Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151

School IP just posted: "I have a gun and 3 mags"

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 User talk:159.191.159.254, especially this troubling edit: "I have a gun and 3 mags"].

This edit was made at 16:56 Pacific Daylight Time - 45 minutes ago.

The IP is registered to the Portland Public Schools (Oregon). A slightly earlier edit may reveal a name.

I am 99% confident this is just a kid mouthing off but the 1% chance it's more than that is alarming.

I'm not sure what to do with this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This would be a matter for WP:EMERGENCY. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I just sent an email to emergencywikimedia.org. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Correction: the earlier edit I also cited was made a very long time ago. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

In the future, please go directly to the folks who handle these situations rather than posting this on a public noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

In AB's defence, they did say they didn't know what to do with it. — Czello ^(music) 09:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

In AB's not so defence, when you try to add a new topic to this page you are faced with this red READ THIS FIRST BEFORE PROCEEDING! notice.

– 2804:F14:80C6:A301:BDB5:2E3E:64E9:12A8 (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. — Czello ^(music) 11:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I screwed up. Guilty as charged.

No, I don’t always reread the big red box.

I was very worried and believed I was working against time if this was a real threat. It was already 45 minutes old.

This was real life.

I was urgently looking for help.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• If someone unfamiliar with the process is rushing around desperately looking for a way to warn someone about a threat of violence, they aren't going to stop and read notices first. Let's give A.B. a break, please. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2024 (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.

Rights restoration request (Queen of Hearts)

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.

---

(Context: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150#Rights removal request (Queen of Hearts).) Hello. A week ago, I requested my rights be taken away due to a family issue. Thankfully, life has stabilized, and I would like to just request back page mover and new page reviewer. I don't expect to need or use the other rights I previously had. Thanks, Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 04:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Coincidentally, after removing the rights per earlier request, this was at the top of my watchlist. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2024 (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.

Socking

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

---

There's some serious socking going on at Osama Said (producer). Socks of the original author are removing CSD tags without explanation. An SPI has been opened but nobody has responded yet. Could someone please take a look at this? Thank you. CycloneYoris ^talk! 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

N Deleted and Creation protected indefinitely. El_C 14:32, 14 March 2024 (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.

Problematic signatures

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.

---

TheDohnJoe's signatures go against WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. His sigs have been, in this order, "Joe Biden" (note: check out this edit), "Vladimir Gluten", Number 57's signature but with the number 69420 instead, and after being asked to change his sig, is now "The FitnessGram™ Pacer Test". – Hilst [talk] 20:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries like this and this are pure trolling/NOTHERE. Unless anybody speaks up in their defence, I suggest an indef block. GiantSnowman 21:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Seraphimblade beat me to it by about 5 seconds. Support indefinite block. Daniel (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, good block. Queen of Hearts ^she/they_talk/stalk 22:21, 15 March 2024 (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.

Antisemitic edits

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.

---

In this edit, Bauthier24 added multiple parentheses (a well known antisemitic canard) around several instances AIPAC and a bunch of Jewish people's names (Howie Klein, Craig Goldman, Lois Frankel for just three) specifically. Any attempt to assume good faith goes out the window given they previously did this on another page four days ago, for which they were rightfully warned. Clearly WP:NOTHERE in the slightest. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be unambiguous antisemitism to me. Clearly deserving of an indef. — Czello ^(music) 17:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It was in good faith. I'm not sure why/how an extension I have enabled added parenthesis. I will just uninstall it now, since it seems to be causing problems. Bauthier24 (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked Bauthier24 before seeing the explanation above, which I consider implausible. I welcome additional comments. Cullen328 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, there is an extension which places parentheses around Jewish peoples' names, which is where the canard comes from. But it's used explicitly for antisemitic reasons. — Czello ^(music) 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, aside from the fact the user acknowledged this extension and committed to uninstalling it a few days ago, the fact a user has an extension like this installed in the first place is a pretty clear violation of WP:NONAZIS, which while not Wiki policy, is a pretty good guideline to follow. Good block. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:03, 15 March 2024 (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.

Yes, Czello, I know about that extension and I also noticed that Ad Orientem warned the editor about this and the editor promised to remove the extension at User talk:Ad Orientem on March 11, but did not do so. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Long term disruption by IP range, mostly external links and see also sections

• 2600:8805:918B:9B00:C43B:4A2:BEAA:34F3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Lately, inserting linkspam into funerary themed articles, removing and/or changing content without explanation. But the problems go back several months, with at least a few of the IPs already blocked for persistence,with the same arguments over and over, as at [1]. Is a range block possible? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Odd edits and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#Serial suspect changes. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you--I just found that, too. Evasion of a three-year long block [2]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As a result, I'm requesting mass reversions of the range's edits, per WP:BANREVERT. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed solution: The IP may only edit under the following restrictions: they may either add or remove only one WP:EL per edit and they always have to use edit summaries for explaining what they do (their reasons). Also, they should not remove rotten links if those are still archived somewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That may be a proposal for a time when the range blocks that are now in place have expired. As it stands, this looks like a WP:LTA who has been evading a block at least since December. It makes more sense, if it's logistically practical, to add this range to the current blocks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been going through some of their hundreds of edits one-by-one, and many of them are sloppy or make no sense. Waiting for administrative help and mass reversion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: The actual range here in question appears to be 2600:8805:918B:9B00:0:0:0:0/64. I went and searched through the larger /40 range surrounding it, and nearly all of the edits in question seem to be from that /64. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ugh not this editor again. They've been doing this for the last five years or so, at least. This is the third time this has happened. I've gone and blocked their entire IP range, 2600:8805:8000::/33, this time. There'll be collateral damage but this is the price we'll have to pay. I hit mass-rollback on the /64 ... I have to go soon though and will try to clean up after this later. Also see this archived thread on my talk page from the last time this happened. Graham87 (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ugh indeed. That's rather a long time to keep blowing through stop signs, insisting you're in the right. Thank you, Graham87. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

COI in Edcel Greco Lagman

Gabnaparato (talk · contribs) has been consistently making edits to nothing but Filipino politician Edcel Greco Lagman since they started editing in 2022, see [[3]]. In recent weeks, they have been censoring flagged issues with the page as well as legal complaints filed against the subject and restoring grammatically incoherent edits without justification, see [[4]], [[5]] and [[6]], and most recently this misleading edit summary [[7]] made in spite of WP:RAPPLER being a bona fide WP:RS. I have issued a stern warning on their talk page but I would like to ask for further advice as to what steps should be taken since I have a suspicion that their account only exists for COI and WP:SOAPBOX purposes. Borgenland (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure what to say. Clearly, they are a WP:SPA, but that alone isn't against policy. The one instance of removing info and falsely claiming it wasn't sourced is a problem, but you warned them. Their edits remind me of Bmjc98 in some ways, who started the article, was a declared paid editor, and then was indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Not saying there is a link, it just reminds me of it. Only one overlapping edit, it's like one started exactly when the other stopped, but 6 months before the block for sockpuppetry. May not be more than an interesting note, but it is interesting. The question is: is it interesting enough for a Checkuser to get interested? I don't know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible Range Block for 92.40.*.*

There are two MFD's pending about unreferenced drafts about television shows featuring Alex Bickerton and Laura Blake:

• Draft:Golightly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:The Golightly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alex Bickerton and Laura Blake are real actors, brother and sister, so that these drafts are BLP violations (in addition to anything else). There has been a history of questionable drafts that have been deleted. Checking the history of these drafts, they were submitted from IPv4 addresses in the 92.40.*.* range, which is already partially blocked by User:HJ Mitchell from certain non-editing actions. Should these Hutchinson UK mobile broadband addresses be blocked from editing by non-logged-in users? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A /16 is pretty scary for a range block, even a partial. Remsense诉 02:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I went to Special:Contribs/92.40.0.0/16 and filtered the contribs page down to the draft namespace only, and saw that pretty much all the recent draft edits came from 92.40.200.* and 92.40.201.* IP addresses, which can be covered by a much smaller range: 92.40.200.195/23. Looking at the block log, it's been blocked four times from 2021-2022, though I'm not sure if it was the same user that was responsible for those blocks as here. But anyways, I think blocking 92.40.200.0/23 (or partially blocking it from draft namespace) will work here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've applied CSD:G3 and a generous portion of WP:SALT (a few had been created before). I will leave to a more experienced admin to do the block, but the /23 looks to be a good target. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell did a rather large 92.40.0.0/16 checkuser block that covers part of this range back in January (still in effect until July). Maybe he can take a look, please? Or another CU if he is busy. Most everything in the /23 range is either this trash I just deleted and salted [8] or other trash. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  The block is for account creations only. It might not have been a block that I'd place, but there's not much wrong with it. It can be justified per CU, and is unrelated to the current above-stated issues. In my experience, smaller blocks often work on this range, and it's not common that they need to be extended. That said, as well as one of the busiest ranges in the UK, it has its share of issues. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring over formatting

User @FeldmarschallGneisenau keeps changing the case of the title "Prime Minister" in Donald Tusk, which, per MOS:JOB, should be capitalized in the context in which it appears in the article. I brought the issue to User talk:FeldmarschallGneisenau, however, they keep on pushing the change without an established consensus. Max19582 (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

MoS isn't policy and the page-specific consensus ("prime minister of Poland") is established in pages for previous prime ministers and is long-standing when it comes to Donald Tusk as well. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

err MOS is standard you don't get to ignore MOS just because you disagree with it, plus I see no consensus for it on the talk page or archives. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

See another example - Olaf Scholz. "chancellor of Germany" with no needless capitalization. Titles chancellor, prime minister etc. aren't proper nouns, they are generic positions and do not to be capitalized and as you can see, aren't FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is, however. @FeldmarschallGneisenau links to prior discussions on the matter? Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

By consensus I mean this is how prime ministers in Poland have been covered for years, and not just prime ministers in Poland, a quick example is Olaf Scholz described simply as "chancellor of Germany" and not "Chancellor of Germany." As I wrote below, these aren't proper nouns, they're generic positions. This is a long-standing format that everyone accepted and no one challenged. Now user Max comes along and tries to change it and thinks he's somehow the consensus and I am somehow the one who has to take it to Talk. That's not how it works. You take to Talk something that you are challenging, which was long-standing. Hence why I am authorized to undo his changes that are carried out without a prior discussion at Talk, while his undoings are the ones that eventually violate the 3RR rule, and he has to take it to Talk. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"how prime ministers in Poland have been covered for years"

For almost all post-1989 prime ministers, the title is capitalized (see below).

"described simply as 'chancellor of Germany' and not 'Chancellor of Germany.'"

He is described as "the chancellor of Germany", which (per MOS:JOB) is different than just "Chancellor of Germany."

"he's somehow the consensus and I am somehow the one who has to take it to Talk"

Can you please say where the previous consensus was established? The current consensus is determined not by me, but by the Manual of Style (which is also the one that the article about Olaf Scholz and almost all articles about Polish prime ministers except for Morawiecki follow).

"Hence why I am authorized to undo his changes [...] while his undoings are the ones that eventually violate the 3RR rule, and he has to take it to Talk."

I think it is better if we both try to cooperate and fix the issue in a constructive manner, instead of silently hoping for the other party to be punished by the 3RR rule. I'm, once again, asking you to either provide links to discussions where the previous consensus was established, or seek a new one on the article's talk page. Contrary to what you are saying, articles about previous prime ministers do not spell the title in lowercase and all the other examples you provided follow MOS:JOB, the rule you are trying to create an exception to.

As for the article about Tusk, the article does not have a "long-standing" tradition either, since the title's formatting has changed many times throughout the years (2013 (capitalized), 2017 (capitalized), 2020 (capitalized, with "the"), 2021 (lowercase, with "the 14th"), 2023 (capitalized, with "the")), and my edit merely made it consistent with MOS and other articles. Max19582 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Morawiecki had been the prime minister for years, which is why I said that's how it's been for years. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@FeldmarschallGneisenau: The title is capitalized for almost all post-1989 Polish prime ministers (Jarosław Kaczyński, Beata Szydło, Ewa Kopacz, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, Marek Belka, Jerzy Buzek, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Józef Oleksy, Hanna Suchocka, Waldemar Pawlak, Jan Olszewski, Jan Krzysztof Bielecki), except for those where the title is indeed modified (Leszek Miller and Tadeusz Mazowiecki). The only exception for this rule is the article about Mateusz Morawiecki.

I see no discussions about this on the talk page for Tusk or Morawiecki either. Can you please provide relevant links where the consensus was established? Max19582 (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in changes when it comes to all the pages you listed, although perhaps they're simply wrongly written and the 4 pages you mentioned (including Donald Tusk's) are written correctly, because when you combine this query with pages for foreign leaders - see another example - Olaf Scholz, "chancellor of Germany" is written with no needless capitalization. Titles chancellor, prime minister etc. aren't proper nouns, they are generic positions and do not to be capitalized and as you can see, aren't FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@FeldmarschallGneisenau: Please read MOS:JOB once again. In the article about Olaf Scholz, his position is preceded by an article - who has been serving as the chancellor of Germany since 8 December 2021. In the article about Donald Tusk the title is unmodified (who has served as Prime Minister of Poland), hence, per MOS, the title should be capitalized.

If you don't agree with this, please take this to the talk page to try seek new consensus. The current consensus is determined by the Manual of Style, and the long-standing format for Polish prime ministers is, as you can see above, that the titles are indeed capitalized. Max19582 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the long-standing format (used for years when Morawiecki was the prime minister and for months of Tusk's current tenure) required a correction indeed - with an article added in the front per MoS. That is a fine remark and I made now sure to include the article so everything is correct, even according to your revered MoS, and there is no need for a fight anymore. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@FeldmarschallGneisenau: Both the variants are correct per MOS, but I do agree the current one ("the" + lowercase) can stay. Max19582 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Jaggu5239 making absurd edits to increase their edit count

I noticed that Jaggu5239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making absurd edits in order to increase their edit count. Majority of their edits are meaningless edits on their own talk page, as seen here

They are also attempting to vandalize Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire. Given the nature of the edits, and the extended confirmed protection put on the article, this could be an attempt to game the system in order to edit Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire.

(Wayfarer Pacifist (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC))

This is the most blatant example of gaming the system I think I've ever seen. I would support an indef block. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• They already had 500 edits before they started the obvious attempt to jack up their edit totals, plus they had already been here 30 days, so I'm not sure what the bizarre editing of their own user space gained them. Putting the artificial padding of their own edits aside, they do seem to be trying to edit war on Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire and other related articles, all over a disagreement as to whether BOI (boxofficeindia.com) is a reliable source for box office sales, to the point that it seems they are breaching WP:DE. It looks like an obsession, or mission, to remove that website, even if they have to edit war over it. Whether it is WP:RS or not, I don't know, but this isn't the way to challenge it. It is a good way to get blocked, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  They weren’t even close to 500 edits when they began manipulating their edit count. Better check again. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I listed it wrong. You are correct, they used that spree to push themselves over the limit, and start this edit war. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I did go look at the RS noticeboard, WP:RSN, and the only discussion I saw about the website took place in 2008. [9]. While it was a contentious discussion (with lots of participation), it is an old discussion, and consensus can change, there wasn't any clear indication or close that says BOI isn't reliable. So I don't see the basis for making wholesale changes to multiple articles and making the claim, unless there was another discussion I didn't find. Short of that, I don't see any formal discussion that demonstrates a consensus that BOI is unreliable, making the claim opinion rather than consensus. They should have started a fresh discussion at WP:RSN if they felt it was unreliable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks to *194 for catching my error. I've indef blocked for a variety of reasons. Indef doesn't mean forever, but they will need to explain to another admin why they should be unblocked and convince them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ironically, the filing editor with 683 edits appears to have engaged in similar behavior at their userpage and sandbox, so there may be an element of WP:BOOMERANG in play here. Left guide (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  They both have an interest in lists of Indian (and regions of India) films as well as the Salaar article linked above, but with the precise opposite opinions (see [10] for an example). Could it be good hand/band hand sockpuppetry to discredit the other side? It's trivial enough disruption that investigation isn't necessary since a boomerang is probably in order either way. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I did run a comparison across both of them, but there wasn't enough of an overlap to draw a conclusion. Though yes I did think of that myself. Canterbury Tail talk 16:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

<insert Picard facepalm gif here> Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is a case of calling out another editor, rightfully so, for something you are, yourself, guilty of. --ARoseWolf 16:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Anonsfd37383321

Anonsfd37383321 (talk · contribs · count · logs)
The user is constantly involved in adding uncited/unreliable box office figures, even after multiple warnings (4im) and discussion. The incident is similar to Tusk001. The additon/updation of box office figures in Indian articles is under WP:ICTFSOURCES and the user has been made aware of that. But they continue to ignore the guidelines and edit protected articles, which were protected from disruptive uncited additions like these. They were given one last warning per WP:ROPE due to AGF but they aren't here for that. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The last nail in their own coffin. (facepalm.jpg) — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely, indefinitely blocked, Doug Weller talk 17:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor Lau737 "contributions."

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.

---

Editor Lau737 has made several "contributions" into numerous articles using random pieces of wiki articles that they indiscriminately place into other articles.

Much of what Lau737 places into these articles does not frankly make sense or connect to whatever theme the passage seems to make.

Lau737 has been warned numerous times by several people - but does NOT seem to care to change or learn to do things right.

A list of Lau737's contributions show a laundry list of irrelevant and frivolous contributions. Please take a look at his editing and so-called irrational recycling of "contributions." Attached below is a brief view of his editing history.

Thank you. MRSawesome33 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Add user links: Lau737 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Schazjmd (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed the list of contribution you copied here because we can just click on the contribs link and it's a giant wall of of 28 lines of text making it really hard to navigate. Northern Moonlight 20:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lau737, this is not the way to write encyclopedia articles. Please stop doing that and write something yourself. If you must copy other people's work then a little more attribution should be given than "see page history for attribution". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, their summary is almost exactly what is recommended for attribution when translating content from other Wikis: Help:Translation#License_requirements

– 2804:F14:80C6:A301:243A:A254:1976:1CDD (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I worded that badly. I meant that more explanation is needed of why they felt the need to copy others' work, either in the edit summary or on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I am glad that you brought attention to this user. He has made a bunch of eccentric edits and irritated many people—and he never learns from his mistakes. See his talk page for more information. Trakking (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Edits like this one demonstrate precisely why the pattern of mass rapid-fire copy-pasting is problematic; the material has absolutely no relevance to the article topic. Launching personal attacks and shouting at another editor in a highly contentious topic area are also major causes for concern. Left guide (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the edit on Acquaintance rape because it is fairly sexist considering it doesn't include statistics about males. That guy who plays games (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen anti-male prejudice in any of the contributions. That paragraph copied from another Wikipedia article cited the academic journals Deviant Behavior and Behavioral Sciences, and those scholarly studies of sexual assault on university campuses were also studying the gendered dimensions of such. What's at issue is that the inserted paragraph was about sexual assault more generally and not specifically about acquaintance rape, the topic of the article, and also that Lau737 hasn't being responsive to feedback from other editors about why such edits amount to being frivolous. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

They don't specify it, which is inherently benevolent sexism. If they included soruced info on both genders I would call it lazy editing, but they didn't. Also, the articles which those are included on never specify male data because of course they don't. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

After further review, I've gone ahead and reverted six of these mass indiscriminate copy-pastings as they don't appear to address the topics of the respective articles: toxic masculinity, sexual predator, causes of mental disorders, gender inequality in the U.S., youth suicide, and gender empowerment. Additional input or assistance welcomed. Left guide (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly all of those edits are trying to generate sympathy and don't have any encyclopedic value. That guy who plays games (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Reading over the talk page and just briefly looking at the other edits, I can't help but think WP:CIR is involved here. Even with the best intentions, if you don't have the competence to edit in areas, for whatever reason, and the ability to collaborate, then this is a real problem requiring a real solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm pinging SandyGeorgia because she has had some experience with the editor and I trust her objectivity and overall experience. This current problem seems to be part of a much larger trend, one that started as soon as this account was created. The combativeness and overall behavior, at first glance, seems to be a problem that is incompatible with editing here at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It just copy and pasting the same sentences from reports biased towards women. Unless the topic of the article is specifically about women, sources like that are overly due weight in my opinion. That guy who plays games (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Phil Bridger, Hi P-Makoto

Do not believe these people. They have been trying to smear me for months. All they do is harass me, make stuff up, and revert edits. I implore you not to believe anything that they say unless clear evidence is provided.`Dennis Brown, your mention of WP:CIR is a clear insult and adds nothing to this discussion. Every editor who comes in here saying something along the lines of "indiscriminate copy-pasting" does not deserve a comment from me. All of these texts and articles were carefully handpicked and on-topic.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That edit demonstrates the problem with that editor. They, uniquely, don't need to explain themselves or give evidence because they are always right. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin comment) The response by Lau above only solidifies my believe that the user needs blocking, if not for WP:CIR, for the battleground mentality displayed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Lau appears to have attempted to WP:CANVASS two admins here; EvergreenFir and El C. I have no opinion on the broader report. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Those edits may, strictly speaking, violate WP:CANVASS, but I don't think there's too much to worry about because I see no reason why either editor should be sympathetic or unsympathetic towards Lau737. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage all attendants to be especially careful of any admin trying to hastily force a conclusion to this debacle. Trakking, BilledMammal, MRSawesome33, MartinPoulter, Grnrchst, and HaeB are all roughly on the same side of this issue and all guilty of taking great liberties with the truth. The stalking behavior is getting creepier too.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What issue? I don’t think we’ve ever interacted. BilledMammal (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody here except you has taken any liberties with the truth and there has been no stalking behaviour. Has nobody ever in your life punctured your delusions by telling you that you are simply wrong? I suppose this isn't the place for me to go off on a diatribe about the way children are brought up these days. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Those are dangerous words, Phil Bridger. BilledMammal has just engaged in, yes, stalking my behavior and twisted the truth to its full extent to classify me talking to two admins as "canvassing." He wants me gone, he wants the edits gone for whatever reason he can come up with, that is his only agenda, do you want me gone too Phil Bridger? Lau737 (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t even know who you are - I’m only here because El C’s talk page is on my watch list. BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

More delusional behaviour. How could anyone possibly know who you are? As I said in my previous edit, you are simply wrong. Or are you the one person in the world who is right when everyone else is wrong? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your use of delusional is harassment under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment

Rather than list all the lies told to people here, I will simply refer you to my talk page, as well as the various talk pages that I commented on, and the various page histories where vicious editors have left plenty of comments, or no comments, they simply reverted things, hoping to get away with it. If you continue to hold that point of view, I will simply conclude that you did not bother to read those sources. I will not step into a flaming war with you and a small army of my personal opponents.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Lau737 seems to have a seriously discrepant view of how Wikipedia works, as an encyclopedia and as an editing community.

• Massive expansion of See Also sections. They defended their addition of Brinkmanship to Tyrant as "because of the use of nuclear deterrents, WMDs, or threats of war by contemporary and historical tyrants."[11] Other expansions include adding Precarious work to the See Also of Occupational hazard,[12] Make-work job to Capitalist peace[13] and vice versa,[14] Shill, Bootstrapping, Optimism, and Gullibility to One weird trick, and many others. They sometimes provide explanations eg for adding Gaslighting to Sleep deprivation, Both brainwashing and gaslighting benefit from sleep deprivation. It's an important aspect of mind control exerted by certain cults.[15]; broadly speaking, their approach may be to insert See Also for anything that is in their view similarly immoral (or occasionally, moral).
• Major copy-pastes of content between articles as described above, if every article within a domain should include everything about that domain.
• Personal attacks and no WP:AGF in edit summaries, such as Liar!,[16], undoing MartinPoulter and his distorted notion of relevance,[17] You are making stuff up![18] Yes, it is. It is you who doesn't want this article to be of any use to people!,[19] Didn't even want to give a reason for these, did you?,[20]
• Minimal use of article talk pages (0.6% of edits)[21]
• In this very ANI discussion, characterising editors who seek to correct or revert them as "all roughly on the same side of this issue and all guilty of taking great liberties with the truth"; "Do not believe these people. They have been trying to smear me for months. All they do is harass me, make stuff up, and revert edits.; "stalking my behavior and twisted the truth to its full extent". NebY (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

One-sided and wrong. Morality has nothing to do with the inclusion of these terms, they're simply on-topic. Lau737 (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Weather these are on topic is debatable. These changes should be discussed on the respective articles talk page, and implemented after receiving WP:CONSENSUS. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 17:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've given them an WP:NOTHERE block. If someone want's to unblock them go ahead. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• I fully support the block, and I think we are ready to close this topic. Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse I was scrolling to see if it had been done, otherwise i was going to. Star Mississippi 22:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block, although I think WP:CIR is the core issue making them WP:NOTHERE. Casting aspersions since this thread started is a good indication that they don't know how to collaborate, and they are a net-negative for the project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 10 March 2024 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think this merits reopening the discussion above, but I received an email from Lau737 that appears to be soliciting pity and linking to this section. I do not know this editor, nor am I aware of how we've ever crossed paths. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of copyrighted content, continued disruptive editing following previous block

User DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has repeatedly added copyrighted content, most recently on Battle of Baarle Nassau. They have previously been warned, see:

• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Tiger tank 222
• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Battle of Breda
• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Speedy deletion nomination of Incident of Shusha (2023)

Further, they have a history of disruptive editing by moving draftspace drafts to the mainspace without properly cleaning up templates and ensuring proper citations, see:

• Special:Diff/1212984134
• Special:Diff/1212548992

And does not respond to clarification on their talk page regarding missing references, see:

• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Missing bibliography on Ten Crucial Days Campaign.

They were previously warned and then blocked for the same issue, see:

• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Referencing and block log.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the user for persistently creating copyright violations. I do worry that a CCI may be warranted in this case, particularly since some of their creations appear to cite dead tree sources that would not be easily flagged for review by CopyPatrol. Don't have the time at the moment to do the paperwork on that, though I'm hopeful that a copyright clerk will be able to do that. Pinging Callitropsis in case he would be willing to look into this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Thanks for the ping. I'll be very busy with IRL stuff until the 19th, but I should be able to have a look then. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 16:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

YuvrajEnco and useless maps

YuvrajEnco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded a number of useless silhouette maps which they are adding to a variety of articles, such as the one on the right. I asked them to stop adding them since they serve no useful purpose, but they have now started edit warring to retain them in articles. Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't help the silhouette maps only show the shape of the area, instead of, you know, showing where it's supposed to be in relation to everything else. A map that provides no context as to location is worthless and adding such a "map" seems prima facie disruptive to me. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Jéské Couriano's assessment and accordingly, I have blocked YuvrajEnco from article space only, until this issue is resolved. Cullen328 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't help as they don't tell us where the maps were sourced from; I suspect they could be stripping content from copyrighted work to build these outlines (the New Amsterdam map looks dire with bridge outlines, and this Confederate flag may as well be MS Paint-created crud). Going right into contentious topics like the Londonderry/Derry dispute is also not normal newbie behavior.Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: What do you think about unblocking them provided they agree to not add silhouette maps to articles? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

JML1148, if I block an editor in error, I reverse the block immediately once I discover the error and apologize profusely. I do not think that has happened more than twice in six years. That is not the case here. My normal practice which is widely shared among other administrators is to not even comment on a hypothetical unblock request floated by another editor. If this editor files a properly formatted unblock request, then I would expect but not insist that the reviewing administrator would ask for my input, and I will certainly provide it at that time, based on what what the blocked editor actually says. I would expect the editor to explain, among other things, why they added a crappy map showing the five 21st century boroughs of New York City to an article about New Amsterdam, which was a 17th century Dutch colonial settlement at the southern tip of the island of Manhattan that came to an end in 1664. The editor, after all, has not been banned sitewide, but only from article space. They are free to comment right here or at the talk pages of the articles they added these bizarre maps to, or anywhere else, including in a properly formatted unblock request on their own talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

True... I guess if they really cared they would have responded here and explained their actions. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is prima facie disruptive but can be when combined with edit warring. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The lack of interaction on their talk page after two warnings is notable doktorb _words^deeds 22:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Zluxflux

I am not sure which noticeboard this is supposed to be on, and I apologise. User Zluxflux sent me a not very nice message on my talk page, which is certainly not civil. AkiyamaKana (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

One of Zluxflux's article edits needs suppression. Maybe both. Grandpallama (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:AIV ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know where to put it as the report concerns a personal attack as well as vandalism. AkiyamaKana (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That comment is not acceptable in any way. Indeffed straight off the bat for that. You don't get warnings for comments like that, you get shown the one way door as fast as possible. Canterbury Tail talk 15:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And I've supressed the edit in question along with the comment on your talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Innapropiate behavior in Amanda Du ponts talk page

User:Sikobuhle has been using the talk page for amanda du pont innapropiately, possibly related to the ip address who did the same. Sebbers10 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Revert per WP:NOTFORUM and move on. Nothing really major of actionable here. If they continue with this nonsense across multiple pages then maybe. If their posts keep disappearing they'll get the hint. Canterbury Tail talk 15:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Per the notice at the top of the page you must notify Sikobuhle about this discussion on their talk page. I've done so for you. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not going well on their user talk: User talk:Sikobuhle#Noticeboard discussion. Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, now it's some kid with a crush who is suffering from WP:CIR. Canterbury Tail talk 17:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Usedtobecool

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.

---

@Usedtobecool Has taken issue with how i handled an IP [22] who was blanking a page prior to consensus (which they were ultimately blocked for). Just now they are making accusations Here specifically “using warning templates indiscriminately and refusing to talk to editors they'd warned” & “they are putting forward the presumption that you must have checked everything they were doing and okayed it when granting rollback.” This is how Usedtobecool is choosing to perceive my actions and words. They are putting words in my mouth & making accusations which are unwarranted, untrue, all the while attempting to present as fact to an admin. All i’ve been is patient and understanding with them & to have the truth embellished like this simply because they are losing their cool is unethical. I felt the need to bring this to the attention of others here to be looked at from a different perspective. Thank you for your time. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but that IP seems to be acting in good faith and trying to communicate on the talk pages. Yes, they shouldn't have been edit warring, but we can't expect new users to know our policies and we have to assume good faith. You have been reverting them without any explanation, and when they tried to communicate on your talk page, you reverted them with no explanation. They had also previously communicated with you, and you told them what they are doing is vandalism (it is not). You said, just today, that "no one can blank a page prior to consensus". Usedtobecool is correct, and I do not think you have a good enough understanding of what is vandalism to have the rollback permission. Pinging @Fastily: as the granting admin for their views on this matter. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Also, there is nothing "unethical" about raising concerns regarding potential misuse of rollback privileges. Whether one agrees with them or not, nothing that Usedtobecool said was inappropriate or out of line. Grandpallama (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That IP was originally blocked for edit warring. The 2nd block dealt directly with blanking pages prior to consensus which to my understanding was prohibited here. But if i’m wrong then im wrong and i respect all of your opinions. That is why i came here. But please know i was always acting in good faith, all of my actions had to do with seeing an IP blanking a page (as i often do while patrolling recent changes). The first time around i had communicated with the IP that they need consensus prior to blanking. They got blocked then came back and started doing the exact same thing. Nonetheless, thank you all for taking time out to look at this. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is clearly a content dispute and not vandalism fighting and is edit warring on the part of the IP and the OP. Usedtobecool's posts at the teahouse seem to be appropriate too. —SpacemanSpiff 04:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add that that edit-war was not simply about blanking. They had clearly prejudged the IP and reverted a perfectly reasonable alternative the IP later tried[23], still without an edit summary. They finally used a summary when reverting a named user[24]. That refusal to talk even in edit summaries even as the IP tried different things to try and find compromise is extraordinary. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Their failure to listen is very troubling. They refused to listen to the IP; they didn't listen to Pppery and they didn't listen to me. We are going to lose more productivity to WP:BITE than we may gain from their anti-vandalism work if they continue to approach situations with prejudgement, use the wrong reasons to decide to revert, use the wrong rationales or no rationales in their edit summaries and warn users with templates that are no help to those who receive them. They need to communicate better, they need to listen, and they need to read policy pages they are pointed to in conversations. They can't come to an admin board for clarification every time someone cites policies that contradicts their understanding. I do not know whether we can leave rollback on as they figure these things out or should require that they figure it out first. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool Your last two entries kept me up all night my friend, if you truly believe i wouldn’t be an asset here I’ll have to seriously reconsider my contributions to the site. I never was coming from a place of bad faith. But it seems i’m not doing a good job here. For that, i apologize. My goal was always to help the encyclopedia, not hurt it. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you want me to say, Elvisisalive95? You have been writing "my friend" since we were back at the Teahouse but it does not read "my friend". I don't know whether you're just not aware of it or think it's not something you can be challenged on. You said my work was appreciated but it didn't feel like it was. What I felt was patronised and ignored. I put all of that aside because my priority was to try and get you to understand project expectations. These are not expectations held uniquely of you. It comes down to whether you understand my concerns or will seek to understand them moving forward. Whether you would be an asset depends on the answer to that question. I am not questioning your good faith. But as you can see now, the IP had good faith too; they ended up sanctioned anyway because the result was disruption. How should they feel that they got blocked twice and you got away with it? This won't be the last time someone says you're doing something wrong. We all double-check each other's work here, and everyone ends up on the receiving end of criticism sooner or later. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool I can see how you perceived it that way re-reading our exchange. I honestly look at wikipedia as a place of camaraderie & wasn’t trying to patronize you. And in all honest truth i wasn’t trying to get away with anything. I honestly thought that what the IP was doing constituted vandalism, them being blocked the 2nd time more so attributed to that. I will be a lot more careful with how i categorize vandalism & the warning templates i choose. Whether my rollback rights are revoked or not I hope we can leave this discussion on a fresh page. I do appreciate your work, it’s easy to be misconstrued over the internet. In my mind looking at the time you took out to go through everything & explain it thoroughly is something to be commended. I hope to see you around & perhaps i can check with you on certain instances that i’m not 100% sure about in the future. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Elvisisalive95, can you summarize for us what WP:BLAR states? Can you, in your own words, explain why it isn't vandalism? It still seems like you're not engaging with specifics. That would help reassure users here that you understand some (but not all) of the concerns being raised. Grandpallama (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama I would say there are times in which an article could make a useful redirect to some editors. In those cases, said user could redirect to another article (WP:Bold). If another editor disagrees with the redirect, seek consensus on the talk page before reverting. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe everything you just said. I did consider that you were confused because admins blocked the IP and didn't say anything to you. But the admins did disagree with you; they did so by blocking the IP for disruptive editing, not vandalism. They should have pointed out to you that you should not have used vandalism warnings, and they should have warned you for edit-warring (ideally, they should have blocked both of you or neither, but I digress). I didn't wish to make the matter even more complicated for me by calling out admins for minor misses, that happened for reasons other than that they misunderstood policy. Misunderstanding policy is a huge deal because that means you are going to continue to do the same, indefinitely. See, IPs can be correct and admins can make mistakes. So, you misunderstanding some things is not a big deal at all. Big deal was you refusing to consider the possibility. I am sure that won't be the case moving forward. I hope you stick around too. And nothing would make me happier than to see you stay and learn, become a better editor than me, and be in a position to help me with the situation when I happen to be the one misses something and makes mistakes. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your words, I am exited about growing and learning more and more about helping this encyclopedia for the better. Wikipedia has always been there for me throughout my life and now i want to be there for it in only positive ways. You’re a good person & what you said means a lot to me. I will see you around! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2024 (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.

DUCK Sock yet again

Nauman338 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Back again with long term sock farm. In addition to the SPI (most recent filed here), this has been reported to ANI previously here and here. Just requesting a DUCK block while CUs are able to catch up with the SPI.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Note user also removing maintenance templates. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Japanese prisoners of war in the Soviet Union

Hello. I thought the death toll was too high. After consulting the history of the article, it turns out to be a probably ill-intentioned modification by "BountyFlamor", dating back several years. The figures have been arbitrarily changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_prisoners_of_war_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=826714102&oldid=811556999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PZEK (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a pure content dispute that you could not have discussed with another editor first because this is your first ever edit. Remsense诉 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Cossde flouting Wikipedia policies

User Cossde added the verification needed tags to my reliable sources on Sri Lanka Civil Security Force simply because they are personally unable to access the sources. I explained to them in the talk page that Wiki policy advises against such action. They then replied that they do not trust me with the implication that I fabricated the entire content, against the Wiki policy that encourages users to WP:Assume good faith. After I removed those unnecessary tags with an explanation citing Wiki policy, Cossde once again re-added those tags stating they are unable to verify. After another user Oz346 reverted it after verifying the sources, Cossde once again reverted it stating they cannot trust this user as well. User Cossde violated several Wiki policies here and undermines the very basis that Wikipedia collaborative effort relies on. --- Petextrodon (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The subject in question is highly controversial. Both users Petextrodon and Oz346 appear to be engaged in WP:NAT editing with their contributions to Wikipedia proving to be limited to Tamil Elam related topics. Hence, citations provided by both need independent verification. Both are known to use either bias and primary sources. Cossde (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NAT refers to "promoting ideas, without reliable sources and due weight". This is nothing but a baseless accusation. The sources and information used here are reliable and of due weight. On the contrary, the above user Cossde is guilty of WP:NAT editing and has been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content relating to the crimes of the Sri Lankan government. See Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#OHCHR report regarding sexual violence and Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#Peacekeeping sex scandal for recent examples. Without providing reliable sources to the contrary, his editing history fits the WP:NAT criteria of promoting the idea that a "Nation did not commit war crimes, massacres, crimes against humanity, genocide or other forms of violent actions" without reliable sources to back it up. Oz346 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, for one who claims baseless accusations, you seem to be putting out a few against me. My concern is the excessive use of what appears to be WP:PRIMARY sources and unverified WP:RS on very controversial topics. Given the controversial nature of these topics, these are highly sensitive. Your refusal to give due weight have been highlighted in DRN. Furthermore on the charge of WP:NAT review of edit histories by an independent party may set the matter to reset. Cossde (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde You have no reasonable ground to suspect me of deliberately fabricating content from cited sources since you will not be able to provide one example from my edit history where I've done this. In contrast, you have a history of falsely accusing me of "nationalist editing" and "original research" simply for paraphrasing what's stated in the reliable source even without reading the source as you have done repeatedly here. I can also show that you in fact have deliberately distorted cited source as you have done here regarding UN report on "human shields", which you continued to re-add despite me and @Oz346 explaining to you repeatedly here, here and here that the cited source states just the opposite. I will let neutral observers decide who here is the untrustworthy one. --- Petextrodon (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, in your edit today [25] you added a citation that said "a series of riots and discriminatory government policies led to the founding of the a number of militant Tamil groups" to justify the sentence The LTTE fought to create an independent Tamil state called Tamil Eelam in the northeast of the island in response to violent persecution and discriminatory policies against Sri Lankan Tamils by the Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan Government.. So please pardon me if I want to revalidate your citations. Cossde (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Cossde, even just based on your quote, that citation sounds like it does verify the content Petextrodon added. Also, citations aren't even generally supposed to be in leads, per MOS:LEAD. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. The above case and many others have spilt over to an extent that event lead content is cited. However if you look at the history of the edits it had already been cited. Petextrodon added this citation and changed the wording to this from The LTTE fought to create an independent Tamil state called Tamil Eelam in the northeast of the island, which it claimed was due to the continuous discrimination and violent persecution against Sri Lankan Tamils by the Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan Government. Note the hyperlinks used. Petextrodon removed the link to Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war which covers the multiple reasons that lead to the formation of Tamil militancy as explained in the source, while his adds link to two articles Sinhala Only Act and the List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. The former is only one policy (and not directly attributed to in the source) and the citations says there were many, while the latter covers broader incidents of government violence (much of which have been added by Petextrodon based on Pro-Rebel and Primary sources) while the source says that several riots triggered it. In fact List of riots in Sri Lanka would be more appropriate than the latter, per the source. Yet it was not used. This the point I want to get across. Cossde (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Arguing content is not going to fly here. We're only looking at behavior and, so far, the behavioral evidence is that you're adding inappropriate tags to the article & edit warring to keep them in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Users Oz346 and Petextrodon has been involved in a multi-page edit war with user Cossde across multiple pages for example and have been heated. They have also engaged in the forcible inclusion of content by edit warring such as the continuous WP:TAGTEAMING to continuously re-add content that has been disputed for example 1 2 3 4. They also have a engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPPING for example, when I got involved in the recent dispute on February 26 and on the same day less than 24 hours of me entering the talk page of the dispute, they made complaints in WP:ANI claiming I was not replying in the talkpage. They also threw personal attacks against me for example Oz346 called me a WP:LIAR claiming I made up a section I quoted from WP:BURDEN which I was simply copy-pasting from the page. Petextrodon also made accusations of me being a WP:SOCK of Cossde despite being warned not to make accusations of sockpuppetry against Cossde in a similar dispute in 2023. This is a long running multi-page dispute although some have been solved through DRNs for example: DRN - UtoD 18:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link to last month's ANI report involving the same editors (archived, unresolved). Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a whole bunch of topic bans and/or interaction bans may be necessary. Everyone is running too hot right now and this is becoming a mess. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 Look at my talk page. It's a shame that we don't yet include Sri Lanka under IPA; this is to me looking like the sort of thing that only ArbCom can resolve. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Last time I filed a complaint, the topic was diverted and submerged with issues not directly related to the topic at hand. I hope admins don't get sidetracked this time. --- Petextrodon (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears DRN alone isn't enough for user UtoD since they are repeating the same accusations from here on another complaint that doesn't even involve them]

What do you even mean with this? -UtoD 21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, I just said that people are being too hot under the collar, and you jump straight in to heat things up more? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the attention of this discussion, fresh edit warring that has taken place in 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom which has an active DRN in progress. Petextrodon has removed cited content [26] without engaging in the talk page. Oz346 who at first appeared to be indifferent to the changes at first, has taken to the reverting, editing and to talk page after Petextrodon's edit with what appears to me as WP:OR. I don't wish to discuss content here since I have raised it in the DRN and the cited content addition was triggered as a result of addition of a new source and content from that source after an exiting source and supported content which I voluntarily removed as a result of an RSN raised by Petextrodon. I only wish to bring to attention the conduct of Petextrodon and Oz346, especially the comment made by Petextrodon [27], asking me "If you have comprehension difficulties", which I feel was uncalled for. Cossde (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Petextrodon for your clarification [28], however I don't feel that this was intended in good faith since this appears to be a recurring pattern [29], [30], [31]. Cossde (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Disputes

This is a content dispute over Sri Lanka, and the modern history of Sri Lanka includes a long civil war in a country divided along ethnic lines, preceded by British colonialism, preceded by many of the same conflicts as the history of India. I am planning in the near future to build a list of these disputes to ask the Arbitration Committee to expand the scope of the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan contentious topics designation. It is probably simpler to add another country (that sometimes has historically been part of an Indian Empire and sometimes has been independent) to the sanction than to create a new regimen. I will be noting this in future Sri Lanka disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've seen a bunch of small-scale disputes in the Sri Lanka topic area, but not much that would rise to the level of CTOP being needed. Not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it. If there is enough disruption in that topic area, then I agree that asking Arbcom to extend WP:ARBIPA to include Sri Lanka would be the simpler solution compared to having out own GS regime just for Sri Lanka. Historically, having GS areas that are closely related to Arbcom DS areas has caused unnecessary confusion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

DUCK block needed for Qsilver9

Please block Qsilver9 (talk · contribs) as a DUCK sock of Trichards1 (talk · contribs). I don't see a need to open an SPI for something this blatant.
It's been a while since I was up to date on Wikipedia policy, but if you're blocking undisclosed paid accounts, Trichards1 looks the part.
Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You might say it's "blatant" but I doubt any action will be taken without a little more elaboration on your part. Right now, it's just accusations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Both those users left similarly frantic, weird messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candace Smith that read an awful lot like an edit summary left by a third user, User:Ladycoh6776, at Candace Smith; see Special:Diff/1213620663. In that edit, Ladycoh6776 tried to prevent that article's deletion by vandalizing its AfD notification and QSilver9 did the same thing here. City of Silver 20:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

UA0Volodymyr continuing to disregard topic ban

On the behavior of @UA0Volodymyr: This user's behavior was discussed at this noticeboard last month. UA0Volodymyr is topic banned from making edits—on any page—that are related to Disputes between the countries Russia and Ukraine, both present and historical, broadly construed and Disputes involving the ethnic identity of particular individuals where it is disputed whether their ethnicity is Ukrainian, broadly construed. Last month, at issue were edits to the Rosa Luxemburg article to add material about claims about the existence of a Ukraininan nation in relation to Luxemburg's work The Russian Revolution.

Despite UA0Volodymyr writing in the previous ANI thread that these actions may have constituted a violation of the topic ban (though the hedging of "may" was troubling) and making a promise to not do such actions anymore as well as professing having lost all interest to the Rosa Luxemburg article, UA0Volodymyr has since resumed editing pages that fall under the broadly construed topic bans:

• Edit at Iryna Farion, an article about a scholar whose notability per the page has a lot to do with her views of whether certain Russian-speaking units are really Ukrainian.
• Edit at New People (political party), an article about a party that has proclaimed its support for the invasion by Russia of Ukraine.
• Multiple edits (another) at Black Hundreds, an article about a Russian movement notable for anti-Ukrainian sentiment
• Edit at Bistra, Maramureș, a location whose economy (specifically train use) has explicitly in the article been affected/precipitated by the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
• Edit to Rosa Luxemburg, the article UA0Volodymyr claimed to have lost interest in.

I was informed of the contributions to the Luxemburg article by Pitsarotta, who described the Luxemburg contribution as being innocuous but was worried it could be a prelude to further disruptive edits. Because UA0Volodymyr is under a broadly construed topic ban, I thought it wise to double check and discovered these other edits. The terms of the topic ban are to avoid editing any pages that related to the broadly construed topics, whatever of the content of UA0Volodymyr's edits. And per WP:BMB, the measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

UA0Volodymyr has once again demonstrated they will not abide by the topic ban. The indefinite block that was lifted on the condition of abiding the topic bans should be reimposed.

Pinging remaining users involved in the previous noticeboard discussion: @LegalSmeagolian:, @JBL:, @Seawolf35:, @Daniel:, @ActivelyDisinterested:, @HandThatFeeds:, @Chaotic Enby:, @Nil Einne:, @Lavalizard101:, @Ymblanter: P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty blatant violation of the topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

At first I was like "oh some of these topics seem only tangentially related" but then like yeah, I remembered the ban is one that is broadly construed. I support @P-Makoto's proposal as it seems that the user cannot comprehend what broadly construed means. I would say I don't find the Bistra, Maramureș edit to be in violation of the topic ban (I think even if broadly construed, preventing users from editing ANY European city/town/village that has in someway been impacted by the war is not fair as all of Europe has been impacted, and this was just one line in the article) but yeah the rest are pretty blatant. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Support indef ban, because obviously. Considering they've already been blocked for a TBAN violation, and their ongoing behaviour, there's no reasonable options other than an indef ban. I find it very unlikely there will be any real opposition to this, so the should be blocked ideally sooner than later. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting, looking at the block log of the user:

1. they were initially indeffed by HJ Mitchell on 27 October 2023,
2. then unblocked by Red-tailed hawk on 10 January 2024 under the conditions of a 1RR restriction and two topic bans,
3. and then on 26 January 2024 they were blocked 1 week by Maxim (a Checkuser) for email abuse and topic ban violations.

So yeah, they have been blocked once for TBAN violations before. I support the indef block proposal here, given this previous 1-week block which has failed to get this user's attention regarding their unblock condition violations. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I remember seeing his name at several noticeboards at the same time a few months ago. That he was indeffed but somehow managed to have that replaced with a topic ban, only for him to violate it repeatedly and send abuse privately to other users, should be a sign that he is plainly incapable of abiding by the rules. I think he's been given enough rope to hang himself, and he has, many times over. Support reinstating the indefinite block. Ostalgia (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: For full transparency, while rereading the topic ban and my OP, I wondered a bit at why I tried to concisely quote in a way that was... basically the same length as the original quote. I have edited my OP on this thread to more straightforwardly quote the topic ban without breaking up the quote as much. I continue to support the indefinite block I proposed, because I think the broad construal of the topic bans holds (perhaps not for Bistra; fair enough on LegalSmeagolian's point). A broadly construed topic ban is not an invitation to see how nearly one can dance on the line. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• This saddens me since the edits look like constructive gnoming, and I felt an enormous sense of fatigue on seeing that the previous ANI discussion was about the OUN trope. I don't have the bandwidth to dig into PoV at the moment, and really, it doesn't matter. Nor does it matter that the Romanian railway edit is tangential. Sanctions are not suggestions, and this one said "broadly construed". I say this as someone who's been called a Ukrainian nationalist (hehe). May I suggest however that perhaps the leap from topic ban to indef is a bit harsh for constructive edits? If someone has evidence that they were actually *promoting* that politician, or any harm to Russian speakers, on the other hand, then I will support an indef with the rest of you. Right now I am thinking that a three to six month block would be fairer, escalating to an indef if necessary. But perhaps my opinion is skewed by recently seeing long-term egregious behavior of other editors get completely dismissed elsewhere. I really don't know, but those are my thoughts.Elinruby (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Clearly the message from the last ANI, which was slow to sink in then, has been forgotten. Like I did back then, I support a block for persistent topic ban violations. If it isn't indefinite, it has to be long enough to make clear that the next one will be. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• I was concerned in the last discussion that UA0Volodymyr didn't understand their topic ban or what "broadly construed" entailed. None of the diffs above are problematic in themselves, but they are covered by UA0Volodymyr topic ban. Either UA0Volodymyr still doesn't understand their topic ban or they are trying to edit around it, either way that's a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't disagree with either you or Daniel. The OUN is a hot button issue, but it doesn't matter at this point. These edits are in fact topic ban violations.

