Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070

Subtle sports vandalism
I'm seeing a pattern of subtle vandalism on sports pages, and need some advice on what to do. The edits change numbers on sports pages very slightly, and are coming from a bunch of different IP addresses within a short amount of time. I suspect someone may be using a proxy or something like that. But I might be completely wrong about everything I just said, which is why I'm asking for advice. Here are some examples: Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are some of the IPs I've managed to catch, there might be others:
 * Special:Contributions/61.6.142.167
 * Special:Contributions/2600:6C5C:6C00:1E96:A82E:2225:98D8:227D
 * Special:Contributions/2601:602:C801:4010:B9E5:D0E5:60AA:374C
 * Special:Contributions/61.39.210.93
 * Special:Contributions/102.181.134.60
 * Special:Contributions/98.214.140.12
 * Special:Contributions/94.6.106.5
 * Special:Contributions/161.142.177.143
 * Special:Contributions/2603:7080:D53D:5D00:4008:96EF:D787:7455 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheerful Squirrel (talk • contribs) 01:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheerful Squirrel, this is not an ANI matter. I looked at a few IPs and they have nothing to do with each other. Vandalism happens; you revert it and you leave them a warning, and then at some point you report at WP:AIV. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My worry is that one person somehow has access to a bunch of IPs and is doing the same type of vandalism with all of them. Consider these three edits, I think they make the comparison clearer:      Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's five edits, not three, and what they have in common is that they were unexplained sports updates made by IP editors. Happens a million times a day. There is no reason to believe that these IPs, which geolocate to all over the world, have anything to do with each other. Plus, as others pointed out, THIS ISN'T VANDALISM. Irritating unexplained sports editing, sure, but not vandalism. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * how is this edit vandalism? An episode of that show was broadcast on 17 June, see  so that looks like someone updating the episode count correctly to me. Laplorfill (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * oops. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at this one, if you read the article it says that "Brown faced Dhiego Lima on June 19, 2021 at UFC on ESPN 25. He won the fight via knockout in the second round." which is why an editor updated the number of KO-wins. While a source would have been ideal, I certainly wouldn't call that vandalism either. You may want to go back and check. I think there's a good chance most or all of your examples are not vandalism. Laplorfill (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

A block request
Can Pipsli be blocked from editing for replacing a external link on Anschutz Entertainment Group with a link to the website the account is representing? Note that the account was already globally locked by Hoo man on Meta Wiki.
 * The account has been already globally locked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Mcfoureyes evading block


Mcfoureyes was blocked indefinitely six weeks ago, and at the same time the Florida IP range Special:Contributions/2602:30A:C012:8570:0:0:0:0/64 was given a week-long block. Since then, Mcfoureyes complained on their talk page about being blocked, then they found a new IP range. I have seen a few hundred edits worth of block evasion in the Florida IP range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:7E31:5710:0:0:0:0/64. The giveaway is the restoration of major edits made earlier by Mcfoureyes, including this 88kb whopper.

The areas of interest are also an indicator: animal taxonomy, comics, film, TV. It's the unique fingerprint of Mcfoureyes. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked by NinjaRobotPirate for six months. We can close this thread. Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting page protection for Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
Recently the result of an AN discussion was to semi-protect the Talk:COVID-19 misinformation talk page, in order to minimize the drain on editor resources handling talk page disruptions from editors who were prevented from editing the article directly by existing page protections. The primary concern was increased disruption around COVID origins.

The Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 page has also, in roughly the last week, also gotten significantly more IP-based unproductive edits on the topic, possibly a result of those edits having moved from the misinformation talk page to the investigations talk page. Particularly egregious examples of the disruption include low quality accusations, or requests/criticisms suggesting the article was not carefully read by the user. An additional sampling of IP edits from the last week:
 * Content replacement vandalism
 * Unhelpful theorizing
 * An aggressive presumption of bad faith/shilling
 * Anonymous IP with "all my PhD friends" WP:OR
 * An existing ANI and ArbCom discussion regarding a protracted debate involving an IP editor (who has preferred not to use a previous account or create a new one, making conversation and identifying which IPv6 user is being replied to in a threaded conversation difficult)

Naturally, all of this is disruptive, and a drain on editor time to address. Would protection of this talk page fall under existing WP:GS/COVID19 towards focusing discussions on improving the article and reducing disruption? Particularly in the context of having precedent, and I'd suggest evidence that the protection mostly fulfilled the intended goal. The previous AN requested extended protect, but I tend to agree with the closing comment's justification for semi-protect solving most of the issue and leaving the option for escalation later.

Ping previous contributing admins Thank you. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Page protection would be a huge help - the situation is out of control . -Darouet (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Original request: User_talk:El_C So, to be more forthright: why would I want to be the one to protect that page? Obviously, it opens me to further undue attacks, which Committee members, clerks and other participants haven't really acknowledged (save for, though in fairness, there, it's mutual). Background: Arbitration/Requests/Case. Anyway... El_C 16:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my intention is not to suggest that you are uniquely suited for the task, only to receive feedback like this. And this give me the impression that, as has been argued elsewhere (including the ArbCom case above and past ANI discussions), GS aren't getting enforced at a level to be effective. Not necessarily because individual admins are doing anything wrong, but because the effort and backlash are too high to result in action, and there's not enough motivation to solve those root issues to produce effective policing. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was ever a GS as active as WP:GS/COVID19. Not to broken-record-it-up, but compared with WP:ACDS, WP:GS is pretty much disadvantaged from the outset. It's basically ACDS-light — because GS has WP:AN/WP:ANI, while DS also has those plus WP:AE/WP:ARCA (more often than not, superior forums). El_C 12:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Not in parallel to the ArbCom case. It is too early to have this discussion. When the case request has been answered (and the case, if accepted, has been resolved), please have a look at the situation again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see today that the current proposal includes a change in the method of sanctions, so I agree that a delay would make sense. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree. IPs are offering some of the most diverse points of view on the page right now. Yes, there is some degree of chaff, but locking out IPs is really shooting the messenger. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as policy goes, I'd think it's covered under the GS which allows admins to take measures they deem appropriate. Although talk page protection is still very uncommon, and thus clear consensus at ANI is better I think. But given the recent discussion at ANI that found a consensus in favour of EC/semi-protection on another page in the topic but on this exact issue, the community seems to have already made its position clear on this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect, if a user is making valuable and productive contributions, they won't be hampered by creating an account. I'd suggest it's much easier to carry out a conversation and come to an agreement when users aren't an ever-changing string of numbers, particularly in protracted discussion with multiple IP users which can be mistaken for one another. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since we're discussing the topic of the benefits of IP editors, I'd like to point out that the above IP user has received a temporary ban on editing for harassment. While this obviously shouldn't be used to imply all IP editors are unproductive, I think it's worthwhile context both for how to interpret above user's comments, and for the depth of the issue. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "harassment"? The reason for my temporary block was a joke I had cracked on a user's page; I had no idea that it somehow constituted banworthy "harassment" on this site. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The joke in question was diff: "I write this in admiration of your valiant efforts to please your Chinese paymasters. Too bad it'll all come to naught in a while..." As a hint to editors monitoring this topic, I will issue long blocks for any other disruption that is brought to my attention. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * And yet another, non-productive "newcomer", Special:Contributions/Intelligible.Machine, who like the others seems intent on harassing me since their very first comment already contains a personal attack. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Strongly support locking talkpage to non-registered users. First we made sure to kick off wikipedia all those that had unappealing opinions. Now we must make sure that there is totally no wp:Cabal that maintains the status quo at any price. This must be done even if it goes against the shifting mainstream public consensus shown by peer-reviewed articles scientific articles and even heavily left-leaning mainstream news outlets.  