by-side? SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 09:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not personally enforce

WP:LINKVIO (and skeletons in the closet/dark secret of Wikipedia moment, I'm pretty sure I've even linked them in the context of out of print video gaming magazines in some ancient time on one or two pages, no doubt removed since by someone or another enforcing the policy of interest even though there's a probably a pretty strong case for their hosting them under fair use

on their website), but my read of the policy today is that if we have a reasonable belief that he's linking to copyvios, someone could enforce the policy and remove the links. (Be careful when you use the word "host", since Wikipedia is not hosting copyright violations in this context, only linking to an external service hosting what we believe to be a copyright violation. Hence the specific link to LINKVIO rather than our overall policy.)

cuwiki does indeed have a measure of the number of the devices he was editing from. Izno (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not casting aspersions, or being "toxic", which cool, thanks, glass houses and whatnot, I'm asking if this is really worth anyone's time. The captions under an image in a blocked users page link to a flickr photo which might be a violation. Doug clearly was very very focused on his achievements, and now knowing that he is capable of socking, is it really worth antagonizing a blocked user over possibly one of the most minor rule violations in the entire wiki rule structure. So minor, in fact, that you barely know if it is one! Let his account die in peace, and let's try to avoid creating a hostile relationship that turns him into an LTA with a grudge. Parabolist (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I see you didn't address or strike

"wiki won", but I'd be pleased to let that go. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 13:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia I've replaced the offending Flickr links with the titles of the newspaper articles. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In no universe did the wiki "win." Cleaning up the mess that Doug made will take years. In that time we're actively spreading bad information to other people. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Request to close

The socks have been blocked. I'd appreciate this thread being left open as I work today on bringing forward some concrete proposals of the issues raised in both of the (above linked) ANIs that were left unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The immediate incident has been resolved, and I will likely launch broader proposals relating to all three ANIs elsewhere tomorrow, so closing this thread would be fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

What happened to AGF?

If it had been vandalism I would have had no objections, but it isn't, it's a content dispute (or more precisely: does mentions in passing by Paula Hunt override older sources). In small towns (Ludington, MI, has a population of only ~8K) working together on local projects, including promoting their own home town, meeting in a local library, at a local church or in someone's home, is common practice, so having occasionally edited using the same IP, or IPs in the same subnet, does not prove that the same individual has used three different computers side-by-side for purposes violating Wikipedia rules, especially not since there's no editing overlap at all between Coldwell and Trahey (i.e. there's not a single article that has been edited by both of them), only one single article (Willis Fletcher Johnson) that has been edited by both Trahey and LordGorval, and the editing overlap between Coldwell and LordGorval is mainly on articles about biblical names, and the Wikipedia Helpdesk. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 11:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

1. You're asking what weight to give a 2015 scholarly source relative to a 1907 self-published family account?
2. Neither you nor I have access to the information all of the checkusers can see on CUwiki, which includes both technical and non-technical (behavioral) evidence.
3. See also
   WP:MEAT
   .
4. I see nowhere that anyone said that "the same individual has used three different computers side-by-side for purposes violating Wikipedia rules".
5. "Biblical names" like Owain Gwynedd?
6. You don't seem to have read the evidence: whether interaction shows on the tools is not a useful bit of info when everything Trahey wrote earlier on Wikipedia was published by Coldwell. That's interaction that won't be picked up by the tool. And that Gorval rarely edited topics of this nature, yet appeared to do so after an almost seven-year absence, and right after Coldwell asked to be unblocked so he could work on "his" articles, is interesting.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how much you know about computers, but FYI a laptop is a computer, and just a few steps up in this thread you yourself posted "... is CUWiki aware that Coldwell uses three laptops side-by-side..."}, and you also seem to have problems with the meaning of the word "mainly", since you chose to concentrate on Owain Gwynedd (where Gorval and Coldwell have made one edit each three years apart) instead of the multiple list articles about biblical names just below Gwynedd where Gorval and Coldwell have made multiple edits each (which FYI means that the overlap between them is mainly on lists of biblical names and Wikipedia helpdesks). - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 12:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that I did not state "for purposes violating Wikipedia rules". Re point 1, are you suggesting I should reinstate text that had cut-and-paste copyvio and too close paraphrasing along with factual inconsistencies? See

WP:PDEL. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 14:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Que?

Socking refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts, i.e. using multiple accounts in violation of Wikipedia's rules, that's what people get blocked for, not for having/using multiple accounts per se, since there are also legitimate uses for alternative accounts. Which means that having/using multiple accounts is blockable only if the multiple accounts have been found to have been used in violation of Wikipedia's rules. As for point 1: of course not, but do you feel that that by itself is enough of an offense to indeff both Thomas Trahey and LordGorval? - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk

15:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I am neither an admin nor a CU, nor did I file an SPI in this case. I have no cause to dispute that CUs independently (and based on info we are not privy to) found a connection and blocked. I would say that the articles Gorval and Coldwell shared an interest in are obscure enough to raise eyebrows. I trust the CU findings in this case.

You

bludgeoned the last thread I was involved in at ANI, and now you're doing the same here. All of your 2023 ANI posts (with the exception of one you self-reverted) are over-responding to threads I am involved in. Your undue attention on me is making me uncomfortable. If you don't understand how CU works or trust CU findings, perhaps you can inquire elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 16:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I do know how CU works, what technical information is/could be available, and how far back in time CUs can see, and I am of course not following you around, so I suggest you drop that. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 16:27, 21 January 2023 (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.

Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change

RE-BLOCKED BY WIDR

WP:QUACK of Ultimate Doom. Favonian (talk

) 17:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

WP:BMB but thought I'd bring it here in case anyone wants to take further action, or point out that I am mistaken.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk

) 16:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The IP should be blocked, as it's mostly likely Voter (X) signed out. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Persistent promotional and copyright violation at Almost, Maine and John Cariani

ALMOST FINISHED

IP soft-blocked for one month, promotional material removed, Starrshapiro's behavior on watch. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:39, 21 January 2023 (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.

---

See Starrshapiro (talk · contribs) and a host of IPs from the 2600:1700:5AB1:19B0 range. Both articles need to be edited for promotional concerns, and Almost, Maine is currently under attack with persistent copyright violation and promotional tone. Possible page protection, or subject specific blocks of the registered account and IP range. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I soft blocked 2600:1700:5AB1:19B0::/64 for a while. Maybe that'll take care of it. If Starrshapiro becomes disruptive, he can be blocked, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, NRP. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

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

New editor Vizorblaze not violating CIVIL and HERE

BLOCKED

Linguist111 (talk

) 15:21, 21 January 2023 (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.

---

Vizorblaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Possible sock, battleground behavior, violations of NPA/CIVIL.

I'm asking for an admin to take a look at a 3 day old account Vizorblaze. The account was opened to carry out a (preexisting?) fight (off Wikipedia?) with Philomathes2357. Actions include following Philo to several articles to target Philo's edits and comments. Edit summaries that suggest Philo is antisemitic/ or has "Nazi" sympathies and generally seems to have a battleground disposition. I also suspect this is not a new to Wikipedia editor given they suggested going to WP:ANI with complaints.

Their second edit was to reply to a RfC opened by Philo here [25]. How would a brand new editor find that discussion? The next two edits also targeted Philo in that same discussion (all three edits shown here [26]).

Followed Philo over to the Cliven Bundy article and talk page. In this exchange[27] this new editor suggest Philo take them to ANI.[28] This edit summary referenced the wp:NONAZIS essay[29] and suggested it would apply to Philo.

Followed Philo to BLPN to herrass[30].

Same day, went to Philo's user page [31] and outed their social media account (see Doug Weller's response here [32]). How did they have this information?

I put a Contentious Topics warning on their user talk page. It was reverted with an accusation that I was a Nazi.[33]

After being told to stay off Philo's talk page Vizorblaze ignored the request and posted this [34] accusing me of antisemitic. They violated the request to stay away again with a follow up edit [35].

Note that Philo was recently blocked due to edit warring and in part to responding to these provocations.

As a final poke at Philo, Vizorblaze seeks out and reverts their edits now that they are blocked [36][37]

I think this is a pretty clear case of a likely sock who is here for battleground purposes rather than to build an encyclopedia. Springee (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I believe it is antisemitic to whitewash antisemitism from wiki articles. Prima Linea is a terrorist group. Yes, they bombed a synagogue. Yes, terrorist was removed from their description. Yes, David Duke is an antisemite. Not sure why anyone would object to calling him a felon, especially since it's well documented. Hey, by the way, did you know Henry Ford was an anti semite? No need for you to diminish that in his article. These are all content disputes, though you have found yourself defending antisemites in all of them. Vizorblaze (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Just the "nazi" name-calling is enough for a sanction, in my view. I also see a pattern of hounding against Philo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours, and am inclined to make it indefinite on the basis of battleground behavior, or any recurrence of the Nazi attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that reverting the CT warning with a claim that another editor is a Nazi, combined with the other stuff here, probably warrants a discussion over at

WP:AE as to whether this user is fit to edit within the area of American Politics. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

03:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I stepped on your edit. I don't think it's worth going to AE over that, the hole they're in is deep enough that anything less than a retraction and exemplary behavior is going to get an indefinite block as an ordinary admin action. The 72 hours is mainly to stop the nastiness and offer one chance at redemption. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Acroterion, I think WilliamAdamaII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is likely a sock of this account (or same master account). Springee (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we might be looking at block evasion here. This single-minded focus on provoking another editor is about as non-collaborative as one can get. I agree that this might be indicative of a pre-existing feud. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

WilliamAdamall Indeffed. There’s some chance that the provocation is a put-up, so leaving the present block on Vizorblaze for CU review. Acroterion (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, those two accounts probably aren't related. Vizorblaze is on the same IP range as User:Raxythecat. I'm going to bed, though, so I'm not going to look closer at the edits. William Adama is a fictional character. There's your first clue. Go look for people who argue over fictional characters, and you'll have your LTA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

So we likely have two LTAs. Raxythecat fits the mold, but I’ll leave that to morning to look at in detail. Acroterion (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Vizorblaze is editing outside Raxythecat's usual haunts, but their attitude is similar. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2023 (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.

Vector-2022

ROGER, ROGER. WHAT'S OUR VECTOR, VICTOR?

Scintillating discussion continues at Village Pump. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:55, 20 January 2023 (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.

---

A lot of users and IP users are asking how to change the skin back to vector-legacy on Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022, could anyone provide a link of solutions on the top of that page or page related to this issue? Then they may not ask again and again. Lemonaka (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Second this. Cards84664 20:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's also possible to edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice to link Help:Logging in. At the moment there's a centralnotice linking some sea-of-black obituary. Nemo 20:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The first time one logs in with the new appearance it very clearly states there is a "switch to the old look" shortcut on the left panel. This brings you right to the Appearance tab in your Preferences. ValarianB (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

IP's can't do that though. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 21:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Users must create an account in order to switch back to the old interface, and only users who are logged into an account will see the "Switch to old look" link (located underneath the "Donate" link near the top of the left-hand menu). This is due to the fact that the link simply takes you to the "skin" section of your account preferences. You still have to select the "vector legacy (2010)" skin from the list and save your changes for them to apply. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought that they said there was no way to bring back the menu. Burying and hiding of heavily used menu items is one of the biggest problems of the new one. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If I didn't know better, I'd say all this uproar was an indication that not everyone is using MonoBook, the way God intended WP to be read. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Twinkle worked a little strange on MonoBook, I still have preference for legacy. Lemonaka (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam and Lemonaka: I still use monobook, twinkle runs without any issues on it, and so does my admin toolset. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I have switched to MonoBook after reading this comment. There are a couple little things to get used to, but it's nice so far. Thank you User:Floquenbeam:)

It just goes to show I'm not objecting to Vector 2022 just because it's something new. MonoBook is new to me and I think I like it. DB1729^talk 22:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it a good sign or a bad sign when someone unironically thanks me for a post that was, admittedly, an attempt at trolling?--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Just face facts. That's the sign of a failed troll. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Floquentrolls never fail. Levivich (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

God intended Wikipedia to be read in Nostalgia skin, thank you very much. Izno (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The solution is to have a permanent and easily available opt-on toggle at the top right of every page. It's obvious they don't want to do this, though, and needless obfuscation and difficulty is WAD. You're probably being actively unhelpful to the new project by helping people. — LlywelynII 21:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Nothing that involves browser extensions is a remotely adequate solution. 142.162.17.231 (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka it is literally the first section on the page associated with the talk page you are asking about. If you want to add a link in the header, you don't need an admin. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer sysop action, because they are not only asking on that page, also TH and some related page. If there is a centralnotice or something, it will be better. Lemonaka (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka I think there is a centralnotice about this, and we also have a watchlist notice. There is nothing special about page improvements made "by a sysop" regarding your request to make a link from a talk page to its own project page as a banner - anyone can just do that. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

further discussion here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Discussion. Lemonaka (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2023 (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.

LlywelynII - This is probably a stupid question, but I didn't get a good answer when I tried looking it up. What does WAD mean in your response above? "Where's all the data?" is the closest I got to what it may mean, but I wanted to ask. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah (talk • contribs) 22:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Without a doubt it means "working as designed". (Where's a dictionary?) -GRuban (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

New user repeatedly citing Wikipedia, does not communicate

BLOCKED

Linguist111 (talk

) 15:25, 21 January 2023 (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.

---

sources are added to the articles. Editors @Nightscream:, @DragonflySixtyseven:, @David Biddulph: and myself have left messages about this on their talk page. Chelsi2023 has not responded, but continued their pattern of editing. Admin attention seems to be in order. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk

) 14:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

And continued to do so several times after being alerted to this ANI filing. While some of the edits are supported by cites in the other-language article or actually are consistent with content cited in the enwiki article, others are not. And regardless, as DuncanHill notes, *wiki is not an acceptable source for bio details. There is both a content problem and a behavior problem. Blocked 3h to get their attention. DMacks (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Editors who have enjoyed this thread may also enjoy another. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2023 (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:GigachadGigachad back to making disruptive edits immediately after block

GigachadGigachad had resumed editing after the expiration of their 14 day block, and literally their third edit since coming back [38] does the exact thing that they were twice blocked for: removing content with a misleading edit summary. The edit summary says "changed link" but they deleted the link altogether without justification. This might seem somewhat trivial, but it fits right back into their pattern of disruption, which they keep insisting will cease, and never does. This user clearly no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt. Cpotisch (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

All I did was switch the link to the main 2017 NJ assembly election page from the 2017 elections page. I think that constitutes "changed link." I get why I have been banned before and made an effort to avoid that here. GigachadGigachad (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems like they broke the link but then immediately fixed it. This doesn't seem like an ANI-worthy complaint to me. Loki (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, they fixed it themselves literally one minute later, and overall it's a clear improvement to the article (the new link is a much better target). Not sure why this diff was reported here at all. DanCherek (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Template editor needed ~14000 articles broken

FIXED

(non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:55, 22 January 2023 (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.

---

Can someone fix this template merger nomination. The nomination has broken all 14000+ articles that use the infoboxes that use the module.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It was fixed five minutes ago. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2023 (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.

2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:4CE5:AFC1:D1C3:14EA (talk · contribs) spamming on Talk:Uyghurs

Page protected, /64 blocked. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:51, 22 January 2023 (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.

---

Also spamming "Uyghurs are basically anatolians, and efforts should be made to allow them all to their homeland", putting false and ridiculous claims like Uyghurs are Anatolian, which they are not, and endorsing their deportations (I suppose). Beshogur (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

[39] Also calling me and another user racists. Beshogur (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Also 2a00:23c5:c13c:9f01:d9c7:6caa:bfb6:7e7a (talk · contribs). Adding really offensive/racist (and silly) stuff + personal attacks. –Austronesier (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I will point out that

WP:GS/UYGHUR exists, and administrators are free to use discretionary sanctions to prevent future vandalism. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

17:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I think talk page should be protected somehow. Its always get some anti-Uyghur stuff by SPIs. [40] Here another IP pushes a similar claim, almost a year old. Beshogur (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Note: See also: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Talk:Uyghurs — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:00, 22 January 2023 (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.

Paulthelawyer adding personal info and edit warring

BLOCKED

Everyone, even celebrities, deserve some modicum of privacy. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:59, 22 January 2023 (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.

---

Paulthelawyer is adding personal information, specifically images of private residences, to various Wikipedia articles. When these images were removed, they resort to edit warring to add the images to the articles again.

Olivia Dunne: [41][42][43][44]

Chris Rock: [45][46][47]

Lil' Kim: [48][49]

Cardi B: [50]

Michael60634 (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we say MAJOR

WP:BLP violation. And creepy. Mike Allen

04:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@MikeAllen To add to the creepy part, these images were taken by the Paulthelawyer. Michael60634 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion at

Talk:Olivia Dunne#‘Childhood home’ image, which led to Michael60634's opening this ANI report, shows that four editors agreed that the image of a house owned by Dunne's parents doesn't belong in the article, and only Paulthelawyer disagreed. Added to the edit warring against consensus, and the BLP violation issues, it also looks like original research – this post by Paulthelawyer seems to say that they found the parents' current address in a directory and drew the conclusion that it's where Dunne grew up. -bonadea contributions talk

11:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Paulthelawyer indeffed for serious and repeated violations of

WP:BLPPRIVACY. Salvio ^giuliano

12:37, 22 January 2023 (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:Chitral view

• Chitral view (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.186.135.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

competence problem, and a failure to engage in discussion or to respond to earlier warnings. - David Biddulph (talk

) 18:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Chitral view has a messy contributions list. Support indef; they need to communicate with other editors, propose moves rather than make them unilaterally, and only create articles in draftspace. Editors shouldn't have to do so much clean-up work behind another editor. Schazjmd (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Just looking at their talk page, they are clearly not here to responsibly contribute and work with other editors, and with the complete lack of response when warned, I agree, support indef. (Non-administrator comment) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There are also IPs involved in the same campaign regarding places in the Chitral district, with similar lack of competence. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

115.186.135.10 is one such IP, who has been warned, but again has made no attempt to heed the warnings or to discuss the problems. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Another hijacking today.

Qaqlasht. Please can someone take action on this editor and the IP which he uses? David Biddulph (talk

) 18:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

One of the particularly annoying things about this editor is his habit of repeatedly shuffling page titles to & fro and leaving redirects blocking moves, hence it needs admins to sort out the revert moves which otherwise could be done by ordinary editors. David Biddulph (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Following the trail, I've just split

No such user (talk

) 14:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I've warned User:Chitral view that they are risking a block. They appear to have also been editing logged out but 115.186.135.10 (talk · contribs) is now blocked for a week as an open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

SJ Morg – no respect to rules regulating reverting and content removal, possibly ownership, incivility

Dear Board, I'm forced to report this incident, as there's really no hope left after talking to the editor.

A brief synopsis: after seeing a quite embarassing revert of my edit (a tiny addition), I asked SJ Morg politely on his talk page about it. It's rather discourteous to make an editor who follows BRD wait, but the editor made me wait for six days, responding only after a reminder and essentially admitting the revert was incorrect in an unnecessarily long reply and providing a rather unconvincing explanation for it.

In my reply, among other things, I recommended the editor to read and respect rules dealing with reverts and content removal and shared my observations of his very high revert rate, once again communicating in a very polite manner in entire message and completely refraining even from any unpleasant yet deserved statements, like recommending to consult a map before reverting others' edits (which I considered including, but decided against doing so).

The editor not only didn't take my recommendation and observations properly, but responded (among other things) with "I reverted a single edit of yours, affecting just one sentence, and yet now you are urging me to read WP policies and guidelines – which I most likely am far more familiar with than you are (and which I support and adhere to)." and a strange derogatory remark regarding my alleged anonymity, whereas the editor is fully anonymous himself.

I gave a stern yet polite reply, asking the editor to refrain from derogatory assumptions and statements about people he obviously doesn't have a slightest idea about and drawing his attention to the fact that this incident was not a one-off event, as even a brief look at his record shows recent incorrect reverts and rollbacks and that my initial observations regarding his revert rate and revert-only days hold true for many recent months. Later I checked history of articles with incorrect reverts and once again found his earlier contributions to them – hence suspicions that it could well be a case of ownership.

In reply the editor accused me of constructing a "false argument" and stated "I don't know even know how to do a rollback, so I am really beginning to question your motives with this discussion" thus essentially accusing me of lying about him.

Afterwards he moved the entire talk page to archive, so I had to revert the move in order to post a reply, in which among other things I offered the editor to apologise for all of the incidents and explain the reasons for editing and communicating with no regard for code of conduct in trade for not submitting report to WP:ANI. The editor did not respond and just cleaned his talk page again not even bothering to add my message to archive, so in order to view the entire discussion, you'd need to view previous version of the talk page (last topic "Your revert in Bethany – why?"):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1132782573&title=User_talk:SJ_Morg

Apart from the obvious reasons of filing this report, my overriding reason for submitting it and appealing to the Board is that the editor is obviously not apologetic of anything, and I simply don't see him changing his ways of editing and communicating with others without exposure to your eyes and some help with delivery of the messages.

As for measures/sanctions which are applied for such misconduct in established order, I hereby ask the Board with all due respect for two things (either in addition to, or in place of regular measures):

1. Considering that the editor's record shows repeated cases of incorrect reverts (reverted in turn by original contributors and undisputed by SJ Morg), including recently and including rollbacks (which he denied to me in a very uncivil manner), and the editor's very high revert rate with many days when he literally does nothing but revert, please recommend community members, who specialize in examining editors' records, take a closer look at SJ Morg's record, as I fear there can well be many more examples of unjustified reverts, which were uncontested by editors who made good contributions in fact, and restore those contributions.

2. Please oblige SJ Morg to move only the discussion concerning this issue out of archive back to the talk page with my last message left intact and to keep it on the talk page along with the WP:ANI notice for a period of minimum of five years (with both to be archived afterwards) – I do hope this measure will be both sufficient and effective enough to help the editor work out a much more disciplined and responsible approach to reverting, content removal and communicating with others.

I very much count on your support in dealing with this matter, as I wouldn't wish any good editor who follows BRD to encounter an undeserved revert by SJ Morg and/or read his completely undeserved uncivil comments, it was an extremely distressing experience (starting with making an editor wait for six days). 188.66.34.134 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the conversation you linked to above is way too much to sift through. What's the tl;dr summary? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say something similar myself after trying to read this. If you want volunteers to respond to your reports you have to learn to say things succinctly and with

Phil Bridger (talk

) 17:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have found that this report is about

Phil Bridger (talk

) 17:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no "misconduct" here. Kindly read

WP:NODEADLINE. This is a volunteer project. You are not entitled to a response within six or any number of days. The editor may be sick, or on vacation. The editor may have had a family emergency, or a school or work project that is taking up all of the editor's bandwidth. The editor may just be in a mood in which the editor chooses to spend the editor's free time learning to cook paella or do taekwondo. The editor may just be annoyed by you and choosing not to engage with you at the moment. None of these things are "misconduct", and if you find this experience "extremely distressing", this may not be the right environment for you. (And what "Board" are you talking about "appealing to"?) Julietdeltalima (talk)

00:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Phil Bridger: to be honest, I don't understand at all why would anyone need diffs in this case, as the revert diff is in the very first message and everything else is on the talk page I linked, and separate diffs would only take something out of context. Nor can I understand the apparent displeasure with me allegedly not telling what this is about, as I specifically mentioned topic name right before the link, so it's easy to find.

As for BRD, that's because anyone who is actually familiar with it knows that a user's talk page is just as fine to discuss the matter, and, besides, this revert obviously concerns the editor rather than the article.

Julietdeltalima: you have completely missed the point (please read the title of report).

Interestingly, SJ Morg seems to really have zero respect to any rules – I asked him why he threw away my message from the archive along with WP:ANI notice without regard for relevant code of conduct, but I think his only reaction will be to delete this msg as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1133409179

Note: I'm thinking of writing an essay/article (working title is "When following BRD can be a bad idea") I could propose to The Signpost, and if they are not interested, could post it on one of my web resources. It would cover the incident and its processing here and would hopefully help fellow Wikipedians cope with editors like SJ Morg. Question: does anyone of you mind if I quote your comment(s) with your username or userpage link next to it? I will default to "No", as the work you do is very important for Wikipedia and you must be very proud of how you both help people and help Wikipedia be a civil place, but just in case you do mind my quoting you, please make it clear then. 188.66.32.25 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Per

WP:OWNTALK, "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving." There is no policy or guideline or rule violated by SJ Morg removing your comments or the ANI notice. Your request labelled 2. above is not going to happen. Schazjmd (talk)

17:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong, original poster. To expand on Schazjmd’s excellent points, it is not “just as fine to discuss the matter” on a user’s talk page. The point of article talk pages is to allow community members interested in a given article to discuss issues on a talk page permanently linked to that article, whether particular contributors to that article fade away over the years or prefer (as is allowed!) to keep clean user talk pages. Article talk needs to go on article talk pages. Full stop.

And you began and ended your report complaining that this other user didn’t get back to you within, heaven forfend, six days, on a deadline-free volunteer-operated project that everyone here works into their free time on an entirely uncompensated basis, so what am I missing? That seems to have been a significant predicate for your report, and it’s invalid. Over and out. Julietdeltalima (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Following

Phil Bridger (talk

) 09:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

From SJ Morg: (I drafted the following before the last two posts were made, so let me thank Julietdeltalima and Phil Bridger for those comments, and others for earlier comments here, before proceeding with my post.) This anonymous IP editor is harassing me, repeatedly making very long posts to my talk page with false accusations and defamatory claims of policy violations without any evidence – even after being told "there's no misconduct here" in this Noticeboard thread. I replied to the only issue the editor raised about an article (involving a single edit by me with which they disagreed), and essentially everything they have posted subsequently has been personal, not about any specific article. I have tried to ignore the harassment and move on, but they won't stop. (Most of the 'discussion' can be found at the very end of User talk:SJ Morg/Archive 3, but the editor continued with this, which I did not archive, and for the moment the harassment is continuing on the current user talk page.) I would have looked into requesting a block if not for the fact that I don't know whether there is any practical way to block an unregistered editor whose IP address is different for every post that he/she makes. SJ Morg (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I see two points worth addressing here, both in Schazmjd post:

1. Correct, however, per

WP:TPG

, which is general talk doc ("They (guidelines) apply not only to article discussion pages but everywhere editors interact, such as deletion discussions and noticeboards."):

• "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."
• "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page."

And that's just as far as talking page guidelines are concerned, which I didn't even claim any violation of (see report title).

2. As for my request no. 2, my proposal is based on the premise that measures should better be preventive in the first place and punitive in the second (a clarification whether WP:ANI task force follows this approach or not is highly important for productive discussion), and I do think it will be an effective preventive measure for this editor. What's your disagreement is based on, however, is not clear at all, please clarify what kind of rationale is behind it, I don't see any.

Besides, I don't see any counter-proposal either. Hence the question: what sanctions/measures are currently applied in a regular fashion for, say, incivility (if possible, with relevant links) and what's the tentative plan of resolving this case, considering there are

• two episodes of incivility (one of them was essentially accusing me of lying after mentioning incorrect rollback by SJ Morg),
• multiple incorrect reverts/rollbacks which involved other editors (reverted in turn by original contributors and uncontested by SJ Morg),
• possibly ownership,
• the editor is clearly not apologetic of anything, so apparently is not changing his ways of editing and communicating with people (this report wouldn't have been filed if he apologised and explained the reasons, as I proposed at the end of my talking to him)? 188.66.34.66 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  SJ Morg reverted your edit; you asked about it on his talk page; he replied with an explanation, and concluded However, you would not be incorrect if you were to reinstate your edit, but if so I would urge you to say the

  WP:TPG don't permit him to archive/remove discussions from his talk page without your permission[53] and this tirade are over the line. You escalated a simple content dispute. Let it go. Schazjmd (talk)

  19:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  What does SJ Morg have to be apologetic about? He was the one following

  Phil Bridger (talk

  ) 20:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment IP-editor needs to
  drop the stick. I see no ANI-worthy incivility or ownership on the part of SJ Morg. They are perfectly entitled to remove content from their own talk page, per the policy that has been pointed out to IP editor around five times already. Also, did IP-editor really write Please oblige SJ Morg to move only the discussion concerning this issue out of archive back to the talk page with my last message left intact and to keep it on the talk page along with the WP:ANI notice for a period of minimum of five years (with both to be archived afterwards) – I do hope this measure will be both sufficient and effective enough to help the editor work out a much more disciplined and responsible approach to reverting, content removal and communicating with others. and expect to get taken seriously? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk
  ) 20:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

A note on BRD for Julietdeltalima and Phil Bridger: I normally don't respond to commenters who show what their actual level of knowledge is (without even realizing it), but seeing how you two insist that SJ Morg is the one following BRD, or that discussion must be held on article page, I think I'll write a bit.

As I already said, anyone familiar with BRD knows that using user's talk page is just as fine. Anyone not familiar with BRD should start by reading

WP:BRD

, which I will quote personally for you folks:"You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, or invite the editor to the talk page if they insist on using only edit summaries, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle." and then proceed to examining edits of editors who use BRD on a regular basis and have a good grasp of when discussion belongs to article page and when it doesn't (to an experienced editor it's obvious this one doesn't). And while we're at it, do you mind me quoting what you said here regarding BRD and other stuff with your userpage links in the article I'm writing, which will cover this incident, its processing here and will hopefully help fellow Wikipedians cope better with offenders like SJ Morg and show what to expect from filing a report to WP:ANI (I'll take "no" by default as I said)? I'm currently thinking of doing two versions, one for Wikipedians (via The Signpost or some other way if they are not interested) and one for general reader I'll post on one of my web resources (working title is "The Dark Side of Wikipedia", subject to change).

Schazjmd: From the talk page it's obvious that the fault for escalation lies entirely with SJ Morg. At times I urge editors to respect rules as that's what every responsible editor can easily do to make Wikipedia better (you can find a couple more cases in the last month or two), and it's quite clear this message by me didn't call for any continuation whatsoever and should have been the end of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1130937921 After being pointed out in a polite manner that an edit violates rules (and everyone here apparently agrees with me, as there have been no objections), an editor is free to refute it, but do so staying within Code of Conduct. However, unlike any polite and respectable editor, SJ Morg responded instead with his first personal attack at me by appealing to authority instead of guidelines and assuming he is far more familiar with rules than another editor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131035880 And once again, I haven't seen any disagreement from anyone here that it was a completely undeserved personal attack. Then I pointed out (again, in a very polite manner which noone here finds any fault with) that his record shows other incorrect reverts and rollbacks. SJ Morg responded this time with more personal attacks, accusing me of creating "false argument" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1132130074 and denying incorrect rollbacks in a highly uncivil manner, essentially accusing me of lying about him: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1132124883 And again, I haven't seen any disagreement here that these personal attacks were completely uncalled for.

Bottomline: apparently, noone here disputes claims of the report or is capable of pointing out a slightest violation on my part – only strawman arguments from some quarters, one after another.

That being said, a word to admins involved with my report as well as to those who oversee the case without commenting: I stand by my original proposals on how to resolve this case as I still haven't seen anything more constructive (the case is obviously not about a single revert: SJ Morg's reverts should better be examined by those who specialize in it with good contributions restored, to begin with), I look forward to seeing answers to the important questions from my previous message (what are the usual sanctions for incivility etc.), and just in case there are plans to state there are no violations here and issue relevant resolution, I will take the case to ArbCom immediately – there should be no doubt in anyone's mind about it. I currently ponder dropping a msg to Jimmy as well to draw his attention to this case depending on what the resolution will be, maybe with a draft of my article.

And a word to SJ Morg: additional insults and unfounded accusations will not help you, by doing that you're just digging a grave for yourself. And should this case end up at ArbCom, I'll supplement it with incivilities from this topic, so my good advice to you would be to stop before it's too late (although I think you went past that point when you turned down my offer to apologise and explain your conduct). 188.66.35.232 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Can an admin take any action about this troll whose IP address keeps changing? Everything she or he accuses others of is actually their own behaviour.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 20:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I endorse Phil's statement. The IP's inaccurate wikilawyering is not convincing anyone. Schazjmd (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You two should really study the links below and stop making various derogatory assumptions about IP editors by default, when you have no idea about the editor's contributions – whether to use an account or not is a personal choice of every editor and must be respected. Consider this my first and last warning to both of you.

Wikipedia:IP edits are not anonymous
Wikipedia:IP editors are human too
Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Good_Faith_Wikipedians_Who_Remain_Unregistered_on_Principle 188.66.34.248 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with you editing as an IP. My issue is with your unreasonable demands per

WP:OWNTALK and your unnecessary escalation of a simple content dispute. Schazjmd (talk)

19:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The same from me. I edited unregistered myself for a few years, so have nothing against IP editors (as they are wrongly called here - everyone is actually an IP editor) per se, but I do have something against editors of any sort who refuse to accept consensus, and who waste volunteer's time by escalating such a trivial dispute. I repeat my plea for an admin to do something about this trolling.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I wonder, who gave you, along with SJ Morg, a right to insult people? Do you three have a personal exemption from established civility norms? Show it.

I'll give you a chance to apologise for calling me a troll, but in case you insist on that, I will supplement my filing to ArbCom with this insult as well. The choice is yours. 188.66.32.230 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact you refuse to listen to anyone else and keep (incorrectly) arguing policy shows you are either intentionally trying to get a rise out of people (aka trolling) or are

not competent to edit this project. ArbCom isn't going to touch this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

18:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

SJ Morg has not insulted you. He simply reverted, per

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

To Phil Bridger: Stating the obvious? I don't see anything obvious at all in calling a polite and intelligent person and a proficient editor, which I am, a troll – it's insulting in the extreme. Besides, by referring to me as "this troll whose IP address keeps changing" you not only insult me, you're being negative about many other IP editors – and that's a much bigger deal. Both Association of IP editors I mentioned and ArbCom may have serious questions to you upon seeing such irrational hate speech directed at me and many others (Code of Conduct explicitly bans all sorts of insults and hate speech, in case you didn't know).

As for SJ Morg, he insulted me twice during the discussion, and then continued with more insults here, wrongfully accusing me of the following:

• harassments
• false accusations
• defamatory claims of policy violations without any evidence

And as I said, if I will have to submit this case to ArbCom, I will supplement it with more incivilities from this topic – his, yours, and whoever else's. There's a good reason why incivility is banned, as it can make any environment highly toxic, and the fact that unsanctioned incivility is self-replicating, is well-known. 188.66.34.101 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

P.S. So far I stand by my original proposals for this case to check reverts and help the editor work out a more disciplined and responsible approach to reverting and communicating with others. In my opinion, traditional sanctions like blocking are neither necessary here, nor will they be very effective at preventing future incidents in the long run. 188.66.35.115 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

User: Basicanyone

BLOCKED

Vandal blocked. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:38, 23 January 2023 (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.

---

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

This user made a couple of edits yesterday that are clearly intended as vandalism: [54] & [55]. Based what these were, I placed a single level 4 warning on their talk page. They have since come back to vandalize the warning message as well [56], so their intent is clearly

WP:NOTHERE

.

Blocked indef for VOA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2023 (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.

Missing warning

SMALL BOOMERANG

OP reminded and warned about copyright rules. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

This is ridiculous.

WP:CSD G12, however he didn’t warn me. Also, the copyright issues have certainly be fixed, how can he still tag it for copyvio. Worst issue (mentioned above) is that he never gave me a warning——and yes, NEVER——which I feel like is unacceptable. Please warn him. Ilovejames5🚂:)

13:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Regardless if it doesn't contain a copyvio in its current version, the page history still will. This is a legal issue for the foundation and no warning need be given, once it's in there there's nothing you as an editor can really do to fix it at this point. If there's an earlier version of the article that's free of copyright issues you could ask to have everything after that to be

revision deleted but if there's been substantial editor activity mixed in its very possible this would be more trouble then its worth. And if the page started as a copyvio, everything built on top of it is a derivative work of that copyvio. --(loopback) ping/whereis

13:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally I also see you failed to notify JBW of this thread. I've done so for you. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

For Ilovejames5 to complain that the deletion came without warning is absurd. Here is their talk page as it was the day before the deletion. Just look at how many warnings there were about copyright, and just look at Ilovejames5's responses to those messages, including their very last post there, in answer to a message about copyright: "I KNOW!" Ilovejames5 was fully aware that copyright infringing text is not permitted anywhere and is liable to summary deletion, and didn’t need to be told again. JBW (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

They also have an archive not linked anywhere on their page containing earlier copyright issues at User talk:Ilovejames5/Archives/2022/December. Only found it via an edit summary link by the bot in the page history. --(loopback) ping/whereis 15:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ilovejames5: this is fairly clearly a spurious complaint. You've been warned many times about copyright problems but it keeps happening. Can you let us know that you now understand Wikipedia's copyright requirements and will follow them going forward? If not, there's a fair chance you'll be blocked from editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. You’ve made me lose some motive to have new pages (i don’t have time anyway, maybe I’ll edit articles the most during summer), but wikipedia is still something i have to get back to a lot. I understand that wikipedia is copyrighted now. Please don’t send me anymore copyright messages, I’m tired of them, and i swear to god i won’t do this again. Ilovejames5🚂:) 15:35, 22 January 2023 (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.

NJZombie

I am moving this section from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts, where it was posted in error. JBW (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This guy is tiring me. He spends his entire life reversing my edits just to make my life miserable. He meddles even in what he doesn't know for that sole purpose; annoy me. It does not differentiate a soap opera from a TV series; serials are inspired by real events, soap operas are not. I'm really losing patience and I'm making a superhuman effort to control myself and avoid a major incident. Please stop this guy. JeanCastì (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don't believe that NJZombie is acting with the purpose of making JeanCastì's life miserable; I see no reason to doubt that NJZombie is acting in a sincere belief that they are improving the encyclopaedia.
• JeanCastì has a history of belligerence and aggression against other editors with whom they disagree.
• JeanCastì has some mistaken ideas about use of English words. An example occurs above, where they indicate that they think that to be called a "serial" something must be "inspired by real events". This may be an attempt to apply the usage of a word in JeanCastì's native language to a related word in English. However, whatever the reason may be, JeanCastì has repeatedly reverted edits indicating in edit summaries or talk pages that they are doing so because of convictions about meanings of English words which are not shared by other editors.
• JeanCastì's objections to NJZombie's attempts to correct or improve text previously edited by JeanCastì have at times been expressed in terms which are simply untrue. For example, JeanCastì wrote on their talk page "NJZombie makes my life impossible by reversing what I did claiming he has no sources. You must look at NJZombie's edits; he reverses what I did whether or not they are sourced." I have checked every article which both of these editors had ever edited before JeanCastì posted that message, and JeanCastì had never put any kind of reference to any source in any of those articles. There are other examples.
• Having said all that, both editors have been edit-warring. JeanCastì was warned about edit-warring, and although I haven't checked NJZomUse's talk page history to see whether a warning has ever been posted their, they have enough experience of editing to be aware that edit-warring is unacceptable.
• If any administrator chooses to makes blocks now, I won't quarrel with them. Failing that, however, I suggest the following:

1. Both editors should stop edit-warring, and should take note that they are likely to be blocked without further notice if they continue.
2. NJZombie is advised to avoid excessive concentration on trying to correct JeanCastì's mistakes. Although, as I have said above, I believe JeanCastì is mistaken in attributing malicious motives to NJZombie, persistently reverting one editor's contributions is likely to be seen as harassment, whether intended as such or not. This is especially so when all that is disputed is rather minor details of wording.
3. JeanCastì seems to me to be making a genuine attempt to be less combative in dealing with other editors than they were earlier. However, they need to put more work into doing so. In particular, they must avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence. JBW (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You are exaggerating and calling me a liar telling my objections are untrue. There is nothing more offensive than a person being called a liar. Nobody, absolutely nobody called that guy to mess with my editions. What's more, no one, no one should reverse what anyone else does on a whim. I decided to stay away from the Bane article in other media because people don't collaborate here but try to pull the rug out from under anyone who wants to edit here. You can't judge me either, because I don't speak English well. I hope that when you use other languages in Wikipedia you will also be judged for not handling a language well. And my hostility I put aside to avoid more trouble. I only hope from now on that others will do their best as I will from this moment on. JeanCastì (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

So much for "making a genuine attempt to be less combative". Barry Wom (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Your objections ARE untrue. I asked you to provide any evidence of me reverting sourced information that you had provided. You couldn't and didn't. In fact, your lack of sourcing was the reason for your first block on January 9. Nobody needs to be called in order to address your edits. If any editor sees something they feel needs to be addressed, they can do so, including reverting. Multiple editors, including myself, attempted to explain this to you but your responses were, as they continue to be now, hostile. That was the reason for your second block on January 10. Need I say more? NJZombie (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

NJZombie stop lying. My blocking was due to my hostility and therefore because I replied in a bad way to Mike. Your intentions here are bad. Don't hide the fact that you want to make my life miserable by appearing to ask me for sources. If someone needs correction that is no reason to rage against another. Stop lying because I did not receive any block on Jan 10, simply my unblock request was rejected. JeanCastì (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My mistake. Yes, you WERE only blocked once. However, it was for “Persistent disruptive and uncooperative editing”, after FIVE warnings for both hostility AND unsourced edits. In fact, the exact reasoning for the block was due to “your persistent unsourced editing, because of the fact that instead of accepting advice and information from more experienced editors and learning from it, you respond with belligerent defiance, incivility and childish attacks, and refuse to comply with Wikipedia policies.” You have some delusional misconception that I’m here to make your life miserable because I dared to revert your edits which I knew to be incorrect and not in line with Wikipedia policy. I even offered you advice about how to approach editing as a new contributor. You thought you were going to bully your edits in and when that failed, you played the victim and filed this bogus report that also hasn’t worked in your favor. I have zero interest in making your life miserable but if I find an edit of yours that I see doesn’t work, it’s going to get corrected and sometimes that means reverting. Nobody has to get your approval to do so. The hostility and false accusations are not going to fly either. Do as you will concerning your edits. I’m not here to stop you. However, if and when our paths do cross again, and I see that your edits are a problem, they will be addressed, just as they would be for any other editor, including myself.NJZombie (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As neither the original author of the complaint or the person who moved it here notified User:NJZombie of this complaint, I have done so [57].Nigel Ish (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: NJZombie was aware of the original post; in fact it was because NJZombie had told me about it that I knew of it. I intended to inform NJZombie that I had moved it, but I took other steps first, such as informing JeanCastì, and you came in before I got round to "inform NJZombie" on my list of things to do. JBW (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Just one more comment. Reading the above, one might get the impression that this is just a dispute between two editors, but it isn't. JeanCastì's edit-warring and belligerence have also been directed against other editors. For example, in the article Bane in other media they have edit-warred against another editor too. There are various other examples. JBW (talk)•

  I'll be that other editor who warned JeanCastì about edit warring on the Bane in other media article. I think there's a competency problem here that goes beyond mere "minor details of wording". Here's the text they were trying to insert: [58]. It makes no sense whatsoever and even with the accompanying edit summary I still haven't a clue what they were trying to say. Barry Wom (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  JBW and Barry Wom: Can't or won't you understand that I decided not to make an edition war in order to avoid problems? You Barry judge me because I don't handle my English well. I cannot be the villain here. Besides, what I'm getting at with that edit I tried to make was to say that Bane, in the climax of the movie, temporarily becomes Mr. Freeze's assistant, since he's the one planting the bombs as Freeze places his freezer in the telescope, plus Bane fights Robin and Batgirl but defeated in an absurd way by both heroes. Best to leave it at that and I'll deal with other issues here in Wikipedia.--JeanCastì (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Simply put, if you cannot communicate well in English, this isn't the project for you. And as for your earlier retort: I hope that when you use other languages in Wikipedia you will also be judged for not handling a language well.

  I don't edit other language Wikis because I know my grasp on those languages is not good enough to properly convey meaning. You might want to consider the same. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. JeanCastì: I'm guessing your native language is Spanish? If so, wouldn't your time and effort be better spent improving the Spanish wiki?

  However, if you do insist on continuing to edit this project...

  Can't or won't you understand that I decided not to make an edition war in order to avoid problems?

  What you need to understand is that you did "make an edition war" (it's "edit war" by the way). You attempted to make the same incomprehensible edit four times [59] [60] [61] [62]. You didn't stop because you wanted to avoid problems, you stopped because you were issued with a 3RR warning. Your response to being informed that your edit was badly worded was to reinsert the edit with an edit summary of "then correct instead of reversing" and your response to the edit war warning was "And what is it difficult for you to correct what I do instead of reverting?"[63].