For the record, I don't believe I have ever encountered this editor, so I can't assess whether there is PoV pushing without a lot more digging than I can do right now. I *will* mention the the party of Regions that the politician is in conflict with is associated with the oligarchs who ran the country before the Revolution of Dignity, but I can't defend getting anyone arrested by the Russians. None of that is relevant to whether she should or should not have an article anyway or what should be in her infobox. I am not myself detecting any PoV pushing from these edits, is all I am saying. If that *were* going on after a topic ban, that would certainly be egregious enough for an indef, and I am not saying it's not, just that I don't right now see it.

I realized after I wrote the above that they got the topic ban as a condition of their unblock, so maybe they have used up their rope, I dunno. I am just asking the question. Also, there's also a war on in Ukraine that may be affecting people they know even if they are safe themself, so it's hard to say why they haven't responded yet. That's my best attempt at objectivity, and yes, for the record, I've been a vocal critic of the war, if that affects the weight to give this opinion. Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I realized after I wrote the above that they got the topic ban as a condition of their unblock, so maybe they have used up their rope

That's my stance. Their block was revoked on the condition that they stayed away from this topic entirely. And they've violated that agreement multiple times, so an indef seems necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I deliberately didn't mention what should happen now, only my disappointment that this seemed inevitable and have proven so. I don't know if this is a language issue, but UA0Volodymyr seems unable to understand the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

i probably shouldn't opine on what should happen either if I can't take the time to review what happened. But in case it's useful context, anything involving the OUN is an extremely toxic topic. Elinruby (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the edits themselves aren't problematic, and most of them aren't immediately related, but "broadly construed" they're still a breach of the topic ban. Don't think an indef is anything useful here, but a reminder and clarification of the scope of their topic ban is definitely called for. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby The user was previously informed about their TBAN violations in early February, and the user was also blocked for one week on 26 January 2024 for a previous instance of TBAN violations, so honestly, I don't think a warning let alone a short block is going to work here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I was there for the last one, but didn't know about all the previous history. Yeah, a longer block seems like it makes sense here. I also feel like broadly construed is vague by nature, and that topic bans should be made more specific (i.e. clarifying that unrelated articles on related pages still count, and defining the scope more precisely if possible). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are even talking about. My edits neither were about the Russo-Ukrainian conflict or were problematic. The topic ban is on the Russo-Ukrainian conflicts, not on everything related to Russia or Ukraine. In the Iryna Farion article, I've just added a characteristic of her as a politician (and nothing related to the Russo-Ukrainian was); in the New People (political party), I've marked that the primary source is not a reliable one; in the Black Hundreds, I've just added some references and links (none of them weren't related to the Ukrainians in the Russian Empire or the Ukrainian 1917–1921 revolution); in Rosa Luxemburg, I've changed one punctuation symbol and one word; I didn't know anything about Bistra when I was editing it. I don't know what the purpose of your action is, but if you think that Wikipedia is a place where you can monitor every action of the User and to accuse him of what you think is an any violation of the standard rules, which is not what Wikipedia is. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

well yeah they can monitor you, anyone can. And you need to read then ask questions about the broadly construed part, because as someone who is if anything biased in your favor I have to agree that you violated that. Hopefully someone will oblige us with a link.Elinruby (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

check out the examples at Wikipedia:TBAN. That Romanian village does mention the war in Ukraine. I am not an admin so I will butt out now that you are here to speak for yourself but my advice is that you describe the problem yourself with these edits based on that link. Elinruby (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

[32]--Ymblanter (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. If UA0Volodymyr understood why these edits violated the broadly construed terms of the topic ban—if they, as Elinruby suggested, could describe the problem yourself with these edits based on WP:TBAN—I would be more open to Chaotic Enby's suggestion that this close with a reminder and clarification of the scope of their topic ban. But I lack optimism that UA0Volodymyr will do so. UA0Volodymyr didn't last time (except begrudgingly, and hedgingly) and hasn't this time. The last ANI thread closed with UA0Volodymyr apologizing (albeit seemingly begrudgingly) after being reminded of the scope of the topic ban, with no further action. In the absence of a prompt, overt, and demonstrably comprehending acknowledgment of the topic ban's violation, I think it would be shortsighted to end this thread the same way. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Well. They do need to be able to recognize a clue when it is dropped on their head from a great height. I was expecting questions about now. My thinking is still that we just don't know what's going on RL but the silence here is making me regret speaking up. Give it a little more time? If this starts to look more and more like WP:ANI flu like it does right now, then a warning should yes, be taken off the table and the length of the block should depend in how many other life preservers they have already ignored. Based on Ymblanter's link it looks like several. Elinruby (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm very confused by your comment, they have already replied and you have replied to them (before making this comment) so it's not a case of ANI flu. UA0Volodymyr reply of I don't understand what you are even talking about, shows as I feared that they do not understand the nature of their topic ban (and seems unable to get the point). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I see what Elinruby means about this looking "like" WP:ANI; there was some hope, on Elinruby's part, that UA0Volodymyr would read the WP:TBAN link provided further up in the thread and get it (or at least grapple with it). And UA0Volodymyr participated much more actively in the previous ANI thread (although just as un-generatively). Instead of facing the topic ban's terms, UA0Volodymyr is suddenly not posting at all.

In any case, we agree that UA0Volodymyr seems not to understand the terms of the topic ban. My own thinking is increasingly that we're well past the realm of warnings. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep. My attempt to explain it to them did not include a ping, granted, but they know this thread exists. I linked to what they need to understand and answer to so if they can't see the problem I have to agree that that's a problem.

Elinruby (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the combination of UA0Volodymyr's possible confusion about the extent of "broadly construed" related to disputes between the two countries, and the fact that there doesn't appear to be any secondary vandalism, how would people feel if, instead of an indefinite block, the topic ban was extended to Russia and Ukraine, broadly construed? This would remove a good bit of the ambiguity, and if they continued to violate the topic ban, there would be a great deal less uncertainty about whether the editor really understands the scope? Failing this, I would support an indefinite block rather than a warning. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Not inherently opposed. Just not going to argue myself for another chance for someone who isn't bothering to take it. There seems to be some attitude as a compounding factor so maybe escalation really is called for. If we go this route however, ok, that would be an escalation, but I suggest really clear and careful wording to enunciate that this means anything to do with Ukraine, at all, anything to do with Russia, at all, anything to do with Galicia, OUN, volunteer units, Cossacks, or any hetman, at all.Those are likely pitfalls. To be clear, it doesn't matter what they or I think of the original editing restriction, which I still have not found time to read. It existed, and they were responsible for asking questions if they had them. And they did, in fact, ask about a famine in the Soviet Union. At this point I can't imagine that other editors who have commented here would accept anything but an escalation, and I myself think they need to show they can color inside the lines,which their silence here is putting in doubt.Elinruby (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, UA0Volodymyr's contributions to topic-banned areas have been, for the most part, constructive and uncontroversial edits. But then, if we look back to the original post, it mentions WP:BMB and how good edits are still prohibited when an editor is banned.

Looking at the user's talk page, the top thread "Reply to your email" does seem to indicate awareness of their topic ban, or at least they were aware of it back then in 11th January – as they were asking questions about the scope of their topic ban. And now here we are, where the user is editing in these topic areas seemingly without regard for the topic ban. So I feel like ignorance is at play here rather than a difficulty of understanding.

So here's a timeline. User was unblocked on 10 Jan with TBAN and 1RR restrictions. On 11 Jan they sent an email to the unblocking admin asking for clarification about their TBAN, which the admin followed up on the user's talk page. On 26 Jan they were blocked 1-week for "abuse of email and violation of TBAN". On 7–11 Feb we had the previous ANI discussion about the user's TBAN violations.

It's as if they stopped caring about it from a certain time point onwards. If this editor was genuinely not understanding their topic ban areas and the meaning of "broadly construed", I would've expected them to ask the blocking admin (or other members of the community) another question, just like they did in 11 January.

As Elinruby has neatly put above, I'm not sure if it's going to be worth the time taking another chance here.

So overall, I oppose this alternate proposal and still stand by the original indef block restoration proposal here. This sounds like a good alternative and I wanted to give the editor one more shot here, but it's hard for me to support it when the user goes from asking questions about the ban when in doubt, to simply ignoring it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested seems troubled and I trust their judgment, so... I looked into the history here, not exhaustively, but pretty thoroughly, and, how to put this, there is some concerning stuff there. On several sides. This editor also uses revert more than I like but then I don't like revert at all. But as I already said, it doesn't matter. There is a bright line violation.

And yet, it is technical, and reported by an editor whose approach to the used is on display here so their concern about the disruptive power of punctuation looks rather disingenuous. Especially given the link in that diff.

I think that UA0Volodymyr does merit a sanction, but not an indef. I am trying to keep this short so I so I won't expand on that unless asked. The reporting editor also needs some careful scrutiny. This is warranted by the grave dancing alone but I'm unsure how involved they were themself in harassing this editor over a dispute about the meaning of a flag.

Everyone involved in these disputes needs to get a contentious topic alert if they don't already have one, because all of this is all about content and the Holocaust in Poland. It is a clash of nationalisms. But no matter what, we do still have a topic ban violation which UA0Volodymyr have said here did not happen. IDHT? I find it hard to believe they maliciously plotted to insert punctuation. A short block to get their attention. And give them time to grow a thicker skin. Elinruby (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said at the last ANI, and I've said here, I don't think that will work. The topic ban was a condition on removing an indef block, and they seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of that topic ban.
I too believe they could make useful contributions, and as I did in the last ANI thread I implore UA0Volodymyr to take part in this discussion and show that they understand the limits of their topic ban. Without that I don't see how the same issues aren't just going to keep happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody listened to them about that flag. They probably think there is no point, come to think of it. Which is unfortunate, because unless UA0Volodymyr speaks up here, the fact that "the conflicts" seems to equal "the current war" in their mind just won't matter, because that's the issue here. Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Taking action

Declaring that I now consider myself involved, hence not taking any administrative action myself.

This is now the second thread about this editor that is in danger of just fizzling out. I would suggest that in both threads, there has been/is a rough consensus to indefinitely block (or at the very least, block for an extended period with an understanding that the next one is indefinite) this editor for their willful and persistent failure to comply with their editing restriction.

I would respectfully request that an administrator reviews this and the prior thread and looks to take some sort of action (whatever they consider to be consensus) to move this issue towards a resolution. It would be unfortunate if it was to be archived without action for a second time.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I'm the admin who originally indef'd Volodymyr and I consented to the unblock by Red-tailed hawk with the conditions he drew up) I'm not entirely convinced the edits in the OP are violations of the topic ban, much less that Volodymyr knew (or should have known) that they were violations. The scope of the restriction is Disputes between the countries Russia and Ukraine, both present and historical, broadly construed and Disputes involving the ethnic identity of particular individuals where it is disputed whether their ethnicity is Ukrainian, broadly construed. I can see how the article subjects are related to "disputes between Russia and Ukraine" but Volodymyr's edits aren't to anything substantively about such disputes so I can perfectly see why they might not think there's a problem with the edits. Given that, and that commenters above seem to acknowledge that the edits aren't disruptive in and of themselves, I don't feel inclined to reinstate the block, though I welcome RTH's opinion.

If we feel that these edits should be covered by the topic ban, we need to agree exactly what is covered and advise Volodymr of that so he has a chance to edit within the restrictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to clarify/amend the topic ban, including something like or editing any pages related to the above. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

since they have already encountered the third-rail topic of the OUN I suggest being really specific about whether that is or is not under the topic ban, as well as some other things like Slava Ukraini, Cossack deportations, invasions of hetmen, the annexation of Crimea, or the various historical wars of Ukraine with various incarnations of Poland and/or the Soviet Union. I don't know what to make of their silence and am not advocating a particular course of action at this point, but if the decision is to reword the topic ban, I'm offering that as a suggestion. Those are all sensitive topics that some might consider related. Your call whether to include them; I am just suggesting you be clear about whether you do. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and my apologies to you both if you already knew all this. Over and out Elinruby (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I do think a clarification on the TBAN may be helpful to third parties, but also I don’t know that expanding it where there hasn’t been disruption is warranted. This is not a general TBAN on all Russia and all Ukraine, but it was narrowly tailored towards the area of disruption. I understand that the slightly narrower scope may be confusing to people just looking in. Maybe changing the first TBAN to “Making edits relating to ethnic/national conflicts or disputes between Russians/Russia and Ukrainians/Ukraine” would have been better than the country-based TBAN.

The email abuse after the unblock is not a good sign. I probably would have just indef’d at that point, but that is stale.

I am very busy with life this week, so I write in haste. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am Volodymyr, not Volodymr. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@UA0Volodymyr I apologise. It's not a common name in English and apparently not an easy one to type on a phone. I meant no disrespect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be either a violation of the topic ban or is at least in very similar vain to the type of edits that led to the topic ban in first place. Volunteer Marek 01:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Mickievič was nether Russian or Ukrainian and there's not dispute in it. There's a dispute between Polish, Lithuanian and Belarusian ethnic identity and a topic ban doesn't cover it. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that's Polish / Lithuanian / Belarusian with a side of Russian thrown in (given that it's post partition and the subject was against Russian rule of Poland). The topic ban is only Ukrainian / Russian disputes, rather than the wider Eastern European topic area. I do wonder why, as it doesn't involve Ukraine, that Ukrainian spelling was added, but that's a content question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for off-topic, but Ukrainian spelling was added because Mickievič works have influence on Ukrainian literature, I've written about it in the article right now. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

User:TarnishedPath re-engaging in wikihounding despite multiple warnings

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

---

Despite being warned to remain civil with the sanction being recorded in the log of sanctions, this editor has restarted the uncivil campaign. This started after my topic ban, where a false accusation of sockpuppetry was leveled by a separate user. Please note that an admin commented that "it is rather inappropriate to discuss the conduct of an editor who is banned from posting to this page." When warning MaskedSinger of the potential WP:NPA, WP:GRAVEDANCING, and WP:BADGERING, violation on his talk page, TarnishedPath falsely accused me of violating my topic ban. Again, the admin clarified that "Mkstokes is banned from commenting on this topic; they're not banned from responding to your accusations," warned both editors that they were indeed gravedancing and also warned them that continued harassment would be met with administrative action.

Almost a month later, TarnishedPath showed up on the Fani Willis talk page to participate in an RfC that had a well-documented discussion. I cannot prove that he followed me there. However, his No !vote was similar to other No's that the group had already deemed as an incorrect citation of WP:BLP policies as it pertains to public figures. So I left a note "for closure purposes" with a detailed breakdown of the appropriate reading of the policy. He immediately accused me of a personal attack when there was none. I'll note that when another editor also corrected him on the same point, there was no personal attack accusation.

TarnishedPath then attempted to close the conversation when I challenged him to provide a "cogent argument that I'm wrong." This is despite being a very much involved editor! Thankfully, the author of the article reverted the closure and informed TarnishedPath "please let uninvolved editors close discussions." Soon after, TarnishedPath decided his next course of action was to determine which Survey votes should be invalidated. It is possible there was a good-faith motive and to his credit, he did remove a sockpuppet.

Finally, a separate RfC from a BLP (the origin of my topic ban) was recently closed. The admin included a personal attack and tagged me in the closure. I was concerned so I addressed it on his talk page and came to an amicable resolution. However, TarnishedPath appeared with a new accusation that I violated my topic ban, despite the previous admin making it clear that while I am "...banned from commenting on this topic; they're not banned from responding to...accusations" You'll note that my concern about the personal attack listed two items directly from the WP:NPA:

1. Insults/accusations/other behavior
2. Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid

That was my only concern regarding the consensus as I thought the given numerical majority was being ignored due to my sanction. I was wrong, but that was worked out BEFORE TarnishedPath appeared. As I said to the admin, "It's not that I'm reluctant to communicate with you. Rather, there are specific editors waiting for any opportunity to impose additional sanctions on me." This wikihounding needs to stop. As a precaution, I have muted this user and will never interact with him on any level ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkstokes (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mkstokes: In your first reply to TarnishedPath at that discussion, you said his rationale was "yet one more misreading of Wikipedia policies." If that was just the latest in a series of messages that all made the same mistake, why didn't you make that reply earlier to someone else? I'm wondering because you did a lot of work composing that reply even though you had to have known that no matter how right your words were, TarnishedPath wouldn't seriously consider any of them. City of Silver 21:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Because the reply wasn't meant exclusively for TarnishedPath. That's why I also said "For closure purposes, please take note" as a call to any admin that would be assigned to close the RfC. Throughout the conversation, I provided very detailed analysis of Wikipedia policies for WEIGHT, as well as RUMOR and RECENTISM. The "No per WP:BLP" !vote provided by TarnishedPath was "yet one more misreading of Wikipedia policies" in the discussion. Others provided explanations why WP:BLP didn't apply, but only one within the RfC, and I felt it needed a more detailed breakdown for this specific case because this instance was the only one within the RfC that insisted an allegation was not enough. A conviction was necessary. As I said in my exchange with him later on, "In short, it's not even about you. I've provided evidence to back up my refutation of the reference." I had no idea he would take a dispassionate, detailed analysis of WP:BLPPUBLIC as a personal attack and I won't speculate why he did in order to avoid casting aspersions. Mkstokes (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver, an extremely pertinent question. Notably during the discussion I didn't quote BLPPUBLIC at all however Mkstokes felt the need to badger me on BLPPUBLIC like I had. TarnishedPath^talk 23:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That is 100% correct TarnishedPath. You only referenced BLP, but it also points out an extremely serious flaw in your editing and understanding of Wikipedia. You quoted BLP, which is an article with a very extensive table of contents, including references BLPPUBLIC, BLPBALANCE, BLPPRIMARY and many many more. Yet after 17 years of editing Wikipedia articles, you are suggesting that your experience tells you a reference to BLP only includes BLPCRIMES - a tiny section of BLP - and you need not be concerned with anything else in the policy? If pointing out flaws in arguments is now to be considered "badgering," then all editors should be sanctions. Mkstokes (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't need or require more badgering from you. It's not welcome. TarnishedPath^talk 00:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A boomerang is required here.

Firstly an explanation for me being on user pages/articles which Mkstokes clearly hasn't considered because they have WP:ABF.

• Yes I did participate in Talk:Fani_Willis#RFC:_alleged_misuse_of_funds, a review of my contribution history will reveal that on the 24th of February when I first participated in that RfC I participated in 5 or 6 other RfCs on BLPs.
• Secondly a review of JML1148's user page where Mkstokes is accusing me of hounding them reveals that I had initiated a thread at User_talk:JML1148#Your_close prior to Mkstokes and that JML1148 had responded to it. I had come to see what JML1148 had written when I noticed the thread that Mkstokes had started.

Now for the boomerang.

• To be extremely clear Mkstokes is topic banned from Nick McKenzie and Peter Schiff both broadly construed per Special:Diff/1197829856#Mkstokes (date 22 January 2024).
• To be extremely clear Special:Diff/1213191446 (date 12 March 2024) is a violation of Mkstokes topic ban. In the diff Mkstokes not only names a subject he is topic banned from, he also specifically talks about the RfC that occurred at the article about the subject and WP:ABF in regards to JML1148 when they claim Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. Whilst consensus can change, the simple act of blocking does not change it - if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought. In the same diff Mkstokes further talks about the RfC, again when he is topic banned from that subject, claiming Despite claiming "There is consensus to remove the disputed content," it is clear none was achieved to remove said content. If it had been obtained, there would be no concern that "This is going to be a controversial closure, given the numerical majority against removing the content."
• Further it is extremely clear that Special:Diff/1213316863 (date 12 March 2024) is a violation of Mkstokes topic ban. When Mkstokes wrote Then you didn't do proper research before closing the item. is is clear from the context of the conversation that he is writing about an RfC that he should not be writing about and not only is he topic banned he engages in personal attacks on the closer.
• For more troubling issues. It is clear that since Mkstokes has been topic banned that the majority of their edits have been on at Talk:Fani_Willis. A review of their contributions at that talk page reveals behavioural issues including some that needed to be revdelled by an admin on the 24 February because of serious BLP violations.
• I could go on and on, but I am also aware that after I participated in an RfC at Talk:Trumpism, Mkstokes showed up at Talk:Trumpism#Violation_of_NPOV? where they WP:ABF about everyone who edited that article stating Looking for WP:NPOV in an article that is strictly the opinion and indeed the creation of leftists is a fools errand. The first paragraph, exclusively citing leftist secondary sources, is the template for the entire article. Given their behaviour in that thread another editor warned them "Your comments above do nothing towards the aims of article improvement or editing, and instead foster a battleground mentality. Actions like this become evidential should you one find oneself before a place like WP:AE".

TarnishedPath^talk 23:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Two months ago, administrator Ivanvector explained that even though Mkstokes is topic banned from Nick McKenzie, they were allowed to respond at McKenzie's talk page to accusations by you and MaskedSinger that they were sockpuppeting and/or meatpuppeting. Shouldn't the same exception apply in this situation? JML1148, who didn't know about the topic ban, closed that RFC with a comment where they heavily criticized and pinged Mk. And it's arguable that Mkstokes felt obligated to respond since they appear to think JML1148 is an administrator. City of Silver 23:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver, firstly they can respond to accusations without mentioning subjects from which they are topic banned. That's not hard to do. Secondly they went well beyond responding to accusations and were criticising the RfC close at Talk:Nick_McKenzie#RfC:_Lawsuit_between_Peter_Schiff_and_Australian_media itself. That's clearly pissing all over the topic ban. TarnishedPath^talk 00:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver also a correction as the discussion at Talk:Nick_McKenzie/Archive_1#Sock_Puppets? shows, I made no accusations of sockpuppeting and I counselled MaskedSinger that there was no evidence of sockpuppeting. Please adjust your comment. TarnishedPath^talk 00:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: "firstly they can respond to accusations without mentioning subjects from which they are topic banned. That's not hard to do." Okay, true, but do they have to? Per Ivanvector, the answer is no. Also, Ivanvector responded to that "pissing" message by deleting it, not by blocking. I honestly think it should have gotten a block but not almost two months after the fact. City of Silver 01:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver To be clear, I'm not referring to something that happened two months ago. I'm not attempting to relitigate that. What Invanvetor was referring to happened two months ago. What happened on JML1148's talk page happened yesterday. Please check the diffs I have provided. TarnishedPath^talk 01:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ps, much appreciated for adjusting your comment above re: sockpuppeting. TarnishedPath^talk 01:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I've read the diffs several times. Please re-read the first half of my previous message, up to the word "Also." City of Silver 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver my apologies for any miscommunication.

The statement if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought that Mkstokes made is not a response to any accusation. It is a criticism of the RfC close at Talk:Nick_McKenzie#RfC:_Lawsuit_between_Peter_Schiff_and_Australian_media itself. It is going well beyond a response to accusations and Mkstokes can't claim that any advice provided to them by Ivanvector covers that. Mkstokes appointed himself as arbiter of what consensus was in that RfC and then lectured the RfC closer about what they had read consensus to be and how the closer had "overturn the previous consensus". That is a blatant and willful violation of Mkstokes topic ban and Ivanvector's previous advice doesn't provide a cover for it.

Again in the statement Despite claiming "There is consensus to remove the disputed content," it is clear none was achieved to remove said content. If it had been obtained, there would be no concern that "This is going to be a controversial closure, given the numerical majority against removing the content." they are not addressing any accusations against them. Again Ivanvector's previous advice doesn't provide a cover for it.

Again in the statement Then you didn't do proper research before closing the item they were not addressing any accusations against them. Again Ivanvector's previous advice doesn't provide a cover for it.

In all three sections of text they are not addressing accusations against them and in violation of their topic ban. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

We're talking past each other so I'm going to withdraw. You should appreciate my vote anyway. City of Silver 03:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Be well. TarnishedPath^talk 03:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Notably in the filling of this incident Mkstokes again violates the terms of their topic ban when they write "my only concern regarding the consensus as I thought the given numerical majority was being ignored due to my sanction". To be clear they are directly referring to a RfC on a subject which they are topic banned from. TarnishedPath^talk 00:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct. And that RfC was the source of the insult that I responded to with an WP:GRAVEDANCING warning. This is my right. This policy states two critical points that I addressed:

Examples of gravedancing may include:

• Insults/accusations/other behavior directed at editors who are now blocked or banned. This is motivated by the idea that the editor in question won't be able to respond to the comment. This is wrong even if the editor in question never sees it because it contributes to a negative environment that is less likely to encourage editors to work together.
• Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. Whilst consensus can change, the simple act of blocking does not change it - if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought.

That is the full context of my filling out of this incident as you can see from the links provided above. Not to rehash the closure, but to confirm the closure wasn't performed in contrary to the policy in regards to grave dancing. This full context, which @TarnishedPath keeps leaving out, is essential to the analysis. Had there been no insult and direct ping in the closure (the vast majority of closures contain no personal insults), there would have been no concerns about the whatsoever. The mover would have you believe there was no initiating event and that I did this unprovoked. Mkstokes (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No it is not your right. WP:TBAN and WP:BROADLY do not grant you any such exception. Please don't continue to wikilawyer. TarnishedPath^talk 22:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can an admin please take note of Special:Diff/1213791038 and Special:Diff/1213816737 which are both unambiguous violations of Mkstokes topic ban as they have edited the talk page of Nick McKenzie. Both edits have occurred today and notably the second edit is edit warring. This is wilful and deliberate behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 10:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

AE enforcement AE block Doug Weller talk 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, thankyou however I believe there is clear community consensus for something much stronger. TarnishedPath^talk 12:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what is it? I have assumed this won't stop and the next would be an indef. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, see below for a block proposal. I think the arguments made by others are pretty good for an indef regardless of Mkstokes topic ban. TarnishedPath^talk 12:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I just don't see it. If the vote were for an indefinite or a community ban, I would enact it. Note we haven't heard from Ivanvector yet. I expect him to have something to say. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame them for wanting to not be bothered with this. I'll leave this to your best judgment. TarnishedPath^talk 13:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think they will though. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Block proposal (Mkstokes)

Per the evidence I have provided above I propose that Mkstokes be blocked for violation of their topic ban. TarnishedPath^talk 23:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support as mover. It is clear from User_talk:Mkstokes#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban that Mkstokes has already been warned for breaching their topic ban on 22 January 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as accused. This issue was resolved over two months ago and guidelines were provided. Admin @Ivanvector noted at the time "Mkstokes is banned from commenting on this topic; they're not banned from responding to your accusations. ... A topic ban is not an invitation for you to follow the sanctioned user around and point out every mistake they make; ... But please don't harass editors even if they are sanctioned, unless you want to see your names beside logged interaction bans at WP:AELOG." The mover has submitted this new block proposal as retaliation against my concerns about WP:HOUNDING (see above). I was harshly criticized by the closer of the RfC, I responded on his page, and the issue was resolved. I even thanked the editor and gave him The Half Barnstar! I'd suggest this be opposed, closed with prejudice, and TarnishedPath should be properly admonished for wasting your time. Mkstokes (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support As usual, these kind of editors learn things the hard way or not at all. 2600:1011:B18B:F:8A6:99B2:A133:D74A (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Mkstokes relentlessly engages in battleground behavior then, infuriatingly, always explains it as totally unobjectionable. (My favorite was their description of this message as "dispassionate." Really? Really? Look at all those bold words!) The last entry on TarnishedPath's list is damning: that insistence that this site's editorial approach leans far to the left, a claim that has no presence in reality, strongly indicates a tendency to consume media where they are constantly lied to about what leftism and liberalism are.

We've seen countless editors exactly like this. They can't stop picking fights at sensitive articles and because they're experts at using tactics (walls of text, civil POV pushing, link after link after link to policies and guidelines and whatever, DARVO) to wear out anyone who might sanction them, it takes forever to finally send them off the project. If this person is left to their own devices, they will never be able to stay away from starting endless battles they never win. Block Mkstokes for the sake of the good faith editors who will waste countless hours trying and failing to get them to see the light. City of Silver 03:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver What does the media I consume in my personal time have to do with a decision to block me? WOW! 🤯 Mkstokes (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Having a personal view of Wikipedias editorial values is not some violation worthy of a block. Saying that someone is an “experts at using tactics” because they make long post that quote specific guidelines or post links as if that is unwanted behavior is also blatantly outrageous, isn’t that the whole point of a talk page? To make your argument to the best of your ability by citing specific Wikipedia guildines and point to valid sources?

Friedbyrd (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I listed several examples of problematic behavior. None on their own are reason enough to block. I never said anything different. I gave these examples because I believe they show a pattern of disruptiveness. That's why I support a block.

@Friedbyrd: In your last sentence, you accurately described Mkstokes's behavior but you left out what I believe is the key factor. I think, to make it completely accurate, it would read this: "To make your argument to the best of your ability in response to a user you know desperately wants you to leave them alone by citing specific Wikipedia guildines and point to valid sources?" Do you see the difference? City of Silver 18:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked from what? The topic ban article? The other two articles mentioned? (Fani Willis and Trumpism) Wikipedia? Please be specific. Mkstokes (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support For all of the things that TarnishedPath has already said above, and the numerous allegations of misconduct they made against me on my talk page. Not that TarnishedPath's behaviour has been perfect, but Mkstokes is clearly WP:NOTHERE. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support For all the talk about turning over a new leaf, clearly a leopard can't change its spots. @Mkstokes, it was nice of you to bring the band back together but sadly, this will be the last time. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'll be patient and await feedback from neutral/uninvolved editors. Those with a vested interest typically rush in at the beginning. Regardless, a block is not a permanent ban from editing on Wikipedia. Mkstokes (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're 100% correct. As someone who is neutral and uninvolved, I can't let my personal preferences interfere with what's best for Wikipedia. Sure, it will be a lot less interesting without you, but you're unable to play nicely with others which is why I have to support this motion. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  How are you neutral/uninvolved? Your name was specifically mentioned above before you even provided comment. 🤣 Mkstokes (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's your love language. You just can't quit me. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Making impassioned arguments in talk pages is the entire point of Wikipedia talk pages and there is no rule or guideline against this. Of course this will lead to people with strong opinions especially on pages for current events. Moves to block Mkstokes seems like the final move in nothing more than a vindictive and unproductive move in the final part of a long winded wikibeef motivated by opposing views between you to. I would suggest simply avoiding each other as much as possible and certainly not following each others moves in the future.

Friedbyrd (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've not seen one argument for blocking on the basis of "impassioned arguments" or any claims that there is a guideline to such effect. Now if you're going to cast aspersions you need to provide evidence or retract. TarnishedPath^talk 09:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This is in reference to @City of Silver support argument, I wanted to make a “formal” oppose point rather than just reply to their point.

Friedbyrd (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Their support argument doesn't state "impassioned arguments" as as reason for blocking. They noted that Mkstokes engages in battleground behaviour and then always goes onto explain their behaviour as unobjectionable. They go onto explain that their favourite example was Mkstokes claiming a particular episode of battleground behaviour was "dispassionate". I'm paraphrasing City of Silver and it's clear that they are not finding fault for "impassioned arguments". Please don't put words in people's mouths, it's not called for. TarnishedPath^talk 10:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The post in question outright says that he has "a tendency to consume media where they are constantly lied to about what leftism and liberalism are." Its pretty clear that this is not an argument about wikipedia guidelines by a political thing. If you want to do something as extreme as block someone then you should make a much stronger case for it other than that that.

Friedbyrd (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That's less than a sentences worth of two paragraphs of City of Silver's !vote. Singling out half a sentence of superfluous wording doesn't make the rest of his argument not a strong case. TarnishedPath^talk 10:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: There is not a single point in @City of Silver !vote that references the violation of a topic ban, which "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area." Battleground tactics, viewpoints on Wikipedia, picking fights, tactics, and "the sake of the good faith editors" has absolutely nothing to do with the violation of a topic ban. Mkstokes (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Just because I made a proposal to block you on the basis of breaching your topic ban, that doesn't stop others supporting my motion on the basis of other reasons. Battleground behaviour is a perfectly valid reason to put forward in support of a block. TarnishedPath^talk 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then I would suggest a modification of your statement that explicitly states "Per the evidence I have provided above I propose that Mkstokes be blocked for violation of their topic ban." to include any and all reasons editors deem a ban would be necessary, including non-Wikipedia related concerns about watching the wrong TV show. Mkstokes (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that someone would even bring that up as a reason for a block is ridiculous, not even accounting for it has nothing to do with the posted reason you gave being an alleged ban violation.

Friedbyrd (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As to your specific point of a topic ban violation, I’m not sure I see that. A topic ban means that a user is not allowed to edit a certain topics or pages, but not a prohibition against referencing them or their talk pages. I don’t see how he violated a ban with this.

Friedbyrd (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Friedbyrd: The TBAN is broadly construed. Writing a large number of (often uncivil) comments on the talk page of a BLP they were very clearly banned from is definitely a violation of the TBAN. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@JML1148 Correction: I did not write a large number of comments on the talk page of a BLP that I was banned from. The comments in question are based on edits done on your talk page that were resolved and closed. If I'm to be banned, at least get the facts correct. Mkstokes (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've got my order of events wrong - I see now that your TBAN came after the RfC discussion was concluded. However, you have still breached your TBAN with the comments on my talk page, and your conduct alone violates WP:CIV and WP:AGF, which would likely result in a block even without the TBAN violation. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. As @Mkstokes had pointed out in his initial post here, he was specifically responding to accusations made against him by @TarnishedPath (reference HERE) And topic/page bans are broad, but per APBAN a user is allowed to comment on the talk page if specifically told so. User @Ivanvector had made it clear that Mkstokes was allowed to respond to these accusations and this would NOT be a violation of his ban. TarnishedPath acknowledged this saying " thank you for the clarification" and user @MaskedSinger also acknowledged this saying "Thank you for your commment. I've got nothing further to add. Saying this, I will continue to keep a close eye on the page and should there be any monkey business, I will let you know." Which seems like a veiled threat of hounding.

The fact that there is now a call to block Mkstokes from Tarnished path on the basis of a deliberate misinterpretation of a page ban after Mkstokes tried to go through the proper channels to resolve their wikibeef is concerning to say the least.

Friedbyrd (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hounding?! Thanks for the laugh. Maybe if you didn't write such nonsense, people would take you more seriously. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments like this are not going to help your argument.

Friedbyrd (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Following from JML, refer to WP:TBAN and WP:BROADLY. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:APBAN: "An article ban forbids an editor from editing a specific article or set of articles. The text of the ban should state whether the ban includes or excludes the article's talk page."

So yeah, broadly speaking a user would be banned from even engaging in the talk page, BUT as Mkstokes pointed out in their initial post here, he was specifically told that he was allowed to respond to accusations that you made about him from user Ivanvector saying that "Mkstokes is banned from commenting on this topic; they're not banned from responding to your accusations." And you were the first to respond to this saying "thank you for the clarification. All evident HERE So Im wondering what happened, did you forget this or something? Because you seem to acknowledge fully that Mkstokes was allowed to do this but now you are calling for him to be blocked over a misinterpretation of a page ban when you clearly knew otherwise.

Friedbyrd (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no APBAN, there is a TBAN. Please refer to the link I provided. TarnishedPath^talk 10:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As I just pointed out to you, user Ivenvector specifically informed you that Mkstokes was NOT in violation of his ban when he made that comment. You yourself acknowledged this by saying "thank you for the clarification." Because the fact that you are now trying to have a user blocked over a deliberate misinterpretation of a ban is not a good look.

Friedbyrd (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ivanvector stated two months ago that Mkstokes was allowed to defend themselves when they posted on another editor's talk page about Nick McKenzie when Mkstokes had been accused of sockpuppeting by that editor. Ivanvector did not make statements yesterday clearing Mkstokes to go onto another editor's talk page and lecture them about the close of an RfC on Nick McKenzie. Please do not continue to WP:GASLIGHT. TarnishedPath^talk 11:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Mkstokes referencing the initial talk page he was banned from in his post here in order to set the stage is a violation of a ban?

Friedbyrd (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue this with you. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I asked you a question in order to clarify your argument. Youre the one who brought up the proposal to have someone blocked which is pretty serious and shouldnt be taken lightly so you should be expected to have a strong argument in favor of it. Like I had said earlier, this seems like a wikibeef between you to and I would advise you both to avoid each other and not follow each others edit history.

Friedbyrd (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Friedbyrd: You're verging on WP:BLUDGEON. If you don't stop I wouldn't be suprised if you get hit by a boomerang. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

For reference, Mkstokes was banned from the Nick McKenzie page on Jan 22, 2024 and it seems that his last comment on the Nick McKenzie talk page was from Jan 13, 2024. As per Ivanvectors post, Mkstokes is allowed to respond to any allegations against him anywhere that they might show up and the ban is in reference to any discussion of the Nick McKenzie page itself. Unless Mkstokes made any reference specifically to the Nick McKenzie page after Jan 22, 2024 in terms of its quality edit history ect. I dont see how he violated his ban.

Mkstokes referencing the Nick McKenzie page in his initial post here in order to make his case and "set the stage" for his argument would not be a violation of this ban.

Friedbyrd (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

For your own benefit, you need to stand down. You seem in desperate need of making yourself relevant, but all you're doing is making a fool of yourself. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m allowed to make comments on this and threats like this are completely unproductive and more importantly don’t scare me.

Friedbyrd (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Threat?! Lol. It's not a threat, it's advice :) We get that you think you're very important, but you're not ready to sit at the grown ups table. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Low level trolling, veiled threats and harassment are not examples of being at the “grown ups table”

Friedbyrd (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you have such a chip on your shoulder and siege mentality. You need a hug! MaskedSinger (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t. Do you have anything of substance to add?

Friedbyrd (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

all cool. we're all here to work together to build a wonderful resource for the generations of tomorrow. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. So, going over the evidence Mkstokes themselves presented above... TarnishedPath contributed to an RFC on a figure closely-connected to a topic area they had been editing heavily in, about an aspect that had received a bunch of recent coverage; Mkstokes concludes (as they concede above, without evidence) that TarnishedPath followed them there, and writes an extremely long reply which devolves into the above as Mkstokes repeatedly demands others WP:SATISFY them in a "prove-me-wrong" fashion. The fact that Mkstrokes has turned this around, in their head, into TarnishedPath hounding them shows that they're just not willing to drop this. Likewise, I wouldn't characterize [33] as addressed it on his talk page and came to an amicable resolution. The common thread in all of these is that Mkstokes is clearly the one unwilling to WP:DROPTHESTICK here; Mkstokes clearly saw the option of engaging anything they consider an "accusation" as an opportunity to continue the dispute and behavior that led to the topic ban. What it was was WP:ROPE, and at this point they've thoroughly hung themselves with it. EDIT: See also this, which is more of the same and shows both the same fixation on TarnishedPath and the same belief that this grudge allows them to ignore their topic ban. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  This seems to be the last of "the band" that MaskedSinger was talking about, though I expect 1 or 2 additional members. We'll see how the survey goes from here. The pattern is expected and unmistakable. Mkstokes (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  No silly. The band is you, me and Tarnished Path. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  But seriously, making allegations of the !vote basically being rigged against them is absolutely unacceptable, particularly when, as far as I can tell, Aquillion wasn't involved with any of the discussions. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Aquillion was directly involved in the RfC on Nick McKenzie talk page. This is the same RfC that you insulted me on, so your statement is patently false. It's doesn't go unnoticed that TarnishedPath purposely didn't provide a notice on the exact page where this request started. This entire block request regarding a WP:TBAN is from the Nick McKenzie talk page, yet he put the notice on the Fani Willis page? Yes, "the band" is indeed active. Neither Aquillion nor MaskedSinger are anywhere on the Fani Willis article, yet almost immediately after TarnishedPath posted his block request, they came over to chime in. Mkstokes (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  They were involved, but very briefly, and didn't interact directly with you. Furthermore, your comment that I insulted you on the RfC is untrue. My exact comment was Multiple editors, particularly Mkstokes, violated Wikipedia's policies and should be ashamed of their actions. All parties, including TarnishedPath and MaskedSinger, showed incivility and a lack of good faith in the discussion. I named you because you were undoubtedly the worst, hence your TBAN from making edits related to Nick McKenzie or Peter Schiff. TarnishedPath should have placed an ANI notice on your talk page, rather than Fani Willis, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  if i was incivil it's because Mkstokes drags all he encounters into the gutter with him and this is the only language he understands. He's not here to be constructive - rather he deliberately goes out looking for controversy and to stir the pot and not caring about basic Wikipedia guidelines or manners. When called out on it, he quotes and hides behind Wikipedia policies. I didn't show good faith because he lost the benefit of any doubt a long time ago. It's time to stop giving him any oxygen. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have no need to place an ANI notice on Mkstokes talk because he was the one that initiated this incident against me. Remember this is a boomerang. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'll partially agree with you on the incivility point. All parties did show "incivility and a lack of good faith in the discussion" and unfortunately are continuing to do so. In fact, MaskedSinger admits there's absolutely no reason for him to be civil or to show good faith at all. Furthermore, he's been aloof and mocking to @Friedbyrd at every point on this page. However, TarnishedPath was specifically warned to be civil and if there are no sanctions placed upon him, this will only embolden him to continue his actions. Mkstokes (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have been exceedingly civil during this process. If you are claiming otherwise, present evidence now or retract immediately. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  The only reason I'm replying to you now is after the fact because Ill be accused of gravedancing. So let me get in now while I can. I can't wait till you're blocked from Wikipedia. I have no idea why you get off on being so toxic and so obnoxious. What are you even doing here? It's just to be disruptive ; just to upset people. It grew old a very very very long time ago. It's a privilege to be here and to contribute, but yet you just want attention. All this back and forth here all about you. What for? It's a waste of everyone's time. It's a shame - you could have been a good editor. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Mkstokes because you are casting aspersions I will address you. I didn't place a notice on Talk:Nick McKenzie or Talk:Peter Schiff because the nature of this incident is not directly relevant to those pages as it more pertains to JML1148's talk page and Talk:Fani Willis. You'll note that I didn't leave a notice anywhere else than Talk:Fani Willis (go check my contributions, I didn't even inform JML1148). Everyone you've accused of collaborating against you probably has this page on their watch list (like I do). TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath that is the craziest justification I've ever heard. The title of your request is "Block proposal (Mkstokes)." You "...propose that Mkstokes be blocked for violation of their topic ban." What topic am I banned from? Talk:Nick McKenzie or Talk:Peter Schiff. Yet, with a straight face, you now say you didn't leave a notice "...because the nature of this incident is not directly relevant to those pages." You explicitly mention incidents in your "boomerang" related to the TBAN. But okay, if you feel those pages aren't "relevant" then please remove them from your references here. Mkstokes (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not going to continue this with you and you should discontinue from violating your topic ban over and over by mentioning those pages. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support The battleground mentality present above is enough on its own to block. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. MkStokes appears to have only referenced the forbidden topics tangentially. These are minor infractions at worst and not worthy of a block. Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

See User talk:Mkstokes#March 2024, Mkstokes has accepted their block. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Block proposal (TarnishedPath) now withdrawn

Based on the details I provided when I created this section, I propose that TarnishedPath be blocked for attempting to use blocking as retaliation.

WITHDRAWN by proposer. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support as motion originator. Note that he was previously warned to "remain civil and to refrain from future edit warring." It's clear that had I not called out his misbehavior, he would not have retaliated by proposing a block. Per WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, "Blocks should not be used: to retaliate; to disparage; or to punish" Furthermore, it is clear that TarnishedPath and Aquillion are colluding with MaskedSinger as what the latter called "the band" (i.e., a group of like-minded editors) to help enforce his proposal. As evidence, I use MaskedSinger's own words where he says "...it was nice of you to bring the band back together but sadly, this will be the last time." It is not a coincidence that all but one of the people who voted together on an RfC referenced previously have been drawn here without any notice being posted on said RfC. Especially since the main point of contention is a WP:TBAN related to said RfC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkstokes (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Mkstokes, knowing exactly where this is going, is lashing out in retalition, firing off a bunch of guesses about others' motivations while never truly acknowledging their own bad behavior. The aspersions cast here are incredible although at least I wasn't mentioned this time. There is a wide consensus that this user should be blocked and now's the time to make that happen. City of Silver 04:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Incredibly, unbelievably, Mkstokes just edited Nick McKenzie's talk page again. Admins: this user is begging to be blocked. City of Silver 04:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Just when I thought it couldn't get worse, it did. Mkstokes is digging a very deep hole. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• See User talk:Mkstokes*March 2024, Mkstokes has accepted their block and withdrawn this request. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment No point dignifying this with a response. Mkstokes, you wreak havoc here where ever you go and while it may be entertaining at first, ultimately its exhausting. You need to stop. Maybe you're bored or lonely but coming to Wikipedia and turning it into your online Fight Club (Apologies for breaking first rule) isn't a solution. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose obviously. This is one of the most absurd block proposals I've witnessed recently and this should be weighed into consideration with my block proposal of Mkstokes above. Mkstokes has provided exactly zero credible evidence in support of this proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 09:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This is the classic “I didn’t do anything wrong, punish the other guy” trope, which is virtually every case - including this one - is introduced by the guy why can’t see that the problem lies with him, nut everyone else. 2600:1011:B18B:F:8A6:99B2:A133:D74A (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Extremely strong oppose as I see no reason for TarnishedPath to get blocked, and Mkstokes is only trying to do this in retaliation since TarnishedPath had originally created a block request, which I think is already sufficient, but then Mkstokes creates another block request in retaliation, which is more than enough for Mkstokes to potentially get blocked. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose retaliatory block proposal. No evidence has been presented that TarnishedPath's conduct here is violating any guidelines. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose. As per above, this is a retaliatory block proposal. Ridiculous. They should know better. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• See User talk:Mkstokes#March 2024, Mkstokes has accepted their block and withdrawn this request. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP

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 this IP which is making the grammar incorrect at Georgetown football, 1874–1889 while insulting anyone trying to correct it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

L + Soccer Mom+ my grammar is more right than you 174.233.17.11 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, WP:AIV is the best place for blatant vandals like this. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Useless comment from IP in question removed. Courtesy report filed at AIV. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

IP blocked 31h by Ser Amantio Di Nicolao. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 19:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the IPs comments as it proves the point of the filing. S0091 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Thanks for this - I needed a laugh today. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Some of their edits were funny, but transphobia and PAs aren't. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 19:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dudhhr: Sorry - I meant it amuses me that people like this seem to think their vandalism matters. Their actual edits amuse me not at all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Took it over to meta.wikimedia, now globally locked. Yeesh. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: All over a handful of grammatical disagreements. Oh, well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:05, 15 March 2024 (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.

Revoke TPA

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

---

Hey, can someone revoke TPA of this VOA? They are abusing it. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 19:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done, and they didn't get a block notification in the first place, so added one. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't always leave block notices or warnings. When the edits are clearly deliberately attacking and the editor is very clear on what they are doing, I don't waste time. I just block and go. It serves no purpose to do more. Canterbury Tail talk 20:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Canterbury Tail. Vile, contemptible trolls should immediately be shown the door, and the door should be slammed behind them. Telling them how to appeal just encourages more disruptive behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't block many editors but I disagree. Leaving a notice explaining why they were blocked is just good practices for admins. And if they still have talk page access, not supplying a reason for a block just invites more questions and appeals. But it's an area where there is clearly a variety of points of view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong, if they've made a single constructive edit, or the edits can be construed as just tests or not sure how Wikipedia works, they always get notices and the like. For editors whose entire history is racist/homophobic deliberate disruption, engaging is just the attention they're after. Those editors will never be productive and are not worth wasting a second of time longer than ensuring their disruption is at an end. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 15 March 2024 (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:3alaalquds

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.

---

Account opened purely for canvassing other users to a discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Selfstudier: did you forget to notify the user about ANI per big edit notice? Note that ping is not enough. I've done that for you this time. --Stylez995 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I did, apologies and thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:3alaalquds#Indefinite block. El_C 12:58, 14 March 2024 (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:Leedsunited128

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.

---

Leedsunited128 (talk · contribs · count)

Looking at this users talk page, user is having/ignoring problems with posting edits without sources. I just reverted this and left this warning. Posting here for input and such. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Leedsunited128#Indefinite block. El_C 06:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Block evasion using IP

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.

---

Taeisawesome21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2601:14C:8001:ABD0:6063:466F:2423:A6B6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Previously User:Butlerblog had done an investigation (archived link) and found that Taeisawesome21, who was banned, was using User:2601:14C:8001:ABD0:6063:466F:2423:A6B6 to evade their ban.

I've since found a second IP that is being used to evade the ban of Taeisawesome21, User:73.134.59.131. Both of these accounts edit similar pages.

Here are a few examples of them making the same or very similar edits:

Edit of Sight Unseen (TV series), Taeisawesome21's edit. The IP's nearly identical edit

Edit of List of The Roku Channel original programming. In both edits, they claim the show Malpractice (TV series) has been renewed despite no evidence of that. Taeisawesome21's edit. The IP's edit

Edit of Family Law (Canadian TV series), Taeisawesome21's edit and the IP's edit

Therealteal (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks: User talk:73.134.59.131#Block. El_C 10:04, 15 March 2024 (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.

Jussi Halla-aho has a Wiki account???

