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

Constant disruptions by User:TheWikiholic, User:TruthGuardians and User:Salvabl at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists

We've been having constant disruptions by TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists for quite some time now. I'd like to mention first that all three editors are always involved in promoting Michael Jackson.

• Their initial joint involvement began at Talk:List of best-selling music artists to promote Michael Jackson at this discussion. In that discussion, all three clandestinely begin to discuss the general system of the list, and gradually switch to discrediting Elvis Presley and The Beatles, claiming that neither deserves to be listed at the top of the list.
• The second main discussion I'd like to point out is this, wherein all three initiate the discussion pretending their concern is within another area of the list, but again they quickly turn to discrediting The Beatles and Presley in hopes that they could replace at least Presley’s spot on the list with Michael Jackson.
• TruthGuardians' Michael Jackson promotions continue in ways like this.

Since they haven't been successful in achieving their goal, they come up with comments like "The list has a systematic bias against black artists". "Currently there is far give too much consideration given to the Beatles and Elvis on the basis of the lack certification system in a time when the consumer market worldwide was a lot less diverse and a lot smaller in markets like today", "I will also initiate a new discussion to use lower claimed sales for many artists, including the Beatles and Elvis Presley, as the gap between their claimed sales and certifications is the most egregious of all". "This benefits the most US-oriented artists such as Elvis Presley", "and that at the same time that is the reason why Presley keeps his 500M figure and is above Jackson".

I'd like to mention that not long ago, I reported TruthGuardians here at ANI for Off-wiki Canvassing, which was a discussion at the Talk:List of best-selling albums where both TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians were involved in promoting Michael Jackson's Thriller for having sold 100 million units. The discussion was closed to their disadvantage by an admin. Ever since then, both have been either engaged in wikihounding me at Talk:List of best-selling albums or targeting my work at Talk:List of best-selling music artists.

Topic ban proposals

I would like to ask our community to ban TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl from editing and/or commenting at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists and its main article as their only goal is to promote Michael Jackson and demote Elvis Presley and The Beatles. Thank you.--Harout72 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support For topic bans.

Akhiljaxxn aka TheWikiholic was given final warning after a community discussion earlier on ANI.[1]

TruthsGuardians's conduct was discussed extensively in the earlier ANI thread.[2]

It is now time to topic ban all three of these since Salvabl is also acting disruptive and frequently violating WP:POINT[3]. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I've had to go username change for the reason of privacy and protection. I was subjected to legal and violent threats on and off of Wikipedia from the ruling party of India because of my edits on Wikipedia. I had explained all of this before undergoing a name change. You need to remove the name of my old account here as you are putting me at risk. I would also like you to show me these so-called disruptive editing or edit warring because these examples by Harout72 are examples of said behavior. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996:@TheresNoTime: WP:OUTING. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: I have no dog in this fight but that was no violation of OUTING. Read WP:REFACTOR and don't modify others post. Editorkamran (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: Cheers, I am aware of WP:REFACTOR, however it struck me as potentially a case of outing, so I removed it out of an abundance of caution. If you do not consider that other editors privacy or safety is compromised by the material I removed, by all means reinstate it, I do not object. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for the response. Editorkamran (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by TruthGaurdians

Here you go again… more false accusations and another failed attempt to weaponize the ANI board against editors who constructively disagree with you as to not have to work towards a resolution with editors who point out the fundamental issues with the articles that you are in clear violation of WP:OWNERSHIP for. The RFC you mention was not closed to anyone’s disadvantage. It was closed because “without prejudice as it was considered a clusterfest that was going nowhere.” So of it was to my disadvantage, it was also to yours as well. Furthermore, I would like to add that you falsely accused me of off-wiki canvassing as is evident by the results and non-action. I told you then you were making false accusations and I’m asking you now to stop making that same false accusation. What you claim to be disruptive editing is not the case. Agreeing with other editors who have voiced the same concerns as I have is how Wikipedia works. Talk:List of best-selling albums#Methodology shows multiple editors bringing up some of these unresolved issues that I have had for years and that is that you are also in violation of WP:NOR. Also, I did not start this discussion. I only constructively added to the discussion started by Rhododendrites. Finally, other issues that have been reported by other editors is what they deem as racial bias found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102#Racial bias at Talk:List of best-selling albums reported by Levivich.

So while once again you are making a false assumption that all of these genuine concerns is about the position of one artist over the other, it’s not. It’s about how one editor gets to control the narrative of these pages while in clear violation of WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTHESIS. Instead of wasting the time of the admins by weaponizing the ANI board, I’m asking you to stop with the false accusations once and for all, and work with the many, many editors (old and new) who have been reporting the same issues for years. There are many great suggestions in the works here right now: Fundamental Article Issues TruthGuardians (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but as someone who just started a conversation on the above talk page, I can confirm that Harout has not been receptive to constructive criticism on the talk page here historically, and the only interactions I've had with the three users mentioned above by him have been respectful and attempting to find a common path forward. I was the one who started the Fundamental Article Issues section on the talk page there, and I've never interacted with these users before now. I think Harout is the one being unreasonable here. Pacack (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• What the pluperfect hell? Being an utterly uninvolved editor who's never participated on those talk pages, I just looked over the first linked discussion Harout cites, and his reaction is little short of hysteria. It is not a sinister act to question the criteria used to make a determination, nor is it a thought crime to deem Michael Jackson to be more popular in his time than the Beatles and Elvis were in theirs. (I disagree, but it's certainly a justifiable stance to take.) Harout absolutely gives the finger to WP:AGF in that year old discussion, with this opening salvo: "Finally, you will be Boldy reverted as many times as required and be reported to ANI for edit-warring and disruptive behavior. In fact, let me remind you that your hateful comments here at this talk are disruptive enough." Ironically enough, such an unprovoked statement -- the alleged "hateful comments" had to do with questioning the methodology involved -- would've been ANI-worthy itself.

  Then we go to the second linked discussion, where far from being the monolithic front Harout is claiming, TruthGuardians supports Harout's stance: "I find myself in agreement with Harout’s argument above, “The higher claimed figures should be looked at and considered on individual bases, it's not all that black and white.” He’s absolutely right, there can be a lot to consider and a lot of gray areas depending on the artist and situation." Once again, it's a long, long, long dry discussion of methodology and numbers. I don't remotely have the interest or expertise necessary to parse them out myself, but gosh: that'd be a content dispute, which has no place at ANI.

  Then we have the sockpuppet investigation involving TruthGuardians [4], which was closed by the checkusers as being unrelated to TruthGuardians. Abhishek0831996 deserves one hell of a trout slap for claiming THAT as the basis for a topic ban on pretty much anything. ANI is not a venue to tear down people who disagree with you on content. Ravenswing 08:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to check the talk page archives. This WP:IDHT by these editors is happening for years of years. They don't even understand what is being discussed and keep pursuing their fan-based POV just all the time. Topic ban is necessary now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"You need to check the talk page archives." This is adjacent to "'check revision history.' You've essentially made an allegation, then pointed at a mountain of paperwork and told others to prove it for you. Please provide some diffs. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Abhishek0831996 is correct, others including Bluesatellite have provided explanations to them also in those discussions, but those three are simply not interested in listening to what anybody explains. Their main focus remains demoting Elvis Presley and promoting Michael Jackson. This can still be seen in their comments today Harout72 (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

These are confusing diffs to include because from what I've reading, including these two diffs in a vacuum, the users you are reporting are being more civil and respectful than some of the people lambasting them. In particular that diff of Salvabl at least to me seems a very civil and thought-out attempt at collaboration and sharing ideas. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

See, like GabberFlasted, I see those diffs and come to a different conclusion: that they think the current way of assessing things is biased in favor of some artists and against others, and they are doing so in a civil fashion. IDHT does not mean "Wahhh wahhh, they're not agreeing with me, so they're Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!" Ravenswing 22:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No, what you need to do, Abhishek0831996, is sharply ratchet back your rhetoric and accusations before we start seeking topic/interaction bans against you. Reading that diff from Salvabl, which you characterize as "disruptive" and a POINT violation, is nothing of the sort ... unless you're one of those provocative types for whom "disruption" means "The other guy disagrees with me!!!" By and large, ANI regulars are not stupid. It would be extremely unwise of you to treat us as if we were. Ravenswing 22:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's one thing to start a topic about methodology or the way list operates as whole and to stay on that issue, but it's completely another thing to start a discussion pretending your aim is to discuss list's methodology, and quickly/clandestinely turn it into yet another Michael Jackson records sales promotion. And this is what these three editors are constantly using the list's talk page for. If these three want to engage in promoting Michael Jackson records sales, they shouldn't be allowed to that on wikipedia. Harout72 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• The last dispute was closed with the instruction that all involved parties stop bringing these sales disputes up. If we're still talking about this, that means someone is violating that... Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Pinged, but I don't have much to add. I saw another dispute about this page pop up, and was struck that the inclusion criteria seemed to rely on more OR than I'm used to seeing. It was a bit too involved, with a lot of apparently strong feelings, to really pursue, though. No comment on the behavioral issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Another uninvolved observer here and I'm really struggling to see a strong basis for this. A lot of the opening of this report centers around Michael Jackson specifically, and Harout (OP) seems to perceive any talk of Michael Jackson as what amounts to paid promotion. The link in the third bulletpoint listed is nothing more than TruthGuardian (TG) saying that they should expect upcoming news that would alter the article contents, but the bullet words it as if TG is unfairly promoting views in articlespace. OP also brings up an ANI discussion that ended in a 'Knock it off, all of you' but claims it specifically targeted the reportee. OP claims that the reported users are hounding them on a single talk page, instead of the logical conclusion that it is a talk page that all involved users are, well, involved in, and they would naturally contribute. This is a very confusing tangle of talk page archives and ANI threads but what I can be can be certain of is that this thread was written deliberately uncharitably, almost to the point of deception. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Having read TW's statement, and Talk:List_of_best-selling_albums#Methodology? I am inclined to agree with my peers above and below me that this methodology smells of, at the very least, synthesis. This, combined with Harout72's at times confrontational and condescending attitude, do seem to paint a picture of perceived WP:OWNership. The claims of a double standard being upheld by Haruout72 are also of significant concern, as this type of discrimination would border on NOTHERE in my eyes (this is not an accusation). TW has put together a very cohesive argument, and I would commend them on keeping a level head and assembling it. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor as well here, I also don't see any overt Michael Jackson POV pushing. Questioning methodology isn't POV pushing. TruthGuardians even agreed with the reporting party in one of them. All three users comments above appear to be mostly civil, so I'm not sure where the basis comes from.

From the reporting party, however, I have seen open accusations of off-wiki canvassing, socking, meatpuppetry, and more. I don't believe I've seen any evidence to support those accusations from the accusing party. There is also a slight misrepresentation of the information included in this ANI. I find calling a RfC that was closed as this clusterfest is going nowhere as "To their disadvantage" to be disingenuous as best, misleading at worst. There's no way any editor can look at the way that RfC and go "Yup, it was these three editors that were wrong". If it was closed to their disadvantage, it was closed to your disadvantage as well. Also, I would point out, that if you've had an admin come into several threads about this topic and essentially go "Nope" (User:EvergreenFir did it with both the ANI, and the RfC) due to civility issues, there is a severe issue with the way this conversation is going. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, in follow up to all of this, this seems like a topic and methodology ripe for controversy. It appears, according to the page itself, to be leaving off some significant artists, because it doesn't meet their criteria and methodology. I feel like including "Claimed numbers" at all flies in the face of WP:V. The verifiable numbers are directly from the organizations certifying sales. Any artist, label, or news organization can claim an artist has sold a certain amount....but that's not the amount they are verified to have sold, which are provided, and listed, on the page. To have a formula to allow for claims outside of reliable, verifiable, sources is....weird to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Uninvolved contributor here also. I want whoever is reading this to know that Harout72's first edit to the page List of best-selling music artists is this one, in 2007. Since then (15 years) he almost owns the page, making possibly hundreds of edits; see the edit history for yourself. So now he arrives at AN/I requesting three users be banned from editing this article. Why? A content dispute, apparently, accusing the three other editors of attempting to "promote Michael Jackson", along with several potentially misleading and/or exaggerated diffs. Reporting three users with whom you are possibly engaged in content disputes with to AN/I, and requesting bans for them, is potentially disruptive; you could have simply walked over to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Harout72, I think it's about time you take a break from that article, and give others a chance to contribute to it, because it's unfair for one user to control the contents of a page to their liking, and it violates WP:OWN. Nythar^T.C 01:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by TheWikiholic

It's been more than a decade now since Harout has been single-handedly maintaining the page List of best-selling music artists. On the list, he includes artists that began charting before 1973 who are required to have a minimum of 30% of required certifications.

