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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Disruptive editing by Hawkers994

• Hawkers994 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user edit only biased claims without providing sources in the articles about Horn of Africa. As can be seen from this user's contriburions, they is a user whose sole purpose is to make edits in favor of Somaliland, not to add information, but to delete information they does not like, and to participate only in rewriting Somalia as Somaliland.

Hawkers994's editing keeps the sources he likes (reliefweb.int/report/somalia/catching-human-rights-needs-sool-and-sanaag-after-four-years) and deletes the ones he doesn't like(reliefweb.int/report/somalia/detailed-site-assessment-dsa-sool-region-somalia-march-2022). (Both of these sources are what I sought out.) These are information from the reliefweb.int and should have the same reliability. I have explained this to Hawkers994 in Talk:Sool but they is not convinced.

In Talk:Sool, Hawkers994 claims that Sool is Somaliland because it is effectively controlled by Somaliland; but about Badhan, Sanaag, they claims that since Badhan is not in the Sool, that principle does not apply. In short, in Hawkers994's mind, the conclusion that "xxx is Somaliland's territory" comes first, and they edits the article with his assertions and brings up rules that suit them. I explained this to them in Talk:Sool as well.

Editing without sources for a particular point of view is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules. Note that knowledge of Somaliland and Somalia is not required to consider this issue. The only issue is whether their are consistent with WP:VERIFY and WP:POV. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

With previous consensus[1] already taken place, this user has ignored all previous data and has chosen to make his own opinions, Without any external opinions. Ignoring updated sources [2] infoboxes should relate to current updated sources. WP:POV states opinions are not facts. Hawkers994 (talk)

That is not the answer. There is no consensus on the page you indicated. (If you say it has been obtained, provide a timestamp.) And the source you have shown do not answer the above question. Freetrashbox (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You have ignored all the sources in the articles and talk pages [3] [4] and have chosen to add your own opinion to these articles which goes against WP:POV As mentioned there has been previous discussions on this subject which you have chosen to ignore and dismiss sources which you claim are in favour of article subject.Hawkers994 (talk)

As you can see from the Yagori revision history, most of the descriptions of the relationship between Yagori and Somaliland were written by me. The sources are also what I found. You are the one editing without indicating the source. Most of the time for writing an article is spent researching sources. Those who edit with a source cannot compete with those who edit without a source in terms of editing speed. Do not describe without sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I am neither pro-Somalia nor anti-Somaliland. Tuulo Samakaab is a Sool's town near the Yagori, but the first edition was submitted by me and is presented as a town in Somaliland. I have also contributed Japanese articles on Edna Adan Ismail and Laas Geel to the Japanese Wikipedia as things in Somaliland. I am not in violation of the POV.

The problems of this user are not only those listed above. At Sool, this user writes "Disruptive editing, use article talk page for disagreement", so when I pointed out this user's problem on the talk page, this user unilaterally ended the discussion and is still a problem they continues to edit.

This user continues to make edits that do not indicate the source of the information. For example, as can be seen in the article in Buraan, the sources listed in this article are all about Somalia or Puntland. However, the user has deleted Puntland from Country because of "Corrected info." This user has no understanding of the basic principle that Correct is "information based on reliable sources" for Wikipedia.

Even in the dialogue above, this user has not written an answer to indicate the date and time the consensus was made, or to explain why he changed the treatment of the two reliefweb.info sources. The user does not respond to any specifics. Is it possible to have a dialogue with such a user? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox ignored all sources in the mentioned article pages and only went by your own [5] and even deleting and changing the wording of sources that i have added [6] somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing overlooks this and reverts all sources and edits to your version.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Please answer the above question.

The point made by Hawkers994 relates to an addition by Hawkers994 on January 12, 2023:

On the beginning of January 2023, the Minister of Interior for Somaliland Mohamed Kahin sat with the traditional elders and intellectuals of Las Anod today and discussed the present situation of the city where there have been protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod. [7]

As we can see by comparing it with the source, this is almost a copy-paste of the source and is likely a copyright infringement. So I rewrote this as follows:

Somaliland's Minister of Interior Mohamed Kahin Ahmed sat down with traditional elders and intellectuals from Las Anod to discuss the current situation in the city, where protests against the frequent assassinations in Las Anod are taking place.

I don't think my explanation changes Hawkers994's editorial intent, but what is the opinion of anyone other than Hawkers994? Does Hawkers994's addition not constitute copyright infringement on the English Wikipedia? Freetrashbox (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No source or dialogue seems to make this use Freetrashbox seem to understand that WP:POV is based of facts and not how he wants articles to be perceived from his opinions. He had been told numerous times there is already a dispute article for this region [8] with sources that articles are directed to and talk pages that somalia has no presence in this region.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Are you satisfied as to why I rewrote your description about the topic in January 2023? Or do you still think my rewrite is unfair?Freetrashbox (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Since the explanation has become lengthy and there are items added along the way, I will summarize them once and for all.

• This user deleted the same reliefweb.info information, leaving only what he liked.[9] - WP:POV violation.
• This user had a different editorial attitude between Sool, and Badhan, Sanaag & Buraan. - WP:POV violation.
• This user says "use article talk page for disagreement" in Sool, but when the argument goes against him, he unilaterally ignores the argument and continues to edit. [10] - WP:NEGOTIATE violation.
• Almost copy-paste post from a news site. [11] - WP:COPYVIO.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned before user Freetrashbox ignores the sources in the mentioned article pages [12] and even deleting wording of sources that i have added in these articles [13] numerous times the sources make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet his disruptive editing ignores this and reverts all sources and edits to his opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Even if you feel that there was a problem with my edit, it is no reason for you to violate Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This user's problematic behavior is still ongoing. This user replaced Somalia with Somaliland in El Afweyn. I also believe that El Afweyn is Somaliland territory, so I have no problem with that edit itself. However, the references cited at the beginning of this article all clearly state that El Afweyn is Somalia's area. If this is to be rewritten as Somaliland, it is common sense to at least provide a source that El Afweyn belongs to Somaliland. - WP:CS violation.

This user got into an editing war with another user, and when another user committed a 3RR violation, he reverted it. The 3RR is a problematic action, but it is usually also a problematic action when the discussant reevrts it. And this Revert is also 3RR. - WP:3RR violation.

In addition, this user writed a 3RR violation warning on the talk page of the user who first committed the 3RR violation. For the first user who violated the 3RR, it would be difficult to understand why it is allowed and not allowed for his own actions, even though his discussion partner also violated the 3RR. - WP:BITE violation.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox has completely ignored all the sources in these articles and only goes by his opnions, his disruptive editing and completing ignoring WP:POV stating his opinions as facts. As the source clearly stated the town is in Somaliland [14] he deleted it and wrote somalia which has no presence in this while regionn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994:The sources you indicated mention Yiroowe, but we have not discussed this town in the past. What does this source mean? Freetrashbox (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: You don't seem to have responded, can I assume that you agree with my comments above? Freetrashbox (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [15] and previous discussions which you have ignored [16] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[17]

you have ignored all sourced and have chosen to go only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in the regions [18] and previous discussions which you have ignored [19] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[20]

you have ignored all sources and have chosen to only by your opinion, as it was presented there is no Somalia government presence in these regions [21] and previous discussions which you have ignored [22] ignoring WP:POV stating your opinions is facts which is against Wikipedia rules,[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: Does your comment above mean that you do not intend to discuss this further? Freetrashbox (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

ignoring sources and stating your personal opinions after several discussions you have chosen not to discuss but to enforce your own viewsHawkers994 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hawkers994, stop using WP:VANDALISM as an edit summary unless it's actual vandalism. As you can see from the link it has specific meaning here and the most recent two in your edit history, do not appear to meet it. Better to assume good faith when reverting and explain why. Slywriter (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter that user in multiple times removes information with no edit summary or for no other reason or discussion [24] [25] [26]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

This user has removed the additions with sources by unrelated editors. I can understand his sentiment in deleting my description, but he should not delete the edits of an unrelated person. This implies that he is editing without much content review. Freetrashbox (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox has once again after many explanations and discussions keeps adding somalia with has no presence or authority in these regions in the info boxes [27] [28] [29] even though there is a specific dispute article which highlights this [30] he needs to understand that his opinions are not factsHawkers994 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: It would be more constructive to refute my explanation above. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This user is saying as if he is writing an article based on "presence (of country)", but I find it hard to believe. For example, the town of Bo'ame, which he mentions immediately above, is the town that Somaliland acquired in 2022, as noted in the current article. By his logic, that would mean that prior to 2022, it was not Somaliland. However, this user rewrote the town's country of ownership from Somalia to Somaliland prior to 2022.[31] In other words, he does not believe that "the country that occupies a town is the owner of that town." In his mind, he had concluded earlier that this town is a Somaliland territory, and he is just bringing logic to it. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

numerous times the sources on the article pages make it clear that somalia government has no presence and authority in these regions yet your disruptive editing ignores this and you reverts all sources and edit according to your opinion.Hawkers994 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: The article Bo'ame had 3,442 bytes in July 2021 before I started posting.[32] All that was written was the location with neighboring districts and the economic relationship with neighboring cities where there were no sources of information. I have added over 9000 bytes to this article. When we read the current article, we will see how this small town has dealt with its larger counterparts in Somaliland and Puntland. In short, I wrote most of this article. I am also the one who searched for sources of information. What exactly are you trying to say to me that I am ignoring the source? In contrast, what contribution have you made to the article in this town? You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland. You are just replacing the word Somalia with Somaliland. That Somaliland is a superior country is evidenced by the fact that the Puntland and Federal Republic of Somalia governments have adopted the system conceived by the country's leaders. If you want to tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland, I think you should tell the world about the wonders of Somaliland as it is in your articles, instead of doing nonsense like replacing one word with another. If you are not capable of doing so, then you should not be adding to Wikipedia. Freetrashbox (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your false claim that I have not added any articles to Wikipedia is untrue, [33] and many other contributions you chose to ignore in your emotional rant were created by myself, similar to how you choose to ignore the sources on article pages. As for the boame article the sources [34] [35] show that it’s under Somaliland government control and cannot be ignored and that info boxes should show that. As explained before there is already a dispute article which highlights this [36] which are linked to these articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

Comment Both users, Hawkers994 and Freetrashbox seem to be locked in de facto edit wars on pages I have reviewed. Even if they do appear to avoid 3RR. In general, the wall of text and back-and-forth arguing makes this difficult to follow. Hawkers994 is editing in a strongly partisan fashion on pages like Bo'ame as an example. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your third edit? You should comment with your main account. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks CambridgeBayWeather, this is my main account however. You see the wet pores in his skin slough (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly not. You don't get to pretend to be new and file an ANI complaint with your third edit. Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell This is not respectful to IP editors who want to make an account. Why would IP editors want to register an account if they could not use their new account just like people with Wikipedia accounts who have been here the same amount of time as them? Maine 🦞 16:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather @HJ Mitchell Yes, this discussion went on for a long time. But I don't think that user user:You see the wet pores in his skin slough started this ANI as HJ Mitchell said; they just commented here. Were they blocked for that, or was it for abusing multiple accounts (in spite of their denial)? I could be wrong. David10244 (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither HJ Mitchell or I suggested that they opened the section. What I said was that their third ever post to Wikipedia was to this section on ANI. I found that, combined with their second edit, rather suspicious. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: Okay, perhaps it was an exaggeration to say that you did not contribute at all in the Somaliland article. However, I checked your entire contribution history and found that, with the exception of the revert, you added more than 1,000 bytes only to the first edition of the 2,366 bytes article you listed immediately above. No doubt you have contributed little to Wikipedia. Also, as you can see from my explanation above, I am not talking about whether Bo'ame is in Somalia or Somaliland. Are you trying to deflect the conversation? I'm just asking you to write without arbitrarily choosing the sources. Freetrashbox (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Once again you’re trying to change to the subject when i have debunked your lies, info boxes on these mentioned articles will relate to the sources [37] and changing the subject to a users contributions will not change the fact that these articles have previously been edited and also changed by many other previous uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkers994 (talk • contribs)

@Hawkers994: If you are saying that I told lies, please show the edited difference. The garoweonline article you showed exactly reveals that Somaliland has effective control over Tukaraq, however Puntland is objecting to it. I wrote about it in the article Tukaraq.[38] But you removed it.[39] Can you explain the reasons for your edits? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As the source states there is no somalia presence this region, why did you ignore the source and change the info box [40] when there is already a dispute article as previously mentioned. [41] You also changed the source of the article to confuse readers [42] which i had to change back again. [WP:POV] states that opinions and not facts so you cannot just change them to your own accord.

Administrators and others: The conversation is going in circles. First, please give me your opinion on whether the copy-paste edit ("On the beginning of..."[43]) that Hawkers994 mentions immediately above is a violation of Wikipedia's rules or not. If this is not a violation of Wikipedia's rules, please your opinion on whether my rewrite ("Somaliland's Minister of Interior..."(the same link)) constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You lied about me of not adding adding any articles to wikipedia then when i debunked your lies [44] you said “Maybe its an exaggeration” and when confronted your changed the topic to Individual user contributions while trying to confuse users that info boxes should relate to sources. It seems you are the one going around in circles.Hawkers994 (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Then, I will talk about this one first. I have reviewed your history for the past 500 edits or so (about 2 years) and concluded that "You have not written any article at all not only about this town but also Somaliland." But you had an edit in the past that was over 1000 bytes. You made the edit 5 years ago and it is only 1 of your 900 previous edits. Given this situation, can we say that I told a lie? Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Both of you need to quit making contested edits for a minute and read Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent Sennalen (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that I was not cool with the editorial with Hawkers994. For this reason, I have now stopped editing the article disputed with him regarding the nationality of the town. I have called for dialogue with him on Talk:Tukaraq, Talk:Wadamago, Talk:Bo'ame, Talk:Yagori, Talk:Sool, and Talk:Hudun, but he has not responded. Currently, these articles are written to his liking (except for the articles that have been further edited by another person). Dialogue is effective only when the other party responds, and is meaningless if the other party does not respond. I think just editing without responding to dialogue is a sufficient violation of Wikipedia's rules. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's a step forward. Now, isn't ownership of these areas part of the Puntland–Somaliland dispute? If so, the articles should just say that, instead of the two of you trying to fight the war on Wikipedia. Sennalen (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve mentioned that there is a dispute article [45] many times on here for this region which these towns come under, yet this user ignored this as well as the sources which show control of these towns. Its pretty straight forward that info boxes should relate to that. User Freetrashbox does not need to change and deflect the topic.Hawkers994 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Haven't you also pursued a campaign of assigning ownership of disputed territory to just one side? Sennalen (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No, i mentioned that there is a dispute article for all these pages, and that the info boxes should relate to the sources that show control of the towns and are present on the ground since all these articles already mention that its disputed.Hawkers994 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Please thread your comments.
2. If I'm reading the diffs right, Freetrashbox wants to claim things for Puntland, and Hawkers994 wants to claim things for Somaliland. You both recognize that there is a dispute when it comes to adding claims, but you both have also removed claims.

Add sourced claims, removed unsourced claims, and quit being partisans for a side. Sennalen (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

What I would like to say to Hawkers994 is to write based on sources, and don't erase it just because it is a bad source for him. Hawkers994 also claims that "the town is Somaliland because it is under the control of Somaliland", therefore, I have given examples where Hawkers994 edited that it is Somaliland even though it is not under Somaliland's control. I am not claiming that these towns are Somalia (or Puntland); I am pointing out that Hawkers994's editorial stance is wrong as an earlier matter. Freetrashbox (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What i would tell Freetrashbox is to let the sources speak for these articles and infoboxes, as these articles already mention them being disputed in the article info section and the local governments that run these towns. Your editing attitude should also be straight forward without being indirect about users editing contributions.Hawkers994 (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkers994: I think such a topic could be resolved on the article's talk page (of cource when you join the discussion.) However, your attitude of editing without sources, deleting sources you don't like, and your double standard by the article is unacceptable to me. Freetrashbox (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You have made multiple violations including WP:POV on these articles as well as lying about user’s contributions as your previous replies show. Choosing and ignoring sources to your liking and stating your opinion as fact goes against wikipedia rulesHawkers994 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I always explain with evidence, your opinion is always just some impressions... I don't need to tell you which is more contrary to WP:POV, describing one or both in a description of where there is a disputed. Freetrashbox (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide some comments on whether Hawkers994's behavior is problematic, or totally acceptable, or problematic but within acceptable limits? Freetrashbox (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This user Freetrashbox avoiding sources and deletion of articles must be stopped, he has been warned many times in talk pages and doesn’t seem to care of the consequences. Wikipedia is not a place were you can do as you wish. His earlier replies indicate his behaviour wont change will be continue to ruin sourced articles Hawkers994 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate any comments as to whether I am correct, Hawkers994 is correct, or both I and Hawkers994 are wrong... Freetrashbox (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If there are no comments at all, do you all think this is just a form of article warfare? As you all know, there are so many pointless editorial battles in the field of the Horn of Africa rewriting Somaliland to Somalia and Somalia to Somaliland. I think the only way to prevent this is to ensure source-based editing.Freetrashbox (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The two of you have dragged this out on this page for over a month now. No administrator has seen evidence that their intervention is necessary. It's time to drop the stick and move on to something else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Af420

Af420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Rumi, Af420 initially made several attempts [46] [47] [48] to remove Rumi's birth place being the present-day Tajikistan city of Vakhsh, which is cited by WP:RS (one of them being by the Oxford University), replacing it with Balkh, conveniently a city related to his country of origin (Afghanistan). After being warned of getting reported, he stopped removing sourced info, but still went ahead and added Balkh [49], cited by random, non-academic sources such as rumibalkhi.com

Despite that, during all this time he so richly kept making WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA to me;

• Just because u are from Iran doesn’t mean everything belongs to Iran! (this was very their very first comment towards me)

• Dear HistoryofIran please use some sources before adding your personal opinion!

• what’s your problem, why do u think everything on Wikipedia should work the way you want it to work? Furthermore, instead of just writing your feelings, please add some good sources!

After being unable to demonstrate that his random websites were WP:RS, he backed out from the discussion and said that I can do as I please; BTW, not everybody has so much free time, so I’ll not be able to discuss this situation with you anymore, you can absolutely do as you wish

And thus I reverted back to the original revision, however he then reverted me again, randomly saying that No sources were provided!. May I be so bold to call this trolling at this rate? Anyhow, this user in a short span of time has violated WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ONUS, WP:RS, WP:STONEWALLING and probably more. They're not exactly new here, having edited since 2016, so they should be well aware of this stuff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at those diffs and your edits, it looks like a regular content dispute. Their sources (not the rumibalkhi one) are just as good as the current ones. And it looks more like them getting frustrated with your WP:Stonewalling and not assuming good faith. That's what it looks like to me. Could be wrong tho. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong indeed. The first diff [50], for example, was literally their first comment towards me, in response my previous comment; rv, sorry, but you need WP:RS for this, not random (news)websites. Two of the three cited sources are news articles written by non-academic, non-historians. The third is just a random site (that is the rumibalkhi one) - see WP:SPS. If you’re gonna accuse me of stonewalling and not assuming WP:GF, please at least this properly read into the issue. This user keeps accusing me of stuff and refusing to continue the discussion which barely even started, yet I am apparently the one stonewalling and not assuming good faith. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Af420's latest (attempt at provoking) comment after their revert and this report [51]. Still think I am the one WP:STONEWALLING? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear @1AmNobody24:, You are right, I just told him to use sources that can prove his point, but instead of doing that, he got serious with me:))

Af420 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This is just baiting at this point. Can an admin please deal with this person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran I agree that User:Af420 has probably violated a few policies. But you called the UN a random news Website. And that's just completly wrong. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess I could have been more precise in that regard; I was referring to their news article, which doesn't qualify as WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Request closure

As demonstrated in this report, Af420 is amongst many things blatantly WP:STONEWALLING the dispute, openly saying that he won't take part anymore and that I can do what I want, whilst contradictory still reverting me. And now he has just resorted to taunting me, not even bothering just address one bit of this report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Af420 does appear to be taunting HistoryofIran at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear, @HandThatFeeds: the reason I didn’t bother to answer is because Mr. HistoryofIran basically thinks everything belongs to Persian history, and he puts Persian above everything, here are some of his logs:

• he thinks Backgammon a Persian game:
  • Just wanted to add what it's called in Persian, it is a Persian game.

————————————————————

• He took the the Azari language from the top and and then put it under Persian
  • here is the source

————————————————————

• He took away the text that says Azerbaijani people are Turkic people, instead he wrote that Azerbaijani people are Persian people.

• • I putted sources on, the Azerbaijanis people once spoke a Northwestern Iranian language called Old Azeri language. But the Turks forced the Azerbaijanis to speak Turkish. The genetics of the Azerbaijanis are very close to the Persians.

