Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1160

Unilateral removal of RfC tag

I should like to file a complaint about Redrose64, who unilaterally removed an RfC tag from an RfC in progress without telling anyone they had done so, just 5 hours after the bot had assigned it an ID. No one noticed they had done so until today. I restored the tag with the assigned ID, but is that the right thing to do or does it need to be assigned a new ID? Opinion in the RfC are pretty much equally divided, and the duration may need to be extended as because of the removal, uninvolved editors have not commented. This is a mess and RR64 should have consequences for this. Skyerise (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise:, can you provide a diff where you discussed your concerns with Redrose64 before opening this thread?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why have you taken me straight here without first attempting to discuss the matter with me, either at the discussion in question or at my talk page? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Because you did it in a deceptive manner. Neither your edit summary nor your talk page comment disclosed that you had removed it. I did reply to you here, just hours later. Nowhere did you say you had removed the RfC tag. You should be de-admined per Wikipedia:ADMINCOND for "egregious poor judgment" in this matter. Skyerise (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise, your bad faith allegations are borderline personal attacks and don't reflect well on you. I suggest you dial it back substantially and ask Redrose64, civilly, for an explanation on their talk page. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the RfC. If you dispute my assertions, please show me where Redrose64 explicitly disclosed that they had removed the RfC tag. Weren't they as an administrator required to actually say what they had done? It is weeks later and another editor just pointed out the removal to me. I'm pissed off, and I believe I have every right to be. Skyerise (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You have not WP:AGFed and asked whether it was a mistake or not. You have immediately WP:ABFed and accused them of being deceptive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Are you aware that ANI is not the place to make first contact with an admin (or anybody actually) about an edit they made? Redrose is free to make edits they think are appropriate and you're free to as well. When there's a disagreement the first step is a talk page, not ANI. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

So any editor may unilaterally remove an active RfC tag already assigned an ID without saying that they've done so? Bookmarking this in case I feel like doing that sometime. Skyerise (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you really not familiar with WP:POINT, either? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

She really isnt. Go through the history of the talk page on witchcraft to see that on display. 2600:480A:3A13:8A00:1:C043:7150:DCE3 (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You should log-in to your account to comment on something that may-or-may-not involve your account (see WP:LOGOUT).

That said, I'm not seeing where Skyerise disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point in that talk page. – 2804:F1...0F:122 (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe the IP is referring to the incident where I was repeatedly harassed on that talk page by two admins who eventually brought me up on ANI and tried to get me sanctioned, a motion which failed when they turned out to be long-term meatpuppets (living in the same house and editing from the same IP) who voluntarily relinquished their admin tools and left Wikipedia rather than face the music when their long-term deception was uncovered. Yeah, that incident really left me with a higher level of trust and respect for admins. NOT! Skyerise (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't you other admins ask them. I suggest this be taken by admins to WP:AN for an admin review. I've reported my perception of the incident, and I'm done here. I don't trust them to answer me honestly, so please why don't you ask them that. I want nothing more to do with Redrose64. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

At AN/I you can't just make unsupported allegations and then peace out. Your refusal to even discuss the matter with Redrose64 and continued aspersions are unacceptable. You were blocked for a month in November for personal attacks; this cannot be a pattern.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, fine. @Redrose64:, did you remove the RfC tag by mistake? Skyerise (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The proper good faith question, instead of painting it immediately as a mistake, is to ask them why they did so. Redrose is a competent editor and admin and I see no reason to assume bad faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait... This is about a single post-AfD merge and how to properly handle it? The removal of the RfC tag is absolutely valid. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple editors have stated that they believe most of the material should be kept; perhaps an equal number simply want to remove it all. Material that all editors agreed should be removed has been removed (media opinions and opinions from those not active in government was agreed to be irrelevant, iirc). I think that's a perfect reason for an RfC. Skyerise (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, as Redrose also did apparently. This is about the implementation of an AfD result, which was was closed with a clear consensus to merge. This is a content dispute in regards to what belongs at the target page. You can disagree with the results of the AfD, but it's your responsibility to address the reasons why it was closed that way if you want it to be a standalone article. Content disputes about a single article don't belong at RfC. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Who wants it to be a standalone article? I stumbled upon a merge that hadn't been done yet. There was a notice at the top of the talk page, so I performed the merge. I was not previously an editor of either article. I wasn't involved in the AfD either. There are very clearly diametrically opposed opinions on the matter, so more input is needed from uninvolved editors. It's bigger than the need for a third opinion. Isn't that what RfC is for? Skyerise (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Imagine if an RfC was called every time someone wanted a decision. Anyone can edit, and anyone can revert the edit. You added an RfC. Someone in very good standing reverted it. Please take the hint given here and go and discuss as if there might be the slightest possibility that there was a good reason for the revert. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Imagine if one weren't when it were necessary. Of course there may have been a "good reason" for the revert; good reasons don't always make something the right thing to do. Skyerise (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple editors have stated that they believe most of the material should be kept; perhaps an equal number simply want to remove it all. — Again, this is a misrepresentation of the RfC, which was begun by Skyerise about trimming the section. Despite Skyerise wanting to keep material in totality on the basis of relevance, most editors are in favor of trimming the material regardless of Skyerise's relevance basis. I pointed out these issues here. And with the bad-faith personal attacks against Redrose64, Skyerise also made a WP:THREATEN personal attack on my talk page [1] threatening to, yes, "pursue admin action" against me if I did not keep the material. GuardianH (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe I am misrepresenting the balance of the RfC. I am myself neither for nor against removing more material. It's my opinion that the RfC should be allowed to continue to run and be closed by an uninvolved closer who can make this determination, not by those who are involved and want to preempt the RfC. Skyerise (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Skyerise, you're wrong and everyone else is right. AfD merge is a defective product. The right process to discuss merger is proposed merge, and mergers from AfD have a much lower success rate. When AfD is closed with "merge", it does not compel editors at the target article to accept that as if it were some decree. (That's why a proper merge discussion is had at the target article, not some remote page.) Editors interested in the target article are not bound by the "decision". They can revert the addition. Onus is on the editor who wats to add; he needs to build consensus, and AfD doesn't help at all there, it's like it never happened from the aspect of the target article. AfD is an inadequate forum for serious merging discussions because it does not seriously consider the state of the target article. There is only one solution, and an RfC isn't it. You need to edit the content back in incrementally (see WP:FEET) which will identify where the problem actually lies (what specific sentence, source, etc. is objectionable).—Alalch E. 10:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You know, there was actually fruitful discussion and removal of all content that was objected to using actual discussion and presentation of reasons rather the one or two editors repeatedly removing the entire merge without discussion. The RfC would have yielded fruit, IMO, but by all means override me and deride me. Not gonna edit war over it, but that doesn't make the motivations of certain editors any less questionable. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's gonna be fine, the content is there in some form, and it can be improved by bold editing, incrementally. The opinions expressed have not been annihilated, they're on the page, and discussion can continue in a format that does not cause confusion. —Alalch E. 11:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Sorry if my honest misunderstanding caused problems. Skyerise (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NAC undone. It read: Further attention of administrators not needed, multiple of whom have talked with Skyerise, who was notified that 'this cannot be a pattern, was then talked with some more and understood the problem and apologized; during all this a boomerang was not invoked, so it would not make sense to boomerang now, after the apology; the "RfC" was closed, the unsatisfactory state of things at the article itself was made less unsatisfactory, the degree of ongoing disagreement is low and any remaining dispute can be resolved through the normal editorial process. Everyone is thanked for their patience and good-spiritedness.—Alalch E. 13:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Alalch E., this is a bad close, and there are plenty of admins, so I'm not sure why you saw fit to close it in such a starkly biased way. Redrose64 asked Skyerise: Why have you taken me straight here without first attempting to discuss the matter with me. Skyerise replies with: Because you did it in a deceptive manner. And you call their last message here directly above: Ok, fine. Sorry if my honest misunderstanding caused problems an apology? Apology to whom? Persons? You label Skyerise's combativeness (seemingly a reoccurring problem and a pattern) "good-spiritedness"? Like his You should be de-admined per Wikipedia:ADMINCOND for "egregious poor judgment" in this matter. No. Possible sanctions are at stake, still, so why are you, a non-admin, closing this thread? El_C 20:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• After reviewing this discussion and the RfC, I see a few issues: (1) Skyerise opened an RfC without following WP:RFCBEFORE; (2) Skyerise has exhibited battleground behavior and ownership (diff), and incivility (diff); (3) Skyerise brought this to AN/I and misrepresented that Redrose64 had offered no explanation for removing the RfC tag; and (4) Skyerise has yet to take responsibility for those behaviors, calling this an honest misunderstanding. Skyerise has a history of blocks for personal attacks, including for personal attacks and failure to AGF. If Skyerise is able to recognize what they did wrong here, I would support a warning at this point. If not, a block might be appropriate to prevent further disruption and deter future PAs. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Mea culpa? Thought this was closed; Alalch E. was correct in interpreting me to mean that, although I try to act in good faith, I don't always assume it. And while at the time I thought I was doing the right thing, in retrospect I see that I was mistaken. And I apologize to Redrose64 for not going to them directly. I just felt stupid for not realizing they had removed the tag until three weeks later, and wish that an admin who removes a tag should at least mention that they did so on the talk page and their edit summary. That lack of notification led to confusion, which doesn't in any way justify incivility in my response. Skyerise (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  And I apologize to Redrose64 for not going to them directly. — The going to Redrose64 directly is one thing, but if there is anything you need to address its the personal attacks, threats, ownership, and combative behavior that has been recurrent on more than one occasion. GuardianH (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  I addressed that doesn't in any way justify incivility in my response. Not gonna grovel, chum. Skyerise (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps instead of just apologizing for jumping the gun you could also apologize for the personal attacks and aspersions. Franky I'm shocked no one proposed a boomerang based on your behavior here, because RedRose was certainly not being sneaky, per your own link in the beginning of this thread. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

But there is an issue here beyond Skyerise's response

So, I seem to recall that Skyerise has been here before recently, so I understand if others here feel that this is an opportune time to make a point to them about AGF and tone of interactions. And I don't want to undermine that effort if it is deemed advisable or even necessary. Particularly in that Skyerise themselves stands to benefit most from that discussion. But the thing is, all that said...I'm not sure the issues in this instance were entirely of their making?

Here's the thing: I'm about a fifteen year veteran of this project and I respond to a lot of RfCs: it's probably the single largest chunk of time I've devoted to the project in terms of community processes: I'd estimate I've responded to somewhere around 1,200 or 1,300 of them in the last ten years. And I've never once seen an RfC procedurally closed merely because it touched upon issues related to a merger. If I'm perfectly honest, I didn't even realize it was expressly proscribed by WP:RFCNOT, and I'm guessing most other editors don't either. And I think there's a reason for that: said portion of the RfC guideline was created by none other than RedRose64 more or less unilaterally, in a very perfunctory discussion with all of four editors and eight comments, almost all of the substance of which were theirs.

Now let me hasten to add, I think the process was clearly above-board and in good faith: a reasonable effort to codify what RedRose64 and another editor felt were obvious circumstances in which RfC should not apply. However, it was not a very robust or well-(or at all-)advertised discussion. RfC is a pretty fundamental tool for dispute resolution, and I think at a minimum that this discussion limiting its availability in various contexts should have been linked at the village pump.

And the consequences of giving short shrift to this process of amending the process page are not inconsequential to the current situation. Because honestly, of all of the scenarios which RedRose chose to codify as verboten applications of RfC, merger discussions stick out like a sore thumb as probably the least appropriate context in which to forbid such use of RfC. Every other process they chose to add to that list makes a certain amount of sense because they all have a commited forum or a listing which allows for the channeling of community attention from previously un-involved parties to the discussion. The discussions themselves either take place in a specific namespace or the article talk page discussions are posted for community members who contribute to that process. Not so for mergers.

So what Redrose did in adding mergers to that list was essentially create an automatic walled garden for merger discussions: only those previously involved in editing the articles in question (and in most cases, probably only those participating in the discussions leading up to the merger proposal) are going to know about the dispute, and now involved parties have no outlet for seeking additional un-involved voices. In my opinion, that is a very undesirable and problematic set-up. I tend to think that five years without complaint grants even slap-dash additions to policy and procedure pages some degree of implicit community support, but I think this situation, having been identified, now needs some review.

All of which is to say, I do think that Redrose did contribute some to the confusion here, by creating that section of the RfC procedure page largely wholecloth, and then applying it to this situation in a manner inconsistent with anything I have ever seen from another editor in cancelling an RfC already under way. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I don't see what was to be gained (or would be gained in similar circumstances on any article) by limiting the availability to reach out and seek opinions from editors previously uninvolved in the dispute. And if nothing else, Skyerise is correct on one point: this action should have been at least expressly noted in a comment on the talk page made concurrent with the removal of the RfC tag. That is always best practice when using a technical means to prematurely close an RfC. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise, let me add that my line of reasoning above should not be taken for blanket support of your approach here. You're getting pretty uniform feedback here about your style of response to these kinds of situations where you feel you were procedurally thwarted by someone and even as someone who somewhat understands your frustrations here, I urge you to take that advice on board as a general matter. I think Redrose64 probably could have been a little more careful and express with their approach to this situation, but bringing them here without an attempt to clear the air before hand, and actually believing they should (and would) be desysopped for anything involved here does not present the image of someone with perspective on how we prefer to resolve such matters on this project, or the intended use of this space. In other words, take the heat down a few notches, even when you think your frustration is justified. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: your point is taken. Skyerise (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tel_al-Sultan_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1232874929

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This as well (see the edit summary) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATel_al-Sultan_massacre&diff=1232876802&oldid=1232875094 - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

University of Ghana

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

---

While patrolling recent changes, I noticed around 20 accounts with similar user pages, all affiliated with the University of Ghana in some way. Some examples: Adorble Courage, Yaw Agyare Amoah, Diana Ofori, etc. They don't have any WikiEd messages on their talk page and appear to be in different majors, so I'm not sure if they're part of an education program or not. Is there anything we could do? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You could try asking them. Anything further depends on whether they are being disruptive. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User Belomaad

Recent edits by Belomaad are, in their entirety, drawn from partisan and polemical sources that do not meet the WP:RELIABILITY criteria for Wikipedia articles, especially for articles about the history of Islam. In particular, none of the books cited by Belomaad are published by publishers known for fact-checking. These sources include alsersj.net and Mir'at ul-oqul by the Shia jurist Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (d. 1699).

As a result, the content added by Belomaad repeatedly violates the principles of WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. In addition, there does not seem to be a WP:CONSENSUS for his/her edits and Belomaad has refused to investigate whether there is one.

All these issues were brought to Belomaad's attention on several occasions; see Talk:Umm Kulthum bint Ali#Marriage to Umar and the recent edit history of the article. Another editor, Iskandar323, even shared academic sources, currently unused in the article, that could replace the unreliable ones introduced by Belomaad. All these have been to no avail as Belomaad seems only interested in forcefully and repeatedly inserting his/her sectarian POV into the article, over and over, ignoring other editors' advice. Please see the recent edit history for the developments. Separately, Iskandar323 and Doug Weller have raised some concerns about Belomaad's integrity in Talk:Umm Kulthum bint Ali#Marriage to Umar and his/her responses suggest a flagrant ignorance about the mission of WP:WikiProject Islam. For instance, in one of his/her responses, Belomaad suggests that the article should largely reflect the the polemics of the majority rather than the academic findings of historians and Islamicists. (There is still room in the article for sectarian views when they are clearly labeled as such, e.g., a separate section about Shia views.) Albertatiran (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Eyes needed to look over many contributions - Not sure if this is vandalism or incompetence or what

Kennethmacalpine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing mainly in Wales-related articles. Several of their edits, generally marked as "correction" have changed correct links to dab links, see for example here, here, here. Others, such as here have completely changed the name of a reference's author. Here we see a link to Ceretic of Elmet being changed to Cerdic of Wessex, a geographically and chronologically entirely different person. The number and nature of the changes mean it would be helpful if others looked them over too. As I say, I don't know if this is incompetence or vandalism, or what. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a new editor, maybe they don't know what dab links are. You just warned them today, let's see if they provide an explanation. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't account for changing names entirely. DuncanHill (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• They also appear to be editing as Kennethmcalpine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I've blocked this 'old' account. GiantSnowman 20:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to be more attentive, I'm new to Wikipedia. Kennethmacalpine (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• And now they've [2] called me a troll, for asking them to explain an edit. DuncanHill (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

NTSAMR

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

---

IPs aren't allowed to edit other people's user pages, so I can't slap a CSD notice on it, so could someone please delete the page User:HungHargrove66 and block the editor? See meta:User:Mathonius/Reports/Nothing to say about me really for the reasoning. Thanks! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Done by the lovely Acroterion – many thanks! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

I'm not perfect but I'm almost arbitrary edits' on Japan national football team's article

Hello,

I'm asking for your help because the user I'm not perfect but I'm almost persists in wanting to maintain their version against all odds despite the opposition of 2 different users (SoftReverie and me) on Japan national football team's page, and I'm not perfect but I'm almost was the 1st to modify a long-standing consensus version. When this is explained to them with edit summaries (1, 2), they simply revoke without edit summaries nor dialogue (1, 2) and threaten others users with reports. This is not an acceptable approach. Could you please call them to order so that they will cease their actions? Thank you very much. PS : I was mistaken in reporting it on the wrong page earlier. --Martopa (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The last edit by I'm not perfect to the article was a month ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Martopa, there doesn't seem to be any discussion on the article's talk page. However, claiming language like The Land of the Rising Sun made sure of the points by overcoming Indonesia is a long-standing consensus version is a hard sell. How about you try discussing the issues with the other editor (on a talk page, not in edit summaries) first? Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that it hasn't been done, but it's not acceptable for them to threaten other editors with blocking ("so shut up" aggressive comment, on other threat of blocking) because they reverted them once. It's an authoritarian attitude. --Martopa (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Drbogdan, persistent low-quality editing, and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I closed this quickly a few minutes ago since the latest comments have been fairly plain personal attacks, rather than discussing the substance of the complaint and appropriate action. It took me a while to organize my thoughts and copyedit myself - there's a lot to unpack here.

Here we have a science expert mass-adding content based on low-quality popular science churnalism to our science articles, expecting that other editors will review it and determine whether to improve or remove it, and a complaint from the editors who have been cleaning up after them supposedly for many years. This discussion can be summed up with a quote from the competence is required essay: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up." We excuse this behaviour from very new editors who don't yet understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with standards for inclusion and not a collection of links. The community expects an editor with 90,000 edits to understand what content should be in an article and what constitutes a reliable source, especially for an editor who is also a subject matter expert.

Drbogdan's replies to deserved criticism in this thread have been dismissive of the problem at best, if not signalling that they believe their academic credentials excuse them from needing to improve. The community has historically rejected this approach, and rejects it here. Since Drbogdan seems not to understand that they are making a mess and seems uninterested in learning how not to continue making messes, the community's consensus is that Drbogdan is blocked indefinitely.

--

Separately from this close, I also *must say* that their habit - eccentric, maybe? - of hacking together *long run-on strings of comments* - interspersed - as they are - with *forced pause* breaks and sprinkled with self-aggrandizing - and off-topic, yes - links to their *achievements* (see => their contributions) makes it - as others have said here - quite frustrating to converse with them. All the worse that the vast majority of their comments of this sort do not substantively reply to the comments they are left in response to.

I'm also going to leave links here to Wikipedia:Expert editors, Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors, and Wikipedia:Expert retention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

---

User:Drbogdan is a prolific and good faith editor who on the whole seems to be sincerely attempting to be a positive force here. That aside, he seems to have an issue with low quality edits that have gotten to the point of becoming a problem (or they have been for a long time) and there's a general issue of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:NOTBLOG as well. I spoke to him somewhat recently about editing in disruptive quantities of new New York Times articles on astronomy/space content and his primary response was to edit my comment on his talk page to get rid of the word “disruptive” citing WP:IAR for editing my own comment. I’m going to repeat some of the content here from that post, since the pattern of editing has continued past that discussion:

I understand you've been trying to engage with these topics in good faith, but it's gotten to a point where you're editing in New York Times articles on related articles which is creating a workload for editors who need to undo those changes. Recent edits to:

• Samuel Alito
• Clarence Thomas
• Galaxy formation and evolution
• Galaxy
• Dog
• COVID-19 pandemic
• Organgutan

• 2024 in science
• Dark energy
• matter
• Expansion of the universe
• Universe

Which were all reverted near identical edits made within a small window of time, and all reverted. Again, a similar situation played out at:

• Graviton
• Gravity
• 2024 in science
• Quantum gravity

And again at

• Ultra diffuse galaxy
• Low surface brightness galaxy
• Dark galaxy

These are all massive strings of edits of identical content (editing in of very recent New York Times stories), all of which were reverted by me or other users. Recently this has continued with edits to Fast Radio Burst and Timeline of Mars 2020, where he's been adding in every observation by date as they arise and the latter article in particular, where he’s the primary editor, is a complete mess as a result of the daily additions. There's also, more troublingly, undoing reverts to add back in puffery to CDK Company and linking apparently WP:COPYVIO youtube links to Twyla Tharp. There’s also an updated database of every comment he has made on the New York Times, hosting his entire dissertation on wikipedia, and hosting literally dozens of personal photos and videos on commons, with an overwhelming majority of his recent contributions being exclusively to his userspace, and creating redirects to terms that don't actually appear to exist.

I don’t know what the right recourse is here, this is clearly someone active and engaged with Wikipedia in good faith, but at the same time it’s also someone editing in a way that’s creating a huge mess of edits to undo due to the frequent addition of New York Times/pop-science articles (sometimes with WP:PROFRINGE issues when it comes to dark matter in particular) to space-related topics. This all seems to be from a position of good faith and for certain he has created a lot of good content, but it’s creating a workload for those of us who edit in astronomy/planetary science topics, which is made more challenging by a larger percentage of his edits just being labelled “add/adj” as edit summaries.

An IP editor, user:35.139.154.158, seems to be involved here as well, mass-undoing Drbogdan's edits. I’ve since gone out of my way to avoid touching Drbogdan’s edits (minus removing the copyvio) after our interaction because I want to avoid coming across as harassing or hounding. That said, the low quality edits have persisted to a point that I think warrants bringing up here, especially after the puffery and copyvio issues in short succession. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank You *very much* for the discussion - yes - and Thanks for all the complements over the years (see => User:Drbogdan#My Awards) (since 2006 - or earlier?) - yes - my intention is to present all my edits in *good faith* - always - and abide by all WP rules as best as possible - at the moment, my total edits over all wikis (including Wikitionary and WikiSpecies) is 98,193 (see => Special:CentralAuth/Drbogdan) - in addition, I've created 306 articles (perhaps noteworthy is Earliest known life forms), 70 templates (perhaps noteworthy are my efforts at {{Human timeline}} and {{Life timeline}}), 34 userboxes and uploaded 2,488 images (see => User:Drbogdan#My Contributions) - to date - my professional background (and related) is presented to help others better evaluate my editing efforts - some of my edits, particularly at User:Drbogdan, the related Talk Page, including 13 Talk archives (see => User talk:Drbogdan), the sandbox (see => User:Drbogdan/sandbox and related subpages) have been experimental efforts, learning opportunities to improve my use of WP:WikiCode, and test areas to explore new ways of presenting Wiki-related projects and articles (and more) - regarding some of my WP:Redirects - please see => my explanation for their creation as follows: *Comment - As OA of several of the WP:Redirects noted above, it's *entirely* ok wth me to do whatever is decided in the final WP:CONSENSUS discussion - these WP:RDRs were made as a way of linking to Wikipedia from External Websites (like FaceBook), which drops the ending ")", this problem has been fully described and discussed [by me] on the WP:Village pump (technical) at VP-Archive204 (a Must-Read); VP-Archive180; VP-Archive162 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC) - yes - some of my edits could be better - and which I hope to improve even more over time and further practice - I greatly appreciate others helping to correct my unintentionally-made issues - as I have helped them correct their own editing issues over the years - in any case - hope my comments above helps in some ways - please let me know if otherwise of course - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  That seems a polite rejection of everything that's been said about you. There's a lot of concerns left unanswered by your reply. Just to get the ball rolling, when are you going to take your dissertation text and NYT clippings off Wikipedia as is required of you by WP:NOTWEBHOST? DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank You for your comments - and concerns - my intention for including my professional background (and related) is to help others better evaluate my editing efforts on Wikipedia - I would prefer other editors on Wikipedia to do the same if possible - seems that knowing such background materials of editors may help other editors better evaluate editing efforts on Wikipedia - seems there may be others (maybe many others) who agree with this as well - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't "professional background", it's the entirety of your dissertation. All 166kb of it. You're using Wikipedia as a web host in clear breach of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Are you refusing to take it down? DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes - my professional dissertation (and related) is professional background of course - it is not in main space - it is in user space instead, and available for those wishing to evaluate my professional background for any of my edits on Wikipedia - as before, such presentations seem to be a worthy way of sharing relevant professional background of editors to other editors - seems if other editors did the same with their professional background, might help a lot imo - nonetheless - if there is WP:CONSENSUS about this - no problem whatsoever of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/BogdanDennis-PhD-Dissertation-1973-TEXT. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've also nominated your NYT clippings for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drbogdan/NytComments-Search. DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I really appreciate that you're open to feedback and reverts of your edits, and I know you're quick to thank people who revert your edits. My concern here is that you keep making edits that need to be reverted in the first place, for identical reasons as previously reverted edits, in a pattern that appears to be going back for years. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes - *entirely* agree - seems some editors may make better quality edits than others - at least in the view of some editors about a particular edit; others may think a bit differently about the same edit I would think - as noted in WP:OWN => All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by the Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say. - I think that is worthy - and relevant - at least to me at the moment - as Director of Hospital Laboaratories in the real-world back in the day, one of my biggest concerns was determining the issues of the laboratories - a matter of communication - I welcomed feedback from others - working collaboratively with others helps solve a lot of problems - and helps make a better quality outcome generally imo - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Drbogdan, don't thank me, don't make a verbose reply that ignores the question posed, but simply answer DeCausa's question in one short sentence: when are you going to take your dissertation text and NYT clippings off Wikipedia as is required of you by WP:NOTWEBHOST? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please see my related reply above - Thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  No, you have not made a "related reply". Please make a reply; it only takes a couple of words. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am not trying to be a jerk with this, but I genuinely can't fully figure out how this relates to the comment you're replying to, especially with your professional bio information in the reply.

  I welcomed feedback from others

  If you're expecting the feedback after making low quality edits then there's a problem where editors will either need to keep track of your edits, which creates a WP:HOUNDING situation, or we need to cross our fingers and hope that someone following one of those pages sees the edit and deals with it. There's a degree to which making quality edits is on you, this isn't just a case of less-than-perfect editing but actually going on editing sprees which need to be fully reverted, not just modified or cleaned up. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Warrenmck - This all seems to be your opinion - I don't share your opinion - others may not as well - all my edits over the years were intended to be *good qualiy edits* - some editors may agree that my edits were *good quality edits* over the years - and some otherwise - my edits seem to be better than most in my own editing experiences compared with most other edits by Wikipedia editors afaik - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like this recent fracas was instigated by several edits you made which added reliable sources about the questionable viability of the human spaceflight program. Coincidentally, the IP editor who is calling for your "indef" is trying to prevent this information from being added to Wikipedia. This is a content dispute, and the IP editor who is removing your edits is doing so in an attempt to whitewash the literature that shows the health impact and hazards of human spaceflight. We may in fact be dealing with COI from the IP, but we don't have enough information to determine that. You're basically being attacked by the NASA version of the Swifties. Hope everyone sees what's really happening here. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Both parties in this case are vastly more courteous than the usual affair, so that's good. The core issue to me seems to be that Drbogdan tends to communicate their own experiences of the world more so than simply the facts as they will remain relevant. A firm statement acknowledging their error that cannot be confused with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT would go a long way in laying that matter to rest. JackTheSecond (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a reason my comment was removed without a comment? Because I feel that the comment you removed made it clear that my reason for the ANI wasn’t a communication style difference, Drbogdan’s reply aside. If it was out of line, sure, remove it, but I’m a bit confused by this one.Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like JackTheSecond inadvertently overwrote your comment with their edit. I think you can restore it. (I was going to but I can't figure out where in the thread it properly belongs now.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Uhm. I may have taken too much time in the editor formulating my comment and accidentally overwritten your thing. I want back one page out of the editor and into it again so that might have screwed with the technical protections for that? JackTheSecond (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  No problem, I restored it. Sorry about that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Clarify please. Is Drbogdan being asked to comply with something, but is refusing to do so? GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• I'm just not seeing a big problem here. Many of the "problematic" edits linked at the top weren't actually challenged and are still in the respective articles. Reading something and adding it to more than one article where it seems relevant is not in itself a problem. You need to show a pattern of these edits being bad and not just repetitive/lazy. As for the webhost stuff, we afford wide latitude to add random stuff to their user pages once they've established they're WP:HERE. Drbogdan has more of this stuff than most people, yes, but who cares, really? I see a mention of the amount of space it takes up. Fun fact: deleting things makes them take up more server space, not less. It looks like a lot of the extraneous stuff is sorta-kinda-maybe related to the fields Drbogdan edits, and I believe a dissertation released with a free license would be in-scope on Commons or, if PD, on WikiSource. I cannot fathom why anyone would participate in news website comment sections, let alone why they would collect and present them for all to see, but it gets a big "meh" from me. Not worth ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I just want to quickly point out that every edit in the included collapsed section was rapidly reverted, most not by me. They’re all brand new NYT content, many from opinion pages. I didn’t go back too far, but if you pick any random date going back years it does seem like you see the same pattern of mass-editing in content which was rapidly reverted. I wouldn’t have raised an ANI if it wasn’t at the point of being disruptive, as far as I see it, but of course I could be wrong here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I just picked the second group randomly: Gravitation - no longer in the article; Gravity - still in the article; 2024 in science - still in the article; Quantum gravity - still in the article. The argument that these were all removed as bad is simply false. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Were they edited back in later? Wasn’t at all my intent to misrepresent things. I definitely have seen good edits by Drbogdan reverted and later reinstated by other editors. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Such-and-such-year in science" lists are all wastelands that nobody bothers to keep concise. The additions to Gravity and to Quantum gravity should have been removed, just as the same vaguely uninformative text was snipped from Graviton. I've done that now. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: - Thank You for your comments - and suggestions - and support - they're *greatly* appreciated - nonetheless - Re: multi-article edits - one concern to clarify: addng relevant materials to more than one relevant article seems to have been *entirely* ok in my experiences over the years - usually I try to note, in the edit summary (although not always for one reason or another), WP:ATTRIBUTION of material(s) (ie, Attribution code - WP:ATT and/or WP:CWW => "copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution" - or - "based, in part, on my own original text/ref in page name.") - may try to improve on this going forward - Re: my published News Comments - nearly all of my published comments (particularly more recent ones) include a link to a relevant Wikipedia article(s) - which seems to have been *greatly* appreciated by some readers who are not at all aware of some of the relevant articles on Wikipedia (ie, NYT archive examples: Comments-1 and Comments-2) - in any case - Thanks again for your own comments and all - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Indef. As noted above, indeed I've been following Drbogdan for a while (and I check pretty on and off...check up once in a while, then ignore for a long while, etc), and I believe he's a net negative to the encyclopedia and doesn't seem to be able to improve. It's like he'll just read an article in the NYT, and then ask himself "Where can I add this to Wikipedia?" And it winds up being either some mundane, WP:UNDUE, WP:PROSELINE additions (On Smarch 35th, Scientists reported that ...; etc), or it'll be a ref shoehorned in to something that's already better cited. Not to mention the high volume of useless redirect creation, or the social-network-like approach as also noted above -- Drbogdan has over TEN THOUSAND edits to his user page alone.
  There are also issues of bad article creation, cf. the recent CDK Company (original version here before some of the really promotional stuff got removed). Side note, would someone please complete an AFD nomination for this? My rationale is at WT:AFD#CDK_Company, still waiting, thanks!
  And in another direction, the overly effusive politeness is downright infuriating, making communication difficult...thanking everyone for their comments, telling everyone to stay safe. The walls of idiosyncratically formatted text are also mind numbing and make communication difficult (see Drbogdan's very first response to this very report, for example). I know people that haven't been dealing with this for a while will probably just kind of shrug their shoulders at this one, but Drbogdan has done a lot of damage over the years and is a big drain on editor time. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Drbogdan hasn't done any damage at all. You've been following him around reverting perfectly good edits. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  This removal looks good to me; we don't write whole paragraphs about the fact that a researcher published an opinion piece. This removal of another link to the same opinion piece also looks fine; there's no need for a footnote there at all, and an opinion piece would be a poor choice if we did want one. This removal is a bit confrontational in the edit summary, but the rationale is sound. The various removals of human spaceflight-related material invoke WP:MEDRS, among other reasons (for example), which is a not-unreasonable application of a definitely-pertinent guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Other physics editors and I have been cleaning up after Drbogdan's "today, scientists reported"-style edits for years. Here's an example from 2019, where (frankly nonsensical) text was added to Bell test based on press-release-level coverage [3]. It took a while for that to get removed [4], because little blue clicky numbers make text look respectable. Here's an example from December of that year at Casimir effect [5]. We had to waste time going through a whole AfD for a page that should never have been made in the first place. Is it the worst thing we have to deal with while maintaining science articles? No, but it is exasperating. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  To elaborate: science articles are supposed to reflect the established, mainstream scientific consensus. They are not supposed to be news tickers. Disjointed blurbs that either echo or have the same content-free sensationalism as press releases do not help. At best, they make complex topics harder to understand. Worse than that, they peddle a misleading substitute for understanding. An encyclopedia should not do that. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  You're completely exaggerating by focusing on a few edits that you found problematic rather than his entire contribution history which has been extremely helpful in expanding and updating niche topics. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not "focusing on a few edits" that I found problematic. I just went through the times when we happened to edit the same page, and I found more problematic examples than not. Over the years, Drbogdan has made quite a lot of unnecessary work for other editors of niche topics! No matter how many good contributions he's made, this kind of blurb-driven editing has to stop. XOR'easter (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds like selection bias, combined with a plethora of other issues. Drbogdan did some good work on 2013 YP139, which he received co-credit on at Template:Did you know nominations/2013 YP139. Same thing with Tabby's Star, where he worked harmoniously with multiple editors on the nomination for Template:Did you know nominations/KIC 8462852, which he also received co-credit. Same thing again for EGS-zs8-1, which he received co-credit for on Template:Did you know nominations/EGS-zs8-1. Drbogdan created and expanded our article on Voices of Music, a wonderful topic, which did run into some issues and was rejected on Template:Did you know nominations/Voices of Music, but not due to his editing style, but rather because of the dearth of sources on the subject. This was partly my fault, as I encouraged him to submit it to DYK. This is a common problem that all editors face when nominating at DYK and cannot be blamed on Drbogdan. I can find hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles Drbogdan has helped create and expand. What is the primary complaint here? It sounds like a content dispute about the known health impact and health hazards of human spaceflight, which certain space-focused editors are upset about, not a pattern of problematic editing. It seems, therefore, that people are going after Drbogdan for criticizing the human spaceflight program just like the Swifties go after anyone who criticizes Taylor Swift. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  None of the examples that I cited in my original comment were about human spaceflight. Two were about quantum mechanics and the third was about astrophysics. The problem has also affected other articles in physics (e.g., graviton as mentioned above) and biology (e.g., History of RNA biology). This isn't about the human spaceflight program.