  It's not the job of other editors to correct your poor English. In future, if an edit you make is reverted for this reason don't attempt to reinsert it in the expectation that someone else will clean it up for you. You might want to consider trying to explain on the article talk page what you are attempting to put across. Barry Wom (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  In that edit, they are trying to extend the phrase who serves as the bodyguard/henchman of Poison Ivy to include the idea that Bane then later also works for or with Mr. Freeze, and the edit summary is about what part of the movie (?) they’re basing that on. (I am not defending this edit - obviously the sentence cannot bear the weight of the additional aside - just explaining the intent.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@JeanCastì: In a post above, timed at 17:33, 15 January 2023, you wrote "And my hostility I put aside to avoid more trouble." You may like to read through your posts since then, and consider whether or not any of them may look hostile to other readers. In the same post you claimed that I had called you a liar (although I hadn't) and you went on to say "There is nothing more offensive than a person being called a liar." Subsequently, at 18:26, 18 January 2023, you wrote "NJZombie stop lying". Thus you were saying something to another editor which in your own opinion was as offensive as anything could be. If you don't drop your habit of attacking other editors with whom you disagree now then don't be surprised if you are indefinitely blocked from editing without further notice. JBW (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Request to close

Considering this complaint never fit the requirements of being filed here to begin with (not an urgent, chronic, or intractable incident), and that consensus seems to indicate that the person filing it against me appears to be causing more of a problem and hasn’t been bothered to respond to anybody here in days now, can this be closed? NJZombie (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Mehrdad Biazarikari

Mehrdad Biazarikari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello! While they haven't reached the amount of reversions needed for AIV,

WP:CIR applies in my opinion. ~ Eejit43 (talk

) 23:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this does seem like a case of

‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍

‍ 04:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

ok

i will delet all of them, Mehrdad Biazarikari (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Edits do show lack of competence. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Lauriswift911

A frank admission of violation Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry Kazman322 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:Compromised, when you meet this next time, you'd better report them to a sysop (if possible, to a steward) Lemonaka (talk

) 02:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Sneezlechick

(

The Chipmunks Go Hollywood to its state per consensus. Closing. Silikonz💬

03:24, 24 January 2023 (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 Chipmunks and The Chipettes: Born to Rock), where the points raised in discussion still stand, despite repeated warnings on their talk page from months ago, responding that they were so sorry. No additional comments/edit summaries have been made by the user regarding why the restores are taking place. Silikonz💬

02:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

User has done the same thing with two articles about Sonic the Hedgehog characters that are redirects. I just protected

Rouge the Bat to prevent recreation. —C.Fred (talk

) 03:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

They've been doing the same thing to video game articles too - repeatedly restoring articles that have a clear consensus against existing, without explanation. They generally stop for a while, and then start up again a few weeks later when they think no one is looking. I was on the verge of blocking just now, but came across this discussion first and decided to comment. I technically was part of some of the discussions that lead to some of the articles be redirected, so I'd feel better if a 100% uninvolved admin blocked instead. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That may be the first time I ever got a user to admit they are intentionally vandalizing Wikipedia. For which, of course, I have now blocked them indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2023 (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:WikiEditor0567

WikiEditor0567 is banned from uploading files. While there has been limited participation in this thread I see sufficient consensus to enact the ban. A topic ban has been proposed but looking at the comments from supporters I don't believe this is actually what's intended but rather a simple ban from uploading files is intended. While some supporters refer just to a ban on uploading non-free files this won't necessarily help as the concern they have raised is WikiEditor0567's competence in determining what is non-free so I've interpreted their supports as being from uploading any file. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:03, 22 January 2023 (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.

---

guidelines on the use of non-free content. The user's upload log

for the English Wikipedia shows that the user has uploaded just under forty files to the English Wikipedia since June, and over twenty-five of them have been deleted for various reasons. The deleted files are listed in the collapsed table below:

Extended content

File:SabreenHisbani.png File:MeriAdhooriMohabbatGEOTV2.jpeg File:MujheKucchKehnaHaiGEO.jpeg File:MujheKucchKehnaHai.jpeg File:LaaHUMTVofficial.jpeg File:VanWaleyMehboobBhai.jpeg File:MeriAdhooriMohabbatGEOTV.jpeg File:Laa HUMTV.jpeg File:Kitni Girhain Baaki Hain HUMTV.jpeg File:KitniGirhainBaakiHain.jpeg File:TereDarPer.jpeg File:MeriAdhooriMohabbat.jpeg File:Sindhyar.jpeg File:TereDarParARY.jpeg File:ChotiSiGhalatFehmiHumTv.jpeg File:SoteliARY.jpeg File:AashiqColony.jpeg File:GumrahHumTv.jpeg File:SaibaanDramaSoap.jpeg File:AunnZara Poster.jpeg File:Ghabrana Nahi Hai Poster.jpeg File:Ghabrana Nahi HaiSABAQAMAR.jpeg File:Ghabrana Nahi HaiSQ.jpeg File:Mastermind Production.jpg File:Ghabrana Nahi Hai GNH.jpeg File:RehbraSOL.jpg File:Sabreen Hisbani.jpeg

After seeing this, I noticed that the and I [67] the {{

WP:NFC explicitly notes is something we should not do (non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people). The user is certainly aware that this sort of upload is going to get deleted, given that this has happened over a good number of times. They're not changing their behavior and they haven't seem to have found their talk page, but the user appears to have a chronic problem with their uploads of non-free content. The user has also appears to have been wholly unresponsive to concerns about potential confilict-of-interest editing that were posted on their talk page by VickKiang after the user appears to have repeatedly

tried to remove deletion notices from an article that they created.

Overall, the user's behavior has continued to have been quite disruptive and talk page messages asking the user to change their behavior have not been acknowledged, so I'm bringing the user's behavior here for community discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I share RTH's concerns and issued a warning about ignoring copyright a couple of weeks ago [68].

WP:CIR issues appear pretty apparent. I believe action is required to stop this behavior. Toddst1 (talk

) 07:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Would a topic ban/partial block from the file namespace work? If their mainspace editing is fine and it's just files that are causing issues, then this would enable them to edit constructively whilst avoiding files where they clearly don't understand Wikipedia's licencing rules. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from uploading non-free files. There is clear precedent for this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive696#Topic_ban from 2011, where Tyw7 (talk · contribs) was banned on similar grounds. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and there is a lot of clean-up to do, deleting the myriad files this editor has strewn about. Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• It's not just files that are causing issues (indeed, there were conflict-of-interest editing claims that the user has not responded to, and the greater issue is that they seem to be totally ignoring their talk page). It feels a bit odd to only give somebody a topic ban from non-free images if the issue is that they aren't reading their talk page (or, in some instances, deliberately deleting AfD notices from articles they have created). I agree with and support the topic ban in principle, but I think we're addressing obvious symptoms of ignoring one's talk page in this approach rather than getting at the underlying issue of how Wikipedia:Communication is required but this editor is not communicating. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  If we think the issue is

  WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, it might be better (partially) block in the first place, since the only way that they would hear about their topic ban is through the talk page that they would not be able to hear. I suspect this is not an issue with being unaware of the talk page existing—there are no mobile editing tags on their edits—so I'm a bit more inclined to proceed as if they're just ignoring their talk page on purpose. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

  18:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the editor has continued to make edits elsewhere instead of addressing concerns here. If there were some way to entice them to actually participate here to provide explanations for their behavior, I would welcome it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per LaundryPizza03 and Red-tailed hawk (thanks for the ping). The user's previous removal of AfD templates as commented above, lack of communication, previous copyvios in mainspace (e.g., Saibaan was deleted under G12 2 months ago), adding puffery in mainspace articles (e.g., in Draft:Saibaan, Sindhyar Memon), and the fact that 5 out of their 6 articles have been deleted are also potentially questionable. The user appear to have refrained from removing AfD templates or edits being copyvios in mainspace, which is laudable, but if some of these other issues are still current. If they continue, escalating warnings might also be necessary. Thanks, please ping me if I got anythings wrong. VickKiang (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as described above. Fixes the problem, and still allows the user to contribute in other ways. --Jayron32 15:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that it's been over 72 hours since the TBAN was proposed, and it looks like there's a unanimous consensus for it, would closing this thread and implementing the community-imposed topic ban be warranted? I'd rather this not get archived without action. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 1 days. Per the statement by

Linguist111 (talk

) 00:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:44, 22 January 2023 (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.

Extensive

WP:BE

/sock

IP range-blocked for a week by Salvio giuliano. Tails Wx 14:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

WP:BE of Ppok ll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (socked by 556greentip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) socked by Rishabisajakepauler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)). For example see:

• Special:Diff/1135379695 vs. Special:Diff/1129963798
• Special:Diff/1098790312/1129962007 vs. Special:Diff/1135014654

--Muhandes (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Rangeblocked for a week. Salvio ^giuliano 11:33, 24 January 2023 (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:HandthatFeeds

BLOCKED

Linguist111 (talk

) 22:30, 23 January 2023 (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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HandThatFeeds

I believe this user resorted to personal attacks and when confronted, doubled down on them and also attempted to intimidate me into not reporting it. Concerning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antifa_(United_States)

While in the talk page, HandThatFeeds mentioned and linked to the consensus page. I replied back that consensus was not simply reaching a popular vote, and quoted specific lines from the page about the quality of the argument mattering. After this HandThatFeeds accused me of “wikilawyering” and also said “You're trying to lecture someone who has been editing since 2006 on how Wikipedia's consensus model works. I suggest reconsidering that tactic.”

I pointed out that this was a personal attack, and asked for clarification. HandthatFeed replied by doubling down on the accusation, claiming I was doing things that I did not, and claimed I wasn’t acting in good faith. I sent a message on his talk page going over the issues of the actual discussion, but saying I wouldn’t tolerate personal attacks or what I perceived as a more experienced editor attempting to intimidate a newer one, I would seek arbitration if they continued. HandThatFeeds replied “If by "arbitration" you mean WP:ARBCOM, you're barking up the wrong tree. They won't touch a simple dispute like this. And if you drag this over to WP:ANI, I expect you'll be excoriated. This isn't going to go the way you want.”

I then informed him that I will seek arbitration for this issue to which he then replied “If I were a religious man, I'd cite Matthew 7:5. But as I am not, I'll just say you're doing more harm to yourself than good by going down that path.”

Both HandThatFeeds and another user Doug Weller both accused me of acting in bad faith and are what I’m assuming is attempting to get me suspended or banned by relying on their seniority or standing. Digital Herodotus (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

While I don't love the sort of inherent appeal to authority in HTF's replies, nothing there approaches a personal attack, in my opinion. I would say you were receiving accurate advice in a brusque manner. I will also note that, so far as I can tell, you are the only one who has brought this to a noticeboard, so evidence of attempted suspension or banning seems lacking. I don't know that you will be excoriated, but I tend to agree that this isn't going to go the way you want. That said, reasonable minds can differ, and I am just one old guy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't think you've notified HandThatFeeds (and possibly also Doug Weller)? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just thought it was worth dropping a ping to Doug Weller. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

There was no intimidation, I was pointing out that you were likely not going to get the results you wanted by escalating this, and may in fact wind up facing

sanctions yourself

.

As Dumuzid points out, yeah, I'm being brusque. This was after a lengthy exchange where Digital Herodotus refused to listen to multiple editors offering them advice, asked if anyone had a real reason to object to their change, repeatedly attempted to cite rules & guidelines improperly, continued to demand a particular rule or standard of Wikipedia editing that my suggested change would violate, and generally refused to accept that other editors were unconvinced their change was appropriate, necessary, and supported by reliable sources.

At that point, I stated that this appeared to be

WP:WIKILAWYERing

.

Frankly, the whole issue boils down to one user insisting on a change that has not gained consensus, then repeatedly claiming they haven’t been given reason their suggestion was rejected. The

WP:IDHT

is visible and, while I might have been more gentle with my suggestions, I'm frankly fed up with the stubborn circular argument style DH is employing here.

Frankly, if they had stepped back to re-examine the previous arguments on this material & learn Wikipedia's rules first, we could've avoided this. Or at least, held a more productive discussion. Instead, DH has decided to escalate matters, claim other editors are simply looking for excuses not to allow this information, and then use the threat of arbitration to get their way. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn’t exactly sure how to notify him, so I left a reply in his talk page letting him know that I had submitted this issue for arbitration. Also, concerning what I believe to be an attempt to suspend or ban me, I’m referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Digital_Herodotus They both replied to an earlier, unrelated talk page and tagged other senior editors accusing me of lacking good faith. This happened after I informed him that I would be submitting this issue to arbitration. Digital Herodotus (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd say this demonstrates DH's issues in a nutshell: ANI specifically gives a template to use for notifying a user about discussions here at the top of this page, but DH did not use it (or did not understand it). Perhaps they can learn over time but, right now, DH is plowing forward without actually reading the instructions provided. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I fully admit to not knowing everything about Wikipedia, but I do always attempt to correct whatever mistakes or oversights I have, find some sort of workaround or learn from mistakes. I do not appreciate being accused of engaging in “bad faith” for participating in a heated talk page, not accused of wikilawyering for knowing what the consensus building is about, especially when a senior editor attempts to pull rank and then intimidate me from seeking third party arbitration or clarification. That’s why I brought this up, I attempted to discuss it in your talk page. Digital Herodotus (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You specifically claimed other editors were editing on the basis of personal views and opinions and objections to your edit were not real reasons. It's a bit disingenuous to claim you were only informing us of consensus building, while citing rules and guidelines at other editors and declaring everyone else is failing to adhere to them.At this point, I'll step back and let others handle things. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I was going to bring Digital Herodotus here tomorrow as I don’t have time to add all the links where he made personal attacks and lack of good faith. Just look at their edit history. I would have blocked but I’m involved. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@DougWeller You were going to bring this up tomorrow? Then why when I first mentioned this in HandThatFeeds talk page were you replied before him that I have a history of bad faith and would likely get blocked? Then you and HandThatFeeds reply to an older issue on my page claiming I’m currently engaged in bad faith after I informed him that I would be reporting this? Is that the proper way to handle situations like this?Digital Herodotus (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Of note, I never replied on your talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If Doug did that on his own without your involvement or urging then so be it. It just seems really sketchy to do that right after I informed you I submitted this issue for arbitration, then to claim that he was going to submit me tomorrow, but he just didn’t have time to do it today.Digital Herodotus (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

incorrect. I said that their arguments in the talk page, not their edits, were based on personal views. For one example, a user claimed an article for CNN wasn’t acceptable because it was “Weasly”

Based on my understanding and from what I had been told before, consensus is about discussing a proposed edit and making sure it does not violate a certain rule or norm of Wikipedia, not so much “the most popular opinion wins” which is why I was repeatedly asking for a specific reason that my sources weren’t acceptable and a user just saying they didn’t like it or misreading them did not count. Also, you are the one who quoted the rules for consensus at me, so I find it completely hypocritical for you to do that, then accuse me of wikilawyering when I reference them to seek clarification. All that aside, you shouldn’t pull rank and try to intimidate less experienced users like you did to me when I made clear that I didn’t like how you were treating me. Digital Herodotus (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I would invite you to re-read

WP:CONSENSUS. While you are correct that it is not merely popularity, it does mean that just because something is technically acceptable under policies and guidelines does not mean it is automatically included. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 20:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

After reading through the discussion at Talk:Antifa (United States)#CSIS's recent report links antifa with "far-left" and violence, I don't see any personal attacks by HandThatFeeds. I see their understandable frustration with Digital Herodotus for not reading the previous discussions on the same issue, linked in the talk page FAQ, despite repeated suggestions to read the FAQ. I see that Digital Herodotus had similarly argumentative discussions on Talk:Alejandra Caraballo#House hearing and Talk:Alejandra Caraballo#Social media presence (where Digital Herodotus learned that consensus is not a head count). Digital Herodotus appears to make productive edits to historical articles; perhaps they should focus on those, and stay away from highly contentious topics for now. Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear, I suggested an edit to include the label “far left” for antifa and was asked by King keudo if I had a source to back up that claim. I posted multiple ones from sources I made sure were acceptable per

wikipedia:RSPSOURCES. I was referred to the FAQ after posting these though. I thought the topic was up for discussion though since I was invited to argue my case and was met with what I believe to be bad faith arguments motivated by the personal view point of the other users who did not originally expect me to find sources to back up my claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Herodotus (talk • contribs

)

Propose Boomerang block

As if the wikilawyering and personal attacks on display at

MrOllie (talk

) 21:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I actually followed from Dumuzid profile, this is pure projection. Also curious as to how you knew about this and were so quick to immediately reply and call for me to be blocked. Also, when did I ever personally attack anyone?Digital Herodotus (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

you are making up excuses now, you are simply looking for excuses not to allow this information into the article for purely ideological reasons. Calling good faith edits vandalism in an edit summary It’s now blatantly clear that this isn’t about any sort of rules, but left wing activist who don’t want any negative info on her page and are simply looking for any excuse to remove it. Sativa_Inflorescence has revealed that hand.

MrOllie (talk

) 21:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked. Sometimes we waste too much of constructive editors' time over users that edit in this way. I'm blocking rather than inviting that waste of time here at ANI. Thank you for the diffs,
  MrOllie; taken together with Talk:Antifa_(United_States) and the warnings and examples on User talk:Digital Herodotus, they're plenty. I've blocked Digital Herodotus indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing, personal attacks, bludgeoning discussions, and egregious assumptions of bad faith all over the place. Bishonen | tålk
  22:16, 23 January 2023 (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:Miked1992

Miked1992 has agreed to cease their disruptive editing and has been counselled to seek consensus on the article talk when dealing with content disputes. Nothing much more to see here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2023 (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.

---

• Miked1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have never filed a complaint to the noticeboard before, so I hope that I’m doing this correctly. Here goes nothing. At Aaron106’s suggestion, I’d like to report a user by the name of Miked1992, concerning edits pertaining to the collapse time of the World Trade Center’s South Tower.

The NIST Report and the 9/11 Commission, both reputable government sources cited on numerous 9/11-based articles state quite clearly that the collapse of the South Tower began at 9:58:59 a.m.^{[1]: 80 [2]: 322} (they round it to 9:59 in later sentences for simplicity’s sake, but the point remains that their actual calculation was 1 second before). On several occasions, I’ve added this sourced information to pages on the site (including the September 11 attacks,^[3] Collapse of the World Trade Center,^[4] United Airlines Flight 175,^[5] and List of tenants in 2 World Trade Center^[6]), only for Miked to deliberately revert them each time. What's most peculiar is that despite being willing to accept that the North Tower collapse occurred at 10:28:25 as stated in the 9/11 Commission Report,^[7] Miked seems adamant that the South Tower did not begin to collapse a second before 9:59. I have posted twice on Miked's talk page about this but they either weren't notified of my messages or just don't feel like replying. In addition to being asked not to change it by other people,^[8] Miked also reverted another editor trying to reinstate the corrected collapse time.^[9]

It is true that the 1 second difference is tiny and the South Tower would’ve been completely destroyed at 9:59, but as I noted on Miked's talk page: numerous articles on this topic give the precise times down to the second, with one article even giving a time stamp of 8:33:59,^[10] when according to the logic of changing 9:58:59 to 9:59, this should be listed as 8:34. So I don’t see the issue with listing the time WTC 2 began to collapse at as being just before 9:59. Hmm1994 (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI when posting a report at ANI you are required to notify the editor being reported along with any other parties involved. I know this is your first report, so I have taken care of it for you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

References

1. ^ National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005). Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation (PDF).
2. ^ 9/11 Final Report of the National Commission (2004). Collapse of WTC2 (PDF).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&diff=1135200957&oldid=1135178599
4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=1132054656&oldid=1131983762
5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_175&diff=1131220708&oldid=1130626070
6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_tenants_in_2_World_Trade_Center&diff=1131947513&oldid=1131932006
7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=1135200533
8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Miked1992#December_2022
9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=next&oldid=1135169492
10. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11#Hijacker's_transmissions

• Just a heads up for the future: ANI is not for content disputes, so that information isn't particularly relevant to us. That being said, it does seem that Miked1992 is being disruptive, and he has a history of refusing to respond to talk page messages. He should probably be blocked until he does. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I will stop being disruptive as you wish I am willing and able to comrpromise on these matters, I could allow the collapse time to be as Hmm1994 suggests Miked1992 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I will stop the editing here if consensus isn't developed and it is seen as disruptive as you wish. Miked1992 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks for your quick and helpful response to the concerns raised here. -Ad Orientem (talk

) 02:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Anytime by all means, I personally don't like edit warring it just gets messy and nasty after a short time. Miked1992 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2023 (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:HJ Mitchell and their comment

Johnuniq said it best: "The reported issues do not require this noticeboard." (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:41, 25 January 2023 (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 user has posted the following on my talk page about

WP:Personal

towards me:

"It does not say Central England, it says central England. As in the centre of England. The West Midlands is a unit of local government, not a description. One that has existed for far less time than the bridge. Please do not accuse me of edit warring. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

It is West Midlands and is not in Birmingham, local government, county and region are different. If you are saying Galton Bridge is not in West Midlands. I would say you are Edit Warring using an unrecognized term and claiming you are factual and I am not. Take it to Wiki Geography and do not post on my talk page further. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that central England is a region, nor that it is in Birmingham. If that's your level of reading comprehension you shouldn't be editing here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you tell me I should not be editing here and attacking my level of reading. Try and be WP:Personal, see how far that goes with Admin. I edited peacefully and you started Edit Warring with me. And I told you not to post on here again. So do not. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And stop trying to control and gatekeep, Galton Bridge because you disagree with me and me only. You have more experience on here and seem to want to school me on my own page. You have no idea what work I have done on Wiki and its editors like you who try to give me a hard time and bad name. Now once more, please do not post on my page again and keep your discussions on Galton Bridge or elsewhere. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

They also have be

WP:Editwarring

with me over me correcting the region from using Birmingham and Central England (non existent as we use Midland) here:

Galton Bridge under history

I admit I might have slightly engaged in warring but that was to correct a feature article using both a wrong location (Birmingham) and central england (region). We should be using correct regions and not trivia in lead especially Birmingham and Sandwell being separate. And Smethwick being able to stand alone without Birmingham. DragonofBatley (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

While this comment: If that's your level of reading comprehension you shouldn't be editing here may not have been a great idea, you need to know that

WP:ANI is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This does not rise to that level. — Nythar (💬-❄️

) 23:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I've been watching this dispute play out, and warned both parties for edit-warring. I have to say, there's one person here who had me halfway tempted to block for incivility, and it's DragonofBatley. HJ Mitchell's comment was a bit snarky, but "its editors like you who try to give me a hard time and bad name" and similar comments are just nasty. (I was also rather unimpressed with DragonofBatley accusing me of harassment for warning for edit-warring.) DragonofBatley's subsequent edits to the article, removing content from an FA without using any edit summary—now partly reverted by

misused rollback in this good-faith dispute. Given that discussion is ongoing on the article talkpage, and that any incivility from either party fell short of blockable, I'd recommend this be closed with a narrow warning to HJ about rollback and a broader warning to DragonofBatley about disruptive editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}

] (she|they|xe) 00:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss this is Talk:Galton Bridge#Wrong region where two editors disagree with DragonofBatley. A third editor disagrees with DragonofBatley at User talk:DragonofBatley#Galton Bridge. The reported issues do not require this noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2023 (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 deleting sources based on

WP:IDONTLIKEIT

reasoning, edit warring, original research, and a refusal to get the point

Andrewnageh123 has been given the piledriver (indef) by Bbb23. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2023 (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.

---

Andrewnageh123 (talk · contribs)

For the past week or so Andrewnageh123 has been deleting content on

WP:CIR. — Czello

15:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Some links: Extensive discussions with Andrew. The user has not made any threads on Talk:Vince McMahon, despite being asked to several times.

Edit warring on the article: [69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]. — Czello 15:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

All the admin needs to do is to read the entire discussion on my Talk page:January 2023 so they can see the hard work and hours that i put in discussing those topics in details,meanwhile the other gentleman just effortlessly responded with a small sentence,revert my edit without giving any reasons and he shows a very small knowledge about the topic of the wrestling business,those are false allegations and assumptions,I didn’t make conclusions,i put sources and links to prove why are some of those points are either outdated (article was discussing the budiness in a specific month) or just opinions that should be dismissed and shouldn’t be in the section of the Legacy of that person,i brought other reliable sources about WWE’s viewership/popularity and i can bring hundreads more if you ask me to do and since we are on that topic

According to the internal live events report, last night's WWE Raw 30 generated the largest domestic gate in the history of Monday Night Raw. https://twitter.com/seanrosssapp/status/1617894652778274817?s=46&t=0jlfigErA29bUqx5HGxshQ https://twitter.com/wwe/status/1617898291693510659?s=46&t=0jlfigErA29bUqx5HGxshQ

The reason we discussed it on my Page is because We agreed to do it on my own page and you can see the full discussion and reliable sources that i put meanwhile they didn’t put any sources or effort and kept editing it back and it doesn’t make any sense that they put an opinion in that section of one person (Jim Cornette) calling him the greatest promoter ever and the opposite of it 2 sentences later from the same person.

By the way he was proven false once and agreed that he was wrong,decided to change it from less popular than ever to declining popularity after i proved him wrong that pro wrestling was less popular in other periods/decades like mid early to mid 90’s and mid 2000’s,he changed it from less popular tham ever to declining popularity,does the source even say that?

they put an article about the business in 2022 by Market Watch

MarketWatch is a website that provides financial information, business news, analysis, and stock market data according to Wikipedia and they do it Monthly or almost weekly,that article was published in April 2022 behind a paywalll during a specific period of time when the company was releasing wrestlers,it is outdated since all the released wrestlers were brough back in addition to Decelopmental Wrestlers,Market watch updated their opinions on late last year

it’s a fact that WWE is more global now and more popular in other countries like india,50M people watched Wrestlemania in 2022 and it was the most viewed wrestlemania of all time in the united states too not just india,same with the other events,they were the most watched ever, 1 Billion followers on social media alone,views and engagments are for sure higher and i will repeat: shows,extreme rules,royal rumble,elimination chamber in 2022 :https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/wrestlemania-38-was-most-viewed-event-company-history-second-most-viewed-event-peacock?amp

https://www.ringsidenews.com/2021/08/24/summerslam-was-most-viewed-wwe-pay-per-view-of-all-time/ https://superluchas.com/en/amp/extreme-rules-2022-fue-la-edicion-de-este-ppv-mas-vista-de-la-historia

https://superluchas.com/en/amp/extreme-rules-2022-fue-la-edicion-de-este-ppv-mas-vista-de-la-historia/

https://sportzwiki.com/wwe/crown-jewel-2022-becomes-most-viewed-wwe-ple/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewnageh123 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No chance, no chance in hell, you got! Andrewnageh123 was just blocked by Bbb23. TylerBurden (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2023 (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:Wikinadir2023 MOS transgressions and failure to Engage

BLOCKED

Linguist111 (talk

) 22:10, 24 January 2023 (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.

---

New editor who is performing multiple small edits to a range of articles, majority of which either change date formats in violation of

WP:ENGAGE. Spike 'em (talk

) 08:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• After a trawl through their last few dozen edits. A few of them were adding arguably valid links, but a great many of them were at best pointless and sometimes just wrong punctuation changes, some of them were clear MOS violations, and there were some very dubious links too (for example linking 'donkey sanctuary' to sanctuary rather than animal sanctuary). None of this is blockworthy in and of itself, but they've made 400-odd similar edits in just six days of editing, and are ignoring the advice they're being given, so I've blocked them from article space. Hopefully this will get them to engage with what people are saying to them; any admin can unblock without consulting me if they think that they will slow down and listen to advice. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Plot twist: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124. Sock of a globally locked spammer; looks like they were trying to build up a stable of extended confirmed accounts, they already had a couple. All blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  No surprise, my surmise was that they were a sock. Doug Weller talk 21:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Wow Girth, that was quite a haul. Better you than me, all that paperwork! Doug Weller talk 21:24, 24 January 2023 (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.

Vidpro23's edit war incident

Allegations need evidence, but none has been provided. In its absence this thread isn't leading anywhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I really wanted to do this ANI really quick as possible because this user was also involved in some edit wars with other IPs and users. This user has been blocked before back in 2011 for copyvios but this is not the focus here. Before you make a conclusion, please look at their history (Special:Contributions/Vidpro23), you’ll see that this user might be involved in some edit wars (the most recent one was at Paramount Global Content Distribution) that should have been solved through a dispute resolution. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

May I ask what a 12-year old block for an apparently unrelated behavior has to do with anything? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 15:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, this user is still editing articles about TV shows. All of that aside, this user (alongside the IP) were edit warring on the Paramount Global Content Distribution article. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I do believe you were told SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, please talk to the user and report at WP:ANI (or, if applicable, WP:ANEW) if problematic behavior continues after a warning for that specific behavior. in this edit. Coming here immediately instead of taking that advice looks like

WP:FORUMSHOPPING - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk}

) 15:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I had to do it immediately for a pretty good reason. Y'see, this user have fought with an IP address from last December to January of this year with various edits wars (which is something that a user should not do of you’re dealing with edit wars). I wanted to report these two editors for their involvement in edit wars in order to testify themselves but I am not sure if this is the right time. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

And that "pretty good reason" I am left to assume, is a minor bright-line cross from two weeks ago? With his version of the article being supported by another user after such crossing? Was a report to

WP:AN3 made then? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk}

) 15:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one had report this user to AN3 during the incident with the IP. The IP that the user had fought with has been blocked. But I do think that this user should make a testimony about the incident. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I see you added to your post before my reply went live. Can you provide specific diffs of problem edits? I think the admins would appreciate not having to do so much digging. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paramount_Global_Content_Distribution&action=history (The edit war happened on January 4 to 6. I am not sure if this incident is 3RR-worthy but I do get the reason why Vidpro edit this article but still). SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to why Vidpro23 reverting a disruptive IP (now blocked, and look at their contribs!) is a problem. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Vidpro23 did tried to explain the reasoning behind the removal by posting an edit summary but the edit war with the IP had intensified. This caused the IP to be even more disruptive. Both the user and the IP should have discussed the changes on the article's talk page. I thought about reporting this incident a very long ago when the incident started so that they can testify the situation and how they can solve the edit war. I have a concern about this incident involving this user and the IP. The main problem here is that they did not use the talk page to discuss the edits despite all efforts to settle the edit war down. I am going to let Vid make their own testimony on the incident. But if there is no response from Vid, we might have to close this. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If anything needs to be discussed here, it's probably the competence of SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, who made 58 edits so far to this one short and completely unnecessary section.

Fram (talk

) 09:58, 23 January 2023 (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.

Nalinsharma80 repeatedly creating unsourced or poorly referenced articles

Nalinsharma80 (talk · contribs) has been creating many articles about political parties with nothing more than a single sentence of content and no references, often only a couple minutes apart. They have been warned quite a few times before for this behaviour -- a quick scan of their talk page shows 5 final warning templates for adding unsourced content, along with dozens of CSD, PROD, and draftification templates. I considered leaving a message to ask them to stop, but given the multitude of warnings they have received in the past I don't think that would be effective. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I have moved all of their recent unsourced creations to Draft space and left them a final warning. I am not hopeful as they do not communicate, though; in 2,600 edits they have never used their talk page (or anyone else's) and have only posted on an article talkpage four times. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive, anonymous user

There has been a campaign, possibly from a user using different IP addresses, disrupting articles using the phrase "black comedy", under the false premise that it's a racial term. Given that they don't have an account and a dialogue is impossible, if someone could block them that would be great. Special:Contributions/179.234.84.47 YouCanDoBetter (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Contact me | Contributions

). 09:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

JRRobinson

JRRobinson (talk · contribs) - a user with a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, with warnings about this on their talk page from 2007, 2012, 2015...I blocked them in September 2022, their response was just 'I forget to add sources', but they have continued to add unsourced content to BLPs. Posting here for wider review. GiantSnowman 20:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• General Comment if the editor just "forgot" to add sources, it would also track that most of the time the editor would "remember" to add sources. But if it happens a lot (which seems to be the case here), it doesn't really matter -- "forgot" or "did it on purpose" -- the end result is the same. The sources are not in the articles and could easily violate
  WP:BLP.--Paul McDonald (talk
  ) 21:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Where's the evidence of an ongoing problem or discussion about it? I see one example of a good-faith edit lacking sources, and a rather precipitous warning "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material" from an admin that blocked him in the past, but not much else except long ago at multi-year intervals. He bugged me a bit by reverting my case fixes, but I don't see this or the other as a big deal; particularly, a previously involved admin should not be threatening a block where others haven't even tried to talk to the editor. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Like I said, this editor has warnings from numerous editors going back to 2007, 16 years for the same behaviour. It is not a one-off and it is not me solely highlighting this issue. As for ongoing issue, other than the diff above, other recent unsourced edits include this (height not in the source provided) and this. GiantSnowman 16:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• How about back then it wasn't easy to remember sourcing..., and I'd rather try and find sources other than Twitter feeds, like my one with Connor Shanks that I just had to redo. Common sense is also missing from loads of other people on here, with regards to silly "guidelines". If anything, ItsKesha and Lee Vilenski should be held to account for making silly edits which ruin great darts articles.JRRobinson (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose you mean to include me among those ruining darts articles by making edits based on silly guidelines. If you're not going to even give a try to be a better collaborator, which means at least somewhat respecting policies and guidelines, then I retract my defense of you above. Dicklyon (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Bizarre to me that you think following policy and following consensus should make people have to be "held to account". My impression is you have an

  WP:BLP. Suggesting that "you clearly don't read Twitter much, do you...??" when asked for a source is crazy for such an experienced editor. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}

  ) 12:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Um. "Back then it wasn't easy to remember sourcing?" Sorry, I started on WP before you did, and there hasn't been a time since I arrived when articles did not need to be sourced. I also echo the other editors in reiterating that those same "silly" guidelines are the rules of the road here, ones that all WP editors are bidden to follow. It is a very poor look for an editor with your longevity and edit count not to have wrapped your head around that. Ravenswing 01:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say anyone who is so blasé about adding unsourced content to BLPs should have a topic ban from BLPs. That "silly guideline" is how we prevent making false claims about a living person. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  This is my point - he just doesn't care, and his edits are disruptive as a result. GiantSnowman 19:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Gebrehiwot chekole personal attacks among other things

• Gebrehiwot chekole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

Hello, take a look Gebrehiwot chekole talkpage for warnings [[77]], also see discussion at this talkpage [[78]]. I wanted to

personal attacks on both talkpages, (hence this ANI). Dawit S Gondaria (talk

) 14:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not attacking personally. but that individual isn.t ready to accept ideas. besides the sources he present aren.t based on reliable historical sources. i just tried to give my opinion based on sources. but he monopolized the Wikipedia and isn.t ready to accept. Gebrehiwot chekole (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1st warning (level 2) - Warning for removing content without leaving an edit summary. Inappropriate, as they did leave an edit summary, they just couldn't access the sources, which appears to be the reason they removed the paragraph. This also should have been issued as a level 1 warning due to the assumption of good faith.

2nd warning (level 3) - Warning for vandalism. Not vandalism at all. They were trying to edit the article constructively and this did not deserve a warning.

3rd warning (level 4) - Warning for unsourced content. You should have warned them about neutrality and weasel words, not adding unsourced content. Notable lists typically don't require sourcing, but they do usually require that a Wiki article exists for a person.

I'm not seeing any personal attacks here. I think the warnings regarding vandalism are also inappropriate and should have issued at a lower level, given that the user does appear to be trying to improve the article. The user in question needs coaching, and help, not for someone to

WP:BITE them. Hey man im josh (talk

) 15:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Hey man im josh:, those warnings were justified. What improvements did the user try to make exactly? First for a removal [[79]] and then also for inserting factually false content [[80]], not backed by the sources, which can be verified in archive.org. You would have a point if his edits were actually supported by the sources. It's also not the only article the user is making non-constructive edits. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

why are you adding your fairy tale on history. I am just trying to edit those added with out any reliable historical sources. individuals are creating their own history by destroying the real history. so if U have the Authority why do you allow individuals the change the prior editions with historical source? Gebrehiwot chekole (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

While Gebrehiwot has been using this colorful language against his content opponent

WP:JDLI on the part of Gebrehiwot. In my opinion User:Gebrehiwot chekoleis risking a block if they make any more personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk

) 17:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the third warning level was applied through my user-talk-page warning, for which I used Redwarn. Redwarn chose the level based on what was already there in January 2023, and I thought afterwards that it was indeed a little too strong, as my warning was of an entirely different nature than the previous ones, and certainly had nothing to do with alleged vandalism. I certainly didn't assume any bad faith. LandLing 21:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Contact me | Contributions

). 19:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: Oeps, apologies i wasn't on my usual device when i responded, i must have read over that or not seen it. I'm not a frequent visitor, so i forgot. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Re-Missing warning

Frivolous ANI filing, not meriting being here at all. Ilovejames5, please discuss this with the editor in question rather than using this board, as per the advice from the previous ANI thread you filed (link here). This is also explicitly covered at

this section of Dispute Resolution, which states "If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way". Daniel (talk

) 10:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

This is even more ridiculous than i originally thought, because User:JBW didn’t give me a speedy deletion nomination notice on my talk page, something that i cannot accept. Ilovejames5🚂:) 05:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Contact me | Contributions

). 06:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I messed up on the first one, where i wanted to say speedy deletion nomination notice but i (somehow) thought it should be a warning. Silly me. Ilovejames5🚂:) 06:22, 25 January 2023 (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.

Need a rangeblock for London vandal

(non-admin closure) London IP receives a 48-hour timeout from The Blade of the Northern Lights. Tails Wx 00:59, 26 January 2023 (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.

---

• 2A00:23C5:26AD:F801:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

An IP range in the London area is being used purely for vandalism.[81][82] Can we give them a time-out? Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I think you've provided the wrong range? The /64 provided geolocates to Chicago.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I have swapped IP ranges and fixed the problem. Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:26AD:F801:0:0:0:0/64 is our vandal. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:25, 25 January 2023 (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.

Onel5969

Closing as "no longer productive, if it ever was", with the following thoughts:

1. The fact that the specific wording of the policy and template does not match our (common?) practice of reinstating a G4 if a non-admin removes it, is a useful, legit discussion. Which should happen at
   WT:CSD
   , not here.
2. I'm not convinced that User:Onel5969 acted completely above criticism here, but their contribution to the problem was very small compared to RZou's.
3. RZuo has been informed that if they keep calling good faith edits "vandalism", they might be blocked. There is an undercurrent of
   WP:BATTLEGROUND too. I'm worried it will fall on deaf ears, but User:RZuo
   , please note that almost no one agreed with you here, and you may be closer than you think to sanctions. RZuo's comment that "...i know frequent enwp editors like to defend their little circle from criticism. i report this to let this go down in the records..." is especially obnoxious.
4. User:Taung Tan should be aware that it is unproductive, and tacky, to arrive at an ANI thread and make broad accusations without any evidence. Don't do that.
5. The only reason to keep this thread open would be to allow RZuo the opportunity to say something else that might get him blocked. It seems like bad karma to keep it open for that reason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2023 (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.

---

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

this user first admitted he "cannot see the version deleted" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RZuo&diff=prev&oldid=1135594438 , but kept vandalising Burmese people in China by adding an invalid deletion template, which requires the page to be "previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted".

if he cannot see the deleted version, how does he claim the current version "is substantially identical to the deleted version"?

and certainly he doesnt care to check whether "any changes address the reasons for which the material was deleted".--RZuo (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Tagging an article recently deleted at AfD for G4 in order for an admin to review it is a reasonable course of action for a new page reviewer, who will as a category not be able to verify against the deleted version. Having looked at the revision in question, I've declined the G4 but otherwise I see nothing wrong with Onel5969's conduct here. On the other hand, denouncing their edits as vandalism is inappropriate, nor has there been an adequate attempt to communicate with Onel prior to coming here.

WP:TROUT for RZuo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk

17:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

adding it the first time was fine. did i seem bothered by the nonsense on the article and my talk page at all? i was on commons the whole time.

addint it the second time, after two users EmeraldRange and Donald Trung, had expressed their disagreement, was vandalism.

if he still needs someone lecturing him the basics on deletion "policy", he certainly should not continue patrolling pages.

but ofc, enwp likes to let go these dogooders.--RZuo (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd really stop digging at this point, to be honest, before the hole gets too deep. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. And if RZuo cannot see the deleted version, how do they know the current version was not "substantially identical to the deleted version"? Don't do that again, please. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

you're even more funny. i certainly have seen the deleted version.

even if i hadnt seen it, it's also quite possibly available on archive.org.--RZuo (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It is on archive.org, but the last version before deletion was in May 2022, which may or may not be vastly different from the version that was deleted. – robertsky (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything Rosguill says here except there is one issue with Onel5969's conduct. Since the speedy deletion tag was removed by an editor that was not the article creator (diff), Onel5969 should have pursued a different deletion process. See

WP:CSD: "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs

) 18:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I left a message on that other editor's talk page explaining my reasoning for reverting their removal of the redirect. And my opinion is that G4 is an exception to that general removal guideline, for the only other deletion step to be taken is to AfD it (since a prod is unavailable), which, if not knowing what the original version looked like would be silly. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This is reasonable, but I think there's general consensus that CSD is not a place to IAR. Maybe we could codify this exception? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Will propose it on the CSD talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick chime in as the other editor who removed it, Onel5969 sent a courteous message. I, a newer editor, was unsure if I could remove it in the first place as since I wrote ~90% of the new article EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. And to let you know, now that the CSD has been checked and removed, I've marked the page as reviewed. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The frequent description by RZuo of Onel5969's edits as "vandalism" is starting to wear pretty thin, as they are clearly not

"vandalism". Please stop, now. Daniel (talk

) 18:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

hmm. i just remembered, he had seen the deleted version just days ago, and had been told that his "Redirecting to an inappropriate target, and edit-warring in the process, is disruptive." (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burmese people in China)

so yeah this was vandalism from the start, adding a4 repeatedly even though he knew full well the current version was completely different from the deleted version. RZuo (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, this is now a final warning. You have been told that this isn't vandalism, and yet you persist. Stop it, or a

boomerang will be coming straight back at you in the form of a block from editing. Daniel (talk

) 18:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Aye. Pretty much what I just posted above at the same time as you. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism#Abuse_of_tags: "Bad faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{db}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria."

either he had seen the deleted version and so he knew "is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" criteria were not met.

or he could not see or remember the deleted version, then he cannot claim "is substantially identical to the deleted version" criterion was met.--RZuo (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

So now you're accusing the editor of placing the tags in "bad faith" too? Geez... Daniel (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

memories can be faulty. what harm is there to have an admin to come in and check against the deleted version? – robertsky (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

for that you should ask the user who first removed the template. s/he considered it proper to remove it.

all i know is, after a speedy deletion tag has been removed properly, it cannot be put back. it can only be handled by afd.

why so many sysops are not familiar with "the procedure" is beyond me.--RZuo (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 was within their rights to revert the removal of CSD tags by editors actively involved in editing the article, and further went out of their way to politely explain the intended process to EmeraldRange. You, by contrast, dropped an incorrect warning template at Onel's talk page that warned against rapid use of CSD tags (and didn't even mention G4), then came here without attempting to actually engage with Onel. Meanwhile, the G4 has been reviewed, removed, and everyone but you seems content to move on. Continued insistence that Onel's actions amount to vandalism or bad faith is begging for a boomerang at this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

i certainly dont care about the nonsensical speedydeletion tag nor the outcome of this report, because i know frequent enwp editors like to defend their little circle from criticism. i report this to let this go down in the records, which is also why i didnt bother writing this problematic user, because i knew his history of problematic behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&search=Onel5969&ns0=1 . most commentators on this thread must have had more interaction with him than me, but i certainly dont know or care why they are seemingly unaware of his history.--RZuo (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there an alternative to using speedy delete as a way to ask for an admin to review? I know that Onel5969 is already aware that he wasn't supposed to revert an CSD removal by someone other than the article creator and Firefangledfeathers mentioned how

IAR. Personally, I was confused by the process and removed the tag after some confusion about the initial notice. Marking a page as reviewed and tagging it with a big red notice that the article can be deleted at any time seems like a non-intuitive way to, in essence, ask for admin review. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs

) 19:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a particular issue affecting new page patrollers. We are unable to see the version deleted at AfD. DeletionPedia isn't a reliable source: I've found it only archives the first version if an article has gone to AfD multiple times, and it doesn't always capture a snapshot of an article that went to AfD. It's almost always a guessing game when using that CSD tag, yet that tag is important to use when an article is recreated that doesn't improve on the deleted version. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

One solution could be to reword the G4 CSD template to be less threatening, making it clear that there is no cause for worry if this isn't a resubmission of previously-deleted content. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

i cant help but reply for the last time:

this user kept claiming the tag "procedural".

if this were really procedural, of the proper and correct procedure, then why enwp doesnt set up a mandatory rule, that all articles recreated in titles, which have been deleted, must be reviewed by a sysop? no one ever knows and can always suspect the new version to be identical to the deleted version. then what's the point of those two requirements of a4?--RZuo (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

How many times has User:Onel5969 been reported here for no good reason in the past two weeks or so? Is that because they have been active at New Page Patrol? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Onel5969 is the most active reviewer, by a large margin. New page patrol tends to burn through reviewers for reasons like this. I've definitely cut way back on my NPP activity as a result of similar friction, and the fact that it is hard work. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I've always limited myself just to the transportation area, and even I have stopped reviewing because I'm tired of being screamed at at AfD. NPP is indeed difficult work, and your only reward is getting yelled at and attacked by other editors (most of whom have never done a single patrol in their entire lives). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

To be precise, it's because he does well over half of all of NPP's work (or has done at times). Consequently, the stochastics of tangling with contentious articles dictate that he be featured here on a regular basis, to all our edification and eventual enlightenment. Inshallah. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

We have at least two issues here. One is the

boomerang principle. Robert McClenon (talk

) 19:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

As an experienced Myanmar editor, I'd like to commend user Onel5969 for being very bullying to other editors with his weight. Some of his actions are meaningless. Honestly I dont really understand him. Because of his domineering presence, I'm sometimes afraid to write article. Taung Tan (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless you have diffs to back up those accusations you should probably not be making them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

One idea for improving the G4 process is to build "% similarity" detection into the PageTriage software. More info at phab:T327955. Another idea might be to create a less bitey template that isn't a speedy deletion template, but is similar to the histmerge or revdel templates, and requests admin review. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2023 (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:Kalapala0 and Karuchola Kumar

• Kalapala0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Karuchola Vijay Kumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Karuchola vijay kumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor is

gaming the system

by changing the capitalization. At this point, there are two versions of the article, both in draft space. In this instance, the subject editor resubmitted a draft within minutes after it was declined, with no substantive changes or consultation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AKaruchola_Vijay_Kumar&diff=prev&oldid=1135508875&diffmode=source

It isn't obvious to me what administrative action is in order. Deleting the drafts seems like an overreaction, because the subject may satisfy

game it by changing the spelling or capitalization. A 24-hour block may be appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk

) 17:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If or, let's be honest, when it gets moved back to mainspace, it should go to AfD or BLP PROD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have redirected the miscapitalized draft (miscapitalized in order to

game the system) to the correctly capitalized draft. We don't need two copies of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk

) 21:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Bot and archived discussions

Hi, I would like to report this discussion as suggested in the user page of the bot which archived discussions, please consider answering to @Steue:. Thank you Patafisik (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Patafisik (WMF), for above note. You are really taking care of things.