• Between 1973–1990 artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 30-70% in certified units. (That is 2.35% for each additional year after 1973)
• Between 1990–2000 artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 70-77% in certified units. (That is 0.7% for each additional year after 1990).
• Between 2000–the present artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 77-80% in certified units. (That is 0.14% for each additional year after 2000).

Throughout the years a large number of editors have expressed their concerns over this calculation method with the last instances being here. If we research the archives of the talk page we can easily discover that Harout72 has completely made up these definitions and the minimum required percentage for artists to be on these respective lists. Even if we follow the above method, we can see that Harout has been showing bias against black artists. For example, according to the edit history, talk page archive, and Harout’s own method artists who began charting in the 1980s might have at least 60% certification to support their claimed sales. Both Madonna and Whitney Houston began charting in 1984 and 1985 respectively. It was in 2010 that an article was being used to support the 300M claimed sales of Madonna. During that time she only had 153.3M certifications, which was only around 51% of her 300M claimed sales. Keep in mind, according to the page’s own rules she should have been at 60%. Last February when Whitney Huston reached 153m certification one user requested to update her claimed sales to 200m instead of 170m per the page’s own rules. Harout was not willing to do so. He told the editor to wait until Whitney adds another 7 to 8 Million certified sales and thus brings her total certified sales to 160m. Last June there was a similar instance of raising the claimed sales of Ariana Grande by 5 million. Interestingly, he had no issue by then as you can see here Similarly, on Feb 8, 2019, the article began using the 200m figure for Taylor Swift. Back then, Taylor's total available certifications were only 201.1M. Currently, Artists like Kanye West and Beyonce have 251.4M ad 222.7M Certified sales respectively, but they are still in the 160 M claimed sales title, whereas Taylor Swift with only 238.9 still has 200m claimed sales. I'm astonished to see that some artists enjoy such privilege, while other artists do not. Every time editors raise their concerns over the calculation method of Harout 72, he falsely accuses the editors of being disruptive, which is why we are here now. He also once called me by my old user name, even though I had a name change on the grounds of privacy and legality. You can also see from this discussion from last June 2021 that Harout has been stating to different users under this thread that the discussion is futile and you guys are wasting your time like he is the owner of this page. Here is another instance where Harout72 was changing the rules to the article’s definition that supports his arguments and then asked me to refer to the definition in a vain attempt to prove me wrong. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now and I'm also an admin on a local Wikipedia. I have never seen a single editor have so much control over the policy-making of a page by his WP:OR and WP: SYNTHESIS. By allowing Harout72 to continue to do this, the community is allowing him full control of all the Wikipedia pages related to the List of best-selling music artists and albums and every single pages of both albums and artists listed in these two lists. The problems will continue to exist and, editors will continue to discover the same fundamental issues with these pages and, he will continue to claim that they are disrupting simply by them pointing out the obvious on a talk page. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be, but Harout has turned it into such a toxic situation. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, hang on. Question here. There are obviously a number of editors interested in the topic; I see numerous names listed in the various discussions. What is stopping you -- or any other interested editor -- from opening a RfC to establish a fresh methodology? Set forth the options, have people comment on the options, see if a consensus can be built around one option or another. I realize (having written some notability criteria myself) that one editor can set forth criteria which are taken as a given from there on forward, but no such criteria is immune from changing consensus, and no editor-author gets a veto over the process. Despite Harout's assertions, those so-called "rules" are not set in granite. Ravenswing 22:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This situation is similar to one at List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation where there were issues with ownership of the inclusion criteria in a way that many saw as WP:OR. Once these issues were publicised to the wider community (in that case through a failed AfD) a consensus on the article talk page emerged and issues were fixed. In this case there was no need to sanction any individual editors and more eyeballs on the issue made consensus forming easier. In other words, an RfC might be the way to go. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it may be beyond that. Read this thread on the talk. I have significant concerns about an editor who tells other editors to disregard the RIAA and instead download a mediafire link. I will not download that link, nor should anyone else, but like...come on, he's using a .doc, with no author listed on the file, for sourcing. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the link attached to Rihanna for certified sales is a link to a database to search. If you search by artist, she is no where near the claimed amount on the page. Is "Converting certifications into sales and then converting those into a number we display on the page" a "routine calculation" allowed in OR? Because if the number that the editor comes up with is different than what the RIAA comes up with for official total sales, that appears to fall pretty cleanly into SYNTH, correct? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree there are significant WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:OWN issues here and maybe admins should look at these. My example really was about how a critical mass of editors turning their attention to a topic can overturn these issues without resorting to bans etc. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the proposed topic bans have a snowballs chance, and considering the fact that more editors are gonna have eyes on this, you're absolutely right. The issues with the article appear to be a content dispute, backed with some pretty strong feelings and desires. If an RfC produces a consensus that moves away from the current methodology, then that is what will happen. But, my concern with being beyond that point is that, given the above examples, I don't believe an RfC on this issue would remain civil enough for other editors to engage in. The fact that, when Evergreen closed both the RfC and ANI linked in the report, they called them a "clusterfest" and "timesink" respectively, doesn't exactly encourage the idea of holding another RfC where all of the editors involved can do their apparently normal thing, even if other editors would be involved. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought we were heading to an RFC for a resolution, per Apoxy’s suggestion and the last comment under Fundamental issues section, but here we are instead. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ve now put forward a draft of an RfC for discussion on the talk page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear option: Fully protect the article

Let every change be run past an admin first. It's fairly obvious that a number of the regular editors on the article, many of whom have ulterior motives for inflating or deflating the figures of various artists, can't be trusted to maintain it accurately themselves. Short of partially blocking everyone (which in some cases may be unfair) I can't see any other way of making sure we won't be here yet again in a few months. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SUPERPROTECT. Something this important should be left to the Foundation Office to handle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not really. We regularly fully protect articles when they're the subject of serious disruption, and that's certainly the case here. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

the foundation definitely shouldn't be getting involved in content disputes like that. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I still have yet to see any evidence that any regular editors with the alleged ulterior motives. There needs to be an RFC (or consensus) to handle Harout’s WP:Synthesis and WP:NOR issues as other uninvolved editors pointed out above. Furthermore, there are no disruptions. There is only one editor that keeps coming to the ANI board. Since the last time we were here 4 or 5 other editors have pointed out the same issues that has been getting brought up for years. These fundamental issues must first be corrected. Once corrected, future editors that discover the page won’t have the same concerns. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So START a RfC. (I'd do it myself, but I don't have the expertise to phrase the various options adequately or accurately.) Nothing prevents you from doing so. Ravenswing 03:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not seeing "many of whom have ulterior motives." I'm seeing that Harout routinely claims that his self-declared opponents have ulterior motives, but that's not the same thing, and he could really stand a strong warning to AGF. Ravenswing 03:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's what I see, too, but not just lack of AGF, also WP:OWN issues; maybe an WP:ABAN is in order. Levivich 05:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not just Harout (indeed, they are almost certainly not the worst offender). You may both want to search the archives for the multiple previous threads about this article. Though, to be fair, it's partly the problem of the article. There are multiple different sources for "facts" regarding the subject, so it is easy for multiple editors to cherry pick the ones that suit their POV, and they can then say "We must say X, it's sourced". Well, it is, but there may be many sources that say Y. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You want me to see things beyond the archives and discussions I've already read, come up with some links. Having read the links supplied by Harout and Abhishek as Proof! of their foes' dastardly intent and behavior, and seen nothing that causes me to so much as blink, I'm going to need something considerably stronger. Ravenswing 14:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Abhishek is not even an involved editor. His disdain for me comes because of a non-music related edit, and the fact I ignored him on my talk page. This is the level of harassment that I have been subjected to by some editors. It’s exhausting. By the way, I have no issues if they protect the page for admission only. Also, as far as an RFC is concerned, please refer to the ongoing discussion found Talk:List of best-selling music artists#Fundamental Article Issues TruthGuardians (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to very much second Ravenswing on this one: if this is really just the tip of the iceberg, then there must be a gargantuan amount of disruption that probably should have been addressed a long time ago and should be brought to the community's attention now, whether some of it is stale for purposes of sanctions now or not--if only for context and deciding what needs to be done here. Because my inclination after a non-trivial quasi-deep dive into the record here over the last couple of days (as a community member with no previous experience with the relevant articles and parties), is that I have seen a great deal of concerning behaviour from one editor in particular, and very little in systemic problems that do not in some way involve that user. Not that I'm dismissing Black Kite's observations, but I'm just not seeing live issues from other parties that even remotely rise to the same level. Here, for the record, are my thoughts on the matter (again, as yet another non-involved editor looking at this issue fresh):

We have an editor here who has devised an idiosyncratic methodology for inclusion criteria that is either "merely" 100% synthesis, at best, or probably just better described as pure OR. It certainly isn't consistent with any policy or guideline promulgated by this community, nor am I even seeing the support of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to apply it as an ad-hoc rule on those articles--even if such a decision could have been used to support diversion of an article's content towards an inclusion criteria separate from WP:WEIGHT and WP:V, which is a dubious proposition it itself.

And from all appearances, that editor thereafter used this made-up standard to bully-boy their way into complete ownership of the article for a truly discouraging amount of time. And then that same editor (and here I'm about to join a veritable chorus of editors above with similar concerns) spun the content of their arguments arising out of this approach to stitch together an ANI complaint that highly spins (if not outright misrepresents) the course of the interrelated disputes to seek sanctions against their rhetorical opposition and remove them from said editor's sphere of influence on the related articles. What's truly telling about this course of conduct though, is how Harout seems to be genuinely oblivious to the fact that their perspectives would not be endorsed. Seeking sanctions against three separate editors at once was always going to put the dispute under a microscope, and you'd expect any experienced community member attempting such a proposal to present an airtight case, instead of a tightly wound boomerang in a box. Yet Harout seems to have genuinely thought this would come off well. That suggests to me that this is not just a case of a badly calculated effort at misdirection, but someone who fundamentally does not understand the deep flaws with their approach to the content, to the consensus process, and their interactions, at least in this subject space.

Are the actions of the other three editors to blame for some of the mess here? Possibly they were suboptimal in places I have not seen. I think they made at least a tactical error in accepting the inclusion framework forced by Harout and then getting in the mud to argue in those terms, and possibly letting their arguments also get tainted by subjective standards--the very thing our sourcing-based verification and weight processes are meant to avoid, and why this ad-hoc, idiosyncratic replacement standard is so problematic. But at the end of the day, I am seeing one major problem editor here, and thus one very simple fix that will begin to sort the situation on these articles faster than anything else. Is an RfC warranted to officially rollback this bizarre franken-monster of ginned-up inclusion criteria that has been foisted on these lists for years? I guess it couldn't hurt, but then it also shouldn't be necessary, since these rules were substantially the passion project of one editor and never passed anything remotely like local consensus, let alone a WP:PROPOSAL threshold. More to the point, I don't see any such RfC going over well if Harout is a party to that process--if my review of the talk pages in question here is any guide.

In short, I am very much in support of a TBAN of Harout72 from all lists and articles concerned with music as a commercial product, broadly construed, as the simplest first step here. I do not see much cause for hope that the substantial and overlapping issues with WP:OR, WP:OWN, or WP:AGF are likely to be alleviated by anything short of this with regard to this editor and that content area. If I am blunt, I'm not sure Harout has sufficiently internalized a number of Wikipedia's most crucial policies regarding consensus and collaboration for productive editing anywhere. But this is a place to start. Apologies for the jumbo post on this one. Regardless, I do broadly support an active community response here, whether focused mostly on Harout or not. Clearly a blind eye was turned to this situation for far too long, whoever is ultimately responsible for the disruption. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only one noticing that comments on the talkpage clearly show ownership? Editors are addressing new sections directly to Harout, they seem to have the sole voice of what gets added to some of these people, so many unreliable sources listed on the page, and then, there's this comment.

@TJ What's your poin? I think, Harout's explanation already good enough to show the reason why we let Taylor Swift hang out with Mariah, Whitney, and Celine in the table. She deserve it. As for Beyonce. The new claim of 160m is good enough for her at this moment.

