Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Disruptive editing, SYNTH and IDHT issues

• Simulaun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User failing to acknowledge/heed discussions and warnings about their editing, particularly WP:SYNTH, and refusal to engage other editors and gain WP:CONSENSUS for their changes.

Inspired by today's improper removal of content on the Melbourne article ([1], [2], [3]), I've decided to put up.

Since April 2022, Simulaun has been engaged in what can only be described as a narrow-focused campaign to either remove or muddy the waters re the Indigenous Australian names of cities in Australia, particularly Melbourne. I don't know their motivations, but it's pretty clear to anyone that they are removing content that they just don't like and replacing it with poorly sourced -- or outright synthesis of published material. Ironically, a section on Talk:Melbourne entitled "wikipedia:Activist attempts to rename Australian towns and cities" might offer a little bit of an explanation behind Simulaun's editing (seeing as they do not seem keen on expanding when challenged), particularly their comment: "The same cultural appropriation is taking place for the city of Perth, which is now being referred to by some groups as "Big Swamp" in Noongar language." (diff).

A current favourite of Simulaun's has been to add SYNTH material to Melbourne re its Indigenous name, ignoring the need for consensus. The user will replace an existing passage with a synthesis of a LonelyPlanet source and others, making the misleading claim that the source is speaking for Melbourne (it's not). The editor has been warned about this, as will be expanded upon later. Examples:

• Sept. 20 (reverted) – SYNTH, WP:COPYVIO, ignores consensus
• Sept. 26 (reverted) – SYNTH, COPYVIO, ignores consensus
• Oct. 15 (reverted) – SYNTH, unreliable source per WP:RSP, ignores consensus
• Oct. 17 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Oct. 18 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Nov. 2 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Nov. 5 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Nov. 9 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Nov. 10 (reverted) – removal of sourced content

Simulaun, when challenged about their editing, has repeatedly chosen to outright ignore or defend their edits (and then proceed to do the exact same thing they've been accused of doing). Examples:

• Apr. 24: The Logical Positivist asked Simlaun to stop adding original research to the Rottnest Island article. No response. On the article's talk page, Mitch Ames had even previously asked Simulaun to stop adding factual errors/OR to article [4]. No response.
• Apr. 25: I cautioned Simulaun for removal of content on Melbourne and to gain consensus for their edits. No response.
• Jul. 7: Padgriffin warned Simulaun for adding original research to Sydney. Simulaun defended adding original research and has continued to add OR.
• Sept. 20: I asked Simulaun to provide diffs of where on Talk:Melbourne consensus exists for their content change as they incorrectly claimed. They did not provide those diffs as can be seen.
• Sept. 25: Poketama too, told Simulaun that their content changes to Melbourne contained SYNTH.
• Oct. 15: I cautioned Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response.
• Oct. 19: I warned Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response.
• Nov. 2: I gave a final warning to Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response. Since then, they've continuously added the same SYNTH bypassing the need for consensus here and here, having been reverted by Gracchus250 and Meters, respectively, citing the same issues in their edit summaries.

Judging from the frequency of their edits, I think they will just keep edit warring, not listening, bypassing the need for consensus, and of course, adding SYNTH to articles. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I have repeatedly addressed your concerns on WP:Talk regarding WP:Melbourne. Posted NPOV, NOR, sourced sentences with the addition that anyone should feel free to alter the wording if it was not to their liking (=consensus by default, unless LonelyPlanet/TourismAustralia are censored sources). Simulaun (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This user's IDHT behavior has gone on for long enough. I would personally propose, at minimum, a TBAN from Australian-geography related articles for them, considering that they've persistently engaged in this type of behavior and seemingly refuse to follow WP:CON. I would support harsher sanctions but it's a start. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I asked you for input regarding contributions to WP in July of 2022. Still no reply. Simulaun (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Support for a TBAN here. Gusfriend (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I was notified to comment on here. This user has been mostly a nuisance but I have looked at their contributions page a few times and contemplated what value they were bringing. I remember reading a Wiki policy which I dont have on hand that says essentially a users contributions should not entirely be negative and deletionist. Besides their edits on Rottnest, theyve never actually added anything to Wikipedia and they dont listen to argument, policy or consensus. Due to their relatively infrequent edits theyve not been a huge problem to revert, but its pretty clear to me their edits are solely bad faith vandalism that wastes users time and may be harder to catch on smaller articles. Poketama (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

How is adding information from LonelyPlanet/TourismAustralia 'deletionist'? Also, you appear to be saying that adding quotes from Aboriginal Elders is 'entirely negative' and/or 'bad faith vandalism'? When you say 'a nuissance' do you perhaps mean 'inconvenient truth'? Simulaun (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I note that on Oct. 17 that the same unfounded claims that had to be previously removed from the Rottnest Island page in April were re-added by Simulaun and had to be removed yet again. Their contributions do seem disruptive and they have not been willing to engage on the matters for that page at least when they have been raised with them. The Logical Positivist (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I was asked to add a legal reference, which I did. Simulaun (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding in the claim that “Such unoccupied land meets the definition of Terra Nullius (as defined by Emerich de Vattel)" is not providing a reference for the claim - it is the perfect example of 'original research' as you are applying that label to Rottnest without any reliable source backing it up. You would need a source that actually says that Rottnest specifically was classified as Terra Nullius - particularly considering the High Court overturned that concept applying in Australia. The Logical Positivist (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that the sentence in question can be construed as OR. I thought it might be acceptable, however, as it is used in a similar manner on another WP page. Simulaun (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinged here. I agree that something needs to be done about the continuing IDHT and SYNTH. A topic ban would work, but perhaps since the editor has never been blocked, perhaps a temporary block would get their attention. Meters (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I would agree. This editors contributions seem to almost exclusively focus on the use of SYNTH (or completely unsourced) material to further the goal of reducing Wikipedia's inclusion of Indigenous names. As seen with the edit I reverted on Hobart (diff) on the 24th of September. JTdale 🗩 04:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

How is deletion of an apparent error SYNTH or unsourced? Also, as you pointed out, multiple editors have sought to correct this apparent nipaluna error, so why are you deleting willy-nilly without discussion or consent? Simulaun (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There has been discussion. Extensively. See the discussion on WikiProject Australia. JTdale 🗩 10:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I have followed some of the discussion. It is not clear to me what the outcome was, but I had the impression that the consensus was dual-naming OK for New Zealand, not OK for Australia. Please let me know if that is incorrect. Simulaun (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• So it's been a couple days, Simulaun has not responded to this nor edited. I'd be keen to hear their thoughts, just as much as I would support a TBAN on Australian-geography related articles as has been suggested by a few editors already. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• @Simulaun: I reverted the massive amount of text you posted to this page. You are welcome to respond to the complaint, but you must make it shorter and readable. In addition, don't refer to yourself in the third person.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  Noted (response has been shortened and use of 'username:simulaun' (meant for clarity) is no longer used). Simulaun (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Racism against Indigenous Australians, IDHT, and deficient responses at ANI; sounds familiar. Support TBAN from anything related to Australia and indigenous people. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  I wanna point out that Simulaun has attempted to remove the Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung text from mellohi!'s signature just now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that Simulaun has escalated to vandalising my signature due to it having non-English text is 100% unacceptable. Thanks for whoever reverted that. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies. I assumed it was a (additional) criticism or insult aimed at me in a foreign language. On a side note, if mellohi! is your signature, what are the text before and the symbol(s) after your signature? Simulaun (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  投稿 means contributions, and links to their contributions page. It is very clearly part of their signature. Also editing other people's comments is only allowed in extreme circumstances, see WP:TPO. Further more, I'd probably you know, check instead of just assume all words in languages other than english are insults. This may be English wikipedia but many users here are multilingual and use the same signatures across multiple projects. JTdale 🗩 10:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Frankly this sort of behavior just gives more credence to support a TBAN or even a CBAN from the project, as this user appears to have no tolerance towards non-English languages and attempts to remove them whenever possible, which paints an extremely problematic picture and makes me question their intentions on the Wiki beyond pushing their agenda. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  It was more the exclamation mark at the end that appeared to indicate it was a statement of sorts (as in 'Fxck!)

  In regard to non-English, Wikipedia's Manual of Style states that Wikipedia articles ought to be written in plain English. My misunderstanding regarding 'Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung etc.' underscores the relevance of this WP rule.

  You appear to be saying that there is a hidden agenda in a near cut-and-paste of LonelyPlanet/TourismAustralia. Please explain.

  Lastly, you appear to be against links to a map of Eora, statements by an Aboriginal Elder, and dual-naming of Australian cities. Are you perhaps pushing some sort agenda?

  Simulaun (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  A couple of points:

  1. The MOS for Wikipedia pages does not match what is required for Talk pages. For example a spellling mistake on a talk page does not require fixing but one on Wikipedia pages does.
  2. I am nervous when someone talks of a near cut and paste due to copyright concerns. I would say that your capitalised text below is too close for my liking.
  3. I am concerned about the use of Lonely Planet as a reliable source for this if they say that Tourism Australia selected the name as it is a Government of Council decision. Gusfriend (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  near cut and paste — See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As outlined below, edits were consistently and/or extensively adjusted to take into account WP:talk feedback to reach consensus: 1) Referring to Rottnest Island and no inhabitation for 7000 years, added: “By the time of European exploration in the 1600s the island is thought to have been unoccupied for thousands of years, thus constituting a bona fide Terra Nullius by being uninhabited (terra nullius = unoccupied or uninhabited)”

This resulted in Undid revision 1082603292 “Terra Nullius was a legal principle and not purely a descriptor. A citation that says Rottnest is recognised as being such under law would be necessary to justify its inclusion in this article.”

To address the above objection, reposted: “Such unoccupied land meets the definition of Terra Nullius (as defined by Emerich de Vattel)”.

This resulted in Undid revision 1116596894 “This edit contravenes the WP:NOR policy.”

2) In regard to the word ‘Nipaluna’ for Hobart: Deleted its use as an alternative name for Hobart as “Not supported by official government dual-name records.”

This was reverted because “Persistent vandalism of this page to remove nipaluna by multiple editors. If you have any further debate about this, go to the talk page. It will not be removed without a consensus of editors.”

In light of this objection, started WP:Talk on 28 September: “It has come to my attention that the word 'nipaluna' refers to a location/region that differs greatly from the location of present-day Hobart. These two names (nipaluna and Hobart) should, therefore, not be used interchangeably. This error warrants being corrected. The WP:Hobart page states that "The city lies on country which (sic) was known by (sic) the local Mouheneener people as nipaluna, a name which (sic) includes surrounding features such as kunanyi/Mt. Wellington and timtumili minanya (River Derwent)". Nuennonne/Palawa kani: nipaluna is, therefore, not the same as the city Hobart and should hence not be presented as such (as is presently the case in the first sentence of the WP:Hobart page).