Ping welcome, Steue (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

User:That Article Editing Guy

Report by User:Mvcg66b3r

Re-report: Re-adding unneeded non-free files (see [83] and [84]). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment This should be an

WP:SPI report for SPWTulsaOK1213. Please file one; ANI isn't a catch-all noticeboard when we have procedures for it. Nate • (chatter

) 01:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)The files in question were

WP:3RRNO. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 01:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment I will agree that some of the pictures are definitely PD (certainly the all-text and minimally-illustrated newspaper ads excerpted from Newspapers.com-acquired microfilm cannot possibly be copyrighted) and should not have been removed (

National Archives has had its copyright released just by its being archived by a U.S. government employee), and I should expect them to be re-reviewed and classed as such (some pictures of course violate F-U, but certainly not all of them). Nate • (chatter

) 04:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the archiving of a work by a government employee does not erase the copyright of the underlying work. Any additions made by the archivist are, yes, in the public domain. Even the National Archive admits this when they say "The vast majority of the digital images in the National Archives Catalog are in the public domain." The "vast majority" is not all; the reason most of the materials in the Archive are in the public domain is because they were works of the US government. (That's not to say that an editorial from 1962 might not be in the PD for other reasons.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair, which is why I was happy to have the second opinion determine that. Thank you, Nat. Nate • (chatter) 17:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Without seeing the images, it's hard to say whether they are copyrighted or not. On WP, there is a MASSIVE tendency I've fought against for over a decade now to remove anything that has been declared by someone that "it could possibly be copyrighted". There are bright line rules but they are not always easy to follow...many times "we assume images are copyrighted unless demonstrated otherwise" is substituted for "well, let's actually look at the guidelines and apply them". For this matter, two issues are at play. The first is whether the images are PD. Based on the descriptions, they might be, but I certainly doubt all of them are. The second is whether it is encyclopedic or should be on the page. To be blunt, I don't see a problem adding images to a (otherwise) wall of text. Buffs (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Report by Sammi Brie

In the last three weeks, this new editor has been causing some havoc with TV stations and other pages and has been adding a lot of low-quality non-free images that arguably aren't covered under NFURs and aren't terribly useful in their respective pages (e.g. newspaper clippings of advertisements, such as File:WGRZ call letter announcement.jpg). ANI is, of course, a last resort, but the user so far has not engaged any criticism of their work, mostly reverting removals and "de-orphaning" images. I'm trying to get their attention and get them to engage. I left a user talk message a week ago but never really got a reply. The number of automated talk page notices suggests continued activity at a high volume, as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There already is a discussion about this user above at #User:That Article Editing Guy reported by User:Mvcg66b3r; so, maybe it would be best to combine the two threads to avoid any possible confusion and redundancy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 11:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Redirects created by recently discovered HughD sockpuppet

So a couple of things have happened:

1. Turns out User:Lettler isn't actually a HughD sock after all and has been unblocked by ArbCom.... Oops.
2. While yet another argument between the "Banned means banned" team and the "A good edit is a good edit" team could theoretically be useful and/or entertaining and/or let off some steam, it appears to this uninvolved editor that this particular iteration is neither useful nor entertaining nor reducing anyone's stress.

Let's go find something else to be outraged at each other about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2023 (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.

---

A few days ago,

WP:G5. Unfortunately, that account was active since March 2020 and has clearly done a lot between that time and the ban. @Shirt58: noticed my speedy deletion requests and suggested that I raise the issue here as well. I agreed given HughD's prolific activity under the Lettler name, so here we are. Love of Corey (talk

) 03:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

List of redirects created by Lettler. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, a list! That's useful. Now I can go through and re-make every single one. Since there was no reason to delete them in the first place except our dumb vengeance pact against sockpuppets. Silverseren^C 05:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Per

wp:EVADE I think you can just revert those changes with no other justification. From EVADE, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Springee (talk

) 05:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of not being a suicide pact, though, please don't delete any that happen to be useful redirects. Most of these seem rather obscure, but if other editors have linked through the redirect after its creation, it should be tagged and kept. BD2412 T 05:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• On a separate note, what was HughD originally banned for? Were there any article-specific issues such as copyvio problems, hoaxes, other things like that? Or were their articles perfectly fine and they were banned for other reasons? Silverseren^C 05:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reading through their talk page, it looks like it was an Arbcom topic ban being violated frequently over editing conservative political topics, yes? So I'll just need to do a read-through for bias. Silverseren^C 05:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Original suggester here. "
  I take full responsibility. On reflection, I should probably have suggested WP:AN instead of WP:AN/I, as I guess WP:AN is the more correct noticeboard for people with the delete buttons. But it's here now. --User:Shirt58 (talk
  ) 🦘 09:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  No need for apologies: getting more eyes on an issue is no crime. Ravenswing 00:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Actively harming Wikipedia

Okay, this is beyond extreme. Love of Corey is going through literally all of HughD's edits anywhere and reverting them, no matter the content. How are reversions like this or this beneficial in the slightest? You're just actively making Wikipedia worse on purpose. At this point, I feel like we need a bot to revert all of your edits over the past few days to fix things. But I suppose I'll have to go through and do it myself. Silverseren^C 19:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that the point, though? To undo all the edits that were done by a sockpuppet in evasion of a ban? Love of Corey (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Uh, no. There is absolutely no "point" of that being required. Why do you think it's beneficial to remove actually good additions for this purpose? How does that help anything? Silverseren^C 19:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:EVADE as seen above. Love of Corey (talk

) 19:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyone is free to, not that anyone is required to. Why are you purposefully choosing to make harmful reversions to articles when that isn't required? Silverseren^C 19:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You're accusing me of intentionally committing vandalism and I really, really, REALLY don't appreciate that. Now, I'm sorry for not being as well-informed with my decisions as I thought I was. I'm going to focus on nominating some of the sockpuppets' categories for deletion now; that was the plan for today, anyway. Love of Corey (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe's comment below is correct. If the edits are constructive then it's generally best not to revert. If they are marginal, or if we aren't sure if the content is really DUE etc then you can revert. Do keep in mind that if others are pushing back then it makes sense to slow down. HughD was certainly a very problematic editor but I didn't see anything that looked obviously wrong unlike some of their EVADE edits in the past. Springee (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As another example here, Love of Corey removed a public domain photo of the article subject from the article merely because HughD was the one who added it to the infobox. I can think of no explanation of how that is a beneficial edit. Silverseren^C 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see your response until now, Springee. I guess I'm going to hit the "stop" button on this until I see where exactly this goes. Love of Corey (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It's always going to be a balance. Revert on site, and many of HughD's edits have been reverted on site, is meant to not reward socks. The hope is if their efforts are wasted perhaps they won't continue to sock. I think that works well in cases where the edits or talk page comments are relatively neutral overall. Of course a bad edit will be reverted anyway. However, a truly good edit should be left. Part of why EVADE and similar exist is for cases like the following, HughD_sock makes an edit to the article and to the talk page. Normally I shouldn't be allowed to delete someone else's talk page comment. However, because this is an EVADE case I can. Also, if someone wonders why I reverted what might look like an otherwise valid edit with no justification, EVADE is that justification. But, if people, as we are seeing here, are objecting then a pause or a more careful review of the evading edits is in order. Springee (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The relevant text is

WP:BANREVERT

, which pretty clearly states that while anyone can revert all edits of a banned editor, they do not have to revert all edits. Edits that are clearly helpful can and arguably should be allowed to remain.

In other words, revert the bad edits of a banned user, but you can leave the good ones be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This is one of the much-rarer-than-tends-to-be-the-case instances where

WP:IAR applies. Like Silverseren, I've never understood the point behind blanket reverts of sockpuppet edits where those edits are clearly productive and accurate. We do not allow admins to issue purely punitive blocks; what makes purely punitive reverts acceptable? I see that Love of Corey is at the all-caps, bolded level of snarling regarding charges of vandalism, but frankly, reverting otherwise-sound edits of a sock for no other apparent reason than "Take THAT, you bastard! Hahaha!" ... what else would you call that? Ravenswing

21:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user and not the good ones... that's the same thing we are supposed to do with a not-banned user. And thus, there is no actual such thing as "banning". This seems a bad idea in the larger picture. It just encourages "banned" users to continue as they were, and puts additional weight on other editors to sort out their good and bad edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If someone was banned for something that had nothing to do with making bad edits, but instead for problems with other editors or such things, why would their edits be presumed bad at all? Silverseren^C 22:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Because they are bad edits even if they are factually accurate -- the banned user is stealing from the Wikipedia community our ability to control things here. The person who breaks into my house to wash my dishes is still breaking into my house. I realize that this might not matter to you, given your announced intention to harass another, non-banned user by pointily undoing their every edit, but we do ban people for reasons and it should mean something. If you wish to see an end to banning n Wikipedia, that is a more involved process that should not be started with you targeting an editor who is making permitted edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, "stealing", got it. So this is getting into the whole United States penal system sort of thing where it's about punishing bad people no matter the cost. Even if we burn down the house in the process, so long as the Bad(TM) person is punished, then the goal is accomplished. Because the goal here isn't to make an encyclopedia, it's to make sure people get what they deserve, especially when they defy The Rules(TM).

Also, it was my announced intention to revert the removal of positive content. Because I'm here to actually make an encyclopedia. Unless you see the purpose in things like removing an image from a biography merely because the banned user was the one that added it to the infobox? Silverseren^C 23:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You're comparing apples to oranges here. It's not like a permanent block on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, is grounds for life imprisonment in an actual prison. We're not taking away or violating any actual rights here. HughD is still free to live their life however they please.

Now, I'm not intimately familiar with the situation that led to HughD's permanent block, but a cursory look at their talk page shows me that they were topic-banned for their edits on modern-day U.S. political topics and warned a few times for edit-warring. HughD did not seem to appreciate why they were topic-banned and continued making edits in violation of the topic bans, which led to several temporary blocks, at least one AE discussion, and eventually, a permanent block for sockpuppetry to circumvent the topic bans. I'm also seeing a few talk page discussions about wikihounding and other harassment of users. (If anyone who is more familiar with the HughD situation is seeing this, please feel free to jump in if I'm missing anything or misinterpreting/misrepresenting any of the facts.)

From my observations and understanding, HughD's actions and history leading up to the permanent block shows that they do not get along well with others, they do not appreciate the rules and the warnings and consequences that are handed down for any rule violations, and they are uninterested in working with others to help build this encyclopedia. Their behavior, which is constantly being revisited as evidenced by the recent SPI investigation, has compromised their ability to be a positive contributor. Sockpuppetry itself aside, HughD's sockpuppets have edited articles that center around topics they were topic-banned from, e.g. mass shootings, which is obviously a central topic in the U.S. gun politics debate, a modern-day U.S. political topic. So it doesn't matter how positive or beneficial these newer edits are. These are edits regarding topics that they have a recorded history of issues and trouble with. By permanently leaving these edits up, we are essentially rewarding HughD for skirting a block over a topic they have a recorded history of issues and trouble with. If that's the case, then what's the point of permanent blocks, then? Or overall blocks, for that matter? Surely

WP:BLOCKPOL

was instituted for a reason, right?

Now, I apologize for the wildly indiscriminate, widespread reversions, especially regarding articles and topics that I don't normally dabble in and therefore don't have an actual understanding of. I obviously did not understand that there's no urgency in addressing all of those edits, and the difference between "can" and "have to". However, it sounds to me that you don't support any sort of reversion happening here in the near-future or in the long term (especially judging by the reversions you're doing for categories that I intend to have deleted), which is why I'm making this argument. Love of Corey (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

ANY editor who watches a page is sorting out good edits vs bad edits, and that's the point of those who make new page or anti-vandalism patrolling their WP work, so gussying that up as some uniquely onerous imposition is garbage. The second heap of the garbage is your line of "if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user ..." No, we are not. The actual wording of

WP:BANREVERT -- had you cared to read it -- starts with "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand) ..." You will find nothing in there requiring such reversions.

Beyond that, are you seriously suggesting that failure to revert every edit posted in violation of a socking ban constitutes an incentive to sock? Seriously? That's ... a fairly breathtaking leap of illogic. And irrelevant in any event. Sanctions on Wikipedia are not intended to be punitive. They are intended to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Good edits are not disruptive to the encyclopedia, and eliminating otherwise sound edits out of nothing more than a sense of revenge is senseless. Ravenswing

00:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Sanctions on Wikipedia are not intended to be punitive. They are intended to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Good edits are not disruptive to the encyclopedia..." But wouldn't edits made by a sockpuppet account be inherently disruptive on their own, since the sockpuppet account was created for the purpose of getting around a ban? If we want to get more specific, would a sockpuppet's edits still be good even if they concern the same kind of topics that got the sockmaster blocked in the first place, as I articulated above? No matter how good they actually are? What is the line that we want to draw here based on these arguments? And would that make any sort of policy, useful or otherwise, obsolete? Love of Corey (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Inherently disruptive" on their own? Would you explain that? Disruptive how? We're not going to anthropomorphize them, surely, and claim that the bytes are sneaking around Wikipedia, spreading sockpuppetry oogieness over pure and decent edits, are we? Without looking at an edit history, you have no idea in the world who made what edits. With the vast majority of editors operating off of pseudonyms, you have no idea in the world of the character or qualifications of the editors making edits. All we have to go on is whether the edits themselves are accurate, and are well-sourced.

Beyond that, think for a moment on why we ban people. We don't do it because this is some geeky MMORPG, or to have safe targets upon whom to take out our aggressions. We do so to protect the encyclopedia. "Protect" it why? Because the conduct of banned editors falls under two broad categories: making an environment that's unpleasant for other editors, and introducing problematic edits.

A banned editor is no longer doing the former. Sound edits pose no issue for the latter. There is no active disruption taking place, nor a problem requiring solution. Ravenswing 01:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Without looking at an edit history, you have no idea in the world who made what edits. With the vast majority of editors operating off of pseudonyms, you have no idea in the world of the character or qualifications of the editors making edits." So, what, are you saying that, despite their permanent block, the edits by HughD's sockpuppets should stay up because we have no idea what HughD's character or qualifications are? Even though, judging by what I saw on HughD's talk page, there was clearly some concern about their character, e.g. the discussions about harassment? "We do so to protect the encyclopedia. 'Protect' it why? Because the conduct of banned editors falls under two broad categories: making an environment that's unpleasant for other editors, and introducing problematic edits.

A banned editor is no longer doing the former. Sound edits pose no issue for the latter. There is no active disruption taking place, nor a problem requiring solution." That seriously, literally does not make any sense. What's the point in blocking sockpuppet accounts, then, if they aren't being unpleasant to other editors and making sound edits? What was the point in blocking HughD's latest sockpuppet accounts? They weren't being unpleasant to me or anyone else, and their edits were otherwise sound. If I hadn't become suspicious of how similar their edits were to an IP sockpuppet that I was already aware of, they would've continued editing virtually undetected, at least until someone else got suspicious later on. What would the justification be in blocking them, if they didn't fall under those "two broad categories". Love of Corey (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

But wouldn't edits made by a sockpuppet account be inherently disruptive on their own, since the sockpuppet account was created for the purpose of getting around a ban? In the same way that a bad person can do a good thing, a disruptive editor can (on occasion) make good edits. Where a disruptive editor has been banned for socking, their edits should not be reverted wholesale simply because of their ban. They should only be reverted if they are judged by those familiar with the topic to be disruptive.

The point of the BANREVERT policy is not to punish the disruptive editor. It is there to make it easier to clean up bad edits, hence why it has an opt-out of 3RR as there may be many non-sequential edits that need to be analysed and reverted. But it also warns those cleaning up to exercise care when reverting a banned editor, as the material you may be restoring could breach one or more of the core content policies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Then what would the purpose of a topic ban be? Surely a topic ban here means an editor cannot be allowed to edit articles of a certain topic, right? Love of Corey (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

If an editor is being disruptive either in the article or talk spaces it generally eats up editorial time. The exact nature of the disruption isn't really relevant, because in the end all forms of it will waste editorial time in some manner or another. Topic bans are there to prevent that disruption in the first instance, by encouraging that editor to edit non-disruptively elsewhere. While yes a topic ban means an editor will not be allowed to edit articles of that topic, that is only the case to prevent harm to other editors and article integrity. And while that may seem like punishment to the person who receives a TBAN, usually followed by complaints of "Why was I topic banned? I was only speaking the truth", that is secondary to the primary purpose; to prevent disruption. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

We're not supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user? We're supposed to revert bad edits in general; it's not commanded of us, but reverting bad edits we see is a fairly standard part of Wikipedia editing. Reverting bad edits is a key tool in improve Wikipedia. Or are you suggesting that banned users have some sort of extra privilege to have their bad edits ignored??? A banned editor editing Wikipedia is inherently disruptive. It is disrupting our banning. What, if anything, does "banning" mean to you if it doesn't mean they're not allowed to edit here? Your demand that we overlook the ban is fighting against a lot of effort that has gone into considering and placing those bans. If all you see in the bans is "revenge", then I suggest you need to look further. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's fine to purposefully make an article worse, such as by removing the primary image for the article subject, so long as doing so is sticking it to a banned user? Apparently the rules behind the banning is more important to you than actually working on improving this encyclopedia? Silverseren^C 00:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Being able to actually ban users and keep them from taking part here is of use in the larger picture of building this encyclopedia, as I see it. If you don't feel that's the case, you are welcome to start an appropriate attempt to change the policies. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Nat what you're arguing for would be a change in policy.

BANREVERT already states clearly that edits by users in violation of a ban should not be reverted solely because they were made by a banned editor. The current policy is already to exercise editorial judgement on whether or not the edit by the banned user improves the article. If it improved it, leave it be. If it made it worse, revert it. If you wish to see all edits by banned users reverted solely because they were made by a banned user, then I'm afraid you would need to seek a change to policy in this case, and judging from the comments here I'm not sure that there would be a consensus for that. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 17:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You really are terribly insistent on responding to some conversation going on in your own head, instead of what other people are saying. Let me see if I can simplify this: no one is saying that we are not supposed to revert bad edits. Let me say this as well: no one is saying that banned editors ought to be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Are any of those statements inherently unclear? Socks of banned editors, when found, are banned, and at that point they can make no more edits. So much so is good. What we are saying -- and what is confirmed by the explicit text of WP:BANREVERT -- is that there is neither a need to revert sound edits, nor a requirement to do so. I really have no idea why this simple concept seems to hard to grasp, or why you're kicking and screaming so strenuously against it. If you disagree with the provisions of BANREVERT, and you want a bright line requirement that all edits of banned users need to be stricken at once, then go to the talk page and try to build consensus for your POV. Ravenswing 01:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. So say, hypothetically, I get blocked because I violated a topic ban on mass shooting-related articles. I then create a sockpuppet account and leave a well-sourced, non-vandalistic edit on a mass shooting-related article. My sockpuppet account is discovered and gets blocked, but my edit stays up because it is, by your definition, "sound", despite the topic ban that I originally got blocked for. This is basically what HughD did for at least their recent sockpuppets. Do you see the loophole that this opens?

And yes, I get what you're saying here now, some edits by socks are genuinely good and there is neither a need nor a requirement to revert them. But when genuinely good edits are done at the expense of the genuinely good reasons why the sockmaster was blocked in the first place, I really do think this is where we are sort of obligated to address those genuinely good reasons for the original block and act accordingly. Love of Corey (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The loophole is already there: it is in the plain text of BANREVERT. Does this method require examination and judgment on the part of an editor reviewing the material in your hypothetical, instead of just doing a knee-jerk revert? Yep, it sure does. But that's scarcely different from how that works with any editor. I have a few hundred articles on my watchlist, and I cast an eye over every edit to them, minor or no, unless they're executed by editors whose work I have reason to trust. Ravenswing 01:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Then that is absolutely unfair and completely defeats the purpose of sanctioning people for topic ban violations and getting around previous blocks. Under my hypothetical and your reasoning, as long as I behave well and make good edits, it won't matter how many times my sockpuppet accounts are found. I just have an incentive to just keep making more sockpuppet accounts and continue making edits that circumvent that topic ban, since I have no concerns that my material will keep standing after I am blocked yet again. What would the point be in blocking a sockpuppet account of mine for the millionth time, if I'm not being disruptive? You might as well just unblock the sockmaster account and say, "No harm, no foul, you weren't being disruptive with your sock accounts so I'd say you've learned your lesson." Love of Corey (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A sockpuppet account "behaving well and making good edits" probably won't be discovered. Most banned users continue the behavior that got them banned. But that doesn't mean that typos should be reintroduced or legitimate categories deleted. I find a lot of sock edits, and if their legitimacy is even the slightest bit questionable, I revert them. But if reverting the edit is ultimately disruptive (i.e. if the edit were not a revert and instead made by another editor, it'd be considered vandalism) then reverting the edit is absolutely the wrong action. For a great while, there was an LTA that did nothing but delete whitespace and fix punctuation errors in an effort to get accounts extended confirmed. Reverting those edits would be a fool's errand. To act to the detriment of an article is to validate the disruption of banned users, not the other way around. --Sable232 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"Most banned users continue the behavior that got them banned." Which is what HughD did. Edit on articles they had been topic-banned from in the first place, a.k.a. they were not allowed to edit them in the first place, regardless of how genuinely good an edit would otherwise be. Love of Corey (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

HughD was initially topic banned because they were disruptive in the area of American Politics and climate science. They had already been pushing the patience of admins prior to the ban because as an editor they would do what they wanted regardless of consensus. They also frequently made pointy edits. So lots of not bright line things that resulted in a topic ban. They then violated the topic ban and eventually earned a 6 month block. After that they decided to open a large number of sock accounts and continue the disruptive but often not bright line violation edits. When you look back at their long history of socks you see a lot of edits that are either attempts to put pet sources into articles (ie not improvements but typically not vandalism or out right bad edits) or you see edits where they are trying to target other editors. For example, arguing against a proposal only based on who is making the proposal, not the quality of the proposal. Thus the issue wasn't making good edits where they were otherwise tbanned. It was making edits that generally were negative even if not bright line violations. It was trying to target other editors etc. Still, we should think about what is best for Wikipedia. If they are fixing a clear spelling/grammar error of course we wouldn't revert. For most category stuff, so long as it's neutral, I wouldn't worry about it. Springee (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A sockpuppet account "behaving well and making good edits" probably won't be discovered. Exactly this. Lets not forget the case of Eostrix, a sock of who was so successful in "behaving well and making good edits" that they almost had a successful RfA. Even with

WP:BEANS in mind, I'm still not sure how they were eventually caught. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 02:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the same person who is claiming that no one is saying that we are not supposed to revert bad edits is the same person who wrote The second heap of the garbage is your line of "if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user ..." No, we are not. So unless we're playing one of these logic games where your real name is "no one", it looks like there's some falsehood mixed in with your efforts to be insulting. As fpr no is saying that banned editors ought to be allowed to edit Wikipedia, you've been in effect saying that we have to treat them like they're the equivalent of non-banned editors so long as they get a new sock puppet every once in a while. The idea that edits by banned editors are inherently against policy would seem to be built into the idea of banning. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I get the inclination to revert banned users (I've reverted certain edits by

WP:BKFIP in the past), but you have to do it with care. Some edits by banned users are legitimately good, no matter how said user ended up being banned from the site. ♠JCW555 (talk)

♠ 01:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I'm beginning to regret opening up that SPI investigation. Wikipedia lost two perfectly fine, non-disruptive, positive contributors because of it, sockpuppetry aside. I'll now have to keep this in mind next time I see an account that looks like a sockpuppet for another user. If their edits are good, then I'll just turn a blind eye. Sorry about that, everyone; I've learned my mistake. Love of Corey (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that's entirely the wrong takeaway from this discussion. You did a good thing when filing the SPI case, and it looks like you spotted a connection that many editors would have missed. That is very commendable!

The problem is not that you filed an SPI and two users were blocked as a result. The problem is that because of the block, you reverted good edits that anyone familiar with the topic could have made, but in this instance were made by someone evading their topic ban. Looking at the SPI archive for HughD, it seems as though they have been both socking and

loutsocking

for years now. In some cases they were being actively disruptive, and in some cases not so actively disruptive. Cleaning up after this sort of editor requires both care and familiarity with the underlying topic at hand. While anyone could clean up active and obvious disruption, only those familiar with the topic could clean up any more subtle examples of disruption.

The takeaway should be to exercise more care when cleaning up after a banned user. Don't revert their contributions just because they are banned. Revert them because they are both banned, and that the contribution was in some way harmful. If you aren't familiar with the topic, leave a message on the article talk page or WikiProject saying Hey, a contributor to this article/set of articles was just blocked for being a sockpuppet. Could someone familiar with the topic please check their contributions for any problems? Thanks. and let someone else handle the rest. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Good grief. I can think of several longtime editors whom after longrunning antics (and after multiple ANI threads over several years) I had a part in seeing tbanned and community banned. They were broadly disruptive, they were outright defiant of consensus with which they disagreed, they were wikilawyers to the core, they were often hostile, their word was often not good, they did a lot of damage to the encyclopedia, and the messes they left are not remotely done with being cleaned up. And they were not always wrong. They made many good edits. They created a number of sound articles. They sometimes tendered good advice. None of them came here intending to destroy Wikipedia. I don't regret for an instant that they've been sent packing, but it was scarcely some Manichean struggle between Good and Evil, and I feel no need to undo all their work.

Because the goal here is to build an encyclopedia, not to count coup. One of my catchphrases here is that the nature of a consensus-based environment is that sometimes you're on the wrong side of consensus, in which case the only option is to lose gracefully and move on. If you took this issue to ANI to find out what the community thought, that was for the right reason. If, by contrast, you were seeking an uncritical rubberstamp for your actions, that was for the wrong reason. Ravenswing 10:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I only posted this here on recommendation of an admin more than anything else. Without that recommendation, I wouldn't have taken the topic here. But here I am, and now all of a sudden, I get ganged up on with accusations that I'm intentionally vandalizing and actively harming Wikipedia. And all of this because I took some rules a little too seriously and would've just used some more gentle prodding away from that. Good grief, indeed. So yeah, thanks for the recommendation, Shirt58. Very much appreciated. Love of Corey (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I surely hope you aren't attacking an editor, who wasn't even engaged in this discussion, and blaming them for how this discussion played out. Your last three posts here have been dripping with... a certain kind of tone... and its hard to tell precisely what you meant by this. Do you care to clarify? GabberFlasted (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the same person who is claiming that no one is saying that we are not supposed to revert bad edits is the same person who wrote The second heap of the garbage is your line of "if we're supposed to revert the bad edits of a banned user ..." No, we are not. So unless we're playing one of these logic games where your real name is "no one", it looks like there's some falsehood mixed in with your efforts to be insulting.: no, it makes perfect sense, NatGertler. The important part is the "of a banned user" phrase. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said uptopic, it does seem that NatGertler seems to be arguing with what he wants people to be saying, rather than what they actually ARE saying. Ravenswing 08:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Or the things I'm actually quoting you as saying? Because when you say that we're not supposed to revert the bad edits by a banned user, you are basically either saying that we're not supposed to revert bad edits (in contrast to what you claimed no one was saying) or that we're supposed to revert bad edits unless they're by banned users, which I cannot say is a particularly logical position but I also can't claim it's inconsistent with what you have put forth. But you've chosen to use insulting terms and made up claims of people seeking "revenge" rather than address what's being said. If there's some statement you wish to retract, feel free, but without that I'm certainly not motivated to pretend you haven't said what you've said. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry to butt in on this report, I encountered this a while back too. An admin blanket reverted several edits made by a banned/blocked (unsure which because I've forgotten many details of this incident now) User, however, simultaneously reintroduced erroneous information on the pretext of BANREVERT. At what point do we give consideration to WP:ROPE and just give the guy a second chance? They are, from what I can tell, rather reformed. At the same time, they are becoming super frustrated that their constructive contributions to Wikipedia are being undone, much to their chagrin. This frustration is seemingly bringing out incivility issues that may have resulted in their first ousting. Is it appropriate for a user, much less an admin, to blanket revert contributions of an IP sock or registered sock just on the pretext the last account was a bad apple? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 08:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC) It is interesting that HughD has moved exclusively to editing shootings/murders/ect topics with their socks. As far as I'm aware, that isn't relevant to their political conservatism topic ban. SilverserenC 18:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the reply, Silver seren, however, this was not quite the answer I was looking for. I was talking more in the broad sense, rather than Hugh specifically. I also agree that this is getting off-topic, as such, I will collapse it. Feel free to pop over to my talk page if you have any further questions. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 05:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• If this current WP:SHITSTORM results in consequences for Love of Corey - who posted my suggestion in obvious good faith - I think it is only fair that those consequences should be visited on me first, and only later on them, if at any time.--User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, I'll bite: why would there be? And where in the above discussion has anyone so much as hinted at any? There's a huge difference between "What you're doing is unnecessary and damaging" and "What you're doing is in violation of policy." The latter is obviously not the case. Ravenswing 12:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. The accusations of intentional vandalism certainly haven't helped matters. Love of Corey (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Consider two hypothetical scenarios:

1. An editor seriously violates our rules--say, a personal attack--and is indef blocked. The editor makes an unblock request, apologizes, promises not to do it again, is unblocked, and in their next edit, posts an FA-quality article--verified, neutral, well-written, totally great new article.
2. An editor seriously violates our rules and is indef blocked, but doesn't make an unblock request or apologize or promise not to do it again. Instead, the editor creates a new account and in their first edit, posts an FA-quality article.

Now consider the reader reading that article. Does the reader care if the article came from a #1 situation or a #2 situation? No. Does it help the reader if we deleted the article because it came from a #2 situation? No. Therefore, should we care if an FA quality article -- or any helpful edit -- came from a repentant editor or an unrepentant editor? No. This is why we shouldn't revert good edits just because they were made by a "bad" editor. If we want to write an encyclopedia, we should only care about regulating conduct that disrupts writing the encyclopedia. If it's not a bad edit, don't revert it, because it's not logical to unwrite a good encyclopedia. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Our rules exist not only for the short term benefit of the readers. We ban people to protect our community for the long term, and we refuse good edits by banned editors as that is the only way a ban can be meaningful. —Kusma (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Lettler unblocked

I have not read this monster of a thread, but since I was just pointed to it, it feels appropriate to note that the Arbitration Committee accepted an appeal by Lettler and we have unblocked their account. There are many questions I'll be unable to answer given the privacy requirements of ArbCom but I will monitor this section. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I was unaware of this thread until a few moments ago. I'll just add (as the original blocking admin/CU) that arbcom privately shared some of their evidence with me. Based on that, I agree that my original block was incorrect and the unblock was justified. As with barkeep49, it's unlikely I'll say any more on this topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and wikihounding by Dawit S Gondaria

• Dawit S Gondaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cushite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hadiya people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia Admin,

I am writing to bring to your attention a serious issue regarding the actions of user Dawit S Gondaria on the Wikipedia page for Hadiya People. I have noticed that this user has been making edits that include defamation of notable individuals of the Hadiya People, falsification, and manipulation of information, as well as inserting misleading content that is not supported by any published sources. This behavior seriously undermines the reliability and accuracy of Wikipedia as a source of information.

Furthermore, the user is abusing me and other users who do not take his deliberate effort to falsify history to fit his own ill-intentioned agenda for truth. He even threatened to get me blocked if I take out any of his unsubstantiated information. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies, which require that all information must be verifiable and that sources must be reliable and secondary.

In light of the above, I am seeking an admin intervention to finally put an end to constant wikihounding by Dawit S Gondaria. I kindly request that you take immediate action to investigate the actions of this user and take corrective measures to address the inaccuracies and violations of policy that have occurred. I have provided evidence of the false and manipulated information, as well as credible sources to support the correct information in my previous comments. I also request that you review all actions and conversations of this user and take appropriate action.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Cushite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cushite (talk • contribs)

Please check all his actions and the conversation and all the sources I provided in response to his previous comment below. Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hadiya people. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

After militarily occupying Hadiya, many kings of Ethiopia and high-ranking members forcefully married Hadiya women; Queen Eleni of Hadiya is one example. This would result in wars with neighboring Adal Sultanate, who did not take kindly to the atrocities committed by Ethiopia against its fellow Muslim state Hadiya. Your quote is not supported (Hassen) by the source and highly misleading. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We take all concerns regarding accuracy and neutrality of our articles seriously. The quote in question is based on published article in per-review academic journal. We have also attached a list of references to our article to support the information provided. 1. ISLAMIC PRINCIPALITIES IN SOUTHEAST ETHIOPIA BETWEEN THE THIRTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES (PART II) https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731322 2. ISLAMIC PRINCIPALITIES IN SOUTHEAST ETHIOPIA BETWEEN THE THIRTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES (PART 1) https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731359 3. A Muslim State in Southern Ethiopia - Geschichte der Hadiya Süd-Äthiopiens. By Ulrich Braukämper. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1980. Pp. xv + 463. DM. 87. (The Journal of African History , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , October 1981 , pp. 558 – 559 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021853700019952) Cushite (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism and wikihounding  by Dawit S Gondaria Cushite (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Another editor reverting your edits in good faith is not vandalism or wikihounding. You might want to read

WP:NOTVANDALISM. Partofthemachine (talk

) 01:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cushite: I have seen this ANI and will be responding to it later today. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cushite: Here is one edit where you put back content that wasn't supported by the Hassen source, misleading to begin with, and a fabrication of ties with Adal.[[85]] that was further emphasized with lies by this quote Ethiopian and Adal relations continued to sour after the Hadiya incident and reached its peak at the Ethiopian–Adal war This is not a quote backed by the Jstor journal, which i read. So we have a content dispute, i take issue with all these fabrications.

Secondly after removing the fabrications in the article, you removed my properly sourced and verified content [[86]] with a working link of the pages in google book. sidenote: I also have the physical book in possesion. You then spoke in we terms (speaking in group terms is odd, but not the core issue) in the edit summary [[87]] and claimed i added information that was not supported by credible sources. I challenge that strongly, here or any other forum you like.

Third, provide proof for your serious accusations of wikihounding? I just saw manufactured rubbish at Hadiya people article and decided to improve it, noticed you reverting rubbish back, and warned you for it on your talkpage, that's not hounding or is it?

Fourth, you chose the wrong avenue. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The complaint of vandalism in regard to the deliberate alteration of public figures' names in the society with defamatory terms is of a serious offense. In accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, arguments without credible evidence sourced from peer-reviewed academic journals are not acceptable in these debates. It is imperative to note that the credibility of sources used must be supported by secondary sources published in peer-reviewed academic journals. In this specific case, the information I have included is backed by two journal articles by Ulrich Braukamper in 1977, as well as a secondary journal article published by Roland Oliver in 2009.

The source used by the other user, "The Ethiopian Borderlands" by Richard Pankhurst, is a book that is often written for a general audience and does not have the level of detail or fact-checking as journal articles. It appears that the other user may not be well-versed in the historical context of events in the medieval period in the Horn of Africa. The history of the relationship between the Adal Sultanate and the seven Islamic principalities (Yifat, Dawaro, Arababni, Hadiya, Sharkha, Bale, and Dara) under the Zayla federation is well-documented. The Hadiya Sultanate was known to be the wealthiest and militarily strongest among these principalities. These principalities existed during the medieval period in the Horn of Africa and were significant for their political and economic power in the region. Cushite (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're not going to provide evidence for your accusations of wikihouding? Yet you're going to throw more accusations? You just said The complaint of vandalism in regard to the deliberate alteration of public figures' names in the society with defamatory terms is of a serious. Please show us the diffs where i did that? Deliberately and defamatory at that?

The problem is not the Jstor journal, the problem is you reverting back to a

Ethiopian–Adal war

, Hadiya would join the Adal armies in its invasion of Ethiopia during the sixteenth century. The first part of this quote is fake and refers to a false genesis with a so-called Hadiya incident and a fabricated tale that it played any role between the animosity between Ethiopian Empire and Adal.

Third

Richard Pankhurst (Ethiopianist) is one of the most well known scholars on Ethiopian studies, his books are highly regarded including The Ethiopian Borderlands. You didn't seem to have an issue with Pankhurst over the many months you have been editing the article, since an entire piece is still in the article. Cherry picking which content or version of history you like from Pankhurst? Dawit S Gondaria (talk

) 21:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Cushite, please note: using terms like "defamation" could imply that you are

invoking legal terms to have a chilling effect. I'd advise not using those terms in this discussion, stick to the facts. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

18:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cushite You started this ANI and i you asked for proof, and also answers for the sythesised content you added? Furthermore i noticed there was no page 558-559 [[89]] in the journal, the piece about Hadiya is from page 6 to 11. Here too you added synthesised content.

[[90]] With the outbreak of Imam Ahmad's jihad in 1529, the rulers of Hadiya and Bale identified with the cause of Islam and Adal, slaughtered the Christian garrisons in their midst, and sent their best troops to help in the invasion of the Christian kingdom. The southern frontiers were left unguarded, and the Oromo began to break in. Meanwhile, the Christian reconquest under Galawdewos devastated northern Hadiya, but failed to check the Oromo advance. Crushed between the upper and the nether millstone, Hadiya as a state ceased to exist. Of its very diverse population, some, including most of the Rift valley pastoralists, joined the Oromo, adopting both their language and their gada social organization, which was the basis of their military strength. The rest fled in all directions, but eventually resettled themselves in pockets along the western margin of the Rift valley and in the adjoining highlands. From your edit it looks like they willingly joined the Oromo, not backed by the sources. Where in the article does it say Hadiya as a state/kingdom ceased to exist? The journal (page 9) says scholars where trying to reconstruct historical maps of old state of Hadiya, before the upheavals of the Oromo expansions. It was greatly reduced in size but they still had their own chiefs, one period more vassal than the other as the journal indicates. This and your earlier introduction of factually incorrect content from Hassen, Spencer Trinigham reads like Ethiopian Empire and Hadiya were mortal enemies, and Hadiya joined Oromos when they were in fact conquered by the Oromos and assilimated, with a large territorial reduction for the Hadiya.

You have also removed this some of the

Arsi Oromo today claim Hadiya ancestry. [[91]] I did not verify this, it was in the article for quite a while, did you verify it to be incorrect? I might need to verify that too, since assuming good faith has it's limits. Sidenote: in the other Jstor journal of Ulrich Braukamper i did read about Oromos having Hadiya descent on page 11. Anyways i will be removing some of your erronous content from the article. Disagree? I would like to read your arguments. Dawit S Gondaria (talk

) 23:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The Hadiya people have a rich history dating back to at least 1200 AD, as descendants of the Hadiya Sultanate, a once powerful Muslim principality that existed in the Horn of Africa from 1200 to the late 16th century. The Hadiya Sultanate was known for its wealth, agricultural production, trade, and military power. It was located between southern Haragie, southern Arsi, and northern Bale and extended into Sidama province (Braukämper, 1973, 1977a; Hassen, 1983). However, the rise of the Solomonic dynasty in 1270 led by Amda-Siyon resulted in widespread destruction, displacement, and changes in the ethnic makeup of the region. The Hadiya Sultanate was briefly conquered and made tributary by the Solomonic dynasty emperor Amde Siyon in 1329 and later by Zara Yaqob in the 15th century (Köhler, 2018). The Hadiya people formed the backbone of Muslim opposition against Solomonic dynasty domination for almost two centuries but were ultimately defeated by the Solomonic dynasty in the late 16th century (Taddesse, 1968; Aregay, 1980; Hassen, 1983; Braukämper, 2002; Köhler, 2018). In 1531, the victorious Imam Ahmad reached Hadiya and the Muslim ruler of the province submitted to him without resistance. The imam confirmed the Hadiya ruler in his position and the Hadiya chief cemented the alliance by giving his daughter, Muris, as a wife to the imam(Braukämper, 1977b; Oliver, 1981; Hassen, 1983; Braukämper, 1984, 2002; Köhler, 2018). The Solomonic dynasty ultimately defeated Imam Ahmad and the Muslim states, including Hadiya, with support from Portuguese allies and arms imported from Europe in the late 16th century (Burton, 1894). As a result of this defeat, a majority of the Hadiya population joined the Oromo people and adopted their language and social organization -gada system(Hassen, 1983; Köhler, 2018). The rest fled in all directions, but eventually resettled themselves in pockets along the western margin of the Rift valley and in the adjoining highlands. The above information is supported by several reputable sources, including Taddesse (1968), Aregay (1980). Any attempt to distort such historical facts about the Hadiya people and their history should be met with skepticism and the use of credible sources. It appears that the other individual is utilizing a single source, written by a single author, to challenge a well-established historical fact. It is unclear why this individual has such a strong focus on Islam and a particular community, particularly when his claims does not align with widely accepted and credible literature on the subject. Cushite (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• @
  WP:EW with your latest edits [[92]], You reinstated page numbers which are not in the article, there's no page 558-559 in the journal [[93]], [[94]], You removed the parameters + url link for the Pankhurst source with your revert spree.[[95]], [[96]] the pages about Hadiya are from page 6-14.[[97]] It does not support the lower half of the quotes. You used only Ulrich Braukampier source for this text [[98]], Like i said in my previous comment [[99]] This quote Hadiya as a state ceased to exist. Of its very diverse population, some, including most of the Rift valley pastoralists, joined the Oromo, adopting both their language and their gada social organization, which was the basis of their military strength. The rest fled in all directions, but eventually resettled themselves in pockets along the western margin of the Rift valley and in the adjoining highlands. is misleading. Your edits puts it like Gelawdewos destroyed Hadiya, when in fact the source (Braukampier) mentions on pages 10-14 how Hadiya territory was greatly reduced following Oromo expansions and how Hadiya people were conquered and assimilated by Oromos, and some Oromos groups (including one you removed [[100]]) have clear Hadiya descent, the source gives several examples. This is very contradictorary to what you said about them joining the Oromo like it was a peaceful affair. The blow to Hadiya territorial reduction, and assimilation came through violent conquest by Oromos. Like i asked you in my previous comment [[101]
  ] where in the Braukamer source does it supprt that Hadiya ceased to exist as a state? No mention of in it the source (and also contradicted by Ethiopian borderlands source where Hadiya king/chief where said to have relations with the Solomonic Dynasty well to the late 17th century.)

• About your latest rant in the ANI, you are lecturing us about the history of Hadiya, but
  WP:CITE no sources in the article. In the article there's a single [[102]] source for your content, and that doesn't cover what you wrote. I'm sceptical after you included sythesised version which was not backed by Hassen & Trimingham [[103]
  ], so i'm not taking your word for it.

• I have asked you several times to provide evidence for your accusations of defamation, vandalism and wikihouding. You still have not provided diffs. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft dodger BLP violations

IP blocked for 3 years by RickinBaltimore. Tails Wx 01:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

• 2600:1700:8440:ADD0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

We need another rangeblock placed on Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8440:ADD0:0:0:0:0/64, who is continuing their behavior of gross BLP violations. The last rangeblock was for a year.

This person likes to add something about draft dodger to various biographies.[104][105] They also vandalize LGBTQ issues.[106][107] Nothing good comes from this range. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

They also threatened Ymblanter with off-wiki retribution in December 2021. Definitely needs a re-block. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup. First edit from their block expiring was to call Phil Donohue a draft dodger. Re-blocked range for 3 years. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2023 (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.

FerMATtos

Indeffed by Salvio giuliano. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

WP:NOTHERE and thus I request an indefinite block of them. My latest comment serves as the ANI notice and I believe this is not premature because of their indicated unwillingness to follow policies.—Jasper Deng (talk)

21:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, my edit is NOT exactly about Mathematical theory, but about historical mathematics. And what I demand is the right to freedom of expression concerning historical, fully documented facts in a generally respected encyclopedia. Besides, Jasper Deng proves to be an ignorant in number theory, he does not have the right to label as «crank mathematics» what he simply doesn’t understand: I sent him the data and sources he might have used before uttering this libel. FerMATtos (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, my edit is NOT exactly about Mathematical theory, but about historical mathematics. And what I demand is the right to freedom of expression concerning historical, fully documented facts in a generally respected encyclopedia. Besides, Jasper Deng proves to be an ignorant in number theory, he does not have the right to label as «crank mathematics» what he simply doesn’t understand: I sent him the data and sources he might have used before uttering this libel. FerMATtos (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Free speech. This isn't a platform for 'freedom of expression'. Go start a blog somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@

personal attacks rather than actually responding to my putting you on the spot for unjustified assertions) was meant to try to get you to be a constructive editor here after abandoning that crankery. Note that using the word “libel” here risks running afoul of Wikipedia:No legal threats. In other words, threatening or implying the threat of legal action will get you blocked regardless of anything else that happens here.—Jasper Deng (talk)

22:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no remedy for your so-called «anti-crankery» arrogance. Like I said, I've had enough of your sort of dictatorial mood. Good bye!" FerMATtos (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@FerMATtos: (1) If you have a conflict of interest (e.g., you are or are related to Carlos C. de Matos), you need to declare it. (2) Primary sources, e.g., Carlos C. de Matos's paper, cannot be used to support a controversial assertion in Wikipedia--you need secondary evidence (e.g., a review paper by someone else discussing de Matos' work). (3) Please stop attacking people, even when you disagree with them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: They have admitted to being Carlos C. de Matos on their talk page.—Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

They have admitted ...? How come? Reading the whole discussion you had with FerMATtos I can conclude that you are just an ignorant "supporting" your claims by accusations and threats.--178.222.169.118 (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting that Fermattos uses the unusual phrasing of "an ignorant", and then this partially blocked, anonymous account uses the same phrasing. Dubious. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@YouCanDoBetter: Very interesting indeed; SPI filed. Note that they did in fact admit to being Mr. de Matos in this comment: "Since the beginning, on the first day of the current Chinese Year of the Rabbit, I did my best to put it clear that I am the author of that proof of FLT".--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 to Andy. While on Wikipedia, Mr. deMatos is enjoined to abide by Wikipedia's policies concerning conflicts of interest, proper sourcing, and conduct towards other editors. If he's incapable or unwilling to do so, he can take his crusade elsewhere. Ravenswing 08:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Definitely
  WP:NOTHERE and, as such, indeffed. If they can persuade an administrator that they are willing and capable of editing constructively, they can be unblocked. Salvio ^giuliano
  11:00, 26 January 2023 (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.