  Incidentally, I don't see much merit in the human spaceflight program myself... but let's not get too far afield here.

  Nor is it "selection bias" to point to a pattern of bad edits. It might be "selection bias" to say that only the bad edits matter, and I've tried not to imply that. My concern is that Drbogdan has been burdening Wikipedia's science articles with distractions, PR, vague fluff, and sensationalism. I'm not saying that that is all he has done. But it's definitely a thing that he keeps doing.

  I would be less exasperated if these edits had been confined to "Year X in science" timeline-type articles and if the standards for inclusion had been significantly higher. If Drbogdan restricted his news sources to national papers of record and the news sections of Science and Nature, rather than churned press releases from researchers hyping themselves up, we'd be better off. XOR'easter (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes - *entirely* agree with citing only the responsible scientific literature like Science (had a subscription for years - at least - until I ran out of storage space for unread copies) and Nature - seems my WikiEditing may have been influenced by trying to close the gap between non-expert and expert thinking re science issues with worthy responsible presentations acceptible to all if possible - hopefully, this may have made science topics and issues more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level) - but perhps citing the higher quality of science reliable sources is now preferred - which I personally prefer as well (although I'm somewat flexible with this since I've headed local hs science fairs and directed hospital labs back in the day) - iac - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

References

You mentioned my very short personal video (only one) on Wikipedia for testing purposes - yes - my video on Wikipedia (at User talk:Drbogdan#"Test - My Webm Video") is convenient and, by being my own video and on Wikipedia, WP:PD - an appropriate use afaik atm - and, mostly, less likely to be a copyvio of somebody - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Drbogdan (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• OK, we seem to be making progress here. (Believe me, I'd be very happy to put this all behind us and go do more enjoyable things around here.) But I need to emphasize something that may have been left unclear. Relying upon unreliable sources doesn't make Wikipedia "more accessible and useful to the average reader". It makes it less useful to everyone. No one benefits from recycling PR hype. Just because a slogan about dark energy or quantum entanglement doesn't have any equations in it, that doesn't mean it has any meaningful content either. Garbage isn't good just because it sounds simple! And we're not talking about a recent fashion in standards, either. This edit was just as unacceptable half a decade ago as it would be now. XOR'easter (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

(Response to OP/Warren) Again, this is exaggerated. You complained about his Commons uploads, yet you can’t identify a single problem. If anyone asks me, this is what harassment looks like. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem very invested in this, and in one of the MfDs you mention editing with and defending Drbogdan for years:

I have worked well with Drbogdan for years, and I have repeatedly defended him in the face of multiple attacks by many other editors making baseless accusations about his motivations.

You’re accusing me, the IP editor, and XOR’Easter and blamed a NASA COI conspiracy while insisting this ANI was about a series of edits that weren’t even mentioned here. You need to stop casting aspersions, and if you want more information ask for it. I can point to Drbogdan’s recent upload of a movie of him playing a song, or multiple angles of photos from the same hike, or an abundance of self portraits. I assumed these were self-evident webhosting issues if someone clicked through the link. Please lay off the accusations and straw-manning. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you finished? I don’t see a single thing wrong with Drbogdan’s Commons upload like you just claimed for a second time. He took photos of a hike? Are you serious? But I see you did try to do the same thing again in your reply and turn this around to make it seem like I’m the problem. Good grief! And what is Drbogdan’s greatest "crime" shown so far up above? Citing a press release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. String him up! Who needs justice when we’ve got the Keystone Kops of physics. Viriditas (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: this feels somewhat relevant to the personal content uploaded to his user page: in one of the linked MfDs above it was pointed out by @DeCausa the Drbogdan has made sure his user page is indexed in search engines. In the MfD Drbogdan says this was accidental from a copy/paste and I see no reason not to believe him. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: While Drbogdan can be told what not to do in the future and receive a formal warning, this isn't reason for blocking/indeffing. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

While obviously I'm not an admin and biased as the submitter of this, I do want to say I agree. It's very clear he's capable of making constructive edits and being a positive contributor to Wikipedia and an indef feels like it'd be heavy-handed in context. I'd frankly like to see a restriction on directly editing science articles rather than posting new information to the talk page as a COI editor would for a while, since that appears to be where things are most disruptive, and here he's seemed very unwilling to acknowledge that his edits are routinely removed for being poor quality, including just straight-up not addressing the addition of clear copyvio material.

The physics, astronomy, and geology content (I do really want to clean up the Timeline of Mars 2020 and List of rocks on Mars articles, since I have a background there, but don't want to come across as just going after his work) being added is rough to say the least, and typically seems to be removed. But I also understand if even that feels heavy handed. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes - seems I've made about 35.6% of the edits on the Timeline of Mars 2020 WikiPage (20240624 version) - and nearly 90% of the edits on the List of rocks on Mars WikiPage (20240624 version) - Greatly Welcome any contributions from others to improve these Pages of course - especially from someone more knowledgeable about some of this material than I am at the moment - re: the possible copyvio you noted at the Twyla Tharp article - unclear at the time of posting if the brief video clip (1976) was PD or not - clip was made 48 years ago - and may now be PD? - but I am still not entirely clear about this - Drbogdan (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The answer to your question is found at public domain film: In the United States, motion pictures published before 1978 are copyrighted for 95 years. You're not the first nor the last person to be confused about this, because the laws around copyright make no sense. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Where Are We?

I would like to ask whether someone can summarize what if any administrative action is being requested. As we know, in Wikipedia there are content disputes and conduct disputes. This is a conduct forum. The content issues of whether to keep the dissertation and the New York Times comments are being dealt with at MFD. So is any other action being requested? One IP editor called for an indef, but I think that we can ignore it. Other than that, it seems that there are complaints that his writing about physics is problematic. He may, in good faith, think that he knows more about physics than the average reader, because -- a biochemist really knows more about physics than the average reader. However, he doesn't know as much about physics as the average physicist, and he may be trying too hard to explain dumbed-down physics to average readers in a way that real physicists know is wrong. Is that the problem? If so, is he willing to listen to the opinions of physicists? Is it necessary to topic-ban him from scientific areas outside biochemistry? If not, was this just a complaint session? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The one thing the IP had right here was it does feel like Drbogdan reads a news story and thinks “where does this go in Wikipedia”, which per XOR’easter’s link is a disruptive pattern going back since at least 2019. I feel it’s hasty to think of this primarily as a content dispute. XOR’easter has pointed out that this exact pattern of editing in news bylines to Wikipedia has been exasperating for those of us who actively edit in those fields. My request, as the submitter here, is a TBAN from astronomy and physics related topics, or a restriction on editing them directly without requesting edits at the talk page. I especially feel this way with how WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Drbogdan has come across at both this ANI and in previous interactions when asked to tone these edits down, and I'm surprised that the admins are less concerned about blatant copyvios from a long-term editor, because I think we're looking at someone incredibly prolific on Wikipedia who simply doesn't understand it well (see: asking for WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia policies). I'd probably like to ask the admins to take a look at Viriditas here, as well, since that got pretty uncivil pretty quickly (really, a NASA conspiracy? The Keystone Kops of physics?), but I digress.

a biochemist really knows more about physics than the average reader... he may be trying too hard to explain dumbed-down physics to average readers in a way that real physicists know is wrong.

I don't think this is true. My background is geoscience and astrophysics, and I definitely don't know more about biochemistry than an average reader with an interest in the topic who has kept on top of it. I think it cannot be overstated how different those fields can be, even if they're both sciences. Our domain knowledge isn't all-expansive. Most editors who engage with these articles probably don't have the strongest background in them, but they take care with their edits to improve the article. Drbogdan's edits almost universally are a single type: news updates posted to articles about which they're tangentially related. There's no "dumbed down physics" here, it's simply cut and dry WP:PROSELINE, to the point of conforming perfectly to the example of what a proseline is ("On Date X, Event Y happened"). If it were a case of trying to simplify complex content for a lay audience than editors would be able to help him work to improve the language in these, but instead the only option what appears to be a vast majority of the time is simply to remove the content. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Warrenmck - I didn't mean that a scientist in any given field knows more about other sciences than non-scientists. I meant that a biochemist knows more about physics than the average person who hasn't taken the required college course in physics, including electromagnetics and introductory quantum mechanics. That college-level knowledge of physics is needed to understand chemical bonding, including an approximation of understanding the highly delocalized electrons of the benzo(a)pyrene that his thesis was about. However, that detail is not important to the concern that the physicists here have raised that his edits in the area of physics are problematic. But I did mean that a biochemist has studied introductory college-level physics, which is more than most non-scientists have studied. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

To be clear - Yes - I've had a great deal of physics coursework and experience over the years - particularly at GWU/DC (where well-known physicist George Gamow was on the faculty - an early inspiration) - including engineer/calculus-level Relativity theory and much more - as well as Physical chemistry of course - I also worked at ATF/DC in the Forensic Laboratory doing Neutron activation analysis (if interested, my picture at ATF is at => "File:NeutronActivationAnalysis-ATF-WashingtonDC-1966-DrDennisBogdan.jpg") - so yes - had my share of physics work (academic and employment) over the years - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've got to say, the incessant name-dropping, like the preposterous claim of "My 100+ publications" (150, actually -- all but six of which turn out to be online comment posts), is absolutely nauseating and adds to the feeling that you have no idea how to distinguish the valuable from just plain crap. EEng 03:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, here are my 97000+ publications. And no, no one's interested in a picture of Gamow-inspired you at ATF/DC in the Forensic Laboratory doing Neutron activation analysis. Oooooooh, wow! EEng 02:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Drbogdan I just read this again… how does this “help”?  Augu Maugu ⛩️ 06:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting re WP:PROSELINE - yes - seems that merging the edit more into the article prose may be better in a few of my edits - however - this hasn't always been possible for me for one reason or another (mostly real-world concerns) - seems that those more knowledgeable than I at the time could do a better job with merging the material (as noted in the edit summary of some of such edits => "*entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/del/ce the edit") - seems better to do this at the time than not to do anything at all - but perhaps not doing anything at all - being less bold - would be better after all - thanks for making me aware of this - Drbogdan (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

But the problem is the content that you’re editing in frequently fundamentally doesn’t belong, it’s not just a case of making it fit better. I appreciate you’re open to users reverting your edits, but the problem is those edits being made in the first place. You’re incredibly prolific, it’s unreasonable to expect editors to keep tabs on your edits to remove them when necessary, rather the focus should be on not making low quality edits in the first place, which is why I feel a TBAN would be appropriate here, because a lot of what you’re saying here is that you know that you’re making low quality edits but doing it anyways due to real life time constraint, unless I’m misreading it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, "all my edits over the years were intended to be *good qualiy edits* - some editors may agree that my edits were *good quality edits* over the years - and some otherwise - my edits seem to be better than most in my own editing experiences compared with most other edits by Wikipedia editors afaik" - hope this helps in some way - Drbogdan (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the ban should be tweaked: Drbogdan should be banned from citing NYT and other popular press in science articles. At least six months. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: Please note that The New York Times (NYT) is popular press of course - but perhaps much more than that in quality - and as a possible reliable bridge so-to-speak between the responsible scientific literature - and the reader of popular literature in the public square - after all - the NYT has won numerous awards for journalism ( see => List of awards won by The New York Times ) - more than any other news source in the world afaik - other worthy news sources include The Washington Post (WaPo), Associated Press (AP), Los Angeles Times (LAT) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) - ( please see awards and related => https://www.statista.com/statistics/945236/most-awarded-media-usa/ ) - nonetheless - the responsible scientific literature in the form of Science, Nature and the like are preferred for science articles of course - I personally prefer those WP:RS as well - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The journal Science is almost entirely primary research, science articles shouldn't be based on that, either. Geogene (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Huntster and Viriditas: (and others) - QUESTION: Best WP:RS (at least in general) for Science Articles on Wikipedia in your opinion at the moment - knowing the current WikiThinking about this might be helpful in some way to many I would think - not clear about this at the moment - Drbogdan (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Drbogdan this isn't an issue of the sources used, it's an issue of your editing. You're self-evaluating as someone whose edits seem to be better than most while sort of outright refusing to recognize that multiple editors in science topics have chimed in here calling your edits disruptive and low quality to the point of warranting an ANI, regardless of the outcome of this ANI. There's a disconnect in what some of us here are saying and what you seem to understand the concern as. The NYT is a perfect fine and generally reliable source, that's not the issue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As noted earlier above - "This all seems to be your opinion - I don't share your opinion - others may not as well - is there room for improvement - yes - in the sense that there is room for improvement for everybody of course - some more than others I would think - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon This closing argument is what defines this as a conduct dispute. The non-argument of: "You're wrong, I disagree," that Drbogdan fields here and on their talk-page prior. There is a refusal to argue the central point here, which reads as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Since this all seems to have been going on a while, I suppose they could have had the argument in detail sometime in the past and refuse to reiterate all of it; that could be linked to however. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: (and others) - Unclear about a specific problem here - I'm aware of a complaint of course - my usual edit approach over the years has been to contribute an edit - with the idea that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/del/ce the edit - a notion that has been presented many times in my edit summaries - this approach would apply to *any* of my numrous edits over the years - if the edit is acceptable by other editors, then it's *completely* ok with me - if not acceptable for whatever reason, then that's *completely* ok with me as well - I do not usually pursue unacceptable edits further - this approach seemed to have been acceptable by others over the years - nonetheless - I expect to be *less bold* about my future edits as noted above - perhaps that would help? - please let me know if there's something else that I may be missing that could be better - I would welcome the feedback - Thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the flat-out refusal to acknowledge four editors pointing out specific conduct issues and a blanket denial of any possible issue, coupled with statements that he sometimes actively makes what he knows to be low quality edits and hopes other editors catch it

yes - seems that merging the edit more into the article prose may be better in a few of my edits - however - this hasn't always been possible for me for one reason or another (mostly real-world concerns)

changes my thinking from a temporary TBAN to viewing this as a more serious WP:CIR issue. This is at least a half-decade long pattern of disruptive editing in science articles resulting in AfDs and mass-reverts needed. There's no indicator that it's going to improve or that he intends to step back from this editing behaviour, rather he views it as better than the average editor's content. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I had thought we were making progress, but now I suspect I was overly optimistic. XOR'easter (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "progress"? How does one make "progress" when the filing editor, Warrenmck, a user with 994 edits stretching back to their first edit a year ago, on 8 March 2023, has made a series of bizarre claims against Drbogdan, a user with 90,324 edits stretching back to 2008 (although he didn't start editing until 2010?) and who has maintained a good record for 14 years?[6] Perhaps Warren's inexperience explains why he thinks Drbogdan isn't allowed to post photos of his hikes on Commons, or why Warren strangely keeps citing the WP:PROSELINE essay, which has zero rationale for any kind of proposed sanctions here. Notice, I am not calling for WP:CIR against Warren here, unlike his calls against DrBogdan for "violating" proseline; no such violation exists, my dude. Drbogdan has spent 14 years building Wikipedia. Your newest false claims about "AfDs" above (you keep making these absurd allegations, without end) is belied by 81.4% of Drbogdan’s main space articles, currently live. Of his 90k lifetime edits, 67.4% are to mainspace. He has contributed content to more than two dozen articles which either became featured articles after his edits or were already featured. If his edits were as problematic as you say, we would know. It is safe to say, his edits are sound based on the total lack of complaints. Furthermore, I continue to find it odd and unprecedented that Warren, a user with little experience and few edits, made his way to ANI, happens to cite the IP in his complaint, who just so happens to be calling for an "indef" for Drbogdan based on almost no actual demonstrable problem. This has all the hallmarks of a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. As I've shown above, Drbogdan has edited harmoniously for 14 years. Yes, Drbogdan made a controversial decision to use Wikipedia as a webhost for his dissertation and to link to comments he made on the NYT, but that is being rectified by the community at the MfD. Other than that, there is nothing else that needs to be done. Therefore, I move to close this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If you believe I'm socking file a report. I'm not, so that doesn't bother me at all, but this is wildly beyond WP:CIVIL and deep into WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA territory, especially seeing as you're trying to strangely psychoanalyze me in a parallel conversation here rather than entertain the possibility I may just actually have an issue with the quality of editing being discussed with no ulterior motive. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

One again, you have tried to change the subject to me instead of focusing on the topic. And once again, you have misinterpreted what was said, as nothing I discussed implied "socking". I do want to point out, that in addition to the multiple misinterpretations of yours I've highlighted in this discussion (and I'm still not calling for WP:CIR), you also made similar misinterpretations on Drbogdan's talk page. This is a pattern. For example, in this edit, you accused Drbogdan of changing your words on his talk page and you threatened him with this very ANI. You wrote, "stop editing my words, that's inappropriate and I've been trying to engage with you on this productively. If you insist on changing my own words to suit you I'm going to WP:ANI this situation." So it appears you started this very ANI based on your own misinterpretation of WP:RTP, which Drbogdan has famously been doing to his talk page from the very beginning. Your misinterpretation extended to your edit summary, where you wrote "Inappropriate editing of a talk page comment per both WP:SUPERHAT and WP:TPO"[7], which I will remind you yet again, is 100% false. This is a pattern from you. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:TPO says, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Drbogdan edited the section heading that Warrenmck used on Drbogdan's User talk page. That sure looks like a WP:TPO violation to me. That said, the content of Warrenmck's comment was to raise the same concerns that this ANI thread has been about: low-quality edits in science articles. XOR'easter (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Drbogdan didn't change any comments, he changed the heading, as he always does on his talk page. Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages explains how and when to do this and it is best practice. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The heading is part of the comment. Refactoring always preserves the original editor's meaning and intent. Changing the heading is the opposite of preserving meaning. Under "Concerns", that guideline writes, Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said. This combination of refactoring and archiving will often prevent complaints that information was lost. Make it explicit that you have refactored something so no one is misled into thinking this was the original talk page. Changing another editor's words and collapsing the meat of their comment [8] does none of that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, we strongly disagree on this point. Drbogdan is allowed to change the heading on his own talk page (he has been doing it for 14 years, and many, many other editors refactor as they see fit), and he is allowed to collapse whatever he wants. I admit that you and Warrenmck are confused by WP:TPO, but the fact remains, Drbogdan did not change any comments, and never has at any time. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

My mention of "making progress" was in reference to my earlier comment [9], which I think is clear enough. I do not believe that any of the claims made against Drbogdan are "bizarre". Nor does pointing to Drbogdan's long history of editing make much of a point when the persistence of bad editing habits over multiple years affecting many articles is exactly the problem under discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I went back to your earlier comment, and I still can't make heads or tails of what you mean by "progress". What is the intended outcome you wish to see here? In reply to your other point, in fact, pointing to Drbogdan's long history of editing shows that the vast majority of his edits and article creations are fine. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

A majority, even a vast majority, of edits can be fine. That doesn't make the bad edits good. XOR'easter (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What percentage of his edits are bad? Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Drbogdan combines a commendable enthusiasm with what I can only call a persistent carelessness. Take Peekaboo Galaxy, for example. Arguably, he shouldn't have created it in the first place: one paper plus a smattering of flash-in-the-pan pop-science websites that all copy the press release don't add up to an article. But, that aside, he made a mess that others have to clean up. This edit added a duplicate of the reference just above it. This edit mangled a quotation, blending the original paper and a "news" story about it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comments. If Drbogdan shouldn't have created Peekaboo Galaxy, what is stopping you from taking it to AfD? And speaking of AfD, the stats tool shows Drbogdan agreeing with the community 92% of the time, even when it comes to articles he created, the most notable being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Bogdan. Let's put all the cards on the table. Drbogdan is one of the most harmonious, non-combative, peaceful editors on Wikipedia. He has made 90,000 edits, and has never actually been involved in any major dispute. If I wasn't a card-carrying atheist of the Christopher Hitchens variety, I would think he was a Bodhisattva or the second coming. I cannot think of any other editor on Wikipedia who has led this much of a conflict-free history on Wikipedia in its entire history. Does Drbogdan have issues? Of course, just like every other editor. I think you and others have shown a problem with his use of press releases, and I think he needs to understand that he can no longer use them. I am agreed with everyone on that point. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If Drbogdan shouldn't have created Peekaboo Galaxy, what is stopping you from taking it to AfD? The fact that AfD is a time sink, and AfD's of pages with a superficial veneer of notability because they happen to be full of little blue clickly linky numbers are exceptionally tiresome. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I will take the article to AfD right now if you can give me a good reason to delete it. I'll wait. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered that you acting like a massive asshole is not actually helpful to Drbogdan, about whom at a minimum one can say is consistently polite? Like, you don't have to agree with the criticisms of him, but you're making him the locus of a larger set of behavior problems (your nonstop abrasiveness and apparently willful inability to understand straightforward comments), and that can't really be helpful. --JBL (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobody’s perfect. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This has gone beyond "not perfect" and straight into WP:TEND. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I will make a comment that if a story appears in newspapers or popular press then readers are going to come to Wikipedia to find out more about it. So I think ti is fair enough if our articles mention the latest thing from the NYT. But we may need a deeper reference to where that info comes from. I am not opposing Drbogdan in the additions to articles. But in the long term, some of this content should be summarised and given a historic perspective. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

There’s a difference between breaking news in science, like the imaging of a black hole for the first time, and the kind of edit that results in a press release from a single source on scientific minutiae being added at lightning speed. This is why I raised List of rocks on Mars and Timeline of Mars 2020; two articles heavily edited by Drbogdan in his news-byline style that functionally need complete rewrites because of it. It’s possible that many of the stories Drbogdan adds could find a place here with a little more time and wider press, but the way he’s editing them in is disruptive and poorly handled, and very consistently so. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

And the news-ticker style actually introduces factual errors, like confusing the date a galaxy was originally discovered with the date that a later observation about it was published [10]. This kind of carelessness is easy to overlook and laborious to correct. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Or the WP:PROFRINGE-adjacent lack of understanding of WP:ECREE on topics like panspermia and Dark Matter (which, with credit to Drbogdan, I asked him to bring up with a wikiproject and he did). I was actually trying to find the recent dark matter discussion Drbogdan had and found that this has been going on since 2015

So apparently Drbogdan is the great image-adder. He added yet another image in Pluto. Drbogdan, would you mind... taking it slow?

That's nine years of people addressing quality issues in his edits and is an exact parallel to some of the issues with List of rocks on Mars and Timeline of Mars 2020. I think Drbogdan is open to feedback in the sense that he'll politely ignore it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Warren, may I offer a bit of friendly advice, in the spirit of getting back to my civil self and sharing some wisdom? If you go to Preferences > Gadgets > Strike out usernames that have been blocked, you can control the look of the name of users on your screen, such that when they are indefinitely blocked, a line appears through their name. I assume you have this preference off, because it shows you are citing a sock puppet who complained about Drbogdan. I’m making this comment in good faith in the hope of saving you some trouble. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or not, they appear to be correct in this case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: It appears some formatting in the ANI above this one is causing the closed template to extend below to this ANI. I'm not 100% sure what's catching it but don't want to mess around with the ANI closing tags directly, either. Thanks to whoever got it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 10:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Since a lot of discussion has taken place, which has resulted in me (and I think some others) changing their stances on this, I'm actually asking for a WP:CIR indef at this point. There's evidence of Drbogdan being asked to be more careful with disruptive edits going back an entire decade, and his entire response here and at his talk page has been pure WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The articles he's been the primary editor of are complete messes that need rewrites, and articles he's taken an acute interest in for a short period require mass-reverts to undo everything he added to get the quality back up to where it should be, while only occasionally resulting in content that can be reworked to be appropriate in the article as a whole. He's openly admitting to making low quality edits with the expectation that others will revert it if they aren't of sufficient quality and while it's commendable how open he is to having his edits reverted, it doesn't change the fact that he's making consistent low quality additions to articles which require a lot of time and effort to undo.

With four editors here and more going back that time period providing a detailed explanation of exactly the behaviours that are an issue here his only real addressing of them has been a nebulous "*thank you*", statements that he's okay with reverts (but not a single indication that he understand why the reverts are happening), and Unclear about a specific problem here despite diffs aplenty. While minor things in isolation, the puffery reverts in CDK Company and copyvio edits in Twyla Tharp are egregious:

re: the possible copyvio you noted at the Twyla Tharp article - unclear at the time of posting if the brief video clip (1976) was PD or not - clip was made 48 years ago - and may now be PD?

After 17 years of editing and 90,000 edits we should expect more of an editor than this. I respect the effort and the amount of good faith that Drbogdan has been engaging with, but I don't think that he's adding much other than a workload for other editors. It feels like we have a choice of basically hoping others monitor the topics he's editing enough to prevent him from persistently adding in content that doesn't belong, or simply engaging in WP:WIKIHOUNDING, which I don't think any of us want to do (and I'm certainly trying to avoid). Even in the MfD for his dissertation, regardless of the outcome, there's users expressing shock that someone who has been here as long as he has is so fundamentally unfamiliar with basic policies. The sheer volume of low quality edits coupled with the fundamental inability to understand why multiple editors going back a decade have taken issue with this kind of editing just strikes me as a much larger problem than just the quality of any individual set of edits. Even Drbogdan's most ardent defender just went back and removed a dozen citations to Drbogdan's New York Times comments which were edited into articles. While they were willing to presume it was wholly unintentional, I can't easily look past cite news |last=Bogdan |first=Dennis |authorlink=User:Drbogdan when linking to one of his own comments in that cite. You don't get that authorlink by accident from the autofill options linking NYT comments unless I'm mistaken. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Plugging that link to Drbogdan's comment into the Visual Editor's automatic citation generator gives a reference to the opinion column itself: <ref>{{Cite news |last=Foer |first=Jonathan Safran |date=2020-05-21 |title=Opinion {{!}} The End of Meat Is Here |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/opinion/coronavirus-meat-vegetarianism.html |access-date=2024-06-30 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>. I don't think there's any way to get |authorlink=User:Drbogdan and all that without deliberately typing it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

So Drbogdan is calling his NYT comments publications, listing them all on Wikipedia, pointing people in NYT comments to his Wikipedia profile, which hosts his biography and dissertation, and editing in his own comments as sources into articles as sources. This is all on top of a decade-long pattern of low quality edits and simply disregarding feedback on that. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 17:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. All I see is an, admittedly wilful, misinterpretation of the rules that has not been dealt with previous (and got a little further than is usual.) I'm not even sure if a ban would be warranted as such. Warning; delete what is due for deletion; and deal with things further the next time someone feels obliged to raise issues to this level. The lack of admin attention here so far also speaks for itself. JackTheSecond (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't like to recommend indeffing. But I'm doubtful that this is a workable course of action. Instead, it seems like a suggestion to put up with nonsense and waste more time dealing with carelessness, obtuseness, and what looks more and more like self-aggrandizement, until such time as somebody is finally irritated enough to bring the problem to ANI again.

I am also doubtful that the lack of admin attention here so far also speaks for itself. The message I'm getting from it is that this thread is less time-critical and involves subtler problems than most everything else on the board currently. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I want to apologize to XOR'easter and Warren for aggressively attacking them like a hungry pitbull on a forced intermittent fast. There are many reasons why I'm overprotective of Drbogdan, and I spent some thinking about them over the last several days, but none of that excuses my behavior. It feels like I temporarily lost my mind in some kind of blind rage, and that is very unfortunate, and I feel bad about it now. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted. XOR'easter (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's just too much to plough through, for me anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems DrB's cordiality and air of cooperation has been working well for them for years. Over 10 years ago, other users have complained about their haste to insert news into articles, often replying with some variation of please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce my edits of course. His agreeable tone juxtaposed with his poor sourcing and editing style was also remarked on 10 years ago. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Indef for User:Drbogdan?

