Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here. If you encounter a threat of physical violence, suicide, etc., click here. If you need help on editing or help with your account, please ask the Teahouse. To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here. To challenge deletion, click here. To request page protection, click here. To report edit warring, click here. To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here. Before posting a grievance about a user on this page: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page Or try dispute resolution. Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly. Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses. If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here. Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end. Closed discussions should not usually be 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. (archives, search) When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Click here to start a new discussion

User:Homeostasis07 disruptive behavior

My first interaction with this user was from this RfC on Marilyn Manson that I closed. In the RfC, Homeostasis continuously made uncivil comments and cast aspersions on other editors, to the point where I felt it necessary to mention it in my closure. I feel their comments in that RfC alone are enough to warrant action. That is not the only disruptive behavior that I've observed from them so far though. They have also started badgering other users here, here, here, and here. I think Homeostasis should be, at the very least, Tbanned from Marliyn Manson. ––FormalDude talk 06:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have gotten engagement yet, so I'll offer my view, although my comments should obviously be read with the caveat that I'm WP:INVOLVED as one of the users Homeostasis has been badgering. Taken as a whole, I think the user's behavior paints a pretty clear picture of disruption.

I first encountered them after proposing that Manson's article include mention of the sexual abuse allegations against him. They failed to assume good faith from the start, which is certainly not model behavior, but which somewhat comes with the territory when one edits in controversial areas. Their behavior persisted and worsened over the course of the RfC, as FormalDude (the uninvolved closer) noted.

Then there was their behavior giving me this edit warring notice. I'll copy my reply:

Context for anyone following along: I began an RfC a month ago proposing that we mention the sexual abuse allegations against Marilyn Manson in the lead of that article. Homeostasis07, the top editor of the page, argued strenuously against it, but following a CR listing the RfC was recently closed with Consensus to add one sentence along the lines of "In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them.". Homeostasis then modified the addition to give more weight to Manson's denials, I reverted a single time, and Homeostasis dropped me the above note. I would advise them to consider finding other topic areas to edit in which they are less invested.

I find it highly difficult to believe that Homeostasis, an experienced editor, was unaware of the definition of edit warring and thought that it was genuinely appropriate. Giving another editor an edit warring notice to vent your frustration at them or attempt to sully their talk page is not at all appropriate.

Our next interaction came about due to an initially unrelated happening on my talk page, a pretty standard case of (now blocked) IP makes disruptive edits containing severe BLP violations, I (and others) revert, and IP turns around and accuses me of being the article subject. The IP's edits on my talk page were revdel'd per standard procedure for attempted outings, but Homeostasis then posted this, taking up the IP's cause and insinuating that their allegation had merit. At that point, I decided to give them a more forceful reply, warning them about WP:HOUNDING and asking them directly not to interact with me further. They ignored that request, first with a reply on my talk and then (after reverting the reply) with a ping on their own talk.

Homeostasis has certainly contributed quality content to Wikipedia, so I'll leave it to others to decide precisely how this should be handled, but I agree with FormalDude that some action ought to be taken to prevent them from causing further disruption. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• My involvement in this began on August 26, 2021, when I took a look at the RfC page for biographies to check whether I had done my first RfC correctly. I noticed the Manson RfC, something I hadn’t heard about before, started reading up on it, and made two edits to the body of the article: removing content not supported by the cite and adding content with RS.

Homeostasis07, an editor that—to my knowledge—I had never come across before, reverted the latter edit and accused me of edit warring in the edit summary and on the Talk page. When I asked them to assume good faith, I got high-horse lectured and or-else threatened ("before I take this further"). After I explained my reasoning, they accused me of "nasty misinterpretation of sources", a "completely UNDUE spiel about domestic violence", "not paying close enough attention" to the article, the sources, and the case, and of incompetence in general, "expecially when it comes to controversial subjects." I then suggested the editor step away from the article until they had cooled off and examined their own POV.

Looking at my contribs page, I just realized that there was another interchange. Before my second edit of the main space, I voted and added a comment on the Talk page which was answered with the first edit-warring accusation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That obviously hasn’t happened. Seems to me that the closer correctly decided that a clear majority of the participants answered the RfC question (should the lead mention the allegations of sexual assault) with "yes", without a qualifier, MANDY or otherwise, and that they bent over backwards to accommodate Homeostasis07’s view. It also looks to me as though Homeostatis07 thinks they have some sort of ownership of the article. After the closer added the sentence per the outcome of the RfC, Homeostasis07 immediately added a WP:MANDY comment, claiming that there was no consensus for the closer’s version. IMO a time-out from the page would be appropriate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

From the outset, I would like to make it clear that I have never threatened to "out" anyone, despite what's been insinuated above. As someone who was on the receiving end of one of those threats several years ago, I am keenly aware of the outing policy. I never threatened to do that, would never do such a thing, and if I ever gave anyone that impression, I humbly apologize. That being said, the now-banned IP did raise what I still believe to be one legitimate concern which, to me, can be demonstrably evidenced within Sdkb's contributions log. Sdkb was obtuse and threatening in their response. I emailed my concerns with corresponding diffs to the team at COI Noticeboard, per the template there. I'm sure we all eagerly await the results of their investigation.

Regarding the RfC, the key issue was not whether the allegations be included on the article at all – Marilyn Manson#Abuse allegations has existed since the story broke on Feb 1 – but instead how the allegations be presented in the lead. During the RfC, Sdkb argued that genuine policies such as WP:BLP and WP:BALANCE be disregarded in favor of the WP:MANDY essay, which argues against any denial being included. That an experienced editor would cite an essay in favor of genuine policies in such a serious matter is beyond my comprehension. In the RfC, six votes (including one yes vote) specifically argued against the proposal as initiated by Sdkb (to exclude denial). A maximum of 3 votes – Sdkb, Space4Time3Continuum2, and I generously include Idealigic's vote, who said "based on points provided by Sdkb." – supported. All other votes did not address at all how the allegations be presented, so how FormalDude came to his initial assessment that consensus of the RfC supported Sdkb's version of the lead is still up for debate. I was not the only user confused by how FormalDude came to their conclusion. I believe a close review is necessary at this point.

Regarding Sdkb's conduct, I would like to note that they have attempted to WP:CRYSTALBALL to include the allegations in Marilyn Manson's lead since the story broke on February 1; added an inaccurate "nutshell" description to the MANDY essay, which they then cited in the RfC; tendentiously nominated a template for deletion just two hours after I placed it on Marilyn Manson's talk page as a means of deterring IPs and new users from adding particularly horribly-sourced and potentially libelous content (from Daily Mail, TMZ, Page Six, etc.). User has continually assumed bad faith on my part, arguing for several months at the RfC, the template for deletion discussion, and even here (above) that my status as the "top editor" of the article somehow precludes me from making constructive contributions to the subject or the entire project as a whole.

In response to Space4Time3Continuum2x, their statement above is misleading on several fronts. Their first edit to the article was a misinterpretation of the cited source. The source does indeed state that the "Mansonisabusive" Instagram page was set up in 2017, and that the accusers began contacting one another via that profile sometime later. It is an additional source (still included on the article) which confirms the September 2020 date (date always cited to that source). In their link above "explain[ing their] reasoning" (i.e., this one), Space4Time3Continuum2x said: "Abuse (domestic or otherwise, whether it involves sex or not) is about power. I have the power, you’re powerless, so you do as I say. Sounds as though Manson had a type, e.g. Bianco: long-time fan, model and actor with Hollywood aspirations, in need of work visa, unsure about a lot of things. There are also a number of witnesses." They proceeded to link to 5 different sources, none of which supported this highly-inflammatory and undue statement. During the RfC, this user also repeatedly claimed that Marilyn Manson did not specifically deny the allegations, which was categorically untrue.

Apologies for the long response. I've tried to be as brief as possible, but 3 users piling on in such a manner does not afford one much brevity. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Here's the actual !votes from the RfC:

RfC !vote list
Users who supported mentioning the abuse allegations in the lead: Sdkb Space4Time3Continuum2 Idealigic Some1 FelipeFritschF RogueShanghai Loki JeffUK Total: 8 Users who opposed mentioning the abuse allegation in the lead: Homeostasis07 Spy-cicle ili Isaidnoway Sea Ane Total: 5

If you'll notice, the RfC was not about any specific phrasing–it was about whether or not to mention a section of the article in the lead. That is why my close ended the way it did. ––FormalDude talk 03:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In their RfC-initiating edit, Sdkb said the allegations "ought to be concisely summarized with a sentence or so in the lead". Substantial commentary during the RfC was then dedicated solely to how Sdkb introduced that content to the article; Sdkb specifically went on to cite WP:MANDY as a justification for their edits, which was directly supported by two (maybe three) users but opposed by six (see above, or the RfC). In your initial closing statement, you directly quoted Sdkb's version, which you immediately re-added to the article. But here, you're saying you reduced the entire RfC to simple yes/no numbers to re-add Sdkb's preferred version, tangibly disregarding the nuts and bolts of the RfC in the process and the lack of support Sdkb's version of the content received.

Since this is the RfC for which content added to the article will be dictated for the foreseeable future, I believe a close review is genuinely appropriate at this point, based on what FormalDude is saying here. It may not change much in the long run, considering FormalDude's subsequent edits to the talk page ([1], [2]), but there are serious questions here. That FormalDude also said in this edit summary: "I believe WP:MANDY is applicable here" is most worrying. MANDY is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and is not applicable anywhere on-site. Perhaps a TBAN of FormalDude closing RfCs, AfDs and other associated pages may be appropriate. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I stand behind my closure of the RfC and am fine with it being reviewed. I think your suggestion of a TBan for me is ridiculous, but let's see what others think. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Reading through this RfC as an uninvolved user who has never, to my knowledge, edited the Marilyn Manson article, and did not participate or even know about this RfC until now, I support @FormalDude's closure. It is an accurate summary of the consensus there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that Homeostasis07 was making the RFC be about more than its advertised question, which was a pure yes/no on whether to include the allegation in the lead. And their "omit it from the lead" vote was based apparently on disputes and over the wording of the body. So yes, it's hard to question the RFC close itself because on the narrow question of the lead it's almost always correct to include and summarize sections mentioned in the body. There are clearly much wider disputes than just that question though, particularly reliance on an essay which appears to contradict BLP policy, which need to be addressed separately.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment – To begin with, I'd like to note that it's taken me a week to decide whether to comment on this as previously any interaction with this user has been hostile, and quite frankly I'm a little bit vary of what the reaction from him will be. That being said, I have been for a longer time concerned about this user's editing related to the Manson abuse allegations, and would like to bring this up given that this discussion gives the impression that these issues have popped up just with the RfC.

My first encounters with this person were in this February, when I edited Manson's and Evan Rachel Wood's pages related to the news on the allegations. Homeostasis was not just difficult to work with due to his aggressive and condescending manner, but more concerningly, it seemed that he was blind to his own bias while loudly accusing others of that/libel. Case in point: after the Manson allegations became public, Homeostasis added this section about Wood publicly commenting on the rape allegations against Kobe Bryant soon after his death. H's addition not only included incorrect details (Bryant was indeed charged), but left out details that should've been there to present the incident neutrally (e.g. the entire tweet) and thus presented it in a quite biased manner. The mistake about Bryant being charged was corrected by another user, but Homeostasis added it again with the comment 'Semantics', while later claiming it was a typo. He also kept adding quotes around the word 'underage' despite that not being in the source; another incidence of this; editing based on his interpretation of Wood's 'bad intentions', and left out main parts of the context to perhaps present things in a very different manner (e.g. leaving out that Wood was accusing Usich of blackmail, not just publishing unfavourable photos and that the party where the images used for the alleged blackmail were taken was Manson's; Wood is claiming the images were taken under pressure from Manson, so it's a key part of the allegations).

Please also see the discussion under the header WP:Undue on Manson's talk page, where Homeostasis talks about his views of the case, which is very much OR: "And please be aware that there's so much I'd love to spill my guts about right now, but there is god knows how many people reading this, so I can't. Maybe we could e-mail, but I doubt that would even make a difference in the long run. Let's just say, did you notice how Wood removed the scan of the police report she filed against Lindsay Usich from her Instagram? This is why Wikipedia BLP articles need to be as neutral as possible: things change, even from the perspective of the accuser. It's all pretty damn interesting, when you delve into it—no way in hell I'm posting links to it all, though." It's clear that Homeostasis can be an excellent editor given his contributions to music-related articles (so no, I don't think a complete ban on Manson-related articles is in order), but it does seem that he is unable to recognise his own bias around abuse allegations and is very quick to go into 'attack' mode. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: 14 day block

A pause for reflection seems appropriate here. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I held off !voting on this, since I had hoped that being brought to ANI would humble Homeostasis and get them to commit to better behavior, enabling us to go with a lesser sanction. But their long reply above contains no admission whatsoever that any aspect of their behavior was inappropriate, instead doubling down on it. I think that anything less than a block like this would all but guarantee that the behavior will continue and subject other users and the encyclopedia to further disruption. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In other words, sit back and not address what I genuinely consider to be inappropriate actions on the part of others? I did apologize for several things above. And will again here. I apologize to everyone involved for being argumentative, and sometimes downright rude, during the course of the RfC. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support with a Marilyn Manson Tban. After seeing Homeostasis double down in their arguments, which are mostly strawmen, I think a break is needed. I also think that at this point their outside feelings are preventing them from editing neutrally, and propose a topic ban from all Marilyn Manson related articles. I appreciate Homeostasis's apology above, but I still believe these sanctions are necessary. ––FormalDude talk 03:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, indifferent on block. It looks like Homeostasis can't step back from this, and has continued arguing the point above. Further, immediately calling for the RFC closer to be TBANed just strikes me as retaliatory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the statement below, I'm willing to withdraw my support for the TBAN and just see how things go from here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I find it difficult to take sudden reversals of attitude when a user is on the verge of being blocked as indicative of much other than the desire to avoid being blocked. The recent comments persuade me that a TBAN may not be needed, but I think it would be a mistake to go with nothing. Homeostasis has a repeated pattern of stepping across the line and then stopping/backtracking just enough to avoid consequences (e.g. at my user talk), and if we allow that to continue, we'll be back here again. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Normally I'd agree, but for once the response seemed sincere. If not, this provides us with enough WP:ROPE for an indef block later. I do not see enough support for a temporary block right now, especially this long after the events in question, so that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

        The level of support is something for the closer to judge. They'll need to balance the late-breaking apology with the fact that numerically, there's still more support for some sanction than for nothing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support with a Marilyn Manson TBAN. This user cannot drop the stick, and appears very very invested in that article, to the point of badgering other users away from contributing, harassing other users about their RfC votes, and badgering away an RfC closer because, it appears, they did not like the outcome. This is precisely the situation in which a TBAN is warranted. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, per points I raised above, as a punitive measure against one editor when the other three editors involved displayed poor editorial judgement. At its heart, this is an issue of policy against the repeated use of an unvetted essay and resultant edit warring. I could have handled some things differently, and I apologized twice above for those, but I'm afraid I can't apologize for expecting other users to adhere to policy, and worry about the precedent being set here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 16:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN. I've had the pleasure of reviewing many of Homeostasis07's articles on Marilyn Manson, some of which were done as review trades, and some just because I enjoy reading his work. Over several years, we each have infrequently let the other know if we have a new FAC that needs comments. If you look at the diffs from before he started working on the Marilyn Manson articles, there's no denying his contributions have serious merit. There's also no denying he can be hot-headed when things don't go his way. I don't think the issue here is Marilyn Manson. I think Marilyn Manson is one of a broad selection of topics he is interested in, and the underlying issue is a lack of assuming good faith, and that by default he takes any opposition personally as opposed to constructively. When one of my FACs failed several years ago, he seemed to take it more personally than I did, and left a comment voicing his annoyance on the talk page of the main person who opposed my nomination, which I did not think was a constructive way of moving forward.

Nevertheless, many of the Marilyn Manson articles were in extremely poor shape before he took it upon himself to improve them. I feel a topic ban does not take into account the overwhelming effort he has put in to genuine improvements in these articles, and therefore oppose such a measure. I do not oppose a temporary block on editing in general as I agree some action needs to be taken. A topic ban strikes me as nothing short of extreme for an initial punishment in this matter, especially when it remains to be seen if a temporary block may have a sobering effect on his ability to interact with others. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that WP:MANDY, as essay I'd not previously heard of before reading the current dispute, seems to have been treated as policy rather than an essay by others, a point which seems to have been lost along the way and (rightly or wrongly) overshadowed by Homeostasis07's response to it being used as such. I think the essay is an absurd opinion and could not oppose it more wholeheartedly, though that's a discussion for somewhere else. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they won't react in the same disruptive manner when the next dispute doesn't go their way. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand, however, I don't see what there is to lose in giving him once chance before a topic ban. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm particularly concerned about this comment that they haven't retracted "Perhaps a TBAN of FormalDude closing RfCs, AfDs and other associated pages may be appropriate" which is completely retaliatory and unfounded. ––FormalDude talk 07:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN: I am in agreement with Damien Linnane. I understand that Homeostasis07 can be hot-heated and take matters too personally, but I feel a TBAN is too extreme a response for this, especially given the work he has put into these articles. He would ideally learn from this experience (and a temporary block if that does occur). I do not oppose a temporary block either as I do understand and agree that some action should be taken for this and that seems like a more appropriate response. I think it would be better to do the temporary block and then see how he grows from that.

As an aside, I have also never heard of WP:MANDY. It doesn't help that I'm an American and I honestly have no idea who Mandy Rice-Davies is. I think it is slightly odd to treat this essay like a policy. I do not agree with the essay either, but as Damien Linnane, that is a different conversation entirely so that would be best suited elsewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What Damien and Aoba have said here has certainly given me food for thought. Without even realizing, I have been taking things too personally and been a hot-head for quite some time, causing problems for even the people I've worked with on multiple occasions. I apologize to everyone here and promise to correct this behavior immediately. I'd even agree to a permanent site-wide ban should the behavior ever occur again, which I swear now never will. Sorry for all the trouble guys. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block or TBAN. No evidence of consistent disruption or any other history of incidents in the topic area. The only possible action that could be taken is a warning about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN or block. At heart, this just looks like a rather heated content dispute, which as far as I can tell was largely resolved several days before the ANI entry was filed. At the bottom of the section [3], both Sdkb and Formaldude (reluctantly or otherwise) agreed to Homeostasis07's suggestion that Manson's rebuttals be included in the single sentence agreed to in the RFC. That should have been an end to the matter, with Sdkb and Homeostasis07 working together for the betterment of the article. So really, it looks like the more recent dispute boils down to this one episode. I don't think either Sdkb nor Homeostasis07 come out of that exchange looking good - if Homeostasis07 suspected a direct COI with one of the sources in the article then they should have filed a confidential report with [email protected] per the instructions at WP:COIN, to avoid outing, rather than challenging Sdkb in public like that. But on the other hand Sdkb's response is unnecessarily snarky too; gloating comments like "I gather that you remain very disappointed by the Manson RfC outcome" and accusing Homeostasis of being "picking up the amusingly inept attempt at outing" are not necessary, and a simple "no, I have no COI, you should follow the confidential procedure outlined at WP:COIN if you suspect otherwise" would have been a good response. As such, I wouldn't recommend a TBAN or block when all parties have essentially respected the outcome of the RFC and consensus on the line has been reached. But please, both of you, put your differences aside and continue with discussion rather than personal attacks on the content of the article going forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Amakuru for the accurate summation of events. I promise to refrain from conduct that could in any way be construed as a personal atack. The only thing I'd like to make clear is that I never threatened to "out" Sdkb. I tried disussing my concerns about CoI on their talk page, but the response I got was, as you said, sarcastic and, IMO, threatening. It was at that point I emailed those concerns to the above email address, per the template @ CoI. I realize now that's probably what I should have done in the first place. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 14:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru, first, it is not correct that the problems were resolved several days before the ANI entry was filed. Homeostasis's behavior began at the RfC, where the problem was not just the existence of a content dispute but the nature of their comments and their edit warring at the article, as FormalDude laid out above. It then continued with behavior at my talk page, persisting right up to when the ANI report was filed, as has also been laid out above.

Second, when someone comes to my talk page making an aggressive accusation, it's my prerogative to point out the context of my interactions with the user, as that helps any others who see the accusation understand whether it should be considered serious or frivolous. The comments you characterize as gloating were my attempt to do that. Looking back, I do think I could have found better language, so I apologize there. But no other !voter here so far (well, except Homeostasis) has attempted to draw a parallel between my slight lapse there and the behavior that landed us here.

It would be a bad outcome for Homeostasis to walk away from this concluding that it was just another content dispute and everyone gets in those from time to time. And from Homeostasis's reply to you, it's clear that that's what will happen if there are no sanctions. @HandThatFeeds, I would look at Homeostasis's reply as further indication that their apology above may not have been sincere: they have agreed with the statement that this just looks like a rather heated content dispute and have gone back to defending their actions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That isn't what I said above at all. To repeatedly label a heartfelt and genuine apology "insincere", well... I don't know at this point. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very sincere to me either, considering you called for me to be topic banned and haven't admitted that that was wrong. ––FormalDude talk 20:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That was 2 days before and made up part of the apology. It's yours and Sdkb's prerogative to feel however you want, but the apology was genuine, and included that. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If you’re trying to change the way I feel, strike your unfounded comment against me. ––FormalDude talk 22:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose, given that it's been about two weeks since this thread was opened, a temporary block would be punitive rather than to avoid actual disruption. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive paid editor, possible sockpuppetry on Public Investment Fund by User:Riyadhcafe87

This is my first ANI request so I will apologize in advance if I make any mistakes in formatting. I did not know exactly what noticeboard category this would fall under nor what possible action to request so I have created this section here.

I was first made aware of the article on the Public Investment Fund (to be referred to as PIF) by Riyadhcafe87 yesterday after being notified for an RfC (full discussion here). Riyadhcafe87 is a paid editor who works for the PIF, as disclosed on their user page. The RfC concerned removal of claims in the lead of the PIF's obscurity and lack of knowledge about the fund's investments (see diff for state of lead at start of discussion). Riyadhcafe87 had made 2 requests on the talk page before hand: an edit request that was declined by Quetstar and a WP:3O (here) to remove a recent addition to the lead to include the same claims as those in the RfC that notified me. The edit request was declined due to not being written from a NPOV as a COI editor, while Pyrrho the Skeptic remarked that an RfC should be started to fully discuss the matter of the 3O. Thus, the aforementioned RfC.

RFC itself

The RfC claimed that criticism of the PIF as obscure was "not a prominent enough line of commentary for PIF". However, myself and other editors (Snooganssnoogans, Quetstar, Huldra) believed it was prominent enough, while other editors (Pyrrho) had more issues with the old date of the source than the claim itself. The proposal was to remove it from the lead, but note that similar criticism had been removed from the body by an IP address here.

I believe Riyadhcafe87 discussed in multiple ways that were disruptive:

• Moving the goalposts

He kept asking for more and more sources on the PIF being non-transparent, even after they were provided. I provided many sources diff, which he then rebutted as either not relevant, asking for a source when none is needed (non-membership of an organization where the members are listed on its website), or not truly addressing the criticism I had brought up "this is another point" "this looks like the same article" (diff). Note: One of my sources was a deadlink, which I have fixed today.

Instances of him continuing to ask for sources after I had listed them, even after the RfC was closed: diff, diff, diff.

Him never responding to a very long reply I made outlining my perspective on the topic: diff of my edit

• WP:Wikilawyering

I hope I am not using this term incorrectly, if I am please educate me on what term to use best as I do not want to fall into name-calling. He kept using WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE as an argument for removing criticism of the PIF due to "undue weight", and while some were correct uses (just calling for more sources), after some time they became incorrect. These were either explicit or implicit:

• diff
• diff

Used WP:CIVIL while ignoring calls to let it go:

• Use of civil diff
• Ignoring calls to let it go and accusing Quetstar of trying to cause a firediff

• Failed to properly disclose WP:PAID until after months of editing and start of RfC

here

• Fallacious argumentation

See my previously linked edit calling them out diff as well as another one I made diff.

Similar conduct in other sections of the talk page

• Moving the goalposts/Wikilawyering diff

• WP:Bludgeoning

I preferred to call this out when referring to the whole talk page rather than within the RfC as it is then when it is most clear. Some of these actions could be understood as impatience but overall almost feel like harassment as they frequently do not let 24 hours pass before re-pinging an editor (forcing a response):

• Quetstar

18 August diff

• Snooganssnoogans

I will preface this by saying that Snooganssnoogans' conduct also was not great, but he edited in good faith and has a history going over many years of editing in controversial articles against paid editors/vandals, examples: Talk:Center_for_Immigration_Studies, sockpuppetry, list in their user page, and just a cursory look at their contributions reveals a massive ammount of undid revisions to PR edits. I'm sure they can add notable examples if they feel so inclined, but I think that is unnecessary.

WP:Bludgeoning: diff, diff (the reason I think this is bludgeoning is that a {{no ping}} mention would have been enough).

Possible sockpuppeting

I'm not entirely sure of this one, but thought I'd mention it so more experienced editors can judge for themselves. There have been 2 IP edits on the page which might be connected to Riyadhcafe87:

• IP1: diff, made from an IP which on a quick search appeared as in the same street as multiple Saudi holding companies, which could possibly have connections to either the PIF, the Saudi Government, or Riyadhcafe87.
• IP2: diff, made from a mobile IP 20 minutes from the Saudi London Embassy, and multiple Saudi government offices in London. Most likely to be Riyadhcafe87, due to their proficient level of English and disclosed connection to the PIF.