Requesting comment on Onetwothreeip's reversion of an edit

Content dispute that shouldn't be in ANI. Consider

WP:DRN. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions}

) 02:08, 27 January 2023 (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.

---

Respectfully requesting administrators' comments on User:Onetwothreeip's reversion of an edit I had made. In the edit I had made, I restored and moderately summarized the content that Onetwothreeip previously deleted a few months ago over issues of excessive detail. Unfortunately, Onetwothreeip reverted my edit even though the content included information crucial to the Duterte administration's response to the COVID-19, such as the adoption of "draconian measures", "a local-government unit-led approach" to the COVID-19 pandemic, expansion of COVID-19 testing capacity, and appointing of czars to respond to the pandemic. Any thoughts on how to deal with this? As a side note, Onetwothreeip appears to be focused on trimming articles appearing in Special:LongPages, and have been involved in conflicts with other editors regarding article size. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin but fairly sure nearly every admin will wonder why you're bringing a

WP:Content Dispute to ANI rather than continue to discuss it on the article talk page like you should be. Nil Einne (talk

) 12:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Contact me | Contributions

). 12:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a

WP:VOICE, which the reversion looked to be trying to fix about the article. Rhayailaina (talk

) 06:01, 25 January 2023 (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:Carolina Mahadewi Malin moving articles without discussion

BLOCKED

Carolina Mahadewi Malin blocked for 2 days by Ad Orientem.

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.

---

• Carolina Mahadewi Malin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been moving articles en masse without discussion, often in arbitrary ways that need to be reverted right after. They've been warned about this twice (see warning from Johnbod and myself on their talk page), but they've continued to move multiple articles again today without explanation (see their 26 January 2023 contributions). Their other edits vary from inconsequential to clearly wrong changes that have also been reverted (e.g. at Fatih Mosque, Istanbul). They consistently refrain from providing any explanation for their changes and have not responded to any comments on their talk page. I am hoping a short block or other measure will force them to start communicating and pay attention to the warnings and reverts. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

BLOCKED x 48 hrs for disruptive editing. This has been pervasive despite multiple attempts to reach out to them with zero communication or explanation for the disruptive behavior. If they resume after the block expires, the next one will likely be indefinite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:CIR

concerns

BLOCKED

Linguist111 (talk

) 15:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

User:ApprenticeFan has been warned numerous times for writing up unsourced and ungrammatical edits, and blocked in the past. They have said that English is not their first language, which I respect, but at this point they have made enough bad edits that I don't they can just be given the benefit of the doubt.

Just from the past handful of days, we see some relatively nonsensical elections edits ([108][109][110][111][112]), where ApprenticeFan claimed over and over that incumbents were "term-limited to run for Senator", which does not make sense, is absolutely not what term limits mean, and is not something we add to these tables. Then we see comprehensive edits like this one, where he not only replaced the common names of numerous candidates with not only their rarely-used full birth names, but even added completely false names like "Elizabeth Ann Herring Warren", when Herring is her maiden name and no longer in use. Then there are many edits lik this one that are just completely ungrammatical (I can add more diffs of those if you want).

For more context about this user, please scroll through their talk page. Here are a few (but not all) discussions unsuccessfully warning them about this behavior and explaining steps they can take to improve their edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. This user should be permanently blocked, as there is no indication that they have the will and capacity to improve. Cpotisch (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I am sorry what I have did back in 2008 to 2013, one former administrator Ryulong (talk · contribs) warned me this a dozen of times, mostly with The Amazing Race and see with my report in ANI in December 2009. Ryulong (Personal attack removed) that he ruined my edits in some The Amazing Race seasons when it aired and more popular at the time before the dawn of the streaming era. ApprenticeWiki ^contribs 08:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

By my count you just called an administrator a bastard, which 100% violates

WP:NPA, and shows that you are unable to interact with concerned editors in a productive manner. Cpotisch (talk

) 09:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I have been fixed it to "(

make it right. ApprenticeWiki ^contribs

09:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That doesn’t help much; it’s still a personal attack. And I’m sorry but the fact that you thought saying “Ryulong is a bastard” was acceptable, and that you seem to have thought it meant something totally different, makes me even more doubtful that you have the

competence to make correct and legible edits. Cpotisch (talk

) 10:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I hate to say that I do usually edit beautifully and good words. Ryulong gave me warnings on my talk page a dozen times usually with Super Sentai and The Amazing Race. That did not make sense to accept the good faith. I will be polite with selected edits for good. ApprenticeWiki ^contribs 10:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

So far, not one of your replies here have been even close to grammatically correct, so I just really doubt that your edits going forward will be. Can you not just edit the Wikipedia that is in your first language? Wouldn't that be easier for everyone? Cpotisch (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it wouldn't be hard for

English is not a first language to understand and will make grammar corrections for now with better improvements. ApprenticeWiki ^contribs

13:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What does that even mean? You still haven't pointed to any evidence that you can learn from your mistakes and improve. And again, you called someone a "bastard", then when called out on it you changed it to "useless", which is still an attack, and you didn't seem to understand why neither is acceptable. If you can't demonstrate an understanding of Wikipedia policies in this context, when will you ever be abel to do so? Additionally, since I started this complaint, another user has already posted another warning on your talk page about another edit. This keeps on happening. Cpotisch (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• I have reviewed a bunch of random edits made by ApprenticeFan and I agree that his command of English is lacking to the point his contributions, no doubt made in good faith, become disruptive. So, I am about to block them. Salvio ^giuliano 13:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I wish there had been a way to make AF understand, but this has been a problem, and people have been talking to AF about it, for more than a decade. Nobody wants to block a good-faith editor who genuinely wants to improve the encyclopedia, but I don't see what the alternative would have been in this case. --bonadea contributions talk 14:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attack from User:Bgsu98

Deep breath, and relax people. Please note the cardinal rules of ANI a) Floquenbeam is always right, b) When Floquenbeam is wrong, see rule a) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

This is uncalled for [113] and shouldn't be accepted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Bgsu98, please don't call anyone an idiot. User:Sportsfan 1234, please don't template the regulars. Unless there is evidence that this is a part of a pattern of behavior, instead of a one-off tiff, I don't suppose there's any way either of you would call this resolved now? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Floquenbeam, I'm sorry you have to waste your time with this nonsense complaint, but since you're here, I'm going to get this off my chest. Normally, I wouldn't waste an administrator's time with this foolishness, but I, for one, am tired of the constant bullying, mass reverts without explanation (or with insufficient explanation), and bland template warning from User:Sportsfan 1234 that I have witnessed and experienced over the last year or so. SF deleted a large quantity of information from 2023 European Figure Skating Championships, citing "Per WP:LIVESCORE" (no link provided) as the rationale. I searched and could find no page or policy named WP:LIVESCORE to explain why this deletion was made, so I reverted it. SF followed up with another reversion without explanation and then dropped a BS "warning" on my talk page. I'd like to add that the updates to 2023 European Figure Skating Championships were no different than every other skating event article I've followed since I started here, including the Olympics.

I didn't need to look far to find an example of SF's blind reversion. After filing this frivolous complaint, he made this reversion. I had removed an unsourced statement from a BLP article that was a) poorly written, and b) also lacked punctuation. SF reverted it, another user (User:Adamtt9) again reverted it as unsourced, and then suddenly SF reverted one of Adamtt9's edits to another article altogether, which makes me think SF is searching out edits to revert in retaliation. None of this behavior is new. His talk page history is littered with complaints and arguments. But yes, I will not call anyone an "idiot" again, while SF should also avoid doing the same thing.

Another example of SF's bland warning templating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this is applicable to your case, so I'm not siding against you, but I believe what's being referred to is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Livescores_editnotice — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCanDoBetter (talk • contribs) 02:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

So it appears the answer to my question is "no". Other admins, feel free to delve into this. I'm going to gentle smack my forehead with a wooden mallet for the next few hours, which sounds slightly more enjoyable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Template = no big deal. Someone has an opinion that you're out of line. Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. Give the warning its due discretion (whatever you feel it should be) and move on. Snarky comments aren't gonna help and are explicitly prohibited in

WP:CIVIL

. Don't get so riled up over someone's opinion (even if it's on your talk page). Likewise, Sportsfan 1234, don't template someone over an innocuous disagreement. They are not required to keep your opinion on their talk page. They've read it. You have a record they were warned by you (for whatever weight that is). Move on. Buffs (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2023 (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.

Rude administrators' exploits on Kryvyi Rih page (city in Ukraine)

SOCKS PUT BACK IN DRAWER

Sockpuppet theater's play universally panned. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:34, 27 January 2023 (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.

---

Hails. Some Wiki users are having really bad times with two self sure admins: User:Mellk and User:Ymblanter.
This whole thing is about this city Kryvyi Rih and it's got a really fat RFC there: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kryvyi_Rih#Krivoy_Rog.
The dispute started when someone removed the name Krivoy Rog from top(again) – this name is how the city is called in Russian ( so it is transliterated); in Ukrainian its name is Kryvyi Rih. Their point was to leave the "alternative name (Russian one)" in top; User:Mellk was pretty stubborn trying to convince everyone that Krivoy Rog is the alt name. He even provided some Google search results which prove almost nothing, I think. He was gently told that's not an alternative name and it's not even English so it's got nothing to do with the top of a Ukrainian city page on the English-Wiki. (by the way, it's literally translated as Curved Bend). But, as you might've already guessed, these arguments didn't work. This man is pretty sure that Ukrainian and Russian words (or city names) written in Latin are not Ukrainian and Russian words (names), so he thinks that it makes them become English names. He tried really hard to convince everybody that Kryvyi Rih and Krivoy Rog are English names and therefore they must be placed on top, you know…It's a pitty, but I think this gentleman missmatches such things as translation and transliteration.
I had studied some WP policies and from there I've known this rule:

MOS:LEADLANG#Foreign language

, which says, to put it shortly: if the subject is originally named (or associated) not in English, a SINGLE one foreign name (not 2 or 3…) is allowed in top – so there must be only the Ukrainian one, no Russian or any else foreign names.

• Diffs:

1)This is how it is supposed to be (due to policies btw) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryvyi_Rih&oldid=1122515037
2)This is how messed things are now https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryvyi_Rih&oldid=1132992741

This fellow #2, User:Ymblanter was behaving really unpolite: when I pointed out what the policy above says (MOS:LEADLANG#Foreign language), he was something like:"You've only got 70 edits and you think you know what's right, better than I do?" – that was really unpleasant and I became disappointed with the admin's manners. And you know what the second guy's main point was based on? He was really serious when he kept saying : "Krivoy Rog had been there in top for a long time– and now, some noname-socks(lol) came up and made this deletion edit (again)", but here he (User:Ymblanter) goes again – saves the Russian one name in top, despite the complete lack of consensus in RFC…
I think you know what was next…They used their admin tools, made it all up to their taste and…locked the page.
And, btw, the ex-Russian-name of the city in Russian comes up in the History tray (well yes, in the times of the Russian Empire and USSR, Russian was significal in Ukraine).
Now, in January they are still running their crusade: User:Mellk has just replaced the literal translations of the city name from top (Crooked Horn and Curved Bend), but the Russian name is still there alongside with the Ukrainian one. And me, I'm not able to edit this page 'cause of the lock, and it feels awful ,as I can see some stylistic mistakes on the page, but can't correct them...
In case you still don't get it: Two admin guys insist that this Ukrainian city, Kryvyi Rih has an alternative name Krivoy Rog (exactly the same, but in Russian), but it seems that the name in Russian has nothing to do in top section since this is English wiki and the city is Ukrainian…so no Russian name needed here, same as Turkish, Spanish, German and other translations. Imho.

P.S.: Oh, and btw, they even got my nephew banned for sockpuppetry : S (I can only suppose they decided that I had created another account) ; but my nephew wasn't even able to register himself, not to speak of some cheating activity lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Br0therH00dLinez (talk • contribs) 03:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"my nephew" sounds suspiciously like

WP:BOOMERANG. Chris Troutman (talk

) 05:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, are the same with AlbertHog? You never interacted with Ymblanter or Mellk in that discussion, but somehow you felt that Ymblanter is attacking you. For people that are wandering where Ymblanter is alleged to be engaging in uncivility, here is the diff. Personally I didn't think this is uncivil, as this is a response to AlbertHog is previous diff that kept insisting that he is right. The TP for AlbertHog is removed justly for his personal attack on this diff.

This is also an attempt to

WP:FORUMSHOPPING as a rough consensus has been made that Krivoy Rog should be on the header on Kryvyi Rih, which AlbertHog, Br0therH00dLinez and Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123

(blocked for socking) has rejected.

Also, the page is not locked by Ymblanter, but locked by

WP:LITTLEBROTHER only makes things worse for you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact)

05:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we should block the filer (who has 17 edits) as a self-confessed sock. Basically the whole complaint that they sent a horde of socks to the discussion, all were blocked, and this is why they failed to sway the discussion in their favor. Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@SunDawn:, Slava was not blocked for sockpuppeting! This is misinformation. He was blocked for fighting soviet propaganda about Ukrainian history in English Wikipedia. -Hrschyech (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please explain

Contact me | Contributions

). 13:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Heck, please explain how your only edit to date on Wikipedia is the one I'm responding to.

Speaking of sockpuppets. Ravenswing

13:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing:, easy. Slava was blocked in November. Please verify your claims before making them. The blocking of Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 was a gaming of the system - he was blocked for “violating” general sanctions about the Russo-Ukrainian war by editing the article Kryvyi Rih (only the lead sentence about the name). Thanks in advance, -Gtecgurdchjj (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong ping. I should have pinged @TheDragonFire300:. -Gtecgurdchjj (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Also someone should explain edits like Special:MobileDiff/1135745950 and Special:MobileDiff/1135086686. Per consensus the city is Odesa. Odesa is also the correct spelling. Why do some admins insist on the wrong spelling “Odessa” despite consensus being Odesa? -Yschjyecvjjj (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

So, more new accounts joining the discussion? I'll grab a sock out of my drawer. Tails Wx 14:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I cleared the drawer. Canterbury Tail talk 14:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, does this/these chap/s think we don't notice? How stupid do they think we are?

That being said, in case the sockmaster is still at it, head's up, guy: there was no "gaming of the system" involved. The whole point behind discretionary sanctions is that they're established in contentious areas where there's a strong likelihood of vandals and partisans causing disruption, and so blocks and topic bans are issued much more readily and without as many intermediate steps. Anyone editing in those areas are cautioned that they are under increased scrutiny, and if they decide that they just have to be partisan anyway, they often get what's coming to them. We get that you want Wikipedia to operate according to your partisan politics. As may be: but it doesn't, and it will continue not to do so. Ravenswing 16:44, 27 January 2023 (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.

Disruption at Griff Furst

• Griff Furst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple accounts are being disruptive at

WP:RD1? It also seems likely that these accounts are related to each other somehow, whether meat puppets or sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 00:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is definitely coordinated socking. I'd call the two named accounts

WP:MEAT it's hard to determine whether you have one person or a gaggle of related accounts pushing the promotion (which I know you know, NRP). I've reverted to the pre-sock/COI version and semi-protected, but haven't made any blocks or looked at the copyright issues as I'm running out the door in short order.-- Ponyo^{bons mots}

00:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is David. Simply trying to contribute additional information to this artist. The approved page that keeps getting reverted states that the Artist has appeared in over 100 feature films and television shows, but offers very little details of his career that has spanned over two decades. The information I tried to add is well sourced and cited. Some quotes were pulled from various podcasts and interviews that the Artist has participated in. No intention of socking. Just not a frequent contributor, and did not realize that objective information would be reverted. Happy to modify to suite Wikipedia's standards if there is information that is deemed subjective, but I did the diligence to keep the contribution encyclopedic. Picturesgroup (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

PG, can you tell us why you chose the name you did? No need to go into any level of detail, I just note that 'X Pictures Group' is a common formulation for the names of companies involved in movie and television production (see List_of_assets_owned_by_Warner_Bros._Discovery#Warner_Bros._Pictures_Group and Epic Pictures Group for just a couple examples) so it would help address the COI concerns if you explained just a bit. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We own the domain PicturesGroup.com. Not affiliated with any studio or network. Fans of all things and people movie and television related. Picturesgroup (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Who is "we"? For copyright reasons Wikipedia accounts must belong to one person only. And why do you keep capitalizing "Artist" as though it is a contractual term? Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Picturesgroup blocked by @Cullen328 for username violation (name = domain name). @JoanieAlf is silent. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey rsjaffee. To answer Juliet question. "We" was referring to myself and JoanieAlf - we were working together on this contribution. "Artist" is capitalized because it was in reference to this specific individual. Anyhow, we're both new to this process, and the comments have inspired research on the subject so thank you for that. We have some more studying to do, and once we're ready, we'll revisit contributing with language more commensurate with the guidelines. 47.156.10.169 (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey rsjaffee. To answer Juliet question. "We" was referring to myself and JoanieAlf - we were working together on this contribution. "Artist" is capitalized because it was in reference to this specific individual. Anyhow, we're both new to this process, and the comments have inspired research on the subject so thank you for that. We have some more studying to do, and once we're ready, we'll revisit contributing with language more commensurate with the guidelines. 47.156.10.169 (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Insult against Black people by Username29387623

Racist troll indeffed by Cullen328. Tails Wx 17:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

WP:NOTHERE. Rsk6400 (talk

) 17:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this racist troll. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2023 (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.

Mass reversion spree by Drsmoo

The user

Iskandar323 (talk

) 06:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like an obvious case of

WP:HOUNDING I'll give them a chance to explain how this isn't hounding. Doug Weller talk

08:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This was likely filed to get ahead of an anticipated report at ARBCOM, and should be a

WP: Boomerang. Iskandar323 went on a mass deleting spree removing links to the “History of Ancient Israel and Judah” article, and hiding the removals behind false edit summaries such as “CE”, or “Moving general statement on archaeological schools in the 1960s out of the 'practitioners' section and into the history section” which was in fact another removal of a link to ancient Israel. Contrary to Iskandar323’s report, almost all of the removals were simply replacements of links to the Ancient Israel article, or changes to the subject matter of the text to justify removal of the link. For example: here, here a whole paragraph is removed seemingly for containing a link to Ancient Israel, here, here, here, (here a paragraph containing Ancient Israel is removed with the edit summary claiming the material is uncited, however, none of the material in that particular article is cited, so it appears to be another case of attempting to remove links to Ancient Israel during this spree.) Iskandar323 is incorrect in stating that there were no partial reverts, in fact, there were when appropriate. For example, here where the maintenance tag was maintained.In highly sensitive and contentious fields such as I/P, it is not acceptable to inappropriately mass remove links to a prominent article.Drsmoo (talk

) 09:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Iskandar323 (talk

) 09:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I am, which one would expect you would have anticipated due to your tendentious mass removal of links to Ancient Israel (though it is now being discussed here). Your baseless and factually incorrect accusation of canvassing is also unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Then why circuitously say: "ahead of an anticipated report at ARBCOM", rather than "ahead of me filing". And how on earth would I anticipate your actions? I'm not psychic, and not, unlike you, hounding. I filed the report because mass-reverting other users is an obvious behavioral problem and this is the forum for raising behavioral complaints.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 09:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Because I had just warned you on your talk page here that your edits were unacceptable. I am not hounding you, you made a rash burst of edits removing links to a prominent article after disparaging that article on your talk page. I responded with the inverse of that specific burst. There is no long-term pattern of me engaging with you negatively or contesting your edits in particular.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 11:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Note how I did not make any related edits after your note on my talk page, but replied to you, while you pre-emptively began your revert spree before waiting for a response or explanation, and continued your revert spree even after being warned that mass reverting other editors was a problematic behavior.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 11:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

In Iskandar323’s talk-page discussion, which he’s linked to above, he writes: “The History of ancient Israel and Judah is a start class article of extremely dubious quality and with little ability to provide clarity to readers.” It is highly problematic to mass remove links (including deleting paragraph content itself) to a highly read article within ARBPIA after admonishing that article’s quality. That is not how WP should work. Drsmoo (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it has traffic because there are so many piped links to an Easter egg redirect targeted at it. That's one of the reasons piped links are bad. It's also, yes, a start-class article with patchy in-line citation.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 10:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Or, maybe because it’s a highly prominent cultural, historical, and religious subject. [115] You can’t disparage a major article, mass-remove links to it behind obscurative edit summaries like “CE”. Then attack the editor who reverted you and accuse him of conspiracy. Additionally, regarding the example cited above, the original section was “The

Persian, Greek and Roman armies” All four were following the same format, however only “Ancient Israel” was removed. Drsmoo (talk

) 10:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the piped link was de-piped. I removed links to an—at the time—disambiguation page, as I have explained. It is the duty of editors to fix links to disambiguation pages. As I mentioned, that it has since been moved back to a redirect is neither here nor there. Even so, these links previously led/presently lead to a redirect, not to the target page itself - that all of this seems to elude you only points to

Iskandar323 (talk

) 10:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

You weren’t engaging in some administrative task solely to depipe links. You were mass removing links to, and content interfacing with, a specific ARBPIA article. The tendentiousness is notable as well. Drsmoo (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

How about you don't guess my intentions, thanks. No actually, as I mentioned, it was Onel5969 who actually called my attention to the large number of inbound links and started changing the targets of the inbound links - I got involved after the discussion made me aware of the headache I'd created.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 11:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m not guessing your intentions, I’m describing your edits. Drsmoo (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I also wonder why an editor would decide to delete references to Ancient Israel from so many different articles. Also, why the wikilink to Ancient Israelite cuisine was removed from the article on Israeli cuisine? Tombah (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Links that are present in the body of an article should not be duplicated in the See also section (

MOS:NOTSEEALSO). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs

) 22:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I noticed this in my watchlist this am Iskandar changed

ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region Here to simply Levant

and

Drsmoo changed it back here

I cannot readily see anything wrong with Iskandar edit, it is accurate, simple and leads to a specific article instead of 4 different pages (for no obvious reason).

In any case given that there was a talk page conversation going on at Iskandar talk page at the time Drsmoo filed his complaint there, would it not have been better to have joined in the conversation? Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll also note that ArbCom doesn't usally take conduct cases unless they can't be resolved by the community, so any approach to ArbCom first would almost certainly have failed. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good example of the crud I was correcting and which Drsmoo restored. Note that the Southern Levant contains Israel/Palestine and the Transjordan region, so that list was tautologous. Drsmoo restored the error (one of many).

Iskandar323 (talk

) 12:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm only now going through my watchlist and came upon 3 of Drsmoo's reverts of your edits. One even restored copyvio, another deleted material from the source without giving a reason "deuteronomistic history", and a third changed "about the ancient

Ancient Israel which I thought was less accurate. I may find more as I go down my watchlist. Doug Weller talk

13:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

At

Iskandar323 (talk

) 13:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this again, now that I'm in front of a computer and not reading/typing on my phone while half asleep and burned out with insomnia, the edits are not as gratuitous they initially appeared. There are also clearly still a large number of pages linking to the article, so it is not as if there was a full-fledged mass revert of links. Several of the edits are improvements, so I will revert those changes. Drsmoo (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

While contrition is wonderful and I'm delighted to have gone from being ARBCOM case-pending to someone whose edits aren't too gratuitous, how about as an apology for wasting community time here you revert all of your reverts and only redo those which are sufficiently problematic that you can muster up an edit summary for them?

Iskandar323 (talk

) 15:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

An edit summary like "ce"? Drsmoo (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Normally something more elaborate when justifying a revert - though if any of my "copyedits" truly mystifies you, I'd be happy to muster up an explanation for you. Some just need little explaining.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 16:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this over, Drsmoo, or is there something that from your perspective that needs to be resolved? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: While contrition is wonderful and I'm delighted to have gone from being ARBCOM case-pending to someone whose edits aren't too gratuitous, how about as an apology for wasting community time here you revert all of your reverts and only redo those which are sufficiently problematic that you can muster up an edit summary for them? Iskandar323, he's backed down. Give him a chance to exit with grace.

WP:HOUND

an editor. Try talking to them first. You may find more in common. Drsmoo, slow your roll on your assumptions. I'm sure it felt like all your efforts were being undone, but it seems (at least largely) that most were simply policy compliance edits or phrasing improvements. There's always plenty of work to do that isn't this. If Iskandar323 continues following you around, let this board know and an admin will put a stop to it.

Thanks to both of you for all you are trying to do! Doug, thanks for a level head here! Buffs (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If Iskandar323 continues following you around Other way about? Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

...or vice versa. The principle is the same. Buffs (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Move-warring and harassment by Iazyges

A draft named

Avilich (talk

) 04:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I was in the wrong to move it back a second time, and ceased to move it again after being made aware of

WP:DRAFTOBJECT, that was a failure to understand policy on my part, and I'm sorry for it. My AFD vote is not retaliatory, as I don't actually care all that deeply about the move except that it was disruptive given that it obviously wasn't ready, the lack of lede being an obvious clue. My observation that the move itself was obviously made to affect the results of the ongoing AFD (a comment to that effect was made by Avilich two minutes after the move) was separate from my support for keeping. I will also note that disruptive editing need not violate policy to be disruptive. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum

04:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of the keep voters voted keep because the original redirect targets weren't suitable. You voted keep despite that grievance being addressed, solely as retaliation because the lede of the published draft wasn't to your liking. Me 'winning' the AfD would simply result in the content being retained completely (certainly not deleted as you insinuated here) under a more accurate title. And there again is the personal attack, accusing me of disruption.

Avilich (talk

) 04:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I would consider moving an unready article to be disruptive. That's not a personal attack, I have nothing against you, and in what few times we've interacted I've tended to agree with you. I would consider the same disruptive of literally anyone. It has nothing to do with the lede "being of my liking", it simply didn't exist, a sign that it wasn't ready. Additionally, the grievance is not addressed, as raised by Furius, because he specifically made the argument that she is worthy of her own article, which I agree with. Even if 100% of the current content is retained, that is not the same as the platform for more content about her. Additionally, I don't actually see a single keep vote that results from lack of target, let alone from Furius. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Avilich: I have historically been very inclusionist of all pre-Gutenberg historical figures, and find no difference here. I'm happy to withdraw my comment asserting that you did it to influence the discussion as an unprovable aspersion; nevertheless, I disagree with your decision to move the article as ill-timed, and maintain my keep vote. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum

04:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Point of order: The "draft" in question, IIRC, was in the namespace of
  user:Avilich pushed it live specifically for use as "ammunition" in the AfD discussion. However, it seems highly irregular to me for someone to publish work from someone else's namespace without a talk page exchange first etc. jengod (talk
  ) 06:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Jengod: It was first placed in Draft space, not the user namespace, although he was the sole author. It was only in his userspace because I moved it there after the first move; I was unable to overwrite the empty Draft and therefore elected to move it there as the next-best. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  • @Iazyges: aha! I stand corrected. Thank you for explaining. poor UndercoverClassicist is probably enjoying breakfast somewhere in blissful ignorance jengod (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

    That's all correct. For what it's worth, I think I'm the sole author on the draft, and my view is that it's very much not ready for publication - the last two sections in particular are currently well below standard, simply because I haven't had the chance to get to them. I'm not sure what the etiquette is here, but my view is that it should be moved back to Draftspace. As @Iazyges: points out, I hadn't even gotten round to writing a lead! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

    To add: it's now more difficult for me to make the sort of edits I would like to (small, incremental, sometimes in rough form) with the article in mainspace - while anyone else is of course welcome to do so, they could equally do so in draftspace. It seems to me that the move into mainspace at this time is therefore to the detriment of the development of the article. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

    @UndercoverClassicist: the best course of action would be XFD, to argue for a re-draftification of the document. As an aside, I usually write documents within my namespace as [[User:Iazyges/Whatever]] to avoid such complications. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

    @UndercoverClassicist: It may actually be better to argue to user-fy the document, given everything. Happy to nominate it for such myself, or you can. Either way. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

    I can see this one both ways: on the one hand, it's now a bad article, which can be improved; on the other, it would unquestionably be better as a draft of some sort.

    I'm not going to have the time to write out a proper proposal in the very near term - if you're happy to do so, would you mind writing something up to the effect that it's been published before its time, and it would be best to draftify/user-ify (assuming the others who have made edits since are happy with that)? I can then add my 'bit' when I get a moment.

    Normally I write drafts in Userspace as well - the thought here was that others involved in the AfD discussion might want to help out, and indeed I'm grateful that a few people have stepped into partially plug some of the (now rather embarrassing) gaps, particularly in the lede. If it does end up back in Userspace, I'm happy for them to carry on doing so if they wish. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• As the move-warring has now stopped, and Iazyges has struck their more contentious comments, can everyone agree to disagree here? Iazyges is a long-time editor on ancient Roman topics, and has been involved in other AfDs on Roman topics this month, so it's not as though they have no legitimate interest in this AfD and are just involving themselves to thwart Avilich. Avilich moving someone else's draft into mainspace before the main editor thought it was ready may not have been ideal behaviour, but it is explicitly permitted by WP:Drafts#Publishing a draft. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The "contentious" comment that has been struck is actually the only truthful one, that the draft was moved to influence the AfD -- I never denied it, only argued that there is nothing wrong with that. But since copying offtopic information from other articles added to trivial mentions into standalone pages apparently passes off as legitimate "inclusionism" to the most prominent classics editors, and the article is going to be kept anyways, this probably never mattered anyway.

Avilich (talk

) 00:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I would consider it to be in pretty poor form to exploit someone else's userspace to push an agenda in an AFD, there was no hurry to get UndercoverClassicist's project into mainspace, they could keep working on it for a couple of weeks/months and you could potentially renominate Antistia's article to be redirected/merged into it once it was done and see if consensus had changed under the different circumstances.★Trekker (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The page was originally on draft, not userspace.

Avilich (talk

) 02:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Avilich neither congratulated nor notified the draft creator but argued that an article was created with the exact same copied text withholding the fact that creation was their (Avilichs) work. The draft creator later had to mention it themselves and disagree with the releasing of the draft into mainspace. You accuse others of bad faith...How would you classify your creation of an article with the exact same copied text without improving the content nor consulting with the draft creator in order to win an argument in a deletion discussion? Paradise Chronicle (talk

) 11:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Avilich: I see, so your issue with me was not an unprovable accusation (that I assumed you denied as you never really engaged with it) but instead for briefly failing to follow policy (and desisting once I was informed of proper policy) and then the high crime of participating in an AFD in my primary area of editing, following a long trend of inclusionism. Essentially, a brief but admitted mistake, and then for disagreeing with you. Can you please explain why I was brought to ANI for this? I will be un-striking my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum

01:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The essay was cited already on the first move revert, and you kept falsely stating that I was disruptively editing after the second revert. On the most charitable interpretaion, you didn't or don't know what disruption is, or what a draft is for.

Avilich (talk

) 02:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Avilich: You pushed an obviously unfinished page into mainspace to win an AFD (as indeed I have said a few times, it didn't even have a lead, and the sole author has confirmed it as unfinished). Charitably, I did not accuse you of Wikipedia:Gaming the system at the time. Yes, your actions were in line with the letter of the law. It was still insanely rude to publish a person's work without even discussing it with them; which they themselves see as embarrassing. And you openly admit that you did so to win an argument, which is by far against the spirit of Wikipedia. Finally, you felt it necessary to bring the matter to ANI because you felt that I was misusing the term disruptive; was it impossible to just say "I disagree, see WP:Disruptive, I wish to cease this discussion as it's run its course to a status quo other than your in-character keep vote"? It can't have been for the moving, because I had desisted once being informed of proper policy being 1RR rather than 3RR. It can't have been because I accused you of abusing the letter of the law to win a vote, because that was true. So did you truly waste ANI's time because you thought I was misusing a word, or simply because you were upset I disagreed with you? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum

02:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth noting that Avilich recently asserted that "...surely ANI is for repeated and intractable behavior only?" Which makes this all odder. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's also worth noting that that Avilich has a history of combative behaviour in AFDs in general, sometimes straight up insulting people who disagree with him.★Trekker (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment It seems pretty clear to me that Avilich prematurely moved this draft from mainspace purely because they want to get rid of the Antistia article as fast as possible and are unhappy that several people have supported "keep" in its AFD. (I'm a fan of having "Wives of ____" articles personally - as a mater of fact I have several projects like it in my sandboxes - but I am not a fan of the idea that these articles would be used at the expense articles about individual notable women, I see that as a dangerous precedent to set for the coverage of women on Wikipedia.) I don't see how what Iazyges did qualifies as "harassment", the draft wasn't ready in their mind.★Trekker (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Gareth Carraway misrepresenting sources

BLOCKED

WP:IDHT, etc. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️

23:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

User:Gareth Carraway is once again blanking sourced content (Special:Diff/1135522263, Special:Diff/1135523340), changing sourced content (Special:Diff/1135679552), and leaving nonsensical rationales (Special:Diff/1135523795). This editor clearly has no interest in following policy, and his English proficiency is at a level too low to contribute to English Wikipedia. He was previously blocked for a week after this prior complaint. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I say we topic ban him from animation articles, as that seems to be his focus of this section blanking crusade. You can decide how widely it is constructed. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Why was this user not indeffed in the first instance? We are a global resource that requires competent volunteers, and this user exhibits many traits consistent with not being able to provide positive value to the project for quite some time, and it is not our role to fix that. Julietdeltalima (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to assume good faith and offer them a chance to demonstrate that they could contribute constructively and not resort to personal attacks against NinjaRobotPirate – the reason I blocked was NPA. I haven't reviewed all the content details, and in light of their edits which contradict the cited sources (with no sources provided in support of Gareth's edits), along with

WP:IDHT behavior on their talk page that is even more apparent now (advice left by myself and other editors appears to not have had any effect), I would support additional sanctions. An indefinite block may be necessary at this point; they are free to request an unblock when they are able/ready to address the issues raised at their talk page. ^Complex/_Rational

13:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

When I saw this yesterday, I thought the evidence pointed toward a swift indef. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

LEPRICAVARK (talk

) 23:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• It looks like it's a continuing problem. I'm about to indef, until he can persuade an administrator that he can (and is willing to) edit constructively. Salvio ^giuliano 23:21, 27 January 2023 (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.

MateiCorvine and friends

BLOCKED, SOCKS BLOCKED

Yet another unrecognized micronation kerfluffle. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I was initially going to report this user to

WP:NOTHERE but decided that it would be better if I went here first. MateiCorvine seems to be creating multiple pages about some sort of breakaway state called "Zalusia". Normally I would just delete under U5 (or maybe G3? I can't tell if this is real or not because of the issue I'm about to describe), however there's something strange going on. The user has included links to other users that seem to be writing about a different part of "Zalusia". So I'm not exactly sure what to do in this case. Also, I will most likely fail to notify some of the users who would be involved here since I'm not sure how many of them there are and who they all are, so I'll notify MateiCorvine and if I'm asked to do so I will notify the other accounts. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk

_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously someone is practicing their fictional writing skills. The "flag" and "coat of arms" of Zalusia here belong to Wallachia, and the "Zalusia Democratic Forces" are a made-up rebel group. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 20:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted MateiCorvine's sandbox; various other admins have deleted similar content in other users' sandboxes. I think we collectively got them all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked 3 accounts, including the master account. I had to hunt for them, so if I missed one, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I know there's at least one more altho I don't remember the name of it. I'll dig through my contribs to see if I can find it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

User:TotalArticlesGuy was created at the same time and there's a deleted Zalusia-related sandbox in their user space, and is probably involved, but since they've never edited it themselves, maybe that's a bridge too far. i left them alone. User:ContribuitorOfZalusia is certainly related, and I've blocked them too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I noticed TAG and the fact that they hadn't edited, which is why I didn't block them. Thanks for the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2023 (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:Ohnoitsjamie blocked me for no apparent reason.

REASON GIVEN

'nuf said. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I am User:Neunermialog but I was blocked. User:Ohnoitsjamie blocked me after I tried to make a disambiguation page for "JuIаy". I received no explaination and they claimed I was "trolling", though I do not see how in this universe how. I did not use any bad words or put any offensive material, they just blocked me and revoked my talk page access. I see this as a ridiculous abuse of power and I demand an explaination. 31.205.13.92 (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"Julay" is a term with extremely profane connotations and is associated with vicious Kiwi Farms trolling campaigns. Cullen328 (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a good word, I don't think that's in question. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's obvious trolling. Thanks for having more editors waste time with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith on that last part not being sarcasm. Not a waste of time either. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2023 (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:Owais Al Qarni attacking Narendra Modi

IP who filed the thread blocked by Bishonen for two weeks for "political hack". (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

User:Owais Al Qarni created the article India: The Modi Question to defame our prime minister Narendra Modi. Modiji has nothing to do with 2002 Gujarat riots. BBC documentary is manipulated. This article should be deleted from wikipedia. I came here because nobody helped at teahouse. Only good admins can do something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40F3:25:FD00:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You failed to notify the editor you mentioned, in contravention of the requirements at the top of the page. I have done so for you. CharredShorthand.talk; 07:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: there was a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse#India: The Modi Question, initiated by the same IP. It was closed once this was opened. CharredShorthand.talk; 07:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, if you have a policy based reason why the article should be deleted, then follow the instructions at

WP:AFD. Writing a well-referenced article about a BBC documentary is not defamation. The article, after all, summarizes 23 reliable sources. The Indian government's censorship campaign makes the documentary more notable, not less notable. Please read Streisand effect. Cullen328 (talk

) 07:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Bishonen has given a two-week block to the IP for vandalizing the article in question. Looking over the article history, I can see several other vandals pushing the BJP party line, and given the documentary's recent release, it might be a good candidate for semi-protection. Ravenswing 09:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  Article views are currently spiking, somewhat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2023 (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.

Two accounts tag-teaming editing unblock requests, etc.

BLOCKED

LTA blocked. Trolling behaviour.--Lemonaka (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2023 (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.

---

• Megioe128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CrazyAdmnistrtr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two accounts are editing unblock requests. Both are new accounts, created today within 30 minutes of each other.

• User talk:The Nerdy science (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Acemanipulator (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:JackWilkesMcCarthy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• And others.

Would someone else please look into this? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Adakiko: unblock requests are handled all the time. What’s the problem? CrazyAdmnistrtr (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

some rouge editors were removing comments and I was restoring them. See the diffs. CrazyAdmnistrtr (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

LTA behaviour; socks blocked. When reverting this person, in fact when rolling back anything, please always check the page history. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:11, 28 January 2023 (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.

Not an admin here, but would like to report something regarding car articles, forgive me if I am writing in the wrong area

Ref has been added. Dispute hopefully fixed. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

---

Wiki got a clown claiming a Cadillac CT5 is actually a full-size (yes, FULL-SIZE) luxury car competing with the Audi A8, BMW 7 Series and Mercedes S-Class on Wikipedia and I'm the only one having to revert the edits and I'm not even a Wikipedia moderator. Cadillac has marketed the CT5 as either compact or midsize, along with peer-reviewed sources.

Wiki mods allegedly have no time to read the references I added to a Mercury Grand Marquis or Buick Roadmaster being actually full-size luxury cars. Sure they don't wear a Lincoln or Cadillac badge, but aren't the VW Phaeton and Kia K900 luxury also?

C'mon. Badge isn't everything. If the boys at VW and Kia know that, the USDM fanboys should know that too 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:8000:2D74:6182:AA3C (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll get a more useful response by posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

OP, can we close this? I provided a ref on the talk page showing that it is mid-size. Hope that will fix the dispute, but at least we can continue it there rather than here, and go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles if needed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Editor who constantly creates redirects

There is a user who is currently creating thousands of random redirects to sections within articles (a very odd redirect like

List of people from Loudoun County, Virginia), of which very few seem to be useful. I think this behavior should be stopped since it prevents an editor on Wikipedia from creating an article from its first edit as the article would be a redirect with the name of another editor. A few days ago same thing happened with me, when I was to create an article that was already redirected by them. I don't know if this editor Jarble's action has been approved by the community because it's such a huge piece of work that it seems like it needs to be consulted by wikipedians.--Sakiv (talk

) 05:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sakiv: I want to be the sole creator of that coming article. I'm afraid that's just not the way things work around here. Wikipedia is intended to be an ever evolving collaboration between multiple editors who wish to contribute. 2600:1003:B855:87AF:E01B:ACD9:C820:8285 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for additional context, this and this might be helpful. It seems like the only one creating a "big headache" here is the OP. ANI isn't the proper venue to ask someone to G7 a redirect solely because you want your name to be the first one in its edit history. Drop the stick. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I never said I wanted "my name" to be the only name that appears on any page's history. This is unacceptable. I talked to them on their talkpage but didn't get an explanation, then went to the teahouse but forgot as usual. Please assume good faith in this discussion. You should probably ask the IP address that appeared out of nowhere without any edits. Sakiv (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Your words: I want to be the sole creator of that coming article. As an established editor, you should know

that's not how Wikipedia works. You've been provided the advice at both locations, including by several editors at the Teahouse discussion, that you can (a) create a draft, which upon completion could then be moved in place of the redirect at that title, or (b) edit the existing content at that title, thereby turning it into an article. It is unclear as to why you are so insistent on deleting this redirect instead of applying one of the two methods suggested. I'm trying to assume good faith, but bringing this to ANI because you don't like the responses you've been given seems like forum shopping. --Kinu ^t/_c

06:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not say this at all. Call it what you prefer. I am not going to create any draft and submit it like a new beginner. That's not how it works for me. He should not create massive redirects without clarifying it to the community. With this he bars all editors not just me from creating an article from scratch.--Sakiv (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not say this at all. Yes, you did. Again, as you've been told at both locations, and now here by me, you can edit the existing content at that title, thereby turning it into an article. No one is preventing anyone from creating an article there or at any other redirect that is unprotected. As long as it is a viable article, all of this could probably have been done without any of this unneeded drama. Unless you can clearly explain why that is not an acceptable solution, there's no point in continuing this discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with this. As long as there is no bad faith. Is there usually more than one creator of an article? What you are doing is nothing more than a defense of Jarble's contributions. Sakiv (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You have provided zero evidence that any of Jarble's contributions are of a nature to warrant their discussion at ANI. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I find it concerning that you denied making such a statement until there was a diff shown of the statement, upon which you then pivoted to a different stance. I fail to see how any of this report assumes good faith of Jarbles as well. Rhayailaina (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The creation of the redirect looks good to me and the title matches other similar pages for other countries. I have added the Template:R with possibilities template to the redirect to indicate that it is an redirect that could be a stand alone page but that is a minor thing. If you have content that you want to add to the page then edit the page to add content or to create a draft and send it to AfC. Gusfriend (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I think per

WP:MASSCREATE, consensus should be obtained for the mass creation of redirects. Levivich (talk

) 07:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That is correct—mass creation of anything without prior consensus is disruptive. Those asking the OP to suck it up are missing two points. First, generating a list of pointless redirects is easy (consider ChatGPT connected to a script) yet massaging that list into something useful would be very slow and painful. Second, some editors are human and they will be less motivated to create an article without credit. Those rubbishing the last point should bear in mind that the only reason to create redirects such as those reported is to increase one's edit count. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:MASSCREATE require prior consensus for redirects that are created manually? Jarble (talk

) 11:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it matters if you're using automated tools or not (

WP:FAITACCOMPLI. I for one do not understand the logic behind these redirects, which doesn't mean they wouldn't have consensus, and ANI isn't the place to discuss the merits of the redirects, but I think editors should get consensus before mass creating redirects. Levivich (talk

) 18:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich and Johnuniq: If I need to obtain consensus before creating a large number of redirects, I'll need to discuss them somewhere: what would be the appropriate place to request permission to create them? Jarble (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:VPR being the catch-all if there isn't a better place. Levivich (talk

) 02:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's a hell of a condemnation of Wikignome work, Johnuniq ... they're only doing their under-the-hood work to buff up their edit count, why else would they bother? Smooth.