3) Referring to the etymology of the word ‘Narrm’ for Melbourne: (letters/words identical between the WP entry and the source have been capitalized. “Melbourne is sometimes called ‘NAaRM’ (or similar), which is a Boonwurrung word for an area comprising part of the GEOGRAPHICAL FOOTPRINT of present-day Melbourne. The process of introducing an indigenous NAMe for a CITy or urban area that DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO BRITISH COLONIZATION MEANS that An indigenous NAME HAs TO BE CHOSEN. TOURISM AUSTRALIA has selected the Boonwurrung name NARRM”. Source (LonelyPlanet, referring to Tourism Australia): “NAMing entire CITies, such as Sydney, which (sic) DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO BRITISH COLONIZATION as a single entity prior to BRITISH COLONIZATION, MEANS THAT A NAME HAd TO BE CHOSEN that doesn’t always represent the whole GEOGRAPHICAL FOOTPRINT.” (accompanied by a map generated by TOURISM AUSTRALIA and reproduced by the LonelyPlanet source indicating the dual name chosen is ‘Melbourne/NARRM’)

This does not appear to be WP:Synthesis (“combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source”).

and “The assignment of Aboriginal names to cities such as Melbourne has been questioned, however. For example, Wurundjeri elder Ian Hunter, who has been involved with Indigenous culture for 30 years, says he’s “never heard of it. It’s something some young people have come up with, I think. How do you have a name for something that doesn’t exist?” Source (3AW693Newstalk): “Under the plan, Melbourne would be given the dual name Naarm. But Wurundjeri elder Ian Hunter, who has been involved with Indigenous culture for 30 years, says he’s “never heard of it”. “It’s something some young people have come up with, I think. How do you have a name for something that doesn’t exist?”

This nearly copy and paste entry led to the following WP:TALK: @Simulaun: is adding content that has been disputed in this talk page, skipping the part about gaining consensus. I've undone their edits and returned the article to its status-quo. Feel free to explain your edits here. Also, a side note, your content made use of content from here -- almost word for word. —MelbourneStar☆talk 09:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The content in question has been discussed and there appears to be ample support (consensus?) on WP:Talk for its inclusion in the article. Furthermore, before reposting, I addressed the concerns raised by providing a broader perspective (from 'Lonelyplanet.com') and additional documentation of Ian Hunter's track record of involvement in Aboriginal culture (see below for more detail). So I am not sure why this information is being censored. Please specify/clarify what concerns remain unaddressed. Previous concerns aired on WP:Talk: Concern 1: The initial edit was considered on WP:Talk to 'probably be a good addition to the article, but it needs a source'. As stated in WP:Talk, the source is 3AW. Additional sources pertaining to the issue more generally, and the quoted individual, have now also been provided. Concern 2: By quoting someone, it was alleged on WP:Talk that the initial entry amounted to a single point of view. As pointed out on WP:Talk, this is not a particularly valid criticism. Moreover, this has now been addressed by presenting the topic more broadly ("The introduction of indigenous names...", as stated in reference by lonelyplanet.com) Concern 3; It was claimed that the quoted individual (Ian Hunter) is non-notable. Although this does not appear to be a valid or relevant criticism (e.g., not all quotes on WP need to be from well-known individuals), this concern has now been addressed by the addition of four additional references documenting significant exposure of this individual's views and activities on public news outlets. Concern 4: It was claimed that the quoted individual cannot have been an 'elder' for 30 years. Although this criticism also appears to lack validity or relevance (e.g., there can be a degree of variation in how one interprets 'being an elder for 30 years'), this concern has also been addressed as the four additional references attest to broad-based recognition of the quoted individual's involvement in Aboriginal culture and their apparent credentials as an Aboriginal 'elder' Simulaun (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Concern 1: an editor made that observation, we're all editors of equal standing. I'm just one editor who disagrees. (Problem with this criticism: disagrees about what?) Concern 2: it's still quoting one person's view (3AW article), you've just conflated it (see original research) to be about every city, even though this Wikipedia article is about one city - Melbourne. The lonelyplanet source is discussing Sydney -- not Melbourne. In fact, the source even clarifies that a name change "doesn’t always represent the whole geographical footprint". "Doesn't always" = suggests that not all cities encounter this issue, and Melbourne could be one of them, but we don't know that seeing as the source does not reference Melbourne. Also, your copy-and-paste of content from the loneyplanet source, without proper attribution, is a copyright violation. (Problems with this criticism: 1) most sources/citation are from a single person, 2) the source does reference Melbourne/Narrm) Concern 3: "Although this does not appear to be a valid or relevant criticism (e.g., not all quotes on WP need to be from well-known individuals)" - your opinion is not policy. Wikipedia policy can speak for itself, see WP:NOTWHOSWHO. I've brought up weight issues (specifically giving a false balance) that still stand (ie. if this person is so notable, why doesn't he have an article on Wikipedia?). Moreover, Wikipedia doesn't give undue weight to insignificant views; perhaps in passing, but a viewpoint and a quote? I don't think so. (Problem with this criticism: the source is an Aboriginal Elder who has been featured in numerous news productions) Concern 4: I don't disagree nor agree. I would reiterate that if this person's decades of knowledge are notable, then perhaps it's time he had an article on Wikipedia. —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC) (Problem with this criticism: Ian Stuart’s decades of knowledge are notable, as evidenced by the additional sources provided)

After about a month of no further comments/input for this discussion, reposted the above NPOV, NOR, and properly sourced from the LonelyPlanet source while fully omitting any reference to the contested quote(s) from Aboriginal Elder Ian Stuart. Also specified that other editors should feel free to change any words they objected to (=seeking consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simulaun (talk • contribs) 01:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the same wall-of-text you posted earlier, just with the third-person names removed. Not a great look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The way you've presented this post is very difficult to read, as it appears you've copy pasted other editors comments and the entire contents of the talk page here? I think? I'm unclear.

I can only address your argument regarding Hobart. Simply put, it is SYNTH. You are synthesizing an argument based on the idea that historically these names referred to a region, and in modern day, refer to a city instead that only partially includes that region. You are not providing a source that states that nipaluna can only refer to the historic usage.

One name can refer to two different things, in fact this is very common. Hobart refers to both the local government area (which contains just a small fraction of the area), the statistical metropolitan area (which contains more), and the region (which includes the entirety). None of these uses of the name Hobart invalidate its use in other contexts, just as historic use of nipaluna does not invalidate modern use. Further, Wikipedia does not require official government recognition of a name to include it, just evidence of general use. This was provided on the Hobart talk page in February when an anonymous editor attempted to make the exact same edits as you, and you were referred to it later. JTdale 🗩 20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User:FF toho

Request concerning FF toho

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User against whom enforcement is requested

FF toho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Uyghur genocide discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 15:16, 10 November 2022 characterizing researcher Adrian Zenz as "far-right" in Wikivoice. An attributed characterization of the researcher as "far-right" was previously removed from the article.
2. 16:40, 10 November 2022 reverting to enforce the Wikivoice characterization of the researcher as "far-right". The edit summary accuses the filer of seeking "to obscure this with your own personal bias".

Diffs of any previous sanctions, if any

None that I can find, though the user has previously been warned for conduct in a Chinese Communist Party name-related move dispute.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

16:32, 10 November 2022

Additional comments by the editor filing complaint

FF toho has also expressed their dislike for Adrian Zenz's work on other pages, such as at Talk:Uyghur genocide where they first imply that they do not believe him to be a reliable researcher and later make this view quite explicit.

The Adrian Zenz article is under an indefinite BLP 1RR and an editnotice exists for the article that communicates this. I asked the editor to self-revert on the talkpage, but they did not do so. Instead, the content was removed as a BLP issue by Firefangledfeathers. Repeatedly re-inserting the "far-right" descriptor into the page, despite that descriptor having been removed from the page previously, is edit warring in violation of the 1RR restriction previously imposed by HighInBC. When these edits combined with the obvious expressed dislike for Zenz's work, this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to unduly mar the page of a BLP for that BLP's involvement in research relating to Uyghur genocide. Along those lines, I am requesting the use of community-authorized discretionary sanctions to place a WP:TBAN on FF toho barring them from making edits about people related to the topic of Uyghur genocide, on any page, broadly construed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

18:30, 10 November 2022‎

Discussion concerning FF toho

I have to say that it's normally not a good sign when a single editor appears across several contentious articles on my watchlist all at once. After seeing this I scouted through more of their contributions, and aside from having (reverted) after most of their edits all I'll say is, we shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions, yet I can guess FF toho's. — Czello 19:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Most this editors edits seem to be related to communism and all of those show some bias. While most communism related topics will fall under one active sanction or another a TBAN for communism broadly construed should be considered rather a narrower one under as specific active sanction—blindlynx 02:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Eeesh, the initial edit that Red-tailed hawk took issue with is pretty egregious: the source says, in a discussion of how Zenz has been targeted by CCP propoganda, that he "has been portrayed on numerous occasions as a far-right pseudo researcher"; it strains belief that anyone attempting to portray Zenz fairly could use this to support a description of "far right" in wikivoice.

That said, as far as I can see FF toho only reverted once on that page; it's not a clearcut 1RR violation. Arguing that re-instating the words "far right" is technically a partial revert of this edit from July 2020 seems pretty much like fishing for a reason to sanction to me – that was 18 months before FF toho even created their account and I can't see that anybody suggested that counted as a revert when initially discussing this with them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: Though I did not mention this in the initial filing, the second edit to the page re-inserted material that new accounts have previously tried to edit war into the article, such as in May of this year (1 2 3 4) that led to the new user being indeffed. That, of course, was not the first time somebody tried to insert similar material into the page, but re-inserting content that's been repeatedly contested throughout the page history is a revert. The proper thing to do is to ask the user to self-revert, which I did, and had they done so I would not have brought this here at this juncture. But they didn't sel-revert, haven't participated whatsoever in the talk page discussion on Talk:Adrian Zenz despite being pinged (though they did participate on another talk page before this report was filed.

On top of that, the reason for the sanction is more plainly that, as I stated in the filing above, this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to unduly mar the page of a BLP for that BLP's involvement in research relating to Uyghur genocide. Even if you believe the 1RR violation is marginal, it's without question that FF toho's stated intent was to portray Zenz in a negative light. And, in seeking to portray Zenz negatively, the editor first made an egregious BLP violation and subsequently re-instated it after it was reverted against policy while accusing other editors of "personal bias" (which, by the way, is the same sort of rationale the new editor who was later indeffed stated in their edit summaries in May). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of the edit summaries provided by FF toho are so invective, that they ought to be revision deleted, like this one, in which they blithely called Mr. Zenz an antisemite (!) I support a topic ban from communism-, China- and Xinjiang-related articles on NOTHERE and GREATWRONGS grounds. Nutez (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

" The proper thing to do is to ask the user to self-revert, which I did, and had they done so I would not have brought this here at this juncture."

Someone else reverted my changes before I even saw your talk page message. FF toho (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You gave me the message to self revert at 16:59, and I was infact going to do so, but at 17:00 someone else did it instead. You are leaving out crucial context and I don't find this nice. FF toho (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Oof, here's a diff where they tried to claim Stalin shouldn't be referred to as a dictator based on a single primary source from the 50s: [5]. POV stuff aside, that's a pretty blatant misunderstanding of how sourcing works. I would support a topic ban as well, but that and the misuse of Wikivoice described above make me wonder if they'd need extra scrutiny on non-communism related edits as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Coracle (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That's why I first brought it up on the talk page which exists for exactly that purpose. FF toho (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Is this an AE discussion? If no, may I ask what type of discussion is it? Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is an ANI discussion in which I am requesting the imposition of discretionary sanctions under the uyghur genocide general sanctions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely for copyvio. Several of FF toho's comments made have been copy-paste of reddit comments; Samwalton9 caught one of them at RSN. No comment on the validity of applying GS/Uyghur here. --Izno (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that the user has been indeffed for an unrelated reason, might it be wise to close this discussion as moot? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ali banu sistani

Ali banu sistani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For too long have I hestitated to report this disruptive user. The last straw came today when I discovered they been bad-mouthing me a few days ago, when I haven't even been in contact with him since June 2022 (!). You'll see the diff for it down below. Back in 7 February 2021, an admin warned him to refrain from harrassing me [6]. I have also warned them on multiple occasions (eg [7] [8]). Looks like they haven't learned.