And much more!!! Af420 (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

How is that evidence and have anything to do with this? This dispute still has nothing to do with Iran, unless you think Tajikistan is located there. Those are literally random diffs from 10 years ago (yes, I am not even kidding, he seriously went all the way back to 2013). And I also highly doubt you even knew of these diffs before now, which shouldn't justify your violation of multiple rules anyways. This is just more WP:ASPERSIONS by this user, if not also lack of WP:CIR. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran is a long-term user with a good record of edits. None of what you posted is egregious, and seems to reinforce that you're here to push an agenda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The UN and The New Yorker appear reliable to me. Either or both parties should seek input at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard instead of edit warring. I see some low-grade incivility from Af420, but he seems prepared to follow NPOV recommendation of presenting all views found in RS. Sennalen (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No need, as they're not reliable per WP:SPS as mentioned up above. I fail to see how constant insults and taunts is only "low-grade incivility" and demonstrates that he is ready to "NPOV recommendation", even though he was also removing sourced information as mentioned above. Can an admin please address this? This is frankly getting ridiculous, is this how we now treat fellow users and engage in disputes? Is instant WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA, edit warring, WP:STONEWALLING, taunting, the way to go in a dispute? Since it seems to be working. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no clean hands here. One of the three sources was SPS. The appropriate resposne would have been to remove that one citation and WP:PRESERVE the claim and its other two citations. Sennalen (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Kindly don't put me at his level, in no way did I behave even as remotely as him. Despite his persistent attacks and taunting (including in this very report), I have tried to maintain a calm and nice tone, only to get comments like "There are no clean hands here." This is what SPS says; "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". In other words, two news articles written by non-academic, non-historians are not WP:RS. Either way, sitting here and discussing what is WP:RS and what isnt is pointless, since Af420 didn't even bother to do that himself, instead resorting to well.. I rather not keep repeating myself. The report here has more than enough evidence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, discussing it here is pointless. Discuss it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Sennalen (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not helping. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn’t get archived. HistoryofIran (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Tritto. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support indeffing user:Af420. Said "user" is displaying some serious WP:CIR-ish behavior. And I don't think any of it should be WP:AGF'd. The fact that he digged to HistoryofIran's edits dating back to 2013 (!), i.e. a decade ago, i.e. years prior to him even registering on Wikipedia, and tried to use it against him when confronted with a bunch of awful edits made by himself, is quite telling and reveals the intent of said "user". The fact that the says he doesn't want to take part in further discussion is the cherry on top of the cake. I don't think the community benefits in any way by having such a user. Much less so when taking an actual look at the edits he made that resulted him in being brought to ANI. Said user has barely made 600 edits over 6 years[52] and is now trying to convince us that his WP:TENDENTIOUS edits "were actually correct". How is user:Af420 editorial pattern a net worth to this project I wonder? Take a look at the thousands of disruptive accounts that have made a few edits here and there and have wasted the time of the community and that of veteran users, and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  Were the edits correct? Sennalen (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support. Editors who are here to "win" need to go. Maine 🦞 16:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support as the one who created this report. If Af420 had been more active throughout these 6 years, they wouldn't even have been on Wikipedia for that long, cause they would have already been indeffed. This is not how you act on this website, or in general for that matter. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support per LouisAragon. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, this is a content dispute that has gotten out of hand. I will point out that in the version HistoryofIran reverted to, you can see that in one of the sources used to support Vakhsh as place of birth, the author writes, quoting a book by another scholar, "[h]e further states: "Bahâ al-Din may have been born in Balkh, but at least between June 1204 and 1210 (Shavvâl 600 and 607), during which time Rumi was born, Bahâ al-Din resided in a house in Vakhsh (Bah 2:143 [= Bahâ' uddîn Walad's] book, "Ma`ârif."). Vakhsh, rather than Balkh was the permanent base of Bahâ al-Din and his family until Rumi was around five years old (mei 16–35) [= from a book in German by the scholar Fritz Meier—note inserted here]" (see here). This, coupled with the article on the UN website leads me to believe this situation is not as clear-cut as described, which in turn dissuades me from indeffing Af420. Yes, he is primarily to blame for inflaming this dispute, but, for my money, HistoryofIran is not entirely blameless either. He should have followed WP:DR and taken the issue to WP:RSN. The rest of the disruption coming from Af420 is insufficient to support an indefinite block, in my opinion, once we rule out that his edits violated WP:TEND. Yes, he cast aspersions and, from the very first interaction, he was confrontational and personalised the dispute, and for that I can support closing this with a stern warning that continuing to engage in that sort of conduct will lead to sanctions, but I feel that the best course of action is to concentrate on the underlying content dispute. Salvio ^giuliano 09:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Approach RSN for discussing whether a press-release of UNO and a blog are decent sources for a biography on Rumi? I have no idea on why the situation is not clear-cut but it is consensus among scholars that he was born in Vakhsh. Will post some sources at the t/p. All I see is aggresive POV-pushing from Af420 using low-quality sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  That's not only a press release and a blog, one of the two sources currently used to say that he was born in Vakhsh actually reads "Bahâ al-Din may have been born in Balkh", although it goes on to add that "Vakhsh, rather than Balkh was the permanent base of Bahâ al-Din and his family until Rumi was around five years old". Now, I am completely unfamiliar with the topic and it's possible the consensus among scholars is that Vakhsh was definitely the place of birth and that's why I suggest following WP:DR, but I'm not seeing Af420 pushing a ridiculous claim, rather I see a nuanced content dispute. Salvio ^giuliano 18:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User making major changes to rail articles without discussion

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

User:Micga has a history of making disruptive moves without discussion, and was blocked in May 2021 for it. They have since accumulated numerous warnings about copying without attribution and further undiscussed moves. Today, they made massive changes and moves to Rail transport operations, Railway infrastructure manager (almost entirely unsourced), and now they're making changes to Rail transport company, no edit summaries for any of this. I left them a talk page message asking them to stop doing this and communicate with others, but they're actively editing now without responding. As they apparently have no interest in editing collaboratively, I believe this needs administrator attention and action. If this was the first time they'd done this, I wouldn't go to ANI, but there's clearly a persistent pattern in this user's actions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Some editors don't always check their talk messages regularly, so I'm willing to grant some leeway on the continued edits after the 14:53 notification, but if they don't come around soon, a block may be necessary to get them to come to the table and to prevent further disruption. Depending on their response, and other issues raised, some sort of topic ban may be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Nothing disruptive about the edits, they were for clarification. I moved from rail transport operations its contents related to infrastructure to railway infrastructure manager, while the remaining contents related to service and rolling stock were renamed under railway undertaking. Rail transport company is in turn the umbrella article describing differences between the two, as well as outlining regional variations in their organizations (split vs combined).Micga (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, took a quick look at your edits today, and:

• This edit to Basel Badischer Bahnhof changes "located on Swiss territory" to "part of Swiss territory", but I think the rest of the text makes the point that it's not part of Swiss territory. I'm not sure which is correct because nothing is sourced in that section.
• There are more unsourced changes to that article, like one, two, three. Can't tell if these are good edits or not, I don't know enough about the subject.
• It's not just trains, though. I saw Anti-Russian sentiment among the contribs from today; that's a topic I know a little about, and I'm finding more serious problems there:
  • Maybe OR and non-NPOV addition of "In contrast to countries such as Germany" (in a huge unsourced passage)... is there a source that points out this contrast between Russia and Germany?
  • Adds the unsourced text: "The first one of these views has ultimately been completely discredited in a humiliating manner after 2014..." Also adds to that text the phrases "precisely specified" and "it was inherently flawed". Without citing a source, I question whether that's OR/non-NPOV
  • Adding Belarus and Poland to text about Generalplan Ost in an article about Russia. Why call out Belarus and Poland? Ost was about more countries than just Russia, it was also about many more countries than just Russia, Belarus, and Poland... but it's an article about Russia, so why mention any other countries, and if we do mention other countries, why specifically those two but not the other countries? You also added the text "in these countries", but it wasn't just those countries.
  • In this edit, changing Untermensch's translation from "subhuman" to "inferior human" is a mistake; the term is almost always translated as "subhuman" because it means not human, and that's a key part of Nazi propaganda: they didn't think Jews, etc. were inferior humans, they thought they weren't humans at all. In the same edit, I don't understand the addition of "foreseen", or the removal of "pre-existing anti-Russian sentiment within the German population", which seem to contradict the sources cited therein, unless I'm misreading it
• No edit summaries makes it hard to understand these edits

I suspect in some cases, you are copyediting articles without reading the sources? Please don't do that, you will end up unwittingly misrepresenting sources. In other cases, it seems you're adding unsourced text, which shouldn't be done, either. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

On the subject of Belarus and Poland - the original text implied that the Generalplan Ost dealt only with Russia, which is false.Micga (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

If (before version) In Nazi Generalplan Ost, Russia was designated... is false because it implies Ost dealt only with Russian, then (after your edit) In Nazi Generalplan Ost, Russia, Belarus and Poland were designated... is also false because it implies Ost dealt only with Russia, Belarus, and Poland. Levivich (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Added the missing refs to the citations from Anti-Russian sentiment mentioned above.Micga (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The cited edit on the Basel Badischer Bahnhof was an intermediate one among many “in making”, the final text is quite unambiguous. But sticking to the subject, what’s the problem with the rail articles? Micga (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the combined diff for Basel Badischer Bahnhof. "Unambiguous" isn't the problem. Why are there no sources for these changes? Or are there? Levivich (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

On the rail articles specifically, you made major moves which changed the entire meaning of articles without any explanation, moved massive swaths of text around, much of it unsourced, and refused to use edit summaries to explain your changes at all. Had you actually explained what it is you were doing, we might not be at ANI right now. You also persistently violate our rules on copying without attribution. ANI is not limited to whatever concerns are brought up by the first comment in a thread; both your and my behavior is fair game for discussion here. I hadn't fully examined your other edits; I came here because the rail articles you made major changes to were on my watchlist. I was just going to stick to a talk page message until I saw the history of multiple warnings and a block, which raises this to firmly within ANI territory. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Popping in to say that I noticed this discussion because I still had Micga's Talk page on my watchlist from when I wrote this: [53]. Looking at their recent contributions, they seem to have taken this one to heart, which is good, but they're still doing something similar, that is, making large numbers of small edits to a single article, burying a much more substantial edit in the middle. Combined with the lack of edit summaries, this makes it quite difficult for editors watching articles to notice that larger edits have occurred. As an example, here's an unsourced edit that was dropped in the middle of 20 different edits done over the space of an hour and a half to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe: [54]. Depending on other editors' watchlist settings, they'll either have their watchlists blown up by all these edits, or just see this presumably unobjectionable one: [55]. I don't mean to allege bad faith or to say that making multiple edits to an article is inherently disruptive. But in the context of this ANI discussion it seemed worth pointing out. -- asilvering (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Like Special:Diff/1141799904, specifying Luhansk and parts of Donetsk and Kharkiv as being outside the Pale of Settlement. Levivich (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Micga you are copying without attribution, which is a real problem besides the others raised by Levivich, and aren't recognizing the problems with your edits. Unless something changes, I'll be supporting sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Where?Micga (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of unexplained content removals and addition of claims not supported by the added references in Talk:NATO–Russia_relations#Section_ordering_and_repetitive_content in the past. The edit comments weren't communicating the scope of the changes made, similarly to the asilvering's example above, and Micga didn't respond despite being pinged. The comment in the edit that removed a half of a section was outright misleading, leaving an impression that content was added rather than removed in the edit.

The content added by Micga to Anti-Russian_sentiment#Russophobia_vs._other_types recently is a largely unreferenced essay. (Most of the references are from the lead that has been removed by Micga; none appear to directly support the 'types of Russophobia' discussion.)

The identical issues with Micga's edits in a different topic area were discussed at ANI previously. --PaulT2022 (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Micga did not address the concerns here and has simply continued with the same kind of editing. In post-Soviet states now they made unsourced changes and moved around text without explanation,[56] which I reverted, then they restored the changes adding a couple refs in an edit[57] which do not fully support the changes and then proceeded to make a bunch of changes, again without using the edit summary, which are unsupported and hard to follow. Where is "Pax Russica" in this edit mentioned in the sources? I could not find this. If there is a history of this kind of editing, then action should be taken here, because it is clear this kind of editing will just continue. The edits on anti-Russian sentiment look particularly problematic. I am counting 127 edits on that article since 24 February, with major changes without any discussion and the edit summary used only for one of those edits. How is someone supposed to follow these changes? It is not possible and so probably no one will bother to check. Mellk (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I am one of the participants from the previous ANI discussion in November 2022. It seems like this is an on-going issue with Micga. Following the last ANI, admins neglected to take any action and surprise surprise here we are yet again. It seems that Micga's generally non-constructive editing tactics have and will continue indefinitely unless admins impose some sort of sanction. If this happened for the first time, I'd call for WP:GF leniency, however, based on Micga's talk page history, past ANI and block, this user has had several warnings from countless editors. We are way past the point to call this a "GF error". Micga has had ample opportunity to improve their editing methods within this time period. In most cases, Micga continues to make dozens and dozens of rapid edits without providing any edit summaries and often without any WP:RS. Even during this discussion, the user continues to edit, in my opinion, recklessly without any explanation and without sources. Myself and Subtropical-man, among others had expressed concern about this exact situation in the last ANI. Seeing as how this seems to be an on-going issue, I too support sanctions. Otherwise, I fear we will be here again in a few months. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

After I made this comment I see that Micga made almost 40 edits to Russian world, not one of them using the edit summary, which again involve making unsupported changes. In this edit they re-use the same refs as before (as in [58]) to write different statements unsupported by the sources (which looks like WP:FICTREFS). I see that Johnuniq pinged Micga here asking for a response but they decided to continue with those edits instead despite the concerns raised. Mellk (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to take action at the moment but someone else may like to. I left a final message at User talk:Micga#Warning. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Except for the initial edits which affect the substance, albeit being supported by the necessary references, the majority of these 40 edits are related to language polishing. I often read multiple times the inserted passages as well as admit to having, as a non-native English speaker, endless doubts whether I used the proper sequence of the syntax. However, I still have no clue in regard to allegations of copying without attribution. Micga (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Where in the sources is the denial of the Belarusians, Ukrainians and Rusyns as nations oder the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Rusyn languages, reducing them merely to dialects of Russian language mentioned or even anything about this doctrine? I do not see anything about dialects or even languages. All I see is you used the same sources for the statement about the "near abroad" from post-Soviet states and used them for completely different statements in a different article. Including using previously cited sources from the post-Soviet states article including ones from 2001 and 1994. Mellk (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Also none of the sources you cited mention autocephaly[59], so it looks like WP:FICTREFS. Mellk (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk: I can see that Micga's reply above does not engage with the details and does not address my comment below at 02:24, 5 March 2023. However, if I'm going to indefinitely block Micga, it would be better to make a water-tight case first. Please focus on edits made after Micga's reply above (after 10:19, 5 March 2023 UTC) and reply here if you believe any make a claim that is not supported by the reference (preferably something that I can check). I'm looking for one clear and recent example that I can ask Micga about. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Micga: Whether or not your edits are helpful is hard for outsiders to quickly assess. What we can see however is that several established editors say that there are problems. What is your response to that situation? Is there a discussion somewhere showing that some agree with your approach? For those reporting here, I recommend that a wikiproject be involved with a discussion focusing on a small set of related articles. Do not make an editor the subject of the discussion—at a wikiproject, the subject should be whether a particular set of edits was helpful. Having a wikiproject involved would give someone like me more confidence regarding what should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Nml25

• Nml25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also

• @Daranios, Onel5969, Onetwothreeip, and Daniel Case:

Concerning:

• Sexton Blake bibliography
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 2: 1912-1945
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 3: 1946-1978
• Sexton Blake bibliography part 4: 1979-present

Nml25 has created four articles with massive amounts of unsourced original research. Multiple editors have made an attempt to remove unsourced material. Nml25 continues to add this unsourced material back into the articles.

They were blocked by @Daniel Case: [60] for edit warring on 11 February 2023. Since the block has been lifted they have continued the editing behavior they were blocked for, reinserted unsourced material without adding references to independent reliable sources and reverting editors that object to the unsourced content.

These four edits restoring the unsourced material were made the day their ban was lifted:

[61], [62], [63], [64]

More (see article histories for all)

[65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70],[71]

See discussion here: Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Splitting the article and Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Draftify?  // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I had hopes after the initial block that they would learn, but unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. A longer block is warranted, but the length I am not sure of. The last time, as soon as the block was over they returned to the same behavior which led to their initial block.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what TimothyBlue is talking about. I have restored content after communicating with Daniel Case, who put in place the block and provided guidance on content. On February 19th I posted the following communication to him:

Pages have been restored and revised with more detailed citations as per Daniel Case's' suggestions.

Title info has been included to meet standards of verifiability as put forth by Daniel Case

"Sexton Blake tales were all independently published in story papers, (usually 1 paper 1 tale) with the title of the tale used as the title of the issue of the story paper, therefore it is necessary only that their existence be verifiable."

Example

1955

The Sexton Blake Library (3rd Series) 348 || The Case of the Frightened Man || Anthony Parsons || ||

Year, Magazine Title, Issue # Title of Story, Author

Here is the link that verifies it, easily finadble with the information provided.

https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=60576

ISBNs have been provided for all modern publications.

Comic Books plus has three pages of digital files for the Sexton Blake Library

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=2177

and a page of Union Jack titles as well

https://comicbookplus.com/?cid=732

If citations are needed I ask that you use the citations needed function for guidance. Nml25 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I received no message from Daniel Case that the material was inappropriate. From Feb 19 to Feb 26 I have received no message from anyone that there was aproblem with the information provided in the Sexton Blake bibliography pages. Other edoitors made tweaks on the page. On the morning of Feb 26th I discovered that Onel5969 had hidden three of the pages. No explanation given. So I reverted it back. Then TimothyBlue reverted the pages. So i reverted it back. Again TimothyBlue gave no explanation and he appeared to have no knowledge of the communication with Daniel Case.

To recap:

I took advice on board from Wikipedia for citation of sources on the four pages in question, I corrected citation of content to meet that advice, I notifed Wikipedia that new content was posted, I requested I be notifed for any errors in citation through the needs verification function. Other editors looked at the pages, found no issues and tweaked content for more than a week.

What excatly did I do incorrectly?

@Daniel Case @Daranios

And again: The material is not unsourced. There are 9 citations in the Compiling the Sexton Blake Bibliography section of each page which describes where the material comes from.

TimothyBlue and Onel5969 have made the creation of this page a highly toxic experience.

It's all viewable here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANml25#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion Nml25 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Just wanted to say that I believe that the disupted content is "unsourced original research" is incorrect. Everything else can be read in the discussions linked by TimothyBlue. Daranios (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Some of it's sourced, most of it isn't. Restoring contested content without sourcing is disruptive per WP:BURDEN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I informed Daniel Case, the admin that it had been revised and restored on Feb 19th to comply with his guidelines. There was no objection. TimothyBlue and Onel5969, who had not participated in that conversation, decided unilaterally to take down three pages. No examples as to how the content did not meet the guidelines. Nml25 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

They contain massive amounts of content that is not sourced and is against WP: NOTDIRECTORY, as it would appear your other articles do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue "These four edits restoring the unsourced material were made the day their ban was lifted:" I'm confused. Diff 63, at least, includes references. I didn't check the others. David10244 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment and additional material: I believe these are additional examples of unsourced original research in articles created by Nml25 and should be considered:

• The Exploits of Fidelity Dove
• The Sexton Blake Library, The Nelson Lee Library
• Harry Blyth, Nelson Lee (detective)
• William Murray Graydon, Robert Murray Graydon, Francis Addington Symonds, John William Staniforth, George Hamilton Teed

 // Timothy :: talk  18:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

TimothyBlue you're coming across more like an obsessed stalker than an objective editor.

All of these pages were approved months ago by other editors. And true to form you make broad general claims without specific examples. Nml25 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Question to everyone: Is there any actual doubt about the accuracy of the content? Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: Thank you for this question hitting heart of WP:Verify. Unsurprsingly, I myself have no actual doubts about the accuracy of the content, also seeing as most of it can be double-checked at the Blakiana website. Daranios (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, but it's difficult to be certain without sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Aside from Blakiana, some of the old magazines are also available at archive.org, like Detective Weekly 251 I had linked here. In case you want to check out accuracy exemplarily yourself. Daranios (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable or not, great big lists without any real context are against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The four articles starting this thread are just republishing the lists compiled by the Story Paper Collectors' Digest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point, but this criticism that the lists are drawn directly from another publication seems inconsistent with the criticism above that the lists are unverifiable OR. Also, don't we frequently include bibliographies in author biographies as well as articles about prominent fictional characters? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't usually include weekly or bi-weekly magazine publications over many years in a biography section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We have list articles that are each many times the size of main articles, those lists include extra details that are unsourced (and could well be OR, I've made no comment on the OR issue). So no there is no inconsistency in my comments. What is seemingly inconsistent is the enforcement of WP:BURDEN after the content of these articles has been challenged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: With regard to "seemingly inconsistent is the enforcement of WP:BURDEN", the thing is that the ongoing discussion is about if the citations are not already present for publication information and plot-summary. There is only a small percentage of uncited "extra details". WP:BATHWATER applies then. Daranios (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We obviously disagree with how much is unreferenced, it's certainly not "a small percentage". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: I have explained why I think the vast majority is referenced - though not by footnotes - in detail at Talk:Sexton Blake bibliography#Draftify?. Maybe you would like to explain why you think otherwise or where you think my argumentation is wrong over there. The other participants of the discussion have so far refrained from doing that. Daranios (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

When multiple people's arguments haven't explained the problem, maybe the the issue is your not hearing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The other ongoing discussion is whetber these should be merged. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Which entry do you think is inaccurate? Pick one. Nml25 (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Check the section for fans. The title is "FOR ALL SEXTON BLAKE FANS" It"s on all four pages (the section title is formatted manually instead of as a section title, (which would appear in the TOC) so you need to search for it.  // Timothy :: talk  12:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm staring at the wrong item, the "section" in question is not so much a section but the heading of an announcement that the editor copied verbatim into the article (with proper referencing). I have no opinion on the dispute, or on the editors involved, or on Sexton Blake, but I just thought this was worth pointing out. Ostalgia (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Timothy has a history of not reading things closely.... or at all. Doesn't stop him from having an opinion though. Nml25 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Kommentar - despite the large wall of texts above, the editor continues to add large blocks of uncited material to articles, which is why Daniel Case blocked them for a week the first time.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

  According to the block log, the block was for edit warring, not for adding large blocks of uncited material to articles. Perhaps Daniel can clarify. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: NML25 continues to add material to the articles, but still has not added references or sources or addressed objections by other editors. They continue to claim that comic book collections, fan clubs, and personal websites are independent reliable sources, which they are not. After further looking at the few references supplied for the lead material, there is also a problem with SNYTH and PUFFERY which needs cleaned up.  // Timothy :: talk  08:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• The bibliographies cited, although not from academic publishers or the like, include compendious compilations of bibliographic information by people knowledgeable about the subject. This type of source is often used on bibliographical articles (for example of second-tier authors and comic-book characters) and sometimes necessarily so. These articles could use some clean-up, but if we are going to have a Sexton Blake bibliography, and I don't see why we shouldn't, what other sources does anyone suggest could be used? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
• I don't understand what the problem is. Can somebody drop a diff of an OR/unsourced/synth/puffery/whatever edit, post-block? Levivich (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Canvassing by BeanieFan11

BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has notified 24 Sports WikiProjects of an ongoing RfC related to Olympians who competed between 1896 and 1912. The issue is that seven of these WikiProjects were not relevant to the articles being discussed:

1. Biathlon - Not part of the Olympics until 1960
2. Basketball - Not part of the Olympics until 1936; a demonstration event was held in 1904, but no basketball players are being discussed, and as far as I can tell we have never had articles on the individuals who played in that event.
3. Baseball - Not part of the Olympics until 1992; a demonstration event was held in 1912, but no baseball players are being discussed, and as far as I can tell we have never had articles on the individuals who played in that event.
4. Badminton - Not part of the Olympics until 1992
5. Cricket - Part of the 1900 Olympics, but no cricketers are being discussed
6. Ice hockey - Not part of the Olympics until 1920
7. National Football League - Never part of the Olympics; a demonstration event was held in 1904, but no American football players are being discussed

These notifications to irrelevant projects make it clear that this was not an attempt to bring relevant editors into the discussion, but an attempt to canvass editors to the discussion to influence the result.