That is a heck of a talk page comment. "Why we let" "She deserve it" "Good enough for her". Is this how this methodology is on the page? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You are not alone in your observations. Editors will need to be in Harout’s good graces to get what they need and should be done. If an editor question his arguments you will be falsely accused of sock puppetry, disruptive editing, and working for the Michael Jackson estate… and then bring these claims here to the ANI board, or at least threaten to do so. He has about 4 editors that back his every word and allow him veto power in that article along with any article that is about music sales. I don’t want to list those other editors here, but you can check almost every discussion and/or RFC he’s been apart of and see the same editors echo his words, without merit and sources. I’ve even seen sources, like an Academic journal, being dismissed for what it was because he made up an entire POV for the article in order to try to protect is WP:OR. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let's not get carried away here. You're conflating issues. You have brought some reasonable suspicion upon yourself by your own actions - you almost exclusively POV-push positive slanting content to and and all things Michael Jackson as your main area of interest outside these disputes. That's what gets people suspecting things, not just because "you dared question Harhout" or whatever you're driving at here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

What's with this recent trend of admins casting evidence-free aspersions like "ulterior motives" and "POV-push"? "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence...". If that applies to anyone, it applies to admins. Levivich 18:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, as I don't spend much time here, but in regards to my comment, I'm not reporting him or calling for any action to be taken on him, I'm talking to him, saying his recap of events was incomplete, and lack awareness of the full scope of the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I am astonished that I just read that. An admin claiming POV pushing from an editor, with no diffs for evidence, while pretty much the entire ANI (except for involved editors) is saying that the editor has a good point, and that there are significant problems with the page, ownership being chief amongst them? And TG is POV pushing? How about all the editors in here of the opinion the methodology is synth, at best? Are we all MJ POV pushing? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You're ...astonished about that? Are you guys reading into something I didn't intend or something? I said he got suspected of things because he writes exclusively positive content about a subject. It was an observance I saw back when I did some digging at the WP:SPI filed on him. It was a passing observance when I saw what I interpreted. It was not a rationale for an administrative action taken, nor a proposal for administrative action towards him. Your reaction is truly baffling to me. Bizarre interpretations like this are certainly why I usually tend to stay away from ANI though, thank you for that reminder. I'll get out of your way and let you all argue into oblivion without resolution, as is the trajectory of these discussions yet again. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I've struck the comment since it appears the point is being missed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Your exact words were You have brought some reasonable suspicion upon yourself by your own actions - you almost exclusively POV-push positive slanting content to and and all things Michael Jackson.

You didn't say he got suspected of things, you flat out said he did the things he was accused of, with absolutely no evidence or proof. You said he did it by his own actions. This isn't reading into anything but your own words, and I absolutely reject the "Bizarre interpretation" line, because it was your words. Thank you for retracting. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I said consistently editing positively about a single subject eventually leads to suspicions of other things. If I spent the bulk of my time writing positive content about Tom Petty across Wikipedia, people would be accusing me of being tied to his PR team. Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

And if they do, we can all agree they should provide diffs or other evidence backing up those accusations. Thanks for striking. Levivich 01:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Especially considering the fact that this ANI is about POV editing regarding MJ. Multiple uninvolved editors have looked at the evidence presented above, and just don't see it. An admin coming in here and going "Actually during my SPI of this editor, I noticed they do POV edit alot" would be extremely relevant to this discussion, should there be proof of the same. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I really urge that this line of discussion go no further. First off, this is doing no favours to anyone who wants to demonstrate that the disruption here is entirely (or at least in the majority) caused by Harout and not the parties he has brought to ANI. And this is coming from someone who just lodged the single longest and most vociferous post of any non-involved community member to yet look into the issue, in support of that proposition. Before Serge posted the comment to which such umbrage is being taken, I was about to post one myself with advice that dovetails with that given by Salvabl below: namely, that when someone brings multiple parties to ANI and then those parties are lucky enough to benefit from multiple random community members looking into the issue, dismissing the complaints and calling for possible boomerang action instead...that is not the moment in which the parties should be filling the thread with constant broadsides and defensive responses. Because these kind of WP:INVOLVED responses are just going to muddy the waters precisely at a time when you really want the comments of the uninvolved parties supporting your position to shine through. Especially if the involved comments appear even slightly histrionic or questionable. And note, for the record, that TruthGuardians didn't provide a single diff to support their accusations in that post--and yet the un-involved admin who responded to that highly accusatory post is getting lambasted for the same thing? I'm afraid I don't track the reasoning at work there...

And let's also recognize too that whether Serge took the time properly diff it or not, we are in fact talking about an editor who has two entries in their block log (the only two entries, in fact) for disruptive behaviour associated with articles relating to Michael Jackson. Nor is Serge by any stretch of the imagination the first person to suggest that TG has a POV in this area, as can be easily confirmed in mere minutes merely by looking at their talk page edit history. I also saw it in discussions in the involved article talk pages while looking into Harout's problematic behaviour. So if we're going to be forced to get into those weeds to defend an admin's off-hand comment of caution (which seemed to me to be very much in TG's own best interests to hear), it's really not going to improve the case for Harout being the prime issue on these talk pages (a position I still support, incidentally). Quite the opposite, in fact. The group of editors who has been put into opposition with Harout by virtue of this unnecessary thread should really 1) learn to recognize when they are ahead, and benefiting heavily from the due diligence of uninvolved community members, 2) not over-egg the pudding of counter-complaints, when the course of the discussion is already favouring them, 3) not overreact to a comment from an admin merely suggesting that someone is not perfectly, 100% innocent of any errors in the dispute, and 4) not thereby bloat the discussion with combative exchanges with admins which can only serve to distract from the scrutiny being placed on the other party to the dispute. In short, don't look the gift horse in the mouth... (And yes, I understand that not all of the enumerated behaviours above are attributable to involved parties, but also some un-involved community members, but the advice is nevertheless valid). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

First off, this is doing no favours to anyone who wants to demonstrate that the disruption here is entirely (or at least in the majority) caused by Harout The thing is, I'm not here to demonstrate that. I'm seeing that conclusion based off of what I have seen looking through talk, archives, and other history regarding the page and methodology. I'm objective, I'm just following the evidence, which is why I wanted all evidence to be introduced, if there was any. Part of this discussion that has led me to that conclusion, in fact, is that Harout's evidence is (in my opinion) lackluster, and requests for more specific examples as to his claims haven't been fulfilled.

But as for the discussion itself, I had absolutely no intention of continuing. The statement was retracted. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This admin is not an uninvolved editor. The admin has voted along side Harout a number of times. I have never POV pushed anything. I literally have only question, with evidence and using Wikipedia rules and standards the fundamental issues with these articles. While I am a bit of an expert in all things music and Michael Jackson, I am not a single purpose editor as proven via my edit history. I am a facts based, no non-sense editor and I just wanted to clarify that. Here are two recent examples of the admin being involved: here they vote in the favor of harout per harouts comments. here too. While I am a bit of a tenured editor now, when I first started editing I in 2019 (I think) I didn’t know anything about edit warring or disruptive editing. So while my history my reflect such behavior on a couple of occasions, that was awhile back on an unrelated topic. The accusations of disruptive behavior now is about wiki articles related to all things sales. There is no evidence of that behavior on the topic at hand, because it does not exist. I learn from my mistakes and I think that is made clear through my edit history.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I participated in a recent related RFC, and found the proposed change to be logistically unlikely. If I commented elsewhere I don't even recall it. (Edit: checking the 2 difs, they're both from the same discussion.) I have no particular interest in Jackson or the list, I just respond to a lot requests for input at the music Wikiprojects I'm active in. I've already struck my comment and have no interest in any further involvement - I already turned down a request on my talk page to get more involved earlier this week. This is not my interest in the music content area at all. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If you check the talk page of the Talk:List of best-selling music artists we can see that none of the discussions were related to Michael Jackson. So I am not convinced that the Michael Jackson argument stands here. Before Harout72 took this issue here, there were three different active conversations was going on. One was about one of the editors finding the 600M claimed sales of The Beatles being inflated. I nor TruthGaurdians even participated in this discussion. The second one was about raising the claimed sales of Beyonce from 120M to 200 million because a few days ago RIAA certified almost her entire catalog equal to another 104M. Neither Salvabl nor TruthGaurdians participated in this. The third one was about the fundamental issues of the list. Harout72 never participated in that discussion. So I don’t see any evidence of his accusations of a Michael Jackson POV push. Ever since the issue was taken to the admin's noticeboard some editors have expressed concerns over the calculation method that was invented by Harout72. So I guess he may feel as though he is losing his WP:OWNERSHIP if the third conversation gathers more attention and that is the catalyst for the accusations against us and the reason why we are here now.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Those discussions referred to by TheWikiholic are not related to Jackson in any way. I just think that Harout72 makes Jackson's name appears frequently (this ANI report is an example of it) in an attempt to discredit and label as disruptive the behaviors of other users with points of view that he does not support. And this is systematic since long ago. I, for example, the last thing I suggested and that has led me to be here was to decrease the claimed sales figures of several music artists (including Jackson). On the other hand, if we take into account all the discussions in which Harout72 has been involved to date, I think there has been an attitude of preserving Elvis Presley's inflated figures by Harout72, or even of defending inflated sales figures fabricated by him (Harout72 stated "The same goes for Presley, just the UK has 17.3 million certified units, which generates under 10% of the global music sales, and the UK has launched its certification system in 1973, surely it would've been close to 50 million if they had been certifying since 1958, like the US."), resulting from speculation. And it is exactly the same with the current methodology that governs the List. However, this situation is not limited to that, as Harout72's negative attitude towards other users' perspectives can be seen even in discussions that are not related to specific artists, like this one about multi-disc albums sales figures, where users provided references to a Rolling Stone article or even an email from RIAA confirming the double counting. Salvabl (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I Support a TBAN of Harout72 as suggested by user:Snow Rise. I've caught up on reading all this drama, and he seems to be the recurring issue. Pacack (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Salvabl

The user Harout72 has brought this "matter" here again, as he has done in the past, but this time is different from the others. In the List's Talk page there is a discussion about the certified sales percentages requirements that user Harout72 has defended on several occasions, but he has not added a single message to the discussion this time, as can be seen in this section of the Talk page.

He is just doing the same thing he has done in the past: labeling our behavior as disruptive when we express a point of view that he does not support. This is not the first time that user Harout72 has refused discussion and the search for a common consensus, as last February the content of the "Definitions" section of the List (which contains conditions for the management of the List now and in the future) was unilaterally changed by Harout72, even though the matter was being discussed on the List's Talk page at that moment. One of the goals of that change was to prevent any possible future increase in the claimed sales of artists such as Michael Jackson, Madonna or Elton John. And I, despite that attitude, made proposals so that part of the text added by Harout72 could stand, even when direct removal would have been the most appropriate action due to the unilaterality of his action (because of that, and because of statements made by him such as "you guys are wasting your time" directed to other users, it is appropriate to assert that this is a case of WP:OWNERSHIP). I think there has been too much collective patience with user Harout72. And what he did after I objected to that change was to start this discussion at ANI, which was centered on accusations about the possible existence or non-existence of racial bias in the List, which was simply a red herring to divert attention from the unilateral change made by Harout72 in the "Definitions" section.