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:JussiHallaAho has the exact name as a senior Finnish politician which may be a violation of WP:IU. Need guidance on what to do as I am not sure whether this is deliberate malice or just regular confused newbie stuff. Borgenland (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Report potential username policy vio at WP:UAA. Remsense诉 18:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely (soft): User talk:JussiHallaAho#Indefinite block (soft). El_C 18:57, 15 March 2024 (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.

Tahir9511

This user has received repeated warnings from multiple editors in the past regarding the addition of OR to BLP. Despite these warnings, they persist in doing so. Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. --Saqib (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide some relevant diffs that exhibit conduct you are complaining about? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The user repeatedly changing the party name without providing any references. PML and PML-Q are two different parties. [34] [35] [36] Additionally, this is SPA (see Special:Contributions/Tahir9511) and the editing history has been disruptive, only adding OR to this particular BLP. Please also refer to the talk page for previous warnings issued to them at User_talk:Tahir9511. --Saqib (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've informed the user about WP:COI requirements (here) due to them having stated that they are the article subject's personal social media team member. Also indeed, PML ≠ PML-Q. El_C 13:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Another warning is not going to help. I believe we should consider blocking paid editors if they're also SPA and if they repeatedly violate BLP policies. Allowing them to continue making edits, especially if they offer nothing useful, only wastes our time. It's evident now that he's a paid editor with no constructive contributions.

There's a similar situation occurring on another BLP (Shafay Hussain ), which happens to be the brother of Salik Hussain. There, another SPA is making similar edits. Whether they're sock puppets of each other is unclear, but User:Hamza_hamz has also declared their COI on their talk page and continues to commit BLP violations despite warnings. --Saqib (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Hamza hamz due that ok i have stopped that didn't actually stop. As for Tahir9511, if any more problems arise, please make another report (or add to this one if applicable) and feel free to ping me to it. Or, if I'm around, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. HTH. El_C 06:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

49.144.102.116 - Mass disruptive editing + revision reversion despite warnings

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

en masse disruptive editing; reverts revisions; all edits disruptive; has not responded to talk page messages despite continuing to make edits and revisions after notices given Personhumanperson (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month: by Ingenuity. El_C 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

For future reference: this looks a lot like a certain LTA from the Philippines who posts certain random rubbish on the very bottom of several different articles (note: it's always on the very bottom), and uses the undo function to quickly restore such edits every time they are reverted. Sometimes they will post and/or write in the edit summary, stuff that tries to be attention grabbing. If you ever see such edit patterns like this from Philippines IPs in the future, follow the Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore principle. It's the best way to deal with them by far. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing copyright violation editing by user TableSalt43

TableSalt43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was doing some New Page Patrolling this evening when I came across a listing for Battle of Caenina, flagged as having a possible copyright violation. I checked using the CopyPatrol tool, and it was positive. I cleaned up what seemed reasonable, flagged the article for RevDel, and left the "copyvio warning template for new users" on TableSalt43's talk page.

However, just looking further up their talk page, I noticed that this editor has already been warned about copyright violation on no less than five previous occasions, by:

• Diannaa, 7 Jan 2023, for Battle of San Roque (1899)
• Bruxton, 13 Feb 2023, for Battle of Parque (1912)
• Diannaa, again, on 14 Feb 2023, for in-WP copying without attribution from Emiliano Zapata into Battle of Parque (1912)
• Compassionate727, 21 Jan 2024 (twice), for Draft:New York Armory Raid (1775) (since deleted)
• 1AmNobody24, 11 March 2024, for in-WP copying without attribution from Alba Longa into Battle of Alba Longa.

So today's is at least the fourth copyright violation by this user (using external sources), not counting the in-Wiki copy/pastes (which may just have been an oversight).

Finding and dealing with copyright violations involves a fair amount of work for other volunteers, that could be better spent - especially when the user is clearly aware they shouldn't be doing it. Clearly, though, warnings aren't working. Is there anything else that can be done? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't double-checked to see whether the copyright concerns were valid, but just looking at the editors concerned I assume at least some were. The issue is that the editor hasn't replied on more than a couple of occasions. This is a collaborative project, so communication is vital. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like they believe that using {{main}} or {{Further}} is enough for attribution, which isn't. Same thing at Battle of Nomentum. Nobody (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I had concerns when I first encountered this user about their apparent inability or unwillingness to learn how copyright rules or address concerns about their editing. I suspected (and now believe) that a competence block is likely required, although they should of course have a day or two to respond here before we vote on that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have partially blocked TableSalt43 for one week from the article and draft namespaces. I viewed this as the minimum reasonable sanction given the above evidence, and I hope other admins will not interpret this as a barrier to further sanctions if they see those as necessary. I am hopeful to hear from TableSalt43 soon about how they intend to change their practices moving forward. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Username and WP:CIR article creation surely points to this being User:TableSalt342. I've opened SPI here. DeCausa (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Beyond copyright violations, there are serious WP:COMPETENCE issues with this editor. This editor is seemingly incapable of distinguishing between fact and myth. See this addition to 754 BC; explanation at Talk:754 BC. The entire series of articles on the "Roman kingdom campaigns", which for disclosure I have nominated for deletion, is just a regurgitation of the primary sources' (WP:PRIMARY; WP:CGR/Guides/Primary sources) description of Roman myths with WP:OR titles used by nobody presented as verifiable fact. He is also seemingly incapable of producing an at all accurate bibliography. Sources are normally not provided; when they are provided, they are to dubious web pages like TLDR History, Heritage History, and a tourism website. Ifly6 (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Nb as the main author of Founding of Rome, I can recognise my own writing (Battle of Rome (753 BC), Battle of Caenina, Second Battle of Rome (753 BC), Battle of Antemnae, Battle of Nomentum) and especially my style of writing footnotes. I don't think any of these additions included attribution. Ifly6 (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

IP being rude.

on User talk:176.10.147.128 . i have warned them about their vandalism on a blue origin page, they cursed at me in response. Sebbers10 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:AIV ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for repeated death threats. Sebbers10, do not engage in lengthy back and forth banter with trolls. Report that kind of utter trash and move on. Please read Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Cullen, I'd like clarification on your block for "repeated" death threats. Isn't one death threat enough for a block, or is the first death threat deductible? EEng 03:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

My intention, EEng, was not to imply that one such threat would be "deductible" but rather to inform other editors that there was more than one threat. Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Darn. EEng 09:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sebbers10, I looked at User talk:176.10.147.128--do you know the saying about wrestling a pig? Drmies (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

never heard of it before, mind telling me about it? Sebbers10 I accept myself as a bisexual! 17:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wrestle with a pig you both end up covered in mud, and the pig will have enjoyed it. Also, I don't understand why you two (you and User:2003 LN6) did not report those edits for rev-deletion, since they were pretty blatant violations of the BLP and other policies. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ill do that next time hopefully, Thank you for reminding me. Sebbers10 I accept myself as a bisexual! 17:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

So is it preferred to report such incidents to oversight? I read that section on WP:BLP and wasn't sure what to do. 2003 LN6 19:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Skibidigyatt inverted the definition of "Misinformation", and that User page declares intent to lie

I just encountered a change to the Wikipedia article on Misinformation that changed the opening sentence from "Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information" to "Misinformation is information that is real", and made numerous similar changes. This was by User:Skibidigyatt, whose user page includes a comment that, "Any claims that this is on en.wikipedia.org is a LIE." I just created a new section on the associated Talk page with subject: "You will be blocked if you continue with vandalism" saying, "Your 2024-03-14T12:58:15 edit of Misinformation was obvious Wikipedia:Vandalism. I am requesting that your account be blocked. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)"

If in the future I perceive I'm being stalked, I will report that here.

FYI, I've logged over 30,000 edits in various Wikimedia Foundation projects since 2010. I've "watched" many pages and seen lots of crap, though most changes like this have been by anonymous editors. This is the first time I recall having encountered an attempt to completely invert the definition of something -- and it came from someone who has registered a username.

Thanks for your support. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Skibidigyatt#Indefinite block. El_C 14:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked several disruptive accounts containing the character string "Skibidi" and encouage editors to scrutinize any such accounts. I do not think that they are sockpuppets, but rather immature fans of Skibidi Toilet and associated memes. Cullen328 (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328, I'll keep that in mind (that didn't originally click for me for some reason). El_C 09:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The other half of the name is also a meme (which I'm not typing as that would set off a filter). – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:CF7:6618:2E02:A732 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Gyatt outta here! That also didn't originally click for me for some reason, I'm 0:2. El_C 10:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Samral curses users via email

@Samral is harassing me and other users via email. Please turn off email sending. He's a sockpuppet and has no place here anymore. 176.218.17.226 (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

And he constantly disrespects, Sysop @Xaosflux. You must resolve this situation urgently. 176.218.17.226 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Any checkusers around that want to look in to this? There is an original CU block, I extended the block to remove TP previously. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Samral isn't using Special:EmailUser on English Wikipedia. I disabled receiving email on every project but English Wikipedia because I was getting too many death threats from throwaway accounts on Meta, Commons, Wikidata, etc. There's no reason someone from Thai Wikiquote or Romanian Wiktionary needs to email me. I created a global user page on Meta that gives instructions on how to contact me. If anyone wants to cut down on the amount of harassing emails they receive, that's what I'd suggest they do. However, IP editors can't be harassed through email. I would suggest that people who make complaints about editors at admin noticeboards use their account. If you feel you need to make a complaint anonymously, you can contact a CU privately, or you could email Arbcom. If you're being harassed cross-wiki, you should contact a Steward. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

General Note: If someone gets a wikimail, it should state the name of the project it was generated from in the footer - so you can follow up with the appropriate admin team. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Concern about disruptive editing by a user in a dispute on MP4 file format

User:Svnpenn has demonstrated some disruptive editing during an edit war with me and discussions spanning several days on MP4 file format, ISO base media file format and Open file format and during an attempt at dispute resolution:

• Unfounded accusations of vandalism ([37], [38] and [39]) and bad faith [40], which I initially assumed were because the user describes themselves as novice
• Tendentious editing after learning from me and another editor (VQuakr) about Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
  • WP:USERGENERATED: [41] after [42]
  • WP:SYNTH: [43] and [44] after [45]
• Disregard for WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS during the dispute resolution process towards VQuakr [46] after [47]

I acknowledge making a misstep here late into the discussion, which I promptly struck through and then fully removed upon request with an apology.

The dispute primarily revolves on the insistence that the MP4 file format and ISO base media file format are not open formats and that an Open file format must have an Open license. An attempt to resolve the dispute around MP4 at Talk:MP4 file format through a third opinion by VQuakr leaned towards my perspective on the verifiabily of the sources, but as the war continued, both VQuakr and I thought it was better to bring it to the DRN, which ended up failing. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The dispute resolution attempt just ended; suggest giving Svnpenn a chance to move on without drama. IMHO, admin action is only needed here if they start disrupting mainspace again over this issue. VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I failed the mediation, and I agree with User:VQuakr. Svnpenn has not edited since I failed the mediation. Maybe I should have said that an RFC should be tried first, with WP:ANI only as an unpleasant option. I suggest that a neutral RFC should be used. If Svnpenn has a concern that the concept of open format is ill-defined, there are other forums to raise that concern, as well as discussing it in the Discussion section of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I just created one RfC for each of the three articles. I didn't do this earlier following guidelines, as the dispute only involved two editors. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

---

I would say the above is premature, especially considering updates I now have in private. since my attempts to find a compromise in this matter have failed, I have been in contact with all of the LOC, ISO and IEC. I have today received a response in my favor from the LOC. they have communicated privately to me that they currently DO NOT consider MP4 an "open format", and pending a follow up I plan to update the talk page and possibly make further edits to related pages pending the outcome of these talks.

to state the obvious, the above user Fernando Trebien has gone WAY beyond anything that could be construed as constructive here. I offered at least 5 different compromise solutions to the disagreement, all of which were rejected or ignored by other editors. further, neither offered anything in the way of compromise. thats not acting in good faith I feel. instead, the above editor Fernando Trebien seems intent on punishing me, even though as others have said I have made no edits since the end of moderated discussion. Wikipedia is not the place to hold or act on grudges, it should be a high quality repository of information, that is my goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svnpenn (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Svnpenn: to manage your expectations here: personal communications with LOC, ISO, IEC, etc are not verifiable or published and won't move the needle on a discussion about article content. We're looking at published, reliable secondary sources in order to inform what goes into mainspace. VQuakr (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

you should REALLY stop assuming you know where my head is at. you dont. thanks for the feedback, but it doesn't apply to my situation at all. perhaps instead of continuing to ignore and reject my compromise offers, you could acknowledge them or offer your own. Svnpenn (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, editors are not required to compromise with you. If consensus is against your changes, you'll have to accept that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

there is no consensus. either within the editors in this discussion, nor Wikipedia broadly, nor even outside of Wikipedia, so it seems your comment doesn't apply here Svnpenn (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Well there's definitely a consensus within wikipedia that you have zero actual RS to support the changes you want to make, and a consensus that you need reliable sources to make any claim. So in that sense there's a definite consensus against your changes. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

thats no longer the case. the document has now been updated to reflect the reality that MP4 is not an open format

https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000155.shtml

and hasn't been since its removal from the ISO publicly available standards:

https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ Svnpenn (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Since Svnpenn has resumed the mainspace disruption ([48], [49]) with the RfC still open, I think admin action is now warranted. VQuakr (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

at this point it seems action is warranted against the user VQuakr. the only reliable source from either side now states the exact phrase:

> it is not considered an open format

https://loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000155.shtml

if user VQuakr is not convinced at this point they never will be. they are now actively ignoring the same URL above that they have repeatedly said is a reliable source. however now that the source disagrees with them, VQuakr wants to ignore it or discredit it. once the public source text was updated, their argument essentially fell apart. if they have additional sources in their favor, I am interested to see them. otherwise this conversation is essentially over. Svnpenn (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Editing the article while the RfC is still active can be considered disruptive, but on the other hand, the only reliable secondary source has in fact been updated in the meantime, explicitly confirming Svnpenn's claim. I pointed out that the source didn't update the date of the document, which I find a little strange, perhaps this still needs some discussion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

However, it may be necessary to address past disruptive behavior and accusations of vandalism in edit summaries, which cannot be changed. While the updated source provides valuable clarification, achieving this could have been done with civility, so it doesn't automatically negate the need for a constructive and civil approach to resolving disputes. Moving forward, let's focus on fostering productive discussion and adhering to Wikipedia's conduct policies and guidelines. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the MP4 article, I am willing to pause update on ISOBMFF to give any dissenters a chance to find additional sources in disagreement with my position. I like to thank Fernando Trebien for their willingness to accept reason. once a reliable source was located confirming my position, they finally relented.

I would again like to point out the disturbing nature of VQuakr recent activity. even in the face of their argument completely falling apart, they insist on continuing to edit against the reliable source. they dont have grounds to suggest admin action, as they are also editing during the RFC period, without a reliable source to back them up which is even more galling. if they have another source in their favor they should present it, otherwise they need to stop the edits and move on. Svnpenn (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Svnpenn: Once again, do not fail to assume good faith. You announced the source update on the talk page 3 minutes after editing the article. If VQuakr had been responding to notifications in chronological order, it is reasonable to assume that this could have led to a mistake in good faith. This sort of thing is part of why article editing during an RfC can be considered disruptive. Wikipedia has no deadline. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Svnpenn: that's simply not true, it still says it's an open standard: Open standard in that it is fully documented and disclosed. As with any ISO-sponsored project, any updates to the specification are done through the ISO process for such which includes funneling feedback through national members, such as ANSI in the case of the USA. This process is transparent in its procedure but because membership in national bodies is limited (for example, individuals are not eligible to join ANSI as members), it is not considered an open format. Moreover, the specification documents are paywalled. This should be resolved with discussion at the RfC, not you forcing through your preferred version and ignoring every other editor. VQuakr (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

> that's simply not true, it still says it's an open standard

this page:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/MP4_file_format

has the key OPEN FORMAT, not OPEN STANDARD. so the question of "is MP4 an open standard", that you seem to be trying to argue, has no bearing in this conversation. the question is "is MP4 an OPEN FORMAT". that question has been definitively answered now:

> it is not considered an open format

https://loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000155.shtml

> This should be resolved with discussion at the RfC, not you forcing through your preferred version and ignoring every other editor

thats not what has happened here. once multiple users pushed the point that LOC was reliable and other sources might not be reliable, I stopped editing and made comments in support of my position in various places. ONCE LOC text was updated, the matter is essentially settled, so I made an edit to MP4. since other users still have some concern, I have paused an update to ISOBMFF. not only that, but previous dissenters such as Fernando Trebien have now agreed that MP4 is NOT an open format.

so it now seems that YOU are forcing through YOUR preferred version, and ignoring every other editor, in the face of a source that is considered reliable by both sides of the argument. your attempts to cherry pick text from a reliable source while ignoring the confirming text is concerning. Svnpenn (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a pedantic argument full of assumptions of bad faith. Svpenn, you need to stop trying to push through your preferred edits while the RfC is ongoing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

> This is a pedantic argument full of assumptions of bad faith.

its not. again, this page says OPEN FORMAT:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/MP4_file_format

thats not the same thing as open standard. I know this because Wikipedia itself has two pages on the matters:

1. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_file_format
2. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

further, LOC text confirms the items are different:

> Open standard in that it is fully documented

> it is not considered an open format

https://loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000155.shtml

if people want to change the key to "open standard", THEN argue over THAT value, thats a separate issue. but as long as the key is OPEN FORMAT, the user in question is arguing against something that is not up for argument.

> you need to stop trying to push through your preferred edits while the RfC is ongoing

as has been mentioned multiple times now, the recent update to MP4 was made after the LOC text was updated, and before further dissension was offered. a pause has been made for any edits to ISOBMFF, out of respect to the process. Svnpenn (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Objectivescholar

Apparently for the past few years, the user Objectivescholar (talk · contribs) has continuously changed statistics without citing a source and blanked content on dozens of pages related to Nigeria. There appears to be a concerted effort by this account to remove or diminish notes of non-Fulani ethnic groups and their languages along with false/unsourced edits to pages about ethnicity and religion in Nigeria all while employing false edit summaries.

Their most blatant form of vandalism is to erase certain ethnic groups from pages. The account has been doing this since its creation in 2022, with its first set of edits being to remove 8 ethnicities from the Gombe State introduction and blank the entire (sourced) language section under the false summary of "I added more tourist attractuons". While Nigerian demographic data is difficult to come by, it is clear that these edits are not being made based on new information as they don't even change the sourcing.

Other problematic edits include the removing sourced religious and HDI data under the summary of "added number of languagaes", replacing cited information about religious violence with unsourced information on a "cordial relationship" under the summary of "added more data. removed irrevelant and uncited information", removing sourced population statistics with the summary of "added up to date references, improved citations, corrected misinformation, etc", and changing a litany of information without changing sources while blanking information on religion, castes, and extremism. Other impacted pages include the Sokoto Caliphate (blanking of paragraphs on slavery) and Billiri (not all of the edit was bad but it was clearly biased with the "Christian extremist part") pages.

On other pages, the account went on a months-long edit warring campaign to unilaterally change the entire Middle Belt page (again, in an ethnically-charged manner) before being indefinitely blocked from the Nigeria page for edit warring (although it's unclear how much were POV violations).

This user needs to be blocked, ideally permanently, as this is a clear and concerted campaign of ethnically-charged, unsourced edits. Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you mistaking me for another person? It is obvious that you are. I can't remember making some of these edits. Until you provide evidence, then you are a bloody lie. All I can remember among these was with the Nigeria page where I changed the ethnic statistics to reflect the source cited. The source cited contain different data to that written on the page. And of course! The page was restricted in my own favour to prevent you and other people from vandalism. And since then the accurate ethnic statistics remained there.

About removing language, I did not. I am a native of the state and a Wikipedia editor mistook Gombe State in Nigeria with Gombe, Kinshasa, a town in Kenya. Those languages are Kenyan languages and have nothing to do with Nigeria talk less of Gombe State.

I cannot remember giving any "false summary", cite what you think is a " False summary " and we will discuss it.

About being "biased", you are the one being biased there. You are not from Gombe, you don't know anything yet you are arguing with me. A person who kill, maimed and destroy in the name of religion cannot be called Extremist? There are tons of Wikipedia pages containing the term and there is nothing wrong with that. We are objective scholars and we must say things the way they are. Not everything should conform with your views and opinions. You just want me blocked for contents you don't like? Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an "opinion page" of a newspaper. Objectivescholar (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Objectivescholar: At the very least, removing large swathes of sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content without proper reason is absolutely unacceptable. Furthermore, masking it with misleading edit summaries, such as here, is very poor conduct. I haven't dug through all of the diffs Watercheetah99 listed here, but it's looking pretty dire. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Which "large swathes" of "sourced" content are you talking about? And which "replacement" was unsourced?

There is no masking whatever. That's the original content before vandalism. The contemporary edit summaries were as explained. Objectivescholar (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Objectivescholar: please give clear examples of what you're talking about. In this edit [50] I see you removing a lot of language data. You claim it is because an editor confused Gombe in Kenya with Gombe State in Nigeria. Yet when I look at the sources, all of them seem to specifically be about Nigeria.

Indeed you removed the languages by LGA, and with Ethnologue is not the best source, it's clearly referring to Nigeria which makes sense since these are local government areas in Gombe State so it's very difficult to be referring to data from Kenya or anywhere else when your details refer to specific places within Gombe State.

Likewise when I check out Dadiya, Jara, Kamo, Pero, Tangale, Tera, and Waja that you removed, every single one of those articles refers to Nigeria not Kenya. Actually most of them specifically refer to Gombe State as well. And while wikipedia articles are not RS, it makes me strongly suspect the info was somewhat accurate and these are indeed languages and peoples which are present to some degree on Gombe State. So what evidence do you have that anyone confused Gombe in Kenya with Gombe State?

What seems even more surprising is you your referred to a town in Kenya but then linked to our article on Gombe, Kinshasa which as you might guess refers a Gombe in Kinshasa i.e. in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, so has nothing to do with Kenya (or Nigeria of course). Looking at Gombe, we don't even seem to have any article on a Gombe in Kenya, so if one exists it seems small enough that no one has written an article yet.

While I appreciate our coverage on Africa can be spotty, for various reasons I suspect our coverage on Kenya is one of the better ones. I mean looking at our article, the Gombe in Kinshasa is also quite a small place relatively. So either way I'm very surprised if an editor would confuse the places, or you can even get that much data specific whatever other Gombe you're thinking of. So your claim is even more confusing.

I'll be blunt here, to my mind when combined with your highly misleading edit summaries, it's looking to me a lot like you just make stuff up so you can have your way and so should probably be indefinitely blocked. If this isn't the case, please better explain your edits.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Unlike other editors who just want to shut me off because I refused to allow their opinions on Wikipedia articles, your intention is to argue and seek clarification. Thanks for that.

To start with, I am a professor of languages and linguistics. I am one of the stakeholders who compiled the languages spoken in the state by NOA. I am also an indigene of the area.

Secondly, the languages currently on the page has not always been like that. I removed the Kenyan languages long ago. The editor was ignorantly accusing me of removing "non-fulani" groups which is not factual. The ethnic groups you mentioned Dadiya, Pero, Tangale, Waja are still on the page. I also clearly stated where we are found.

About languages, some of those are not correct. For example, the languages Kyak and Diko do not exist here at all. Tso is an eastern Nigerian language and has nothing to do with Gombe. Dera, Dza and Loo are Adamawa languages. All these languages have their seperate Wikipedia pages where they are explained in details. You can check that for yourself. Awak is not the name of a language but that of a mountain. The language spoken there us called Yebu. Gombe was created out of Bauchi State. Jara is now a Bauchi State language and not Gombe which is a new identity. There are extinct languages like Moo and Centuum but I still retained them in the list.

The Editor should just go and get educated and stop accusing me of removing "non-fulani" groups out of ignorance and or false edit summaries in the name of "adding more languages". Objectivescholar (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Objectivescholar, personal attacks are not going to help your case, and could get you blocked on their own. You are repeatedly deleting 21 references and the associated content at Fula people. I have issued you a new 3rr warning, but as you are already indeffed from the Nigeria page, following your previous edit warring, you should not need another warning. - Arjayay (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you do not seem to understand that everyone else can see every single word that you edit — you cannot lie about what you did because everyone can see it. You did not remove "the Kenyan languages long ago", in fact you removed the entire "Demographics" and "Languages" sections — which is a very odd thing to do for a professor of languages and linguistics — before replacing them with the paragraph "Gombe State is a densely dominated by the Fulani tribe who form the distinct majority. Fulfulde is the lingua franca in the northern part of the state whereas the most spoken language throughout the state is Hausa."

Those edits, where you also deleted mention of eight Southern Gombe ethnic groups and again lied in the edit summaries, were reverted swiftly and are clear evidence of ethnic bias. Ethnic groups like Dadiya, Pero, Tangale, and Waja are on the page despite of you and your attempts to remove them. You contest the placement of specific languages but you did not delete just those languages or contest the source for the section; additionally, I'm not sure you're right about those languages as several languages of Adamawa State are present across the border in Gombe and all online information about the Tso language place it's spoken area in Gombe State (the confusion seems to come from outside observers that did not understand that "Eastern Nigeria" means the former region not all of the geographic east). Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Go to your contributions page, they are all right there. The evidence of language removal is linked above but look for yourself. In the Nigeria page debate, I was on your side — it's just that you were blatantly edit warring instead of arguing the case. You made the same argument about the Congo when I reverted those edits ages ago, and it made just as little sense then as it does now. Again, look above for evidence of false edit summaries. Finally, you are correct — extremism is a term used on Wikipedia, I mentioned your use of it as biased because you deleted all mentions of Fulani extremism in your edit warring on the Fula people page. Although I'd agree that the term "Fulani extremism" isn't the most appropriate — I'd use Fulani supremacy for the ideology and probably a different word for the violence, the "Fulani extremism" section was sourced and the term well-used plus you did not replace it with anything. Compare this with your use of Christian extremism when the source did not say that and (as far as I can tell) no credible source has ever described protests/riots in Gombe State as based in Christian extremism. Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• I changed Objectivescholar's parblock to all of Article space. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive AFC-reviewer pretending by Drdpw

Drdpw has been persistently pretending to be an AFC reviewer, see [51] and [52], despite not being a reviewer. Can someone stop this? 108.21.145.39 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, they’re not reviewing submissions, and those are the same edits. Can you elaborate please? Geardona (talk to me?) 20:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants says Editors whose usernames are not on the list are strongly cautioned not to review AfC submissions. One could argue that "strongly cautioned" isn't "forbidden", although editors who are not listed at the project (and are not administrators or new page reviewers) cannot use the AfC helper script. Drdpw seems to have been engaging with storm-related drafts at AfC for awhile. Schazjmd (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Inflammatory language

I was about to message User:Danielg532 on a routine matter, when I found these prior and extremely inappropriate replies to comments from other users in their talk page: [[53]] and [[54]]. Apparently no action has been taken to correct these serious matters, and given that these no sanctions have been given, I do not trust that they can be trusted to reply to my would-be concern in a civilized manner. Therefore I am requesting some kind of action to be taken in order for the user to realize the consequences of their actions. Borgenland (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Per the second entry at WP:EMERGENCY#Advice for administrators, the first admin who sees this should indefinitely block Danielg532. City of Silver 18:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed & revdelled. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree on the indef (and revdels) but not sure I agree with the revocation of Talk Page access. The revdel'd edits were from a month ago. With a revocation of talk page access, there is no way for the user to explain themselves. While we generally revoke talk page access per WP:EMERGENCY, we do not always do so and I'm not sure it was the right move in this case. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering Borgenland had very good reason to worry they'd be targeted right now by the same sort of crap that got revdelled, I think Danielg532 earned their way entirely out the door. Plus, they're not precluded from getting unblocked. A successful request on their talk page should also succeed via UTRS. City of Silver 20:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I don't block often, so happy for more opinions. Given that the comments took place on their user talk, and that this and other rudeness had been the standard response to people on their talk page, I do believe it was quite likely to be repeated after a block. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #86219 is open. @Femke: you might want to restore TPA to facilitate the unblock discussion. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Femke, you were right to revoke talk page access and you've been given no fair reason to restore it. Such a move would not be in compliance with WP:EMERGENCY, which doesn't have an exception for when attackers like Danielg532 need others to "facilitate the unblock discussion" or anything like that. Are we really trying to make it easier for that person to resume editing? Come on. If Deepfriedokra, Danielg532, or anyone else considers the UTRS process too inconvenient, leave the block in place and be done with it. City of Silver 02:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, any editor who urges another editor to take their own life should remain blocked for many years. Cullen328 (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: As I am probably second only to Yamla in handling of UTRS appeals, I think I'm well suited to recognize its limitations. FWIW, I think the appellant is now well aware that they cannot expect to be unblocked any time soon. That they have entered WP:zero tolerance land.Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding link to "Disruptive editing patterns by Danielg532" from January. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, I'm assuming restoring TPA is now moot, given the declined unblock request (if not, I'm happy to restore talk access, or for another admin to do this). For future reference, what limitations of UTRS should I take into account when considering revoking TPA? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: The most significant is that it is not conducive to the level of discussion we sometimes need. This required more than a standard boilerplate decline. Appellant asked for three examples. I gave him one and told him it is a WP:zero tolerance edit and that one was enough. He replied "OK." Don't know what that means. On the other hand, I cannot see him composing a convincing appeal any time soon. We'll have to see what happens after UTRS resets to allow another request. Like Cullen328 says above. . . . Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Afghan.Records

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.

---

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

This is the second time I'm reporting Afghan.Records here (the last being this one with lots of diffs [55], which I ended up closing after Afghan.Records got blocked for edit warring after getting reported by another user [56]).

This is the short version of the previous report; Afghan.Records engages in source misrepresentation, pov pushing and using poor sources.

The first edit in an article after their block for edit warring expired was literally another revert which changed a lot more than their edit summary indicated [57]. And now they're continuing the source misrepresentation [58], pov pushing [59] and use of poor sources.

Afghan.Records has no issue with removing poorly sourced information that clashes with their opinion [60], but apparently it's okay for them to add poor sources themselves [61] (citations from 1873 and 1747.. not the first time they've done this with the same poor sources, see the afromentioned ANI report). And despite all this, they still seem to believe that their edits were right all along, as seen in this comment they just made where they also randomly accused me of "propaganda" and "false information" without even pinging me, [62].

Also, their talk page is full of warnings by me and other users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say Afghan.Records is WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Let's wait for the response from Afghan.Records. I am in support of a WP:NOTHERE block. Lorstaking (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately it seems like Afghan.Records is going to ignore this ANI report too. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I came across this edit earlier while going through recent changes. I'm neither interested in nor knowledgeable enough regarding the subject to get into reverting edits adding sources there. Notwithstanding, their history of not responding to their own talk page messages, behavior at article talk pages (and this lovely topic), plus their lack of civility when interacting with other editors (not just HistoryofIran) are enough for me to say they're WP:NOTHERE at all. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 06:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

From looking at the entire summary of their edits:

• They've been blocked twice - once in 2023 for a battleground mentality (1 week), and a more recent AE block for edit warring (1 month)
• They've made two edits to the user talk namespace - EVER. Out of 172 edits, only 2 have been to edit their talk page (removing some notices), which tells me that they are aware their behavior is in some way problematic
• While ~25% of their edits are to the talk namespace, most of these have been to argue with other editors about how their sources are correct and any other source is incorrect (the truth of which I can't verify, but judging by the amount of pushback they've gotten from multiple editors, it's not looking fantastic). See this mess of a discussion.

It looks like they may reply, though, judging by this comment. They've been informed of the ANI thread on their talk page and now at the article's talk page. At this point it may be a case of WP:IDHT & WP:NOTHERE. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 22:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I normally would say "they're on mobile, everyone knows communication can be buggy", but the fact that they've removed messages on their talk page prior tells me that they know it's there, and they've definitely seen more than just those removed messages there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 22:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No, they're definitely aware of this thread. I've engaged with them at Talk:Khalji dynasty about it here. Note their responses when I challenged them about not responding here: Nothing more than accusation. I provided direct links for what I was accused of “miss representing” but they couldn’t defend their end. I did. and How do I reply to it? And what am I being accused of specifically? The gaps in knowledge between me and other editors make it look like I am wrong but they don’t know any better. It sounds like they've reckoned it's best for them not to engage. Looking at that and their edits, they seem to be clearly POV WP:NOTHERE. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Blocks, talk page messages, and even the ANI prior made no difference. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Its been 3 days, they are still editing and choose not to respond here. As an uninvolved editor- I have to wonder why? Nightenbelle (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Textbook WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE, and nationalistic POV-pushing. His behavior proves he is not interested in collaboration. I support indef block. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Still editing and not responding. Should be NOTHERE blocked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

An example. Take a look at Bactria: Revision history. Just restored his edits[63], ignored other editors' concerns, and started edit warring again. His behavior on Bactria was one of the reasons he got blocked in January (I guess). Someone better reviews his edits since 18 February. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As a quick reply to this main thread: is Special:Diff/1213185936 in reference to an edit they made themselves, or is it potentially some socking? Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me, this wasn't the clearest and editing an individual message in source is near impossible on my phone.

Is this in reference to an edit he made, that the other editor is attempting to change? Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I asked myself the same question about socking when I replied to Afghan.Records.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Judging by the comment they made just now, Afghan.Records clearly doesn't care about this report. They probably wrote this due to their conversation with DeCausa; Please don’t tell me “your API report says this”. "API" is no doubt a misspelling of ANI. Afghan.Records is indeed WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Since Afghan.Records is clearly avoiding ANI, I don't think there's any point in delaying further. User is WP:NOTHERE and should be blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I never really comment here, but I have to wonder why this is still open? Seems like a textbook case of NOTHERE, but no action has been taken after 9 days at ANI with pretty clear support for some kind of sanction. Support indef block, for the record. sawyer * he/they * talk 21:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Attention needed

Hi Wikipedia admins. It's been more than a week since this thread was opened, as said by another editor above, yet Afghan.Records hasn't responded to this thread, and to this day still makes disruptive edits described like in the original post above (e.g. diff from 17:52, 13 Mar UTC, diff from 04:24 15 Mar UTC, diff from 19:29, 15 Mar UTC). Dispute resolution and ANI invitation have been attempted several times, e.g. here and here. Consensus is clear above that this editor is WP:NOTHERE. So I am formally requesting that an admin take a look at and respond to this. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I count 10 editors supporting a WP:NOTHERE block in this thread + one querying why the user hasn't posted here. I don't see anyone speaking against a NOTHERE block. This thread has been open for 10 days and has risen to the top of the page unactioned. I guess it will be archived shortly. There's obviously something missing from this thread that would prompt admin action. It's not obvious to me what that is - although there must be something. It would be useful if an admin could indicate what the problem with this thread is. DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2024 (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 report

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 would like to report the user @M.Bitton because of a personal attack. I brought up a topic in the Hamas talk about whether Algeria should be a "state alliance". Since Algeria is public for Hamas. They also deny Israel's right to exist. He then removed my entry and says that I'm doing propaganda. My second concern is that @M.Bitton gave me an edit warning because I removed a paragraph from Morocco. I mislabeled it as spam. But @M.bitton has now started a talk by saying he is willing to remove the paragraph. Does the edit warning still apply or no longer? I see that it has already been removed by another user. I thank you in advance. Vogelman29 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You didn't just mislabel it as spam, you said "I couldn't find the source or the person mentioned." despite both the source, Precarious Modernities, and the author, Cristiana Strava, being easy to find. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that he is the same person who suggested something like that to me. Even though I asked politely and nicely in the talk, he gave me an answer like this. Vogelman29 (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You must notify the editor(s) involved when posting to ani, I will do this for you for this post, but please keep this in mind for the future. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 22:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Okey thank you very much. Vogelman29 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Vogelman29 where is the personal attack? Riad Salih (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Riad Salih In this edit he said to me: "disruptive single purpose account who's using wp a vehicle for propaganda" he specifically accuses me of carrying out propaganda. According to Wikipedia NPA, this is a personal attack. Vogelman29 (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not intended as a personal attack in any way. It is more appropriate to discuss such matters on personal talk pages. By checking your edits, it is noticeable that the ideology you hold align closely with that of POV pushers. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. So actually that's what happened now that I registered a topic with Hamas. He removed it and accused me of doing propaganda. He should have explained his point of view under my talk. But simply removing it... and accusing me of doing propaganda is definitely a personal attack. I never said anything bad or edited anything where one might suspect it.... I didn't say anything wrong either, it's common knowledge that Algeria supports Hamas. I've now looked at the Wikipedia history of Hamas and seen that Algeria was an "allied state" for a very long time until @M.Bitton removed it... but as I said, you can discuss it but you can't just remove my talk and say that I do propaganda. So why do I do propaganda? Or POV? Vogelman29 (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You should read WP:ARBECR and WP:MAKINGEREQ and comply with them. Maybe have a look at section 3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, specifically the part that prohibits "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view" and bear that in mind when you work on your Draft:Polisario's connection to terrorist organizations, text that strongly resembles propaganda to me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack and as noted below, your unsorced essay in the draft namespace is total propaganda. Whether or not you are here to seriously contribute is an open question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Draft:Polisario's connection to terrorist organizations absolutely is a problem, and a likely WP:MfD candidate, as it is indistinguishable from propaganda. While drafts are allowed to be incomplete or lacking in many areas, if they are obviously coatracks, make wild and unsourced claims, or are simply political essays, they don't belong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hello. Yes, it is actually still incomplete. I actually wanted to add sources for this. Unfortunately I don't always have time for that. I wanted to add links between the Polisario and terrorist groups as I believe they exist. Likewise between connections between Algeria and Hamas. That's not propaganda. I actually only have 2 important questions. Can I remove my edit warning on my talk without having any problems, since my edit was apparently carried out later by another user. And can I discuss in a talk whether Algeria has connections to Hamas without getting into problems. Vogelman29 (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I mean this edit, which was later confirmed. Vogelman29 (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This report is about M.Bitton, you filed it, there seems to be an indication that his comments were curt, but not a personal attack. I noticed your Draft, which someone has sent to MFD. You can't just make articles up that push a particular point of view, PARTICULARLY if you have no sources, whether they are a draft or article. Wikipedia is NOT the place you go to push your ideas. It is a neutral ground for documenting what the sources have said. I don't think you really understand that, and your time at Wikipedia is going to be short if you don't quickly learn this. As far as I'm concerned, the matter at hand is already handled. I'm not up for mentoring you, but you definitely need to pull back and learn a bit about what Wikipedia is before you jump in further. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

yes, but my article is incomplete. I wanted to change a lot of things and also provide sources; if I had more time I would do it faster. So if the draft means about Polisario. I find it a personal attack to accuse myself of propaganda. I've now looked at @M.Bitton Wikipedia history and it seems he was already banned but then unblocked. Because of this comment here. This is actually a similar one. He said:,,replying to the nationalist single purpose account". He was banned for that. Now he says:,, disruptive single purpose account who's using wp a vehicle for propaganda. That's actually the same statement, just worded differently. But if you say now that it wasn't a personal attack, then that's just how it is. Then the issue was settled. I would just like to remove my edit warning, can I do that? Vogelman29 (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

because removing this sentence apparently wasn't wrong. just the motives. I thought it was spam Vogelman29 (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

While the block you cited was at commons, not English Wikipedia, you certainly are able to remove warnings from your talk page, per WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown, Riad Salih, and Koavf: (also pinging Doug Weller since they have left a comment on their talk page) please note that despite the CT warning on the OP's talk page and the reminder by Sean.hoyland to read WP:ARBECR and WP:MAKINGEREQ, they still went ahead and created a POV fork in which they violated PIA multiple times. Needless to say that, yet again, they made zero attempt at writing something that actually informs, going as far as to misrepresent the sources to support their favourite narrative. M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Vogelman29: I would hope that you would please take the example above of these POV forks and recognize that these are problematic. If nothing else, just the optics and the politics of making an article about "Criminality and [people group]" or "[Undesirable trait] in [place]" is going to be the sort of topic that is (rightfully) contentious and until/unless you have a very clear reason why these kinds of possible crankery, possible propaganda, deep dives into how a certain demographic is associated with something repugnant is important to this encyclopedia, I'd recommend against making more of these. I'm not even saying that in principle these kind of articles can't be written, but you should probably have a lot more judiciousness about posting them here and probably familiarize yourself with existing articles where there are or may be some implication of a people group with a negative attribute. E.g. race and intelligence is a really contentious issue that has a lot of heated history and discussion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  As I said, there are definitely connections between the Polisario and other terrorist groups. There are also anti-Semitic people in Algeria. which is actually very strong and pronounced. But since no one wants to know about it, I try to avoid conflicts and join the Wikipedia team. If the team says it's inappropriate then so be it. Vogelman29 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it seems like you are German, so maybe this example won't translate as well, but for instance, in my homeland of America, we have a strong segment of the population who have some very grotesque views about white supremacism and so even if you are just quoting some statistics which are true about black-on-black crime, that is a proxy and dog whistle for some really nasty right-wing subtext. (e.g.). So when you write an article about how Arabs are anti-Semites, that can be a problem not necessarily because you are writing any specifically untrue thing, but because you may be using Wikipedia as a soapbox for some kind of nasty agenda. To be clear, I'm not alleging you are: I don't know you. I'm just saying that these ostensibly factual articles give off strong hitpiece POV vibes that are inappropriate. Have you read WP:NPOV and WP:NOT before? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  What is objectionable about the article? Anti-Semitic is a big problem in North Africa and I have pointed it out with sources. The article is intended to educate and nothing else. I also wanted to tell you that I have nothing to do with the editor...

  But okay, I have the feeling that you are more concerned with the position of Algeria, as I can see from my article. At least you just paraphrased it as “anti-Semitic in Algeria”. Okey, I will never comment on Algeria again. Vogelman29 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked Vogelman29 as a standard admin action (Not AE/CT related) for WP:DE as a result of WP:CIR. They appear to lack the awareness to understand how their actions violate policy, so it wouldn't matter what area they edited in, this would be an ongoing issue. I deleted the last article under CSD:G7. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Please delete Draft:Antisemitism in Bulgaria and Draft:Sex tourism in Algiers (good gravy). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Relevant sockpuppet investigation request

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EthicalAugur. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Note: the OP has now been confirmed as a sock of Izmir18. What a surprise. M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2024 (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 Remsense deleting everything I say

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:Remsense said I wasn't a wiki editor and then deleted all of my contributions. The Harold B Lee library can't be canceled by one critic. Luke Olson (BYU) (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I said they were either a non-editor or a sockpuppet, which is indisputable. Remsense诉 02:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I just clicked edit and submitted something. I am here, now, editing. I'm an editor. Philo 101 is down the hall if you want to debate the non-thingness of a thing Luke Olson (BYU) (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally we are more concerned with the usefulness or otherwise of a contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty upset that this is how I get my ANI cherry popped. Remsense诉 02:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Luke Olson (BYU), which of your accounts had it's edits deleted? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  What? Luke Olson (BYU) (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown I think they were referring to these two edits: diff 1 and diff 2, which were soon reverted by Remsense here and here respectively. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  I know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you know why did you ask? Luke Olson (BYU) (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  The real question is: Why are you here? How did you magically find that discussion? When your behavior is highly suspicious, it is reasonable to question it. Any answers for us? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  The answers are on Luke Olson's talk page. There's a Discord group somewhere where people are talking about the BYU library thread above. Luke probably won't be able to respond here anymore as he's been blocked. ~Awilley (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you are only talking about this edit [64], which strongly looks like a meatpuppet or sockpuppet edit, then it is hard to blame them for removing it, although I might have just tagged it with the {{spa}} tag myself. But your first edit to the encyclopedia was to oppose a ban on someone from (obviously) you have an affiliation with outside of here, which is suspicious enough. And the whole "I donate here" thing is laughably irrelevant to editors and admins here, we don't get the money, so it just makes you look really bad when you say things like that in a summary. Most people who say that are lying, and we know that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  It was miscalculation on my part to think removing would be net less disruptive than tagging, I apologize for that much. Remsense诉 03:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Most of the time, it wouldn't be an issue, as it is pretty obvious there is some kind of puppetry going on. How they answer some pretty basic questions will determine where we go from here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Indef blocked for WP:NOTHERE by Bbb23. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:34, 18 March 2024 (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.

Using unreliable sources

dear admins the username @اَشکَش is using unreliable repetitive sources for example at noohani, and removing the sourced contents on many pages like jadgal, med and The Sindhis of Balochistan kindly look into it. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Respected admins, i have edited with many sources, you can check that for yourself. I even wrote on his talk page. He only has one source and that too in Sindhi language with no clear context, he is using it to edit Noohani Page,

He is using unreliable sources on other pages " Jadgal", "Med" and "The Sindhis of Balochistan" and at times he is using sources which donot even mention what he uses them for. You can have a loo at these pages. اَشکَش (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like your canvasing. That guy who plays games (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion at Talk:Noohani or Talk:Jadgal (I haven't looked at others). This indicates that you have not attempted to address this content dispute, and should not have brought it to ANI at this point. Please read and understand WP:BRD and WP:DR. ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

i wrote at his talk page but he removed it اَشکَش (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia saves page histories. [65] ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 01:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

1 this source only mentions a person named umar khan nuhani, 2 this source mentions a tribe that is extinct now. 3 4 mentions them to be nahmardis which are indeed origin tribe, and the 3rd source is used double times. While other sources are bare urls, which are difficult to verify.

And the username mostly uses the source which barely mentions the word only.

5 6, sources clearly mentions noohani to be a Sindhi tribe from Sindh. 7 in Sindhi mentions them to be Sammat. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

umer khan noohani in details is mentioned as baloch from noohani tribe, no they don't mention extinct tribes , the extinct one is a british colonial era supposition. Noohanis are clearly a Baloch tribe. The ones you are calling bare urls also mention it as a baloch tribe. Noohanis of Sindh especially Dadu are clearly a Baloch tribe and so do they identify, and this is what the sources say. اَشکَش (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

An individual can not be used for whole tribe, it does mention about a nuhani tribe which is disappeared. Read again, noohanis have Sindhi origins in your sources most of them call it noohani as Nohmardi plus mine sources also mention them to be Sindhi origins. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your other bare urls sources mentions few jadgal tribes as baloch, how can those sources be reliable? AngelicDevil29 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@اَشکَش and AngelicDevil29: Please discuss content disputes on either the appropriate article talk page (such as Talk:Noohani, Talk:Jadgal people, Talk:Med people and Talk:The Sindhis of Balochistan) or on each others talk pages. As written above on this page, "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems", which isn't clear at this time. I recommend that you both review how to resolve content disputes and how to seek help from other users. A third opinion has been helpful with disputes I have had in the past. If you two create a good faith discussion on a talk page, I have no problem with trying to help by providing a third opinion.--WMrapids (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks, but as of now the dispute has been resolved. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Baregill demanding real-life info of another editor

Whatever this may be referencing, it appears to be a demand breaching WP:LEGAL. AllyD (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I reverted their edit in the meantime. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:7882:1084:83FD:9EF (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright is not a legal threat. Q ^{T C} 22:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

From WP:LEGAL: "A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself."

That is literally what that was. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:7882:1084:83FD:9EF (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying legal notice will be sent to your email id is an unambiguous legal threat. — Czello ^(music) 22:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Per the two above, and "sheeeeesh". Daniel (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Just per WP:DOLT, I had a quick look at Special:ListFiles/Jackjack786110 but don't see anything to be worried about. The only two remaining image uploads are just logos used under WP:NFCC. Jackjack786110 has no contributions on Commons [66]. Considering the blocked editor's other contribution is [67] and this discussion Talk:Dnyaneshwar Vidyapeeth#Foreign credential evaluation refers to the same things (copyright complaints and Vinod Tawde), I'm fairly sure this is about File:Dnyaneshwar Vidyapeeth (logo).jpg but that's a logo for a educational institution used on that educational institutions page so is not likely a copyright concern in the US, nor a policy one. Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Edit: Sorry I linked to the wrong thing earlier. I meant Talk:Dnyaneshwar Vidyapeeth#wrong information uploaded against BJP as well as use copy righted image Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

OTOH, I do wonder what's going on with User:Baba9, User:Vinode Tawde BJP and the blocked editor. Are they coming here due to some sort of off-site attention, or are they WP:SOCKS? Nil Einne (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a user name violation, since it implicitly claims to be the account of Vinod Tawde? It appears to be some off-wiki coordination, elections are due in the next few weeks and Wikipedia is likely treated similar to Facebook/Insta/Twitter by these campaigns! —SpacemanSpiff 07:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, to give a little clarity what is happening on those talk pages. In English orthography, "<a>" usually represents orange vowels (bare, base), red vowels (bat, father), muddy grey vowels (above, heard), and occasionally yellow vowels (quay, bead) . In a non-official, internet Latin alphabet orthography of Hindi (which I think is being used there) "<a>" only represents the candy apple red "father" vowel or the French grey vowel schwa. Mostly the red vowel, but as often as not the grey one. Umm, *everyone* sees vowels as having colours, right?--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, I did find the mention if that politician a bit odd. OTOH, some of the demands seem to be more about trying to make the institution sound better. Perhaps this is just so that people searching for info on politicians who got qualification from it don't find out about it. But despite our article implying it's dead, I'm fairly sure it's not so I'm wondering if it's just a typical PR or student trying to make the institution sound better than it is. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I took some time and figured out what's going on. These are all linked accounts (sock or meat, I can't say) that likely belong to the political campaign. My Marathi is poor and I can only get a high level understanding of what they've written, any nuances are lost on me. The accounts are unhappy that this reference is used in the article and the associated sentence. "Image" that they are referring to is not a picture but the person's reputation which they feel is being ruined by this sentence. The accounts are saying (not everything related to just this article but I guess it's a coordination spot for them):

1. BJP (Bhartiya Janata Party) has a good name and Wikipedia is defaming a person to play dirty politics
2. Wikipedia is using the wrong map of India
3. The news is wrong, so remove it; there is no report against Vinod Tawde, remove his name
4. The article defames Indian universities such as Nalanda etc; a linked English statement says Oxford and Harvard (misspelled) don't require certificates from UGC, so this one doesn't either (UGC (University Grants Commission (India) -- the accreditation board in India that allows institutions to award degrees)

As for reality, there's a lot of news articles around the "non-accreditation" of this particular place (e.g.1, 2). I've got a headache now, so if someone else wants to deal with this, please go ahead! —SpacemanSpiff 12:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not totally convinced they just mean person's reputation by image/picture. It's a little strange they'd think they can sue someone over violating copyright because they used the person's reputation (image) without their permission. More significantly, Jackjack786110 seems an odd person to target if it is not the logo which also concerns them since as far I can tell, their edits were if anything promotional [68] [69]. Still the basics of what you say seems perfectly plausible, their key concern is that it's giving some politicians a bad name rather than anything else so if that's your read of the situation then I have no reason to doubt it. (The copyright thing is I guess just them trying to find whatever they can to complain about the article.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

User:79.245.112.78 continuing to make mass indiscriminate edits

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

Previously reported IP is still making mass arbitrary edits to various articles with misleading/unhelpful edit summaries like "section structure" (e.g. [70], [71], [72], [73]). This has been going on for weeks at least; they were previously reported at ANI here, and it's likely that they were previously editing as 93.218.55.200, reported here. That IP was previously warned and then blocked, right before this IP became active (see user talk page).