Hi, uninvolved editor here. Creating a new section so that we can more concisely discuss whether a WP:CIR and WP:PROMO indef ban for this user would be appropriate. The accusation of self promotional insertion of sources into Wikipedia is a serious one, if true and deserves a discussion and probably a 6 month indef (edit: to clarify here, meant an indef w/ 6 mo. review) with the home the user can take some time WP:HEAR the concerns raised. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure an indef is appropriate, but an editor using their own comments under a news article as a source deserves a special type of trouting (maybe from space). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve seen CIR bans here for much, much less and it’s hard to point at someone’s long record on Wikipedia when there’s basically no evidence Drbogdan has ever considered any feedback in a decade of low quality editing, and the use of his own comments as citations while directing people in the NYT comments section to his indexed Wikipedia user page which contains his CV and dissertation seems like cut and dry WP:PROMO. I’m not seeing anything resembling a net positive contribution here and Drbogdan hasn’t shown up to this ANI beyond pretty much insisting he’s done nothing wrong. I’m not sure why an indef isn’t appropriate? There’s no indicators I can see anywhere that he’ll change his behaviour or even recognizes the problem and he’s constantly making messes for other editors, and his response to Viriditas removing his news comments as citations doesn’t really make it seem like it was a mistake, rather “oops I got caught”.

I feel like we’re getting hung up on his time as an editor and sheer number of edits and not “how has that time and how have those edits been used.” Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

”6 month indef" is self contradictory. What is being proposed here? A 6 month block or an indefinite block? The user has zero blocks in their log so this proposed sanction seems harsh. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

An indef does seem harsh, but we're talking about a decade-long problem. I haven't seen a proposal for a less harsh sanction that actually makes sense. ("A trout, and an admonition to ... be more careful in every aspect of your editing"?) XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• This guy inserted as a citation, in one of our articles, his own goddam online comment [11] -- which he signed with a pointer to his Wikipedia user page. To facilitate this embarrassing self-aggrandizement he apparently uses Archive.today to snapshot anything, anywhere in which his name appears, no matter how trivial, thus immortalizing his words of wisdom. This kind of nonsense has been going on for years. What more need I say? EEng 03:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Block, permanent/indefinite. Brings Wikipedia into disrepute. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Option for “Ban from mainspace”, which is where he does actual damage, with a demand that if he wants to return to trust to edit, he must clean up his userspace, particularly the misleading “publication” list. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak Support indef. Indefinite is not permenant. There appears to be damage being done to the encyclopedia vis-a-vis self-citing comments in articles. Even in good faith, the poor quality contributions cost volunteer time. I don't think he's presented a convincing argument that this behavior will change. An indef would stop any disruption until and unless such assurances are made. I think he has much to offer the encyclopedia, and hope he will do so in a way that is not disruptive (e.g., low-quality). EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support downgraded to weak per comment replying to Randy Kryn, below. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, I've personally been very happy with many of his edits, and have been alerted to news and events by running across his postings. DrB has no blocks, so to go from a clean block record to an indef seems like overly punishing for the sake of punishing. For someone with no blocks this discussion itself is "lesson learned", and could be closed now with just a "boo", a trout, and then how about some deserved pats on the back for a job well done. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is a trout good enough? Wouldn’t a week block be a signal to future discipline if his actions continue?  Augu Maugu ⛩️ 12:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  At the risk of bludgeoning, his only comments on the situation have been to say he doesn’t understand what the problem is and he never addressed the issue of editing in his own NYT comments. I don’t know how it’s possible to interpret this situation as “lesson learned”. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  31 hours may be a good "lesson" to be learned, but for someone as productive and skilled in scientific editing jumping from zero to indef hurts the encyclopedia as much as the editor. Editing personal comments may or may not fall under the umbrella of subject matter expert, but if not then they shouldn't be included - and that may be what is learned. But an indef doesn't seem the route to go here. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  While I don't agree the good outweighs the bad, I do want to draw attention to the above comment, which is entirely valid. Whether the bad outweighs the good is a judgement call, and thank you Randy Kryn for such a concise counterpoint. I'll also be amending my support to a weak support. (I have less faith in my own judgement than a veteran editors'.) I hope other editors chime in promptly to clarify what the community-at-large's judgement is re: good/bad balance. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Drbogdan's behavior in this discussion is always polite but rarely, substantively, responsive. I suggest Drb place the template NOINDEX|visible=yes at the top of each of his user pages. This good faith gesture by Drb may remove some pressure on his editing. Once this voluntary step is taken, this discussion might progress. This time sink needs to end. Unless Drb is unable to take such an easy step, "signs point to" no progress made.
  — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 16:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC) —

   Done - added "{{NOINDEX}}" to top of user and talk-pages - new to this and entirely unintentional - seems to have been part of an earlier copy/paste template - should now be *entirely* ok - please adj or let me know if otherwise - thanks - Drbogdan (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Comment The explanation that it was part of an earlier copy/paste template doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It was directly added alone in this edit and there's no addition of a template for quite a distance on either side of that edit. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  

  Comment @drbogdan Very good. Now let's do the same for your fifty-three additional user pages. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) —

  Regarding the alerted to news and events by running across his postings bit: that's a reason to follow someone on social media, not a reason that their edits on Wikipedia are actually good. XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support an indef: I don't see how this discussion can be "lesson learned" if DrBogdan's response is "is there room for improvement - yes - in the sense that there is room for improvement for everybody of course - some more than others I would think - hope this helps" - lesson not learned as far as I can see. Toughpigs (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Support as submitter. I don't think any attempt to convince us he's seen the error of his ways at this particular juncture would be sincere, and even removing the indexing from his user page wouldn't mitigate the fact that he's directing the internet to his user page at every possible chance. There's already been enough time spent cleaning up these messes, there's not much to be gained from giving him more opportunities to edit in more junk or promote himself further. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Conflicted I find myself agreeing with the commenters who say that an indef at this point seems harsh, but I also am not sure what else to do. We have an editor here who essentially used an overly formalistic approach to Wikipedia's policies to undermine those very same policies. But what really gets me is, as others have noted, that DrBogdan still doesn't seem to understand that. They certainly understands that the exact actions they undertook were wrong, but I get no sense that they comprehend why. I cannot shake the feeling that even now they are thinking of new ways to arguably fit within the letter of the law (apologies for the legalistic metaphor) to achieve the same ends--which are very much contrary to the spirit of the law. I think that some sort of sanction is certainly needed, but I will leave it to the great and good to determine what that might be. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support I'm basically in the same place as Dumuzid except I think something needs to be done to make DrBogdan take this seriously. I think he's used to politeness letting him skate by. An indef isn't permanent - hopefully it will grab his attention enough to make him want to do something about it. DeCausa (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Also, the faux artlessness is wearing thin, as here. There are too many excuses like that now. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear I'm ignoring in my "support" the "6 month" aspect of the indef proposal which of course makes no sense. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support If Drbogdan isn't going to learn any lessons from being taken to ANI, then he needs to be indeffed until he acknowledges the issues and actually corrects them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Would a topic ban from science related content work? I also think zero->indef is a lot, but editor shows no willingness to change their behavior saying others can fix it, which is not sustainable. Don't think a mainspace p-block would help since they'll fiddle in userspace with their citations. In either case, no self promotion is a given. Citing your own comments? Absolutely unacceptable. Star Mississippi 16:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have a feeling that would just shift the issue to other topics within the encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not just their own comments...no editor should be citing any online reader comments as sources. Schazjmd (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block, reluctantly. I was about to oppose the indef and support a lesser sanction and then read the self-citation, which answers the question that had, in my mind, been an open question, which is whether he has been editing promotionally. I had hoped that a lesser sanction would be in order, but an indefinite block is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Can some sort of low-quality prize be given to User:Allan Nonymous for proposing something contradictory, such as trouting with an image of a dictionary? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef (not a six month one though). This is the level of self-promotion new accounts would immediately get shown the door for. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support per EEng’s statement.  Augu Maugu ⛩️ 00:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support indef (as in 'not just for 6 months'). I'm unclear as to whether this is a chronic competence issue, a case of thinking that rules only apply to other people, or a bit of both. Functionally though, it makes no difference. Wikipedia is not social media. It is not a platform for self promotion. It is not a platform for self-citation to media comments sections (how in the name of insert-you-preferred-deity could anyone who's been around this long think otherwise?). It is not a scratchpad for endlessly spamming articles with whatever minor news story catches your eye. That's what blogs are for. Drbogdan should start one, where we can safely ignore it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed.  Augu Maugu ⛩️ 01:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support Having read others editors comments and looked through the user 'publications' I've struck my earlier comment, it apparent that action needs to be taken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - The impression I'm getting, is that the community is being toyed with. Politeness, doesn't alter that an editor isn't complying with the community's requests to change their behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Support indef/siteban - Wikipedia is not for self promotion, and this guy is clearly trolling the community by politely playing dumb. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751

• 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 has made unreliable edits on various race and intelligence articles and has been heavily reverted. I first ran into this user on the Helmuth Nyborg article where a first they were removing any mention of sources describing Nyborg's involvement with the far-right and neo-nazism. I reverted this user a few times but I did my best to cooperate with them on the talk-page.

2A02 has made several posts accusing me of being a sock-puppet at Wikipedia and an editor of RationalWiki. There were two earlier posts by them on this [12], [13]. On their talk-page they were warned by another user not to make this type of personal attack [14] and "This should be considered a level 2 warning" [15] yet they continue to do so [16]. The user said they won't be filing an SPI and has woven a complex conspiracy theory that users supportive of race intelligence research are banned from Wikipedia.

In the above diff, the user falsely claims I have lied about working as a journalist and that I have used this sock-puppet account London Student Journalist. This is a random blocked account from 2018 that is nothing to do with me. I never claimed to be a journalist. I am a philosophy student and I do private research for a newspaper on far-right figures. The same user also claimed that I am involved in RationalWiki and created an article on there yesterday which is not true.

The same user has also been linking to old Wikipedia conversations from 2020 and 2021 [17] citing conspiracy theories from two blocked Wikipedia accounts Gardenofaleph and another banned user who was topic banned on race and intelligence Captain Occam. Both of these accounts were promoting strange conspiracy theories about RationalWiki and about two Wikipedia users sharing accounts to discredit intelligence researchers. Nobody took their claims seriously but this user is linking to this old content.

I believe that the issues of repeated personal attacks and promotion of conspiracy theories about off-site websites need to be addressed here. It should also be noted the same user has been warned about canvassing [18] but is trying to canvass two other editors they believe sympathetic to their pro-race and intelligence viewpoint to file an SPI. The user is not acting in good faith, they seem upset with my well-sourced edits on Helmuth Nyborg so have resorted to promoting misinformation about my account to try and shut me down. Their behaviour has not been pleasant, I also left them a message on their talk-page but they removed it [19]. 51.6.193.169 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This IP is a long-term problem user who I believe has been topic-banned and blocked for their past behavior in this topic area; @Generalrelative: do you have the links to past discussions? --JBL (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll just add this observation: 2A02 in a recent edit relied on/linked to an edit made by another IP range (2600) who was espousing similar unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories about RationalWiki; 2600 was last active and blocked on nearly the same day that 2A02 began posting (14-16 April). 2600's edit(s) shows very similar conspiracy theories about RationalWiki, 2A02 posted on their talk page yesterday. The timing is suspicious to say the least and 2A02 is evidently familiar with 2600's edits. 51.6.193.169 (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a good observation regarding chronology, 51.6. JBL, were you thinking of 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40? I will note that the geolocations are very different. But in any case, the 2A02 IP has made it abundantly clear that they are here to right great wrongs wrt the race and intelligence topic area, and very much not here to build an encyclopedia. They have been made aware of the contentious topic area, warned about their behavior, and persisted despite those warnings. Generalrelative (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk page harassment from Arrowar

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

---

Kind of minor but I'm getting personally harassed on my talk page by Arrowar. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, the fat image on their talk page suggests they are WP:NOTHERE. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Experienced user not adding references

• Catironic9013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Catironic9013 is an experienced user that has been adding unsourced content to Wikipedia as of late. I have given them notices on their talk page but they don't seem to care to discuss their edits. Here are the most recent additions of unsourced content.

On La academia [20], they added content about an upcoming season of the show and the judges for it but failed to add a source so I reverted their edit. Two months later, the user once again added information for the upcoming season without any sources. [21][22]

On Top Chef VIP [23], they added that new judges were joining the series but again did not provide a reference. I later added the content myself with a reference, but it should not be my responsibility find sources for the edits of other users.

The most recent issue was on La casa de los famosos México season 2 where they added a cast member without a reference. [24].

I feel that as a user that has been editing since 2020 and with over 1,000 edits they should know that references are necessary so that readers can check that the content here on Wikipedia is true and that it comes from a reliable source.Telenovelafan215 (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, if anyone can help, I would appreciate it. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Catironic9013 hasn't used a talk page (article or user) in 3.5 years. Unless I overlooked something, the last time they cited a source for an edit was in Oct 2023.[25] Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Within a rounding error, all of their contributions are from the mobile web interface, which means they probably don't know others are taking issue with their edits, because all they're seeing for notifications is a little red circle near the top right of the page. I think it'd be best to block them from mainspace with a friendly custom block message asking them to use their talk page. Rummskartoffel 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

smalljim

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

---

Can someone verify the blocking activity by this user? He has been blocking IPs as open proxies but a Whois shows they’re simply public access points which means you physically have to be at that location to access through that IP. 63.44.136.26 (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

Johann Grander was an Austrian with no scientific background who claimed to have received information from God on how to "improve" water and made all kinds of claims that his "revitalized" water had special benefits (including curing cancer). It was sold for large sums per liter and the devices were sold for even larger sums. It is a bit comparable to holy water. A company was formed that sold his "inventions". The claims by the company have been debunked over and over again by scientists.

Salvelinus umbla (talk · contribs) wrote: "To the best of current knowledge, the company Grander has never been a partner of Wetsus." despite Grander being listed as a company participant on the website of Wetsus, which means that Grander paid Wetsus money.

Wetsus names the sum on their website Company Participants: € 32,900/theme/year

The theme is "Applied Water Physics" and the coordinator for that theme is no other than Elmar C. Fuchs, who has at least since 2016 been writing at least 3 publications in support of Grander.

Salvelinus umbla wrote: Here, I must particularly insist on your source citation, as such accusations could very easily be misinterpreted as defamation of a respected scientist.

WP:LEGAL says: Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who post legal threats are typically blocked while the threats are outstanding.

Stating the facts is not defamation.

Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm no expert but I'm not sure that asserting content that is poorly sourced (in their view) could be defamatory is the same as "I'm going to sue you" or "My lawyers will be contacting WMF". I don't see that assessment in a content disagreement as a threat of legal action, it seems more like an opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

They are referring to my comment on the talkpage, not article content (although asking for a "source citation" would give that impression). Polygnotus (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say that is a distinction without a difference, considering that the user has referenced an employment relationship with the company (and yet not otherwise complied with our COI disclosure requirements). The implication they are making is pretty clear, and the LT seems to just be the tip of the iceberg with regard to competency, neutrality, and WP:NOTHERE issues in this user's approach. It doesn't seem we'd be losing anything with a block until they give us extensive assurances that they have undertaken to understand some basic editing principles they currently seem uneducated about and disinterested in. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Adityagoyal6363

Adityagoyal6363 (talk · contribs) predominately edits in Indian reality television articles. On Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi Digital series) season 3 I've been having an small issue with their edits as some of their are contrary to MOS:CAPS with this being the most recent edit on their part changing the section headings back to mixed-case. I'm not thrilled about that, but the larger issue I have is the lack of communication or response from them about the issues after leaving https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adityagoyal6363&diff=prev&oldid=1231958415 warning] messages on their tak page. They have responded to earlier messages on their talk page, so I know they are aware of the messages, but ignoring the WP:MOS from an editor with 2000+ edits of a year is not a minor thing. Given the lack of response around this, perhaps a page block from this page until they acknowledge they will follow the MOS is needed here. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And this continues for today - [26]. Ravensfire (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not optimitic given the lack of engagement from Adityagoyal6363, but I have started a talk page discussion here to maybe see if something will happen. Still, some admin attention here would be helpful to avoid a slow-motion edit-war over capital letters. Ravensfire (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Today's batch of bad capitalization from Adityagoyal6363 - [27]. Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Violation of MOS:CAP in itself is not a very serious issue, but the fact that they have refused to engage at their or article's talk page as well as at ANI is actually concerning. Perhaps a temporary block is necessary until they learn to start using talk pages. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

[28] the disruption continues. I'm guessing that since this is ignored, WP:AIV is the right place for this. C'mon, admins, nary a response here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

[29] and still continues to ignore MOS with no attempt at communication. Ravensfire (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I left a warning at user talk. Please let me know if problems continue. You might start by pinging me from a relevant article with a diff of a repeat dated after the date in my signature. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Requesting rangeblock on 223.185.128.0/21 for block evasion of User:Halud Foressa

223.185.128.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Wikipedia admins. I am requesting a block on the IP range above, for constant disruptive editing and block evasion of User:Halud Foressa. This IP user has been reported to WP:SPI four days ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Halud Foressa, but the report has sat there pretty much unlooked at ever since. Yet, this user continues to rapidly disrupt Wikipedia to this day, so I am posting here and requesting that action be taken swiftly.

Evidence of sockpuppetry (copied from the WP:SPI report) are as follows:
Both the IP and the [previous sock] 'User:Paul is describing' account seem highly (almost solely) interested in Indian films, and on the Deewana (2013 film) if we compare diff by account to diff by IP, they both are trying to remove the fact that the film is based on 2007 'Deepavali' film in one way or another. Little to no use of edit summaries either. Looking at their edits in general, they like to remove claims that a film is based on another (see example 1 and example 2).

It needs to be a rangeblock and not an individual address block, with a length of at least a few months, based on the fact that there was IP address 223.185.133.42 engaging in the same large quantity of disruptive edits (example) back in June, and same thing with IP address 223.185.128.39 in May (example). They are currently using 223.185.133.218 but just a few days ago they were on 223.185.132.111. I searched through the contribs history of the /21 range and could not really find any edits from the last few months that are undoubtedly not from User:Halud Foressa.

The latest IP address has been racking up quite a bit of disruption lately, for example check out the page histories of Mr. Sampat, Pabitra Papi and Deewana (2013 film). This disruption just needs to stop, and I'm sure User:Mehedi Abedin is very tired of it at this point. They actually tried to report the latest IP address at AIV twice (attempt 1, attempt 2), but both reports got ignored for long enough to become automatically removed as stale, so I'm helping them out here in regards to this. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, very tired. Need admin action against the IP. Mehedi Abedin 04:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/223.185.128.0/21 for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully it gets their attention.

P.S.: whether it's the same person or not, almost a week ago an SPI report w/ CU request was initiated regarding the 'User:Paul is describing' account. A checkuser revealed they were abusing seven different accounts, most of them with very similar editing patterns and interests as the IP, as seen in the archive here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments at AfD

Can you please retract this comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Knight. The comments describe someone sexuality using words that are not acceptable FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've rev del'ed the comment. I did not block, although I'm tempted as they're clearly not here and have no objection to someone doing so. Would someone else more versed in the CT templates make them aware please? Star Mississippi 13:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The comment still there at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Knight FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It helps to hit publish. Who knew. ;-)

Fixed for real now. Star Mississippi 13:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. You are a Star! FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I spend my days eating cheese

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

---

This is a user I first encountered because they added an irrelevant WP:AUTOBIO notice to an IP I was watching. I don't know why they did this. When I left them a message on their talk page about it, they ignored it and blanked my user page. They later apologized on their own accord which I thought was surprisingly nice of them. They then proceeded to move their user and talk page to random namespaces ([30][31][32][33]) and made a bunch of other seemingly random, unconstructive edits. I reported them to WP:AIV but withdrew my request after they apologized and left this note on their user page (I believed their edits might have genuinely been mistakes). Recently they started editing again and made a few troll edits ([34][35]) then added these ([36][37]) notices to their talk page, suggesting their account has been compromised. I assume this is just a case of WP:BROTHER. Not really sure what to do here, but if you scroll far enough down their contributions, you'll see they did (or tried to) make some constructive edits in the past. Maybe an admin can give them a stricter warning about their troll (?) edits? C F A 💬 22:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. They also claim their account is hacked. Not sure I believe them, but just another basis for the block, even though a troll is a troll.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, I spend my days eating cheese too. The rest of the club can be found by way of User:Specialagentsnoopdawgiedoodoo97. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Excellent, another reason for the block, so many. I'm having homemade mac 'n cheese tonight for dinner. Perhaps I should join the club.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

• Just like your mother taught you: eating too much cheese can lead to blockage. EEng 14:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• So can dreaming of cheese. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

threats made off-site

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

---

I'm on mobile for the moment, but thought this needed immediate attention (my apologies if I'm out of line): [38] (archived) and [39] (archived) and [40] (archived) and [41] (archived) and [42] (archived) and [43] (archived). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Fourthords, that is industrial strength ranting and raving, laced with threats of violence. Please bring this to the attention of Trust and Safety. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

10-4; I've done so. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Wow. Should the named editors be told? Some must already know though. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: they probably already have when they made the original tirade last week on this noticeboard. See the relevant ANI thread. --MuZemike 13:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think just about everyone at any level of community rightsholding is aware of this case right now. Stewards, checkusers, functionaries in general, IRC ops and Discord mods have been dealing with it for a while. Best not to engage, report to someone appropriate and move on. -- ferret (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP-hopping editor

The following IPs are making disruptive mass changes of "Transnistria" to "Pridnestrovie" across many different articles:

• 80.94.250.159
• 217.19.215.92
• 217.19.215.109

Mellk (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Two of these are now blocked. Although reported on AIV, the edits are not strictly vandalism, but are disruptive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. Mellk (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  It may be best to block the range, there is still ongoing disruption from 217.19.0.0/16. Mellk (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Now from 80.94.250.218. Mellk (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Whoa there. 217.19.215.0/16 is 65534 IPs, and is used by at least 15 different networks in several countries in Europe. The network you named is a resold /24. You should be careful using large netmasks. 12.75.41.40 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  oh btw found another one. 217.19.208.98. just letting ya know :) Gaismagorm (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  nvm they were blocked Gaismagorm (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I did not mean to block the entire /16 address range, but I should have been clearer with this, my mistake. Mellk (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Owenglyndur and copyright violations

In early June I warned User:Owenglyndur about copyright violations; there was minimal engagement with the issue (see Owenglyndur's talk page). Two articles were subsequently speedily deleted, and after finding copyvios in several other articles they created I requested a contributor copyright investigation. They have since created Khirbet Beit Sila which is substantially copied from this source. My attempt to help Owenglyndur has been unsuccessful, including suggesting training resources. Would an admin be able to take a look at the situation? Richard Nevell (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've INDEFFed until they sow an indication of understanding and commitment not to continue. Star Mississippi 13:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've opened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20240707 for this editor. MER-C 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:2.51.87.235 continues to disruptively change style/spelling/content in quoted text and reference titles

2.51.87.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been applying MOS and ENGVAR spelling/grammar changes randomly. Across a range of articles. Often applying MOS/ENGVAR changes incorrectly (applying UK spelling to US topics and vice versa). And in many cases making random style/spelling/grammar/content changes to quoted text, reference titles and other content that should not be changed.

(For example, the anon editor decidde to "improve" the text of the USA Freedom Act of 2015 (H.R.2048). So it no longer matched the source. Or randomly change what composer Brian Tyler reportedly said in a 2019 interview.)

The IP user has been advised of these errors and issues repeatedly. Including by myself (multiple times), by KylieTastic (here), by HMSLavender (for example), and several others. In each case, the specific ENGVAR/SIC/MOS guideline has been highlighted for the anon. In each case the disruption has continued. We are long since at the point where the community is spending more time cleaning up mistakes and explaining guidelines than is reasonable. And hence a block or other action is likely needed. Guliolopez (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• I blocked the editor for two weeks. They need to communicate. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Micsik Krisztián

This user has been creating characters articles on the site for a fair bit now, and while most of these subjects failed notability guidelines, I have given them the benefit of the doubt until now. They started at first by creating articles for Doctor Who related characters, such as Sutekh (Doctor Who) and The General (Doctor Who), among others, which had to be redirected and their edit history deleted due to plagiarism and copyright violations (Both lifted from their respective TARDIS Wiki pages). I went to their talk page and warned the user about these actions, including several copyright violations on Commons due to them uploading several copyrighted images for various reasons, including as illustration for some of these articles. This user has recently begun creating other character articles, most notably for Star Wars characters, in the form of characters such as Canderous Ordo and Tor Valum, with both having grievous copyright violations from various sources (With Ordo's hailing from [44] and Valum's hailing from [45]). I have not been monitoring this user, and have only become aware of the persistence of these actions via the recent Ordo AfD, so there may be additional copyright violations or other incidents of plagiarism I may have missed. Given I have already notified this user of the issues present with copyright and plagiarism on their talk page, they are well aware of what they are doing, and are in violation of several Wikipedia guidelines. I am admittedly unfamiliar with reporting incidents of this severity, so I apologize if this in the wrong noticeboard, but given the consistent problems this editor has been causing due to their consistent violations, I feel inclined to report this user before these continue to cause further problems for other editors in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked until they're able to communicate an understanding of the issue and commitment not to continue. Star Mississippi 01:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

User:SofiaBirina edit warring copyrighted & promitional material into article

User:SofiaBirina is currently edit warring a combination of promotional-sounding material and copyrighted material into the article Petah Tikva Museum of Art. See [46] [47] [48], all which contain material copied from [49]/[50] or another similar source. Page protections, blocks, whatever- could an admin deal with this? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• My original close was Revisions deleted, partial block applied. Star Mississippi 16:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC) but they were repeating the same edits logged out so noting here that I've semi'ed. If further action needs taking, I'm offline so reopening. Star Mississippi 12:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Vectormapper - Mass upload/edit of SVG maps, suspicious behaviour

• Updated name Kirill_Shrayber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Star Mississippi 00:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not entirely sure to which admin board I'd post this, since this issue encompasses both Commons and Wikipedia.

To start; the user Vectormapper has recently uploaded a slew of SVG maps on Commons, and almost all of them display a prominent logo watermark promoting their website (example here on lower right corner), falling under unacceptable watermarking per COM:WATERMARK.

User defends the watermarks on their talk page as follows:

You see self-promotion in my publications. This is a misconception. The author's signature on the author's product is NORMAL. They've been doing this for hundreds of years. My ancestor, Johann Georg Schreiber [...] put his signature picture with his name in the corner of the map in the same way.

That user has then edited a number of city articles on Wikipedia to display these maps.

Furthermore, it seems that the user has also edited these maps into Wikipedia articles with the username Ilya_Shrayber. It seems that that user had been editing a number of city articles to include links to their own website back in 2016, and was engaged in some edit warring involving those links. (Next edits show a few back-and-forth reverts.)

Currently the user is engaged in some "discussion" about the maps on the Village Pump. Based on the user's replies there and on their talk page, they are not taking no for an answer, and treat established policies as opinions to brush aside with non sequiturs.
Ilya_Shrayber's user talk page displays similar problematic discourse reminiscent of Vectormapper's.

Not even considering the dubious usefulness of the maps — as they are completely unreadable in the infobox size to which they have been inserted, and since Wikipedia already has the Kartography plugin which does the same thing better (the user argues that Kartography is "not suitable for creating maps in vector formats suitable for use in media" nor editable unlike his maps) — they, at the very least, should be marked with {{Watermark}} where applicable and treated by the policies listed there.

And lastly, in the user's own words, if the maps are meant for creating prints and edited for in use in media, and as the user admits that the maps are unreadable in the infobox size ("Are you joking? These are vector files and can be scaled to any size. 300 pixels is a tiny preview. You can't see anything in this preview."), the maps do not belong in infoboxes, and the user should stop inserting the maps into them. —Nelg (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Block for self promotion, which is their goal and most of their actions citing their family's history. If there is a successful unblock request, they should be limited to one account. Star Mississippi 16:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, I have blocked the Vectormapper account as a username issue. They're welcome to use the Shrayber account, although I'd still recommend blocking based on promotion as I said above Star Mississippi 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Username issue is resolved (thanks @331dot) Star Mississippi 12:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought that the user ID was familiar. Vectormapper opened a case request at DRN on 23 June: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_246#Tulsa, saying that User:SounderBruce didn't like their username and was deleting some of their maps. I closed the DRN case because it was not an article content issue. I said that any objection to a username should be filed at WP:UAA, and that discussion about the addition or deletion of maps, or any article content, could be at an article talk page or a WikiProject. I also cautioned against labeling a content dispute as vandalism. As the Original Poster notes, there was also controversy at Commons about their maps. I haven't reviewed their edits further, and don't have any more to add at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that they seem to have had a username change since this thread was opened, as the contribs links etc say there's no such account registered. jp×g🗯️ 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging, I've dropped a link at the top. @Nelg: if you'd like it elsewhere feel free to move it. Star Mississippi 00:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, all that aside, what are they doing, besides having small watermarks on the images? Aren't people supposed to be uploading freely licensed images like maps? It seems potentially useful (AIUI, Kartographer is an external service which could conceivably go down or not be accessible, like if a page is being viewed offline). jp×g🗯️ 02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible breach of promotional guidelines

Requesting arbitration/intervention on INFINITY8 Official (talk · contribs) making persistent and potentially WP:NOTPROMO edits on the Standard Chartered Bank building, Penang article. Username itself is in breach of WP:CORPNAME. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @HundenvonPenang Thank you for your message and for pointing out the issue. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my edits. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. I will take immediate steps to correct my contributions and ensure they comply with Wikipedia's standards. If there are specific changes you recommend or further actions I should take, please let me know.