Startled sarcasm aside, indeed, some editors are human, and that's why we have a bunch of policies, guidelines, noticeboards and admins to restrain their less productive proclivities. I agree that mass creations can be disruptive, but that scarcely lets the OP off the hook. Ravenswing 04:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• For someone who keeps asking others to extend good faith, I believe the OP's acting in poor faith by making this ANI complaint. What, precisely, is productive to the encyclopedia in his demand? As long as an article's a good one, I don't give a good goddamn -- and no one else should either -- who "gets" the credit for creating it. There's been far too much angst and disruption over the years from the folks who think Wikipedia is some geeky MMORPG for which they're chasing Game High Score, and an editor deterred from improving a redirect into a useful article because he doesn't have the egoboo of having his name at the top of the queue is likely to be one of those. Ravenswing 07:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  I couldn't agree more, I found it odd how AGF was being applied selectively when the argument could be made this ANI report is directly violating

  WP:AGF Rhayailaina (talk

  ) 08:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Sakiv has been told numerous times now how to proceed in regard to that redirect, including by admins who declined their CSD tag (me included). If they want so badly to be the "sole creator" of the article, they can start a draft to supplant the redirect, but for some reason they believe only "newbies" should have to create drafts or go through AfC (though my guess is that, due to their long edit history, AfC wouldnt be necessary). This ANI filing is frivolous and verges on
  WP:FORUMSHOPPING and would recommend Sakiv withdraws it. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈
  18:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's Jarble's actions we are talking about here. Keep going in this bad faith towards me. We are all human btw. Sakiv (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Everybody's actions in an incident are considered, including (especially) the person who brings it to ANI. See

  WP:BOOMERANG. Daniel (talk

  ) 22:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Three things about this: First, can we not pretend to be shocked that a Wikipedian extracts some joy and gratification from being the one to create an article, and has some resentment for people who create unnecessary redirects (or, in other cases, one-sentence stubs) about articles they want to write a real article about? I dare say most editors who focus on content work have felt something like that at some point. There are very good reasons why those feelings don't factor into our policies, of course, but we don't need to scold people when they say the quiet part out loud (even if they blundered and said "sole author"). Second, as a tip for OP: the
  WP:PAGEMOVER user right allows you to move an article (e.g. a draft) over a redirect in many cases. Third, we still don't have a rule prohibiting high volume manual editing. MASSCREATE covers automated/semi-automated editing and MEATBOT is about when there are errors. Consensus isn't required beforehand here, even if it's still a good idea (because actions at scale attract scrutiny and there's less sympathy if you do start making mistakes). YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk
  \\ 14:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Without commenting on the OP's conduct (I'm only here because
  naming conventions for sections
  would type for these titles. It's like having a redirect to every section of an article.

While I don't think sanctions are needed, perhaps Jarble should slow down on the redirects and focus on creating more of the types suggested

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk

) 17:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Marcelus

WP:GRUDGE attitude, because of his behaviour on the article Zigmas Zinkevičius, its talk page and the report on No OR

. Marcelus has a long-time grudge against this dead man and has repeatedly voiced his hatred of Zinkevičius:

1. Zinkevičius is a chauvinistic pig and I won't pretend he isn't - 11 August 2022 [116]

2. Of course I have, because he was chauvinistic pig, and that's what this part is proving, with sources - 15 January 2023 [117]. This was Marcelus' response to me commenting about the Anti-Polonism section (created by Marcelus): This section was obviously written without caring about

WP:NPOV. Marcelus wants to smear the leading Lithuanian linguist of recent times due to Marcelus disliking parts of his work. Marcelus has a grudge against this dead man already for quite some time, considering that Marcelus said (...). ([118]

)

WP:OR that Zinkevičius is nationalist and anti-Polish, despite no sources naming the foremost Lithuanian linguist of recent times as such. When Turaids said to Marcelus You are the one openly admitting of adding things to the article with the intention of "proving" that "he was chauvinistic pig", Marcelus' response

confirmed this with ...my intentions is to describe him as such....

Marcelus is clearly editing in a disruptive manner. I am writing this report because Turaids proposed it on my talk page with the reason being He made his intentions very clear from the beginning and his activities clearly go beyond just original research. We tried resolving it constructively.

Marcelus should be

talk

) 20:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

What exactly should be a reason for my ban? A negative opinion on the subject of the article is not sufficient reason for a ban, does not break any rules and does not exclude you from writing an article on the subject. Let me qoute

WP:SYNTH

, but I don't see where in the article there is a problem with it. It was suggested earlier that the first sentence was problematic, so I removed it. The "Anti-polonism" section is based on several works by recognized researchers, Polish, Lithuanian and American. I purposely limited myself to academic sources, and didn't use any journalistic sources.

If I were to be completely honest I would like to see Zinkevičius excluded as a source for articles on Poles in Lithuania, their origins, rights, etc. Because already, if only by virtue of his direct political involvement, he is not reliable. At the same time, I do not undermine his merits for Lithuanian linguistics, or for Lithuania in general, or science in general. But I believe that there are better, newer, more moderate works that achieve a neutral point of view in this field. And they reiterate those of Zinkevičius' findings, which are free of bias and ideology.

At one time, by the way, I already made such a submission to

WP:RSN, in which I listed examples of passages from his works that are either misleading or outright false. Here is a link. In fact, it has already been previously established on Wikipedia as the source of the false information that it was illegal to speak Lithuanian on the phone in Poland before 1990. Here is the link. As hard as it is to believe, such information can be found in his works published as scientific. Marcelus (talk

) 22:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence What exactly should be a reason for my ban? and the rest of the response only further prove you

talk

) 23:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I addressed all of them, but ok, I can do it again. 1st link: he was the member of Vilnija and other also were, as I said I don't inisist on keeping this, but I don't agree that it breaks any rules, or that it is an "association fallacy". It would be the case if they weren't active in the same organisation, but they were. 2nd link: no concrete issue here, but another mention of me being problematic. 3rd link: another mention of me having a "grudge" against Zinkevičius, I adressed it in my first comment here, to sum it up "it's irrelevant". 4th link: I adressed your issues about Jundo-Kaliszewska here, no reposne from you, so my guess is that you were satisfied with the answer.

So out of all 4, only 3 are actual issues, and all of them were addressed by me. So it seems that IDOGETIT. Marcelus (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Casually dismissing concerns is not "addressing" the issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Cukrakalnis "controversial", and he said why he thinks that, I addressed his concerns (although as I see now, I didn't provide the link the first time, so here

it is). I'm still waiting for his response.

It's unfair to say that I "dismissed" concerns. Marcelus (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You did not adress any of the issues.

There is 0 sources calling Zinkevičius "anti-Polish", but you created an "anti-Polonism" section on the article ([123]). That whole section is

WP:OR

. Instead of removing that section because it is against Wiki's policies, you ignore the issue and sidestep it entirely.

Your whole approach is clearly of doing as you please and ignoring the rules. You yourself admitted that the "Anti-Polonism" section that you wrote went directly against Wikipedia's core policy of

WP:NPOV when answering to my message here

.

It's impossible to work constructively with Marcelus, because he either ignores what others write, side-steps the issue entirely and claims that he 'adressed' them or fails to understand what is being said to him and agressively edits however he wants to. It's very fair to say that you dismissed these concerns, because you repeatedly fail to understand what is being said to you and then engage in the same behaviour that elicited that criticism in the first place.

talk

) 19:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:NPOV

rule. My personal attitude towards the subject of the article is irrelevant, if one were to approach it in the way you suggest, it would mean that an article on, say, Hitler could only be written by people with a positive or neutral attitude towards him. This is, of course, absurd.

The section is called "Anti-polonism" because it describes actions against the Polish minority in Lithuania, a name reinforced by the fact that Zinkevičius was associated with Vilnija, which is described as an anti-Polish organization. I believe it is an appropriate name, but am open to changing it. What is your proposal? "Anti-polish sentiment?" "Action against the Polish minority in Lithuania"?

I have already answered why it is not

WP:SYNTH

, but you keep ignoring what I write and repeating, for the umpteenth time in a row, the same accusations, adding that I am not addressing them.

I get the impression that the only purpose of this submission is to censor the slogan about Zinkevičius and remove information that you find inconvenient. Unfortunately, I cannot agree to that. Marcelus (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No sources call Zinkevičius nationalist or anti-Polish. That section was not neutrally written, because you yourself admitted you wanted to smear him, which could already be inferred from you repeatedly dehumanizing Lithuania's leading linguist of the modern times. That section was written in a manner that breaks numerous Wiki rules, as other users like

WP:SYNTH

and keep side-stepping most of what other users point out.

talk

) 21:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No sources call Zinkevičius nationalist or anti-Polish., yes and he isn't called that in the article, only his policies are described as "nationalist" and "anti-Polish". Although this source, which I didn't use actually is doing that: [The appeal to expel the Polish party from parliament] was signed by extreme nationalists known for years: Romualdas Ozolas, Kazimieras Garšva or the former Minister of Education (from the 1990s) prof. Zigmas Zinkevičius, who proclaimed that Poles in the Vilnius region are Polonized Lithuanians and they need to be helped to return to their roots. Also under the appeal is the name of the once moderate political scientist Vytautas Radžvilas.

So let's try work out

WP:SYNTH together then. Because you need to say exactly what conclusion is according to you mine own creation, and not based on sources. You already mentioned that "No sources call Zinkevičius nationalist or anti-Polish", I answered to that hopefully in a satisfactory way for you. What else? Marcelus (talk

) 22:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That Polish newspaper article is questionable for numerous reasons, most importantly because it said that

talk

) 23:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

1. This article isn't used as a source. 2. Nobody is calling Grybauskaire "nationalist". 3. What Marian Kałuski has to do with all of that? Also you pointed out that his views are problematic, I ackonwledged that, and dind't use or insist on using him a source after. Do you see the difference between my approach and yours?

I don't smear Zinkevičius, I describe his actions and views. If that sounds like smearing to you, it says more about Zinkevičius than me. I have read his works, and you know my personal opinion. Marcelus (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You cannot do that. Sources have to do that, otherwise you are violating

WP:SYNTH. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

17:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds I'm not doing it, sources (Jundo-Kaliszewska, Weeks, Donskis) are straight forward, they describe his actions and views. None of the conclusions are mine. As I understand at this point, the biggest problem is the title of the section, so I change it to a fully neutral one: "Relations with the Polish minority in Lithuania", will it be ok? If there are any other problems, please indicate them, but I mean literally, individual sentences, constructions, indicate conclusions that are mine in your opinion and do not result from sources. Marcelus (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

What Marcelus is saying is not true. Neither of these sources describes Zinkevičius as anti-Polish, nationalist, etc. What Marcelus is doing is

talk

) 12:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: Zigmas Zinkevičius is:
  

1) an author of many recognized publications. For example, he was Editor-in-Chief of the first three tomes of the Lithuania Minor Encyclopedia (Lithuanian: Mažosios Lietuvos enciklopedija, online version can be found HERE; see: confirmation about authorship mentioned here). Moreover, he is an author (confirmation) of many articles in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia (the most extensive Lithuanian encyclopedia which is also accessible online and is published by a Lithuanian state-funded publishing house). These sources can be described as the most important, extensive and reliable sources available online in the Lithuanian language and has high quality articles almost about every Lithuanian topic.

2) a famous academic. He had a 72-year academic career, was professor (since 1969) and the head of multiple departments of the Vilnius University.

3) a Lithuanian minister of education and science (1996–1998).

Moreover, Google search gives zero results for "Zigmas Zinkevičius chauvinist" or "Zigmas Zinkevičius nationalist".

That being said, his extensive publications covers many, many Lithuanian topics and I support that such actions by multiple times calling him as chauvinistic pig (1, 2) and saying that your intentions is to describe him as such (3) is strictly against Wikipedia's rules. Mr. Zinkevičius clearly would have not achieved so much recognition in a democratic and recognized European country

WP:OR

.

Moreover, by keeping in mind that Mr. Zinkevičius published extensive articles about many Lithuanian topics we must evaluate how such attitude will comply with Wikipedia's fundamental principle

WP:BATTLEGROUND, but we don't need that and as far as I understand this report happened because of similar circumstances. Such motifs editing Lithuanian content definitely should be carefully examined and evaluated as we are Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, not to insult/discredit sources and publishers, especially such competent and recognized experts in Lithuanian content as Mr. Zinkevičius. -- Pofka (talk

) 21:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pofka calling him as "chauvinistic pig" and saying that your "intentions is to describe him as such" is strictly against Wikipedia's rules what rules exactly?

So we must evaluate how such claims about him comply with WP:OR. where do you see such claims in the article? Can you pinpoint exact sentences?

For example, Mr. Zinkevičius is author of article the origin of the Lithuanian language in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia, so according to Marcelus it is written by a chauvinistic pig?, everybody has right to his own personal opinions, including me. Being a great academic doesn't mean being perfect in all areas of life.

I'm sorry, but this slowly starting to be a witchhunt. Seems like the focus is on me instead of an article. And that two users: @

Cukrakalnis and @Pofka are doing everything they can to eliminate me from the project. @Pofka even rallies other users against me. Marcelus (talk

) 23:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@

diffs to support accusations against other editors.) Schazjmd (talk)

23:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Well then, the main accusation in my direction is that I expressed my opinion about the subject of the article in harsh terms. Is this a breach of any particular rule? Because, after all, it is difficult to require me not to have my own opinions, or to write articles about things to which I have an indifferent attitude, because these are usually things about which I have no idea. That's why we should also talk about the article: is it written according to the rules, in neutral language, using reliable sources, etc.?

For my part, I can promise that I will refrain from expressing my opinions in such a harsh manner in the Wikipedia discussion space. But, as I said, I feel that I am the victim of a vilification. As I said @Pofka is ralliying other users against me and was banned for personal attack against me, and the ban was lifted literally couple days ago. Marcelus (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Well then, the main accusation in my direction is that I expressed my opinion about the subject of the article in harsh terms. The main accusation is that you are a disruptive editor, with attitudes and actions that clearly contradict Wikipedia's policies. There is a clear different between "harsh terms" and outright dehumanization, which is what Marcelus did in calling a person a chauvinistic pig.

Your answer further proves you

WP:DONTGETIT

. No one is saying that having opinions themselves is bad. However, there is a difference between an opinion and repeatedly dehumanizing a human being (see the the quotes in my report). What Marcelus did here absolutely WRONG.

I remind that on that report where Marcelus asked for Pofka to be banned, Marcelus succesfully got Pofka

WP:PA, which pale in comparison to what Marcelus is saying of Zigmas Zinkevičius

. And Marcelus is now asking for a free pass to continue dehumanizing the leading Lithuanian scholar in linguistics, linguistic history, etc. of recent times.

That's why we should also talk about the article: is it written according to the rules, in neutral language, using reliable sources, etc.? Your answer is obviously

talk

) 10:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Cukrakalnis

, again manipulation: I remind that on that report where Marcelus asked for Pofka to be banned, I never asked for him to be banned. Pofka was banned because he had a long history of getting into conflicts and being generally difficult to work with.

Another dception: for a free pass to continue dehumanizing the leading Lithuanian scholar, which part of the article is dehumanizing Zinkevičius? Marcelus (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What other WP:Sanctions did you expect for Pofka when you said in the report I warned him to stop insulting me or I will report his behavior.? It seems like that was what you were going for.

No one said that within the article you were dehumanizing Zigmas Zinkevičius - the problem is that you did it at all, no matter where and never ever apologized for dehumanizing the leading Lithuanian scholar. NEVER. Instead, you hide behind I have a negative opinion of Zinkevičius, I am entitled to it. [127].

talk

) 15:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not true that I asked for him to be blocked. So stop spreading misinformation.

never ever apologized, why would I do that? And who should I apologise to? What rule did I break? Marcelus (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't see any reason to apologize at all for repeatedly and wrongly dehumanizing Lithuania's leading scholar as a chauvinist pig? You broke the rule of basic human decency.

talk

) 16:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you link me the page description of this rule? Marcelus (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not party to this dispute, nor am I an expert on the subject around which this dispute revolves, but on superficially reading this discussion I found this particular comment to be simultaneously amusing and in incredibly bad taste due to its conntations: Mr. Zinkevičius clearly would have not achieved so much recognition in a democratic and recognized European country Lithuania if he was a chauvinist (and chauvinistic content clearly would not be presented in the primary Lithuanian encyclopedias published by the state). This hits me as a rehash of old Eurocentric tropes that have (fortunately) long been questioned in the West, but in this case being put forward by someone from a "latecomer" to said West, who probably missed out on the "fun" of judging every other nation from the heights of Western ego when it was in vogue. Personally, I am usually loath to use the term "Eurocentrism" as it has (sadly) been much abused to criticise well-grounded, high-quality research on account of it having been produced by "white, Western men" with complete disregard to its content, and often employed to artificially elevate pseudo-scientific and anti-academic mumbo jumbo to the status of scholarship. In this particular case, however, I think Eurocentrism perfectly encapsulates the sense of that sentence. I believe, or would like to believe, that we live in an era where it is absolutely clear that you can most definitely be a chauvinist and "achieve so much recognition" in quite literally any country, and that chauvinistic content can be (and has been) published in state-issued books and encyclopedias all over the world, Western or otherwise. None of this means that Zinkevičius is a chauvinist, and I do not intend to imply that by any stretch of the imagination, but your defense of this person and his work should focus on the latter's quality and content - it can never be "he achieved recognition in a democratic European country, ergo he can't be a chauvinist!" Ostalgia (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The quality and content of

talk

) 11:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You're doubling down on your countryman's Western exceptionalism argument. You will find plenty of examples of people who have remained in good standing to the very end in spite of having made "regrettable" comments and holding reprehensible views (for one recent example, see Indro Montanelli). Only post mortem were this views challenged, even though they were always in plain sight. I repeat, none of this means the subject of the article was a chauvinist, and the onus is on Marcelus to prove it, but this line of argumentation is laughably naïve at best. Ostalgia (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not about Western exceptionalism - if a person was a member of several African or Asian academies, the same would apply. Academies have standards and people who don't follow them are kicked out.

talk

) 12:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Both you and your countryman put quite some emphasis on "democratic European" to now claim otherwise, but the point is the same. There are plenty of examples of intellectuals having held abhorrent views (or even engaged in digusting behaviour) that contradict your apparently rosy view of these institutions (and countries). Once again, the onus is on the editor who introduced those changes to prove that those changes are accurate, which he has not done, but you'd do well to drop such a line of argumentation.

Also, as a recommendation, issues with

WP:TAGTEAM. The fact that you answer to every comment made not only in reply to you, but also in reply to every other Lithuanian isn't a good look, and it's also making this section bigger and more unwieldy by the minute, and it might eventually reach the level where no admin will touch it (I have experience with that...). You have a point about the introduction of unsourced, potentially synthesised content (nothing to warrant a TBAN from every topic related to Lithuania, though!), but it's getting buried under an unholy word salad while nothing new is being said. Wait for a bit until an admin reviews this mess and, if anything, add diffs or other concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Ostalgia (talk

) 13:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's good taste to describe, in a talk page discussion, a subject of the article using pejoratives, but we don't have a NPA policy against non-editors. BLP can sometimes be an issue, but the subject here is dead. I don't see anything action worthy here, although I'd caution Marcelus to make avoid pejoratives as a general rule, and certainly don't escalate them against editors. At the same time, I'd caution the editor who reported them here that reporting editors for non-policy violation can be seen as a form of

WP:NOTAFORUM, the talk pages are not for criticizing (or praising) the subject, but discussing how to improve the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

12:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@

talk

) 10:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

IF Marcelus was edit warring to keep such a section, then I'd see a problem. I see no diffs for that. If he added it (again, diff for that please?), and then defended it (presumably) on talk using some language that is pejorative to the deceased subject, but not to other editors - no, I don't see a problem worth reporting here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thought I'd just give my experience as an initially uninvolved onlooker and the reasons I

blanket statement

Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work., which in turn was presented under anti-Polonism. I pointed it out and it was partially resolved, but that's where the constructiveness ended.

My objection that even with his changes it still sounds like a more general criticism of Zinkevičius's work and not anti-Polonism was ignored. My follow-up question on whether any of the used sources actually explicitly call Zinkevičius views and actions "anti-Polonism" was dodged and my request for him to provide corresponding quotes from the other sources so I could see for myself went unanswered. My very first edit to the article where I tried removing a list of seemingly handpicked members of Vilnija as irrelevant was almost immediately reverted by

WP:SYNTH on the basis of association fallacy, Marcelus

chose to double down on Zinkevičius' membership status in Vilnija instead.

At this point, I joined

WP:ICANTHEARYOU. He repeatedly asks for concrete examples and when they are provided either immediately dismisses them as just someone's opinion or outright ignores them. –Turaids (talk

) 15:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Turaids When I called it out as an example of WP:SYNTH on the basis of association fallacy, Marcelus chose to double down on Zinkevičius' membership status in Vilnija instead. Because if they all were members of Vilnija it cannot be association fallacy, that's logically impossible. That was my reasoning for reverting your edit, and something you ignored and not even mentioned now.

which was then used by Marcelus to do the exact opposite., Here you omit the order of events, which is important. After I introduced the "Anti-Polonism" section, Cukrakalnis trying to erase it, and when I stopped it then moved parts of it to other parts of the article, changing their tone and adding things not confirmed by the sources. Such as that Zinkevičius was criticized only "by some Polish scholars" (although I myself quoted Leonidas Donskis, whom Cukrakalnis simply removed because they didn't fit his thesis), or that Jundo-Kaliszewska "strongly disapproved" of Zinkevičius' views (which she doesn't, and certainly not "strongly"), and that she denied the existence of Polonized Lithuanians (which Cukrakalnis based only on use of quotation marks). Cukrakalnis also misquoted Mirosław Jankowiak. It was Cukrakalnis who duplicated the content from the "Anti-Polonism" section, not the other way around. In addition, he did so in

WP:BADFAITH

.

When I reverted his edit and called him out for twisting my words, Marcelus went to my talk page accusing me of having a "personal grudge" against him and informing that he will not allow me to remove, factual sourced material from Wikipedia. Excuse me, but that's simply untrue. I went to your talk page, to explain you in detail, I removed changes made by @

Cukrakalnis

, but you simply ignored it, and instead you said to me: "Spare your lengthy ramblings". And only then I replied: "Ok, I'm done with you, it seems you have a personal grudge against me at this point. I just want to let you know that I will not allow you to remove fact-based material from Wikipedia," and this post here has not changed my mind one bit.

He repeatedly asks for concrete examples and when they are provided either immediately dismisses them as just someone's opinion or outright ignores them, Not true, I addressed all the comments, agreed with some and disagreed with others. I have no reason to make all the changes requested if I think they do not improve the article. Marcelus (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you still understand what an association fallacy is, because that's exactly how you describe your motive: I think that the mention of other nationalists with whom he collaborated shows his environment, so it says a lot about himself. or in my simplest paraphrasing: "these people are X and Zinkevičius was also there, therefore that means he is X as well". You keep bringing up

Cukrakalnis did or did not do is irrelevant to how you interacted with me. Just like who duplicated what first doesn't change the fact that you manipulated my words to continue edit warring with two on-going discussions about you. Even now you're the only one continuing to edit the article

for a second day in a row.

And with already two on-going discussions you started a third one in my discussion page where among accusations and warnings you gave me a long essay of how Poles in Lithuania have supposedly been mistreated, which, regardless if true or not, does not justify

WP:SYNTH? –Turaids (talk

) 01:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Turaids Everything you have just said shows your prejudice against my person, ignoring my arguments and forcefully presenting my person and my actions in the worst possible light.

First of all, you are the one who does not understand what association fallacy is. The original sentence was: In 1988, he became a member of the nationalist organisation Vilnija (lit. 'Vilnius Region'), whose main goal was to lithuanize the Vilnius region as soon as possible. Members of the organisation included: Kazimieras Garšva (chairman), Alvydas Butkus, Romualdas Ozolas or Arnoldas Piročkinas. There is no fallacy of logic here, as all these individuals were members of the same organisation.

The quote from the other source (Budryte) does not mention Zinkevičius at all Because this quotation is about the Vilnija organisation

How long do I have to keep on unravelling your WP:SYNTH? For you, does

WP:SYNTH mean using several sources to write an article? I could confine myself to the Jundo-Kaliszewska article, which explicitly cites Zinkevičius as the crowning example of "late 20th century anti-Polonism", but then you would probably attack that source and demand others. Marcelus (talk

) 09:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything you have just said shows your prejudice against my person, ignoring my arguments and forcefully presenting my person and my actions in the worst possible light.

What Turaids wrote is very far from that. Marcelus' response shows that Marcelus doesn't separate between a Wikipedian's criticism of his edits and persistent editing behaviour (formulated in a very neutral manner as well) and somebody having a grudge/being opposed to him. Claiming that a person you never encountered prior, suddenly developed a grudge against you in the matter of days, shows more about the person claiming it than the accused one.

The reliability of Jundo-Kaliszewska's article is under question due to numerous

WP:FRINGE

statements that she makes that are unconfirmed by any other sources, e.g. Zigmas Zinkevičius being a member of Vilnija. Not even the organization Vilnija itself said that, and they would definitely want to. One of many very doubtful statements on her part.

There is no fallacy of logic here, as all these individuals were members of the same organisation. You still don't seem to understand what Association fallacy is and then you accuse another person that you are the one who does not understand what association fallacy is. That's just plain sad.

Marcelus'

talk

) 11:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Cukrakalnis objections. Whether Jundo-Kaliszewska is a reliable source or not is another discussion to be had and one I've never expressed interest in partaking. But what's clear either way is that you can't just generalize one person's opinion as fact and then pile a bunch of sources talking about other things on top of it to make a whole section about it just to make your point. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that. –Turaids (talk

) 11:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:NPOV

way, but had an exact initial aim which he openly described in the mentioned quotes.

Excerpt "which often influence his scientific work" proves that Mr. Zinkevičius publications' were targeted by such activity as well (above I described Mr. Zinkevičius works importance in Lithuanian topics). Marcelus accused him as "known for his nationalist views" without any references (1). That is a clear

WP:ICANTHEARYOU). By the way, Google search offers zero results for "Zigmas Zinkevičius anti-polish

".

In my opinion, insertion of content without references or with unverifiable references and refusal to remove or improve (verify) content is an example of

WP:BATTLEGROUND

.

Marcelus here at AN still demonstrates his personal perception of Mr. Zinkevičius: "Everybody has right to his own personal opinions, including me. Being a great academic doesn't mean being perfect in all areas of life." (1) and I think this is not a big difference from the initial motives to edit Zinkevičius' article: my intentions is to describe him as such (1); chauvinistic pig (2, 3). Judge yourself what are the chances that he would continue identical revert warring (his edits in Zinkevičius' article following this AN report did not remove "anti-Polish" claim).

My final evaluation: this is a case of

WP:NOTHERE. Lithuanian content in Wikipedia does not become better by inserting personal opinion and refusing to verify it for other contributors with valid sources (accessible quotes). -- Pofka (talk

) 20:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pofka

(original text: my intentions is to describe him as such (3) as chauvinistic pig (1, 2); that's a manipulation, I said: Sources clearly describes him as nationalist politican, member of nationalist anti-Polish organisations, and that's what is in the article. And yes my intentions is to describe him as such, because without his biography is incomplete. ([128]); how you can accuse me of coming to article Zigmas Zinkevičius not to improve this article in a WP:NPOV way, but had an exact initial aim which he openly described in the mentioned quotes, if I explicitly said that I wanted to complete the article of source-based information that Zinkevičius was a nationalist politician. Without this information, his biography was incomplete. Please do not manipulate my words or twist them.

Marcelus accused him as "known for his nationalist views" without any references that's untrue; there was several sources that called his views "nationalist", all of them were put in the bibliography.

In the sixth revert there still is an accusation that Mr. Zinkevičius "was described as anti-Polish" that's untrue; the sentence is saying that Vilnija was anti-Polish organisation. Marcelus (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pofka I demand that you remove the accusations against me, in which you twisted my words and made one out of my two statements. This is outrageous manipulation. I will give you 24 hours to do so or I will file a report on you. Marcelus (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• that's a manipulation No. Marcelus' edits from before prove that Marcelus precisely came to the article
  WP:NPOV
  .
• I explicitly said that I wanted to complete the article of source-based information that Zinkevičius was a nationalist politician. There are no
  WP:NOTGETTINGIT
  .
• the sentence is saying that Vilnija was anti-Polish organisation. No. What
  WP:ICANTHEARYOU
  .

Clearly, there's no manipulation on Pofka's part, as I have shown. Instead, Marcelus is making untrue accusations about the conduct of another editor. Which is lying -

Merriam Webster. I remind Marcelus: WP:Don't lie

.

Marcelus' statement of I demand that you remove the accusations against me, in which you twisted my words and made one out of my two statements. This is outrageous manipulation. I will give you 24 hours to do so or I will file a report on you. is an obvious case of

talk

) 12:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Cukrakalnis

I never said my intentions is to describe him as such (3) as a chauvinistic pig (1, 2), that is manipulation. I have a negative opinion of Zinkevičius, I am entitled to it. However, the article was written with neutrality and with sources.

Another manipulation is the failure to quote the entire sentence, which reads: Zinkevičius in 1988 became a member of the nationalist organisation Vilnija (lit. 'Vilnius Region'), whose main goal was to lithuanize the Vilnius region as soon as possible, and was described as anti-Polish, the last part referring to the Vilnija Organisation, as suggested by the Budryte reference, which defines Vilnija in this way. Marcelus (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Dehumanizing

is not a "negative opinion", you're literally denying a human being their humanity - why are you downplaying that? You are not entitled to dehumanizing others.

However, the article was written with neutrality and with sources. It was not written with neutrality as you yourself admitted at the start [133]. No one denies that you put some sources on the article, the problem is the way you faked references, used different sources in

WP:OR

and has no place on Wikipedia.

I was quoting the sentence in that manner in order to show to you that part of the sentence you wrote 'and was described as anti-Polish' part was referring not to the organization but to the Zinkevičius. It was done to make the sentence structure clear, because otherwise the main components of the sentence could be unclear if the long sentence is kept. You immediately interpreting my attempt of clarification as manipulation shows that you are

talk

) 15:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Cukrakalnis

No really, I've had enough of; spamming the same accusations over and over again, in a reply to every comment here, ignoring the fact that I've responded to them more than once, exaggerating what I said ("dehumanizing" etc.), for the obvious purpose of giving the impression that the whole topic is full of negative opinions of me, shows that Cukrakalnis has a personal grudge against me, and is part of organising a witchhunt against me. Just because I dared to take up a topic that is uncomfortable for Lithuanians.

This doesn't surprise me at all, as he himself has a history of general nationalist POV-pushing, denial or justification of anti-Semitism and collaboration during World War II in Lithuania and promotion of fringe historical theories on Wikipedia, and has already been blocked for it. Then he didn't stop doing it at all, for example he wrote that Belarusians are actually Slavicized Lithuanians, with reference to Nazi anthropologists.

Cukrakalnis with such an editing history is now full of big words and has the audacity to lecture me on how articles should be written. This is ridiculous. Marcelus (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Calling somebody a pig [134], [135], is not dehumanizing them? Come on, Marcelus.

I do not have a grudge against Marcelus, because I even fulfilled his requests (as late as 20 January 2023) from late March 2022 to find a source he wanted me to find - [136]. I even went out of my way to attempt to collaboratively edit together with Marcelus here in his sandbox some time ago - [137]. Considering that Marcelus has said You have basic deficiencies in the critical apparatus to me, my behaviour is very composed compared to his.

How could I be organising a witchhunt against me if I was asked by another user to report your behaviour here? It seems that Marcelus thinks that everyone that disagrees with him has a grudge against him. Marcelus actually reported me once here, on this noticeboard actually, on July 2022, but it got literally 0 attention, because of how unfounded it was. Marcelus has been accusing me of nationalist POV-pushing

talk

) 16:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This looks just like a content dispute. Maybe there’d be some BLPVIO issues with text on the talk page (though not in the article) if the subject hadn’t passed away five years ago. Other than that this seems to be just trying to use an admin notice board to advance a particular side in a routine disagreement over content. Volunteer Marek 02:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Other than that this seems to be just trying to use an admin notice board to advance a particular side in a routine disagreement over content. A report about a certain user consistently ignoring, side-stepping what other users are repeatedly telling him in order to improve Wikipedia and simultaneously engaging in disruptive editing is just a content dispute? Marcelus dehumanizing a notable academician as a chauvinist pig is a clear sign that this is more than 'just' a 'content dispute'. Your comment is a clear misinterpretation of what the report is about.

talk

) 12:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If there is no edit warring in article's content, what's the problem? I've seen, on occasion, some editors refusing to get the point on talk. Annoying, yes, particularly when they are wrong and I am right :D But they have the right do do so. There is no policy saying one has to agree with others in a discussion, as long as one is not attacking fellow editors and such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Long story short, I don't see any policy violations or behavorial problems by Marcelus. They did an unwise choice of words which at first blush (only) look like a POV warrior. I have a lot of problems with the wording in this thread which tries to assert severe behaviorial problems in inadvertant vague witchunt structure and advocating a severe whack to Marcelus. The latter effort is potentially much more harmful but since Cukrakalnis probably sincerely felt justified I would not advocate a boomerang. Which leaves this as basically a content dispute to be handled accordingly. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

talk

) 17:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If they had tried to put that in the article then it most definetly would be a violation. But this is an opinion they expressed on a talk page and emphasized that this is just their personal opinion and were not planning on putting anything like that in an article. It's insulting and if this was a BLP then problematic. But it's not a BLP and while expressing such opinions is not especially constructive to forwarding the dialouge it's not anything sanctionable. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, its a content dispute (same old crap) Folks, please (@

Cukrakalnis, @Marcelus and @Pofka) Don’t report each other expecting to eliminate content rivals this way. I can always help out, just reach out to me. - GizzyCatBella🍁

01:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:ICANTHEARYOU has to be resolved first before there can even be a content dispute of what's left. –Turaids (talk

) 11:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I did, and I’ve read Marcelus replies also. You folks keep disputing the content and reliability of sources (taking accusations aside, same thing, over and over again in

Cukrakalnis versus Marcelus) for a while now. Currently, Pofka, who has been freshly un-banned joined the duo orchestra, so we’ll have 2 against 1 now. They need assistance in sorting disagreements. Reporting, in what it looks like, hope to knock out an opponent is not helpful. - GizzyCatBella🍁

12:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I was made aware of the Pofka situation, which is why I'm judging Marcelus on how he interacted with me (a third party who's not Lithuanian or Polish and hadn't even edited the article prior to this) and approached editing the article in general. If this indeed is a contentious topic area and disputes like this have been a regular occurrence then Marcelus should know better by now to hold his personal views to himself, keep his biases in check, not to overdo paraphrasing and construct his own narratives by arbitrarily combining different sources, as well as formulate opinions as such and attribute them to whoever said it and provide relevant quotes when adding references or immediately after anyone asks him to, especially for sources not in English. –Turaids (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Turaids Unfortunately, I cannot consider you as an impartial person. Mainly because you describe the dispute so one-sidedly, respond to my explanation of the edit with "Spare your lengthy ramblings", and urge other users to file reports on me.

Moreover, you raised objections to the first sentence (""Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work"), which I took into account. But then you raised objections to the fact that mentioning other members of Vilnius is an "assocation fallacy", which I disagree with, as I have explained several times. Marcelus (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I have already responded to this, so I advise you read

WP:DISCUSSFORK. And you simply proclaiming of believing something or disagreeing with something does little to advance the discussion or in this case, explain what exactly the said Vilnija members have to with Zinkevičius besides being linked to the same organization. –Turaids (talk

) 16:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that enough? We can argue about that. But so far you were accusing me of "association fallacy", which it clearly isn't the case. Marcelus (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Then why not list every single member of Vilnija if the mere association with the organization is enough for you to implicate him? –Turaids (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Because my source listed only them, and they were the most prominent. Marcelus (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The most prominent what? Collaborators of Zinkevičius? –Turaids (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Members of Vilnija Marcelus (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

So of all the prominent members of all the organizations Zinkevičius has been a part of or associated with was it you who decided to include only the ones from Vilnija, because you believed that naming his collaborators is part of his biography, the mention of other nationalists with whom he collaborated shows his environment and says a lot about himself and the others don't serve this purpose? And it's an anti-Polonic collaboration between Zinkevičius, Garšva, Butkus, Ozolas and Piročkinas that the source (Jundo-Kaliszewska) does not explicitly state or detail, but you conclude happened because of all of them being associated with the same organization and is proportional to their prominence in the organization? –Turaids (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

They were all involved in creating anti-Polish propaganda and promoting the forced Lithuanianisation of the Polish population in Lithuania. I believe that this is an important part of his biography. Jundo-Kaliszewska describes it this way. Marcelus (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you kindly provide the part where Jundo-Kaliszewska writes about Zinkevičius creating anti-Polish propaganda and promoting the forced Lithuanianisation of the Polish population in Lithuania together with Garšva, Butkus, Ozolas and Piročkinas? –Turaids (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but I think we should move to: Talk:Zigmas_Zinkevičius#Vilnija_activity Marcelus (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I specifically bolded the part I wanted to see. All it says is that he was an activist. And I don't see Jundo-Kaliszewska using the words "propaganda" or "forced" there either. I advise not getting too carried away with paraphrasing and go for inserting direct quotes instead, even more so when you already have other editors saying you're misrepresenting sources. –Turaids (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems that you can't see the forest for the trees; they all were activists of Vilnija. I don't think I misused this source in the article. Marcelus (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I merely compare what the source (i.e. the tree) says versus what you claim it does, not how fits in my or your worldview (i.e. the forest). I also didn't see Jundo-Kaliszewska calling Zinkevičius a "member", a word you previously repeatedly used, which just goes back to my original point of not getting too carried away with paraphrasing. The very least you can do is acknowledge that other editors might have completely different interpretations of the very same sources without those interpretations being inherently right or wrong, which is why you should keep your own personal interpretations and generalization of sources to a minimum and use clear attribution and precise quotations as much as possible when writing about topics you feel strongly about. –Turaids (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The biggest problem I see here is that it all started from a simple problem: users Cukrakalnis and Turaids requested Marcelus to provide a reliable source which could be checked and explicitly include statements that Zigmas Zinkevičius is "described as having expressed anti-Polish sentiments" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) or that "Zinkevičius is known for his nationalist views, which often influence his scientific work" (7). But he haven't done that. Why? Eventually after so many complains in reverts comments, talk pages, descriptions of Mr. Zinkevičius as "chauvinistic pig" (1, 2), intense discussions here in the administrators noticeboard, and considerations about some kind of sanctions Marcelus himself removed this disputed statement. Hey? But it was mentioned in Budryte's reference? Or it was a

WP:POVPUSH

from the start? If it is then it should have been modified or removed earlier before this all escalated.
I don't see any problem to describe Mr. Zinkevičius as "anti-Polish" with reliable references which anyone can check, but everything that happened here by not providing a reliable source is really not a case of Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, and likely would have resulted in much more reverts if not this report and Cukrakalnis' good will decision to stop reverting. And Marcelus statements here like "what rules exactly?" (he violated; edit) gives little hope that it will not happen again. Consequently, I believe that such actions should be properly evaluated so that nobody would want to repeat it. We certainly do not need such conflicts in Lithuanian or any other topics which arises from simple problems but escalates into big problems. -- Pofka (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It all started with @

Cukrakalnis repeated attempts to remove content he don't like from the article Marcelus (talk

) 20:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:RELIABLE sources must be removed and if you do not provide sources – it is nothing wrong to remove them, so you should not cause revert warring. -- Pofka (talk

) 21:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything, I made it more clear, so it would be obvious that it was a reference to Vilnija. Cukrakalnis wasn't removing only this two sentences that you described as problematic, but the whole section. It's called

WP:EDITWARRING. Marcelus (talk

) 21:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:RELIABLE sources as an anti-Polish nationalism/chauvinism is a different thing. -- Pofka (talk

) 21:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I answered you couple times already. Marcelus (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: what about this? Me simply removing an attribution to Budryte for a claim Budryte clearly does not make being reverted as attempt at censorship, because Jundo-Kaliszewska says so. What? And then rolling over some of the changes you made. How do we work with someone who continuously denies just about anything and keeps reverting everything? –Turaids (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I restored information that Vilnija was described as anti-Polish, it shouldn't be removed. Also Budryte is describing Vilnija as organisation which main goal was Lithuanisation of Vilnius Region. The source shouldn't be removed. Marcelus (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Budryte's quote of Anti-Polish sentiments were publicly expressed in February 1995, Vilnija and its sister organizations were especially offended by the decision of the Brazausks government to officially recognize the Polish War Verterans Club. from page 163 that I removed says nothing about Lithuanisation of Vilnius Region it was attributed to. The least you can do is get your quotes and pages right, and that can be done without abusing the revert function. –Turaids (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't move the reference there Marcelus (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't move it there either and yet instead of just adding the right one you unnecessarily reverted not only me removing it, but also all the other changes I made. –Turaids (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

?[140] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Turaids wanted a longer translation of Jundo-Kaliszewska Marcelus (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I asked for the part where Marcelus said Jundo-Kaliszewska describes Zinkevičius creating anti-Polish propaganda and promoting the forced Lithuanianisation of the Polish population in Lithuania together with Garšva, Butkus, Ozolas and Piročkinas specifically that warrants his inclusion of these four people in the section about Zinkevičius' anti-Polonism. –Turaids (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

YEA686868701's personal attack

(non-admin closure) YEA686868701 blocked for 72 hours by Salvio giuliano. Tails Wx 17:57, 28 January 2023 (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.

---

A couple of times, I've reverted unsourced additions of population estimates by YEA686868701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and this is their response. Could another admin take action, please? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Salvio ^giuliano 14:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2023 (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:Mast303

• Mast303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am 100% sure this is a

WP:DUCK, the account was created in November last year and since then it has done what I call the more advance user editing which I associate more with a long term seasoned editor. The contrib is highly suspect also in my opinion, this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruan Oliveira doesn't seem to be setup quite right. Something is going on here, the account was blocked already once, I'd ask for an SPI check if I knew who it was before, but I don't know that. All very suspect. Govvy (talk

) 18:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I firsr encountered them as simply disruptive, but only right on the border of hopelessly-CIR. But looking more deeply, for example jumping right into multiple deletion processes and template editing, they are obviously not new. Don't know whose. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I also find it a little odd that this user continued to edit after my accusations and didn't come to defend him/herself after the ANI notice was posted on their page. There are certainly odd edits like this [141], I am wondering if the account is related to User:Judeobasquelanguage and the IP User:86.30.52.72, there are similarities. I seem some similar editing between them. Govvy (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My account is recent. Also, I plan to make more constructive edits in the future. Mast303 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Ping User:Locke Cole, who warned them about disruptive page-moving. They just now did another one: claiming to be undoing an undiscussed move, which is technically true but had persisted unchallenged for 11 years. And they only moved the article not a nest of talkpages, which is itself disruptive and demonstrates both a lack of competence and a lack of recognition in that lack. They already had many of their page-moves undone. DMacks (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My only interaction with this editor is with their undiscussed move of

WP:BITE, I hesitate to suggest anything with so little to go on as yet. They've been blocked once: if their behavior warrants it, progressive blocks might make sense if there is further disruptive behavior. In my interaction, the undiscussed move was reversed, Mast303 started a proper RM which was SNOW closed a brief time later with no consensus to move. I guess my recommendation would be to monitor their edits for a time to look for other potential issues, unless a checkuser wants to look into any potential socks. —Locke Cole • t • c

18:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Obvious

WP:DUCK and obvious sock. Apparently 99% of their mainspace edits have been reverted as disruptive or unhelpful. Considering their last prods and AFDs, they are only asking for being banned. Cavarrone

14:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I plan to make more constructive edits in the future. Mast303 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Something constructive you could do now is to withdraw

Phil Bridger (talk

) 18:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Phil Bridger: How do I close an RFD discussion? Mast303 (talk

) 18:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Just say "I withdraw this AfD nomination" in the discussion and someone who knows how will close it.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 18:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I make no comment about whether or not this is a sockpuppet, because my only interaction that I know of has been in

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Velma (TV series)

Is possible for another admin to put this on their watchlist? The Talk is prone to off-topic, personal opinions about the subject, or clear personal attacks and harassment by various IP addresses. Ivanvector already put an admin note on here, but he is on vacation and various IP addresses seemed to ignore his note. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Minnesota vandal needs a rangeblock

/64 blocked for a week by PhilKnight. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

• 2600:6C46:4A00:A2F:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Minnesota has been placing falsehoods in music and television articles, for instance changing certifications,[142] adding false usages,[143] changing to the wrong TV show,[144] and changing to wrong songs and wrong artists.[145] Let's give this person a cooling off period. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the /64 range for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

On reflection, upped the block to a week. PhilKnight (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2023 (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.

Artificial-Info22 using AI to produce articles

Artificial-Info22 (talk · contribs · count) appears to be using an AI to produce articles. This was tested using OpenAI's own tool (OpenAI produced ChatGPT). The tool is hosted at https://openai-openai-detector.hf.space/. For each of the three articles Artificial-Info22 has produced, the tool estimated a 99.98% chance that an AI produced the text.

• Draft:The Eternium Element A hoax about element 123.
• Draft:Coral Reef's An essay on coral reefs.
• Draft:Gecko's An essay on geckos.

It is interesting to read them (The Eternium Element will probably be deleted soon as I've tagged it as a hoax). It is that article that clued me in as to the possibility that this was an AI. The text is remarkably "bland" when reading--hard to describe the sensation of reading an AI-generated text, but that's the best I could do.