I also note that after seeing these notifications, but before I noticed that some of the Wikiprojects were not relevant, I posted a request on BeanieFan11's page as I had some minor concerns about the wording; their response to that was to say that they were almost done, and continue issuing new notifications (WikiProject Sailing, WikiProject Running, WikiProject Rowing, and WikiProject National Football League) with their message rather than a neutral template. If the wording was the only issue I wouldn't have opened this discussion, but it is relevant, and the failure to use the template after the request to do so particularly so.

Canvassing concerns related to BeanieFan11's WikiProject notifications were recently discussed at User:BeanieFan11 and WP:BATTLEGROUND at NFL AFDs. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• You couldn't have discussed this further with me? You really had to bring me to ANI over this? Also, what's non-neutral about saying "You may be interested in a discussion regarding the mass draftification of a thousand Olympians"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  As for the notifications – having something like this approved would be major and could affect many other projects if similar proposals were made then citing the Olympian precedent – I felt active sports editors should know about MAJOR things going on in sports. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't think that such a discussion would be productive; the last discussion at ANI was only two weeks ago, and in that discussion you were uncompromising and dismissive of the concerns raised.

  The issue is that it lacks context; by itself it is shocking and sounds unreasonable, and will generate a knee-jerk against the proposal, but when put in context is less so. However, as I said, my concerns there were minor. BilledMammal (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  How would you prefer it to be phrased? While I personally don't see an issue with the phrasing of their notification, maybe Beanie would be willing to update their notifications. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I would prefer Template:Rfc notice be used. BilledMammal (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Would you have opened this ANI had they used the Rfc notice and notified the exact same group of projects? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes; the only reason I opened this thread was because they notified the irrelevant projects. If the only issue had been the wording I would have limited my response to the message I posted on BeanieFan11's talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for answering that. I thought as much, but I just wanted to be sure. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• An ANI thread over whether a few too many Wikiprojects were notified of a discussion in a way that is factually neutral is overkill. This entire thread is -- at best -- a mountain over a molehill and completely unnecessary at worst. Courcelles (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• While you could argue some notifications as unnecessary I don't see a problem with the notifications themselves. They're neutral in tone and they don't appear to be trying to sway a group one way or another. Isn't the point of canvassing that you're trying to sway the vote one way or another? I don't see any attempt to do so in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  The message isn't the only way to sway the vote; it can also be swayed through the audience. BilledMammal (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent - I don't see an issue with the tone of the notifications, but I understand you feel it doesn't paint the entire picture, which it doesn't. But you can't paint the entire picture of this discussion in a few short words. Any more included in the notifications and it could be argued that they may be trying to sway the discussion.

  Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion... - May I ask how you see them as selectively notifying (groups of) editors? Even though some of those projects don't have athletes included in the nominated list they are still Olympic sports and may have an interest the overall discussion. The only project that didn't have a stake in the Olympians discussion in the NFL project imo. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  "may have an interest the overall discussion." seems to explain "how they you see them as selectively notifying (groups of) editors?" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oof, that was a silly grammar mistake on my part. I guess I'm interpreting the text as picking out specific editors, or leaving out specific groups because of knowledge of how they may vote. I don't see this as cherry picking, but that may just be my opinion. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I respect your opinion, in the larger sense I think this is a grey area that would benefit from sustained community discussion but on the specific issue here I think after the last ANI discussion BeanieFan11 should have known better than to push it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• We just had a big ANI about, in part, Beaniefan canvassing. As for this proposal, first Beaniefan opposed it, then he asked to delay it, then he tried to pre-empt it before it was launched, and now he's canvassing again by notifying WikiProjects for which these articles are not in scope... why those WikiProjects? Because they're sports-related. Because they will bring likeminded voters. Not cool. Levivich (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, do you see all 7 of these projects as being out of scope? I ask because, not having reviewed the articles Lugnuts created, I could see several of those listed by BilledMammal as having an interest in the precedent that this could set. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and the explanation is right in the OP: none of the sports notified were Olympic sports for the years at issue. Levivich (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see the problem with the audience. I was made aware of the proposed mass deletion as a result of BeanieFan's neutrally-worded notification, and I am someone who has consistently voted to delete many, many early Olympian sub-stubs. (Indeed, I have nominated many such Olympians for deletion.) This is an important sports-related discussion, and it seems reasonable to notify sports-related projects to solicit input from knowledgeable and interested editors. It simply is NOT the case that all sports editors are wide-eyed inclusionists. See, e.g., Levivich, Alvaldi, and me. Sports-related projects are a natural group from which to solicit input. I would, on the other hand, be open to suggestions as to how to render the notification more neutral. Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't see the problem with limiting the audience to sports pages? The Olympics is both a sporting and political event, why was WikiProject Politics or WikiProject International relations not notified? These are primarily biographies, why not notify WikiProject biography? Isn't that actually the most pertinent wikiproject of them all? Think about that for a second, notifying 24 sports pages but *not* WikiProject biography. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Come on, now. The Olympics is a sporting event, and a non-neutral notification to those projects is not canvasing IMO. Your characterization of the Olympics as a "political event" is dubious. Your contention that notice should have been provided to WikiProject International relations is also dubious -- I certainly wouldn't have thought that the International relatins project should be notified. That said, if you or others think a non-neutral notice should be provided to that project, they are free to do so. Cbl62 (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion about keeping politics out of sports notwistanding what do you think of the failure to notify WikiProject biography? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think notifying the Biography project is fine, would not be canvasing to do so. However, I don't see that the "omission" of that project is a "failure" let alone a violation of any guideline or something that warrants any sanction. Cbl62 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

So you feel that when notifying the community of a discussion about sports biographies it is appropriate to notify 24 sports projects but not a single biographical project? If we were having a discussion about Christian statues and I only notified religion groups and not art ones that would be a problem, so why is this ok? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the notifications. It seems like a plainly preposterous proposition that BeanieFan carefully curated these specific groups to sway the discussion, where the alternate explanation, that BeanieFan mistakenly notified a few projects about sports that weren't at those early Olympics in good faith, either not knowing they weren't there, or more likely, not thinking it was all that important to even check. I'm not sure most people would have known that those specific sports were outside the strict scope. I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG WP:TROUTing to the OP for a rather blatant WP:AGF violation, but otherwise, there's nothing to do here. --Jayron32 17:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• I find Jayron32's analysis convincing. That the user went down a list of Olympic sports and notified the projects of those Olympic sports seems fine. The objection to the inclusion of WikiProjects focused on demonstration sports is odd (surely, those could be relevant), but I do find it more likely than not that notifying the badminton, ice hockey, and biathlon WikiProjects was a good-faith mistake rather than some sort of malicious attempt to canvass the discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am skeptical of that explanation because this behavior fits into a pattern of pushing the boundaries of WP:CANVASS; in the last discussion we see them criticized for their choices related to notifying WikiProjects, and here they push the boundary further by notifying irrelevant Wikiprojects.

  Regarding demonstration sports, the participants aren't Olympians. This is also why we have never had articles on them - database like olympics.com and olympedia.org limit their coverage to Olympians. BilledMammal (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding "in the last discussion we see them criticized for their choices related to notifying WikiProjects", there was no consensus that notifying the NFL WikiProject about NFL players was inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  There wasn't, but there also wasn't a consensus that it was appropriate. Considering this, their decision to push the boundaries of canvass even further is problematic and a behavioral issue. BilledMammal (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• We just had a massive ANI thread which included BeanieFan11 promising not to canvas or to undertake activities which could be construed as canvassing. If that conversation hadn't just happened I would be with Jayron32 and Red-tailed hawk on this one and say that it was an honest mistake from an honest editor but it did and we can't just ignore that. AGF is not a suicide pact. This is an ongoing behavioral issue and needs to be addressed as one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  My take as well. If it was anyone else, wouldn't blink an eye. But this is part of an ongoing pattern. The selection of projects (all sports, but not Olympic sports (NFL isn't Olympic sport), and not the projects actually tagged in the articles, not WP:BIO, etc.), and the non-neutral wording (framing this as the deletion of almost 1,000 Olympians, which is not really accurate, as these aren't "Olympians" as we think of them today, because back then anyone could compete in the Olympics, and none of these people won a medal), are the continuation of a general problem of canvassing and trying all kinds of tactics to "win" deletion-related disputes. For Beanie, it seems it's not enough to just !vote in a discussion, he has to try other methods, and it causes disruption, it takes a lot of time up from other editors, and it skews the consensus process. This is what we saw with canvassing and "IAR keeps" a few weeks ago, and it's what we're seeing with this RFC now. We're moving in the wrong direction. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Neutral notifications to interested WikiProjects should not skew the process (indeed, you and I both were drawn to the discussion and voted to support it). To the contrary, neutral notifications to interested/knowledgeable wikiprojects are beneficial to the process. Indeed, WP:CANVAS expressly authorizes and encourages such notifications: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Whether that wording always permits notification of WikiProjects which "may have an interest in the topic under discussion" is debated. However, that wording isn't relevant here because seven of the WikiProjects they notified, particularly WikiProject NFL, have no interest in the topic under discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at Beanie's contribs, I don't see a list of "interested WikiProjects", I see a list of "sports WikiProjects", which isn't the same thing. (Some WPs that were notified are not interested, some that are interested were not notified.) I also don't see the notification as neutral. If it was neutral notification of interested WikiProjects, I'd have no problem with it. What I have a problem with is non-neutral notifications of non-interested WikiProjects. But mostly I have a problem that non-neutral notifications of non-interested WikiProjects is just the latest tactic in a series of tactics deployed to try and stop the RFC. Levivich (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This is even less of a big deal than the previous RfC, which ended in no action. It should come as no surprise, then, that the same people are responding to this one with the same hyperbole as before. This should just be preemptively closed and BeanieFan11 should be left alone. Toa Nidhiki05 18:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Close this, it will only create more heat. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

( Peanut gallery comment) Per WP:SOFIXIT I have added notices to WT:WPBIO and WT:POLITICS, implementing the suggestions above. (I would have used {{rfc notice}}, except it didn't seem quite suited to notifications of a Village Pump RfC—it would have linked to the talk page instead of directly to the discussion.) Shells-shells (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• This seems like a possible oversight in not notifying a broad enough diversity of projects, but it's very hard to see any malice or deception here. Sure Beanie could have notified other projects, and maybe should have, but it's petty to quibble about "why not THIS project??" --Animalparty! (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• I would describe this as concerning but not actionable. BeanieFan11 is well aware that they're under scrutiny for WP:GAMING behavior regarding this very specific area of "inviting editors to discussions relating to the removal of sports biographies". Getting heavily involved in this specific RfC was extremely inadvisable and suggests that they either do not understand the concerns that were previously raised or that they are willfully ignoring them. There's no clear policy violation here, but unless something changes, it will be one more data point to show a pattern of behavior when this ground is inevitably retread at ANI in the near future. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not canvassing to post a simple notification to WikiProject pages associated with the Olympics. If you find yourself engaging in a research project to cross-reference those neutral notifications with the precise year in which various Olympic sports transitioned from "sports" [and thus, apparently, completely irrelevant to the RfC] to "Olympic sports" in order to try to say certain notifications are canvassing, and thus to take someone to ANI where much community time/effort can be expended... you may be in too deep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not canvassing to post neutral messages, and it is disturbing that this is even being suggested. --Rschen7754 17:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Strange behavior from IP

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

---

I"m not sure if this is even actionable, however I"ve noticed some strange behavior from the IP 195.244.164.66. Recently(ish) they seem to have been posting some sort of rant that varies between posts, something to do with Russia and Wikipedia. I'm not sure what it's about or if it's even actionable, however I figured I would post here just in case. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 Monate. Blaze Wolf, next time, please link to the IP —like so: 195.244.164.66— rather than just writing it in plain text. El_C 20:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Thanks for blocking them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Mattythewhite

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

---

This admin reverting without any discussion (and committed 3RR) as well as accusing and blocking several IP addresses for block evasion without mentioning which user evaded. 2001:448A:50E2:513C:28FA:9CDA:FF60:2EB6 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

links to 3RR violations? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems a rangeblock may be in order. See This IP which is blocked for block evasion and on the smae range as the above IP. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

/64 range blocked. Got to love how block evaders will come to ANI with a giant sign saying "Look at me!" RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

They are VERY smart. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't every IPV6 block be a /64 range block? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

At least. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Persistent copyright violations by User:TarifaXxx

TarifaXxx (talk · contribs) has been (re)adding copyrighted pictures without permission to Roger Schmidt (footballer); user won't stop, even after pictures are deleted from Commons for copyright violation. [72] [73] [74] [75]

I suspect TarifaXxx is Nxlo03qda (talk · contribs) and its multiple sock accounts, who had the exact same behaviour at João Félix. (too many diffs to post here; see between 25 September 2019‎ and 4 July 2019) SLBedit (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You might find someone who'll block from here, but this should be filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: TarifaXxx is edit warring at Roger Schmidt (footballer), now with another copyrighted picture. User will not stop until it gets blocked. SLBedit (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Do not call users "it".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Account equals it, i.e., until his/her account gets blocked. I will continue reverting his/her copyright violations, as those reverts are exempt from 3RR: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)." SLBedit (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

TarifaXxx has been edit warring for days now, readding copyrighted pictures. SLBedit (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is ongoing. User won't stop. SLBedit (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Then file a damn WP:AIV report for vandalism or WP:SPI to see if they're a sock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Severe AIV backlog

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

---

The "Bbb23 sucks" LTA is active, and is vandalizing ancient IP/user talk pages from many different IP addresses. I'm having a hard time keeping up with the pace of the vandalism, and AIV is severely backlogged because of the sheer volume of reports I've had to file. Could I get more eyes on this? I suspect the IPs being used may be open proxies, but I don't know how to check. Apologies if this thread isn't keeping with the spirit of WP:RBI. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have worn themselves out, at least for now. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@SamX: I glanced at several by following your contribution history, and most of them make one edit and then are blocked by Materialscientist as webhosts for a very long time. I saw one that had not been blocked but still has made only the one edit. I'm curious how you find them in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't think it would be a good idea to draw attention to this onwiki given that the vandal seems to be aware of our behind-the-scenes processes, so I've sent you an email with that information. I'd be happy to send any other administrators or RC patrollers a similar email if requested. — SamX [talk · contribs] 15:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Received the e-mail, SamX, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Anne Ammundsen