I appreciate your guidance and will be more mindful in future edits. INFINITY8 Official (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, for starters, not using ChatGPT to make your responses. Ravenswing 09:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked by Alexf. IznoPublic (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse troll back... again

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

---

14 novembre, the Teahouse troll, is back with 3 new accounts: Paolo Maldini è il miglior difensore della storia del calcio, Random username 1234567890, and Non so che nome scegliere. I was originally going to report this at the SPI but didn't per WP:DENY and how back in May, they created several new accounts each time a report was filed. Is there really nothing we could do...? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Block is clearly warranted. Admins do your magic.CycoMa1 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked both and a couple sleepers: User:Random username 1234567890 and User:No idea what username to choose. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Aqua.107 non-constructive behaviour and edit-warring

Aqua.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User repeatedly engages in non-constructive editing, often making unsourced changes (e.g. [51], [52], [53], see also examples below), or unexplained deletions of content (e.g. [54]). The larger problem is the edit-warring behaviour alongside this, of which they have a long history, e.g.:

• Portuguese Colonial War: [55], [56]
• Dutch–Portuguese War: [57], [58], [59]
• Battle of Diu multiple times, including: [60], [61]; then [62], [63]; then [64], [65], [66]; and [67], [68], [69], [70]
• Battle of Alcácer Quibir: [71], [72]
• Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523): [73], [74]
• And ongoing at War of the League of the Indies: [75], [76], [77],[78]

They've previously been warned about disruptive behaviour ([79], [80]), unsourced editing ([81]), and about using AI-generated text ([82], [83]). I warned them about edit-warring specifically ([84]) shortly before they started edit-warring at War of the League of the Indies. Edit summaries like this latest one, after I re-explained the problem to them and invited them to discuss on the talk page here, suggests they have no intention to engage in WP:CONSENSUS. They have never responded on any talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

They are still edit-warring and refusing to discuss at War of the League of the Indies ([85]). I can report them to WP:AN/EW instead, but I think their wider behaviour merits a look. R Prazeres (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio by IP user

Hello. I am here because of repeated copyvio by an IP user, which has continued to happen despite reverts and talk page notices. The user is 98.186.26.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Starting in June 2024. Of particular note is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_W._Mellon_Auditorium&action=history where they added copyvio which was reverted and then added it back in three times. All copyvio seems to be coming from https://johncanningco.com/ and they are adding info from the website to all the buildings that the company has remodeled, so there's maybe promotion or conflict of interest happening to? I wasn't sure if I could use CCI since it's been less than a month, and the changes are relatively easy to remove. But I'm concerned that this will be a continued problem as they've been putting their edits back after receiving warnings (can see on their talk page). The information is also sometimes inaccurate, ex. adding info about a remodel to an Iowa courthouse to the article Lyon County Courthouse (Nevada). See Earwig detector here: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1232190536&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjohncanningco.com%2Fportfolio%2Flyoncounty%2F. I found this problem using the Copy Patrol tool. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this IP user, having warned them in the past. Given the continued addition of copyright violations, I've blocked the IP for a year (taking in consideration the remarkable stability of the IP address). I don't want to keep them blocked for that long, but rather hoping that this will cause them to take the time to read and understand the copyright policy and COI guideline, formulate a good unblock request, and successfully appeal prior to the expiration of the block. DanCherek (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate cut-pasting drafts to mainspace by User:SuperMightyBoy

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

---

SuperMightyBoy has performed numerous cut-paste moves of articles they've no connection to from draft into mainspace. They mentioned on their talk page they're doing this "just trying to get Autopatrolled rights" after DaffodilOcean notified them about the cut-paste issue and having their request denied a few days ago. At the very least, multiple history merges need to be done for the articles that meet notability requirements. Also strange, they modified their autopatrolled request to another user. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Macaddct1984: Gonna note that the user has been indefed due to technical evidence as seen on their talk page. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks LakesideMiners, now it's just a matter of getting the mess of new pages that were created in their wake cleaned up. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Better to move back to draft-space and delete the main (RBI) or hist-merge/etc to keep them in main? I lean the former (less work, don't trust their judgement by default) but want to get others' thoughts before pushing the buttons. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the drafts were rolled back and Discospinster nuked the mainspace pages, all done! -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

84.206.11.96

Ilaria Salis is an Italian teacher (now politician) who was arrested in Hungary after violence after a counter-demonstration against a neo-Nazi rally. This resulted in a minor diplomatic incident.

84.206.11.96 (talk · contribs) rewrote their article to suit their worldview, which I reverted for various reasons (e.g. WP:NPOV and the ones mentioned in my editsummaries), and then they asked 3 people for support and now they are editwarring to insert copyrighted content 1 & 2 & 3

They are clearly WP:NOTHERE.

Polygnotus (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I wrote that she and her companions attacked nine PERSONS. The current version says that they were neonazis. According to my sources :

Prosecutors allege that Salis travelled to Budapest specifically to carry out attacks against “unsuspecting victims identified as, or PERCEIVED as, far-right sympathisers” to deter “representatives of the far-right movement - The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/24/italian-anti-fascist-goes-on-trial-in-hungary-accused-of-attacking-neo-nazis

Salis is accused of attempted murder for allegedly being part of a group of anti-fascists that attacked people they BELIEVED were associated with the far-right event.www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/06/10/italian-activist-ilaria-salis-to-be-released-following-her-election-as-an-mep

and you deleted the source for the three Polish nationals, and deleted the video of her attack: https://magyarnemzet.hu/english/2024/02/incensed-italian-press-ignores-bloody-far-left-manhunt

Polygnotus insists on that they were alll neonazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.206.11.96 (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense, that is not what I said (or wrote). Both The Guardian article ("Italian anti-fascist goes on trial in Hungary accused of attacking neo-Nazis" and "allegedly attacking neo-Nazis") you linked to and the Politico article call them neo-nazis ("relating to an alleged attack on neo-Nazis." & "an alleged attack on neo-Nazis" & "alleged assault on neo-Nazis"). You can't use references that do not support the claim made in the article. In this edit you make it look as if those sources both support the claim made in the article, but Politico does not. And we can't just copypaste stuff, see WP:COPYVIO. Magyar Nemzet is close to Orbán, and it is not clear who owns the copyright to the video. Polygnotus (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Compare the content you added to the article:

"Prosecutors allege that Salis travelled to Budapest specifically to carry out attacks against “unsuspecting victims identified as, or perceived as, far-right sympathisers” to deter “representatives of the far-right movement and the indictement seeks a sentence of 11 years incarceration.

With what The Guardian wrote:

Prosecutors allege that Salis travelled to Budapest specifically to carry out attacks against “unsuspecting victims identified as, or perceived as, far-right sympathisers” to deter “representatives of the far-right movement”.

That is clear and unambigious copyvio (which is just one of many problems with your edits) so stop editwarring to edit it in. Polygnotus (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

User Polygnotus keeps deleting well founded and sourced FACTs, with false pretexts, for example citing one thing between "" is COPYVIO according to him/her. I added that the person in question owes money to someone for not paying rent. I added two independent sources: one Italian, one English: https://www.ilmessaggero.it/en/ilaria_salis_occupations_and_debts_in_milan_s_public_housing-8166768.html plus here is a third one: https://milano.corriere.it/notizie/politica/24_giugno_27/la-lombardia-chiedera-a-ilaria-salis-di-saldare-il-debito-con-aler-deve-pagare-90-mila-euro-la-replica-non-mi-devo-difendere-da-niente-a243f951-531f-419f-94b4-30e344d91xlk.shtml

The article cites the father of the person in question, who claims that her daughter is kept under terrible conditions. The Hungarian Prison Service refuted this, showing the cell to the public. Again, Sourced with two different sources: https://bv.gov.hu/hu/node/8249 and https://www.blikk.hu/aktualis/belfold/antifa-bvop-cella-ilaria-salis-borton-olasz/3l8j0jp - Deleted again. No reasonable argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.206.11.96 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Citing is fine, but copy-pasting text from copyrighted material is a copyright violation -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the IP's argument here is that they used quotation marks even if extensive quoting is not the best idea. They forgot to include an end quote mark but they started with one so I think that was the intention. [86] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Unattributed quotations in articles are copyvio and therefore not allowed. Polygnotus (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a good idea, I was just trying to understand their perspective since they said User Polygnotus keeps deleting well founded and sourced FACTs, with false pretexts, for example citing one thing between "" is COPYVIO according to him/her. I've restored to the last stable version here. I'm taking a wait and see approach to see if maybe this helps the IP "get it". Other admins are free to do more if they think this situation calls for it. Courtesy ping to Moneytrees who has much more experience dealing with copyright-related matters. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I think they've clearly demonstrated that they are NOTHERE. But I don't mind giving them rope if the next time its indef. Polygnotus (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus, we don't indefinitely block IP addresses. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sadly that makes sense in a fluid and dynamic world where we are running out of ipv4. I am in favour of TNR programs. Polygnotus (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The article seems clean now. As Clovermoss says, the added context was presented as a quote, which is an issue from a plagirsim point of view but not necessarily a copyvio. I have no comment on anything else in this dispute. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: Thanks. I didn't think this rose to the level of I need to revdel stuff but it's always good to make sure. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Citing is fine, copyvio's are not. And adding sources that don't support the statements in the article is certainly not. And adding unsourced disputed claims to BLPs is also not. And editwarring to reintroduce copyvio is not. And using right-wing tabloids on a BLP is not. And using words like libel and libelous is also not. And being WP:NOTHERE is certainly not. We get it, you don't like her. That is fine. But we are trying to collaboratively write an encyclopedia here. Polygnotus (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've just performed a bunch of edits to remove BLP violations and to make the language neutral.TarnishedPath^talk 03:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @TarnishedPath:! Great work. Polygnotus (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Consolidation of discussion elsewhere

Clovermoss asked for more info. This IP has been posting anti-lgbt and anti-enemies of Orbán-stuff for a long time (but has also made some good edits).

Orbán is Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary since 2010 and the most influential man in Hungary by far. He is similar to Silvio Berlusconi (who people are perhaps more familiar with) in that he and his friends control the media and are not afraid to attack those who disagree with them.

Orbán is anti-LGBT, anti-immigration, and a right-wing populist who controls the Hungarian press and the judiciary system.

Ilaria Salis was accused of violently attacking neonazis (despite being a tiny woman) after a counterdemonstration of a neo-nazi rally. She was was alleged to be "antifa" (I don't have evidence to confirm or deny that), which made her a mortal enemy of Orbán and his buddies. They (he controls the judiciary and the press) threw the book at her (11 years!) and smeared her name (although it was unclear who did what because some participants in the fight were hard to identify because of masks and low quality video).

In Italy, where almost all of the press is controlled by Berlusconi's right-wing buddies[87][88] Ilaria Salis also received quite a bit of negative press. (Berlusconi died in 2023)

Orbán loved Berlusconi[89] and vice versa. The far right in Hungary and Italy have a shared vision and often collaborate.[90]

There was a minor diplomatic incident because some (left-wing) Italian people were outraged to see Salis in chains in court.[91] They made her MEP and she gained immunity from prosecution.

International newspapers (the reliable ones) are pretty neutral about Ilaria Salis but most Italian and Hungarian rightwing newspapers will say whatever to make her look bad.

The IP used 84.206.11.96 and 84.225.152.139, if you use whois you get the CIDR and then you can find the other contribs where they do some weird homophobic vandalism and attack enemies of Orbán.

Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate the further context, but I'm not sure what to do here and so I'll leave that to someone more experienced. I only really commented at all because I was asked to on my talk page. I'd appreciate if someone could think of a better subsection title here because it kind of bugs me to have an ANI subsection named after me when it isn't about me. Thanks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

done JackTheSecond (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing several of the IP edits I semi-protected Ilaria Salis for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope that means we are done here. I'll keep the article watchlisted and I have made a calendar event to check if the IP has returned. Polygnotus (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I was wondering if you had any advice on the admin angle of evaluating situations like this? When you decide to protect a page vs block IP addresses, for example. I'm trying to learn. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked at several diffs and the wording was over-the-top. I don't think it's worth digging up diffs now but I remember one edit saying that the subject was "condemned" for something. Unless that word comes from a court or similar, or is an attributed and WP:DUE opinion, it's clearly a WP:BLP fail. There were other examples of over-enthusiastic phrasing showing that the purpose of the IP edits was to condemn the subject, not to build an NPOV article. On a practical level, a lot of admin action comes down to what is accepted after the fact. IMHO it is not worth protecting an article in a situation like this for a short period (a week or so) because the activists are usually very happy to wait until they get another chance. My aim is to have them get bored here and return to Twitter. Re protection or block, this IP is unusually coherent and I would need to take much more time to work out if a long block was warranted. Also, many activists will readily shift IPs so protection would be more effective. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Another tip is using a simple point system. If an IP shows up on a BLP to post negative information:

+10 points if the BLP subject is not male

+15 points if the BLP subject is not right-wing

+1000 points if the BLP subject is LGBT+

+1000 points if the BLP subject is not "white" or is Jewish

If the score is higher than 0 then the IP should probably be reverted and (if they repeatedly made the same edit without seeking consensus) the article should probably be protected. Polygnotus (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Nota bene: The above was a joke (perhaps not a very good one). Polygnotus (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Come on, folks ... --JBL (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Polygnotus, I think CloverMoss was looking specifically for input from fellow admins with experience making these calls, and if I can be blunt for a moment, even if she wasn't, she could be forgiven for viewing the schema you recommend with a very critical eye. These situations call for a great deal more particularity of analysis and nuance of judgment than "Is the article in question a BLP for someone whom I personally would expect to be unduly criticized? If yes, then any 'negative' info added by IPs is presumptively revertible and protection is warranted." I can't even begin to express the number of ways that using that as your starting point is deeply problematic with regard to multiple of our core policies, and while you're not in the position of deciding RfPs, I would advise extreme caution in reverting IPs on that basis alone and without actual reasons based in our actual content and behavioural policies, or you could end up here at ANI in a very different capacity. I mean that in as positive a light as it can be taken and for your benefit as a good-faith contributor: I know you're just riffing impressionistcally about where you expect the trouble spots to be, but this kind of paint-by-numbers approach does not mesh well with the actual analysis that should be guiding your decision to undo another contributor's work, and which apply equally as much to IP edits as any other. SnowRise let's rap 04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Perhaps the level of tongue-in-cheekness wasn't clear enough for you? I assumed it was obvious without an "/s". Polygnotus (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I was taken aback by your "point" system and hoped you were not being serious. Wikipedia gets enough unearned grief about being "woke" that your comment could be used out of context to criticize the platform. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC) No, it was in fact not at all clear to me: nothing in your post, textually or subtextually, suggested to me that you were being glib with these recommendations, particularly in light of your role as OP here, and the nature of your comments in the back-and-forth with the IP. It looked very much like a sincere effort at proposing a working rule-of-thumb that you thought was helpful in these circumstances. Mind you, I'm relieved to hear that you were just exaggerating for effect, but such self-effacing hyperbole and other forms of sarcasm do not translate well to text and either need to be significantly more marked if you want others to understand you intend a "true" meaning under the facial one, or, ideally, such hyperbole is best avoided altogether in an environment like this. You may think that your suggestion was so far over the top that the joke should be obvious, but we very regularly see worse in terms of people proposing their personal idiosyncratic standards in place of policy. Please don't take it personally if I took your apparently sincere comments at face value: I was only genuinely attempting to help you avoid a pitfall if you were serious--and as politely as I could under the circumstances. SnowRise let's rap 06:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) What would be the point of a scoring system where the threshold is zero, the outcome is binary, no negative values exists, and the maximum is 2025 although any score above zero is treated the same? Sure, Wikipedia is "woke", if we use the original meaning of that word (aware of systemic inequality), but so is everyone with a functioning brain. No sane person believes this planet is fair. The opposite of "woke" is "bigoted". Polygnotus (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I saw your comment before the replies and enjoyed it! This might be a good time to remind people that stuff you read on the internet need not be taken seriously 110% of the time. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I doubt right-wing people make jokes where the punchline is that we need to protect BLPs about LGBTQIA+/non-"white"/Jewish people more than other articles because right wing people are likely to lie about them or vandalise the article. Polygnotus (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC) First off, I didn't say anything about "wokeness" or anything of the sort, so I'm not sure why so much of your response to me is directed towards that topic. Perhaps you accidentally misread Liz's comments and my own as one post? Because while I don't necessarily disagree with Liz's observation, it's a different point from the one I was trying to stress to you, and I assure you that I would have expressed to you the same exact concerns about your proposed approach even if you had inverted the terms of each line. Second, all of the metrics that you list there do not preclude the possibility (nor even the likelihood) that you were speaking candidly with your suggestion. You spent half the above thread trading accusations of bias with an IP. Then you proposed a system by which an IP with the same kind of bias you imputed to this IP should be summarily reverted. That looks worrying my friend. The "joke" it looks like you are making there is not that such a system would be ludicrous, but rather that most criticism of the topics you list is expected to be bunk. Which may very well be a valid world view in some circumstances, but just does not jibe with how we determine reverts on this project. Not only is that a perfectly valid possible interpretation of your meaning, but I submit to you that it's the much more reasonable read, especially given the context of when and where you said it, and the nature and tone of the dispute between you and the IP. The fact that you're taking such umbrage at the misunderstanding because you are so certain there is no room for alternative readings to what you said, in the context that you said it, only encourages me to reiterate that you should perhaps not lean heavily into sarcasm in such circumstances. SnowRise let's rap 12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC) If you miss a joke, it's not always the joke's fault. Levivich (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Yeah, and sometimes it is. Frankly that comment is all dubious sophistry without more to it. SnowRise let's rap 12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC) You don't feel bad for chastising someone because you missed their joke? Like you don't think maybe it's just you (and Liz)? That maybe if you missed a joke, the thing to do is just say oops my bad and move on, instead of giving unsolicited (and, I promise you, unwanted, and incorrect) advice? Because all I see here is ego, lots of ego. Levivich (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Kathleen's Bike

Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user seems to be very confrontational and unable to discuss civilly. Currently they are making extraordinarily strange comments which I cannot understand and which seem contrived so as to wear down resistance rather than to make a coherent argument based on the facts. For example when it serves their purposes they contradict sources they themselves had provided. I had hoped to resolve the issue at the relevant talk page, but they are being extraordinarily difficult; at times it feels as though they are gaslighting. BRMSF (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Very straightforward. I made a series of improvements to an article, including important corrections. BRMS, and their various IPs, have repeatedly reversed those changes. Despite the RFC at Talk:Thomas Niedermayer not having concluded, they chose to essentially reverse most of my changes again with a wholly misleading edit summary (the reversal of all the changes in the "Abduction" section aren't explained at all).

This editor is currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning 78.147.140.112 for their previous disruptive changes to the article (this and this), as well as battleground behaviour, other disruption and sockpuppetry. Kathleen's bike (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You are thus far the only person to object to the changes I proposed, I felt as though a consensus was emerging, one which you disagree with so strongly that you are routinely contradicting yourself. BRMSF (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The talk page could benefit from a few more uninvolved users. The circumstances on Niedermayer's death are complex, but not as complex as all that. It seems to be impossible right now to discuss one change at a time and discussion's going on circles. I don't think there are behavior issues in play (yet), beyond the open WP:AE request, which can probably be resolved now that the IP editor has created an account. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You're both edit warring. I've protected the page. Please use the Talk to discuss changes. Star Mississippi 00:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Both editors, BRMSF and Kathleen's bike should take a small break from the article and talk page, at this point, they are just bickering back and forth with no productive discussion taking place between the two of them. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to WP:SELFBLOCK

Due to increasing harrsement from overseas 110, I have to quit from editting wikipedia. Please block me indefinitely to prevent my account from being overtaken.--Renamed user 63506961370 (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Can be undone at any time via usertalk request. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep being reverted on Karaganda Region and possible inappropriate warning by User:TylerBurden

I am a IP user using the IP range of 132.234.228.0/23. I was updating the time zone of the above page as the time in Kazakhstan was changed to UTC+5 on 1 March 2024. TylerBurden (talk · contribs) initially reverted my edits claiming that there were no source. I went to their talk page to talk about this. I said that there was source in the article time in Kazakhstan which can prove my change. They replied that I need to add it. I undid the revert citing the article on the edit comment as there are already a source in that article. However, they reverted again and post the {{uw-unsourced2}} on the user talk page of the IPs. Based on the fact that there are already source in the aricle time in Kazakhstan, I don’t think that the revert should be done based on only the fact that the article was citied. I currently will not revert it to prevent an edit war. 132.234.228.40 (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse ANI. Each article here has its own sourcing requirement. If you want to add information that is already in another article, you may take the source provided there and copy it over - make sure you follow wp:cww while you're at it and give credit to the article you're copying from. Happy editing! JackTheSecond (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how this is helpful. A cursory Google shows that Tyler is reverting uncontentious fact. Reversions are not to be performed without cause. I have restored the contested edit. Is there anything more that needs to be discussed here, Tyler? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Very possible that I misread the context around recently changed information and sourcing requirements. JackTheSecond (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:MinorRefiner indeffed as a sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have not notified Tyler that there is an open ANI discussion. You are required to notify him as the warning on the top of the page says. Why have you not notified him? MinorRefiner (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) I notified them at Special:Diff/1233627305 3 minutes after I posted here. Just because I did not used {{ANI-notice}} doesn’t mean that I didn’t notified them. 132.234.228.174 (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Saying you will take someone to ANI isn't adequate. You need to inform them that there is actually a discussion. I could say I'm going to sue you, but that is meaningless unless I serve you legal notice. MinorRefiner (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Someone restored this so I'll just say: They didn't say they were going to take someone to ANI, they said that they already did, that's notice (though I do think the template is better, specially in a separate section). The part about making a legal threat being meaningless made me consider your response trolling to the point I removed it - but if there's others that don't think so, I'll defer to them, and I apologize. – 2804:F14:8081:3201:EC18:543E:106A:298E (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC) How is that trolling? I gave it as an example of unofficial versus official notification. MinorRefiner (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC) A failure in assuming good faith on my part, which again, I apologize - I just couldn't read it in any other way than as you saying that if you yourself told them you'd sue them (in Wikipedia, as that's the only means of communication you have with them) that that is meaningless unless you actually sued them; and right after mischaracterizing what they said as future tense (it was past tense), as one of your first edits to Wikipedia no less. Clearly you didn't mean it like that though. – 2804:F1...6A:298E (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) No worries. MinorRefiner (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

...and again

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

---

For context. Testimoni di Geova, A user of english wiki, and likely another, since they tend to create 3 accounts at once. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You would be correct. Blocked those two and User:11 Luglio 2021 Italia vince gli Europei contro gli inglesi a casa loro! as a sleeper. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, @RickinBaltimore, could you revoke TPA too? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup, should have done that from the start. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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

OrangTangerang53

OrangTangerang53 (talk · contribs) - this user has twice been blocked before for repeatedly adding unsourced content to BLPs, as well as numerous other warnings, but continues to do so. I think we need a significant block. GiantSnowman 18:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for one month. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Gracias! GiantSnowman 16:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources

It's the second time I come here over this (thanks for ignoring me last time). Is this allowed [92]? Is this IP allowed to remove secondary sources and employ primary sources to rebut criticism? If I am wrong tell me so. I am mostly sure I am not and thus I am coming here. If I am not please block this IP and protect the page. The IP is likely a sockpuppet. For more details see the page's history [93]. Super Ψ Dro 11:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If you were ignored it probably means you were at the wrong board. Looks like a content dispute with some edit-warring. Maybe RSN and AN3 is the place to go. SPI for the sock allegation. DeCausa (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

So the use of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES by the IP is appropriate? If so, yes, it is a content dispute I guess. Super Ψ Dro 11:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: whether primary sources are or are not allowed is not a black-and-white question, and is one that needs to be resolved by discussion and consensus, by posting at WP:RSN, and using the avenues suggested by DeCausa above. What it definitely is not, is a matter for WP:ANI. As it says at the very top of this page, this board is for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems". An editor using primary sources at an article does not constitute that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

But I believe an IP edit-warring to get secondary sources removed is such a problem, and I also find their use of primary sources evidently inappropriate, because they are citing the website that the article is about to respond to information cited by secondary sources in a Criticism section, a type of section that should be subject to extra care by editors as it does not deal with objective information. Is this practice, really, not blatantly unencyclopedic? I am kind of baffled that I am going to have to look for a formal dispute resolution procedure over an edit-warring IP that is removing academic sources and replacing them with really low-quality ones. Super Ψ Dro 12:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As DeCausa said above, for edit warring: wp:an3; for socks: wp:spi. And you're right, and you're going to get help there. JackTheSecond (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Basically, Super Dromaeosaurus, you should read Kafka first. I recommend Der Process for how it works; it's effectively a Haynes Manual for AN/I. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 14:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, Super Dromaeosaurus, if I came here every time I bumped up against something like that opening ANI threads would be a full time occupation. Isn't that just the daily to and fro of being a regular WP editor, which makes it such a...ahem...fun hobby? As Amakuru already quoted, this is for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems". What you've got isn't even close. If you're finding them really annoying you might get the article Semi'd over at WP: RPPI. DeCausa (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, being told this is out of ANI's scope is better than being left in the air as last time. So at least there's that. Thanks everyone for your replies. Super Ψ Dro 17:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Samuel Claesson

Someone should probably take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Claesson. A lot of personal attacks, accusations, possible sock/meat puppetry, etc. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, the problems have pretty much died down by the time this got here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, though I would like an admin's opinion. There were a lot of attacks and non-trivial allegations thrown around and I do think it strange that within a couple hours of the nomination being made, four different accounts/IPs, all of which are new and have only edited in areas relating to Samuel Claesson, show up and start saying similar stuff in favor of keeping the article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Closed as G7 with a side of IAR as it's a BLP. SPI won't do anything with the IPs, but it's likely resolved with the article deleted. I'm not going ot take action against the subject at this stage as I believe frustration ends with the article. If someone else feels it's necessary, feel free Star Mississippi 23:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Logue (surname)

Indefinite block requested on IP 193.95.146.196 for repeated unconstructive edits over a protracted period, but lately on this one article. Doug butler (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. IPs aren't blocked indefinitely. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:RupertNY245 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Already blocked; now spamming their own talk page with more personal attacks. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I have revoked RupertNY245's talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

User:RupertNY245 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

This user personally attacked me after I posted on their talk page. [94] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

31h block for that and a few others. New enough that I didn't want to INDEF Star Mississippi 00:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Not that new. See RobertFL1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom they admit is their account but they lost the password (despite the fact that the account has an e-mail address associated with it).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No issue with it being extended. They seem to be just trolling of late, which the rename may be part of. Star Mississippi 01:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Would someone who has time/energy to spare go sort out RupertNY245 and / or RobertFL1991 please? Clearly neither block did any good. Star Mississippi 00:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Star Mississippi: It's fairly clear from their comments that they are going to dig themself into an indefinite block without any help from anyone. For the moment, I'm taking no further action, but if they continue to double-down on the attacks, at a minimum I will revoke Talk page access and possibly increase the block to indefinite. Depends on bad they get.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I just assume they're going to scream Involved if you or I do anything. I tried to fix the unblocks, but content to let them self immolate. Star Mississippi 00:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  They can scream as much as they like...for now. I'm certainly not INVOLVED, so that doesn't worry me a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks @Cullen328: for handling. Star Mississippi 01:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Star Mississippi, sometimes three administrators are better than one. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have no objection to your revoking TPA, but I don't understand why you didn't decline the unblock request. That's one thing I can't do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Noveske Boss on Death of Nex Benedict

Noveske Boss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pretty blatant transphobia ([95] [96] [97] [98] [99]). Probably an LTA. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Daniel Quinlan blocked them by the time I finished making this. Good riddance. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I was about to semiprotect that article since it seems like there's been disproportionate vandalism there recently, but I was beaten to that. I don't know of any specific LTA whose patterns fit, but it may just be a random troll. In the future, WP:AIV might get faster responses for clear-cut vandals like this. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I say it should be indef semi-protected per WP:CT/GG. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, it was ECP'd. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Lol they got blocked.CycoMa1 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see UTRS appeal #90658 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing by The First Legionnaire

The First Legionnaire (talk · contribs) - this user has a very odd editing pattern, and almost none of their ~1,800 contribs seem to be constructive in any way. The vast majority simply go against the manual of style and are not helpful at all: this includes changing articles to use American English when they are explicitly tagged to use British English, removing links or adding ones that are unnecessary for no reason (see that this user has never once used an edit summary despite many of their edits being reverted), deleting or adding blank space that is not visible to the reader (and is not mandated by the MOS), changing the first letter of a hatnote to a capital letter (e.g. {{see also}} → {{See also}}), or doing the same with wikilinks, often going against MOS:CAPS; the most frequent example of this capital-letter-changing is on "battle" and "siege" articles, where this editor frequently changes, again going against MOS:CAPS, the lowercase "s" in "siege" or "b" in "battle" to a capital just because the article title starts with a capital letter. You can see how adamant this editor is on changing these letters by going on any article of a popular battle or siege and seeing their presence there: [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] and these are only the first results that come up when I search "siege of". This is a "typical" edit by The First Legionnaire: [107]

Despite being warned of their bad editing habits on their talk page multiple times, The First Legionnaire has never written on their own talk page, or commented on any talk page for that matter.

Many of this user's edits should be mass reverted, even if they aren't really "vandalism", and I would suggest some sort of (maybe indef) block unless this editor starts communicating why they make these edits. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued unsourced statistics changes at Botola

An edit war where no side is uding sources was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive362#Page. This continued after the most recent protection expired. The {{More citations needed}} template is also being repeatedly removed [108][109] by users who are changing the statistics.

The user 41.251.223.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also overwrote a notice about this issue left by one of the participants on my talk page, but they are not involved in the actual dispute. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi 2 months. – robertsky (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

One removal of the tag happened during the last protection. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Melanatural and unsourced content

Melanatural seems to be a WP:SPA on Amber Anning and a lot of their editing is either mostly unsourced e.g. [110], adding sources that don't support content (like adding this source to try and support 12 All-American honours, when it doesn't mention All America anywhere [111]), and just replacing content or numbers inline which means they don't match the sources that were already in the article e.g. they made lots of edits in September 2023 which I reverted back to sourced content here. This user is only editing this page and is using own knowledge/WP:OR rather than adding proper sources, and is arguing and invalidating sourced content repeatedly. I am also suspicious of a WP:COI as almost all of their edits (80 of their 92 mainspace edits [112]) are on Amber Anning page, and this is a clear case of WP:NOTLISTENING when I've repeatedly asked them to use reliable sources rather than just change things with no sources added. I'm getting fed up of fixing unsourced content from this user, and having to go through and double check sources to verify that the changes they've made have been not what sources say. Lesser point, also multiple MOS violation including MOS:BOLD, MOS:DATE and WP:EL in body of text sometimes too. Administrator action is required to resolve this competency/not listening issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: You have the editor's username as "Melanaturaledit", but in fact it is just Melanatural. You may like to correct that. JBW (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed (bad copy/paste). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For context, Melanatural has said that Melanatural is her daughter. JBW (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That *Amber is her daughter, even. – 2804:F1...13:E752 (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Having a COI doesn't justify unsourced statements like changing numbers on the article citing sources that don't even mention that stat (like adding this source to try and support 12 All-American honours, when it doesn't mention All America anywhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Because of her obvious conflict of interest and the other problems noted, I have indefinitely pageblocked Melanatural from Amber Anning. She can make edit requests on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Star Mississippi I have been dding internal and external links to information about Amber which the complainant has been removing. There are errors in the information he has written and he has a problem whenever I have tried to correct. Amber is my daughter, but I am also a journalist so have not written or added anything that cannot be corroborated. For example, she has 12 All America First Team Honors, not the five listed. It is disappoiinting that I cannot change factually incorrect info and poorly written sentences and I would hope you will unblock me. HartBrown Melanatural 15:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You have a very serious conflict of interest regarding your daughter's article. If you believe things are incorrect, you can suggest edits on the article's Talk page, but you should not be editing it yourself. But you can't just say that it's possible to corroborate your claims, you need to provide reliable sources which support those claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Melanatural. I moved your comment to the correct section so it is more visible. As @HandThatFeeds and @Cullen328 said, you may use edit requests. I will not unblock you to edit about your daughter, and I doubt anyone else will either but you're welcome to file an unblock if you believe Cullen acted wrongly. Star Mississippi 15:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Magentic Manifestations

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

---

I wish to comment on the attitude and behaviour of this editor (MM) in response to a failed GA review. The editor has shown unwillingness, per WP:IDHT, to accept the reasons for failure which all relate to key policy WP:V, and in one case to WP:NOR / WP:NPOV. MM has reacted defensively, which is understandable to an extent, but in an aggressive manner. Several of his comments are not only unconstructive but also breach WP:CIVIL and amount to personal attacks.

The review failed because none of six citations used for a spot-check sample could provide verification by directly supporting the material. Please see the terms of WP:GAFAIL within WP:GACR; also WP:GAN/I#R3 which says the reviewer must perform a sample source spot-check before moving on to the main part of the review. I explained my reasons for not accepting the citations as written.

The review itself is not the point here and I only mention it to provide background. The issue is MM's aggressive behaviour which needs to be addressed. Specific examples are:

• In his spot-check responses, MM accuses me of "feigning ignorance" and stating "dubious reasons". For some reason, his unsigned responses are in blue as if to highlight them.
  • In one of these, re the FN36 source, he says: The source clearly says that the "raised marble tank in the center of the garden was probably intended as a replica of the celestial tank of abundance called al-Kawthar,promised to Muhammad". Again an invalid rejection citing dubious and assumed comments.
  • The source author, Wayne Begley, was expressing an opinion but our article states with certainty that: The elevated marble water tank is called al Hawd al-Kawthar in reference to the "Tank of Abundance" promised to Muhammad. MM refuses to acknowledge that an opinion is not a certainty and accuses me of making "dubious and assumed comments" to support an "invalid rejection". The statement in our article is not only a WP:V failure, it is also WP:OR.