18 January 2021 why don't the Iranians call the legal right? This was the first time they communicated with me, referring to me as an "Iranian" rather by my username.

7 February 2021 [9] Created a section at WP:AN titled "Iranian provocateur on wikipedia", with the following message; " I don't understand why Iranian contributors roll back legal edits concerning Balochi? Chasing Balochi Articles and rolling back legal edits while making fake edits is complete vandalism by the Iranians!"

7 February 2021 why don't the Parrsi call the legal right? This time referring to me as "Parsi" (Persian).

7 February 2021 "There are alternative explanations for this: you get paid and you just do your job, guarding articles day and night that are in the interests of Persian nationalists. Do what you want, but do not break the rules of Wikipedia, do not spread such false information. your actions suggest that you just want to destroy Baloch history! don't do it please..."

7 February 2021 "pay attention to my answer Historyofiran I just ask them not to spread false information, please do not pass by."

2 April 2021 [10] Randomly reverted me in an area they never edit. In other words; more harrassment.

9 November 2022 "but basically it is the history of the Baloch people, who are not very respectful of the right on Wikipedia from Iran, sort of like a member of Historyofiran."

I think it's high time they learn the consequences of such bad behaviour. Don't even let me get started on their pov-pushing, such as recently here [11], when they tried to make the ludicrous claim that the "Baloch are the heirs of the Parthians." using a unverifiable obscure source (which is their usual go to). Or here, where they removed sourced info with no edit summary [12].

This user has (surprisingly) been here for four years, yet still don't know how to act even half decently. If I may so boldly say the only reason they haven't indeffed yet is because they edit in very obscure articles which are barely seen (let alone edited) by others. Anyhow, if they keep bothering me I will also include a list of their pov edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. Imo, this is a pretty obvious case of WP:HARASSMENT, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Solijonovm1996

Solijonovm1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User seems to be on a nationalistic mission to Uzbekify various articles, here's why;

Kara-Khanid Khanate: Edit warring in the article [13] [14] [15], constantly attempting to add the Modern Cyrillic Uzbek transliteration. Neither Uzbek (which didnt exist back then) and especially not the Cyrillic script was used by the khanate. And obviously the article doesn't mention anything about it either.

Samarkand: Removed several non-Uzbek tranliterations [16] and sourced info about its Iranian/Persian/Tajik connection [17]. They were reverted, but then engaged in edit warring [18] [19] [20]

Their talk page is filled with a lot of recent warnings, which clearly haven't helped. They haven't even used the talk page of an article once. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Massive amounts of unsourced content at Dassel, Minnesota, et al

It started with a quick look at the history section, a large unsourced block added in one swoop. Then I noted that 47.12.60.39 (talk · contribs) had done this with multiple articles on Minnesota towns. It could take some time to go back and revert all of them, and it's likely that these texts were copied from somewhere, though I haven't located the source(s). Any assistance will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

All of the unsourced additions to Minnesota towns have already been reverted by the nominator and others, but they still need to be checked for copyright violations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I got the last one, at Mrs. Stewart's Bluing from 2018. Not having edited since 2021, this report is technically stale, but can be valid as a chronic issue. The MN towns were edited in a few days in August 2019, but there were similar unsourced edits as early as 2018 and as late as 2021. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, LaundryPizza03. At this point, I don't expect any action re: the long dormant IP. Rather, I was curious whether anyone could find source(s) for the content, and rev/delete any copyright infringement. Also I like to be utterly transparent when reverting large passages from many articles; it's not uncommon for passing editors to mistake such reversions for vandalism, especially coming from an IP. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe at least some of the material comes from a local-history book called Terry Tales, by Terry R. Shaw, which appears to be heavily excerpted—maybe serially published—on Old Litchfield Minnesota & Meeker County. I don’t have a Facebook account, so can’t browse the group myself, but I got some search results pointing in that direction.—Odysseus1479 21:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Odysseus1479, I found that too, yesterday, but didn't follow it far enough to determine what may have been copied. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Yae4

Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE behaviors, sadly. Edits to GrapheneOS could be seen as dishonest at worst and include original research by extrapolation of sources and presumptions. Yae4's contributions are a common source of complaints by other editors at Talk:GrapheneOS. Wikipedia:POV railroad and/or WP:FRUSTRATE.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1106#User:Yae4, brought by 84.250.14.116 (talk)
• GrapheneOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Special:Diff/1122406256 – after being told his matter is off-topic for article talk, Yae4 then suggested eliminating other editors (whom have disagreed with Yae4) by means of requesting extended page protection for the article.
• Talk:GrapheneOS#Vice Motherboard source on ANOM involvement (since 3 November 2022)

84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. Looks like that article has attracted a good deal of unregistered and SPA attention, and I can't quite tell who's in the wrong in terms of behavior (Yae4 is edit warring, but it's hard to contend with lots of edits from newish accounts. Yae4's most recent edits removing content sourced just to Twitter and Github seem good to me, and it looks like most of the dispute is centered on this material. If you want an outside opinion, I say remove it altogether. It's a source that basically says "some people said ANOM used GrapheneOS; doesn't look like that's true". If lots of sources made the connection, then ok, but why include something that ultimately isn't about the subject, right? Just remove it altogether. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Contributions tell the tale:

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

For a while I've known 84.250.14.116 to be a nearly Single Purpose IP, mostly at GrapheneOS.

My perspective on their edit and discussion behavior solidified when observing Bbb23 identify it as "trolling"[21] and "incredible clutter" [22]

As for GrapheneOS, it has issues with WP:DUE (among other things), seeing how a few sources are cited 2 to 5 times, and others are cited only once. Most sources are obscure, but have been cited to "support" cherry picked statements. "There is no consensus on the reliability" of the Vice (Motherboard) source - subject of recent dispute - but it has the distinction of at least being on WP:RSP, unlike most sources of the article (Adding: which I was instrumental in originally getting published, and included in DYK). -- Yae4 (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Igaming 13

Igaming 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Igaming 13 joined on 19 October 2022. Since then, they have created, moved, and redirected a slew of radio-related articles. Also been blocked once before. As of this edit, RT Broadcast Specialists, DYLG-FM, DYCE-FM, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, DWRJ, and Rajah Brodcasting Network were all created by them.

ATM, they are not responding to talk page, which I suspect is due to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. I suspect a misguided effort (WP:NOTDATABASE) or WP:NOTHERE. Sungodtemple (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked for two weeks by Quarl. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The user is notorious for adding irrelevant formats and hoax info to various radio station articles, such as DXYP and DXJL. He even ignored the hidden messages in those articles. Prior to having his own account, he edited such articles under these IP addresses:

• Special:Contributions/136.158.65.144
• Special:Contributions/136.158.65.204

He was blocked twice: the first being 31 hours, and the second being 2 weeks. It'd make more sense if his recent block would last for a month or two. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 07:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, BLPPRIMARY violations

• 67.84.178.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• This IP editor has been making edits with such summaries as "added actual middle name and DOB from public records". I don't know the truth of this summary, and they don't seem to bother actually inserting the public records they claim to have found, but beyond inserting unsourced contentious information in numerous BLPs, if their edit summary is accurate then WP:BLPPRIMARY also applies and there's gonna be a lot of cleanup in order for us after they're blocked. IP has been adequately warned so I'm coming straight here to ANI for action.

Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for pretty much the same duration as they've spent adding unsourced bio statistics to articles with a note that they can be unblocked when they demonstrate an understanding of reliable sources and WP:BLP.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Refusal to get the point

There has been an ongoing discussion for the better part of 5 months where Master Editor 10 (talk · contribs · email) and 68.14.208.126 (talk · contribs · email) WP:refuses or fails to "get the point". The editors have been made aware of multiple guidelines and essasy, multiple times. Yet they continue to make the same points 5 months apart and either can't or won't listen to editors telling them to WP:let it go, wasting everyone's time. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Account blocked 1mo and IP blocked 6mo for socking, per an SPI. No comment on if further sanctions are warranted; I went with 1mo and not indef because they're a new user and have made constructive edits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Tedickey by User:Alexander Davronov

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

---

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

Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

I made a change to {{Unix commands}} template and noted that User:Tedickey has made a lot of reverts (my last edit as well) over the last 4 years so I tried to discuss it on [Nov 10, 2022, 10:25] suggesting to rename the template in order to stop confusing people and all of sudden they went on my contribs ridiculously tagging (see links above) recently added content. In one reply at that discussion they suggested I rework my reply so that they are not a personal attack ([Nov 14, 2022, 09:19]). They also left a warning [Nov 18, 2022, 20:33] on my TP without any context pazzling me even more. I strongly suspect that behavior is close to WP:HOUND so I request to warn editor for the god sake.

ANI NOTICE

[Nov 19, 2022, 12:53]

Previous attempts to discuss behavior

My attempt was reverted (WP:SOMTP?):
Nov 17, 2022, 20:00 - «revert - use topic discussion page for discussing improvements»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I became aware of this discussion from following a 3O request, which I have commented on here. Commenting on Ncurses specifically I don't think this is an example of them following you to another page through your contribs, because they have edited that page previously and your edit changed the developer parameter from listing only Thomas E. Dickey to Thomas E. Dickey plus several others, which User:Tedickey then tagged. Given the name of the developer and the name of the editor there's something there, but I don't think that specific page is evidence of WP:HOUND. The editor also has edits to Konsole going back to 2008 and to xterm from 2006, so given how related all those topic are to one another I think this may just be an example of noticing edits on the watchlist and addressing them as they pop up, because while Portable Compiled Format wasn't an article they had previously edited, the interaction timeline doesn't suggest WP:HOUND but rather two editors editing a series of related articles and disagreeing with each other. The potential COI is worth noting, but that's a different issue altogether. - Aoidh (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aoidh: I wouldn't care if they didn't tag exactly the sentences I've added. I still doubt that they came over from a watchlist. Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Beauty pageant editor (November)

• JusTaufan96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, we have a pageant SPA on mobile who doesn’t seem to be noticing they are repeatedly being reverted and warned for adding unreferenced content. Some help getting their attention? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them from Miss World 2022 for 48 hours. If that doesn't get their attention, or if they move on to something else, I'll widen it. Acroterion (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion You might want to expand that block. Said editor has immediately returned to Miss World 2022 this time to add poorly referenced content rather than unsourced content. Thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 20:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Site-blocked indef, editors don't need to waste more time with this sort of thing, and it looks like they're moving to other topics with the same issues. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I will never understand why beauty pageants attract people/editors like this. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift action Acroterion. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 23:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thesussyboy500

Threatening post made in reply to Cluebot [23]. Could also be considered an attempt to scam. Perhaps he is unaware it is a bot. Styx & Stones (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Lemchastain: Continued ignorance of talk page conventions

Lemchastain (talk | contribs) continually violates talk page conventions by making sloppy posts to Talk:Pythagorean triple, and now to the Pythagorean triple article, mostly his personal comments about unpublished papers. For example, [24], [25], [26]. He has been advised several times about talk page guidelines, but has been ignoring those suggestions. His posts do not appear to be deliberate vandalism, but perhaps some administrators should try to get his attention.—Anita5192 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor with penchant for California politics?