Anne Ammundsen (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. Section header truncated as a courtesy. No further discussion needed here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anne Ammundsen (talk · contribs) is a descendant of Charles Asgill, a British soldier who was briefly condemned to execution during the Revolutionary War in a series of reprisals between loyalists and patriots (Asgill Affair). This is her primary subject of interest on Wikipedia. In recent months, she has been aggressively trying to insert material she published about the situation basically anywhere she can. I and several other editors (primarily Victoriaearle and Drdpw) have been pointing out that her edits fail to understand Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to judge due weight and what makes a reliable source (among the sources she's trying to add is her own work published in a local history journal, interviews with herself, and an 85-year-old book by a noted very racist historian, which is probably not what you want a modern wikipedia article to be based on). Her edits to the articles have mostly been to create massively unweighted articles that extensively quote letters and fail to understand summary style, focused on trying to play up Asgil's imprisonment with purple prose to "correct" the perceived shortcomings of other biographies. Myself and many others have tried to explain the problems with her edits to her, to no avail. She has continually bludgeoned RfCs and talk pages (she came to my attention after she posted on Wikipedia:Closure requests about a discussion on Talk:George Washington, in which she refused to accept or understand consensus and what an RfC closure actually resulted in,[76]) and despite a number of uninvolved editors agreeing there were issues at a COIN thread last month, the issue persists. Anyone who edits contrary to her wishes to stuff her journal articles or letters into articles is spuriously accused of having a bias towards Washington. This, coming from someone who clearly cannot edit impartially about one's ancestor, is pretty rich, but it also shows that she's just refusing to get the point after people have repeatedly explained the problems with her edits. Given she is unable to edit impartially and is on a stated mission to right great wrongs, I'm recommending a topic ban from all the related articles, including Asgill Affair, George Washington, Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet, Josiah Meigs, Moses Hazen, etc. so that disinterested editors can improve things. And maybe give her a enforced opportunity to read our policies and guidelines quoted above, because explaining it to her is like talking to a brick wall at present. ~~~~ Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) At the minimum we need a topic ban from US and British history from 1754 to maybe 1812 to just be wide enough to completely wall off the entire period... and quite frankly I'm more inclined to an indef block for disruptive editing than such a topic ban. Courcelles (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I saw this matter when it was the COI Noticeboard, when I was there for a different matter (that is, I am not involved). The bludgeoning and failure to get the point has just gone on and on with this editor. I'm inclined towards agreeing with Courcelles; the obfuscation seen at the COI noticeboard means it's unlikely anything less will work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC) If this is how it ends, so be it. If Wikipedia does not welcome 'experts in their field' - which after 20 years is inevitable in my case - then that is your affair. I admit that my IT abilities are not up to scratch, but that is a generational disadvantage (for me) and one I am unlikely to be able to improve. I thought Wikipedia was a cooperative, and that with reference formatting (my greatest dread) help would be on hand? However, it frustrates me beyond words to see vital information buried deep down an article, instead of being honest and up-front and admitting that this episode was Washington's greatest error of judgement. Peter Henriques's words, not mine. It caused an international crisis and nearly derailed the peace talks. Other aspects of the story dismissed as irrelevant and unimportant because they do not put Washington in a good light. I am really exhausted from this battle, and it isn't one worth fighting any more, because if nothing else I am massively outnumbered, so how can there possibly be the "consensus" Wikipedia is so famous for? If you fight your corner alone, without support, then that is what happens. My book, to be published by one of America's leading academic publishers, Lexington Books, about it all is likely to be out by the end of the year, and I must accept that that will be the pinnacle of my success. I must also accept that Wikipedia will continue to be out of kilter with the new story surrounding these events, because it does not fit with other editors agendas. This is down to the fact that I found information never found by anyone else, and people don't like it. Except Lexington Books, who say they are "very excited" by my findings. It is a shame Wikipedia dismisses me as being of no value. Anne (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) There are plenty of instances of a book author finding things out that nobody has found before. That doesn't make their findings suitable for an encyclopedia unless and until they are confirmed by a substantial proportion of others who are equally expert in their field. If Wikipedia had existed in 1905 it wouldn't have published anything in Albert Einstein's papers of that year until they had been accepted by others. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC) @Anne I have not been involved in any of the discussions though I had a chance to familiarize myself with your conduct in several talk pages. I honestly do not believe anyone here has at any point tried to discredit your contributions or intentionally prevent you from making edits that conform to WP:NPOV and WP:V. I do think, however, that there is still a big misunderstanding on your part as to how consensus functions here. The work of a single scholar should not be used as the definitive source on any subject, let alone a topic that is as complex and wide-ranging as this one. I realize that Peter Henriques is a very accomplished scholar, but it seems like you are giving undue weight to his publications, along with a review of one his books from the National Review by Michael Knox Beran, to support a certain historiographical (and methodological?) angle that closely aligns with your own research. Many very experienced editors have expressed concerns about your persistence in relying too heavily on limited literature as opposed to scholarly consensus (the term preponderance of scholarship has been used quite a bit). Surely, it is reasonable to expect that someone with serious research experience, such as yourself, be receptive to constructive criticism of this kind. Moreover, I am astounded by the tendency to repeatedly describe an academic publisher as "leading" just to bolster one's own academic credibility. Can you imagine someone seriously arguing that their book is superior only because it was published by Chicago rather than a smaller university press? Perhaps taking some time off to reassess and determine the best way to contribute here will be beneficial. For that reason, I'd support a limited (not indefinite) TBAN in areas OP mentioned. Ppt91talk 23:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I support a topic ban from US and British history from 1754 to 1812 based on what I have just read and the clear COI especially ahead of the publication of the book which could easily lead to further COI editing. As an aside, I expect that information from the publication of the book will slowly percolate into various Wikipedia pages via the standard editing processes once it enters the marketplace of ideas. Gusfriend (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I had hoped that the discussion on the COI noticeboard would encourage this user to turn over a new leaf, but I see that after a short period of quiet the same bludgeoning and personal attacks have resumed. A block or topic ban does seem needed at this point. - MrOllie (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Support topic ban enough is really enough at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support topic ban from US and British history from 1754 to 1815. This editor is highly intelligent, highly educated and highly motivated. She is a single purpose editor with a family based conflict of interest who is here to right great wrongs about her ancestor, as she alone perceives them. Her edits amount to tendentious axe grinding in the service of her cause, which is pushing her own personal point of view about these events. The time to mention her unpublished book is after it has been published and reviewed by academic historians but she keeps bludgeoning discussions with mentions of her upcoming book, as if her unverified claims to have written a groundbreaking book grant her special powers. Like almost all productive American editors, I am not a blind defender of George Washington, who built his wealth on the backs of enslaved Africans and their descendents after all, and I want his biography to be neutral. And I have zero animus toward Asgill and am glad that he did not get hung. Other innocent men like Joshua Huddy actually did get hung by pro-British loyalists but this editor shows little interest in that particular war crime because it does not advance her narrative. War is hell. As MrOllie's diff shows, Great Big America throwing her weight about is a comment that reveals her battleground mentality, and she seems to be discussing American Wikipedia editors and American historians. I would never make that kind of comment about the United Kingdom in a debate with British editors, and it is truly unacceptable behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I don't wish to participate in this discussion, but it is necessary to mention that I had no part in writing The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society VOL. 120, NO. 3 WINTER 2019. Lancaster thought I should be credited, nonetheless, because I had brought Asgill's 18-page-hidden-for-233-years letter to them. If anyone can see it from my point of view, through my eyes, it seemed insanity to accuse me of self-citing or righting a great wrong. The professionals in Lancaster did all that, so to me, the accusations seemed totally unwarranted. The research was all theirs - they were the ones to discover several "missing" "withheld" or simply "vanished" items of correspondence. I found their work quite fascinating and was thankful it was them I chose to give the letter. I also don't think anyone is giving any thought to what it has been like, for me, to fight Asgill's corner (now we know what his corner looked like) - single-handedly - up against an army of American editors who do not like the story being changed because there is now "the other side of the story" being made available after 2.5 centuries of being misreported in GW's favour. It has been incredibly difficult for me to be up against a brick wall of antagonism at every turn, for several years. The weeks and months of my life spent on Talk Pages where I am the supplicant have been humiliating at best and soul-destroying at worst. My begging-bowl only having one edit request at a time - often lasting weeks and weeks to be resolved. Now years of those final uploads have been wiped clean from the articles (many many articles). I have felt like a trapped cat and, at times, have no doubt behaved like a trapped alley cat. When people treat me well, I always thank them. I rarely see the word "thank" typed out on WP, except by me - but there is a secret way of clicking a link of thanks where nobody but the recipient will know it has been sent. What does that do for one's morale? Nothing. That is why I type my thanks to those who deserve it. Just as Asgill's point of view has been sidelined, so is mine. The message I convey, via the research done in Lancaster, is not a popular message, I know, but all sorts of accusations hurled my way are mitigated (only by me, it has to be said) by the fact that I am only the messenger, and the messenger is now being shot. As GW once said (unrelated to Asgill) "truth will ultimately prevail where pains is taken to bring it to light". I cannot begin to explain the amount of pain my desire to bring the other side of the (now published in Lancaster) story to Wikipedia has inflicted on me. The accusations seem so unfair - to me. For years, this website has caused my mental health to suffer - badly. I hope some of you participating in this tribunal will read this, which is no longer than the OP, or other contributor's posts. Anne (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Is that not the article you describe on your user page as "My second published article (with co-author, Martha Abel)"? Brunton (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC) That's what is printed on the front cover, yes, but you could always check with Lancaster as to what exactly I wrote? My contribution was simply a reprint of an article written in 2007 (printed in 2011), which, by 2019 was out of date. Feel free to check it out, why don't you, since you obviously think I am lying. Anne (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC) It's not just printed on the front cover, but you claim it as your own on your user page. Wikipedia is based on published sources, not phone calls to the Lancaster Historical Society. As a fellow sufferer from mental health problems I would advise you to take them to a qualified professional, not to blame Wikipedia editors for them. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC) P.S. I am British, and live in Britain, so have no reason to worship George Washington. @Anne Ammundsen @Phil Bridger brings up a really important point that is besides any editing concerns. I have been alarmed to see several allusions to your deteriorating mental health and other editors might also become genuinely concerned. I sincerely hope you are well and if not, I would urge you to follow @Phil Bridger advice. Ppt91talk 20:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, my physical health is bad, which has no bearing on WP, but what has happened here has certainly impacted my mental health, and especially sleep. My husband continues to be concerned about my welfare and, like me, hopes that the flow of unpleasant comments about me will stop, now, and the decision be made. I do not know why this has to continue - is it part of WP rules to bring a person down as far as is possible to do? Is demeaning me part of the punishment? I appear to be a criminal or a vandal or worse. Anne (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) And, to be blunt, the more you heap on such hyperbole, the more you drag this out. There never would have been an issue if you had simply followed relevant policies and guidelines concerning original research, conflicts of interest, bludgeoning and tendentious editing. This never would have gone to ANI if you had simply resolved -- once this became an issue -- to follow those policies and guidelines henceforth. There wouldn't be near-unanimous support for a tban if you'd done so here. No one compels you to keep arguing here -- just like no one has called you either a "criminal" or a "vandal" -- and no one has prevented you from accepting an all-too-predictable outcome with as much grace as can be mustered and simply walking away. (And, come to that, no one compels you to keep "fighting Asgill's corner" against all comers to the point of "humiliation" and "soul-destroying" anguish, while we're talking about hyperbole. No "expert historian" would be ignorant of the need for a relatively thick skin when it comes to changing the historical narrative.) Ravenswing 01:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Support total ban for reasons stated above. On their user page the section User:Anne Ammundsen#Mission accomplished shows clearly this is a SPA on a RGW mission. They are NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to create a hagiography for a trivial historical figure.  // Timothy :: talk  10:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support topic ban at the very least. Courcelles' and Cullen's suggestions for a broader topic ban seems wise. I followed the original discussion at COIN quite closely at the time. Many editors attempted to explain to Anne the issues at hand and how to properly address them. I had thought perhaps the situation would resolve itself when Anne agreed to step away from the topic area in early February, but it is clear that Anne is now continuing the behaviours that led to the COIN thread. I am particularly unimpressed by the aspersions cast on Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet (example)—these are not conducive to further editing in the topic area. /wiae /tlk 12:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC) The lie of the land is very clear, since there have been only plaintiffs and no defendants, so hardly a fair trial! This condemned prisoner makes two requests. One, let's get this over and done with a.s.a.p. and Two, instead of being asked what would I like for my "last meal" - I believe that is the norm on Death Row (and my crime is not quite as serious as murder) - I hope you will do me the courtesy of removing my real-life name from the heading on both COI threads. I trust that will not be too big an ask? Anne (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support topic ban per David Fuchs who lays it out well. The articles need repair, which can't be done under current circumstances. I agree with everything in Cullen's post who said it better than I can; and also agree with Ptp91's post, again who said it better than I can. Also, whatever happens here, the terms need to be spelled out very clearly in my view. Victoria (tk) 17:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Support topic ban: Despite Ms. Ammundsen's oft self-proclaimed credentials as an "expert," her CV shows her to be little beyond a dedicated hobbyist ... which describes thousands of editors on Wikipedia, some participating in this thread included. Even were she a celebrated and widely-acknowledged authority in the field, though, that would not immunize her against the requirement to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines against bludgeoning, against conflicts of interest, against tendentious editing, against WP:IDHT, and since it seems too onerous for her to do so here (as well as, plainly, too much for her to simply acknowledge her intent to follow such policies and guidelines from here on out), a tban is in order. As far as the request to remove her real-life name from the thread goes, it was Ms. Ammundsen's choice to use her real-life name as her username. I expect such instances can be changed just as soon as she goes to WP:CHU and has that username changed to something less identifiable. Ravenswing 17:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Thank you for that advice. I have applied, and hope it will be approved and will automatically change the name of the two threads? Anne (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC) I'm not seeking to be absolved of my sins, because I consider that I have been provoked, many times. I am hoping that my punishment will be swift, though, because all this is doing my wellbeing no good whatsoever. I have spent £35,000 on my research, which has included finding a letter which had been hidden for 233 years - discovering the never-before-known location of Asgill's confinement - finding a never-before-known portrait of Asgill's wife and photographing the original Hoppner portrait in a private collection - getting a memorial erected to James Gordon at Trinity Church, NYC, 239 years after his death, and so much more besides. This investment means I find it very distressing to have the results of my work deleted. For instance, Asgill's wife's portrait removed; the image of the location of Asgill's confinement removed (in spite of obtaining copyright approval and the image uploaded by the copyright owner - who has even provided pdf. proof of that ownership to Commons) and the image is already in the Journal anyway. Furthermore, it is not allowed to have Appendix II of Mayo's book linked to its upload on Wikisource. This is the most comprehensive eyewitness account of what happened as the lots were drawn. It has not been published (Appendix II that is) in America, so it stands to reason that it would be a worthwhile link - but no - not allowed. When Lancaster was researching for their 2019 Journal, they had to source Appendix II from the UK. So, anyone taking this story seriously, in America, is unlikely to even know it exists. Professor Peter Henriques does not appear to know about it, and his is one of the more recent publications. Wikipedia has in the past hosted a link to that Wikisource, but it has been deleted. Weeks and weeks of work went into getting it all sorted out. Also, not allowed are Asgill's own words regarding why he neither sent GW a thank-you letter, nor felt he wanted to seek revenge either. This seems one of the most important section of his long letter, given his reputation is that of a cad for not having sent thanks to Washington, who randomly selected him to suffer the death penalty. These are simply touching on recent examples of what has caused me so much stress, given the amount of work which has gone into having these things both published and linked. I emphasise, these are just examples. Anyone in my position would, like me, be tearing their hair out over all this, and stress and tiredness has caused me to lose it at times. Because of my COI situation, it took weeks of my life to get the above-mentioned items accepted - all deleted in split-seconds. So, I wonder if anyone here understands all this from my perspective? Probably not, so the very best would be to publicly punish me, and publicly humiliate me, as soon as possible. Then you can congratulate yourselves on the satisfactory outcome of getting rid of me. Anne (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC) (Wrote an extensive response. Determined it was just muttering into a gale. Deleted said response.) Ravenswing 03:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Anne, you are far from being the only Wikipedia editor who also does research, historical or otherwise, and who has made exciting new discoveries that have not yet made it to Wikipedia. I too am such an editor. But what I and most other editors in this situation realize is that 1) the conflict of interest between being the discoverer of something important and being the person who writes about this discovery on one of the world's most widely read websites ... is huge and pretty much insurmountable. They also realize 2) that if they aren't going to write the relevant Wikipedia content about their own discoveries (as they really just shouldn't), it may take a long time, anywhere between one and twenty years or longer, before someone else is going to write that content. But what they also know is 3) that if their discoveries are actually worthwhile, and if they have been published in a journal or book that scholars are able to access, their discoveries will be picked up in the literature, and they will eventually make it to Wikipedia. If one is a researcher on a certain subject it will often be very helpful to edit Wikipedia in that general subject area, but when it comes to the actual focus of one's own research, and especially when it comes to one's own novel theories and discoveries, one really ought to let others (first other scholars, then other Wikipedia editors who pick up your name in the works of other scholars) judge their merit. This shouldn't stress you out. A fair assessment takes up time, and for better or for worse, in the world of historical research it habitually takes up a lot of time. Not all of your efforts is lost, only what you have done to get your work published on Wikipedia first. That was a mistake: it comes to Wikipedia last, and normally not by your own effort. I realize that it's been sixteen years, but you have also made progress outside of Wikipedia, and in any case sunk costs should not be held relevant. The sooner you accept your mistake and resolve to move on, the better your chances of succeeding in your goal of getting your research out there and read by the relevant scholars. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Of course I know I have been shown the door - I'm simply waiting for the door to be slammed behind me. I must have said that at least 3 times. I gave examples of items deleted which had been on Wikipedia in some cases for decades - with copyright sorted out - all ALREADY published. Did you look at the examples? Why should my image of Sophia be removed? Why cannot Appendix II be made available to everyone, not just the UK as now? Why cannot Asgill's reason for not thanking GW be given - it has been there for several years until an editor decided they didn't like it. There are NO GOOD REASONS for the deletion of my work. If you cannot understand how distressing this is for me, then what can I say. My work is not vandalism - and EVERYTHING I WANT RETURNED is entirely reasonable on my part. Of course all this has upset me terribly. How could it be otherwise? As for my exorbitant costs - how could that possibly NOT have an impact on ME - but naturally none on YOU. Anne (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Good reasons have been proffered; you just don't like the reasons. As may be, but you have been on Wikipedia long enough to understand that edits made by other parties neither require your personal approval nor are subject to your personal veto, however loudly or repeatedly you state it. Ravenswing 09:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I have objected to specific deletions made without consensus being requested, nor achieved. The edits removed had passed the COI process when uploaded to Wikipedia years ago. Yet one person can 'not like them' - for instance a link to an Appendix II unavailable in the US - so removes it - without consensus. I have had to go through so much to get edits put up, with consensus, it is soul-destroying to have those decisions wiped in seconds - without consensus. The consensus for kicking me out is overwhelmingly in favour of doing so. So, just do it. Now. Today. Let me out. If you think I think this fair, think again. If you think I should apologise to those people who destroyed my COI-approved work - ironically, I think it should be the other way round. Anne (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Support topic ban: WP:competence WP:Not here WP:NOT THERAPY. The conscientious and sympathetic editors who have contributed to this thread have gone beyond the call of duty to cajole its subject into editing in a collegial manner. To no avail. The only solution is a ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC). Unfortunately. One of my catchphrases is that in a consensus-driven environment such as Wikipedia, sooner or later everyone will find themselves on the wrong side of consensus, and their only viable option in that event is to lose gracefully and move on. Those who prove unwilling or incapable of doing so often wind up here at ANI, and it seldom ends to their liking. Ravenswing 07:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I'll say for the 4th time - I know I am going - what more do you want of me? Are you waiting for me to send you a thank-you letter for kicking me out? Is that what is causing the delay in slamming the door on me? My perfectly legitimate / published work / which has been on WP for years - has been arbitrarily removed for no good reason. This has been exceptionally distressing for me, given how long it took for approval for upload in the beginning. One editor suggested I apply for a name change (to Camp Follower) but this has been denied because of my MASSIVE TRANSGRESSIONS (I don't see getting upset at my work being deleted without cause as being massive transgressions) SO ALL THE WORK I HAVE DONE IS TO BE INCINERATED AND MY LASTING 16-YEAR LEGACY ON WIKIPEDIA IS TO BE SHINING DOWN THE CENTURIES IN MY OWN NAME AS BEING A CRIMINAL. THIS IS NOT FAIR AT ALL. I am not ashamed of who I am, and thought I could trust Wikipedians with knowing who I am - but when one's work - perfectly and totally legitimate work - is deleted for no good reason - of course this stressed me terribly. After I am dead and gone and the door has slammed behind me - I hope that someone will just do me the favour of following through my request to be "Camp Follower". Anne (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I don't really understand why you appear to be complaining about a delay in "slamming the door" on you. Editing Wikipedia is a voluntary hobby. No one has to be here if it doesn't suit them, and especially if it's causing them distress. See WP:RETIRE. DeCausa (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think you have grasped the situation. It is not about what is happening here - it is about what happened which led to here. Not everyone needs to be present to determine the outcome. I do not appreciate the time it is taking to achieve that end. Unless deliberately piling more stress on me is what is desired? Since not one single editor has grasped anything I have said, (my defence, if you like), the sooner it is over the better.Anne (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC) I don't believe that continuing this discussion is doing anyone any good. Can someone who knows how close it? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 at Srebrenica massacre

I held off making this report yesterday after seeing User:Coldtrack made a revert, but abstained. I am sorry but it simply is no longer possible to work with User:Santasa99. Not very long ago, he was blocked for edit-warring - having violated 3RR not once but twice, and still refused to self-revert when given half a day to do so (in which time he was active). After a relatively long period of stability, Santasa99 recently returned to remove "sceptisism" from the article (the very subject for which he was blocked before) here. No consensus. No discussion. Then again on 20 Feb, and today. Per the report I have linked at ANEW, Santasa is the only editor who has been hell bent on this one revision going back to 2019. A couple of points of interest: his "defence" in late 2022 accused Coldtrack and me of WP:TAG TEAM which the two of us demonstrably denied, and argues also that there is no consensus for the addition of "sceptisism". There within lies a veiled confession that he is alone against two who approve the other revision. Not an all-out consensus, but certainly no excuse for the way Santasa has behaved either. Well his TAG TEAM argument will not work in the current paradigm because I have not touched the article in 2023. This leaves the question of WP:ONUS. Now bear in mind that going back 15 or so years, many times a variation that I and CT approve has been on display (as adumbrated in linked ANEW report). As it is we who have the encumbrance of ONUS being the ones to approve inclusion, we believe that ONUS was satisfied based on the list which predated either of us editing the article. Satasa is aware of this, which is the reason he sought to conceal the sceptisim aspect of the list by removing some of the bugbears to the revision which suits his ambition. The article appears not to be in need of protection at the moment, but I strongly recommend either a topic ban for Santasa, or indeffing him. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - This is interesting case, which could end with WP:BOOMERANG. I am experienced editor and I rarely fall into a trap like this or pushed myself to the brink of being warned let alone blocked for disputes like one we had on genocide denial. I do manage fairly successfully to navigate all our guidelines and policies while editing in Balkan scope under WP:ARBEE; so far, beside this entrapping, I managed to edit for 15 years without a log warning let alone blocks. And although I have made a mistake and miscalculated timeframe making one more revert minutes earlier then I should have, there is more to this case than it was reported by Juicy Oranges. The filing editor obviously missed to inform community about not that innocuous way they and Coldtrack participated. We had dispute on the article Gazimestan speech. The moment I left that article and its TP discussion, Juicy Oranges and Coldtrack followed me to article Srebrenica massacre with this edit by Coldtrack, and Juicy Oranges chipped in with this edit, and from there on started reverting me there, and followed at Bosnian genocide denial with first Coldtrack's edit, and then at Proposed Croat federal unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina first edit Coldtrack and first edit Juicy (confirmed here), with reverts. There should be noted that Juicy and Coldtrack never edited in these three articles until they decided to follow me from Gazimestan speech, and for all intents and purposes tag-teamed and used their same POV to take turns and edit-warred across all three articles, while evading a risk of being themself reported for 3RR. Whole this time they were very well aware what they were doing: see edit-summary with a message by Juicy Oranges to Coldtrack; soon enough Juicy Oranges informed Coldtrack leaving him directions what to do (or not do) literally shielding him from breaching 3RR. Sometime in September they were already exchanging these kinds of messages here, which is interesting because now Juicy informed Coldtrack that they owed them for something they missed back then, to which Coldtrack replied like this. After Juicy Oranges filed the report Coldtrack noticed that report was idle for few hours, so in the message to Juicy they thanked them and informed them not to "exacerbate things" by making more reverts, but left two provocative edit-summaries referred to me with "blatant troll", and "troll, vandalism"; or that I should have my eye checked because I refused to accept his accusation that what I am doing is "egregious and stiff-necked behaviour to sell a point". Later, they were thanking to Juicy.

I actually intended to go straight to ANI, while fully acknowledging my miscalculated 3RR and by fully accepting responsibility for that misstep, and file a report on both editors who are showing some clear signs that they are now taking things into their hands to start fixing great wrongs within Balkan scope, skipping consensus and labeling RS as "so-called reliable sources" and referring to sources with "simplistic narrative sold by mainstream media", only to came across my 36 hours block at the time. At Gazimestan speech TP, just hour(s) earlier, I received blunt ad-hominem from Juicy Oranges.

Two editors never acknowledged that they need consensus to include or change something so controversial in such sensitive articles.

౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I refute the above about "following" Santasa99 anywhere. This concerns his defence of December 2022 and BOOMERANG is not in order as I have neither touched the article in 2023 nor have I violated a policy. Reading the above in full, all that matters is one thing, Santasa was blocked for a certain behaviour, and he persists in that very behaviour. I see from the above that a circus has been built around CT calling Santasa99 "blatant troll". Please be advised that this thread is not about what CT has said and and from what I can gather, has been sanctioned for. Calling someone a troll is wrong, but it does not excuse this editing behaviour from Santasa99. This thread is to look into the behaviour of Santasa99 taking into consideration his block in December. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Without comment on the broader complaint, the line that "although I have made a mistake and miscalculated timeframe making one more revert minutes earlier then I should have" makes plain that the user still does not understand the spirit of WP:3RR, i.e. "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." and "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot will usually be considered edit warring." This above suggests that the December block was not a learning experience for the user, but, on the contrary, they are of the mindset that they just need to edit war 'minutes later'. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears that you are missing the point, which is not that surprising if we have in mind our bitter (in quality terms) dispute on some unrelated topic few months ago. In light of possible consequences you are here to induce, whatever you may think they should be, it strikes me how little of concern is to you a whole background of that old 3RR case, or how little or no evidences is presented by filing editor and Coldtrack, or you simply did not trouble yourself with it and didn't read any of the posts explaining entire affair. My point was that my fourth rv could have been avoided if I was unethical and calculated editor, instead by assuming a WP:GOODFAITH I didn't realize in time that two editors have been in contact all along and were reverting me, without discussion and without a consensus, taking turns one after the other with a very calculated and specific goal in mind. It was retaliatory entrapping by two extreme POV pushers, who continue (after previous ANI which resulted in Coldtrack block a day earlier) to express retaliatory mentality even now with this ANI based on same old 3RR, without any substance and new evidence behind it. I am sick and tired of this retaliatory and opportunistic harassment. I would be imploring admins to check this out if not for these blocks of text that obviously repeal uninvolved editors. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oh dear - dismiss as worthless As almost the only other editor regularly editing at "Srebrenica massacre" recently (apart from Coldtrack, Santasa99 and Juicy). I can confirm that Coldtrack and Juicy did NOT have consensus for changes one or other of them has been seeking to make since early December to the article. Mainly in the 'Denial' section and many of which had the effect of disputing whether a massacre took place at Srebrenica. Juicy hasn't substantially engaged on talk about the changes he seeks, I'm not even sure what they are, yet he says that he simply is no longer possible to work with User:Santasa99, citing the massacre article about which he says I have not touched the article in 2023. How can the two claims be reconciled? I agree with Juicy that the title 'Denial' imperfectly reflects the contents - but no better one has been suggested IMO.

Coldtrack and Juicy had an interaction on Juicy's talk in which Juicy appears - to my eyes - to be hoping Santasa99 'messes up' so that an ANI can be filed. I joined it to the extent of pointing out to them that they didn't have consensus for their changes, as my stance had been - and is - somewhat 'between the two 'camps'- and they might have misunderstood my position. I am no fan of Santasa99's and find him sometimes over zealous and often apparently unaware of his shortcomings in basic English (though he has no problems with more 'Academic' English) - I am no fan of Santasa99 but this is wholly un-merited iro the Srebrenica massacre article. I cannot comment on any other articles since I am not and have not been involved in any way.Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - There is nothing much to add to Pincrete's posting, except that exchange linked by Pincrete started with "I owe you this". I believe that this is worthy for admins' to take a look, and if my assumption is reality based, then Juicy deserves at least a good solid logged worming per WP:BUNGEE. Juicy thought it is OK to dismiss my participation first with this ad-hominem, and then quite openly expressed this kind of battleground and righting great wrongs mentality: here (Note how Coldtrack and Juicy perceives my participation: I know and you know he has fought this battle singlehandedly since about 2019 and sees some personal gain from what he is selling.; and here openly expressing their intention to fix things based on their own world view. After Pincrete's attempt to inject some reason, Juicy turn on him with this tirade, which shows extent of their project-wise misguided attitude, and possibly intent, if not at least warned, to turn our project in this sensitive area (under WP:ARBEE) into a stage for ethno-national narratives, hands free, while RS are being perceived as "so-called" and "western"..--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Observation: All that is relevant here is that Santasa99 was blocked for edit warring in December. He claims he would have "self-reverted", however, if you follow the evidence submitted by JO in his ANEW report, you'll see that Santasa99 was advised that he was in breach of 3RR, then given copious time to self-revert, and in that time posted one message of defiance, and only after that did JO report him - by which time Santasa99 had made a fifth revert inside of 24 hours. As such, there is nothing I or JO could have done to cause Santasa99 to "slip up". He is responsible for his own input. So, he was blocked, then the block was automatically lifted, and then he returned to the behaviour that got him blocked and remains as defiant and adamamnt that he is right. One more thing, up until a short time ago, Santasa99 was the only editor in four years to represent his revision. I accept that Pincrete is now a second editor to support his version. Per JO, the claim of the two of us forming some alliance is utter hogwash. There may be just one occasion early on in the dispute that we made two reverts each in 24 hours but this can hardly be said to have persisted given JO has not touched the edit button on the article in 2023. So Santasa99 was using TAGTEAM to conceal his knowledge of the fact that two of us agreeing with one revision trumps his one-man battle until yesterday. Essentially, that is closer to consensus than what he has got. But now that Pincrete mentions consensus, I'd like to draw attention to Wikipedia's policies. For something as simple as the inclusion of one term (in this case "scepticism"), it is not consensus that is required but rather WP:ONUS. Had JO or I constantly removed "Denial" then the onus would have been on Pincrete and Santasa99 as contenders for "denial" to find sources to support it. The term is supported by ten pre-existing entries to the list, so I (and JO) do not remove it. Similarly, at present two if not three (as well as more that can be found if we tried) demonstrate examples of 'sceptisism' and we have cited these myriad times, therefore we have satisifed ONUS. As such, the consideration for any admin is simple: what do you do with an editor who gets blocked for five reverts, and then makes a sixth, seventh and eighth after his block is lifted? --Coldtrack (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  When you bring certain accusations up, you also need to offer evidence - it's a common practice within the project to avoid WP:ASPERSIONS. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct, which is why I refer admins to the evidence in the opening post and in particular the full thread of JO's link where Santasa99 was blocked. Doesn't require duplicating. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

But you and Juicy now WP:FORUMSHOPPING for some new block by presenting as evidence my 3RR block from December? You are just yesterday blocked for WP:harassment, and now you and Juicy by pressing with this frivolous report harassing me again. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My alleged "harassment" has been dealt with and I am indeffed from the article where the "offending" remarks happened. If you believe my sanctioning was too lenient or that I have continued in the same vein, you are welcome to collate your evidence and notify the blocking editor. There is no further discussion here. This thread clearly demonstrates that you have previously been blocked for a flagrant infringement, and the examples provided submit that you have done nothing to remedy that conduct - to the contrary you persist in that level of behaviour. Now if JO got something wrong (ie. inflated the number of revisions by using one on more than one occasion, or if you were not restoring the one and only version he says you were), then you are welcome to make representations to that effect. Otherwise, you're basically just stamping your first every time you post here and saying "yeah I stand by what I have done and refuse to change". You've got nothing on me any more, and JO is clean as a whistle never ever having come close to violating a policy. --81.148.214.74 (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC) (Coldtrack (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC))

Is it alleged "harassment" or harassment established as a fact, were the "offending" remarks offending or not. The sanctions against you, as strictly related to the case I presented in earlier ANI, are appropriate imo, and the only other thing that I would dare to ask and hoping to get in situations such as this is a decent apology, but it appears that would be too much to ask and hope. Because, however, now I have to come here again, to defend myself against this frivolous and empty report, filed by Juicy in retaliation to my ANI in which you received your block, and in which you have taken part of your own volition with as much frivolous and empty Observation and subsequent replies. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Kommentar - I was myself unaware of much of this 'background' until yesterday, and would have likely edited "Srebrenica massacre" with more caution, and/or started an RfC had I known about it. I don't intend to comment further in this thread, but would be happy to clarify anything, should the need arise. Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  You haven't done anything wrong there, for a long time your participation there was nothing but principled, in keeping claims unsubstantiated with strong RS out. Imo, regardless of what you think of me or if you may or may not like me, you have always been an ethical Wikipedian, and probably solid editor, and that's all our project need from its contributors. In case that you ever felt that I was exploiting your cited qualities in any way, you are well equipped, in all regards, to at least thwart any of such eventuality. You must be aware that if they were successful in their attempt to inject euphemisms, known to be used to promote fallacy and legitimise questioning genocide and Holocaust, such as "skepticism" and "alternative analysis", "alternative views", etc., into section's title along with existing Denial, that that would definitively set a stage for turning that section into place where denial itself would than get a wikivoice. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

SPA keeps recreating Delma (watch manufacturer)

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

---

User:DrewLNG keeps recreating variants of this article under slightly different names, even after it was deleted at AFD. Given this behavoir, it seems that they are WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia. Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Editor indeffed as an advertising only account, article CSD'd, pages watchlisted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Need Japanese-speaking and maybe admin help

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

I feel the need to amplify a cry for help I've just noticed dated February 3 at WP:PNT, titled Himetataraisuzu-hime. It is extremely unusual to have several people asking for help with a particular editor. I am emphatically not competent to evaluate Japanese translation and past experience says that Japanese is one of the languages machine translation truly does not handle well.

I know nothing about any of these people btw, and would be delighted to find out that they are wrong. However the idea that a "prolific" editor who does not speak Japanese is producing machine translation from Japanese is very alarming, and likely this is causing not just ugly English but serious errors of fact. Cleaning up such work is a huge and tedious time sink for people who actually speak the language in question, and I would know having just listed one from French out of sheer exasperation. Elinruby (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

(a bit later) It looks like the article has gotten some help, and it's two editors not three but the questions raised are still alarming, so I am quoting the meat of the plea:

29 January 2023 (UTC)

Himetataraisuzu-hime Edit The initial language of this article was Japanese. Auric talk 19:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The current "translation" is a travesty of bad machine translation, worked over primarily by a human editor who doesn't understand how to do translation, doesn't understand how to look up terms, doesn't understand Japanese at all, cannot read the phonetic parts of Japanese writing, and is wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter. This user is prolific, and nearly all of their content is generated the same way -- machine-translating articles from non-English Wikipedias, and then badly reworking the result. Various editors, myself included, have attempted to advise them to stop utilizing this deeply flawed process. See also User_talk:Immanuelle/Archive_2#Dongyue_Dadi and related threads in their Talk page archives. About the Himetataraisuzu-hime article itself, I am not sure if this is sufficiently notable for English-language readers. About the user, I have followed them for some months, and I am convinced that their editing activities here result in a net negative effect for the Wikipedia corpus: so much is wrong, and so many of their newly-created articles are for niche topics that few other English-language editors will see, and if they see them they may not be able to recognize them as bad, let alone fix them.

I am much less active here than on EN Wiktionary, so I am much less familiar with process. My recommendation is that some kind of administrative intervention is needed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look but my (mediocre) strength is conversion, not text. But I know the grammar and such EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You can read an earlier version at Draft:SiliconProphet/Himetataraisuzu-hime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)--Auric talk 15:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

As a Japanese-speaking admin, I agree that there is a significant problem here that needs to be handled at this venue. I simply have not had time to bring it to ANI myself, and may not be able to produce a complete summary now. When the issue was raised on my talk page, I wrote the following: "I believe the editor is acting in good faith, but since there are a number of policy violations involved (WP:SOCK given the history of overlapping use of accounts, WP:C as noted in the deletion discussion—the history of that page still needs to be handled, and there may be many other copyright issues on other pages) as well as behavioral concerns (WP:CIR, particularly the part that requires "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up") and content concerns (WP:CITE, WP:F, etc.), that is likely enough for the community to reach a decision on how to proceed without worrying about the problem of whether there is a meaningful corpus of "reliable sources" in this area of Japanese prehistory. Still, I feel it would be better to establish community consensus here. I was treating this as a slow-moving problem since I have not brought my concerns to the editor directly, but as you note, others have raised the issue, and complaints were also made on the talk page of the previous account." There are several issues involved, only one of which is the machine translation:

• There are copyright problems involved in the direct machine translation of non-free texts; I raised this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuhitobe. As noted above, machine translation involving languages the editor is not able to read are resulting in significant factual errors. Japanese is not the only language for which this is occurring.
• There is overlapping use of accounts, although only one is currently active, and this is being used to push through a set of articles that were draftified; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SiliconProphet/Archive, at which I mentioned the case of Himetataraisuzu-hime specifically: "Looking at Himetataraisuzu-hime may give a good summary. This is a real, but very obscure, topic in Japanese mythology. The article was created by SiliconProphet on October 12, 2021. It was edited extensively by SiliconProphet, but was draftified per talk page consensus on October 14. It was moved back to article space by SiliconProphet on October 22, and SiliconProphet continued to edit the article, followed by extensive edits from Scientifical Poet. It was then draftified again by an uninvolved editor on January 13, 2022. Immanuelle then submitted it to AfC without significant changes the very same day. Immanuelle continued to edit the article and it was approved at AfC by an uninvolved editor on May 3, but a recent edit by an IP editor still notes: Overall, this section is dreadful and clearly the mangled product of autotranslate, but I don't have time to fix it all. I doubt the process would have gone this way if clearly dealing with a single contributor to the translation."
• The history of having these drafts and articles objected to goes back further than the current account, due to the switching of accounts.
• When draftification occurs, the editor is merging inaccurate information into existing articles rather than improving the drafts; see User talk:Dekimasu#Help with a particularly problematic user and recent examples at Fuhitobe, Ichidaisotsu, and Girl Temple.

I would have liked to go through these items individually and clean them up for presentation here, but problematic articles continue to be created, so I will put this out there now in the hope that others can begin to evaluate what's been gathered together so far. The editor does not seem to concede that there is a problem, and I agree with the evaluation at the top of the section that this will end up creating a massive amount of work for other editors trying to clean up past contributions. Dekimasuよ! 05:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

To attempt to convey the scale of the potential problem: I primarily rehab articles from French, *a language that is related to English* and which is my language of education. There is a huge backlog of machine translated French articles created by a single user about military history, one of which, for example, translated something along the lines of "it was not until (1943?) that the unit saw combat in WW2" as "the unit did not see combat in World War 2". Some errors are more subtle than that, and I knew to look for that one, as that particular sentence construction is frequent and not intuitive for English speakers. A superficial copyedit by someone who does not speak French would not have spotted it. I have seen artist Joan Miró become Joan Looked. It gets much worse from there, the more divergent the language is from English. I've had four semesters of Japanese and do not consider myself literate in the language, just (possibly) able to get through counting, verbal greetings and thank yous. Hopefully this explains my alarm. Thank you for any brainpower applied to this. Elinruby (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

[77] is an example of what Dekimasu is saying about overlapping accounts. The article was reported at WP:PNT a year ago by the same user (@Eiríkr Útlendi:), and nobody responded. Other examples of how there just isn't enough bandwidth to allow this stuff at [78] and the CTX subpage here Elinruby (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't comment on the accuracy of the translay from Japanese, but I came across many of these articles due to referencing issues. Many had missing or partially corrupt referencing, as well as wikimarkup in article text. The way of dealing with this by SP was to simply delete anything that the machine translation had broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Immanuelle has added a user page comment stating, "In case it was not clear I retired on translating pages from Asian languages recently." However, previous retirement statements on the User:SiliconProphet account (here and here and perhaps elsewhere) simply resulted in switching to the current account, and Immanuelle has continued to edit the same set of drafts based on translations from Asian languages since making the new statement. In light of this, and since Immanuelle has not taken part in the discussion here, I propose the following remedies for this case:

• 1) Immanuelle will be limited to one user account. Other accounts including User:SiliconProphet and User:Scientifical Poet will be blocked indefinitely.
• 2) Immanuelle must not create new drafts using machine translation from any language, including Western languages, and must ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright.
• 3a) (Option 1) Immanuelle is prohibited from self-publishing articles to mainspace or reverting draftification. Any new articles must be submitted via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.
• 3b) (Option 2) Immanuelle is prohibited from creating new article drafts.
• 4) Immanuelle must not merge content into other articles as a response to having a draft declined or an article nominated for deletion.

Violating any of these rules would result in blocks. To me, this is a very lenient set of remedies. The problem of the articles that have already been altered by improper and/or inaccurate machine translation has yet to be resolved. However, these measures would help limit future damage, and the results of these remedies could be monitored more easily than under the current high rate of output. Dekimasuよ! 08:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support (Non-administrator comment), taking reports above on faith as I don't know Japanese, and voting to support based on my experience with translation from other languages, and the heavy burden created when editors "translate" from languages they're insufficiently familiar with. This needs to stop, and these remedies will help. Mathglot (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• In determining which of options 1 and 2 is more appropriate, it would be helpful to know if there is any evidence of productive writing from Immanuelle that does not fall into this pattern. Just skimming over their created articles, all I've seen are translations and copies from Simple English Wikipedia. (I'm checking by comparing reference sections between wikis) And if they're also using an LLM to create articles as mentioned on your talk page, that’s not really much better. small jars tc 16:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, with preference for 3b over 3a. This is hardly the first time someone's enthusiasm has vastly outpaced their abilities in the Japanese topic space (the meat of lumps, souped in soup example comes to mind, along with its hundreds of machine-translated companions from that article's creator). In addition to the obvious problems with machine translation output, eager "translators" who don't actually speak/read the language cannot judge the quality of the input, so they often do not realize that the Japanese (or other language) Wikipedia article they're "translating" is terrible, and they plow ahead regardless. Frankly, I would prefer a more straightforward "no machine translation" or even "no AI-assisted editing" remedy. But I fully support the current version as well. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support this will also help address another issue not yet discussed here: Immanuel is using ChatGPT or another AI to create articles and make additions. I tagged one with info on what the problem was, but Immanuel deleted that draft and continued working with AI text additions. The issue has not been fully discussed with them, but 3 a or b would simultaneously solve most of that prob anyway. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support (Non-administrator comment) - anything to stem the tide. I would also be in favor of explicitly forbidding machine translation and ChatGPT for this user to make it clear what the problem is here, and encourage reviewers to go a little deeper with this user's contributions, even if at first blush they seem ok-ish. I don't really know how that process works, but it seems like we're hoping AfC will catch the problems. They are catching quite a few based on the user talk page, but considering the potential nightmare we are contemplating... But we should definitely implement this proposal at least. Elinruby (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional remedy proposal

Based upon the first five responses above, I suggest adding one of the two remedies below regarding AI and LLM use. During this discussion, as just one example, Immanuelle has created Draft:Confucian Shinto and wrote in an edit summary "used AI for a start". I am not an expert on Confucianism, Neo-Confucianism, or Shinto, but I immediately notice the following problems with the draft: 1) it is labeled in present tense, whereas the Japanese Wikipedia article on this topic labels it explicitly as something from the Edo period; 2) the Kokugakuin source in English is being used to claim that Confucian Shinto "helped to shape the moral values and social norms of the samurai class", but the cited source never connects the samurai class and Confucian Shinto in any way, only noting the earlier influence of neo-Confucian scholars on the samurai, whereas Confucian Shinto arose later (the sentence linked to this source reading "In the 18th and 19th centuries, Confucian Shinto became increasingly popular among the samurai class, who saw it as a way to reconcile their duty to the emperor with their Confucian ideals of loyalty, honor, and righteousness" appears to be completely made up); 3) Kaibara Ekken is labeled as a scholar of Confucian Shinto, but our existing articles on him links him to Edo neo-Confucianism (the draft seems to think these are the same topic, and the linked George Mason excerpt purported to be a Confucian Shinto text does not refer to Shinto practices, gods, or kami at all; the Japanese Wikipedia article on this topic does mention Kaibara Ekken, but Immanuelle claims not to be translating from Japanese now). This is just a few lines that I picked out in a few minutes, and I have no confidence in the rest of the draft. Overall, while the article reads as good English compared with the machine translations from Asian languages, this looks to be an inaccurate mishmash, created in the very middle of the ongoing discussion here. And several other similar drafts have continued to be produced since the editor was referred to ANI. Given that insufficient judgment is still being used in evaluating the products of machine output, the following additional remedies are proposed, which would supersede #2 above:

• 5) Immanuelle is prohibited from using any AI-assisted editing tools, or machine translation from any language, in any article or draft and must ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright.

A different remedy limiting Immanuelle more completely seems possible in light of the comment above asking whether the proposed remedies already cover all of the editor's contributions, or the possibility that it may become more difficult to determine whether individual edits are machine-assisted, but for my part I would prefer to start with this. Dekimasuよ! 03:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support this one too, with thanks to Dekimasu for taking the time to craft proposals that give the editor a chance to adjust their behavior. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support This addresses the concern I expressed above and I thank Dekimasu for his considered approach to this issue. I would never have caught those errors at PNT. I am so glad for your help with this. Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support They Arent using those tools with appropriate care. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

2001:56A:F9B5:8800:0:0:0:0/64

This is looking like a long-term abuse situation with this particular /64, with a decent amount of vandalism across a number of articles over a number of months at least, including those related to the Billboard Hot 100 charts. This is the most recent example that had me reverting their edit [79]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Civility in edit summaries by 76.255.200.95

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

---

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

This user has been warned multiple times to cease their personal attacks against other editors, and continues to be make these attacks to the point of being directly disruptive - looking back through their edit history it seems most (if not all) of their interactions have been quite uncivil towards others. Jguglielmin (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Already dealt with. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

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

36.82.230.247, 114.5.102.79 and others

Moved from WP:AIV

 - ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Heading added. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• 36.82.230.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.5.102.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.5.104.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 36.90.109.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 36.82.231.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 61.94.87.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 36.90.109.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

A batch of IP addresses used by SPA (identical articles on Batak Lutherans), there are some more I believe. Does not intend to communicate, constantly makes small edits that are disruptive, if the "talk" is blue that is definitely a warning. Constantly switches addresses (probably a network thing). Is there an option for a device ban, or something similar? Juxlos (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User threatening to report me to Indian authorities because I gave him a warning about including the contentious term "terrorist" on biographical articles

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

---

Hello, I recently left a warning on the talk page of user Nirjharz regarding them adding the phrases "terrorist" into a biographical article and another article about a recently deceased individual. For the problematic edits in-question published by them, please see: here (a WP:BLP article) and here (article about a recently deceased individual). You can see they did not attempt to build consensus nor did they include any source to warrant the inclusion of this term in these articles.