I have always offered him an open door to dialogue, which he has rejected through accusations about alleged intentions to inflate Jackson's figures. Did I vote in favor of increasing the claimed sales figure of the Thriller album in this recent RfC? No, because I didn't even think it was the right time to discuss it, and to avoid possible conflicts between users. My only involvement in that RfC consisted of short messages providing information that I thought might be useful; to which the user Harout72, if he disagreed, did not even reply. Despite his knowledge about music sales, he simply refuses to get the point, and maybe that is the reason why his impartiality, and therefore the impartiality of the List, has been questioned. I, in my recent messages (see here) supported an eventual removal of The Beatles' 600M figure, stating at the same time that the coherent would be to remove Presley's 500M figure as well, since, I think it is a fact that it would be incorrect for both music acts to have the same highest claimed sales figure (500M) when The Beatles' certified sales are almost 60M higher than Presley's. Considering Harout72's words this idea must seem bad to him, but what he has not remarked is that I also stated in my message this: "and there would have to be a discussion about what to do with Michael Jackson's 400M figure, or change other figures", as I see as a good option to leave only the 350M claimed sales figure for Jackson and the 360M claimed sales figure for Presley; I think it would make the list more accurate. But leaving all that aside now, I think this new accusation made by Harout72 is just another attempt to maintain full control over the List and its claimed sales figures. Salvabl (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the three of you (editors named in this complaint) on the merits, just some friendly advice: the length of your comments is hindering resolution of this issue (and it was the same at the last ANI). It's not your fault, but there's three of you, and while individually your comments aren't too long, together it's 3x for the rest of us to read, and the substance of your (collective) message is getting lost amidst the total length. Just my opinion/advice. Levivich 05:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I almost said the same thing myself: These responses are so lengthy and bogged down with music methodology lingo that it scares people potentially offering outside help away. I think it's part of the reason why this still isn't resolved after so many prior discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a word limit placed on an RfC on the page, for any one reply. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the length of my messages, I'll try to write shorter messages in the future. The problem here has its origin years ago, and retrospective is necessary in order to have context about this situation. Yet, there are many actions by Harout72 that I've had to omit in order not to create an extremely long message, and which are relevant, such as his opinion about a racist message, or his silence after being asked for sources to support the inflated figure of 24M that he added to the certified sales of Presley's Christmas Album. The worst part of all this is that I'm being compelled to not talk about music sales as we should because Harout72 himself has also stopped doing so, choosing ANI reports instead. Salvabl (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Iptesh Kumar Meher

Iptesh Kumar Meher (talk · contribs) is persistently restoring unsourced, mildly promotional content to the article Gandabahali. The article (about a village in India) was created by Iptesh Kumar Meher in February 2022, and all IKM's edits have been either to this article, or to other articles adding links to it, e.g. here. Back in March-April, it was draftified several times (by three different editors) – that's not strictly in accordance with WP:DRAFTIFY, but it was pretty obvious that the topic is notable and speaking only for myself, I hoped that it would be possible to get through to IKM and explain why this kind of text was not acceptable in article space. However, IKM only responded by moving the draft back, or by creating new versions – see his creation and move log.

IKM has had multiple cautions and warnings, some templated, several personalised, including this on 22 March where I tried to explain just what the problem is with his preferred text. He is aware of his user talk page [5]. On 13 March, IKM got a 72-hour block for disruptive editing, but there is no sign of him understanding what the problem was; he simply keeps restoring the exact same text (including his own name in the list of notable people), [6], [7], [8], [9] (etc). In July, this led to the article being nominated for AfD where it was speedy kept; I restored the copyedited version and gave him another final warning, but today IKM has once again reverted to his own preferred version. Warnings don't help, clearly, and neither do explanations. A block from article space might make him pay attention, perhaps? --bonadea contributions talk

• Virtually the whole article is fluff, unsourced. Needs to be stripped to a stub that is sourced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Iptesh Kumar Meher (talk · contribs), despite this report, despite many warnings, has refused to engage and is continuing to put unsourced fluff into the article. A block from this article, at the very least, to get their attention would be nice.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  And they just made a whole bunch of edits, again ignoring the warnings and everyone else’s concerns about IKM’s edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Stephanie921 refusing to engage

Tldr: I try to remove two sections from Abortion in Vermont, Stephanie921 reverts my deletions multiple times but does not show up on the talk page to discuss.

Full timeline (I am also the IP starting with 123 geolocating to Oxford):

1. 26 July: I remove the Terminology and Context section.
2. 26 July: Hey man im josh reverts my edit. I do not consider him to be involved as he has expressed disinterest in this issue.
3. 26 July: I start a discussion on the talk page. I get a few vitriolic comments from VictimOfEntropy but not much else.
4. 26 July: Stephanie921 comes along and makes a series of incorrect claims. She does not talk about the disputed content.
5. 26 July: I rebut her false claims.
6. 27 July: A day later, all three had made plenty of edits but ignored the discussion. I state that I will reinstate the deletions.
7. 27 July: I reinstate the deletions.
8. 27 July: Stephanie reverts my edit, incorrectly claiming that my edits have been removed multiple times.
9. 28 July: I cite WP:ENGAGE and state that I will reinstate my version if there is no objection within a week.
10. 7 August: More than a week later, I reinstate my deletions.
11. 7 August: Stephanie reverts 12 minutes later, being under the mistaken impression that Not how Wikipedia works. People not responding to you doesn't mean you can get your way. If people agreed with you, they'd say so. If people disagreed they'd say so. If people don't want to talk to you that's not them saying yes and you don't get permission to revert the article anyway..
12. 16 August: I remind her of the dispute on her talk page and get reverted soon after. It does not seem to me that she is willing to cooperate.

I have posted a total of five reminders/talkback templates on her talk page, some of which were removed citing harassment (26 July, 27 July, 28 July, 7 August, 16 August). She has also found time to make close to 400 edits since the beginning of the dispute.

This is a collaborative project, I do not have to deal with this stonewalling and have done more than enough to encourage discussion on the talk page. 82.132.218.153 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Before I get told off for not notifying her, she removed the ANI notification ([10]). 82.132.218.153 (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in since I got pinged.

I'm not sure where we had the discussion, but I do remembering engaging with you at one point regarding my revert in point #2. I stepped back from involvement and didn't revert again because you made a valid point that the context and terminology were not specific to Vermont. That doesn't mean I agree with removing the content, but it left me in a place that I really couldn't really take either side, so I excused myself from the dispute. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

And again ([11]), this time a different section of the article. I started a talk page section three weeks ago (talk:Abortion_in_Vermont#Anti-abortion_views_and_activities), she hasn't responded since but still reverts. 82.132.215.94 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• I concur with the report. This user has shown total failure to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Just on this page (ANI), this user made 3 reverts over their poor reading of WP:OUTING[12][13][14] and refused to engage in any discussion with me.[15] Editorkamran (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit war between myself and @User:Editorkamran has been resolved - see User_Talk:331dot#Wikiholic - where I have realised the issue isn't as clear-cut as I thought and have decided to wait for an uninvolved administrator to make a decision. I have also reached out on User_Talk:Editorkamran#My pronouns so we could discuss our disagreements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie921 (talk • contribs)

That is after you had already made your 4th revert by violating WP:3RR[16] and an uninvolved admin reverted you.[17] You registered on 12 July 2022 and already causing mass disruption as documented by 82.132.215.94. Either you promise to slow down and become collaborative or get sanctioned. It is your choice. If you would like to abide by the former then resolve all those issues that have been highlighted by 82.132.215.94, but if your would like to abide by the latter (which you are currently doing) then you will find yourself sanctioned. Editorkamran (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

For anyone interested, me and IP have discussed the matter further here: User_Talk:Stephanie921#Canvassing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie921 (talk • contribs) 20 August 2022 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, this should not be taken as an indicator of me wishing to withdraw my ANI complaint. There should not be the need for me to go to ANI whenever Stephanie deliberately ignores my attempts at resolving a content dispute. 82.132.216.72 (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not deliberately ignoring your attempts. As I mentioned in that talk page, when you talked about Wendy's A Clockwork Orange album nicely and pinged me nicely, I responded to you. I thought your edits were constructive, enjoyed the discussion and wanted to see what the consensus would be regardless of whether it was in my favour or not. However, you are rude to other editors - calling VictimOfEntropy "vitriolic" when they said they didn't think your edits followed those policies - and accused them of mischaracterising you. Even though you used the same techniques to us, bringing up policies in our discussions when u didn't think our edits adhered to them. You also accused us of not understanding the policies - rather than talking about the policies themselves to form consensus - and have asked me whether I'm familiar with Canvassing before immediately accusing me of violating Canvassing - rather than waiting for my reply. I never accused you of not understanding policies, and I replied to you when you brought up policies and didn't accuse you of mischaracterising me, because I was having a conversation with you and that would be rude. I feel like ur talking down to me rather than with me - regardless of ur intention which I'm sure was in good faith - and I don't talk to people who keep speaking to me that way, whether they're saying facts or agreeing with my opinions. And that's offline. Like I said, the idea that I'm completely deliberately ignoring you isn't true - since I talked with u about Wendy Carlos' album. But I didn't think the Abortion convo was constructive, and felt you were also rude to VictimOfEntropy, so I stopped discussing the page. The idea that I didn't show up to discuss how I think the page should be written isn't true - I did - but you were rude, and your edits were opposed by other editors. So I stopped editing the talk page, and reverted the edits u made which were at the time against consensus. Currently there is no consensus, 2 people agree and 2 people disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie921 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Editors can look at VictimOfEntropy's vitriolic comments at Talk:Abortion in Vermont#No link to topic themselves - I find Stop behaving disingenuously and clearly out of spite and denial of the obvious facts pretty vitriolic. There is nothing wrong with bringing up policies. What is wrong, and what you have done, is incorrectly applying policy, like when you falsely accused me of violating 3RR.

You refused to engage in discussion and blindly reverted. You also misunderstand consensus, which is not a vote. None of the two in favour of keeping the disputed two sections have actually offered reasons to do so, your and VictimOfEntropy's only contributions to the talk page discussion were wild accusations.

You find it rude to be told that you misunderstand policy. It is not rude to rebut false accusations. Note that, in the context of Abortion in Vermont, I never accused you of misunderstanding content policy. The reason for this is that you never actually bothered to talk about content, preferring to revert on misinformed procedural grounds. You falsely state above that I did not talk about policies to form consensus (rather than talking about the policies themselves to form consensus). I mentioned plenty of content policies in both my edsums and on the talk page, but you refused to engage. 82.132.216.72 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Drop the stick please. This discussion isn't heading in a constructive direction. Stephanie921 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This perfectly encapsulates your behaviour throughout this entire dispute. You make nebulous or false accusations, you get corrected and then deflect by calling me rude or the conversation unconstructive. Go on then. Point out something false in my above comment. I find this arrogance astonishing: you feel like you can make all these accusations and when corrected you have the gall to tell me to stop beating a dead horse? 82.132.216.72 (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC) N.B. My comment was written before this [18] edit), although it still applies. 82.132.216.72 (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's a lot of unpleasant back-and-forth that isn't getting anywhere. I reviewed the article's history and the discussion on its talk page. I understand 82.132.216.72's frustration that Stephanie921 has reverted their edits without continuing to engage in the talk page discussion. But it's all rather confusing, as 82.132.216.72 hasn't posted on the article's talk page; other IPs have, but they don't geolocate to the same location as 82, so it's not clear if these are all individual editors or one person who travels a lot.

Stephanie, if you want to keep specific content in the article, please argue for why it should be retained on the talk page. If you don't want to engage in that discussion any further (and I would understand that decision), leave the article alone. The other two editors who did reversions abandoned (or never joined) the conversation, and one experienced editor agreed with the IPs' points on "terminology" and "context" sections. All of the text in contention was added by a single (now vanished) editor in 2019. It's not sacrosanct and other editors can certainly question relevance and proportion. Also, WP:STATUSQUO is an essay and has no force. Schazjmd (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Schazjmd Thank you for replying to me. I appreciate it, and it was very nicely worded. I believed that I had explained my views on the article at the initial discussion between me, the IP and @User:VictimOfEntropy but I'm sorry if I hadn't clearly enough. I'm afraid I don't understand your message about the other editors and would appreciate if u elaborated, but u don't have to. Thank you highly for trying to mediate. Stephanie921 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thank you for taking a look at it. I am also the IP geolocating to Oxford (129...), as I mention above. Apologies for the confusion - I suppose that's the problem with editing exclusively without an account, although it's usually not an issue as most issues get resolved quickly (and before my IP changes). 82.132.222.33 (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Mass revert of 2803:9800:A504:7D78:0:0:0:0/64

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

---

2803:9800:A504:7D78:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Notification will be to most recently used address 2803:9800:A504:7D78:8032:D844:A86A:37CF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The /64 has recently been blocked for the second time in about a week. Looking through the contributions they all appear to be from the same person. None of the contributions appear to have edit summaries. Many appear to remove unsourced content, but there are also many that appear to add unsourced content. To avoid anyone having to individually scrutinize each edit, I'd like to see if there is consensus to presume the edits are problematic and mass revert every edit made by the range in mainspace up to the most recent block. PhantomTech[talk] 03:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted much of it a bit ago, and Stephanie921 has been dealing with other stuff. None of their edits seem to constitute an improvement to the article. It's all either adding unsourced content, removing content without explanation, or doing weird stuff with logos and thereby blowing the infoboxes up to excessive size. Even the removal of unsourced stuff is actually highly questionable, since it seems to be either concurrent with unhelpful edits which serve no useful purpose, or replaces a (probably actually sourced, though not inline-cited) list of specific countries with " and international" (or something similar), which leaves things in a worse state than before. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Am eating pizza atm, have low battery and need an hour more of sleep. I'll revert their other edits once I've done those things but if anyone wants to beat me to it, then go for it Stephanie921 (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Persistent removal of AfC templates despite innumerable warnings.