I've been reverting some edits by an IP editor(s?) engaged in disrupting articles on California politics. But I gave up because I don't know if more IPs are involved, and also I wasn't sure if some of the edits were legit or not (incl. some I already reverted), so I thought I'd better ask someone who knows better to look into this.

The IPs involved are:
2603:8001:2902:64F4:D5B8:60F2:A7A2:433E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2603:8001:2902:64F4:F4A0:8701:6427:CFA7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2603:8001:2902:64F4:184A:B865:6DCE:1133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well on many Los Angeles elections. They've removed all instanced of the word "nonpartisan" in election infoboxes and election boxes and say that it's because California elections are nonpartisan (even though most nonpartisan elections have "nonpartisan" in them) and when I reverted them, they just reverted right back and gave the exact same reasoning. I'm pretty sure that the IP addresses beginning in 2603:8001:2902:64F4 are the same person based on what they edit and their behavior. Possible that a school IP address (74.62.14.52) is also the same person or was used by the same person. reppop^talk 16:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

They're using several IP addresses, attacking California government, politics, and elections at the State, County, and City level:

2603:8001:2902:64F4:FC03:AAB1:9B95:155C (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2603:8001:2902:64F4:D06A:5D79:A98F:2CCE (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2603:8001:2902:64F4:CD40:5120:8D1B:8645 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2603:8001:2902:64F4:7433:353B:7DAA:C5EA (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

74.62.14.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

74.62.14.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2603:8001:2902:64F4:FCF6:2B8F:2977:880 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can we ban the range for disruptive editing? OCNative (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

216.x editor 'translating' from Serbian wiki now also making copyright violations

So apparently the situation originally described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#persistently tendentious new articles and edits by anonymous 216.x has not improved substantially, in fact it deteriorated into copyright violations as described at User talk:216.174.95.81#Wikipedia and copyright. The previous 6 month ban from article space on that ISP has not apparently helped - the drafts haven't gotten much better, nor has there been any communication with the user (let alone actual collaboration). Does anyone mind escalating this into a ban on all namespaces? ObPing @DanCherek @Diannaa @S0091 --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think a sitewide block is a good idea given the continued copyright issues, but I'm not very good at figuring out the best IP range(s) for situations like these. DanCherek (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The range that was previously blocked was 216.174.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (Blocked for 6 months from April to October 2022.) I don't think anyone else is using this range right now. — Diannaa (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

GalantFan POV pushing and retaliatory reverts

On November 7th, I made modifications to recent edits on Battle of the Alamo and Texas Declaration of Independence by this user because there were POV issues and issues with the content being undue for the lede. The editors recent edits are mainly focused on increasing the mention of slavery regarding Texas independence. Yesterday, they proceeded to revert my edits on multiple pages including ones that were completely irrelevant to Texas independence. They reverted some of my edits on Mexican–American War, James K. Polk, where they have already been reverted twice for POV edits, Michael Hayden (general), and the Second Battle of Fallujah, where they restored content from a non-RS. Their edits on the last two pages are clearly retaliatory as those pages are completely unrelated. There are clearly POV issues with their recent reverting of my edits, some seemingly for the sake of it which comes across like WP:Hounding. GreenCows (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Look in the mirror. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GreenCows

You have a persistent history of altering the POV of articles to make USA look better. Then in your China alterations for example, you change the wording to make them look worse.

You are deleting verified facts even when the references are attached just because YOU have a problem with the POV.GalantFan (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggested you open a talk page discussion on Mexican–American War. You did only after reverting me again and instead of discussing content issues about the actual article, you immediately attacked my general editing. All my edits follow Wikipedia's rules.GreenCows (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

They have reverted me again with an uncivil edit summary. GreenCows (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The user was reverted by CaptainEek on the Mexican-American War page and told to seek consensus but they have continued to edit war and make changes without gaining consensus and ignored a suggestion by CaptainEek to self revert. GreenCows (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Maliner false info

On 19 Nov, I removed some information from the Barelvi article. I removed a lengthy paragraph which rambles on about the history of Sufism in Bangladesh, with no mention of Barelvi in either the paragraph nor the sources - a clear deviation from the article focus. Some of the section also contained false references which I removed. User:Maliner has begun edit warring and accusing me of pushing POV despite me not expressing any POV in the article. All I have done is removed irrelevant and falsely sourced information. Maliner refused to reply to my message on my talk page, and simply accuses me of being wrong without opening up discussion or addressing the issues that I have. SalamAlayka (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Kitchen Knife

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

Kitchen Knife made a messy copy/paste move at East West Rail. A request was made at WP:RM/TR by Mattdaviesfsic to move the page to its original location. Although there was some move history, it seemed sensible to move the page to its original location before all the move disruption, so I performed a page swap. Kitchen Knife did not like this, demanded I move the page back, and accused me of "vandleising on behalf of a clique. I explained that I made the move in response to a technical move request and suggested they open a WP:RM discussion. They responded with further demands and accusations of vandalism, after which I asked them to desist. They opened a requested move at Talk:East_West_Rail#Requested_move_20_November_2022. Here they appear to simultaneously acknowledge they made a mistake yet continue to accuse us of BSing and bullying. As this is a very serious allegation, I'm reporting here. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You clearly know that having a private chat does not constitute getting a consensus. You had also acknowledged that I'd admitted my fault but you still carried on after that asking for contrition. The first bit constitutes the BS & the second bit the bullying.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said, these are serious accusations. If you are going to continue making them then please provide evidence so the admins can take the appropriate action. Polyamorph (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, the "private chat" mentioned above is this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#East West Rail now the East West Main Line. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I explained that it was public, not private, at User talk:John Maynard Friedman#East West Rail. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

And I explained why you where wrong in that you or anyone else hadn't announced or provided a link to it the group had kept it to itself. Like having a meeting that you claim anyone can attend but only making the people you want to attend aware of the meeting. Then claiming if someone had turnrd up at the meeting they would have been allowed in, so it was public. Even though the chances of someone randomly turning up at some place to see if an unannounced meeting happening were 0.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I also requested that the established title of "East West Rail" be reinstated, but at at WP:RFHM, because repairing a cut-paste move requires a history merge rather than a simple page swap, and this case was complicated by the multiple moves. Certes (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for that info. It appears Sdrqaz performed the history merge prior to my swap. Polyamorph (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Page histories have become screwed up. I have found these:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Main_Line_Old&action=history - starts off with a negative byte count, and then has more than 70,000 removed from that
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Main_Line&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Rail&action=history - contains an edit timed at 22:05, 19 November 2022 showing an increase of +73,210 bytes, yet the diff shows no change at all
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Main_Line_Old&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Main_Line&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Rail&action=history

There may be more problems with these pages, and may be more pages involved. Is somebody able to move the misplaced edits back to their proper histories? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I got the histories sorted out. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe so, Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: I usually find that the easiest way of fixing a cut-and-paste move, provided that it is caught early enough, is to simply revert both the paste and the cut. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks – that's a useful tip for the future, but I think I was too late this time. (The confused history makes it hard to tell.) Certes (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

More nonsense in draftspace too Draft:Move/East West Main Line old2, Draft:Move/East West Main Line. What were they trying to achieve? WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED Polyamorph (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That has also already been explained perhaps you could try keeping up.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Kitchen Knife, you really need to stop this conspiracy theory stuff (talk of a "clique"). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to understand what a conspiracy is, rather than just trot out random phrases.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe TBAN from rail if they can't abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc. in that area. Levivich (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I want nothing to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways or any other clique.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Support indef or siteban after reading through their talk page history. This pattern of incivility and battleground behavior has been going on all year. Levivich (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Can someone block for now? They appear to be continuing their incivility here and completely unaware of the disruption they have / still are causing. Polyamorph (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You really are unbelievable..--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I believe a block would be prudent at this time to "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia". Polyamorph (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree you should be blocked.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

On what basis? Polyamorph (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This editor's tendentious behaviour in the past (look around November 2021, for example) has been a thorn in the side of a number of railway-related editors in good standing. I would definitely support a topic ban following expire of the recently-imposed all-contributions block. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I find Kitchen Knife's attitude here towards literally every user who expresses an opinion completely out of line. Seeing that the user already has several shorter blocks for harassment, a longer block might seem appropriate Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

So being critical of others is not acceptable and pointing out their errors is not acceptable?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Doing so while acting like an arse, such as you're doing here, is not. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Kitchen Knife needs to cut out the talks about cliques and the condescending tone to their posts e.g. "That has also already been explained perhaps you could try keeping up". I could hear the condescension in that post. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Can yu hear it in "More nonsense in draftspace too Draft:Move/East West Main Line old2, Draft:Move/East West Main Line. What were they trying to achieve? WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED Polyamorph"--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't being condescending towards you there. I genuinely can't understand why you would choose to create such a mess. If you are unable to move a page because you don't have the required rights, then ask someone who actually knows what they're doing to assist. Polyamorph (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I would also suggest that they look at WP:BRD. Kitchen Knife made a BOLD change (in a poor way) and it was reverted. Both of which are appropriate actions (if you ignore the method of the move) and the next step would be to start a neutrally worded discussion to gain consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Anybody can make a mistake or misunderstand. I doubt that there is anyone here who has never "corrected an obvious error" only to have to come back to admit to the error of their ways. The problem with this user is that they do not appear to have this facility for self-reflection. They cannot take polite advice but rather just delete it (diff) and respond with a diatribe (diff}. They seem to leap to the conclusion that their cock-ups can only be a conspiracy so they persist in digging themselves deeper into the hole. This incident has absorbed a silly amount of time of multiple editors and administrators. We really don't need this kind of nonsense. ≥I suggest that this user be blocked until they can show that they have achieved a reasonable level of judgement and reflection. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC) extended slightly --00:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And I suggest you learn what a conspiracy is before bandying it around at random people unthinkingly doing things without fully consulting is not a conspiracy. To be a conspiracy people have to know they are doing something underhand and then agree to cooperate together to do that thing and hide it. I have not at any time suggested that they deliberately hide it, they simply talked amongst themselves as cliques do and forgot about the rest of the world. If you think people should be apologising then the people who decided to have a discussion without telling anyone outside of their little group it is going on should also be apologising but that seems to be rather absent. I have admitted it was a mistake, unlike the people who established a consensus without allowing the majority of editors the chance to comment or even know the discussion was happening. It was all calming down I'd admitted my mistake but someone decided to come in and stir it up again, perhaps you should be looking at them notme.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You continue to maintain this aggrievement while studiously ignoring everybody who tells you that the UKRAIL discussion was started after the original no-consensus pagemove occurred, and that it quickly coalesced on an agreement that that the move should be reverted. At no point was there any attempt to conceal the discussion from any other contributor. Your continued refusal to accept that it was you who provoked this problem by turning your simple and easily-understood failure to notice the original move into a brand-new no-consensus move (and a copy-and-paste move to boot) is the root of this entire incident, but all you seem prepared to do is to double-down on insisting that you are the victim of some sly scheme to exclude you from the formation of an imagined and in-any-case-unimportant consensus. XAM2175 ^(T) 00:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned a sly scheme or even intimated that there was one or even any sort of coordination. That seem to be yous and some other's irrational delusion. You seem to have ignored everything that was said in the message you commented on. You seem incapable of simple English comprehension--Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC).