• Having amended some of his comments, MM went to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations where he requested a second opinion. This was provided by Thebiguglyalien (BUA) who commented here that he "probably would've failed this for original research as well"; and here that MM "doesn't mention some fundamental issues with OR and failed verification".

• Refusing to accept the second opinion, MM's comments included: "Are you suggesting that it should be an exact WP:COPYVIO of the source?" Re FN36, he states: "Again if the article does express certainty, it is at best a minor correction here, which can be made in a jiffy and not an issue of failed verifiability as projected". Statements like those are completely out of order. He is accusing BUA of endorsing copyvio in one and then rejecting WP:V in the next.

• At the GA talk page, MM answers BUA with this, in which he accuses BUA of "conveniently" failing to address his concerns, and completely ignores what BUA said about original research. In his point #2, he complains about "no comprehensive review on all the criteria", again playing the WP:IDHT card because, as per GA procedure, the citation spot-checks precede the review of the full criteria.

• After I posted my answers to the points raised by MM, he responded with this personal attack which accuses me of "insecurity", "hounding", and "mudslinging". He followed that with another mudslinging accusation and claims to be the victim of a "witch hunt"!

While I may have made mistakes in the GA reviews I've done, given my relative inexperience of WP procedures, I try to be polite and to give a rationale for any points I raise. If someone in the GA panel wishes to cancel my review of Taj Mahal, I will accept that, although BUA was supportive of my reasons for failing it. But, having consulted other editors and read some of the topics brought to ANI and ARBCOM, I think the attitude and behaviour of MM needs due consideration. I'm sure the site has key policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for the best of reasons. PearlyGigs (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I thought this discussion was closed, but as this has been brought to the ANI now, the aforementioned user (user:PearlyGigs) does not seem to let go of it. I will present my view points.

1. I felt that the review was inadequate with respect to addressing all the GA criteria and I had voiced out the same at the appropriate notice board. Another of the co-nominators (User:The Herald) had also voiced a similar opinion. I do not see any issues with having raised the issue at the appropriate forum. While my revert would have come across as aggressive given that a lot of effort has been put on improving the article, it was not without basis.
2. With respect to the review, the reviewer (user:PearlyGigs) conveniently fails to mention all the points here and quotes only bits and pieces. in the first and third comments w.r.t FN 10 and FN 28, the reviewer had not asked for a clarification of sources which were not available in Google Books or accessible to the user, rather deciding that it was not sourced, which ultimately resulted in the overall failure as per the criteria mentioned. As per WP:RS and WP:CITEHOW, the citation had to be provided in the prescribed format and it need not be fully accessible in Google Books or anywhere, which was clarified by the another user (User:CMD) in the same discussion line. The reviewer was unwilling to accept the fact and ignored the same. While the onus is on the editor to provide with a reliable source, and if the older source was not accessible, this could have been done via a simple discussion or clarification. Things can more often that not be resolved with discussion.
3. In one of the points concerning FN 11, the reference was mentioned bluntly as "vague" and there was specific ask of particular word "commissioned" not being mentioned as such in the source provided, which was repeated again and again. A source is used as a reference and the line summarises rather what is quoted in the source. If it follows the same wording as such, it indeed becomes a COPYVIO. This was taken as a personal comment. So, when I quote a relevant policy, it becomes a personal comment and rather when the reviewer retrospectively accused of being against NPOV and OR, it seems to be all fine!
4. With respect to FN 36, while I completely agree that the author gives an opinion, and I certainly would have been happy to incorporate the same, given as a suggestion as it would simply entail adding the word "probably", the problem was that it was entirely mentioned as "unverified". A GA is done to incorporate/do minor corrections, this rather comes across as discounting citations as unverified (which is dubious!) rather than a simple correction, which would have in fact added value to the effort. The reviewer later accuses of being against NPOV and of OR retrospectively on the same as well.
5. In the aforementioned second opinion as well, there was no addressing of the points which were raised initially. Only other users clarified the same on the forum. I do not see anything wrong with having raised a clarification and mentioning as such that the second opinion did not give clarity on the issues raised.
6. The reviewer opened up on the notice board that he/she was open for discussion, and my opinion was that it could have been done before the review was closed. Another user (User:CMD) had also pointed out that the issues could have been sorted out by discussion. There were also multiple suggestions for the reviewer on the page that he/she could have taken a shorter/less traffic article to practice.

The issue was deemed closed as there was a suggestion to renominate the article for GA if there was no further improvements. Meanwhile, the reviewer probably felt offended that this was raised in a forum and took pains of going through my previous edits and review history. As the dispute was concerning a particular page Taj Mahal, the discussion ought to have been limited to the issues concerning the page. But the reviewer engaged in the act of pulling the history of my reviews and started commenting on the same (as evident from the discussion on the review page Talk:Taj Mahal/GA1). This was completely unwarranted and mudslinging pointing fingers saying that "hey, this is how you did it and you neither did it right!".

As the discussion was heating up, going nowhere and as another user (user:Herald) as well pointed out that it was going out of hand, the fact was accepted fact that the review was closed. I had ended the discussion on the same day as I saw no point in continuing with this further as it was not going to lead to any positive result and probably would have ended up wasting more time. This was clear in my reverts on the respective forum.

Now, as this happened nearly a week back, I can find no reason to rake up an old closed discussion unless the user concerned (user:PearlyGigs) does not want to let go of it and rake it up again, not sure to what end. Irony is that, I have been accused of not letting it go when it fact the conversation had ended a week back. It would probably save time, if the user specifies the expectation clearly as this to and fro is simply a time consuming one! Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Everyone has their own ways of going about GA reviews, even if the goals and criteria are the same. I have seen a lot of weight put on nominations that fail verification on one or two citations, with good justification, and it often leads to a quick fail. Even if such an outcome happens, it is fine to give an article some time for the editor(s) to look back and make sure they are familiar with all the material they are using before nominating again. The reviewer of the Taj Mahal good article nomination may have been new to the process, but failing the review at that point wouldn't be unprecedented if there were significant concerns (though I would hope an experienced reviewer would take a look at the result and pass their own judgment). Reconrabbit 20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• ANI? REALLY???? EEng 20:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@PearlyGigs: I understand your inexperience of WP procedures, but everything from the WP:OFWV pledge to the instructions at the top of this page should lead you to this conclusion: if you have an issue with an individual editor, try talking with them first. Assume that good-faith conflict can be resolved with polite discussion on their talkpage. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Replying since I was pinged here, and putting my replies in once place instead of peppering the discussion:

• Magentic Manifestations responded in a less-than-appropriate manner when the nomination was failed, misrepresenting the situation, twisting both PearlyGigs' words and my own, and making personal attacks against everyone who disagreed with them. They are continuing to do all of those things here. I've seen poor reactions to failed nominations, but this is probably the worst one yet. If they were a new editor, they probably would have been banned from GAN.
• PearlyGigs, bringing this here was ill-advised, and it might be a good idea to retract it and archive the discussion with Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom before it spins off and gets out of control. Bringing it up several days later makes it seem vindictive. The first thing newer editors should be told is never touch ANI if you can help it. Even if you're totally in the right, the regulars here tend to be bigoted against newer editors and automatically take the side of long-time editors. I'd say let someone else bring it here if it continues and becomes it "intractable".
• Reconrabbit, just noting that I was said experienced editor, and while the review wasn't perfect, I endorsed its conclusion.
• Jlwoodwa, such a discussion was attempted at WT:GAN (where Magentic Manifestations chose to have it), and they proceeded to make it clear that they were not willing to have such a polite discussion.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations § Concerns about a review: Taj Mahal was a dispute over the quality of the review, and resulted in mutual ANI threats, followed by mutual disengagement. After a week, and beyond the heat of the moment, PG decided to discuss user conduct as its own topic, apart from the GA review. I think that new discussion should have started at User talk:Magentic Manifestations. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Jlwoodwa. I can see where you're coming from but Thebiguglyalien (BUA) is correct that MM chose to start the discussion at WT:GAN. Both there and in the review, MM was not prepared to be polite, or to discuss things in a reasonable way, or to listen to others. That being the case, I did not see the point of taking the IDHT/CIVIL issues to his talk page. My understanding is that ANI is here for editors to lodge complaints about unacceptable behaviour, so I decided to come here. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Good grief. ANI is known for its occasional tempest in a teapot, but this is like a matryoshka doll equivalent of nesting teapot issues (each somehow smaller than the last) being blown way out of proportion. Alright, in order:

• Honestly, there were some issues with the GAN review. I can see how one or two of the elements of PG's responses might have come off as lackadaisical or ignorant of key sourcing policies, and it's vaguely understandable that they could contribute to a sense of annoyance that the full review was cut short on such criteria.

• But none of that excuses Magentic Manfistations' failure of perspective and the somewhat aggressive responses to both reviewers. There is WP:NORUSH for passing the GAN until good faith reviews suggest the content is well above the necessary threshold. And even if the article was in the proper state and the reviews were completely botched, the implications are beyond inconsequential in the long run. I don't know if this is a case of being too attached to the article (and the work they've done on it) itself, or taking the prospect of a GA as a status symbol a little too seriously, but anyone who wants to work an article through those badges needs to have a thicker skin for set backs than what was on display there. If you want that little bragging right, you have to deal with the sometimes onerous process that comes with the effort at quality control.

• At the same time, it's not like MM was hurling blatant vitriol and invective. I'm dubious about the suggestion that anything they said qualifies as a PA, or was even outright disruptive. It was merely a little hostile, and at most on the outer periphery of WP:Battleground. This issue of bouncing back and forth between multiple spaces and then ultimately arriving here is a complete overreaction, bordering on abuse of process and certainly qualifying as a waste of community time. For that matter, the act of going through MM's past GA reviews (in the context of the active review) looking for issues was inappropriate and unhelpful to the process (to say the least) and not a good look for Pearly Gigs.

Both the OP and MM would do well to listen to the advice TBUA has been giving them. Regardless, let's close this before it gets any closer to getting someone in trouble for literally no gain to themselves or the project. At most, there should be trouts for the two main parties here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I agree with everything TBUA has said above. Can I just point out to you that I did not "go through MMs past reviews". The big picture in review terms is the current GAN backlog drive. It was obvious that MM would not accept due process as outlined at WP:GACR and WP:GAI, so I checked his ongoing review in the drive to see if he was following due process there, and he was not. While the purpose of the drive is to reduce a backlog, due process must be followed. Raising that point in the GA review discussion might not have been wise in WP terms but it would be quite appropriate in the real world. Anyway, I will take on board what you say as another learning point, so I am grateful to you for that. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That's fair enough. But as you've already pointed out yourself, one of the key things to take away from the situation is to recognize that there is a time and a place for raising those concerns, and bringing them up in the context of the GA review was just bound to conflate and complicate the existing discussion, which already had enough layers of bi-directional nitpicking of behavior. It just looks like a quasi-non-sequitor and arbitrary point scoring. Better to stay focused on the discrete issues of the review on that particular page.

That said, nothing that was said here by either you or MM is serious enough to warrant action or (if I may be so bold as to suggest) to even prevent you two from being able to close this little episode with mutual collegiality and a realistic expectation of a perfectly amicable encounter next time you run into one-another. Either way, thank you for receiving the feedback in the spirit it was intended. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, all, and thanks for the comments. As I said above, there are a couple of learning points for me which I will take on board. I agree with everything Thebiguglyalien said above and I'm happy to close this now if everyone else agrees. TBUA said I should archive the discussion with Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom but, according to the template instructions, I cannot do that as I am an involved editor. Could someone else please oblige? Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully someone uninvolved may be along for a formal close at some point in the next couple of days, but if both you and Magentic Manifestations are relatively ok with how things have resolved, the easiest thing is to just let the discussion peter out and the archive bot will do it's thing. I know I and others suggested a formal close, but, speaking for myself (and I think the others too) it was just a suggestion to keep someone from sticking their foot in their mouth with a response and getting themselves into trouble. Since both of you at this point seem to be taking a much more restrained and pragmatic approach, it's not really necessary. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, Snow Rise. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

De rien. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User:BeauSuzanne

I've been reluctant to report this editor BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) again because my previous report filed back in April was overlooked, but I've reached my limit with BeauSuzanne who has a history of consistently creating BLPs on non-notable Pakistani subjects (many of which I suspect are WP:UPE) using WP:FICTREF. Despite my repeated warnings, they continue to disregard the WP:BLP rules against adding WP:OR with WP:FICTREF, and making assurances they don't keep. And not only myself, but others have warned them too about violating WP:BLP by adding WP:OR, yet they persist in doing so. It's unrealistic to monitor every article they create, so I'm concerned about how many more articles they've done this to.

And just yesterday, they created an article on some WP:ROTM actor Yasmeen Tahir that I also suspect is WP:UPE, laden with WP:OR using WP:FICTREF so when I asked them why they added WP:OR, they plainly denied doing so. Hence, I decided to draftify the BLP, but another editor moved it back without addressing the underlying problems which also led to a move war. So I had to put in a lot of effort and time to remove the WP:OR - but only to discover today that BeauSuzanne has re-added WP:OR again today and this recurring issue needs immediate attention. BeauSuzanne have also been previously advised, both by me and others, to refrain from creating articles directly in the main NS and to use drafts instead, but they disregard this advice as well. And fwiw, they also engage in LOUTSOCKING. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Saqib. Yes you removed some stuff. But I only added the dramas in which she worked and the award section. I listened to your advise. Yes I made it in mainspace which I admit. But then when you moved it back to draft. Then I didn't moved it to mainspace. Before making a article I do my reserach to make sure everything is correct like I added her interview which I also archived.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC))

BeauSuzanne, Clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT! Please don't act like you've done nothing wrong. Despite multiple warnings, your ongoing practice of adding WP:OR with WP:FICTREF and your refusal to admit your mistakes are deeply concerning. I won't continue this discussion further as it risks becoming a pointless argument between us. I've stated my case; now, I encourage others to weigh in. I don't have anything further to say here unless asked. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you give an example of use of a WP:FICTREF? North8000 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

North8000, They generally add three types of WP:FICTREF: 1) cite video interviews that do not support the claims made 2) reference offline sources that are fabricated or just made up and 3) cite online sources but those sources do not contain the details they add. For example, you can take a look at the history of Yasmeen Tahir where my each edit summary clearly identifies the problem (timestamped from 16:24, 6 July 2024 ‎UTC to 17:15, 6 July 2024 UTC). And there are numerous similar instances in other BLPs they have created previously and many of the BLPs are also deleted where they used WP:FICTREF. For instance, take a look at this discussion. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Not commenting on the other things that you noted, but I was thinking that adding an outright fictional reference would be be a clear cut deliberate mis-action. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib The usual standard of evidence is to provide the exact diffs to every accusation. Things are unlikely to go further without those diffs. JackTheSecond (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

JackTheSecond, Here, Pakistan Television Corporation, dated 1999 was a fabricated reference used to cite career information. Similarly, a YouTube video of the subject's interview were cited multiple times, but I couldn't verify those claims, either. Similarly, here they inserted details such as ...studied from Convent of Jesus and Mary, Lahore and completed her M.A in English..., which were not supported by the cited VOA source. Likewise, the claim that she married in 1962 and had three sons could not be verified from the provided The Nation source, among numerous other instances. And I haven't even begun to discuss the number of unreliable or poor sources they add to BLPs. Draft:Safia Khairi, Draft:Sahab Qazalbash, Draft:Durdana Rehman, Draft:Huma Mir, Qaiser Naqvi- These are all recent creations by BeauSuzanne. Please take note of the type of references they are using—mostly fabricated or unreliable sources. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as the references listed here go:

1. looks like an honest mistake
2. Not confirmable (long video in a language I don't speak)
3. partial support with OR spaced between
4. reference completely unrelated to content, probably another mistake

Overall impression is that the borderline notability along with CIR issues create a bigger problem than both individually would be. ~ Note to filer: Linking the complete drafts in this case works fine as the user in question is writing them, but they are not evidence anyone can quickly confirm and judge. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

JackTheSecond, I cited these drafts because it's pretty straightforward to verify by checking the reference section of each draft. All the offline sources you see there are FABRICATED/WP:FICTREF, including Oxford University Press. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Checking solely the Oxford ref given at Draft:Durdana Rehman as citation 12: The book exists, lists at least the film Heera Pathar, and lists a "Durdana" as actor for the film. ~ Not entirely fic ref at the least. JackTheSecond (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

JackTheSecond, In this particular case, you're correct actually and to be honest. I couldn't verify it when I did the search, which is strange. But what about Oxford Ref # 5 at Draft:Huma Mir. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh, the source itself features the logo of "Oxford University Press" as header. There does seem to be a relation there 1; the exact author should maybe have been given as "OUP Pakistan" or "Oxford University Press Pakistan". But again, not a real issue. I grant that it looks suspect at first glance though. JackTheSecond (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

But I don't add anything by myself. I do research when I am making a article. I am not arguing I am just saying.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC))

• Not entirely sure of the history between these two editors, but noting Saqib has also suggested Beau was a sock, which was not the case per the CU Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nauman335/Archive#01_May_2024. Between that and the prior report, if this doesn't gain traction suggest leaving their edits for another editor to handle as there is, unfortunately, enough other UPE to patrol Star Mississippi 17:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Star Mississippi, But as you can see, I wasn't the only one concerned that this editor might be socking. Also, for clarity, Beau and I don't edit in the same area. I'm a NPP focusing on Pakistan-related articles, which is how I come across their new articles. Otherwise, I don't closely follow their edits, so I'm unaware of what they're up to. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't see this complaint without mentioning that much of the dispute between these two editors has occurred in AFD discussions. Saqib has probably nominated over a dozen articles written by BeauSuzanne for deletion discussions and each discussion is full of accusations against this editor. I've never investigated the accusations because my focus has been on determining consensus within the discussion but Saqib's accusations have been going on for over a month and have seemed relentless. BeauSuzanne has not responded in kind but, as I said, I havn't looked into Saqib's accusations. But this one-sided feud has been going on for a while and it would be nice to determine if it has any basis in fact so that future AFDs can be focused on the merits of the article and not the contributor who created them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Saqib's concerns regarding the addition of WP:OR by User:BeauSuzanne, and it is an issue we have to resolve. I think we should educate them the last time on why this is wrong (WP:BLPPRIVACY). If they repeat these mistakes then we will have no other option but to impose a topic ban.

Expanding on Liz remarks (this can be a kind of WP:BOOMERANG), I think Saqib is a bit too harsh (not yet harassing, but some think they are harassing) and leave just too many templated messages or AfD majority of articles of a single contributor in a short span ([113], User talk:Asadwarraich, User talk:Libraa2019) or tends to accuse both new and experienced editors of WP:UPE too quickly, even when editors just cite BLPs with primary references or edit business topics ([114], User talk:Riizwaan111, User talk:Jugni, User talk:Philosophysubboy, User talk:Mkabir1988, User talk:Faresian). Here they said without any evidence: By the way, I've just identified a very old account with ~100K edits that's confirmed to be engaging in UPE.. In some cases, they continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS like User:BeauSuzanne when they have already denied the accusation, three UPE notices on Riizwaan111 ([115], [116], [117]) which is too much. They even accused a very experienced editor @Isi96: ([118]) without any evidence which was ridiculous. This kind of editing is unfortunately driving away potential productive contributors (e.g. User:Faizanalivarya etc. and many other are no longer with us). I'm not suggesting that they are doing this on purpose, but it seems to have negative effects. I just hope they don't follow User:Jytdog's path as we need their contributions.

Most of editors of Pakistani dramas are just fans and it is ridiculous to accuse each newbie as UPE. It would be great if they drop the stick and file WP:SPI cases / leave WP:UPE warnings rather cautiously (only when there are good odds). Also, they are using draftification way too often like a lot of BeauSuzanne's work is in draftspace which will be deleted after six months without any discussion which is sad. I'm sure they can mend their behavior like they have already done in WP:AFD case (after receiving a lot of complains). Thanks. 188.30.56.67 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

IP - Regarding the old account with ~100K edits I've already submitted evidence at paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org without directly accusing or even engaging with that editor on-wiki so it wasn't an accusation and I bet you can't even recognize that editor. As for the other editors you named above- whom I've warned, I believe my warnings were justified, though I can agree that sometimes I may have gone overboard, and for that, I regret it But if needed, I can provide reasoning regarding why I accused them of WP:UPE. And please allow me to clarify that I do not accuse every other newbie of being a UPE, nor do I frivolously file WP:SPI's. Most of my WP:SPIs have been found correct, and many of the editors I've warned or accused of WP:UPE were later found to be involved in either sockpuppetry or violating WP:BLPs, or at the very least, were engaging in dubious editing behaviour. And by the way, I'm sure you're the same one who's been telling other editors to watch me because I'm chasing down WP:UPEs. That being said, I'm completely open to having my edits scrutinized, and I'm willing to accept any warranted warnings. I'm open to acknowledging my mistakes. In fact, I've stopped casting WP:ASPERSIONS as suggested by some lately, and I've even slowed down on taking articles to AFD because some admins pointed out the backlog. Thank you! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked through a few hundred of their edits and it does not look like UPE to me. I worry most about UPE when most or all of their edits are about people /groups / items which are currently "in the business" and the editor has done a lot of work where such is not the case (e.g. on deceased personalities). I've only taken a superficial look at the areas where concern was expressed but my first guess is that it's mostly that BeauSuzanne needs to modify their approach. At first glance it seems like too many articles on personalities which are either edge case or miss the mark on wp:notability. Suggest evaluating each potential article subject for wp:notability before starting an article. I think that the applicable standard (in their areas of work) would be finding two independent published reliable sources each of which provides in depth coverage of the subject before starting an article and step one would be to include and start building the article from those sources. This would also help ally concerns that other editors are having with their work. Finally when verifiability concerns are raised, immediately add the details (like page numbers etc) to confirm verifiability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

North8000, Have you reviewed these drafts too (Draft:Safia Khairi, Draft:Sahab Qazalbash, Draft:Durdana Rehman, Draft:Huma Mir, Qaiser Naqvi)? This also begs the question: why would someone persistently create bios on living and deceased actors based on WP:FICTREF, if they aren't involved in WP:UPE? P.S. those Oxford University Press references cited in some of those drafts are also fabricated. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at those specifically but after your post I did. I'd have to take a deep dive on 50-100 references to really evaluate notability on those. But my first guess is that they would fail a strict interpretation of wp:notability (substantial in depth coverage of the subject by each of multiple published independent sources) but that they would meet the defacto standard at AFD. When you said Fictref, did you mean a non-existent fake reference (if so could you provide a specific because that would be a deliberate clearly wrong act by an editor) or did you mean that they cited a real reference that didn't support the text as claimed?(which is also not right but IMO not as serious) On the "why?" question, again, my "probably not UPE" was only a guess, but there are editors who who do that type of editing who are not UPE. Of course I could be wrong, maybe there are many people or companies who would pay to have an article created on a deceased personality. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

North8000, Yes, when I say WP:FICTREF, its mean completely made-up and non-existent fake reference. BeauSuzanne is citing things that don't even exist, plus, they've also referenced real sources that don't actually back up what they're claiming in the text - which is also a pretty big deal. And I guess I've pointed out examples in this thread several times now (here, here, here, here, here etc). Thanks for looking into this. I hope I'm making myself clear now? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm just a participant here, so no need to answer my request. Which was to pick one case where they put in a completely made-up and non-existent fake reference and provide a diff. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the accusation of "entirely made up and non-existent" is not correct. JackTheSecond (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, so far we've not seen such. I think that a response (or non-response) to my specific request will make it clearer either way. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

North8000, But I've given diffs of of their recent creation, Yasmeen Tahir. If those aren't substantial enough, I've nothing more to add here — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"Here's a bunch of stuff, it's in there somewhere" is really a non-answer to my "pick one case where they put in a completely made-up and non-existent fake reference and provide a diff." question. Which is fine but that's what it is. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

North8000, OK, I got you now. Diff Ref #3 and #11. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ref 3 is available here, author name is the pen name of Md. Nayab Hasan 1.

A google search for ref 11 spits out 2. The pictured woman seems like the subject of the article. I am not sure what happened with the citation.

Also, I did not check what the two citations are actually sourcing; only that the first one does indeed exist, and that something about the second one seems to be at least related. JackTheSecond (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of times, UPE pages are not created to promote the subject themselves. They are created to promote other pages. For instance, the creation of an older film may be done to promote the film company, an actor who played a role, or an award it may have won (Luxe Style Awards has been a topic of focus for UPEs). Not saying that is the case here, but could be an explanation why on the surface it does not look like UPE.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the draft examples provided, it could be related to PTV which is highly promotional has a lot of FORKS that I am about to redirect. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment: BeauSuzanne was confirmed to another account back in May 2021. GeneralNotability opted warn them rather than blocking because they did not have time to dig into it more. If you look at their earliest edits, there's some questionable behavior. For example, their first edits were to two drafts Draft:Kang Rae-yeon and Draft:Wonho (singer), created by other editors (one an IP) which they then moved to mainspace. They also have a long history of recreating previously G5 deleted articles or otherwise originally created by blocked socks. There are several but a couple interesting ones is Draft:Danielle McRae/Danielle McRae (log) and Draft:Tamara Ryan/Tamara Ryan (log) because neither are about Pakistani actors, which is their focus and both were originally created by blocked sock MeemeeAi. There has also been some interesting activity on their talk page such as this note from an IP requesting BS recreate a deleted article which they confirm on the IPs talk page they completed and is one of the few talk page messages BS has ever left. Then these more recent requests from socks [119], [120]. S0091 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Based on edits from the last 24 hours, I absolutely believe this is part of promoting PTV. Continuous addition of unsourced information as well. Outside of the possible COI and SPI, I would say there is a CIR and NOTHERE issue. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41 according to this source, PTV was the only television station in Pakistan during the 1970's and 80's. In 90's some people had satellite dishes and cable but not many so I don't think they are promoting PTV. S0091 (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I am just seeing all of this. I would like to believe Yasmeen Tahir wasn't part of a UPE campaign, but just a random article that BeauSuzanne created which I tried to save 😐 Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Indef for User:BeauSuzanne

Given the clear WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE issues raised by CNMall41, I think the case is pretty clear for an indef. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Even though their editing history from day one has been somewhat dubious, and as @S0091 has pointed out, they were confirmed as a sock puppet at one point, I still would like to give them a second chance. However, if they continue to add WP:OR in BLPs, or use WP:FICTREF or unreliable sources, then an indef block is surely warranted. They have received enough warnings, not only from me but from others as well. Now, it's time to enforce these warnings. I also suggest BeauSuzanne is formally warned not to create articles in the main NS and instead use the AFC route. Because there should be no shame in using AFC; I do it myself despite being an AFC reviewer. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I did leave them a final warning yesterday for yet again adding unsourced content to a BLP (Yasmeen Tahir) after @Jeraxmoira reverted them which is astounding given this ANI complaint so I am not hopeful they really get it but sure, another chance. I agree they need to use AfC especially for BLPs. However, Saqib I suggest you leave it others to review them and stop accusing suggesting BS of is UPE. I get the suspicion because I too see behaviour indicative of UPE especially with their earlier activity but at the same time I can also see a TV/film buff and looking at their more recent creations, I don't get a UPE vibe. Even with the confirmed alternate account, there is little crossover between them and nothing that suggests WP:ILLEGIT. S0091 (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

S0091, In this ANI report, I just mentioned that I suspect WP:UPE, not that I believe WP:UPE. Just to clarify, I'm not even monitoring their edits. If I were, I might have found several diffs, but I haven't had the time or interest to delve into their past editing history to see what they were up to. Frankly, I wasn't even aware they were once confirmed as a sock until you mentioned it above. It's just that I patrol new pages, and that's how I came across their recent creation Yasmeen Tahir. I'm generally not interested in non-Pakistani articles, so when a new Pakistani-related article is created, it really grabs my attention, regardless of who created it. Like I said, I'm open to giving them a chance as there are no ill-feeling towards them, but they should also take warnings seriously and use WP:AFC, as suggested repeatedly. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

To extent I think that is a distinction without a difference when you include it in an ANI complaint and also tag their articles as UPE but I have amended my comment. S0091 (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why this was archived but this user has already been given a second chance and even after that time has been suspected in other SPIs. In addition, they continue to edit in a manner that shows clear promotion of PTV. Would support an indef. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Advice/help for good faith editor making a mess of some articles

The editor is User talk:Intichkanmi7378, see their contributions here. Their first edits were translations of unsourced articles from es.wiki to userspace.

Their next edit changed the spelling of the name of an Incan god so that it no longer matches the title of the article. This type of change has continued since, most probably not reverted.

A few edits later I see this[121] with the edit summary "I modified the article to contain information from the "divergent duplicate" article "Mama Oqllu" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_Oqllu I also modified the names to conform with the modern runa simi orthography." {good catch by the way, we don't want two articles on the same deity! The Oqllu version was created in 2020 but never turned into a redirect, see User talk:BrittniG2445

These "orthography" changes continue as does the creation of draft translations, again unsourced and some categorised which of course we don't do with drafts. They also started adding Wiktionary links, which are not a reliable source and may be adding more problems.

I've mentioned these issues to the editor, as has User:Skyerise but it doesn't seem to have made a difference.

It looks like a lot of reverts are going to be necessary and the editor convinced to stop and hopefully help fix their edits. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't we just make redirects for the differing orthographies? Secretlondon (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

As they contradict the spellings in the titles and other places, no. Leads need to use the same spelling as the title of the article. I think they also found some redirects so that articles now show the wrong spelling (not in the lead) but redirect. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Doug, I'm a bit confused as to why you chose now to come to ANI regarding Intickanmi? They did recently add Wiktionary to multiple articles, and reverting all of them was a nuisance (I would know), but they've barely edited since then, unless there's something I'm missing? Sanctions are intended to prevent disruption, not to be punitive. I would hope we've made it abundantly clear at this point that citing Wiktionary is unacceptable, and Intickanmi hasn't made any notable edits since that point (that I see), so why sanction them now? Thanks for enlightening me! DonIago (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago I was careful with my section heading, which starts "Advice/help for good faith editor" - not "with good faith editor". I'm not asking for sanctions. I did tell them I'd have to block if they didn't reply (after a number of warnings, including yours), to which they never responded. But they have responded. But done nothing. I don't understand this - here we have an editor fluent in English, but even their response was short and didn't attempt to explain their edits (although their copyright question was a good explanation of their problem with copyright). It would be great if they asked for more details as to why their edits were problematic, but they haven't done that. It would be even better if they reverted them. I myself am not going to take any Admin action against them and am here to ask for help in avoiding that. I hope they at least stop. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I see that User:Plastikspork also reverted them for changing spellings. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is that they asked what you wanted of them on July 8 and you responded on July 9 (Eastern time). They didn't reply to you, but they also only made one edit on July 9 and haven't edited at all since then, so I still don't see why this needed to be escalated now. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago Not editing since means that they haven't undone any of their edits as asked. I didn't come here until talking to another editor yesterday. see User talk:Skyerise for her strong response agreeing that ANI would be appropriate. Are you saying that the editor doesn't need help of advice? I don't think you are. I didn't want to see another string of 80 bad edits in one day that needed reverting and was hoping someone else here would have an idea. Should I have waited? Doug Weller talk 14:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at their edit history, they'll edit in long bursts and then take off days or weeks off until they return to edit again. So, I guess, if it was me, I'd have waited until they started editing again. Some editors, when comments start piling up on their User talk page, will take a break from editing especially should they see a discussion header like It is with regret that I have had to report problems with your editing. If they are relatively new or not used to posting on talk pages, they might not come back for a while or not come back at all.