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

---

Johnvertasilo999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

on

Draft:Daniel Larze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user (earlier edited as an IP and as an account soft-blocked for username issues) has now removed the AfC templates from this page a total of at least twelve times, despite being told not to via edit summaries, the talkpages of both accounts, and on multiple occasions. Removal of templates: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] [29][30][31]

Yeah, and there's no end in sight.

Can this please be put a stop to?

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and this is almost certainly a sockpuppet of:

Daniel Larze (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Please salt the draft once the G5 is done. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Johnvertasilo999 indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing (and tagged for sockpuppetry) by Materialscientist who also G5'd and salted Draft:Daniel Larze. (Not to be confused with Draft:Daníel Larze) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User ignoring consensus / other etiquette issues

I originally was going to take this to WP:DRN but as this is about a user's conduct I've brought it here. I'm having significant issues with Dilbaggg where we're bordering into WP:CIR territory. The first dispute is around what a section on History of WWE should be named. This is part of a much larger discussion I started here, but to save you all reading through everything, the specific discussion starts here. You can read through the conversation, but the users who agreed with my suggestion are here:[32][33][34]. Including myself that makes 4 editors, while no one supported Dilbaggg's wording. Despite this, Dilbaggg has edit warred to revert to their preferred wording. Firstly they made this revert, referencing an entirely different discussion (bizarrely, he doesn't have consensus in that one either). Then they asked for a link to the consensus, despite being a part of the conversation where it was achieved. I directed them to the consensus and who agreed with me, to which they reverted again by falsely claiming there was no consensus. They also made this rather rambly post where they again state there is no consensus.

There are other issues with their behaviour. For one, they have expressed the intention to ignore decisions made at the WikiProject, both in their actions above but also by saying Wp:PW is notable for biased views, suggesting that any consensus would just be "biased" anyway (even if a biased consensus was held that can't override WP:RS), and outright calling consensus "wrong" as they seemingly disagree with it - despite no editors supporting their wording.

Finally, there are other etiquette issues. Previously Dilbaggg has accused me of being in league with an editor they have a feud with. A week ago I tried to reset our relationship by sending him a WikiLove message. Despite this, they have continued to cast aspersions by saying "I know you miss ItsKesha and have a vendetta against me for what happened to him", as well as making personal attacks Since you ahve a problem with English and "Maybe you do not understand English.". In short, this user is ignoring consensus to edit war, makes accusations/PAs against me, and in general wants to force things to go their way. It doesn't help that this user struggles to communicate and virtually all their edits need copyediting owing to poor language/grammar, too. — Czello 12:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

History of WWE is the article in question, I have addressed the matter on Czello's talk page, he is ignoring WP:RS and using a totally unrelated consensus to justify his behavior, here is what I said there:

Quote "WP:AGF oesn't mean you can get away with all forms of WP:Disruptive Editing and at this point this appears to be a persistant behavior. You have been persistently removing WP:RS contents on History of WWE article and you falsely claim that there was a consensus that the name should not be Post Vince McMahon Era, when the consensus is on wheather the New Era and Reality Era should be merged to a new article or not, there has been no consensus regarding the name of the July 22, 2022 onwards era and multiple WP:RS and WP:PW/RS that have called it Post Vince McMahon Era, you removed reliable sources based on personal views and claims of false consensus. Next time I will let the admins deal with it, tehy can see for themselves how you are WP:GTS by using a totally different consensus [35] unrelated to this edit: [36]. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Also regarding the consensus to the new era and reality era being merged, which is unrelated to this edit on the Post vince McMahon Era, you claimed four people supported it when i and GaryColemanFan opposed it here, only 3 people supported which is insufficient: [37] Dilbaggg (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)" End bof quote. Sorry i dont kow proper quoting format.

I have provided five different sources all WP:RS that calls it the Post Vince McMahon Era term, I could add more but taht would be over citation. Czello refuses to go by the source and pushes his personal views. Also Czello claims of support yet he is the only one in Wp:EW. I am guilty of wp:ew i apologise and if necessary take action, but so is Czello, my only request is for you to progtect the article from him, just see all the sources supporting the term "Post Vince McMahon Era", Czello not only erases the term but all sources associated with it too and is misquting the project discussion and using a different voting/consensus to justify the actions. Czello refuses to to acknowledge them but these are all Wp:RS: [38], [39], [40], [41] and [42] and there are more than these that supports the term "Post vince McMahon Era", but Czello just wants his personal views and I stood up against it. I won't comment further and I am going away anyway but I will accept whatever admins decide. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

None of this addresses what I said above. Again, there is a consensus. I'm not going to keep going in circles with you - I'd like an admin to look at this. — Czello 13:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I have addressed the matter on Czello's talk page, he is ignoring WP:RS and using a totally unrelated consensus to justify his behavior, here is what I said there:

One more thing I have not done any personal attack, I merely questioned if he knew English properly since he did not seem to understand the talk page discussion. but if he sees that as a personal atatck I am sorry, I already apologised before. As for ItsKesha issue the user was blocked for edit conflict in Cena–Orton rivalry and after that Cezallo subsequently nominated it for deletion and the duo had a history of teaming up against me too reverting my edits no one else involved. I was frustated it was a mere speculation I said but he counted it as a PAbut I had apologised for that too, and this time I said just taht I know you miss him, how is that a PA, does it mean I can count anythi ng as PA whenevr i want. I never used a single insult ever on Czello, how is any of these PA? If it is PA I am sorry, but then I can count these as PA, his did you even read statement is really harsh to me too [43], Cezallo ignores WP:RS, brings up a totally different consensus, is warning eople for that PA? As far as I know users can be warned for disruptive behavior. Anyway i said all thats needed to be, I will accept any admin decision. But Cezallo clearly violated WP:OR removed multiple WP:RS and pushed his personal views on the matter when its estiblished among Wp:RS that "Post Vince McMahon Era" is a thing, my final stateent. Peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute and an utterly trivial one at best. This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. The behavioral issue is that the two of you are bickering. Stop bickering, both of you. Stop taking cheap shots at each other. I suggest a properly worded Request for Comment, which will draw in editors uninvolved with the fantasy world of professional wrestling. Cullen328 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: On the contrary, consensus has been reached. My issue is that it's not being respected by Dilbaggg, as illustrated by my opening post. — Czello 15:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, if this isn't the right venue to raise the issue of editors ignoring consensus, can you direct me to where you feel is more appropriate? — Czello 16:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

There are several forms of Dispute resolution available to you, Czello. Cullen328 (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Very well, I'll take it to DRN. I initially intended to take it there, but as this is more about user behaviour than the content itself, I assumed ANI was the better location. Clearly I was mistaken. However, as Dilbaggg has been reverted by another editor, I will wait to see if he resumes edit warring before visiting DRN. — Czello 16:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, it's a conduct dispute. From the page history of History of WWE and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Has the "New Era" ended?, it seems Dilbaggg has been edit-warring to try and force their preferred content (calling it the "Post-Vince McMahon Era" and similar), against the objections of 4 (or 5?) other editors. Dilbaggg should stop edit warring (which I think has already happened) and launch an RFC if they want to change the local consensus at the WikiProject page. And, of course, the personal attacks, such as accusing editors who disagree of not being fluent in English, should not happen again. I don't think DRN is going to do anything helpful here, as this is not a content dispute. Levivich 18:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I could swear we decided to eliminate coverage of "professional" wrestling so that we don't continue to have to referee disputes among people who think it's real. EEng 19:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No such luck, EEng. Cullen328 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This one ain't that, though. It's just one editor edit-warring their preferred version in, which occurs in every topic area. It has nothing to do with kayfabe sources, etc. In fact, it's a WP:TOOSOON/WP:NOTNEWS dispute, with one editor wanting Wikipedia to declare a new "era" because of the retirement of the longtime head of WWE, and the other editors saying "wait for the sources". (They're right.) Levivich 19:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with anyone its real.★Trekker (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I did interpret it being a conduct rather than content dispute, but I didn't particularly want to argue with an admin. — Czello 19:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

SpaceX ISP disruption

Some IPs from the SpaceX ISP in Puerto Rico have been a problem recently. Here's the list:

• 70.45.204.20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 98.97.75.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 98.97.75.152 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 24.55.74.103 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 98.97.75.156 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 98.97.75.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Among other things, these IPs have been edit-warring at Tooncan, reverted by EvergreenFir, Brocooli and Waxworker.[44][45][46] They also spewed disruptive stuff into Closely related key. A couple of drafts were started by this person: Draft:Pink (TV series) and Draft:DQ Entertainment. The first one looks like a hoax.

The target topics of music and children's television make me wonder whether this person is a long-term abuse case. In any case, can we put a couple of blocks in place to protect the wiki? Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

My guess is that this is the User:EvergreenFir/socks#Puerto_Rican_cartoon_vandal. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Does Special:Contributions/98.97.75.0/24 look good? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The others can be blocked individually if needed. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Malcolmxl5, Special:Contributions/98.97.75.0/24 looks good. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet. Blocked for three months, same for the two individual IPs as well. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for a topic ban being lifted

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

---

A few years back I was banned from topics related to Japan and Nichiren Buddhism/Soka Gakkai. I would ask for this ban to be finally lifted. I do not edit much these days anyway … may it be here on the English language Wikipedia or in my home Wikipedia. Now and again I’d like to ask some questions on several talk pages though. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Catflap08: If I'm reading WP:EDR correctly, this appears to be an ArbCom ban? If so, per WP:UNBAN you need to appeal to the Committee at WP:A/R/CA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom case Secretlondon (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Donovanjustin, Salve Regina University

Bringing this here rather than WP:AN3 because it's not a bright-line violation. At Salve Regina University, Donovanjustin has five reverts in the last eight days (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) of four different editors – ElKevbo, Melcous, LilianaUwU and myself. I left him a warning on 17 August here, added to it here. On 18 August ElKevbo started a discussion here, but Donovanjustin has not participated in that. I can't take any action for obvious reasons, hoping that someone else might. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Esteemed fellow admins, however minor, this needs your attention. With today's, six reverts of five different editors in the space of nine days. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

While considering how long a block should be, I saw that Donovanjustin (talk · contribs) has no talk page contributions. I therefore have blocked the user indefinitely, that is, until they communicate and show an understanding of how to collaborate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User Davey2010

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

---

• Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user decided to revert a picture I swapped 19 months ago (does 19 months imply consensus?). I restored the earlier version once, but Davey was deadset on the earlier one so I let his changes remain. It's not worth edit warring over. However, I did remove the forced thumbnail size which he kept restoring. He then reverted this change too (twice, probably in haste the first time), and threatened to report me. Davey2010's reaction made me write a fuller response on his talkpage, asking why he was so hostile. His response was "Blah blah blah no one gives a shit about what you have to say. Thumbsize does indeed state that so congratulations you win!, Have a cookie.". I thought maybe we had had some old disagreement that still rankled with him and asked. His response: "Fuck off seriously. I have no interest in conversating with you, I have no interest in further wasting my time with you, Adios."

Two issues for me: first the immediate vitriol and subsequent foul language, completely unmotivated for an argument that I had already ceded because it was not worth the effort. This is not how we treat other editors.