Recommendation indef the person for hoaxing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Leaving archived versions of Draft:Gecko's and Draft:Coral reef's here for posterity since they'll likely be G3 deletes. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And for abusing apostrophes. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

D'you mean "an' fo' abusin' apostrophe's"? :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Indef for you! Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Comma, abuse, is, much, more, annoying,,, — rsjaffe 🗣️

But; what; about; semi-colon; abuse;;; —Locke Cole • t • c

So they violate various rules regardless of the source of the written material. Seems like our regular systems and requirements work fine. Silverseren^C 03:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not sure using AI is a problem as long as the information is properly vetted. After all, Wikipedia is not the place for original ideas: it is a reprise/summary of knowledge from elsewhere. However, AI is susceptible to abuse if the person doesn't check the correctness of the text. It makes it easy for a person to write a good-sounding article about a subject the person doesn't know anything about, which is a danger. It is also a quick way of producing a good-sounding hoax. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

But the AI apparently doesn't contribute any sources to the articles it writes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. So someone abusing it can simply attach reasonable-looking sources to it to appear legitimate, whether or not the sources actually correspond to the text. That's why I commented above that one of the dangers is having someone without adequate subject knowledge use this tool. Note that Artificial-Info22 added references but didn't footnote anything. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I would also be concerned about copyright; if it could be argued that OpenAI retains copyright on any of ChatGPT's output, then copying and pasting it into a Wikipedia article would be a copyvio for sure. Regards,

Contact me | Contributions

). 07:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

A bit of a tangent, but we have well-established precedent that only a human can be granted copyright. The company cannot claim copyright on works created by a non-human. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(EC) This isn't a new thing since people sometimes use machine translation to translated content. Note that last I checked while simply posting a machine translation is forbidden on en, someone with a good command of both languages is allowed to use such a tool if they manually check and correct the output. It's not generally consider a problem since AFAIK in the US at least, the output of algorithms cannot give copyright to the algorithm creator nor the algorithm, nor for that matter the person using the algorithm (for the raw output, obviously someone could potentially modify it enough that they may have demonstrated creativity to earn copyright). See e.g. [146] [147] [148] [149] [150]. However one thing which has sort of been discussed at the sidelines but has recently received a lot of attention especially with the ability of such tools to produce 'art', is that such tools generally rely on input from a lot of copyrighted sources. The general view seems to be that it is unlikely they retain enough from any particular work to be consider derivative but this is I think mostly untested in court and may also depend on the output. But see e.g. [151] [152] [153] [154] [155]. (As might be clear from these, this is likely to be tested more soon although mostly against the producers of such tools and their use of the copyright works for training data which arguably is somewhat disconnected from users of such tools. It's probably going to difficult for cases about the legality of specific outputs because you'd need to find someone who can argue the specific output is produced in violation of their copyright, is willing to put their name and maybe money to a case, and someone distributing the output that they feel is worth suing.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

That US rule doesn't apply everywhere. For example, S.9(3) of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 reads: "In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken" (1link). IDK if it's been tested in court. Narky Blert (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Note the "arrangements necessary for the creation of the work" is referring to actually making the music with computers, not letting the computers do it themselves. It's meant to cover the use of things like Logic Pro. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

OpenAI doesn't retain copyright: "OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its right, title and interest in and to Output." However the model can still output copyrighted content, which can be demonstrated by asking for the lyrics of a song or poem. I'm not aware that safeguards are in place to ensure that it isn't copying content from sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not sure using AI is a problem as long as the information is properly vetted. I get the impression that AI just frankensteins together a bunch of pieces in a fluent-sounding way. For example, who knows if the references it uses correspond to its prose, or are just random. I think using AI to generate articles could be pretty dangerous, and like hoax articles with fake citations, or close paraphrasing copyvio, is subtle and could create an incredible amount of work for whoever ends up checking all the references. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Either one has to put in as much work as it would have taken to write the text acceptably from scratch, or one puts a burden on the rest of the Wikipedia community.

talk

) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Generative models predict the most likely next token, given a string of previous tokens; generative pre-trained transformers (that link goes to a comprehensive explanation of the basic architecture) do something much more complicated involving multi-head attention, but the general principle is the same. They are quite capable of many tasks, but if asked to write some big wall of text in the general style of a Wikipedia article, they will do precisely what they are asked to, which is to give you some big wall of text in the general style of a Wikipedia article. The problem is that this is a very stupid and useless thing to ask for, and people should not be doing this with the presumption that it will produce worthwhile output. jp×g 09:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Having now slept on this, I think the biggest problem with AI is GIGO: garbage in garbage out. The accuracy of the information is related to the set of information used to train the AI, and I am sure that no one else is using the same rules for

WP:RS that Wikipedia is using. The AI also has no concept of "correctness". This makes it a dangerous tool, particularly for those contributors who are not intimately familiar with the topic they are contributing to. And I suspect that people without deep knowledge of the topic would be the ones relying on an AI for their Wikipedia contributions. — rsjaffe 🗣️

16:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the propensity of these things to just make shit up and their inability to provide sources for what they make up, I am worried about the likelihood of unintentional plagiarism and circular reporting (citogenesis) when using them, because they copy their content from somewhere and we don't know where or how well-digested it might have been. In some cases it was copied from Wikipedia itself, in other cases who knows? For example, the "Gecko's" draft contains the phrase "found in warm climates all over the world", which searching reveals to be common to much web content on geckos, and appears to be closely paraphrased from the text "found in warm climates throughout the world" that has been in our gecko article since 2003. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

We have to operate under the assumption that AI generated texts are copyvios. These texts are not written by the AI: the AI is instead taking many (probably thousands) of texts and squishing them together into a coherent-looking chimera. The AI cannot itself create a copyrighted work, and these syntheses are undoubtedly derivative works - ask it to paint a Mark Rothko and it will succeed, because it has been trained on Rothko's oeuvre; ask it to paint a landscape in the style of my work, it can't, because it hasn't seen them. The amount of copyrighted material (from each given source text) in a final text is probably very low (they are effectively unattributed and really unattributable), but it's not zero. Deciding whether (and in what circumstances) the text retains the copyright of the originals is an undecided matter of law, because this is such novel technology. Copyright laws weren't written with this in mind, and only future legal cases will decide how they apply. Several such lawsuits are beginning; surely more will follow. This will take years for courts come to a definitive conclusion, and really no-one knows how they will decide. Until they do, we have to err on the side of fearing they may. In any event, submitting such a text requires agreeing to the statement "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License" - but the submitter definitely doesn't own the copyright (maybe no-one does, maybe the AI's owner does, maybe thousands of people do). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly...ag this point in US law, it is not clear if AI generated works fall under fair use or not or even if they are derivative works. The US Vopyright Office has made clear machine generated works have no new copyright of their own but have not spoken of the issue of copyright of the media used within the engine. And there are now a few cases in the works that will challenge that (notably Gettys v Stable Duffusion). For now we must assume AI text is derivative of the underlying work, and unless the engine used to generate the text has been validated to only use text sources in the public domain/CC world, the text should be taken as a copyright derivative work and not meeting our contribution guidelines. Masem (t) 14:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Not to make it too philosophical, but what is copyvio at this point? If paraphrasing from sources is your definition, then what we are writing at Wikipedia is effectively copyright violation through and through. CactiStaccingCrane 15:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a settled matter of law that what we do, with human editors summarising, aggregating, and synthesising, is legal (otherwise every newspaper, encyclopedia, or reference work would be a copyvio). It's not settled that an AI, which might achieve a similar-looking result but by a very different means, is analogous. I imagine those defending the legality of AI generators will make an argument along the lines of what you've said; they may very well prevail. But those opposed might show the judge generated Radiohead-esque songs or Jeff Koons-ish sculptures, and argue that these are more than just remixes and reinterpretations; they may very well prevail. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 16:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:LLM. About the AI creator, I support incremental warnings as per usual when disruptive editing is concerned; but not really opposed to an indef. —Alalch E.

16:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Note as I sort of hinted above, if courts do rule that these tools can infringe copyright from the training data, we potentially have a reasonable problem with some articles. As I mentioned above AFAIK editors are allowed to use machine translation tools provided they manually check and correct the output. And many of these do use similar techniques even if generally in a lot less sophisticated fashion and are produced in part using copyrighted content as the training data. (Although

DeepL is actually very similar I believe.) And this is only en. I'm fairly sure some other projects require very little or even nothing from a human editor before submission. Nil Einne (talk

) 18:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

At least this lends credence to the discussion at

WP:VPP. —Locke Cole • t • c

21:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Per very long-standing Commons consensus copyright can't be assigned to algorithm output, and the US copyright office just cancelled a registration for being based on generative model output. While it is certainly possible that future legislation or case law holds differently, it would seem to be pretty firm on the issue as of right now. While it's true that some rando is suing Stability for alleged copyright infringement, it seems quite dubious that it would succeed; even if it does, this is still a long way away, and in general I don't think it's a good idea to vastly limit ourselves on the premise that there could be some hypothetical future situation where it's illegal to say "the" on the Internet. jp×g 09:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Source verification

Is anyone able to verify the existence of the following sources from Draft:Gecko's?

1. Kellaris, G., & Autumn, K. (2008). Gecko adhesion and the van der Waals force. Journal of adhesion science and technology, 22(1), 1-16.
2. Russell, A. P., Denny, M., & Huey, R. B. (2015). Thermal physiology: how lizards survive and thrive in hot environments. Integrative and comparative biology, 55(3), 517-529.
3. Highfield, A. C. (1990). Gecko tails: a study in regenerative biology. Microscopy Research and Technique, 17(2), 132-144.
4. Rösler, H. (2000). Geckos: biology, behavior, and reproduction. Krieger Publishing Company.
5. Gecko Care Sheets. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Care-Sheets/Lizards/Geckos/
6. Gecko Conservation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.geckosociety.org/gecko-conservation/

–dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dlthewave, for one, the websites don't work. I've also attempted to reproduce this - asking ChatGPT to produce a Wikipedia article with a list of references will produce a similar list of bogus, but acceptable on first sight, items. Silikonz💬 03:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Though it's an unlikely coincidence, I suppose the websites could have existed during the model's training phase and gone dead since. However I was able to confirm that the first three journal articles are fabricated - They do not exist in the cited volumes. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The websites needn't have existed in the training corpus; GPT-3 will generate something that seems plausible without checking if it's in fact real, so the URLs look like they could be genuine but don't necessarily point to actual pages that have ever existed. CharredShorthand (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Artificial-Info22 as a hoaxer, given one hoax article and several falsified sources. I leave aside the apostrophe abuse. The AI discussions should continue in the venues linked above. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The first two do not exist. They are in real journals with correctly dated volume and issue numbers, but if you look up those volumes and issues you will find different papers, not those two. The third one has a slightly off date (that volume and issue are dated Feb 1991) but is otherwise the same: not actually published in that issue. If I saw a person doing this I would be very tempted to immediately block as too subtle a vandal to give any slack to. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Superficially plausible, fake citations undermine the project in a way that is time-consuming to detect and to repair.

talk

) 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a new phenomenon. There's actually been a paper published on this: Trout, Kilgore (2007). "Towards a new hermeneutics of falsified citations". Information Integrity. 4 (38).

doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2011.12.003. jp×g

10:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Kilgore Trout, huh? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

And when humans do it, it's vandalism, hoaxing, POV-pushing, or some other variety of disruptive editing. Automated tools that by their very design make bad output are bad tools.

talk

) 13:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Another user using AI

See Draft:Electric Underfloor Heating. This also scores at the 99.98% level. Note the paucity of specific references and the regularity of the language. This was written by LivingHeat (talk · contribs). Judging from the above conversation, I'm going to, for now, not do anything special about this submission related to its provenance, and just judge it on its general merits. Is that correct? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm now tagging these articles with the {{disputed}} tag, as there is no guarantee of accuracy with AI-generated text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a straightforward promotional username block, since they appear to represent a firm of the same name that makes floor heat products. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, given that the sources in these AI drafts seem to be fake (see section above), I think

WP:G3 (hoax) might be appropriate for AI-generated articles in general. Thanks to Acroterion and Bbb23 for handling this specific user and draft. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 05:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A real hoax using a large language model would have been an article about a made up species or a nonexistent company -- this was a real species and a real firm. The prose was not intended to misinform. Therefore these were not true hoaxes. Fictitious references would indicate a hoax, but here we have more reason than not to believe that the information contained in the drafts is okay, and we know that the LLM generated the junk text references as part of emulating Wikipedia content, as opposed to a human engineering a deception; if it stops being a hoax when you simply remove the references, and becomes a poor draft about Geckos, then it wasn't a hoax in the first place, it's just the standard lack of verifiability problem, characteristic of drafts. —Alalch E. 11:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

With our long-standing love of templates to slap on stuff and walk away, perhaps we need an {{

ai-generated}} clean-up notice to go on these things, saying something like “This text appears to have been generated by an AI learning model, which is generally disapproved of on Wikipedia. It requires editing for accuracy, prose and referencing.” — Trey Maturin

™ 11:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to split hairs over hoaxing versus falsified sources. They both fall into the realm of making things up, which is incompatible with the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Both instances should result in immediate removal of said article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Might it be possible that LivingHeat is a sockpuppet of Artificial-Info22? I'm highly concerned of a lack of communication from either editor; it seems both are using the

Contact me | Contributions

). 15:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, one of the articles was an obvious hoax about the ficticitious 123rd element Eternium. And if the AI is fudging the references, how do we know it's not also fudging the facts? This isn't just speculation. Compare these passages from Draft:Gecko's with our Gecko article:

Draft:Gecko's

Geckos are lizards that belong to the family Gekkonidae, which contains over 1,500 different species. They are found in warm climates all over the world, from tropical rainforests to deserts. One of the most notable characteristics of geckos is their ability to climb vertical surfaces and even ceilings. This is due to the millions of tiny hair-like structures on their toes called setae, which allow them to adhere to surfaces through van der Waals forces. This ability has been the subject of much scientific study and has led to the development of gecko-inspired adhesives and climbing robots. Geckos come in a wide variety of sizes, shapes, and colors. Some species, such as the leopard gecko, can grow up to 10 inches long, while others, like the dwarf gecko, are only a few centimeters long. They can be found in a range of colors, from brown and gray to bright greens, oranges, and yellows. In terms of reproduction, Geckos are oviparous, meaning they lay eggs. Female geckos will lay one to two clutches of eggs per year, depending on the species. The eggs hatch anywhere from two to eight weeks later, depending on the species and the temperature.

Gecko

Geckos are small, mostly carnivorous lizards that have a wide distribution, found on every continent except Antarctica. Belonging to the infraorder Gekkota, geckos are found in warm climates throughout the world. They range from 1.6 to 60 centimetres (0.6 to 23.6 inches). Geckos are unique among lizards for their vocalisations, which differ from species to species. Most geckos in the family Gekkonidae use chirping or clicking sounds in their social interactions. Tokay geckos (Gekko gecko) are known for their loud mating calls, and some other species are capable of making hissing noises when alarmed or threatened. They are the most species-rich group of lizards, with about 1,500 different species worldwide. Many species are well known for their specialised toe pads, which enable them to grab and climb onto smooth and vertical surfaces, and even cross indoor ceilings with ease. Geckos are well known to people who live in warm regions of the world, where several species make their home inside human habitations. These, for example the house gecko, become part of the indoor menagerie and are often welcomed, as they feed on insect pests; including moths and mosquitoes. Like most lizards, geckos can lose their tails in defence, a process called autotomy; the predator may attack the wriggling tail, allowing the gecko to escape. Most geckos lay a small clutch of eggs, a few are live-bearing and a few can reproduce asexually via parthenogenesis.

It gets a few things wrong just in these few sentences:

• Not all geckoes belong to the family Gekkonidae, which doesn't have 1500 species.
• Not all geckos have specialized toe pads that allow them to climb vertical surfaces.
• The largest geckos are 23"-24", not 10".
• Not all geckos are oviparous; some bear live young.

This really isn't a usable draft, as these generalizations are factually incorrect and seem to be based on material written for pet owners rather than scholarly sources. This exactly the type of "vaguely plausible bullshit" that LLMs are known for and we need to make sure that every fact is checked for accuracy before passing it off as a viable draft. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I admit that this is worse than a poor draft about geckos. Not sure if we would call an unreferenced draft (about a non-fictitious subject) with such errors created solely by a human a hoax but this is still a lot like a hoax. —Alalch E. 18:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of tag proliferation, but this situation sits between "hoax" and "disputed facts" without fitting well within either category. If anything of an AI-generated article is worth preserving, it would be useful to have a new "ai-generated" tag that explains the problem, briefly. Currently, I'm using "disputed" as the best fit, as all the facts in an AI-generated article need independent verification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Needs work, but: User:Trey Maturin/AI generated is my first draft.

User:Trey Maturin/AI generated

Other editors' mileage will vary. — Trey Maturin™ 20:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Due to the fake references issue and dllthewave's comment above about subtle factual inaccuracies, I don't think that AI-generated articles will usually be salvageable. Perhaps a better wording for this template would be "This article or some of its text appear to have been generated by an AI model. Due to false references and factual inaccuracies, AI-generated text should usually be deleted." –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

After review of the articles and trying out the AI myself, I agree with Novem Linguae's wording. It's like going down a rabbit hole distinguishing truth from falsehoods. As ChatGPT's FAQ states, such outputs may be inaccurate, untruthful, and otherwise misleading at times. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you both. We currently don’t have a process for this type of thing. Instead, when this happens, people rush to ANI and a debate begins on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin until eventually someone IAR-deletes the AI-generated article. Rinse and repeat. We need some sort of agreed process otherwise ANI becomes the place to do this by default and it’s already enough of a timesink as it is. A clean-up notice, whatever the wording (feel free to edit or copy mine!) is a start. A new A or G speedy criterion would be useful too. Failing that, a policy page directing people to XfD rather than ANI would be good. — Trey Maturin™ 23:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a "G" CSD criterion is needed, as I was catching this in the Draft namespace. I've made a proposed edit to your template for your review. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In light of the direction of this discussion and archival at the Wayback Machine (in case their content needs to be referenced further in this discussion), I have deleted Draft:Gecko's and Draft:Coral Reef's as G3 hoaxes. ^Complex/_Rational 19:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Policy to prevent egregious misuse of language models

Note that there is a draft proposal at

WP:LLM

which I have trying to get people to look at for a few weeks, so forgive me if I plug it a bit aggressively here. Please, go look at it, and go look at the talk page, and pitch in, because I think we are going to need something like this sooner rather than later.

As we have seen at the unbelievably long VPP thread, and

WP:LLM

, which is currently being drafted towards a proposal, I think it is perfectly fine for people to use them for things they're good at (formatting tables, identifying potential problem areas in articles, rephrasing sentences). I also think it is a bad idea to use them for things they're bad at (writing entire articles from scratch without giving them access to any sources). To be blunt, it is a gobsmackingly dumb idea: why would it ever come up with anything useful? It can't look things up. Anybody who understands how these models work ought to know this: it is about on the same level of stopping a guy walking down the street and asking him what he thinks about something, and not letting him take out his phone. Or a high school essay. I think that the main problem we face here is people who have no idea how they work, and think that it is just a button that magically generates text from the Computer God.

I have certainly enjoyed using ChatGPT to fix the colors in badly-formatted tables, and diagnose template errors, and wrote a couple Signpost articles with GPT-3 in August: but this is a labor-intensive task that requires carefully formatted prompts and careful analysis of the output. That is to say, if you want it to summarize AfD discussions, you need to paste the entire goddamn content of the AfD page into the prompt window. If you want to write an article based on sources... you need to paste the entire goddamn source (or a lengthy summary of it) into the prompt window, it's not capable of looking things up. I am inclined, frankly, to say that anyone who doesn't understand this has no business using it to generate huge piles of gobbledygook. And, while I am being frank, I think we might end up needing some kind of approval process where you demonstrate that you have some idea of what you're doing, like we do for the pagemover permission or the AWB list. jp×g 09:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

"Rephrasing sentences" is something ChatGTP and similar actually suck at big time. They tend to remove all nuance, all doubt, and turn hypotheses into facts, examples into rules, trivia into essentials.

Fram (talk

) 09:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, so does the freakin' news, am I right? But we do not have a blanket ban on citing the news in articles -- editors are simply expected to use intelligence and common sense (as well as our very well-developed policies and guidelines) in determining whether something is legitimate or horseshit. jp×g 10:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You claimed that rephrasing sentences is among the "things they're good at", which in my experience isn't true. Your reply doesn't address that point, just states that other things may suck at it as well. You are positioning yourself as some expert, someone who would easily pass the "approval process" separating "people who have no idea how they work", "anyone who doesn't understand this has no business using it to generate huge piles of gobbledygook", from people like you, who know that you can't use it for complete articles but it is good for e.g. rephrasing sentences. Well, you did this here, which you claimed was "solely editing for tense" and "reviewed by a human (me)", but the end result was that the combined efforts of ChatGTP and you introduced new errors in the text. So excuse me if I am rather sceptical of your claims of what it can do and your expertise in it, and also rather unconvinced by your reply here which just misses the point completely.

Fram (talk

) 11:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What I mean by this is that neither you nor I have ever typed "Write a Wikipedia article about the yellow-spotted bandersnatch" into ChatGPT and then copy-pasted the resultant wall of crap directly into a redlink without verifying anything. This would imply we are more qualified in this area than people who have done so. jp×g 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Dumping ground for wild LLM content

• Draft:Draft:GPT-4 has some obvious tells (the strange formatting of a high school essay, combined with an extremely high score on the analyzers I tried it on). jp×g 07:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Fram (talk
  ) 10:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Fram (talk
  ) 10:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A germ of an idea is forming in my head, which is that it would almost certainly be possible to deploy one of these GPT analyzers on Toolforge and automatically run it over new drafts (or drafts with recent large text additions). The analyzers themselves are open source and available for download on Hugging Face. If this works, it would be possible to make a bot report page for the highest percentages, which could then be manually examined (reference check, et cetera). Obviously not a perfect solution, but it'd be something. Would anyone like to use something like this? jp×g 11:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A system similar to CopyPatrol would definitely be helpful for screening potentially GPT-generated content. It's definitely not perfect, but it will catch the most blatant cases; might it also be possible to build in a mechanism to determine whether added "references" actually exist? At least for now, while tools can still distinguish human-written and AI-written content... ^Complex/_Rational 12:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A note to anyone who is tagging these for speedy deletion: it may be useful to retain the text from some of these articles, so that we can use them as examples (or as training data) for detection. I am going to keep some of them at User:JPxG/LLM dungeon, and encourage others to add to this collection. jp×g 12:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I deleted a few of these drafts which were already tagged for speedy deletion. I'm happy to provide you with copies if you'd like. ^Complex/_Rational 12:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It would maybe be useful to be able to filter the deletion log by "likely AI-generated" or similar. —Alalch E. 13:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be great. If it is too cumbersome to post on-wiki, you can just send me an email of the wikitext (jpxg-dëv at prötönmail döt cöm without the umlauts). jp×g 21:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: I emailed you the wikitext from the three I deleted today. The other two were archived at the Wayback Machine and are linked above. ^Complex/_Rational 01:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Summary

Lots of stuff in motion to address this issue. See

WP:V

, but there's a range of actions being taken.

I'd like to see this closed unless there are objections. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@

citation needed tag appended? 2001:448A:3046:34F2:B825:A231:DC69:F03F (talk

) 01:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This is best asked on Wikipedia_talk:Large_language_models as there are discussions there on what LLMs are useful for. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Ilovejames5, copyright, and general CIR behavior

INDEFFED

Ilovejames5 misbehaved / Problem solved! / Burma Shave! (non-admin closure) Ravenswing 06:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I don't like bringing a good-faith editor to ANI, but User:Ilovejames5 has caused so much disruption that they're a net negative to Wikipedia. Since joining in December, this user has accumulated an impressive number of copyvio warnings, and been given extremely light treatment in hopes that they would heed warnings and improve their behavior. And yet, just three days ago they moved NER Class 4CC to mainspace, which was so heavily closely paraphrased that it is now at copyright problems. They clearly don't understand what they did wrong, even after many warnings.

Beyond copyvio, much of their activity has been firmly within CIR territory. Mucking about in projectspace creating useless pages like User:Example6, User:Ilovejames5/Wikicsd (created in the template namespace), and Wikipedia:Silly things/Template:Uw-toofriendly3. Add to this trying to explain to an experienced editor how links work, gravedancing, adding unsourced material to a highly technical article, and even starting pointless threads on this very page. Much of this is documented here. In general, there's a clear lack of maturity or competence.

I unfortunately think the only remedy at this point is an indef block for CIR reasons. This user is either unable or unwilling to learn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to offer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NER Class Z here. The article was kept, but I think that it was mainly because of my expansion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I had been waiting for this thread to be created from the moment I closed one of this editor's frivilous ANI threads and had a good look through their edits; I actually boldly considered taking action to indefintiely block the editor for CIR at the time, but decided against it purely on the basis that I couldn't make as compelling a case to support it as I would have liked (even if the rationale might have stood up to community review). Since that moment, they have continued showing these competence issues, as outlined by Trainsandotherthings's excellent summation above. I support an indefinite block of this user. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, regrettably. Many editors have tried explaining to Ilovejames5 why closely paraphrasing from other sources is strongly discouraged, and even though they responded with understanding, at least on the surface, it appears that they either don't understand the issue or are choosing to downplay it. Either way, their behavior is unacceptable, and unless Ilovejames5 proves otherwise in their behavior, an indefinite block might be in order here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The full run of the prior ANI thread is also illustrative. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Aye, an indef block is inevitable and I am about to impose it. @Trainsandotherthings: thanks for the excellent summary. Salvio ^giuliano 23:31, 28 January 2023 (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:Nikolai Boyanov again

Nikolai Boyanov (talk · contribs)

This is the second time I had posted here (previously on

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Here are some diffs since Nikolai was unblocked.[156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167]. And just today only with this ... not sure what to even say. Can any admin please issue an official final warning against Nikolai, thanks a lot. — 🍊 Paper9oll 🍊 (🔔 • 📝

) 08:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding unsourced again.[168] — 🍊 Paper9oll 🍊 (🔔 • 📝) 11:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Health and appearance of Michael Jackson

User Popcornfud keeps editing my text an Health and appearance of Michael jackson to promote his own piece about the problem with elegant variations. He only accepts his way of writing. Yesterday he made several changes inone edit making it more difficult to revert them because the page is semi-protected. When the article was in really poor condition he did very little to improve it but after my extensive he came out of the woodwork to blame me for my faults. On the other hand he doesn't revert edits with wrong information Last year we had a discussion about the Thriller video. Popcornfud didn't understand the werecat article.Sometimes he cuts sentences so much deleting most relevant Popcornfud is not objective. No, I don't like writing this. It's rude. But Wikipedia doesn't do anything about Michael Jackson articles to be messed up. Quaffel (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Quaffel, you should be discussing your proposed changes on the article's talk page - people are allowed to disagree with you and revert your edits, you are then expected to discuss it with them. ANI isn't the place to settle disagreements about content, there is nothing here that requires administrative attention at this point. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Read the "Lead edits" section on the article's Talk Page. Red the Talk Page and you'll know what a discussion with Popcornfud is like! Read what he wrote when we had a GA reassessment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson/1 Sometimes he just avoids the discussion. He doesn't show up here. A good way to gezt his will. Your comment is useless Girth Summit.Quaffel (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Having read both

WP:ELEVAR in the edit summary ([169], [170]) both look like improvements to me. I agree with GirthSummit: there's nothing here which needs administrative attention. Caeciliusinhorto (talk

) 12:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Offensive comments by Paul Siebert

Storm in a teacup. Salvio ^giuliano 18:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

User:Paul Siebert is sharing their personal theories on the existence of national groups, in particular Clearly, no Ukrainian [. . .] nation existed in XIX century.[171] This took place in a discussion at Talk:Kievan Rus'#Volodymyr the Great, not “Vladimir”.

When I called them on it as being both false and offensive,[172] then they proceeded with deflection and threat of action,[173] more deflection,[174] and some more personal theory, I would say the real Ukrainian nation [. . .] is currently forming.[175] The tone is condescending and not accepting of any other opinion.

The editor has previously been sanctioned for

WP:IDONTHEARYOU (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#WP:STONEWALLING and WP:IDONTHEARYOU by User:Paul Siebert at Talk:Pontius Pilate

).

There’s a lot to disagree with but it’s particularly unacceptable to voice personal conspiracy theories about the non-existence of a nation precisely when such conspiracy theories are being used to incite genocide in Ukraine.

• Putin Says Ukraine Doesn’t Exist. That’s Why He’s Trying to Destroy It, NYT
• Putin’s ‘surreal’ version of Ukrainian history alarms experts, NBC News. “Analysis: Saying ‘another nation doesn’t exist is something we need to pay attention to because it usually precedes atrocious actions,’ one historian said.”

The insistence on repeating such an opinion is not really compatible with editing articles on Ukraine and surrounding nations. But I’m a lot more concerned that this kind of speech should not be seen as acceptable in discussions. It’s upsetting and disruptive, and if normalized could lead to a wide variety of much worse.  —Michael Z. 08:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I quit taking this seriously when I saw that the OP had taken Paul's statement of "Clearly, no Ukrainian (as well as Russian) nation existed in XIX century." and changed it in their post to "Clearly, no Ukrainian [. . .] nation existed in XIX century" and then further "framed" a statement into "particularly unacceptable to voice personal conspiracy theories about the non-existence of a nation precisely when such conspiracy theories are being used to incite genocide in Ukraine" and then linked to two news articles about Putin, thus implicitly linking Paul's statements to Putin. This sort of framing of the dispute isn't helpful or useful and, to me in my opinion, betrays the very worst aspects of the battleground over Eastern European topics. If the editors in the topic area would try to dial DOWN the temperature rather than dial it up all the time, there might be some progress made. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not know the editor in question, and I do not believe he and I have ever interacted on this encyclopedia at all, but I feel particularly compelled to comment here as, not so long ago, during a dispute with another user on these boards, and for more or less the same reason, I, too, was accused by the OP of writing offensive colonial nonsense, echoing Putin’s essay and speeches inciting genocide in Ukraine. [176]

As Ealdgyth rightly points out, the first quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what is stated in that diff. Another diff provided by Mzajac also clarifies that the "accused" was not picking on the Ukrainians in particular, as the OP claims, but making a general point (as was I at the time...). What I find more troubling on a personal level, however, is that the discussion over there (of which I was entirely unaware) appears to be derived from the discussion on talk:Arkhip Kuindzhi, in which I did participate, with Mzajac adding bold changes to the article not only without consensus, but against consensus. I will not speak for the rest of the editors involved in that talk page discussion, but I will stress that at the very least my contribution to that discussion is being blatantly misrepresented by Mzajac. In the diff he provides you can see that Siebert is reponding to Mzajac stating There will always be three or more editors who point to sources from the 1970s that say so-and-so was a Russian painter, and pointedly refuse to respect a new one that says so-and-so was a Ukrainian painter of Greek ancestry that worked in the Russian empire. I will, for starters, state that I am one of those "three or more editors", and—despite his claims—the sources I brought up were, with the exception of an undated reference on the website of the Art Renewal Center (itself founded in 1999, so definitely not 1970s), from 2019–2022.

I will also point out, regarding what is implied by Mzajac, that to my knowledge at no point was it denied that Kuindzhi was of Greek ancestry. In fact, his Greek ancestry has been present in the article since it was created back in 2004, even if, back then, it was done in a very... let's say, rudimentary fashion (as was the entire article): Russian painter-landscape writer. He was the son of the shoemaker-Greek.[177] What was discussed, however, was the [un]suitability of labelling him Ukrainian, given that the subject of the article, a life-long subject of the Russian Empire, was neither a Ukrainian citizen (being born and dying years before Ukraine became an independent state) nor an ethnic Ukrainian, being an ethnic Greek. To this he countered that Although known by several names, Ukraine has always been a definable country, region, and territory during historical times, and Ukraine is the homeland of Pontic Greeks. [178] Both statements in this quote are challengeable (and were challenged): no modern country has always been "definable". His insistence on that point, which would today sound very antiquated to a majority of historians and people trained in the humanities, is what, I believe, Paul Siebert had in mind when he spoke of Primordialism in the first diff provided by the OP (I'm assuming Siebert himself can tell me whether I'm right or wrong on this point). The second point is, however, more curious, so to speak: in Mzajac's argument "Ukraine is the homeland of Pontic Greeks", that is, the homeland of an ethno-cultural group that has lived in the region (and in a territory that goes well beyond Ukraine's borders) for millennia before the existence of an independent Ukrainian state, and for centuries before even the Slavs as a group reached the area. Not only does his position deny any agency to Pontic Greeks either individually or as a group (so much for decolonising history!), the statement is also false from a simply chronological point of view.

Although I did not enter an actual edit war with the OP, when the discussion became heated (I, quite frankly, found the above claims, plus his accusation of "echoing Putin's essay and speeches inciting genocide" and his passive-aggressive threat that one is definitely unlikely to continue getting away with such public speech for much longer, to be beyond the pale) I told him I felt he was too invested in the topic (given these accusations, I stand by that assessment) and offered him a "truce" where I would not touch his edit for 48 hours to give him time to rethink his position. He disparaged the offer, and I eventually withdrew from the discussion and the article altogether, because I no longer believed the OP was capable of accepting a different opinion, and was even reluctant to accept the existence of a different opinion. I have no intention of restarting the same discussion with the OP here, so I'll refrain from further comment unless it's deemed necessary. Ostalgia (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2023 (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.

Nataev casting aspersions

BLOCKED 1 WEEK

Repeated personal attacks. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:28, 29 January 2023 (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.

---

• Nataev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Subject discussion at User talk:Mattdaviesfsic § Head of a national academy of sciences not notable enough for you?

Nataev has made an unfounded accusation of racial bias against AfC reviewer

Draft:Toshmuhammad Sarimsoqov: Hi! How come you rejected the draft article on Draft:Toshmuhammad Sarimsoqov? This person was literally head of the Academy of Science of a country which currently has 40 million residents. Perhaps the person is not white enough for you? I suggest you read the notability criteria ... (Special:Diff/1135760311

).

I reminded them of their responsibility to assume good faith and to avoid casting aspersions, and – mistakenly assuming that they were the draft's author – suggested the use of the |trans-title= and |trans-quote= parameters in citations of Russian- and Uzbek-language sources, but they refused to strike their accusation and instead used my suggestion of providing translations as the basis of a further accusation: a reviewer based in the UK decided not to accept an article about the head of a national academy of sciences just because he doesn't speak any of the languages used in the sources (Special:Diff/1135775817).

After we mutually agreed that the topic of the article was notable per

WP:NPROF, Nataev repeated their position: [and] I do believe that if the draft had been about a white head of an academy of sciences, they'd have accepted it (Special:Diff/1135778524

).

Given that there was no dispute over notability I moved the draft into mainspace, to which Nataev responded with a veiled aspersion against myself: How brave of you to think that a renowned (not where you live, though) mathematician and a former head of a national academy of sciences is worthy of an article! (Special:Diff/1135792828, inserted into an existing reply made 21 minutes earlier, with no indication that this had been done).

I had originally intended to let it go, but have felt compelled to post here by Nataev's last reply: I don't have to be civil with incompetent or potentially racist reviewers ... (Special:Diff/1135981973). Accordingly I now request that Nataev be admonished.

The entire thread can be read at User talk:Mattdaviesfsic § Head of a national academy of sciences not notable enough for you? (there have been no redactions or removals).

Thanks for your attention. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

If he had apologized, then I would let this slide, but he has doubled down. I think a short block is in order. PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

He already has a block log made up of short blocks, so I blocked for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Legal threat and conflict of interest from IP

IP blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

_(talk)

22:10, 29 January 2023 (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.

Request review of recent edits by User:Carchasm

User:Charchasm has recently been doing some heavy editing to various philosophy-related articles. While some edits seem constructive (e.g. the removal of the "Aristotle's views on women" article, various category changes), others have removed a significant amount of text and have notably involved the deletion of various articles. I also notice that a lot of edits seem to be removing uncited information rather than adding citations (presuming reliable citations could be found for the content). Hence I'm requesting that someone better acquainted with the topic area review the edits to determine if they are indeed constructive or if perhaps the baby might have been thrown out with the bath water in places. 146.198.12.80 (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have any specific objections to my editing, you are welcome to bring them up on my talk page or tag me on the relevant page. I believe that this, however, constitutes casting

WP:ASPERSIONS? I will be happy to respond to any concerns that you have with my editing in either of those places, however. - car chasm (talk

) 05:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, if there are any concerns from anyone else, just to save a separate conversation, here are a few veteran editors I've interacted with recently if you need some reassurance that someone else is looking at my edits. [179], [180], [181]

But please, reach out on a talk page first next time? You'll be able to clear things up with other editors in the future without possibly antagonizing someone else by bringing them to ANI :). - car chasm (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

An ANI report with no diffs, no specific complaints, and no evidence of having discussed the supposedly problematic edits that you haven't specifically identified, is not likely to go anywhere. Removing uncited content from articles is virtually always acceptable, even if reliable sources to support that content could be found; the responsibility is on those who think the content should be in the article to properly source it if it is challenged. (And, though carchasm appears to have found this report anyway, you should have notified them on their talkpage as instructed by both the editnotice and the notice at the top of the page). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Carchasm has been doing great work on philosophy articles, and we are in fact very lucky to have someone like them on this project. Yes, editors should be aware that removing badly sourced or badly written content will not automagically make new content grow in its place, and that sometimes it's better to just leave in sub-optimal information rather than to have nothing at all. But ultimately this is a matter of editorial discretion if everything is done within the bounds of existing

WP:PAG, and it appears to me that Carchasm is rather self-aware about that. In other words, I don't see a problem here, and recommend that this thread be speedily closed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉

) 02:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In addition to all other issues in this report, the OP has failed to notify Carchasm of this report, despite the red warning notice both on top and during editing clearly requiring such a notice. Regards,

Contact me | Contributions

). 03:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks at Talk:Chinese Communist Party

JUST BLOCK THEM AND END IT

(

Contact me | Contributions

). 11:16, 30 January 2023 (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 incredibly boring, yet never-ending title discussion at the CCP article has reached the point where editors in favour of the CPC moniker are calling their opponents 'clowns' and the idiomatic English title 'racist' and 'derogatory' (see the Just move the page and end it section). These absurd comments constitute a flagrant violation of both NPA and CIVIL. The targeted users (Khajidha and an equally patient IP editor) should be excused from these types of frivolous invective. Nutez (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked Glaug-Eldare (talk · contribs) for 48 hours and one IP (not the patient one). If the attacks recur, it may become a much longer block. Acroterion (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe user talk page access ought to be revoked as well. User:Glaug-Eldare seems intent on doubling down on the PAs and racism accusations [182] Nutez (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2023 (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.

Mdggdj

Despite being already reported half year ago, this user continued to nominate software-related articles for deletion, actions already undone. already blocked at the Spansh Wikipedia. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Of their 5 AfD nominations on en-WP that have been closed, 4 were delete and 1 was merge/redirect. It appears as if they are nominating articles that lack notability. Schazjmd (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

And considering how many articles you've created that have been subsequently deleted, it seems that you are the one who does not understand Wikipedia's notability requirements. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Mdggdj's edits, and if you refer to them as an LTA or vandal again, without providing evidence, I'll block you myself. I suggest you read

WP:CIR. Looking at your edits, I question your ability to edit Wikipedia competently. Looking at a lot of the articles you removed Prod requests from, those articles should be deleted as non-notable so I think I'll nominate them all myself. Canterbury Tail talk

23:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What should we do with this kind of disruptive users? User:Amitie 10g does not want to follow the rules and prefers personal attacks. Another Wikipedia editor blocked my Spanish Wikipedia account because he did not like my user handle. I do not know if there is a single sockpuppet account on the Spanish Wikipedia or many of the Spanish Wikipedia editors do not want to follow the rules. What do you recommend doing here? User:Amitie 10g has a long record of not following the rules. Mdggdj (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I asked the user who blocked Mdggdj on Spanish Wikipedia what their evidence was on sockpuppetry. See
  WP:LOUT socking. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk
  _{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Big baboon 272 - Do we check all edits?

With me making double sure no bad edits remained, I'll close this discussion. Big baboon 272 was locked for their actions, making them today's biggest loser. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:50, 30 January 2023 (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.

---

Big baboon 272 (talk · contribs · xtools · pages created · logs ^{(block • csd • prod)} · afd)

Big baboon 272 is discussed both here and on Commons. Here their "article" on Murexia xenochromus is being discussed in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murexia xenochromus and their image uploads on Commons are discussed not only at Commons Deletion Requests, but at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&oldid=728552248#image-manipulator Where they have received what is terms as a Ban, and all their edits have been deleted.

Their edits have been called into question here in the AfD. The reason I am bringing it here is for experineced parties to seel to deterim what action to take on their edits here. I will be notifying relevant participants here.

tl;dr Summary Uploaded hoax image to Commons and based at least one hoax article upon it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Excommunicado.

Delete all uploads, revert all other projects' edits unless they can be sourced immediately. Indef ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Ban and check all edits - This edit (the first one I checked) fails verification. –dlthewave ☎ 00:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Indef ban and check all edits I really got deceived when I just realized things about this. All of their edits should have checked. I'm going to request a global lock for them as soon as possible.MarioJump83 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to check all edits; the user's made less than 100, so it should not be terrible for a few folks to go through. They don't appear to have edited in the past six months though, so I'm not sure that banning them would actually be

serving as a form of punishment for bad behavior, and I'm not exactly on board with banning people as a form of punishment (even if they have harmed the encyclopedia in the past). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

03:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously if they come back and continue to do the same thing, it should be an instant indef, but this seems like a pretty clear case of

WP:NOTPUNISH#4 at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

03:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk Your generosity does you credit. The point is moot since they are now globally locked, however, their "work" could easily have brought Wikipedia into disrepute, the more so had it been in a less obscure area.

If their edits were in good faith then they can tell "us" that in an appeal, and that will be listened to. I feel the action taken by the Stewards has been preventative of further foolishness rather than punitive. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk I've checked most edits and found them to be unsourced additions, thus I reverted most of them accordingly. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Now globally locked. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• I think the global lock is appropriate, it was Cross Wiki Abuse, and I assume Stewards do not lock lightly. If they are contrite they can appeal, if they return. There is, with glorious hindsight, a huge clue about their editing in the (presumed) biblical quiite on their user page. They appear to have been a thistle providing figs!

With the work of LilianaUwU do we consider this matter to be closed? Or do we leave this open a decent while longer to allow other contributions? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent I would double check their contributions, as I may have missed a few. However, I'm not at my computer right now, so I can't really do so. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 14:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Good lock. Despicable behaviour. Deliberately faking content is one of the worst offences here, and those who do it should be firmly shown the door. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2023 (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.

MarshallWT

MarshallWT blocked by Cullen328 for two weeks. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:16, 30 January 2023 (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.

---

Non-responsive editor keeps reverting on Template:Manly Warringah Sea Eagles current squad. The template was protected, the editor partial blocked but it does not seem to help at all. The editor is restoring flags contrary to the manual of style, keeps adding the same links to disambiguation pages and ingnores all discussions about why adding flags to navigation templates is not a good idea. No response whatsoever. Rougher measures are needed. The Banner talk 14:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The editor has already violated
  WP:NOTHERE reasons. Jerium (talk
  ) 16:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I have blocked MarshallWT for two weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2023 (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 keeps restoring my deleted talk page comment

Handled. Salvio ^giuliano 18:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I left a comment at

WP:REDACT. Another user, User:2600:1003:b854:c3f4:98e:f450:6fd7:de6a, keeps restoring it without my permission.[183][184][185][186] Can something be done about this user? Largoplazo (talk

) 08:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The comment in question appears intended for me and I was in the process of responding when the revert was made. The OP of this thread has engaged in edit warring to remove the comment. 2600:1003:B854:C3F4:98E:F450:6FD7:DE6A (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You had no business restoring it in the first place. It was removed, there was nothing to respond to by the time you tried. You weren't entitled to roll back time just because you would have responded if my remark had remained. Your insistence on restoring it was edit warring. Note that the last edit was yours. Largoplazo (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The civility (telling me to calm down) and the inaccuracy of the content are also in question which the OP seems somewhat intent on attempting to hide after making the statement public for me and others to see. 2600:1003:B854:C3F4:98E:F450:6FD7:DE6A (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You are both edit warring and it's a particularly inane edit war at that. IP, let Largoplazo remove his comment. You hadn't replied yet and by attempting to remove it, he's showing that he realises what he said was inaccurate. There is no point in requiring the comment to stay (and/or be struck through), as a sort of badge of shame. And you can say your piece, but simply have to do so without referencing Largoplazo's comment. Salvio ^giuliano 08:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:MUTUAL it would be better for all involved if you were to remove both comments and move on. JeffUK

08:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Why, yes, by writing in my edit summary precisely that "I guess non-registered users don't have this option", I was "hiding" the fact that I was removing something that I'd written previously and the reason why I was removing it. Hiding in plain sight. Largoplazo (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

After all but my last comment above had been written, and after another editor had removed the comment of mine that's in contention at Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022, this user restored it again. [187] Largoplazo (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for a day. Well, can't say he wasn't warned... Salvio ^giuliano 09:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Yes, it's mildly irritating if we spend time composing a reply only to find that a comment has been removed by the time we post it, but we have to put up with mildly irratating things. Largoplazo clearly recognised the mistake and removed the comment. The matter should have rested there.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 09:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

(nods) I'd certainly rather put up with such a mild irritation than to discourage editors from thinking "Huh, y'know, the comment I just made was less than civil, and I'd better reconsider it being posted." There've been a few times I've looked at something I've just posted to a talk page, thought exactly that, and redacted my own comment. Ravenswing 13:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Round 2

@Salvio giuliano: The user appears to be back on a new IP.[188] I think a range block is required; this is being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive, now. — Czello 14:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As well as another IP with their tact Boolean set to 0. (Also fascinated at the choice of the IP linked by Czello above to un-close this discussion and telegraph their intentions) GabberFlasted (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It's now starting to become tedious... 2600:1003:b840:0:0:0:0:0/42 rangeblocked for a day. Salvio ^giuliano 15:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the fellow took a swing swings at me too [189] [190]. I'm thinking the over-under on this charming chap earning progressively longer range blocks is pretty good. Ravenswing 15:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This is becoming quite the tantrum. As proud as I am of the even more alliterative closure I dreamt up I suppose I'm now involved so I'll leave it up to someone else when the dust finally does settle and this person does finally move on with their day. Although I'm leaning more and more into placing Ravenswing's bet that this person will be back tomorrow. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, I appreciated your amazing alliterative approach to amicable admin actions. — Czello 16:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I asked ChatGPT to alliteratively summarize this case: Boldly blocking the disruptive user's deeds. OK, but not as good as yours. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:00, 30 January 2023 (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:Jodmar

TOPIC BAN

Castes and social groups. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I reported Jodmar here around two weeks back: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#User:Jodmar. Now they have again started to create the same BLP violation by replacing the well-sourced content with their unsourced/made-up detail: [191]. There's a need to either

topic-ban them from caste-related details or block them to stop this continuous disruption. Note that they have been given multiple final warnings already. - NitinMlk (talk

) 21:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Topic banned from castes and social groups. Bishonen | tålk 09:16, 30 January 2023 (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.