Far from calming down, you continued to accuse the community of being a "clique", accused established users of "vandalism", and accused us of "bullying". This is not quietly admitting you were wrong and taking responsibility for your actions which were quite disruptive. You could end this now by accepting responsibility and retracting your wild claims of a conspiracy against you. Polyamorph (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be confusibg two different things. You could end this by stopping spouting nonsense, you again don't seem to know what the word conspiracy means. You continued misrepresentation is more of the bullying I've accused you of and you continue to provide ample proof of it.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Your attitude is appalling and uncooperative. No one is bullying you. Polyamorph (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• That's quite enough, I think. If Kitchen Knife is unable to take part in a collaborative encyclopedia without persistent incivility and rudeness to others (especially as they caused the problem in the first place) then they should not be trying. Last block was 72 hours, this one is a week, and I suspect a future one might be indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I was all set to block them myself until reading this message and seeing it had already been done. I would support an indef block if they learn nothing from this one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Absolutely, to @Black Kite and @Thryduulf, and I do get it, but I do feel we should also note that this editor usually does do a lot of good work – just quiet routine stuff – and if they can avoid these occasional explosions then we should be hoping to retain them. I know it's the Last Chance Saloon and the rest but if you look at their contribs and their Talk page history then those things do paint a rather mixed picture and there is perhaps hope for retaining a productive editor. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

They're still throwing around accusations of bullying on their talk page. Not being able to work collaboratively really outweighs any productive edit history they might have. Such users are high maintenance for all. Polyamorph (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes – their Talk page seems to be turning quite rapidly into a train wreck, no pun intended. Sigh. DBaK (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I hope someday we can steer the culture of Wikipedia away from this old-fashioned notion that people are allowed to be persistently uncivil or combative if they have shown a history of good/decent contributions. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

+1 you cannot be a net-positive contributor to the project with both at-least decent contributions and an ability to work and communicate collaboratively. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can't collaborate with other editors, and chase them away from the project or make them hesitant to be a good editor themselves, then you are not a "productive editor". Civility is a pillar here and it's ignored a lot of times because "Oh they are a good editor". No one is bigger than the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm slightly gobsmacked by some of these replies to me. You did actually read what I said, right? I seem, to me at least, not to have said some of the things for which I am being dismissed-in-summary here. Best to all DBaK (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I did read what you said. My observation was in general, reflecting upon various other apologia I have seen during my years on Wikipedia, where we've repeatedly forgiven transgressions of certain editors - I remember those ArbCom cases quite clearly, but I won't name specific names - because they had a history of excellent contributions. You may not have said those exact words, but it prompted me to reminisce about those days, in the hopes that we've perhaps made some progress since then. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope so too and I was very happy to read this clarification. Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Might be time to remove Talk page access, as they're just removing comments they don't like and edit warring over it. Clearly not going to file an actual unblock request either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Since when is removing comments from your own talk page a problem? Especially when the comments are calling your behavior "assholish"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

KK's behavior was definitely assholish (as perhaps a half-dozen editors, mostly uninvolved in the dispute, have pointed out to them) and my advice to them was sound; but I am a bit surprised that anyone bothered reverting its removal (I wouldn't have). --JBL (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Extreme uncivil by ItzRicoHenry

This user seems to be trying to create a new article related to Bangladesh Air Force Shaheen College, but they keep moving it and then editing instead of starting a different article. I've reverted the move twice and tried to explain on their talk page, which lead to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ItzRicoHenry abandoned the draft they were writing after they were repeatedly told on -en-help that their draft was pretty much never going to be accepted. My guess is that their behaviour now is an attempt to get it into mainspace somehow. I've undone their latest edits and move and edited the redirect to make it impossible for them to try and move it back. I suspect the user is a mercenary; in any event they're not interested in anything except pushing the specific college. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the accidental revert. I have no idea how that happened. The only thing I can think of is that after an edit conflict warning when I did a browser back and clicked on edit it reloaded a specific version for some reason.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed the user has been blocked, but TPA should be removed as well. They have made ~8 edits there since their block, all of which are unconstructive. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to say they need indef'd. Their behaviour is indistinguishable from an incompetent mercenary editor and they seem either unable or unwilling to answer direct questions with anything other than non-sequiturs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 06:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Rhode Island IP range has been conflating EMI and Capitol Records

• 2600:8805:A888:6F00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

For one month an editor in Rhode Island has been adding EMI and/or Capitol Records to unrelated or only peripherally related music articles.[27][28] They are driving a drawn-out edit war at the Halsey song "So Good". They are uncommunicative, having never used a talk page. Can we do something to rein in the disruption? Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Schizoid personality disorder

An IP user has been improving the article for the last month(ish) or so but today I was surprised to see some combative contributions (edit warring) on the article's talk page. As of right now, the person has been given a level four warning for removing other editor's comments:

• Talk:Schizoid personality disorder: Revision history
• 184.151.246.154 (talk · contribs)

Dawnseeker2000 02:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say their latest edit summary is a personal attack. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

They seem to have been bouncing around the range 184.151.246.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for a few months and are not afraid of salty language "Vandalism erasure: who would want to join your stupid website as a long-term user?" "imbecile" "mongolian idiocy" - MrOllie (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, and just wanted to say out loud that the person claims to be a clinician, other personnel, or patient at a mental health facility, so that's interesting. And they do seem to know quite a bit on the topic and have been uncontested in their changes. I have seen them as improvements and had considered thanking them on one of their talk pages. So I'm definitely not here to "get them" or drag them through any sort of bureaucratic mess, but the situation did escalate with MrOllie's restoration of the talk page comments and thought it reasonable to bring here. The gentleman/woman from the health care clinic is very much welcome to share what they're thinking/feeling here. Dawnseeker2000 03:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary linking to mongolian idiocy, alone, should result in a sitewide block for the range. Levivich (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk page deletions continue as this thread is open. - MrOllie (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If this were an editor with an account, making constructive edits but then also calling people things like "bitch cunt fag", I'd indef but be open to an unblock if they apologized. So I've done that here, except "indef" means 2 months, since that's how long it's definitely been this person on the /24. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see SarekOfVulcan went for a week on the single IP just as I went for 2 months on the /24. Does what I said on the IP's talk work for you, Sarek? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. If they can work within norms, no reason not to keep them around. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User শাহরিয়ার হাসান

শাহরিয়ার হাসান (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would appear to be wp:NOTHERE.

• On 21 November 2022, moved Persecution of Hindus to User:Sag@ @dlof 333 (a non-existant account) here, while deleting large blocks of content. I restored the content and moved the page back. I added db-u2 to User:Sag@ @dlof 333.
• On 15 September 2022, শাহরিয়ার হাসান created user:শাহরিয়ার হাসান filled in a infobox about a cricket player - one citation, no other content. On 21 November 2022, moved user:শাহরিয়ার হাসান to MSR666, then replaced the content with a rather cryptic sentence.
• On 10 September 2022 deleted a section from Cantonment w/o comment. I restored.
• On 14 July 2022, on Meghalaya twice deleted section "Illegal immigration", replacing it with an unsourced section "Persecution of Indian Government". [1] [2] Both were reverted.

Going through শাহরিয়ার হাসান's edits, all have been reverted other than maybe their first edit that hasn't been reverted or I find suspect. I don't think শাহরিয়ার হাসান should be editing on Wikipedia. Adakiko (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

In need of an indefinite cessation of editing privilieges. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Before I saw this report I had already decided to indefinitely block the account. Its history consists entirely of disruptive and obstructive editing of various kinds. JBW (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Mass genre changes by User:RockabillyRaccoon

basically a single purpose account that only does genre edits, see Wikipedia:Genre warrior. i understand that the user's edits are done in good faith but the edits are, while sourced, often drive-by edits in established articles that often fail WP:SYNTH and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. the genre additions most often consist of "The music has been described" followed by a laundry list of genres, which is exactly how it should not be done, see WP:GWAR#Red flags:

Attributions that are not as obviously explicit depend on the context of the claim. One "grey-area" case would be if a source merely observes a potential or reputed attribution, such as "has been called [genre]" or "could be classified as [genre]". It must be considered whether the genre may be a "red flag". For example, even though Pet Sounds is sometimes advanced as an early emo album, including "emo" in the album's infobox might not be seen as the best idea.

an example for a violation of WP:SYNTH would be in the article Those Poor Bastards: "Those Poor Bastards performs a style that derives from gothic rock and traditional Americana ...This style has been classified as gothic country." But nowhere does the source say that this particular combination of genres has been "classified as gothic country".

here's an example of laundry list of genres (literally 20 or 30) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendary_Shack_Shakers#Musical_style

there has been a previous discussion with User: Netherzone (1) about the user's changes on the article The Cramps. i also left a message on their talk page which was removed. --FMSky (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding Those Poor Bastards: I did not add that "synthesis" you claim I added. I added a citation for the group performing the genre of gothic country. I simply didn't bother changing anything else that was already in the article that was seemingly cited to other sources or possibly not at all because I don't want to get into a conflict with another editor over removing content that may possibly have been cited that I didn't see a citation for. You put back the genre classifications of doom metal and gothic metal which were cited to a source that made no mention of either style and in fact called the group's music gothic country. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• In fact, this text that FMSky objected to that he accused me of adding is in his edit, and the previous edits before I even edited the article. I did not add this content. At all. It was already there, added by someone else. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, and the diff. I noticed similar genre-related issues/behavior on The Cramps article and the Poison Ivy (musician) article. Netherzone (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You disagreed with my edits. I was willing to oblige your concerns. We came to a mutual agreement. I'm not seeing a "behavior" here. Adding citations to verify the text's content isn't problematic and it isn't problematic to respectfully disagree, discuss the changes and come to a mutual agreement on further changes. I think a behavior is following a complete stranger around reverting every single one of their edits for no conceivable reason, and then accusing them of doing something that they did not do, which is what FMSky did. I don't engage in conflict. I leave most edits be unless there's a significant removal of sourced content. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly, RockabillyRaccoon. You removed all the genres from the infobox without getting consensus and only left psychobilly and gothabilly as the genres. This did not seem NPOV, it seemed that you were favoring rockabilly genres and subgenera. You even removed punk from this quintessential punk band but left your preferred rockabilly genre. It seemed that you were making Drive-by genre changes and drive by category changes to an article you had barely edited in the past (except to (previously) remove punk in 2021) when it was a category in the article since 2001. If memory serves me, you did not want to discuss on the article talk page, and I had to ask several times, then move the discussion to talk myself where you continued to argue about sources, rather than address the genre changes. My last note on the talk page was a question which you never bothered to answer: Here is my question for you: Can we agree that the genres and categories can include both punk and rockabilly? Where was the mutual agreement you speak of?, No offense, but it felt like I was being ghosted. You didn’t seem to understand that the issue was about genres not a Dave Barry source or other sources. Sources should not be used to bolster one's preferred genres, or as a rationale to delete others that you don't like. Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I objectively did not do that and I thought you understood that I hadn't done that. Disagreeing with the sources doesn't mean that another editor is doing something wrong. Did you not understand that the outcome of that dispute illustrated that I was not acting on preferences but editing based on the sources cited? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