Secondly, his reply to the forced thumbnail size was "congratulations you win!", implying at least a mild problem with WP:NOTHERE. It appears to me that Davey2010 treats WP as a battleground and has real problems working collaboratively. I don't intend to post any more on their talkpage as it would only stir trouble, but I would like to draw attention to this. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Mr.choppers, you need to notify Davey2010 of this discussion, as instructed in the pink box at the top of the edit window. Cullen328 (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• • Cullen328 He did. See here. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I agree with you, and reverted Davey's change. Yes, his behavior is outrageous, and he should be warned for being impolite. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought I had, thanks Rockstone. Is there some more elegant way of doing that? Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Mr.choppers, I apologize. I did not notice it because you added it to an unrelated talk page section. Best practice is to create a new section. Cullen328 (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think generally the idea is to make a separate heading. But the act of editing a user's talk page will notify them. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• 2 things. 1. Rockstone35 - {{Why were these 2 edits reverted given they had absolutely nothing to do with the dispute?,
  

2. The very first revert on my talkpage stating: Blah blah blah no one gives a shit about what you have to say. Thumbsize does indeed state that so congratulations you win!, Have a cookie[47] (emphasis mine) should've been a very clear indication that A) I became aware I was incorrect with the thumbsize reverts and B) that should've been matter resolved. Sure I made snarky comments but what does adding 2 different comments after being reverted actually achieve ?. Nothing. Just like this ANI thread right now doesn't achieve a lot. Anyway what's happened has happened, I should've kept my big gob shut and IMHO MrC shouldn't have repeatedly posted on my tp. –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I totally understand being hot-headed as I get riled pretty easily. That said, Davey is a good editor and perhaps needs the annual reminder that if we notice we're falling into a heated exchange it is probably time to just stop editing for a bit and think. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

[{u|Davey2010}} 1. The image that you changed is part of the problem that Mr. Chopper's has with your edits. He stated that the original image was better. 2. The main problem is that you are, to be frank, being unnecessarily hostile and rude. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, is that nine previous ANI incidents? All I did was ask him why he was behaving in such a combative manner over something so minor. "no one gives a shit about what you have to say" is not snark, it's unacceptable both for its language and what it says about Davey's opinions of other editors. Which is why I wondered if we had had some sort of incident in the past.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It shows this is not as one off, that's for sure. Secretlondon (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The image has been there since 2013[48] without issue but now someone changes it without any consensus I'm now expected to seek consensus for something that had been there 9 years without issue. Makes sense. –Davey2010^Talk 21:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It does make sense -- the image was changed 19 months ago, and since no one objected, that's the new consensus. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but it doesn't. I would've reverted much much sooner if I was actually editing here. No one else reverted because preserambly no one else noticed the change. –Davey2010^Talk 21:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• There is way too much reverting going on right now, and I note that nobody has opened a discussion at the article's talk page. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Do you want me to open a discussion? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  No @Rockstone35it's fine, I'll start one in a few days. Until that RFC has reached consensus I shall not revert on that page. –Davey2010^Talk 21:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• That sounds good to me! Thank you! @Mr.choppers: I'd close the discussion since it sounds like we have a workable solution. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I've started a thread on the talk page. We'll see how that goes. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Lepricavark I didn't bring it to the talk page because I didn't want to argue about one picture over another (note that I only changed it back a single time) - I am aware that picture preference is subjective. I came here because I am bothered by Davey2010's lack of civility not because I wasn't getting my way.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Mr.choppers Personally, I don't want Davey to get in trouble, even if his actions were uncivil, as long as he recognizes why they were uncivil and tries to do better in the future. It's easy to not realize how you're coming across on the Internet. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The thing is - it's not a one-off and it's really unacceptable behaviour. Secretlondon (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Secretlondon That's just it - It isn't a one off and it'll forever be a problem with me - this has been an issue since 2010 although in my defence I'm not as bad as I used to be (sure i'm not perfect but still I've come a long way to the person I used to be). If someone gave me an ultimatum and said "don't say FO again or you'll be indeffed" I would at that point take the indef option because I'm never going to change - I've improved a lot sure but I won't ever not say it.

Of course I don't scream FO to everyone whilst I'm walking down the high street like a lunatic but yes I do swear and yes when provoked I do say it irl (although irl it's very rare i'm provoked), Anyway I wont reply further as don't want to dig more holes for myself. –Davey2010^Talk 22:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Davey blocked

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User_talk:Davey2010#Block. El_C 02:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Good on you for providing such a thorough, honest, and fair-minded block rationale. You handled this very well, and I really hope Davey will take your words to heart. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Well said, El_C! Could not have said it better. That's why we pay you the big bucks. I thank you for having the courage to block "vested" users when repeated patterns are undoubtedly harming the project. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

What a well grounded and explained block notice El_C. Pretty sure I wouldn't have explained it that well. Canterbury Tail talk 10:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TG Viktoria Augsburg

I am not sure if this is concerning or not, but from what I just read is that Santiago Claudio posted this bundled AfD, stating he is banned under SignOfTheDoubleCross ?? Unless I've completely miss-read! Govvy (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy: The wording in the AfD also had me thinking there might be evasion going on, but per [49], it looks like everything is in order. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

IP 81.103.56.136 and chronic WP:ENGVAR issues

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

---

81.103.56.136 (talk · contribs) Has recieved numerous notices on their talk page about unnecessarily changing national variety of English, each time they've recieved a notice about it, they've gone straight back to continuing to do it. Either they're ignoring it or they're unable to see it, but either way it's disruptive and it has gone beyond a final warning. I'd provide diffs, but clicking on any edit on their contribution history makes it clear what they're doing since it appears to be more or less the only edits they make, and the talk page should speak for itself. Since it is an IP, I'm not sure how long the block should be but some kind of block is clearly needed at this point. --TylerBurden (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This diff speaks for itself - reverted with a fully descriptive WP:ES, and they went and did it again. Narky Blert (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I reported the IP at the vandalism prevention page. The IP's now blocked. GoodDay (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Bilcat for defamation, intimidation

on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II page I made an edit to the "Primary users" as seen in the top right fact box. I saw that the USAF, US Marines, and US Navy were listed as the top 3 primary users, then it listed the UK as the 4th. I then read the article and saw Japan had much more jets officially ordered, nobody else ordered more than them, so I changed the 4th primary user from the RAF to Japan (please do consider that facts should be presented free from biases, and especially in this case it's important to treat all countries equally to avoid racism concerns). Bilcat then undid my edit, and said that primary users are determined by the country with the highest number of aircraft currently in service - fair enough. I read the article again, and saw that Australia had 50 F-35s in service, the 4th highest total, and then changed the 4th primary user to the RAAF. He then wrote on my talk page "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia" - this is an absolutely absurd accusation to make, and action must be taken against him for making such corrupt accusations and showing favoritism towards the RAF on two occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that you withdraw this complaint, and then do as you have been requested, or you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Beyond that, you want to be real careful about using such caustic wording as "corrupt" to describe a simple content dispute. Looking over your contribution history, you've picked several fights already with other editors, accusing them of trolling, lying and defamation, and calling for them to be "investigated." If you are unable to assume good faith, and you have trouble working in collaborative environments, Wikipedia may well be a poor fit for you. Ravenswing 08:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Please check the OP's edits about my "trolling and defamation" and my "corruption", crying out for admin intervention over a simple revert. And check out their edit summaries. I'm about to the point that I think they don't need to be editing here at all, as they have no ability to be civil. Every discussion is a battleground. Multiple calls of "defamation" is getting a bit too close to legal for my tastes. Whether they get blocked today or next week, I can tell it's inevitable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Accusing others of corruption and defamation (i.e. accusing them of breaking the law) without any real justification represents severe personal attacks - such behaviour is incompatible with a collaborative working environment like Wikipedia. If you repeat this behaviour, then you should be blocked.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown for uncivil behaviour, trolling, defamation

on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II page the user Dennis Brown is making corrupt accusations against me. This is related to the same issue with Bilcat. Again, first I saw that the RAF was listed as the 4th primary user in the top right fact box. However I saw Japan had the most number of F-35s officially on order. Out of concerns of equality and being against racism, I changed the 4th primary user to Japan. Bilcat then reverted my edit saying that primary users are determined by the number of F-35s in service. Australia had the highest number of F-35s in service with 50, while the RAF only has 27. At this point Dennis Brown reverted my edit and wrote "This is getting disruptive. Reverted" as his edit explanation. And frankly because that explanation made no sense, I believed Dennis Brown was trolling me and vandalizing the article (as he didn't provide a logical edit explanation) so I reverted it. I believe his behaviour needs to be looked at carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

That's enough. Blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The funny thing is the OP IMO actually had a minor point here, this [50] was IMO a fairly inappropriate warning to give simply for this edit summary [51]. Even with the addition of the 3 dots, that edit summary simply isn't enough to worry that much about whatever the OP's history with edit summaries. And if anyone really felt it was enough to merit something, a polite note was better than a templated warning. Especially not a templated vandalism warning, when the problem was primarily the edit summary and whatever the merits of the edit it clearly wasn't vandalism. Remembering also a false accusation of vandalism is a personal attack. Yet this wasn't something that needed to be taken to ANI, instead just asking Bilcat not to do that. And since the OP's comments here were completely over the topic, and their other complaints are without merit and far more serious personal attacks and they kept at it after being asked to stop, the block seems justified. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

IP 103.246.36.192

IP has been warned copiously for disruptive editing, has referred to another editor as a Dkhead [52] and is making large numbers of edits that are either poorly sourced [53] or very contentious [54]. I worry about their competence and attitude, and that they're generating a lot of editing that will require cleaning up and evaluation. I'm not sure what the rules are for IPs, but this is unhelpful. Elemimele (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

note: I may be premature with this, I hadn't noticed they haven't edited for a few days, since 17th (I'm rubbish at knowing today's date). Elemimele (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they've not edited for some days and it’s likely their IP address has changed, possibly to this one 103.246.36.121 but even that hasn’t edited for a few days and they don’t seem to be active at present. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Weird Contributor #1

I originally posted this as a vandal report, but:
136.158.41.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Skeevy behavior: made a dubious draft (Draft:List of Tom and Jerry voice actors), edited my section on the talk page (saying they were sourced from BTVA when Tom and Jerry in the draft were "voiced by 50+ people", etc.), and repeatedly removed my cleanup addition (to add episode notes + find false info with the voice cast) in The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series). They also have edited other dubious drafts, notably relating to Nutri Ventures.

Furthermore, when I added the template Template:Hoax to their drafts, they reverted it. They also edited my talk page message on Draft talk:Nutri Ventures (2023 TV series). It leads to believe they're trying to be defensive with the info they're writing about. I'm reporting them in case they still don't get the memo.

I would also like to add they make drafts on upcoming reboots (Draft:Tom and Jerry Time, and something for Tiny Toons Looniversity) with fictitious details. Both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MADEUP. I've warned them about making unconstructive edits twice, but to no success. ... sigh. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Their first edit was last month (on the Nutri Ventures article too), so it appears as if they're trying to bring their information into random drafts they make. While at the same time, trying to write about upcoming reboots with uncited voice casts they made up. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:contributions/136.158.41.0/24 for six months. Many of the individual IPs within the range were already blocked or previously blocked; this is a long-term problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! Didn't know it was a long-term problem. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've CSD'ed the redirect and article as likely copyvio and unnecessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

User:ThinkingSirus1800 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Spamming a CFD entry with multiple edits mere minutes apart. [55] [56] [57] [58] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: there's nothing disruptive about this. He's realising new things and commenting on the CFD as he notices them. @ThinkingSirus1800: it's better to collect all your thoughts at once before writing them down, so that it's organised, people can more accurately respond to them, and it doesn't fill up the page history. Mvcg66b3r, try assuming good faith next time. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I am just getting use to it, my apologizes. ThinkingSirus1800 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with DatGuy. It can be a little annoying sometimes, but it's a one time thing and obviously done in good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User:86.173.198.31 and associated 2a00:23c8:8e90:ae01::/64

User:86.173.198.31 as well as associated IPv6 addresses have been seen lurking around BLPs, and while I don't believe their edits would be considered to be breaking BLP policies, they are definitely working in an odd direction. such as this one are blatantly incorrect, as the edit summary states "Claim unsupported by the given references ... looks to be fake" but the claim "Three further trials that had been scheduled were ordered abandoned." is supported by the source "King had been convicted of the six offences in September of this year but the trial could not be reported until today because he had faced three other trials for similar offences. Today, however, following a meeting between lawyers and police, the court was told that it had been decided that the prosecution would not proceed with the other cases, and reporting restrictions were lifted." Another example of odd behavior in articles is edit to Larry Kirwan's Celtic Invasion. Why this editor decided to change the description from "New York-based Irish rock band" to "US rock band" is unknown, as the editor did not include an edit summary.

However, these edits are only the introduction to why this editor is causing issues. The revert back to "New York-based Irish rock band" was re-reverted as "Revert unhelpful edit" and the notice left on the editor's talk page was responded to in a unsigned comment "Both your message and edit were in error, and consequently have been reverted. Please do not revert the recent edit." Whenever this user, among their multiple IP addresses, gets reverted they re-revert and leave an unsigned message such as that. Additionally, they have taken to accusing editors of being John King in edit summaries, which is quite odd. "JK added back previously removed unreferenced / distorted / supported only by non-authoratative sources", "Replacing fully referenced content which JK has previously removed", "No they didn't. This claim was previously removed due to no support, but JK has replaced it", "No. No. No. The apology was because the police errors caused the trial to fail. The police did NOT apologies to King. Thus is very clear in the reference. Thus gross distortion has previously been removed but JK has added this distortion back." etc. Also, they are doing this in the talk page of said article "The person complaining of about troll edits is suspected as being JK himself." "Given it appears to be JK himself a block is warranted." "46.193.41.210 may well be JK himself." This editor seems to claim any editor they disagree with is Jonathan King, convicted child sex offender. This behavior of accusing any editor of being John King goes against WP:AGF in the most extreme way possible.