I also wonder given the many notices they have already received, what do you think we could come up with here that would cause their approach to change? They have already received ten corrective talk page messages in ten days telling them their are problems with their editing, I think they don't need an 11th message at this point. They have gotten plenty of feedback telling them there are problems, let's see if it sinks in. I'd also change the header for the ANI notice which really sounds ominous rather than an invitation to come discuss things here. I know you probably didn't mean for it to be, but I'd be intimidated if I was a new editor (and even a not-so-new editor). ANI notices always sound like a student is being summoned to the principal's office. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Liz Ok, I could have/probably should have done all those things. I did think the ANI notice I gave them was not ominous, but I'd appreciate suggestions for changing it. But note that they were still editing about 12 hours after I told them what I wanted, so they had plenty of time to reply. I just hope when they return they will have listened and at least ceased the problematic edits if not helped deal with them. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago Just noticed that they made 2 edits on the 9th and had plenty of time to respond to me again. Still, water under the bridge now. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago I see you reverted them here[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Qurn&diff=prev&oldid=1233230746] when they added "" Looks like they copied it from Meretseger#Meretseger's hill and it is a good source.

Doug Weller talk 16:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Didn't change the section heading on the talk page, but I tried to make it clear that I think they could be a valuable editor. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to undo my edits in whole or in part, but I don't have access to that source and I'm uncomfortable adding a source that I can't verify for myself. DonIago (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago quite right, I would not restore it either. I don’t know if this editor had access but I’m assuming they just dis a search on Wikipedia. A lot of editors do assume you can do this, so I’m not condemning them. I am going to bed however. Doug Weller talk 20:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

References

WP:OWN Concern

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

---

Hello, I have a WP:OWN concern regarding the editor @Shinealittlelight: and an apparent watchful possessive behavior of the article The Antioch International Movement of Churches article. In my brief encounter with editing the article, every attempt to contribute has been met with a swift revert or extensive deletion by Shinealittlelight whether it was valid or not. Be that as it may I must assume the edits were made in "good faith". However, Shinealittlelight likes to utilize the optional WP:BRD technique. Unfortunately with this technique, even proper content, grammar, and spelling corrections get reverted. I found this response to be rather unfriendly and frustrating. According to WP:Revert only when necessary, reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose or the inexperienced. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia.

After extensive talks in the talk section, we were able to civilly work edits out but I found meeting Shinealittlelight's requirements exhausting. They did not feel like mutual compromises, they were meeting another editor's demands. I'm a relatively new editor, and truth be told, I felt very discouraged and feel like quitting. Every edit seemed to required this editor's strict and particular approval.

Shinealittelight's authorship consists of a vast majority, 50% of page edits since March. However, the average editor to this page ranges between 3-7% of authorship, 7% being the second highest authorship. With such a high degree of watchfulness and contributions to this page, it's not unreasonable to respectively raise a WP:OWN concern. I haven't checked the history of all the edits but if it is anything like what I experienced, (extensive deletions, swift reverts, particular requirements, high degree of watchfulness, authorship) I think the article is being overly guarded by a single editor. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic an editor cares about—perhaps they are an expert, or perhaps it is just a hobby; however, if Shinealittlelight's watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then Shinealittlelight is overdoing it.

I attempted to discuss my concern with this editor initially on the article's talk page but got no response. WP:OWN says "you can bring it up on the associated talk page." Eventually, we left messages on each other's talk pages. Now I'm a relatively new editor and am still learning the ropes. Shinealittlelight accused me of making an much earlier unrelated personal attack much earlier on the talk page, which I did not and will not. While I did state some strong feelings over the denial of conversion therapy, I did not personally attack any editor. No editor has replied, no editor has taken ownership of the denial of conversion therapy, no editor was named, nobody's feelings were hurt, this is a non-issue and is off-topic. Forgive and forget. Back to the real concern at hand, Shinealittlelight denied being possessive over the article and did not see ownership as a concern. I think we still have had interactions that were civil, but were a chore for me to work through, due to the extensive requirements, and arguably possessive particularities Shinealittlelight demanded to contribute to the The Antioch International Movement of Churches article. I can always give Shinealittlelight the benefit of the doubt but if anything I think Shinealittlelight should give it a lot more reflection. Not just on watching a single article and overworking it but on extensive swift reverts, deletions on other editors' entire contributions. It is a concern to be aware of, reconsider, and perhaps change behaviors on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pride2bme (talk • contribs)

• NO comment on merit, but noting this is also posted at Teahouse#WP:OWN_concern and the HD. Star Mississippi 01:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is some important context about the recent rather challenging history of this page: [122]. As I see it, Pride2bme and I have had somewhat adversarial but productive conversations that have improved the article. I'm glad to continue with that, and I am glad to have a different perspective on the page. But the fact that we are generally coming from different perspectives means that this will take effort. I did suggest following BRD once, which is my preference, but I'm fine with taking a different approach (though it would be helpful to hear what approach this editor prefers!). I would also ask that this user not continue to engage in negative commentary about me on the article talk page (see for example this editor's negative commentary about me in these diffs: [123][124]). Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

82.173.160.29

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

---

Could an admin revoke the TPA of 82.173.160.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? They've been making rants ever since they were blocked for sockpuppetry, and it's clear that they don't plan to make a proper unblock request. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi:  Done Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Seeking info about a LTA

I don't want to name any names here, but have run into a newly created suspicious account that perhaps others might recognize by behavior as Long Term Abuse

• Possibly from Australia (uses "mate", "bro")
• Focus on criminal articles
• Removal of the word "Mugshot" from image captions
• Needlessly combining and splitting paragraphs
• Deleting entire blocks or sections of text as "unsourced". While also adding unsourced statements.

Anyone seen someone like this before? -- GreenC 16:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Name names or do this in a different venue.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

And make sure to notify the name you're naming using {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~; we're not a star chamber here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hold up: I don't see the harm in GreenC's approach here? So long as they're not making an immediate report of a behavioural violation, there's no need to inform anyone, and this might be the best approach when trying to identify a sock or LTA, so that the report can be based in the evasion and/or prior history of disruption, rather than dealing with potential argument that the present behaviour is weak tea for justifying a sanction. And above all, there may be WP:BEANS reasons for approaching a look into disruption in this way. Under what principle, policy, or rationale should we shut this seemingly reasonable call for input from others with experience in the LTA realm down? What forum could possibly be more appropriate for such a request than ANI? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Then they're not really in the right place. This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. WP:SPI would be more appropriate if they're suspecting long-term abuse by a "newly created suspicious account" but don't have a specific person in mind and need help identifying them. What it sounds like is that they've got a specific editor in mind though, and want to start a discussion about them, without notifying them as this page requires. WP:ASPERSIONS points to several times that the Arbitration Committee unanimously and unambiguously passed principles on this subject and the need to present evidence, e.g. It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the text of GreenC's inquiry seems to strongly suggest that the vandal in question gives them an impression of an LTA, but they have no idea who it could be. And if they haven't named a party, no WP:ASPERSION can have been made. And if it is an LTA, then that is, expressly and paradigmatically a matter of "chronic, intractable behavioural problems." And an SPI is unlikely to go anywhere if you haven't any idea who the sockmaster (or any other account other than the current one) is. Sorry, but this still seems like the right place and a reasonable (if definitely atypical) approach to trying to identify a problem editor before they can decide if there's a concrete accusation to be made (which would actually be an aspersion, if they did so prematurely, before evidence supported it). Now I do recognize that I'm odd-opinion-out on this one, and I'd even urge GreenC to go with the consensus advice here, rather than myself, under the circumstances. But I still have to say that their approach looks good faith and within both policy and the rules of the space to me. Take that for what you will. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. This looks like a good faith inquiry. No one has been accused of anything and no usernames have been mentioned. That said, it probably would be better directed to an admin with check user rights, or maybe at WT:SPI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

IP 163.171.145.250 is doxxing subjects of articles

This IP user is putting the subject's personal address into their articles. See (Redacted) for an example. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 05:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

User:StefenTower, Special:EmailUser/Oversight. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. My tired eyes glazed over that instruction above. I have never had anything like this to report before, in 20 years. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No cooperation, no good faith

User:Michalis1994 refuses to cooperate to improve the article. He does not discuss with me, but reverts without explanation. The sources he cites do not correspond to what he writes, and his additions make the article look more like a libellus than a calm record of the facts. Here are some diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230703015

also remove my appeal for discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230638536 D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Improve the article? You're removing fully cited material. You want to dispute it? Add to talk page - this isn't Greek Wiki. Michalis1994 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You have not replied to the talk page. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

He is a user of bad faith. You can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness is fraudulently trying to delegitimize my contribution. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mess, but it does look at first glance as if D.S. Lioness is attempting to whitewash the article to remove cited criticisms of specific politicians and political parties. For the record, Lioness, do not accuse other editors of "libel", as that can be construed as a legal threat resulting in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite— Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am the creator of the article in question. The best solution is that both editors just refrain from contacting each other. This is a disagreement that started over at Greek Wikipedia apparently.BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

no, dear! it didn't start on the Greek Wikipedia, at least not with me. The user on the Greek Wikipedia via i.p. tried to pass the same text to the article of the party, where an administrator blocked him by locking the page. So, it was moved here. And he even put the exact same text in both the article about the party and the article about the person. I don't know if this is acceptable but does no do a good impression to the reader.

I also don't see not talking to each other as a solution, as it is imperative that differences are discussed. If you want to help perhaps you can take participate on the discussion page of the article. D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Although the only relevant quote I found regarding your comment on the word libelous is this A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat" let me explain that by libelous I mean putting content that does not match to what the sources say. It's hard for someone who doesn't know Greek to be able to judge if the sources are being misused, I understand that, but if you're interested you can use a translation app to understand. Also, it is a bit hasty to conclude that i want to whitewash somewhat insulting I think to my person. I'm just trying to make the text NPOV, something the user is completely indifferent to. D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

that is not what libel is. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Insults / Bullying

request for blocking to User:Michalis1994 per Wikipedia:NOTHERE and Wikipedia:Civilty see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230879788 D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You are in a politically motivated edit war with them? Secretlondon (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what he wrote ? what does politics have to do with it? D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I can see that you are blocked on Greek wikipedia for socking. Secretlondon (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

And this is clearly discussed above. Stick to there, please. Secretlondon (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

What does the fact that I am blocked in the Greek wp have to do with my problem? What do you mean by sticking there? What i have to do? D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You posted this further down the noticeboard. Someone has clearly moved it to here, with the other thread. Secretlondon (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this a WP:boomerang issue maybe? Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this absolutely seems to be a boomerang case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreementsD.S. Lioness (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I recently replied to a request for third opinion on this case, but I failed to realize it was (in multiple subthreads!) at ANI already. The dispute is much worse than I recognized in my 3O response and it does seem like administrative action is warranted. At a minimum the article should be protected and the participants referred to WP:DRN, in my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Topic bans for both would be appropriate at least. For how long is up to consensus.BabbaQ (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Whitewashing and continuous removal of sources

Quick report on D.S. Lioness: she's been relentlessly axing articles and deleting cited content to push her own POV. Entire sections in Afroditi Latinopoulou, including academic articles, have been wiped out and replaced with dubious, unreliable sources. The same pattern is evident here (no reason given), here (no reason given, despite the MEP's history), and here (removed information about the town, without giving any reason at all). Michalis1994 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

heads up: per the big red warnings that show up when you start a new thread, you need to notify users of this. i did it this time cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• The above was filed as a new thread; I've copied it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack (whitewashing), again. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Explain how this is a personal attack and not simply you being thin skinned? Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to temp block D.S. Lioness

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

---

This seems strongly like a boomerang issue. User here seems only interested in censoring opinions that disagree with her.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure a block is necesssary, but topic bans for either or both users may be necessary. I'm not sure that either editor has shown that they can edit in the area of Greek politics effectively. From what I've seen, DS Lioness has edited other users' talk comments to remove personal attacks (against themselves, making them not the best person to remove them), and from what I can see, Michalis1994 is trying to ensure the article is "NPOV" - which to them means that any negative information they think is relevant is included. Neither editor seems to be discussing based on policies/guidelines, but based on their own opinion of the other editor and their own opinion of what's relevant. Pinging User:VQuakr (and will notify on their talkpage) as they responded to the WP:3O request, but to quote VQuakr During a content dispute, it is more important than ever to focus on content, not editors - neither user here seems to be able to focus on the content rather than taking digs at the other. I don't think an interaction ban would be fair here unless it is accompanied by them both being unable to edit topics related to Afroditi Latinopoulou (including any politics related to that person) - so I think either a time limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban (with ability to appeal after contributions elsewhere, as standard) would be better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I will not remove the term 'whitewashing' as the deletion of cited content in the article raises significant questions about the author's intentions. Additionally, this concern now extends to the political party founded by Afroditi Latinopoulou, Voice of Reason. It is evident that D.S. Lioness has prepared a similar version in her sandbox, aiming to completely replace and distort the cited content regarding the party. Hope you can all see the pattern here. If this isn't whitewashing, then how should it be described? Moreover, there is nothing inherently negative about accurately describing the political party as a far-right organisation - something that has been confirmed by the third opinion, to which D.S. Lioness responded with further personal attacks. The so-called 'negative' tone identified by the other author is, in fact, the result of ideological analysis from reputable sources, which they seem eager to conceal. The replacement of reliable sources with questionable material, coupled with the aforementioned actions, raises concerns about whether D.S. Lioness is going to stop those actions and seek consensus. I have expressed my willingness to discuss this further, but it currently seems impossible to find common ground. Additionally, I must point out once again that they have been previously banned from Greek Wikipedia for exhibiting the same behavioural pattern. Michalis1994 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Temporary topic bans for both seems appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Why for both? That seems a little weird. Michalis1994 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I demand a single piece of evidence of alleged whitewashing: which cited content I removed?

Your edits deceive readers and vandalizing w.p by adding lies such this June 2024, she called for Pride Parade to be dissolved, saying, "It is a celebration of vulgarity, emphasising the sexuality of sadomasochists and other various abnormalities in public view." Where the source mention something like that? Here the source in Greek and tranlated by google translate in english

See for yourselves. Enough is enough with your lies. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban for D. S. Lioness, as their clear POV pushing is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.

As for Michaelis, I'd suggest a voluntary topic ban for 3 months to just take a break and come back when they're feeling less hot-under-the-collar from this mess. The article can wait, and there's already more eyes on it from this ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

where is my pov pushing? You accuse me and you want to ban but without a single evidence!!! You just believed the other user lies. Did you read my edition? Did you read my sources? In what ground you accusing of POV pushing?? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban on D.S Lioness , user seems to not have a NPOV and really likes WP:WL

From [125] it seems like Michalis1994 has voluntary banned themselves AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

O.k. Prove your claims D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that they seem to have voluntarily quit , give them a 3 month ban to be sure AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Now he's looking for my sandbox and he wants me to be blocked for what I WILL WRITE D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Αs far as I am concerned I will abstain from the Latinopoulou article until the user check is completed. Τhen everything will become clear D.S. Lioness For a comprehensive update I leave this one here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support As proposer of an indef ban for D.S. lioness. They seem unable to stop digging as it were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  6 months ban for what? what policy have i violate? What evidence do you have? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support - 6 months definite ban for D.S. Lioness. And 3 months voluntary topic ban for Michalis1994, would be appropiate.BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  6 months ban for what? what policy have i violate? D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Side note - semi-protection of Afroditi Latinopoulou might be warranted. No issues if that's premature at this point. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The assumption that D.S. Lioness will cease her vandalism is fundamentally flawed. Her disruptive editing and vandalism have now extended to other pages, such as the Alexis Papahelas article, where she removed cited content just a few hours after discussions began to address concerns about her contributions. This mirrors her previous behaviour on the Afroditi Latinopoulou page and is unlikely to stop there. This serves as a warning to anyone who believes the situation might improve or that her actions are confined to the Afroditi Latinopoulou page. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

what are you saying; what exactly are you trying to achieve? what is the vandalism in Papachelas' article? I even explained in the editing summary the minor changes I made. I remove only unverified material according to WP:BLP.

Υou are trying to take advantage of users who don't know Greek, who don't know Greek political parties, who can't confirm what is written in order to achieve my complete exclusion. This is totally immoral!!!

you accused me of whitewashing the far right without providing a single piece of evidence for your claim. Not a single one!!! You manipulate users who are perhaps sensitive to political issues and especially the far right to achieve your devious ends!!! D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You are now the one being uncivil. I’d be more careful with what I said at this juncture. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for a temp block for Wikipedia:Civility violations. Don’t call a user “devious.” Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

And what should I call a user who is trying to mislead the community into kicking me out of the project? Have you checked to see if what he claims is correct? D.S. Lioness (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You should answer in a way that doesn’t resort to making personal attacks against another editor. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Continuous whitewashing and removal of labels/information related to other neo-Nazi parties: [126] [127] - there is a clear pattern here. Michalis1994 (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The edits you posted are ref fixes and have nothing wrong with them … AlexBobCharles (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think an interaction ban between the two would also possibly be appropriate. This sequence of threads is indicating to me that neither of the parties in conflict can simply leave well enough alone.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Ηis contribution has now become a pure stalking at me. You can check this here D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban for D.S. Lioness for POV pushing. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is, at the very least, rude to call someone pov pusher without providing any evidence. I will wait for diffs prove your accusastion. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, it really isn't given the context. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

proposal

Because we are waiting check user results, i think the calmest solution is to "freeze" the issue )unless it is possible to accelerate the procedure) because it may turn out that this conversation is meaningless, just like the one below. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Last time I looked you'd both reported each other for check user. Is this another one? Secretlondon (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No, my check user has completed, Michalis1994 not yet. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Note D.S. Lioness is currently sitting out a 24-hour block for Edit Warring, and cannot contribute here during that time. Posting so this section doesn't archive before they can respond to further comments. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it might be for the best if both of them got blocked, at least from interacting with each other. I just don't see them getting along. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an interaction block would make the most sense, having interacted with both these users on Niki (Greek political party). My impression is that Lioness has some personal bias but wants to build an encyclopaedia, and Michail wants to correct this bias. Both users seem very forthcoming and open to third party input but their disagreement appears entrenched. So long as Lioness’ edits are scrutinised I don’t see a problem, but she might need to be explained WP:Undue and that hers is a minority view. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that Michalis1994 is blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and "repeated attacks labeling other editors' edits vandalism despite multiple warnings" and will not be able to make further comments here until the block expires. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  • sigh*

  Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, this feels like two editors and their socks just behaving poorly on the internet. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion from IP

181.115.138.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for two weeks 2 days ago.

They are evading their block by making the same edits and talk page posts on the following IPs:

• 181.115.142.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2800:CD0:2003:6400:E1E9:DF5F:6D1D:2ABA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

— Czello ^(music) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Both blocked. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Riizwaan111 and copyright infringement past fourth warning

Over the past few weeks, User:Riizwaan111 has been inserting copyright violations into the article Mojo (soft drink) and Draft:Atsushi Okuda. I removed the violations from the Atsushi Okuda draft after a copypatrol report a few weeks ago. Later that day, Riizwaan111 added the violations back in, and I took them back out a few days ago. A very similiar pattern of behaviour is now showing itself on the Mojo article- another user removed the violations, and I went in and removed the WP:TRANSVIOS they'd missed. Earlier today, somebody placed a WP:PROD tag on the article- so Riizwaan111 added more copyrighted text in this edit, from the cited BBC article. They also seem to have copied material in Draft:Pamir Cola from the product's official website. I haven't checked the foreign language sources yet.

Again, they've been warned several times not to do this, but have yet to respond to warnings on their talk page- or cease adding copyright violations. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

And I believe there's also WP:UPE involvement as well. @GreenLipstickLesbian, I'm glad that you're monitoring their edits and raising the issue here, because my warnings to this user were instead interpreted as harassment by a LOUTSOCK IP. Courtesy ping: Diannaa — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Pings don't work unless the comment where you add the ping contains your signature. Regardless, I have now run across this thread by accident, and will block the user for the repeated copyvio. — Diannaa (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Does this ping work? --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No, of course not; you spelled my name wrong in the edit where you signed your username. Going back and correcting my username without re-signing your username does not result in an effective ping. — Diannaa (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Diannaa: That's odd. I can't seem to figure out what the issue is. It means nobody's receiving my ping? By the way, I'm not signing my comments because they're automatically added by the User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The second edit, where you corrected my username, was not signed. What you needed to do to was create a new ping with my username correctly spelled. The ping should then work, whether you sign it yourself or let the script sign it. You should receive a notification when an effective ping has gone through. If you don't get a notification, your ping did not go through. — Diannaa (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic Mr. Fox reverted ElephantMario’s rules for IP 2604:2DC0:101:200:0:0:0:1B1D

Fantastic Mr. Fox reverted ElephantMario’s rule, stating that the IP user gets to play here, when in reality he does not get to play. Please block Fantastic Mr. Fox. Also, please block NoobThreePointOh because he did not give ElephantMario a chance to appeal. Markweidel (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Markweidel is an obvious sock of BalloonMario/Rayanmou07. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You think I'm gonna shut my goddamn mouth? I'll be louder. Markweidel is an obvious sock of BalloonMario/Rayanmou07! LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hahahahaha very funny Markweidel (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, here's another thing: I'm not an administrator. How would I even be able to decline someone's appeal? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh right, you also should've gotten an ANI notice from that sock. Could you believe I sent ANI notices to two editors on behalf of a sock? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure when I went to ElephantMario's talk page, it was Yamla who declined the appeal and this sock keeps thinking that it was me. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Come on, you know that shouting (getting louder) is equivalent to ALLCAPS. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Isaidnoway (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Op-blocked for VOA. -Lemonaka 07:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Ya gotta like OP's complaint that they were blocked for vandalism when they were actually socking. Narky Blert (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I woke up this morning to see 99+ (from a RFC discussion, it only highlights if I am mentioned directly or get a talk page notification) notifications and was initially slightly puzzled. I now see someone can certainly hold a grudge. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

80.76.198.131 (talk · contribs) WP:NOTHERE

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

---

For several months adds nonsensical comment into talk pages. - Altenmann >talk 16:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

I want to report a moderator/editor who I fear has the power to intercept messages such as these.

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

---

I want to report a malicious moderator.

He has come up as an issue in the past, but please read this collated report (link below) on his malfeasance with fresh eyes.

If wikipedia won't take action against this very obviously bad actor, publicly ripping all moderation and editing power from their hands, then I will no longer trust wikipedia, and will do everything in my power to make sure nobody else in my circle does either.

https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin

Caseythezahima (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - Casey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseythezahima (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

see some additional discourse surrounding this here: https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1811049889284886811

and here: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/ai-72-denying-the-future?open=false#%C2%A7the-wikipedia-war Caseythezahima (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Caseythezahima (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that Wikipedia actually does not regard itself as a reliable source. As for the linked report, I clicked it, got partway through, and gave up as WP:TLDR. If you could please present WP:DIFFs of the alleged misbehavior and summarize it in one to three paragraphs, that would make it more likely that the report is taken seriously. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You cannot expect a report of many years of bad behavior from a malicious actor to be terribly short. You are not making a case for wikipedia being taken seriously as a community or source. It is 13k words, regarding a moderator with a nontrivial amount of power over wikipedia itself. Caseythezahima (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Egregiously bad block

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

---

I guess I should have known it was inevitable, that if I lurked AN/I long enough while vowing not to comment, that eventually I'd run into something so outrageous I just couldn't say nothing. Alright. Let's at least try to get this done in one post.

@Canterbury Tail: Seriously‽ You're a good admin, so I'm assuming you just didn't think this one through. Take a second to step back and consider how this looks to anyone outside of our tiny bubble: You blocked this user because they are Clearly not here, created an account to attack an other editor and try and get them blocked. No interest in actually building an encyclopaedia. What is that "attack"? Apparently, it's that they said an administrator and experienced editor is bad at being an administrator and experienced editor. I guess "obvious bad actor" is a bit much, but within normal limits for AN/I reports. I haven't read the full Substack post they linked, and probably won't because I don't really care that much about the underlying controversy, but it doesn't appear to be "Fuck this admin because he blocked me" or "Fuck this admin because he's <some group>" or anything else that would be considered an obviously bad-faith criticism. Nor is there any reason to suspect sockpuppetry. People who read blog posts about Wikipedia find their way to AN/I all the time.

To any outsider, and for that matter to any non-admin who doesn't have the punchdrunk indifference of a beyond-burnt-out ex-admin, this reads as the thickest of thin blue lines, a message that no criticism of admins is tolerated. Revoking talkpage access at time-of-block serves only further to give the impression of closing ranks. And sometimes, sure, a tough block needs to be made that will inevitably look bad—G-d knows I've made them—but here, there is not in fact any policy justifying this block, just WP:NOTHERE, an essay which just on its face does not apply to someone who created an account in an attempt (right or wrong) to make the encyclopedia better. We don't block people for being inconveniences. We don't block people for insulting admins. Again, you're a good admin, CT, but this is one of the worst blocks I can ever recall seeing. I hope you'll reconsider. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to add my concerns to Tamzin's here. I'm not inclined to view this as quite the abuse of the ban hammer they do, but I'll admit, I've been struggling to dismiss my reservations about the block since I saw it take place in realtime yesterday. On the one hand, I do think that it's questionable whether this editor was ever going to accomplish anything productive with their ill-informed effort to leverage our processes to bring scrutiny on...well, something to do with David Gerard? To be fair to CT, part of the issue is that the very nature of the misconduct CaseytheZahima seems to believe has transpired is not cogently explained in the complaint. Nor is it immediately clear from a review of the substack thread or the Tracingwoodgrains piece. The substack refers back to the blog post, and it's obvious that the documentation/reporting/editorialization/whatever you choose to call it regarding the well-known (on project anyway) kerfuffle over David's involvement with the Scott Alexander article (and his purported involvement in the NYT article that was characterized as having doxxed Alexander) has in turn caused consternation among others in that thread. Both the blog piece and the substack thread also make various other allegations of abuse of process, or at least suboptimal editorial and behavioural conduct. Even so, there is no clear direction or obvious allegation or specific piece of conduct identified by the OP here for us to really make any inquiries from, or even establish if there are any reasonable accusations that could be made at this time. Note that David has been pagebanned from the Alexander article, and I believe that restriction remains in place.

All of that said, none of these failures on the OP's part or the ambiguities that render the report borderline pointless is in itself a justification for a block. Again, I doubt anything much would have / will come from spending time holding the OP's hand and walking them through the substantial initial education on this project and our processes that would need to take place before we could even make heads or tails of what they are implying about David's conduct and whether there's even a hint of something to be done here. But, you know, we generally try to make some sort of good faith communication with those who wander in here off the street, so to speak. I certainly see no obvious reason why a block should have been the response here, absent any prolonged disruption or failure to get the point once the OP was told there was nothing to be done here (assuming that was the ultimate conclusion after coaxing a clearer explanation of their concerns from them). And even were the block based in some more well-distinguished policy rationale, how does one possibly justify revoking talk page access and first-line access to an appeal before CTZ even had an opportunity to respond to the block?

This is all further suboptimal in that, while it's hard to know which conduct the OP wished to highlight concerning David, the Tracingwoodgrains piece (which is itself fairly cogent and detailed, however sloppily it was used here--though I'm sure mileage will vary as to its perceived veracity for those who know David and/or watched the controversies which are covered by the piece unfold) has as a central theme an implication that admins on this site have repeatedly covered for and enabled David's purported abuses, until the Scott Alexander situation lead to broader scrutiny and realization of the extent of David's supposed weaponization of the project against his 'enemies'/bugbears, Alexander included. (Still describing the narrative of the piece here, not necessarily my own perspective on the controversy, which I remain somewhat agnostic on, lacking full familiarity with the events). So this action by CT in the prompt block with perfunctory explanation must look like a confirmation of the worst suspicions of the persons in these other online communities that, at best, we are willing to bury criticism and place our heads in the sand or, at worst, there is an active conspiracy to, as Tamzin coincidentally put it, close ranks around David.

Now, I would expect our community members to have varying degrees of concern about what those other communities think about what is going on here, but without a better and more cognizable rationale for the block, I have to feel that (whatever the level of worry we should have for the message we are putting into those other communities, and the outside world of media scrutiny of this project) the approach so far just represents a bad cost-benefit ratio, and a bad look for Wikipedia in the eyes of anyone who sees this situation through the lens of those communities and any media that might pick up on this. Canterbury Tail, just for the sake of trying to iron this out, figure out the OP's objectives, and give what explanation we can for why we can or cannot help them, would you please consider unblocking them? I think it's the best way forward. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: I've informed David of the discussion, since the OP failed to do so and the thread is, at least for the moment, live again. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Good block. So, the account in question was set up yesterday. Their first edit was to open this ANI thread. 11 edits followed, all of which were in pursuance of their campaign. Seems to me that's the very definition of WP:NOTHERE. As far as the underlying allegations are concerned, we have thousands of active editors who are here to build an encyclopedia who could take that up if they see an issue there. I don't see why we would protect an account set up for the sole purpose of promoting a campaign to do it for us. DeCausa (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me DeCausa, but for me, that rationale constitutes a very insubstantial/weak tea justification for any block, let alone an immediate indef and TPA blocking preventing the party from explaining their purpose here. The problem is that people have gotten in the habit of using "WP:NOTHERE" very talismanicly. But as the language of the explanatory essay itself makes clear, you have to look to specific forms of disruption in order to justify such a call, and having just re-reviewed the numerous examples given therein, not a single one of them applies here.

Further, let's look at some language from the earlier portion of said EE, WP:HERE, which notes that constructive contributions to the project can include "mitigating and reducing problems that make a negative contribution to Wikipedia." That seems pretty dead on the nose to the OPs objective here: raising concerns (whether they prove justified or not, so long as they are made in good faith) that an admin has been abusing process to distort content to their preferred version, for attack page purposes. That especially seems like fairplay when longstanding and highly regarded members of this community have already raised similar concerns about the same admin on this very forum, regarding other articles with BLP implications.

Again, not staking a position that the accusations against David will be born out if we hear from this new user, but I also don't think it makes good sense to just assume the OP has no insight to contribute. We lose very little in hearing this person out before we turn them out on their ear. Whereas we stand to very certainly at least lose some credibility with some people looking in at our processes from the outside if we summarily and reflexively block someone for coming here to raise their concerns, merely because they lacked the technical facility with our bureaucratic norms to make a proper ANI filing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

So, setting up an account to do nothing but attack an editor as a "malicious moderator" demanding "publicly ripping all moderation and editing power from their hands" and heading to the drama boards with their first edit is helping to build an encyclopedia? If it is, this place really will become a zoo. DeCausa (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying that I have particularly high confidence that anything productive or actionable comes of this. But nothing productive or actionable comes out of most ANI threads. And saying that this user is here to "attack a user" is a highly loaded way of framing the activity. They are raising concerns. Suboptimally, to be very sure, but under the circumstances, that doesn't defeat all ability to believe they are here in good faith. The admin in question was "attacked" by numerous other administrators and veteran users over their involvement in a similar case, which resulted in an editing restriction.