RockabillyRaccoon, please step back for a moment and consider that this is not about a disagreement with the sources, it is about you making sweeping changes to genres in infoboxes and categories and changing them to your preferred genres of Rockabilly and its subgenera. Netherzone (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This is objectively not true. If you look at FMSky's edits, they have been going through months of edits removing sourced content and citations without provocation and haven't made any effort to discuss any changes before removing the content to see if other people agree with them. If they have legitimate concerns, they should be discussing them on the talk pages. If they had a problem with my edits, they should have talked to me first, not going on a massive editing spree to revert every single edit I've made regardless of what the sources say and then post about me on the notice board because they have an opinion that conflicts with the sources and cannot be bothered to civilly discuss their disagreement. I don't understand their unreasonableness and unwillingness to work with other editors. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

i literally left a message on your talk page before reverting most of the edits --FMSky (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, you did not. This is the first message you ever left on my talk page, and it's not raising an objective concern about the content of the edits, you called them "nonsensical" because you disagree with them because you simply did not look at any of the sources cited. I especially don't appreciate the fact that you removed content from the Legendary Shack Shakers article that I spent hours researching, literally an entire section, because you don't agree with it. You didn't even bother to look at the hundreds of citations you removed. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI: There's no justifiable reason to remove 11,358‎ characters from an article. FMSky removed more content from a single section than what is contained in some whole articles. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I dont think you understand the point. its not about whether the genres are sourced, they are, but whether they make sense to include in the article. --FMSky (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You didn't discuss any of the content you removed. You removed an entire section without discussion. Not a few genres, sourced or not, but an entire section with multiple citations because you didn't agree with what the writers of the cited articles said. That's not even good faith, that's clearly vindictive. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

yes because you removed the previously established genres and replaced them with your preferred ones. in genral its not a great idea to bulldoze throug articles you've never edited before --FMSky (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I didn't. You're not being honest. If you honestly looked at my edits, you would see that they are objective and neutral. Maybe look at the hundreds of sources you removed from one article. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Now i'm definitely sure you didnt get the point. --FMSky (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the point about removing an entire section and 36 citations because you didn't like what the sources said? 36 citations. You're literally attacking the sources. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there one source to depend on the different genres rather than "30" citations to each genre? I've placed a {{citekill}} tag because it is just way too much. Sarrail (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, 30 citations were not given for one genre. That was for an entire section with dozens of cited genres. The most citations any of them had was 13 for one which already had a tag for excess citations. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@RockabillyRaccoon: Please take a deep breath and try to not treat ANI like a battleground where everyone is against you personally. Trying to sanctimoniously contradict an obvious hyperbole with a post like this is just picking fights. Particularly when done minutes after accusing an editor of removing hundreds of sources from an article that doesn't even have 50 sources. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it picking a fight to jump to the notice board after removing sourced content from multiple articles and accusing another editor of being a warrior for adding content and sources? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed, but the article I had modified is 1 of 20 different articles we are fidgeting on the removal of sources? Sarrail (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't kept track. I usually don't bother to revert an edit if I add content that gets removed, because usually no one blatantly removes a ton of cited content for no reason. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason i reverted your edits is because you are blatantly genre warring and do nothing else --FMSky (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. After looking at FMSky's edits, I noticed they are putting in ce in their edit summaries, and removing a lot of cited content isn't copyediting. So now using inaccurate edit summaries? Sarrail (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

i didnt remove anything cited in this particular edit. i even added a source. -FMSky (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

i'm starting to get the feeling people arent even understanding what this is about. ITS NOT ABOUT THE SOURCES --14:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. If you wish for anyone to intervene, there needs to be a lot less bickering, and a lot more WP:DIFs being presented. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

there isnt a single or multiple difs i can present. its the entirety of the user's edits. going into dozens of articles and replacing established genres with completely different ones, and doing nothing else--FMSky (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't done this. This claim is objectively false. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean you didnt change the indie/alternative rock group The Veils (as described by allmusic https://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-veils-mn0000574962/biography ) to a gothic rock and post-punk band (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Veils&diff=1123045020&oldid=1122876510 ) because they have dark lyrics, violating WP:SYNTH ? because it definitely seemed you did --FMSky (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That's literally your opinion. I changed the lead to say "rock" because multiple genres were cited, alternative rock is unsourced and multiple sources cited The Veils as a gothic rock band. You're literally acting based on your opinions and not reading any of the sources. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at the sources you presented to describe the band as gothic rock (completely ridiculous) a second time, here is what they say:

• 1: https://www.popmatters.com/the-veils-nux-vomica-2496205542.html says: "darkly gothic, depressive rock songs"
• 2: https://spectrumculture.com/2016/09/06/veils-total-depravity/ says: "The southern gothic rock of "Low Lays the Devil"", meaning a SINGLE (!) song
• 3: https://www.londoninstereo.com/the-veils-total-depravity-album-review/ says: "synth-heavy trance and gothic post-punk"

.. how could you possible interpret this as the band being a gothic rock band and listing this as their main genre?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMSky (talk • contribs)

• I added three sources for indie rock and three sources for gothic rock. The reason gothic rock was ordered first was because of the alphabetical order. G comes before I. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

why did you even add gothic rock when none of the sources call them that??? --FMSky (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

They did. You proved that they did by citing the text directly. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

im starting to get the feeling that you lack WP:CIR.. what does them having recorded a "gothic rock" song to do with them being a band of that genre? miley cirus recorded a metallica cover once, does that make her a metal musician? --FMSky (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm literally just reading what the sources on that band say. Your disagreement with what the sources say does not mean that they should be discounted and continuing to cite your opinion isn't being helpful, because my opinion that Eagles of Death Metal does not play any form of rockabilly isn't giving me a pass to go remove every cited instance referring to that band as being a representative of a rockabilly genre. And, FYI: calling me incompetent is not at all civil discourse. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

If they're doing it all the time, it should be easy to provide difs, not impossible. I recommend starting up a subsection where you concisely give some difs with context of what's going on. We're already so far down this thread I doubt many have even read this far down as it is. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• No, it's about what the sources say. You disagree with the sources. I disagree with the sources calling Eagles of Death Metal rockabilly and I haven't made a single edit to that article or brought it up on the talk page because at the end of the day my issue with those citations is that I disagree with what the sources say, which isn't enough to justify removing those sources because they say something that I don't agree with. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Regardless of fault, I do not recommend that anyone come to Wikipedia and do nothing but genre tweaking. It almost always leads to non-stop fighting, which in turn leads to burnout or being blocked for edit warring. Just an observation from an admin working in the music content area for over a decade. I recommend finding something to focus on. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The biggest glaring distortion here is that I have not made "mass genre changes", this is blatantly false. Context keeps getting brought up to justify gutting entire articles and removing sources and content, but there's no context being given to my edits, which clearly have been entirely reasonable. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, even still, some of your editing is a bit...misguided. For example, even with sources, this wall of text is:

1. Pretty obvious excessive/overkill.
2. Reads very poorly
3. Lacks proper context/nuance. I spot-checked "heavy metal" for example. This artist is not considered a metal artist, there was simply a single song that had a single part of it with heavy metal elements.

If my spot checking is a good example of the type of work you're doing here, then it's indeed problematic, even if FMSky is struggling to illustrate it thus far. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Do you have the time to comment on the discussion at the article's talk page to make changes to the section? Because this wasn't done before FMSky came here. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, I'll leave some guidance there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

this response pretty much confirms that the user is unable or unwilling to contribute constructively and shouldn't be editing genres https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Veils&diff=1123066135&oldid=1123063309 --FMSky (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think its a bit too soon to jump to that conclusion. I think they need more guidance. They don't seem to be aware that their stance violates our concept of original research. I left advice for them here about how they should trim things back to instances where sources directly call a musician a genre, not sources that are merely talking about a musician's songs or something. If they can adjust their approach to that, I think there's hope. If they can't, then yes, big issues here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• It's not original research to literally say what the sources literally say. I've already explained this to FMSky. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Are you understanding what I'm trying to tell you on the talk page I just linked above? Yes, you are providing sources for your work. But there are a lot of issues in how and where you're choosing portray this information. It lacks a lot of context and nuance. I need you to slow down and rethink how you're doing things. You don't seem to even be open to acknowledging that you're anything less than flawless here. Its simply not the case. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit by FMSky is a blatant example of edit warring and disruption by FMSky, who undid another editor's work as well as removed my copyediting on the biography section for no reason other than to be disruptive. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This shows that FMSky is continuing to refuse to listen to reason. They have already edit warred on the Legendary Shack Shakers article and massively removed content, now they are simply ignoring me instead of trying to collaborate or listen to me. FMSky is a disruptive editor, period. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you...just trying to regurgitate the exact same things he's accusing you of...? Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

FMSky literally removed sources and content and reverted my copyediting on the biography for no reason. Look at the edits. I am in the right. FMSky blatantly disregarded what they were told and reverted the article back to their preferred version twice now. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You're both edit warring, but if anything, you should be following WP:BRD. Stop continually reverting your preferred information in. Discuss on the talk page and only make changes if there is a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Yes, you're providing sources, but there's more to Wikipedia than just adding sources. Context matters. Representing sources accurately matter. You need to start following WP:BRD stat or your account is going to be blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

There was already an intervention by SarekOfVulcan in an attempt to stop FMSky's disruptive editing, and FMSky continued to edit disruptively without any regard to other people's work on this article, removing SarekOfVulcan's edits and my subsequent copyediting of the Biography section. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• I hate to add yet another bulleted indentless comment but I feel the disrespect for this discussion is going to prevent this AN/I posting from being as productive as it could be, and I believe Legendary Shack Shakers is a microcosm of every reason for this. The edit war has continued parallel to this AN/I report which I find is disrespectful to the entire purpose of this discussion and is in no way de-escalatory. RockabillyRaccoon is bludgeoning this discussion with numerous separated and disorganized posts, while FMSky has seemingly ceased engagement here, after failing to provide diffs for much of their assertions, and on other talk pages (FMSky has repeatedly pointed to the 'discussion' at Talk:Legendary Shack Shakers#Musical Styles as reasons to not discuss elsewhere, while not discussing any further than a 'I propose we keep my version.') Neither editor has been particularly civil to each other, and this AN/I posting from this morning has ballooned in size in a very short amount of time. I'm stopping just short of formally requesting a short-term TBAN from music on both users because I would like to see these users either calm down and discuss, concisely present the finer points of their case here with diffs, or disengage from one another and mentally trout themselves. Please trout me if this is out of order but looking at how fast this thread has lengthened, with much of it amounting to bickering, I fear nobody will want to pick up the trail seeing what there is to read through. GabberFlasted (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I was civil to FMSky. FMSky went out of their way to revert edits on my edit list without justification, just to be disruptive. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have provided multiple diffs, what are you even talking about? Any why would i add to the discussion when RockabillyRaccoon has failed to even acknowledge and adress any of the points brought up by Sergecross73 here or at Talk:Legendary Shack Shakers? --FMSky (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I cannot work with someone who removes sources and sourced content because they have a problem with me. In this revert you removed all the work that SarekOfVulcan had done on the genres section, failed to acknowledge this as input from another user and insisted there wasn't a consensus for SarekOfVulcan to make those changes even though I agreed with them, and in the same edit, removed hard work I had done on the biography section, including sources I added and grammatical copyediting, simply to be disruptive. I objectively did nothing wrong. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  You deigned not to discuss the proposed changes, because they failed to implement suggestions that another user had not yet suggested? That doesn't make sense. GabberFlasted (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  ??? --FMSky (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree though that the constant back and forth isnt helping anyone so i will stop editing/reverting genres in these articles until a solution is found --FMSky (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