They proceeded to respond hostilely to my attempts at dialogue with them and mentioned that they are a solder in the Indian military (perhaps as a means to intimidate me). They also made baseless accusations against my motivations for reverting their problematic edits and warning them. I tried my best to ignore their attempts at getting into a personal argument and decided to stick to pointing out why they are in-breach of Wikipedia policy. They are threatening to report me to Indian authorities (specifically the "Intelligence Bureau"), claim I am in-breach of Indian laws for some reason, and continued to go on an undecipherable nationalistic rant.

Can anything be done about this user? They do not appear to be here to improve the encyclopedia at all (WP:NOTHERE) but rather to vandalize articles of individuals they may personally dislike and are bashful and insulting towards those who attempt to educate them on why their malpractices and behaviour is not allowed on the site. Also, this is not a new pattern from this user, you can see their talk page littered with past incidents. Thank you, ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely for making legal threats. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Femke Thank you very much. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Egregious personal attacks by Amardions

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

---

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

Pretty sure this user is a sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chamroshduty), which would explain the random hostility. Anyways, I've told this user multiple times to refrain from making comments towards me [80] [81] [82] [83] [84], reminding them of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS too, but to no avail.

• "Please have no illusions."

• "Wikipedia is not your personal sketchbook."

• "Wikipedia is not your personal notebook. I added the source you requested. Your work is blatant destruction."

• "Insulting and slandering is your business. The basis of your work is destruction, insult and distortion. I answered all your questions. You know nothing about interaction, This is not a battlefield. I don't want to repeat it again. You asked and I answered that Khalifa Sultan is from the Marashian family of Mazandaran and has nothing to do with Isfahan. This is your work to distort history."

• "You do not know respect and rights."

Can we please block this user? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Insults, destruction and widespread attacks by HistoryofIran

HistoryofIran, Within the first second of entering Wikipedia, it began to insult and destroy my activity as a law-abiding user. Even now he calls me a sock!! Which rule in Wikipedia allows a user to target another user's effort?!! I made an edit in Khalifeh Soltan which was not to his liking. Instead of asking for a source, this person addressed me with bad words, but still, I brought more than 20 sources so that he would stop destroying and distorting history, but it was useless. insists in many places that Khalifeh Sultan is Isfahani, while the person himself said in his autobiography and other sources that he was born only in Isfahan and is of Mazandarani origin. I invited them to constructive and friendly interaction, but they repeated their work with Wikipedia:Edit warring. This user confuses Wikipedia with the battlefield. In another message, this user calls me a coward and not men!! [85]. At the end of each message, I called him respectable, but he insists on making my message look destructive. Here [86] I introduced more than twenty references to him, but instead of constructive interaction, this time he considers my message insignificant and says that I did not get my answer!! Isn't this destruction obvious?! Amardions (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not call other users "it". -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears you failed to notify HoI of starting this thread. As you were supposed to. I take the liberty of doing so now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

In another message [again], he calls my view and activity irrelevant and absurd. I respectfully have a question for Wikipedia administrators, who allowed this person to act aggressively and destroy the article and expel the new user from here?!!! Amardions (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I had no such intention and if it was so, it was unintentional. I intend to interact and be friends, not fight and enmity. with respect. Amardions (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Mehr WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA, with zero diffs to show of my so called "Insults, destruction and widespread attacks". I rest my case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but while we're talking about ASPERSIONS ... HistoryofIran, you're here at ANI a lot to complain about editors. Have you filed against as few as a dozen different editors in the last few months? Now sure, there've been justified complaints, and sure, you operate in fraught areas where discretionary sanctions are in place, but at some point, we have to ask whether it's really the case that so very many editors unreasonably choose to pick fights with you, or it's that you're jumping on everyone else's backs? Ravenswing 17:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a very unfair comparison. HistoryofIran is one of the most diligent editors in the topic-area. That the topic-area attracts a lot of POV pushers is not HOI's fault by any stretch. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not gonna argue with you, Ravenswing: If you think I am doing something wrong, by all means, report it, start an investigation, whatever. If it's of any help, I am also pretty active at WP:SPI and WP:AIV. Wikipedia sure can be a thankless "job" sometimes. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: I have had HOI's userpage on watch for a number of years and in >99% of cases, those that turn up to attack HOI are either socks or new editors who are insistent on inserting something non-useful into one of our articles. Sometimes, those users escalate to ANI. So, yes, it is "really the case that so very many editors unreasonably choose to pick fights with" them. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Well said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have moved this section up, to tackle the entire situation together. Salvio ^giuliano 16:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing:, that is a really poor comment by you. From all I've seen, HoI works tirelessly in an area with lots of POV and lots of socks who seem to target HoI relentlessly. I find it admirable that HoI puts up with it and continues to edit diligentky and take the time to report the socks. Your comment shows none of that diligence and deserves a juicy trout. An apology from your side would seem in order. Jeppiz (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked Amardions as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

  (eyeroll) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Late to the party, but before this archives I just wanted to add that yes, besides a sock Amardions was also an incompetent POV-pusher (I've reverted/cleaned up a number of their edits too), and yes, the great majority of accounts reported by HistoryofIran are incompetent POV-pushers, and yes, often these accounts are picking a fight with HistoryofIran because it's HistoryofIran who got their previous accounts blocked.

Sometimes HistoryofIran does get trouble with a good-faith user, on rare occasions even with one that is also competent, because HistoryofIran is an editor of the 'grumpy' (as seems to be the emerging wiki-speak term) type, patrolling tirelessly but precisely for that reason not always without losing their patience. It comes with the job description, as does the indeed thankless nature of stewarding thousands of Wikipedia articles, day in day out. I think that 'grumpiness' is something that should be held in check, but on the other hand 'grumpy' patrollers (and there are many others out there; you know who you are) do have my thanks and appreciation at least. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

SportsGuy789 violations of WP:CRYSTAL and personal attacks

SportsGuy789 made edits to List of NCAA Division I men's basketball season scoring leaders, List of NCAA Division I men's basketball season blocks leaders, and related articles and navboxes despite the fact that the 2022–23 NCAA Division I men's basketball season doesn't actually end for another month when the NCAA tournament concludes and because the NCAA counts postseason tournament statistics towards overall leaders these additions were not official. When I reversed these additions because these are not official yet and therefore a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and messaged him on his talk page to let him know, he was combative and re-added the unofficial and premature information. When I replied that he would likely have to form a consensus regarding adding unofficial statistical leaders prematurely currently runs afoul of CRYSTAL, his reply was a personal attack. I sent him a warning regarding WP:NPA, he removed it and doubled down on insulting me in the edit summary. SportsGuy789 appears not to care about editing according to policy and apparently has no need to be civil when interacting with other editors. I am requesting that a warning be issued by an administrator (both on adding unverified information and on personal attacks) because he doesn't seem to take concerns from regular editors seriously. GPL93 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Appeal of Wikipedia Image deletion

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

---

I am facing a chronic and intractable problem caused by the repeated removal of this WikiMedia Commons imagen from the relevant and appropriate entry on Wikipedia:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MLK_Universal_Rights_Scholarship_Launch.jpg

This image captures the launch announcement for the MLK Educational Initiative by the MLK Jr. Advisory Council of Georgia at Stone Mountain, GA on the 50 th Anniversary of the Death of Martin Luther King, Jr. (https://www.dca.ga.gov/node/5022). The image has been inappropriately removed over 6 times by users WhinytheYounger and Melcous.Melcous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)WhinytheYounger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The media image has been individually removed, as well as much of the content on the Wikipedia page itself that featured the image. Matthew Daniels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because the image captures an important moment in the history of this educational initiative, our board is now considering legal action to address the abusive removal of this image from the relevant and appropriate entry on Wikipedia. However, our legal counsel has advised that we first exhaust any internal appeal process before commending legal action against the editor and/or Wikimedia Foundation for the abusive removal of this image.

Thank your for reviewing this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPL2022 (talk • contribs)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.NPL2022 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@NPL2022, the image was deleted on Commons for copyright issues. Your concerns need to be brought up at Commons, not on Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:NLT.

the image was deleted on Commons, and would need to be appealed there (see undeletion requests). Sounds like a licensing issue. Commons doesn't host everything; just images with a documented free license. If you own the image (if you took it yourself or have had the copyright formally transferred to you) and want to release it with a free license, since it's been uploaded elsewhere, you'll need to go through the VRT process. Only once the image is undeleted is there even a discussion about whether to include in the article, and that would be made through discussion on the article's talk page. You haven't said what "board" you're speaking for, but no board (not even the Wikimedia Foundation's board) has authority over the content of a Wikipedia article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia does not have jurisdiction over images hosted on Wikimedia Commons (which the image you are talking about happens to have been). As such, please file a request on c:Commons:Undeletion requests and/or send a message to the Volunteer Response Team with evidence that you are the copyright holder of the image, so that they can evaluate the licensing of this file. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, as the filer has failed to post the required ANI notice on the relevant user talk pages, I have done so for them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

One more thing to take into account here, it seems that the OP is purely here to promote Matthew Daniels and the image that's being discussed here is one that includes said Daniels for PR purposes. So even if it is undeleted, I don't think it's appropriate anyway as it's only being used to promote said person. Canterbury Tail talk 17:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

• Ummm ... one more thing to take into account -- and I'm surprised no one's done so yet. The OP has made a legal threat, and that warrants an immediate block. Ravenswing 17:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely (as a regular admin action). --Yamla (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the first two sentences of Matthew Daniels are ... somewhat contradictory (Matthew Daniels is an American academic and human rights activist. In the late 1990s through the 2000s, Daniels campaigned against the proposed recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States...). Weird. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Our board? Does this not suggest WP:UPE? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh I think that's pretty clear just from their edits never mind that comment. Canterbury Tail talk 20:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

😛 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

UPE and legal threats, name a better duo. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio and racism? Canterbury Tail talk 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I must've missed an important tidbit in this whole thread. Copyvio, sure, but racism? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You asked us to name a better duo, it wasn't in context to this user just a better combo. Canterbury Tail talk 23:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

And, apart from all of the above, I would advise the OP to get different legal counsel. The idea that legal action could be taken over the removal of an image from an encyclopedia is utterly ridiculous. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Trj2002 and anti-abortion POV pushing

Trj2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, I reverted this user's contributions, which consisted of changing "anti-abortion" to "pro-life", believing the former term is "politically charged". When I sent them a {{uw-npov2}} template, they replied with Um, I will continue to push for the truth. The truth is not my political ideology, it is the truth. I would report to AIV, but this isn't exactly vandalism - however, it's obvious that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, regardless of the topic of abortion being contentious. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The user appears to have made a total three good-faith, though mislead, edits. This isn't vandalism or clear disruption. At this time, I disagree with the OP that this user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Let's not bite a newcomer. @Trj2002: pro-life is not considered to be neutral wording, we use "anti-abortion". If you wanna say that's biased, I want to let you know we also don't say pro-choice. I think you should read up on WP:NPOV and other policy and guidelines. If you continue to edit this way you will likely be either topic banned oder blocked from editing entirely. Welcome to Wikipedia. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 23:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I dunno. Saying "I will continue to push for the truth. The truth is not my political ideology" is so much of a textbook example of WP:RGW that we actually have it as the third bullet pointed example. Regardless of whether we should block for NOTHERE, or give enough WP:ROPE to demonstrate that they can edit within policy, I've issued them with a CTOP alert for abortion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention: it isn't their first time, as they did it as an IP before (1 2) and did it as the same IP after I sent the NPOV warning on the account (3). So we got one instance of editing while logged out (assuming it is based on behavioral evidence). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks a bit bad, and whenever anyone claims to edit based on WP:TRUTH it rarely ends well. Still, even though I believe Liliana is correct, it's hard to find policy support for Blocking (yet). Jeppiz (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is intentional but this seems like a misleading edit summary to me. DanielRigal (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. I also saw they marked one such change as minor, so I left a warning at their talk page over that. Jeppiz (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say WP:ROPE should apply for the time being. The user has been instructed by Checkers above (which I will repost on their talk page) why their edits are not neutral. I would judge their status on Wikipedia by their next few edits. If they show they understand why the explanation is neutral, then the situation is resolved. If they persist then I agree that WP:NOTHERE applies. — Czello 11:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that logged-out edit, the amount of WP:ROPE remaining is more like a thread. Any further disruptive edits or POV pushing should be enough. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

IP range from Poland, trouble with one article

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

---

• 5.173.192.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

I'm having a content dispute at Weedkiller (album) and the other party is breaking 3RR with different IPs from Poland. Can we throttle this dispute back a bit by partially blocking the range Special:Contributions/5.173.192.0/21 from Weedkiller (album)? My hope is to hash it out on the article's talk page. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I blocked that range from that article for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attack, POV pushing, and threatening of "sanctions" by Aman.kumar.goel

User:Aman.kumar.goel and myself were in the midst of a content dispute about 2 hours ago that quickly escalated. He insisted on removing unflattering information from Muammar Gaddafi, which I objected as "POV pushing" and "whitewashing." Throughout the whole process, he has shown no interest whatsoever in compromising and instead resorted to name-calling and personal attack. More recently, he has threatened me that he would "look for additional sanctions on you." [87].

Some background: About a month ago, I began the ambitious and painstaking process of writing and improving Muammar Gaddafi and other Libya-related articles, including single-handedly created the following articles: Bashir Saghir Hawadi, Ali Kanna, Abdel Moneim al-Houni, Tayeb El-Safi, Mustafa Kharoubi, Mohammed Najm, among others. I thought my ability to read English, French, and Arabic sources and my experience as an academic researcher would be an asset for Wikipedia. Throughout the entire process, I took great care not to remove pre-existing content out of respect for other editors' work. I worked quietly and diligently without issue for over 3 weeks until User:Midnightblueowl apparently took issue with the length of the Gaddafi article (perhaps because I did not remove any pre-existing content) and made 19 edits on February 21st all to remove content. All of this was done without any discussion on the article's talkpage. I objected to the removal and asked him to explain himself in the talkpage. A compromise was reached after User:Horse Eye's Back created Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi and Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi, which I was fine with. I also explained we needed to come to a consensus and a consistent standard on what to keep on the main Gaddafi article and what to move to the new articles (Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi and Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi) that User:Horse Eye's Back had created. There were some additional discussions about sources being overused or too old, but none of us tampered with the article after February 26th as a consensus was seemingly reached.

User:Aman.kumar.goel got involved in the Gaddafi article earlier today and immediately began to remove content without any discussion on talkpage. When asked to explain himself, he immediately assumed bad faith, called my edits "disruptive," falsely smeared my previous attempt to reach a consensus with others on the length of the article as WP:POINT, and misrepresented both my position and the positions of User:Midnightblueowl and User:Horse Eye's Back (who had their own disagreements). He also almost immediately violated WP:3RR. Throughout the entire dispute, he did not show any interest in contributing to the writing of the article and did not compose even a single sentence. I reported him to the 3RR noticeboard, but it delved into a circus as he continued to hurl insults and personal attacks at me there. I ended up getting page-banned from Muammar Gaddafi while he got away scot-free, perhaps because the blocking admin only took a cursory glance at the editing history of Muammar Gaddafi and somehow concluded my conduct was worse? The blocking summary itself was false as it accused me of WP:OWN for a month when I quietly edited without incident until Midnightblueowl's demand to trim down the length of the article on February 21st and quickly came to a compromise/middle ground days later. Aman.kumar.goel is clearly gloating about this as he seems to believe he has the upper hand and admins are on his side; he has since openly threatened to look for addition sanctions on me. [88] in a cynical ploy to boot me off the project.

Anyway, I'm not here to forum-shop. I am merely here to appeal to admins to examine and scrutinize the cynical conduct of Aman.kumar.goel. As I do not want this discussion board to become yet another mudslinging soapbox for Aman.kumar.goel like the edit-warring noticeboard, this will be my only comment on AN/I on this subject. Regards IceFrappe (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I advise you to withdraw this complaint before it boomerangs back on you further. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with 331dot. IceFrappe, you were lucky to have posted the above, with its "gloating" comment, just before my personal attack warning on your page, or you would now be blocked some more. Incidentally, what is the "name-calling" by AKG? Don't say stuff like that without providing diffs. Also, saying "I'm not here to forum-shop" does not make it so. Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC).

@IceFrappe You have failed to notify Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs) of this report, even though the red notice on the top of this page clearly require you to do so. I do note that you successfully notified them of the report on WP:ANEW, but a separate notice is required for this noticeboard. I have done so for you here this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bishonen: 😲 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra the ANEW result was to partially block IceFrappe from the article for a week. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Return of the UNESCO extinct language template

See last year's report at [89] which explains the issues. @Kanguole, Largoplazo, and Botterweg14: were involved then and Botterweg14 notified me of this yesterday. This is being done by [90] whose IP details match last year's IP. I've temporarily blocked them from article space to avoid this continuing. I'll go to their talk page now and inform them of this. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Also every one of those edits violates MOS:SMALL and MOS:SMALLFONT. Nevermind the insertion of regular images into map parameters against the infobox instructions. Canterbury Tail talk 18:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Doug, i reviewed all the contributions of the IP, and made the necessary reverts. If i recall correctly, only in a couple of cases was the respective language/dialect included in UNESCO's Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger; thus, i didn't revert those. Furthermore, Botterweg14 made certain partial reverts; preserving the image, but removing the reference to the Atlas. I didn't want to touch these, until consensus was reached. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993 thanks. The only reason I didn't ping you was that I didn't think you were around. Doug Weller talk 08:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this! My partial reverts were just me being nice. I don't have any particular preference about the template. Botterweg14 (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Abuse of power by the admin Maile66

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

---

When posting my opinion on English Wikipedia policy regarding administrators and the rules affecting them, the admin @Maile66 apparently felt so personally threatened by it that he INDEFINITELY blocked me under the ridiculous pretext of me being blocked for ONE SINGLE WEEK on the English Wiktionary – an in my opinion unjustified block I've appealed. Apparently I am not there to build an encyclopedia, even though I near 3000 edits, over 80% of which in articles.

This is the most poetic, the most symbolic argument in favor of holding admins to account for their actions, that I have ever seen. I'm not even sure if this request is correct, as a part of me believes Maile66 is a subtle genius trying to help me in my cause.

But in doubt, I have to request the competent people to take a look at this, and judge whether such impulsive behavior is worthy of someone with administrative privileges on the – by far – most consulted encyclopedia in the world. I wonder how many fellows have received such "treatment". And once again, this all because I posted in favor of a more direct procedure to hold admins to account for their actions... what is so foul that warranted me an indefinite block? Synotia (moan) 21:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have given Synotia an only personal attack warning for their last post to the RfA, which I also reverted. Synotia has not notified Maile66 of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  I assume this is the diff in question? What part is a personal attack?

  And I believe I have notified Maile 66 using @? Synotia (moan) 21:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Pinging them on this page is not notifying them in the slightest. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  What template must be used? Synotia (moan) 21:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  {{ANI-notice}}, as would have appeared in the edit notice when you started this thread. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  That template is at the top of this page and appears every time you edit this page, not just the first time.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  On another note, there is no longer a need to notify them of this thread; @Mackensen has already done so on your behalf; but please remember to do this next time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

They rescinded their block after others criticised it as wholly inappropriate. WP:ARC is thataway if you want to make a federal case out of this. (On a related note, one of the most compelling arguments against allowing something like fr.wp and pt.wp has is utterly screwing administrators who DO work in arbitration enforcement, since they're working in some of the most polarised and polarising areas on Wikipedia.) —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 21:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing can be done in this forum, ask for arbitration if you are determined to claim a scalp. Yes, that was a personal attack, there is no reason to checkuser anyone over a badly-chosen block, nor to accuse anyone of "corruption." Given the level of vituperation on display here and disruption of RfA to make a point, I would favor a topic ban from RfA for Synotia. Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me for not knowing where to file such a complaint since this is my first one. Synotia (moan) 21:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion I have a question. Between badly-chosen block and claim a scalp, I think you're sending mixed messages about administrator accountability. Mackensen (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I think the block was wrong. However, I perceive this complaint as an attempt to claim a trophy for what I hope is an isolated incident. If this is something that is a pattern of conduct, that's different, but arbitrators are not going to take action over a single problem, quickly (though grudgingly) reversed. Acroterion (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I admit I have no idea on whether this is a pattern among that person's edits or not – I don't hound people's activities on Wikipedia, let alone cross-wiki.

But as they say : when there is smoke, there is fire. I don't want Maile's scalp, I just "file a complaint" so that others know this happened. Synotia (moan) 21:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That's what's bothering me. This was appalling judgement on Maile66's part. The block is bad on its own, worse in context. However, it's not bad enough by itself to justify doing anything. Meanwhile, the OP is being threatened with an indefinite block by another administrator, and if we keep this thread open long enough someone will probably goad them into saying something that'll justify that action. This is Maile66's fault. Administrators should de-escalate.

Leaving aside whether they face consequences, the important thing for me is they agree they were wrong and learn from the experience. Part of that process is their fellow administrators being willing to say, without equivocation, that they disagree with their judgement and give their reasons why. Instead, we use bureaucracy as a weapon (look at all the stuff about notification above, as if it really matters), and start coming up with a reason to block the lesser party. We can and should do better. Mackensen (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you are escalating as much as anyone here. Not that I disagree with everything you say, but your use of hyperbole is a bit much.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You agree it was a bad block, then? Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I see a badly-considered act of petulance at RfA that accomplishes nothing helpful from Synotia, and an overreaction to that from Maile66. If someone can point to similar actions from Maile66, then arbitrators may want to have a look. On review, Maile66 has relatively few block actions in the past year, and they all look like fairly straightforward vandal blocks, so I see no recent pattern of problematic blocks. It may be that this incident should stand as a a caution against petulance on all sides. Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I thank you for assuming good faith.