Conclusion

I don't really know what exactly would be the correct action for dealing with Riyadhcafe87, but I strongly believe that the page should be semi-protected to prevent vandalism/PR edits from IP users in the future. Same goes for connected articles Future Investment Initiative Institute, Mohammed bin Salman, and Yasir Al-Rumayyan, which are frequent targets of IP edits, paid editors connected to Saudi ministries or the PIF, and controversial articles. Please do respond on what your thoughts on the matter are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. C. Santacruz (talk • contribs) 08:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:

@A. C. Santacruz: If you suspect sockpuppetry, gather your evidence and create a case page at WP:SPI; the people there have the tools needed to look under the hood and can link accounts to isp address and such. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that. Just thought I'd include the ip edits here as well if a semi-protection is considered. Much appreciated. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 10:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Update, SPI report filed in appropriate channel. However, rest of my incident report here is still needing discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• I did a preliminary sweep and found two suspect accounts. AS for the others mentioned, Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) has been blocked once and is apparently rough around the edges, but I see nothing in the contribution history to suggest anything other than a hard contributing wikipedian. Huldra (talk · contribs) has been blocked a few times for editos on or relating to the middle eat, but not this region, and the diversity of edits and timeline cast major doubt that this is a sock account or an SPA account. As with Snooganssnoogans, I see only a hard working wikipedia contributor. It may simply be a case of too few participants and perhaps a a few ugly words, so maybe whats need most is a reminder that everyone should Assume Good Faith, Keep Calm & Carry On. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• There was no sockpuppetry suspected of these users. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at everybody mentioned here just to be safe. I've been the point man for an LTA case and its been a doozy, so it's gotten to be second nature for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair, thanks for your due diligence :D. Hope I didn't sound too passive-aggressive. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This user has really tested my patience. If I was an admin, I would have blocked him forever. Quetstar (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Note additional WP:BLUDGEONING since nominating. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, My primary interest is in Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, my secondary interest is in the Gulf States (ie GCC-states). Now there is a big difference between my primary and secondary interests, and that is the huge amount of paid professional punters involved with the GCC-countries. Make no mistake: the GCC rulers pay millions $$$ each year to (mostly Western) "Reputation managers"/"advertising companies"/"PR firms" etc, in order to "manage their reputation" online. I see them all over (see eg Talk:Yousef_Al_Otaiba#Paid_editing?); they often work "in concert"; some very clever/experienced working togeter with one or more "foot soldiers". I'm not a very good "sock-hunter", but be aware; articles like Public Investment Fund would be prime area for these paid punters, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for productive things to do on this encyclopedia, I would suggest helping to clean up pages related to rich corrupt authoritarian countries and looking closely at prolific editors in those areas who never ever add any negative content to those pages (despite the prevalence of negative RS coverage) while adding trivia and poorly sourced puffery. Pages related to the Gulf dictatorships are rife with these weird editing patterns. These editors get upset whenever content is added about the human rights situation in these countries, the wealth of the rulers, or the nature of the authoritarian regimes. I've raised it multiple times at the COI noticeboard, as well as highlighted problems on the RS noticeboard with the kinds of sources that these suspicious editors use[4][5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

These are examples from earlier today of the kind of behavior that I'm talking about.[6][7] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Not particpating in the above discussion, I have just noticed my edits being cited here. When multiple users raise concerns about additions of controversial statements and open discussions such as this or this or this or this or this etc ... on BLP articles, I think its important to reflect back on such concerns raised instead of blindly accusing others of malice to everyone who doesn't conform to the same views. Gorebath (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans please keep the discussion relevant to the conduct of Riyadhcafe87. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 12:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

More problems at Future Investment Initiative Institute. These accounts appear to be COI: SophiaVanderMerwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 95.218.213.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 95.218.203.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Surfer7315 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 159.196.171.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Motorcycle Action Group again

Motorcycle Action Group was featured here very recently (archive discussion).

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

Now one of the people involved in edit-warring in that article, and with a COI as a director of the organisation, has been posting about the group on other editor's talk pages. This has included "outing" of some of those involved, e.g. this edit.

Surely outing is wrong? At the least his outing edit(s) should be struck from the record and his continuing antagonism must be grounds for a topic ban. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: Incidents of outing should be emailed to the oversighter's mailing list, following the instructions at WP:Oversight. Posting them here on one of the busiest noticeboards on the site will only draw attention to it. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not engaged in disruptive behaviour, I have merely sought to remove the libelous comments made about me on 25 September by my (losing) opponents in the recent chairmanship election. Any breaches such as the 'outing' you suggest are inadvertent for the simple reason that this is not a community I frequent and with whose customs am therefore unfamiliar. I am a UK Registered Independent Financial Adviser with a reputation to protect. The abusive edits made about me were clearly in breach of your policy re' libelling living persons. (Redacted) I refer you all to 10mm socket's white-knighting where he called me a 'potentially corrupt person'. Nice. Just compound the libel, why don't you? Anyhow, do what you like, but Wikipedia has seen the last contribution it will ever get from my company. We have donated substantial sums year in and year out for many years. Wikipedia can whistle for money in the future, and next time they ask for some, I'll tell them why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBirdNeil (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

For transparency, I have oversighted 109 words from the section above (marked (Redacted)), and a further 300 from Woodroar's user talk page. This was done per provision 1 of the oversight policy. The overall meaning of the message above by TBirdNeil has not been significantly altered. Please do not restore this content. Many thanks ~TNT (she/her • talk) 16:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Given TBirdNeil's repeated claims that statements made were libel, I'd say a WP:LEGAL block is in order. The fact they have an admitted COI is secondary, but still troubling. And then there's the outing... yeah, I can't see any reason to leave that account unblocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DOLT sounds like an insult, but it isn't. It's germane. Let the bloke make his case. We have rules against libel. All that's at issue here is whether they apply.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Having just seen the BLP violations and outing which were contained in the edit summaries at Motorcycle Action Group and which weren't redacted (I've revision-deleted them now), I similarly don't see any point in leaving this account unblocked, especially as the ranting above doesn't seem to indicate any intention to edit collaboratively. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, look at it from his point of view. We've published what he understands as libellous disinformation. He's tried to work out who was responsible for it, and he's tried to find the right levers to push to make us change the content he's unhappy about. This isn't someone who's here to build an encyclopaedia, this is someone who's here to stop us smearing an organization that's close to his heart. Of course he isn't here to edit collaboratively. Of course he hasn't read and doesn't care about our 150,000 words of rules and guidelines. To treat him like a troll or a vandal is to totally miss the point.—S Marshall T/C 10:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sick and tired of seeing people blocked for simply asserting that something may be libelous. Saying that's little different from saying something's a BLP violation or a copyright violation, and is not a legal threat. A legal threat is a legal threat. EEng 14:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Agreeing with some other commenters above, objecting that content is defamatory is not by itself a blockable legal threat, any more than objecting that content is a copyright violation is. It is preferably where possible for editors to use different wording, but that is not something that newcomers to our site have reason to know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I have to flatly disagree. The second someone says "You must remove this libelous material" the unspoken implication is "or else I'll sue." You don't use the terms "libel" or "defamation" unless you're trying to make people afraid of the legal system crashing down on their heads. WP:LEGAL is a thing because of the chilling effect that kind of accusation has on editors. This is someone with an explicit COI and who attempted to out people they were in a disagreement with. I am not inclined to give a charitable reading to their use of the word "libel." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  Except everything you're saying about WP:LEGAL makes it seem like you need to reread it. EEng 02:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Our own article on defamation describes it as "the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation". Surely, one of the world's most popular websites calling a person "disgraced" with no source could be reasonably expected to unjustly harm his or her reputation; this seems like a word that would pretty naturally spring to mind when describing such a situation. It seems strange to use it as evidence of hypothetical future guilt, especially against people who have already gotten hosed once to begin with (i.e. if our articles contain random untrue claims that insult them). jp×g 03:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is no legal threat (at least, I don't see a diff with one) and HandThatFeeds is wrong. Describing a living person as "Disgraced" based on a personal website (aka not WP:RS) is accurately described as libel and has correctly been removed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  But if we don't apologize and appease this person, regardless of possible infractions, the WMF stands to lose "substantial sums" of money. Outing that is "inadvertent" is an exception to the rule right? While not an SPI there is certainly an ongoing WP:conflict of interest (COI) that I don't see resolved. I do see a problem with "I have not engaged in disruptive behaviour", followed by "Any breaches such as the 'outing' you suggest are inadvertent for the simple reason that this is not a community I frequent and with whose customs am therefore unfamiliar." I would hope using "Persistently" (Primary definition: "continuing firmly or obstinately in a course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition") in a warning means the next time rather than the primary or alternate definition of "continuing to exist or endure over a prolonged period". If an editor is notified of an issue it would seem an egregious violation to "accidentally" do it "persistently". -- Otr500 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Saying you'll withhold your donations is also not a legal threat. People just gotta stop seeing legal threats in every expression of dissatisfaction. EEng 06:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow this thread has everything:

• Conflict of interest: TBirdNeil has a conflict of interest with this article and shouldn't be editing it.
• BLP violations: TBirdNeil also has a right to object to BLP violations on this article or any other, and to have those objections taken seriously. The offending comments have been removed, which hopefully resolves the issue: if it happens again it can also be reported confidentially via the email address at WP:LIBEL or at WP:OVERSIGHT. I mostly edit articles on elderly sailing ships so this is easy for me to say, but let's all also be more careful with BLP editorialising.
• Threats to stop donating to the WMF Donate or not as you choose, no one cares and it doesn't change article content.
• Legal threats per WP:LEGAL, A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Actual legal threats can chill discussion, but so can accusing people of legal threats where they haven't made any. In the absence of any actual legal threats it's time to drop this claim. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:198.98.29.237 long-term stealth vandalism to historical college football season articles

In the 2 years since November 2019, the only edits of 198.98.29.237 (talk · contribs) are vandalism to historical college football season articles. The problem is that his edits are stealth vandalism that are difficult to catch: he changes statistics to false-but-still-plausible-at-a-glance numbers in years-old football season articles which are not frequently patrolled by other editors. For example, this replacement of his on April 20 with false numbers went uncaught for half a year (about 6 months) until I noticed and reverted it today.

Additionally, since his vandalism is difficult to catch, there are often other intervening edits that make undoing/rollback impossible when his vandalism is finally noticed, thus requiring tedious manual reinsertion of statistics to correct his vandalism. He has been repeatedly warned on his user talk page, but he just ignores the warnings. In summary, the difficulties here are that this is long-term but continuing stealth vandalism that is tedious to correct. Is there anything that can be done?

—Lowellian (reply) 13:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• I propose we block the IP for anon editing. Courtesy ping to Lowellian —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 23:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP in question has made a total of 17 edits over 5 years. The first five were childish edits, and the remaining twelve, since November 2019, are the stealth vandalism of football team results. None of the edits are constructive, and the IP has been warned on numerous occasions. I also think they should be blocked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Persistent bad-faith behavior by User:Quidster4040

Reported user (and sockpuppets) CU-blocked. (non-admin closure) Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

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

---

This particular user has consistently made accusations of acting in bad faith at AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team. The user is accusing multiple other users arguing in favor of deletion as arguing for deletion as purely arguing based on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. This is despite the fact that, in almost every case, those arguing in favor of deletion are making arguments based on WP:GNG, and not simply because they do not like the subject. This is not the first time this has happened. It is part of a pattern in AFDs regarding college soccer that spans back multiple years. It happened three years ago here, two years ago here, four years ago here, and two years ago here. It has also happened in the past at other discussions here, here, here, and here. Now I understand that this user has experienced some significant pushback in some of these arguments, and it is likely that they were involved in the creation of a lot of these articles. And I think most of their contributions have been positive. But this continued accusation of other editors nominating articles for deletion solely because of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale is incredibly uncivil behavior and not productive for a conversation on deletion. I have asked this user to drop their accusations, but they have not done so, so I am bringing this conversation to ANI. I would appreciate some additional input on this issue. Jay eyem (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also, quick note, this user's conduct has been brought up at ANI before, so this is not the first instance of such behavior. Jay eyem (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jay eyem:, if you wanted me to drop the accusations, you should have asked more politely and explained it the way you have now. I have no problem dropping an accusation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I do have a problem when you tersely come to my talk page and harass me. That is not acceptable. If you promise me to be more civil towards me when you feel that a claim I am making is unfair or not in good taste, please just say that instead of being rude on my talk page. We both have a mutual interest in American soccer and collegiate soccer and we shouldn't let two different interpretations of WP:NSEASONS when it comes to WP:CSOC cause such friction. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Quidster4040: the fact that you view what I did as harassment shows that you did not read WP:HA#NOT i.e. Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith, and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. I mentioned this in the AFD multiple times, and you ignored it. I took it to your talk page, and you simply reverted it without responding. When you continued to dig in your heels on the matter, and since this pattern of behavior has gone on for some time now, I felt it appropriate to take this to ANI. To me it is the definition of chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Jay eyem (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jay eyem: The posts felt like an attack on to me for what I believed and for having a difference in policy interpretation. That was why I was upset, and that was why I reverted your edits. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Quidster4040, that something feels like an attack doesn't make it so. You have to stop accusing other editors with the weakest of all arguments, "you don't like it". The reverts on your talk page are fine, you are allowed to do that, but they also suggest you are unwilling or unable to engage in a conversation. Because "you just don't like it" is, in the absence of any evidence at all, a violation of good faith. So I am hoping you will drop that, for good. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: User:Quidster4040 made a booboo by creating User:GerryLenhart42069 (get it? 420? 69?) and fucking around a little bit. They're both blocked, as is User:Twwalter, and the range, cause there was a ton of logged-out editing as well. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:FloridaArmy recreated deleted BLP Stuart Scheller

BLP was nominated for deletion as BLP1E; AFD concluded with consensus to merge. User:FloridaArmy has repeatedly recreated the page. Can someone handle the user or protect the page or whatever you think best? Feoffer (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have redirected to target as concluded at AfD, then fully protected the page for one week. It appears that the merged material doesn't appear in either expected merge location (other target is Fall of Kabul (2021)). Happy to adjust the protection if needed. I'd like to see FloridaArmy engage on this subject and like to know if the AFD's merge outcome will occur. BusterD (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

For info, they do have a restriction listed at WP:EDRC with regards to article creation, per this ANI post in 2018. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• First of all I don't believe the complaining editor contact me prior to posting here and I haven't seen any discussion they initiated and I don't see that they've participated in any regarding this post AfD dispute. Other editors are also involved and one noted that new content and sources hvae made the previous AfD passé. I agree with them. I restored what was there in order to add new material and sources that did no exist during the AfD. The page should be unprotected so people can work on it. He and the case continue to be very much in the news. A dozen or so U.S. members of congress have involved themselves and media coverage is extensive and ongoing, as I noted much of it for issues and events since the AfD. This is a mahor figure with many followers and a lot of imprortant issues involved. Let's not censor it or ignore what's going on. As noted above there was never any merge. Not would amerge be appropriate at this point. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • They did in fact notify you [8]. --Masem (t) 22:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Masem: Your comment is not responsive to what FloridaArmy wrote, maybe reread? (It's about actions not taken before coming to ANI.) --JBL (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The two week-old AfD close found no support for keeping, concluding BLP1E and merge target but nobody showed any interest in merging it. Any editor is welcome to perform the merge if they like. The detail is still available in page history. If a new page is needed I don't see any reason why User:FloridaArmy couldn't approach this via AFC draft as they usually do. I chose NOT to block them even though the recreation, IMHO, violated their editing restriction. Recreating this at the redirect for the third time should trigger some action against FloridaArmy. WP:Requests for page protection/Decrease is thataway. I see no reason to relax protection based on the claims FloridaArmy has made here. BusterD (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  • TL;DR version: FloridaArmy's complaint above is the typical "opposing editor didn't discuss" ignoring the fact FloridaArmy didn't discuss either. And since Feoffer had an AFD outcome which is only 16 days old at this point, significantly less whan FloridaArmy's actions are considered, Feoffer clearly has the weight of our policies and guidelines behind them whatever they could have done better in discussion. FloridaArmy needs to either challenge the AFD in some acceptable way, which does not include just ignoring it, or stop recreating; and they should have done this from the get-go.

Collapsed full explanation to avoid overwhelming the thread Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I looked into this after BusterD's first post and was surprised that Feoffer didn't contact FloridaArmy before posting here but mostly in the form of possible confusion from FloridaArmy why the article disappeared. It seems clear FloridaArmy is an experienced editor who should know how to read an edit history. While the first edit summary by Feoffer wasn't clear on the reason for the redirect [9], it came just after the AFD close [10]. But in any case, even if we accept it was reasonable for FloridaArmy to miss the edit right before the conversion to a redirect in their recreation/reversion a few hours later [11], Feoffer next edit summary was clear enough [12] yet FloridaArmy still reverted it/recreate the article [13]. So FloridaArmy should have started a discussion themselves before the second reversion or at worst case after it. So while perhaps it would have been ideal for Feoffer to try to discuss this with FloridaArmy before bringing it here, FloridaArmy complaining about it doesn't wash since they failed to initiate any discussion themselves despite being sufficiently informed of the history here. Also FloridaArmy's response demonstrates that they did become aware of the history at some stage. And I don't see any other "editors" involved just one User:wbm1058 Talk:Stuart Scheller#No merge?. Any editors who edited article FloridaArmy recreated can't be considered supporting it when they may have had no idea of the history. And the other editors in that discuss do not support the preservation of the article, they just complained that the redirect was confusing since there was no discussion in the target. Feoffer turned it into a redirect without introducing any content in the target article and apparently there was none existing content discussing the subject, which yes this created a confusing situation. But the way to resolve this was for someone e.g. FloridaArmy to introduce such content i.e. perform the merge. It was not to overturn the redirect given the AfD outcome. As for the consensus can change point made by wbm1058, it cannot be considered justification for FloridaArmy's actions either. Generally but especially with such a recent discussion, you need to demonstrate consensus has changed via a new discussion and we have procedures in place to deal with recreating an article after an AFD says we shouldn't have it. While this was a merge an not a delete so it's a bit more complicated, there still should be discussion somewhere before undoing it. And even if at a stretch we accept FloridaArmy's action as an acceptable bold change, they needed to discuss once it was clear there was dispute. It's fairly hard to argue consensus has changed less than 3 days after the AFD closed anyway (see earlier diffs). If FloridaArmy cannot participate in the normal ways to re-create an article after an AFD that's tough cookies for them. They don't get the privilege of riding roughshod over them because of it, the opposite in fact. I guess the best way to handle this would probably be for FloridaArmy to use the AFC process as suggested by BusterD, and then if it's accepted ensure a history merge is performed or the attribution history is preserved in some other way. (I'm assuming FloridaArmy is going to re-use content by others from the older article.) I admit I don't really know though, that's for FloridaArmy to work out or just leave it be for someone else if they can't. P.S. Feoffer did initiate that AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Scheller and was fully entitled to think the outcome would be respected (Personally I'm not a fan of using AFD for merges, but whatever it happened.) But in any case, editors don't have to participate in an AFD to respect and enforce its outcome so even if Feoffer had no involvement in the AFD it would be moot. Actually as my earlier comments indicated, even editors who disagree with an AFD outcome need to either respect it or challenge it in some appropriate way and this does not include just ignoring it.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a little surprised that moving the page has not been considered. For example (albeit a totally unrelated thing) we have a Gabby Petito article. Why not move this to the title of the one event this man is known for? wbm1058 (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• I just merged the lead paragraph to Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021) § Reactions. This wasn't that hard to do. I wonder why nobody who voted "merge" in the discussion bothered to follow through on this. At some point if Scheller actually goes to trial there will surely be further news coverage, and we can revisit this at that time. I see no need for sanctions at this time. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • There was a fair argument raised in the AFD about BLP1E issues - prior to this burst of news, he was non-notable, and only notable due to this aspect, and so whether we even should mention him is a potential BLP issue. It is not like, as mentioned above in the Death of Gabby Petito where it is impossible to talk about the death without mentioning her or the named suspect even though both also fall into BLP1E. But that's a separate matter from this ANI. --Masem (t) 15:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I suppose the first sentence could be rewritten:

      Stuart Scheller, a United States Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, was relieved of command...

    • becomes

      A United States Marine Corps lieutenant colonel was relieved of command...

    • and then we aren't mentioning him by name (only our cited sources then mention his name). But the cynic in me thinks this is more of a 1E issue for the brass he criticizes rather than for Scheller himself, who I think has been open about recognizing the potential consequences of freely speaking his mind in this way. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, the question is, was this whole thing around Scheller (the event itself) just a burst of news that will have very little enduring coverage that makes it worth including in 5, 10 years time? We don't know yet, but the fact we have editors that rush to create articles on these bursts of news is symptomatic of how little think about the encyclopedic purpose and more about trying to write on current events (which is what Wikinews is for). Its why BLP1E cautions against inclusion for people who are non-notable before the event. But again, this is getting beyond the ANI issue here. --Masem (t) 15:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
        • User:Wbm1058 has kindly merged data from the bio to Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021). This honors the agreement in the AfD and I thank that editor. FloridaArmy has requested I draftify the biography currently a redirect. They make a reasonable case that the moving news environment has changed sourcing available. I'm not certain I would have the willingness to draftify without some demonstrated consensus, perhaps at DRV, perhaps here. I'm not looking for red tape. FloridaArmy acted badly, in possible violation of editing restrictions, out of process, twice, in regards to a page creation issue, again. FloridaArmy discussed this nowhere until it was pointed out to the community on this thread. I protected the bio redirect (as opposed to blocking them for violating editing restrictions) specifically because I would like to see FloridaArmy continue to make valuable contributions. I'd like to hear what others have to say. BusterD (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
          • FloridaArmy has chosen to personalize this issue on both my talk and their talk after I announced my preference to continue discussion in a centralized place (like this thread). They called my comments "aggressive" and "threatening", my actions "abusive" and "inappropriate." If I'm reading correctly, no place can be found or linked (as of this datestamp) in which FloridaArmy admits any error in this situation. I chose not to block FloridaArmy even though I believe they violated their editing restrictions. Yet they ask for an additional extension of trust. It is not my trust to extend. It is the community's trust. I await the community's input. BusterD (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
            • BusterD If you were to draftiy the bio, I think we would need some input from the WP:MILITARY people on notability. In the last paragraph of the "Response" section, it says, "... after being relieved of his command, Scheller submitted a letter of resignation from the Marine Corps ... scheduled to take effect on September 11, 2021." Has the Marine Corps changed all that drastically, that if you change your mind about serving you can just resign? That and the fact, that a lieutenant colonel is a field-grade officer rank, not too high up the ladder. I don't know about the draftify issue, but I'm not convinced this needs an article yet. — Maile (talk)

* Would it be appropriate to ping participants in the very recent AfD? There were MilHist coordinators and admins in that discussion. Consensus there seemed to conclude this was a BLP1E situation as of that 15:34, 25 September 2021 closing. BusterD (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Ping those participants, good idea. — Maile (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging closer User:Ritchie333 and participants User:Peacemaker67, User:Mztourist, User:Nick-D, User:Intothatdarkness, User:GPL93, User:4meter4, User:Balon Greyjoy, User:2601:c6:ce80:1630:60a3:64c7:c607:e518. BusterD (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't consider him notable, and don't think it should be draftified. WP:SOLDIER is now deprecated (he wouldn't have met any of its criteria anyway, too low a rank), and I don't think he meets ANYBIO. My view at the AfD and here is that this is a classic case of BLP1E. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

He's not notable as confirmed by the AFD, the page should not be recreated pure WP:1E. Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Peacemaker and Mztourist. Clear case of BLP1E. I'm reminded of Capt Charles Johnson. Intothatdarkness 15:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think draftifying is appropriate given that I've merged content and prefer that the page history for the merged content remains in article-space. However, if someone wants to copy this version to draft-space to either work on improving the bio or convert it to an article about the "event(s)" I'd have no objection. I could merge the new content back into the redirect-history in the future, to maintain a seamless page history, should there be a future need for that. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

AFD Current and past articles for deletion (AfD) discussions not updating

Hi all. I left messages on a few talk pages but I have received no responses, so I thought I would bring this here. The section at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current and past articles for deletion (AfD) discussions has not been updating properly, and is missing days in October with open discussions (October 1 and 2; possibly late September days as well but I didn't check). The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs is likewise not updating properly. For some reason days are now disappearing once they hit the seven day mark and are not transferring over into the old open AFDs.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old is maintained by Mathbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) which seems to be down at the moment, it hasn't edited since the 7th. The best thing to do here would be to contact the bot's operator. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: If the AfD listing is messed up, you can use the Oracle for Deletion, which I generate from the logpages on a daily basis (and is sortable by !vote ratio, title, date, delsort category, etc). jp×g 03:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the timing of this going down, this is probably related to mw:MediaWiki 1.37/Deprecation of legacy API token parameters 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Corker1 and WP:OWN issues at Washington and Old Dominion Railroad

User:Corker1 I stumbled upon this article while patrolling recent changes to railroad related articles, and was very unpleasantly surprised to discover it was a 286,000 byte collection of indiscriminate information, with highlights including over 200 external links, links to over a dozen youtube videos, no less than 36 maps linked, links to timetables, insanely large lists of stations, and in general massive violations of WP:ELNO and WP:NOT.

I raised the issue on the article's talk page [14] and Corker1 was initially uncooperative [15] (note that I did not delete most of the page, this was done by a different user). Their response makes it clear they do not understand what Wikipedia is and isn't. Just the same, I attempted to work with them to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policy, by deleting some external links and making the station lists collapsible. However, my attempts at any serious cleanup have been reverted [16]. This user has demonstrated clear ownership issues [17]. A look at their talk page [18] shows that they have a history of problematic editing.

I've brought the issue here because I am at a loss as to how to proceed. Corker1 has made it clear they will revert any attempts to clean up this massive article, which has a massive amount of indiscriminate information. Their rational is "Many readers (including rail fans) use the station lists and external links in this article in discussions and when preparing publications. There are no other easily accessible sources for this information..." Furthermore, in response to me explaining the policies the article is in violation of, their response was: "You cited a Wikipedia policy that states: "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic" and cited another that discusses a policy on excessive detail. While these policies are often beneficial, they are detrimental when no publications or websites put together most or all of the information in an article." This is quite simply refusing to get the point, and acting as if policies can be ignored at a whim.