We cabals cannot let the opinions of those easily swayed journalists count, especially since these weak-willed journalists did a 180 in less than a week.  We must stand strong behind the cabal. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to let wikiactivists like this do their job of removing any mention of reliable sources that might have the potential to unsubstantiate the status quo without leaving the option of anonymous IP calling out their heavy biased pruning. Please give awards to such glorious wikipedians that defend the cabal. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have posted at User talk:205.175.106.86 to warn them that any further poking of other editors or poorly sourced commentary at article talk will result in an indefinite topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Good on ya, John! GS covers this - we have General_sanctions/COVID-19, General sanctions, and whatever else is relative to General sanctions. Have I overlooked something? The only difference I can see is the part of DS/AE that prohibits an admin from overturning another admin's action.  Atsme 💬 📧 14:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One more making the same type of nonsense as the previous IP ("Wikiactivists", "cabal", not even reading beyond the title of the source they post [which actually points out many flaws with the reasoning]...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Stewart rekindled that posture Monday night in a segment that seems like a potential inflection point in the debate over the coronavirus’s origins." quote from the article whose mention you happily removed from the talkpage, thus styming from the start any potential discussion on the merits of including such a perspective in the article. very wp:npov indeed.  2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The talk page is filled with mainstream sources presenting dissenting opinions to what the wiki article in its current state implies. None of those mainstream sources are used in the article, and any additional discussion on said mainstream sources presenting disagreeing opinions has been removed by "established users".  Said established users are now comfortable to even list said mainstream sources on the relevant talkpage.  wp:npov in action. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * here is the latest example of removal of any such discussion under the guise of mentioning of wp:cabal in the middle of a discussion where a small "collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest" that defends the current status quo and disregards any regent developments discussed in mainstream news sources. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know why one would consider a comedy show to be a reliable source. The bigger question is: have you even read the mainstream (non-scientific) source you're citing (beyond the title)? This clearly notes how Stewart is "oversimplifying complex issues to land a joke", the "chicken-and-egg issue" and so on. I'm not going to bother explaining NPOV and our preference for SCHOLARSHIP for a thousandth time when the best you can come up with is the above. btw, is the above block evasion? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  23:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the presented source is a WaPo article discussing the said event. you stymied even starting a discussion on the merits of including such information in the article by dismissing any disagreeing opinions. 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the source on which I just offered my comments. Too bad that you also insisted on posting accusations along with it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Too bad you used the excuse of one "offending" comment to remove multiple other comments, all the other comments being direct links mainstream sources related to the topic. But then again, there is no such thing as "real or imagined collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest" since removal of all non-offending comments together with a single other "offending" is perfectly within the rules agreed by the "real or imagined collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest". Indeed, all your edits have been about improving the subject to cover wp:npov without accidentally or intentionally falling within the scope of a "real or imagined collectives of users who have chosen to group inside or outside of the mainspace or project namespace in order to pursue an interest" 2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not a link-farm, and your comment did not suggest any tangible change to the article. In short, it looks exactly like any of the dozens of other previous disruptive edits in the area. The ironic tone of the remainder of your comment is not really acceptable, either. Again, go read NPOV, since you're citing it so much, particularly the bit about good research, due and undue weight, and the explanatory supplement guideline about dealing with an idea which departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No, the IP is partially blocked from Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 to prevent further misuse of that page. Since the IP is not topic banned or otherwise blocked, they are able to chat here. The simplest way to get them to stop is to not engage with them unless they start doing what they should have been doing at article talk, namely discussing actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources, and without unduly repeating past arguments. As mentioned above, it seems undesirable to further discuss the original proposal (to semi-protect article talk) until the Arbcom case is completed. However, I would perform that protection if persuasion and partial blocks are ineffective. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to any further protections on this article. The science is very much in flux, and new contributors should not be bullied out of the process. I have been observing these pages and it appears to me that certain editors/admins are hyper-vigilant about maintaining a certain hegemony (perhaps unintentionally) rather than a bias-free reflection of where the science actually stands.