Their edits involve some superficial changes and removal of unsourced content (though rather indiscriminately), but also a lot of unexplainable deletions in sourced paragraphs, deletions of templates or template content, unexplained modifications to text, section blanking without discussion, etc. If they are attempting to do some general clean-up, they're doing more harm than good and, after multiple warnings ([74], [75], [76]) and reverts, they are continuing to do so (e.g. [77]) with no attempt at communicating with editors. R Prazeres (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Moxy, who wrote the previous reports mentioned above, in case they have comments. R Prazeres (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Editors is simply not here. Time sink for all involved. Has never replied to concerns raised. Moxy🍁 18:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Harrassment one-shot sockpuppet

Just got this. I don't know who this is and what is their problem (nor am I interested in any way) but the account was clearly created for harrassment, even if it's a pretty lame one. You may want to checkuser it, or just ban it, or ignore it, at your convenience. Thank you. (Not notifying the account since it's pretty pointless, considering its full history.) -- grin ✎ 20:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

User:TheCreatorOne continuing to engage in harassment - WP:HARASS

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

This is a second incident report made against TheCreatorOne. I first raised an incident report against TheCreatorOne after they personally attacked me on my talk page[78], leading to a 72 hour ban. Unfortunately, TheCreatorOne is back on my talk page engaging in obsessive behavior that falls under harrasment. TheCreatorOne states that I should be reported and definitely removed from the moderator position...you and other members here are spreading is false history of course. And nationalistic nonsense that is not supported by any historical sources. I am not sure why they believe I am a moderator as I am clearly not one nor have stated that I am. I am also not sure who they have reported me too. The content TheCreatorOne is referring to is content they were trying to push on a 1RR page through edit warring, leading to a page protection request that was granted. That was over a month ago yet TheCreatorOne is still fixated on that content. Help would be most appreciated in this case as it is getting out of control and makes me very uncomfortable. ElderZamzam (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE Promotional advocacy regarding Nancy D. Erbe

Surance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An account wholly dedicated to promoting anything related to Nancy D. Erbe, a professor at California State University, Dominguez Hills, and adding her minor visits and other activities as subsections on multiple articles. Since this editor created Erbe's article in 2014, they've turned it into a puff-filled résumé: a repository of awards, accomplishments, and dozens of miscellaneous images (which the editor all took themself). Despite these additions being reverted by multiple editors since 2021, editor continues to make these promotional additions.

Additions of blatantly promotional subsections on university pages titled "Noted scholar visit" that give a puff-filled description of some time Erbe made a visit to the school. Most of them are the same promotional message copy and pasted to different pages:

• Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro (A World-renowned scholar of Negotiation, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding and Dr. Nancy D. Erbe visited the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil twice when...)
• University of Nicosia
• Bethlehem Bible College
• Vardham Mahaveer Open University
• Central University of Punjab

Additions of images/unsourced descriptions of Erbe to "notable faculty/alumni", etc. pages despite Erbe not being major enough to be included (these have been reverted multiple times):

• Pepperdine University
• UC Berkeley
• University of Denver
• UC Berkeley, again
• University of Oslo (Removing the link to an actually important scholar due to be included)
• UC Berkeley, again x2
• Cornell Law School
• Central University of Punjab
• Jawaharlal Nehru University
• Indian Institute of Advanced Study
• Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
• Eastern Mediterranean University
• Metropolitan State University of Denver

Many more I haven't listed that can be seen on their edit log. I've reverted the image repository at Erbe but editor just reverts it back with no edit summary everytime. Other editors have reverted these additions too, but they haven't got the message. WP:NOTHERE behavior dedicated to promotional advocacy. GuardianH (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on everything, but I opened Nancy D. Erbe, and surely that image in the preview/top of the article is not properly licensed? I mean the source is also "Template:Csudh", whatever that's supposed to mean, but even if it wasn't it's a screenshot of an image in a website, there's even a tooltip in it...

Ironically, about other images they've uploaded like :File:Nancy_Erbe-UFRRJ-Rio.JPG, if their claim of it being their own work is accurate then that would clearly show a real life connection with the subject.

– 2804:F14:809E:DF01:307C:AF3C:87B6:EFA0 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

In 29 April 2023 they created a different account (Mardi1123), they used that account (as can be seen from their talk page) to write a draft on "Swaranjit Singh (author)" something that if you look in their logs(link) they previously tried to create with their Surance account.

Looking into this edit filter log by the Mardi1123 account, it says, among other things: "He has co-authored and co-edited these books with World-renowned Professor Nancy D. Erbe.".

– 2804:F14:809E:DF01:307C:AF3C:87B6:EFA0 (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sockpuppet case there too. GuardianH (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Just an observation, I only now noticed it: Surance had been trying to reach you in your talk page, by responding to 2023 conversations (diff1, diff2). – 2804:F1...B6:EFA0 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Continual disruptive editing of Economy of Poland article, in-article personal attacks

UsernameBrian22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

For the last week, the user has been making disruptive edits to the Economy of Poland article, including adding unsourced content and removing sourced content [79].

The edits included in-article personal attacks against other users, for instance "Developed since 2000s read up on in smartass", as a response to a revert [80].

The user has been warned multiple times on their Talk pages [81] [82], but has continued to make the same disruptive edits [83]. Fiszu2001 (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (p-block): User talk:UsernameBrian22#Partial block. Also, two continualseses in a row ^{(diff, diff)}, Phil Bridger — what are the odds? El_C 12:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

User:CF vfvr24sd continuing to use accounts to remove speedy tags off Ali Esfandiyari

CF vfvr24sd (talk · contribs)

Basically the tags were added by User:Bulklana because of WP:A1, WP:A7, and WP:G4. They are using an IP, User:2a01:5ec0:581c:b5ed:1:0:f072:e1a3 and another user, User:Susj298woz and this is continuing to trigger the edit filter, with tag such as (speedy deletion template removed) in any edit they make. I warned them about taking off tags, but they seem to do the same thing. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

They did the same with User:Siewp39a TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m not an administrator, but I feel like this is a sock puppet considering the account joined around three hours ago Maestrofin (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I did warn then about sockpuppetry TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The speedy template removal pattern is fairly ridiculous:

• CF vfvr24sd was created 22:52, 16 March, 28 minutes after Ali Esfandiyari was first tagged for speedy deletion, and immediately removed the speedy template.
• Susj298woz was created 23:20, 16 March and three minutes later removed the speedy template.
• Siewp39a was created 00:26, 17 March and immediately removed the speedy template.

None of those accounts have done anything other than edit Ali Esfandiyari, adding categories and especially edit warring to remove the speedy template; nor has the IPv6 IP mentioned above.

Both the sport Wushu and the Persian language are exotic to me, so it's difficult for me to be sure that there aren't any reliable sources in amongst the panoply of them (18 references!). Just from the way the history looks, with all the edit warring socks, I'm tempted to speedy the article per the modified speedy tag C.Fred placed here, but I'd better not; it's so to speak not necessarily Esfandiyari's fault that he has that disruptive fan. I do not hesitate, however, to block the obvious sock drawer and semi the article. Done. With some hesitation, I've left the creator of the article, Sohramgin, at large. Is there an admin or experienced user out there who feels confident assessing the sources? And/or a CU who can check whether Sohramgin is the master here? Bishonen | tålk 10:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC).

CF vfvr24sd, Susj298woz, Siewp39a and Sohramgin are all  Highly likely to each other and to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amin balochstani. Spicy (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks guys. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, Spicy. Bishonen | tålk 13:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC).

Continual personal attacks

CatTheMeow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have observed a recurring pattern of behavior from a user, particularly concerning their interaction with others and their contributions. Despite the well-cited nature of an article, it proposed for deletion by them twice, just by some weasel words without any evidences[84] [85].Backed by reliable sources WP:RS, the proposal tag was removed [86]. Upon posting a notice on their talk page, it became evident that they engage in such actions regularly. This includes labeling others' accounts as unreliable, accusing individuals of being "Supremacist" for substituting unreliable images with reliable ones, and alleging "regional Chauvinism," among other things [87].

Subsequent discussions on their talk page revealed a trend of personal attacks, with derogatory terms such as "Chauvinist" and "Supremacists" being included [88] [89] [90]. Furthermore, they have displayed hostility towards good-faith editors, accusing them of "propagating and creating your own history,"[91] "Playing innocent victim card," exhibiting "language Chauvinism," [92] and labeling their edits as "Vandalism," even going so far as to request their block [93].

Moreover, during discussions related to the nomination of one of their pages for deletion AFD, they resorted to attacking the nominators' background, making inflammatory remarks such as "seems like your side rulers were never able to touch this type of glorious victory, your user profile itself explains that what is your agenda that which you're running in Wikipedia" [94].

Most concerning is a recent instance where they made an anti-Islamic comment on the page "Bahmani Vijayanagar War." This behavior persists without any sign of change [95].--Imperial^[AFCND] 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Recently, an IP user restored the Anti-Islamic comment here [96]. It would be better to take an action asap. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE block needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

A WP:TBAN from WP:CT/IPA at minimum is definitely in order. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Aecws - repeated copyvios, and constantly submitting AfC requests under someone else's name

Aecws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had two copyright violations against their account, both on Draft:Canadian Pacific 2860, the second time when they restored copyrighted content immediately after it had been reverted and they had been warned.

They have also repeatedly submitted AfC requests as User:Mr Mines Engine ([97], [98], [99], [100], [101], new page at Draft:Southern Pacific 982) and re-submitted them without bothering to set themselves as the submitter ([102], [103], [104]). They have been warned on their talk page about this behaviour ([105]), but have continued to do so, with the latest submission being today. Mr Mines Engine is receiving the constant AfC decline notifications on their talk page, despite having nothing to do with anything here (as evidenced by this comment [106]). Surely impersonation such as this should be strongly frowned upon? Danners430 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Using another editor to submit their AfCs is completely unacceptable. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for standing up for me, tho i actually did submitted Southern Pacific 982. I don’t like being used as bait by him. Mr Mines Engine (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It was Aecws that created the page initially, and the very first edit submitted it to AfC under your name Danners430 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I know he made the page but i was the one to submit it Mr Mines Engine (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

oh I see what you mean - that’s a mistake on my part, apologies Danners430 (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve just reverted a move that they carried out on Draft:Canadian Pacific 2860 - they moved the article to mainspace after the AfC was declined… Danners430 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In fact, they’ve moved a bunch of draft articles to main space - at least two, Draft:Great Western 51 and Draft:Southern Pacific 1233, had declined AFCs… Danners430 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that AfC is not a mandatory process, nor is a declined draft not allowed to leave draftspace. I believe the proper procedure is to take the articles to AfD rather than send them back to draftspace. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah OK - I don’t know much about AfC either, I simply saw what looked rather suspiciously like the user trying to circumvent process so reverted the changes - more than happy to accept a trouting for this! Danners430 (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Impersonation of any kind is absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia for obvious reasons. It's very obvious that they should be indef blocked as soon as possible for WP:NOTHERE. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A further note… the user has created two new articles in main space in the last day, both of which had no sources and were draftified… they’ve also had two other articles created in main space draftified for the same reason. Danners430 (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been involved with reverting their nonsense multiple times - this is an open and shut indef block for CIR and refusal to communicate. This individual is fundamentally unable to participate constructively in Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I just checked two of their most recent creations - both included wholesale copying and pasting from online sources. I implore any available admins to indef this user before they create more copyright violations we have to clean up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Indeffed. No response to anyone's comments at talk page, no response here in over 4 days, and repeat ongoing issues. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP user

Noticed in an edit summary Special:Diff/1214049707 a threat of legal action. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 17:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 1 week (given that they're an IP, indef wouldn't be appropriate) for NLT. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Swatjester, since the same person has been using the same IP for at least six months, a longer block would have been justified in my opinion. But if they resume legal threats in a week, the block can be extended. Cullen328 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I've got no objection if you'd like to lengthen it. Just trying to limit any potential collateral damage. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the IP's contributions, I see repeated requests for removal, including statements that they have contacted WMF legal with that demand and this post at BLPN, which clearly asks for deletion of the entire article. In one edit summary they appear to be saying they are the article subject. They've placed themself at a disadvantage by not registering an account (and that's why I'm not naming the article here; they may not be who they claim in that one edit summary) and by assuming WMF Legal are the ones to ask for an article deletion, but the article is tagged for bordeline notability; there may be a case under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. At BLPN, JFHJr referred them to AfD. I note the biographical details in the infobox are unsourced. But I don't think we have enough proof of the editor's identity to start a procedural AfD, so I haven't attempted the necessary research. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

For clarification, I would have AfDd the article if I felt I could have won. Unfortunately, marginal cases still pass GNG although the subject loses control and demands deletion. See the now-deleted Davina Reichman talk page. I think we are stuck with this article and living subject. That said, I'd like to get a ping or something if you do AfD it. I'd really like to agree. Even Davina eventually got deleted. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Automated edits by रोहित साव27

Can someone look at रोहित_साव27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and get them to pause their automated edits with Wikipedia:SWViewer? My edits were made over the course of several hours and got reverted in a flash for alleged promotion to Peter Brown (historian). I know I'm only an IP, but they are reverting indiscriminately and not responding to talk page messages. 73.37.211.177 (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with 73.37.211.177; it is concerning that for the rapid rate at which रोहित साव27 reverts others, they are disproportionately unresponsive to the many ongoing good-faith complaints and queries lodged at their talk page. Left guide (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I just thought to check, and found out that they were also editing and reverting in multiple Wikis at once [107](note that that tool only shows the most recent 20 edits per wiki).

That's... how good at multi tasking must you be to be able to do that? – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:CF7:6618:2E02:A732 (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the reversions of IP edits are out of control. I can see the article is in many ways promotional but that was not a remotely satisfactory reason for reverting your edits. I can't make out what SWViewer can do. Could it be assessing an article as a whole and then reverting recent IP edits? It's really sad to see thoughtful IP editors assuming the reversions have some proper basis and enquiring about the rationales. Is SWViewer ever of any benefit? Thincat (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. First of all I would like to apologize for the mistakes I made. I am new to English Wikipedia and am not well aware of the rules here. I apologize and accept my mistake for your troubles.--रोहित^Talk_with_me 12:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@रोहित साव27: This was your first ever edit on English Wikipedia: that's hardly "new". Bazza 7 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: Yes, you are right but I have done most of the work on Hindi Wikipedia and just a few days ago I have started working actively on English Wikipedia.--रोहित^Talk_with_me 15:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So why are you reverting so rapidly? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think they are using toolforge Maestrofin (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: It appears that this is bad enough to the point where user has been declined pending changes reviewing. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 14:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of 'bias'

Liberland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

As those who have been following the topic will no doubt be aware, Wikipedia content on 'micronations' can often be contentious, and it isn't unusual for discussions to get fairly heated. The Liberland article in particular has often been troublesome, with occasional sockpuppetry and undeclared CoI editing added to the mix. Much of the too-and-fro of such debate is probably par for the course with such topics, and the questionable civility might best be ignored. I would however have to suggest that there are limits to this, and thus draw peoples' attention to recent comment being made by User: MicroSupporter on Talk:Liberland. For background, a contributor, new to the topic, and fairly new to Wikipedia in general, indicated a few weeks ago that they intended to do a substantive rewrite of the article (see the Talk:Liberland#Sursum capita thread). Given their inexperience, and the contested nature of the article, I then suggested that it might be wiser to create a draft proposal, rather than editing the article live. This was done, and comments regarding the draft were asked for. Though participation was fairly limited, since there seemed to be clear support for replacing the existing article with the new material, I suggested that the article be updated. At this point (the article not yet being updated), MicroSupporter finally chose to give their opinion in the thread (they were clearly aware of it, since they'd made a couple of edits to the draft, both reverted). I wasn't particularly surprised to see MicroSupporter opposing the update, but what I do find problematic is their repeated and unsubstantiated accusations of 'bias', directed at me (see [108][109][110]), and later at all who supported the draft content: Also, the only people in support of this revision are you, and 3 other people who seem to have a problem with not just Liberland but all others micronations. [111]

It should be noted that such accusations of 'bias' from MicroSupporter are not new: see e.g. [112], and seem to be symptomatic of an ongoing problem: an inability to accept that Wikipedia isn't a platform for the promotion of 'micronations', the single focus of MicroSupporter's entire contribution history. A history which sees repeated efforts to promote non-notable topics (e.g. the inappropriate creation of an article on the entirely non-notable Liberland Press, their attempts via Draft:Verdis (micronation) to create an article on another non-notable micronation etc), and to paint the 'micronations' in the best possible light - often with complete disregard for appropriate sourcing etc. As talk-page accusations go, 'bias' is generally-speaking a pretty tame one, but when it is not just repeated, but used as a substitute for substantive discussion of issues, and used to pre-emptively dismiss the opinions of multiple contributors, I think it crosses the line, and it may be time to consider whether action is needed to discourage such behaviour in a contributor so clearly at odds with broader community consensus in multiple regards. Flinging essentially evidence-free 'bias' accusations around willy-nilly is in my opinion disruptive, and sanctionable if repeated often enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be very offended on the fact I called you biased against micronations. Your problem with micronations was not only mentioned just by me but also @Thryduulf on WP:VPP, and ThecentreCZ on my talk page. Just because I made an article about a micronation does not mean it is a way of promotion. It is just more knowledge to Wikipedia. It's stupid to throw around a word like that to the point it is meaningless. By your meaning of promotion, articles about the United Kingdom or The Telegraph are promotional too. It is not a crime to have an interest in micronations and unrecognised states, and to contribute to the encyclopedia by writing more about that, as long as they are notable, which I considered both Liberland Press and Verdis to be. I have followed the creation guides and made sure they are not biased. I have gone through AfC requests too.

I have never declined my interest in micronations (hence even my name) and have always particularly found both European micronations and unrecognised European states a big interest, but it doesn't mean I will place biased information on there. I have always made sure to write two sides of the story, regardless of what I think, and you can view that in my contributions.

Also, I am not 'fairly new'. I have been on Wikipedia for over a year but I am not as committed as I initially planned to be as I have a job and a family to look after. I find it funny that the moment someone disagrees with you, you take them to ANI like a child. Good day. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I made attempts to participate to the new article by trying to make it neutral, but my attempts were reverted. I also tried to discuss my issue with the lack of neutrality about the newly proposed article. I may be personally more in support of the idea of these micronations (although not part of), but that doesn't mean that I support everything about them, or even some of their legalities. I do however support the neutral writing of articles making sure that both views are taken into account. I do not support the removal of necessary information like infoboxes until the discussion at WP:VPP is complete. Removing it while all other micronational pages have it is silly, and the discussion at WP:VPP is far from over as even those supporting the new infoboxes do not entirely agree with them and have a lot of suggested chances as it removes a lot of necessary information. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion with User:ThecentreCZ on MicroSuporter's talk page [113] may very well be relevant here. Anyone wishing to do so might well take it into consideration as further evidence of the problems I illustrated above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't got time now to more than skim-read the above. I don't know whether MicroSupporter is or is not biased towards micronations, but it seems evident from the VPP discussion that AndyTheGrump is biased against them (iirc I'm not the only person to have mentioned this in that discussion). I'm not involved with articles about any individual micronations, but removing or changing the type of infobox (if that's what's happening) on any such articles while the discussion at VPP is ongoing is definitely not something that should be going on (regardless of what type of change is being made). Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'd really prefer that we stay on topic here, and not go off at a tangent, but I will note here that if you really wish to make accusations of 'bias' regarding the WP:VPP thread, I may have more to say on the subject, and that the evidence may not reflect particularly well on you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to remove infoboxes on micronation articles during the VPP discussion, which is centered exclusively on which parameters should be available in the infobox template, not whether articles should have them in the first place. That said, infoboxes are only a minor component of the discussion above and it's a distraction to focus on it when the real problem is exchanges like this:

ThecentreCZ 00:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, why did you allowed purging article of Liberland by some random crowd editors who just came there? As a person who supervise article Liberland you should have had been more vigilant. Liberland is most known micronation in the world and they are trying to purge it from cognizance, why the hell all other 50 micronations have infobox remained and they remove just the most known one? Thats not possible.

MicroSupporter 11:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC) @ThecentreCZ I have been trying to keep the infobox and the Liberland article. The bias is coming from other users who keep calling Liberland a 'scam' or a 'fake'.

ThecentreCZ 13:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Yes, you must fight more and call for help.

MicroSupporter 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC) @ThecentreCZ Can you help me fight this? I am not a frequent contributor.

AndyTheGrump 14:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC) I would strongly advise you both to read WP:OWN and WP:CANVASS.

: ThecentreCZ 14:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Who asked? How did you even get here? You are stating on your page that you are: taking a break permanently, why are you then editing Wikipedia right now and misleading readers thinking that you are not active editor?

MicroSupporter 14:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC) @ThecentreCZ He is a troll who has a very personal problem with micronations. It has been addressed on WP:VPP. He is often called into ANI for insulting other users too judging by his talk page. lol

ThecentreCZ 15:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Thank you. Why the hell they removed the box even when RfC request on WP:VPP is still open? Until the end of RfC it should have remained in there. I've looked to the RfC discussion, there are many old acquaintances there like horrible editor leader Number 57. Their disurptive crowd is massive, they are exatly that people founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger is talking about in his speeches, how Wikipedia is beeing ruined.

MicroSupporter 15:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Their behaviour is horrid. I struggle to enjoy editing on Wikipedia because of these people. Andy just threatened me to WP:ANI for merely calling him biased. Something he tends to do every time he doesn't get his way.

MicroSupporter 15:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC) @ThecentreCZ sorry I forgot to tag

and the discussions leading up to this. JoelleJay (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf, so by your own admissions, you do not know what the discussion is about, do not know the particulars of the user who is the source of the complaint, and do not know what changes to the article are actually being discussed. but you do know enough about the filer to lodge an accusation of bias because they hold an opinion contrary to your own. what was the purpose of your post, and what do you feel you have brought to the discussion? ValarianB (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I do know what this discussion is about, offer no comment about matters I don't I know about but do offer relevant commentary about the aspects that I do know about. Which is exactly what one is supposed to do when a dispute is brought to these boards. Yes, AndyTheGrump holds an opinion contrary to my own in the VPP discussion, but so do multiple other users. The significant majority of those whom I disagree with in that discussion do not seem to be arguing from a position of bias, AndyTheGrump does and that is important context for their complaints about MicroSupporter. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I will freely admit to being biased. I am biased against using infoboxes to mislead readers as to the status of 'micronations' that are at best deeply contentious, and frequently outright fantasies. I am biased against using infoboxes to present the self-promoting claims of promotors of 'micronations' as fact. I am biased in favour of only using infoboxes for their intended purpose: summarising non-controversial factual information. Such bias is implicit in core Wikipedia policy. Feel free to propose an amendment to said policy if you disagree with it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

As has been explained multiple times in the VPP discussion, that's not the impression your proposals are giving. However let's keep that discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It would have been a darned sight easier to keep it in one place if you didn't insist on repeatedly using this thread to go on about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I think the drastic changes to the Liberland article are going to need a RFC and not a local talk page consensus. If I heard that the infobox was being removed, or that the article was being substantially revamped, I would have been against a Infobox removal. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that an RfC will ultimately be needed. Starting one, however, generally requires prior discussion of issues with content that need resolution, not unsubstantiated accusations of 'bias'. As I made clear above, I have done everything a could to encourage such discussion, suggesting a draft, and doing nothing to preempt it. I was a little disappointed at the lack of participation, but per WP:BRD it seemed reasonable to at least see how the update was received. As for the infobox issue, clearly the outcome of the WP:VPP discussion will be relevant, but regardless of which way it goes, it need not be a blocker with regard to updating the article as a whole. I would have hoped that any experienced contributor would have looked at the draft in that regard, rather than as another venue for a dispute over a single aspect of it that is already being discussed elsewhere. Quite obviously I'm not suggesting that updating the article to the draft is any sort of 'final version', and I'm quite sure there will be other issues to resolve. Such issues are however content-related, and of no direct concern here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It should also be noted that at the time the draft was being written, the Liberland article did not contain an infobox. It had been removed on 6th February, since talk-page discussion seemed to indicate support for doing so. In that regard, the draft was following the existing article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI, there is a WP:EDITWAR on removing the infobox right now. It should be kept until the RfC discussion is closed. I agree with @ASmallMapleLeaf MicroSupporter (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A) The Liberland article had consensus to remove the infobox before the RfC started
B) There is still consensus to remove the infobox
C) The last stable version of the article does not have an infobox so even if t/p consensus was less clear that is the version it must be kept at
D) The RfC explicitly does not address the question of whether micronation articles should have an infobox (Where articles on micronations use an infobox, should they use..., workshopped out of a discussion where consensus was to specifically avoid asking whether micronations should have infoboxes), so its closure should have no effect on whether Liberland has an infobox
E) ASML, AFAICT, very narrowly escaped a TBAN from ANI as part of their unblock conditions from @Newyorkbrad and @Deepfriedokra so their heavy participation at ANI (27 edits in the last 3 weeks, a full 8% of their total edits) right now perhaps deserves its own scrutiny (as does their trouting of an editor who recently removed her support for ASML's desired micronation infobox format at the RfC). JoelleJay (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Il just note when on ANI I have not tried to 'pick sides' and rather tried to help users or diffuse disputes. You also state I 'trouted' an editor at the RFC because they withdrew there vote, that is not good faith in the slightest and was due to them mistakeningly striking another users vote. I have already stated il back consensus, I just think WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a bad path here. As for my editing on Liberland, I missed the discussion on the 'unrecognised' tag, and do not intend to add it back again if removed.

I don't care about the outcome of this ANI discussion, but I will care if someone such as yourself accuses me of being in the wrong for having a high edit count since my ban appeal on ANI (Mainly reverting Hamish Ross). ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You are right about the trouting, I've struck that part. LOCALCON is irrelevant when the topic itself is just a local content dispute and does not go against global P&Gs (and the P&Gs for infoboxes specifically state The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article., so this is exactly where such a discussion should take place). JoelleJay (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

it is rather plain to see that a user named "microsupporter" is here to advance a personal opinion about micronations, rather than to contribute to the articles in the spirit of an encyclopedia. especially when they attack editors they disagree with. ValarianB (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

As I have repeated, I may have my personal stance on topics, but I want to re-affirm it doesn't change that I do my best to make sure that the content I write on here is non-biased. Written not in support or against whatever topic it is. I just want to contribute to Wikipedia in a non-biased, neutral perspective. I admit I shouldn't have used some words towards other editors, but I have been frustrated by Andy, and he has made personal attacks towards me in the past. It doesn't make it right for me to do the same back though. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some of the stubs like Liberland Press are not notable enough to have own article, but your behaviour is not convenient even more. I tend to agree that bias as a label this user used is adequate description, but there is no way to prove it other than some inquiry about all of the actions you made by some college of Wikipedians, which is not realistic to happen. Thereof I see using bias-description as just a normal opinion of a Wikipedian about your edits which is fine. As we see that you are person who is opposing traditional micronation infobox on Wikipedia used for years and MicroSupporer supports it, you both shouldn't be involved in this dispute and leave it for impartial editors. It is perfectly okay to have a concern about your purge of the infoboxes you are involved in. People should be concerned with ongoing village pump RfC about this topic, which is participated by well-known company of editors, thats true. People should invite impartial Wikipedians to there, because most of them didn't even noticed it and it is again discussed only by certain kind of users. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support ban/indef-block for MicroSupporer. NOTHERE/SPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  I find this rather saddening for me as I have done nothing but tried to contribute to Wikipedia. I do not believe I am SPA or NOTHERE as I have made contributions to numerous categories per my contributions. However, I am most knowledgable in micronations (Molossia, Liberland, Verdis, Sealand) and unrecognised states (South Ossetia, Artsakh, Abkhazia). We are here to build an encyclopedia aren't we? You are welcome to look through my edits and see I have created nothing but non-biased information (or at least in my eyes). Regardless of my personal support for certain topics just like any other editor on Wikipedia, I have always made sure to make sure it is non-biased (or at least to my knowledge non-biased). MicroSupporter (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  @TrangaBellam you're going to need to present evidence of either no significant contributions in and/or disruption to other areas for anything more than a topic ban to be a serious consideration. A quick look at their recent contributions does suggests that while micronations are the single largest topic area they edit in regards, it is not the only one and there is nothing apparently disruptive about their contributions to other topic areas (I'm offering no opinion at this time about this contributions to the micronation topic area, I haven't looked at enough of them in context). Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf One can start with MicroSupporter's citation of disinformation-media like Parlamentní listy. Or his writing skills by which he managed to write such a long article on a "microstate" — mostly sourced to non-RS, as Andy noted — without mentioning its central aim, which is, to be a tax-free haven. Or ... In any case, civil-POV pushers are the worst and I won't really be wasting my time trying to put a long-list-of-policy-violations. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you want to ban someone you presenting evidence of policy violations is not optional. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  I support report of TrangaBellam to the noticeboard and then subsequent 14-day block for unconstructive behavior. He purges 12 980 bytes of information in article of Liberland, with no intention of revork of the content and leaving the article almost a stub-article. MicroSupporter contibuted also to other topic-articles other than micronations. Support of ban of a new user who in goodwill trying to inprove Wikipedia is disgusting. ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just a check, who do you call "a new user"? The Banner talk 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  I support this the report of @TrangaBellam He removed a large amount of the Liberland article, a lot of content removed has been on there for years, and well-cited too. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Info that you put back into the article. The Banner talk 20:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  I reverted his WP:VANDALISM. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  A content disagreement is not the same as vandalism. The Banner talk 20:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do not accuse someone of vandalism when it is not. Vandalism has a specific definition here, and false accusations can be considered a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:NCR.ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• MicroSupporter says I do however support the neutral writing of articles making sure that both views are taken into account. No, we do not balance mainstream views against fringe views like this. The mainstream simply ignores such silliness rather than debunking it, but we don't let that lead us into reporting only the fringe views. I note that that editor, both here and on the talk page, has compared his opponents to children. Most of us grew out of views such as treating micronations as legitimate before we reached puberty. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. And Thryduulf, I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here, but it is an odd hill. El_C 19:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Here? A fair examination of the editing of all involved parties. At the VPP discussion, micronations being treated in accordance with NPOV not the negative POV of some editors. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, here. Seemingly disregarding the pro-WP:FRINGE advocacy due to... reasons? El_C 19:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@El C, I think the reasons should be evident from his participation in the micronation infobox RfC... JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Where I have been consistently advocating for an NPOV approach, not a pro or anti anything approach. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not disregarding anything - I have no opinion about MicroSupporter's edits because I haven't looked at the evidence sufficiently to have an informed opinion. And I've said that explicitly twice. Whether MS is or is not inappropriately advocating FRINGE has no bearing on whether Andy is editing in accordance with policies. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

So far, you have presented precisely zero evidence of me 'editing against policies'. Disagreeing with your relentless badgering at WP:VPN isn't against policy. Disagreeing with the misuse of infoboxes to present the fringe promotional claims of 'micronation' supporters isn't against policy. Raising attention to the behavioural issues with a single-purpose contributor at ANI isn't against policy. On the other hand, if repeatedly posting in an ANI thread to drag the thread off-topic, while repeatedly failing to even take the time look into the substance of what the thread is actually about isn't against policy, it probably should be. And making repeated claims about policy violations without backing them up with evidence certainly is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not a single-purpose contributer thanks. I also can't believe I have to repeat this again but just because you don't like something being written about doesn't automatically mean it is 'promotional'. I don't agree with what a lot of micronations do, and I haven't called any of them legitimate (or fake) in my edits either. I have maintained WP:NPOV. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I call em like I see em, Thryduulf. JoelleJay, what, no link? El_C 20:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Here you go. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In which case you are seeing things in a manner that is contrary to multiple explicit statements, so either present evidence I'm editing in bad faith or withdraw the accusations. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, JoelleJay. Two problems come to mind: AndyTheGrump needs to better condense (here and at the RfC), and Thryduulf is letting issues they have with AndyTheGrump unduly influence their approach here. For example, witness the exchange that JoelleJay cited above, but Thryduulf still only sees AndyTheGrump as the problem, even with that disconcerting conversation in full display! El_C 20:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have explicitly said, at least three times now, that I don't only see AndyTheGrup as the problem, please stop making such incorrect accusations. I have said that I think AndyTheGrump is biased, and that I don't know whether MicroSupporter is or is not biased. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make things. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've tried my best to maintain WP:NPOV. I do have a personal liking for micronations and unrecognised states, but it doesn't mean I find them legitimate (or fake), more just of interest. If any of my edits show otherwise, I'd appreciate guidance from anyone on how I can make my edits more WP:NPOV and Wikipedia friendly. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it still isn't aligning for me, Thryduulf. Yes, you said that, but it isn't reflected in your emphases throughout this complaint, so it seems skewed to me. El_C 20:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

How is my talking about things I know and not talking about things I don't know evidence of my endorsing the latter? Why does my explicitly saying I'm neither endorsing or not endorsing things I've not commented on imply that I have any opinion (good or bad) about things such things? Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Because the outcome is one-sided, irrespective of one's declared opinion or lack thereof, when items critical of one party are emphasized but not so much the other. Again, I used the example of the exchange that JoelleJay cited above, but this is becoming circular. El_C 22:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If my opinion were the only one expressed then you might have a point, but my only substantive comments here have been to say that Andy has not come here as an innocent bystander and their behaviour needs examining as well. Not instead of MicroSupporter. Not defending, downplaying, exonerating, supporting or anything else towards MicroSupporter. Everything else has been defending myself against unsubstantiated accusations of bias for not expressing an uninformed opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 'unsubstantiated accusations', are you going to provide any actual evidence (i.e. diffs) to back up your claims that I am 'biased' in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy, or are we just expected to take your word for it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to do more than just do what I did - point people to the entirety of the VPP discussion - because I didn't think that anybody would make anywhere near such a big deal about it. I won't have time to hunt out specific diffs until (probably) tomorrow afternoon or evening UTC though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be making very selective use of your time here. You can't find the time to look into the actual issues behind this thread (which had nothing to do with infoboxes, given that MicroSupporter was entirely wrong in suggesting that the draft was going to remove the infobox - it wasn't in the exiting article either), but you can find the time to drag the thread off-topic to gripe about a WP:VPP thread where you seemingly aren't getting your way. And now, after more griping about 'unsubstantiated accusations', you suddenly run out of time again when asked for substance. So here's a suggestion for you. Make the best use of your time by dropping out of this conversation entirely, and leave your diffs (if you can find any) for a new ANI thread, where we can discuss who exactly is 'biased', who is actually supporting Wikipedia policy om neutrality and due emphasis, and then discuss appropriate behaviour in village pump threads (and on ANI for that matter - I'll no doubt have something to say about dragging threads off-topic, even if you won't). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to do more than just do what I did - point people to the entirety of the VPP discussion

Then you're making accusations of bias without evidence, which is personal attack. I suggest you step away from this discussion entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have never referred to micronations as legitimate in any of my edits. I always include the term 'micronation' instead of 'country' to make sure the difference is known. If you look at how I edit, you'd see that I have (at least I believe) maintained WP:NPOV, and if I haven't, criticism is welcome. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Question. Are we going to actually do anything about MicroSupporter's behaviour regarding 'micronation' topics? Even putting aside the repeated and entirely unsubstantiated throwing around of accusations of 'bias', we have time and time again seen evidence that MicroSupporter is either incapable of understanding Wikipedia policies, or unwilling to comply with them. MicroSupporter seems entirely incapable of understanding what WP:NPOV is actually about (i.e. due balance, not some imaginary absolute 'neutrality'), seems incapable of distinguishing a reliable source from an unreliable one, repeatedly misrepresents what sources say, (see discussions of a Chicago School of Law article on Talk:Liberland for an example of that) and then lays claim to expertise while failing to provide the slightest evidence for it. Add this to the battleground behaviour and utterly misguided attempts to weaponise Wikipedia terminology to prevent normal editing practice (see e.g. above, describing TrangaBellam's edits to the Liberland article as WP:VANDALISM) and it is difficult to see how MicroSupporter can be of net benefit to the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing a large amount of an article without RFC is not normal editing practice. He removed vital information that was on there for years. Also, you have admitted to your WP:BIAS earlier on this ANI. I understand what WP:NPOV is, and I believe I have followed the correct guidelines for edits. If you look at the edits I have made on Liberland and other articles, I have maintained due balance. Your edits do not. You also claim that infoboxes on micronation articles are not appropriate, yet it has the micronation markings and it provides quick access to useful information, which is what a lot of people use the encyclopedia for. MicroSupporter (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing a large amount of an article without RFC is not normal editing practice. Wrong. you have admitted to your WP:BIAS earlier on this ANI What the fuck are you referring to? Provide a direct quote, NOW. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd ask that you remain WP:CIVIL and mind your language please. You said "I will freely admit to being biased. I am biased against using infoboxes to mislead readers as to the status of 'micronations' that are at best deeply contentious, and frequently outright fantasies.". Also, I will repeat again that I am not the only one accusing you of bias against micronations. MicroSupporter (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Also I forgot to type: Infoboxes provide quick access to vital information. It is not 'misleading' and the infobox shows at the top that it is a micronation. MicroSupporter (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the above response, I formally request that MicroSupporter be blocked indefinitely on grounds of incompetence to edit Wikipedia.. The full post of the material MicroSupporter quotes is as follows: I will freely admit to being biased. I am biased against using infoboxes to mislead readers as to the status of 'micronations' that are at best deeply contentious, and frequently outright fantasies. I am biased against using infoboxes to present the self-promoting claims of promotors of 'micronations' as fact. I am biased in favour of only using infoboxes for their intended purpose: summarising non-controversial factual information. Such bias is implicit in core Wikipedia policy. Feel free to propose an amendment to said policy if you disagree with it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC). As anyone with even a modicum of common sense will see, I am stating that I am biased in favour of applying Wikipedia policies. And MicroSupporter somehow presents this as evidence against me? This is utterly absurd. If it isn't wilful misinterpretation, it is cluelessness almost beyond comprehension. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh stop. Everyone knows your bias against micronations. You fail to WP:NPOV. MicroSupporter (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yet more evidence re WP:CIR. Combines battleground mentality with incompetence, and when called out on it, resorts to handing out orders... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really... and once again, you're one to talk considering your lack of WP:CIVILity and curse words. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@MicroSupporter: I think you might want to read WP:YESBIAS, that is:

NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It means "neutrally reflecting what the sources say. It does not mean that the article has to be 'neutral'." We do not document "neutral facts or opinions". Instead, we write about all facts and referenced opinions (that aren't solely based on primary sources) neutrally, even when those facts and opinions present bias.

The sources referred to here are those that meet our WP:SOURCE criteria, one of which is that sources must be independent. YouTube videos like this and the Liberland Foreign Minister [114] clearly do not meet those criteria.

Also, misrepresenting the words of others as you seem to have done above is a violation of WP:TPNO. Please do not do it again. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 18:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support ban. MicroSupporter is very clearly WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia. He is aggressively pushing a POV, to the point of edit warring on behalf of the inclusion of patent original research, unacceptably shitty self-published primary sources, and known conspiracist disinformation blogs. He has responded to WP:CANVASSING on his talk page by agreeing to be part (or remain part) of a coordinated bias-pushing brigade. When called out, he explodes into bursts of ad hominems and ad populums. He has a long and colourful history of being unwilling to learn. I was willing to remain on the sidelines until ten minutes ago but his demonstrable untruths here in this thread and his most recent dumb edit war have pushed me, to slightly mix metaphors, off the fence. GR Kraml (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Self published primary sources? The information on the infobox shows nothing but the size of the claimed area, the flag and the coat of arms, all of which is in your newly proposed article anyway. An infobox shows information already visible in the article but just makes it easier to access. I do not understand why you and @AndyTheGrump are so upset over the existence of an infobox and don't just wait for WP:VPP to be resolved. What self published sources did I ever add to the infobox by the way? This is misleading. MicroSupporter (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. As a editor who has been editing on Wikipedia just for 2 years, MicroSupporter doesn't need to know every possible rule as on here and he is acting in accordance with good will editing. I would like to say that using cursing words here are not something I would approve so I would like to ask @AndyTheGrump who is cursing in the discussion to immediately apologize for saying vulgar words or I will be requiring ban for him. Thank you. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Aren't you the person who started the canvassing we're discussing here? GR Kraml (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how he was canvassing? I was already involved in the discussions on Talk:Liberland. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, you must fight more and call for help. [115] Canvassing to engage in battleground behaviour. A call which was clearly responded to as requested. ThecentreCZ would probably be well-advised to avoid drawing further attention to their abject disregard for Wikipedia policy in that thread, before someone decides it is block-worthy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was already fighting and I did not call for any help. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• I was already fighting... Indeed. Hence my suggestion that battleground behaviour be included in the many reasons why you shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia. As for whether ThecentreCZ's suggestion that you 'fight more' influenced you, or your subsequent escalation was purely your own choice, it doesn't really matter. Canvassing is still canvassing, even if it doesn't actually have any concrete results. It's the intent that counts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for @AndyTheGrump, @GR Kraml to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia indefinitely. While I may not be perfect in my responses or editing (no Wikipedia editor is), I at least owned up to my mistakes such as my personal attacks. I apologised and made sure to understand that we are all here to build an encyclopedia. I was going to consider adding @The Banner to this, but I can only find him to have WP:BIAS. I cannot find any foul language.

Unfortunately, @AndyTheGrump has used personal attacks on users countless times. I can't even count the amount of times he has been mentioned in ANI or been warned for personal attacks. Yet he is still roaming around completely scot-free. Look at his talk page for some of his warnings.. He fails WP:CIVIL (foul language, REPEATED personal attacks), WP:NPOV (yes I know I'm not perfect too, allegedly) and WP:BIAS. Whether or not he has admitted to his bias against micronations, but it looks pretty obvious to me judging by his wording on Talk:Liberland, WP:VPP and WP:ANI.

@GR Kraml is quite close to being WP:SPA. Immediately after his account was created he basically just started making a Liberland article. He has also acted in WP:BIAS on his recent Liberland article proposal instead of WP:NPOV. Go check it out for yourself.

MicroSupporter (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This should be fun... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Immediately after his account was created he basically just started making a Liberland article The draft article MicroSupporter references is here. I'm fairly proud of it. It's a comprehensive but still reasonably succinct encyclopedia article on the Liberland project, well supported by reliable sources. It's a clear and drastic improvement over the unstructured jumble of trivia, bullshit cited to self-published primary sources, and random original research that was the live article at the time. GR Kraml (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

So you want everybody blocked who does not agree with your opinion, MicroSupporter? The Banner talk 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No. I did not request for you to be blocked or any of the others in the discussions such as Donald Albury. Only the two users I have listed above. But please, change the narrative as you like it. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Support block but not a ban At this moment it is clear that @MicroSupporter is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia. This is evidently by his attempt to get everybody blocked who disagrees with him. The Banner talk 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok look at my contributions and tell me they are not neutral. Please show me. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit war over the infobox? The Banner talk 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What's that got to do with neutrality of information? All the infobox does is simplify the information that is already in the paragraphs of the article. MicroSupporter (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Liberland#Proposal to remove the infobox. Here you start with the bias story. The Banner talk 17:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please quote the bias. All I see is trying to keep the info box because it contains information that is further down the page in paragraphs anyway. And me saying people living there is a fact, not an opinion. There are people sleeping there. I don’t see how that’s bias. For the record, I am not even a Liberlander and while I do find the project interesting, it doesn’t mean I support it or am against it. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edit here. The Banner talk 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the bias? I said it has notability, and it does. I’d the BBC, Radio Free Europe, CNN, Al Jazeera and VICE aren’t reliable sources, I don’t know what are. All I did was provide information about Liberland’s history in that message. All of which is easy to reference. I’m not saying “I support Liberland and for that reason it should be there” MicroSupporter (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You are unable to read your own edit??? Or did you never look at that edit? The Banner talk 19:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Support ban, due to repeated WP:NPAs in this discussion, failure to listen to others, and unwillingness to abide by WP:DUE in micronation article content. If a full ban does not have support, then I propose a topic ban from the subject of micronations (which is effectively a ban anyway given the users focus). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support ban due to clearly being an WP:SPA here to edit tendentiously about micronations; a topic-ban from micronations broadly construed might be worth considering as an alternative, but since they're an SPA who shows no hint of contrition or recognition of what they've done wrong, there's little point, since there's not much hope they'd edit constructively elsewhere. I'd say what they're doing is WP:CIVILPOV but the WP:ASPERSIONS above accusing basically everyone who disagrees with them of bias (when they named themselves MicroSupporter!) can hardly be called civil. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support block/ban MS clearly lacks the decorum needed to engage in collaborative discussions regarding editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have decided to leave English Wikipedia for good. There are too many users who cunningly act like Number 57 by removing infoboxes for literally no reason. It's sad that this started all over an infobox which provided basic information that was already well-cited further down in the article in paragraphs, and still is. There was no reason to remove the infobox regardless of people's views on if Liberland was 'legitimate' or 'fake'. Infoboxes are there to provide quick information that is already in the article, and the infobox I argued to keep had been there since 2015. I have been called out for WP:BIAS because I have an interest in micronations (Sealand, Liberland, etc) and unrecognised states (Transnistria, Somaliland, Ambazonia, etc) and have made by views clear in talk pages just like everyone else who has participated in this discussion, but my edits on live articles have not shown any bias and until someone can show me that I made any edits outside of talk pages with WP:BIAS, I will continue to keep this view. I kept WP:CIVIL (aside from one or two personal attacks, but no curse words). People want micronations removed because they are 'fake'. I don't disagree that they are fake countries, and I don't disagree that they aren't. You are forgetting the insane coverage micronations (like Liberland) have had, and its content should remain on Wikipedia due to its notability, not removed because of your personal views and because you think its a scam. Back the points up with sources but make sure to keep WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia has become a load of trash ran by admins and users who think that changing information on Wikipedia changes the entire narrative of a subject worldwide, and gatekeep anything they disagree with regardless of its notability. An excuse can be found anywhere. The removal of infoboxes is a childish way of getting these arguments started, and blatantly calling something promotion is just another excuse to get rid of something, even if an article has WP:RS.