Again, I'm not super confident this goes anywhere, but the context demonstrates a non-zero chance that the OP has something to say that is worth our hearing, once we get over the translational issues. I won't blame anyone who doesn't credit them with being likely to provide us with useful new information and doesn't stick around to listen. But I for one would like to hear it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Bad block. This is genuinely worrying. This block appears to be saying that creating an account for the purpose of pointing out an issue with Wikipedia's administration is automatically WP:NOTHERE, and that a new user can be blocked for not knowing the norms of ANI reports. This means, basically, that we are making ourselves immune to outside criticism. I don't understand DeCausa's claim that, since we have thousands of already-existing editors who could point out this issue (but didn't, yet), it is okay to block a new user for doing it. To the contrary, it can often be good to have a perspective from outside of our community.
  Regarding the WP:NOTHERE issue itself, someone here to point flaws in how the encyclopedia is built is very clearly here to help build the encyclopedia, even if they are not directly writing content—which shouldn't be a prerequisite to earn the right of reporting issues at ANI. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Co-signed completely; bad block. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• :This also reads bad block to me. They're not disrupting Wikipedia; they're not wasting volunteer time. This isn't someone creating promotional articles over and over, or vandalizing, or any other NOTHERE behaviour. They seem to be making a genuine, good-faith effort to bring what they believe is a problem to the attention of people who can do something about it. Are they doing it the right way? No, but that doesn't mean the best plan is to cut off all lines of communication. We should be directing them towards the right options, like ArbCom. It's entirely possible there's nothing to this article, but quickly silencing anyone who tries to raise what they genuinely believe to be a long-term, serious problem with Wikipedia is a really, really bad way to handle it. StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  they're not wasting volunteer time. Listening to editors who don't edit file ANI reports about other editors certainly seems like it could waste volunteer time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  It could. You and I might (and probably do) even feel that the chances are much higher of this not amounting to anything actionable than that it will. But there's no guarantee, and assuming it will is very much an act of begging the question. Let's be honest, any longterm editor who has spent time at ANI knows names that, when you see them here, you are immediately dubious as to the prospect that they are bringing a legitimate complaint. But it's not a facially valid or acceptable course of action to assume that and block them on sight because of those doubts. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Good block. I'll calibrate my future practices based on the results of this discussion, but it is my current opinion that WP:NOTHERE definitely covers editors whose only edits are to create drama at ANI. To make an account, then come straight to ANI to create drama, with absolutely no mainspace edits, is behavior very much aligning with sockpuppets and LTAs who want a low effort way to cause chaos and take advantage of our system. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the distinction to be made here is that if their objective is to "create drama" (or troll or stir the pot or however we might phrase it) then yeah, clearly that is disruptive and a block is warranted. But I don't see any strong evidence that this is such a case. This doesn't seem to be an LTA or sock. It's certainly not outside the realm of possibility, but my impression so far is that this is someone who is merely clueless about our procedures--probably from one of the two communities mentioned in the Tracingwoodgrains article (LessWrong or RationalWiki), with whom David purportedly has complex relationships (according to the article anyway). Until given more concrete reason to suspect a sock or troll, I'm inclined to AGF. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Bad block. If you read the article, it's not really a screed. It is certainly not evidence of bad faith that someone mentions it. For those without a lot of time on their hands, it's about an even split between:

1. Statements of fact that every drama-sniffer around here is already quite familiar with (people fling shit about politics all the time at RSN, Gerard was topic-banned a few years ago for aggressively pursuing COI edits in re Dr. Scotty Codex, etc)
2. Opinions that well-respected Wikipedians express all the time (it is a gigantic pain in the arse when people queue up AWB jobs to indiscriminately mass-remove deprecated sources; RSN is often a sewer).
3. Catalog of various based deeds David has done over time (represent WMUK for years, lead the charge against the crystal-woo morons, be the sysadmin of a really funny shock site, be right about the Chelsea Manning fiasco), various cringe deeds (get topic-banned after an aggressive COI campaign to defame Dr. Scotty Codex, constant sloppy mass-removals of deprecated sources), and various neutral deeds (he hates cryptocurrency and I guess he was a big LessWrong guy back in the day).

The main bombshell accusation being made in this piece against Gerard is something that basically everyone here knows: there is a big gaggle of libs who are always trying to use WP:RSP as a septic tank into which to flush newspapers they don't like. Now, before some bumberchute at Wikipediocracy gets their hemorrhoids up reading me type this dangerous harmful right-wing propaganda: it is not just libs who do this. Wikipedia, in its majestic equality, also lets Republicans act like chimpanzees about whether the Wetumpka Argus-Picayune or whatever is destroying our country and must be removed from all citations. But broadly, I think we are all pretty well aware of this. By volume, about 10% of RSN is discussion attempting to find consensus on what sources are reliable for use on Wikipedia, and 90% is rancid political mudflinging. Does anybody seriously disagree with this? It's a zoo! Clearly, we are ashamed enough about it being a zoo to insta-gib n00bs who show up and tell us so. But are we proud enough of our encyclopedia to actually fix it? jp×g🗯️ 11:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I think an argument could be made that linking that article falls under WP:OUTING. While it's DG's choice to use their full name for their WP account, linking to every social media account they've had seems particularly invasive. -- macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, thing is, the ship well and truly sailed on that concern a while ago. It's not just a matter of David using his real name here (and as the co-founder, sysadmin or major community member in multiple other online communities). There are also news articles and think pieces galore connecting his activity on this project to his real world identity. The fact of the matter is, David is something of a minor celebrity. He helped found and develop a number of online projects (including this one to non-trivial extent; he's the original author of several of our most central policies, helped develop many procedures and technical capabilities and was our first CheckUser). He's written books and appeared as an analyst on news programs. That said, while outing is less a concern here, it doesn't rule out caution on other privacy concerns. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Good block. Nothing constructive about this "complaint", at best it's someone promoting their blog, at worst it's a borderline obsessive fixation on one person. Gamaliel (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not sure whether this block was right or not (I wish more people, especially politicians, would say "I don't know" when they don't) but I don't agree that it was an egregiously bad block. I've seen many worse blocks, and I don't spend all of my time here. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Judging from the nature of their rant (including errors and complete lack of wiki-cleverness and wiki-effectiveness), they look new or somewhat new to Wikipedia. What they did is acceptable/the norm for most of the internet but not for Wikipedia. Block should have been for a month or something to help them start learning the ways of our alternate universe here. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Wow. Wikipedia: the place where trolling about how "you're censoring THE TRUTH" is met with 4,000 words of back-and-forth, multi-party fretting about proper conduct. Good block. XOR'easter (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I for one consider this time well spent. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  I for one consider it evidence that we are collectively vulnerable to being nerd-sniped by chan tactics. XOR'easter (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Good block - buried within the editor's blog post, a ways in but before they devolve into nearly 10,000 words of nothing but casting aspersions on David Gerard's motivations based solely on personal disagreements, they reveal that they have an axe to grind over a conflict on the Scott Alexander page many years ago. Per WP:PROJSOCK, editors are not permitted to create new accounts solely to participate in project-side discussions. If they want to launch this complaint they can log into whatever their previous account is, assuming they're not blocked. I only read the post up to where they started giving the author's opinion of David's motivations as fact and then skimmed the rest, but it seems that the author's primary complaint that has much of anything at all to do with Wikipedia is that David mass-removes poorly-sourced information from BLPs, which we're compelled to do by policy. The rest is primarily about David's engagement with other websites, particularly RationalWiki; they eventually bring it back around to concluding that David is unreasonably biased to be commenting on reliable sources, but it's all the author's opinion, and is coloured badly by anger over their friends' blogs having been deemed unreliable. Once again, if they want to participate in the process of determining what is and is not a reliable source, they can log into their original account and do so, again assuming they're not blocked. You have to get all the way to the bottom of the page before you find their aspiration to gain subscribers to support writing this variety of investigative journalism as a career, complete with link to their paywalled companion article to this hit piece titled "A Young Mormon Discovers Online Rationality: the backstory to 'Reliable Sources'", which they then encourage readers to read first. So, here we have a person with an issue that they could engage with the community to address who instead is pinning that great wrong on one particular administrator that they have been collecting dirt on for more than a decade, who is also trying to monetize their personal vendetta. Preemptively revoking talk page access may have been a bit harsh (although we regularly do that for clear harassment) but this editor was always going to be blocked, and very likely was already. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  When you say "conflict many years ago", do you mean "defamation campaign so flagrant and outrageous that the administrator who did it was indefinitely topic banned from any subject remotely related to the BLP he was using Wikipedia to run a harassment campaign against"? jp×g🗯️ 14:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  When you say "buried within the editor's blog post," do you mean "right at the top, in literally the very first words below the title, italicized and set off from the rest of the text, prior to the introduction"? Levivich (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm virtually certain that our OP here is not the same person who authored that article; he merely linked to it. What seems to have happened here is that the piece, put up just two days ago, has opened a window into the Scott Alexander hullabaloo in such a way as to explain what happened in the Wikipedia side of that incident in a manner that was rhetorically accessible to most of members of the other affected communities for the first time.

  The result is that members of those communities have become either incensed (arguably rightly depending on what you believe about how that controversy developed) or concerned about being the next target (which is almost certainly an unrealistic fear for a variety of reasons, but understandable among those with only tangential understanding of this project). Some combination of those sentiments seems to have sent Caseythezahima here as a (probably self-appointed) agent of one or both of the affected communities. They came for answers/guarantees/something and ran into a brick wall because they didn't know the right questions to ask or even how to properly summarize their concerns within our format here. The thread was shut down almost immediately, they became vexed and even more unfocused and a block soon followed. There are definitely some lessons for us to learn from this situation, imo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  It’s extremely obvious that this ANI poster is not the author of the piece. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Contrary to the claims of Ivanvector above, TracingWoodgrains and Caseythezahima are not the same person, as proven by this twitter thing that I got by clicking the link on Casey's userpage. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 16:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well I don't look at Twitter any more but I'll take your word for it. I have struck my entire comment, with apologies to TracingWoodgrains. It does not change my opinion that this was a good block - this editor clearly read something inflammatory online and came here just to right the great wrong, rather than to actually contribute to solving a problem or contributing to the project at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Bad block - complaining about Wikipedia's inner workings is improving the encyclopedia, or trying to. (Of course I'd say that.) I don't particularly see a lot of merit to this complaint or to the blog post (which I did read all of), so I don't think any action should be taken against David Gerard -- as far as I know, the mentioned sanctions are ancient history and haven't been repeated so there is no current problem here -- but it would have been fine to just tell this person "we don't care that someone wrote a blog post, if there is an urgent or chronic current problem, bring diffs, otherwise, move alone." There was no cause to block the account. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent response to block review, though. Thanks, CT. I agree completely that it's important for the community to hold others accountable ... openness and accountability is massively important. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Canterbury Tales seems to be taking this in stride, but I'll note my disappointment in Tamzin's phrasing. This is a borderline block - one that I thought about briefly but didn't make - but it wasn't unreasonable, and certainly not "egregious". The odds of this account actually being a newbie are very low. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

We're human, we all make mistakes. I think it's important for the community to hold others accountable like in any civilised society. If I err (and it will happen) I expect people to point it out to me. I hold no annoyance on this discussion and am glad that as a community we're able to have it as that openness and accountability is massively important to my world view. (P.S Floquenbeam, you spelt my name wrong :) It's a play on the Canterbury Tales.) Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, I realize now that might seem contradictory to my actions. Something for me to think on. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry! That's my dirty little secret, the reason I would usually say "CT" is not because I'm so very friendly with everyone, but because I have what Mrs. Floquenbeam calls adult-onset dyslexia, and am very likely to screw something like this up, and initials hide that better. Anyway, I'm not worried at all about Tamzin questioning the block. What bothered me (but not you, because you're better than me) was the way it was phrased in several places. But meh. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I considered after posting whether the phrasing was overboard, but concluded it was an honest reflection of my perception: I abhor AN/I, and I see bad blocks all the time that I don't do anything about, so by definition there is something egregious in a block that gets me to comment here, at least egregious from my own subjective viewpoint. It's not that this is an unparalleled moral evil or a massive admin power trip; there are bad UAA blocks made every day that are in those regards worse than this. It's, well, the stuff I said above, which people can take or leave. You are of course welcome to disagree. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the odds are high—anyone who has experience with Wikipedia would know not to make an opening ANI post like that one. To me it sounds exactly like an outraged “outsider” speaking to what he thinks is the supreme council of Wikipedia. Is this misunderstanding and poor approach block-worthy? No! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Response

I don't have much time this evening so this will be a short response, but I feel it can't wait until a later point. I hear your concerns, and I will admit to having had second thoughts about it myself during the day. That other people are also questioning that and calling me out I believe is a good thing as it means my itch sense on the action was there for a reason.

This account was created specifically to come in here and level accusations against a highly respected and productive member of our community, using a blog they found online as their evidence. This new account doesn't appear to have ever interacted with the user in question, had any issues with David, or looked into it. They appear to have found a blog online and come in here demanding not just a pound of flesh, but the entire head. This account was created for this sole purpose, not to build an encyclopaedia, not to improve some things, but to demand the execution of a Wikipedia member in good standing. You can NOTHERE, you can IAR, but whatever I do not believe in any way this is an editor who wishes to improve the project. The list under Wp:NOTHERE is not exhaustive, I don't believe you can point to it and go this isn't one of the specifically called out items under this criteria. Yes it's an explanatory essay, but it's a good one and it carries a lot of weight in people's perspectives and viewpoints.

Is there merit in the complaint, unsure. I never made it that far through the target blog post in all honesty. However I did consider that I had over reacted in a poor way. Yes as mentioned above I'm tired of admins getting treated as a punching bag by a large number of new accounts that come through the door, but that doesn't mean I should presume the worst out of any account.

• Would I have react similarly if it was a non-admin account being targeted? Yes, this has nothing to do with David being an admin.
• Do I believe that this account is NOTHERE? Yes
• Should I have waited longer to make that determination before taking action? Yes
• Should talk page access be restored? Yes
• Should the block be lifted? I was unsure, but I'm leaning towards yes.

I'm interested in people's responses and don't make a mistake, I think that this coming here is a good thing. Canterbury Tail talk 13:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a difference to be made between "will improve the project" and "wishes to improve the project". Was their report an improvement to the project? Most likely not. Did they wish to improve the project, by pointing out what they perceived as an abuse of power by a high-ranking Wikipedian? Very certainly.

While WP:NOTHERE is not exhaustive, it feels like the reasonable course of action is to assume good faith and consider that they might, most likely, be there to point out a perceived issue with a user to which the community entrusted powers and responsibilities. We can call this accusations or accountability, but review of what users do with the trust we give them is an essential part of an open and collaborative project. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth CT, I agree with basically the entirety of your analysis, with the possible exception that I think the user may fall just marginally on the side of WP:HERE, for largely the same reasons Chaotic Enby details immediately above. And I'm fairly certain that Tamzin did not mean to imply that you would actually sandbag a report to protect a fellow admin. Certainly beyond a shadow of a doubt, I had no intention of implying that, but was rather speaking about what it might look like to an outside community (and I do think this user might have come from LessWrong, rather than being a random person who stumbled upon the blog piece). I don't think anyone here seriously considered that your action was reproachful on any level other than we probably should just hear the user out to be pro forma and scrupulously open to self-scrutiny, as the project as whole is designed to be.

In any event, it should not go unremarked that if there was any error in speed of the block or amount of discussion before hand, it was not yours alone: a number of us observed it and didn't say anything, tacitly endorsing it until Tamzin spoke up. In short: an edge case and a reasonable call, but I do think the correct solution is to unblock, play instructor to the IP, extract what detail we can from them about what they wish to see happen here and then, in all likelihood, tell them it isn't going to happen and explain why. For those who find this to be a tedious and excessive exercise in patience for an extremely dubious likelihood of pragmatic gain, well that's 95% of AGF in a nutshell. I still think it's unambiguously the right thing to do, pragmatically and under policy. Transparency, reflection, and openness are important muscles of the organism that is this project which from time to time must be exercised even when it is not accomplishing any real work. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I want to let you know, while I do strongly object to the block, and do think that it is symptomatic of something rotten in the state of Denmark, I don't hold you personally responsible for all the ills of the project -- there's a quite reasonable thought process that leads to making this block, there's no sin committed in doing so, and et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 15:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It's clear that Caseythezahima was trying to improve the encyclopedia. It's also clear that they are new and don't have a lot of experience with the admin side. It's difficult to say if they've been editing as an IP and created the account to post here, but I assume any admin would be able to check this if need be. This is pure unvarnished WP:BITE, and demonstrates a clear lack of WP:AGF. The user should be unblocked immediately. TheMissingMuse (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Given this response as well as the other discussion here, I've unblocked Caseythezahima. I've also explained some of our core user conduct policies and guidelines, in the hopes that if this user is sincere in wanting to improve the project they'll take them to heart. WP:AGF is something we should all try harder to embody, even if years of vandalism and trolling has made us more cynical. It's entirely possible they'll need to be re-blocked in the near future based on what they do, but expressing their thoughts poorly is something that should be expected for somebody who hasn't been introduced to our guidelines and wasn't given the opportunity to learn. This unblock shouldn't be treated as an endorsement of the complaint about David Gerard, which I've only skimmed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

IP asking me to edit a protected page on their behalf

2409:4085:8197:90E1:0:0:2B34:A0B0 sent me, earlier today, a talk page message asking me to add content to an extended-protected page (Ahir). They had already put a related edit request on Talk:Ahir a few months ago, and were apparently blocked in the meanwhile. After myself and Sohom Datta both told the IP that this behavior wasn't constructive, they proceeded to make a disparaging remark about Sohom's nationality. I'm really not sure what to make of this situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby Don’t, not only is that editing by proxy, they might be evading a ban or block. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I wasn't going to implement their edits either way, just wanted to know whether further action was needed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I didn't really think you were, just an excess of caution. Doug Weller talk 06:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, to underline what Doug said, I would just ignore this editor and hope that they go away. I see that the IP geolocates to Mumbai, India, so don't know what point they were trying to make about Sohom Datta. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, Thanks for raising this issue here, I am very disappointed when I see Ahir article because the article is creating confusion which is wrongly added by some editors who are anti Ahir/Yadav community, in the article The first misconception is that the Ahirs adopted the name Yadav in the Since late 19th century to early 20th century. I would like to refute this with some of my own facts. In the 1881 British census of India, the Yadavas were identified with the Ahirs.[128] So this false claim is refuted. The second false claim is that the Ahirs were Sanskritised, this claim is not supported by any authentic source nor have modern scholars mentioned the Sanskritisation of the Ahirs. In fact, this is a false narrative which has been being spread for a few years. And because of this, some people insult the people of Yadav community and defame them by saying that you are not Yadav but Ahir who has stolen or adopted the Yadav surname wrongly. 2409:4085:8197:90E1:0:0:2B34:A0B0 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely not the place to be arguing content. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

ItsMdAdnan on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikandar (2025 film)

ItsMdAdnan (talk · contribs) just performed a non-admin close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikandar (2025 film) an hour after it started. It's a 2025 indian film and honestly probably does not meet WP:NFF, so the AFD nomination by Twinkle1990 was entirely in good faith. There was no reason given for the NAC and ItsMdAdnan is fairly involved in editing the article. Please reopen the AFD and I think a second warning from an admin about not doing this again would be helpful. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but have reverted this close, as it was both unexplained and the discussion had not been open for anything like seven days. There is no need to be an admin to do this, but a warning from an admin may help. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I gave a warning. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both! Ravensfire (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Need a rangeblock on Nairobi IPs

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyMega/Archive
• 102.221.32.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Our old friend User:TyMega has apparently found a group of Nairobi IPs that can be co-opted remotely. Two of them have already been blocked by Malcolmxl5: Special:Contributions/102.221.34.105 and Special:Contributions/102.221.34.102. The following IPs are involved, so far:

• 102.221.34.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 102.221.34.102 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 102.221.34.103 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 102.221.34.104 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 102.221.34.105 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Can we get a rangeblock on these IPs? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

As an update 102.221.32.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been globally blocked as an open proxy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Ah, yes. I blocked these as VPNs and then went on to block the /24, which is also blocked on simple.wiki where TyMega has made a few edits. Now we have a /22 global block, even better! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent work. This thread is done. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Lindenearlejones (talk · contribs)

Sor several months this user continues adding inappropriate and wrongly formatted edit summariies, despite edit summaries. IMO a pereventive block is required to force the user to pay attention to warnings. - Altenmann >talk 16:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Your first sentence makes no sense. In any event, diffs are needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the problem: Lindenearlejones has been asked/warned about changing short description|none multiple times.[129][130][131] Lindenearlejones continues to repeat their mistake.[132] Lindenearlejones has never responded on their talk page (or used a talk page at all). Schazjmd (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 219.89.155.18

219.89.155.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning, hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of unsourced edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Waxworker (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked a week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

User not responding

• FCAC2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cantonese nationalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@FCAC2024 has been reverting my edits at Cantonese nationalism @[133] [134] and Secession in China [135] [136] without any explanation. When I asked them the rationale for their edits on Talk:Cantonese nationalism, they reverted my message outright without responding. The Account 2 (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

FCAC2024 is an SPA account with a username issue as indicated on their talk profile page. ~ For the curious: The Account 1 is a highly active user in good standing; not to be confused with The Account or The Account 3 who have been blocked as socks over a decade ago... (Shaking my head a bit on that one.) JackTheSecond (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur this is an issue. FCAC2024 self-identifies as a Cantonese nationalist (see their userpage), and is edit warring low quality sources like Instagram into Cantonese nationalism related articles. I think this is someone who is primarily here to advocate their cause, rather than build a neutral encyclopaedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

User repeatedly recreating a page without consensus

@Paliwal Somesh has recreated Champavati Fort Chachaura three times already (1, 2, 3) after the AfD was closed as redirect. I have informed them on their talk page that they should get consensus in some way before recreating it, but did not get any response, and they have recreated the article again today.
While the AfD discussion did not have a lot of participation, a new discussion would be preferable to a unilateral recreation. I would be happy to see Paliwal take part in such a discussion regarding the merits of the article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

checking the deleted revisions atm jp×g🗯️ 11:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Uh, okay, as I suspected: this is a whole thing. There are 124 revs on current article... and two deleted revs... both of which are from Rydex64 moving the page to Draft:Champavati Fort Chachaura on June 26 and CSDing the redirect? Then that page has no deleted revs, four live revs (one of which is the draftification). What da... the initial revision of that draft is from 09:28, the draftification was done at 09:31, your AfD nom was at 11:23, there's a comment at 11:28 saying "previously moved to draftspace and then recreated in mainspace". So... the AfD was for the initial article, which got drafted two minutes into the AfD, but then... twenty minutes after that, a second article got created in mainspace, which is the actual one you nommed. Then the AfD ran for that one, was closed as a redirect on July 3, at which point the article was Special:Permalink/1232381094 and the draft was still just the single sentence? Christ, what a mess. Okay, well: the current revision has three references, which is more than the article had at the time it was actually closed with consensus to redirect, so I am not confident this is WP:G4 (it's not substantially similar and the sources do seem to address the AfD complaints). But I think this is supposed to be a DRV or an AfC thing. Man who knows. jp×g🗯️ 11:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a complete mess, and that's why I would have preferred to see it be actually discussed. The added sources are certainly better, although I'm not 100% sure if they're enough for notability either (I'm not familiar enough with the nuances of WP:NEWSORGINDIA for this). Hopefully the article (re)creator can weigh in on the situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked for other-language articles and all I found was the same article on the Hindi-language project, written by the same user, without sources: hi:चम्पावती किला चाचौड़ा. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

There is noting wrong with the article now. References from several years demonstrate archaeological notability. The article discussed during at AfD was without references, so redirect was correct solution. Regarding consensus, in Wikipedia consensus may change. - Altenmann >talk 16:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• The main problem here is Paliwal Somesh's lack of communication on talkpages or even through mere edit-summaries. I believe that they are well intentioned, but there may be language issues involved that have prevented them from understanding or responding to the issues that have been repeatedly raised regarding their creations of or edits at Chachoura Block, Chachoura Tehsil, Chachaura-Binaganj, Chachaura etc. So I am p-blocking the editor from mainspace until they demonstrate that they can communicate and edit collaboratively. Abecedare (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• I fixed up the article some. 1600s is an old fort. It was restored by a state museum. There are a lot of forts in India, though. Guna district (pop. 1.2 million) has ten forts and palaces. The linked source suggests there are over 4,000 forts and palaces in India. Not all have been restored. -- GreenC 05:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk page abuse of a BKFIP sockpuppet

Can an admin please pull the plug for talk page access of BKFIP sockpuppet IP address 82.134.216.171? They just made this lovely statement about me just after being blocked for two weeks for an attack in the summary of an edit they made.

P.s. I have notified them here.

Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done by User:Cullen328. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes and thank you, NoobThreePointOh. I forgot to report back because it is late at night at California where I live, and it is time for me to get some sleep. I have a busy day of family visits tomorrow. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, good night then. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif

Can we get some admin eyes on 2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif and 13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi airstrikes? The title of 2024 targeted assassination of Muhammad Deif has a move request to 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack and the more recent fork article 13 July 2024 Al-Mawasi airstrikes is looking like an incipient WP:COATRACK to me. Abductive (reasoning) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

A death threat towards myself

Hello.

The following member told me to kill myself. I would very much appreciate some help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/N%C3%A3oTankei

David A (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. No place for that at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. David A (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The only remaining question is if there is any indication who's sock this was, as this was their first and only edit. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. An investigation would be appreciated. David A (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

A checkuser has taken a look, and sometimes that doesn't say anything conclusive. What I will suggest is that the recipient of threats is often the person who has the best clue about who's responsible. and in the absence of better suggestions (unofficial wink wink) I'd wonder if the thread above this one could connect any dots for you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, given that I have been active in recent discussions regarding the humanitarian catastrophe currently happening in Gaza, and received several extremely hostile insult posts directed towards me along the way, the death threat likely came from a diehard Zionist editor of some sort, but that is guesswork on my part. David A (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This incendiary Reddit discussion likely explains the reason for this incident. Extended confirmed accounts edit-protection for the Gaza genocide talk page might be a good idea. David A (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Possibly compromised account

Can anyone with the right goggles please check this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The user seems very combative and has been warned about their behavior numerous times. This immediately came after an ArbCom sanction. They could very well have just snapped and rage-quit. In other words I don’t think the account was compromised. Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Why, exactly? It looks like someone who has been editing several contentious topics got upset and demanded that their account be blocked. Is there something more going on? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I doubt this is a compromised account - based on prior behavior and what led to their ARBPIA TBAN, seems this is just a NOTHERE user going into a rage over their block. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Does it matter whether the account was compromised? If so then the account should be blocked, and if not then we should grant their request. Either way they should only be unblocked if a convincing appeal is made. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, a CU would probably be able to tell if the underlying IP had changed, but I think the distinction is academic at this point. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's the difference between a topic ban and an indefinite block, and it would affect how we evaluated any subsequent unblock request. I don't see any harm in asking a CU to look. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, if this makes it any more official:  Check declined by a checkuser. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

My concern was related to the recent compromised account blocks in the topic area combined with coming back after a couple weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Jweiss11 incivility

Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Numerous times in the same discussion at WT:CFB yesterday, Jweiss11 used incivil remarks to belittle/attack Cbl62:

• You didn't just misremember. You're not in touch with the reality of this situation.
• Cbl, when it comes to broad project management, competence is required.
• Once again you're completely out touch with reality about the dynamics here, and defensively contorting history rather than examining your own shortcomings. You're out of your depth. Let someone who else who is competent enough to understand what's going on here take the lead.
• Are you ready to admit you're FOS, or did you just misremember what happened?
• It's incredibly pathetic what you're still carrying on with this confabulatory charade, even when I've plainly laid out the evidence for you. You are either lying or you're not competent enough to assess the reality of the sequence of events here. Which one is it?
• What will it take for you to cease with these lies and distortions?
• You need to stop with the repeated lies and alternate histories. It's almost Trump-like.
• But you last comment contains yet another distortion, or an inability to follow what's going on. [...] Perhaps it is our personal rivalry that has rendered you unable to make sound and sensible moral judgements. But whatever the ultimate cause, your distorted and confabulatory tales of fake culpability ensue.

Cbl62's tone/comments in the thread aren't great in responses either, but based on my interactions with them this seems more isolated than Jweiss11's behavior. As an example, Jweiss11 recently labeled a couple editors who nominated college football-related pages "obstructionists" at nomination pages:

• We can file this as another time-wasting, obstructionist XfD by Let’srun, the sort of behavior of his that is currently being discussed at ANI.
• Let'srun, this is another obstructive nomination by you. I am getting very close to seeking a remedy for your behavior.
• No, the problem is the way in which you are trying to apply these standards bluntly even when they obstruct the advancement of the project. (this one was directed towards me)

Jweiss11 has also been warned by several users recently about mass-creating unused templates ([137], [138], [139]). In a couple recent AfDs ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1884 DePauw football team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1895 Pacific Tigers football team), Jweiss11 !voted to merge the articles to non-existent articles. They then created the new articles and unilaterally merged the content during the discussions, creating debates within the AfDs about whether to !vote to have the article merged or redirected. They were subsequently warned about this behavior here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, Jweiss can be abrasive, and we have a history of some heated disagreements. I do wish he could be less abrasive, but he is a fantastic contributor. He rubs me the wrong way at times, but I am not asking for any intervention here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Other editors, particularly inexperienced ones, see those types of comments and learn that that is how editors talk to each other. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agree. User:Cbl62 should read the Andy the Grump shitshow a few sections up to see where this attitude leads when taken to its logical conclusion. Dronebogus (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's not that I enjoy being belittled. It does bug me (the stress kept me up til 3 a.m. this morning). I just don't want to stir things up again here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's pretty charitable of you Cb162, and while I substantially agree with the sentiments of Schazjmd and Dronebogus in responding to your restraint, I still think you are to be credited for it. We could use more editors who adopted a "this is less than ideal for me, but I'm still going to focus on the positives that I see in my rhetorical opposition and not seize an opportunity to try to go to the mat to penalize them" sort of attitude. Of course, it's also possible that you just recognize that Jweiss11's conduct speaks for itself and that by not piling on, you only enhance your own position by comparison. But frankly even if that reasoning was a part of your mental calculus, I would still appreciate your tact here. Don't change (is my advice, not withstanding the reasonable concerns of Schazjmd above): these traits you are exhibiting are the kinds of psychological reserves that help anchor this project amongst the buffets from more tempestuous behaviour.

  Edit: And yes, I do see at least two people here have noted that you can give as good as you get in these discussions, so I'm not suggesting you are a paragon of restraint. But even the occasional decision of an editor to not go for the throat or come out at the bell throwing rhetorical haymakers is refreshing, especially in this space. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you User:Snow Rise. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  We could use more editors who adopted a "this is less than ideal for me, but I'm still going to focus on the positives that I see in my rhetorical opposition and not seize an opportunity to try to go to the mat to penalize them" sort of attitude.