Wikipedia is not a publishing house, fansite, or museum. Much of this article needs to be deleted, per my understanding of Wikipedia policies. I am seeking outside review of this situation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This issue was resolved before Trainsandotherthings submitted the above request. I have concurred with the edits that Trainsandotherthings made to Washington and Old Dominion Railroad. See the most recent entry in Talk:Washington and Old Dominion Railroad#External links, which I made and which was time-stamped at 01:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC).

The above request is therefore moot. Corker1 (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue is most definitely not resolved. You don't seem to understand the issue at hand. I stepped back for a day to get some perspective and see if you would understand the issue, but that has not happened. The issues I mentioned are all still present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (note: I was made aware of this off-wiki before the ANI was posted) @Corker1: ANI is not for discussing content disputes, but rather potential chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Discussion on this thread wouldn't just be limited to the state of the article (which in my opinion still falls afoul of WP:NOTREPOSITORY) but rather conduct at this and other articles.

As for the possible behavioral problems: IMO, Corker has shown a battleground mentality both at this article (where they state Please provide a summary or a specific list of changes to the article that you would like to make. I can delete many of those without reducing the utility of the article, including reducing the number of links to images, implying that changes should be approved by them first); in regards to Monarch butterfly (from user talk, wikilawyering about what falls under broadly construed DS in response to a notice); and when appealing an edit warring block: refusing to understand 3RR and using a similar rationale to defend their edits (that in [their] opinion, the removal of the section is seriously diminishing the utility of Groundhog Day).

While ignoring all rules is a policy, it is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia (from WP:NOTIAR). Using WP as a massive collection of extlinks, videos, etc can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia (from WP:NOTREPOSITORY), and treating it as a battleground is certainly not helping either. eviolite (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

(Specifically, I heard about this 2 days ago on the public Discord server. If people believe that constitutes canvassing, I am happy to strike my comment.) eviolite (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

To Trainsandotherthings: Please make any additional edits to Washington and Old Dominion Railroad that you deem necessary. We should be able to resolve the "issue at hand" in a collaborative manner, regardless of whether I understand it. Corker1 (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, the issue has moved past content to your behavior in general. You would not be happy with the edits I would make to bring the page in line with policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I might not be happy about your edits, but I might concur with them after some discussion (if needed). Regarding my behavior in general or in this specific instance, I have offered to collaborate with you on editing of Washington and Old Dominion Railroad. What's wrong with that? Why not try it? Corker1 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I just looked at that article. Oh my goodness. That will take a lot of effort to turn it into an encyclopaedia article. Canterbury Tail talk 01:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

As an involved editor, it needs to be completely rewritten. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

So you don't think readers want to know stuff like After initially planning to run their last train on January 30, 1968, a temporary restraining order kept the line open until August 27, 1968. On the last day, B&O switcher 9155 pulled two empty lumber cars to Potomac Yard from the Murphy and Ames Lumber Company siding in Falls Church. On August 30, the railroad shipped its three diesel locomotives to the B&O's Baltimore engine terminal, from which a salvage dealer purchased them? EEng 15:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, don't leave me hanging.. Which salvage dealer?! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, too busy writing Murphy and Ames Lumber Company siding in Falls Church. EEng 17:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Further concerns

I've just reviewed another article Corker has been heavily involved with: Washington and Old Dominion Railroad Regional Park. Some of the same issues with indiscriminate information are apparent here as well. Furthermore, their recent comments [19] make it clear Corker1 still is exhibiting WP:IDHT and not understanding that not a single editor besides themselves supports retaining the massive amounts of indiscriminate information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

1RR or block proposal

• Propose 1RR for Corker1. Short on time today, but I'm relieved someone else brought up this tendentious ownership behavior by Corker because I had been dealing with it over at Monarch butterfly not too long ago. Especially since it now looks like the behavior follows them around to other articles, I'm more convinced that sanctions are needed to prevent issues from continuing, but I'm not sure what outside of maybe 1RR restriction.

What I've seen there mirrors this incident. Constant edit warring to keep content in almost as a sort of WP:GAMING of 3RR. Especially when it's content they introduce, they'll continue to edit war it back in in violation of WP:ONUS until other editors tire, wikilawyering, etc. as Eviolite points out in all the recent instances of battleground behavior on article or user talk. It's very clear their last block by Materialscientist for edit warring was not heeded at all, and instead they've doubled down.

Over at the monarch page, that has also included edit warring when editors are trying to clean up images. When enough teeth were finally pulled in regards to warning them repeatedly about edit warring and getting consensus for their edits, they did briefly revert their edits, only to restore them later in the day. As Eviolite alludes to, I could have requested a block for violation of 1RR at the article this summer on pesticide related content, and also for 3RR in these recent edits at the end of September. If I wasn't feeling so bludgeoned by this editor, I maybe could have saved the community more stress instead of trying to ignore it, but now does seem to be the time to ramp up preventative sanctions. Maybe it won't stop the why won't you collaborate with me language they use while being entirely uncollaborative like you can see even at this ANI, but at least it would help stop them from abusing the process and editor's time with edit warring. KoA (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I have a little extra time this afternoon afterall, so I'll mention one last thing, WP:COMPETENCE. While I hate to bring that up, blatant cases of it are a severe drain on the community. I tried to talk through a lot of that with Corker on their talk page without invoking it, but that culminated in this comment from Corker addressed to me from when we were discussing broadly construed pesticide DS and a related content issue:

@KoA: @KoA: You stated: "From your link: Change ordinances so herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals used in the community are not harmful to pollinators.." That statement is not in my link ("Mayor's Monarch Pledge" at https://www.nwf.org/MayorsMonarchPledge/About/Pledge-Action-Items). Why did you cite it? Where did it come from?[20]

Anyone can click that link and Crtl+F the change ordinances piece about insecticides and pollinators. Corker claimed it did not exist at all in the source they were using and still denied it multiple times until finally admitting it much later on. That lack of basic competence, whether it's just bad wikilawayering or repeated sloppiness, coupled with the edit warring and plowing ahead behavior, even if they mean well, is why I'm now very adamant about protective measures being needed. KoA (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Disclosure; I found this through scrolling ANI, then removed the massive amounts of links from some sections, participated on the talk page, and came here again. Consider me involved.

On Washington and Old Dominion Railroad, Corker has thrice acted as if different editors have been doing actions that they did not do, implying disruption at the same time. Susmuffin made a bold edit that did remove a large part of the article, however here Corker says that Trainsandotherthings made the edit. Here, he replies to Susmuffin despite countering a post that I made and aims it at Susmuffin, then asks Susmuffin to explain a rationale that I made. I also find this post here to be extremely dismissive to the concerns presented by multiple editors. This also broadly accuses everyone of the same type of "damage" to the article. This is the third accusation, as it associates everyone with a blanket statement of "damaging the article". I can AGF the first one, but after being told that they have associated the wrong editor multiple times, I would expect it to not continue on the same discussion.

This string of diffs also shows Corker1 editing his message without noting. While all were made consecutively without interruption, this would never of been noticed without checking the talk page. I can also AGF on this, but it does not look good for an experienced editor to do this. With the addition of further points, this may be seen as potentially disruptive. This is just plain rude to Susmuffin in my eyes. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing that on top of what I've seen, I am definitely concerned. Repeatedly confusing people for someone else, being adamant something doesn't exist that does in the very source they are holding, etc. is well beyond simple editor quirks and into fundamental issues with views of reality. That all basically puts x's on 3/4 bullets at Wikipedia:Competence_is_required#What_is_meant_by_"Competence_is_required"?, and isn't something the community should be asked to shoulder so much anymore, especially since the volumes of text/edits they tend to generate make it harder to pick out to outside observers. It just becomes a timesink. KoA (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support I want to be clear I believe Corker is capable of making positive contributions to the encyclopedia. The history section of Washington and Old Dominion Railroad is fairly well done. The problem is that they seem to not understand the line between adding useful information and spamming large numbers of external links and extraneous information. Corker has been cooperative at times, but I think they needed this ANI thread as a wakeup call that their behavior needs changing. Corker has acted like their contributions are beyond the jurisdiction of Wikipedia policy - nobody is above the law. I support this proposed restriction, and I hope Corker will take what editors are saying to heart and learn to edit in a more collaborative manner, which respects Wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:ELNO and WP:NOT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll also second this. These views are why I don't propose an indef. We really just need something to keep them from going off the rails (pun originally not intended until rereading) on the behavior side to give them a chance to improve. KoA (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Corker's edits have been highly disruptive to the articles that he focuses on. The suggestion that his edits were done for the purpose of being used by railfans is both concerning and a violation of our policies. I am also concerned by their tendency to notify editors in response to statements that were made by other people. Either they are intentionally misreading comments or they are not properly reading them. This behaviour has expanded to repeatedly editing their own comments to introduce new material without giving a clear indication that this was done. More recently, he has replied to one of Sennecaster's comments by saying that she should revert her changes "before {her} edits become ancient history". This appears to be a direct threat to another user, which is intolerable. If this continues, I would support the implementation of editing restrictions on the subject of rail-related articles. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Indef disruptive editor is disruptive, and finds new ways to be disruptive when he's sanctioned in some form. There's no evidence Corker is a net positive although some of his contributions improve the encyclopedia-too much effort is needed to clean up. Star Mississippi 00:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

While I don't disagree they're definitely heading towards an indef (possibly even with 1RR as an attempt to help), I am a little hesitant to advocate for one now in terms of WP:ROPE given they've only had one 24 hour block. That said, if an admin did decide on an indef after seeing the issues here and seeing how Corker responded to the last block, I don't think such a block could be heavily argued against either given the time sink and disruption issues. If there are quite a few more like me that got frustrated and just gave up rather than going to admin boards, then maybe it is time for an indef. KoA (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I would not oppose an indefinite block. I see no evidence that this is going to end. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would have to reluctantly support an indef block for general disruptive editing and inability to follow Wikipedia policy. Corker's latest edit [21] broke a link in my comment, which on its own could be considered an honest mistake, but with everything else constitutes another example of disruptive editing and/or CIR. The threatening comment about "before your edits become ancient history" [22] was entirely out of line. Myself and other editors have given Corker plenty of rope. I'm no longer convinced they are compatible with the encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

As KoA said, there may very well be other editors who just got frustrated and gave up instead of going to ANI. I very nearly gave up and moved on to something more constructive myself, but ultimately decided the issue should be raised here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

KoA I'm not an absolute on an indef either, or I'd have done it, but my personal take is he doesn't seem interested in improving conduct, therefore 1RR or a shorter block is just delaying the inevitable Star Mississippi 16:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit recent posts from them are leaving me further convinced on your statement about not interested in improving conduct even if it appears they're laying low right now. I took a look at the railroad page and saw this recent comment from them. I suggest that you accomplish this by reverting your last edit to the article, by restoring the article to the condition that I considered to be satisfactory. . . While having a superficial polite veneer, it just shows more demands about their disputed edits because they consider them satisfactory completely ignoring why they were removed. This isn't WP:AGF level cluelessness anymore. KoA (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct, KoA and totally concur. This is clear ownership with a lack of understanding of why that doesn't fly. Star Mississippi 21:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

On that note, it looks like they've spread out to butterfly gardening and now are fighting with a bot (sort of a tilting at windmills problem) in this edit claiming it removed links. Looks like they didn't bother to see the bot was providing links in a much less redundant form. I don't think 1RR would do enough to fix that attitude now. We don't really have sanctions that can deal with this repeated level of cluelessness, so an indef maybe is the only realistic option. KoA (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Since we do not have a restriction like "someone personally babysits every edit made by Corker1", I see no alternative to an indefinite block at this point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings: We do, it's called editing probation, but that's a lot of undue effort to place on the community when it seems that people are already burnt out from attempting to collaborate with Corker.

That said, with everything, I support an indef due to the disruptive editing, bludgeoning of the discussions concerning real policies that should not be IAR'd, and a general all-round of things (editing messages without noting, breaking other's messages, accusing one editor of another's actions, dismissing other editors' editing abilities and proficiency with policy, in just one discussion) that can be AGFed once or twice, but not to the extent that I have gathered from Corker. I have dealt with fraught and long-winded disputes at 3O, but I have been unable to find a way to communicate in a way that won't open me to responses that act like I'm some kind of bad cop destroying the encyclopedia. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, probation rarely works even with editors in better situations than this.

Now they're edit warring on butterfly gardening and looking even more confused trying to replace a simple link to a publication from the bot with a huge redundant url.[23] At this point considering the doubling down, just put me down for an outright support indef at this point. Even I've tried to be lenient, but only a block would seem to get any attention at this point. KoA (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I now fully support an indef with no prejudice against my 1RR proposal given the continued developments above. After now being warned for edit warring again, this is their most recent response. That response looks almost exactly like their failed unblock appeal the last time they were blocked.[24] As much as I would have preferred 1RR, it's getting clear they're going to keep pushing to cause messes for things as simple as even doi links. KoA (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for one week

I have blocked Corker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for one week for disruptive editing. Per diffs above from KoA and Trainsandotherthings et al above, the disruption has just moved to a new article. While blocks are not punitive, I'm hoping this time allows Corker to consider communicating collaboratively. If consensus emerges to lengthen or shorten this block, fine by me. This was a short term solution to a long term problem. Star Mississippi 17:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Jonnyspeed20 / 86.14.189.55 - Continued accusations against other editors, uncivil behaviour and edit warring across articles

Please see previous reports involving this user: [25] [26]. IP user 86.14.189.55, who I have no doubt is Jonnyspeed20 (their behaviour is indistinguishable), has continued to behave in the uncivil manner they have previously been reported for and warned by admins and other editors about. They have continued to use edit summaries to attack other editors by making accusations of impropriety (i.e. repeated accusations of "vandalism"). They have been making disruptive edits to Greater London by introducing false information; a number of editors have reverted the user's bold edits, but the user has reverted the reverts in spite of WP:BRD, attacking editors in edit summaries when making the reverts ([27]). They have previously been warned and even blocked for similar behaviour. In this ([28]) diff, the user continues a long-running WP:PERSONALATTACK on me and other editors they had previously repeatedly conducted as Jonnyspeed20, by referring to edits as being part of a "campaign" - the user has previously accused me and other editors of being part of a "cohort" associated with an organisation, at one point saying we had been "proven" to be members of this organisation, using Wikipedia to "campaign" for them. Please see the previous ANI report on Jonnyspeed20 for details on this ([29]). Jonnyspeed20 was warned about this behaviour by Hammersoft following the previous ANI report, but seems to have since switched from the Jonnyspeed20 account back to IP edits exclusively. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have placed {{uw-3rr}} warnings on the talk pages of both 86.14.189.55 (talk · contribs) and Jonnyspeed20 (talk · contribs). This needs to end. If either the IP or the logged in editor continues to edit war, they need to be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

User:PlatinumClipper96 is on a co-ordinated campaign to remove London Boroughs from the opening of place article to replace them with Historic Counties. The edit is always the same; delete the London Borough and replace it with the text ceremonial county of Greater London and the ancient county of Essex There was a failed RfC in 2018 to support this edit. There has also been a long discussion on UK Geography to change the guidelines, which has little support and no consensus. While HC is allowed in the lead, these repetitive copy-paste edits go against all discussion on the topic (not the primary reference, used in the past tense). HC is not allowed in the infobox, so this editor (and others) have taken to editing the opening of articles across London; A few examples of these are Walthamstow and Chingford, though over the last 6-8 months they have attempted to insert this text in virtually all places in East / North-East London. Added to this, they are also attempting to assert that Greater London is a ceremonial county, deleting 'administrative area' from the opening of the lead. This is suspected to be part of the same group who support the agenda of The Association of British Counties<ref>"Association of British Counties".<ref> All edits are to prevent this partisan vandalism. My previous warning was about tone, which I accept. This editor is now using this board to weaponise Admin to winning their agenda 86.14.189.55 (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Asking you to stop your rampant edit warring is not "weaponizing" me. It isn't just PlatinumClipper96 who has been reverting you. The pathway forward isn't for you to continue to edit war, no matter how right you think you are. The pathway forward isn't getting to the however-many-reverts-have-happened-already +1 as the magic revert that's finally gong to convince everyone you are right and they are all wrong. Edit warring is not an answer. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Hammersoft Over to you to continue not to deal with the continued vandalism of these pages. Honestly, if you're happy with The Association of British Counties and various associated gammons deleting boroughs and copy-pasting Historic Counties into the opening of every place in London, I give up 86.14.189.55 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in what either side of this dispute says is supposed to be in the article. It's a content issue. The problem is the behavior in regards to this. Phil Bridger is right. It doesn't matter how right someone is. Reverting N times without success to your preferred version doesn't produce a case where N+1 is going to be the one magical golden revert that solves all problems. When you're in dispute with someone, follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Nowhere in that does it say "revert again, because that will solve it." --Hammersoft (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The WP:EW page, would've been the proper place for this report. Anyhow, if the edit-warring is continuing? then a block should be applied. Also, a SPI should be opened. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

User:86.14.189.55/User:Jonnyspeed20, you are probably correct on the underlying content issue, but you have gone about this so badly that you have made it much more difficult for that issue to be resolved. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd just like to respond to the comments made here by the user. The RfC in 2018 the user is referring to was about whether the historic/ancient county should be used as an infobox parameter in articles about UK settlements. It was not about whether historic counties should be mentioned in the lead. Current guidelines about UK settlements (WP:UKTOWNS) state that the historic county should be mentioned. My edits, which have been repeatedly referred to as "vandalism" or part of a "campaign" of a "cohort" of editors by Jonnyspeed20/86.14.189.55, are in compliance with these guidelines. I have never used historic counties as the primary descriptor for a place's location where the ceremonial county is different. The primary descriptor has always been the area of London for places within Greater London. My edits then describe the place as being in the ceremonial county of Greater London (although this was different in some of my earlier edits, as at the time I felt describing the place as being in London would imply that it is in Greater London), and then in its respective historic county as the tertiary descriptor. I do not delete the local government district (borough) from the lead of articles about settlements, as the user keeps claiming [30]. As he has stated above, he seems to have an issue with the fact Greater London is described as a ceremonial county, as well as reverts to his edits by multiple editors at Greater London [31]. He has described Greater London as an administrative county and, more recently as an administrative area (with a link to the article about administrative/non-metropolitan counties) [32]. Greater London does not have this status due to the structure of local government there, but it is an official ceremonial county. Why would I want the fact Greater London is a ceremonial county to be mentioned first if I were affiliated with an organisation like the ABC, as the user keeps accusing me and other editors of being? These organisations do not want areas such as Greater London to be referred to as "counties". I am fed up with edits from editors with the opposite view on the historic counties discussion being labelled as "vandalism" in edit summaries and talk pages by this user, the persistent edit warring, these editors being personally attacked by this user, and with the constant accusations against editors by this user of having a conflict of interest. I'd also like to point out the user's response to Hammersoft in which he refers to editors as "gammons" - this insult is widely considered to be a racist slur, as per the article about it - I believe this amounts to yet another WP:PERSONALATTACK from this user. I find the user's assumption of my race/ethnic background and the race/ethnic background of other editors on the basis of their Wikipedia edits to UK geography articles extremely offensive. The pejorative also implies that I and other editors hold certain political views, which amounts to another personal attack ("Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing"). I sincerely hope action is taken against this user. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just become aware of this ANI report the user filed against me this morning. The user made no effort to notify me of this report, neither by pinging me or giving me an ANI notice on my talk page. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User: Ifeomanwaka spamming a person

This account is a single-purpose account which is doing nothing but spamming a BLP of Monday Sunday Adiaha, including putting that name in lists, and resubmitting a draft BLP after it has been rejected.

• Ifeomanwaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Monday Sunday Adiaha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Monday S. Adiaha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft with a middle initial was an attempt to game the name and see if the reviewers were not paying attention, but a reviewer correctly redirected the draft. The principal draft is now pending at MFD, and can continue to be discussed there, but that is a content forum, and the conduct of the user is what is making the deletion debate necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, Ah! Robert this seems to be Nigeria related oh boy! You should have pinged me, in any case I have added them to my watchlist. I agree they are spamming, I’m going to some deep web search for possible UPE or socking. Celestina007 (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• I try to do corrections from suggestions from a reviewer of my submission and resubmit it. Sources of information I present can be verified, then why do you use the word "spamming" I only immediately corrected a draft and resubmitted the correction when I noticed a mistake (Reference appearing in the sentence) in an initial submission. Ifeomanwanka (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Ifeomanwaka - The draft has been deleted, so I cannot review the sources. (If you disagree with the deletion, you can go to DRV, but that would be likely to waste your time and that of the DRV regulars and to result in a solid Endorse.) However, you ask why what you did was spamming. Here is why:
    • • You added the name of the subject to list articles when the subject has not been found to be notable and does not have their own article. That is list spamming.
      • You resubmitted the draft after it was Rejected and after you were told not to resubmit the draft. If you thought that the rejection was a mistake, you should have discussed with the reviewer instead of just resubmitting.
      • You submitted two versions of the draft with different forms of the same name. That is gaming of article titles, and is done in order to try to sneak past the reviewers. It usually doesn't work, and is not permitted.
  • You asked why this was spamming. That is why. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes you were spamming as expressly stated above my senior colleague Robert McClenon, if you are genuinely oblivious about spamming, then please read our policy on spamming, go to the WP:TEAHOUSE more often to ask questions before editing articles, furthermore you are likely not a new editor, for example what’s your connection to the editor named Adiahachristy? Are you surprised we independently made that connection? Anyway That account with a similar edit pattern of yours was also an spa promo for the subject of your article. I’m sorry but it is my candid belief for someone like myself who has dedicated two yes of my life to studying UPE in Nigeria and have dismantled several UPE rings, i have become somewhat of an expert on it is my belief that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Thanks to all technical editors & functionaries like Primefac who painstakingly taught me & the entire anti spam/UPE editors & MER-C also who taught me, and of course Kudpung who has always taught me tricks to fighting UPE. I’m afraid UPE cannot fly under the Radar anymore. Celestina007 (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Close with Warning

The spamming has stopped now that the articles that were being spammed have been deleted. Can this thread be closed with a warning that future spamming will result in an indefinite block? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, Robert, are the SPI results out yet? Celestina007 (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Celestina007 - No. As we know, SPI is backlogged. If this thread is closed with a final warning, and sockpuppetry is found, I am satisfied that the CheckUser will impose appropriate sanctions on the master. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by Vallabharebel and IP socks

Vallabharebel is a persistent socking editor, using both new accounts as well as IP editing, using addresses starting 2401:4900. When I check on edits by a given ip address, I see that there is already a block on a set of unrelated articles. Would it be possible to extend this block to anything falling under the remit of WP:CRIC (by use of categories?)? From what I have seen the editor has 2 main sets of edits:

1. Hijacking defunct T20 cricket teams of many nationalities to make them into an entirely fictional Vizag Victors (which has been WP:SALTed). [33]
2. Disruptively editing both Category:National cricket teams and Category:Indian Premier League teams (and related seasonal articles) to add either false or irrelevant staff members in a format that goes against the MOS.

I've tried reporting a few of the individual ip addresses, but that just leads to temporary whac-a-mole blocks, so I think something more wide ranging needs to be done. Spike 'em (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Another new account : Jikbg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

and more ip edits : 2401:4900:4CA0:F0B2:E90A:6164:5A62:B9FB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Spike 'em (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

CIR and total lack of communication from JHICKS1809

• JHICKS1809 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

A lot of you will be familiar with this user if you are on NPP. They have just come back from a 2 day block by User:JBW for persistently creating unsuitable articles. The articles created since the block are just the same if not worse than before. They don't communicate in any way (unless deleting talk page notices counts as communicating). Their behaviour is disruptive and borders on WP:CIR. For example, they have removed useful redirects and replaced it with material that appears to be hoax material; see Blowing dust advisory where they have created an event that supposedly happened at 5pm today and Brisk wind advisory where they have done the same. Their edit history will show you a ridiculous number of articles, all created today, about apparently fictitious extreme weather events that happened.

Given that they have recently been blocked for this and they haven't improved in any way nor shown any intention of improving, I am concerned about this editor. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

We can also add copyright violations to the list with Beach hazards statement being an example Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Spiderone, it looks like the forecast example and definition are from the National Weather Service which states "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain" (see the disclaimer here). -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, but it certainly isn't helpful to just be copying weather reports into article space. I describe exactly this sort of behavior (shamelss plug ahead) in my essay WP:RADAR. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC).

I've partially blocked them from article and draft space, leaving them free to come here and comment, should they choose to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

When I partially blocked from article editing for 48 hours I strongly suspected that a bigger block would be along soon. JBW (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Disappointed that this was not a shortcut to WP:Wikipedia is not radar. jp×g 19:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I agree. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, they removed a number of things from their talk page several hours ago, so they know they have been blocked again, but still apparently refuse to communicate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I had never seen WP:RADAR before, Beeblebrox, but it describes exactly what I had in mind when I placed a short-term block on mainspace editing, including both my hope for what it might achieve and my expectation of what I thought was, unfortunately, more likely. JBW (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from Tiredmeliorist

Per Newshunter12:

“@Tiredmeliorist made three official 'keep' votes […] in this one AfD. This is disruption akin to the sock onslaught at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premiers of New South Wales by age, and all of their votes and arguments, which repeatedly accused other editors of bad faith, should hold no weight.”

The AfD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current longest-ruling non-royal national leaders.