So with that, I bid farewell, and I truly hope for a downfall of Wikipedia and the growth of a new, unbiased encyclopedia in the future. You know, one that hasn't fallen into the hands of admins that even the founder hates. Stop re-writing articles to fit to your own narratives. I know I'm going to get some last-minute childish responses to this but do as you please. Just proves my point. Goodbye. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: I said something like this on my talk page when I got blocked in a more disputable circumstances (minus the bad site bit). I came back a week later. Honestly, I urge you just cool off, come back fresh soon. I also hope you consider my own perspective on the debate: I do think that the infobox on Liberland should be kept in some way. However, a key lesson to learn on Wikipedia is that in regards to debates such as this, in which there appears to be a consensus against you, is ultimately there is no shame in admitting others disagree with you for there own reasons, and that you won't be able to prevent a change. Even if I were (hypothetically, I never have been) absolutely against a suggestion from someone, like you are, and it passed, why not just say "what gives?". Because if Wikipedia is indeed 'biased', at least you, from your standpoint , didn't cause it. Your probably going to be blocked here, but if you do come back, I'd be keen to see your appeal to it. Again, cool off, reread this thread in a few weeks, and learn from what others have told you. Because ultimately, you don't have to agree with other editors - you just need to acknowledge them as an equal, and someone with a much intent in improving wikipedia as much as you do. Ciao. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support for the above comment alone. Dramatic threats to leave are tendentious editing behavior. You are not irreplaceable. Most editors occasionally wonder why they're investing so much blood, sweat, and tears into Wikipedia. However, it is inappropriate to use threats of leaving as emotional blackmail, in order to try to win in a dispute. Doing so demands an excessive amount of emotional labor from other editors, and is never a valid rationale for consensus in a dispute. Emotional outbursts, especially when habitual, are a poor substitute for reasoned and collaborative discussion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support a WP:CIR block for wanting to play a big role in a clearly problematic area of the encyclopedia while facing an inability to handle disputes and having a POV-pushing attitude with a propensity for casting aspersions and wikilawyering, as exemplified in their comment starting with Request for @AndyTheGrump, @GR Kraml to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia indefinitely (a banal self-preservation tactic of moving the Overton window, and asking for more to settle for less) and seen in their lack of understanding of the editorial process expressed in Removing a large amount of an article without RFC is not normal editing practice and other comments. Not opposed to a ban of any kind, but this kind of basic disruption is more block-worthy than ban-worthy I feel.—Alalch E. 22:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef block due to the repeated battleground behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  We might also need to consider whether the same sanction might be appropriate for ThecentreCZ. This edit sets off the battleground alarm bells. Also, the cognitive dissonance of demanding that Andy apologize for using profanity less than a day after ThecentreCZ posted this message suggests an amusing lack of self-awareness. That latter diff also contains an undisguised personal attack against Number57, who was similarly attacked above by MicroSupporter. If ThecentreCZ isn't prepared to convince us that this behavior will not be repeated, a second block proposal may be in order. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'd be on board with this. ThecentreCZ has shown the same agenda as MicroSupporter, the same willingness to brigade articles and broadly the same lack of introspection. Looking at their talk page, they are now also showing the same aggressive unwillingness to familiarise themselves with guidelines and conventions. GR Kraml (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support MS's battleground behaviour is a blockable offence itself. I also agree with a possible proposal to tban/block ThecentreCZ. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support some kind of action. After a consensus on a talk page to remove an infobox, they responded to canvassing to restore the infobox against that consensus. Consensus can change but discussion not battle ground behaviour is required in doing so. That and the continued aspersions shown in this discussion show something needs to be done. A block with a topic ban from the area if they return is probably the best idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thats not true. There was no official opened RfC at the Liberland page. I haven't even participated in editing of Liberland page. Only thing I argued about is that I refused to revert and remove parts of the article before official closure of the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), where I support consensus. As I see it there RfC wasn't officially closed there. ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's correct, there was no RfC. RfCs have never been a requirement to come to a consensus. Consensus isn't even a requirement to make an edit - see e.g. WP:BRD. The infobox was removed before the WP:VPP RFC started, and its removal had not been contested. This is tendentious Wikilawyering, coming from someone who clearly doesn't even understand normal Wikipedia practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thats not true, yes it is a simple reading of the talk page showed that it was.
  There was no official opened RfC at the Liberland page, RFCs are not required to form a consensus. They are one way of doing so if the more normal methods of 'consensus by editing' or 'consensus by discussion' have already failed.
  Only thing I argued about is that I refused to revert and remove parts of the article before official closure of the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) that RFC didn't start to a while after the concensus at the articles talk page had been reached. As I said consensus can change, but that should happen through discussion not canvassing and editing against the current consensus because you don't like it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support block/ban for both MicroSupporter and The centreCZ. NOTHERE. JoelleJay (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  According to what? WP:NOTHERE means: Here to build an encyclopedia. I've been helping building Wikipedia for 10 years. I've supported the new user to be involved in the discussion RfD regarding the infoboxes, because there was absolute majority of editors who supports removal of INFOBOX, which was on articles of Micronations from 10 YEARS, and in 2015 it was exactly opposite as the most of the editors supported INFOBOXES to the Liberland page and others. I just supported this custom. I always supports consensus results of RfC, but this one was not closed yet. Nobody even said to participate in edit war, I didn't support anything like that by the new user. ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: ThecentreCZ has been blocked. Per the 2nd discussion below on unconnected aspects of ThecentreCZ's behaviour, [116] Drmies has blocked ThecentreCZ for a month, with a comment that "A next block might as well be an indef-block". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked MicroSupporter for disruptive editing, due to the consensus in this discussion and their declared intent to leave Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

ThecentreCZ - Personal Attacks and Sourcing

I would like to report @ThecentreCZ: for personal attacks and their persistent refusal to provide sourcing despite multiple users requesting it.

Below are personal attacks I have found from just their talk page:

1. 1 Referring to me as the "ruiner of information" for requesting sourcing.
2. 2 Insulting somebody in Czech "protože jsi otravný trudeauovec" (because you're an annoying Trudeau) and then trying to say that it was not an insult [117].
3. 3 They were previously informed of their civility against User:Buidhe back in July 2020.

ThecentreCZ's sourcing problems have been a years long dispute that has involved multiple editors.

1. 1 User:Buidhe informed them of their poor sourcing and informed them that they could be sanctioned for it. ThecentreCZ's response was "Lol you are such a admin".
2. 2 ThecentreCZ was told to not add unsourced materials to List of suicides.
3. 3 A conversation between User:Number 57 and ThecentreCZ regarding sourcing on the page Progressive Liberal Party (Bulgaria). ThecentreCZ stated that "On foundation date verifiability doesn't apply" and "this radical sourcing purges are nonsense".
4. 4 A conversation between me and ThecentreCZ about the sourcing for List of banned political parties in which he claims that lists do not need sourcing. Two other users have also brought up his actions in regard to this post. User:Lepricavark and User:GR Kraml

Jon698 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that administrative action against ThecentreCZ is also being discussed separately above in this section. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This should probably be combined under the above thread as a new subsection. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This narcissistic comment on MicroSupporter's Talk Page sounds like a Star Wars Villain berating one of his subordinates, not a good faith Wikipedia user. As someone involved in the discussion at Liberland, I consider him to be the weakest link in the discussion there. Support sanctions as I cannot under any circumstances support his current behaviour. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

1. [118] In 2021, without any evidence, he declared my edits “absolutely horrible.” He stated that I "should stop editing Wikipedia as soon as possible". I don't consider this to be appropriate behavior.

2. [119] In 2022, he accused me of something I didn't do, saying I was "vandalizing" Wikipedia. He urged me to stop editing Wikipedia, saying that I allegedly did not know the rules. I don't consider this to be appropriate behavior.

3. I didn't include his inappropriate behavior in the Wikimedia Commons discussions (like "Sometimes you can help Wikipedia by not doing anything"), but if so, you might want to look at it - [120].

This his behavior is global and does not differ in all wiki projects, so I Support the sanctions. PLATEL (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

ThecentreCZ has now doubled down by commenting at the OP's talk page here with a ridiculous 'other stuff exists' question. They do not seem to grasp that their ability to edit here is hanging in the balance. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

My response: This looks like a rally of people, who doesn't like my edits regardles if their edits was right or false. Looks like they pull out old edits when I even wasn't of legal age and didn't had any experience with editing Wikipedia. I would like to gradually comment on all points:

• 1) Its not true that I don't support sourcing, truth is that in this dispute I opposed him that he didn't added template:source? to the inputs and firstly didn't removed all the non-proper information. Just randomly reverted information added.
• 2) This was concerning random revert of SOURCED information added on the page of Orders, decorations, and medals of Slovakia by Revirvlkodlaku, who is stating their official political affiliations on his profile. Your translation is not quite right, its not any personal attack at all, there is not inproper wording in it. This editing conflict was won by me. He probably agreed he was not right and left it. Material I added to the page still remains there because its right and he was wrong.
• 3) and 4) This is 5 YEARS old dispute, I was not of legal age and I was occasional editor on Wikipedia. When I was in school even made jokes on Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with today. BOTH 2019–2020.
• 5) In this edit I made a mistake that was no dispute at all, I added information about suicide of Jan Masaryk. In 2023 was discovered by official authorities, that Minister of Foreign Affairs Jan Masaryk (death in 1948) was probably killed by diplomat Jan Bydžovský. It was not known in 2022.
• 6) Normal dispute about material on the article of Progressive Liberal Party. Information I added is as of today published there after sourcing was solved by discussion and afterwards of adding proper references. I don't know any editors who never bumped of to some disputes.
• 7) List of banned political parties – user Jon698 started editing dispute about my added information, which is sourced in the articles. Only after my responds to him, he changed his view and later removed more information from the page which he before left in there. This dispute is still ongoing and is not resolved – Jon698 probably got angry and therefore started this noticeboard. It was proper discussion and I don't see anything bad on it.

• 8) User PLATEL is a political editor, who previously made later removed pro-Russian edits. He uploaded tens of unsourced, copyrighted and other images on Wikimedia Commons, which I helped to categorize and also nominated some of the for DELETION, where they was later removed. I am active editor on Wikimedia Commons. He is probably not happy that I legally removed some of his files in good will editing. Thank you. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Notably, you have failed to elaborate on your edit(s) at @MicroSupporter talk page. Which are not acceptable by any metric. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In case of dispute in Liberland article, I was just saying to the newbie editor to participate in the discussion regarding the changes in the article. As now we see that he probably left editing for good, although he made some SOURCED contributions for the Good of Wikipedia. I doesn't see anything wrong with helping new editors, as I wasn't even participated on the editing of the article. Only thing I was supporting there was consensus on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) after the RfC there is closed. There was ongoing edit war at the Liberland article. Thank you. - ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

'Helping new editors' Well thats an excellent non response to gaslighting, manipulating and guilt tripping a vulnerable user on a subject they cared about, before egging them on from the sidelines into doing things they might not have done previously. Your 'good cop, bad cop' edit contrast between me and PLATEL has not gone unnoticed as well. I am disgusted with you and your actions. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

(8) I don't know what you mean when you say "pro-Russian edits". I would like you to give an example of such edits. I think your attempt to transfer this conflict into the political field is inadequate. Yes, I am a political editor, but not in the sense of my political bias (everyone has a bias, let's be honest), but in the sense of the fact that I edit and create articles on political topics.

In 2021 I actually uploaded copyrighted images to Wikimedia Commons and I did it out of ignorance and soon stopped doing it after realizing how it works. Thank you for deleting my images that were uploaded due to my inexperience and ignorance, but I do not accept your behavior saying that I should not touch Wikipedia. I'm reporting you not because I'm offended by you because you deleted these images, but because you behaved inappropriately and rudely. PLATEL (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Its not true that I don't support sourcing" You have repeatedly refused to add sourcing to your claims and claimed non-existent rules about why you don't need to add sourcing. As for List of banned political parties "which is sourced in the articles" is irrelevant. You must bring those sources over with the information. I specifically asked you to do so and you outright refused. Jon698 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Those years old incidents are included because this is about your persistent rude behavior and sourcing problem. Also your behavior to User:PLATEL in this thread is even more evidence of that. You are randomly accusing an editor of being pro-Russia with no evidence. Jon698 (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You state on your page that you support Neo-Stalinism and you were editing political parties, where some information was deleted. I still agree that your edits in the past were in many cases unsourced or wrongly added. I am not aware of any inappropriate editing regarding you, right now there is some of my ongoing deletion requests of files uploaded by you at Commons. Most of your wrong uploaded files were already solved. It is good that you now mostly upload adequate files. Thank you ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I can include information on my page that does not violate Wikipedia rules. I don’t see that Neo-Stalinism is something forbidden on Wikipedia. And I don’t understand what you mean by the phrase “you were editing political parties, where some information was deleted”. I asked you to give a specific example of my “pro-Russian edits,” which you did not do, but you pointed out my ideological position. I consider this disrespectful behavior and a low level of discussion. PLATEL (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jon698: You right now removed my question I asked you in your talk page discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jon698&diff=prev&oldid=1213873089 I am not aware that this is allowed. You REFUSE TO DISCUSS disputes and you claiming that I does not support sourcing, which is not true. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• It is an irrelevant question. The existence of a poorly sourced page does not give permission for you to add unsourced content. I challenge you to go through Wikipedia:Featured lists and find a single page with no sourcing. Jon698 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If after ten years of editing you are not aware that editors are allowed to remove questions from their own talk pages, then you should stop claiming to know anything about Wikipedia rules and protocol. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The editor has a fairly long history of disruptive editing--meaning, specifically, edit warring and harassment/personal attacks, and on top of that it seems clear that they are also forgetting about one of the basic tenets: proper sourcing. This ANI thread makes clear that previous behaviors are still being repeated. I've blocked for a month. A next block might as well be an indef-block. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I was gonna block indef, Drmies, because in this instance, I believe there needs to be considerable assurances made on their part before editing privileges are to be reinstated (I already expressed some concerns in the earlier thread Lepricavark had linked which were based on just one piece of evidence) — but you beat me to it. Oh well. El_C 18:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Noting also that I've now merged the two threads. El_C 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Just want to add that this is not the first time ThecentreCZ has been disrespectful and failed to provide any sources for their additions. Back in 2022, a discussion on WikiProject Politics was opened regarding the addition of "flags" to articles of Dutch political parties that were uploaded by ThecentreCZ. The flags were ultimately removed but more importantly, ThecentreCZ failed to provide evidence that these flags actually exist (except CDA). A year later, I found out that ThecentreCZ did the same thing for Danish parties, I submitted the uploads for deletion considering that they contained no sources that would confirm that these flags exist. ThecentreCZ ended up opening a long discussion on my Commons talk page in which they refused to provide any evidence for their uploads and called me a "toxic autist Serb" for challenging his unsourced uploads. This eventually was moved to the Administrators' noticeboard (second AN discussion) where ThecentreCZ continued to refuse to provide any sources and only apologised for the "Serb" part in the "toxic autist Serb" comment they left me on my talk page. I've also spotted them logging out of Wikipedia to revert an edit and call another editor an "autist" on the Freedom and Direct Democracy article. There was a more productive discussion on WikiProject Politics regarding these uploads but it was ultimately decided that the flags ThecentreCZ uploaded should be removed. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they've also called me an "autist",[121] and a retard, as well as making clearly uncollaborative edit summaries like "not your business" when restoring unsourced information (I think this was around the same time they claimed WP:V did not apply to infoboxes). Number 57 00:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Remarkable. Let's make this a permaban and be done with it. Captain Edgelord is multiple years away from the maturity necessary to collaborate here, and by the time he gets there he will by definition have lost interest in his old account. GR Kraml (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Support indef: One does not simply cry 'autist' and return in 30 days a reformed person. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I second this. Vacant0 (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You have my support too. PLATEL (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. ThecentreCZ is temperamentally unsuited for this project. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Upgrading to indef seems reasonable. —Alalch E. 15:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Some insults are totally unacceptable, and "autist" and "retard" are two of them. Narky Blert (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ping Drmies, who placed the original one-month block for unrelated behavioural issues - thoughts on increasing to indefinite? I tend to agree with the above half-a-dozen editors that those two discriminatory slurs in particular are totally unacceptable here. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Support making this an indef community ban. Those kinds of insults are completely incompatible with Wikipedia, and they're going to need serious proof of improvement before coming back. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

More than 10,000 edits and 10 years of tenure, and @ThecenterCZ still doesn't seem to quite get WP:V [122]; this is very worrying. Even more so after seeing how aggressively they reacted when asked for the sources of their additions. Not to mention the use of the very unfortunate disease, autism, as an insult. This is very disrespectful to people with the condition, their families, and the editors the word is intended to offend. I don't see a problem if @EI_C or any other admin wants to raise the block to indef. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 16:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Please note, autism is NOT a disease. It is a neurological condition, and autistic people are neither unhealthier nor healthier than neurotypical people. And of course, use of the term to demean or discredit others is totally unacceptable, and should automatically lead to a block. RolandR (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that there is plenty of agreement for an indef-block for User:ThecentreCZ; so ordered. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

College president residence in infobox

There is a residence field in Template:Infobox officeholder which the documentation notes 'where this person lives', which I generally take as their city of residence or a known landmark for your obvious public figures who you know live at a place like 10 Downing Street, but isn't to really be used to detail where an otherwise private figure lives, either by article or full address disclosure. This is the issue I've found in Ellen Granberg, the president of George Washington University; I do not generally see this field used at all for college leaders for obvious privacy reasons even when there's devoted leader housing, so I reverted an edit adding it by 73.134.81.186 (talk · contribs) as 'creepy' (pre-apologies for my wording), but they persisted by saying it 'is common when a University has a residence for the president', and I reverted again stating the field was intended for a public figure or their residential city only; they have reverted one more time. Notwithstanding that the noting of their residence is not sourced at all and we don't even know if Prof. Granberg does live there, I don't want to breach 3RR and I fail to see how listing someone's exact residence is helpful to anyone researching GWU or Prof. Granberg and is a breach of their privacy. I should also note I warned them previously in the week for refusing to use edit summaries in another matter, or only using them for items where talk page discussion is preferred instead. Also pinging @Redraiderengineer:, as they warned 73. for 3RR, but I'm not sure if it was on this issue or something else. Nate • (chatter) 21:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like it's public info, actually. It's also mentioned in *F Street House(where the link is from) and George Washington University#21st century.

Please seek help from WP:OVERSIGHT(Requests for oversight) if you see possible privacy breaches/private info, don't bring attention to it. – 2804:F1...F0:C904 (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC) *edited 22:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an oversight issue at all, this is using a field as it's not intended to be for a figure who is otherwise private; yes, there's a building set aside for them to live on campus, but it certainly is not their permanent residence and they likely have their own home elsewhere, but I also hold concerns about a residence being listed considering what has occurred this fall and winter; again I repeat, I do not usually see a residence listed for a college official, be it public or private. That is where I'm working from. Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Well sure, but you wrote "obvious privacy reasons" and "is a breach of their privacy", so it seemed like that is what you were thinking it was, after all, if it was unsourced, how would you know?

I make no comment on the rest of this, I just felt like pointing out how to report private material and that you're not supposed to bring it up in public was appropriate (after I confirmed it wasn't actually private info), seeing the terms you used. – 2804:F1...F0:C904 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Go Hippos! --JBL (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a street address is ever warranted, even for an official residence which can be termed something like "Governor's House" or "President's Residence". Wikipedia is not a phone book or an internet Yellow Page service. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with above. Privacy is important. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC).

Except for cases where the address itself has become notable and synonymous with the resident, such as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the aforementioned 10 Downing St., I'd agree. Zaathras (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that it's categorically never warranted. I went to undergrad at Florida State University (a public, state school). The University president maintains their actual residence at the FSU President's House, for which we have an article. That article lists the address (1000 West Tennessee St.) The article also links to the official website for the President's House which literally has a Google Map and "Directions" section to it. For that particular article, there's really no conceivable privacy argument to be made for *not* putting the address, especially given the non-trivial coverage of the building's significance in other reliable sources, for instance. And while the article for the President's House (University of Florida) needs a ton of work (as much as the 'Nole in me would love to dunk on the Gators), it should be noted that UF President Ben Sasse lives there for his official residence, again, something that the University itself publicly advertises, and that we reflect on our article. I've seen no evidence to suggest that this isn't common across other public universities in the U.S. either. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is an official residence of a public figure which has its own Wikipedia article. It's entirely appropriate for an official residence that is itself notable to be included in an article about an officeholder. I'm not sure why other involved editors, including myself, who had previously restored this information when it was deleted were not tagged into this AIN? The fact that only the anon IP with allegedly improper behavior is described as restoring this info makes the presentation of the controversy look different. Jahaza (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I simply didn't know this was a previous issue or there were others to tag. I just noted I didn't see it regularly reflected and wanted to see if removal was proper. Nate • (chatter) 18:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible legal threat?

Would warning of whatever punitive damages may be available be considered a legal threat? That is what Booyeahoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has said in their attempts to justify their edits to KFXM-LP (Lancaster, California) (they appear to have a COI with a new version of KFXM-LP in Cherry Valley, California, which is well away from Lancaster, as they refer to We are fully licensed and our station). They insist that We have done and complied with the terms., but given everything else that seems questionable. (And unrelated to any of that, they are under the impression that Wikipedia is presented in real time blog style, which is news to me and probably most other editors.) While they have finally taken to draftspace to attempt give their station an article, editors that make legal threats (or anything along those lines) aren't supposed to be making any further edits until they are retracted. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The possible legal threat in question (it wasn't that clear, to me, from your post):

"[..]
I intend to see this through. That will include a complaint to Wikipedia and whatever punitive damages may be available if you continue on your path.
Wikiledia authors are not protected under the law for creative content because it is presented in real time blog style. Underscore real time. There are no creative protections for original content. It is not proprietary content, nor can you legally charge or request money to do so
[..]"
– Special:Diff/1214256088

– 2804:F14:809E:DF01:C4FF:6678:7DF0:C904 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

NLT blocked. Doug Weller talk 21:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do some people have such a strange idea of the law? Anyway, I hope Booyeahoo doesn't waste too much money finding out what it actually is. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know how often Wikipedia is sued because someone objects to the content of an article. Because these threats are delivered all of the time but I imagine few are followed through on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think in the vast majority of cases people believe that if they threaten legal action we will adjust the content, not realizing that if they do threaten that action we reply by expelling them from the site. I’ve had a few I’ve blocked like this, and it seems once they got hit with the block and the expulsion they very rapidly changed their tunes 2600:1011:B18B:F:8A6:99B2:A133:D74A (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I know of one that was, and their complaint got laughed out of court. I still have the court document dismissing the case in my mail inbox (because I interacted with them and it was my actions as admin that prompted them to file it). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 22:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Block 42.61.136.183 for keeping making edits that are not part of manuel of style

• 42.61.136.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yong tau foo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Happily, User:Manuel of Style is a registered account

Hi I have experience a user named user:42.61.136.183 who have been reverting a edit yong tau fau that not part of the manuel of style. He have been given multiple warning but still continue to revert the edits. Please block him so he can learn his lesson Toontown332 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Toontown332. Please be sure you notify all involved parties when you open a noticeboard discussion. I have taken care of it here, but this is a requirement that is normally expected to be handled by the OP. The template is {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~. Thank you... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Had 42.61.136.183 been notified about WP:3RR, they'd be facing a sanction for edit warring since they reverted five times in a little less than an hour. Even still, a block is in order since their most recent revert came after a final warning for disruption. City of Silver 17:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

OP had their account for ten days before editing, which is not unusual, but then today they made ten one-letter edits to their userspace, appearing to me that they were gaming autoconfirmed. I believe they did this so they could use Twinkle, given that they started to rapidly revert edits immediately after gaining the permission. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

If a WP:3RR block is in order then let's do do, but otherwise this seems to be a content dispute, with nothing for admins to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

They've never been warned about 3RR and I don't feel like doing it now would be proper since they've gotten a final warning for disruption and, since then, have made the same edit again. If they've been disruptive past a final warning, they should be blocked as such but if it's decided they haven't, they should get the 3RR warning but this is a decision an admin needs to make. Asparagusus is right that the reporting user's behavior also needs administrative input. City of Silver 18:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• It is a registered account. Smh @S Marshall, didn't even check. – 2804:F1...83:4C14 (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

158.223.0.0/16 and 2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64

• 158.223.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since (at least?) January 2023, the editor has been using these IP ranges to regularly make small edits to (mainly?) Chinese/PRC-related articles. Many of their edits are poor (changes without providing sources, introducing factual errors when the sources are provided, using Wikipedia as a source.) There also seems to be a nationalistic bend as well, and based on their edit comments they identify very strongly with the PRC. Their latest edit looks suspiciously like an attempt to remove something that makes the PRC look bad ([[Special:Diff/1214435187); the modified paragraph was actually plagiarized - not by this editor - from the BBC ([123]), which does indeed say civilian and military. I have tried communicating with them on User_talk:158.223.122.211 and User_talk:158.223.166.10, and have received no acknowledgement. 158.223.122.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been heavily used as of late, and they did reply to another editor via that IP earlier this month. I'm not sure how else to get their attention, especially with the IP hopping in play. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Edited for missing word. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Strange - they've interacted with me before here. I believe they read edit summaries more so than their talk page. At the time of my reply to them, I hadn't looked further into their contributions. Still doesn't excuse a year or more of poor sourcing and factual errors, sad to see it's wider spread than just the one article I found them at. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism of flag list page

Superior6296 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 18 August 2023 I created the page User:Red Phoenician/List of Lebanese flags as a sandbox page which I planned to publish once completed. On 2 March 2024 Superior6296 created the page List_of_Lebanese_flags which is essentially a copy paste of my own page with some additions. This is a blatant case of copying without attribution (WP:COPYWITHIN) which goes against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Obvious examples of this besides the copying of the layout can be seen in specific flag descriptions such as the flag of prince Ibrahim and the Mardaite flag. Furthermore, much of the information is unsourced (as it was ripped from my sandbox which is a WIP) or blatantly wrong such as the claim that the medieval flag of Deir al-Qamar is still in use today as well as the inclusion of fictional flags such as the one of the Seljuk Empire as well as the one of the Mount Lebanon Emirate (1697–1842). I have noticed that this user has a repeated habit of doing this with other flag list pages [124], as well as a lack of communication with other users, which makes me suspect them of possibly being a bot or simply copy pasting pages without reviewing them or adding any reliable sources at all. I believe WP:BLOWITUP is the best option for this matter as it is a gross example of plagiarism and it will allow me to republish the page with the correct information backed by reliable sources. Red Phoenician (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That is very bizarre. But indeed this editor has also been been warned ([125], [126]) about creating or massively expanding lists of flags articles with very little attention to verifiability or WP:OR; and as far as I can tell, they have continued the same editing behaviour with zero communication whatsoever (in nearly 700 edits, zero talk page responses and zero edit summaries). R Prazeres (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

82.84.225.97 and genres

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

82.84.225.97 has a chronic history of adding/changing music genres either without citing a source or adding a source that does not explicitly state a genre ([127][128][129]). For example, on '74-'75, they argue that just because a source ([130]) mentions several words that pertain to rock music (i.e. "soft" and "folk", which are describing ballads and influences, respectively), that means it is a soft rock and folk rock song. Furthermore, another genre they added, alternative rock, is not even hinted at in the source. Yet, they claim that just because Italian is their native language, they know what the source is trying to say, and they are starting to exhibit disruptive behavior without utilizing talk pages. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 18:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Goofball seems NOTHERE

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.

---

PinkiePieBestPony001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user seems under the impression that Wikipedia is their personal sandbox to generate memes in, unfortunately. Maybe 28 edits is too few to decide they are WP:NOTHERE, but I'm going to say best to nip this one in the bud. Remsense诉 17:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I can already tell they are NOTHERE based on their userpage when their description specifies themselves as a vandal and what pages they have vandalized. I'm sure this can give the green light for an admin to block. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, Widr blocked, I assume, in response to our posts. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Edit warring over orgins of a topic

Need help to find the best way to proceed. Placing this here as am not sure if its really edit warring, or dispute resolution category. The topic of Eternal return although revived by Nietzsche has contested origins primarily because its fundamentally the very generic idea that history repeats. I've been adding citations to support a WP:NPOV that the idea can be traced beyond the Hellenistic period to ancient Buddhist/Hindu/Egyption thought; multiple scholars agree that there are striking similarities, and that there could have been cross-pollination or diffusion of ideas from theology. It also helps the reader better understand the idea of Eternal Return, also attested by scholars. While other editors are engaging in discussion (although refusing to read cited sources and accept an alternative viewpoint), there are editors such as William M. Connolley who are repeatedly deleting this content (along with other non-contested improvements) without engaging in any discussion on the articles talk page. Soothsayer79 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Feels a bit retaliatory, and part of ongoing refusal to accept consensus, or to recognize what constitutes original research. This recent filing is relevant. Grandpallama (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Soothsayer79, this is a content dispute. This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Please accept consensus and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is consensus here among 3 editors. Additional citations were requested, and provided before inclusion. One editor with clear WP:OWN attitudes started having a collaborative discussion, decided that irrespective of having reliable citations, he/she did not support a particular viewpoint (that the idea existing before the Greeks). Another editor came in reverting everyones updates occassionally, and refuses to talk or discuss the matter at all. Please remove this discussion from here if this is not the place to adjudicate content disputes of this nature, and I can post it where it belongs which is WP:DRN I'm guessing Soothsayer79 (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This came up last week, see the ANI archive. Things do not seem to have improved since then.

Essentially, Soothsayer has looked at Nietzsche's revival of the concept (influenced by Eastern sources in addition to the classical Greek ones), and extrapolated the conclusion that those Eastern sources are the same as the concept outlined in Greek sources. You're working backwards from Nietzsche to claim the Eastern concepts are therefore the same concept as the Greek one.

Soothsayer, what I'm seeing is that people are disagreeing with your assertion, while you are just flatly refusing to WP:AGF and accept that they have valid reasons for disagreement. The WP:3O went against you, but you're still stonewalling. That is a problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm not asserting anything beyond citing sources that mention that the notion of eternal return existed in ancient cultures before and outside the Greeks. That is all. It would be great if a reviewer actually read these citations, and concluded that I was either misrepresenting them or misquoting them out of context or the sources themselves were unreliable. I do not see that happening here.

Here is a test for you The Hand That Feeds You: compare the cited sources for Greek origins versus the sources for Eastern Theologiocal origins, then determine if either of them are talking about Nietzshe's Eternl Return - they are all saying the concepts are similar, nothing more. Based on that, can one origin be chosen for inclusion over another? Soothsayer79 (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

How many times now have you been told that the place to resolve content disputes is on the talkpage of the relevant article? Continuing to push this at ANI, a venue for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems is disruptive in itself, and is demonstrating to uninvolved editors that you are not listening. Please read the essay WP:1AM and follow the very good and relevant advice there about actual steps you can take, including considering whether the fact that consensus is clearly against means you need to move on to other topics. Grandpallama (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is incredibly useless advice. If you cared to go into any detail, you will notice I've already asked that this topic to be archived so that it can be discussed at the appropriate place. Soothsayer79 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

this is incredibly useless advice As of today, you are still edit warring against consensus. You probably need a partial block from editing the article. Grandpallama (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Grandpallama is right, and the fact you find their advice useless is quite telling. If you persist in trying to push your particular view in these articles, we may have to consider a topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the consensus version of the article, which now makes seven editors opposing these changes. If there are any further reversions, I will file a report at WP:EWN and seek a pageblock. Grandpallama (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

OP blocked one week for sockpuppetry at the article in question. Grandpallama (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Welp, that was unexpected. I'd suggest Soothsayer stay away from the concept of Eternal Return from now on, or else the next block is likely to be indefinite. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleting draft article by making false accusations of conflict of interest and false statement that artist doesn’t have notability

DoubleGrazing deleted my draft article saying that it was promotional and made a false accusation that I have a conflict of interest.

I am a volunteer with no conflict of interest and I am not receiving any sort of compensation.

My subject is a valid notable artist and my article was neutral toned and purely factual while providing ample evidence of notability per the Wikipedia notability standards.

Please restore my article which was several hours of work. If there are specific edits that need to be me, then let me know.

Deleting my article in this fashion was rude, and disingenuous, and offensive.Sevdabmusic (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You failed to properly alert the user. I did it for you Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{King Crimson} 19:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

(Thanks @Babysharkboss2.)

@Sevdabmusic: I didn't delete anything; I couldn't, even if I wanted to, as I'm not an admin.

For anything else, I would refer readers to Sevdabmusic's talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

no problem Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{King Crimson} 19:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Noting that Sevdabmusic has now been blocked indefinitely by Justlettersandnumbers. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sevdabmusic, How on earth did you manage to take and upload File:Sevda B.jpg as an "own work", self published image without having a conflict of interest? The photo is quite clearly a selfie? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• When will inexperienced editors discover that coming to ANI usually backfires unless you have compiled a convincing set of diffs to substantiate your claims? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Liz: You took the words out of my mouth, er brain. You beat me to it; they're just making allegations without proper evidence. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 23:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It is astonishing to me that an actually notable musical performer would want to be portrayed with such a crappy selfie. Look at that arm! Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

People who take selfies never get their good side when doing so. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 00:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Melvin Hudson

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.

---

He has been engaged in at least two unrelated conflicts with me and a couple of other users - you can see the details on his talk page - making personal attacks and irrational accusations of transphobia against people who haven't said a word on LGBT issues, and on top of it all, now he is reverting other people's posts at the Teahouse, too.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting a feeling that this might be a sock of some kind. The account was created today and they immediately jumped into undoing other people's edits and doling out warnings. They are deleting threads about them on two different boards (the EWN thread is misplaced, however) even after being warned. I'm particularly perturbed by this comment which indicates bad faith. — Czello ^(music) 10:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

An eighth deletion which includes another bad faith accusation of transphobia. — Czello ^(music) 10:22, 20 March 2024 (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.

COI editing, edit warring, and either WP:SOCKPUPPET or WP:MEATPUPPETRY going on here

• Cankin3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 202.55.83.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

IP first persistently reinstates their edits on Changi Airport, claiming to be an airport employee, after I warned them to disclose their COI and discuss the dispute on their talk page. After ignoring one of my responses, Cankin3 (who conveniently was registered today), persistently reinstates the same exact edits, ignoring my WP:SOCKPUPPET an WP:MEATPUPPET warning. I suspect that either these two editors are the same person, or the IP recruited another employee of the same company to carry out the same exact edits. In all cases, both haven't bothered to respond to the points I brought up, thus administration attention is needed to either temporarily protect the page or block the two editors. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

An airport IP has hundreds of people logging in so unless those are the only editors contributing then it's likely two different people. NYC Guru (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This IP traces to singapore. WHOIS_report. NYC Guru (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

If the IP and the registered user are the same person, if they're doing it to purposely give the impression that they are unrelated accounts or somehow trying to deceive, then yes, it's socking. But your description of the activity doesn't support that, and neither do the user contributions when compared. Seems much more like an IP deciding to register (which is actually encouraged). Address the CoI and edit warring, but don't accuse the user of socking based on this description. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Per this diff, Cankin3 wrote "After Googling Changi Airport, it is true that Changi Aiport uses the Changi Airport Group Logo" while re-adding the same exact edits of the IP, giving the impression that the account "agrees" with the IP. That's what made me suspect socking in the first place. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to notify the 3RR noticeboard as they need to be blocked for edit warring. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, protected for 3 days to allow for discussion on talk page, since the only discussion on the talk page ended with "Yes, we should change the logo." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Leia Zhu

I noticed that User:WikiWizard88 has been actively adding unsourced and redundant information to Zhu's article, many of which violates WP:BLP policies (as seen in these edits here [131] [132] [133]). User:BobbieCarynBevis has twice reverted these edits and provided a rationale in their edit summary (as seen here [134] [135]) and on Zhu's talk page here, but the first revert reverted by the user in this edit [136]. I explained on the user's talk page here about why their edits were contrary to Wikipedia's policies, and reverted them here, but the user proceeded to undo my revert here without providing any explanation while insulting me. I want to assume good faith from the user's intentions, but find it difficult to do so, based on their interactions with other editors and single-purpose accounts such as User:Yan Beyong editing Zhu's article. I don't know if their WP:SPA behavior is due to WP:COI or WP:PAID, but it seems like this editor is unwilling to collaborate and is WP:NOTHERE. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

To avoid a block User:WikiWizard88 needs to stop reverting and start collaborating on the article talk page. Past experience tells me that that is unlikely. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I've actually just seen that @WikiWizard88 has reverted an edit made by @100.36.106.199 since this conversation, without engaging on the article talk page or offering any meaningful edit summary. I will attempt to undo the damage but I suspect it will just happen again. BobbieCarynBevis (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Of the two accounts you mention (@WikiWizard88 and @Yan Beyong), one has clearly identified itself as Zhu's mother, so I suspect WP:COI for both. BobbieCarynBevis (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That 88 in the username is also... concerning. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There are perfectly innocent explanations for that; nothing about their edits suggests anything other than a COI. --JBL (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course there are innocent explanations. That's why neo-Nazis use it as a dog whistle, to pretend there's nothing bad happening. Note I am not accusing this user of any such views, but having that in a username is always going to cause eyebrows to raise due to the association. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If this editor had made any edits whatsoever that even vaguely hinted at an interest in racial politics, I would have agreed with you. But literally this editor is here for exactly one thing, and that thing is to promote one particular person, and consequently your comment is an irrelevant side-track away from the actual issue. --JBL (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Questionable content on user talk

Nonsense (?) not in English sent from user to himself: User_talk:Nikki2428. And generally weird test edits (?) seen in page history. User will be notified shortly after I send this. InternetowyGołąb (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! Nikki2428 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

why did you try and delete this report? Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{King Crimson} 19:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You've spent about 40 edits just goofing around. I just posted some links on your talk page, please read them and figure out something worthwhile to do. Thanks :)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Nikki2428 is off to a pretty bad start but since all their edits were to their own user and talk pages, they also haven't shown a tendency to do much harm (unless they're gaming their way to an editing permission). @InternetowyGołąb: did you really escalate this all the way to ANI without first...asking them what they're up to? City of Silver 19:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver Maybe that was bit too far... I came from foreign wiki, mainly do small technical stuff, and so I wanted someone more experienced to deal with it. I thought a sysop notification would be a good choice. If this is NOT the right order of things, I'm sorry for wasting your time. I will change my modus operandi for future incidents like this. InternetowyGołąb (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's fine. If they keep making nonsensical changes or if they start contentiously editing semiprotected articles in a few days, that'll prove they're here to do harm and this would probably be the right place to report them. City of Silver 19:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's in romanized Telugu. It might be an account that more than one person is sharing. Inverted sock? JFHJr (㊟) 03:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"This is a chat platform". JFHJr (㊟) 03:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking further back in the longer talks with self/selves, I'm wondering if it's actually Tamil, or if things are just spelled to avoid legibility. I'm not fluent in either Telugu or Tamil, but any South Indian contributor might be able to make sense of this. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown

War Wounded (talk · contribs), first deleted sourced material from BLP Zaheer Ahmad Babar, claiming the source The Pakistan Military Monitor is not reliable. When I posted the message on their talk page, User:SheriffIsInTown jumped in, asserting that it's a blog and should be removed. I suggested them taking the matter to WP:RSN for further evaluation if they believed the source was not RS. However, instead of pursuing that route, SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs) choose to remove the sourced material altogether. While I acknowledge that the discussion on whether the source is reliable or not was brief and could be reopened, I am concerned about their unilateral removal without further discussion. --Saqib (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI, when you notify an editor about a discussion here, please add a header. I had to search for the notification which came at the end of a different discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a BLP article, and the sourced material under discussion pertains to allegations of corruption. I genuinely believe that the source being utilized is highly questionable. "The Pakistan Military Monitor" lacks notability by WP standards and resembles more of a blog post. The OP has significant experience with BLP articles and is well-versed in Wikipedia's rigorous sourcing standards for such content. They also possess the maturity to refrain from escalating every minor content dispute to ANI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

If you believe I have significant experience with BLP articles and is well-versed in Wikipedia's rigorous sourcing standards,, then you should have taken the issue to RSN as I insisted repeatedly. Instead, you decided to remove it outright. I still insist you revert your edit and reopen the discussion at RSN, and I will welcome the outcome, whatever it may be. --Saqib (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

As I was the one who replied to your RSN question about this source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 429#The Pak Military Monitor) I'll add here I doubt this should be used for BLP details. BLP says Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Although bias doesn't make a source unreliable, a source a so obviously biased against the subject should probably be avoided in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe with attribution to the source, but that should be discussed on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: I disagree with dismissing the source as unreliable simply because it is from India. We cannot assume that it only reports anti-Pakistani military news stories. In fact, the story reported by The Pak Military Monitor was also covered by a credible Pakistani news source The Friday Times. Despite limitations on press freedom in Pakistan, this Pakistani news outlet The Friday Times somehow managed to publish this story. Given the context of Pakistan's media landscape, it's highly unlikely for a Pakistani news source to report on such sensitive topics, especially those not favored by the Pakistani military. These news outlets often face targeting, harassment, abduction, or even violence against their journalists. Anyways, upon reviewing the The Pak Military Monitor website, I found that most of their news stories are factually accurate and not merely opinion pieces. Therefore, I believe we should reconsider the source at RSN. --Saqib (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with dismissing the source as unreliable simply because it is from India nope never said that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to @SheriffIsInTown's comment where he described it as a blog post hosted by an Indian propaganda outlet. --Saqib (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

We use biased sources all the time. I see no issue with using an Indian source for Pakistani subjects just because it is from India. However, I agree with @ActivelyDisinterested that extreme caution should be used and if the source is to be used it must be attributed to the source in the article, not just cited. --ARoseWolf 12:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested and ARoseWolf: Regarding your suggestion to attribute the source, it's worth noting that The Pak Military Monitor is not the sole reporter on this matter; as I said above The Friday Times also covered the story. Therefore, attributing one or both sources wouldn't make sense. We could continue this discussion on the article's talk page, but given its low traffic, this discussion might not garner much attention there. --Saqib (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that they are not the sole source. We are talking about a BLP and its better the ere on the side of caution. That's my take. We shouldn't be having this discussion at all, here. Sheriffsintown did nothing wrong and neither did War Wounded. --ARoseWolf 12:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I've replied at the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested and ARoseWolf: I just want to confirm if he's interpreting you correctly or if there's anything I'm overlooking. --Saqib (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I want the edit warring to stop and I've stated as much. There is no reason to re-add the content until consensus is met. If it is not re-added then it will not be removed, again. If some Uninvolved editor happens to reinstate the content then it should not be removed until discussions have concluded. No one is right in content edit wars. --ARoseWolf 17:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I have not reinstated the censored content following its removal by War Wounded. --Saqib (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Saqib: why is this here? At the top it says: This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. How does one revert and three (reasonable) posts to a talk page discussion possibly qualify? DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa: @SheriffIsInTown and I have had disagreements in the past on some occasions, and when he deleted the material despite my disagreement, I felt it was necessary to consider this avenues instead of engaging in edit warring. I'm not sure what other options I had in this situation. --Saqib (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI is not a recourse for when you can't get your way with someone. See the content dispute aspects of WP:Dispute Resolution for that. Are you claiming a "chronic, intractable behavioral" problem? If so, you need to provide diffs. DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not claiming "chronic, intractable behavioral" issues, but rather suggesting a tendency toward wikilawyering or perhaps WP:CPP. I typically focus my time on writing and expanding articles rather than making comments on ANI or content disputes, so I may lack experience in these areas. If you believe this matter should be addressed elsewhere, please advise on the appropriate course of action to resolve the raised issue. --Saqib (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, you've opened 8 complaints on this page, 2 this month alone, and have made 92 edits to it.[137]. I would say you're pretty experienced. I'm surprised at 48k edits that you say you're inexperienced with content disputes. The link I gave you above is a starting point. DeCausa (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh man! considering my absence from ANI from August 2020 to February 2024, I believe it's a significant enough duration to remember how content disputes work.--Saqib (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI is not for content disputes, which is what you have (and barely that -just one revert) with SheriffIsInTown. DeCausa (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I'd like to draw your attention to this lengthy discussion and then this latest edit. and given that both War Wounded and SheriffIsInTown hv a history of WP:GANG. and now that @War Wounded has removed the content once again. Additionally both of them commented simultaneously and despite the extensive discussion on the BLPs talk page, its evident that they're unwilling to WP:LISTEN and instead engage in WP:CENSOR. So I'd like to ask you should I continue engage with them, or do I've alternative options to consider? --Saqib (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The course of action you have is to refrain adding the disputed material only referenced to a questionable source per WP:RSSELF and WP:BLP until there is a consensus that the source is reliable. There is a clear guidance to remove poorly referenced information at once from BLP articles and there is a clear guidance to not include any content about a living person using a self published source such as this. Regarding your WP:GANG accusation, have you never seen two editors editing simultaneously in this big wide world? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Why the need to repeat the same statement across different pages? You've already expressed same view here, and it's been noted. What's the rationale behind posting the same comment again? --Saqib (talk · contribs) 20:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Different forum has different audience, it also included reply to your gang accusation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, It's quite evident that you and @War Wounded are WP:CIRCUS. If needed, can provide diffs. But I'd rather not delve into that issue at the moment. Let's stay focused on the main topic, which is determining the reliability of this source. And also since our discussion on the BLP's talk page has become somewhat heated and we haven't reached a resolution, I'd like to ask @DeCausa: for guidance on our next steps. --Saqib (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Here are some diffs 1, 2 of me ganging up with you against someone and you appreciating me for ganging up with you. Then here we are, you piggybacking on previous ANI to support topic ban on me, taking 29 elected MP articles to AFD, filing a frivolous ANI for one revert, and then reporting subsequent edit to a different page. Although every conflict has two sides, you got same amount of mud on your hands as me but did I ever report you in any forum? (I do care about others time) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, a discussion has been initiated on the Talk:Zaheer_Ahmad_Babar#The_Pakistan_Military_Monitor. I encourage others to share their opinions so that we can come to a resolution and avoid revisiting this issue later on.

• The OP is not being honest when they say they do not have experience with dispute resolution procedures. They know every nook and cranny of Wikipedia. They have been to all dispute resolution forums in the past. Their claim about they have been absent from ANI for a while that is why they forgot how dispute resolution works is a bogus one as well. The editor was very active in Pakistani BLP area before I started contributing in that area. They see me as a competition or main opposition in that area and they found an ANI report an easy way to sideline me. A while ago, they were having a content dispute with me at 2024 Pakistani general election and as a retaliation they took all articles recently created by me (29 in total) to AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirza Akhtar Baig) in one go while knowing very well that they were wrong to do so, this considerably wasted my time and other editors time. This was a worst example of a battleground behavior. They are in general very quick to report opposing editors to ANI without exhausting other options. I request the community and admins to discourage them by WP:BOOMERANG of some manner so they do not continue this behavior going forward. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this personally. It's rather amusing when you say I see you as my competition or main opposition. In fact, I've been seeking your opinions because I value your expertise in some areas, and I even apologized to you recently when I felt I might have disappointed you. Regardless, I never anticipated making you my opponent by filing this report. There's nothing personal here. I still respect you and your opinions, and I hope we can collaborate on some articles in the future. But I think more important to be honest and Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade even if it irritate your follow editors. --Saqib (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It's quite perplexing that SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs) now suddenly decides to delete content without any prior objection, that was added by me as per this suggestion of @Borgenland: about 10 days ago. This arbitrary removal raises questions about their motivations. Given this recent discussion, I anticipated that SheriffIsInTown might retaliate and attempt to further provoke me. This pattern of behavior is not conducive to productive editing and undermines the collaborative spirit of WP. --Saqib (talk · contribs) 19:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If you have an ongoing ANI discussion or conflict, does that mean everyone else should cease contributing to any other articles until all pending issues are resolved? I outlined my reasoning for the removal in the summary line. The content already exists in the main article; this page should only contain a summary. This decision was not directed against you personally. I would have done the same at any other time as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No, as usual, you didn't bother to check if the material you're deleting is actually present in the main article. Are you intentionally trying to waste our time? It's really frustrating to see our time and work go to waste like this, especially when there's no effort made to relocate the content properly. Also why didn't you raise your objections on this talk page when @Borgenland: suggested including this part? Instead of lecturing me on consensus here, why don't you take the time to engage in discussion and reach a consensus here? Please stop making unilateral decisions! --Saqib (talk · contribs) 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This frivolous ANI was started by you so I am not sure who is wasting others time here. I did not know that you will report my every edit to a mutually edited page to ANI and waste people’s time with it otherwise I would have sought your permission. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you both noticed that this discussion has devolved into bickering between the two of you and other editors have stayed away? This isn't a battleground where one editor gets the editor they disagree with blocked. You are not winning over supporters here. You are both behaving badly and other editors don't want to get pulled into your dispute which seems personal and not based on differences of opinon or interpretation of policy. Find a way to live with each other or you could both end up being blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I will try not to reply anymore. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, we can conclude this discussion as it seems to be veering off course. I hope its safe to initiate a new discussion at RSN to gather opinions on whether this source TPMM qualifies as RS, as there appears to be limited engagement here.--Saqib (talk · contribs) 07:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Raval77 again

Raval77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I raised an issue way back in July 2020 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1042, if you look at his contrib history you will see on 17 March 2024 Raval created 30 new articles like Kelly Branton, none of which show how GNG was established, this whole situation reminds me of another user who was banned for creating multiple stub articles. I really don't know how long this has been going on, but I consider it a serious issue to raise again and way too much workload for any one admin to deal with. I trust someone will look into it again as I don't think any warnings will help. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• They also appear to source their articles to www.goodlift.info (which appears to be an SPS) and allpowerlifting.com (which I can't analyse as it keeps timing out). Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  allpowerlifting.com loads OK for me. It's in Russian, and looks like a decent SPS; but an SPS nevertheless; which I would be hesitant to cite in any way without knowing more about it. Narky Blert (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  If it's an SPS then we don't really need to know anything about it to know they shouldn't be using it for material about living persons and it looks to me a lot like that's a lot of their edits. 21:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I find it strange that he has suddenly stopped editing after I posted. Because it seemed a pretty constant pattern up until now. Govvy (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Raval77 here.

I would like to tell something from my side. I've started creating biographies of powerlifters (medallists of world or continental events), because it's one of the World Games (quite big sport event) sports and I find it might be useful for other viewers. In my articles I've sourced to sites like goodlift.info or allpowerlifting.com, because these sites contains a lot of infos about these athletes (date of birth, results, etc.) and I think it's one of the reliable sources (I don't know where I can find other websites with informations of these kind of athletes that can be confirmed as good sources -

openpowerlifting.org only comes to my mind) . Maybe I should refer to the official results on the federation's website??. I have included links to sites that I think are trustworthy (these are large databases and run quite professionally). If in this case I referred to the wrong sites, it was my mistake, but the information that could be obtained there in my opinion was worth referring to (and you need to refer to some).