 * While we're on the subject, I take issue with RandomCanadian's above interpretation of Fringe_theories as it pertains to the origins of SARS-CoV-2. This is an open scientific question, and it should be treated as such. Because there is currently scant evidence for any scenario, any hypothesis that has not been ruled out can not be considered a "fringe theory", and certainly should not be classified by wikipedia as "misinformation", or "conspiracy theory".


 * I will assume good faith here, and will not presume that anyone is attempting to administer their way to their desired article. I will kindly ask users Bakkster Man and RandomCanadian to return to the talk page and attempt consensus.KristinaLu (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pages are placed under general sanctions because many inexperienced editors waste time by making grand statements rather than following the advice in my message just above yours. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world who takes issue with what. If someone has been bullied, post a WP:DIFF showing the bullying and corrections will be applied. Otherwise, don't make evidence-free sweeping statements. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the WP:AGF here. While I disagree on some details you've presented above (better to cover at the talk page), I absolutely agree on seeking consensus and finding ways to get NPOV coverage of contentious topics. I think you'll find much of my talk page participation is trying to sort through edit wars or disputed content to try and find a way to build consensus. I certainly don't think my suggestion here is in opposition to that goal of consensus and NPOV, having suggested it only after a week of persistent IP-based disruption. And, as I mentioned above, it's very difficult to converse -let alone build consensus - with an IP-user (on one occasion, the participation of two different IPv6 users - whose addresses varied from day to day - with different views in a single conversation meant I mistakenly attributed comments to the wrong user). I wish I didn't think such a request was necessary, but the Talk page protection of the misinformation article did help us minimize disruption (and, I'd argue, better build consensus and improve the article).
 * I'll add that I still think semi-protection is a very mild inconvenience, and not a serious barrier to participation (like the originally proposed ECP for the Misinformation talk page could have been). It would limit only the drive-by comments (rarely productive, usually disruptive), and the 10 edit threshold would be easily met by the IP users engaging in actual conversation. Especially since it would only apply to these two Talk pages that appear to be targets of most disruptive edits, leaving other COVID talk pages for productive edits by those seeking autoconfirmed status (I'd very much agree with your concern if disruption increased to a level that all COVID-related talk pages were being considered for semi-protect). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbcom notice and subsequent discussion

 * NOTICE ArbCom case accepted, resolved by motion and closed (ask the ever faithful clerk,, for more details - took me a moment to realise exactly what it was when the edits hit my watchlist). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone with questions regarding the arbitration process for the COVID-19 case or in general can feel free to ping me here or ask at my talk page. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the Arbcom case is closed, I am happy to semi-protect anything that needs it although I won't be fast. Currently, Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 does not need that protection but if problems resume, feel free to ping me from the talk page and I'll have a look. I would prefer that at least a couple of established editors have expressed the view that protection was desirable, with a brief reason. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Things seem to have died down since this request was made, so here's hoping we won't need you. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Excellent let's keep dissenting opinions like Chinese top official defected to US, gave Biden administration info about Wuhan lab, report suggests away from even accidentally being mentioned on a talkpage of the subject. We, an exclusive group of editors, should do all the bias check and make sure that wp:npov is filtered through our select group of involved editors that are perfectly not subjective. 2601:602:9200:1310:F05C:E555:CEBD:40A9 (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Says the user who has caused a rangeblock by IP hopping while being disruptive. How about registering an account and playing by the same rules as everyone else? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Trap133 and multiple nominations for deletion
User Trap133 is a new editor, though they state they have been an IP editor some time ago, and are thus very familiar with Wikipedia. Their editing pattern is unusual for a new editior in that their contributions record shows a susbtantial desire to delete, delete, delete. To my regret I have introduced them to Twinke, though it would only have been a matter of time before they discovered it. I was clear on their talk page when I made the introduction that we are 100% responsible for our editing actions whatever tools we use. But they have used the tool to go on a deletion rampage.