Dronebogus (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The user is question has just under 300 edits. It is entirely possible they simply did not realize you should only make one bolded comment. The additional bolded "keeps" have been stricken already. I'm not sure what it is you want an admin to do here? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• They’re also being very uncivil and repeatedly accusing other editors of bad faith, as can be seen in the above AfD. This is more of my concern, since it’s hard to assume good faith with someone who’s constantly assuming bad faith. Dronebogus (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• The three votes in question were: (Vote 1, Vote 2, Vote 3). Tiredmeliorist has also made the following uncivil accusations against other editors: (wow, surprised to see this come up for deletion -- who on the list are you working for?? ) here, (Man, all you deletionists are so ready to tear down other people's work simply because it's different from what you think Wikipedia should be. here, (And again, i wonder which people on the list are driving this campaign, because the edit history shows it's often targetted for political reasons.... here, (Deletionists secretly hate wikipedia -- its obvious) here. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I would add that they were warned not to vote again here, yet they deliberately did so again. @Beeblebrox Deliberately sabotaging an AfD and from the get go accusing other editors of working for autocrats seem like serious violations to me, deserving of a lengthy block. Tiredmeliorist might have made few edits, but they have had an account for 13 years, so they are not new to Wikipedia and there is no reason to belive they did not know what they were doing. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Newshunter12, are you here for the reason I think you're here? Because there's a connection to the Bartolo SPI, but this is not a sock of that one. But Tiredmeliorist, you are treading on very thin ice in that AfD. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies I was checking the keep voters at AfD to see if any had been blocked (we both know the shenanigans some pull to try to keep that stuff) and strike those votes, since it's been a week since the AfD was started and a decision could come down soon. I noticed Tiredmeliorist had voted thrice and made many uncivil comments, and was going to bring it to ANI myself, but saw that a thread had already been started. It doesn't surprise me there is a connection to the Bartolo SPI, though I'm not 100% sure what you mean. There have been many corrupted age list AfD's of late, and more longevity related ones in the past. I fully understand just how toxic a topic it can be on Wikipedia, especially when it comes to AfD! Newshunter12 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies Or did you mean you guessed I thought Tiredmeliorist was connected to the Bartolo SPI business? In which case, no, I did not think Tiredmeliorist has anything to do with that, I just thought the AfD disruption comparison was apt. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• • What’s this Bartolo business? Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dronebogus See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theotherscrubbythug/Archive and Loony Toons in action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premiers of New South Wales by age. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I am inclined to say Don't Bite. I realize the behavior is aggravating but the learning curve is steep here on the project. New editor needs more rope methinks. Lightburst (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, I am indeed still getting used to the peculiar way Wikipedia handles arguments. And sorry, I didn't realize I was only allowed one "vote" (since it says the AfDs are not based on majority votes). I didn't try to remove the strike-outs or anything.

@Dronebogus brought me here after my last post, summarizing all the arguments while using all the appropriate jargon (I was quite proud of that, actually -- first time figuring all that out). It wasn't a vote, though, just another point in the discussion, of which many other users (least not @Dronebogus) has many more than me. I also have no idea what this "Bartolo" thing is and am simply a contributor to the page that was put up on AfD. Tiredmeliorist (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note The AfD where all of the above occurred, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current longest-ruling non-royal national leaders, has closed as delete. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

While the three !votes can easily be explained by Tiredmeliorist being an inexperienced newcomer, I have to question these comments:

• who on the list are you working for?? and;
• And again, i wonder which people on the list are driving this campaign, because the edit history shows it's often targetted for political reasons....

I think it would also be appropriate point Tiredmeliorist in the direction of WP:AGF. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks -- yes, for some context the list in question was of "elected" political leaders and their time in office. The impression when viewing it was that those in power the longest were simply strongmen (although there were interesting exceptions like Angela Merkel). Past IP edits to the page attempted to remove certain people from the list, which those of us editing assumed could be someone working for that leader.

So yes, thanks for pointing out WP:AGF -- I will remember that in the future. But also, in this particular case, there were valid reasons for implying that. And after reading WP:AGF, my interpretation is that it works both ways -- that perhaps the user who sent me here should review WP:AGF#Good_faith_and_newcomers and WP:BITE as well before dragging me through an admin censuring? -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• I was recently accused of socking, COI editing, and UPE in connection with an AfD, so this honestly seems pretty tame in comparison. Sarcasm is par for the course at AfD (I'm certainly guilty of it myself), and this doesn't seem egregious enough to be actionable. Considering that the impetus for this report was a misunderstanding which has now been cleared up, I suggest that the report be closed. Mlb96 (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Aggressive tone, repeated sarcasm and incivility by User:ItsKesha

It started with this opening salvo and has just got worse and worse. Some more: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. The sarcastic tone and personal attacks make any progress on the content disputes impossible. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Max. You have made zero attempt at dealing with any purported incivility, and you have made no attempt at discussing this with me on my talk page. The only interaction we have had is for you to suggest the phone book as an example of a Wikipedia article?! If you'd like to discuss this on my talk page, I'd be more than happy mate. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Having waded through the whole shebang, it seems to me you are trying to catch flies with vinegar. Try honey. It usually works better. Kleuske (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Charles Juvon and WP:PROMOTION

Charles Juvon indefinitely blocked by Star Mississippi per CIR/Not Here, etc. (non-admin closure) --JBL (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Charles Juvon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) This user posts links to their facebook group in various places across the wiki, sometimes in unrelated discussions, but mostly in only tangentially-related ones. It's an anti-biowarfare group. This seems to me to be a blatant violation of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:PROMOTION, WP:FORUM, etc. I first noticed this when they posted a screenshot of a post from the group to Talk:Biological agent as "of future interest for this article to show public interaction with the topic" [43].

See also other examples: [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]

Also youtube videos: [58]

Plus: [59] speaks for itself

Here are all the times I have warned the user about this exact thing: [60] [61] [62] [63] I would say that the sharing of the facebook group actually increased in frequency after I cautioned the user about this.

I would say it is quite clear to me from this behavior and the attitude towards it after my repeated warnings that this user is WP:NOTHERE.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it is worth explicitly mentioning that just 3.1% of this users edits can be found in article space; the rest are on talk pages and in user space - I'm not entirely sure what they are here to do, but looking at their edit distribution, and looking at their recent contributions to article talk pages, I think WP:NOTHERE might apply. BilledMammal (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

We have millions of editors ~95% devoted to article space. Does no harm if one guy "behind the scenes" occasionally and politely reminds even a fraction of the community that biological warfare is something worth curtailing. If he can't do it, someone more suitable should replace him, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of which user is doing it (and frankly, regardless of the topic), it's a violation of WP:FORUM (see #4) and, in some cases, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

We should have 100% of editors devoted to article space (even if not directly editing it). When have we ever said it was ok to be here, politely or otherwise, for the purpose of reminding the community of any cause, however worthy. WP:NOTHERE. DeCausa (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

NOTHERE is an understatement. NOTHEREATALL would be more like it. I was the victim of a violent crime, and it has taken years to recover. When I did recover sufficiently to get back on a a computer, I tried a few WP edits and got yelled at. Then I started writing Userboxes. Someone followed me back to my Talk page and started complaining. By then, I had recovered sufficiently to handle a FB group. We were gathering references, and I thought they would be useful to WP. Now I have a better idea. I will start a subpage off my directory and load in references. Each reference will have ~10 keywords picked by an expert (me). That should help with references - given other search mechanisms are highly overloaded for keywords associated with the pandemic. I'll give you an example: Let's say you wanted to find the first "gain of function" research article ever published. I don't think that search is possible. First, the GOF term is more recent than early publications. Second, there is a dispute over what qualifies as GoF. In one version, GoF is defined as beginning with a human pathogen. So, mutagenizing a bat coronavirus into a human pathogen doesn't qualify. In another definition of GoF, one makes a human pathogen regardless of the starting virus. Thus, mutagenizing a bat virus into a human pathogen would be considered GoF. This is topical, as you heard in the discussions between Paul and Fauci. When I hand-index articles, I will take such disparate definitions into consideration. Here is an example of this indexing:

$First $GOF $Human $Pathogen $Polio $Chow $MIT $Epitope $Antibody https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1714663/

(I am fully aware that a secondary reference is needed for priority, but this will help with literature searches.)

Here’s another example. Let’s say you wanted to know about potential lab leaks from a BSL-4 lab. One entry might read:

$LabLeak $BSL-4 $NBAF $K-State $Manhattan $Kansas $FBI $DHS $USDA $FMD $Jaax https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaLeE8WKcqk

A couple more for your consideration of tags:

$NYT $Retraction $Pediatric $COVID $Mandavilli https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new-york-times-retracts-massive-exaggeration-of-children-hospitalized-by-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR3TfCzz1ZlfzH6UTi6gVO3pcjM4vvujbdPFcL4g6BYM5lvQtQEIrMOa_fc

$India $China $Delta $Unrestricted Warfare $Biowarfare $COVID Origin $General Bakshi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNWpblCGa3o

$Patent $COVID $Vaccine $China $Trade Secret $Graphene Oxide $Nanoparticle https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112220919A/en

$ADE $ZIKA $GOF $Dual Use $Krammert $Mt. Sinai https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aal4365

Please state your concerns. This will be a lot of work. Charles Juvon (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand any of that. What does it have to do with Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• CIR block based on the simply fact that he thinks the above is somehow communicative. EEng 01:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the user is claiming that positive coverage of coronavirus vaccines equates to biological warfare on wikipedia's part, and he's trying to counter that by running his "anti biological warfare group" and is promoting that everywhere to "fight the power" or something. I don't know. I don't speak conspiracy that well. Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger founded Wikipedia. Sanger recently wrote an article entitled, "Wikipedia Is Badly Biased": https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Here are his recent comments on the COVID vaccine: https://larrysanger.org/.../the-astonishing-hubris-of-a.../ His points: "experimental vaccine, billions of people, at the same time". In my personal experience as a Wikipedian, I can't write anything without being attacked by a cabal of editors. At the present time, a Ph.D. virologist (who has done gain of function research on human pathogens) has initiated a process to ban me. So far, he has 100% support from other editors. In stark contrast, I started an (anti-) Biological Warfare Group on Facebook 6 months ago. Charles Juvon (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

A look at the facebook group this user is promoting is quite enlightening - coronavirus conspiracy theories, antivax nonsense, and personal attacks on other Wikipedia editors. We need to keep this kind of blatant misinformation off of Wikipedia, even as external links on talk pages. - MrOllie (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

From reading what the user wrote and reading his userboxes and talk page, this is obviously a deep, deep conspiracy theorist whose only activity on wikipedia is acting in accordance with and furthering said conspiracy theories. It's rather incomprehensible in aggregate, i'm afraid. Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be a curious intersection of WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY. Indef x 3. DeCausa (talk)

If there's anyone whose opinion is respected less than Jimmy Wales's it's Larry Sanger. Please let's base this encyclopedia on what subject matter experts write, not those two. Wikipedia has been successful because its founders stumbled across a good idea, not because they know anything about vaccines. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm really excited for this to be the first time I've used this essay: Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Larryem. Very applicable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: @Magischzwei: Please post your evidence that I have ever posted a conspiracy theory, personal attacks on WP editors, etc. anywhere on the internet. BTW, I have never observed blanked User pages on WP, which coincidentally, you both have as relatively new Users. Charles Juvon (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Juvon: First of all, i'm not a new user. I mostly edit while logged out (mostly gnoming, that is) and read a lot. I couldn't help myself but comment for this occasion though. To the second point, your facebook group, your general demeanor, the things you link, your userboxes, they all spell "conspiracy theorist" quite clearly. It's hard to see that when you're neck deep in it, I suppose, but it's true still Magisch ^{talk to me} 18:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: @Magischzwei: Sorry, that was an error on my part. Only MrOllie has the blanked User page. I can no longer find the second. Charles Juvon (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's all right there on the facebook link you've been pasting everywhere. But sure, here's a screen cap of something you posted just yesterday: screen capture MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Concerning that particular User's Ph.D. thesis: Do you understand the consequences of doing Zika Gain of Function (GoF) research in an academic lab with little physical security and having someone walk out with the virus? We are now aware that the sequence data dumped by Wuhan on our database has contaminants of Nipah virus (70% fatal) in a genetic engineering vector. Remember ELE (Extinction Level Event) from the movie? This is no movie. The virologists are totally out of control and represent an existential threat to humanity. WP is contributing to this effort by defaming people like me as pseudoscientists, conspiracy theorists, and debunked people. Unlike nuclear weapons and MAD, a single virologist is all it takes. Thank God DARPA funded Moderna early. Charles Juvon (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Why hasn't this person been blocked yet? --JBL (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please read this abstract very, very carefully. From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542197/?fbclid=IwAR22UzX-_bSV2-L9smmCTgiTNtM2R9skgrmTWy3T5kB7UDMDXUD2FO7eJi8 The first of the two authors is Michelle Rozo, Director for Technology and National Security at National Security Council, The White House.

"The 1977-1978 influenza epidemic was probably not a natural event, as the genetic sequence of the virus was nearly identical to the sequences of decades-old strains. While there are several hypotheses that could explain its origin, the possibility that the 1977 epidemic resulted from a laboratory accident has recently gained popularity in discussions about the biosafety risks of gain-of-function (GOF) influenza virus research, as an argument for why this research should not be performed. There is now a moratorium in the United States on funding GOF research while the benefits and risks, including the potential for accident, are analyzed. Given the importance of this historical epidemic to ongoing policy debates, we revisit the evidence that the 1977 epidemic was not natural and examine three potential origins: a laboratory accident, a live-vaccine trial escape, or deliberate release as a biological weapon. Based on available evidence, the 1977 strain was indeed too closely matched to decades-old strains to likely be a natural occurrence. While the origin of the outbreak cannot be conclusively determined without additional evidence, there are very plausible alternatives to the laboratory accident hypothesis, diminishing the relevance of the 1977 experience to the modern GOF debate."

I should add there were 7,000,000 deaths. Of the three alternatives offered in the abstract, what is the likely conclusion? It took almost three decades for this conclusion to be revealed. The West did not want to destabilize the UN Biological Weapons Convention, signed only two years before this flu pandemic. Charles Juvon (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the name of all that's holy, we've got CIR and NOTHERE and probably several other block reasons all rolled into one here. Can some admin please put all those involved out of their misery? EEng 05:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles_Juvon/NBWD Charles Juvon (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Indeffed. CIR/Not Here, etc. Conduct not conducive to collaborative editing, however it's spun. Star Mississippi 16:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• What a pain, using Wikipedia as a web host, like a usenet forum, and as a personal playground. I deleted all his userboxes too. – Athaenara ✉ 22:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Greater Manila music disruption needs wide rangeblock

• Head Above Water (album)
• Tell Me It's Over (Avril Lavigne song)
• Dumb Blonde (Avril Lavigne song)

Somebody from the Greater Manila metro area has been edit-warring in music articles, especially topics related to Avril Lavigne and various Philippines-based singers. The person alternates between relatively benign edits[64] and outright nonsense vandalism: "...sold 100 billion copies..."

The biggest problem is with poorly supported or unsupported sales figures, chart results and certifications. This edit introduces chart figures based on a Weebly blog post, while another edit bases chart success on a Wordpress blog. This edit adds chart attainment based on a tweet from the artist (unreliable). This is a typical edit, introducing unreferenced sales figures, which, amazingly, followed the same person removing the sales figures as "unsourced".[65]

Another focus is on genre-warring, for instance adding a genre based on a sales chart, which is never a defining source for genre.[66]

Edit summaries get abusive: "Read the source befor u delete it b!tch", "Go to page 18 fckr!", "Dont u dare remove this again u better read btch! Good bless ur a$s", "Do not remove this its legit bitch" and "...not really pop rock u shit blueberry".

The problem has been going on for more than a year. Special:Contributions/120.29.71.236 was blocked in August 2020 for identical music disruption. I would propose a rangeblock but it might be pretty wide, causing collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

All the IPs under "List of involved IPs" are covered by 120.29.70.0/23 + 120.29.78.1. A quick look at those contribs makes it appear to be one individual who edits music articles. It's hard for someone like me to judge whether the edits are good or bad. For example the "Go to page 18 fckr!" link above shows the addition of a reference based on "Page 18" of a chartmasters.org link. Presumably the IP had been reverted before and, while unwise, the edit summary is frustration that the reverter hasn't (according to the IP) noticed that the cited information is on page 18—I haven't looked. I would want to see a strongly attended discussion somewhere saying that chartmasters should never be used and that the IP edits should be mass reverted. On the principle of WP:DENY, I wouldn't mind blocking wide IP ranges for significant periods if it helps to remove a provably disruptive person. Also, I would want to see some reasonable attempts to engage with the IP without templates. OTOH, someone who understands the topic might see the problem in a way that I cannot. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's impossible to engage this person in discussion when they don't return to an IP after using it. They haven't edited a talk page except this single instance of silliness; an IP block is sometimes administered to get the user to communicate. I would like to explain to them what sources are considered unreliable, and that there is a policy against original research. Binksternet (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic. In fact I think I have handled a couple of your requests at ANI by blocking problematic IPs/editors. However, I have no idea, for example, whether the IP is right or wrong in the "Page 18" incident. All I can see is that someone reverted them (from memory, I think with no explanation) and the IP's edit added a reference mentioning page 18. A polite explanation on an IP talk page is not just for them—it helps onlookers like me. If I can see an explanation that the IP has not responded to, it makes a block much more justifiable. Or, if there already is an explanation on some other point regarding the IP's edits, please point it out here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If this was a registered user, they'd long have been blocked for disruptively ignoring community concerns voiced on their talk page, and for edit warring. As a possible countermeasure, semi-protection is explicitly authorized for cases of "edit warring where unregistered editors are engaging in IP hopping by using different computers, obtaining new addresses by using dynamic IP allocation, or other address-changing schemes."^[WP:SEMI] The editor behind 120.29.70.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is blocked for two weeks for now, and Head Above Water (album) is semi-protected for the rest of this year. Block evasion or further disruptive ignoring of community concerns can be dealt with using a rangeblock and page protections. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Dublin Airport and serial template removal by EireAviation

Dublin Airport is a rather troubled page in which the rather encyclopaedically questionable, but largely entrenched, Airport destination tables are suffering from the overzealous attention to random unreferenced and mostly unreferencable detail by editors. In an attempt to control this a number of editors and myself over some time have attempted edit and latterly to apply appropriate templates to the worst of these edits while hopefully influencing more appropriate editing. Unfortunately we have completely failed in this with the templates being simply removed. There is a large degree of non-comprehension of what is required of a typical Wikipedia citation and a large dose of WP:IDONTLIKEIT

typical of such reverts are: All by EireAviation

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Airport&type=revision&diff=1048680375&oldid=1048658567

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Airport&type=revision&diff=1048505570&oldid=1048479555

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Airport&type=revision&diff=1048970077&oldid=1048966936

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Airport&type=revision&diff=1048341871&oldid=1048330137

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Airport&type=revision&diff=1049032788&oldid=1048977893 (by an IP but corrected subsequently by EireAviation)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Airport&type=revision&diff=1048434702&oldid=1048434148

There are plenty of warnings help offered and onesided discussion at talk EireAviation. I have had a long history of trying to help EireAviation - perhaps the best synthesis of advice I have given was on my talk page copied here

at EireAviation: The synthesis tag is a serious attempt at getting you to understand what you are getting wrong. Wikipedia can be a very counterintuitive place so you should listen to what is being suggested to you and not just assume ill will. You are baseing many of your edits on dummy searches against an airline's search engine, this practice is fraught with issues particularly when trying to derive start and stop dates for a service. Please remember Wikipedia is not a directory it is an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedia deal with tertiary information. The stop and start dates of an airline service are at best primary detail and are very questionable here. However assuming an argument can be made for such inclusion the consensus advice at WP:AIRPORTS is that such dates must be referenced, and references ideally should be WP:SECONDARY. There has also been an established consensus that temporary content - like the recent covid induced cancellations and reinstatements are not particularly encyclopaedic and as a rule do not really warrent inclusion. As a rule of thumb I usually think it is not important to add anything to Wikipedia that it would be likely I would have to reverse in six months time, other people will do things slightly differently but that is my level of comfort. Hope that helps. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Andrewgprout (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Further to the above, the user correctly points out that all material should be referenced however fails to point out that where-in it is stated ideally should be secondary, if this is not possible the requirement remains that the material is sourced. This has always been the case, with any of my contributions to Wikipedia. It is also made clear in WP:SECONDARY that secondary sources can't always be granted as independent either.

However, if the above user see's a secondary source they bulk remove edits, as you can see in recent behaviour from 08/10 up to this morning and much prior. For example, some recently published articles which are secondary in nature in relation to new routes etc use airports and airlines as the basis to validate their publications, as is normal.

The above user, views this as at odds to their interpretation of WP:AIRPORTS and WP:SECONDARY and bulk vandalises edits. It is very unfortunate as the user on multiple occasions has deleted positive edits in their haste to clench their fist over articles where they impose this incorrect self-interpreted policy. I remain available at all stages to work with this user to stop this and/or work with them to give them assistance in better understanding both referred to policies. EireAviation (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Editors inserting Historic Counties in Opening of Lead

User:Phil Bridger. Here is a perfect example of inserting Historic Counties into the opening of the lead; Tottenham. This editor has deleted the London Borough and copy-pasted in their text within the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Middlesex.

The guidelines are not ambiguous. The guide at WP:UK Georgraphy clearly states:

(Point 1) Name of settlement, type of settlement (e.g. suburb, town, city, civil parish), its present local government district / council area, present/ceremonial county (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), for the use of counties), and constituent country.

(Point 5) Historic county (if in England or Wales and if different from current county), and a brief paragraph about historical roots / founding

Additional guidelines at Project UK Geo/Counties Historical are also clear We should mention historic (or ancient) counties in articles about places and in references to places in a historic context, but only as an afternote.

This same user has made these edits on virtually all places in East London, which whilst reverted continue to spark edit waring. Note: it is this edit which starts the reverts. Other example places where this editor has made this copy-paste edit are Chingford, Walthamstow, Leytonstone, Edmonton. It is mainly the same editor, and exactly the same text; though others have done the same edit; suggesting a cohort or co-ordinated campaign.

This was raised on UK Projects London with zero action taken. This has also been a long RfC in 2018 with no support / resolution. There has been walls of discussion with no resolution at Project UK Geo/Historic Counties, which this editor and others are part of, so know the guidelines and that their campaign to change them has not been successful.

Deal with this or don't. I am leaving WP for good. Over to you. It is a shame, because I had loads of research on East London that I was using to improve articles before this was allowed to continue, with zero Admin intervention; Jonnyspeed20 86.14.189.55 (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've come across various articles where someone did this. Edward Heath's Local Government Act 1972 abolished many of the old counties in Britain, and replaced them with administrative areas that some people hated. However, there is little point in saying today that Liverpool is in Lancashire, because it hasn't been since 1974.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

86.14.189.55/Jonnyspeed20, you should have notified me about the ANI report you have filed against me here by leaving an ANI notice on my talk page. You did not make any effort to notify me - not even by pinging me. Having the historic county in the lead does not constitute a violation of WP:UKTOWNS guidelines. The "additional guidelines" you are citing are no longer in use as these no longer reflect consensus. You are claiming that it is my edits "which start the reverts"; there are a substantial number of editors on both sides of the long-running discussion about historic counties here that both insert and remove historic county information. My edits are overwhelmingly reverted by you specifically. There are plenty of stable articles with historic county info in the lead, not just introduced by me. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Jonnyspeed20, you're really not helping your case with how you're dealing with this. Notifying the subject of an ANI thread is required.

PlatinumClipper96, the current county guidelines state Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries.. So, how is saying (for example) "Tottenham is...within the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Middlesex" in line with those guidelines? Seems like it would be more appropriate to say "Tottenham is...within the London Borough of Haringey, and within the former boundaries of the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Middlesex." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

BubbaJoe123456, there's been quite a heated discussion about this on the UK geography WikiProject as to how we should write about counties - I'm not sure this is the place to continue that discussion. But it seems like you think Greater London is a former ceremonial county - it's not! It exists and is used for administration today, and the London Borough of Haringey is a local government district within Greater London. Middlesex is a historic/ancient/traditional county, but is not used for administration today. There have been many big discussions here as to whether the historic counties have been abolished or not, but many involved editors believe describing a place as being "within the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Middlesex" would still be appropriate whether the traditional counties do exist within their former boundaries or not, hence the use of the same wording in stable UK settlement articles across Wikipedia. The guidelines you cite here are for articles about the counties themselves. WP:UKTOWNS does not state the exact tense in which historic counties should be written about. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is it even up for discussion whether "historic" counties (a term that you seem to use only for one very limited period of history) have been abolished? Of course they have, by act of Parliament. That is the whole reason why they are historic and not current. That we carry on regarding them as real is totally in opposition to our our existence as a factual encyclopedia, rather than a site pushing irredentist nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's up for discussion (and has been for years on Wikipedia) because the view that those Acts of Parliament did not abolish them is quite a common one. Those Acts created new types of county (which the government have distinguished from historic/"geographical" ones as a separate entity). The government itself has, on multiple occasions, affirmed this view. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please note this ANI thread from August, referring to an RfC regarding Template:Infobox UK place, which led to some agreement that a far more general discussion should take place at a more centralised venue that the infobox page itself (quote of closing admin Black Kite). Since then, checking the archives of WT:UK and WT:UKWNB; there are no discussions, while as Jonnyspeed20 pointed out WT:LONDON and WT:UKGEO have had discussions with weeks of back-and-forth arguing with no consensus. The idea of an RfC has been proposed at UKGEO but even the drafting of that has stalled after 2 weeks. They were not formally closed as such, but either way per WP:NOCON it seems that the status quo should be maintained for the time being.