Thank you for reading and your time

Regards, Raval77 Raval77 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Raval77, these sources sound questionable. It might be worth starting a discussion about them at WP:RSN where editors evaluate the quality of sources and databases. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, it is generally discouraged to source biographies to databases only. There have been previous discussions about this (and indeed a large number of athlete stubs have been deleted). If the athletes are truly notable, there will be coverage about them that is not restricted to databases. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Single-purpose account devoted to attacking GuardianH

Guardiansiqisverylow is an attack account created to harass GuardianH. The user name was clearly chosen as an attack on GuardianH. Their contributions consist of personal attacks.[138],[139]

Please can Guardiansiqisverylow be (1) given an indefinite block, (2) their contributions be revdelled, and (3) have a checkuser done on them, because it is obviously a sock account.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears two socks in this drawer need to go out with the wash like the others, Dsjfajs3248 and Kakaronen. All the others were specifically created with user names attacking GuardianH. --ARoseWolf 11:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked the obvious socks per WP:DUCK. No need for me to use CU. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Korentio appears to be another sock of the same person.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. --ARoseWolf 15:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Nuked that one too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Digging back a little further and I think these are all socks of Korensho. They had a disagreement with GuardianH in October last year and Bishonen warned them for edit warring. They last edited their user talk page to tell Bish they deleted their account and not to respond. A little more than an hour later Kakkisj, the first sock, showed up on GuardianH's talk page. --ARoseWolf 15:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Long-term abuse surrounding Sukavich Rangsitpol

I'm seeking admin actions to deter the long-term abuse surrounding Sukavich Rangsitpol, Thita Manitkul (now a draft at User:RJFF/Thita Manitkul), and related articles. The suggestion, as raised at Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol#This entire mess, is to indefinitely semi-protect the article (and maybe also its talk page and the draft as well).

Background: Sukavich Rangsitpol is a former Thai MP and government minister, who satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline. His daughter, Thita Manitkul, is also a former MP, also likely notable (if borderline). Articles and drafts about them have long been subjected to POV-pushing COI edits by a huge sock farm (logged under Nafeby633), as well as meatpuppets and IP editors. Thita Manitkul has also in real life pursued legal action against established editors of the Thai Wikipedia who reverted some of those edits, and advertised said action as further threats.

Considering the disruptive actions and harassment and threats made surrounding pages related to the subjects on Thai Wikimedia projects, the Thai community recently (in February) agreed to implement a topic ban on any articles about the family on Thai Wikimedia projects.

While those are drastic measures that I don't expect would receive support here on Enwiki, I believe that the above-mentioned actions and threats clearly demonstrate that the subjects and their associates have no intention of constructively contributing to or engaging with Wikipedia. Normally, temporary protections and blocks may be enough to deter damage to Wikipedia, but these editors are incessant, and no one is watching the affected pages, so they always come back sooner or later after protection expires, and the article has gone months without the damage being detected.

User:RJFF, the creator of the first good version and only major good-faith editor to the page, recently suggested at the article talk page that the article be more or less stubbified and protected to prevent further disruption, given that otherwise dealing with these unencyclopedic additions is just not worth the time. I agree, and we have trimmed down the Sukavich Rangsitpol article to the most basic, verifiable and uncontroversial information. (An IP has since attempted to restore the unencyclopedic material, which I have reverted.) I have also blanked the Thita Manitkul draft page, as I didn't find any good version to revert to.

Request: I'm requesting that, per the talk page discussion, Sukavich Rangsitpol be indefinitely semi-protected. Please also strongly consider indefinitely semi-protecting the talk page, as the disruptive editors have a habit of spamming the irrelevant content on the talk page when the page is protected. On my own accord, I'm also asking that the same protection be applied to User:RJFF/Thita Manitkul as well.

I would also suggest considering further actions to minimize disruption and spam by this LTA. An edit filter would be desirable as they tend to insert spam mentions into other articles where they are of little relevance. A zero-tolerance approach, blocking on sight IPs and editors who demonstrate clearly consistent behavioural patterns, should also be considered, considering that they are clearly WP:not here to build an encyclopedia and a threat to the community. These are suggestions that probably need further discussion.

Further background: Articles on Thita Manitkul and Sukavich Rangsitpol were first created by the above-mentioned sock farm in September/October 2016. One was deleted following AfD, the other draftified and G12 speedy deleted (while an MfD was underway).

An unrelated version of Sukavich Rangsitpol was created by User:RJFF in November 2018, and the deleted Thita Manitkul page was also undeleted/userfied at RJFF's request, though RJFF apparently never got round to editing that page. Soon after, the pages began to see incessant edits by IPs and more socks, who were intent on (1) removing reliably sourced negative aspects about the subject, and (2) inserting blocks of extensive, irrelevant, likely copyvio quotations that had no place in the article. They have also been spamming irrelevant mentions into other articles, most of which have gone undetected and have not been removed (or were re-inserted after removal), such as Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia) (Special:Diff/1194270333), Bang Na Expressway (Special:Diff/882855549) School-Based Management Policy (Special:Diff/919233677). (The LTA has also inserted their spam into other sister projects, including the Simple English Wikipedia and Wikiquote. But that's not something that can be addressed here.)

In 2019, User:Yosakrai (who was found at SPI to be Unrelated, inactive since 2019) and several IPs started extensive talk page and noticeboard discussions that led to an RfC over the negative elements covered in the article in relation to BLP concerns. The discussion found weak consensus for inclusion, but no further constructive action was taken to improve the article, which eventually reverted to the IP spam. Clearly, no one cares enough about this article to be properly watching it.

In the recent trimming, I elected to remove all potentially controversial material, whether positive or negative, to avoid any loose ends that could raise BLP concerns (despite the old RfC). No one has cared to improve the article since 2019, no one is going to now. Any time spent further fixing it or entertaining tendentious requests from the COI editors is going to be time wasted.

--Paul_012 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Sukavich Rangsitpol for one year. Although it is clear that there has been disruptive editing for years, I do not think that is severe enough to justify indefinite protection. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User: Psychologist Guy

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 from WP:AN (Special:Diff/1214870461)

This user states they are in the top 3000 editors of articles, and promotes a biased viewpoint toward vegetarianism. They have been editing Wikipedia pages based on their views and not based on what data the latest scientific literature provides. 170.232.227.254 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that the first part is true (#2322 at the moment). Not sure if there's a case to do anything here, though. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2024 (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.

Mistaken page move

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 please fix my mistake [140]. I was/am attempting to move the page with first name Dario to the correct spelling of Dairo. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Done ✅ Thanks to @Whpq. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a heads up, this is the board for administrators to intervene against bad behaviour from editors, not a general place to get help. A better place to have posted this would have been WP:TEAHOUSE BrigadierG (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (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:NOTHERE Promotional advocacy regarding Nancy D. Erbe

Surance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An account wholly dedicated to promoting anything related to Nancy D. Erbe, a professor at California State University, Dominguez Hills, and adding her minor visits and other activities as subsections on multiple articles. Since this editor created Erbe's article in 2014, they've turned it into a puff-filled résumé: a repository of awards, accomplishments, and dozens of miscellaneous images (which the editor all took themself). Despite these additions being reverted by multiple editors since 2021, editor continues to make these promotional additions.

Additions of blatantly promotional subsections on university pages titled "Noted scholar visit" that give a puff-filled description of some time Erbe made a visit to the school. Most of them are the same promotional message copy and pasted to different pages:

• Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro (A World-renowned scholar of Negotiation, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding and Dr. Nancy D. Erbe visited the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil twice when...)
• University of Nicosia
• Bethlehem Bible College
• Vardham Mahaveer Open University
• Central University of Punjab

Additions of images/unsourced descriptions of Erbe to "notable faculty/alumni", etc. pages despite Erbe not being major enough to be included (these have been reverted multiple times):

• Pepperdine University
• UC Berkeley
• University of Denver
• UC Berkeley, again
• University of Oslo (Removing the link to an actually important scholar due to be included)
• UC Berkeley, again x2
• Cornell Law School
• Central University of Punjab
• Jawaharlal Nehru University
• Indian Institute of Advanced Study
• Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
• Eastern Mediterranean University
• Metropolitan State University of Denver

Many more I haven't listed that can be seen on their edit log. I've reverted the image repository at Erbe but editor just reverts it back with no edit summary everytime. Other editors have reverted these additions too, but they haven't got the message. WP:NOTHERE behavior dedicated to promotional advocacy. GuardianH (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on everything, but I opened Nancy D. Erbe, and surely that image in the preview/top of the article is not properly licensed? I mean the source is also "Template:Csudh", whatever that's supposed to mean, but even if it wasn't it's a screenshot of an image in a website, there's even a tooltip in it...

Ironically, about other images they've uploaded like :File:Nancy_Erbe-UFRRJ-Rio.JPG, if their claim of it being their own work is accurate then that would clearly show a real life connection with the subject.

– 2804:F14:809E:DF01:307C:AF3C:87B6:EFA0 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

In 29 April 2023 they created a different account (Mardi1123), they used that account (as can be seen from their talk page) to write a draft on "Swaranjit Singh (author)" something that if you look in their logs(link) they previously tried to create with their Surance account.

Looking into this edit filter log by the Mardi1123 account, it says, among other things: "He has co-authored and co-edited these books with World-renowned Professor Nancy D. Erbe.".

– 2804:F14:809E:DF01:307C:AF3C:87B6:EFA0 (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sockpuppet case there too. GuardianH (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Just an observation, I only now noticed it: Surance had been trying to reach you in your talk page, by responding to 2023 conversations (diff1, diff2). – 2804:F1...B6:EFA0 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

De-archive as problems persist. GuardianH (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Surance from editing Nancy D. Erbe. The editor is free to make edit requests on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There may be some copyright issues here, the first paragraph came back almost verbatim to an amazon book review, which begs the question are they copying us or is someone adding promotional information from already written sources? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:BunicaValea

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 a pretty obvious sockpuppet of User:Andriyrussu (see the SPI) but they are now going around making disruptive edits to do with Russia–Ukraine war despite not being extended confirmed and being alerted about WP:RUSUKR. I do not think Andriyrussu is banned yet but I only see them creating more accounts in the foreseeable future. Mellk (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

They are now rapidly going around reverting edits by me and User:Drmies. Please can we indef this account? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. DanCherek (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 24 March 2024 (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.

Insulting behaviour at the Teahouse

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.

---

According to Danstarr69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it is appropriate to discuss a fellow editor in the following terms: 'Nikkimaria the Canadian should stick to doing make-up tutorials on Youtube or whatever she does with her "content creation,"'.

Are such misogynistic outbursts acceptable in the 21st century on anyone at all, let alone a fellow editor? - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

According to SchroCat, people who use "infoboxes" are idiots as shown here Talk:George Formby/Archive 1#IB.

Here's the 2022 discussion which shows him and Nikkimaria lost the battle Talk:George Formby/Archive 1#Infobox Danstarr69 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is about 'infoboxes.' It's about you and your comment that another editor should, "stick to doing make-up tutorials." What possible reason would you have for making a comment like that? --Onorem (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Seeing quotes like "lost the battle" would indicate to anyone this editor mindset isn't conducive to collaboration here on Wikipedia. Let's see if the editor has the capability of recognizing their mistakes and moving forward. Moxy🍁 16:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Onorem She calls herself a content creator."

And SchroCat calls people who use infoboxes "idiots" or are you purposely ignoring that bit?

They both lost their arguments, yet insist on removing the infobox, and claim there's a "consensus" to the contrary. Danstarr69 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Danstarr69, nothing you're saying justifies your comments about Nikkimaria at the Teahouse. Schazjmd (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

And why are you still edit warring (that's your third time now, do I'll drop you a formal note about that one too. WP:NOTHERE is becoming evident. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You can't expect us to punish SchroCat in 2024 for what SchroCat said 10 years ago. Right? Polygnotus (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention that SchroCat didn't refer to editors, but to infoboxes: generally lives up to its secondary name, the idiotbox. Schazjmd (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat why do you and your mates on here, refuse to acknowledge to 2022 consensus? Danstarr69 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I suggest you read DMacks's comment (below) before you try to obfuscate again? - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Danstarr69, tu quoque is not helping you here. While others may or not be following consensus, we're here at least to examine whether your behavior fits our norms in ways well beyond a simple content/consensus dispute. I agree it does not. The fact that you are continuing to see neither problems with your own previous responses nor changing how you are pursuing this discussion here has my finger about to land on the block button for you. DMacks (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Is being a Canadian a bad thing? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Cremastra I think people should stick to editing topics they know about. For example, Canadians should stick to editing Canadian topics, and Brits should focus on British topics, unless they know a lot about a subject from elsewhere.

It's partly why I gave up on Quora years ago before the website declined, as around 10 of the most active people on British topics were Americans refused to be corrected.

Wikipedia is almost as bad as Quora, which is why I'm rarely on here, as Americans also refuse to be corrected on British topics, and insist on using Americanisms.

And that's mainly why I spend 99% of my time correcting IMDB, as a Top 100 (occasionally Top 50) contributor. Danstarr69 (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think people should stick to editing topics they know about. For example, Canadians should stick to editing Canadian topics, and Brits should focus on British topics, unless they know a lot about a subject from elsewhere. I'm very sorry, but that's clearly absurd. What a weird kind of isolationist pseudo-nationalism. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd say this kind of nationalistic rhetoric should result in a WP:NOTHERE block. Especially since the user is "rarely on here" anyway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Not the first time that they've done this, check out Talk:E. D. Berman § Requested move 31 December 2023 – Hilst [talk] 17:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If we followed this, no-one would be allowed to write about anything outside the English-speaking world. I've heard of anti-globalism, but never to this living-inside-our-own-bubbles degree. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait a sec. I'm a Canadian & I think I should be allowed to edit/discuss bios of non-Canadians. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In point of fact, you may have a COI with Canadian topics... Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm probably considered involved because I'm on the "pro" side of the Infobox debate and have been for years, but otherwise I'd issue Danstarr69 a long block for their comments. Misogynistic and nationalistic comments such as those have no place on Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Indefinitely: User talk:Danstarr69#Block. I'm likely to not be available to follow up on this block, so any admin should feel free to respond to an unblock request as they see fit. I need not be consulted or even contacted about any adjustments to the block, be its increase, decrease, or lifting it outright. El_C 17:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Too short a block? Should it have been weeks, months, indef? I'm open to advise on that, though I have a brief window here. El_C 17:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

After reading the link Hilst provided above and because Danstarr69 showed no indication in this thread that he saw anything wrong with what he wrote, I'd support an indef, as it's the only block version that requires Danstarr69 to acknowledge that his behavior is unacceptable and agree to change his approach to other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 on that. Misogynistic and narrow-minded nationalistic comments like these should be shown the door. - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I was writing a comment suggesting an indef when you blocked. I think an indef is necessary because there was no ambiguity about it being a misogynistic comment. They should not be able to wait out the block, and potentially come back and make more such remarks. Only reason not to indef would be if they had immediately retracted and apologised as a momentary lapse in judgement. If anything, they tried to justify it, one may even say they doubled down. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree that this seems short: the behavior at Talk:E. D. Berman was reprehensible, and we appear to be seeing a real-time repeat. --JBL (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Block amended to indef. El_C 17:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@El C: You forgot to remove a reference to block expiration in the block notice on their user talk page. Janhrach (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't forget, it's there. El_C 17:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I am misunderstaning you, I meant the sentence beginning with Once the block has expired. Janhrach (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Done. El_C 17:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

And his unblock request shows he isn't able to distinguish content disputes from complaints about his behavior. Not a good sign. Schazjmd (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry that my original block did not meet standards. That's my bad. El_C 18:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You made an immediate call, which was necessary, and then opened it up for input, considered the input, and adjusted the length. Very responsive and nothing to apologize for. Schazjmd (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the problem was ongoing with no sign of stopping, an immediate block, of any length at all, was absolutely appropriate and your chosen length was within within reasonable discretion. Then discussion could continue about the details. For the record, I support indef based on NOTHERE, IDIDNTHEARTHAT/CIR, etc. DMacks (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 on Schazjmd and DMack’s comments. Well handled, El_C. - SchroCat (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

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

IP User - constant abuse/attacks.

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 User_talk:2A02:908:454:1660:0:0:0:D517. User has been told several times about the NPA rule, regardless of his or her current dispute with editing. User continues to ignore said warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synorem (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 March 2024 (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.

Removal of sourced content by Rundbowie, edits consistent with other accounts

• Rundbowie (talk · contribs) has several times removed well sourced content at Courtney Dauwalter and Kílian Jornet Burgada--content in question isn't puffery if it's been well established. There's also an interest in adding to Camille Herron, which corresponds with the edit warring by Temporun73 (talk · contribs) and 199.48.98.153 (talk · contribs), also this [141]. Additionally, the newer account was created February 8, hours after the first account was blocked. Altogether, this looks like one or several related users with an agenda re: ultramarathon competitors. I don't think I'm alone in drawing this conclusion [142]. More eyes appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE of LeoPlaysRBLX (talk · contribs)

I am concerned about WP:COMPETENCE issues with LeoPlaysRBLX (talk · contribs). To wit:

• This edit to Stratford Square Mall has the very informal text Redevelopment will probably take place years later, the Village of Bloomingdale announced that they don't have redevelopment plans for the mall yet. added.
• This edit to Charlestowne Mall includes informal and poorly written text such as Marshalls didn't last long and they moved to the current Randall Commons location in Geneva, IL a year or two after the mall opened and the space was turned into the mall main entrance and added more tenant spaces.
• When I removed the info, they posted this, calling my removal a "mistake" and citing a Facebook post as proof.
• Addition of anchor store lists to Water Tower Place, a long since discredited practice in mall articles
• Same thing at Hawthorne Plaza Shopping Center
• Unsourced recentism added to Bartlett High School (Illinois)
• Unsourced biographical content and disambiguation links added to Death of Elisa Lam
• A very poorly written draft with poor passages such as Bloomingdale needed extra shopping destinations in the village to prevent overflow and This format will be smaller than the conventional Macy's department stores you find in major regional shopping centers.

While the user does have a couple not-terribly written drafts that either got accepted as articles or could be with a little more polish, edits like this show a fundamental misunderstanding of reliable sources, tone, appropriate article content, and overall editor competence. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry/Slotkin article

Wanted to flag the meatpuppetry going on once again on Talk:Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW strike. It has been admitted to here on Twitter. We have prior examples of issues with sockpuppets and meatpuppetry on this article including Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thespeedoflightneverchanges and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1135#Thespeedoflightneverchanges. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Muboshgu @Cullen328 @Drmies @ScottishFinnishRadish as admins who've previously resolved issues on this article and @Cpotisch who previously has been canvassed by this banned user. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding a bit more detail before I start the workweek and probably won't have a lot of time for finding difs and the such.

I've now notified them so I will directly mention @Andrew.robbins and @Seamusfleming92 as the editors of concern. @OrcaLord is agreeing with them but has more history on Wikipedia (including a previous 3-month ban from Elissa Slotkin) -- while there's likely off-Wiki coordination going on (they follow each other on Twitter) I don't think Orca falls fully within the definition of a meatpuppet.

Both editors recently resurrected their old accounts specifically with a seeming single-minded goal of getting content that was previously removed reinstated into the Elissa Slotkin article. The content was previously advocated for by Thespeedoflightneverchanges or their socks after they were indef banned. This user has previously been identified as this Slotkin-obsessed handle on Twitter which is "urgently" recruiting "experienced wikipedia editor" to continue their anti-Slotkin agenda.

The four articles used by @Andrew.robbins to advocate for their preferred language on talk page are exactly the four articles that the previously-banned editor was using when spamming editors on Twitter for assistance to change this article (see screenshot in this Tweet). Meanwhile, @Seamusfleming92's account seems to have largely been used for blatant vandalism when it was first created back in 2022. Now all it's done is advocate for the previously-banned editor's preferred content on the Slotkin article.

As previously flagged by @Muboshgu and then by @Cpotisch, there is a cohort of editors coordinating offwiki/on Twitter "who all hate Slotkin" attempting to influence this article and this appears to be their latest POV pushing attempt. This article is already ECP and OrcaLord was previously 3-month banned from it for attempting to edit war for his POV. This now seems to their latest attempt to create an artificial consensus on the talk page for their POV edits. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Come on. I was involved with the Slotkin page beforehand for the purpose of copyediting. Its kind of hard for me to be recruited when I was already involved with the page. I am curious how you intend to justify painting me with the twitter-coordination smear without so much as an associated twitter account. And yes, the four articles linked were the exact same as the deleted ones. I was up-front about that and mentioned it in the same talk post for the sake of ease of reference. I simply thought it merited discussion. I think its worthy of note that Dcpoliticaljunkie immediately accused Seamusfleming92 of being a sockpuppet upon first edit of the page. It was closed for utter lack of evidence here. I have serious concerns about violations of WP:NEUTRALEDITOR here. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I flagged Seamusfleming92 because it looked DUCK-like to me when they started advocating for exactly what the previously-banned editor previously advocated for. I now realize that it's likely meatpuppetry (as evidenced by recruitment on the banned editor's Twitter). Worth noting that another account I reported was blocked as likely sock.

And it's true: you did resurrect an old account to make copy edits and then 1 week later began doing exactly what the banned editor has publicly posted about recruiting editors to do. That's where my suspicion comes from. Anyway, I will step away here to do some work and we can allow the admins review everything. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think its dishonest to classify an account that made sporadic edits every few months going back to March of 2023 (or even July 2022) increasing its activity as "resurrection of an old account". andrew.robbins (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

LOL - let's just be clear. Are you denying any Twitter contact with the banned editor/@Progflippawi on Twitter? Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

He's one of my ~700 mutuals on twitter. What of it? andrew.robbins (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting per Special:Contributions/Seamusfleming92 that there were non-slotkin edits as recently as January. What are we doing here? andrew.robbins (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I wrote that post yesterday because I agree with the point, not because I am a meatpuppet. There is no collusion going on between me and any others. If you see my account history I do a lot of edits on other pages and contributing to Wikipedia. I do not plan on editing this page anymore in the future, only talking on the talk page to share my opinion. OrcaLord (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Don’t have the bandwidth to look at the details of this right now but I’ll just say right now that Thespeedoflightneverchanges keeps spamming me on Twitter and getting increasingly desperate to make Slotkin’s article harsher, and has alluded to meatpuppetry. Cpotisch (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The talk page has been ECP protected which should help things for the moment. The incessant anti-Slotkin invective from Thespeedoflightneverchanges/ProgFlip is quite astounding. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Said ECP protection was made without justification and I am currently in the process of appealing pending the enforcing admin either responding to my talk page post or coming back online and ignoring it. As an aside, may I remind everyone that thespeedoflightneverchanges is not a direct party to this dispute. andrew.robbins (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that both the Elissa Slotkin article and it's associated talk page are covered under two separate Contentious Topic Procedure rulings, for which page protection (including ECP) is one of the standard restrictions that may be authorized by any uninvolved administrator; there is no requirement for "justification" beyond that administrator's determination that said protection is "necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ATPROT ECP on a talk page is generally not considered necessary or proportionate. Regardless, this is a different topic for a different thread. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

To close the loop on this before everything moves to the appeal thread, I should point out that the CTOPS procedure is an extraordinary grant of the Arbitration Committee's authority that overrides the standard WP:ATPROT policy and consensus. See, e.g., this current statement from the arbitrators on that exact topic, from a different case. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

keyword can. I'm more explicit about which part I'm challenging on the other thread. andrew.robbins (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, the clarification there is helpful. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to Andrew for admitting to off-wiki contact with the blocked editor. I think we can fill in the rest.

Anyone who looks at the blocked editor's Twitter account can see what their obsession is: even their pinned Tweet is about their attempts to push their agenda on the relevant Wikipedia page. The fact that there's off-wiki organizing/recruitment to swing discussions in an attempt to create a false consensus could not be clearer imo. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You are drawing conclusions that are not supported by what I said. I have hundreds of mutual followers. One of those several hundred people posting intent-to-commit-meatpuppetry on their public TL does not mean that I was recruited. I live in Michigan and am present in the election-focused corner of twitter and am fairly sure that everyone involved on that discussion page is as well. Of course I am going to be interested in the upcoming senate primary.

Also, if we're taking what ProgFlip says seriously, that pinned tweet is claiming that he successfully meatpuppeted Cpotisch at one point. Is that not worthy of mention? If not, why this? andrew.robbins (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to be clear. I am not accusing Cpotisch of meatpuppetry. I am simply pointing out a double-standard in Dcpoliticaljunkie's accusations that fall entirely on ideological lines. andrew.robbins (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

rather than justify this clear bad faith with a substantive response I'm simply going to ask admins to either come to a decision or to lock this topic. It has been five days. Let's move on with our lives please. andrew.robbins (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Dcpoliticaljunkie is actively canvassing friendly admins at Special:Diff/1214818834/1214844636. This is a WP:HUNT. andrew.robbins (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced and notable content by Hotwiki

Hotwiki (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly excluding well-sourced information in a certain article,Tahanang Pinakamasaya - he questions the alleged trivial nature of the added information, which, for me, contradicts how WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTIORY works. There has been numerous similar incidents whereas the user has been disruptively editing various articles based on his views, and not by the manual/rule/standards in this website in particular. Pinoy Wikipedian Pride (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• You didn't give hard examples, so I had to just go and see what he reverted of yours. I don't see his actions as violating any policies, you just disagree with him on what the content should be. ie: this is a content dispute, and not a behavioral issue. From an editors perspective, his removal of the replacement show under WP:DIRECTORY seems like a pretty valid edit, as the article is about the show, not what replaced the show, which is pretty irrelevant since we aren't a TV Guide or Directory. I recommend using the talk page of the article and try to build a consensus for changes you want to make that get reverted. This is covered in WP:BRD. Nothing wrong with making a bold edit, but if it gets reverted, it is expected that you will go to the talk page and discuss it with others, and not revert it back in. Unless you have examples of actual bad behavior, I don't see anything to do here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  I simply removed an unimportant content and I explained it Twice through my edit summary, when I removed that trivial statement. The show Tahanang Pinakamasaya's replacement in its timeslot — is a movie block which doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article, which lacks notability. The other show, It's Showtime didn't replace Tahanang Pinakamasaya as well for it to be mentioned in the article. Hotwiki (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed with both here; mentioning the replacement for a show which was clearly intended as lawsuit-related filler in the Great Filipino Lunchtime Variety Hour Wars®️ wasn't needed here, nor that a filler film block replaced it. Not every article about a Filipino show airing in mid-day has to mention this thing that seems to be a hot point for the Filipino part of WP:TV, which has been warned so many time to keep things focused on neutrality instead of being territorial about ABS-CBN vs. GMA vs. Five or whatever. Removal justified under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Nate • (chatter) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Nkienzle

I reverted six edits by Nkienzle (talk · contribs) that are a continuation of seven edits reverted prior to an AP TBan. WP:NOTHERE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. Those are very clear and unequivocal violations of their topic ban. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Bishonen: as the TBan issuer. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm baffled. All their six edits since they were banned from post-1992 American politics violate the topic ban, and are indeed a lot like the edits they were tbanned for in the first place. Blocked for two weeks. Thanks, O3000. Bishonen | tålk 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC).

After Nkienzle's response to my block notice, I've changed the block to indefinite per WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | tålk 22:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC).

Repeated WP:NOR violations (and general unsourced additions) by Gabrielcheong

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

This user has persistently added unsourced content and personal analyses into several Shinkansen articles (1, 2, 3, 4), despite numerous warnings. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, they removed the notice I placed on their talk page. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I also have a sneaking suspicion that they may also have made such edits while logged out. The following IPs have edited in a similar fashion, but this could be completely coincidental:

• 180.219.75.107 (talk · contribs)
• 49.130.198.238 (talk · contribs)

XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior of Prinokta

The user has only registered an account a month ago, but demonstrates knowledge untypical of a newcomer. Right after their tenth edit, they draftified two articles and AfD-ed another two.

What is interesting is that the authors of three of the articles have been blocked for sockpuppetry, two of the being linked to Elizabethhope89.

This may be an instance of sockpuppetry by an unknown editor, but I am not sure. I am posting this here, because I don't know of a more suitable place. Janhrach (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, this isn't uncommon. I've seen new editors whose first edit is to nominate an article for an AFD discussion. It could be socking, it could be a long-time IP editor who just registered an account to nominate the article for an AFD, it could be a clean start account or someone lost their password and had to register a new one. User:Elizabethhope89 is a sockpuppet of longtime sockmaster User:Bodiadub so you could file an SPI case. Or you could just keep an eye on the editor (without stalking them, of course). Maybe another editor will have ideas but what seems suspicious may not be at all. Prinokta hasn't edited for over a week but if they return, maybe they can offer an explanation. They only edited for one day, March 9th, so they may not return. But right now, it's just suspicions and not an urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems so I don't think admin attention is called for unless you want to file an SPI (along with diffs). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Liz. There is no need for anyone to do anything unless this editor starts being disruptive. Often the first time that anyone needs to register is to create the page for a deletion discussion - they could have been editing unregistered for 20 years. I know that my first edit was to a deletion discussion after I took exception to being canvassed on another site (the canvasser probably wasn't happy with the way I responded). Maybe this person found out about the sockpuppetry and took exception to that? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liz and Phil Bridger: Thank you. I would like to ask that if I see a possible sockpuppet without knowing who their master may be, where should I report them?

I have a second question. I have viewed the edit history of the two editors who haven't been invistigated at SPI for being Bodiadub's socks. Both engaged in creation of promotional articles, and one of them, NamanNomad, has been accused by an IP of being a Bodiadub sockpuppet, but the claim was dismissed by more experienced editors. The actions of Prinokta could be interpreted as alleging that these two editors are sockpuppets of Bodiadub. Shall I submit a request to SPI (so that users familiar with Bodiadub could judge them), or is it sure that it will be declined? Thank you. Janhrach (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Trollish legal threats at StoneToss

This was hastily reverted but should probably be revdel'd. [143] Furthermore an IP ban on the troll who keeps creating sock puppets to troll this page might be in order. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That user (LegalNotice88 (talk · contribs)) as well as Benchmarkingsalad (talk · contribs) are pretty obviously socks of ShownDownl (talk · contribs). - MrOllie (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

And now FlowerTrooning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

AfD

This article is being discussed at articles for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StoneToss‎. TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Primarily on Wikipedia to launder neo-nazi cartoonist

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

StoneToss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Twice deleted under Stonetoss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has created a new version of this article that appears to be designed to give additional visibility to claims that attempt to contradict the information from the doxxing of StoneToss, which connects StoneToss to the neo-nazi cartoon RedPanels, and I strongly suspect that they are on Wikipedia for this very reason.

References

—Alalch E. 02:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

You mean you're telling me right-wingers are trying to obfuscate the fact that this one guy is StoneToss/RedPanels? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Trying to promote a counternarrative. Edit: to be more clear: in this instance, using the high-profile platform that is Wikipedia to promote the counternarrative by feebly attempting to subvert the BLP policy. —Alalch E. 02:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

...can I even say the name on Wikipedia? I really want to, but I feel like it would still be a BLP violation. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't wait for more news agencies to confirm or deny a claim that could egregiously defame an individual. It's a strawman to state that I want it removed. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1214121740.—Alalch E. 03:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The sentence was removed because the citation linked together StoneToss and RedPanels. For now, there's no irrefutable proof that they're the same people, and we should be cautious against claiming that people are white supremacists or neo-Nazis, particularly if their personal names are listed. I'm not sure why this is controversial. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Now in the article: The Anti-Defamation League describes him as a far-right illustrator and a political scientist in a reputable journal describes him as an "extreme rightwing cartoonist known for his bigoted work". The reference which you removed in the above diff (it is not one of the two mentioned, it's a third one) has the following words: "In the memesphere, the American webcomic StoneToss has attracted controversy for its Holocaust-denial dog whistlesand other semi-coded references to white supremacist, homophobic, and misogynist thinking." It does not mention RedPanels, and only describes Stonetoss as Stonetoss. You see RedPanels in it despite no mention of RedPanels because that aligns with your goals on Wikipedia, and guided by them you want to remove such information, as you have done in the above diff. —Alalch E. 05:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that the Anti-Defamation League has accused almost any critic of Israel and almost any criticism of circumcision as antisemitic. The other source could possibly be included but the article's far too short to only include that opinion. Donald Trump and the Republican Party in general has also been defined by some as "far-right" but it would be unneutral to state that. If StoneToss is confirmed to be Red Panels I'll immediately change my opinion on the matter. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources which state something it is not unneutral to use the reliable sources. NPOV is about going where the RS take us. Please don't gaslight here. It will not go well for you. TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There are reams of reliable sourcing which state unambiguously that StoneToss is a neo-Nazi. This is not a controversial position. Stating the the author of StoneToss is a neo-Nazi is not controversial. TarnishedPath^talk 05:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You're making some bold accusations against someone who simply suggested that we should wait for more evidence. Anyone who reads the edit history can see that I kept the controversy in the page.

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

Nazism is fucking disgusting. The fact that you're attempting to drag my name in the mud is despicable. I politely asked for a response on the talk page and was completely ignored.

Then you immediately started this. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a complete mischaracterization of what I did. (And anyone here can read the edit history for themselves.)

The citation mentions that: "Others, however, poked holes in the Anonymous Comrades Collective’s investigation and said the group was only able to identify RedPanels, the retired cartoonist who the group said is also StoneToss."

The linkage to RedPanels and StoneToss is mentioned. We should not however state that they're irrefutably the same people or that the identitied individual is without a doubt RedPanels or StoneToss.

These are strong accusations and it would be better if we waited until more news organizations write on the matter. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:DAILYDOT —Alalch E. 03:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated." CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

i don't think "significant 'holes' were identified in the doxxing effort, mainly that the individual identified has ties to Red Panels but may not be the same artist behind StoneToss" is a non-contentious claim of fact ? ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 04:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@CoolidgeCalvin, Have you edited previously to this account? You display a bit of a grasp of WP policies considering your account is only 1 week old and you've only made 46 edits. TarnishedPath^talk 05:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The initial version created by the above user also promotes the subject in general, which should be telling: special:permalink/1214118239: He is a top influencer on Twitter ...—Alalch E. 03:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Being a top influencer isn't always a good thing.

It just means that people interact with your posts. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I knew you'd say that. My response to that is: You amplified the promotion to leading political influencer on Twitter (Special:Diff/1214119705) —Alalch E. 03:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The actual last edit I made before anyone interacted with it was here. You can see that the RedPanels connection is mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StoneToss&oldid=1214118693 CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"Leading political influencer on Twitter" is true. Do you think influential individuals can't be horrendous people? You could have just addressed the concerns that I had raised on the page. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned yes, as a spin about how the subject is being harassed, and the source (however crappy of a source) does not include the word harassment in that context. —Alalch E. 03:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Doxxing is a form of harassment. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but you must understand that when you create a piece about how a top leading political influencer on Twitter is being harassed but it's a doxxed neo-nazi, and no one but you says he's a leading anything or that he is harassed, and your history of edits shows that you are primarily interested in promoting this perspective, there's a bit of an issue. —Alalch E. 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Attempted doxxing is a form of harassment. By definition. Considering that the accused individual has had their extended family's addresses also posted, and they have views that are different to him, even if confirmed, then of course those type of activities are immoral.

His extended family (at the very least) is not responsible for him possibly being evil and a Nazi. Twitter's trust and safety team has described it as harassment. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Because we all know Twitter is reasonable under Elon Musk. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Doxxing the family members of bad people is still harassment. Is the brother of Kim Jung Un responsible for his actions? Of course not. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably not the best example. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Twitter's trust and safety team has described it as harassment. They have, which is odd cause their policy surrounding harassment does not consider sharing the name of a person to be doxxing, and as Boing Boing noted Twitter have not taken action in other instances of doxxing on the platform, some of which were endorsed by Elon. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Elon considers sharing the (public) coordinates of his plane to be doxxing. Do we really think Twitter still has a consistent definition for this? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 04:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if StoneToss is confirmed to be a neo-Nazi, posting the home addresses and phone numbers of his family members is clearly doxxing and harassment. What's being disputed here?

Even bad people don't deserve that. If they're misidentified, someone's life could be severely damaged based upon the whims of a mob, so I'm uncertain why several here want to possibly do so. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I've just read the doxxing document from the collective, and while his name, photo and date of birth is in it, as well as a roughly 25 square mile census-designated place, I'm not seeing any evidence of his home address or phone numbers nor the home addresses and phone numbers of any other individuals. Even his email addresses were redacted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

totally unrelated: their username is a WP:MISLEADNAME, although it's perhaps not the worst given that Coolidge has been dead forever and is very well-known. Queen of Hearts ^she/_they^talk/_stalk 04:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to bring attention to the account WalletLantern (talk · contribs), which was created and began editing CoolidgeCalvin's StoneToss article a few minutes after CoolidgeCalvin's final comment here, with the first edit being to remove the speedy deletion template. 203.211.79.73 (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, that (WL) account was intended as a provocation, so blocked indef. Also deleted the bio entry, because that was already decided, twice: once in 2023 and, prior to that, in 2021. So if there is something new that warrants another recreation, it'll have to be presented in WP:DRAFT format, so that the fine folks at WP:AFC can determine what's what — because I am WP:SALT'ing it. El_C 10:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, Draft:Stonetoss was created by Trainrobber66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in Jan 2024. It reads: Stonetoss is a satirical comics artist, and that's it. El_C 10:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we rewrite the article? trainrobber >be me 10:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Those who are interested, can do so at that draft. If that draft succeeds in passing the WP:AFC process, then the article can be recreated (go live again). El_C 10:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Link to the draft can be here trainrobber >be me 15:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition to Draft:Stonetoss there's also Draft:StoneToss. The later is about half a year older, and has slightly more content to it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I remember typing that (Draft:StoneToss) and there being nothing — I must have typo'd that. Thanks. El_C 07:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this but read through the entire discussion until I got to the message about El C deleting the article. Only to see that it is very much alive in main space. Did you expect to see it back in main space the next day, El C? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: I edited the draft, moved it to mainspace based on my editorial judgement, as I found various existing sources, and new significant coverage did materialize in the last few days, then another camel-case-username account appeared from a user who had emailed WMF claiming libel and tagged for G10, Keegan took the tag down, then that user tried to enforce removal leading to 3RRN, leading to a 24h block, but this was then also followed by a CU block. In the meantime, various editors in good standing have seen the article and apparently found no fault with it, and several have edited it. —Alalch E. 11:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

An AfD was started after I made the above comment however: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StoneToss —Alalch E. 16:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No, Liz, I did not expect it. But if it concludes with a (3rd) deletion outcomes (AfD bold above is my emphasis btw), I'm inclined on salting and move-protecting at admin level (vis-a-vis the inevitable draft) at that time. I suppose we'll see what's what in a week or so. El_C 20:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone seen Special:Diff/1213208139 in which @CoolidgeCalvin argues that gender-affirming surgery is "a form of mutilation". WTF? Can admins please take action on this. TarnishedPath^talk 05:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

an account that has edited primarily in contentious political topics that involve right-wing views... hm. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 09:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an awful diff but neither having right-wing views or being an SPA is a blockable offense. Bias against transgender people often is. That diff is from March 11th, their first day editing, and since then they have received Contentious Topic warnings. I haven't looked into the other complaints here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Popping in here to note that the issues of far-right trolling and disruption at StoneToss go beyond any one specific account - we have some pretty obvious sock-puppetry, a lot of disruptive editing, legal threats and other shenanigans. I think additional measures would be valuable in order to ensure these disruptions are quieted. Recommendations include:

• IP Ban for known socks.
• Increasing protection level of the paged.
• More rigid enforcement of WP:CT/AP
• Treatment of the page as subject to WP:CT/R-I

Simonm223 (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The page is already adequately protected, socks have been blocked which includes an autoblock. I'd probably be willing to semiprotect the talkpage if disruption continues, but it's borderline right now. We already have AP2 and BLP Contentious Topics tagged on the page, R+I could technically apply too if you stretch it a little but I don't see what that would offer that the existing designations don't. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It might get the page on more admins radars - which would probably be a good thing at the moment. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

AfD

This article is being discussed at articles for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StoneToss‎. TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Nathanlong3010

Nathanlong3010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This account seems to be entirely dedicated to changing the nationalities of association football players' pages against the consensus. For football players with disputed nationalities, (i.e. born in a different country to the one they represent at international level) nationalities are not listed. However, this editor continually adds nationalities for these players against consensus. The editor has had numerous warnings on their talk page about this and has previously received a block due to this behaviour. The rule regarding nationalities has been explained to them explicitly on their talk page, to which they replied that they understood, before continuing to do the exact same thing. The user also continually edit wars to keep the nationalities in.

Most of their contributions seem to be to change nationalities incorrectly, but to provide a few diffs: [144] [145] [146] [147] Michaeldble (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

A glance at their talk page shows this is a long term issue which they have been warned about many times, and previously blocked for. Unfortunately, seems a longer term block or topic ban might be in order. WaggersTALK 14:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As one of several editors who have issued escalating warnings about this problem since 2022, I regret that I have to agree. Certes (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor's attention. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Uncivil and biased behaviour by user Orange sticker

I would like to flag this user for potentially uncivil and biased editing. This user has flagged the Liverpolitan page as a candidate for deletion. See diff [148]

The user has cast an aspersion that I am affiliated to the Liverpolitan magazine and am trying to push their brand which is not true: [149]

The user has also deleted reliable sources from the article and replaced them with the 'citation needed label: [150]

The user has then accused me of not citing the article. See diff: [151]

The user has stated the subjective opinion that the concept of Liverpolitan does not even exist, see: [152]

despite the article being well referenced and pointing to numerous references in news, newspapers, books, scholar and JSTOR. (see https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22liverpolitan%22&so=rel)

I have since discovered that this user uses an X account and they have now resorted to targeting my account with accusations that I am a 'snob' for using the Liverpolitan term and am promoting stigma against the city of Liverpool. They have made personal comments about my username there because it has the word gay in it. They have made the comment "can't believe I'm arguing with someone who has 'Gay' right in their username about why it's important to take words with negative connotations and proudly own them". I can provide screenshots of their comments towards me on 'X' and a link to their X username. They have admitted on X that they are the same user as that here on Wikipedia.

They have also made the further comment on X to me "No I haven't? How would you like it if someone went and changed every use of the word "gay" to some lost Victorian epithet because they unilaterally decided it needed its profile raising and this was the way to do it? Because I'm sure there are articles aplenty on JSTOR!"

Please see the ongoing debates about the article here... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpolitan identity and here Talk:Liverpolitan.

But I feel that this user has overstepped being civil and has taken this matter too personally and is making biased comments that are not supported by the sources. My contribution to Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with my sexuality nor does it have anything to do with me erasing any other Liverpool identity. The article supports historical fact.

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I have also made amendments which I feel are reasonable to the article. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I checked Orange Sticker's edits to the article and they did not remove any sources, only added "citation needed" tags; you might want to strike your accusation of "deleted reliable sources from the article". Schazjmd (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I added the following source which perfectly cites the text. The source is as follows:

Crowley, Tony (January 2012). Scouse: A Social and Cultural History. Liverpool University Press.

The user is continuing to harrass me on Twitter with repeated messages of 'let it go'. This is completely out of order and is taking matter to my social media account bringing my sexuality in to it.

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You can block accounts on X. Schazjmd (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It is true to say that there are Liverpool people who would like to replace "Scouser" as they believe it has negative connotations. I can assure you that I am not one of them. Your comments to me on X are completely without foundation. You have made personal comments to me calling me a 'snob' on there which is visible for the world to see. And if this is even a real world debate, unpopular or not, it is not for you or I to erase that from public record. And nor is there an agenda for me to do that. You have already made several completely untrue statements about me.

That debate has been covered in the local press...https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/nostalgia/city-michael-starke--dont-3403823

We cannot erase that because it suits our personal feelings.

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't delete any references, only added 'cn' to unreferenced statements. If any references were removed in that edit it was by mistake and I apologise.

My point is that while there are numerous references to articles which contain the term "Liverpolitan", they do not support the author's argument, in fact many of them contradict it as they are articles which explain the term is antiquated and unpopular. On X, I showed this user the Google Ngram comparing "Scouser","Liverpudlian" and "Liverpolitan" which shows negligible occurrences of the latter.

As a born and bred Scouser I can be sure this word is not in common use, though, as some of the references show, there are some who would like to see the word replace "Scouser" as they believe it has negative connotations.

I can see a lot of research has gone into this article and it is very well written, it is just a shame it is about a concept which is not notable and which is not supported by the very same research. Orange sticker (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you Orange I absolutely love Liverpool. Not that that should matter. All sides of the public discourse should be covered and represented on Wikipedia. It is my duty as a responsible editor to reflect that. You have already said that the article is well researched, well written and well sourced. I have taken pains to compare the more well known Scouse identity to the much older Liverpolitan demonym. I feel that this is completely fair. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Only the notable elements of a debate are worthy of an article, though. This topic is insignificant and should be merged (back) into a parent article. Orange sticker (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is now far too large for it to be merged. There are sections for:

Etymology

Origins

19th century

20th century

21st century

Liverpool city region identity

Other demonyms

Comparisons with other demonyms

In popular culture

Quotes

You have also disrespected the process in which you have invoked by moving text back to the Liverpool City Region artcile without allowing a discussion to take place. Since it was you that started the debate in the first place, that is premature. In any case, you have also refused to believe that Liverpolitan even exists. This is a step too far since the term is steeped in historical significance and should be included. You have also made it abundantly clear on X that you are against this identity as you personally prefer Scouser as a term. This is not the way to conduct a fair discussion. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I have never stated the word does not exist, as shown in the Ngram I posted on X I am simply arguing it is too obscure and unfounded to warrant its own Wikipedia entry, it is a fringe theory.

I believe a sentence on the Scouse page along the lines of "The word 'Liverpolitan' has sometimes been used to refer to someone or something from the region" would be more than enough. Orange sticker (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You literally did say the concept does not exist.

[153]

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The concept of a "Liverpolitan identity", the title of the article at the time. Orange sticker (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The title of the article has been changed to reflect your comment. As well as the lede which is exactly what you asked for. I hope you now appreciate that. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It even has a page description at the very top:

"This article is about the history and contemporary interpretation of the Liverpolitan identity. For the accent and dialect of Liverpool, see Scouse." This was also assisted by another helpful editor.

I feel that is completely fair. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

And what the heck is this Lobscouse? I've never even heard of... Ah, Lapskojs! I did not get that. Carry on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that has gotten personal, unfortunately. You won't win over editors when you move a discussion that should be on the AFD over to ANI. And Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over messages on Twitter. Use the resources of that platform to block a user if you find their content offensive. There is no rule saying you have to continue a discussion that you are finding unpleasant. The diffs I looked at just demonstrate a difference of opinion which happens to all of us nearly every day on Wikipedia. This is a collaborative editing project, disputes happen frequently. I can see you are not happy that the article was nominated for deletion but the AFD is the place to make your best argument on why the article should not be deleted. I don't see anything here that requires administrator intervention and Orange sticker has already issued an apology. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. My main concern is the editor's political motivation to undermine this articke. There is no rationale behind it. She has already made it clear on X that she prsonally hates the subject matter. This is not a good enough reason to undermine another editor's work. I would not dream of doing that. As regards notability, there are articles about languages and tribes that most of the world has never heard of. Shall we go round deleting them all off Wikipedia? The editor above has taken this far too personally and that's what I wanted to flag up. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggest both parties review WP:AGF, stop feuding on Twitter and reserve article content discissions on the relevant talk pages. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Liverpolitan1980: I suggest that, to make it clear that you are acting in good faith, and that you are willing to continue in a collaborative and civil spirit, you may like to either substantiate or withdraw your accusation of "political motivation". Leaving such an accusation without giving any explanation or justification is likely to be seen as a personal attack, and as an indication of a combative, rather than collaborative, approach to disagreements, which naturally I hope is not what you intend. I also suggest that you acknowledge your mistake in saying that Orange Sticker had removed sources from an article when, as has been pointed out, that was not in fact the case. We all make mistakes, and it helps if we acknowledge them when we become aware of them. JBW (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I can assure you I am acting in good faith. I have a good idea of this user's political motivation based off social media otherwise I wouldn't have said it. If admins don't wish to take action then that is entirely up to them. I am still willing to collaborate on the article of course.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  You were just told to stop accusing the editor of having a "political motivation." Doubling down is a very bad idea. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, I was asked to substantiate or withdraw. This user has still not apologised for associating me to the Liverpolitan magazine. It is a very bad idea not to debunk that in an open forum when its not true. Good faith works both ways. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ok let's just be clear that this is possibly the worst place on the internet to air Twitter beef. Suggest you reconsider this course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Could you politely ask her to withdraw her accusation that i am pushing the Liverpolitan magazine brand which he has written on here, not Twitter. This is damaging to my reputation. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Mistake acknowledged. She didn't remove citations. She did, however, insert "citation needed" when a citation was provided. This unfairly discredits the contribution. I acknowledge her apology, however, both need to assume good faith. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  My bad. I have just found an explanation that she has withdrawn the assumption. I am happy to move on and close this discussion if the admins wish. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, I was asked to substantiate or withdraw.

  And you have done neither, which is likely to result in sanctions if you continue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I am not sure exactly why you feel this discussion needs any more oxygen. I have already said I am happy to withdraw from it.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Alquin Yaell G. Rafales - CIR or NOTHERE

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.