Disruption, personal attacks by IP

Blocked two weeks by Widr. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:28, 31 January 2023 (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.

---

2601:8C:97E:39B0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Previously blocked IP range in need of blocking, for attacking other editors, vandalising articles, referring to other editors as "classless leftist kkklowns" and "liberal scum" in edit summaries. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 29 January 2023 (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.

Ineedahouse persistently overcategorizing pages and misrepresenting their edit summaries

Ineedahouse consistently adds large numbers of categories to pages despite them being told to stop doing so if the pages are already in subcategories, and posts misleading edit summaries to disguise their activity. Examples:

• David Marr, claimed to be adding biographical information
• Plato, added several categories (many breaking
  WP:COPSEP
  ) while claiming only to be adding "aphorists"
• Martin Gardner, included an accurate edit summary, proving they know how to do this, but added a truly ludicrous number of them.
• Matthew Corbett, claimed to be adding info to a different section
• Lawrence English, claimed to be removing categories (!), but added several as well.

User received warnings in september 2021 for overcategorization: 1, 2, 3

• Recieved more feedback in April 2022 to stop overcategorizing, and May 2022
• Told to stop using inaccurate edit summaries Sept 2022, Oct 2022, Jan 2023.

When this editor receives feedback that they should stop their behavior, they stop editing entirely for a while and then resume adding many categories to pages such as this example in october.

for any other purpose. - car chasm (talk

) 06:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that

WP:BLUDGEONING quite applies here, although the other ones certainly do. Bludgeoning doesn't really refer to the amount of disruptive editing. SurfingOrca2045 (talk

) 07:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I must have misread that page before. I'll strikethrough that to not cause confusion. Thank you! - car chasm (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

User:SurfingOrca2045 Bludgeoning and forum shopping at FT/N

RESOLVED

No further disruption: no further action needed. (non-admin closure) GabberFlasted (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2023 (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.

---

So there's currently a kB, 85 diff thread over at the Fringe Thoery Noticeboard started by

WP:DROPTHESTICK despite 13 (by my current county) other editors telling him off. A timeout or at least a warning seems warranted. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:38BA:9EC8:F884:8AB0 (talk

) 23:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I've requested closure of the discussion and have moved on, until the scientific community catches up and/or the first patient is reanimated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&oldid=1136563045 SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a TBAN is probably warranted, given the attitude of the user towards the scientific evidence and

WP:FRINGE content. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 23:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I was referred to the noticeboard as the correct venue by another user at the cryonics talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACryonics&diff=1136455345&oldid=1136454064 SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Not quite; you were referred to a section currently open at

"communication, courtesy, and consideration" could do with some attention. However, since you state unequivocally that you "have moved on", I don't see a topic ban as needed as this time. Bishonen | tålk

09:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC).

"Cryonics again" was not a neutral header; "again" carries a connotation of animosity towards edits and changes to the article. "Cryonics is not a fringe theory" is a neutral title that doesn't violate

WP:NPOV and does not imply bias towards one side or the other. As I was asked to stop "bludgeoning", I didn't reply to your comment. SurfingOrca2045 (talk

) 18:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• The discussion at FT/N has been closed, and I don't see further bludgeoning or forum shopping since then. I think this report can be closed as the immediate issue has been resolved; if editors are concerned with SurfingOrca2045's ability to edit pseudoscience topics, an
  WP:AE report to that end would be more appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk
  18:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. While I would encourage SurfingOrca2045 to consider dropping the stick a bit quicker, I don't believe anything further is required here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2023 (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.

Stalking from a blocked user

61.220.170.133 blocked by Drmies for a month. Tails Wx 19:07, 31 January 2023 (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.

---

For about a year I have been stalked by a blocked user Belteshazzar (current SPI) [192] and archive [193] who is now using hundreds of proxy IPs. The user reads my latest editing history then will then immediately edit an article I have edited directly after me within minutes claiming to improve grammar. Two admins in previous SPI's have described his behaviour as creepy and harassment. The user in question Belteshazzar has been blocked on many accounts.

The user is currently using an open proxy 61.220.170.133 [194] which has not been blocked. Can an admin please block their latest IP. I am getting a bit tired of this blocked user following me around on Wikipedia every few days, editing articles I have edited. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Sorry that you have to endure this nonsense. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2023 (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.

AlphaDenied623 and Apeholder

Doesn't really matter who they are, it is certainly pointless them being here. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2023 (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.

---

• AlphaDenied623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Apeholder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In an exchange on KrakatoaKatie's user talk page ([195]), AlphaDenied623 requested that Apeholder be blocked for LTA, copyvio, and an edit war a year ago. This user's account is 2 days old and smells of

used footwear. That said, I cannot determine who the sockmaster might be, though Philip Cross seems like a good candidate based on an edit war in 2021 with Apeholder on Abby Martin. I'm bringing this here instead of SPI as it seems likely this is an LTA I am just unfamiliar with and one of you fine people will be able to identify it. EvergreenFir (talk)

19:34, 31 January 2023 (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.

TEND, NPA, COMPETENCE, possibly IDIDNTHEARTHAT and HARASS

User:User10281129 has been warned multiple times for 3RR over the past year including one 48 hour block for pushing content on pages related to Korea. Most recently the user has been pushing for a specific change at Joseon on two separate occasions, in August 2022 (rv by 3 separate users [196][197][198]) and January 2023.

In their rv edit summary they accused me of being a Chinese nationalist, an accusation they launched against another user in their unblock request in August 2022. After being warned for their behaviour, they blanked their talk page, and put me on their user page as part of an "important user list" ([199] [200]). After 20 minutes they added in parenthesis "conversation" [201] [202]. These were their immediate actions after I had given my input on their behaviour at their talk page. I'm not sure if this qualifies as

WP:HARASS

but it seems hostile considering they just accused me of being a Chinese nationalist, blanked all discussion about the topic at their talk, and now have me as the sole user link on their user page.

Behaviour at

WP:TENDENTIOUS

.

In one instance, their rv edit summary had no relation to the reason given for the change in the first place. An IP changed the link text in the language box of

WP:COMPETENCE issue I am not sure. Qiushufang (talk

) 04:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

When did i personal attack?? It meant you are not a nationalist.[203]User10281129 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't personal attack. I've always respected you. I was trying to humor you.[204]User10281129 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You said there is no such articles in other pages, so you told me not to restore it. You can't limit what I can write just because other pages don't have that. And u said u don't want a redundant. This can't be reason. What is wrong with u? I just wanted to write concisely and specifically for those who lack understanding of the system, but you continued to oppose it because the years overlapped. we need to include both tributary relations and the period of being independent. If such explanations are omitted, it's insufficient of explanations. Tributary state means it has no freedom and ruling by foreign powers. To be honest, if i was someome who dont know about the system, i would think that Joseon was just colony of China.User10281129 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say "You can't tell me what to do" lolUser10281129 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The diff associated has you claiming that You can't limit what I can write just because other pages don't have that. To me, this reads like a blatant disrespect for Wikipedia's consensus building, and while it may not be verbatim what was stated, the point still stands Regards,

Contact me | Contributions

). 06:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of that comment is that User:User10281129 was simply re-stating Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#What about l other content?. That other articles of tributary states do not call them 'independent states' IS entirely irrelevant. JeffUK 07:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This would be more likely if the user showed an understanding of how

WP:BOLD worked. The reason why other pages were brought up in the first place was because another user presented it as an argument in a previous talk discussion where three users (including myself) voiced their views. I have reiterated those same views which go beyond the precedence of other articles in the talk discussion with this user but they either do not understand or wilfully ignore this aspect of the discussion.
Calling it a discussion is an overstatement. See User_talk:Qiushufang#Hi where I mentioned the existence of the previous discussion, which they ignored while making multiple edits to illicit a response. At Joseon's talk page, User10281129 made seven consecutive replies within the span of 15 minutes before making another new section at my user talk page just to tell me to respond a mere 15 minutes after my last reply. None of the replies seem to engage with what the other side is saying. In their initial reply they mentioned Didn't Song dynasty already gone? and then repeated the same statement again] further on. As far as I am aware the Song dynasty did not exist during Joseon's existence, nobody in the talk discussion besides the user had ever mentioned it, it was not part of the edited material, and had never been mentioned in any edit summary of the article. They never expanded on what they meant. At another point they just replied okay three times in a row. I am not sure if there is a WP to describe this kind of behaviour (is badgering a thing?), but even given my full attention, it is inconceivable to expect any user to produce a coherent response beyond disengagement.
Not to mention the accusation of Chinese nationalism in August in an unban request yet I am supposed to believe that this time such an aspersion was made in good faith? Their response to comments about their behaviour was a page blanking without comment and in this incident report they also responded with a What is wrong with u?. The low quality replies, their frequency, insulting comments, and seemingly wilfull ignorance make productive exchanges with this user impossible. Qiushufang (talk

) 13:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you are making personal attack on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

How is this a personal attack? Tails Wx 23:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I felt insulted, but on second thought, I think it was not a personal attack...User10281129 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I was just trying to humor you. [205]User10281129 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned about Goryeo and Song dynasty. Because you wrote that Goryeo was a tributary state of Song dynasty even though Song was no exist at that time. Lying to accuse me, disregarding the context of what I said, is very insulting. It's unfairUser10281129 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

When did i personal attack? It meant you are not a nationalist. I didn't personal attack to anyone. And you were the one who blocked the editing with a contradictory logic[206].

I consistently insisted that "We should write in a way that others can easily understand. Leaving it out can be misleading, especially to those who don't know the system.".User10281129 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Um, this edit? Furthermore, It's just common sense that hanbok is Korean culture, but how can it be an edit warring? He is just a Chinese nationalist. Is this a case of

WP:IDHT? Tails Wx

23:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this? I didn't do anything wrong this time. I said he is not a nationalist. User10281129 (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm pointing out about the personal attack and providing the diff. I strongly recommend you read

WP:CIR. Tails Wx

01:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

okUser10281129 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. I said he is not a nationalist... check again. Tails Wx

01:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

uh...im sorry?User10281129 (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It meant he wasn't nationalist[207]User10281129 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I had already explained more than once that the logic behind not including "independent state", the part the user wishes to include and had tried to push for back in May ([12][13][14]), was based on more than just not being included in other articles. I mentioned this here, here, and here. Another mention of a pre-existing discussion where more details are given. Their reply on me not being able to restrict what they can edit based on what other articles do is IDIDNTHEARTHAT because I clearly disagreed with the independent status in specific to the subject as well. At this point it would have just been a content dispute, but then they took it upon themselves to revert again without consensus while casting aspersions which in the context of their prior history would have clearly been seen as an insult (and even without prior history), plus listing my name on their user page after comments on their behaviour (ignored and blanked). Obviously they don't believe they need my permission because they went ahead to revert anyways despite portraying it as a matter of whether or not I would allow it, nor did they care about the points I brought up or consensus. Their most recent comments in talk were only after they were reverted again by someone else.

As for the discussion about Goryeo and Song, it would have made sense in the context of a discussion about those articles, but in a discussion about Joseon it makes no sense. Even in context, their replies and meaning are hard to discern due to lack of competence in English. Their first comment was to say they want to restore the content and that it is confusing because people might confuse Joseon or Goryeo as part of China because it is listed as a tributary member. Why then did they revert to a version where it says that it is both an independent state as well as a tributary member? I mentioned the amount of mental gymnastics required to confuse being a tributary of China with being a part of China. Here they say that being a tribute state means not being independent but here they say China had no control over its tributary states. Here they say that Song did not exist in x period of time. I have no idea what relevance this has but I'm guessing they meant that if it did not exist for a part of time during which Goryeo existed, then there were no tributary relations, and that would also apply Ming and Qing for Joseon. Obviously this is not the case and it's possible that I'm mistaken as to their meaning, but that is itself a problem. I don't know what they're saying half the time. Here they accuse me of saying they said Qing had control over Joseon prior to x year. I did not say this and have no idea where this assumption comes from. Regardless of their words, their goal is to diminish the existence of tributary relations, in any form, whether it existed or not, which they eventually did by putting it in notes.

All of their replies are a straight path to instate the change they wish to be made which reeks of tendentious. It could be "Song no exist" therefore "Goryeo not tributary of Song" or "this confusing nobody knows what tributary means" therefore "list as independent state" or "you have no right to tell me what to do" therefore "I can make the change". See my initial comment on their logic around Classical Chinese and Hanmun for another example where it didn't matter what the original argument was. They invent an argument where none existed in the first place. At Goryeo they reverted once based on one argument and then revert again based on another argument (what does Song and Liao didn't exist mean?).

They also don't compromise when they believe things are in their favour. For example I made the exact same compromise that they did back in May 2022 when he was being reverted. He reverted this just as he was reverted himself back in May. Qiushufang (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The unblock request you made declaring that

personal attack. Tails Wx

01:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

i am talking about today. I didn't say he is nationalist this timeUser10281129 (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

That was not towards me but another user. Qiushufang (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Regardless, however, it stands as a personal attack. Tails Wx 01:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

i am talking about present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think, IMO, per the evidence/data collected above and

WP:DE block is needed. Tails Wx

01:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I said i didn't make a personal attack this time, but You misunderstood.User10281129 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

How did I misunderstand? You not making a personal attack "this time" doesn't mean you didn't commit personal attacks. Please stop with the

failure to get the point or else being at risk to be blocked. Tails Wx

02:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

u did misunderstand. then what is this? U replied "User10281129, what-the-what? I would also suggest reading WP:IDHT. "I said he is not a nationalist"... check again. You must have thought that I had claimed that I was not making personal attacks in the past.User10281129 (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The initial unban request rationale is also in line with their current behaviour: Furthermore, It's just common sense that hanbok is Korean culture, but how can it be an edit warring? He is just a Chinese nationalist. With emphasis on the how. I take it to mean that he thought it was not edit warring either because Hanbok is Korean culture or because he believed the other side was a Chinese nationalist. Given that they put the Chinese nationalism part as part of their current edit summary, their logic seems consistent on what they consider to be edit warring vs. not. Qiushufang (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No. I dont think like that. Absolutely NOTUser10281129 (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Please. Do not bringing the past. Thats irrelevant with this.User10281129 (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

How is just bringing past edits irrelevant with this discussion? Tails Wx 14:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Because I didnt anything wrong this time.User10281129 (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

please i strongly recommend you to read this. [208] — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

he keep insisted that there is no such articles in other pages, so i cannot restore it. That is against to the Wikipedia policy[209]. And he said he don't want a redundant. This can't be reason. At first place, He was the one who making discussion impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I consistently insisted that "We should write in a way that others can easily understand. Leaving it out can be misleading, especially to those who don't know the system."User10281129 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Please I do not think like that.User10281129 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Do you guys think i did something wrong this time?User10281129 (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC) If I didn't do anything wrong this time, I have no reason to get blocked. If I did anything wrong this time, I will accept the punishment. Please don't bringing the past and assume me that i will think like a bad guy.User10281129 (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Pinging

WP:CIR block is needed at this point. Tails Wx

14:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Rocafellla

User:Rocafellla has been avoiding leaving any edit summary in his edits or discussing any of his changes at talk pages.

I discovered this when he reverted my edits on Babylon (2022 film) twice here and here.

I decided to check his edits because he didn't leave any summary once and left him a message on his talk page after finding he has a habit of not leaving any edit summary [210], while also asking him to discuss the dispute he has over how to write the film's box office with me. He didn't respond.

I later contacted him on the article talk page by linking his name [211], but he didn't respond again. Then I finally decided to warn that I will complain to the admins [212]. There was still no response.

I've rechecked his edits and he very rarely responds. While I wouldn't have brought this if this was merely limited to a content dispute, Rocafellla doesn't seem to respond to me or anyone for that matter. Or provide explanation for his controversial changes and reverts. This is a violation of Wikipedia polices, especially

WP:UNRESPONSIVE. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk

) 03:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I've given them the full edit summary warning; not an admin but months and months without an edit summary (or using canned one-word responses) isn't acceptable and they need to say something already. Nate • (chatter) 21:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I just checked to see if they responded here or addressed this, and there have been further non-summarized edits today. Final warning given. Enough. Nate • (chatter) 21:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Scratch that (slightly)...they did type a summary for this edit, which removed the subject's race, which is pretty much a hard no in BLP editing. Reverted and hopeful they don't do so again. Nate • (chatter) 21:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you MrSchimpf. But I see they still did not respond to you and besides that one article didn't post any summaries anywhere. Nor responded to me. I've warned them on their page that I'll request admins for a block if they don't start a discussion [213]. Hopefully it doesn't have to come to that and the user starts cooperating. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

They did respond to you with an 'Ok', but that still isn't acceptable because they just think 'there I said a word close thread lol no longer in trouble'...then they post this, an unacceptable thing sourced to a forum, which they were again warned about by another user, then this; for a film editor they should definitely know what the difference between cinematography and visual style is. On their part, this is getting tenuous and @Rocafellla: needs to stop this, now. There are 108 keys on a keyboard and more than two of them should be used for an edit summary or to respond to an editor's concerns. Nate • (chatter) 22:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

They seem to be happily engaged in solitary play. WP may be like a "knowledge game" for them. "OK" is the only thing they have ever put on a discussion page (their talk); no edit summaries; unresponsive; get reverted for unsourced additions. Could be

WP:CIR.-- Quisqualis (talk

) 23:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Carolina Mahadewi Malin moving articles without discussion (again)

• Carolina Mahadewi Malin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was blocked a few days ago for moving articles en masse without discussion, explanation, or otherwise obvious reasons. (The discussion was recently archived here.) Since their block expired they've already arbitrarily moved no less than 8 articles (some of the same and some new), once again with no discussion or explanation (see their 30 January edits). They've shown zero engagement with the many warnings and reverts thus far. They also added prose in what seems to be Indonesian in this edit, so English fluency could also be an issue here.

PS: I opened this discussion at

WP:AN yesterday by mistake. I removed my comments there (there was no response yet) and re-wrote them here. I've added a new comment on the Carolina Mahadewi Malin's talk page that includes a link to this. Apologies for any confusion. R Prazeres (talk

) 00:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we just block/remove the ability to move pages? That would seem appropriate here. She(?) also doesn't do the moves properly, removing all mention of the old name. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This would be the obvious solution, if technically possible. It should be a permission.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 08:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no technical means of blocking someone just from moving pages at the moment (although I remember hearing that that might change in the future). In some cases we've topic-banned people from page moves, but that'd probably be more trouble than it's worth in this case, especially since there seem to be general competence/communicativeness concerns that extend beyond that particular area. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a pity they won't just engage with policy a bit more and leave proper edit summaries. Not all of the moves are objectively terrible, and some are actually the right choice. They just need to get with the program and engage with others.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 07:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with the sentiments above. But if they continue to do what they do with no communication, after many attempts to get them to respond, I don't see how they can contribute productively. Even if some moves might be ultimately reasonable, it's not reasonable to be vetting the half-dozen unexplained page moves they make per day. R Prazeres (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, they continue to make small but disruptive/unsourced edits across multiple article leads (the latest: [214], [215], [216]). R Prazeres (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Global ban for disruptive user "Ben Bilal"

Good faith request in the wrong place. Meta is the place to go. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

User:Ben Bilal was banned on the English Wikipedia for disruptive editing and edit warring but he has also been doing such disruptive editing and POV pushing on various different Wikipedia projects, he has already been banned on 12 separate Wikipedia projects for his disruptive edits but many Wikipedia projects he edits on are small and his edits often go unnoticed.

His disruptive behaviour has already been already been proved by this discussion over a year.

He also seems to be ban evading as I am 90% sure that this is his IP as it does the same edits as him on the same articles as him, also on various Wikipedia projects.

He also extensively uses machine translations which causes difficulty for readers to read and leaves other users to clean up his mess. The machine translations are often not good and are not up to par with the quality standards of Wikipedia.

I propose a global ban on his account as well as his IP which seems to have not been banned alongside his English Wikipedia account and to revert all his edits.

Also not sure why this topic was reverted Unfortunately9018M (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Dsuke1998AEOS (talk

) 18:28, 31 January 2023 (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.

For more information and edit-revert statistics: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/tr.wikipedia.org/Ben%20Bilal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Bilal (talk • contribs) 11:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@9ine line: possible sockpuppet of Douglas the Master

Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

---

This account keeps making

WP: Disruptive

edits and their edits appear to be similar to Douglas the Master.

There edits on articles such as:

• Leeds Castle
• Bruton
• Guildford Cathedral

And

• Welwyn Garden City

Seem similar to the other users edits. I believe they are a sockpuppet for the blocked user.

DragonofBatley (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: a ping does not satisfy the requirement (expressed in a big red box) that you notify users you name here; and that goes double for a failed ping. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on page Edward M. De Robertis

We aren't going to work out here whether Carolina is lying when she says that Edward is her father. The vandalism has been reverted. Nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

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

---

Hello, I am disclosing my COI with the subject above and reporting this on his behalf. I did a bit of research to figure out where to post this, so if this is not the correct place, please guide me on what to do. Please check the latest edit by @UCLAendowed. She has posted info that is not well supported and accuses him of being homophobic. The source she provided does not have any mention of Edward M. De Robertis, but is apparently from a woman with the same last name, that may be his daughter, but if we must follow Wikipedia guidelines, then we cannot assume just by the last name alone this is his daughter. Plus I think there are many other policies broken.

1) UCLAendowed has probably a COI and has some insider knowledge to know some things about the daughter or could be the daughter posting

2) The article itself could be considered a primary source as such info can only have come from the daughter or family

3) There is only one citation about this, so it could be considered unreliable or not notable enough to post this info

4) She also posted some stuff about the Doctor using paid editors within the article, which is not allowed per policy. EDIT: It seems a paid editor was used to create and edit the page, but he has disclosed it.

5) Such info should not be posted in the intro

6) The information is defamatory and not from a neutral point of view and violates some Wikipedia policies.

We ask that you remove the info and also lock the page so that only experienced editors and admins may edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravemess (talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(UTC)

(

Carolina de Robertis Is not Edward's daughter?--Bbb23 (talk

) 20:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment - there is a sourced link between Carolina de Robertis and her father at

Carolina de Robertis so UCLAendowed only needs to have read her books to have been able to post this information.  Velella  ^Velella

Talk   20:52, 1 February 2023

@Velella: Wouldn't that be considered primary info and unreliable? Gravemess (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2023 (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.

Rafaelosornio reverting permanently my secular editing of the article on Padre Pio

Mr. bobby (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles and talkpages relating to religious articles, broadly construed. SilkTork (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I report the user Rafaelosornio. He reverts my contributions in the article Padre Pio. Although these have a clear source, he deletes content. He is acting from a Catholic fundamentalist understanding of the article on Padre Pio. The user has already been warned several times for his disruptive editing behavior. In particular, he alters religious and psychological topics according to his extreme Catholic POV. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. However, @

vandalism, as you did here and here, even if you personally think that they did not improve the page. Doing so is uncivil and promotes a hostile editing environment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, this is both content and conduct dispute. I post facts here, give cleanly the source and the reported reverts that. The intention of this is clearly recognizable and consists in taking away the criticism of a canonized, extremely controversial person. On the talk page of the reported one can document his behavior and corresponding complaints exactly. His comments on his changes are not understandable. Simply any out of the air statements and assertions. Please take a closer look. The reported one uses permanently hagiographic sources, sources directly from the fundamentalist Catholic environment, worship websites etc...Mr. bobby (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s worth noting that Mr. Bobby has brought this to ANI twice before in the past 3 months, with neither report resulting in admin action.

I see a reasonable amount of back and forth at the

battleground behavior by referring to the version he published as “the correct version”. None of this behavior seems to merit admin action, IMHO, but a firm warning to focus on the content, not the contributor, may be in order. Retracted per this post

.

It looks like SanctumRosarium attempted

WP:RSN seems like a better fit. Either way, this has not been shown by other resolution attempts to be either urgent or intractable. EducatedRedneck (talk

) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Edited 23:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be a rehash of the same issue Mr. Bobby reported back on December 30th. It's not even been a month, and you're dragging this back here again, because you didn't get the result you wanted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1116#Behavior_of_an_editor_in_a_catholic-fundamentalist_article_Miracle_of_Lanciano

Of note, Mr. Bobby has been blocked from this article previously for edit warring over it, so I think we may be nearing a topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I was told to bring this in to avoid an edit war. Now I'm being negatively interpreted as wanting to create publicity for simply reverting changes with clean citation of sources. Is anyone here also concerned with the disruptive changes to the one I reported? With its use of purely religious sources to seemingly prove alleged facts?Mr. bobby (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And I add the following:

1. I am not against moderation of change to this article.

2. sanctumrosarium is practically a one-purpose-account. He too has responded disruptively to my secular edits.

3. Much of the article on Padre Pio was developed by me and is based on clear sources. This article is about extreme issues, including that the saint is said to have flown. I ask all reasonable contributors to pay attention to reliable sources here after all. Therefore I cannot even begin to understand the idea of a topic ban: What are the edits to the article that are to be objected to here? From the reported, on the other hand, it was insinuated several times in the editing comments that I would not reproduce the sources correctly: A very serious accusation that is not substantiated anywhere.

4. And finally: what would be the correct side/place to which I can turn with this problem and this conflict? Mr. bobby (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Bobby You cannot modify to your liking what the sources say. The German source in question clearly says: "Veratrine was once used as a paralyzing muscle insecticide, primarily against lice, but was also described by pharmacists as an "external stimulant" that renders you insensitive to pain."^[1]

And your modified version says:

Taking the alkaloid mixture resulted in insensitivity to wound pain.^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelosornio (talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, this is exactly typical of Rafaelosornio's work. He himself distorts content and at the same time insinuates distortions to me. In this case (there are numerous others) the quote is: German:

„Veratrin hingegen fand einst als muskellähmendes Insektengift, vorzugsweise gegen Läuse, Verwendung, wird von der Pharmazie aber auch als „äußerlich wirkendes Reizmittel“, das gegen Schmerz unempfindlich macht, beschrieben.“

English translation: „Veratrine, on the other hand, was once used as a muscle paralyzing insecticide, preferably against lice, but is also described by pharmacists as an "externally acting irritant" that desensitizes to pain.“

Source: ^[3]

The central part is Schürmer's reference to the pain effect. Pio ordered huge quantities of the preparation secretly and without prescription. I found this source and used it in the article.

In Revision as of 13:35, 21 January 2023 he simply deleted this important information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padre_Pio&diff=prev&oldid=1134918987

saying: „Luzzatto is not a chemist, this is not a chemical article, that goes on the corresponding page. And the other cannot be verified. Failed verification.“

Mr. bobby (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to put what veratrine is, that's what the link to the corresponding article is for, let the links do their job, one clicks on veratrine and it takes you to the article and tells you what it is.

And about the source in German, you had not placed the link to where the information was, so there was no way to corroborate what was said. Once you put the link I was able to corroborate that in the Wikipedia article you had put something different.Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be written in a Neutral POV

WP:RNPOV

"Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources".

It may not be reliable to take Luzzato's Padre Pio book as a reliable reference to explain scientific explanations about events associated with Padre Pio since Luzzato is a Historian, not a scientist. Also, there is no need to describe what

talk

) 14:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

An extremely secular perspective?

Secular is defined as the state of being unrelated or neutral in regards to religion, so that is exactly what we should strive at. But it is true that this is not a question for admins. Rather, it belongs on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The article needs to be neutral, that is, secular. Extremely secular, if possible. --Hob Gadling (talk

) 15:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The substance is said to be veratrine, not veratridine (which is obtained from veratrine). There isn't much about veratrine per se in the veratridine article; the information about how veratrine was ... described by pharmacists as an "external stimulant" that renders you insensitive to pain is not contained therein. I was notified by Mr. bobby of this discussion and I have a slight

WP:INAPPNOTE concern. I feel that I am detached enough from these issues to be able to see things neutrally. —Alalch E.

16:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Almost everything from the above contribution of Exanz 777 is to be judged critically:

1. of course everything in Wikipedia must be described from a neutral point of view. Religious belief cannot be presented as if physical facts were presented here. (Pio, according to his fans, flew for real and fought off bomber pilots...).

2. Luzzatto is a serious historian. He does not have to be a pharmacologist to be able to tell us seriously what Veratrine was used for in Pio's (!) time. (And as already said Veratrine is not the same as Veratridin).

3. An article has to explain certain facts to the reader, so that he understands the context. Blue links are not always enough. In the present case, everything is very meticulously documented with appropriate sources.

4. with the whole cast of catholic believers of these hand wounds, which are held for divine stigmata, the effect of a secretly ordered medicine is of course extremely important and of encyclopedic relevance.Mr. bobby (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Of note, NPOV does not mean we must throw out all the religious beliefs in an article. We do not treat them as factual happenings, but it also does not mean we must go to

undue length

to debunk them. That's not Wikipedia's purpose.

No, we do not need to go into excessive detail about a blue-linked topic. There's good faith arguments to be had about just how much detail needs to be given, but it is not necessary to go in-depth.

Frankly, it does sound like you're here to

debunk religious beliefs, rather than simply documenting the facts surrounding them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

21:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything you say here consists of insinuations. As has been said twice now, Veratrine is not Veratridin. So it must be explained what it is about. Nowhere is it about debunking of religious beliefs. Please prove that to me. All it is about is distinguishing (!) a religious belief system and its assumptions from the accounts of secular scholars and historians. That is exactly what is being obstructed here. My work can be seen well in the article

Miracle of Lanciano. There, a fantasy system had been compiled from the most obscure and largely falsified sources. Several contributors have worked with me to make the article now meet encyclopedic standards. Mr. bobby (talk

) 21:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It comes across that way to me as well, and very emotional at that. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"The Hand That Feeds You" has managed to push the entire discussion here in one direction with his one-sided, distorted and unsubstantiated expression of opinion. Rafaelosornio has in both articles

Miracle of Lanciano my changes constantly reverted. In both articles he leaves in fake, invented, unreliable sources, the main thing is that the claimed miracles are proven by this extremely religious „sources“. In "Miracle of Lanciano" several editors have meticulously proved for years that most of the sources were falsified (see talk page). Nevertheless, for years a fringe theory could hold on in the article. And nevertheless absurdly "The hand" demands a topic ban for me. It would make sense to give him a topic ban for this discussion. Rafelosornio's posts aim to undermine, delay and keep extreme POV sources in the article. Just take a look at his posts for once.Mr. bobby (talk

) 23:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I retract my earlier statement that Mr. Bobby only needs a warning; I am now agnostic to that point. After being warned by multiple editors, they have attempted to canvas many different editors, characterizing this thread as a “slanted discussion”, and characatrizing Rafaelsosornio as “a religious user” who is distorting content based on a religious POV. This is after being cautioned to comment on content, not editors. He has referred to User:HandThatFeeds’s post above by claiming “everything you say here consists of insinuations”, particularly odd as HandThatFeeds has insinuated nothing, and outright stated how Mr. Bobby’s actions appear.

I wonder if there’s a language barrier at play. He has said that Rafaelsosornio’s comments are “not understandable”, but I find them easy enough to comprehend. In the disputed edit regarding veratrine above, Mr. Bobby’s preferred language “Taking the alkaloid mixture resulted…” makes it sound as if he’s saying in wikivoice that Padre Pio took the mixture, for which I do not see a reliable source. I could see him intending this to mean, “In that period, the alkaloid mixture could be used to…”, which would be accurately summarizing the source.

This could easily have been resolved on the article talk page, but Mr. Bobby’s conduct comes off as moderate

ownership, as shown by statements like “Much of the article on Padre Pio was developed by me…”

.

I remain agnostic on the content dispute; religion isn’t my field, and I don’t consider myself qualified to discuss the reliability of sources or what constitutes a neutral point of view on this matter. I will say that, from what I read of Rafaelsornio’s posts, he appears to be making a civil and good faith effort, and doesn’t seem to me to be engaging in battleground behavior. Which is another reason why Mr. Bobby might wish to, as suggested above by

better the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk

) 23:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if it's appropriate to go to user's pages to enlist help in support of opposing "religious" users, as if their religion is in itself reason enough to oppose them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hob_Gadling&oldid=1135215187#Padre_Pio YouCanDoBetter (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Dirk Schümer: Der Säurenheilige. Das katholische Italien bangt: Waren die blutenden Wunden des Wundermannes Padre Pio chemische Tricks? in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Nr. 249, 26th October 2007.
2. ^ Dirk Schümer: Der Säurenheilige. Das katholische Italien bangt: Waren die blutenden Wunden des Wundermannes Padre Pio chemische Tricks? in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Nr. 249, 26th October 2007.
3. ^ Dirk Schümer: Der Säurenheilige. Das katholische Italien bangt: Waren die blutenden Wunden des Wundermannes Padre Pio chemische Tricks? in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Nr. 249, 26th October 2007.

Topic ban proposal

Given the above insistence that other editors are using fake, invented, unreliable sources, and constant

right great wrongs

rather than productively edit the encyclopedia. As this is not restricted to a single article, I'm proposing a topic ban on religious articles, broadly construed, in the hopes that he can edit productively in other areas.

• Support as nominator. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I have known Mr. bobby for a long time and he is a very reasonable editor. The key problem here is that the underlying editing pattern seems like a content dispute which it actually is not: Mr. bobby's edits are compliant with WP:RS and WP:V – they are being reverted because of that. Wikipedia is not a place for propagating conspiracy theories (e.g., that Padre Pio was able to fly or bilocate, or that he had other supernatural powers). Forcing a topic ban on an editor who removes nonsense from Wikipedia articles and edits according to Wikipedia's core content policies is unreasonable. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 21:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. For a variety of reasons, including the extreme emotionality which he apparently approaches the subject, and the circular reasoning he uses. I'm afraid this won't result in a ban, but I definitely support. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per the below comment.
  talk
  ) 23:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Here I quote voices of editors on the talk page of "Miracle of Lanciano." No statement here is from me. But it clearly shows that even invented sources were used in the article.

1: „It says that there are 2 stories about the weight: Fella and Valsecca but that they don't contradict (even though they do). It mentions Linoli (and the blood claims) and a mysterious rapport from the WHO from 1976 (that no one has ever been able to show). ( )This source should be removed.“

2. „The extract of the scientific research of WHO’s medical commission was published in New York and Geneva in 1976, confirming science’s inability to explain the phenomenon." I have never seen a source for this, no scientific publications for this miracle that would be the proof that Catholicism is true. I don't think the Higher Council even exists. This source should be removed.“

3. „It is in Italian. I don't know whether it was peer reviewed and I don't know whether it is a prestigous journal. I don't care, it has never been cited in 50 years. (and would only proof Transsubstantiation to be real) It goes against MEDRS. This source should be removed.“

4. „Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20.: is a dead link for me. Google (and google scholar) an Bing gives nothing.“

5. „I have found a copy of "source" 7 on the wayback machine: Miracles of the Church (PDF). Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Learning. 2012. p. 20. This is clearly an unreliable source. No author information. Not printed in a peer reviewed journal.“

Another user:

6. „I removed the paragraphs talking about the WHO study since it's been proven to be, in part, a fraud.“

Mr. bobby (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support. While Mr. Bobby does seem to be on the right side of things in terms of content, the battleground behavior does not seem to have responded to warnings in this thread. Despite claims in this thread, I don’t see the other editors claiming Padre Pio could fly or bilocate; that seems to be an exaggeration. What I do see is escalating battleground behavior,
  incivility which Mr. Bobby has not acknowledged much less pledged to curtail. If I did see such an acknowledgment and understanding of what behaviors could be improved and how, I would change my !vote to oppose. In the absence of any such indicator, I would be very hesitant to edit anywhere I saw him active for fear of "crossing swords"; this behavior drives away editors. EducatedRedneck (talk
  ) 23:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padre_Pio&diff=prev&oldid=875252163

In the version from this time you can read:

„People who had started rebuilding their lives after World War I, began to see in Padre Pio a symbol of hope.[14] Those close to him attest that he began to manifest several spiritual gifts, including the gifts of healing, bilocation, levitation, prophecy, miracles, extraordinary abstinence from both sleep and nourishment (one account states that Padre Agostino recorded one instance in which Padre Pio was able to subsist for at least 20 days at Verafeno on only the Eucharist without any other nourishment), the ability to read hearts, the gift of tongues, the gift of conversions, and pleasant-smelling wounds.[15]“

You find bilokation and levitation. (Some say he flew throught the air against pilots, but I did not find that in the English Wikipedia.)Mr. bobby (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

1) That diff doesn’t show what you claim it does. 2) It does not assert, in wikivoice, that Padre Pio did any of that. It asserts, in wikivoice, that his close acquaintances attested that, which is factually accurate; the acquaintances did, indeed, so attest, according to the sources. In an article about a canonized saint, I think presenting the factors that lead the church to its decision (especially identifying them as hearsay, i.e. as being by close acquaintances) is very relevant. 3) Even if it did assert supernatural powers in wikivoice, it was not by Rafaelosornio, and so is not relevant to this content dispute. 4) Even if it were to have been by Rafaelosornio, that content is still in the article now, so the argument that this dispute is because you’re trying to keep it out of the article has no weight.

Mr. Bobby, I really wish you would stop doubling down on the narrative that you were right. Even if you were right about the content dispute, this thread is about your behavior. It’s clear that you can be a very productive editor with a dedication to venerability. If we knew that you understood that your behavior was wrong, why it was wrong, and wouldn’t be repeated, I don’t think a topic ban would be necessary. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think the user is able to detach himself from his dislike of the article's subject sufficiently enough to write neutrally about it. He is consistently having the same circular edit wars with other users over and over again - for years now, and to a point where it gets really tedious.--Medusahead (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose.I regret that I got involved in arguments and can only assure that I will avoid that in the future. At the same time, I believe that I have improved the article through my contributions. Of course, I do not claim ownership of this article.Mr. bobby (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I have already blocked them once for edit warring, have them advice on how to proceed, and warned them against making personal attacks. It doesn't seem to have made much of a dent in their behavior. At this point we're left with vanishingly few options. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, you're right to talk about "them" here. This is really about two Wikipedia editors. The discussion here is exclusively about my behavior. On your advice I have posted the recurring problems from my point of view here with the consequence that only I am criticized here. You had blocked both of us.Mr. bobby (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That's because by starting this section in the way that you did you have managed to stick a nice boomerang-shaped plank in your eye, while the speck in your brother's eye that is already a known quantity, doesn't seem like "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" business in comparison. May this canvassed intercession induce in you a transverberation, such that you may repent of

wrath, and Divine Mercy might wash over you. —Alalch E.

02:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per [217], in which OP complains that another version of the subject's photo should be used, in which he looks "demonic". Also see [218], my suggestion the last time OP was here: basically that this could be handled a lot less emotionally. As someone said above, it is one thing not to want hagiography, (which is admirable, even) but quite another to actively seek to disprove other people's religious beliefs as nonsense and to portray their saints as "demonic" and supporters of Mussolini. DUE. The miracles need to be discussed in the context of his canonization, and this can be done without all this dismissiveness. Elinruby (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel there's some language barrier issue there. He probably meant to say how the undoctored image didn't look saintly enough, so it was heavily retouched. On the actual merits, the proposal is pretty reasonable: He isn't really proposing to change the image to some negative image of the subject, it's only about changing from a doctored version to an undoctored photograph (which can be retouched reasonably in a way that does not create a religious icon -- example). —Alalch E. 18:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about a language gap. That's the same image he said was demonic though, and also the same as the one we are using now. The latter has been colorized, is all, and this one has had exposure or maybe shadows adjusted. But hey, I admire your skill at AGF. The image rant seemed fairly unreasonable to me, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. He does seem to want to debunk the miracles, which do need to be discussed --neutrally-- because Padre Pio is apparently notable for being canonized, for which miracles are a prerequisite. ::See Bijli Pasi for an example of legend/myth neutrally handled imho. I don't personally care about the padre either way, mind you. I just thought the thread was iconic of an attitude. Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is iconic. But his objections are often reasonable; doesn't mean everyone is obligated to agree, however. If he would show that he understands what battleground behavior is and if he can see the irony in fixing alleged (and real) fringe religious POV while acting like an inquisitor, he should get one last chance to work in this topic area. —Alalch E. 23:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I would not be comfortable editing those articles, but OTOH I have no real interest in doing so. Those diffs are obnoxious, however. When it comes to religious beliefs we don't share, shouldn't we make certain that these are neutrally presented *as beliefs*, without insisting on trying to prove that they are unscientific or even fringe, forsooth? I hope you are right in this case. That is all, except that I realized after my earlier post that quite a lot of admin enforcement had gone into my example of neutral presentation. Hmmm. Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2023 (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.

Draft: Mike Afolarin

MOVED TO ITS GRAVE

(

Contact me | Contributions

). 21:44, 2 February 2023 (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.

---

Moved to Draft talk:Mike Afolarin

 – FormalDude (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2023 (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.

The paleontological advocate/troll is back on 2023 in archosaur paleontology

• 162.40.242.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.89.116.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 174.130.225.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I never thought I'd say this, but the troll I reported here ten months ago appears to be back. These two IPs have engaged in engregious trolling on the 2023 in archosaur paleontology page since the middle of January. Their crimes include shouting in edit summaries, calling paleontologists "b*ms" adding personal comments to mainspace, deleting information because they personally find it boring, and making up fake taxa with trolling author names and sources (which are of course unrelated). The fake taxon names they mentioned were originally added to

WP:BEANS I will not name them nor disclose the hints I used to make that connection (although you are free to email me if you want to know). Atlantis536 (talk

) 08:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

added 174.130.225.79, who is adding personal comments to the page. I suggest a rangeblock or page protection. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Legal threat from IP

/64 blocked 72 hours by Orangemike per

WP:NLT. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions}

) 02:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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

---

• 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Blatant, albeit probably not serious: [224].

This user has been making some mildly-incivil remarks of late as well, but the legal threat is plenty actionable. --Sable232 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2023 (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.

Category spamming

BLOCKED

Linguist111 (talk

) 05:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

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

---

WP:CATSPECIFIC), among other category-related disruption such as treating categories as articles and adding the Featured picture category to various files. This has persisted through a number of warnings from myself and another user ([225][226][227][228][229]). Disruption is currently ongoing. CMD (talk

) 03:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 31 hours, though it looks like it's a reasonably static IP. Canterbury Tail talk 03:31, 28 January 2023 (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.

BLOCKED AGAIN

Blocked two weeks by Widr. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:11, 3 February 2023 (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.

---

Round 2

@Canterbury Tail: Does seem static, with the activity immediately reoccurring could a longer block be placed? CMD (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for two weeks, no further action is needed from this report. CMD (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2023 (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:EEng

Points made. No administrative action needed. (non-admin closure) JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

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

---

User:EEng has doubled-down on their incivility and hostility in a discussion around deleting or userfying one of their essays here: [[230]] ("you must be fucking joking. What a bunch of snowflakes are gathered here.") which I feel is an unambiguously personal attack, I have never seen language or comments like that directed at another user on here. I asked if they felt that was appropriate, hoping they would take the opportunity to strike it, but they claim to "think it's perfectly appropriate", along with making a number of other less than civil responses to myself and others here [[231]]. (For the record, not currently able to add the ANI-notice to their talk page as it's crashing my browser! I will keep trying a few different approaches) JeffUK 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm involved at the other discussion, but this seems like an overreaction that is unlikely to be found actionable here. Eeng's response is coarse, but understandable given the highly uncharitable reading of the essay presented by JeffUK at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't call it "Wiki". Frankly, both the nomination of the essay and bringing this to ANI are a waste of the community's time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I nominated the article because it was uncivil, another editor asked me to explain why I felt it was uncivil, they chose to edit the essay to resolve many of the issues I raised. Apart from being 'edits to an essay' so not exactly useful, I don't see how that's anything other than how we're supposed to behave on here. I don't see how calling that a waste of time is either accurate or helpful to this discussion. JeffUK 18:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Don't look for troubleand act surprised when you get itStep back and findan articleto editBurma-shave

  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't use that bright red font. Burma Shave.^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I find JeffUK's interpretation of the essay pretty severe, and EEng's response was obnoxious, but apart from the curmudgeonly griping about "snowflakes" I'm not seeing anything particularly egregious. Foul language is frowned upon, but as long as it's not part of a direct attack on someone it doesn't usually rise to the level that meets with action here. I left OP some suggestions for possible counter essays in the MfD. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Typical fare it seems like. I don't see it as a personal attack. 18:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 18:55, February 3, 2023 (UTC)
• I, too, have taken part in the MfD discussion, and what's more, I expect to be called a friend or enabler of EEng. But I agree with Rosguill and Rhododendrites. There's a degree of pearl-clutching in the way that the MfD nomination was worded, and it is somewhat snowflake-y, and it looks to me like it's heading towards a decisive "keep" consensus. JeffUK may "have never seen language or comments like that directed at another user", but I've seen worse directed at me, and at lots of others over the years. That doesn't make it OK, however, so JeffUK, let me say to you that I'm sorry that you feel hurt by the comments there and I hope that it doesn't discourage you from continuing to contribute here. And we all really should make an effort to treat one another more kindly. But EEng's comments do not require administrator action, and should not result in it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  • From the
    WP:SNOWflakes to !vote "keep" at the MfD. --Tryptofish (talk
    ) 19:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Should EENg have used course language and called someone a name like "snowflake". Probably not. Still, the entire MFD nomination feels antagonistic, and per Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear, if you're going to antagonize someone, you can expect them to react. So, no, EEng should not have said those mean words. However, having said that, and I want to be clear, he should not have said those words, that doesn't mean we have anything to do here. EEng, be better. Carry on. --Jayron32 19:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• EEng is very much not my cup of tea but this is a petty squabble that should never have been escalated to ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  For the record you're not my idea of java jive either. I say that with greatest of respect, of course. EEng 20:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  At this rate, this is becoming a Tea Party. (The link to a DAB page is deliberate!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've had far worse things directed at me, such as an editor telling me I should kill myself, and little has been done about it (not that I asked for anything to be done). I avoid using the word "snowflake" myself, because I have most commonly seen it used by people who demand privileges for themselves that they would deny to others, but can see little wrong with EEng's behaviour.
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 19:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  FTR, I too avoid using the word snowflake, which gives you an idea how hurt and otherized I felt when a newbie who calls Wikipedia "wiki" opened an MfD on my essay on not calling Wikipedia "wiki". EEng 20:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I came here to look up Frisco on wiki, but took a wrong turn. 23 skidoo! Dumuzid (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I won't close this myself, because I have a history of positive interactions with EEng, and could be accused of bias. I will say that this should be closed without any action. Calling other people a bunch of snowflakes is not ideal, but humans gonna human - if we required all of our long term and talented contributors to be uniformly and consistently perfect, we would essentially have to shut up shop. EEng, please dial it down a smidgen; no admin action required. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  If you like I can do something to alienate you somehow, and then you can close this with a clear conscience. EEng 20:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the merits of the dispute, which I find somewhat minor, I'm somewhat concerned that we're all acknowledging sub silentio that EEng is something of an asshole sometimes and that he's not going to take anyone's advice about it. It helps that (a) he generally has the project's best interests at heart and (b) he's usually right on policy. Still. If my conduct was defended on the grounds of "well, I've had death threats directed at me", I'd consider that grounds for introspection. Okay, that off my chest, EEng can feel free to post shitty memes and act the gadfly. I just thought someone ought to say it. Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  You say I'm something of an asshole like it's a bad thing. EEng 00:09, 4 February 2023 (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.