I personally have no horse in this race but based on the ANI thread it seems undisputable that this topic is rather contentious and has often been disrupted by meatpuppetry as well as off-wiki canvassing. Pinging users @JimmyGuano, Owain, Songofachilles, John Maynard Friedman, Blue Square Thing, and Roger 8 Roger: as they participated on both that RfC and ANI thread (this includes everyone I could find on both sides of the dispute, if I missed anyone please do notify them as well). eviolite (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@86.14.189.55: You noted "this was allowed to continue, with zero Admin intervention"; I think perhaps you do not understand the role of an administrator. We're not some sort of super editor who gets to throw their weight around and make decisions about content disputes. We handle dealing with problematic behaviors such as edit warring, vandalism blocking, and more. Content is handled by editors, including IPs. I'm sorry you think admins are supposed to have a role in deciding the content dispute, and that apparently this is having a contributing effect in your decision to leave. With respect, you are misinformed. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User, and talkpage redirect to mainspace

I just realised that a three year old editor with more than 10k edits hard-redirected their userpage, and talkpage to two different articles in mainspace. I went through their few previous edits. It is not clearly visible if they were having issues on wikipedia, neither there were any signs of retirement. Is it possible that the account has been compromised? —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 14:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What is a three-year-old doing editing Wikipedia anyway? EEng 16:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: I think what they meant was that they have been editing for 3 years, not that they're only 3 years old. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. EEng 16:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: For future reference, it's quite unlikely that three-year-olds are editing Wikipedia in a way that involves proper redirect syntax (although, doubtless, some of them do possess the ability to read and even to type on a keyboard). Hopefully this is a helpful rule of thumb for the future, by which you might avoid instances of confusion such as this. jp×g 19:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

On reflection I think a three-year-old can't do redirects but probably can participate in AfDs. Another good job would be turning down protected-page edit requests, since on those all you have to do is say "Please get consensus first" over and over and over. EEng 20:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

And what account are we talking about?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• ​‎Jeromi Mikhael (talk · contribs · count) is the user in discussion. Should we notify them? —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 16:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  the template above pinged them anyways. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 16:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there are any policies or anything that prohibit redirecting pages in the userspace to mainspace (outside of maybe drafts in the userspace) however I do find it kinda inappropriate to redirect their talk page to a mainspace article as the talk page is the main way editors are able to communicate with each other and if redirects to somewhere else then the ability of communication is essentially lost. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I have been thinking. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 16:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User talk pages cannot redirect to mainspace. I removed the redirect and alerted them of this discussion, as did Ivanvector, but we've been reverted. Something very strange is going on.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• I edit-conflicted with Pawnkingthree leaving them a notice about this discussion, which is required. Per the gold message: "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." I also advised them not to redirect their talk page. I don't think redirecting their user page really matters but they need to have an accessible talk page.

  I also ec'd with Pawnkingthree here. If they've restored the redirect they should be pageblocked. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  I reverted again and left a stronger warning, which they responded to by replacing the entire page with a poop emoji. Mission accomplished? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  They've now redirected it to this discussion. I know them from WP:ITN/C and they are normally a constructive editor; I think a compromised account is a possiblity.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've removed the redirect again and replaced it with a notice that they are now blocked from the page. I don't see any evidence of a compromise in CU data, they've been using the same one or two devices and their geolocation has been very consistent over the past few months. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Gosh, I don't know how much I should thank you! I've been having difficulties studying due to the constant pinging from this wiki Now that I'm blocked I won't get distracted anymore. Really really thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael (talk • contribs) 17:42 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  Jeromi Mikhael: You've only been partially blocked as evidenced by your recent edits. Look at your settings. You can disable cross-wiki notifications if pings here are causing problems when working on other projects. You can't disable talk page web notifications locally, so when visiting the English wikipedia on the web you'd either need to log out or use a script. (You can disable e-mail or app talk page notifications if they're causing problems.)

  And no disrespect, but most of your recent notifications have been for recent activity from what I saw. If you're doing stuff here when you're supposed to be studying and people are posting on your talk page because of it, the obvious solution is to stop editing. Either ask for a self-imposed block or use a wikibreak enforcer, or just stop editing here yourself. If you need some gadgets for your reading experience, perhaps create an account you only use for reading. If you need to be able to edit other projects while only reading on en, well it's complicated.

  That said, as I mentioned below a lot of those notification/talk page posts have been ITN, DYK etc credits. I don't see why these need to be posted, so why don't you just ask those who keep posting them to stop? (From what I saw it's only a few.) And also maybe put a message on your user talk page asking editors not to post them. If that doesn't work, consider an edit notice. If you want the credits posted on but only to your archives pages well you can ask but IMO it's more onerous to demand editors post them somewhere specific so some editors may just not do so. Frankly if it's a temporary thing, an alternative is a polite request on your user talk page and perhaps in an edit notice, something like "If possible, please don't post on my talk page in the next month as I'm trying to study" (or however long your study period lasts) would also greatly reduce posts.

  My more general point would be that it looks like this has been going on for months, yet I didn't see where you ever asked for help. Instead you just did weird stuff like the redirecting to archive pages stuff, culminating in this. It seems to me while not eliminating the problem, there's a far chance it would have been substantially reduced if you asked for help.

  Nil Einne (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• (EC) It looks like the editor was first redirecting their talk page to monthly pages [67] which might arguably be acceptable although still quite likely to be confusing. The better option would be to simply move the talk page after each month. I'd also note if their were going to do this, it seems to be it's incumbent on them to be checking the archive pages and requests for pings are at best a courtesy. (I.E. If someone doesn't ping them it's still their responsibility to ensure they don't miss important talk page messages.) Anyway later the editor tried redirecting to their English Wikipedia talk page to their Indonesian Wikipedia user talk page [68] which doesn't work and isn't acceptable anyway IMO. (User page sure. User talk page no, since editors can't be expected to discuss something at some other project. At most they can ask users to consider posting on some other language talk page.) Eventually they gave up before eventually today doing that recently. I'm not sure but it looks like the editor was unhappy [69] [70] editors were still posting on their talk page, often with DYK, ITN etc credits rather than to their monthly archive pages and maybe the frustration boiled over. However I don't understand why they didn't just ask people top stop posting those credits point blank, perhaps with an edit notice if necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not going to ping them, since excessive pings are apparently what is bugging them, but this 31 hour partial block isn't going to solve their problem. If pings from en.wiki are annoying, they can turn off cross-wiki notifications, and all email pings from en.wiki, in Preferences-->Notifications. I'd also note that if this a usually productive editor who is stressed out, let's make a really strong attempt not to ping them here in this thread, even if they're handling this suboptimally. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Surely, if someone needed to send them a message, they could do so and remove the redirect. Was there an issue with that here? jp×g 19:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  Anyone posting here, sure. It's unreasonable to expect new editors to understand how to do such things, or even understand why they ended up on some weird article when they were attempting to contact another editor. And communication is a cornerstone of editing Wikipedia. The community has consistently rejected editors being able to impose unjustifiable burden on new editors contacting them with concerns. (For example. We allow semi-protection when there is sufficient history or other reason to show non-confirmed editors causing problems, but not just because an editor doesn't like dealing with newbies. And we've forcefully removed talk pages messages demanding no one contact them or they need to jump through unreasonable hoops to do so.) It's not like this is someone who stopped editing months ago. As I said above, it seems fine to request editors not post unnecessary messages like credits, and such requests should be respected, which would seem to go a long way to resolving this and I'm all for finding this and other solutions to stop such unwanted notifications. I'd note that it's not like the previous redirects seem to have sufficiently helped the situation with such credits etc. So the editor is effectively imposing an unfair burden on new editors who may have reasonable questions while not resolving the actual problem. Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict × 2) I'm not sure why, but saving over the redirect on the talk page seems to trigger an edit filter - it requires saving the edit twice. That's new to me, maybe admins don't trigger it. It does cause other unusual problems with tools: I'm not actually sure how bots behave when they encounter a redirect on a user talk page, but Twinkle sure didn't like it. After they redirected their talk page to this thread (after I had told them twice to stop) I blocked them, and Twinkle tried to save the block notice here and fortunately threw an error. The human-level functional problem with this is that any other user who clicks on their talk link would be redirected to a down-page subsection of an article, which conveniently hides the "redirected from" notice which lets you get back to the talk page. This user is also a sysop on idwiki (per SUL) and I know most projects don't have as rigorous standards for admins as we do (that's a dig on us, not other projects) I think we should still expect more mature behaviour from other projects' admins than responding to valid criticism with poop emojis.

I don't know if {{nobots}} would help? I'm not sure how DYK and ITN notices are generated. The advice to turn off cross-wiki notifications (or notifications at all) is good, but if it's just that they don't want notifications because of messages on their user talk, redirecting to a user talk subpage (e.g. User talk:Jeromi Mikhael/noping) would work. My alt's talk is redirected to my main (like lots of other users with alts do it) and I only get one ping for talk messages, not one for each account.

Here's another thing I didn't think of: if I parblock a user from their user talk page, but don't disable their talk page access, can they still post on their talk page? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

No I can't. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Surely the answer here is to move protect User talk:Jeromi Mikhael? Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

How would it prevent him from redirecting his talk page to other pages? Kleinpecan (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, misunderstood the situation. OK, let's try for an editing restriction instead.

"Jeromi Mikhael is prohibited from redirecting his user talk page (User talk:Jeromi Mikhael) to any other page on pain of an immediate indefinite block that cannot be appealed for two years". Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Minus the strange non-appealability clause, that's what practically is in action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• The user is back from their block today and has blanked their user and talk pages again as well as adding a DISPLAYTITLE which hides the page title. ToBeFree and I both removed that code prior to the block, but I don't feel strongly about it being restored again. Does anyone else see hiding the page title as a problem? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: Wikipedia:User_pages#Simulation_and_disruption_of_the_MediaWiki_interface would say such css hacks can be a problem, we typically give a bit of leeway on this to active, constructive, editors - but in this case it appears to be solely being done for disruption purposes. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  The main issue was the redirect; Jeromi Mikhael seems to understand that redirecting one's talk page to different pages is a kind of "red line". I've seen a lot of strange DISPLAYTITLE formatting on user pages and would ignore this case to avoid feeding the fire at the moment. We seem to have reached a situation that is agreeable to both sides: Jeromi Mikhael has their desired bit of eccentricity and the rest of the community has their desired functional communication venue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Problem is a lot of users could come to their talk page to engage in communication (you know, it's required around here) and think there's a problem with the talk page as it now no longer looked like any other talk page in the encyclopedia. I know some people play with the display a bit, but to completely remove it makes it look like the page is actually just broken and could be interpreted as any talk messages won't work. Canterbury Tail talk 17:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

With their current activity level and expression of stress, this is rather hypothetical. When it becomes an issue, e.g. because a new user asks for help elsewhere after failing to leave a message, we have a good reason for fixing it. At the moment, uh. It's practically a decision between "not caring enough" and "indef block", with not much in between. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

As an IP from the peanut gallery I just want ot say this is reminding me a bit of User:Centrx, a long term constructive editor who apparently got disillusioned with Wikipedia and decided to go out with bizarre disruptive behavior rather than simply retiring. Not saying I think the two accounts are at all related, but bringing up the Centrx situation as a precedent to something like this. 50.110.90.51 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Darkwarriorblake

I made a good faith edit of the Groundhog Day (film) page which User:Darkwarriorblake objected to. This: [71] This quickly escalated to the following language:

"Are you fucking stupid?"

"how are you so fucking stupid you don't understand that?"

"The access-date is for when you fucking last accessed the fucking website for fucks sake."

"How can you not comprehend such a basic fucking fact of editing and come here to tell ME how to fucking edit?!"

Link: [72] Second attempt at providing the correct diff: [73]

This level of incivility prompts me to go here straight away. There is no level of mediation left. The facts of the matter are no longer relevant, this kind of behavior cannot be accepted. CapnZapp (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It did not quickly escalate, you edit warred your content in to a Featured Article and when asked for an explanation were given one, then you ignored the explanation, re-added it, and said the explanation was insufficient, then came on my talk page again to tell me that I'm not allowed to undo your edits without opening a full discussion about it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They sure like the f word. (Apologies for my humor here) Although I don't think they used it quite enough.^[Humor], ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If there is one place humor is misplaced, surely it needs to be this place? Or are you trying to send the signal Wikipedia does not take abuse seriously? CapnZapp (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: If you want me to remove my comment I can. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: As I said if you don't think this comment should be here then I'm perfectly fine with deleting it, however unless someone asks me to remove it I'm going to keep it. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Since you ping me repeatedly, I will respond: Deleting your comments here serve no purpose and misses the point: for the future, please consider if ANI maybe isn't an appropriate place for levity? CapnZapp (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears that you added a second, unsubstantive source in the middle of the sentence that was synonymous with the one properly placed at the end - then edit-warred and demanded others defend why it isn't necessary (which it isn't). So far as content is concerned, you're treading dangerously close to a block. So far as Darkwarriorblake is concerned, I'd agree that he should have simply reported you. BOTTO _(T•C) 16:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a further look at your contributions beyond this little snafu on the Groundhog Day page. It looks like you're colliding with other editors in this fashion a bit more regularly than you let on - at least during the past month. I mean, after you started this discussion, you told Lordelliott that they accidentally reverted your contribution to Cher, rather than accepting that they did it deliberately, because your edit may not have been an improvement to the article. People here collaborate and discuss things to be reasonable - not merely for winning an argument. BOTTO _(T•C) 17:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to say a prayer and drink to world peace. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking this was from Scrooged for a minute, I don't know why. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not defending Darkwarriorblake's language, which was out of line. That said, WP:ONUS puts the burden on CapnZapp for including the reference, and the way they did it (mid-sentence, and bare), certainly didn't help. I see that Masem has included the ref, in a reasonable place, and actually filled out. CapnZapp, if you had responded to the revert by moving the ref, and actually filling it in, then this whole thing could have been avoided. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This report is completely and wholly about the unacceptable language. CapnZapp (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah no. When you open a thread at ANI, you can expect your own behavior to be examined, and it may under discussion as well. This happens often enough that we've got a write-up on it: WP:BOOMERANG.— Diannaa (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Your actions can be examined too. There's a good chance that adding a bare url to an FA will be reverted, especially by the principal writer of that FA. Going their talk page and lecturing them on "stealth undoing" and demanding that they "do not revert a change under the guise of "correcting it"" just inflamed the situation.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, bare URLs are still allowed. Also, I have been led to believe there exists no article ownership. Unless that has changed, I can't make anything out of your comment. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Allowed but undesirable. Next time just use a citation template. Editing a Featured Article requires extra care; see WP:FAOWN.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

So it's 78.26, the G-rated dude. We're treading water that's been well-trod. CapnZapp, it appears you really need to listen to your fellows. Darkwarriorblake, the first example given is most certainly uncivil, and the second is a direct personal attack that can't be excused. Please desist, if not apologize. Regarding the last two, those are not personal attackes, they are expressions of extreme frustration. Wikipedia is uncensored. However, "I think I'll diffuse an alredy-tense situation by inserting f-bombs into adversarial conversations" was never said rationally. This is a very different situation than explitives used as friendly banter between friends. So, can we close this without further acrimony, and perhaps be better going forward? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So he's been WP:Diffusing conflict? EEng 20:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't expect (or require) Darkwarriorblake to be suspended from this incident in isolation. I just needed to send the message that his behavior was unacceptable and that he heaped abuse over the wrong editor. I believe this mission has now been accomplished. Some other editor responses here, however, are frighteningly partial. While my hide is thick enough, is it really a good idea to allow an open discussion like this? I would have expected ANI participants to exercise restraint and treat ANI applicants/potential victims with twice the normal civility - but that is clearly not the case. While the number of responses meant solely to attack me, shut me up, and redirect attention away from the actual trangression, is very small, such input could be extremely uncomfortable for some other, thinner-skinned editor. There have been at least one comment here (not in this subthread) that come across as far more chilling and threatening than a bit of shouted profanity can ever be. But consider that a rhetorical question for the ANI regulars to ponder - my job here appears to be done. CapnZapp (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"While my hide is thick enough, is it really a good idea to allow an open discussion like this?" Most definitely. His reaction was radioactive and your lack of collaboration was unconstructive. I think this has been edified, however, so this thread should be closed. BOTTO _(T•C) 20:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@78.26: I do agree the the amount of f-bombs is a bit unnecessary and not a very good idea because of how tense the situation was already. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I am a passionate person who expresses myself with the art of "f". I'm fine to leave it, as long as there isn't any continuing edit wars and accusations when someone undoes the edit. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

F Art? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Just understand that, frankly, the second example is blockable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I am all for passion, and a few salty words never bother me, but Darkwarriorblake, I have to agree with 78.26 here. This is really over the top. You can be just as passionate while being 50% more civil and I think we'd all be happy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The idea that "censorship" has anything to do with whether it's okay to say "The access-date is for when you fucking last accessed the fucking website for fucks sake." is ludicrous. WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars, for god's sake. This sort of treatment of other editors is completely unacceptable, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of their edits. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

When it's the third time I've had to say it and the editor is saying I'm not allowed to undo the edits and I didn't explain what I just explained, it becomes frustrating quickly. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So should we understand from this response that in your opinion you did nothing wrong? Dumuzid (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you should understand that the situation was aggravated by the other editor not myself. I undid the edit, he asked for an explanation, I gave an explanation, the user proceeded to ignore the explanation and leave two separate discussions on my page explaining why I can't undo their edits without gathering support. The point is it wasn't 0-100. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

CapnZapp made this genius edit [74] in a FA. A bare url link, unformatted, and he did it again [75] and again [76], even when he was warned about it. And then he expects us to believe his conduct was right? This is disruptive editing on a great article. Reason enough to have him step aside from the article. His explanation was insufficient. I disagree with Darkwarriorblake's language, but it is somewhat understandable when CapnZapp ignored Wikipedia standards on a FA.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with this substantive analysis; I just think Darkwarriorblake was over the top even when the 'provocation' was taken in to account. I don't think any sanction should be levied against DWB, but I do think he should try to be better. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this, though I also support an informal warning for Darkwarriorblake. dudhhr_Contribs 21:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is about as WP:BOOMERANG-worthy as it gets, made all the more ironic by the fact that the boomerang is an Australian Aboriginal invention and the sort of language being complained about is common Australian workplace parlance. My neighbour uses that sort of language to describe his front lawn, without a hint of frustration. Racing here to get someone sanctioned for speaking fluent Australian as a cover for simply outrageous editing behaviour is absolutely block-worthy. And the disingenuous effort to refocus the discussion on the original (spurious) complaint shouldn't fool anyone. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • This comment is one of the more moronic ones I have read here. how are you so fucking stupid you don't understand that? is not common Australian workplace parlance. Yes the OP was wrong with their edits, but the response received was way over the top. I am a little concerned that neither editor seems to realise this and clear personal attacks are yet again being defended here. Aircorn (talk)
    • @Aircorn: it is, to the point where language like that has been rejected as a legally valid reason for workplace dismissal. But I digress (and appreciate the irony of being called a moron, which I am equally un-offended by). By all means, take action for the language if Wikipedia has devolved to that point. Or take action for the comment without the profanity (which is still a personal attack). But the original edits are far more serious, in my view, and the response(s) should be read in that context; as a frustrated response to unanswered disruption. We've become obsessed with punishing people for language and incivility that results from frustration at disruptive editing, without addressing said disruptive editing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Silafonso disruptive editing or WP:TWA broken?

Silafonso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has opened nearly a dozen blank edit requests at Help:Show preview, and their only other editing appears to be the same steps of WP:TWA over and over again. Is this user editing disruptively, or is there some possible way that TWA is leading this to happen? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: (Non-administrator comment) Not their fault, TWA is broken on steps that ask you to edit as they don't advance to the next step when you click edit source. Not sure if it's just because I"m using the New Wikitext editor or if this is an actual issue with TWA. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Although I can't explain the blank edit requests with that as TWA doesn't do anything with that. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm Blaze The Wolf is right and TWA doesn't work with the new wikitext editor. Since it's related to the visual editor (I believe) I'm not surprised. This doesn't seem to be Silafonso's problem since they made edits suggesting they are advancing. (Note if you look at the automated edits it's clear Silafonso isn't doing the same step, they were advancing.) If I had to guess, somehow Silafonso is ended up at Help:Show preview and since it's protected when they view source (which remember replaces the edit source button so is the button they are directed to use), they see the standard template with the box telling them it's protected and they need to make an edit request and the buttom for them to do so. And they follow through this which registered an edit for TWA so it proceeded. (If you're not aware of how the edit request system works for protected pages maybe log out or use private mode or a non logged in browser and try with some page like Help:Show preview. You don't have to submit to mostly understand. Alternatively if not an admin, it's similar for fully protected pages.) How they ended up at Help:Show preview, I don't know. AFAICT, TWA doesn't mention Show preview so I assume doesn't link to it, see also Wikipedia talk:TWA/Portal under the collapsed known bugs. I think Silafonso has finished TWA anyway so it's unlikely to continue. Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly looking at the history I think Silafonso would either needed to have ended up at Help:Show preview multiple times instead of User:Silafonso/TWA/Earth, or been switching between tabs or something. Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

One guess at what might have happened. When Silafonso was editing perhaps they kept clicking edit summary next to Briefly describe your changes in the edit box thinking it was the way to add an edit summary. That's a wikilink to Help:Edit summary. Maybe they then try to add an edit summary in the box displayed at help edit summary or maybe not. Either way they can't because it's a help box not an edit box. Oh well, they ignore that and click on publish changes. That doesn't work either (still a help box). They decide they need to click on show preview. That takes them to Help:Show preview. Still not working, they are confused they click on view source, it tells them they need to make an edit request, they click on the button, to make an edit request, finally publish changes works and it registers. I'm surprised it would keep happening but I guess if they never figured out how they went wrong i.e. clicking on edit summary, maybe they just kept repeating what was working. Nil Einne (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I appreciate the help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

One final thought, TWA requires you to make an edit to advance in those times when it tells you to. You can't just publish changes without actually modifying anything/making an edit. It does give you stuff to copy and paste but it's not otherwise automated in the editing part. And while it does sort of explain this early on you can't just publish changes without editing, I'm not sure a new editor will understand the problem as well as I did. Anyway since it loops if you publish changes without modifying i.e. if you don't make an edit and it mentions the edit summary thing, it's possible this helped compound Silafonso's confusion about what was going wrong if they were for whatever reason trying to publish without making changes. The edit request thing means they would finally ended the loop/advanced the script without typing/pasting since they made an edit, even if it was very far removed from what they were supposed to be doing. Nil Einne (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP at Coaster (commuter rail)

This article has been subject to months of disruptive editing adding unsourced trivia about the railroad's rolling stock, and the latest perpetrator is User:2603:8000:6443:108c:3:f6e5:c55e:a5cf who has ignored three warnings [77] to stop adding material without any sources. [78] [79] [80] They need a block, since nothing else will make them listen. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Almost certainly a sock of Workingepskeiskxkke, who was indeffed in August for this disruption. Given the lengthy history of disruptive IP editing on the article, semi-protection would be welcomed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I've requested it at RfPP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I blocked 2603:8000:6443:108c::/64 for block evasion. It looks like that was the only IP editor causing disruption so I don't think semi-protection is needed (yet). -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the IP, I hope this is the end of the disruption but this user has been persistent in the past. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits again

Earlier this year, I opened a discussion here about Vjmlhds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) incorrectly marking their edits minor, which they had done for years after another user first notified them not to do so. The consensus from that discussion was that people make mistakes and should be given the opportunity to learn from them, but based on these examples,[81][82][83][84][85] it seems Vjmlhds didn't take advantage of that opportunity. KyleJoan^talk 01:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Seriously - This is REALLY starting to look like WP:Hounding. It's like you're just watching my every move, taking notes, and looking for any excuse to start an ANI...is any thing pointed out REALLY ANI worthy? I am truly starting to think KyleJoan just has a personal vendetta against me. KJ, you need to stop, and you need to stop this now. What is your problem with me...seriously? What is it about my editing habits that compels you go to these extremes over things that aren't worthy of it. Please convince me this isn't just some personal issue you have with me, because quite honestly, you're the only one who has ever had an issue like this with me. This really is getting silly.Vjmlhds (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No personal issue on my end. It would be great, though, if you could stop misusing the minor edit box. As Colin M said in the previous discussion, this is more of a failure-to-communicate issue than anything else. KyleJoan^talk 04:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed something...you only came after me after I made an edit to the Kenny Omega article. It's like if you see me get anywhere near that article, the knives come out, and you go looking for blood. What is the endgame here? Why are you so quick to do ANIs? If it isn't personal, then why do you feel the need to study my contributions so intently? This really is getting into Barney Fife/Gomer Pyle "Citezen's Arrest" territory here. Quit hiding behind Wiki-speak, and answer the questions honestly. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I've also noticed that the other times you've come after me, it's after I made edits to Omega's article. You really are protective of that article, and it's like if I dare to touch "your baby", then you go into Ivan Drago mode, and "must break me". If that ain't WP:Own, I don't know what is. God's honest truth - I have more of a case against you for WP:Own and WP:Hounding then you do against me for anything I did, but unlike you, I'm not gonna make a federal case over it, because it just isn't worth it. I suggest you go back into your corner, and I'll go back in mine, because this is just not necessary. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do not use the minor tag when removing references and their supported text. It is also prudent to use edit summaries when taking such actions. CMD (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis If you're referencing the edit regarding Dolph Ziggler and Robert Roode in the List of WWE personnel article, that was because they were listed twice (in 2 different sections), and all I did was remove the duplicates. (They collectively got drafted to Raw, someone else put them on their new brand, but forgot to remove them from their old brand of SmackDown, which is where I came in) Thus I didn't think it needed a big spiel in the edit summary, as all it was was housekeeping, which I saw as a minor edit. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It takes less time to type "remove duplicates" in the edit summary field than it takes other editors to work backwards from the diff and figure out the intention behind your edit. Colin M (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Since you seem to have some difficulty in understanding what is and what is not a WP:MINOR edit your best option would be to not mark any of your edits as minor. MarnetteD|Talk 19:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the day, we're talking about an edit done at 11:45 p.m. in which the most egregious thing one could say about it was that out of absentmindedness/haste (or perhaps some combination thereof given the time of night) it was marked as minor when it perhaps should not have been if sticking to the pure letter of the law. Is that really worth an ANI? ANIs are for edit warring/vandalism/personal attacks/threats and true blue legit hardcore transgressions...not stuff like this which really is (pardon the pun) minor. As I stated earlier, I truly feel like one editor in particular is targeting me because I edited an article viewed as his "precious", and - to that editor - that is a sin that can't go unpunished. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that you're firmly defending that one diff when there are four other examples of misuse. In any case, you wrote: But for - the 4th time - I've now read WP:Minor, I know exactly what to do, and I'll make it a point to be more conscience of it, and we can all live happily ever after. Was this a lie or do you just not care about correcting this issue? KyleJoan^talk 00:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are you so interested in this? Those edits I didn't feel needed a big spiel in the edit summary, because I didn't think they were major edits. If something is a major edit, I always put a summary in, if it's a minor edit, I use the checkmark like it was designed to be used. The Ziggler/Roode thing I went into more detail over because that was the one specifically referenced by CMD, so the fair thing was to explain it. The others as I said I just viewed as minor, because I thought they fell within those parameters. I really am starting to think you just did this to give me a hard time about the Omega article. If someone truly had an issue with these edits, they would have addressed it with me right then and there, not wait days/weeks and after those articles had been edited multiple times over since I was there. If I never touched the Omega article, we wouldn't be here...tell me I'm wrong. I'm just gonna straight up say it...you're just doing this to harass me because I dared edit the Kenny Omega article, which you are uber protective of, and it's not just me....just about any time anybody edits that article, you are right in their back pocket reverting them (just look at the edit history). You don't want anybody touching your baby, and if they do, you go after them. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Minor edit or not, why would you not put something in an edit summary? All you had to do was write "removing duplicates" and it wouldn't have even mattered whether or not you indicated it as a minor edit. I can't stress this enough with you and I've said it for years: you do good work here, you're a net positive to the project, but when you make a mistake, you plant your feet firmly in the sand and refuse to budge. Do I think KyleJoan should have brought this to ANI? No. But it doesn't absolve you ether. Personally, I think an admin should invoke a two-way IBAN between the two of you. Kjscotte34 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

My whole issue was the ANI. KJ could have easily just put a note on my talk page saying "You forgot an edit summary" or something like that, and it would have been done. If I clicked something as minor that maybe I shouldn't have in late night haste, OK I'll own that...called a slip up - comes with being human. But what I don't appreciate is being dragged into an ANI and feeling as though I have to defend myself, because let's be real...you do ANIs in hopes of getting someone blocked because they did something over the top outrageous (edit warring/vandalism/personal attacks/threats/bringing up religion or sexuality/etc.) This wasn't that. A 2-way IBan would be fine with me, since I never interact with KJ anyway unless I'm forced to in situations like this where I have to defend myself, because why do you ANI someone unless you're looking for a block? And as I said before (and honestly believe to be true), this ANI was only done out of spite because I edited an article KJ has clear WP:Own issues about (Kenny Omega - just check the revision history), and the need was felt to "teach me a lesson". Vjmlhds (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and persistent adding fake info about broadcasting in Malaysia by User:Md Nur Hanif

I request global lock for User:Md Nur Hanif (talk) because he doing disruptive editing and persistent adding fake info about broadcasting in Malaysia. See details - 04:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Reliable External Links

Kamyar.d indefinitely blocked for spam / promotional editing by Star Mississippi. (non-admin closure) --JBL (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• avidemia.com: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com • Alexa

The removal of reliable sources happened to the following articles.