I only wanted to use the RfA (Requests for Adminship, right? Not for Admins?) as a platform for my own opinion. Is this not allowed by some policy, or is it only you personally who doesn't like this? Synotia (moan) 22:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:POINT is a relevant guideline. We have plenty of forums for discussing and suggesting policy changes, protest-voting at RfA is just flamebaiting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Well how could I know so many Wikipedia members had this mob hostility raging inside them. My innocence has been forever tarnished. Synotia (moan) 22:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

You really should have already taken Mackensen's advice about not making jokes about your rhetorical opponents. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Synotia, if you keep making comments at RfA like the one Bbb23 reverted, you're going to get blocked and it's going to stick. That does not of course provide retroactive justification for the original block. Blocking someone making a pointless oppose vote at RfA is such an intensely bad idea, right or wrong, that it really does make me question their judgement (especially given the very grudging nature of their response). This shouldn't happen again. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I did not understand your point here. Who do you mean acted poorly? Me, Maile, us both? Synotia (moan) 21:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Making jokes about Saddam Hussein isn't a great idea, even if people think you're funny. I don't think people here think you're funny, also some folks probably want to block you and you shouldn't give them a reason. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the honest advice! (: Synotia (moan) 21:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The entire thing isn't it. The RfA thread is one users crusade on not allowing 100% success rate. Their attitude appears to be aiming for just below the line and irritating anyone around them. That being said, the block wasn't great and I would prefer admins not blocking users for conduct on other wikis and instead leave that to stewards on meta. Overall, Maile66 shouldn't block in this manner again, and if Synotia continues to walk the line (Not so carefully) they will end up with a valid indef... Terasail^[✉️] 21:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• The user is now claiming on their Talk page that the corruption CU comment was a "joke".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Everyone knows that including ';)' makes any comments completely acceptable afterall... Terasail^[✉️] 21:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I agree with Mackensen: bad block, but there's no reason to clamor for or expect a de-sysop over one block that was self-reverted when contested. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Jesus. While this is an odd block, your comment on that RfA isn't good at all. Just because you think the RfA system is unfair (we all know it is, don't worry) doesn't mean you have to oppose every single RfA. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

In an academic sense (meaning that I'm not commenting on this particular situation) - if someone has gotten a block on another wiki then there is no need to give repeated warnings to someone and let things meaninglessly play out in a futile exercise. Usually this goes in the other direction - they get blocked here and go to a smaller (usually English speaking, or Wikidata/Commons) wiki, but sometimes it happens the other way around. The bar for a m:Global ban, by the way, is very high. --Rschen7754 22:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Though - indefinite here for a 1 week block elsewhere does seem disproportionate. --Rschen7754 22:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I looked at what I thought was a pattern overall, and I made a block. Others pointed out to me it was a bad block. I lifted the block immediately. That's about it. I didn't engage in any arguments with the editors who called it a bad block - I just accepted their perspective and lifted the block. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Synotia: I don't want Maile's scalp, I just "file a complaint" so that others know this happened. Okay, you've done that. Is there anything else you seek here? Otherwise, we can close this thread and all of us move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why so eager to close a discussion about a bad block before anyone else in the community has had a chance to comment? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This discussion about administrator behavior needs to be left open for longer. There are important issues at stake. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC).

Proposal: Maile66, please refrain from blocking anyone off your own bat without someone else asking you to do so for 3 months because you appear to have temporarily lost perspective and could use a break. Synotia, please refrain from opposing individual’s requests for permissions for reasons unrelated to the individual in question for 12 months because you appear to have temporarily lost perspective and could use a break. — Trey Maturin™ 00:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• I have long supported the right of editors to post even frivolous opposes at RfA, but this is different. Synotia's oppose is a naked violation of WP:POINT and patently disruptive. It should be either stricken or hatted. If they don't understand why their oppose is disruptive, that raises serious questions in itself. While I agree that the block was precipitous, albeit done in good faith, a formal warning to Synotia is justified here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• I don't believe there was any violation of POINT because there was no apparent intent to disrupt. Personally, I thought the oppose was silly on its face, but the bottom line is that the editor was simply expressing an opinion, the (predictable) response to it was minimal, and was quickly moved to the talk page.
  On the other hand, they really should have thrown in the towel here much earlier when it was apparent from responses from multiple editors that they had no case. That behavior, on this thread, has been more disruptive than their silly vote on RfA. I would say leave the comment in place, there's much worse things in the world than not being made an admin by unanimous vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  Unlike vandalism, intent is not required for edits to be disruptive. I do agree that the block was a bit hasty, but this was not an abuse of power so much as an over-reaction to a legitimately disruptive edit that was quickly self-corrected. And FTR I do not believe any formal sanction for Synotia is called for, at this point. But if they make a habit out of this sort of thing, they run the real risk of being either blocked or TBanned from RfA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  The actual disruption or harm caused was negligible, essentially zero. It would have been better to follow WP:TYFYV from the beginning. This user is hardly the first to oppose RfAs with invalid opinions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think when people say "disruption" they mean denying a candidate a perfect RFA. I'm not sure if I think that's disruptive or not, but I bet candidates would think so. Levivich (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think allowing such !votes may encourage others to do the same in the future. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Nythar Unless I've missed something, people can !vote however they want at WP:RFA. I am however very troubled by the block/unblock that was enforced here, no matter how briefly, and at a minimum I think the block/unblock should be purged from @Synotia's block log. They've done absolutely nothing wrong. Nobody is owed a "support" !vote at RFA. Just because you don't like someone else's opinion doesn't mean they get to be blocked for it. If Synotia had been engaging in personal attacks or violating WP:CIV, I'd start to understand. But simply disliking why someone !votes the way they do? Absolutely not. Also, I saw you reference WP:RGW elsewhere, can we not misapply content guidelines to project space? We don't "right great wrongs" editorially. We're more than welcome to advocate for them within the project itself however. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  Locke Cole: Please read the rest of my comments below; they'll provide more context. And linking RGW was a mistake on my part, I was just referring to Righting Great Wrongs as a concept. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  You haven't missed anything, Locke Cole: there's a very long and sordid history at RfA of opposes based on all manner of idiotic/irrelevant reasons. No one purged any of those hobby horse/bullet votes, no one purged opposes based on noms foolishly thinking that "optional" questions were anything of the sort, and good grief, any RfA veteran from years ago surely remembers Kurt, who was as disruptive to the process as any editor in Wikipedia's history in any area. Then we have the longstanding syndrome that weasel-wording "!vote" was nonsensical when applied to RfA: for one of the RfCs on the process, I did a survey of every RfA over the previous few years.

  And my finding was this: that in every single RfA where the Support total hit 75%, and the candidate did not withdraw, the RfA passed. In that same time frame, only three candidates passed with under 75% support, and none with under 70%. That bureaucrats had the technical power to pass candidates anyway was the case and may still be, but the fact of the matter is that they had never done so. The process was absolutely a popularity contest then based solely on head count, and I'm phrasing it in past tense only because I haven't paid any attention to RfA for a few years, out of disgust. Ravenswing 07:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think the block was certainly incorrect. However, it was reverted within just 26 minutes. I have to agree with Acroterion. This post appears to be nothing more than an attempt to collect a trophy for what is likely to be an isolated incident. If there were multiple incidents like this, maybe that's when we start talking about ArbCom and desysopping, but nothing is going to happen over a misguided, self reverted, one-off incident. Additonally, I agree with others that the !vote is extremely inappropriate. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I hope that Synotia may consider striking the vote themselves. There is absolutely no reason to vote against a good faith editor who wants to help out as a sysop because you don't agree with our processes. Do better. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• I think this was a bad block, for sure. It was also self-reverted quickly, so I don't think any further action is necessary. We should remind Synotia that disrupting processes to prove a WP:POINT is likely to result in a very legitimate block. We should also remind everyone else that the single Oppose vote is incredibly unlikely to have an impact on anything, and would probably be discounted if the RfA were on the cusp. Ignoring or thanking them was the better option here, and there's a reason we have the essay WP:TYFYV. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Trout slaps to be offered to both Synotia and Maile66 should be sufficient, for the same reasons as Trey, but I do not believe there is a need for the community to ask them to refrain from repeating their actions at this point. – robertsky (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• I should be allowed to vote oppose at any RfA I want to. There's no right to a "perfect RfA". RfA is one of the only effective checks and balances the broader community has over administrators. Any warm fuzzy feeling potential admins get from their 100% approval score is outweighed by the need to prevent a chilling effect on possible oppose voters. People should be allowed to speak their mind at RfA about the process, and I see much greater harms coming from people feeling they don't have a good enough reason to oppose than benefits from an admin getting a 100% instead of a 98%.

And for that matter, if we're banning votes not based on the candidates, I'd love to see people warned when they support because "not enough admins" or Support for no reason other than to counteract the hostage-taking opposition vote. The double standard for oppose votes versus support votes is problematic for sure. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Chess: The users who are want Synotia's !vote stricken aren't concerned that the admin won't get 100% support. The problem is that Synotia's oppose !vote at that AfD is slightly disruptive. AfD is not a venue for proposing changes or WP:Righting great wrongs; these things should be proposed elsewhere. Synotia said in their !vote "I will systematically vote against any admin election as long as the system is not reformed". This isn't what RfAs are designed for. You should evaluate the candidate and vote depending on the result of your evaluation (either with prior experience, diffs, or just "no big deal"). However, declaring that you will oppose every single candidate at RfA until you get your way is a violation of WP:POINT. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 05:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar: And the person who said Support for no reason other than to counteract the hostage-taking opposition vote is acceptable? This is absolutely about getting 100% support for Synotia. If it wasn't, we'd be pressing for that vote to be stricken as well since it's even more clearly about making a WP:POINT. I don't see anyone out here support-badgering, and this precedent will almost certainly be enforced against oppose voters. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chess: Hmm. I think it's generally considered normal to support an RfA even for meaningless reasons, but it's considered disruptive to oppose an RfA for meaningless reasons. (Some users even "oppose" as a joke, when they actually support the candidate. Imagine the opposite of that happening in the "oppose" section of an RfA.) Most of the community wants RfAs to pass, so meaningless supports are considered to be okay, but meaningless opposes are subject to greater scrutiny. So, I don't disagree with you. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's not about disrupting the 100%, then how is a meaningless oppose disruptive? What is it disrupting? Levivich (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Meaningless (or non-explanatory) supports and opposes are disruptive, IMO. Everyone should provide reasons for why they support/oppose even if the reason is one short sentence, or just say "support per Username" or "oppose per Username". — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: How are meaningless support/oppose !votes disruptive? Here's an example: A user is planning on supporting an RfA which is at 78% support and 22% oppose. If they support per "combating the sea of brainless opposes", that makes their vote disruptive. Why? Because they are stupidly, artificially boosting the RfA's support percentage, which decreases the importance of the actually meaningful oppose !votes. This works the same way with oppose !votes. Now, I understand that in this case it's a waste of time to try to strike Synotia's !vote. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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

IP editor circumventing temporary ban on prior IP to harass and insult editors whilst vandalizing articles

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

---

Hello, an IP editor was previously temporarily banned for using foul language towards another editor. They seem to have switched to a different IP address to continue their antics. See their edit summary published here and here. They are as quoted: "THETHPUNJABIDIMAADIBHOSADIWICHMAAREYALULLA" (using foul words in Hindi to insult me) and "Bhosadiwalon" (more offensive language in Hindi). This is the exact same behaviour on the exact same article the prior IP address was temporarily banned for, see here for that edit. Can this be escalated to a longer ban since they are now contravening their ban? ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• This article has been a target of vandalism for a long time now. The last semi-protection was 6 months, so this one is a year. I have also blocked the original IP (which has a number of issues) for 3 months - their last block was as recently as 27 February. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring, canvassing, incivility, and disruptive editing to make a point

CMD007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

CMD007 appears to have trouble understanding that they need talk page consensus to insert new material after their edit is reverted and to communicate with others in a mature and respectful manner. Instead they:

• edit-war[91]
• refuse invitations to join the talk page discussion

  There isn’t anything to discuss other than your need for power. You aren’t powerful. This is nonsense.[92]

• canvass other editors to support them[93][94][95] [96]
• throw around accusations of bias, abuse, and harrasment[97]
• mock other editors

  You’re really obsessed with me aren’t you? I’m asking others for help so we can come up with sources to appease your highness. Get off my talk page.[98]

  I have also received a warning from my pal that I should stop edit warring or will be blocked.[99]

  Will it hurt you personally if Maximilian’s article uses his portrait? ... Do you have an axe to grind?[100]

• disruptively edit other articles to make a point about the one they care about[101][102], admitting the intention[103] and then repeating[104]

All in all there is a considerable dose of battleground mentality here that I feel should be addressed. Surtsicna (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

If everyone would like to know what is occurring, it is all on Talk:Maximilian I of Mexico. This user is using old issues to bring forth smoke and mirrors to cover what is happening. He is deleting sourced material for cherry picked articles, and reverting my edits using the same rules he used against the cherry picked ones. He can do it, but I cannot. He has told me to go to the talk page numerous times and then doesn’t respond until probed. He says that there is consensus to delete ancestry charts on certain articles while not allowing me to delete those same charts on other articles. Please read the Talk Page. This is hypocrisy and he is abusing his privileges on this site. CMD007 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It has also come to my attention that either Surtsicna has multiple accounts, or he is secretly in contact with others through a different forum, because I sarcastically thanked a different user for a related edit reverting my deletion of an ancestry chart (which I never do) and I was sarcastically thanked by Surtsicna (which I never receive either). All within this hour or so. That is fishy. CMD007 (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2344) On the contrary, it's quite simple: You're trying to insert information that partly has no relevance to the subject of the biography and partly has NO reliable source to support it. In a pique, you went and deleted sourced material out of a couple of random biographies as a bizarre revenge. A quick look through the core discussion reveals you're suffering from a strong case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you miss that none of those articles have BIOGRAPHICAL sources attached to those ancestry charts? That is the argument for non-inclusion according to Sertsicna. However, the argument for non-inclusion is also NOT a rule and no consensus has been reached. You both say the same thing over and over. It still stands that 1) if we need biographical sources, then the ancestry charts at Elizabeth II and Charles III as well as Maria Theresa should be deleted 2) if we DON’T need biographical sources (and any source will suffice) the ancestry charts at Maximilian I of Mexico and Salvador Iturbide y Marzan should be RESTORED. This is about consistency. You all have turned it into something else. CMD007 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That's all a big red herring. None of it is an excuse for what you've been doing. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s odd, because that is the only reason we’re here right now. A post from November isn’t why we are here. Like I said, smoke and mirrors. CMD007 (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the reason we are here is your behaviour, as evidenced by Surtsicna above. And, no, he didn't make you act that way. You had other alternatives. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

No it’s not, we would be here anyway, except I didn’t report him first. All of you. You can read exactly what’s going on, and yet you don’t stand up and say that, yes, this is hypocrisy. The issue from the beginning has been about deleting ALL or NONE of the ancestry charts in question. By reverting my edits, you went against Sertiscna’s own policies. Yet you haven’t owned up to that yet. You are all being hypocritical. CMD007 (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The content dispute is a content dispute that's not the issue. The issue at this thread is your behaviour which is clearly unacceptable. When you deleted the chart from Charles III your edit summary read "Delete ancestry section per guidance from one lone User:Surtsicna without RFC and no consensus. Please refer to Talk:Maximilian I of Mexico for discussion". If that isn't WP:POINT I don't know what is. If there was any doubt, when I reverted with the edit summary WP:POINT you both sent me a "Thank" and reverted me. How on earth is that not POINT? In your edit summary for the revert you managed to add WP:CANVASS: "I am not making a point. Per discussion the sources must biographical (sic), and the source is not a biography. Perhaps you can lend your voice to the discussion." DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

My behavior? Trying to follow guidelines is bad behavior? Can you understand how frustrating this has been to not be given a fair guideline?? I’m just told the same thing over and over, but what they tell me and what they DO are two different things. Whether I add one ancestry chart I’m reverted and whether I delete another ancestry chart I’m also reverted. They can’t BOTH be possibly correct, that is IMPOSSIBLE. Which guideline do I use??? I reverted you because I was told that there needs to be biographical evidence, which is why I said “I am not making a point” and explained WHY I reverted you. The user who reported me is the exact user WHO TOLD ME to use biographical sources ONLY. So I used that guideline, even though he is not the policy maker on this site. When I did I was reverted. So I figured if they reverted that, it is wrong. So I RE-added the charts to other articles AND WAS STILL REVERTED. THEN REPORTED. He is playing games. He deleted two ancestry charts on royals from Mexico. He didn’t delete anyone else’s, skipping over the English royals. That doesn’t make any sense and is biased. This is not a small problem. Also, the suggestion that you should lend your voice is NOT canvassing since I have no idea whether or not you would like to remove or keep the ancestry charts and I don’t care. However, I DO care about concrete guidelines and article consistencies. He’s the one up to funny business. I’m merely trying to make articles match. CMD007 (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be mixed up between how we agree content and how you must abide by behavioural policies. Although there are policies on issues like what constitutes a reliable source etc in general terms what is added or removed from an article is determined by WP:CONSENSUS. Generally that's determined locally at each article. What's agreed at one article won't automatically apply to another article. There may be very good reasons for a difference or there may be not so good a reason. But there it is - one of the joys of Wikipedia. It seems to me you need to read closely WP:CONSENSUS and also WP:ONUS to understand your situation. Wikipedia is inherently inconsistent. But none of that matters here. The behavioural policies/guidelines such as WP:POINT, WP:CANVASS, WP:NPA, WP:EW and others are site-wide, should be applied uniformly and are what's exclusively looked at at this noticeboard. These are what you have infringed. DeCausa (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I do understand. I have read at Wikipedia:Consensus which says that “A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised.” My concerns have never been taken into account. “All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries” That is exactly what I did in my edited which was reverted and which gave him the idea to report me. “most disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking an all-or-nothing position.” He DELETED my entire sourced ancestral paragraph because he admits, “it shouldn’t say inherited”. How is that also not a policy breach?? “If your first edit is reverted, try to think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns.” This is why I changed course, and instead of including the chart, took his advice about non-biographical sources and edited accordingly. “Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under edit warring, except for specific policy-based material” There is no page in which I reverted anything more than TWICE. He has reverted inclusion of the charts more. “try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense” This is where he goes off the deep end. He neither provides his sources for solid policy nor uses common sense that if he demands a biographical source for one, the others must also be demanded of. And on and on. “What's agreed at one article won't automatically apply to another article.” So then what is the point of policy? Are there rules that extend site-wide or are there not? You also say consensus is local, yet another source says do not rely on local consensus, rely on site policy. If I ask others for help about this I’M CANVASSING. Quoting the arbitration page, “While it is fine—even encouraged—to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view”. Did I know you’d be favorable? Or anyone I “canvassed”? Do you understand this hypocritical situation I’m in? CMD007 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

CMD007 should aslo be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there's much to be done here. CMD007 should have discussed the changes in TALK and the behavior towards the other editor was unfriendly. I do find the canvasing claim here to be a little weak, but again, CMD007 should applied that energy to a discussion in TALK. A warning to find consensus and to treat other editors with respect should suffice. Nemov (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I had been on the Talk Page prior, and still am, but there is nothing happening there except superfluous dialogue that isn’t getting to the heart of the matter. I would invite you to read what’s been said lately, which is of little help on their part (or his part if this is sock puppetry) and a bit of mocking. I’ve requested policy guidance from the help desk, I hope it should be sufficient guidance to lay this to rest and stop the double standards of “these” users. CMD007 (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Not all of the outbursts shown above are recent or directed at me. This is a whole behavior pattern, and I wonder if you seriously believe it will change after a warning. Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hasn’t it changed? Have I reverted any more edits? I’m being provoked while orderly inquiring about policy. Are you afraid something might happen? You seem to appear at the same time others do and disappear as well. CMD007 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand that a lot of behavioral issues are unravelling here, but I hope this unceasing assumption of bad faith will not go unnoticed. Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope nothing goes unnoticed. CMD007 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's not let this charming gem go unnoticed.