I'm not sure how to handle this, but I'm thinking some sort of edit protection on the John King article would be a good first step. Gsquaredxc (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

That's WP:LTA/BKFIP. Rangeblocked for a long while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew something felt off with that user. They seemed a bit too familiar with policies. Gsquaredxc (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Austinlewis87

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

---

• Austinlewis87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After being told not to use Talk:Sacheen Littlefeather as a forum and having his comments removed for BLP violations by several editors[59][60][61][62], AustinLewis87 continues to attack Littlefeather.[63][64] After I issued a DS/Alert and warning, the user resorted to a personal attack.[65] and is WP:NOTHERE to contribute to this site. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Related BLP discussion [66] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

  Blocked, the potty mouthed rant in response to the notice just made it more obvious. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Nameless User

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

---

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

I noticed some low-quality non-notable pages created by Nameless User, a now-blocked sockmaster. Nameless User created the following pages, which I proposed for deletion:

1. 2008 FC Gifu season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. 2009 Tochigi SC season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. 2010 Tokyo Verdy season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
4. 2009 FC Gifu season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
5. 1995 JEF United Ichihara season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
6. 2003 Consadole Sapporo season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
7. 2004 Consadole Sapporo season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
8. 2008 Ehime FC season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
9. 2008 Mito HollyHock season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
10. 2007 Yokohama FC season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
11. 2007 Oita Trinita season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
12. 2010 Urawa Red Diamonds season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
13. 2000 Shonan Bellmare season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
14. 2010 Ventforet Kofu season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
15. 1999 Bellmare Hiratsuka season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like for an administrator to assist cleanup of pages created by Nameless User. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have also nominated quite a bite via WP:PROD from this user. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Most of these look like abandoned half-finished drafts....they've been live on the namespace for 11 year? Nice catch. I'd imagine most of them could be speedy deleted. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If any of these fall under any CSD, they should be tagged as such. Otherwise, they'll be deleted in a week unless challenged. I don't see any urgent issue for admins here. Still, I agree, good catch given that some of these have raw wikimarkup scattered about. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have rejected these deletions. These articles are notable. 100.10.40.186 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree they are not notable, and has zero reliable sources. Chip3004 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked for personal attacks. [67] Acroterion (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I am inclined to restore the PRODs since it appears that they were removed by a blocked user who was using an IP to evade their block. Acroterion (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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

User talk:DjangoUK

User talk:DjangoUK is a new editor. His first two edits were to talk pages. They were this and this. This editor removed the word "allegedly" from the articles of three wanted fugitives who have not been convicted of crimes. Two of the edits were without explanation. I propose an indefinite block under WP:NOTHERE. Display name 99 (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The outrageous talkpage posts were quite a while back (in June and July). But I agree the user is NOTHERE. Indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 06:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC).

Legal threat on userpage

IP user 2600:1003:B02E:D53B:0:4C:4304:FC01 is posting legal threats on their userpage. They are already rangeblocked, may need talk page access pulled. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Tpa revoked for a year, threats removed. Bishonen | tålk 06:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC).

I've reduced it to a week. Random IPs on Verizon Wireless shouldn't be blocked for so long. The only thing such a long block will do is inconvenience the next random person to be allocated that IP address, which will probably happen within hours, anyway. This isn't like a residential cable ISP, where the /64 will stay allocated to a single person for months. Anything like 2600:1000 will be Verizon Wireless, and you can check the "whois" link to be sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, most of the cellular IPs (particularly AT&T) I've seen are blocked for months or even years at a time, and usually immediately re-blocked after these blocks expire. I think they should be treated the same way as open proxies, which is to say blocked permanently, to encourage users to create accounts or move to static IPs. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Open proxies are not blocked permanently. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Open or anonymous proxies may be blocked on sight is pretty damning (from blocking policy). 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with block duration. IPs change hands, open proxies close, and so we don't block IPs – proxies or not – indefinitely, with extremely few exceptions. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Skippo10

Skippo10 (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruptive and poor editing, including adding unsourced content to BLPs, and has been blocked twice before (2007 for 3RR, 2018 for removing AFD tags from articles). They continue to add unsourced content to BLPs and me and another admin (@ChrisTheDude:) have recently tried to explain to him about repeated OVERLINK violations. I fear this editor lacks the competence to edit. GiantSnowman 15:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I will say that sports articles in general are huge violators of WP:OVERLINK the way they're structured and generally edited. Especially sports teams. Canterbury Tail talk 17:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing for a number of years, and feel on the whole I do things pretty well, I believe this is a personal attack from GiantSnowman on me, I'm not sure why, every so often I make the occasional mistake, and feel a bit of guidance sometimes would be enough, but it appears that GiantSnowman is following my every move, and waiting to find any opportunity to get me blocked from editing and I feel ultimately I am being bullied by this user. Skippo10 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Skippo10 do you see how some of your responses (e.g. I don't know what you are talking about. [68], thanks for trying to get me blocked...really nice of you to essentially find ways to bully people who work hard editing and bringing articles up to date, but some admins like to flex their muscles don't they [69]) do not endear you to uninvolved users who view these disputes? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your talk page - going back 16 years - is absolutely littered with warnings and comments from multiple other users regarding your poor editing - violation of MOS (mainly OVERLINK), not using edit summaries, adding POV, poor page moves, edit warring, adding unsourced content to BLPs - the list goes on. It is not the "occasional mistake", it is a clear lack of competence. I am not trying to get you blocked or bully you, I am trying to stop your ongoing disruption. Your attitude here says everything we need to know. GiantSnowman 21:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to the above, I don't feel Skippo "does things pretty well". They have a massive problem with WP:OR; they spent the summer updating club articles with lists of "unregistered" players (see e.g. this oder this), which were completely unsourced (and to my knowledge, unverifiable). They did something similar in 2020 too when the listed players as 'out of contract' despite this not being verifiable. Number 57 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel I learnt from that terrible mistake, very difficult at the level of football I update to get everything right, anyway if you lot want me blocked I guess its going to happen, its a shame you admins can't offer support to us non admins really instead of ganging up and going through the archives to prove your points. Skippo10 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how editing and generally adding links to what I do is an ongoing disruption. I feel it is bullying, I am not going to cower down in the corner because the admins are ganging up on me. Skippo10 (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Motherlily

User has reverted the current version on a featured list article of an actor's awards and nominations page by totally removing all content and replacing it with a previous version that completely undid the work that was put into it. Removed the lead, changed the structure of the table, and took out the sources—including the {{Featured list}} tag. User claims that removal of non-notable awards is unwarranted, exclaiming Who are you to say not worthy of mention?, User has explicitly said I am maintaining this page for years and suddenly you changed everything, which to my knowledge is contrary to WP:OWN. Of note, since the User's last edit in September 2021, the article has gone through a rework, nominated to FLC and promoted to FL. Given the User's unwillingness and counterintuitive behavior, I suspect this will just escalate into WP:EDITWAR at some point. It appears User is clearly WP:NOTHERE. (persistent edits [70] [71]} (talk page discussion [72] --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Pseud 14, they haven't reverted again after your last comments on their talk page, so I'm not sure why you escalated it to ANI when they have yet to respond to your latest comment, nor as mentioned, reverted again. El_C 20:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

El_C I brought it up in 3RR but was asked to escalate to ANI. Understandably, it hasn't gone to a third revert just yet, but I'm not keeping my expectations high, based on how the responses have been (twice) and the user's behavior. It's only a matter of time—given this type of user who is unwilling to adhere to any Wikipedia guidelines. But like you said, wait and see. Which is what I'll do.--Pseud 14 (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Post-close note: I dunno, maybe still WP:AGF...? Also, RE: User is clearly WP:NOTHERE — that is not clear to me. I don't think you've established that clearly. El_C 20:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

El_C Perhaps you have a point. I could be wrong. But if you see me back, that'll be your answer, which I have no desire going through honestly, if I can avoid it. No one wants to be on a reverting battle. WP:NOTHERE—could fall as narrow self-interest or addition of information that can be perceived as promotional. The article being reverted to looks more like a webpage with a laundry list of awards which isn't FL material, which is very common amongst fanatics. I would have been hands off otherwise. But oh well, case closed for now.--Pseud 14 (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Uh, maybe don't use the word fanatic. Anyway, the general ethos of Wikipedia is to give users a reasonable chance to self-correct, even and especially when it's difficult. I just don't think it's appropriate for you to jump the gun by asking for preemptive action. Because by doing so, you're the one who is cutting the conversation short and possibly not allowing for it to reach its logical conclusion (whatever that ends up being). El_C 21:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

El_C did not intend to have the word used negatively, I meant some die hard fans obsessing over pages which in certain ways tend to be going WP:Fancruft territory. Wouldn’t be the first instance I’ve come across editors with this kind of behavior (mindset). But then again, every case is different. Understandably, I’ve had time where pre-emptive action wasn’t imposed which later on escalted, while I’ve also had ones that took the warning and stopped. It’s a hit or miss. Hopefully this one is the latter. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

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

---

Hi, there has been quite a bit of controversy surrounding The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power page. Consensus including myself and others properly utilizing Wikipedia policy has led to what we believe to be a neutral balance between the producers' perspective and the fan backlash. However, notable others disagree and have been causing many problems. At the moment, I will not specifically call out any users, as I am looking to reconcile the situation as amicably as possible, though I do have things documented if discussion here leads to the decision to temporarily or permanently block anybody. I know this initial post is vague, but I am trying to avoid complicating the situation by inciting the wrath of one user in particular, and I will be happy to provide more specific details if necessary (to be absolutely clear, there have been no personal threats or anything of that nature). TNstingray (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Like the thread above, this seems premature. But also (indeed) too vague to be of much use. In any case, ANI is not intended for content disputes. El_C 21:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

While El C is right that we don't deal in content disputes, I would say any editor who thinks that we need to cover "reception" in any great deal of detail for an unreleased series, especially one which will start being released in 10 days or so, needs to find something else to do. In other words, it's probably fine to mostly ignore people pushing for significant changes, and if they start to edit war on the article then either ask for protection or blocking as the situation warrants. Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Also from a quick look at the talk page, I think all sides can do with remembering WP:OR. We don't care what anyone editor thinks about the any aspect of the series or trailers or casting choices or timeline choices or what anyone has said, nor what any editor thinks Tolkien meant by "browner of skin", nor should editors be arguing over whether Charles II or King James of the bible were black especially no on the Rings of Power talk page; no matter if they are fans or not. While we generally allow some offtopic discussion, in this case it seems clear is isn't a good idea. Editors should instead focus on sources. If an editor wants to make a change, it's their responsibility to either find a reliable source or demonstrate that existing sources support this change. Any editor linking to Youtube videos be they for commentary from the (nearly always SPS) video itself, or comment replies to the video, or vote counts; or linking to IMDb Quora, Reddit or forums; or any other non reliable source should be asked to stop. Stricter adherence to talk page norms and concentrating on how to improve the article which again requires reliable secondary sources, rather than allowing too much chit-chat is generally a good idea on contentious discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time, input, and commentary. If this was the wrong place to raise any concerns, I apologize for any inconvenience. I completely agree that both sides need to be avoiding OR (something that I regrettably did participate in over the course of this disagreement). I guess I was mainly trying to discuss the actions of one particular user (without bringing him up and notifying him, thereby escalating the situation) who has repeatedly attempted to incite talk page debates, revert edits, make degrading changes to the article when he doesn't get his way, and removed my message to him on his talk page (I have not restored this revert). These usually come in waves of activity, so if any of that warrants further specific discussion regarding temporary blocking or other actions, I will notify him and we can go from there. Otherwise, I guess I will just consider this conversation resolved and we will just deal with specific changes as they occur. Thank you again for your time. TNstingray (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

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

2A02:8084:8020:2280:0:0:0:0/64

2A02:8084:8020:2280:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Notification will be to last few used addresses.