(1) A Course of Pure Mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I had added a website to the external links for this Wikipedia article. That source provides this book (A Course of Pure Mathematics) by G.I. Hardy in HTML format. The benefit of that source over the existing external links is that the newly added link contains HTML pages of the book, and can be read even on cellphones. No other external link provides HTML pages. That link was removed by MrOllie (talk · contribs).

(2) Calculus Made Easy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I had added a website to the external links for the article Calculus Made Easy. The added link provides that book in HTML format. MrOllie (talk · contribs) removed that link and decided to keep this source "http://calculusmadeeasy.org/" instead. The link that I have provided has two benefits over the latter: (1) It is a secured website (https) while "http://calculusmadeeasy.org/" is not secured. (2) Some notations are modernized (with a warning to the reader what the original notation was) for the purpose of readability of the book. For example, in today's books, nobody uses $\epsilon$ for Euler's number. Euler's number is universally denoted by e. The reader will be very confused when they see $\epsilon$ instead of e.

I had discussed these with MrOllie on his talk page but did not receive reasonable answers.

PS: My account was created back in 2011. avidemia.com is a free website and even has no ads. For the credentials of the creators of this website, someone can check https://avidemia.com/team in case there are any questions. Kamyar.d (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2021‎ (UTC)

Generally speaking, it is not advisable for people like yourself, whose edits are entirely focused on promoting a particular website, to draw administrative attention to themselves: see WP:LINKSPAM. --JBL (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. This is a single purpose editor who is annoyed that links to his site are removed while preexisting links to other sites are left alone. - MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

My first edit goes back to 2012. Why was the external link to "A course of pure mathematics" removed when there is no alternative to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamyar.d (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Your first four edits in 2012 look alright. There was then an eight-year hiatus; every single one of your edits since then, starting in 2020, have been either adding links to avidemia.com, edit warring to reinstate those links when they have been removed, or discussing the links with people who have removed them. That does indeed make you look a lot like a single-purpose account, regardless of when you registered this account. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on your user name and the page linked above, you are involved with the website in question, so there is a clear WP:COI in you adding links to this site. WP:LINKSPAM also cautions against excessive solicitation of others to to add links to your own site, which I think you are crossing by badgering everyone who disagrees with you. Spike 'em (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems you're promoting your website. We have links to the books in question, full versions, just not HTML versions. At the end of the day Wikipedia isn't a collection of useful links, and we only need a single link to the book whatever format as long as its accessible. Though I would be honest to say the HTML version is useful and much more useable even if it's not quite original format. Ultimately though since they appear to be links to a website you own and run, it's not appropriate for you to add them and you should also follow the guidelines in WP:COI. You should post suggestions as to adding the links to the talk pages of the relevant articles instead of adding them into the articles yourself. Canterbury Tail talk 15:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I think what happened here is against the spirit of Wikipedia to provide good and reliable information and perhaps external links. Look at the logic that MrOllie (talk · contribs) used to remove the links. First, he said the source is not reliable because they are not peer-reviwed. When I mentioned that I am talking about the HTML versions of two well-known books, he said the books are altered. When I made it clear that only one of them was slightly modernized, and only some confusing notations are changed with a note to warn the readers of the original notation, again he changed his logic (see his talk page). You are so concerned that the links that I added may promote a website that the involved editors completely forgot to check whether or not the external links add something to the content or not. The articles that I added the links to are not popular articles and I don't think that website received more than 10-20 page visits (not even user visits) per day from Wikipedia at max. This extra number of users even for a commercial website means nothing. The expense of keeping a free website is way way higher than some extra visits even there were google ads. Focus on what happened here and not my motives that you guess:

(1) A secured reference with modernized notations was removed in favor of an unsecured with the old fashion notations. For Calculus Made Easy

(2) No HTML version of the book by Hardy exists anywhere else on the internet (to the best of my knowledge). But the involved editor(s) preferred to deprive the Wikipedia users from a reliable source in fear of a website may receive very few extra visits. For a course of pure mathematics

I complained about these two issues, but for the other pages that I added and you keep bringing them up and accusing me of promoting a free website: Many of the external links for those Wikipedia articles were old and outdated. Some of them were to archive.org pages and many of them were to the pages created in early 2000 where equations were low-quality images and they were not updated for about 20 years. On the other hand, look at the link (Shell Method)that I added to Shell integration article and (Disk Method) to Disc Integation article. Those pages contain 3D figures that a reader can rotate, zoom in and out. Are the other external links (existing then) provide such beautiful and informative graphs? I think some of you may say that the 3D interactive figures are informative but the source is not reliable and that is OK, although there are still some not peer-reviewed external links to those Wikipedia articles (there were so many and now most of them are removed now). Again I have to mention that I did not complain and did not discuss the removal of those links with any editor. I complained just about the HTML versions of the books.

I think it's best if every editor focuses on the facts and what is useful versus not useful info or link instead of reading too much of other people's motives whom he/she has never seen or talked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamyar.d (talk • contribs)

• Regardless of what they were, it's clear Kamyar is now an SPA dedicated to the promotion of his website, and shows no indication of changing the behavior, so I have indeffed. Star Mississippi 16:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Refusal to debate

I added a comment to an article talk page, which I think was appropriate as per WP:TALK#SHARE. CorbieVreccan deleted my comment, which I think was against WP:TALKO (as I do object to that, and I don't think it fits any of the listed cases for removal.)

I tried to resolve this by discussing with CorbieVreccan, hoping to explain why my edits were in good faith and why I think this is okay as per WP:TALK - but they flatly refused to debate ("It's not a dispute." - "There is nothing to be debated." - "I'm not interested in debating this with you.").

Most of the communication is here (originally much of this was on CorbieVreccan's page, but they moved it to my page). - Some additional communication is here: out of abundance of caution, I went with the recommendation given in WP:CLEANHANDS and asked at Teahouse to make extra sure there wasn't some policy or guideline that I was inadvertently overlooking (without mentioning the dispute or the other party, just as recommended). Nevertheless, CorbieVreccan entered the thread and brought the dispute in anyway, accusing me of forum shopping (ironically, for doing the very thing recommended by guidelines).

During the communication, I was accused of using multiple IPs and a named account to circumvent policies, none of which is true. I would appreciate if an uninvolved admin could review this. I offer full cooperation to make things as transparent as possible.

What I know I did wrong: I did at first make an edit to the article which turned out not to meet policy, but I never contested the revert of that (that edit was still made in good faith, although I never had a real chance to explain that; I can explain to anyone interested). - Then, early on, I removed a "welcome" message from my page with an unfriendly comment; that was wrong of me. I regretted it soon afterwards; my very next edit was undoing that, admitting my wrongdoing, and offering an apology (which was never accepted, but I believe I did everything in my power to rectify this mistake). - Also, my final post was rather frustrated, and perhaps that was unnecessary; but this was already after CorbieVreccan explicitly refused to debate (hence the frustration), so I'm not sure if that had much of an effect on anything. Nevertheless, I am ready to apologize for the tone of that also.

Having tried and failed to resolve the dispute by discussion, I've examined other dispute resolution options (3O, DRN, RfC), but I don't think any of them are applicable, since I cannot show extensive talk page discussion (obviously, since the other party flatly refuses to debate), and also because the issue isn't one of article content, but potential WP:TALK violation, which I think is ultimately a conduct dispute, rather than a content dispute. I am also dismayed at what I perceive as being treated unfairly, despite my honest efforts to cooperate to resolve this, but in the end, I just want this resolved. - And if the outcome isn't in my favor, I am ready to accept that. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like you should follow CorbieVreccan's advice and read and follow WP:LOUTSOCK. --JBL (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

So you've been editing for 16 years [86] [87], are able to spit out acronyms like 3O, DRN, RfC, and also know stuff like CLEANHANDS and still think posts by random people on forums are RS? Good faith or not, adding a forum as an RS in an article is clearly not a good edit. This is basic policy and no experience editor should even need to think about it. So maybe stop harping on about your experience as it's apparently been in all the wrong areas. Anyway if after all these years, you've finally learnt that forums are not RS, what dispute do you actually want to discuss? Whether there needs to be an archive link to a non RS mentioned on a talk page is a dumb dispute. Personally I would just leave it be since I don't think there's any privacy or copyright violation by posting it even if it's an archive of a Google cache rather than a straight archive and the source itself seems useless for anything even for help finding other sources. But ultimately it doesn't matter and is not something worthy of ANI or any dispute resolution forum. Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not add the forum as RS. If you examine the page history, you'll see that the forum was already cited as a reference for a portion of the article, long before I came along. If you check my article edit, you'll see that I did two things: I added an archive to the expired reference (which was already there), and I added another citation from that reference. My fault was that I did not stop and think and realize - wait a minute, that forum reference shouldn't have been there in the first place. Yes, this was a fault on my part, and I never disputed that, but I'd like to clarify that this is not the same thing as adding a forum as RS. I simply failed to stop and consider the validity of the reference already in the article. Everyone can make a mistake, and this was not intentional - and as I'm saying, I never contested any of that. The dispute has never been about the edit to the article, it was about my comment on the talk page, to which, I believe, WP:RS or WP:V has never been relevant. I just don't think there is anything wrong with that comment, and I think I should be able to add it and not have it deleted. But CorbieVreccan seems intent on deleting it, giving bogus reasons. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

And of course I don't think this is worthy of ANI - that's why I tried (hard) to resolve it by discussion. Personally, I think CorbieVreccan's refusal to debate with an editor is a worse thing, considering their expected role here. But I'm not on a vendetta here, I just want this resolved at last. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably CorbieVreccan doesn't want to debate with you because you are long-winded, uninterested in absorbing what anyone else says to you, and dishonest (as can be easily verified by comparing your summary of the discussion to what actually transpired). --JBL (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think so. You're right, I am long-winded, I can't deny that. I don't think I'm uninterested in absorbing what people tell me; I'm hoping that maybe you'll see it differently in time. I believe there must be some misunderstanding - I didn't attempt to summarize or interpret the discussion. Originally I did, but that ended up being five pages long, and so I just deleted all of that to instead let people read through everything themselves and make their own assessment, without relying on my interpretation of it. Apparently you did do that, so I'm glad. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Simply put: you are not entitled to a debate. You've been provided answers for why your edits were rejected. There is no obligation on anyone's part to argue further. I suggest you take this as a learning experience and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Blu30Top Disruptive editing on Saturday Night Live (season 46)

Blu30Top has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing on this page. This user has repeatedly been warned in the last 24 hours by myself and at least one other editor to discuss the version of the content the user would prefer on the talk page. Those warnings have been repeatedly ignored by this user, who is unwilling to follow established Wikipedia policies on providing sources and established consensus. I respectfully request that administrative action be taken against this user unless he/she immediately explains his/her conduct, and why he/she refuses to discuss this and establish consensus on the matter in question. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence in this report and I don't see any discussion on either the article or user talk-page. (Ok that's not true, Blu30Top has begun a discussion on the article talk-page after this notice.) Nothing about their last five edits looks problematic. --JBL (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The ongoing problem at the various SNL topics is far too many violations of WP:No original research, especially lots of comparisons between several episodes and analysis across a great many episodes.[88][89] This was discussed at ANI: SNL NOR from Pontiac a week ago, resulting in blocked IPs from Pontiac, Michigan. Blu30Top has made a few unsourced edits[90] but mostly bases their edits on references, or at least stuff that can be easily confirmed in media reports. Edits such as these ones are problematic in the exact same fashion as the Pontiac IPs, so I would caution Blu30Top against further analysis of this sort, counting how many episodes someone has been in, noting who is first in some category, et cetera. Let's return that job to the media, and we can summarize the media for our readers. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This has been going on more than a year on SNL-related articles. User has been given at least eight warnings during that time, just got off a block for making unsourced edits, and has completely failed to try to communicate. Sadly, I think we've reached a point where the damage to Wikipedia (including wasted time by several editors who have tried to manage the problem) outweighs the benefits from the good edits. Sundayclose (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Error in annotated link

Don't know where to take this for resolution, so figured I'd start here. Saw this annotated link on the Corn Ranch page:

• List of rocket launch sites – Wikipedia list article

and had a WTLGB ("What the Let's go Brandon") moment. The linked page is a Wikipedia list article, not a "Wikimedia list article" whatever that is. I'd revert it if I knew how but don't, and it may a one-item thing, a closed discussion somewhere, or indicative of a larger labeling problem. Can an admin edit it back to 'Wikipedia list article', thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Annotated links show the short description of a page, and are too often added where they aren't necessary or helpful at all. In such cases, they can be changed to a regular link without any loss of information. Specifically for the "Wikimedia list article" stuff, this is one of the more ugly remnants of the mass copying of Wikidata descriptions to enwiki. In nearly all cases, such descriptions for lists can best be removed from the enwiki article, as they add nothing of value and are only confusing. Fram (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• The text "Wikimedia list article" appears on more than 15,000 pages[91], either as the short description or through an annotated link. "Wikipedia list article", which is only marginally better, appears on more than 60,000 pages[92].
• A typical example: List of cheeses#See also, which through annotated links produces three more or less good descriptions, and 22 useless "Wikipedia list articles" ones. A nice cleanup project! Fram (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, I know that and have edited many of these annotated list redundancies, but the change is to the wording. It used to be "Wikipedia list article" and now says "Wikimedia...", so a universal edit has been done somewhere and should be changed. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• No, both versions always existed, but the Wikipedia one is more common than the Wikimedia one. Fram (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• E.g. here from mid-2019. Fram (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• The point is that for accuracy the 'Wikimedia' language should be changed at its source to 'Wikipedia' (or better yet the redundant language removed entirely, as 'List of...' is obviously a list). A Wikimedia/Wikipedia issue. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat in Criticism of Tesla, Inc. page history

An IP user attempted to add language to Criticism of Tesla, Inc. and then stated the following as their reasoning: "Kept you from getting sued for falsely suggesting that the carges leveled are all true. If the disclosure is reworded, that's fine if removed and criticisms put forward as truth with no counter, I will refer the issue to the Tesla legal department. If it is legal, then all is well." Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.189.117.145 QRep2020 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Although you have not notified the user of this thread, I blocked them for a week for an unambiguous legal threat.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sir, we need to exchange information, there's been an accident. El_C 00:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Albaredd file a lawsuit againt me and an another user

INDEFFED

Sadly, there's no {{Burma-shave-notice}} for legal threats. :( Blocked by The Anome dudhhr_Contribs 16:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I've put Levivich on the case. EEng

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

---

as you can see (using an online translator does the job) here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PedroPistolas the user filed a lawsuit against me and another user, an admin on italian wikipedia. The crime is to enforce wikipedia guidelines and prevent spam. He has already been banned from italian wikipedia

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/Albaredd

--PedroPistolas (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Machine translation of the comment posted in this diff reads "Hi PP, I let you know that this morning I filed a complaint with the Police both for you (or rather whoever is behind it) and for your Administrator." This seems like a clear case of WP:LEGALTHREAT to me. -- The Anome (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I've now blocked User:Albaredd. -- The Anome (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

PUOI DIRLO ALLA POLIZIA DELLA MALEFATTO
O MANDA UNA MINACCIA DAL TA AVVOCATO
O PRESENTARE DENUNCIA CON CHIUNQUE AFFATTO
MA MEGLIO STAI BONACCIA O SARAI BLOCCATO
Burma-Shave

- Levivich 00:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Burma-Shave-a EEng 02:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Wojak6 urgently needs to be blocked due to Uncivilized language and continued destructive editing

Wojak6 has continued his destructive editing habits of content removal from articles without providing rationales and also not providing edit summaries for most articles he edits. Also uses uncivilized language in some articles such as "great lakes bantu languages like Hema are spoken in the DRC so i dont know why they removed it. i also provided a peer reviewed historical book. Nyanza cushites is biased towards his own personal views against Bantu languages. seems to desire to be a cushite. They're long extinct in the Nyanza area unnfortunately for him. lol" on the greatlakes Bantu languages. This seems an attack directed to an editor. It is not clear why Wojak6 included this in his summary as it does not seem to make sense. The attacked editor does not seem to have removed the Hema language other than reversing the article to an earlier form which was later reversed by Wojak6 and there were several other edits by Wojak6 after the reversion hence the attack does not seem to make sense. The editor seems to make negative comments about a group of people that is the Nyanza cushites claiming they are long extinct. The editor clearly shows his hatred towards an editor and a group of people that is the Nyanza cushites. There is also unexplained deletion of content from articles such as Luhya people, Kiga people, and luo people and also unexplained addition of content to articles. The editors by Wojak6 need to be reviewed and possibly reversed because the editor simply vandalizes articles or edits them destructively. This editor needs to be blocked urgently. His edits are simply unhelpful to articles and he mostly criticizes most articles and never provides solutions.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanza Cushitic: Why did you not notify Wojak6 that you filed this report? —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: the user is already tagged in the report and should get a notification about it. Is that right?Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, please provide some specific edits where these problems occurred. I'm not seeing them in looking at the user's contributions. —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: the user has deleted content from sections of the Luhya people, Kiga people and luo people articles without providing summary for removal of such content on edits from October 12. I can see that on the user's contributions. how comes you can't? The user also does not provide edit summaries for a majority of his edits. The editor also used uncivilized language on one of his edit summaries on the greatlakes bantu languages. The user states that,...."great lakes bantu languages like Hema are spoken in the DRC so i dont know why they removed it. i also provided a peer reviewed historical book. Nyanza cushites is biased towards his own personal views against Bantu languages. seems to desire to be a cushite. They're long extinct in the Nyanza area unnfortunately for him. lol"....this is an edit from October 11 2021 at 12:43. if you also review most of the other edits by the user you will notice that he mostly never leaves edit summaries for a majority of articles and he normally deletes content from some of the articles without providing reasons for doing so. The editor mostly criticizes articles and does not provide solutions. The editor also interferes with content of articles such as the Niger-Congo languages which he mostly edits like creating non-existent language families some of which have been reversed. The editor's editing habits are simply destructive and unhelpful to articles. The editor has continually ignored feedback from other editors on his talk page regarding his editing habits and continued doing destructive editing of articles.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanza Cushitic: Failure to leave an edit summary does not make an edit vandalism. I'm not seeing clear evidence that their edits are disruptive. I'm also not sure which is worse: their non-/ limited use of article talk pages or some of the messages you have left.[93][94][95] —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: You have only mentioned part of the report. What about the edits on the greatlakes Bantu languages where the user states that ....""great lakes bantu languages like Hema are spoken in the DRC so i dont know why they removed it. i also provided a peer reviewed historical book. Nyanza cushites is biased towards his own personal views against Bantu languages. seems to desire to be a cushite. They're long extinct in the Nyanza area unnfortunately for him. lol".... on one of his edit summaries. is that acceptable language? The user has basically intimidated me and also intimidated a group of people as long extinct. To add onto that it is not clear why that was included an edit summary that is about Greatlakes Bantu languages. what about the removal of content from the luhya, Kiga and Luo peoples articles without clear explanations. Isn't that vandalism and distructive editing? is it okay for the editor to continue editing articles the way he does without living summaries? I imagine the editor has access to his article talk pages since he frequently edits many wikipedia articles. there is no way he can have limited use of his own talk page. there are feedback on his talk page about his editing habits and since he has continued doing some of the things he is being told on his talk page, then he must be ignoring the feedback. There is nowhere on this report is the Kisii people article. so how come you are suddenly talking about it? The editor has also made some inputs on there which I replied to. you have not even addressed the articles reported on the report. you seem to be defending the editor rather than solving the reported issues. what is your stand? should the editor continue editing articles including removal and addition of content without providing summaries? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanza Cushitic: That particular edit summary is not good practice, but I don't see anything that justifies more than a warning about personal attacks at this time, which I just left.[96] —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: thank you for doing that it is needed. Maybe the editor will pay attention to the warning. Also you should leave a warning about editor's tendency not to leave edit summaries for most articles. There is already a lot of feedback from other editors regarding lack of edit summaries for most articles he edits. That will help the editor pay attention to leaving edit summaries because they are critical to help other editors understand rationales for changes made on articles.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by two users at Talk:StandWithUs

OzMulik and Norelc19, both accounts with very few edits, have been engaging in tendentious editing over several months at Talk:StandWithUs. This editing is largely centered around lobbying for the characterization of the group as right-wing to be removed. This is baseless, because the group is defined as right-wing and pro-Israel by various reliable sources, as has been explained on the talk page – but (and this is the core of the issue) they don't seem to have heard that. Diffs below.

OzMulik: Initially requested removal of the "right-wing" characterization in February, using unsuitable sources to support the request [97]. Began a section with the same goal in March, arguing that the source used to support the characterization was biased and unusable [98]. The source was eventually changed. OzMulik then supported a suggestion that the article be "deleted due to misinformation" and provided more unsuitable sources to support their claim that StandWithUs is a nonpartisan organization [99]. In July, OzMulik again commented "Please remove right wing in lead, StandWithUs is non partisan" [100]. They again said today "StandWithUs is not left nor right wing. They are a non-partisan organization" [101]. In addition to the clear IDHT going on here, they consistently fail to follow norms for talk page collaboration and do not sign comments despite having been asked to do so in May. Competence is required, no?

Norelc19: In May, created the "Delete article due to misinformation" section mentioned above as an edit request [102]. Went on to make more short unsupported (and unsigned) comments in that section including "Please remove "right wing" in lead" [103] as well as this. In August, Norelc19 again commented "Please remove "right wing" mention in lead. Stand With Us is an international non-partisan Israel education organization that combats antisemitism" [104]. Early this month, they again said "Please remove "right wing" mention in intro" and suggested that it should be removed because the author of one of various sources used to support it has been fired after being accused of antisemitic comments [105], and continued to argue for its removal [106].