---

Alquin Yaell G. Rafales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's contributions consist almost exclusively of tampering with images. Some of these changes are clear disruption by using an incorrect image (e.g. [154], [155]), some are packing multiple images where only one is needed, some are using lower-quality images than the one that was already there.

In addition, the user puts as their edit summary either "Alquin Yaell Rafales" or "Ma. Antonia Rafales" every time. They have been warned about this, but continue to do so.

This looks like a clear case of CIR, or possibly NOTHERE. The "List of <manufacturer> vehicles" pages are frequent targets for disruption and various LTAs, but I don't think this is the latter. 124.6.167.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also be this user and doesn't seem to align with any LTAs I recognize. Regardless, this user doesn't seem to be doing anything constructive here. --Sable232 (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this on my watchlist; I've blocked as NOTHERE. I'll say more in a bit. Graham87 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This database query also coughed up similar edit summaries in the last 30 days by 103.120.5.130 and 122.54.158.167. Graham87 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I've revoked their talk page access after this blank reply to my talk page notice. Graham87 (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2024 (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.

Jjk 1292 - obviously WP:NOTHERE

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 Jjk 1292 is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Every edit summary is a gross violation of multiple policies, such as this one. Jeppiz (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2024 (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.

Incitement

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.

---

Need urgent block for Stand With Ukraine Down With Russia (talk · contribs) for WP:NOTHERE and incitement in all their edits. Borgenland (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please revoke talk page due to absuing unblock here. --MuZemike 16:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. This is a common-or-garden LTA. --Yamla (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Would have been a username block anyway, had y'all not got them for the LTA first. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:55, 25 March 2024 (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.

Battle of Lepanto

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.

---

At the page Battle of Lepanto we have a bunch of socks of the well-known Spanish nationalist user and vandal User:JamesOredan. He and his socks have been permanently blocked a zillion times for violating basically all rules of wikipedia, his only argument when blocked and reverted is to insult, do accusation in a mirror and create other socks. Please protect the page, block the socks active there (Brenimger, Floutomb, and Tranblit; Flenaot has already been blocked) and restore my version (which I think is largely clean of his edits and agenda, at least when it comes to the intro, the rest I have to check). Many others of his socks have been blocked in the last few days, but he likes losing his time like that. I have also reported this to two admins who have dealt with him recently. Barjimoa (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

These personal attacks need no further oxygen. Nate • (chatter) 18:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

They are going to block me, I have no doubts, but 3 things: The version you are trying to push is in fact a lead version created by you. The stable version is the one I posted, anyone can take a look at the article history. I will be whatever you want, but many of your editions are clearly to discredit other nationalities and overlay yours, the Italian one. Anyone with half a brain can see it. No matter how much you block me, no matter how much you try to impose your Italian nationalist vision, you will never stop me, I will always be there. And that's precisely because I hate your cynicism and hypocrisy. Italy is a good country, believe or not I have ancestry/family there, but you are an Italian nationalist with a deep inferiority complex, mainly with Spain. Take care of yourself. Brenimger (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As i told you, accusation in a mirror. Don't believe anything he says. I listed the latest 4 socks of his who have been active there, and he has had many more active over the years. Then he literally listed what he does on wikipedia ALL THE TIME and for which he has been permanently blocked so many times. Note that I have never had problems with anyone on wikipedia and once it was discovered that he was pushing relentlessy this nationalist agenda he started saying "no, you are nationalist" to many many users, Portuguese, Italians, British, Arabs. He even created socks and used IPs specifically to insult users. And let's not go into his obession with genetics. Every non-Spanish suprematist is a nationalist of his country to this guy. I don't care of Italy, Portugal, Spain etc. But he cannot understand it because he frames everything in that light. I just care the non-sense ends. The only right thing you wrote is that they are going to block you for a zillionth time, because you are on wikipedia to ruin it and waste everyone's time, including yours.Barjimoa (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2024 (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.

Constant violation of WP:UNCIVIL by user:SchroCat

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:SchroCat is in constant violation of WP:UNCIVIL with direct rudeness, belittling and condescension.

The belittling is here, "I suggest you look at some books" and "If you could learn a bit more."

Refusing to assume good faith and engaging in condescension here, by saying they have a "degree and Masters in Politics and Government."

Belittling and condescension continues here with " 'I’m sorry you are unable to understand some basic points"

I was responding to another user, explaining my argument in regards to their comment and the person decides to reply to me with more rudeness and insults here, "please don’t make up such rubbish" and "you’re unable to grasp something so basic as this"

I accidentally left a complaint about the incivility on their archive talk page here. Which they deleted, fine that is within the rules.

However in response they disregard my complaint when I raised it again here, choosing to make snide comments here. Erzan (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have zero time for petty nationalistic twaddle for people who are unable to grasp basic concepts that multiple people have explained to them on the talk page. Pointing out to someone that holding an academic qualification in a related area is not condescending, by the way: it's letting you know that the person you accused of applying a "fundamental misunderstanding of politics and law" is actually someone who does grasp the concepts involved. You have bludgeoned your way through the whole thread and I was only one of the people who asked you to stop that behaviour. You were provided with links and explanations as to why someone may consider their nationality as "English", but you continue not to accept that such a basic concept exists: I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Competence is required. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

England and California are politically, geographically and legally recognised as equivalents. 1 No, they are not. We probably have an article explaining it. Trout Erzan for being wrong and trout SchroCat for claiming that holding an academic qualification means that a person grasps the concepts involved. Polygnotus (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• An Administrative Division is the name of smaller territory of a larger sovereign state and has many names, which is stated in this wiki article here. So the UK is made up of 4 major/top Administrative Divisions, England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland. The USA is made up of many more such as California and Texas. So they are both smaller territories of a sovereign state they are part of (geography), not independent of it (political) and subjected to the ruling of their supreme courts (legally).Erzan (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Erzan, you need to not argue on that point, you're simply incorrect. Regardless of whatever faults others might have England is not analogous to California. England is a country and California is a state. Our articles on the subjects would tell you that much. TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

California is a U.S. state. England is a country. A country is not equivalent to a U.S. state. The United States is a country. Just like England. And Zimbabwe. See for example Countries of the United Kingdom. Polygnotus (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus, @TarnishedPath this is a direct quote from Wikipedia article on the UK: "England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are not themselves listed in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) list of countries. However, the ISO list of the subdivisions of the United Kingdom, compiled by British Standards and the United Kingdom's Office for National Statistics, uses "country" to describe England, Scotland, and Wales." Erzan (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is correct, but what you said is not. Have you actually read the article or just cherrypicked the part you falsely believe supports your views? Polygnotus (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2:GB#Countries_and_province (not that the ISO listing means much, but since you seem to think that it does) Polygnotus (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/iso_3166-2_newsletter_ii-3_2011-12-13.pdf page 27 Polygnotus (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Both links categories them as subdivisions. This is like saying an apple (England) and orange (California) are not fruits (subdivisions). Or, I am not a Primate but only Human. I am both. I am not disputing the other names given to England and California, I am trying to explain they have a similar named category, as all these Wikipedia articles cited have stated. Erzan (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

What kind of subdivision? Both links say that England is a country... The type of subdivision is "country". If no one agrees with you then perhaps you are wrong. So instead of trying to explain stuff, do some research. Figure out why you are wrong. Try to understand why people disagree with you. Google will help you. Then drop your WP:STICK before someone actually decides to block you for WP:IDHT or WP:CIR. Polygnotus (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not the one who disputed England and California are subdivisions of the UK and USA. I am not the one who who disputed something can have multiple names. I do not need Google, Please refrain from condescension. Thank you. Erzan (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No one disputed that England and California are subdivisions of the UK and USA respectively (afaik). No one disputed things can have multiple names (afaik). We all need Google; I use it many times per day. What kind of subdivision do you think England is of the UK, based on those 2 links? Polygnotus (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Erzan added a {{retired}} template to their userpage. Someone can close this. Polygnotus (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

lol, Wikipedia. "We've successfully run the editor off, we can now close the complaint." Levivich (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: Yeah that was a bit surprising. I am still down for trouting SchroCat. They should know better. Polygnotus (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's note here that in the RFC linked in the OP, "British" is winning over "English" by 2:1 right now. So Erzan seems to have been right on the merits.

Also, while California and England are not the same type of political entity, what they obviously have in common is that neither one are sovereign states, and that was Erzan's point, albeit not very well made. The top-level sovereign state politicial entities are "UK" and "US," and England and California are next-level-down subdivisions of those respective sovereign states. When someone serves in the national legislature, Wikipedia should refer to them as a member of the sovereign state in whose legislature the politician serves, and not as a member of some sub-division of that sovereign state. Hence, Doug LaMalfa is an "American politician", not a "Californian politician", even though he was born in, raised in, and represents, California. Similarly, the argument goes, David Lammy should be described as a "British politician" and not an "English politician" (or a "Tottenhamian politician," or whatever the demonym is) because he serves in the British parliament, even though he was born in, raised in, and represents a portion of England.

Now there's an argument to be made that for whatever reason England and California shouldn't be treated the same, even though they're both regional subdivisions of a sovereign state. But that doesn't make the argument in favor of "British politician" a stupid argument or anything like that.

I don't really see anything rising to the level of ANI worthy in the comments linked in the OP above (grow a thicker skin, people will call you stupid sometimes, don't expect admins to rush in every time someone calls you an idiot on the internet), and the OP has been disruptive as well (reverting, bludgeoning, etc.), but they sure have been treated poorly, when they were right on the merits, by people who disagreed with them on the merits. Classic Wikipedia dispute resolution at work. Levivich (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not reached by vote counting. Erzan was wrong on pretty much everything he said (certainly not on "the merits", whatever you mean by that) and they showed an inability to accept that England is a nation, while California is not. The equivalent to "California politicians" is more like "Hampshire politician" or "Kent politician", not "English politician"; the comparison is just not possible. British nationalities differ in that way, which seems to be a concept that non-UK nationals can't seem to fathom (as your comment shows). Where you've missed the obvious is that WP:UKNATIONALS allows for both, and Lammy self-identifies as both. My !vote was to leave alone almost entirely on the basis of STATUSQUO and WP:UKCHANGE, as there's no right answer, despite the facile attempts to compare the make up of the UK and US. There were certainly no "merits" for them to be "right" about. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, there is the argument that for whatever reason England and California shouldn't be treated the same, even though they're both regional subdivisions of a sovereign state. Levivich (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, one is a nation, one isn't. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2024 (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.

3MRB1: Competency issues

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

---

Please block 3MRB1 (talk · contribs) until they can demonstrate competency. There are multiple warnings about citation overkill, reliable sources and bare urls on their talk page: [156][157][158][159][160][161][162] but we're still getting edits like this and this. When tackled, responses are such as [163] and [164]. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Repeated personal attacks and aspersion

I was trying to follow the dispute resolution steps in this discussion but I was responded by personal attacks from MaskedSinger [165] saying things like "Your double standards are atrocious". I politely asked him not to comment on editors but he did not stop. After my caution, he described my comments as "trolling" and when I asked him to remove those personal attacks, so I don't report to admins, he again commented on me, which is a personal attack. He also casted aspersion against me like [166]. Then I went to his talk page [167] with explanations on his personal attacks but I ended up receiving more. I also deem this edit as edit warring given the ongoing discussion on the article page where he is supposed to actively participate.--Mhhossein ^talk 15:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Mhhossein, if MaskedSinger's attacks against you on Talk:Israel at the 2024 Summer Olympics had been recent, I would have considered page-banning MS to put a stop to it. But actually the discussion on the page is several weeks old, and the conflict seems to have died a natural death. Calling it "ongoing" does not make it so. Bishonen | tålk 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thanks for the response but the latest attack I received on his talk was only last week [168] and, as I stated above, the personal attacks were made after multiple cautions. I am here as the last step outlined in WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL regarding the uncivil behavior by the user. The discussion on the article talk page, where the last comment was made 10 days ago thanks to the PAs making me stop the communication, was just an example. Best. -Mhhossein ^talk 14:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Blanking replies on talk page

AravindEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not only WP:FORUMing on the talk page, removing references to entire sections and denying that it was vandalism (see [[169]], [[170]]and [[171]]) and with the revision in question, making a mockery of the purpose of a talk page with [[172]] and resorting to WP:IDNHT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Borgenland (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Add these uncivil and sarcastic replies when I suggested where the proper forum for his complaints are and warned him for repeated vandalism. See [[173]] and [[174]]. Borgenland (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay I'm sorry once again I will try to be a better editor in this page in sorry if I talked or messaged in a way which made you uncomfortable

Sorry AravindEditor (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Please forgive me,I'm sorry. AravindEditor (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I have been watching your edits on the page as well, and I can see they are mostly unconstructive and you have been blanking content critiquing the current government as seen here. Some more concerning edits 1, 2, 3 and 4 Ok123l (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I accept the mistake im sorry. I wont be doing anymore edits in wikipedia.

thank you AravindEditor (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

AravindEditor seems to have good intentions, but is deeply lacking in the competency department. It's not just blanking issues -- they don't seem to understand what they're doing wrong across a great number of issues, from blanking, to licensing concerns, to POV edits; nor do they seemingly show a willingness to learn despite having been pointed to sources of help. I strongly recommend that they take a self-imposed pause from editing until they've become much more familiar with our policies, procedures, norms, and standards. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure sir i do promise that i would only edit any further after knowing each and every policy of the wikipedia and i would respectfully follow it.I guess i was wrong in my way of doing the edits without any proper guidance. I will surely improve myself

Thank You. AravindEditor (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User Exteahans71 repeatedly inserting unsourced content

They've had several warnings issued in the past but have failed to heed them.[175] A few days ago I reverted a bunch of their unsourced additions to the Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken article[176] and the response was to reinsert the material, including an entirely unreferenced Writing section.[177] I issued (another) final warning on their talk page, removed the unreferenced Writing section again and the reponse was to reinstate it without an edit summary.[178] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Wom (talk • contribs) 16:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I concur. The user's behavior is problematic. They did the same thing to my edits on the same page, [179], [180], [181], [182], [183] I've left warnings on their talk page as well and they have not stopped their behavior.Contributor19 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Brutfyrt7

Brutfyrt7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Completely incoherent LLM-generated nonsense, not responding to warnings. Seems like a CIR issue. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"[..] Without further context, it's difficult to provide a precise explanation."

Lol this person really out here harassing ChatGPT for content, bizarre. – 2804:F14:809E:DF01:EDAA:C4D:F14:BCC4 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. I just came across this too. They're creating AI-generated junk at an alarming rate. I was trying to type a warning when I edit-conflicted with WindTempos' ANI-notification, but to be honest they've had warnings enough. Elemimele (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped (thankfully), and all their edits have been reverted -- but I would support a preventative block in case they decide to continue later. --JBL (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Actually, I was curious and looked a bit earlier, and there was another account doing exactly the same thing (Segristercss):
  - Special:Diff/1215389904: "[..]and without further context or details, it's challenging to provide specific information about this person."
  Then I looked further back and there was another one, already blocked, doing the same thing (Segrysuw):
  - Special:Diff/1215385790: "[..]Without more specific information, it's challenging to provide details about a person named Derek Collins."
  So it might be worth it having a checkuser give them a look. – 2804:F14:809E:DF01:EDAA:C4D:F14:BCC4 (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Good spot, and that's not the extent of it. Ogdyrtersf11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just popped up and continued with the same behaviour. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Bbb23 has gotten all the ones named here so far (thank you!). --JBL (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've blocked all three as socks. If there's more, someone ping me, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: The earliest recent account (and only other not mentioned) I found was Antonfirtsw1, about 1 hour 50 ago, clearly AI generated content too, though no "without further context" in those edits.

  – 2804:F14:809E:DF01:EDAA:C4D:F14:BCC4 (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks IP: blocked. I'm not going to fuss about the tagging.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, I ran some checks. The data for these accounts is consistent with them belonging to the same operator, but it's really strange overall. I didn't see any other accounts (which doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist). Spicy (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible WP:LEGALTHREAT on Talk:Alexa Nikolas

After consulting with another user, it was recommended that I come here for opinions from users/administrators who are more familiar with legal issues and can hand out sanctions if needed.

For some background information, KlausUlrich134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who joined on December 18, and whose edits have been mostly to Alexa Nikolas, its talk page, or anything regarding her, has been adamant about including alleged accusations on Alexa Nikolas (see the page history). They've been reverted a few times by a few different people, including myself, but they've continued to readd the information, as recently as last month. ElanoreTheTurtle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who joined on December 19, just a day later, and whose edits have only been to Alexa Nikolas or its talk page, recently became active again on Wednesday after having not edited since they joined. Their statement at Talk:Alexa Nikolas#Stalker Mannee Hailey-McMurray concerned me, where they claim that KlausUlrich134 is likely the stalker, which feels like a WP:LEGALTHREAT to me, but, as I said at the beginning, I'm not an expert on this. I don't know if this is a whole fan vs. hater thing or if sockpuppets/meatpuppets are involved, which is why I'm coming here, as there's definitely some strange behavior going on. If this could be looked at, that would be great. Amaury • 20:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) ElanoreTheTurtle (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

ElanoreTheTurtle, you cannot both pursue legal action and edit Wikipedia at the same time, per WP:NLT. If you wish to pursue legal action then you will be blocked and such action must be undertaken by letter. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response I have no intent of pursuing legal action, only to maintain a standard of maintaining ethical and valid sourcing as well as monitoring misinformation improperly added onto the page. ElanoreTheTurtle (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@ElanoreTheTurtle, this is what you said initially at 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Thank you for the reply, please refer me to the administrator or noticeboard/incidents page to preserve all meta data involving @KlausUlrich134 account, IP address, edits, and Talk Board conversations, so that is can be shared with legal representative of Alexa Nikolas. As it is stated on her protective order that all online harassment would be deemed a criminal violation."

If you intend to obtain and give user information to others as part of their litigation, then effectively that's the same as making a legal threat. You have to make a choice here - either retract that comment or get blocked.

Our No Legal Threats Policy requires us to block editors who make or imply legal threats. This is not intended to be punitive; it's for legal and practical reasons. It's better for all parties if your professional lawyer deals with the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. It's a bad idea when untrained, unpaid Wikipedia volunteers argue with aggrieved parties who are also not attorneys.

If you wish to address the issue here instead, see our Dispute Resolution page.

Regards, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement has been retracted. ElanoreTheTurtle (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That article is a dumpster fire, it reads like a mixture of TMZ, the Daily Mail, and the subject's own Twitter/X feed. A beef with a fellow child actress, "I saw my future wedding in an acid trip", and numerous accusations of sexual assault against living persons sources to EW, Distractify, and Buzzfeed. Zaathras (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed some claims sourced to Distractify and court records. I'm not opposed to other poorly-sourced claims being removed as well. Woodroar (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Amaury I have been away for a while and am just catching up. I find this all a bit strange, as I asked for your feedback multiple times on the talk page and was met with silence. When I asked you directly you told me you were unwilling to discuss it. This appears to be your response.

Everything I tried to put up was meticulously sourced. I may have made mistakes, but there was no discussion whatsoever. I asked multiple times for feedback and received none until two days ago.

as others have pointed out, this page is problematic because it often relies on subpar, often entertainment gossip-style sources, and involves a very contentious personality, but I really worked hard to try and present an honest, straighforward look at an occasionally controversial figure. If some of the details sound bizarre, like the acid trip, it’s because those are, as far as I can tell, true (here for reference is the source, an interview/profile with her: https://www.verse-mag.com/love-letters/2018/8/8/alexa-nikolas).

If you look through the revisions, I added several pieces of neutral or even positive information as well, again very carefully sourced. It seems like no one is really reading the actual sources, which is troubling. There is not a single claim that is not backed by a source. I agree distractify and buzzfeed are weak, but occasionally they were the only option available. I agree with their removal if that is the consensus.

I did my best here and was met with silence from admins and now legal threats, so I will leave it be. I will say that this is troubling for wikipedia, as all that needs to happen from now on is for someone to get threatened legally.

I wish everyone the best of luck in trying to untangle this complex and litigious personality. KlausUlrich134 (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

IP announces intention to create multiple accounts and edit war. How to proceed?

On the page Chess piece relative value an IP user has repeatedly inserted content by a non-credible source (a random youtuber with no chess credentials using a naive valuation system). If I revert again it would violate 3RR but it clearly does not belong in the article.

More concerning however are the edit summaries, indicating a determination to continue edit warring and to abusively create multiple accounts to do so. See [184] and [185]. These edit summaries are completely unacceptable and grounds for blocking in their own right. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've added that page to my watchlist and rolled back the edit in question. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  23:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP and protected the article. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that it is important to let such editors know that this type of threat of ongoing disruption will not be tolerated. We have escalating blocks and protection levels to deter such misconduct. MaxBrowne2, you are one of our best chess editors. If this disruption creeps to other chess related articles, please let administrators know. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It is fun how sometimes petty vandals insist that they will be victorious—so far, while more circumspect vandalism surely flies under the radar, this particular mode has been defeated millions of times. Alas. Remsense诉 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate reverts of many pages by Amigao

This user keeps reverting this official emblem Chinese government officially use with an unofficial one in many pages I have changed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coddlebean (talk • contribs) 03:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you notify this user that you were filing an ANI report, @Coddlebean? I've done the courtesy of notifying them since you did not. lizthegrey (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe its too late at night for me to see it... But what is the difference between the two emblems? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

this is the official emblem Chinese government use, see [186] Coddlebean (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I need some help with this Spot the difference game, what is the difference between the one you just linked and the other one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the same emblem. Both are valid representations. The png is a 3D-rendered plasticky-looking thing that is found on an official government website (but its still a valid representation) and the other one is a nicely drawn svg with designs according to Chinese law, and is consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Consideration of image download size (the file is significantly smaller).—Alalch E. 04:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Not much difference, but that's not the version used by the government. Coddlebean (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

One has more shadowing on the ribbon and light reflection on the wreath EvergreenFir (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition, the national emblems of most countries used on Wikipedia are the official versions used by their governments. I think China's should also be consistent with them. Coddlebean (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the same emblem. The difference is technical. It doesn't matter which file is found on the government website. A file does not define what the emblem is. The emblem is a design. —Alalch E. 04:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

... THIS is ANI-worthy? At the level best, it's a content dispute that should be argued out on the appropriate talk pages. This complaint approaches WP:TROUT-level. Ravenswing 06:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Aye. Not that it's strictly necessary here, but Amigao is one of the best editors working on China-related articles we have. There's often a lot of value-neutral-at-best fiddling that goes on in this space (changing between CCP and CPC, for just one of an infinite number of discrete examples) that I don't feel bad about reverting when it crops up in an article I'm watching, because while harmless, it's also pointless as a single-minded, explicitly POV change to articles. The POV might not matter, but it's still not according to policy, and is simply disruptive en masse. Remsense诉 08:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 take to a dispute resolution noticeboard, not to ANI. This isn't a vandalism or competence issue. lizthegrey (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Галай Артём

Галай Артём (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user 2 months old, with ~141 edits, but has created a significant number of poorly sourced articles that have either been deleted[187] or drafted[188]. There talk page is filled with draft and delete notices. None of the articles I checked still in mainspace is properly sourced.

Several editors and reviewers have commented on this on the users talk page (eg: @Ben Azura, Significa liberdade, Ad Orientem, and Relativity:). No replies given, see User talk:Галай Артём#Poorly sourced articles with questionable notability, User talk:Галай Артём#Edit summaries + article quality, User talk:Галай Артём#Issue with large number of drafted articles, User talk:Галай Артём#January 2024, User talk:Галай Артём#Article creation. There is also no indication this user intends to return to improve any of the drafted articles.

There are also other issues with this editor, see User talk:Галай Артём#Edit summaries + article quality, User talk:Галай Артём#January 2024, User talk:Галай Артём#Speedy deletion nomination of Battle of Watling Street (61 CE)

This editor does not seem willing to discuss and improve their contributions, at this point they are just creating draft spam and work for other editors. I think they've had enough time to respond, now a block is needed until this editor shows a willingness to discuss these problems and improve.  // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of their nonsensical edit summaries either ("ygtuhkjuikojui7jym", "77iuiuiuiuioioi9", "шгнргогршлол"). Their talk page is filled with questions, comments, tips, warnings, and they've never responded. At a minimum, they should be blocked from mainspace until they begin engaging with other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen this user around, especially while monitoring the new pages feed. One of their articles was Draft:1734 Haidamak Uprising, which was previously in mainspace. One of their still live articles, Battle of Zhmerynka, cites Wikipedia two times. Another one was nominated for deletion. Then, the first version of one of their articles (permalink to their version) seems to be an exact copy of the Polish article. There are also some articles (examples: 1 2 3) that have questionable readability. And echoing Schazjmd's concern about edit summaries, here's a few examples of nonsensical edit summaries: [189] [190] [191]. In my opinion, this is a WP:CIR problem. ‍ Relativity 20:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The lack of communication and the mass creation of non-viable articles are certainly concerning. To try to push the user to communicate, I have blocked them, with a hopefully helpful note in the block log. (I tried to block from article space only, but couldn't get it to work. The practical difference is nil, though, as they can edit their own talkpage with both kinds of block.) Bishonen | tålk 22:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC).

• Comment: Looking at the page creations, I think I see a similarity between this editor Page creations link and User:SebbeKg Page creations link. I could be wrong, does anyone else see a similarity?  // Timothy :: talk  05:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I do not think so. SebbeKg looks to have been focused more on Poland-related history topics while Галай Артём was more focused on Ukraine-related history topics, so there might have been a bit of overlap. Mellk (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Habesha212 and Aksum

Habesha212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has made 20 edits, many laden with obvious personal attacks, explicitly claiming ulterior motives of other editors. They also seem to insinuate they are responsible for much of the earlier discourse on Talk:Kingdom of Aksum. Seems open and shut to me, not much can be accomplished in further discussion within site policy with them, unfortunately. Remsense诉 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No personal attacks other than stating the material was incorrect and fabricated which is a fact. The brazen lie of personal attacks is a deliberate attempt to disarm me, otherwise one will have to prove there were personal attacks made. If I have a discussion on the talk page and the person in question insults me which they did calling me all manner of things, I understand they are not acting in good faith, they also did the same with others. The sources are poor and they completely fabricate an annexation, there is no evidence for such. The page will have to be reviewed or taken down otherwise you are supporting a distortion of history. Habesha212 (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I should ping @Aearthrise because they are being discussed subtextually, though I hate to bother them. Remsense诉 15:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I am very sympathetic to Habesha212's standpoint, here: A fair bit that has happened on Kingdom of Aksum in the past year & change is, I think, not reflective of what's believed by current experts in the field. It has been very difficult to have civil conversations, & some of the most active editors have consistently failed to assume good faith & have been very ready with insults. I would like to address some of these issues, but I'm busy with graduate school, & the work of engaging energetic, hostile editors just seems exhausting. However, Remsense is right: Habesha212's edits have removed sourced information without an attempt to build consensus on Talk (I can imagine that hostile exchanges on Talk make this seem like a hopeless task), & without clear notes that link individual edits to clear reasons (I understand that Habesha212 believes that they have provided sources, but it's difficult to connect the individual edits to sources in earlier Talk page debates). I think this is a case where an inexperienced editor sees bad editing, but does not yet know how to engage difficult behaviour in Wikipedia as a collective project. I don't think this requires any kind of hard sanctions, but I do think Habesha212 probably needs some orientation to how to deal with these issues, & needs to know that change of this kind happens slowly. I also do not think that theirs is the most egregiously bad behaviour related to this page. In general, things here need to slow down & there needs to be better generosity all around at Kingdom of Aksum. Pathawi (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! @Aearthrise has been very aggressive in their interactions, in lieu of a proper argument they proceed to insult people's intelligence which is clear on the talk page. I can not assume good faith if one is ready with insults. Habesha212 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

In Aerthrise's defense, they have provided sources for their edits, & more frequently than not the sources do indeed say what they claim they say. Removing sourced information like that requires a conversation, & the fact that the other party is rude doesn't obviate the need for the discussion. Pathawi (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I can not see any source that states that Ezana promoted the script and made it the official language alongside Ge'ez, he uses the interpretation by the US printing office, they are not scholars nor they should be used as source. Absolutely no scholar states such. I have asked for evidence of where Greek does precede Ge'ez and no evidence is provided for such. They also created the Ethiopian Greek page where they claim an annexation of Tigray lands, absolutely no one states that there was, no plotemaic remains have been found in Eritrea and Ethiopia and the location of Theron is now known. There above clearly suggests an agenda. I can not see any source that states that Ezana promoted the script and made it the official language alongside Ge'ez, he uses the interpretation by the US printing office, they are not scholars nor they should be used as source. Absolutely no scholar states such. I have asked for evidence of where Greek does precede Ge'ez and no evidence is provided for such. They also created the Ethiopian Greek page where they claim an annexation of Tigray lands, absolutely no one states that there was, no plotemaic remains have been found in Eritrea and Ethiopia and the location of Theron is now known. There above clearly suggests an agenda. Habesha212 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I was initially going to write something much longer, but I think maybe the important kernel is this: Focusing on personalities gets us into editing quagmires that it's hard to get out of. Of course, some personalities are much harder to interact with than others, which for many of us triggers a personality focus. Good process is the only viable path forward, & good process sometimes takes patience. Pathawi (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems in all honestly that the editor in question is being supported and that is clearly shown by the language of the Remsense and SWATJester, with the former clearly showing favouritism in their last communication. Therefore I have to conclude there is a wider agenda here and things are being spinned deliberately. The sources used should be genuine, especially when we are dealing with historical factors. The US printing office and their opinion has no basis here. We should be adhering to proper practice. All is have asked for is evidence for such claims. I should note that this is not in isolation, there also exists a page where one speaks of colonization of the area and being responsible for the civilisations in the area. I can only conclude there is a wider agenda here. It is not a coincidence that these pages and their themes correlate. Habesha212 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I do my pernicious agenda-fueled editing on China-related articles, I've made maybe 15 on East African articles total. Remsense诉 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You gave yourself away earlier. Habesha212 (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm also sympathetic to potential content issues with the page, but this candor is facially unacceptable, and we can do without it in any case. Remsense诉 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This edit indicates some level of existence of off-wiki canvassing going on. That said, there seems to be a couple things going on here -- there appears to be a serious incivility issue from Habesha212: "Your agenda drivel nonsense should be bought to the forefront and therefore you will be called out.", but as well, Habesha212 also appears to have issues with WP:NPOV and WP:RS based on this scoffing at U.S. government sources. A quick scan of their edit history shows no attempt to provide any counter-sourcing, simply sticking their fingers in their ears and stamping their feet that what exists is unacceptable. We've got the typical bad-faith aspersions here, here, here, here, here, and this one which implies some degree of harassment; this one is openly gaslighting about sourcing. When confronted by Remsense, we get more bad faith accusations. It's obvious this user is WP:NOTHERE and has no intention of editing constructively in a contentious topic. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have done so on the talk page and I am absolutely right to state the US printing office is not a scholarly source. I am also right that to speak of annexation is a dangerous motive and is a deliberate attempt to skew history. I have provided many sources on the talk page from the likes of Munro-Hay and Fattovich including one on the Ethiopian Greek page. So if indeed there is not some ulterior motive then there should be no issues with providing evidence for such. There is no point in insulting me if you do not have anything to counter it. Habesha212 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You can not expect others to go searching for the evidence you claim supports your POV. You should lay out your evidence clearly and concisely on the talk page otherwise it is just your opinion, which is okay, but is going to be taken with less weight to properly sourced content despite how you feel about it. --ARoseWolf 16:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has done anything of the sort. I have provided sources I do not know why people keep regurgitating the same thing. Secondly there is a reason why there is a source missing when speaking of the annexation, because it is purely based on their opinion and not otherwise. The ridiculous bullying by you and others shows you are not acting in good faith neither are you reading the talk pages. Habesha212 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Habesha212, I've looked through all of your edits and haven't seen you cite any sources. Have you also edited that article or talk page as a different account? Schazjmd (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have done I clearly quote Munro-hay and Stanley Burnstein and address the theron issue, they then respond with something that does not support their claim whatsoever. I have also addressed it with the person in question. Now why is the US printing office used as a scholarly source? and why is there no source for the so called annexation of land. The latter being a serious claim. Habesha212 (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I searched your name and the sources you said you provided. I had hoped I would find them and be able to offer a diff to the edit but it doesn't exist. I did, however find the sources provided. An IP made the edit which means you were editing while logged out and again by @Rana212 which would mean you were editing with another account which could, under the circumstances, violate Wikipedia policy WP:SOCK. --ARoseWolf 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I would rather people would engage with the material and sources rather than using threatening tactics. Ample sources have been provided and therefore the question is why is there material on these pages that allow for such distortions and why are unscholarly materials used. Habesha212 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

And I would rather you cease casting aspersions about other editors, accusing them of "threatening tactics", or "bullying", or having an "agenda", or other failures to assume good faith. You need to stop doing that. Find a way to civilly engage with other editors, or do not engage with them at all. I strongly urge you to take this time to read up on WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:TE. These are all areas of policy, guidelines, or essays relevant to your behavior that has prompted this thread. I'm going to be blunt -- if you continue down this path of refusing to address your own conduct while attacking other editors, your topic ban is going to turn into a site-wide block, as it's an indication that you lack the required competency to edit constructively. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As the article is covered under the CT/HORN contentious topic, I'm imposing a 1 year page ban for Habesha212 on Kingdom of Aksum and it's associated talk page. Habesha212 may appeal this ban through the standard appeals process. They're welcome to edit other parts of the project, assuming they can do so constructively. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Discriminatory behavior from Mechabot5 at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.

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.

---

Mechabit5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

"If you are a member of the LGBT community, please recuse yourself from the article."

Someone please explain to the user why these kind of comments are inappropriate Trade (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The worst offender about this is the fact that they have the word "bot" in their name and haven't gotten blocked from a username violation. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

WHEN YOU POST
TO AN/I
DON'T FORGET
TO NOTIFY
Burma-shave

GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly this. I have notified Mechabot5 about this thread. Woodroar (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You beat me to it! Thanks. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 00:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've soft-blocked them for the username, and warned them for their demand presented here. The username block does not preclude other measures, I await a response from them to my warning and this discussion before further action. Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Mechabot5 - "A user with 14 edits. Account created on March 21, 2024." The above comment and this comment are unacceptable in a contentious topics area. Not a great start for a new editor, who oddly seems to be quite familiar with WP terminology. I support an indef block of this editor as WP:NOTHERE. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"a new editor, who oddly seems to be quite familiar with WP terminology." Are you suggesting that a checkuser is justified?--Trade (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually think that this user might be a sockpuppet. Considering a couple of weeks ago on NinjaRobotPirate's talk page (or Ponyo's), several IPs tried to get them to unprotect the pages. So maybe yes, CU might be needed. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm suggesting the behavioral evidence indicates they are not a new user. Regardless of whether they are a sock or someone evading a block, etc. their comments about LGBT editors are toxic and unacceptable and they should be shown the door. If an administrator believes a CU is warranted, I'm not opposed to that. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Mechabot5/Mechabit5 is not the first new editor in recent days to tell me directly and multiple editors indirectly to stop editing that article and talk page because of who they are.

The sock situation is difficult to ascertain though, because there were multiple attempts to recruit editors with a specific POV to that article and talk page last week on social media, when the frenzy against Sweet Baby Inc. was at it's highest. It's hard in this sort of situation to differentiate between socks and meatpuppets, but I do have a suspicion that this specific editor might be a sock. Too tired right now to figure out who, though there's one or two I have a suspicion about. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Listing IPs for clarity

• 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 157.131.103.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Did i missed any?--Trade (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I dont see anything about Sweet Baby on User talk:Ponyo so i'm not sure which IPs you were referring to Trade (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, most likely it was on NRP's talk page. It's been a while though, so the incident has gradually faded from my mind. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I also suspect this is not a new user. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, regardless of the outcome of the pending response to Acroterion's warning, I support placing at a minimum a topic ban restriction on Mechabot5 under the WP:GENSEX standard set of restrictions. They're clearly not capable of editing competently in this topic area, regardless of whether they're a sockpuppet or not. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Their response isn't encouraging. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this would be a good time to ask him now that he is waiting on his talk page (assuming the unblock ever happens) Trade (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• I know that this my opinion will not be received well but this editor has not even been active for 24 hours. Can we see how they respond to the messages they've been given before laying down indefinite blocks and topic bans? I know some well-respected editors here who had rocky introductions to Wikipedia. If they are used to message boards, where anything goes, the restrictions of Wikipedia might be a surprise to them. I believe in giving a little ROPE before bringing down the ban hammer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That's why I'd support a topic ban -- if this is an introduction to Wikipedia (and I suspect it's not), then a user page that touts their single-purpose desire to right great wrongs on contentious topics indicates they're going to continue to have a rocky trajectory here without being redirected away from those areas. If they're truly a well-meaning new user, they'd be best served spending their time in other areas of the project. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Mechabit5 has made it clear that they don't consider telling people not to edit based on their sexual orientation discriminatory. Which means they are incompetent or pushing an agenda or both. If they are merely incompetent, they can read the lead of discrimination, then declare that they were wrong. Failing that, we don't want them to edit Wikipedia, seeing as they have stated clearly that they are here "to enforce standards and conduct across articles that suffer from radical politicization". Their own standards, not Wikipedia's. Paradoctor (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I am fine considering homosexuality as an intolerable conflict of interest, but then logic would dictate that heterosexuality would be an equal and opposite conflict of interest. Perhaps Wikipedia should only be edited by bisexuals and other people with non-binary orientations? Dumuzid (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess what I was going for is that I'd like to hear more from the editor in response to the talk page messages they've received. Right now, they are blocked because of their username, they proposed a new username and it would be nice if they could get that changed, get unblocked and then come and participate in this discussion. I realize that this is just me but I like to not just talk ABOUT another editor but hear, FROM them, where they are coming from. We are taking a couple of statements they made and taking them them to the Nth degree. I'm sure we have all said careless, stupid things in our lives as editors that we wouldn't want our whole reputation to hang on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

When a supposedly new editor jumps right into a CT area first thing and implies that LGBT editors shouldn't edit in that area, well, because, they are simply LGBT, is unacceptable. We face enough discrimination in real life, we shouldn't have to face it on Wikipedia. They were given a "Introduction to contentious topics" notice yesterday at 2:19 pm (in my time zone), and then went on to make those remarks anyway. According to their user page, their primary purpose on Wikipedia is to enforce standards and conduct across articles that suffer from radical politicization on both sides of the aisle. Wikipedia has their own set of standards and conduct, and after being informed via the CT notice what kind of behavior is expected of them to edit in that area, they ignored it, and made those inflammatory comments anyway. Like you, I realize that this is just me speaking, but as a member of the LGBT community, I don't appreciate being told I am incapable of editing in that area, simply because I am gay. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If the user in question here isn't an example of WP:NOTHERE, then I don't know what is. That's bigotry, period full stop. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely not acceptable. It seems, however, they claim to be a member of the LGBT community on their talk page (?)... Their userpage indicates that they may want to involve some politics, which is not what Wikipedia is for. That said, the minimum topic ban must be in place, and I would be ok with an unblock, for them to speak at this ANI, per Liz. If anything else comes up it's an insta-block. TLA^tlak 13:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

they claim to be a member of the LGBT community on their talk page

They are talking about Trade, not themself. Paradoctor (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

As a bisexual, nonbinary person, it's my time to shine! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminds me of Melvin Hudson. Hm. Polygnotus (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What was the cause for the rift with Hudson? Talk page isn't clear why he was edit warring Trade (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hudson was reverting good faith IPs, when an IP asked for advice at the teahouse he edit warred with the IP to remove it, also edit warring the ANEW report, when reverting he was baselessly accusing users of being transpobes. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Some people on the internet seem to think that it is a good idea to pretend to be an extremely unreasonable LGBTQ+ person which in their view, somehow, owns the libs (don't do drugs kids). They think that claiming to be LGBTQ+ gives them immunity against any and all accusations. In reality, LGBTQ+ users of Wikipedia follow the same rules as everyone else. Polygnotus (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

See also Gays Against Groomers, a blatant astroturfing group which claims to be LGB individuals against transgender rights. And LGB Alliance, with a similar pedigree. Both of those articles keep attracting similar accounts, claiming to be LGB while pushing blatantly homophobic & transphobic content edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Concur. This person appears a key example of WP:NOTHERE. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

LGBTQ+ people want the same treatment as everyone else. Anyone using that label to shield themselves from accusations of bigotry is NOTHERE. I think they think that, because their worldview can be destroyed by the discovery of one cool LGBTQ+ person, our worldview is similarly shaky. But the existence of one single stupid LGBTQ+ person is not going to convince me to hate a huge group of people. The libs aren't owned; they are bored. Polygnotus (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Awful sudden case of ANI flu that Mechabit appears to have been stricken with. I'm sure their explanation as to why they felt that overtly discriminatory bullying was acceptable behavior is forthcoming as soon as they recover. For their sake, I hope that happens quickly as my perspective on whether a topic ban is sufficient is shifting. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

(To avoid the inevitable clarification, yes I know they're still username blocked and can't reply here. User Talk page flu is just as bad.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been 24 hours. If they haven't responded by tomorrow, I'm going to convert it to a full NOTHERE block. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

As suspected, they're still nowhere to be found. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have converted the block to an indefinite NOTHERE one. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2024 (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.

Violation of WP:UNCIVIL by user:Yolandasantiagoo

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

User is using WP:UNCIVIL language in their user page just for ad-hominem purposes in their talk page: User talk:Yolandasantiagoo.

"nah like the way you talk, instead of saying what's wrong or anything you copy paste and instead of approching me and say hey this is cool this is bad u just copy paste and talk like a robot" [192]

"bro if you want to be cringe just say it: I have not identified any "cool" features in your editions there nor should I be compelled to warn you about them anyways, tf. Yeah, instead of been a normal person, just talk about how one time u did and look like u have no life just on the way you talk. Please do yourself a favour and stop talking and writing as cringe as you do. If my edition is not correct then highlight me WHAT is it, instead of copy pasting"[193]

They have already been warned in the past about direct attacks on user talk pages--Asqueladd (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be a cross-wiki issue.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Other wiki stuff don't have much weight here (almost always no weight at all, really), you yourself are blocked from es wikiquote.

As to the second quote, that sure does read like personal attacks. – 2804:F1...9E:9341 (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

He's asking for corrections rather than blanket reversions. That isn't an unfair request, and this hardly seems serious enough to be worth the community's time. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink: I just think this part "[..] Yeah, instead of been a normal person, just talk about how one time u did and look like u have no life just on the way you talk. [..]" is unacceptable, unless I'm grossly misunderstanding what they are saying there (which is not unthinkable, with this grammar). – 2804:F1...9E:9341 (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

He seems to have taken offense to getting templated and WP:SFoDed, and the "no life" part in particular does breach policy.

This just seems needlessly quickly escalated to ANI. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink: User was provided with reasons for the undoing of their edits thrice on their user page and twice via edit summary. I disagree that tagging users as looking like a "robot", not a "normal person", "cringe", having "no life", or harassment such as "marketing your mother", is not worthy of community's time, as they seem to intend to coax users out of the community--Asqueladd (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see the "marketing your mother" comment in the initial post, where was this? DarmaniLink (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink: [194]. JFYI, in Spanish, expletive tu madre ("your mother") as a part of a curse is short for tu puta madre, "your prostitute mother".--Asqueladd (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be Yolandasantiagoo's reaction to User:Uncle Spock's dilligently toning down promotional language in Juan Avellaneda's article. ([195]).--Asqueladd (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the other comments were questionable, but this comment is over the line. Needs a warning at minimum, and at most an indef block until they can promise to improve. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@DarmaniLink: Rather than stepping back, user doubles on their uncivil language on their user page: [196][197].--Asqueladd (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

hi Darman, sorry to read it now, i would like Asquelad to stop inventing things such as anything as "marketing your mother". I have other things to do rather than read this ? conversation, i've never talked nothing about anyone's mom and if asqueladd says I have I will report him for lying. Thank u for your time Yolandasantiagoo (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1149831045

We have the receipts. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Just a comment: @Asqueladd, can you make your ANI notice on their talk page a bit more obvious? At least mention what it is with the link, or preferably make it its own section. – 2804:F1...9E:9341 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I just did. Thanks for the headup.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive editing by User:Ugaas Raage

Ugaas Raage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated edit warring and disruptive editing, largely consisting of borderline hagiographical changes to articles about Somali military leaders. Pretty much every edit by them ever is evidence of this, but here are some pages where their conduct is particularly egregious:

Mohammad Ali Samatar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mohammed Abdullah Hassan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Siad Barre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User @Nirva20 also catalogued some of this behavior at WP:NPOV/Noticeboard § User:Ugaas Raage (notified of this neutral point of view noticeboard discussion). Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Most recent unexplained, non-editsummaried mobile edit vandalism by Ugaas Raage ([198]). Nirva20 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Newest unexplained, gramatically deficient hagiographic edit is here. Nirva20 (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Administrator note I am restoring this as an unresolved report that was archived. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you Nirva20, Brusquedandelion and Ad Orientem. I have blocked Ugaas Raage indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC).

User:Rhhhhh445

I tried reporting this user on WP:AIV, but was told to move the report over here.

Anyway, this user has been repeatedly making disruptive edits to Lurkmore, and possibly to other articles too. I've had to undo a bunch of their edits to Lurkmore within the past few days, which included duplicating the article's content multiple times. Right now, the latest entry in the article's edit log shows me reverting one of their edits (which was a pointless removal of an interlanguage link). Maybe we could get this guy blocked?

Sorry if I'm not doing something right, this is my first time reporting someone on Wikipedia. B-1700 (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have partially blocked Rhhhhh445 (talk · contribs) so they are unable to edit Lurkmore. Let me know if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice, thank you! B-1700 (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Gandtha vandalizing Bokator

User:Gandtha has been vadalizing the Bokator article and keep on doing it despite 4 warnings[199][200][201][202].

He has done blanking on the infobox and multiple one-sided removals of a cited book without explanation[203][204] and then with a wrong accusation [205]. He has resorted to personal attacks [206][207][208][209] and copy-pasted my own edit war warning on my talk page (without changing the signature[210]) There is seemingly a refusal to heep the informations provided in the talk session (cherrypicking) [211] A sentence with a cited book has been repeatedly replaced by a reference from an article of a Thai tabloid (Thaiger)[212] and a reference with a syntax error. He edited a biased assessment of the references[213]; the references were seemingly not reviewed, otherwise it would have been noticed that the reference he added had a syntax error[214] He is disturbing the consensus process: A RfC was opened to resolve the matter but he is not waiting for the results and keeps on changing the status quo by hastily reverting his edits, which are faulty in grammar and syntax[215][216][217]. The user seems to be driven by nationalistic motivations[218]. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Apocheir

Over at the at the AfD discussion for Pasco County Fire Rescue a user pointed out that the administrator who started the AfD, Apocheir, has systematically and categorically been redirecting articles related to EMS, fire, and rescue services with no discussion or consensus. Examples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

For what it's worth they also seem to be frequently creating articles for the sole purpose of redirecting them: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I don't really know how these things work or if this is the appropriate forum, I just saw the recommendation and decided to WP:BEBOLD and do it myself. skarz (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m still a new editor within Wikipedia, but aren’t you supposed to have discussions when doing a whole page redirect? It seems this person is just going through the fire department navbox with Florida and just redirecting every one that they believe is “not notable”. I’m sure there’s way more other options than just doing this… I see as just very disruptive or the person has something against fire departments, no idea. Ryan Watern (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything that could be done at this point about all the articles that’s been “redirected” without further opinion. Looking back at the Florida fire departments navbox a good portion of articles that were done are now gone. In my opinion a few of them could’ve got a tag expressing the issue instead of a whole redirect essentially deleting all the information which in my opinion, I feel was a way to get around Afd. Ryan Watern (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not that it matters but Apocheir is not an administrator but a regular editor who started an AFD discussion. And when an editor blanks and redirects an article, it can easily be contested and reversed. This happens regularly. I understand you wanting to have a discussion if redirection is happening on a large scale but did you consider asking Apocheir first what their goal was before coming to the drama boards? You might have gotten your answer without causing a fuss. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Me personally, I don’t believe there’s any sort of “fuss”, but with the answer to your question, I have asked questions in the past that were never answered. Now I’m just stating my opinion that I think it’s pretty disruptive that several fire department articles are being redirected instead of improved. Ryan Watern (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I left Apocheir (talk · contribs) a message saying that they should not continue replacing articles with redirects until the current issues have been examined. A few weeks is required for consensus to be clear regarding the articles concerned. Meanwhile, anyone is free to check an article that has been replaced with a redirect and think about whether the original satisfies WP:N and would otherwise be suitable as an article. If so, undo the edit which made it a redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have lived for over 42 years in small towns in Northern California whose fire departments are valiant and deserve acclaim. Where I live, these departments fight strenuously to protect their communities from out of control wildfires. But few of these fire departments, in my view, are actually notable in that they meet WP:NCORP. The coverage tends to be routine, not significant and highly local. Far better in most cases to create a subsection in the article about the relevant governing entity. Nobody will object to adding a well-referenced section about the local fire department to Anytown, USA. But a dedicated article about the local fire department may encounter pushback. Cullen328 (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This was exactly my argument in the AfD listed above, that yes, they do good work, but there is such a thing as too much information, and that this isn't a neutral article (and had issues because of watermarked photos that are certainly disallowed) written too promotionally. The issue is that there are editors out there who have to describe things in infinite detail and we need to keep them from turning articles into promotional pieces no different from an organization's website. Nate • (chatter) 15:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/Apocheir Scroll down to March 21 deletions, where one editor made 7 deletions/redirects of articles in succession, without discussion. We are trying to establish a guideline for deletion of these fire companies. Because fire companies are so vital to any town or city, these should not be deleted without prior discussion.— Maile (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Because fire companies are so vital to any town or city"

  That does not help it meet WP:NCORP. This feels like a content dispute than anything to me. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 12:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Padgriffin (talk · contribs) Honestly the notability thing seems so inconsistently applied that I'm not even sure there is consensus on its application. There are hundreds if not thousands of extensive articles on Wikipedia about obscure characters from video games, going in to great detail about their lore, abilities, magic type, etc. To say that fictional characters deserve a place on Wikipedia because a bunch of video game blogs talk about them and municipal services do not seems strange and wrong. skarz (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Be that as it may, we are trying to establish some guidelines here. Such as ... all fire department articles should have dialogue before deletion. One lone editor deleting 7 articles in a row, without prior discussion, does not serve Wikipedia well. — Maile (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Meh. They were bold. If you object to it on policy grounds, just revert it and then take it to the talk page. I don't see why this is such a palaver. Canterbury Tail talk 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe the users who requested this were trying to resolve this through one centralized discussion. I don't think simply going and reverting 7+ edits by one user is the appropriate way to handle things. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ skarz (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Then ask them to stop and discuss the matter with them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Any editor arguing to keep an article about a specific fire department needs to explain how that particular fire department meets the strict standards at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Pointing out that there are other mediocre articles sourced to blogs is a weak WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The solution to poor quality articles is to either improve them or to delete them, not to create more of them or defend them with arguments that are not rooted in policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"you are censoring me in a fascist way"

Could somebody have a look at:

• PGRE89

Who yesterday spamned similar unreliable/non-WP:MEDRS content into the articles Tyrosine,[219] Red meat[220] and Locus coeruleus.[221] The common factor is the cited sources name the same lead author. While this might seem just like WP:CITESPAM the blatant sockpuppetry[222] and personal hostility evidenced on their Uer Talk page[223] makes me think there might be a joe job/LTA aspect here. Bon courage (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Joe job pretending to be whom? *Edit: Also They have been blocked. – 2804:F14:80E4:B501:8173:2938:D631:DB4E (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC) *edited to cross out things 04:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

From a quick glance, it looks like there’s a newcomer who is unfamiliar with our harassment rule and who is very upset by how they are “welcomed”. It’s likely a reaction to the fact that 9 of their edits (i.e., all of their edits to WP:Mainspace after registration) were reverted (by the same user?) within 4 hours:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=PGRE89&namespace=all&tagfilter=mw-reverted&start=&end=&limit=50

It’s very likely that they added the same/similar content to different articles as a result of the unsuccessful previous additions, and that they probably felt they were wikihounded ... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't want spammers or spam, and if they respond to civil welcomes with edit warring, dishonest puppetry and nasty WP:PAs they get blocked as here. Your egging them on is also unwelcome, see: WT:MED#How not to deal with problem 'new' editors: a case study Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have a very special definition on “spammer”.