Two editors have warned them, very politely, for their actions, and. I am concerned about their reply to the former: These articles literally did not cite any independent source. All fails WP:GNG that's why I quickly tagged them. My work is to tag them deletion is in the hand of admins. I have checked every and each article. It seems to me that firm education is required, together with some form of limitation on their massive deletion campaign, unless, of course, it can be shown that it is policy based and correct. Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 07:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man. Based on behaviour alone, this is definitely him. Same copy paste rationales. Same obsession with deleting as many Indian schools as possible. Just look at the number of AfDs in the space of one hour! Same as many of the other previous socks in the farm. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, @Spiderone With respect. I am not him. My edits are not only related to Education. I just started tagging educational schools and colleges from yesterday night you can see my previous edits. I edited articles related to Islam, and more and of course I am not a Sockpuppet user. Trap133 (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they might actually be related to Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid instead. Regardless, they're obviously not new and not here. Spicy (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Spicy would you mind, if you have not already done so, logging this thought at the Phoenix man SPI, please? Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 08:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No matter. I have cross referenced each to the other. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Just to point out I was on the cusp of bringing this here myself; but it appears Trap133 has gone from one angle of mass deletions to another assisted by use of twinkle to make scrutiny nearly impossible. Did not seem to consider alternatives to deletion per WP:PRODNOM and is now disruptively swamping the AfD area. Agree (without delving deeply) has WP:DUCK characteristics of previous users; and I think there is an issue where people have a high delete/contribution ratio which can mean WP:NOTHERE as participation to delete can be very low cost.  Not helped I think by a periodic MOTD message inviting new users to get involved in deletion which is not a balanced startpoint.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Looking at Trap's first edits, their eighth edit ever was to this AfD, with the editor who started the AfD having similar edit summaries to Trap when adding tags for notability/COI.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Trap133's edit pattern has now changed. Still very "productive", but still highly proilific. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With 31 delete nominations just today, I don't believe this editor is really here to build an encyclopedia. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 10:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * SPI outcome is blocked as Sock. What happens to the swathe of destruction deletion discussions? Do folk with admin goggles have the ability to dispose of these en masse or is thast against policy?  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 10:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they can be speedy kept unless any other users voted to delete, in which case those ones need to stay up.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Revdel needed
On this:. Thanks, JBL (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (And probably also just block the user as NOTHERE.) --JBL (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done the revision deletion. Sending an email to the oversight team likely would have been quicker in this instance.— Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. (Since this particular defamatory nonsense is widespread online, I wasn't worried about a little delay, but I'll keep that in mind in case there is a next time.) --JBL (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User indeffed. Daniel (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible legal threat at Steve Pieczenik
IP editor made what appears to be a possible legal threat in an edit summary at Steve Pieczenik. In their edit summary they state "Slander is prosecutable - keep that in mind when making revisions about "conspiracy theory". Your IP address is recorded!" PohranicniStraze (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes I have blocked that IP. Objective legal threat or not, clearly meant to have a chilling effect in a content dispute. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have also revdel'd the edit summary. Our users don't deserve to be threatened. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Praxidicae
Hi. This user is stalking my edits which is inhibiting my work (WP:FOLLOWING). Can anyone here ask them to stop doing this, please? I don't want to post this on their talk page. Thanks. Störm  (talk)  15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not allowed to report someone here without notifying them. WP:HOUNDING states that the following must not be "for no overridingly constructive reason". User:Praxidicae may have such a reason, so you must notify them so they can provide it. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not stalking your edits, I rightfully noticed your poor editing of BLPs prior to your autopatrolled being revoked and subsequently looked at newer BLPs and noticed the same problems. BEACHIDICAE🌊  15:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And for those unaware, last week I came across another iteration of Ramzi Najjar and noticed after digging that the sources being used were about an entirely different person than they had written about. This is the second iteration of it, which is different from the original one they started and I would encourage any administrator to look and see what I'm talking about. When I asked them, it was removed and they could not answer for where they got the information in a WP:BLP. Today I came across Tarryn Fisher and noticed similar problems, namely the unreliable sources and lack of sourcing to support information about the individual and when asked was told that they were "being bold". It is completely reasonable to look at an editors history after noting such glaring policy violations. BEACHIDICAE🌊  15:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Close this. It's clearly Storm getting their offensive in first, having driven Praxidicae to consider filing here.Actually, on consideration, don't close this; Praxidicae can make their case, and the wood that makes their case will also make a boomerang. ——  Serial  15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * And for the uninitiated, the Ramzi Najjar version I'm talking about was not merely a confusion of sources, it was literally written entirely about someone else and each statement was sourced to papers or links that made no mention of the actual content it was being used for. Including using a book published in 1988 - to source the date of college graduation for someone born in 1978, among other things. I can only imagine Storm wrote out the content based on something and then went through newspapers.com and google books and just searched the name and threw whatever they thought would stick and no one would check. I would be glad to point out many of the other issues with their work, including this unanswered COIN thread from a few weeks ago. BEACHIDICAE🌊  16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing actionable here. If an experienced editor spots problems with a user's contributions, it's logical and appropriate to review other recent edits to determine if the same problems exist elsewhere. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty obvious to me that there are legitimate editing concerns with that Praxidicae is working on. It's odd that Störm doesn't want to engage productively to address the issues. --  Dane  talk  16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This one was created when I had autopatrolled rights and before their notice. I am willing to correct myself and re-read in detail about the WP:BLP policy. Just ask them to stop following me around, if this thing continues with me then I have to leave this place. Störm   (talk)  16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem here as I and others noted is that you immediately remove any criticism and are not held accountable for the edits you are making. This is a collaborative environment which also requires you to be accountable for your edits, especially to sensitive subjects like WP:BLPs. Your comments of "noted" among other things while simultaneously still not following policy and adding dubious sources in general to all types of articles is a problem and feeling attacked does not absolve you from one of the core principles of editing Wikipedia, and as long as you insist on creating BLP violations and subpar stubs of dubious notability, any user is free to note as much and expect an answer. BEACHIDICAE🌊  16:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have edited and volunteered my time for so long that I don't want to go that in vain. I am willing to correct myself and not insisting to create subpar stubs. But targeting someone is not a way to correct anybody. I will accept the advice and will incorporate that into my editing. Störm   (talk)  16:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not targeting you for fun, I looked at your contributions because I noticed glaring policy violations that you don't seem to understand or be willing to fix based on your responses. Further, since we're looking at edits, two of your most edited articles, Erfan-e-Halgheh, Mohammad Ali Taheri are sourced to content from National Council of Resistance of Iran (and not to mention, pretty heavily whitewashed). BEACHIDICAE🌊  16:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And that doesn't even touch on the use of your use of predatory publishers as what appears to be the sole source for the aforementioned articles. BEACHIDICAE🌊  16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? I can see you have plenty of time to target people for fun and always trying to make a WP:POINT. I will answer to someone cooperative. For your information, I am still working on the article and it is a notable topic. Störm   (talk)  16:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point here and for that reason, I'd actually propose a topic ban on BLPs until you understand our policies regarding sourcing better. This is a classic case of it's them, not me!. BEACHIDICAE🌊  16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I was reported before and I addressed the issue raised. I am willing to do the same here without wasting any time. Störm   (talk)  17:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you considered the idea that responses like this are exactly why we are having this discussion? Or perhaps, when someone brings up an umabiguous policy violation with you, perhaps you should not blow them off and create silly ANI threads but clean up your own mess? Never the less, this does not address the issues of your BLP editing and lack of responsiveness when questioned about it. So what you expect from the Iranian regime that they will write neutrally? you are not making a point that I really think you want to be making with this statement... BEACHIDICAE🌊  17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * And I'll note that the unsourced content is still in Tarryn Fisher and your explanation makes no sense - occasionally (even often) biographical data is included in jacket covers of