The response to the warning isn't promising, either. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It isn’t my fault if you cannot see the issues at hand as far as sources and policy go. Read the page again. I stand by everything I wrote there. You are also seen in there trying to provoke with comments that are superfluous. CMD007 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

FleurDeOdile Cross-wiki edit warring

An outcome was reached for a new track map color scheme in order to provide MOS:ACCESSibility for the color blind users at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC after having a long discussion that took multiple months. FleurDeOdile reverted image changes three times on Wikipedia [105] [106] and [107]. After being warned that he was at 3RR by Jasper Deng [108] and given a followup reminder by MarioJump83 [109], he then proceeded to take it to commons to avoid breaking the 3RR here. He continued edit warring there by nominating three maps with the new scheme for deletion with no valid rationale. Here [110] [111] [112], he simply called the images "useless duplicates". This behavior is also present in edit summaries where he reverted edits on EN-WP as "useless" during the past few months. Further attesting to the bad faith in these nominations is the fact that he openly accused a participant of canvassing in the discussion on commons here and in the priorly linked discussion on WP for the colors while there is no evidence of canvassing having taken place. Someone else even mentioned that they were notified via the notice at Cyclone Freddy's talk page. Given the fact that multiple blocks have occurred due to this behavior and the fact that there have been AN/I threads in the past related to it, I am bringing this here. There is a right way to go about handling discussion outcomes you disagree with, however, I don't believe that occurred here. Noah^Talk 03:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Given this is a cross-wiki issue, there is a sister discussion at Commons. Noah^Talk 04:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It is important to remember that WikiProjects do not, and should not, form a local "consensus" in the way that was discussed from here & WP:ARBWPTC, unless it is done appropriately through WP:RfC process, which is the case for colors RfC. Personally, I believe that a TBAN from weather-related topics should suffice, as it doesn't seem that FDO behaved disruptively outside weather-related topics AFAIK, but cross-wiki disruption and implied off-wiki coordination is something that should be looked at. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

first of all, you never asked me for my input in all of the RfCs, you never consulted actual colorblind people for it, you seemingly struck down a better proposal that was better than the current one for no good reason, then proceeded to ignore other better proposals. and now other language wikis might never change to the current color schemes because of how dead they are. it's just a mess that should have never been started. FleurDeOdile 05:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You were asked for feedback during the proposal phase in this notice, which was sent out to the entire project. We started an official RfC months later when it came time to actually make a decision and posted notices at every weather project page. You were given sufficient notice and there was sufficient time to participate in these discussions that were ongoing from September until just around a week or so ago. Any further notifications to you or others would have been inappropriate. I would highly suggest you examine your own behavior rather than coming here and blaming others for it. Noah^Talk 05:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone has to participate in the RfC, including myself. I mostly didn't participate in the RfC for two years as far as I could know and I just got recently involved in the discussions, shortly after I reminded you. During all of these times, I didn't get a notification asking for input in the RfC as I'm no longer a member of WikiProject Weather. Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:POINT, WP:CANVASSING and WP:OWN in full as these are relevant. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@FleurDeOdile: On top of the above, you also have failed to address your edit warring and behavior, and instead still insist on pointing fingers at others. If we do not see evidence that you will change your behavior, sanctions will be necessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

guess i'll surrender... FleurDeOdile 00:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You are allowed to disagree with people. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about disagreements. The issue is you are not acknowledging your behavior as being wrong and working to correct it. Noah^Talk 04:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you actually work to improve your behavior, and more importantly, being actively responsive, including responding to your user talk page? I have doubts that you would, as has been for several years, and it appears that you may have never looked to your user talk page at all, based on your statements above (WP:CIR?). To be frank, including the fact that you haven't really changed your behavior since the last TBAN discussion from two years ago, which is not enacted as a result of canvassing, this is where I would say definitely that I support TBAN from weather-related topics, as broadly construed. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As much as I feel the points being made about Fleur's conduct are valid, this has the unpleasant connotation of a pile-on, particularly the fact that WP:WPTC members are calling for someone to be topic-banned from all weather topics broadly construed. That makes me very uncomfortable. I don't know why I feel that way, but I do think it would be useful to have uninvolved admins or editors making that call based on the above conduct. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Venessa Ferns promotional / non-neutral disruptive editing on Chetan Bhagat

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

---

• Chetan Bhagat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Venessa Ferns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So this user was previously reported at COI/N in December 2022 for suspected COI and very promotional looking edits, the result being a two week block from the article after no communication from them. However, since the block has expired, the user has continued to make the same edits to Chetan Bhagat again, and has seemingly not addressed any of the concerns expressed by the users in the previous COI thread, as well as those reverting this editor's edits, instead continuing to restore their edits pretty much as-is. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 month Left her a "PAID" notice. Any admin should feel free to unblock or modify as they wish..

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Neddo23.nr

Neddo23.nr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the article Transfiguration of Jesus, this user wrote that the event is "mythological" here, here and here. I'm not saying such religious beliefs should be considered to be true; however, the added content is unsourced and POV. I tried discussing this with them but they stated "It is mythological" and "If it’s not proven as fact by evidence, it is mythological by deduction.", which is a violation of WP:SYNTH. They do not at all seem open to discussion. Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you attempted dispute resolution? This board should be the last place to go, and we only address conduct issues here, we don't settle disputes. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

They don't seem to have even a basic understanding of Wikipedia policies, like WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:Citing sources. I'm don't know what to discuss with them. I was simply patrolling recent changes and I saw an unsourced statement, and I found out they wouldn't accept my explanations. That's all. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I've pageblocked them in resposne to the AN3 complaint, so they can learn about the relevant policies. Also, this is edging into the historicity of Jesus topic area. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Was the historicity of Jesus ever subject to discretionary sanctions? I know that it has been a contentious topic in the usual sense, but I thought that it had never been defined to be a contentious topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't see anything in the logs or what I can find of expired sanctions. Jesus has been semi protected by various admins repeatedly and often since 2005 with vandalism as the primary reason, no mention of community action/sanction. Historicity of Jesus seems to have a few short protections and Transfiguration of Jesus has never required admin action.Slywriter (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I had somehow gotten the impression that there had been some kind of sanctions regime concerning the historicity of Jesus, but I can’t find anything either. Not sure how I formed that idea, maybe there was a long-ago kerfuffel that never made it to arbitration, or was a thread on the drama boards. Acroterion (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion: it did make it to arbitration Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus but DS wasn't a remedy and received very little support Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Proposed decision#Discretionary Sanctions. A single editor remains topic banned although was apparently already community topic banned before that anyway and has been fairly inactive since 2018 (and wasn't really that active even then). Theoretically pseudoscience may cover some aspects of historicity, even more of the transfiguration; but since it's only pseudoscience and fringe science rather than generic fringe theories, only in a very limited fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Joshua nick

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

---

• Joshua nick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): One track mind with spam links, WP:NOTHERE.

♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be better to just report straight to WP:AIV instead of here. Carpimaps (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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

81.0.163.51: edit-war, violates BURDEN, personal attack against me

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

---

I tried to explain to User:81.0.163.51 why their behaviour was unacceptable in my reverts [113], [114]. I have also warned them at their talk page.

The user is unwilling to discuss, and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. The user:

• has purposefully added back back unsourced content, violating BURDEN: one before he was warned about BURDEN [115], twice after he was made aware of the policy [116] [117]

• has actually stated they were edit-warring and intended to continue doing so: I tried being nice. You don't get to decide what is fact and what isn't. There is sufficient evidence that it is Turing complete. If you want an edit war I'll give you one. [118]

• was warned once at their talk page, and reacted by shrugging it off: I have provided sufficient evidence. You didn't like the source, that's not my problem. I added a citation needed as a compromise. If you don't like that, that's not my problem anymore [119]

• has attacked me and restated their willingness to edit-war: Nah mate, your god complex ends here. To war. [120]

Veverve (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for one week for openly admitted edit warring, persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content, and a combative attitude. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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

More bludgeoning at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aoidh

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

---

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aoidh § Oppose
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Aoidh § Chess' oppose

Since the previous post here on "WP:ANI#Abuse of power by the admin Maile66", more bludgeoning has occurred at said RfA. More specifically, the administrator Tamzin kept accusing me of deliberately attempting to troll/disrupt the discussion [121] [122] [123] [124] and the user Nythar keeps implying that the only reason for my oppose is spite based on the aforementioned ANI thread. [125] [126] I don't believe that being a wikt:contrarian is disruptive and I would like to see a warning from an uninvolved administrator that bludgeoning the opposition like this is unacceptable, mainly so that this doesn't happen a third time. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

All five comments I've made have been in response to pings, three of them from you. (You've made eight comments in that thread, if we're keeping score.) I accused you of disrupting/trolling because you were. You even admit in one reply that you often troll discussions (a remarkable admission that perhaps bears further scrutiny). If I and others have stopped taking you seriously because of your history of trolling, you have only yourself to blame. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I love trolling discussions on places where it doesn't matter (internet forums, reddit, my userbox User:Chess/based claiming I don't understand what being "based" is, or putting trouts under "awards" on my userpage) but I wasn't trolling at that RfA nor have I at previous RfAs or Wikipedia discussions. That is what I said in my response, which is that I genuinely believe in what I said. If you were offended because I sarcastically referenced your pseudo-support, I could've easily removed your name from my vote had you asked (I offered to do so, and that offer is still on the table). Otherwise, you offered no evidence or claims for your assertion that I'm disrupting Wikipedia.

The reason why I reply-pinged you is because you told me that my oppose reasons were bottom of the barrel, and so I asked Do you have any specific points on why my reasons to oppose are "bottom of the barrel"?. Your response was that to refute any part of your vote would require it to contain a single coherent point capable of refutation. When a third party told you that this seems to be on the edge of breaking the 4th pillar, you double down and flat-out accused me of trolling. At no point did you even attempt to refute any part of my oppose vote, despite people asking you to give any kind of feedback. You just resorted to accusing me of being disruptive (and still are) despite not providing a single diff to support your assertion. This is a textbook case of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe.

This idea that your behaviour was justified because you were "calling a spade a spade" is illogical. There are literally hundreds of ANI threads full of people complaining that their incivility block was unjustified because they were "telling it like it is". You can't accuse me of disruptive editing without any diffs, and I really dislike that you doubled down on it multiple times after you were warned that your behaviour was unacceptable. All I want here is a warning/acknowledgement that your behaviour broke civility guidelines. An apology would be nice as well, but that has to be freely given. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

One doesn't need to provide a diff for disruptive editing when replying to the disruptive comment. Now, for the second time, stop pinging me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to assert that my vote is disruptive, you should provide a reason. If you think I troll other discussions on Wikipedia, provide diffs of the other discussions that I've trolled. So far, you've cited WP:SPADE, called my points bottom of the barrel, claimed my vote did not contain a single coherent point capable of refutation, complained that you were forced to treat Chess' trolling as legitimate discourse, and said Well, it would start with the part where he opposes per my support (joke-oppose). And continue to... every other word in the comment. To believe that any of that was meant sincerely would be an insult to Chess' intelligence.

The only takeaway I got from you is that my comment was so stupid, that for you to engage with it in WP:Good faith would be accusing me of being an idiot.

If you can't see how that's a flagrant violation of WP:NPA I don't know what else to tell you. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Chess, you literally said in an ANI thread that "Any warm fuzzy feeling potential admins get from their 100% approval score is outweighed by the need to prevent a chilling effect on possible oppose voters." You then !voted to oppose Aoidh's candidacy with one of the most bizarre explanations I've seen. According to you, Aoidh shouldn't be an admin because their regret of having had a dispute with another editor 10 years ago makes them somehow responsible for the editor's later disruption, because they were too weak to pursue the dispute. So, is it Aoidh's fault for what they did in the future? I just pointed out what was obvious: A bizarre !vote preceded by the quote I just linked. However, I didn't say your comment should be stricken or anything like that. I then told you "I don't want to get into an argument with you since you're a generally a fine editor". I don't want a battleground. You also accused me of bludgeoning after I had replied only twice in the RfA. You also added, "Tamzin bludgeoned me, and now you are emboldened to be more aggressive", which is not true; I wasn't aggressive at all there. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If we want to go into the weeds here, I opposed because their takeaway was that they had "thin skin", not that the other editor had a problematic attitude. The candidate had a right to be offended at being insulted, and the idea that editors should ignore/tolerate insults by getting a "thick skin" is something I disagree with (which is why I opened this ANI thread). Other editors at the discussion were able to see this point, even if they didn't like my oppose vote.

It's strange that you said "I don't want to get into an argument with you since you're generally a fine editor" after saying I know why you're doing this. You are convinced that the editors replying to the oppose votes want 100% of the !vote to be "support", so you're "fighting" this by opposing this candidacy. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I was able to reasonably see beyond the point you were making at RfA, back to the conversation we were having at ANI. You were so vehemently against the idea that editors would respond to oppose !votes: "This is absolutely about getting 100% support for Synotia" (you meant Aoidh) and "their 100% approval score is outweighed by the need to prevent a chilling effect on possible oppose voters". You then !voted to oppose only 30 minutes later. It was reasonable for me to suspect that you !voted to make some sort of statement. And anyway I didn't ask for your vote to be stricken, didn't ask for sanctions, and didn't want to get into an argument. You're the one escalating. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As is usual for RfA oppose drama, everyone sucks here. Chess's oppose is an absolute dumpster fire of a rationale, and people responding to it are feeding the flames so that they can get their boot in. Y'all go back to your corners, and let's chalk this up as an L for everyone. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

In my view majority of the blame lies with the one who started the fire, even if others did fan the flames. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you and Lepricavark below on that; the !vote was that bad. Not sure how helpful weighing out the precise levels of blame is at this stage, purely for the purpose of reducing drama, but I do take your point. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Writ Keeper that there is no point in feeding the flames by arguing with this type of oppose rationale, but I'd place greater responsibility on the shoulders of the the OP. Whether the !vote rationale was intentional trolling or not, it was so flawed that it honestly isn't worth the effort to explain why it was flawed. And people have a right to respond, even if it's unlikely to accomplish anything. The diffs cited as evidence by the OP are hardly sufficient to warrant a filing. I'd urge the next uninvolved admin to close this because it isn't going anywhere good. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Just going to say that Tamzin baited this drama to continue rather than responding productively to the substance of what seemed to be a dismissive and snide response after I called them out on it. If Chess' response is that bad, let the crats see it for what it is. What good does calling it "bottom of the barrel" do to help build consensus or clarify anything? It just seems to be incendiary. Crazynas ^t 09:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

So, wait, you are an internet troll elsewhere, but just a contrarian on Wikipedia, and in playing said contrarian, you cited someone's support vote that jokingly called the candidate fallible as your reason for opposing. That could be considered trolling on two different levels. You mentioned that voter in doing so, and when when they didn't care for being... contrarianized, they calling your behavior trolling so you took them to ANI? The line between contrarianism and trolling can be pretty thin, it seems, and may just be a matter of perception. This is without getting into the decade-old "you should've known this person would get banned later" rationale. To be clear, Tamzin could've just ignored it (or ignored subsequent responses at some point), but as Lepricavark says just above, I wouldn't say they were the problem here (to the extent there was a problem). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I sincerely believe what I said. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Ayush Suthar - net negative

Ayush Suthar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Almost all the edits done by them are reverted. They extend from unsourced info to unexplained removals. I don't see any positive edits coming out of them. I believe this is a WP:NOTHERE case — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite block by Vanamonde93 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

TPA revocation needed

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

---

193.39.158.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This school IP has been blocked from editing for 8 years. Please also revoke their TPA. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:SEALIONING at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

This user, who can’t seem to decide whether their name is Bigdan201 or Xcalibur, has been pushing unanimously unpopular fringe takes on Gamergate incessantly, despite repeated warnings against bludgeoning. Evidence:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#Suggestions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#Another_idea
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)&diff=prev&oldid=1139814652
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_(harassment_campaign)#insurgency/asymmetrical_conflict

I think this problem has gotten tedious enough to require a topic ban from the article and its talk page. Dronebogus (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

On top of this, their talk page also shows a long, LONG history of WP:IDHT on fringe theories. This is extremely problematic and may require an outright block. Dronebogus (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.

As I said, there was no reason for you to prematurely close discussions. It seems like you didn't even read what was said -- I was brainstorming different ideas each time, and the last discussion led to a productive edit (although there was a hangup with the RS). I wasn't "pushing fringe takes": first, I suggested "describing the false claims in more detail", then describing their political views further. As it happens, consensus was against these, and the second point was addressed in the article already. I considered detailing more about the history, but consensus sees that as UNDUE, so I let it stay deleted. My latest brainstorming avoided these issues and moved in the right direction. Discussion would've went fine without this overzealous policing.

As for my talk page, yes, I've had issues before, but since an editor gave me a helpful reality check, I've been trying to improve. IDHT on fringe theories that's not really accurate, though. My disputes were mostly not about FRINGE (although admittedly, I was too stubborn then); the exception is a noticeboard discussion that escalated, and didn't even involve article edits!

I note that your talk page indicates that you have a habit of arbitrarily closing discussions that you don't approve of. This is not helpful, and certainly wasn't in my case -- closing should only be done for lengthy discussions that have run their course, or which are obviously not viable or relevant, neither of which is the case here. This is an overzealous response. Xcalibur (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

discussions that have run their course, or which are obviously not viable or relevant

Those discussions absolutely fit these criteria, and the fact you cannot see that makes it very clear you need to step away from the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is another example of Bigdan201/Xcalibur proposing the same false balance stuff from back in 2020, and not getting anywhere then, either. At this point it does look like they need some help staying away from this topic. A topic ban would be appropriate in my opinion. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

there was a significant time gap, and once the consensus was clear, I accepted it. Still not seeing any validity to claims of false balance or bludgeoning. BTW, I believe sealioning involves intrusion, especially by following ppl to other areas and platforms; not trying things out on a relevant talk page. Xcalibur (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Bigdan201 - are you aware that this topic falls under the WP:CTOP rules? If not, I will post a notification about it on your talk page so that you have the relevant guidance. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a 2018 notice from the DS era on their user talk, and a modern one from last month here MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I see that Doug Weller notified him in February. WP:AE might be a better venue for this complaint. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe sealioning involves intrusion - dude, are you honestly sealioning a discussion about whether you're sealioning? --130.111.39.47 (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

😲 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• I am learning towards thinking Bigdan201 needs an topic ban from the gender and sexuality topic area under the contentious topics procedure. Courcelles (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Did not want to be the first to say it, but Support topic ban from the gender and sexuality {contentious topics)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• I think a topic ban is actually too weak, IMO this [127] appears to indicate that they see themselves as a soldier and this as a war. That would be clear WP:NOTHERE and should result in separation from the project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  Asymmetrical warfare? On an encyclopedia? Gag me with a spoon! No objection to WP:site ban. Look, "all we are saying, is give peace a chance." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Admins vandalizing the ZeroNet article

Some WikiPedia administrators literally vandalized the ZeroNet article, spreading malware and fraudulent cryptocurrency scammer versions of another software on it. Authors of other "forks" have repeatedly vandalized the ZeroNet article. The multiple requests to protect the page were manually removed without discussion. I request that the article be immediately locked at the highest level of security possible.

Please secure the article with the following recent edits, which restore the original article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZeroNet&oldid=1143408236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.91.162 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You've been rather unclear about which links might be scam/malware (I've asked you twice elsewhere). Some of the content you removed was clearly not a scam, and seems to have been done so for political reasons (based on older talk page messages by 5.143.55.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - I presume this is also you). Nonetheless, I've removed all but two of the external links - the original official website (which also shows up highest on a Google search) and the page's GitHub. If you have reason to believe anything else is malicious, you need to be clear which links and why. — Czello 15:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The article had a bunch of external URLs in the body, I've removed them per WP:EL. Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I can see these all linked to the official GitHub and so shouldn't be malicious - but fair point on WP:EL. — Czello 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• No, Wikipedia administrators did not vandalize the page in question. The article is subsequently undergoing an overall to remove content that was vexatious.. A little WP:AGF would have gone a long way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2023-03-07 (UTC)

Pervezmusk. (talk · contribs)

This user is using factually wrong information on the infobox of Golden Horde, and edit warring. He says [128] Please do not delete my editing please discuss before deleting my edit however he doesn't even reply to the talk page. His only talk contribution was [129] Please do not delete my editing please discuss before deleting my edit on Talk:Ilkhanate without a reasoning. Beshogur (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks, canvassing and wikihounding by Wes sideman

Wes sideman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wes sideman was apparently antagonized by some of the edits I made on the page Libs of TikTok. This user has now:

• Repeatedly accused me of nefarious motives for this edit I made
• Canvassed a user to discuss a talk page section I created
• Canvassed another user to discuss reverting a different one of my edits
• Followed me to Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, to criticize me there
• Followed me to the article Barry Loudermilk, to revert my edit; then, after I made a compromise edit that resolved their stated objection, reverted my edit again

By the way, here's a glib response they made to someone else on the Libs of TikTok talk page, so maybe I should take heart that it's not just me.

Anyway, this seems to be a clear pattern of abuse, and I hope some sort of action results. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There's ample evidence that Korny is purely editing to either remove negative information from articles about right-wing people and organizations, or to soften the impact of such negative information. To me, this is the very definition of POV editing, and I'm certainly not the only one to notice it. The evidence can be found in their contributions page, and the evidence of others noticing it can be found in all the talk pages of articles where Korny's changes are discussed. Invariably, consensus agrees that his changes are unwarranted, and some have even commented on it, like @Zaathras: in this comment. There's no hounding - just took a look at their edits to other articles and noticed a pattern. Not much else to say. Wes sideman (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a WP:1AM situation there at first glance. You get reverted a lot, argue a lot, and the cycle repeats. ValarianB (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That's somewhat, but not entirely true (I've been able to make a lot of changes to the Libs of TikTok page), but anyway it seems irrelevant to this discussion, unless personal attacks and wikihounding are now an accepted way to deal with disputes. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Of note, this is not the first time Korny O'Near has become a problem on this article.

This is part of a repeated pattern of pushing anti-LGBT beliefs, arguing in support of race-based intelligence, and generally polite-POV pushing in favor of far-right rhetoric.

For full disclosure, Korny previously brought me to ANI for pointing this out (and I admit I was unfortunately less-than-polite when doing so). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Clearly not-here IP hopping editor

There is an IP user using a slightly roving IP address within a very modest range (so far, that I know of 43.242.178.247 and 43.242.178.241) that has so far dedicated themselves almost solely to trolling talk pages - all the edits are pretty much the same, either unconstructive or nonsensical, and all blatant trolling. Today they then popped up on this address spewing the same nonsense and dodging an earlier talk page reversion by dumping the nonsense in the edit summary. Range block? Plz. They're a time sink. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)