Not represented in these diffs are the group of several editors who have worked to explain the issues with the requests by these two editors and several IPs, and have sadly been unheard. Some form of outside intervention seems to be needed here. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: In addition to OzMulik and Norelc19, I've notified Nableezy, Selfstudier, Freelance-frank, Huldra and ScottishFinnishRadish since they are the "several editors" I referred to above who have interacted with the two aforementioned users. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, the elephant in the room: There has been consistent off-wiki campaign these last months for removig the "right-wing" label from the StandWithUs-article; especially one noxious blogger has been active supporting it. (I will not link to the blog; as the blogger also (attempts to) WP:DOX various Wikipedians who isn't pro-Israeli enough (according to the blogger). Anyone wanting the link, can email me.), Also, see my edit on Talk:StandWithUs, at 20:39, 22 July 2021. "WP:MEAT" is a relevent policy here, me thinks, Huldra (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I wish I didn't know what blogger you're referring to, Huldra... In that case, maybe ECP is warranted for the talk page as well as the article itself, which is already protected at that level? The ArbCom remedy for the IP topic area says putting a blue lock on the talk page is permissible on talk pages where disruption occurs. There's definitely disruption occurring here. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That would seem to explain this removed comment. That user's contribution patterns are interesting, to say the least. clpo13_(talk) 23:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Clpo13, I don't want to veer too far off topic, but this sudden return to editing by Alaskan wildlife fan after more than 6 months of inactivity definitely seems strange. I'm not familiar at all with WP:SPI – do you think one would be appropriate here? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s actually been brought up before. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive#16 March 2021. There’s probably not enough evidence at this time to bring it up again, though. clpo13_(talk) 04:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment Seems to me like content dispute --Shrike (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, this issue is absolutely related to a content dispute, but this report isn't about the dispute. I'm not asking for an admin to say whether SWU should be described as "right-wing", but for a response to the tendentious editing behavior by these two editors specifically. I hope that's clear from my initial post? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any signs WP:TE they didn't make any edits on the page itself.Yes the make the request several time but it doesn't rise to disruption level --04:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Iirc, this all started toward the end of last year and since then a group of non ecp editors, including the two mentioned here, have persistently requested the removal of the "right wing" designator for SWU even though this is well sourced and even though discussion after discussion reaches the conclusion that it should remain, WP:IDHT is an understatement.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Intimidation and Insulting me on the Norwich pages

Filer has ceased responding here, and no one else sees any evidence of improper behavior. (non-admin closure) --JBL (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

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

---

I think there is intimidation and abuse going on towards me on the Norwich and Talk:Norwich pages. All over a collage with two editors calling it "Depressing" and "Mediocre at most". Also one editor got my Username wrong and are picking issues over a bunch of photos which quite frankly in the previous collage were badly zoomed in and badly edited ratioed. But of course I'm in the wrong not them I guess. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC) DragonofBatley (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Goldengnomee has commented in the edit summary "the old collage was so much better, i'm not even from norwich, but i was suprised to see it got and replaced by something so depressing". And an anon commented something similar. Not just that but also on the talk pages I have seen the following comments.

@Menacinghat: commented

" I think the old photos used on the other language Wikipedia pages for Norwich are better and the new photos uploaded by Dragonofbaitley are grey and mediocre-looking. The old photos were bright and close-up which meant you didn't have to open the image, while the new ones are zoomed out and largely taken in poor weather.

Thoughts?

The collage made by Deu is far superior."

So they basically are saying Superior as in better and yours DragonofBaitley which they called me is crap.

So these editors and anon have issues whereas at least one editor on there is decent enough to disagree in a professional manor.

These two cannot it seems one can't even get my username right. I admit my outburst on there has likely been seen as bad but when your being criticized for no apparent reason other then over a few photos in a collage. It's understandable if you feel intimidated and insulted even bullied and vulnerable.

DragonofBatley (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is intimidating or insulting you, but they are simply giving their opinion about which image is better, which, when it comes to images where we allow (even encourage) original research, is all we can go by. The author of the image you replaced could just as well say that you are the one doing the intimidating and insulting by claiming that your image is better. And the user name thing is just a mistake that anyone could make. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I never claimed mine to be better. I simply said you can see the castle and cathedrals better as theirs was too close to them and badly done. Didn't mean to say mine was better because mine isn't but theirs is not. Also there is insulting going on there Phil with use of words like Superior, Depressing and Mediocre at best. So those terms which as opinions are okay to say and be seen as important to make a change to a photo? also I never called the other one crap or bad. I happened to find seeing the castle and cathedrals more clearer essential then a small part of each. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

And other people disagreed with you. Talk to them rather than claiming that a minor difference of opinion is intimidating or insulting. It is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

So calling someone's work "Crap or rubbish" is fine. But not the editors contributions? Maybe you don't understand that I feel intimidated because I have autism. And others opinions are not opinions. They are using them to change the lead photo of Norwich too so that's not a different opinion. That's enforcing their opinion in the process and of course it's insulting to me to have my username mispell. If someone mispell your whole name you'd be annoyed. I know others would DragonofBatley (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I see neither insult nor intimidation in the history there. People (you included) are giving their opinions of the photos. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Yes, someone did misspell your name. With a complete dearth of other evidence suggesting bad faith, I am willing to WP:AGF, and I would urge you to do the same. You don't have the 'right' to get your own way, but you do have the 'right' to be treated civilly. It looks to me as though you have been. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Has anyone called your work "Crap or rubbish"? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but I can't see such a description. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing other than collegial discussion taking place on the talk pages there, and nothing too out of place in the edit summaries either. The absolute worst it gets is someone describing the photos of gloomy (they are gloomy) and a mention that the selection is mediocre which is an opinion and perfectly allowed. There are no attacks going around, there was one minor misspelling of a username which looks like a genuine mistake, and everything else is civilised discussion. OP is reading too much into things and taking it way too personally, as there are no personal attacks or even personal criticism going on there just some genuine comments on the choice of images. Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

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

South al-Mutlaa article deleted by User:Scope creep without following the Wikipedia deletion policy and due process for article deletion

Hello Wikipedia administrators and editors. As we all know, Wikipdia has a range of rules and guidelines regarding article deletion. There is a specific process that must be followed by all Wikipedia editors. Unfortunately, the user:Scope creep has ignored the due process and policy by quickly deleting the South al-Mutlaa page himself and then moving it to the draftspace. The AfC draftspace move is contested. In September 2021, the AfC draftspace move was contested; accordingly, the established reviewer user:JalenFolf moved the article back to the mainspace. The user: Scope creep seems to have a long history of ignoring Wikipedia policy and he was previously blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please help restore the South al-Mutlaa article to the mainspace because its deletion and AfC move is contested and this user:Scope creep (user talk: Scope creep) is not following the Wikipedia policy for article deletion. This user did not even bother to discuss the deletion in the article's talk page nor did he bother to discuss the AfC draftspace move (which is contested). There is nothing promotional about the article nor is there any evidence of COI; the user: Scope creep has failed to provide evidence to back up his allegations. Moreover, he has failed to discuss his concerns in the article's respective talk page. 10:07 PM (UTC), 13 October 2021 2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5 (User talk: 2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5)

It is not deleted. It is in draft, where you can work on it there. The article was reviewed as part of NPP and turned back into a redirect as it is promo and POV article with many many issues, a brochure article. This editor is a UPE. scope_creep^Talk 22:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:DRAFT#Objections the thing to do if a move to draft space is contested is to nominate the article for deletion, not to unilaterally move it back to draft space. I'm getting rather tired of saying this every time I see such a problem caused by the existence of draft space, but we would be much better off following the original concept of a wiki, which is that articles should be developed in main space where everyone can see them, and deleted if they don't follow policies and guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is true. Thank you very much User: Phil Bridger. 2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5 (User talk: 2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5) 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This is not the first time Scope has thrown around unfounded claims that someone is a UPE/COI editor. Just last month they incorrectly took me to WP:COIN over a clear content dispute matter. ––FormalDude talk 22:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Same here about two weeks ago, although I wasn't actually taken to WP:COIN, I was just baselessly accused of UPE. They also don't seem to be familiar with deletion policies. A unilateral WP:BLAR or draftification is essentially the same as a WP:PROD; if someone challenges it, you do not revert them, you nominate the article at AfD. This is made explicitly clear at WP:ATD-R and WP:DRAFTOBJECT. scope_creep does not understand that, and simply reverts when challenged. I question why they have NPP rights when they aren't familiar with probably the single most important policies for a new page patroller to know. Mlb96 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• I may also see a clear misunderstanding of notability guidelines here, from also looking at the comment history and the approaching consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saxsquatch. Is it worth trying for a CBAN proposal here? Jalen Folf (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: scope_creep says they draftified the page as part of NPP. Presumably they followed Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Drafts, which does not contain WP:DRAFTOBJECT. I suggest the solution is probably to add WP:DRAFTOBJECT to "New pages patrol#Drafts". TSventon (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I would think that someone shouldn’t be draftifying articles if they haven’t read WP:DRAFT. Mlb96 (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Non-admin comment: it's rather a pity that when User:MrsSnoozyTurtle first moved this to draft space as part of the review process, no one addressed her legitimate concerns through calm discussion on the article's talk-page, but instead everyone plunged into a move-war and a lot of fighting. Although technically AfD might have been the right venue after the article was moved back to main space, it's still not the best venue (and here definitely isn't) because AfD tends to focus on delete/keep, and often gets emotive. In this case, the subject is probably notable, but the article has very real problems that need sorting out, so if User:Scope creep had done the right thing and taken it to AfD, we'd all be complaining that "AfD isn't clean-up", and quite possibly making critical comments about the good faith of the nomination. Elemimele (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Afd no longer works, except for the most extreme cases, even though this is a classic example of a paid for article. It is stoked with socks from PR agencies. This article is sourced from PR. The editor could have worked in draft for a couple of days, fixed it with help from myself and then moved it to mainspace after a quick review by myself, a couple of days at most, as happens numerous times by myself and other Afc editors, every day. Another editor user:Bidoon who arrived at 1.59 on the 14th October 2021 moved it back to mainspace, which is indicative a paid outfit, an PR agency, wanting it there. The whole thing is PR effort. I have left a note on his page to say his name is mentioned. AFC/NPP have increased the quality of articles on wikipedia immeasurably since it has have been created. People who create articles, value Afc/NPP. No publishing house should would accept such a approach to publish half finished articles and offer them to the reader in 2021, most of it from corporate land and wee shouldn't either. I've been doing NPP since is started in 2008 and have had no complaints except from those whose articles I sent to Afd or comment on, or those that end up on the noticeboard. Most editors, those who are in earnest and looking to improve their article, know they will get extensive help to improve it. scope_creep^Talk 11:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfounded claims by User:Scope creep. As for the non-admin comment by Elemimele: This is the article South al-Mutlaa can you elaborate what "very serious problems" are in this article? Both users (Snoozy and Scope) have been reported and warned so many times against this type of behaviour (check their talk pages and block logs). They do not assume good faith and automatically accuse editors of COI without providing a single shred of evidence to substantiate their unfounded claims. Apparently, volunteers interested in editing Wikipedia are all COI according to them. This is offensive and defamatory on so many levels. These editors should not be allowed to unilaterally overrule Wikipedia policy without going through the proper due process. As User:JalenFolf, Mlb96, and User:FormalDude rightfully pointed out, User:Scope creep seems to misunderstand notability guidelines, regularly falsely accuses people of COI/UPE, and he also misunderstands draftify and article deletion guidelines. Also, it is interesting that User:Scope creep is accusing me of being a "paid stock [account]" I highly recommend that you do IP address sock puppet investigation because these are unfounded allegations. Where is the PR in South al-Mutlaa? Where are the PR articles? What evidence do you have to back up these strong allegations? Please provide evidence instead of just throwing accusations around and assuming the worst in people. There is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits volunteers from editing articles they're interested in and there is no policy that prohibits people from making edits without logging-in. AfD is the proper due process, not one or two people overriding established Wikipedia policy because of their personal opinions and unfounded accusations against me (I repeat: You should start a sock puppet investigation on me). User: Scope creep is always falsely accusing people of UPE/COI. Oh yeah, literally everybody on Wikipedia is 'paid to edit articles' according to User:Scope creep. Please look at his talk page, contributions page and block-log. Very colourful. Why do 1-2 people get to override established Wikipedia policy? Why not follow the original concept of Wiki as Phil Bridger rightfully pointed out. Bidoon (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bidoon: I don't want to make this into a content dispute, and I'm not taking sides on this, but the issues are those in the multiple-issues box at the top: the references are almost all routine business press-release stuff that can be summarised as "We are proud to be spending/receiving lots of cash for this major building project", or primary, and the tone of the writing is currently rather advertisement-like (it would be better to state baldly how much has been constructed, not to speak positively of how well the construction companies have done to remain on schedule despite Covid). MrsSnoozyTurtle is an experienced article reviewer, and raised concerns in good faith on draftifying; I see the merit in them; my statement (above) is that to do the article justice, those concerns should have been addressed on the talk page. I'm not defending or attacking any individual editor: I'm just saying that collectively, friendly discussion would have led to a better article. Elemimele (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying and raising valid concerns. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Yes it is definitely true that collectively a friendly discussion would have led to a better article. I am going to reverse the main space move if that's okay with everyone. Bidoon (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried reversing the initial move and couldn't. Is it possible for a user here move the page back to the draftspace because Elemimele has raised valid concerns about the quality of the references in the article. However IMO, I don't think that we will find references of better quality even if moved to AfC so I propose the deletion of South al-Mutlaa because draftifying it won't help in the long-run (the references will stay the same). There aren't any suitable references online (currently). It's all construction firms, PR releases in UAE-based online newspapers, and Kuwait government news agencies. As Elemimele rightfully pointed out, Wikipedia articles should have suitable references. The current shortage of high quality references necessitates its deletion IMO not draftification. Perhaps in 2025 when the project officially finishes construction we can re-create the article because this city will have an actual population living in it and better-quality references. Bidoon (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not necessary to go for all-out deletion yet, it might be possible to trim it down to a few of the more reliable references and keep the text neutral. Obviously it's risky to guess what's going to happen, but this is clearly a very large building project (probably already notable) and is highly likely to become a significant city, so there will be an article sooner or later. Maybe with trimming, the current article will act as a seed that will grow over coming years. @Bidoon is right that once the city has an actual population, it will have news and events, culture and people. Can I suggest discussion on the article's fate should now move to its talk page (unless someone particularly wants to nominate it for AfD and do the process that way, which is also fine)? Elemimele (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks Elemimele that's a good idea. I started a new section at its talk page for continuing the discussion on its fate. Bidoon (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this particular article is the subject of UPE or not, but a word of advice, @Scope creep: accusing an editor of UPE is not a light accusation. I will readily admit that I dislike you, and the reason I dislike you is the UPE accusation you made against me. It pissed me the fuck off, and it will piss off any good faith editor who receives the same accusation. If you continue throwing it around as casually as you have been, you're going to make a lot more enemies than just myself. Mlb96 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Having another go at me. No it doesn't piss off good faith editors. All good faith editors, 95%+ know what UPE and paid eding is, before they even come on Wikipedia. It takes about six seconds to either say, no I'm not been paid. Coolio, that great. Thanks, or Coolio, you will need to undergo disclosure per WP:PAID. Thats cool. Thanks. That is it. That is the extent of a good faith transaction and the vast majority of transactions are like that. That is the nature of it. Your transaction was different because you went off the deep end, which I found really odd and your articles are chock full of PR. You said your a fan, fair enough, I accept that. I've been working in NPP/Afc and the Coin noticeboard for 10 years and the spam noticeboard for 4 years. I don't throw accusations of UPE around and I've never accused anybody of being a UPE, unless I'm absolutely sure. Experience tells. It takes roughly 3 years to learn to differentiate between an editor who is in earnest and those want to subvert or game wikipedia. At start of the process, I was like anybody else. I didn't believe it. Slowly by instruction by other editors, admins, the evidence sank in, over years. It takes times, by like everything else it takes time. It should be like this. I shouldn't be here. There should no paid on Wikipedia. Probably the best project for humanity since the enlightenment is being subverted for want of a technical solution that can stop a particular sub-group coming in. It ruining the place, the vision, the idea. We are owned by corporate land. In the last 10 years, they organised a complete industry with their nomenclature, they own conferences, they're own ideals, at our expense. scope_creep^Talk 17:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This is bullshit : at least 3 editors in this conversation have said you accused them of UPE without you providing any proof. Either put-up or shut-up. Spike 'em (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, those editors making the accusation need to prove that they were accused of being UPEs and not just make the accusation. At this point there's a lot of he said, she said being thrown around. Diffs or it didn't happen. Canterbury Tail talk

@Canterbury Tail: Another user and I have already provided diffs of Scope making unfounded UPE/COI claims here and here. ––FormalDude talk 20:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The first link you provide seems perfectly reasonable given the edits but yes could be open for interpretation, it's easy to see it that way though. (Incidentally the link doesn’t work properly for some reason so it’s not apparent what it is we were to look at.) And the second one is not an accusation but the wording of a standard and community agreed upon template that is perfectly normal to place on a users talk page in these circumstances. Canterbury Tail talk 21:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This link should work better: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_177#Milt's Stop & Eat. ––FormalDude talk 06:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't seen Scope Creep accuse anyone of UPE here. This is not an accusation, it simply says their edits look like they might be a conflict of interest. Maybe because it's a template it feels like an accusation - if someone asked me "hey, do you have a COI with so-and-so", I wouldn't be offended at all to answer that question. Scope Creep is a bit more enthusiastic to move articles to draft-space than I am - and I'd suggest they don't move-war and instead take take the article to AfD - but I don't think that in general, they're being unreasonably strict. They do a lot of good work to keep a lot of UPE out, work that needs to be done, and work that is inherently not perfect. We should err on the side of protecting against UPE, and I view "asking if someone is a UPE by using a template" as a pretty low cost to do so. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I would agree that the fact that it was a template made it seem less like a question and more like an accusation. It's not like my reaction was unreasonable; enough people have reacted in a similar way that an entire essay was written on the subject. Mlb96 (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mlb96, I hate to be that party pooper but yeah! that’s why it’s just that; “an essay”. Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Im not sure I understand why this is being blown out of proportion, following the title of this thread then I believe scope creep by now has learnt not to re-draftify articles. Furthermore I’m in agreement with Elli, If it’s because they “accuse people of undisclosed paid editing without evidence” then that is a false narrative as the {{UPE}} tag is a question and not an accusation. If that is what all this is about then this thread should be closed as we would be making arguments on a horribly wrong premise. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Considering both user:2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5 and user:Bidoon have been blocked, there is no need to keep this open. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism at Queen of England

I spotted some vandalism and began looking back to see if I could spot a last good version. I couldn't find one. This seems to be a target page for schoolchildren or something going back months (at least). The normal vandalism reporting pages don't seem to cover this. Perhaps an admin could semi-protect the page for a bit? --Pete (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Maybe 1 good edit in a year. WP:Rfpp probably better place to ask for indefinite protection Slywriter (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The latest burst of vandalism does not seem to be typical of the history. Alexf has semiprotected the article for a week, which seems right to me. Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC).

Edit warring and potential sockpuppetry on multiple articles.

This is my first ANI post, so apologies for any mistakes. I noticed that a couple of IPs were making identical edits to articles about subsidiaries of a company called Harman International (Harman Becker Automotive Systems, AMX LLC, Soundcraft, Lexicon (company), Crown International, Dbx (company), Revel Audio, A&R Cambridge Ltd, Infinity Systems, and Bang & Olufsen), removing mention that said company is itself a subsidiary of Samsung. As I didn't see any reason as to why that might be undue information (It's only a sentence and that seems like information someone researching the company might want to know), I reverted these per WP:BRD. These edits were changed back. I decided to revert them again, start a discussion on the talk page of the parent company's article (As I couldn't think of another place to put it), and notify all involved IPs of the discussion. These edits were simply reverted by a new IP, with my discussion not touched at all. I don't like escalating situations, but considering that this user (or users) have shown that they have no intention of resolving this dispute with discussion, I don't know what else to do but bring it here. For full disclosure, ignorant of the fact that IP only SPIs aren't allowed, I started an SPI investigation about this, which was swiftly deleted. If any of my actions aren't the right way to do things and I have mishandled this or made any mistakes in any way, I will take full accountability for my actions and accept any resulting consequences.

The IPs are:

1.38.221.164 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

2402:3A80:186E:C69:CC27:9764:9E81:C106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

1.38.221.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

2402:3A80:186E:C69:0:48:223B:E01 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I'm not sure what else I can do here, I want to get consensus for this, but my talk page discussion on this matter wasn't touched at all, and I don't want to make any more edits before discussing this matter. JellyMan9001 (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a rangeblock will be necessary, see here and here NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 17:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize there were more. Good find. JellyMan9001 (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked two ranges for one month each:

• 1.38.221.128/25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and
• 2402:3A80:186E:C69:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

If the IP editor does come back, I hope they will join the discussion at Talk:Harman International on whether to identify these companies as subsidiaries of Samsung. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Redvince1 continuous disruptive behavior

• Redvince1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Modalistic Monarchianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redvince1, in forgoing further discussion for several days on the talk page for Modalistic Monarchianism (which I left alone to give them time to respond), had their contributions reverted to the purpose of reaching a consensus. Prior to this, the fellow Wikipedian and I were given notices to prevent a WP:edit war. As a result, they have been previously reported as evident in this archived discussion: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1080#An apparent agenda and/or advocacy account. Investigating the previous report, both of our personal talk pages, and the article's talk page, we were both assisted in attempting to reach consensus. Until today as of writing (14 October 2021), the article remained status pre ante until their WP:bold contributions which forwent any recognition of consensus. Better yet, in this, I would be willing to revert them a fourth time, but then again that would be seen as an edit war to which I reached out to Editor2020, Ermenrich, and AntiCompositeNumber on my talk page for further guidance. I could be bold as well yet be at risk of punishment alongside this contributor, and I refuse to be baited into doing so. They (Redvince1) were given warning on the article's talk page to self-revert their contributions on the basis of WP:NOCONSENSUS, as I still have yet to gain response pertaining to how their additions contribute to the history of the theological precept, in addition to their previous spurious source and previous biased terminology. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

No administrative assistance yet before this goes into the dust bin (archives)? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but you're going to need to provide diffs and sort of explain the problem a little better. I've looked at the discussion on the article talk page and I can't really make head or tails of it.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

SquarePants122 - uncivility as an IP

• SquarePants122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.159.54.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:56A:F170:7200:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 108.173.134.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

As explained in the title of this section, the user in question has persistently been uncivil while editing as an IP, seemingly attempting to evade scrutiny on their main account. These interactions mostly occur after the user account edits something and is reverted- they then re-revert with the uncivil edit summaries

Such interactions can be found here:

• Edit as user
• Edit as IP two minutes later
• Reverted
• Uncivil edit summary as IP

---

• Edit as user
• Reverted
• Uncivil edit summary as IP

---

• Edit as user
• Reverted
• Uncivil edit summary as IP
• Reverted again
• Another uncivil edit summary as IP
• Reverted yet again

---

• Edit as IP
• Reverted
• Uncivil edit summary as IP
• Reverted again

---

• Edit as IP
• Reverted
• Uncivil edit summary as IP
• Reverted again

---

• Edits as IP
• Reverted

(other edit/revert between)

• Uncivil edit summary as IP

---

Standalone incidents:

• [107]
• [108]
• [109]

---

Only thing throwing me off is this edit followed by this edit, but based on the above examples and similar article interests (SpongeBob, Arthur, Nickelodeon, kids' cartoons, etc.), it may just be a WP:SELFREVERT.

With the above examples given, it seems clear (to me at least) that the editor is attempting to evade any sort of scrutiny against their user account by being uncivil under IP edits. Multiple IPs have been warned against this in the past (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and seems to have ignored each time, as the same exact behavior has continued to today.

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I've looked at this and I believe Magitroopa to be correct. The only other explanation is that the IP(s) - who are almost certainly the same editor - are conducting a joe-job and inserting reverts with insulting editsums when they see one of SquarePants122's edits to have been reverted. The really odd thing is that when the IPs are editing "alone" so to speak, they are a mixture of what appear to be good edits, and vandalism. I am hesitant to block at this point - I think we need an SPI. If it turns out that SP122 and the IPs are one and the same, I would simply indef. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Just quickly looking, and from a glance, most edit summaries from the IPs appear similar to the user's edit summaries: starting with capital letter & ending with period (examples: "This still hasn't come out yet.", "Dead source.", "Removed a dead source.", and "This is the real order.") Also taking a look at the WHOIS, all 3 IPS come from Alberta, Canada with most of the same information. Should also likely be noted that both 2001:56A:F170:7200:96E:2AEB:878:79E (part of the /64 range) and 75.159.54.209 have recently edited List of longest-running American television series, so I would think that at least links those two together...

Should I be the one opening an SPI for this? Magitroopa (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Magitroopa Yes, I think so. I am really hesitant to block without a CU, even on very likely duck test. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Alrightie, just wasn't sure if I should be the one to open it... now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SquarePants122. Magitroopa (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: checkusers won't connect an account to an IP address. Still useful to have the SPI, but you should go with your gut on the available evidence here. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Exact same disruptive edit made 7 times under 7 different IP addresses

The following IP addresses have been used to make the exact same unexplained edit to article List of accolades received by Carol (film) -- seven times as of today. No summary is given for the edit. No explanation of what award is being changed and why. All the awards in the article are verified with reliable sources, and listed in the order given by the award organizations.

2601:1c0:c700:3030:7844:6361:113b:7708 on May 26

2601:1c0:c700:3030:f81d:132d:b3a6:324 on May 30

2601:1c0:c700:3030:f88d:3db7:5498:7ce1 on June 12

2601:1c0:ce00:4b70:892:2fde:7119:bdd2 on July 3

2601:1c0:ce00:4b70:702f:48e0:c204:763 on July 3

2601:1c0:ce00:4b70:6988:a42a:30ef:9b64 on July 12

2601:1C0:CE00:4B70:BD06:54A5:502E:54C4 on October 14

IP 2601:1C0:CE00:4B70:702F:48E0:C204:763 was warned on July 4.
IP 2601:1C0:CE00:4B70:BD06:54A5:502E:54C4 has been warned on October 14.