Concerted sockpuppeting/canvassing at the Vector 2022 RfC

Someone (or several someones) is trying to flood the RfC with oppose !votes from IPs and SPAs with extremely similar form and content, such as this trio: [232] [233] [234], and the successive entries from this editor, identifying himself as "James M", and this editor, identifying themselves as "JD M". I may be an admin myself, but I don't have any experience dealing with this, so I urgently ask you:

• What do we do to get this to stop? Should we semi-protect the page?
• If I had to guess, I'd blame this ip, who showed up to a discussion about this attack enraged about people !voting support and saying the whole RfC is a joke. Whether that guy or someone else is behind this, how do we get him to stop instead of carrying on with his grudge indefinitely?
• Should this issue be taken up elsewhere, too? Is opening a sockpuppet investigation called for? Reporting as ongoing vandalism?
• Should suspect !votes be deleted? Tagged? Moved to the talk page? Otherwise handled in a way that doesn't result in being deservedly flamed to a crisp for messing with other peoples' comments?
• My #¤%& computer's crashing like every 20 minutes, real sorry to pass the buck, but could someone whose isn't please step in on this? --Kizor 21:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Cf. also

Avilich to said accounts' and IPs' comments to warn that they are suspicious. Æo (talk

) 22:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of IP editors and new accounts showing up on both sides for this RfC. This is the problem with having anything on Wikipedia come down to a straw poll, especially something that's this widely publicized. That being said, it does look as though sockpuppetry might be going on, though semiprotecting the page or ECing it will damp participation even further. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think tagging is a productive use of time in this situation. Anyone who is going to be closing that RFC will be more than aware the situation. Additionally, most IPs are dynamic so it stands to reason that they would have made few edits outside of that discussion. Lastly, getting into the tagging game is going to lead to even more conflict, considering there are plenty of IPs and new users on both sides. We'd have to tag all or none. If we're going to try to tag only suspicious responses, just leave that to the closer to judge. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And more not-too-coherent ranting from an IP about how this is all the support side's fault. --Kizor 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything really to do here. The RfC has been publicized in a couple places outside wikipedia, a sizeable percentage of the comments on that RfC are saying it doesn't matter when any of us editors think, it should be what unregistered editors think, and then when unregistered editors show up we, what, ask for semiprotection or EC-confirmed? That seems silly. Closer will just have to evaluate. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Kizor, I disagree with your selective removal of SPA tags. Please either remove them all, or self revert and leave them all. You shouldn't be unilaterally making a decision between good and bad SPAs: either we tag all the SPAs, or we don't tag any of them. Levivich (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• The topic of the RFC primarily concerns the appearance for IPs and non-regular users (because the logged-in regulars have a preference setting they can use). As such, it would make the RFC even less representative of the people it affects if we tried to prevent IPs and non-regular users from participating. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• I believe this RFC needs a little supervision by Checkusers, there are a lot of accounts that appear to be Single purpose account or sockpuppetry. Yep, we all and always saying that RFC is not a vote, but... Lemonaka (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Just saw this. Lemonaka, this change particularly impacts unregistered readers/editors, because they can't change their settings and can only toggle a few things in the particular screen they're looking at. Some of the single-issue accounts are openly explaining that they registered for that reason. Both they and those who participate as IPs should be allowed to have their say; it affects them more than us. In any case, whoever closes it should be trusted to appropriately weigh the arguments made. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir Yes, I've already found that. I have made a comment about such a situation, but if WMF treat it like a vote, some supervision will have to be done to prevent RFC from hijacking. Moreover, I believe there might be someone giving more than one !vote on that topic. I don't have access to the CU tools, but as topic getting heater and heater, you know, always... Lemonaka (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Disclosure of WMF employee email outreach

Note that the WMF has disclosed that one of them (against company instructions) has canvassed people to vote in the RfC[235]. While the email makes a perfunctory bow to no canvassing, vote however you like, everything else in it screams please support our Vector22 and vote oppose!

Fram (talk

) 12:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@

Fram Oh, fucking shit, please archive it.... It may disappear soon and you may get banned if .... Lemonaka (talk

) 14:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Relax, it was (like I said) disclosed by the WMF, not found by me. See

Fram (talk

) 14:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The guidelines and some of the wording in the letter from the Wikimedia Foundation left me with a chilling feeling. FWIW, calling RFC a vote and something like that. At one time I dealt with the WMF and it saddens me to think that they may be not only incompetent, but intentional.
I think the arbitration committee needs to take action in this case. Lemonaka (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur. WMF has its place, but putting its thumb on the scales is absurd. Buffs (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@

Fram I believe WMF Office has immunity to Checkuser tools or something like that, who dare to check a WMF staff. So, if there are enough logout socks, they can hijack any consensus as a vote. What a joke that WMF itself is socking? Lemonaka (talk

) 10:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka, where did any of that come from? This isn't about the WMF socking, this is about an employee canvassing (I'm an Arbcom member, we know the whole background). WMF accounts do not have "immunity" to checkuser, and there's no reason to check them anyways. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moneytrees Sorry, my mistakes. I used to believe that an account from WMF cannot be checked. I will calm down for a while, sorry for assuming bad faith against WMF staffs. Lemonaka (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the WMF should get its people to learn enwiki policy, if they're going to have any direct or indirect interaction with enwiki in their role as WMF employees. Here we see

WP:NOT at minimum. CharredShorthand.talk;

04:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I speak for many users when I say "What the hell?..." Buffs (talk)

attack-page against identifiable living minor person

User indeffed, page oversighted. (non-admin closure) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:52, 3 February 2023 (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 German-language content of the ostensible userpage User:Matyas.Brooch is an attack against an identifiable living real person, Micha Gempeler[236], likely still a minor.

I propose deletion and banning of the responsible user-account. --Túrelio (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Done, thanks. Though probably best to avoid quoting the material if you come across anything like this in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:06, 3 February 2023 (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.

Metro2fsb

Drmies indeffed them. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:08, 4 February 2023 (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.

---

• Metro2fsb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think Metro should be indefinitely blocked as a mixture of disruptive editing and

WP:INVOLVED

. The user's account was created on July 23, 2021, their first edit on October 10, 2022. They've made 597 total edits, which includes 16 deleted edits. They've made only 224 edits to article space. Their primary content focus appears to be Russian articles.

The best place to start is to look at the history of their Talk page, which shows a user seriously out of control. Before I blanked it and left a warning, it looked like this, which I called, with some measure of understatement, an "unholy mess". If you scroll down that version of their Talk page, you'll notice that the user awards themself barnstars. They also attack admins, sometimes by name and sometimes just generally. One of the things they were unhappy with was the deletion of their userpage at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Metro2fsb because it looked like an article. They then redirected their userpage to their Talk page (since undone) and made their Talk page look like a disaster, as well as at times like an article.

incompetence. Very confusing at best. That same page had been tagged by an IP for speedy deletion, and Metro notified the IP of the speedy deletion tag here

as if the IP had created it, and further disrupted the IP's Talk page after that.

Finally, Metro posted this message to an LTA who hasn't edited since 2019 (reverted by me), asking about a Talk page the LTA had "created" (not exactly) back in 2018 and whether the LTA was "still editing".

I'll stop here as finding diffs is tiring. Hopefully, I've provided enough for others to get the picture.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, they copied my user page. At least for the top of this mess of a userpage. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 accusations are empty of any serious policy violations.

I want to point out the aggressive edit history of User:Bbb23.

Quote: You transformed your Talk page into an unholy mess. I've blanked it. Your Talk page exists for others to communicate with you and for you to respond. From now on you must use your Talk page in the appropriate manner, or you risk being blocked. [237]

Quote: Undid revision 1137299633 by Metro2fsb (talk) you are a hair's breadth from being blocked [238]

For this edit:

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Checkuser.svg This user has checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bbb23&oldid=953877200

I note that on this page, it shows this editor has been editing for 14 years. I am sure that User:Bbb23 has made some admin friends which will happily block me.

I can mention

Doctor Lisa, a page in which I had elected as a good article, and I was working on actively when he/she decided to start attacking me.[239]

I see the writing on the wall, some editors such as User:Bbb23 can do and say whatever they want with impunity.

That is why there is such harsh criticism of the way editors are treated on Wikipedia.

Metro2fsb (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Here we go again, their talk page is a "unholy mess" again. Yeah, a

WP:DE block is needed at this point. Tails Wx

00:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Au contraire, Metro2fsb, severely disruptive users are too frequently handled with kid gloves, which is why some editors have been disrupting things for way too long. I mean, "WTF" is an acronym that comes to mind. And besides all the weirdness in user space (not just your own), I cannot find how your edits improve our project--and I just reverted your YouTube-supported additions on Alexander Gordon (journalist). This has gone on for long enough, and your recent reverts indicate as much. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As part of their pattern, Metro notified me of this discussion on my Talk page (since reverted by another user).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2023 (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.

BennyV123

OP blocked by DatGuy. Schazjmd (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2023 (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.

---

Abuse of power. Reverse’s edits on baseless claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:A302:C00:5CB:7594:1B94:F486 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This IP has been vandalising the Ana Navarro article, and attempted to vandalise my user page [240]. Bennv123 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Baseless complaint. Any competent editor would have reverted the edits made by the OP, which consisted of changing "republican" to "democrat" in Ana Navarro, even in the titles of references. Schazjmd (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2023 (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:Heavy Chaos

This user claims to be a new user and and is leaving extremely

WP:BATTLEGROUND comments such as [241] [242] [243] [244]. Attitude is not compatible with collaboration and user seems to believe discussion is not necessary for them. They also misrepresented their edits and claimed they were simply reorganizing the material when they were actually removing content, then said it was "Small potatoes" and let's move on[245]. I tried to tell them they need to discuss their edits and they claimed discussion already happened prior to their arrival so that they do not need to. I do not believe I need to discuss what's already been said on this talk page for years [246] I'm more stating what I intend to do, and a lot less asking for comment. [247] Andre🚐

20:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Your participation hasn't been honest. You should answer those charges. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you referring to? You accused me of obstructing the page for years when my first edits to the page were in October 2022. [248] What exactly am I dishonest about? Andre🚐 20:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

And now this is third page that you have redirected attention. My user talk page, The NPOV message board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Trickle-down_economics), and this. You explicitly say you won't answer the direct questions put toward you on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trickle-down_economics), then start making noise anywhere else. This is grossly dishonest. You are playing an attrition game to get what you want. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This thread is to flag your behavioral issue to admins. The NPOV noticeboard is to flag the discussion on the talk page of the article. And yes, you also have your own talk page where I have warned you. This is not dishonest or forumshopping. Andre🚐 20:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Well if Andrevan didn't have a convincing argument before they certainly do now... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Please see more indication of battlegrounding,
  WP:IDHT and an intention to edit war on the related NPOVN thread that I started prior to this one[249] Andre🚐
  01:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Due to the effort of about six contributors who decided it was time to start making edits instead of keeping talking about it, it is now an objectively better article, especially in the lead in. Compare the current version, to the version that I first saw. And this came from editing, not rehashing months and years old arguments. Sometimes you just have to pull the trigger. A volley of edits after that much talk will produce much more than any further talk ever could. Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  There are a bunch of edits being made now that are productive due to the post that I made on the NPOV noticeboard. Which you accused me of dishonesty and forumshopping. Do you withdraw those accusations? Andre🚐 21:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  No, I steadfastly claim still that your history on that page shows a general unwillingness to make any improvements for nebulous reasons. An strongarming me as you did appeared desperate almost. Like some terrible harm would happen to you if I edited the page. Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is a

  WP:AGF and in general incompatible with collaboration. Andre🚐

  21:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently not given this? Andre🚐 21:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This thread may be automatically archived soon, given inactivity, and it is the first incident for this user, where ANI is a last resort for intractable problems. But that should not be taken as an endorsement of such behavior. If such behavior continues it can and will lead to another thread and/or additional sanctions and blocks. It is good faith to assume that an apparently new user is a new user. In the absence of a bright line violation after warnings, this thread may be archived without any action, but again if this does happen, it does not excuse or allow such behavior as personal attacks, alleging bias without evidence, questioning the motives of apparently good faith contributors, or edit warring against consensus without discussion. Andre🚐 21:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed site ban for User:Cyberpunk2077JohnnySilverhand

ALREADY BANNED

WP:3X applies. Even if it didn't, In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, that editor is considered to be de facto banned. Think it's safe to say no one's unblocking Jonny anytime soon. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}

] (she|they|xe) 23:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

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

---

This is probably long overdue at this point, but I would like to propose a site ban for User:Cyberpunk2077JohnnySilverhand. This guy is an extremely prolific sockpuppeteer and LTA, but has still not been formally site-banned. Partofthemachine (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Noting
  WP:3X. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs
  ) 11:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Marked on user page per 3X. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 11:48, 4 February 2023 (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.

Massmediazealot and refactoring talk pages

BLOCKED 31 HOURS / 72 HOURS / 1 WEEK

Talk page access revoked to prevent Massmediazealot from digging even deeper hole. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:56, 4 February 2023 (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.

---

Are changes to other's talk page postings such as this, this, this or this appropriate?

MrOllie (talk

) 19:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Their edit to TPO and their personal attacks are definitely disruptive. Firestar464 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

How?

—Massmediazealot (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Massmediazealot here. I support this question. I do not support @

MrOllie's passive aggressive

mischaracterization.

I will summarize my position here:

WP:Talk page guidelines#Examples of appropriately editing others' comments states: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is 'sometimes' allowed" and "Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion."

WP:Refactoring talk pages (also referred to as sectioning) states: redrafting/revising talk pages is useful to "improve the clarity and readability of a page; remove off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material; restructure discussions for clarity; and relocate material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate."

The

MrOllie

claims.

I admit I am a bit of a

MrOllie

objected so I let them be archived since he prefers that.

None of my (very minor) edits changed the meaning of anything that was written, nor did they obscure the intent of their original author. I edit thoughtfully (I admit I may be a bit

MrOllie

. He has spent so much of his time going through and "repairing" my harmless edits.

Is it really so bad to add (minimal) clarity and readability to a talk page when it has no negative impact?

The small edits I made to the

MrOllie does not leave edit summaries. He is just trolling me with personal attacks

.

—Massmediazealot (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for talkpage disruption after being asked to stop, for personal attacks, and for general wikilawyering. Acroterion (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Remarkably lenient! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Give them time to dig a deeper hole, they're doing themselves no favors with their unblock request. I blocked them before I saw their badly-considered response here, or it would have been longer. Acroterion (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hole dug, block extended (twice) and talkpage access revoked. When people ask you to stop making personal attacks, it's best to actually stop doing it. Acroterion (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, between this and Massmediazealot's talk page. Heck, all of this could've been avoided if after being told to stop refactoring other editors' talk page comments, they actually stopped doing it, instead of kicking and screaming about how the OP is Doing! Nothing! But! Troll! Me! (What, on the fewer than 50 mainspace edits Massmediazealot has made in the last two-plus years?) Ravenswing 22:05, 4 February 2023 (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.

IPv6 blocked 31 hours, should be indef

After three edits at trans-related articles, including this bit of transphobic-cum-antisemitic ugliness, IP user 2600:4040:9AEA:2B00:D5EE:5D96:DE84:55E5 (talk · contribs) received a uw-v1 and a 31-hour block (different messages, same 04:38 timestamp) from Materialscientist.

I'd like this to be raised to an indef block. If I had the power, I'd make it a global site-wide ban. I see no reason for second chances, after a comment like that. If 31 hours is the correct call here, I'd like to better understand why. (Non-admin.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

IP addresses are often dynamic and reused/shared by many people. So, extending the block would most likely prevent innocent people from editing and do nothing to prevent the person using the address to make the edits you are reporting from being able to continue making inappropriate comments. 2600:1003:B842:B0DA:21AF:9590:2A95:7A72 (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I've heard that claim many times, and yet when I do CIDR-range contrib history checks on troublesome IPs, I never actually see that happening, unless I widen the range out of all proportion. What actual data do we have that blocking an IPv6 would affect anybody else? Please point me to the page about this, if there is one. Mathglot (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

For mobile IPv6 addresses, simply restarting the mobile device will almost always get a new address outside of the original /64. So, to be effective the block has to use a bigger range. 2600:1003:B842:B0DA:21AF:9590:2A95:7A72 (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine, make it bigger. Special:Contributions/2600:4040:9AEA:2B00:D5EE:5D96:DE84:55E5/48. Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Try 2600:4000:0:0:0:0:0:0/24 which is the block assigned to Verizon that contains the address that the abusive editor was using. Verizon has more and larger blocks of addresses too. Additionally, some carriers pool multiple blocks to serve the same customer base. 2600:1003:B842:B0DA:21AF:9590:2A95:7A72 (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that making the range bigger will also increase collateral damage. Partofthemachine (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I chose /48 above, for which there is no collateral damage. But isn't the whole issue of dynamic IPs being looked at by WMF somewhere? As I recall, pt-wiki experimented with (or maybe implemented?) some restrictions on IPs, not sure what happened with that. But getting back to the original question: why not indef this IP at least?Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of any benefit of indefinitely blocking a single IP in a range of dynamic IPs. Any user on that network would be hit by that block, but very rarely. —Kusma (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This "I'm offended by what some random customer on a huge ISP said, so we should forever block the dynamic IP that they used to access the internet" is not going to happen. It will just inconvenience the next person who's randomly allocated that IP address. Range blocks are typically a possibility, especially for IPv6, but there are times when they're appropriate and times when they're not. In particular, it's pointless to call for things like "we should forever block the company that this vandal used to access the internet so nobody from New York City can ever access Wikipedia again in case someone from there says something offensive". Please don't suggest things like this because some clueless admin who doesn't understand how the internet works might actually do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

All right I won't, but I'm going to start with the assumption that you were equally offended by what this random customer said, and that had that edit been from a registered account, you would support an indef or stronger measures. So does this mean, that because they're not registered, we just throw up our hands and give up? What tools do we have, otherwise? Maybe pt-wiki was right. Mathglot (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that next time they edit they might be on a completely different IP range, and that whoever uses this IP range next might be a completely different person, do you have any suggestions yourself? Indef blocking what is effectively a random range, as you initially suggested, obviously won't work. Other than just whack-a-mole, I really don't think there's any way to stop this kind of thing other than preventing logged-out editing altogether. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I will happily block any and every account or IP address that makes an edit like that. Normally, 31 hours is long enough for them to get bored or for the IP address to be reassigned. If it's not, we can block for longer; if they come back under under a different IP address I'll happily block that one. But I don't find it offensive. Partly because (sadly) I've seen much worse, but mostly because after 12 years as an admin and 23k blocks, I've realised that some people write things just for the shock value (aka "the lulz") and that getting upset about it

is giving them what they want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

20:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to wonder though, why is the "default" initial block for IPv4 and IPv6 the same? Apart from inertia, that is? A too-long block on a IPv4 isn't just pointless, it has a risk of being harmful. The address has a higher likelihood of being reassigned to some innocent user. But the IPv6 space is huge. The probability has got be lower. So shouldn't the "default" block length for an IPv6 /64 doing something that would get an account indeffed, be at least a bit longer than for an IPv4? Obviously not indefinite; the probability isn't zero. But why not a week or two? I realize that it's up to individual admins, and this would be an exercise in cat-herding, but it's worth considering. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

To turn your question around, why? If we block for 31 hours (which was conceived as 24 hours plus one school day; you'd be amazed how many vandals are just bored schoolkids/university students; just compare AIV on a Sunday to a Monday!) and they move on, problem solved. They'll probably get bored after far less than than 31 hours and the block is no longer preventing anything. If they don't get the hint, the block lengths can be increased exponentially (I block any IP returning from a 31-hour block for at least a week, then at least a month for a third block). Leaving an IP blocked when there's nobody on the other end doesn't accomplish anything, even if the odds of it affecting somebody else are small. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the harm in a medium-term block (say 1 week to 1 month) of an IP that it turns out that no one is using. It's an entry in a database. If they don't come back so what? But not every ISP is Verizon, and sometimes they do come back. Then the block has accomplished something, after all. IP blocks are very short to protect the next user of the IP, and situation just isn't the same with IPv4 and IPv6. Again, not suggesting that any IP be blocked indef. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

(

don't feed the trolls

, but if I can make just one important distinction between that and what you said about "getting upset about it is what they want" which is mostly correct but misses one crucial element (the payoff): a troll wants to derail, stir chaos, and make the conversation about them, and—crucially—to do so in discussion forums where they see the outrage happening and the conversations disintegrating, which is the "lulz", and where getting users to quit the board entirely in disgust is the grand prize and ultimate payoff, so having the conversation, calmly, *outside* their view where they won't see it, isn't feeding them with our upset our outrage, it's figuring out calmly how to stomp on them, and, hopefully, how to poison their mole holes, rather than waiting, helplessly, for them to pop out of one of them again, which leaves them in charge of the amount of work and energy required of well-intentioned editors to deal with them. I greatly appreciate your 23k blocks and everything else you and others do to keep things from being even worse than they otherwise would be, but maybe it's time for stronger measures, which as a corollary would also lighten your load in that one area at least. DENY is definitely key, but let's strengthen our tools as well. I do think the amount of time we all spend dealing with them is increasingly untenable.

@Boing, I do have some suggestions. I'm developing a VPI suggestion in response, and will post a link when done.

I delved a bit into pt-wiki to remind myself what they did, and indeed, IP's are now restricted from mainspace editing on pt-wiki (per pt:WP:IP^[English]), although they can edit talk pages, help pages, since this discussion^[English] in October 2020 (originally proposed here.^[English]) Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The single biggest thing that would poison the mole holes would be the ability to target a block at a device instead of an IP address. I can change my IP address with a trivial effort because IP addressing in the UK is ... interesting. I can just reset my router, connect to my phone, disconnect my phone from my WiFi, etc, before I even have to think about Tor, proxies, or VPNs, but the number of physical devices I have access to is much smaller. I'm not sure how feasible it is (it hasn't been done in 20 years of Wikipedia so that might be my answer) but we have cookie blocks now so it might not be science fiction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That would involve the same Dark Arts as employed by advertisers and other internet lowlifes. It would mean endlessly keeping up as browsers and users come up with new methods to defeat these techniques. It would mean using sophisticated method to track people who explicitly asked not to be tracked. Even if it's possible, do you really want to go down that road? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:SOCK, and don't imagine that would see much pushback. But I've yet to see that come up. It would require a strange combination of someone partly turning over a new leaf (i.e. new conduct isn't blockable) but somehow getting tied to their disruptive past. But I dunno. I'd probably support some language, somewhere, to the effect of "Users who have been temporarily blocked on an IP for highly disruptive or inflammatory conduct that would result in an indefinite block of an account may be treated as if they are under an indefinite block"—but at the same time I think that might be more trouble than it's worth. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}

] (she|they|xe) 00:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

(I'm subscribed) Thanks for this, Tamzin, and everyone. I'm just scratching my head and trying to figure out whether we can somehow bootstrap this into some kind of better way of handling this type of issue, and I appreciate all the thoughtful responses so far. I've taken

this proposal; your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk

) 00:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Blatant sockpuppetry

BLOCKED

IP blocked 1 month by Girth Summit. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:02, 5 February 2023 (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.

---

Again at the article Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting the sockmaster I reported a few weeks ago has returned (see the report here). The edit was made by an IP that removed the same section they disagree with (number of injuries) using the same language ("Pointless section"). Please block them. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No one will review this? Okay, I guess. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 17:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar: Girth Summit blocked the IP for 1 month. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Please revoke TPA of blocked user

Crazy IP's TPA revoked by Ponyo. Tails Wx 22:47, 7 February 2023 (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.

---

2601:647:5f01:de50::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going crazy on the talk page of 2601:647:5F01:DE50:8DC:D004:79FB:4731 (talk · contribs). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 7 February 2023 (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.

Scabab and box office figures

BLOCKED INDEF

Blocked indefinitely for

block evasion. Further comments on User talk:Scabab. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}

] (she|they|xe) 05:23, 5 February 2023 (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.

---

Scabab (talk · contribs · count) has been citing this single link in four different articles to support information regarding box office: Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods, Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection 'F', Dragon Ball Super: Broly and Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero. The problem is that the information cannot be verified by the reader with that simple link. I already brought up the issue with this site here and here. However, I also noticed that it is not the first time that editors have issues with the edits of Scabab regarding box office stuff and sourcing; there are at least two previous discussions: [250] [251] Xexerss (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This just seems like a troll. Has not responded kindly to this criticisms in the past (as both these diffs show). This seems less like a dispute resolution issue and more a combo of failing to cite these apparent sources they speak of and inability to learn from mistakes.

One good thing is because of his specific focus, any socks this guy uses are gonna be easy to spot. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I think so. It's clear that the user doesn't care about policies and guidelines and just makes edits the way they deem correct. I would revert their edits myself in these articles, but they would probably do the same and I don't want to be engaged in an edit war. Xexerss (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I took the time to add (verifiable) sources to these four articles. I request some input on it if the user re-incurs in adding original research content to the articles. Xexerss (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

They are verifiable as well as hugely outdated and incorrect. I'll only ever put the correct number. Scabab (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Scabab: Ok, so it seems that you still don't get it. The objective of Wikipedia is to have reliable and verifiable sources that can confirm the info to which they are attached when someone accesses to them, not to keep updated figures just for the sake of keeping them updated and use any source available out there that you think that can work and you consider enough. What you deem "outdated and incorrect" and "correct" is totally irrelevant; you've insisted on adding ambiguous, self-published and generally poorly sourced links to articles, ignoring any guideline, policy and warning that have been told to you, keeping on making edits however you want. Xexerss (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I added the source. It's not my fault other people don't subscribe to see the information that's there on the site. Adding a source that can be confirmed means nothing when it's factually incorrect like the ones you're adding.Scabab (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, you could add a different source that has the same information (if such source exists) and can be accessed for free. If it's reliable infomation, this source should exist. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 00:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Scabab: If it's so important to you to keep the figures updated and use any unreliable source that you think is fine anyway, like Sportskeeda or Anime Hunch, then you could edit the Wikia of these films. It has been explained several times to you about Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth with no understanding on your part. Xexerss (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Now this user insists on citing unreliable self-published websites and blogs like Anime Hunch; Erzat and Sportskeeda. The later is already listed as unreliable on two WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Unreliable sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources. Xexerss (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

He also removed warnings from his talk page. Timur9008 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This just needs to stop. Putting forward a TBAN on movies for Scabab. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 21:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This user's attitude clearly falls under

WP:NOTHERE. They don't recognize their fault and don't even (at the very least) cite their sources in the right way, adding bare links with errors to articles. On top of that, they have the nerve to demand that other editors change their unreliable sources for better ones to support the content that they deem correct. As I pointed out above, Scabab has a long-term history of disruptive behavior, so I'm still wondering why they haven't received any sanction yet. Xexerss (talk

) 01:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point, they've hit their final warning on their talk page. Any further attempts to insert invalid sources, and I'd say

WP:AIV is the right venue to have them blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

18:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

He has stopped edited since January 29, so let's hope that continues. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 19:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

They haven't stopped and they're still making (with little discretion) the same edits with IPs like this 89.242.61.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or this 2.98.150.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Xexerss (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If no admin acts on the sock-puppetry accusation here, you could also try

WP:SPI. 100.36.106.199 (talk

) 11:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I've asked User:ferret to have a look at this. Timur9008 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not have time to evaluate this case right now. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Please, it's been over a week and the user keeps on making the same edits without any intention of changing their behavior. Xexerss (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2023 (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.

Spam, Vandalism and Bullying By Native Tribes

OP/IP BLOCKED

OP infinitely blocked for edit warring and personal threats. Related IP blocked one week. Affected pages now watched by several admins. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I have investigated a pattern of Spam, Deceptive Intelligence, Vandalism and Bullying from editors who have edits, data and affiliations with Federally recognized Tribes. The pattern leads towards bashing tribes that are simply State Recognized, specifically tribes who have never sought government assistance. The edits this group has made read like Russian anti-defitions of America

Starting with edits by user:Yuchitown on the Sappony page. He writes: "If a search yielding no results ("Sappony search". US Department of Indian Affairs. Retrieved 3 February 2023.) is not allowed, I can remove it." This statement is written because all of the edits to the page by User:yuchitown serve no value other than to question the tribal status of this group by the US Government rather than define or answer who, what, when, where and how they lived then and how the recognized ones live now. This is done by user:yuchitown consistently across pages because all of user:Yuchitown edits to the Sappony page and other similar pages have been worded to question the existence and validity of the pages subject/group and current federal recognition status rather than to provide insight.

User:yuchitown is reverting any new information and links about the groups be added including but not limited to support of new findings by archeologists from NC Chapel Hill as far back as 1984 but will only include data that questions their federal status which is divisive and grammatically ambiguous and deceptive.

User:yuchitown won't allow valid archeological additions like this from UNC Chapel Hill regarding the Occaneechi Saponi: ^[1]

I sourced edits from The North Carolina Governments website ^[2] and they were reverted as well as NCpedia etc. and they were all reverted with no valid explanation.

Example User:Yuchitown edit currently live and protected by a group user:yuchitown assigns tasks to, even from the talk page:

[[252]] The Sappony are a state-recognized tribe in North Carolina.[2] They claim descent from the historic Saponi people, an Eastern Siouan language-speaking tribe who occupied the Piedmont of North Carolina and Virginia.

I saw this an immediately saw the error. I corrected it and gave a summary.

The Sappony are a state-recognized tribe in North Carolina.[2] They are recognized by the State of North Carolina as descendants of the historic Saponi people, an Eastern Siouan language-speaking tribe who occupied the Piedmont of North Carolina and Virginia.

The reasoning is simple: The first sentence answers who. The second sentence should answer what, but it is currently ambiguous.

The first sentence starts with being state recognized, then the second sentence reduces that recognition to a claim which has already been decided by the state of north carolina. So, the obvious second sentence is what are they recognized for.

My edits were reverted by user:yuchitown who said don't make edits without a summary which I did several times. But it was clear that language wasn't the agenda of this editor. Which is what prompted this investigation.

The missions are monitoring the pages of native tribes of which one of the editors (User:Indigenous_girl) has admitted being a part of, which is a direct conflict of interest which I mentioned repeatedly. Every thing on the @Yuchitown editors profile is about Yuchi Native Americans. I mentioned a conflict of interest to @Yuchitown and the response was from the whole gang. User:Indigenous_girl says "If Native editors and allies did not contribute to Native articles, who exactly would be editing them?"

The issue is that this group has done exactly what everyone is afraid of.

If you do a search for the conspiracy book about Natives and casinos written by unaccredited author Miller, Mark Edwin "Claiming Tribal Identity: The Five Tribes and the Politics of Federal Acknowledgment" you see that the books link has been added to pages of state recognized native americans as a conflict on their page rather than as insight. This book was written to give instructions on fighting tribes who may want government casino money and to question the ethnicity of tribes that were historically in conflict with the five tribes mentioned. The major issue is that they are sharing this as poison by only sharing it on state recognized tribe pages and not their own tribes pages.

10 years ago the data on the pages of Saponi, Sappony ^[3] etc was very different.

A simple search of related materials shows a scope of their malcontent and obvious conflicts of interest Insitemobile (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see

cabal". Some admin scrutiny there may be necessary. Heiro

17:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of my comment quoted by the OP, "If Native editors and allies did not contribute to Native articles, who exactly would be editing them?", was to point out that the articles edited by members of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America are knowledgeable in this area. The OP's reasoning would negate US citizens from working on any articles associated with the United States which is flawed logic. Also, the Sapponi are indeed a state recognized tribe in NC who claim descent from the historic Saponi people, an Eastern Siouan language-speaking tribe who occupied the Piedmont of North Carolina and Virginia. This is not a negative and I am unsure as to why the OP sees it as such. OP has repeatedly edit warred without discussion, when they moved to discussion it was hostile at best. Rather than taking the time to actually read and understand the original wording and engage civilly with other editors they went off into unnecessary rants about how they used to be an investigator. Lastly, I was not notified that I was included in this discussion. I am unaware if other editors were. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at the edit history and talk pages of
  WP:BOOMERANG sanction for edit warring and uncivil talk page conduct. Rather than discussing the content and its merits, Insitemobile immediately jumped to casting aspersions at Talk:Sappony. Beyond that burst of bad behavior, this is a mundane content dispute and does not require admin interevention. _signed, Rosguill ^talk
  18:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  I’ve notified Yuchitown. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Boomerang sanctions. Especially as, if you look down the page history on both
  ☼
  19:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• I have blocked Insitemobile for one week fir disruptive editing, including edit warring, personal attacks, and tendentious editing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

  Because Insitemobile engaged in an ugly personal attack against other editors on their talk page, I revoked their talk page access and extended the block to one month. Cullen328 (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• I first noticed the edit on
  federally recognized tribe, which is pretty standard and germane to the article's subject, so I restored the material and used the appropriate warning templates on the IP's talk page. The IP made similar edits to Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, with misleading edit summaries, then logged into User:Insitemobile
  to make similar edits to these same articles. The individual was extremely persistent in rapidly reverting, so I stepped away for the rest of the day, went back to the two articles in the morning, and stepped away for the rest of that day.

I edit all sorts of Indigenous articles from coast to coast, and the

single-purpose accounts use Wikipedia to promote their organization without bothering to learn any Wikipedia protocols. It is a challenge to find neutral, informed published materials about state-recognized tribes since they tend to be obscure and most of the material about them is self-published, so the book that Insitemobile kept trying to delete and call an advertisement or spam is incredibly valuable. Claiming Tribal Identity: The Five Tribes and the Politics of Federal Acknowledgment is published by a university press and written by Mark Edwin Miller, Department Chair and Professor of History in the Department of History, Sociology, and Anthropology at Southern Utah University. If people have advice how to better handle situations like this (because they come up fairly regularly and OP will be back in month), please let me know. Thanks, Yuchitown (talk

) 22:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

I have some advice, be careful online with oppressing other groups of people and especially be careful what IT people you offend and call an OP because this site and country is not safe. people can drive around and use any ip and stalk etc @Yuchitown 2603:6081:893E:D3D3:A95F:515C:FAF:24C5 (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Is... that some sort of juvenile threat? Or am I misreading whats implied here? --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the /64 for a week. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

References

1. ^ http://www.rla.unc.edu/Publications/pdf/ResRep1.pdf
2. ^ https://ncadmin.nc.gov/media/1756/open&usg=AOvVaw2y-9B6Otmd9E2zf159Z01a
3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occaneechi_Band_of_the_Saponi_Nation

Are you all kidding me?! (I'm addressing the administrators here, not OP.) This is a direct personal threat to me. I emailed it to Wikipedia. OP is obviously using another IP to evade a block and make a threat to stalk and they get a one-week block? I appreciate that Sappony, Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, and even Saponi are obscure pages, but now that everyone is aware there is an active vandal evading a temporary block and issuing threats, can other editors kindly step up? User contributions for 2603:6081:893E:D3D3:A95F:515C:FAF:24C5. Because I kept cleaning up the articles and issuing the standard template warnings, OP is fixated on me. Can actual administrators take over this situation now? Yuchitown (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

@Yuchitown Only a week because they'll almost certainly be on another IP address by then. What else would you have me do? Doug Weller talk 17:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. User:Heironymous Rowe reverted the most recent IP's edits, since they were created while evading a block. Could folks add these articles to your watch lists and issue warnings when people vandalize or otherwise disingenuously edit them? I try to add the standard templates, so there's a track record of behavior, but when I'm the main person doing it, it looks like I have some personal issue with whatever editor, which is not the case. Yuchitown (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Yuchitown and Indigenous girl, if an ongoing pattern of disruption of these articles develops, I am willing to semi-protect them. They are on my watchlist. Cullen328 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your work and that of Doug Weller. Yuchitown (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Thanks to everyone keeping an eye on this ridiculousness. I hope that the threat is being taken seriously. I don't see the block evasion stopping, hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Are there any besides Sappony, Occaneechi Band of the Saponi Nation, and Saponi that editors should add to their watchlists? Levivich (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps Occaneechi and Yuchi? -Yuchitown (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Noting that, since the edit summaries leave no room for this having been a joe-job, I have extended Insitemobile's block to indefinite. (And IMO, where threats are involved, that's "indefinite as in infinite".) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:NATIONALIST bickering on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyrgyz Confederation

Bogomolov.PL has been told to take this to

WP:SPI. This is not the venue, particularly for something this complex. Note to Bogomolov: you do not need to be a CheckUser to file a report at SPI and to provide evidence of sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk

) 22:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I'm not sure what to do here. There is some kind of problem that needs resolution. I think it is a pretty good example of why I wrote the

WP:HOAX

.

WP:MEATPUPPET - my take) puppets and are associated with misbehavior on other Wikipedias. Kazman322 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

) is also involved on the side of Bogomolov.PL.

• Cianzera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lauriswift911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cianzera911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (alleged by Bogomolov.PL but does not seem to exist)
• Foggy kub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kozaryl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Torsva45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Th3Shoudy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I apologize for dragging this nonsense here as it will inevitably elicit more nonsense, but I am at a loss for the right course of action. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit difficult. If there were a SPI on the Russian Wikipedia which concluded that all these users are socks of Cianzera I would just have blocked all of them, and we would be done here. However, I do not see such SPI, and I do not know whose socks they are for sure. May be one of the checkusers could comment. I would be happy to provide Russian translations of any (short) pieces if needed. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Bogomolov.PL provided some links to SPIs but I assume you are looking for one that covers all the accounts? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but for example for Foggy kub I see that they were blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but I do not see SPI not a connection to Cianzera. Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added Th3Shoudy to the list, missed them initially. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• I gave the name Cianzera911 not as an example of another account, but because the Lauriswift911 account made a test edit of creating a personal page called Cianzera911, which once again proves its connection with the Cianzera account. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  Bogomolov, please put up or shut up. If you think you have enough evidence to prove that those accounts are operated by the same person, please open an

  investigation. Otherwise, do not accuse other editors of sock puppetry, because when you accuse someone of that, that person feels compelled to respond and so forth and the original discussion is derailed, which is what happened in the AfD. Salvio ^giuliano

  16:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't provide direct evidence, since I am not a checkuser. But there are some serious reasons.

• User:Cianzera (parental account, I guess):

- blocked indefinitely in Russian Wikipedia (19 April 2020);

- blocked indefinitely in German Wikipedia (19 March 2021);

- blocked indefinitely in Kyrgyz Wikipedia (27 February 2022).

in English Wikipedia this account was created 19 April 2020, at the same day when this account was blocked indefinitely in Russian Wikipedia.

• User:Lauriswift911 is a sock-puppet (checkuser test in Russian Wikipedia):

- blocked indefinitely in Russian Wikipedia (2 September 2022) with reason Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry [253]

In the English Wikipedia on the personal page of this account User:Lauriswift911 says that his nickname in social networks is @cianzera and his ideology is a Nationalism. 23 January 2023 account Lauriswift911 attempted to create a user page called Cianzera911 [254]. This, in my opinion, indicates a very likely connection with the account Cianzera.

• User:Th3Shoudy is a sock-puppet (checkuser test in Russian Wikipedia):

- blocked indefinitely in Russian Wikipedia (4 September 2022) with reason Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry [255].

• User:Foggy kub is a sock-puppet (checkuser test in Russian Wikipedia):

- blocked indefinitely in Russian Wikipedia (4 September 2022) with reason Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry [256]

- blocked indefinitely in Kazakh Wikipedia (2 October 2022)

- blocked indefinitely in Bislama Wikipedia (4 October 2022) with reason new user with a provocative contribution

After that at 14 October 2022 renamed the account name from

User:Людольф Герман to current [257]

User:Foggy kub totally vandalized page in Chuvash Wikipedia Ормон хан (generally page name is of Ormon Khan, but the article is filled with meaningless texts, and as a portrait of Kyrgyz ruler Ormon Khan is a photo of the US President Calvin Coolidge with the caption "ass itches" in Russian).

• User:Kozaryl is a sock-puppet (checkuser test in Russian Wikipedia):

- blocked indefinitely in Russian Wikipedia (5 July 2022) with reason Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry [258]

Outside of the English Wikipedia, the "kinship" of accounts may indicate that these accounts uploaded maps of the same type to Wikimedia Commons:

Cianzera: ; Kozaryl:

I guess we are dealing with a cross-wiki vandal who has created a whole "team" of sockpuppets. He works on the subject of Kyrgyzstan, primarily the history of Kyrgyzstan. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2023 (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:Pundachimol raaavensfire with vandalism history and abusing and threating on normal discussion

INDEFFED

Blocked for disruptions and personal attacks. (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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

---

This user has been pretty abusive on this talk page, as well deleted previously a user's messages from his talk page, which the user considered as Personal Attack. I believe such behavior in Wikipedia shouldn't be entertained as the editor won't feel safe. Being a new editor, it just discourages me to edit more.

He has vandalized Manju Warrier and User:DaxServer can confirm that. I hope admin will help us resolve the issue. Aadirulez8 (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Aadirulez8, thank you very much for reporting. Please note for another time that you're supposed to alert the user on their page that you have reported them to ANI, see the red note near the top of this page. It's moot now, however, as I have already blocked the user indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing after many warnings, as well as for personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 12:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC).

  Understood, thank you Aadirulez8 (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2023 (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.

Unfinished CfD closures

SORTED.

We're done here. Everyone seems to be OK with the outcome here, and the OP has requested closure. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:51, 6 February 2023 (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.

---

Several CfD's closed by

WP:NAC were not fully implemented by Qwerfjkl. As a non-admin, they should have removed or recategorized the pages according to the outcome, and then used {{db-xfd

}} when they were done. I have finished their work where there were zero or one remaining entries, but the rest of the work is with the admins and anyone else who can automate the removal or recategorization of the pages.

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_28
  • Category:Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Serbia files
  • Category:Festivals in Port Townsend, Washington
  • Category:Cultural depictions of Nikola Tesla
  • Category:Festivals in Lubbock, Texas
  • Category:Undefined articles needing translation from German Wikipedia
  • Category:Festivals in Anacortes, Washington
  • Category:Conventions in Miami Beach, Florida
  • Category:Festivals in Port Townsend, Washington
  • Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment in India
  • Category:American sportspeople of Asian descent and 3 others
  • Category:Nigerian mythology
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 27
  • Category:Transport buildings and structures in Niue and 2 others
  • Category:Transport buildings and structures in French Polynesia and 1 other
  • Category:Wikipedians who served prison term
  • Category:Templates to be standardized/Ethnic group sidebar
  • Category:Templates to be standardized/Infobox music of
  • Category:FFA Cup of Nations
  • Category:Collage (singer) albums and 1 other
  • Category:Culture of the Alps and 3 others

I'm still looking around for more of these. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03, I listed them at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#NAC requests January 2023 for an admin to process. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I've looked and found the following additional. Where the closure was keep or no consensus, I just de-tagged the categories that had not already been de-tagged.

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 10
  • Category:Muslim theologians
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 6
  • Category:20th-century men and 1 other
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 19
  • Category:Rabbis of Al-Andalus
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 11
  • Category:19th-century African-American men and 2 others

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like this issue is resolved. I presume I can close this, or that an admin can close this? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, there's several more in January. I'll list those there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03, please discuss things like this on my talk page first, before going to ANI. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This also sounds like something that might have been more suited for the less-stressful

Contact me | Contributions

). 13:50, 5 February 2023 (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.

Compromised account?

BLOCKED, TALK PAGE ACCESS REVOKED

Strange and inexplicable behavior (non-admin closure) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:14, 7 February 2023 (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.

---

New editor Str13tlife (talk · contribs) has made two weird edits [259] [260] and then appeared to say their account had been compromised [261]. When asked about it [262] they said Yes (literally) having doubled down elsewhere [263]. My head hurts. — Trey Maturin™ 01:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's a new one. I guess someone could go to Meta to request a global lock? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked, anyone who wants to request a global lock certainly can. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

And talkpage access revoked after the jeremiad in response to the block notice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:39, 6 February 2023 (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.