Description of issue

The range has been active since September 2021. A large amount of their changes have been WP:ENGVAR changes despite notices about ENGVAR. They've received many talk page warnings but there haven't been any blocks on the range yet, likely due to the IPv6 issue. 2A02:8084:8020:2280:9D20:73B1:A680:3B21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is an early instance of an ENGVAR notification but it's difficult to tell which notifications were received and which weren't. I haven't calculated it but it looks like about half of the range's contributions have been reverted.

Timeline evidence

Some recent events indicate that they are aware of WP:ENGVAR, that they are unwilling to communicate, and that they may be changing addresses intentionally:

• 2A02:8084:8020:2280:7DAE:8B55:E3AC:31F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 17:06, 20 August 2022 - ENGVAR notification form me Special:Diff/1105521893
• 17:40, 20 August 2022 - Edit by IP changing $ symbol to £ symbol where source appears to be in $ Special:Diff/1105529898
• 19:09, 20 August 2022 - Level 3 warning to IP by another editor Special:Diff/1105548401
• 09:41, 21 August 2022 - Edit by IP changing a date Special:Diff/1105696740
• 10:20, 21 August 2022 - Edit by IP changing theater to theatre Speical:Diff/1105701654
• 10:22, 21 August 2022 - Level 4 warning to IP by another editor Special:Diff/1105701859
• IP changes to 2a02:8084:8020:2280:d5c6:4900:97f4:b1b4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 11:00, 21 August 2022 - ENGVAR edit Special:Diff/1105706233
• 11:20, 21 August 2022 - ENGVAR edit Special:Diff/1105708386
• 11:22, 21 August 2022 - ENGVAR edit Special:Diff/1105708574
• 13:43, 21 August 2022 - Grammar edit Special:Diff/1105726117
• IP changes to 2a02:8084:8020:2280:d5c6:4900:97f4:b1b4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The edits after the warnings on the same IP indicate the warnings were received and then either read or ignored. The switch of IPs after the level 4 warning indicates a possibility that the change was intentional to avoid a block. PhantomTech[talk] 21:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion watching this range, the editor is very aware of MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN but is showing deliberate disdain for the MOS by knowingly refusing to comply. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

"they may be changing addresses intentionally" – that's not how the internet works. I did a 1 week block, though, and included a link to this discussion. If it continues after that, I can do a longer block. It looks like this has gone on for a long time. It's difficult to effectively communicate with IP users whose address constantly changes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Buenos Aires music genre vandalism

186.129.0.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Argentina has been adding and removing music genres without reference or discussion.[73] Many of the edit summaries are pasted markup in Spanish or other languages such as Arabic[74] or Turkish.[75] The person has never responded to warnings or notices—has never used a talk page. Can we block the range Special:Contributions/186.129.0.0/20? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

186.129.0.0/20 Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 01:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

2402:4000:2382:2E9B:48DB:50BF:A506:2

• 2402:4000:2382:2E9B:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Disruptive comments on IP's own talk page after a block ("paid propagandists of murderous usa regime like you", "go get an education"). Kleinpecan (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoked. El_C 01:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Betabum

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

---

This user has called me a racist and a blasphemer and refuses to recant. ––FormalDude talk 01:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think a temporary block on personal attacks should be instated with a firm warning. It does appear this user has made some constructive additions to Wikipedia, but this behavior is obviously inappropriate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• This user intentionally attacked me via Facebook and Wikipedia. I can't contribute anything because I'm constantly harassed. He said I was low class and uneducated.
• I tried to make peace in Vietnamese, but he continued to mock my family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betabum (talk • contribs) 01:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Betabum: if you are going to make such claims you must provide evidence. Not doing so is considered casting aspersions, which falls under personal attacks. If you continue with this behavior you will likely be blocked. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I've given a final warning since they're engaging here. I'm about to log off for the night. If the conduct worsens or an admin finds grounds for a block, feel free. Star Mississippi 02:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't even have a Facebook account. ––FormalDude talk 02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Currently the Vietnamese government is squeezing bandwidth. Each of our operations on Wikipedia takes 15 minutes to complete, please understand so we can work.
• We are all poor students, using computers are very outdated, so don't beat eggs with stones. You may be in a very happy and rich place, but we're glad we got on Wikipedia. My computer was manufactured more than 10 years ago, now if it breaks, no one will fix it because they stopped selling it a long time ago. So if you want to break Wikipedia, you can't. We sincerely just want to contribute to let the world know about our lovely homeland.
• I used Template:EDITING, but he still attacked me. So let it do, doesn't it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betabum (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• So, one attempt to defuse this before I reach for Maslow's hammer: @Betabum: Is it possible you're confusing FormalDude here with someone else? I don't think FormalDude has any idea who you are on Facebook, or interest in contacting you there. By the way, I've removed the deletion tag from the page you created, since it is not promotional in nature. Also, please sign your posts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Cảm ơn bạn, chúc ngủ ngon (Thank you and good night !). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betabum (talk • contribs) 02:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Why do you continue to not sign your posts? GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Either way, User:Betabum you need to start signing your posts, failure to sign your posts after being reminded may become disruptive and you may be subject to sanctions. Chip3004 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, he's new and doesn't know how, and could benefit from some coaching. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried to link them directly to SIGHOW on their own talk. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm finding his posts a tad difficult to read, too. I'm guessing that english isn't his first language. Also, he appears to be suggesting (at my talkpage) that he owns a page, that he's created. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User:GoodDay

• He injures and attack while I try "fighting" the weak internet. So it is fair if a dinosaur play with a chicken ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betabum (talk • contribs) 03:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that's enough. Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Betabum#Indefinite_block. El_C 03:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

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

IPv6 addresses disrupting edits

This IP addresses keeps disrupt edits on this article without giving proper summary: User:2405:9800:BA31:CA3E:4DFA:A8AB:3088:4096 User:2001:fb1:14c:100f:c021:9081:63b:565a User:2001:EE0:257:FD08:4755:D3DE:5336:625E User:2001:EE0:2F7:8C37:6764:24A2:4E6C:7D7C — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volley000 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Volley000, sorry, but this looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. My query concerning your protection request for this article at RfPP still remains outstanding as of my writing this (permalink). El_C 04:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet

Hi. Sorry to be back again with another report, but OV Inc. may actually be a sock puppet of South Dakota Pizza, which is also a suspected sock puppet of Orca Vision Inc.. The reason I suspected sock puppetry is because OV Inc and South Dakota Pizza have been inserting a sentence about South Dakota Pizza being headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The edits that raised my suspicion were this and this.

Also, their usernames are very similar.

Could someone take a look? Thanks! weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 04:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The content they put on their user page User:OV_Inc. makes it pretty clear. Uhai (talk · contribs) 04:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was typing this when I saw a message in my e-mail saying that the user page had been created. It pretty much gives away it's operated by Orca Vision. Thanks! weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 04:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting for posterity that when this user has one of their sockpuppets blocked, the account should also have talk page access revoked otherwise they will abuse it with frivolous unblock requests and other nonsense. Uhai (talk · contribs) 04:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. "Please buy my stuff" isn't going to get the user unblocked. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 04:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoked. /gen Ordered their soap since I keep seeing accounts promoting it. Will unblock if it's any good./j -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Sergio3018 and persistent removal of Russian names

Sergio3018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 17 August, the user was removing Russian names from the articles on Ukrainian localities without any comment (example, about 20 edits, see their contributions). There is currently no consensus that Russian names should be removed from the articles on predominantly Russian-speaking localities (well, one can argue that WP:MOS only recommends one name in a foreign language, but in many similar situations articles have two or even more names, and they have been there for ages - I mean, it could be an interesting discussion to have, but we never had this discussion). I warned them and rolled the edits back. Next day, they did the same (example, about a dozen of edits). I warned them again and indicated that their account can be blocked. Yesterday night, they continued (example, about a dozen edits). They never responded to me and in fact I believe never used a talk page, they are editing from a mobile. However, I do not see any other means to stop this behavior than to block the account. Ymblanter (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat?

I am in doubt if the edit summary of this edit constitutes a legal threat or that it is just a desperate editor: Note- Everyone who tries to change/edit/delete the page of this respected village will be fined as per the new act of govt. of india. The Banner talk 13:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, it appears to be an attempt to scare away editors. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah! i think so Editornews90 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruption, including the legal threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• User:Pillukherateshil Probable sock of of User:Editornews90--VViking_TalkEdits 14:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yup. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Revoke talk access

This sock is asking people to engage in edit warring for him. This is misuse of talk page and it should be revoked since this is a confirmed sock who already admitted to have used "former account".[76] NavjotSR (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

 Erledigt Cullen328 (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Constant reversion of edits by User:Thenightaway on Leyla Aliyeva

Constant reversion of edits by User:Thenightaway on Leyla Aliyeva

I am worried about the behaviour of User:Thenightaway on Leyla Aliyeva. Here's my case: In line with WP:BOLD, WP:GF and WP:NPOV, I made the following edits on Leyla Aliyeva:

International Dialogue for Environmental Action

In July 2011, Aliyeva launched the International Dialogue for Environmental Action (IDEA), an international environmental NGO that works to promote awareness and education of environmental issues.

Awards and recognition

• 2011 - Received the Key to Life award of the Children's Cancer and Blood Foundation(CCBF) in New York

• 2012 - Received Special International Honorary Award for Environmental Protection at the 6th International Environmental Project Olympiad (Inepo-Euroasia) held on April 6-7 in Baku

The edits above are factual and are clearly inline with WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. But User:Thenightaway reverted the edits minutes after tagging them as "Puffery" and "COI". This is never puffery. Also, I don't have any COI issue on this. I only made a good faith edits in line with WP:BOLD

A look at the history of the page reveals that User:Thenightaway has been in the habit of reverting edits on the page. He prevents other editors from updating the page by reverting their edits. This is quite disheartening.

I am saddened about this. I believe User:Thenightaway's actions are not in line with wikipedia mission which allows good faith edits from all editors. I feel so bad about this to be sincere.

I am bringing up the notice here admins to review the scenario. I believe there are no issues with the edits I made. The edits are factual and properly sourced. They are also written in line with WP:NPOV. These are never spammy.

I don't want to engage in "Edit wars" with User:Thenightaway. I want the edits to be re-added because they are inline with wikipedia guidelines. Thanks.Phedhima (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

References

• I do not see a single comment by either of you on the talk page of the article. Before coming to ANI, you need to first discuss the content differences on the article talk page. Admin do not decide content, we only deal with behavior, and since no effort has been made to discuss it, I would opt to not act at all here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, they're not wrong. The edit you made is just puffery of non-notable awards and a seemingly non-notable organisation. Canterbury Tail talk 16:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The article in question has been rife with WP:COI problems for more than a decade (a glance at the article history shows that veteran editors have had to periodically clean puffery and fluff from the article). The edits made by this editor (whose sole edit history is to (i) create an article for an obscure TV show months before the show started and (ii) add the same puffery to the Leyla Aliyeva article that WP:COI accounts previously added) are pure promotional and have no added value for an encyclopedic article on the subject. In my view, there are good reasons to initiate a sockpuppet investigation based on these edits[77][78], but that's not something for ANI to evaluate. Thenightaway (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you User:Dennis Brown. I am sorry I didn't discuss about this on the "talk page". I never knew. I have tried now to raise the issue on the talk page but it seems the talk page is now working out well. In any case, I only want to understand the reason for the incessant reversal of a sourced and factual content that I added in line with wiki guidelines. The subject in question appears to have won several awards. I only picked two that have good WP:RS. I see many other pages with "Awards" section. The other edit is also backed up by WP:RS. I really don't understand the reason for the incessant reversion by User:Thenightaway. The behaviour is discouraging and worrisome. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.Phedhima (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

67.187.73.94

IP User 67.187.73.94 makes strange contributions. Fist he started trolling me at my talk page [79], [80], [81], then he added hidden URL to my talk page[82]. Now he removing big amount of sourced data from the Turkish Angora without explanation [83], [84].

Just recently Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion. I believe this user is not build for Wikipedia. Can Admins please look at that? Thanks! --Abrvagl (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked longer this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Atlanta IPs violating BLP

2600:1700:D390:2DF0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Some Atlanta-based IPs have added falsehoods to BLPs. The person changed the first wife's surname and added a child to Ted Nugent.[85] They are also clumsily adding biography info[86] and changing England to UK and back. WP:CIR is an issue.

Last January they were busy whitewashing the Ted Nugent biography, removing negative material, for which they were rangeblocked for six months.[87]

The IP range is Special:Contributions/2600:1700:D390:2DF0:0:0:0:0/64. Can we set a longer rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)