Yes, you welcomed the new user at 17:32, 25 March:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PGRE89&oldid=1215526707

After you have reverted at least four edits made by them in 20 minutes:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=PGRE89&namespace=all&tagfilter=visualeditor&start=&end=&limit=50

I appreciate you enthusiasm in “defending” the Wikipedia. We need a balance however. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have a very special definition on “spammer” ←There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia: advertisements masquerading as articles and contributions to articles; External link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. (Also, I reverted their initial edits and welcomed them all within the space of four minutes, not 20.) Bon courage (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

So may I ask how do you know that they were “promoting the author or the work” when you reverted their very first edit?

P.S. Related discussions:

• WT:MED, WT:MED#How_do_we_welcome_new_medical_editors?
• Talk:Tyrosine&oldid=1215606802#the_largest_study_on_tyrosine_intake_in_humans (some posts there were removed later); Talk:Tyrosine#the_largest_study_on_tyrosine_intake_in_humans
• New user’s talk page, User_talk:PGRE89

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you think a good-faith editor correcting typo from “ceruleus” to “coruleus” [224] is citespam?

Or, do you think adding link to Protein (nutrient) [225] is citespam? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't get it was spam until I looked at the contribution history and realised the obvious. The incidental changes are obviously not WP:CITESPAM and are not at issue. Bon courage (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not citespam and not at issue but were reverted by you indiscriminately. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I don’t think reusing content is always equivalent to spam. We have Template:excerpt for example. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Why you bend over backwards to be champion for disruptive editors and bad content is a puzzle, even adding an unreliable source "with thanks" to the miscreant.[226] This is not the first time either. I am beginning to think this might need a sanction if it continues. Bon courage (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

So you mean reverting edits from new users that are *not* CITESPAM (as you’ve admitted”) is an issue that “doesn’t matter”?

Keep describing good-faith edits as “bad content” and keep describing other editors as “disruptive” (WP:ABF), while you reverted 9 edits (including typo-fixing) of a new editor within hours [227] IMO might really need a sanction if that continues.

BTW, maybe it’s time for us to revise / add to our WP:3RR rules to something like limiting to WP:5RR across different articles for reverting edits from the same user. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

IMO might really need a sanction if that continues. The trouble is, this type of behavior is the continuing: From an admin three days ago [228]. A good time to reference WP:BRIE again... SmolBrane (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the link I added to the External link section is unreliable.

I said “with thanks” because it’s the new user’s edit that inspired me to use the keywords that I’ve never thought of to do a search and get the link to a good research paper that I added.

The journal has an impact factor > 12 in 2022, which means very good. Yep it’s not a review and may not be the best source available, so I didn’t add it to the article’s body. But it is *not* “unreliable and *not* bad content. And *not* disruptive at all. Please stop the false accusations.

Further, per WP:External links#Links to be considered, reliable source is *not* a must for the External links section:

• 4. Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The merits of the content aside, there is no excuse for escalating to "fascist" like that. The block is indefinite in the literal sense, pending a reasonable response. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

“there is no excuse for escalating to "fascist" like that”

Agree (though it’s unfortunate that better interaction between the involved parties didn’t occur). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Dozens of comments and notifications, one wrote on my wall something with the title "doxxed"

What happened? One has in the title "doxxed". KlayCax (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax, a vandal was posting on user talk pages. The edits have been deleted (not just reverted) so obviously there was inappropriate content posted. Schazjmd (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible for me to see what was written (to me directly)? Considering the concerning title of the message delivered to me.

I noticed that he was interacting with the United States, 2024 United States presidential election, and circumcision pages, so I'm assuming that's why he started following me. KlayCax (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, don't know why they used your talk page largely to air their grievance with me. But trolls are gonna troll I guess. Simonm223 (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: was also targeted. I'm guessing they started following me after this debate with her. (On whether American actions should be predominantly described as ethnic cleansing or genocide; I argued ethnic cleansing, while she asserted the opposite.) @HickTheStick: was flagged as an active sock on that debate. Articles surrounding circumcision have also been the target of the sockpuppeter. (Apparently playing 5D chess on both sides. Just like on the 2024 United States presidential election articles.) They could have found @MrOllie:, @Bon courage:, and me there. (The controversy appears to be related to StoneToss: who opposes circumcision.) That's the other thing that I suspect triggered the grievance-airing.

Can someone usercheck @Treefal:? I suspect that's another sock of the master.

From what I can tell, dozens of alternative accounts were made, spamming me (us?) with notifications in rapid succession. This is definitely one of the worst cases of sockpuppeting I've recently seen. KlayCax (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Treefal posted that on March 17th. Which seems to have pre-dated the Stonetoss trolling. I think this is a long-term abuse/sock, @Simonm223:. KlayCax (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly one of the admins who helped me last week asked me if my problems had started on March 17. I, meanwhile, only returned from my dank and horrible cave on March 19 or 20ish. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the log for your talk page, five different admins deleted content this week; you could ask one of them if they would email you the content? Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm going to request a WP:SILVERLOCK as well for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd just ignore it. Nothing worth seeing and the admins have it in hand (thanks admins!) Bon courage (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought about trying to connect the dots but came to the same conclusion as @Bon courage. It's dealt with on my end so I move on. I did offer thanks to those who reacted and handled the situation and I'm very appreciative of our admin corps. --ARoseWolf 18:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Dickon Edwards

IP user 95.146.28.42 has repeatedly deleted referenced content that the article subject's full legal name is Richard Dickon Edwards and not just Richard Edwards. A reference was provided (an academic paper in which Edwards self-cited as Richard Dickon Edwards) but the IP user reverted again and refused to believe that Dickon could be part of his real name. Please direct me to where I should proceed with this issue. Romomusicfan (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Wankard Pooser Paradoctor (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

On a more serious note, you managed to overlook the edit notice for this page, and have therefore not notified the IP.

We're talking about a whopping two reverts. At the time of the first IP revert, the infobox entry was not sourced. When you reverted that, you added a source in which Edwards cites his unpublished PhD thesis, the cite giving his name as "Edwards, Richard Dickon". On their second revert, the IP replaced your source with a source in which Edwards himself gives his name as Richard Edwards, and describes "Dickon" as his nickname. You did not address this inconsistency in your second revert.

As I agree with the IP that their source is superior to yours, I reverted your second revert, with no prejudice against adding a footnote mentioning this slight inconsistency. If needed, please consider this as WP:BRD. Any further discussion of this content issue should happen at the talk page, where you should have headed in the first place, instead of raising this issue here. Paradoctor (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The PhD thesis gives his name as "Richard ‘Dickon’ Edwards", so it is clear that "Dickon" is just a nickname.

I think this matter can be considered resolved now. Paradoctor (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't just a nickname and I would query the reading of the diary entry as saying that it is or that Richard Edwards is his entire legal name, but I'll let it drop for now unless I come across other sources giving the full story (his parents naming him after a character from The Secret Garden but not wanting him bullied at school any more than he already was so give him Richard as a first name and Dickon as a second name.) I will say that while there are plenty of academics out there with personal nicknames, it is not generally academic MOS to use these on formal academic papers. But never mind.16:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Romomusicfan (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

So you're saying that the parents gave him a legal name, and then he went to school. When at school he was bullied so they decided to change his legal name? That seems a rather odd confluence of events and weird timeline. It's much more unlikely than someone deciding to go by whatever name they prefer to go by. I don't go by my legal name professionally, and neither do tens of millions of other people. Canterbury Tail talk 01:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I wish you had posted that on the article's talk page. Paradoctor (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User:‎AidepikiwIV's blatant copyright infringement on B. J. Britt

AidepikiwIV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is continuing to add copyright violations of images on Wikipedia. One of the images was reuploaded on Commons by a different user, and it is a press image, associated with Alamy and Getty. Yesterday, I marked the other image as a copyright infringement from Alamy. User:Whpq recently marked the image from Commons as a copyright violation from Getty images. I recently spoke to them about this and I said that i believed that they might have used an account to reupload the image on Commons. They didn’t seem to get the point of what I am saying, and I told them I was done talking with them. However, I did not really mean that they actually did it, but he may be taking that seriously in my own words. Then they continue to add back the image.

Proof here: [229] (last forum at the end of the page), [230], [231], [232]

Here is what they said when I just warned them. [233] TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to fully investigate the issue but I noticed the edit warring here and blocked AidepikiwIV for 24 hours to allow time for a discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like they keep blanking their talk page after being warned. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This editor responds to messages on their talk page, but doesn't really read through and understand any policy that is provided for them. Instead, they challenge the original message or just ignore it. Examples:

• [234] A standard template warning about copyright for new users with a note I added specifically telling them to not add images they find on the Internet. Their response was to upload the same copyrighted image to Commons after it was deleted from the English Wikipedia.
• [235] They were told that non-free images are only for articles and cannot be used in their user sandbox. This is ignored and they continue to add back non-free images after they are removed due to non-free content policy violation.
• Their response to being blocked is to use their user talk page to host content and then edit warred to keep it there.

They need to commit to understanding and following policy instead of challenging and ignoring any advice or messages. -- Whpq (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The images they put in user space was also removed by JJMC89 bot and others who went in the user space when they added it back. I don’t think they listen to things and they seem to take what I said seriously. They even made disruption here by removing the report made here. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I just moved the most recent user page iteration to a subpage and re-explained why. I am not optimistic. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"challenging and ignoring". Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That material is mostly copied from the main space article. -- Whpq (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That user page was tagged CSD U5 and since 92% of their edits were to their own User pages, I deleted it. That was before I saw this discussion and Deepfriedokra's comment to their talk page. Should my action be reverted? It looked like article content that had been put on a User page, not an actual article draft. But I'd like a second opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked AidepikiwIV for edit warring to keep an image that is an obvious copyright violation of a Getty Images photo, and for various combative personal attacks such as But because he's the one who reported me like a lying coward he gets no disciplinary action. Very hypocritical of you. Misuse of their userpage and user talk page is a contributing factor. Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Constant violation of WP:UNCIVIL by User:MSport1005

The issue arises with this edit summary User:MSport1005 left on the Red Bull Junior Team article, where they used mild profanity to make their point. As I had seen WP:UNCIVIL edit summaries from this editor in the recent past here and here, I warned them about their conduct on their talk page. The user's response was then to delete my message, which in itself is fine as we don't control what people do with their talk pages, but they then claimed my regular warning was "an abuse of authority".

Concerned about how this user might address other users as a result of this response, it led me to look at this user's longer-term history, and – whilst there is no denying that all users, myself included, succumb to frustration every now and then – it is clear that they have a serious problem with addressing fellow users in a respectful and professional manner, having consistently displayed systematic disregard for their fellow editors throughout their four-year editing tenure. Before I present evidence, this edit summary proves the editor understands what constitutes an appropriate edit summary, whilst this one shows that their removal of my talk page message was hypocritical. I shall break offending summaries down into sub-classes:

• Attacking a user or insulting a user's intelligence instead of respectfully approaching them on their talk page: swearing at an IP / swearing at a user & accusing them of not being able to read / berating an editor without consulting on their talk page / mild profanity / "what part of (...) don't you understand" / accusing an editor of being blind / "what are you doing" / "maybe you should X before Y" / "what are you doing" / "jesus christ can you learn how to read" / "stop acting like a child" / labelling an editor 'annoying' / telling an editor to 'grow up' / warning an editor of behaviour through edit summary and not talk page / accusing an editor of being unable to read / accusing an editor of being unable to read / warning an editor of behaviour through edit summary and not talk page and "learn the meaning of the word 'consensus'" / "what is this guy doing" / "Do you not know how to read" / taking issue with an editor but not on their talk page / "open your eyes and read..." / "Also learn how to read" / "what are you doing?" / "I literally listed it for you. Enough." / "for the love of god WHEN WILL YOU STOP" / "are you unable to read?" / expecting an English Wiki editor to understand Italian / "are you two not able to read basic edit summaries or what" / talking down an editor by saying "R-E-A-D." / "Learn how to read basic statements" / talking down an editor by saying "It's called English." / taking issue with an editor but not on their talk page / "do you know the meaning of 'could'" / talking down to an editor by saying "DO YOUR RESEARCH." / accusing an editor of insanity / taking issue with an editor but not on their talk page / warning an editor of behaviour through edit summary and not talk page / "Use your freaking eyes and read." / "use your brain" / "Always the same guy (...) this is getting silly" / "You enjoy edit wars (...) stop being so problematic" / "Who tf is "Felipe" Albuquerque? Jesus christ." / "For the billionth freaking time" / caps lock response to a user's mistake / talking down to an editor by saying "Read. The. Note.".

• Unnecessarily expressing annoyance unconstructively, or general threats where the appropriate response is to approach the editor/s involved on their talk page or use the article talk page: "how many times does this have to be explained" / "It's not that hard." / "How has this stood for ten days?" / "I wasn't born yesterday" / "good grief, this is so poorly written..." / "some people will always fail to read" / "for the hundredth time" / "For the thousandth time" / "Seriously? Do I have to revert this again?" / "Who the hell is adding this stuff?" / "Who tf removed this?" / "seriously please do better" / "Are people blind? Jesus christ." / profanity / "Who tf is editing this?" / "Getting tired of always having to correct these things." / "Seriously... What. Is. This." / "Why tf (...) WHO IS EDITING THIS" / "god I hate edit conflicts" / "If anyone X they'll be Y" / "This list is so full of mistakes, jesus christ." / "How did people manage to misspell this SIX times?!" / "This level of sourcing is frankly pathetic." / "Why's this so full of mistakes?" / "I genuinely can't believe this has stood for so long" / "Come on, this is silly." / "Clearly whoever created this table didn't feel like putting in any effort" / "You guys really need to learn to make proper articles. Or at least create them as drafts. This is shocking." / "Pay more attention, jesus christ."

• Separate note for updating points tables, as these are time-consuming and tedious to work on which can easily lead to mistakes, so berating people is more out of order than usual: 1 / 2 / 3

Any one of these edit summaries on their own or a handful spread across multiple years could be reasonably put down to situational stress, but this amount of uncivil behaviour over multiple years is unwarranted – and cannot simply be described as "mild annoyance" as written by the user in their edit summary response to my warning. They have been an editor long enough to know what is and what is not considered appropriate.

Finally, the editor in question was involved in this discussion two years ago where they were warned by User:Tvx1 to "Cut your arrogant attitude here please. You're not going to achieve anything by treating other editors like that." User:MSport1005 apologised for their actions, both an admission of their behaviour and displaying an understanding that this approach is not appropriate – therefore meaning that the editor continued to make the above edit summaries knowing their behaviour is inappropriate. MSportWiki (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I know it's not the issue at hand but I have to ask anyway: MSportWiki and MSport1005...what's going on with how similar your usernames are? City of Silver 05:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

... that sometimes editors have similar usernames? User:Ravensfire, who's participated every now and then on ANI, has been accused of being a sockpuppet of mine. (Or the other way around.) Ravenswing 06:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

[236] EEng 16:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed especially if the usernames are of a common interest (Motorsport) as here, so its not surprising that there are users with similar usernames based around it. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with similar usernames, but I have to admit I paused and had to go back, because I thought someone was filing a report about themselves. Grandpallama (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure what I've done for you to target me this vehemently, but I guess I'll have to intervene. Firstly, I have over 14 thousand edits on Wikipedia. You went through all those (which you can see are constructive) to find even the mildest glimmers of misbehaviour? Most of the ones you mention are, to me, mere annoyance. Granted, I have had WP:UNCIVIL comments that I'm not proud of, for example the Engel one you pointed out on my talk page. I naturally apologise for this, but anyone who checks my contributions can verify these are infrequent. Moreover, a great deal of them are concentrated in 2021 and 2022. Other cases, you've certainly taken out of context, not sure with which goal — telling vandals to "stop", to "grow up", or describing them as "problematic" or "annoying" isn't uncivil.

I could go on case by case, but I've tried to summarise all the links so as not to clog up the discussion. Lastly, Any one of these edit summaries on their own or a handful spread across multiple years could be reasonably put down to situational stress, this amount of uncivil behaviour over multiple years is unwarranted — this is roughly 20-25 potentially uncivil edit summaries out of a total of 14 thousand. As you rightly said, there is no denying that all users, myself included, succumb to frustration every now and then. Anyway, I've never been involved in these discussions, so not sure what the course of action is. I'll let other users chime in, but personally speaking — I'm only here to try and improve the encyclopaedia, and I'm positive I don't lose my cool as often as is purported by MSportWiki. Now, if you go through 14 thousand edits only looking for the bad things, then that's what you'll find. MSport1005 (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not a personal attack. I would report any other editor for this, so don't bring out that sort of ego-driven "I'm not sure what I've done for you to target me this vehemently" response - the "serious abuse of authority" comment for a regular warning confirms this, and I would've had no reason to investigate further had you not responded in that way. All but one of my previous ANI topics has seen action taken, with the only non-action down to the IP discontinuing their disruptive behaviour - my integrity is not a problem.

Yes, there is no doubting that you have made quality edits over the course of time. However, you have continually displayed uncivil behaviour across your tenure - 74 uncivil edit summaries as counted by User:DriverDatabase1 is completely out of order regardless of how experienced you are - you have demonstrated an understanding of what is and isn't appropriate yet this behaviour has continued, and you have apologised for your behaviour yet still knowingly made multiple breaches. "telling vandals to "stop", to "grow up", or describing them as "problematic" or "annoying" isn't uncivil" is indeed a breach as there are proper avenues to address this behaviour, instead of abusing them through an edit summary. You clearly understand what you are doing wrong, yet continue to do nothing about it and that's why this discussion is taking place. MSportWiki (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

74 uncivil edit summaries as counted by User:DriverDatabase1 — no, 74 examples given. Of which 29 are "mild annoyances", and a further 35 "came in 2022". I don't need to prove anything to you — I've matured and become more professional since 2022, my contributions are there for anyone to see.

You clearly understand what you are doing wrong, yet continue to do nothing about it — disproven.

This is not a personal attack — I'm glad you've clarified this, however you labelling my words as ego-driven response right after is uncalled-for. Additionally, I've felt in the obligation of addressing some of your examples:

• [237] and [238] do not constitute "swearing at a user".
• [239] is not "mild profanity".
• [240] isn't "warning an editor through edit summary and not talk page". Even less so [241], where I actually urge them to discuss on the talk page.
• [242] and [243] are nowhere near "accusing an editor of being unable to read", rather asking them nicely to read the full article.
• [244] has nothing to do with "accusing an editor of insanity" — this, in particular, is a seriously gross accusation and it has offended me.

User:DriverDatabase1 already called you out on a number of these, so I hope you rectify. MSport1005 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"29 'mild annoyances'" is but one opinion (two counting yours), I urge you to wait until additional administrators involve themselves in the dispute.

You haven't disproven your uncivil behaviour as you haven't stopped behaving in this manner; whilst it may have been reduced, you haven't stopped - these are not the same thing, and the only response to both having acknowledged what is or isn't appropriate and apologised for this behaviour (which you have done) is to completely stop acting in this manner. An editor of your experience should know this.

• You directed 'this f*cking guy' at the IP, and responded to the second edit with 'read the freaking note'; both of which are swearing at the perpetrators.
• Using a religious figure's name in that fashion is considered mild profanity in the English language.
• Both here and here (especially the latter) it is your responsibility as an editor to begin the process of mediation, and the appropriate action is through a talk page (either the editors' or the articles') - not via edit summary.
• In both this case and this case you may have an argument regarding being unable to read, but you certainly were not asking them nicely (especially the former).
• Directing the phrase "We're losing the plot completely" at the editor is accusing them of insanity in British English. The only thing you have been 'offended' by is being called out by your own behaviour.

I have presented my arguments and counter-arguments, I shall leave it to the admins from here. MSportWiki (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You yourself admitted to succumbing to frustration every now and then, regardless of experience and knowledge of the guidelines. While I don't excuse my past behaviour, I think reducing from 35 occurrences in 2022 to just eight in subsequent years can easily be put down to occasional frustration.

Respectfully, I will not argue further with someone who claims "you should take the time to read the article before reverting" is uncivil. I'll follow suit and leave it to the admins. Take care. MSport1005 (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I am conflicted about this. MSport1005 has, for sure, been less than flattering in a lot of their edit comments. I hope that changes for the better. Simultaneously, there are a number of examples in the list provided by MSportWiki that do not fall under the categories MSport1005 is accused of (examples are the "swearing at a user"-cases and the "mild profanity"), so to narrow down on them like this is too harsh. DriverDatabase1 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Having analysed these accusations further, I need to update my opinion: the 74 comments highlighted here (I counted) are a minuscule amount of MSport1005's edits - 14,418 have been made by them in total over many years. Not to mention that the majority of the particularly heavy comments as outlined under the section "Attacking a user or insulting a user's intelligence instead of respectfully approaching them on their talk page:" happened in 2022 (45 comments in that section in total; 35 of them came in 2022, but just eight in the subsequent years - showing improvement on the part of MSport1005). I consider the comments cited in the second section ("Unnecessarily expressing annoyance unconstructively [...]") more as mild annoyances that do not warrant this user to be punished. DriverDatabase1 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

HiLo48 violating his civility restriction

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

---

It has recently been announced a new Tasmanian club will enter the Australian Football League, which has prompted a flurry of editorial activity on the article and its talk page. On 18 March 2024, more details about the club were officially announced, including its nickname, "the Devils". This led me to request the article be moved to "Tasmania Devils". Ruminating on how we should name our AFL club articles also prompted me to submit a similar request for Fremantle. I have a loosely-held view that similar moves would be appropriate for at least some other clubs, but I have not formally proposed any further moves.

These moves proved more contentious than I expected and attracted many editors who preferred a "[location] Football Club" format over a "[location] [mascot]" format. Although these editors have so far been greater in number, their arguments have generally been poor or lacking a policy basis – to the extent would-be closers, including an administrator, have opted to relist the move requests in spite of extraordinary numerical imbalances (Fremantle's was 10–2 against a move before relisting, Tasmania's was 8–1 against).

I believe most editors who favour the "Football Club" format are acting in good faith and are merely mistaken about Wikipedia's article titling policies. The exception is HiLo48, who has a long history of obnoxious behaviour towards editors he disagrees with. This led the community to place him under a civility restriction last August, barring him from assuming bad faith on other editors' part.

From the first moments HiLo48 engaged with these RMs, he has been pointlessly obstructive. He has made patently irrelevant arguments: opposing Fremantle's move request because of an assertion about a completely different AFL club, which he refused to clarify after prompting from myself and another editor. He refused to provide sources backing up his claims when requested. He has raised spurious objections to the RMs.

This has culminated in today's incident where he has outright accused me of seeking to change the name "to suit your obsession with nicknames". I sought clarification on his talk page, where he opted to double down on the accusation of bad faith.

I ask the community enforce HiLo48's editing restriction. – Teratix ₵ 05:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

According to Tasmania Football Club, the new club will start competing in 2028—four years in the future. Isn't it a bit premature to start Talk:Tasmania Football Club#Requested move 18 March 2024 saying that the article should be renamed to its nickname? The first comment starts with "Sounds reasonable if that becomes the COMMONNAME". That is the 100% knock-out point—the common name cannot be known now. Given that background, why not engage with HiLo48's mild comments rather than using ANI to knock out an opponent? Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in relitigating the RM itself here. If you'd like to comment, feel free to do so on the relevant talk page. But for what it's worth, the short answer to "isn't it a bit premature" is that the article's last stable title is "Unnamed Tasmanian football club" – unsuitable for obvious reasons – and so we can't exactly leave it at that title. We need to make some sort of determination about the COMMONNAME, even if that determination is "OK, let's tentatively put it at this title based on the evidence we have and we'll revisit in six months/one year/four years". On the day of the announcement, it was unilaterally moved to "Tasmanian Football Club", but my view was "Tasmania Devils" was the more commonly-used name in media reports, so I started a discussion to that effect. That's my ordinary editing philosophy – someone makes a change you disagree with but isn't vandalism? Start a talk page discussion.

I have engaged and continue to engage with my good-faith opponents. In fact, right now I am endeavouring to get their input on my proposal to conduct a more thorough and systematic analysis of media coverage so we can make progress together on a genuine consensus. I only take issue when someone is attacking my integrity and motivations. That's not something that should be acceptable on Wikipedia, especially from an editor with a long track record of similar incidents. – Teratix ₵ 06:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be wonderful if no one ever had their feathers ruffled, but what about the substance of my above comment and the substance of the linked comment by HiLo48? I could take offense that you think I am so out of touch that I am trying to discuss the page move here. However, I actually think that you are dodging the substance. The linked comment includes the claim 'you want to change the names of many other clubs, "if not in all cases"'. Is your only response that HiLo48 should be nicer? Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

No. As I clarified in my initial comment here: I have a loosely-held view that similar moves would be appropriate for at least some other clubs, but I have not formally proposed any further moves. – Teratix ₵ 07:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

To make it clear I am not "dodging the substance", I have made a voluntary pledge to submit no further move requests on AFL club articles for at least twelve months. – Teratix ₵ 07:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

As all the regulars here know, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes so all the keystrokes expended on speculating what the WP:COMMONNAME of a football club scheduled to start playing in 2028 will be are a waste of electrons and other people's time. The question here is whether or not HiLo48 has violated their civility restriction against uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith when HiLo48 said that the OP was editing to suit your obsession with nicknames. The word "obsession" refers either to a mental health condition or a deep personality flaw. In my view, the comment was uncivil, and constituted a personal attack based either on an unwarranted assumption of mental illness or of chronic bad faith. To minimize the remark as a claim that HiLo48 should be nicer is to either ignore or trivialize the fact that HiLo48 is under a civility restriction, which is not true of the vast majority of active editors. HiLo48 is obligated to behave well at all times, if they want to keep editing Wikipedia. So, how do other editors interpret what I see as a deeply uncivil remark by an editor with a civility restriction? Cullen328 (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Teratix has spread this discussion to my User page as well. He asked me to use a different word. After some difficulty trying to identify what would be acceptable to him, I have now given it a go. I hope it is acceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The change in question is a slight improvement. It has moved from openly insulting to merely covertly patronising. My motivation for placing these move requests does not stem from "enthusiasm for nicknames", as though I were some bubbly twelve-year-old. My motivation is founded in my good-faith belief these requests are in accordance with Wikipedia's article titling policies. – Teratix ₵ 09:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, you're making this difficult. I tried. No patronising was intended. I explicitly asked what you would like. You hedged a lot, and eventually wrote something on my User page (I think) that I really couldn't agree with. It was too long to fit in my comment. Please write what you would like me to say, briefly, here, not somehwere else. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

What about simply "it is wrong to change the name now." with no insinuations about my motivation? – Teratix ₵ 10:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

As someone entirely uninvolved, the exchange over this matter does not give the impression that HiLo48 has been in any way more "obnoxious" than Teratix. My recommendation would be to just close this and encourage everyone to remember to be civil. Jeppiz (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying! (See discussion above.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2024 (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.

Reporting User:Hölderlin2019 for the repeated violation of WP:BLP and WP:V as well as engaging in Meatpuppetry with User:Advocata

• Hölderlin2019 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}
• Advocata (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Starting with the unsourced edits mostly to BLPs, deceased and some org articles. For clarity, noting here that User:Advocata is only accused of Meatpuppetry as of now. Their contributions have not been thoroughly checked yet. Also noting that there seems to be no on-wiki conversations between these two users, apart from 1 instance that I noticed somewhere.

23 March 2024

• Removed the maintenance template, short description and addition of WP:OR/unsourced
• Original reserch?
• Unsourced family section
• WP:OR
• V. N. Srinivasa Rao Added the family section (unsourced) WP:SYNTH?
• How do we even verify this?
• [245] Note: They mention it as Calamur dynasty.
• unsourced
• Unsourced family section
• From google translate, the source does not seem to mention his name
• Would like to know how this was verified
• Source does not mention either of their names.
• Unsourced
• Unsourced addition on C. R. Pattabhiraman
• Unsourced family section on Calamur Mahadevan
• At this point, I think they are building a/their dynasty on Wikipedia
• Source?
• Not WP:RS
• A keyword search "Hariram Sastri" on the source cited returns empty
• Full of original research
• Unsourced, unsourced, unsourced and unsourced
• Unsourced entry. Building a dynasty?
• Cited a homepage of a company

All the above are only from 23 March 2024. When warned and explained about unsourced additions, Hölderlin2019 says WP:V only applies to users who have already indulged in suspicious behavior. No, that has never been Wikipedia practice, and occurs almost exclusively where a strong suspicion exists that a user is wantonly introducing specious material. [246]. Then proceeds to discredit the WP:RAJ essay which is widely accepted and followed in the Indian wikiproject. When asked if they are planning to cite the sources, they replied saying [247]. I'll be glad to dig further through their previous contributions if required.

WP:COI and Meatpuppetry

• At this point in this thread, it is very well established from their contributions and the articles they have created that User:Hölderlin2019 is someone from the Calamur Dynasty. Although we already have an article about C. V. Karthikeyan from 19 May 2021‎, Hölderlin2019 created one for C. V. Karthikeyan in their user page. An editor who believes they are familiar with Wikipedia policies(They cited WP:OR on their 6th edit[248]) should have known that adding misleading user page content or hosting irrelevant content is is susceptible to WP:U5. When their userpage was tagged for U5, out of nowhere came User:Advocata to remove the CSD after 1 hour, noting that it was "vandalism and should go to ANI" [249]. User:Advocata's last edit before removing the csd was on 15 March 2024 and has not edited since removing the CSD. Interaction Analyser Interaction Timeline. Some instances are
• diff vs diff - All the activity happened between 13 march - 14 march are hours and minutes apart.
• diff vs diff - Both editors seem to say that the unsourced content are easily available on the internet for verification or the editors need to familiar with the topics they edit and should be competent enough to understand/edit it themselves.
• Koothali Nair was initially created by Hölderlin2019 on 17 September 2023 and was draftified. Recreated by User:Advocata on 12 February 2024 [250]

I believe the above evidences are enough to warrant an indefinite block on User:Hölderlin2019 for the long term violation of WP:BLP, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior(check talk page conversations), undisclosed COI editing and promoting the Calamur Dynasty and the BLPs related to Calamur, indulging in obvious Meatpuppetry. Likewise, User:Advocata for Meatpuppetry. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• WP:COIN is for raising COI concern and WP:SPI is for raising meatpuppetry concern. I would urge any Checkuser to take action with regards to the report I filed some days ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Advocata. Capitals00 (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Another article, Aryama Sundaram, related to the Calamur family with unsourced content, and also which I highlighted the second sentence in the lead to Hölderlin2019 as being peacock and puffery, and he has since added more promotional puffery content to the lead paragraph.

Both editors also claim this image is their own work — Advocata – Hölderlin2019

• Some potential copyvio concerns with these images, which Hölderlin2019 claims to be their own work:
  • C. V. Ranganathan → screenshot from YouTube
  • some of the images in this gallery found on the internet via Google image search: [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256]. I don't know, maybe he is a prolific photographer? Isaidnoway (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, this is pretty egregious. **So** egregious, in fact, that I'd ask a passing admin to consider WP:Boomerang at what is either an extreme case of WP:COMPETENCEISNEEDED, or simply malicious harassment of the usual sort. (Not that I particularly care to distinguish fine grades of the two.) I don't have tremendous sums of time *right now*, so for the time being I'll just reply briefly, and circle back later. Firstly:

All the above are only from 23 March 2024. When warned and explained about unsourced additions, Hölderlin2019 says WP:V only applies to users who have already indulged in suspicious behavior'. No, that has never been Wikipedia practice, and occurs almost exclusively where a strong suspicion exists that a user is wantonly introducing specious material.

In context, as can easily be seen from my talk page, or the diffs - in cases where an established editor is adding material that is likely true or sourceable, especially if they have a tendency of doing just that, we keep around an entire set of <source needed> tags 'precisely so that we don't need to blank text that is likely to be valuable'. Moreover, in deleting such copy, the onus is on the editor to attempt to verify it themselves first, *competently*. I can quote from *discussions taking place just above this one here, if needs be*. This is not something I should need to explain to someone bringing something to ANI.

[257]. Then proceeds to discredit the WP:RAJ essay which is widely accepted and followed in the Indian wikiproject. When asked if they are planning to cite the sources, they replied saying [258]. I'll be glad to dig further through their previous contributions if required.

I commented that WP:RAJ is not, in fact, a policy, as a less deeply versed Wikipedian might easily be tricked into believing from the mere citation of it as though it was - when it is in fact a *policy*, advanced initially by Sitush, and retained to this day on his own userpage as a personal essay for whatever persuasive value it might have. There are plenty of editors who routinely derogate from it (or, alternately, pay it little attention at all, if only because of the paucity of any vaguely rigorous sources *at all* on many topics. Now, frankly, I generally concur with Sitush on this matter, which I don't always do - in the past when he and I have run afoul of one another, it turned out that *I* was the one quoting the controlling scholarly literature. (I don't blame him at all, since he's essentially policing a mass of crazy with a shotgun; precision is not a high priority). 'But anyway - even if I didn't agree with Sitush on the matter, not only is the essay not policy, it's also irrelevant, since my own citations are overwhelmingly to the latest in modern scholarly literature.' As I immediately prove to demonstrate in discussion [259] that *as it so happens the cites are already in the page, just not line-by-line yet*, and then, further, that for any case where I genuinely do neglect a cite, it is easily remedied in multiple ways (any of which should be accessible to a competent OP) [260], but then, finally, beyond that, in soul-crushing detail, that WP:RAJ isn't even an issue, since I use the latest modern sources overwhelmingly - which I prove with pages of directly quoted and screenshotted references.[261].

Given that this crowd of angries is trying to declare my workshopping an existing page in draftspace 'on my own userpage' as something that requires speedy deletion, I think I'll pause here and respond if anyone wants to call me on the merits of actual claims made about the verifiabiliity of my writing etc. I do think it would be funny if anyone doing so pledged a forfeit if they happened to be very, very wrong, though. Then again, I might genuinely be trying to "build a dynasty" out of a family that verifiably already includes the last Prime Minister of Travancore, the Chief Justice and a Rowlatt Committee member, a Kaisar-i-Hind associate Justice of the High Court of the Madras Presidency, a third (declined) seat, in addition to the Advocate General, the Law Minister, the Law Secretary, the Finance Secretary, the Education Secretary, the Home Minister, the Prime Minister of the presidency itself, the closest equivalent to a Hindu Pope (Puri Shankaracharya, also of Dwaraka), and the founders of the Indian fields of geology and geography, plus whatever you want to call C. Sivaramamurti, what are described as "the leading" Sanskrit scholars in 19th-cen India in multiple scholarly sources. Plus then a President of the Indian Congress, a General Secretary paired with J Nehru, India's Delegates to the League of Nations, and (need I really keep going?) Any Indian editor can count the Padma Shris/Bhushans/Vibhushans at the Calamur page (titled simply as such). But why would I need to do so, given that the scholarship has already built the dynasty, for obvious reasons? The scholarly literature even discusses the genesis of the 'merged' dynasty. The scholarship even discusses the possible corruption of the family given its lock on the Mylapore set (anyone care to read the scholarly literature on that?) *Good grief*. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. Responsibility for providing citations – All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. If you know that published reliable sources exist that will verify the content, then you should be adding inline citations at the same time you add the content. And if an editor *competently* attempts to verify it themselves first, and is unable to find a published reliable source that verifies the content, then editorial discretion allows them to remove it per WP:V.

And what about all these images you uploaded where you assert you are the copyright holder of the work. The metadata in this file says someone else is the author, but you claimed to be the author instead, and you asserted that you are the copyright holder. Are you indeed the copyright holder and author of that image? Isaidnoway (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

More unsourced content after this report - [262], [263]. Pinging active admins Deepfriedokra, Primefac and Liz. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you managed to read me reiterating in multiple different ways above that you are scholarship, y'know, the highest grade of reliable sourcing on a topic. You've quite pleasantly marked out examples of things that I have included not because I'm "sure they're true", since, y'know, WP:V; rather, they're things that the academic literature supports, abundantly, and rigorously. Now, I think you exhibit a WP:Battleground mentality, and are essentially pursuing a vendetta of your own, as evinced by the fact that you do not react to extensively cited articles with occasional claims that lack their own inline citations by trying in WP:Good faith to see whether or not such sources actually exist. Indeed, I think it's highly unlikely that you even *can* on a repeated, knowledgeable basis, which is why I would extend to you an invitation to do so for the claims you just marked yourself immediately above. I am asking this not combatively, but on WP:COMPETENCE grounds, given that you do not conduct yourself like someone who knows what any of extended bibliographies on any of the articles I've been editing extensively of late actually say. Certainly, *if* an editor *competently* attempts to verify it themselves first, and is unable to find a published reliable source that verifies the content, then editorial discretion allows them to remove it per WP:V. Emphasis on competence, which is, after all, required. Like noticing the statement about ancestry made immediately in the lede of the [264], which was *already in* the article you mention above.

Now, you could always politely ask me. You may even recall me providing multiple sources for a claim that you asked me about on my talk page. But instead you (i) attempted to get my user page speedily deleted, including random drafting I had there, (ii) have made a point of following me around and trying to eliminate any text I've written that I don't inline cite (to the point that I *deliberately* didn't cite certain edits in certain knowledge you would pull them up immediately above, as you just have, despite it being trivially easy to do so, and as I happily will once the point is clear, (iii) have done so incompetently in relation to the existing sourcing I have provided, despite being told repeatedly that that is so, and (iv) are now agitating for me to be indefinitely blocked despite my *not actually having come close to doing anything that would warrant that*. This hysterical approach is decidedly not to my taste. Nor does it have anything to do with building an encyclopedia. New articles I've created in the last few days Mylapore clique, Egmore clique, Calamur Mahadevan, C.R. Pattabhirama Iyer, Aryama Sundaram, Vembaukum family, and others are all valuable and well-executed contributions for recently created articles still taking shape. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you just accept the fact that you didn't cite sources for certain edits to prove a point? Also, I am not going to come to your talk page each time a citation is missing. I would like to read and verify what's in the article with its inline citations. It is not anyone's job to open all the citations in an article to verify a single statement. Added to the previous violations, you have also violated a behavioral policy now. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I didn't apply or fail to apply policy; I simply didn't bother citing certain edits to prove not a WP:POINT, but a lack of WP:COMPETENCE on your part. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Gah. Not sorting all this. Thanks anyway. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As before, I suggest that any admin who believes I am engaged in some nefarious conspiracy to advance the Calamur family/clan/dynasty (which is probably best described as a kin network, following Pamela Price's Ideology and Ethnicity under British Imperial Rule: 'Brahmans', Lawyers and Kin-Caste Rules in Madras Presidency (see

[265]), but that isn't the dominant term in the literature, and isn't formally defined by her anyway.) take note that it is in fact a descriptor of members of a particular caste hailing from the town of Kadambur, which was spelt Calamur or Calambur under the British Raj - all of whom are related, in consequence of centuries of endogamy, and who have (as is clear in the dozens of articles I've created, especially Calamur) come to encompass their caste neighbors in several other hamlets and towns, most saliently Chetpet, and then have a look at Mylapore clique, Egmore clique, Calamur Mahadevan, C.R. Pattabhirama Iyer, Menon cabal, KRK Menon (no relation to the prior), Aryama Sundaram, Vembaukum family, Rao family, N. Subrahmanyam, V.C. Gopalratnam, V. N. Viswanatha Rao, V.N. Srinivasa Rao, C. V. Ranganathan, Triplicane Six, and any of the dozens of other articles I have created and am working on, all of which deal with politics in the Madras Presidency, or things or people descending from politics in the Madras Presidency. I am apparently not being accused of advancing the Rao family or Vembaukum family, even though I created those articles as well, and have created and edited numerous articles for members, and didn't bother with inline citations to the effect that Sir V. Bhashyam Aiyangar and C.V. Rungacharlu were brothers-in-law (though that is easily verifiable, like everything else...) As to the sourcing matter, well, there is no sourcing matter. OP(s) just lack(s) WP:Competence, which is now amply demonstrated, although I am happy to walk anyone through the particulars in excruciating detail if they'd like. Now, why this is even a thing, I do not know, but if it's going to be one, it is an excellent case for WP:Boomerang. That said, I would be content with OP(s) simply leaving me alone and not engaging in completely batshit conspiracy theories because they haven't read any of the sources or else don't know how to, and "don't want to ask me", because they demand for whatever reason that I be exceptionless in inline citation, while himself/herself/themselves being incompetent to understand that two sources saying

Born to Subrahmanyam and Janaki Ammal at Butchireddipalem in Nellore district in the erstwhile Madras Presidency on May 6, 1901, Mahadevan did his M.A. (geology) from Madras University in 1927 and obtained the Doctor of Science for his research work carried out in the Indian Association for Cultivation of Science, Calcutta, under the direct supervision of the Nobel laureate, Sir C.V. Raman.

or the semantic equivalent means that the subject's parents are named Subrahmanyam and Janaki (their example! not mine!). Hölderlin2019 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You keep casting aspersions about other editors competence, but yet you are the one with 30+ files up for deletion at commons – files uploaded by Hölderlin2019 – because of copyright violations, when the burden is on you to comply with image use policy. And then you wrongly claim – As to the sourcing matter, well, there is no sourcing matter. – when the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with you to provide an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. So how about you stop casting aspersions, and demonstrate your competence by reading Wikipedia:Image use policy, and adding inline citations to content you add to the encyclopedia, as required by policy. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments

Could an admin review these two comments here [266] -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

As well as this comment here [267] (Context: [268]) -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

And this one. The only reason I'm not blocking immediately is the tenure of the user. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Note this is one of the two comments I referred to above. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps <this> might have something to do with it, admittedly not the same days. – 2804:F1...C5:945B (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I recommend ignoring this unless there is evidence of an ongoing problem. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk · contribs) wrote "this guy liked to fuck, huh?" on an article talk page. That very inappropriate comment was quickly reverted. It relates to Brigham Young (1847–1877) who had at least 56 wives and 57 children. I would not write the comments seen at User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#Stubs but they are ok. If there is some problem regarding edits at stubs, that problem should be spelled out. The glowing signature comment is again ok: it's an understandable reaction to an inappropriate signature. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The comment on the user talk page is concerning to me as I interpret it as disrespectful and it pertains to personal religious beliefs. Also the fact that the user the comment was directed towards is going through a difficult time right now — in a situation involving their religious affiliations — is a compounding factor for me, although it's unclear if Dreameditsbrooklyn was aware of this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too dramatic; the user seems simply immature and not malicious after all. But still, comments like these have to stop. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The "deez" remark is an obvious reference to "deez nuts" memes which derive from the lyrics of a 30 year old Dr. Dre gangsta rap song that discusses a woman's facial contact with testicles while performing fellatio. It is an inappropriate allusion to use while interacting with another editor. The question to a self-identified LDS church member about what it feels like to be Mormon is creepy, intrusive and inappropriate. The comment about Brigham Young's enthusiasm for intercourse is unnecessarily profane, unproductive and provocative. None of these remarks was intended to help improve the encyclopedia, and instead serve to unnecessarily irritate people. I was inclined to block Dreameditsbrooklyn, but decided to ask for input from other editors, and a statement from Dreameditsbrooklyn. I would expect a commitment to refrain from such provocative comments in the future, since they do not help to improve the encyclopedia in any discernable way. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for these remarks. It will not happen again. I am sorry for causing other editors to waste their time addressing the matter. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, I don't think you had bad intentions. But don't let it happen again though and hopefully we can all walk away from this having learned something; Dreameditsbrooklyn learning to be more professional, especially when it comes to sensitive personal matters like a user's religious beliefs, and myself having learned the history — in great detail — of the deez nuts meme. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown chronic reverting problem

Continously reverting and redirecting ([269], [270], [271]) on Election Commission of Pakistan general election forms and trying to impose a redirect without a consensus. Generally, this should be handled through WP:AFD and considered as a failed WP:PROD, but this guy will mindlessly revert, revert, and revert. 141.195.113.18 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Similar problem was highlighted by @Saqib: as well a few days ago, but it was archived prematurely by a bot. 141.195.113.18 (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Ping to @Wiki.0hlic: who was also involved. 141.195.113.18 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• The author of that article was blocked following the investigation detailed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toomanyyearskodakblack#19 February 2024. According to policy, contributions by blocked editors can be reverted without justification. In this instance, the forms were appropriately relocated to Election Commission of Pakistan#General election forms, resulting in a redirect. There seems to be a concerted effort by these individuals to impede my editing. They file frivolous ANIs daily in hopes that if they persist, an admin will block me, thereby eliminating opposition. It appears this IP is connected to the blocked editor. This ANI warrants immediate closure, and the IP should be blocked. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sheriff, while an editor may revert edits of a banned editor, per WP:BRV, the same also notes that 1) they are not required to be reverted, and 2) once non-banned editors (such as Wiki.h0lic) revert, WP:BRV's 3RR exception no longer applies, as you're no longer reverting a banned editor, but an editor in good standing. If the articles should be BLAR'd, I expect consensus will bear that out.

  That said, IP, I note that you have no other edits except to the disputed page and this noticeboard. I can understand Sheriff's assumption that you are connected with the blocked user. Have you done any other editing on Wikipedia? EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  In the two days since this report was opened, the page in question was BLARed by consensus and protected, and the reporting IP has not edited. No further disruption seems forthcoming, so this section can be closed without prejudice. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was away for a professional engagement so could not reply to the ping. I don't know how chronic this problem is, but in the past couple of months I have had 2 run-ins with Sheriff. It happened on the page in question and secondly, it occurred on Qazi Faez Isa, where my effort to build consensus was ignored and, true to their moniker, they have adopted a "my way or the highway" approach after persistent reversion. Apart from the disregard for consensus, what troubles me in the case of both the articles, is that I have significantly contributed to the them, and Sheriff just comes in and copy-pastes ([272] and [273]) the content elsewhere in a manner ignorant of WP:CWW, effecting my attribution. Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 13:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding their WP:CWW concern, I am just replying for the record. Their attribution was not affected in that particular case. Firstly, there were significant contributions by me to the content at Qazi Faez Isa, secondly, the article PTI intra-party elections case was completely rewritten by me, they can run it through a copyvio tool. If they had contributed to Qazi Faez Isa to a specific case section, that does not mean no one else can write a separate article about the case. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked user spamming their own talk page

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

Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

YuseraRCL added advertising spam to their talk page three times after their advertising block. I've removed their Talk page access. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)