How about reverting back to SarekOfVulcan's revision and allowing other editors to do copyediting to restore all of the broken citations? I was trying to work towards a compromise. You chose no compromise. You failed to acknowledge why any changes were made. You also never edited this article before today and simply started reverting edits made in my edit history. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Outside of the time you asked me for advice on one of the talk page discussions earlier today, it doesn't appear you're listening to anyone input. (You haven't even acknowledged my advice ironically.) I can't stress enough that you've got to do a complete attitude change. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You need to work with others. You cannot simply ignore everyone who gives you input. You need to stop and discuss on talk pages, and actively engage with them, not just talk past them. The way you are acting is not sustainable. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have been working with others. I have asked for discussion. FMSky reverted changes made by other people in an attempt to compromise. Specifically SarekOfVulcan's revision. FMSky offered zero input into making any constructive changes, they simply objected to the Citations because they didn't like what the citations said. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You barely respond two times in a row on the same subject. It's all reverts and complaining with no real substance. Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan made an edit in an attempt to gauge a compromise. I agreed with SarekOfVulcan's edits, but FMSky reverted them, claiming that there was no consensus despite two editors agreeing on changes. That pretty clearly shows that I have worked with other editors. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is someone else's edit supposed to be showing that you're constructively discussing and collaborating? I'm worried you're not understanding at all at this point. Your response makes zero sense. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent BLP issues and possible defamation at Robert R. Reisz

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

---

We need more eyes here, and probably some page protection and/or rev/deletion. The accusations appear to go back months. Even if properly sourced, there are WP:BLP concerns. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The correct place to report this is WP:BLPN oder WP:RfPP. There is currently no serious ongoing disruption to the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This is an ongoing disruption, which is why I opened a report here. As explained, this is also a long term BLP issue that may merit rev/deletion by an administrator. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what "ongoing disruption" means. Two users added the allegations to the article several hours apart, and were each reverted. Neither attempted to edit war the allegations back into the article. That is not "ongoing disruption". This is what WP:BLPN is for, not ANI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

See [29], as well as a series of poorly sourced edits prior to today's. As for the most recent edits, the claims may be supported by a WP:RELIABLE, but the wording is clearly pointed [30]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And this is the third time I've stated something clear: there appears to be defamatory content, going back several months, that may merit rev/deletion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Those edits are from June, nearly six months ago, and were promptly reverted at the time. If he's been found guilty by the university, as Varsity claims [31], then I don't see how the allegations are defamatory. I've gone ahead and created a thread at BLPN, which was the appropriate and correct venue for this issue Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_R._Reisz. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I've commented there. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Block review request by User:Michael.C.Wright

Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) has had an unblock request pending for some time, on which admins have not reached agreement, so I am bringing it here. I hope that input from a few people will lead to a consensus outcome; this doesn't need to be a thread that stays open for weeks while dozens of people weigh in.

Bbb23 blocked Michael.C.Wright October 23, sitewide, indefinitely, for edit-warring on a BLP about an individual who has been involved in COVID-19-related controversies. The block summary reads edit warring at Martin Kulldorff after expiration of last block for the same thing. Michael.C.Wright made only a handful of edits on the article itself in this particular edit-war, but he was also active on the talkpage, and in his whole contribution history, at least half of his edits appear to be to that article or its talkpage. An initial unblock request was declined by Johnuniq. A second unblock request has been open for four weeks and needs resolution.

As I read the discussion on the user-talkpage, Michael.C.Wright disputes that there was a basis for any block and has sought to open a discussion on the definition of "edit-warring," which I take as a denial that he edit-warred. There do appear to be potentially debatable issues as to the contents of the article on Kulldorff, as reflected in the extensive discussions on the article talkpage, whose merits I haven't evaluated. Although Michael.C.Wright's editing has primarily focused on Martin Kulldorff, he has made useful contributions in other areas, such as relating to coffee.

Of the admins who have commented to this point, Bbb23 opposes any unblock because he don't see the editor showing any self-awareness following the block; Johnuniq remains concerned about unblocking but suggests that a topic-ban might be sufficient; and Charles Matthews has suggested that the block might be of finite duration. My own view is that an indefinite, site-wide block is unnecessary but I am less sure whether there should be a full unblock or a block with some article or topic restriction. As the discussion on user-talk doesn't seem to leading to a conclusion, and I don't see a need to act unilaterally, I'm bringing this here. @Bbb23, Johnuniq, and Charles Matthews: pinging you as you are mentioned above and your input would be appreciated (as would anyone else's). Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright has been disruptive at the Martin Kulldorff for a while. In the recent incident the MO was to attack a reliable source on highly dubious grounds, then declare that that means the content is 'unsourced' [32] - it clearly isn't by any reasonable definition of the word 'unsourced'. Then the argument is that since BLP allows for removal of unsourced content, the content must be be immediately removed without further discussion. (their words). We went around with this same tactic once before, in September - that led to the previous block for edit warring. I think it is also worth mentioning the talk page section Talk:Martin Kulldorff#What's a "disease control measure"?, which details an effort by Michael to keep a sentence out of the article as some sort of bargaining chip to get another sentence they wanted added in - a clear violation of WP:POINT. I think Michael's edits on coffee related articles have been good and helpful overall, but they have been wasting a lot of editor time at the Kulldorff article. I suggest that the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions should be employed, and they receive a topic ban from COVID-19 in place of the current indefinite block. - MrOllie (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason this community should put up with Michael.C.Wright. He was never a useful editor and now is wiki-lawyering because he refuses to admit fault. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why he should be unblocked without at bare minimum a topic ban from Martin Kulldorff and page blocks from both Martin Kulldorff and Talk:Martin Kulldorff. The WP:IDHT and disruptive editing issues regarding this specific issue are obvious. Given their almost WP:SPA like nature over most of the last year, I don't really see a good reason to unblock. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

There's certainly levels of WP:IDHT going on. But I'm all for giving people a second, if final chance. As per MrOllie a topic ban for COVID19 seems appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. I will just repeat what I said on Michael's Talk page so people don't have to search for it: "I'm opposed to an unblock even with restrictions. Users who have no insight into their own conduct, who deny they were doing anything wrong, who are apparently more interested in wikilawyering (see Michael's latest example below) should not be unblocked. If in the future after perhaps some reflection, they see the problems with their behavior that led to the block, then such an unblock request and appropriate restrictions may be considered."

I will also add because I don't think anyone mentioned it. My block was not the first time Michael was blocked for edit-warring at the Martin Kulldorff article. EdJohnston blocked him on September 20, 2022, for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• The editor has certainly been a time sink at the Kulldorff article and the latest round of legalistic argumentation at his Talk page persuaded me that an unblock would be unwise. I'd add that if the current block is to be turned into a TBAN it should be for "biomedical aspects of COVID-19, broadly construed" so that content like "coffee production fell during the COVID-19 pandemic" would not be in breach of it. Bon courage (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• I see the conduct around the Kulldorff article as having generally lapsed into WP:JUSTDROPIT territory. Michael seems inept in some ways, but I think the situation is better handled by restricting his editing than by a permanent site-wide ban. I would say unblock at the beginning of 2023, with a requirement to stay away from COVID topics. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Agnostic on the unblock, support topic ban on COVID-19 related topics, broadly construed. If they are unblocked, and want to make more edits about coffee, let them do that instead. --Jayron32 13:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, extend the standard offer starting from now. Wright has shown no indication that he was in the wrong, and wants to debate the definition of "edit warring" instead. This entire issue came up because Wright is trying to figure out which rules he can use to get content he dislikes removed from the article. That's not collaborative editing, that's wikilawyering. I don't expect the user to be much better elsewhere, and any topic ban will likely result in more wikilawyering to try and get around it. Instead let him file an appeal in 6 months and we can see if he's willing to quit trying to use the rules as a stick to get the results he wants.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• weak oppose If Wright had shown any remorse/ understanding of how they contributed to this problem. Any intention to change, any awareness of how they are hurting the project- I would be all for a T-ban or unblock, but without that- they are a net loss to WP and should stay blocked. However, if they develop said awareness, I'm willing / open to change my opinion. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Madsol3772

Madsol3772 created a page named Draft:Devon Heaven. It was submitted to AfC, and it was immediately rejected. It was a guide to taking drugs, and I nominated it for speedy deletion per G3 (courtesy ping for deleting sysop @Liz) They came to the help desk, when I first found them. After they tried to say it was for educational purposes, I explained that this was not what we did on Wikipedia, and told them not to do it again. However, they recreated it with the edit summary "do drugs or kill yourself". I have nominated this for speedy deletion per G3 again, but I also decided to bring this here.

Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC).

I've given them a short block for recreating this article and ignoring warnings. If they return and continue with this drug promotion, they can be indefinitely blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Request unblock

Normally I'd go to WP:AN but that's the page I've been blocked from by an admin who is WP:INVOLVED in the discussion. I was told not to post here either, but my unblock request has gone either unnoticed or unanswered as has my reply to the blocking user per WP:ADMINACCT, so I guess I'll roll the dice here as it's my last non-ArbCom point. If this adds to my block, it's just one more sign that WP has become completely dysfunctional and I guess ArbCom is the only remaining route.

I ask that my block be overturned on the following grounds:

• Admin was involved in the discussion and should not have blocked someone with an opposing viewpoint.
• Gave a very vague "warning" that I guess I misinterpreted; I'd argue it wasn't clear at all
• The discussion has been closed, therefore there is no possible remaining disruption (blocks are preventative, not punative)
• I responded 3 times in the following 48 hours. That's hardly bludgeoning.
• The block summary claims "continued bludgeoning after multiple warnings" and is false. At most, there was a single warning. The alleged "bludgeoning" did not continue.

(Relevant addendum)

• I responded to TWO remarks directed at me (including the blocking Admin's) and THREE comments in the following TWO days since that "warning" and stopped responding further: [33] [34] [35]. Nine hours after my last remark and 3 days after I allegedly first violated this admin's edict, I got blocked?
• Contrary to the assertions below, Bish was absolutely involved in the discussion
• The discussion was closed 4 hours after the block. No more disruption can possibly occur.