All these IP addresses can be warned (as has been done) about Wikipedia policies, but obviously this particular IP editor just doesn't give a _ _ _ _. It's a game for whoever is doing it. Perhaps the only solution is to page protect the article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 18:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Done Article semi-protected for a month, and both the /64s blocked for the same length (which is probably pointless, but may make the point more clearly). Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

172.58.128.0/17

172.58.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) enjoys posting long, polemical, unreferenced or poorly referenced posts on talk pages related to politics that have no meaningful proposals to improve the article, and edit-warring when they are removed:

• Glenn Greenwald:
  • 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 15:48—reverted by Daveout
  • 19:52—first restoration
  • 20:17—reverted by Daveout
  • 13:06, 29 April 2021—second restoration
  • 14:18—reverted by Daveout
  • 14:02, 30 April 2021—third restoration; Before this section is once again censored ...
  • 14:03—reverted by NonsensicalSystem
  • 14:08—fourth restoration (he also removed another, unrelated section)
  • 14:12—reverted by NonsensicalSystem
  • 03:24, 11 May 2021—fifth restoration
  • 04:53—reverted by Daveout
  • 15:44, 14 May 2021—sixth restoration
  • 04:34, 23 May 2021—reverted by TheTimesAreAChanging
• Hamas:
  • 00:04, 23 May 2021: The 'entity' was created by Israel to legitimize violence under the ruse of defense to preserve strategic interests.
  • 01:05—reverted by ScottishFinnishRadish
  • 17:48, 26 May 2021—first restoration with additional rambling added
  • 17:49—reverted by ScottishFinnishRadish
  • 01:56, 27 May 2021—second restoration
  • 04:58—reverted by Nishidani
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
  • 21:04, 17 September 2021: AOC votes and confers support to militarism, inequality, unemployment and poverty. ... AOC represents an obedience to tyranny that is mostly hidden. The references provided are Jonathan Cook's blog and  World Socialist Web Site (RSP entry).
  • 16:55, 2 October 2021: Our politicial [sic] system responds to money and politicians are very capable of deceiving and mis-guiding many of those mistreated by the system into fighting against the very forces that might help them. This may apply to Ms Ocasio-Cortez, as much as it does [sic] Bernie 'Lockheed Martin' Sanders or Joe 'Huge Oily Coal' Manchin.
  • 00:37, 4 October 2021: AOC reliably supports military spending, the poverty it creates, the extraordinary wealth for a few it creates, including apartheid and violence in the Middle East. Profit for American defense corporations is sacrosanct, with the requirement of indemnification by the theater of democracy.
  • 00:37—reverted by LuK3
  • 20:36, 5 October 2021—restored
  • 20:45—hatted by MelanieN as an [o]pinion post, unrelated to article content.
  • 21:33, 6 October 2021—hat removal
  • 21:40—hat restored by Firefangledfeathers
  • 21:43—posted the hatted-but-not-removed rant again
  • 21:44: MelanieN engages in censorship.
  • 21:48—removal of the duplicate post by Muboshgu
  • 10:51, 8 October 2021—reverted archival bot's edit as vandalism
  • 15:02, 12 October 2021—hat removal
  • 15:56—another rant
  • 16:02—reverted by Muboshgu

And so forth, and so forth. It appears that they have also been active on other IP ranges before, including 173.153.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) and 184.221.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), going back to 2020 and recognizable by the same behavior.

Kleinpecan (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Zzuuzz: as I think they know who this is and the limits of what can be done to stop it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Because this IP has been engaging in the same WP:NOTAFORUM type of disruption on and off for at least three years, I have blocked the IP for one year. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• (I was pinged). I'm not sure if I have a name available. There's a few problems on the range but from what I can see this doesn't appear to be one that I'm thinking of. I will however take the invitation to observe that big T-Mobile blocks are usually relatively ineffective as well as a cause of huge collateral. Is a whole /17 block really currently proportionate? T-Mobile often splits into smaller ranges, and this user appears to be currently inhabiting one or two /24 ranges. And if you're going to block a significant slice of the United States for a significant period of time, please at least add a block log template which will make sense to the majority of users who will see it, like anonblock or rangeblock. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. Cullen328—it seems that 172.58.188.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) is where most of the disruptive edits come from. I also wonder whether it would be better to only block them from talk page namespace. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Kleinpecan, is there any evidence that this person is a productive contributor to this encyclopedia? The behavior described in great detail above leads me to think otherwise. If narrowing the range reduces the collateral damage, it is OK with me if any administrator adjusts the block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I am not sure what you mean by this person. If you mean 172.58.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), it is a range of 32,768 IP addresses assigned to T-Mobile, so it is almost certain that there are many, many persons behind that range, some of whom are disruptive and some who are not. I originally specified this range because it captured all of the disruptive IPs and because I was too lazy to care about collateral damage; but, after some time, it seems that most of the recent disruptive edits could be stopped by blocking 172.58.188.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) (and maybe 172.58.191.0/25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)), which only have 384 IPs in them, combined. Kleinpecan (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Stonewalling a botched manual revert

RESOLVED ON TALK PAGE

This has been resolved through talkpage discussion. High-fives all around. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

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

---

FlightTime is in error when he cites WP:CONSENSUS while WP:STONEWALLING and ignoring WP:EDITCON. All the evidence of the incident can be found in the talk page section.

This has caused disruption in the Death of Gabby Petito article, which I find urgent enough a cause to report here, with an eye to quick and painless resolution. This is not about the merits of the content change (bio vs. event-type lead), but about maintaining a normal collaborative ambient. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI ? really ? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this because of one revert? Please see WP:BRD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

FlightTime, if you give me a normal substantive rationale for the change (even if I don't agree with it whatsoever), I'll help you on the technical side of things to revert, selectively, my changes that you dispute, while not reverting the changes of other editors that your botched mass-revert has also affected. Then I'll ask for input and seek consensus, and we'll discuss normally. Alternatively, I can even revert on your behalf changes by other editors that you also dispute. Substantively dispute. Since the burden is on you as the reverter to offer a substantive rationale.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: FlightTime is acting as if he's not aware of BRD. It isn't about a single revert, but about a disruption to the collaborative process that needs outside help to resolve. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

What disruption? I see a single revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Damage to the article, which can't be addressed except by reverting his revert, which would produce a strong appearance of edit warring and would likely only make it harder to undo the damage short term -- see my comment in talk: "you deleted the date from the lead, you broke a reference, reintroduced bolding against a clear WP:AVOIDBOLD rationale (while not even moving it out of the body, meaning the name is bolded twice in the article), you did not delete an inline note asking editors not to bold causing it to make no sense now, and now you are simply stonewalling. Please self-revert, and let's go back to the normal editorial process." — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so there was a single revert, there's a discussion on the talk page, and you brought this to ANI with no diffs. Got it. This should probably be closed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You could have a discussion to gain consensus. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: diffs... October 6, October 7, October 7 (this is when the lead had stabilized), October 14. They're already in the talk discussion which I linked /edit: added another diff so not all are/. Please tell FlightTime about EDITCON, BRD, and STONEWALLING. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

So there were three reverts over a month ago, there is still no consensus for inclusion, it was added again and reverted? I'm just trying to figure out the exact problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems resolved via talk page discussion. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

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

IP-hopper adding unreferenced controversial BLP material

• Ashley Blue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP-hopper persistently re-adding birth date sourced to IAFD, an obvious user-generated or self-published website. I have a hunch that in addition to not being reliably sourced, the personal info of porn performers on sites like this originated in the AIM data breach several years back, bringing serious privacy concerns. I've warned the user and already requested page protection. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid the range those IPs come from is too big to block, Sangdeboeuf. Fuzheado has semi'd the article for a week. If the IP disruption starts up again after that time, feel free to come directly to my page and request some more. Bishonen | tålk 09:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

Green Marble

Green Marble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

• 9 July 2021: A long, unreferenced diatribe accusing Joe Biden of racism, containing no meaningful proposals to improve the article.
• 2 August 2021: A long, unreferenced diatribe accusing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of being far-left.
• 20 September 2021: Like most Democrat-run cities, Oakland has continued to suffer from serious violent crime problems. No reference given for this synthesis.
• 14 October 2021: Addition of a separate section consisting of a single sentence, Studies have shown that most convicts register Democratic, a key reason why liberal lawmakers and governors are eager for them to get back into the voting booth after their release., sourced to the  Washington Examiner (RSP entry).

The rest of their edits, with the exception of three or five minor ones, are in a similar vein. The user is only interested in pushing their point of view rather than building an encyclopedia. Kleinpecan (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by Bbb23. Bishonen | tålk 11:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

PatriotsFOREVER126

PatriotsFOREVER126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

This editor, for starters, seems to refuse to want to communicate. Just a look through recent edits and their talkpage, the seem to never respond to comments on their talkpage. Additionally, it seems like the editor has a habit of creating unsourced or poorly sourced articles. The editor also violates WP:OR on a regular basis. They edit NFL Player pages and roster templates adding numbers to players who do not have a number listed on their team's website and never provides where they get the numbers from. Another issue, is this editor has changed players' roster status from the accurate status to inaccurate roster status. This editor has had multiple warnings and posts on their talkpage advising of these issues and continues to ignore them. They had gone a while without doing the numbers thing, but it seems to have started back up. Thank you for your assistance.--Rockchalk717 05:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Years of problems, years of zero communication, I don't understand why things are allowed to get this bad. El_C 14:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Awesome! I appreciate it. I'm not sure either. Yeah the editor will occasionally make uncontroversial edits but the majority are one of the things I mentioned initially.--Rockchalk717 15:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

IPv6 editor edit warring at Mariah Carey articles since August 31

• 2600:8801:1301:1900:D50A:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The person behind this IP range has been edit warring to add non-neutral language into Mariah Carey articles since late August. The edits mostly try to highlight Carey's poor album sales and removal of positive critical coverage. While some of the IP's individual edits may have merit, the problem is that the editor keeps trying to edit-war their edits into articles and won't or can't engage on their user talk page since they are editing as an IP editor using a mobile device. (I did leave several messages on their talk pages (plural because their IP address is not static) before I realized they were editing using the mobile editor.)

At Caution (Mariah Carey album), for example, this was the oldest edit I could find here from about August 31, this was the most recent, on October 15 (today). In-between are dozens of edits where the IP was trying to edit war similar language into the article]. The editor has made similar edits to other articles too, including With You (Mariah Carey song) (diff), A No No (diff), Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse (diff), Number 1 to Infinity (diff), Can't Take That Away (Mariah's Theme) (diff), Caution World Tour (diff) but the edit warring is most pronounced at Caution (Mariah Carey album) and to a lesser extent Caution World Tour and Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse.

Would it be possible to partially block the /64 range from Caution (Mariah Carey album), Caution World Tour, and Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse temporarily? Perhaps that would get their attention. Thank you, Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (sitewide). Not really suited for a partial block, although I suppose an article space block would do much the same thing. Oh well, I'm Bbb23'ing it, because... consistency. El_C 13:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to look at this. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

I recently closed a report at WP:ANEW filed by Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) on Punding as "no violation" as it seemed somewhat vexatious. I also notice they have recently been edit-warring at WMPW. On further investigation, I notice they have an extensive block log for edit warring and incivility, and have been dragged to this very noticeboard lots of times. I wouldn't normally start a thread here for two isolated (albeit recent) incidents of mild edit-warring and a general battleground behaviour, but in this instance I need to ask the question - is Neutralhomer actually a net positive for the project? Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I did the math. With about 74k edits and 24 blocks that is a block about every 3000 edits. That is a lot. I have noticed this user around over the last 14 years but did not personally notice the disruption. The block log includes blocks for personal attacks, edit warring, disruptive editing, block evasion, sock puppetry, borderline harassment, saying an editor "should be executed", 3RR, copyright concerns, wikihounding, misuse of twinkle, severe off-wiki harassment, and battlefield behavior. If blocks were pokémon this user is well on their way to collecting them all.

On the flip side a look through their user archives shows evidence of positive contributions throughout their 14 years here.

I don't know if they are a net positive or not. I do however think when block logs get that long and complete that further blocks need to escalate in severity going from days to weeks to months to indefinite. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the quick maths - perhaps this can be "solved" by making it clear the next block, for whatever reason, will be indefinite? Asking an editor to reflect on their behaviour and appeal their block if they want to edit again can often work wonders... ~TNT (she/her • talk) 12:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Only three blocks in the last nine years. Levivich 13:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Your point of only 3 of the blocks being in the last 9 years is well taken. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm still trying to work out what they think they were doing on Punding. Edit-warring to restore a problematic edit containing errors after the original editor ran out of reverts certainly isn't a good look. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it might be retaliation for this edit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Mmm. That's not great. Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh ouch, the ownership going on there is strong and, well, yeah. I don't see a discussion about that (though it could be elsewhere) but they completely ignored DrKay's very valid points in the edit history for that article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer's condition leads to them being overprotective of various articles. They do have the best interests of the project at heart and can take into account constructive criticism but it takes repetition and patience. IMO a block would be punitive rather than preventative. As an aside this "it is a featured article and, thus, can't be altered" is becoming a real problem and probably should be added to the arguments to be avoided. MarnetteD|Talk 14:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've never come across this editor, so I can't comment on their conduct and/or edits. Regarding the block log, you can't just look at the raw numbers of 24 blocks. The vast majority of those are more than a decade old, with one of the most recent ones stating "no reason to keep this user blocked over an honest mistake" in the unblock log. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with this to some extent, the block that stands out for me is the one placed in October 2012. Although nine years old, it was for "Severe off-wiki harassment" and sounds like the sort of thing we globally lock users for these days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

But it was 9 years ago... GiantSnowman 15:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

^^^This. I don't know how to quickly find the edits, but the indef was rescinded six days later. I assume all parties involved at the time were happy (as they could be) with the outcome, otherwise they'd still be indef'd. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Details of the indef block on their talkpage. Not pleasant reading. Note this discussion, from 2020 (i.e. not nine years ago), is about both on and off wiki attacks.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: I'm not rehashing or dwelling on something that took place 9 years ago. It's over, buried, done with.

What happened in 2020 I referenced below. That was part of a MUCH larger incident that involved FAR more users than just myself. Harrassment, rule breaking, and other issues were on both sides. There were no innocent parties in that. I, in turn, was topic blocked, blocked for 72 hours (which I rightly earned, again, no innocent parties), and on-and-off-wiki attacked (which no one deserved), though nothing was ever done to that user. But again, I referenced that below. That's why it was a debacle. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Considering that earlier this year they came to my talk page to bitch about being asked to drop an argument, then proceeded to try and drag out the argument in an ill-fated attempt to make a WP:POINT, I'd have say they're not a net-positive to the project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW: I'm not a big fan of blocking people who are (mostly) a net positive, so I'd like to hear what they've got to say about the various issues. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I won't address everything. First, Ritchie333, no, it wasn't "relatiation" for anything. I saw something I thought was an edit war, it was. I was an uninvolved part in that discussion, inserted myself into that discussion, reverted, warned the user (manually), made changes, and the edit war continued by the user, I reverted, warned the user via a template (official), the user again reverted and I reported. That's not "retaliation", that's sticking up for another user who was being warned about other articles at the same time.

MarnetteD, "[my] condition" is called Aspergers, it was first diagnosed when I was 23 (I turned 40 this year). While I do appreciate most of your other comments (to an extent), I don't need time and patience. Featured Articles are held to a higher standard. It's in the rules. A few editors and myself worked very hard to get that article to Featured Article status. It is the only radio station article at Featured Article status, for which I am very proud. Being near the station, I have a special ability (so to speak) to gain updated information about it quite quickly. I also can access my local library in person, which has the information I need. I can copy it in person. So, you call it "protective", I call it upholding the rules of WP:FA. You can most certainly place that arguement within WP:AADP, I don't have the ability to stop you all, but that would change the fundamental foundation and rules of WP:FA, making those articles nothing more than something "special" with a star at the top and anyone could throw anything at them without consequence (just my opinion).

To the rest, it's good to see that I'm (he/his, for those using "they", apperciate that) not a net-positive. Yeah, I've had my problems in the past. Yeah, I have a block log. I've tried to make this place better in the 17 years that I've been here. I've created numerous articles, edited nearly 74,000 times, made a few offline Wiki friends (one of whom I will never forget), made 4 GA articles, 2 FA articles. I outed my own account off-Wiki (on Twitter) and worked with the Asexual Community when there was that huge Asexual Eraser debacle last year (involving Pauley Perrette's article and others), calming a firestorm that this community knew nothing about (for which I was topic banned, by the way) and in turn taught a slew of people, in real time, about Wikipedia. Yet, somehow my block log alone convinces you I'm not a net positive.

If that's all it takes, cool. Do what you wish. All I ask is you allow me 6 hours to get my affairs in order. I do want to have a trusted editor to watch that Featured Article of mine. Once that's done, you are free to do whatever you like. If my actual work can't convince the community I'm a net-positive, then I won't bother trying. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

You're work is a net-positive; it's your soft skills that sink you. then I won't bother trying is part of the problem. Take a break, reflect, come back. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel that any action is needed at this point. I do however think that future blocks for future issues should carry an escalating duration. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Continual disruption by a user who refuses to heed warnings or obey policies

1. Pramod Bhagat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Sukant9993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sukant9993's whole presence on the Pramod Bhagat page[110] lately has been to repeatedly revert to his preferred version even in the face of the multiple warnings, and that without any regard to the consensus that had been forged through the discussion on the talk page ([111]). It has now come to light that he has been brazenly flouting the precepts and directives of WP:COI all along. ([112]) But much worse has been his double-talk on this: he has acknowledged his real life association with the subject,[113] yet has refused to own up to his flagrant violations,[114], which now appear to be just the tip of the iceberg (in light of this, and his creation of this). Sukant9993 has openly refused to cease his editing on the aforesaid page or heed the warnings, while continuing to engage in edit-warring and COI editing on the page. Sukant9993 has shown that he is WP:NOTHERE, that he is editing with a my way or the highway attitude. Kerberous (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Kerberous. The reported user has done reversions more than 6-7 times of two different users. Not at all intrested in following Talk page discussion and continuing the disruption. zoglophie 18:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that this discussion remained untouched by admins, and Sukant reinstated his disruptive behaviour which is gone unnoticed again here. It is actually 7th or 8th revert by him which is like a mockery of three revert rule. zoglophie 14:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. I am having the same issue above. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User is blocked indefinitely from editing the page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced opinion and style guide issues

• Jjfun3695 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This new user has been advised and warned repeatedly about providing a source when they add controversial opinions on living persons, and about the use of honorifics in article content, but the multiple warnings have not improved their editing. I have just now reviewed about the past week's worth of their contributions and made numerous reverts, such as:

1. Special:Diff/1050059201: an observation about Elizabeth II being seen with a cane, added without a source.
2. Special:Diff/1049990708: a "some people" opinion about the International Olympic Committee and its dealings around the upcoming Beijing games
3. Special:Diff/1049207918: on a Catholic fraternal order's article, changed "anti-abortion" to "pro-life", and removed the link to the relevant article
4. This series of edits adding a number of controversial opinions on Amy Coney-Barrett's supreme court appointment, along with a plain statement that anti-Catholic sentiment in the United States originates with "atheists, secularists and satanists", all of it added with no sourcing at all.
5. Another series of edits about anti-Catholic sentiment this time in the UK, blaming an alleged rise in secularism (unsourced) on "atheists and secularists", and trying to editorially invalidate protests against a former pope's visit because Catholics also died in the Holocaust.
6. A series of edit-wars where they persist in re-adding religious honorifics, such as on James Massa, Edmund Ignatius Rice, and Fordham University.

More of their edits need to be reviewed for the same problems, but I've seen enough. I was going to propose a topic ban from BLPs, Catholicism, and American politics, but after taking a closer look at the rambling nonsense they added to the two anti-Catholicism articles about Black Lives Matter and the non sequitur linking of Catholicism with Hitler, I'm instead just going to propose they be site banned per WP:NOTHERE. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban as proposer. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• I've blocked the account for 24 hours given the continued addition (even today) of unsourced content despite a final warning. I am not entirely certain a community ban is in order, given the lack of blocks to this point. I think they wish to constructively edit here, but their unwillingness to follow our policies and guidelines despite warnings is problematic. I've informed the editor that if they wish to contribute to this discussion while they are blocked they may post their comments on their talk page and I or someone else will copy them here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Agree, too early for site ban. The diffs are unsourced, but not blatant enough to go straight to a ban. Escalating blocks resulting in an indeff, or going straight to an indeff, are more in line, IM(non-adm.)O. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Issue on Loudoun County Public Schools

Some information keeps getting posted to Loudoun County Public Schools by an anon. See [115] and [116]. I think it is inaccurate and not the right place for the information but I am not sure and so I wasn't sure where to bring this up to have more experienced editors make a decision on it. I also don't have much time to deal with this right now so trying to get other eyes on it to help address the issue. Remember (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• The information is not inaccurate, and it is currently sourced to two sources which are listed as "generally reliable" at WP:RSP. This case is in the news at least nationwide [117], and is notable regarding the school district. Given that the story revolves in part around the behavior of the school board, it appears the school district article would be an appropriate location. Thank you for initiating a discussion at Talk:Loudoun County Public Schools. I don't think there's anything for administrators to do here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Hammersoft, but I think that some semi-protection until decent prose is hashed out on the talk page might be in order. This story is already making the rounds in those places on the internet that often lead to brigading and meat puppeting. The whole situation is pretty sensitive, so we might be better served with an ounce of prevention, rather than having to apply a pound of cure later. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

We do not preemptively protect things, per WP:PREEMPTIVE. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but no, considering this involves WP:BLP and minors, we should not be including it until there is more concrete reporting. I only happened across this cause it was on my watch list and subsequently found this thread but advocating to include mere accusations against minors is reprehensible, especially given the sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

[118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] This isn't exactly lacking in concrete reporting or sourcing. There's plenty more sources out there, and there will be more. As I said, we should probably try to get out ahead of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, removing this information on these grounds as you did here was improper. You stated that Washington Examiner is not considered a reliable source. That is true. The material you removed was also cited to Fox News (which you erroneously stated was not realiable; WP:RSP disagrees with you) and Washington Post which is also considered reliable per WP:RSP. Further, the minors are not named in either reliable source article. I do agree that Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent needs to be considered, but given that the minors in question are not named, I don't see a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Similar edits being made to Stone Bridge High School as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sun Ferry and user:HK19971118

• Sun Ferry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• HK19971118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The last 5 edits of the user:HK19971118 is changing the website parameter to the old website. level 4 warning is issued a while ago. I am not sure that this still the time that assume good faith. Matthew hk (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. I considered indefinite, but chose 24 hours due to possible attempts to improve the article. There's a possible WP:COI or WP:PAID issue here, but nothing convincing as yet. If they continue the behavior after the block has expired, please re-report and note they were previously blocked for the same behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Spamming and possible undisclosed paid editing by Dfertileplain

• Dfertileplain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Bukola Sawyerr Izeogu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bukola Sawyerr Izeogu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• I believe the earliest iteration of this blatant WP:ADMASQ was created on August 27 2020 where Dfertileplain creates the article via draft.

• On October 19, 2020 Praxidicae moves the article back to Draftspace see here.

• It was moved back to mainspace and it was nominated for deletion and it got deleted On October 31 See here.

• The latest attempt to move the article to mainspace was negated by Nomadicghumakkad on the 31st of August 2021 see here.

• Having observed this, I check our sister projects to ensure they aren’t spamming else where, but sure enough I observe this creation on Simple English Wikipedia created by them on August 27, 2021.

Furthermore they have other dubious edits which were negated by DoubleGrazing and myself see this & this respectively.

They have denied any malfeasance in the past but their words and actions are in variance as detailed above. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo & West Africa issues

• Ppdallo (talk · contribs)

Ppdallo has caused a lot of disruption in the West Africa topic area. For this report, I don't want anyone to think about content disputes (which is so massively complicated) but instead let's focus on the conduct.

I am not the first user to notice Ppdallo's conduct issues. Chaheel Riens filed this report which ultimately led to Riens abandoning the topic area out of frustrating with Ppdallo. Specially, Chaheel Riens quoted Ppdallo as exactly saying [The Hausa language is] the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages on five different occasions. Ppdallo simply responded, i clearly did not claim that 'the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken'.The word 'popular' is absent there Okay, so that was the old dispute.

Fast forward to 6 September 2021, now Ppdallo is in a dispute with Oramfe over whether or not something or other counts as Yoruba. Here Ppdallo accuses Oramfe of irredentism and says they will be responsible for future conflict among Nigerians. Selected quote:

Your contiguous map of "indigenous Yoruba presence in Nigeria, Benin & Togo" reeks of wanton expansionism and can sow seeds of conflicts in future generations.Please take it down. WEST AFRICA SUFFERS FROM ENOUGH CONFLICTS, ALREADY.

Later in the month, more people come into the dispute as things escalate. Amid some in progress discussions, we see this quote from Ppdallo:

When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen. You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture. (bold in original)

After the many hours I spent reviewing this, all I know is that something needs to change here. For brevity, I have only included some of the more serious conduct violations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I find words such as “haters” and comments such as “You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture.” to be incendiary as it pertains to Nigeria where ethnic tensions are at its worst. See this and this & the country is currently on the verge of another civil war and collapse. So in essence, they are inadvertently doing what they are accusing another editor of. In any case, if this isn’t the first time they are being told to be more mindful of their conduct and choice of words then I think a strong warning should be issued to them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to above report, he seems not to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view as attested to by the original complaint. Check out one such remark:[125]. line 740

He also disputes editor contributions based on personal hunch (of what he thinks/want to be right or wrong, rather than referenced facts) which majority of the time turns out to be wrong. Check out my reply to him on one such edits where he accused me of putting up a map based on Dubious assumption .[126] He further claims there was never an ethnicity called Yoruba or groups/languages classified as being 'Yoruboid' in history.. Furthermore, he went ahead and accused my person of ethnic irredentism based on a proper map citing peer-reviewed sources on Yoruba presence in southeastern West Africa.[127] which he picked another one of his personal issues with, and then went into an edit-war back and forth.

On the other hand, he was unable to prove the map dubious like he initially claimed or even show that there was any fault with it. After several replies in the article talk page, he eventually referred me to the Yoruboid languages article and implored me to use the map there (an altogether different map). An article on the same ethnolinguistic group he claimed 'never existed'. The ethnic agenda and inconsistencies of this user is glaring. User:Talisman-white can also corroborate incendiary statements by said user which I might not be privy to share. Oramfe (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

User:SpaceFactsBot is malfunctioning

SpaceFactsBot is malfunctioning and hasn't updated since 2021/10/7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chen Guangming (talk • contribs)

@Chen Guangming: many bots that have obsolete code broke that day, the only one that can fix that is User talk:Andrewpullin, please follow up there. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Andrewpullin hasn't been active since July and has made only 7 edits this year. It's doubtful there will be a timely response, if there is a response. This is one of the great weaknesses of Wikipedia; bots run by editors who might disappear. Some of these bots have rather critical functions. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)