  Just FYI, this is called adversarial collaboration, which I recently tried to do with Jweiss11, but failed to accomplish. What I noticed during that discussion is that Jweiss11 is somewhat inflexible and uncharitable to his opponents, which makes it unlikely to succeed. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  For context, if anyone else cares, most of the interaction between Viriditas and I has occurred in political sidebars on user talk pages and the like, initiated by Viriditas. V, I think I've been rather patient and forthcoming with you. If you want to have successful conversations with people, I would recommend not accusing the other person of "gish gallop" when they offer three concise examples to support a thesis that you asked them to explain. It's also not recommended to claim that someone refused to discuss a topic when the evidence of them discussing that subject appears six inches up the page. In the future, I think it would best if you limited your discussions with me only to matters directly related to the development of content on Wikipedia. If you want to have more political sidebar convos, feel free to email me. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry that was your takeaway from our interactions, but an accusation about an argument (gish gallop) isn't an accusation about you. I think I get that we both see the world in vastly different ways, and your suggestion to keep politics offf-wiki is understandable. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Eagles247, this is Kafka-esque nonsense and it's beneath you. The thing with the AFD is completely contrived as I followed the the advice of Liz in creating the merged article, so as to bring coherence to my vote. And it's a move we've done before in the past with analogous college football season articles. The difference between and merge and redirect was entirely academic, and some editors may have been confused by technical details, but no one involved had a problem with the ultimate merge effort. The exchange with Cbl62, was unfortunate, but when people advance falsehoods, I know of no other reasonable course of action other than to plainly dispel them. At this point, with that episode, I'm with Cbl, and I'm ready move past that. I'm currently working on putting all those templates into use. See my edits today at Texas Eastern Conference. That effort was delayed in recent days by the Newspapers.com outage at the Wikipedia Library, but I just signed up for the free trial to temporarily get back access. You've appeared at times to have a hostile, bad-faith attitude with respect to a lot of WP:CFB efforts which is puzzling considering your excellent contributions in the past in that topic area. I can point to your disparaging opening of that TFD with "The college football WikiProject will argue that these templates is necessary for some sort of category hierarchy...", and your spurious accusation of canvassing here after you failed to notify me of a TfD for templates that I had created. Yes, at the TFD, you were applying standards bluntly in a way that did not best serve the advancement of the project. That's in large part why the TfD ended in a keep. This looks like retaliation for losing that TfD. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• I see that you emailed me, please note that Wikipedia:Emailing users advises Wikipedia is designed to work based upon public dialog, so communication between users is often better if it's in public and I will keep my conversations with you on-wiki. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Jweiss, I don't care if God himself comes down and says that you were correct in this argument. That doesn't change the fact that if you keep wantonly belittling the intelligence of other editors, the community will eventually decide that the value of your contributions is outweighed by the risk of you chasing away editors, each of whom will potentially have contributions just as valuable as yours. You can't handwave legitimate criticism of your actions by describing it as "Kafkaesque". And I'll add that Eagles is entirely correct that a WikiProject doesn't get any sort of special say over anything in its scope, including templates. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, I don't think anyone involved here is stupid. Can you explain why Wikipedia:Competence is required exists if it can't be cited when apt? Attempting to wade through another editor's falsehoods and misunderstanding should not be conflated with belittling their intelligence. Smart people make big errors all the time. This is a critique of their editing behavior. Yes, the stuff above about AfDs and related merges is Kafakesque. 1) I vote merge in two AfDs 2) Two other experienced editors suggest that my merge vote wont count if I don't execute the merges myself, so the merge has a target. 3) So I execute the merges. 4) Eagles247 described this sequence as some sort of unilateral action on my part in contravention of the warnings from other editors. Pretty clear that's a Kafka-trap. It's a distortion, a dishonest statement, which is far worse than a harsh criticism. Dishonesty will also chase away editors. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not "Kafka-esque," that's simply a disagreement between editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why Wikipedia:Competence is required exists if it can't be cited when apt?: The essay itself advises:

Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful ... Telling people their work displays incompetence often does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them less receptive to instruction.

—Bagumba (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Bagumba, that didn't answer my question. If citing it is always bad, even when apt, why does it exist? Is it there just for two editors to apply to a third editor in secret? Seem like its just a land mine planted on wiki for no good reason. I've seen it thrown around many times, including at me in the past, but this was the first and will be last time I ever cite it, other than perhaps, to advocate for its deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

As has been cited in another discussion above, WP:BRIE applies here. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Jweiss, I can appreciate that a string of pointy comments taken out of context is not necessarily the full context here, but I'm going to add my voice to what I hope you can recognize as an emerging consensus here, and a soft warning you should heed: there is definitely something of through-line of hostility and intimidation running through those comments. You're correct that you aren't technically falling fully into PA territory with most of it, by avoiding outright ad hominems, but you're still dancing not on but in fact over the line of incivility, imo. It's probably a safe bet that you won't face a sanction for the above this time, but this is not what we'd call a collegial response to conflict, by any stretch of the imagination. Please try to moderate your tone. A bit of this can be tolerated, but even slightly padded insults can quickly add up to something the community will view as a problem in need of redress. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Both Jweiss11 and Cbl62 are fantastic editors that are needed and among Wikipedia's best. I think both of them could be a bit more civil in noting their disagreements, but I don't think the WT:CFB discussion is something that rises to the level of needing ANI discussion. As for !voting "merge" at two AFDs and then creating the articles to which it was suggested merging, I see no issue with that at all. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• As one of the editors who is name dropped in the initial report, I generally agree with others that Jweiss11 is a great editor on the areas they work in, specifically with college football. As the original nom on the merged articles, I don't really see the issue there, other than perhaps it would've been better to first create the target merge article first before voting, or making it more clear they were volunteering to write it rather than going with WP:JUSTAVOTE. I do think Jweiss11 suffers a bit from WP:AGF at times though, as when proposed with a possible discussion with a disagreement in CfD, there was an odd insistence that it should only be discussed in the College Football WikiProject, which I am honestly still a bit perplexed by. I don't know if a sanction is needed here, but something needs to change. Let'srun (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Let'srun, I never insisted that CFD issues only be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. Obviously nominations have to happen at CfD and issues with categories can be discussed in a bunch of other places like Wikipedia talk:Categorization or talk pages for various articles and categories, or user talk pages. The problem was that earlier this year you were making repeated CfD nominations of the same form, most of which were failing, with the same terse justification that the "Category lacks members". And when asked if you were working off some guideline or rule of thumb for a minimum population for a category, you refused to specify. I was not the only editor making such requests. You were unwilling to engage in meaningful conversation about this issue here. This conversation did not have to happen right there, but there was no good reason it couldn't have. It should have happened somewhere. I would have been fine with another venue. Unfortunately, you were unwilling to collaborate, and this was disrespectful of a number of other editors' time and effort. That sort of behavior is what led to the ANI report regarding you; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#Months of WP:HOUNDING by User:Let'srun. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate your response here, and apologize if you thought I was unwilling to collaborate; rather I was and continue to be open to figuring out a solution to the issue, but we just look at things in different ways and believe in good faith that a certain way of doing things is best. I still believe WikiProjects are not appropriate places to discuss policy on any level, and this continued insistence does concern me still with language which may be construed as incivil, even if it isn't intended to be. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ubivxoq - copyright violations

I'm not sure if this should be posted here or at WP:CP. I was working through Copypatrol and found this user involved in three seprate cases. I cleared those and left a notice on their talk page. A lot of their larger edits contain blatant copyvios. I don't have time to go through and tag them all for RD1. Can an administrator go through their contributions and revdel the copyvios? They seem to be working constructively but also have clearly ignored the notice left by GreenLipstickLesbian four days ago. Thanks, C F A 💬 19:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through their contributions and removed all the violations I spotted- or rewrote as appropriate. Some cases could have fallen under WP:LIMITED, but were either unfit for inclusion, or I could rewrite them anyway. I didn't bother tagging those for WP:REVDEL, but everything else should be good to go. All that remains is their commitment to abide by Wikipedia's copyright policy- or at least some sign that they understand it now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my work and for all the reminders. I will strive to be more careful in my next editing, especially when it comes to adding content from the sources I find. Ubivxoq (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That is very nice and also unacceptably vague, Ubivxoq. What we need from you at this point is an acknowledgement that you have made copyright errors in the past, and an ironclad promise that you will be very careful to avoid copyright violations going forward. This is a matter with potential legal consequences for this project. Please reassure us that you understand this issue and take it seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand the seriousness of the matter, and I truly appreciate all the reminders given to me as a beginner editor. I take the time to carefully read all comments given to my work, and I reply as promptly as I can to give reassurance that I am willing to learn and heed the advice of more senior editors. Again, I apologize for any errors I have committed especially in terms of copyright. I strive to rephrase information I find and I always cite my sources, but it appears that I still missed out on important guidelines. In light of the errors pointed out, I will review all guidelines once more in order to avoid further mistakes. Thank you. Ubivxoq (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for actually addressing the issue. You've been working constructively and I see no more copyright violations so this can probably be closed. C F A 💬 17:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Your feedback helps me improve on my editing work. Ubivxoq (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, two days later, and here we are:

• Special:Diff/1234016398 very closely paraphrases from [140] with large sections of text such as "but rather, for the adults who grew up" (reading vs with) "his book" appear verbatim.
• Special:Diff/1234238804 again maintains the sentence structure of [141]
• Special:Diff/1233646112 copies from [142], which appears to be copyrighted (PH gov works get complicated), but even if this was due to a misunderstanding of the work's copyright status, it is a plagiarism issue. (The Wikipedia page also may have been plagiarized from [143], but the problematic material entered the article in 2016 and I will be dealing with that separately)
• Special:Diff/1233649201 closely paraphrases content from [144] which is public domain, but again presents a plagiarism issue.

I'll start cleanup, but it's unfortunate that the copyright issues and plagiarism issues haven't gone away. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh my. I will review all these to understand my errors. I was doing my best to paraphrase, but it appears (again) that what I've done in these remain too close to the original. The last thing I want is to plagiarize. My sincere apologies. Will look into the errors pointed out and definitely be even extra careful moving forward. I appreciate your reminders, and I'm sorry if my mistakes give you extra clean-up work. Ubivxoq (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There is an instructional guide to avoiding plagiarism at https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/training/editing-wikipedia/plagiarism. I believe it was designed for students; I would advise you take it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Will definitely read this guide. Thank you. Ubivxoq (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/125.253.50.49

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

---

This IP address has made nothing but racist statements (especially antisemitic ones) since its first edit in May. They seem to edit sporadically but I'd like somebody to take a look at this. Thanks. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 07:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

(Sneaking in a comment inside the close.) Man, you're in a hurry, Johnuniq. I wanted to respond and ask if anybody has an opinion on the duration. If this was an account, I'd indef it in the blink of an eye, but with an IP, even six months might be meaningless, since the individual can probably jump to another. Bishonen | tålk 09:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

You know you can revert me at any time. If you want to remove the close and our comments, please do so. FYI, after checking some contribs, I was going to block the IP for six months but you did one month first. Then I saw this wasn't closed so I thought you must have independently seen the IP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You'd have done six months? Say no more. I've changed it. Bishonen | tålk 10:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

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

Date format

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

---

47.18.63.223 (talk · contribs) keeps changing BCE to BC. Does not respond on their talkpage. A WP:GENREWARRIOR but for religion. Polygnotus (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be the entire extent of their contributions going back to January 2024, where I stopped checking. Definitely NOTHERE. Folly Mox (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I've checked further back, to their first edit in February 2023, can confirm, that's all they've ever done. Procyon117 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is that both BCE and BC are valid and you should not change one to the other unless in very specific circumstances that don't apply here. Polygnotus (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Partially blocked from article space for two weeks. Hopefully they will start communicating. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Indian film-related articles vandalizer strikes again

After someone blocked the ip sock of Halud Foressa after reporting to ANI, they starts their destructive edits and OR via another ip 223.185.134.69. I reported the new ip to AIV see here but due to stale bot removed it and no one took any action. Like last time it needs to be blocked immediately because many warnings are given to them and they are not listening see this. Mehedi Abedin 13:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended rangeblock by a month for the resumed disruptive editing. Didn't dig into whether or not it is related to the Halud Foressa SPI. Abecedare (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Need help restoring a thread on the talk page

I need help with a trivial task of restoring a freshly archived discussion on the Talk:Tukdam.

1. The discussion is less than a day old, and is referred to from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism#Please look at Tukdam and Talk:Tukdam where I have requested help from other editors. I cannot do it myself, as Skyerise reverted my restoration and explicitly prohibited me from communicating with her, see User talk:Skyerise#Please unarchive the still relevant discussion. Please enforce WP:TALK ("Refactoring and archiving are still appropriate, but should be done with courtesy and reversed on protest" and explain to Skyerise that her comment "as a member of Wikiproject Buddhism, I am entitled to maintain this talk page" [145] as a justification for hiding the discussion is incorrect.
2. For the record, I don't mind to avoid any discussions with Skyerise in the future, as her language towards me included passages with truly unexpected and unprovoked WP:personal attacks like "You don't seem to be getting it" [146]),"Why not do something more useful" [147] (to put this into context, at the time of writing, about 2/3 of the readable text outside of a very large quote was actually added by me), "Don't need "friends" like that",[148] "I won't be taken to task by a Russian"[149] (go guess...), "You, sir are an <fill in the blank>"[150], "bullying which seems to come naturally to you"[151]. Personally, I am very thick-skinned, so these verbal attacks do not concern me, but for the sake of other editors, perhaps, a lesson in WP:civility might be useful, too, especially in the light of apparent success of the Skyerise's tactics in the past "At least one other editor who has approached me like this is under such a ban"[152].
3. It seems that the problem started with me deleting the links to works of non-notable filmmaker Donagh Coleman (two links out of five in the "External links" section). Now that I have bowed out, the current version of the article includes four mentions of this person. It would be nice to review this situation with respect to WP:DUE.
4. Needless to say, I have absolutely no connections to the topic of the article (and persons mentioned), the only reason I was involved was my participation in the WP:NPP. I have explicitly declared the absence of WP:COI during the discussions with Skyerise, this did not help and did not elicit counter-assurances as I have hoped. The article is quite important (I have patrolled it immediately) and very visible with hundreds of visits per day.

Thankful in advance, --Викидим (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:BRD anticipates the discussion part lasting more than a day and including other editors. It also typically includes a positive declaration by the reverting editor as to why their existing version is a good one. WP:BRD-NOT specifically says to not do things like this: You don't seem to be getting it. I don't have to justify them to you. Rather, if you want to remove them, you must find a consensus of other editors to support the removal (without canvassing them).. Really, you can't take that line and then also archive it after a day, and then ban the person from your talk page with the words that discussion was done. As the only other participant, I've closed it. Is there some external aggravating factor not in evidence? Otherwise, I agree that Skyerise needs to back off a bit. Mackensen (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, since I missed it the first time, I won't be taken to task by a Russian is an unambiguous personal attack. Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for that comment. However, I'd also like to point out this cryptic comment, which I can't understand in the context of the conversation and which therefore appears to me to be a derogatory remark about my gender. This comment is the reason I've asked the editor very plainly to stop communicating with me. I don't intend to communicate with them any further either. Skyerise (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise: I believe it's from the Latin Iuppiter iratus ergo nefas and was used by both Chekhov and Dostoevsky and it's nothing to do with your gender. He's using a classical allusion to state that you're not making an argument to defend your position. The Russian Wikipedia has an article on the expression: ru:Юпитер, ты сердишься. It's your choice whether to engage with any editor, but it would be unfortunate if you refused to do based on a misunderstood allusion (one that admittedly is not well known in English). Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Too highbrow for me. I wasn't fencing: from my perspective there was nothing to defend. No, I didn't explicitly say that all the reasons not to remove the links could be found by actually taking the time to read them. A documentary on the subject featuring the 14th Dalai Lama, along with some of the scientific researchers exploring the topic, by an award-winning filmmaker and an essay the filmmaker wrote describing their interactions with Lamas and researchers for a screening at The Rubin are obvious keepers, and yet the OP says unless the film were made by James Cameron, it wouldn't satisfy him. I don't understand that. Is it a joke? Is it a provocation? Is he trolling me? Is it a cultural thing? It seems to me to be a completely ridiculous thing to say and does not show any indication they want anything but to be right. Skyerise (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, to take one part of your comment, he didn't say that the OP says unless the film were made by James Cameron, it wouldn't satisfy them. This is what he did say: I do not happen to know Beri Sonam Wangchuk or Donagh Coleman (and did not know their names before, this total lack of name recognition actually triggered my actions, I would not had questioned a movie made by James Cameron on the list). The OP is saying it wasn't obvious to him, whereas a film by James Cameron (a name he recognizes as that of an eminent filmmaker) would be. You've interpreted that to mean the film has to be made by someone as prominent as Cameron. I don't read it that way. Mackensen (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Did he Google? They didn't even have to. The presence of the Dalai Lama in the film is above the fold, the details on Donagh Coleman are at the bottom of his essay, and the Beri Sonam Wangchuk video was posted to the YouTube channel of Radio Free Asia Tibetan. Now, the fact that the guy's a monk is clear from his garb, though the fact that his qualifications as a subject-matter expert are written in Tibetan, I could understand someone missing that. OP implies that the looked at the pages before they yanked the links. So I would like someone to ask them to reply here to the question, "Did you read and look closely at the pages before deleting the links?" Skyerise (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's more of a content question than a conduct issue, and probably better addressed on the article talk page than here. The archived discussion was going in circles. Would it be better to start a new discussion there than to restore the old one? Mackensen (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. That's what I've suggested several times now. Skyerise (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why I should remake the same arguments in a new thread. There is nothing wrong with an old one, it just need new eyes to evaluate the arguments already made. And what will stop the new thread from being hidden just as well, with Skyerise pushing for a ban on interaction due to this suggested attempt to edit the page she forbade me to touch? Викидим (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There was an actual argument in that thread? Could someone please check as I really can't remember an argument being made, just a complaint that 'I don't know who these people are'. Is that an argument? Skyerise (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I have made my argument very explicit: the links IMHO did not pass the WP:LINKSTOAVOID (aka ELNO) criteria #1:[153] the link must point to "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" (boldface is mine). It was very surprising, for example, to see two out of five (!) links to point to the work of a single (!) filmmaker with "less relevant degrees" (as acknowledged by Skyerise). Now there might be something unique and valuable recorded by an uneducated person, but surely these special circumstances should be explained. Alas, I still do not see any arguments justifying selection of these particular two pages out of thousands on the Web (the fact that Dalai Lama endorsed the research can be found in any serious publication on tukdam). Same goes for the third item that I had tried to remove, a recording in some Tibetic language. This Wikipedia is in English, after all, and there must be gazillions of recordings on Youtube in English on the subject, why choose this one? Викидим (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I archived the thread because the two of us were the only participants and I wish for this editor to stop communicating with me. He badgered me repeatedly to provide information about external links which infomation was clearly present on the linked pages themselves. They went forum shopping first to WikiProject Buddhism and now here in their pursuit to find someone who will agree with them about removing these two external links which clearly belong on the article. Even though he has left the links on the article (which incidently didn't exist until I created it), he has refused to acknowledge that he might be wrong about the links being inappropriate. I don't want to continue the conversation that I archived, and pointed out that they can start a new thread from a new perspective that includes the information that I provided at the WikiProject Buddhism thread. But no, he'd rather continue what I perceive as harassment than simply repost his comment for a new audience that will not include me. I request that they be put under an interaction ban, since they've insisted on bringing the matter here. Skyerise (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

1. They went forum shopping - Skyerise explicitly had asked me to bring more eyes to the discussion [154], and I obliged by posting on the project talk page. Her blaming me for "forum shopping" by doing what she asked me to do shows unbelievable forgetfulness. Incidentally, my pronouns are "he/his", as clearly stated at the very top of User:Викидим.
2. the two of us were the only participants - Once the editors are invited, it is customary to wait for them for a long time (weeks), not few hours. In any case, per WP:TALK archiving of a thread should be reversed if another editor opposes. If one editor does not want to participate, that's her right, but it does not include a right to silence her opponent.
3. infomation was clearly present on the linked pages themselves - The factual information about the background of filmmaker was not present on the page during the discussion, when it was provided by Skyerise on the project page and I have added Donagh Coleman's qualifications (IMHO clearly showing total lack of expertise on the topic) to the article[155], they were immediately deleted by Skyerise with the reasoning that the filmmaker has "less relevant degrees" (exactly my point!)[156].

Викидим (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Lol! I don't make arguments in edit summaries. My edit summary in no way said that the filmmaker didn't have relevant degrees: they actually do have multiple relevant degrees. I meant that a description of the content of the film was more relevant than the list of degrees of the filmmaker for the gloss we provide for the reader. The filmmaker holds degrees in philosophy, psychology, music, and media technologies from Trinity College Dublin, as well as a master’s in Asian studies from UC Berkeley, and was at the time completing a PhD in medical anthropology. Pretty highly educated for a filmmaker - but my point was that the reader needs to know about the interviewees of the documentary, with the "star" of the documentary being the Dalai Lama, who the OP had already acknowledged is an SME on the the topic. And when I say that the information was all available on the linked pages, I don't mean Wikipedia pages, but rather the target pages of the links. That the Dalai Lama is featured in the film is clearly visible on the linked IMDb page without even scrolling, the qualifications of the filmmaker are at the bottom of the page at the Rubin's website, and the fact that the film is about the scientific research project at the University of Wisconsin instigated by the Dalai Lama is fairly high on the linked page. So I have to ask again and insist on an honest answer: Did the OP actually click on the links and read the content of the pages themselves before deciding they aren't relevant in their opinion? Because they clearly are relevant and constitute a "unique resource" and the OP has no valid argument at all! Skyerise (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that I started the article, I wasn't finished expanding it, and while the OP has been wasting time focusing almost solely on trying to remove the obviously relevant links, I've been expanding the article by 2.5x its original content, from 9,000 to 23,000+ bytes. Does anybody else think that maybe he could find something more productive to do? Skyerise (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason that we're all here at WP:ANI is that you closed down a discussion on the article talk page within a day, and then accused Викидим of harassment when he went to your talk page to see what's up. Now we're discussing the article's content at WP:ANI. It's really not meant to work that way. Once an article's in the article namespace it's fair game for other folks to work on it and it's not "yours" anymore. What Wikipedia editors choose to work on is one of life's mysteries. There are multiple examples in this thread of you not understanding what Викидим said to you. Hopefully he's cured of classical allusions for the time being. If Викидим opens a new thread on the article talk page, which you've said above you think he should do (Absolutely. That's what I've suggested several times now), will you engage? Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Am I required to? I've already said everything I need to say about the links; the OP's point is that he wants other editors to respond. I have no problem with him opening a new thread and waiting for other editors to respond. I will not respond to a new thread on this topic. I will respond if he opens a thread on a different topic, unless the consensus here is that I shouldn't. Hopefully that is satisfactory. Skyerise (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You're not required to do anything, but you're the most active editor on the article and any discussion there would benefit from your input. Mackensen (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Then I'll be happy to respond to new threads about new topics. But I think this horse is already dead. Skyerise (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Heck, as a show of good faith, I've started two new threads which Викидим is welcome to respond to. Skyerise (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Adachi1939

User:Adachi1939 has been posting uncivil and provocative messages on user talk pages, including deliberate subtle personal attacks against other users. Their conduct reflects the exact same behavior that they have been blocked for in the past.

Some of the messages:

[157]

[158]

From the above message:

“ Even a high schooler should know not to cite a random secondary source ”

[159]

Adachi1939 was blocked twice in the past for edit warring on the Battle of Sihang Warehouse article, and similarly resorted to personal attacks in discussions shortly after the expiration of their block here. It seems that they've been toeing a line to avoid getting in trouble for edit warring again, and instead engage in bad-faith "discussion" via flaming as they did around the time they were blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:115F:4000:D057:FF50:DDFC:F13C (talk)

I was alerted to this user by User:Wahreit both for the Sihang Warehouse article and Battle of Shanghai. From what I can see, Adachi1939 was engaged in edit warring then and now in badly sourced articles using mostly primary sources in either Japanese or Chinese. It's hard to confirm what is correct or not as practically all the sources are not in English, but their behavior does not inspire confidence. I noted that in one instance, Adachi introduced original research at Sihang Warehouse and possibly another case at Battle of Shanghai. I was not aware of the combative and provocative language used by Adachi at the time. They also selectively tag content with citation needed but only for content that they consider wrong rather than the whole portion that is unsourced [160]. Qiushufang (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose most of my issues fall under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As honored as I am for it to be suggested I have brought any original research to the table, all I have done is provide a few publicly available Japanese language sources that were authored and declassified long before I was even born. A good chunk of the English sources for the Second Sino-Japanese War are objectively wrong, but as you've said using sources that the average reader cannot verify due to language barriers does not inspire confidence. Time will prove me right, but as it stands there is not sufficient literature in English alone to satisfactorily tell the Battle of Shanghai and/or Sihang Warehouse.

In regards to my interactions with @Wahreit, I first became aware of their existence when on 23 April 2024 they re-added verifiably incorrect information to the Sihang Warehouse article such as asserting the IJA 3rd Division was involved. I promptly corrected these errors and tagged them in the talk page on why they were wrong. They responded by ignoring me and instead complaining on @Qiushufang's talk page about me, stating "there seems to be some entrenched agendas surrounding the content, especially the adachi guy." Is this not the pot calling the kettle black? Rather than perhaps take a moment to read my carefully written translation of the IJA 3rd Division's movements during the battle and consult other sources and reevaluate their opinion, they accused me of having an entrenched agenda despite them being the one that cannot accept their assumed Japanese Order of Battle is not correct. In addition, on 20:53, 7 May 2024‎ Wahreit added a Sihang Warehouse subsection to the Battle of Shanghai page which greatly conflicted with what was already established on the main Defense of Sihang Warehouse page. They once again asserted the IJA 3rd Division was involved when it was not. It would not be unreasonable at this point to assume @Wahreit is in fact the one operating with an agenda to push the false narrative of an entire IJA Division being involved. Did I once accuse them of acting in bad faith? No. I have simply pointed out they are using bad sources and need to consult different more reliable ones or try reading the ones I have provided. Yesterday I playfully proposed a fun challenge for them to look into more sources to prove their point. Instead they took offense to it. Perhaps it is because they cannot find a solid source to make their point, just Robinson's garbage pop history book which alleges the IJA's 3rd Division involvement without any citations that reliably back it up.

I'm aware I probably come off as a jerk, but I hope those reading can at least get a bit of an idea of where I'm coming from. Adachi1939 (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that warrants further sanctions. Adachi1939, I think you would do best to stick to discussing what is strictly relevant to article content, and, everyone, such discussion should go on the article talk page, not user talk pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

hi phil. was tagged so i figured i'd add my perspective. the reason @Qiushufang, @2600:1700:115F:4000:D057:FF50:DDFC:F13C and I are concerned is not a dispute over the content as @Adachi1939 claims, but issues surrounding his disruptive editing and habit of resorting to personal attacks during disagreements. over the past two years, he has reverted the contributions of multiple editors under the claim of fighting "chinese propaganda" and "historical revisionism," including users fixing simple mechanics and grammar, whilst accusing others of being illiterate, spreading propaganda and being uneducated. this is a surface level summary, there's a lot more than this. all in all, out of concern for other prospective editors and respect for wikipedia's guidelines and community, some moderation would be appreciated on the defense of sihang warehouse page, which would prove very helpful judging by its page history and talk page. is there any way you could help with this? thanks. Wahreit (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Arabic numerals

109.107.227.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't demonstrated willingness or ability to read the sources plainly given on Arabic numerals, and it's not my responsibility to beg them to do so while they keep removing plainly sourced material. Remsense诉 17:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you laughing at yourself or at someone else by saying (clear sources) 109.107.227.188 (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by EvergreenFir (talk · contribs). jlwoodwa (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Security incidents involving Donald Trump

Obvious all hands-on deck situation here; redirect to Donald Trump assassination attempt created for further details once they come out. Nate • (chatter) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The real problem is over at 2024 assassination attempt of Donald Trump, where the current version is a mix of vandalism and fringe rage. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Bluntly, that and all related pages should be protected until anyone knows what's going on. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but there isn't a policy rationale for doing that. I guess you could invoke common sense, but that doesn't usually go over too well on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'll just be that voice in the wilderness as usual urging that we not have articles on things that are still in the headlines. EEng 23:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  You aren't wrong though. WP:NOTNEWS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  It makes me queasy when an article is based on livestreams from news sources, which by their very nature are not subject to normal fact checking. Dumuzid (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think in the very far past, people used to mass protect titles and redirect the news event to a small blurb in a larger, stable article. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  God grant us the wisdom of the ancients! Dumuzid (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Should be proposed as policy. No articles can be created on something where the only sources that discuss it are from the past 24 hours. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  It does get proposed from time to time but never goes anywhere. I proposed something like that at the talk page of WP:NOT last year (see here) but that didn't go anywhere. Many WP editors are pretty addicted to being there first with an unfolding story. As someone wrote in that thread it's "a feature of the wiki model, and legislating against it is bad". DeCausa (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  You're right, unfortunately people seem quick to forget that this is an encyclopaedia and what core policies are when it comes to breaking news. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Many (most?) users don't understand what an encyclopedia is. Not going to change in the foreseeable future. Bon courage (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I feel that this wouldn't go great, as some events (such as major disasters or the begginings of large wars) probably are deserving of articles even if they are very recent. Gaismagorm (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  What a topic "deserves" has nothing to do with it. The question is whether we encyclopedia editors are in the right position to give readers information on something like this so soon as it happens. Answer: No, our processes and structures are poorly equipped for that, and huge amounts of editor time are spent fighting vandalism and churning sources changing minute by minute. If people want to know breaking news, turn on the TV or tune in to a reputable online source. We can write a really good article at the distance of a week or a month. That's what we're here for. EEng 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  ah okay, I see. It's less about wether it's notable, but rather about wether wikipedia can provide reliable and accurate information on the event Gaismagorm (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Some are, but plenty ultimately fail WP:NEVENT. other concerns too are BLP concerns which always occur when the event relates to a person. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Like the Thomas Matthew Crooks article is just a content fork of the assassination article with the rest of the article being political point scoring by mentioning as many mundane and useless details as they can about his life like the shirt he wore or that a class mate called him 'slightly right-leaning'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Of course there is already an open move request. Probably 6 more requests and a few more bold moves will be done in the next 24 hours. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• This is an embarrassment. For a time, we stated in Wikivoice that the attempted assassin was a transgender, left-wing, antifa agitator attempting a Biden coup who was shot and died because he add low testosterone levels and ate too much soy. We are now saying, unquestioned, that it was an assassination attempt, Trump was shot, and various other details before an investigation has had time to start. The assassination attempt article should not exist until we have some idea of what is going on and all Trump articles should be protected. We are an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  See Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language (1996). It makes a bit of sense. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting. Reminds me of the use of grooming by primates to create allies. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• I can't keep up with unsourced, unverified additions, constant ECs because of the volume of additions and am probably up to 7RR by now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  O3000, I appreciate your efforts even if we're losing the battle. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the articles been hijacked, can anyone confirm that? 2600:1011:B134:6C0C:AD8C:359A:F0B1:5945 (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing looks amiss to me EvergreenFir (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Caused by this template vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Current_event&diff=prev&oldid=1234415519&diffonly=yes – 2804:F14:80B0:1D01:71EE:8C69:7783:85D6 (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. This is rather serious, perhaps increase protection of the template or revoke privileges of that user? 108.160.120.2 (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably a compromised account. I don't think the protection needs to be changed unless this happens again. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Could bump the protection of that redirect to EC, to match the actual template, though. User was almost EC, but not yet. – 2804:F1...83:85D6 (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah never mind I see the issue. Yes the redirect should have the same protection as the template given how templates with redirects work. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Account blocked. Redirect removed as well EvergreenFir (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow. I definitely saw that for a bit before, was wondering how it was done. I didn't know it was possible to make a wiki page that somehow overlays everything! Including all the buttons and menus! — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve seen it before, back in the day when I joined we used to have our main page hijacked occasionally with pornographic or other shock related material. Because the pages are protected, it had to have come from an unlocked door as it were, and that usually means unprotected templates or other such oversight in the article space. Unfortunately, because I have reservations about logging into the iPad to use admin tools, I elected to bring it here instead. Thankfully the good folks on this board got to it quickly. 2600:1011:B134:6C0C:AD8C:359A:F0B1:5945 (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)