Buffs (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'll provide a few courtesy links: here is the AN discussion in question, which was a block review concerning another user. Of course I didn't tell Buffs not to post on ANI; I warned them about going on to disrupt ANI as well, here, in my block notice. And there were two warnings in the AN discussion about bludgeoning: one from K.e.coffman and one from me, where I told them they needed to stop posting in the thread — clearly, as I imagined. It appears Buffs saw them, as he replied to both. Bishonen | tålk 09:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC).
• Endorse the page block Bish was absolutely not involved. They were in no dispute with you over anything. You were warned per WP:BLUDGEON to stop trying to dominate the conversation and let other voices to be heard. You chose to not follow that advice. Admins are not involved merely because they told you to stop doing something. If you would like to be restored to full editing privileges, demonstrate you understand how to follow such advice. --Jayron32 13:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Bish was absolutely involved in the discussion, not "merely because they told you to stop doing something". Buffs (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  "Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Can you show me where they were in conflict with you prior to interacting with you in an administrative capacity? They don't mention you at all in that post. --Jayron32 19:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Am I allowed to reply, or is that more evidence of bludgeoning? (I'm not being snarky here. I genuinely want to know if a response here is going to be held against me...some already are). Buffs (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I guess I'll take my chances:

  WP:INVOLVED states: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

  Given that the "warning" was given in response to my dissent with her opinion (among others), I think that pretty clearly qualifies as a "current conflict". There is no caveat for "it only counts if you mention another user by name" or "only if you have prior disputes". (For ease of reference: Bish's opinion, my opinion). Buffs (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock: The unblock request maintains by all five bulleted reasons that the user was unjustly blocked, and never acknowledges the clear bludgeoning done in the thread. Between the attitude seen in last diffs linked by Bish above, and the user's ultimatum of Unblock me or WP is completely dysfunctional I think a 2 week block from AN (fairly short and nonrestrictive all things considered) is a good chance to step away from "wikipolitics" and reconsider how one engages in discussion here/there. Many thanks to Bish for the concise rundown and links. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - The block was quite justified by the editor's behavior, very clear warning was given, and the admin was not WP:INVOLVED. Pretty straight-forward. IMO, the editor's frequently expressed biases have blinded them to the disruptive nature of their behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose unblock - Buffs, you were absolutely bludgeoning that discussion, playing Devil's Advocate for a self-proclaimed white supremacist, and generally being obnoxious to everyone whom you disagreed with. You've also posted your "Final Words" as a Wikipedian on your Talk page in January, yet you're right back here arguing with everyone. And now you're wanting to waste ArbCom's time with this? You've already made up your mind that Wikipedia is "dysfunctional" and not for you, but you keep coming back here to argue & belittle other users. The only thing you're going to prove is that you're WP:NOTHERE to do anything but pick fights at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I totally resent the implication that I am advocating for white supremacy/white supremacist. I am doing nothing of the kind. I am asking that admins follow the rules and guidelines rather than capriciously apply blocks and restrictions. If you can't point to a policy or a guideline for a block, then it shouldn't be done. If others disagree and think that essays alone are sufficient reason for blocks, we're going down a path of blocks for WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. I recognize my opinion isn't the majority in this matter. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Buffs, I mean this in sincere good faith, but please be mindful that you don't bludgeon the discussion of your block for bludgeoning behavior. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You are arguing in favor of unblocking an avowed white supremacist. You may think you're just arguing protocol, but you are choosing this particular user to make the argument. That has implications, and you need to recognize that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose unblock - The user is exhausting the patience of most of their colleagues, and at this point should be thankful the block has not extended beyond that of the noticeboard. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Unblock And I would strongly, STRONGLY advise do not go to ArbCom. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Unblock When I first saw this section and read the intro, I came away with the inference that the block had been indefinite or for a very prolonged period, and I came here to speak in defense of Buffs. That, I feel, would not be deserved. But seeing now that the block complained of was for two weeks has brought me to the opposite conclusion. The contributions were definitely in WP:BLUDGEON territory and the sanction seems appropriate to me to prevent disruption. I would respectfully ask this editor to wait out their time, and as the kids say, "read the room." As ever, though, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock Is it snowing? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock I read through the relevant discussions and talk page and I find the administrative actions excessive. The block does not square with Wikipedia:Blocking policy and is not WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. In this case an actual warning probably would have been sufficient rather than a cryptic pseudo-warning from Bishonen. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. Buffs (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Three replies here and an ‘addendum’ in under 10 minutes. Buffs, you do realise what you’re doing, yeah? (Rhetorical, no reply required.) — Trey Maturin has spoken 19:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Four replies, plus pitching up on my talk page to accuse me of being incivil for not agreeing with them. Nice. — Trey Maturin has spoken 19:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I did not accuse you of being "incivil [sic]" for not agreeing. I accused you of being uncivil for taunting. Buffs (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  That's amusing, coming from you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock Bludgeoning a discussion about an unblock request for bludgeoning is evidence that the block should stay. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock It was a block from one page for two weeks, and was absolutely justified. Textbook bludgeoning after being warned not to. And WP:INVOLVED means involved in a prior dispute with an editor, not merely posting in the same discussion.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  See reply to Jayron32 above. Buffs (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Recommend you run out the clock, on this one. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Complaining that "blocks should be based on policy not essays" is misunderstanding the whole block rationale. The essays being pointed to (WP:HID for what's his name in the original thread, WP:BLUDGEON for Buffs) both explain how behavior violates policy. Buffs, when you were blocked for bludgeoning a discussion, this is equivalent to a block for disruptive editing. WP:BLUDGEON is just explaining how you were being disruptive. If you read the essay, it is providing you more, not less, information on what you are doing wrong.

Also, while I'm agnostic on whether this particular block could be reversed now that the thread is closed, there can easily be some preventative benefit to keeping this kind of block in place. If someone disrupts a lot of discussions, blocking them from something for two weeks - and not undoing the block when the discussion closes - sends a clear message that you need to stop behaving in the way that led to the block, in order to avoid longer site-wide blocks next time. Unblocking after each discussion closes might send a message that the consequences of continually doing this kind of thing are minor. It's not necessarily "punitive", but "preventative for the next time".

Finally, please note how many people think you are doing something wrong. This isn't some lone rouge admin who has it in for you. People are genuinely getting tired of seeing this. You don't have to agree with them, but - if you want to keep editing here - you need to recognize that this is how the community interprets things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

(adding to comment above) But let's be careful about accusations of bludgeoning this discussion. While IMHO he definitely bludgeoned the discussion leading to his block - tons of repetitive comments about a subject he was not otherwise involved in - it makes more sense to reply to comments directly about him here. It is possible to bludgeon this discussion too, but let's be careful and show some grace. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing, Floquenbeam. This thread, unlike the original AN discussion, is about Buffs, so naturally he may need to write many responses. IMO he should get to post here as many times as he feels he needs. Bishonen | tålk 20:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC).

Thank you. Buffs (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but to quote policy as requested by Buffs themselves ... blocks should be based on policy not essays and If you can't point to a policy or a guideline for a block, then it shouldn't be done. both ring loud bells that remind me of the (I think more salient than WP:IAR) very much policy Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Strictly speaking, admins aren't lawyers sifting through documents to find perfect legal precedent for a block, admins exercise discretion... discretion that the community decided they should have. GabberFlasted (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like an edge case but the result being a short-lived mild remedy it's probably best to leave it at that. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Unblock - for time served. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment may I suggest we retire B:UDGEONING as a reason for blocking? As we see in this very thread, there are accusations of bludgeoning when all it is responding to replies. When you're 1 against many, of course people will accuse you of bludgeoning, that's all they're seeing, your reply against many individual comments. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose retiring BLUDGEON - Silly idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that the user is defending themselves in a thread about them so they should not be accused of bludgeoning for their comments here. That point is fair but it is unrelated to the actual block that is being reviewed. I’m not sure why you’d suggest doing away with such blocks when the block in question is currently overwhelmingly endorsed by the community. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I would point out that Buffs doesn't bludgeon many discussions, but has the tendency to do so on the few they appear invested in - 19 comments on the one this thread is relevant to, 18 on the recent WP:AN thread on admin Tamzin, and 39 on this thread about User:Bedford in August. It would probably be better to disengage way before that point. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Fundraising banners: imminent clash between enwiki on one side and WMF + Board of Trustees on the other

For those of you who aren't aware, things are getting quite tense at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign, with the Board of Trustees swooping in en masse to, er, discourage us from enacting the results of the RfC. Any input, whatever your opinion about the banners or the parties involved, is welcome to help resolve this situation. Fram (talk) 08:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Still less begging than Wikipedia, come on guys. El_C 09:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Not to question your methods, as I'm sure they're effective (and I don't mean this in a sarcastic way), perhaps some better vocabulary choices than "imminent clash" would be appropriate? The BoT's response also seems pretty decent all things considered. About "enacting the results of the RfC": I think it's clear that it's not in enwiki's mandate to hide those banners using Common.css, although the threat of doing this might be effective, any reasonable closer will find that the proposed "Implementation" clearly fails WP:CONEXCEPT and cannot be implemented. Any admin who actually tries to make a change to Common.css would be exercising extremely poor judgement. Running additional banners as proposed here seems like a slightly more realistic implementation...ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that any time conexcept has been invoked, things have actually turned out well for the WMF. When they wanted to implement or keep some software, project, ... on enwiki and enwiki decided, normally through an Rfc, that it wasn´t wanted on enwiki, the result was alit of huffing, puffing, threatening, ... and in the end the Wmf giving in. The "pretty decent" response from the board already mentions wheel warring as if the issue will be with whoever tries to implement the Rfc results a second time, never mind that the actual problem will be whoever reverses that to do the will of the Wmf. It´s best to keep the discussion at the village pump, this was just meant as a heads up slash invitation to join the discussion there: but if you start from the position that conexcept rules and we can´t overrule this, then you basically tell them to continue doing whatever they like, and to put whatever text they want on our main page with no matter what farfetched justification. Which is of course an acceptable pisition, it just isn´t mine. Fram (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Netflix producers and scenarists of the "Vikings: Valhala" show have twisted the history of Ukraine.

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

---

Netflix producers and scenarists of the "Vikings: Valhala" show have twisted the history of Ukraine. They described Yaroslav the Wise as one of the Russian rulers at that time. While, at that time, no Russia (as a state) existed, no Russians as a nation. This man, Yaroslav the Wise, was one of the Rulers in Kyiv Rus, which is totally (critically) different from Russia (origin). What makes such manipulation of the history of Ukraine, especially in such times, irrational, irresponsible and humiliating offend all people of Ukraine!

This show cannot be called historical.

https://twitter.com/NetflixValhalla/status/1594767703230791681 FordiN (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a content issue and should be discussed on the article's talk page. — Czello 12:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. This is straightforward vandalism, and I've blocked the OP as a VOA. They've also used an IP to vandalize the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The show is pretty trash though, I gotta admit. Silverseren^C 14:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by IP

@46.221.188.87 has now twice attacked me with personal attacks when they disagreed with me at Bingöl Province. There are other issues with their edits including removing referenced info for info that is unverifiable. Semsûrî (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that the editor has used two IPs; also 176.219.2.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Semsûrî (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Commonscity, rapid disruptive page creations and moves

Commonscity (talk · contribs) has been reported at SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anup Rajbanshi) and I wouldn't have created a report here if it wasn't for the fact that the user has been making a lot of page moves and redirects rather quickly over the last few hours. These include moves of declined drafts to article space [36], [37], [38] (the last two drafts were moves to "alternative" mainspace titles to avoid a salted title); cut&paste recreation of the first of those three after draftification [39]; odd redirects from India related titles to articles about Nepali topics [40], [41]; moving List of chief ministers of Madhesh Province (which already redirected to Chief Minister of Madhesh Province following an AfD discussion) to List of deputy chief ministers of Madhesh Province; moving Chief Minister of Madhesh to Governor of Madhesh Province (not the same office).... Also a few redirects to articles where the redirect title is not mentioned, [42]. Not all the creations / moves / redirects are disruptive, but the user doesn't react to warnings, and just keeps creating pages. --bonadea contributions talk 20:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hide this racist edit about Mexicans.

Hide these edits: https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/159.148.186.246

https://li.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicane&action=history 182.235.231.66 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)