books but I don't see any evidence her birth date is included, so the story that it was "in one of her books" doesn't jive since they also all appear to be fiction. BEACHIDICAE🌊  17:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * After seeing the responses above and the obvious unwillingness to collaborate and correct deficiencies, I would also support a topic ban for from editing BLPs. --  Dane  talk  18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have seen things go from benign to extremely complicated, I have witnessed a productive user go from being productive and useful to becoming a banned editor within the span of 72 hours. So @, would you rather accept your faults and be responsible or would you choose to intentionally not hear what is being said to you and face a sanction? Especially one which could easily be avoided? It’s your choice in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your comment. I am willing to listen to your advice. I am accepting my faults here and promise that I will not repeat them. In case, if I do any major BLP violation from now onwards then I should be banned. At least give me a chance to correct myself and don't waste my six years' credibility by asking for a ban. Thanks. Störm   (talk)  22:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, No one is threatening you with a ban and secondly i did not advise you, and the community did, I merely commented on it. Abide your own promise above and go to Praxidicae's tp and affirm that you have seen your errors and accepted their advice. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Störm created two obviously promotional articles for Maltese websites on the German Wikipedia, today and a few weeks ago (I got here because I wondered why an user with 80k edits on enwiki created such articles). --Icodense (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I too have had concerns about this exact problem both here and crosswiki, . BEACHIDICAE🌊  14:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, you never answered the question (perma) where you originally got Tarryn Fisher's birth date from. Could you clarify? Thanks. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I got help from my friend who shared a copy of her upcoming autobiography. I was unaware of stringent sanctions at that time when I added unsourced information. I have now corrected the information. Thanks. Störm   (talk)  09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Störm, how did your friend get a copy of an unpublished book? --Blablubbs&#124;talk 09:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They are in touch with someone who is connected with the author. Störm   (talk)  09:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Störm, so a friend of a friend of the author shared a full copy of an unpublished work with you, someone who is known neither to the friend nor the subject, so that you could include the full date of birth in the Wikipedia article? --Blablubbs&#124;talk 13:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My friend is an avid fan of her books, so she needed help in creating Wikipedia page. I added full date of birth to give it a complete look. The person who shared the unpublished work knows the author. Störm   (talk)  14:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I genuinely struggle to believe that someone with your experience thought that it would be OK to put information from an unpublished book into a BLP. The fact that you're collaborating with people who know the author sounds like you may have a conflict of interest as well. This, alongside the suggestions that you have written promotional articles for websites on DeWiki mentioned above, is extremely troubling.
 * Can I just come out and ask you straight - have you ever edited for pay? Have you ever written other articles for people, or on behalf of people who are connected in any way to the subject of the articles? Girth Summit  (blether)  15:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to make it clear that I never got paid for anything here. Störm   (talk)  16:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks, but that isn't quite what I asked. Please would you re-read my post, and answer both of the questions? Girth Summit  (blether)  17:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This was the only article (here) where we can say I had some sort of conflict of interest (although, I tried to write it neutrally). Next, German Wikipedia ones were the drafts given to me by my relative to publish about their web portals. I published them as it is, which was not successful. I have never edited German Wikipedia before this and accept that such spamming is not an acceptable behavior. Thanks. Störm   (talk)  17:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , can I ask you about another on of your recent articles? Eric Kalala has the subject's date of birth, and details about the number of siblings he has. I don't see that information in any of the cited sources - can you explain where this came from please? Girth Summit  (blether)  10:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Siblings, Eric Kalala birthdate, Tarryn Fisher birthdate. Thanks. Störm   (talk)  11:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't know why you're giving my the Tarryn Fisher link, since you've already said you got that from an unpublished autobiography.
 * I don't see how the Eric Kalala Facebook page supports the content you wrote in the article about him. You wrote He is the third out of a family of six children. On his Facebook page you just linked to, there are two brothers listed, two cousins, and a brother-in-law.
 * I also don't see his birthdate there. The page you linked to tells me where he works, where he was educated, where he lives, where is is originally from, and who he is married to - nothing else.
 * Are you able to explain why you are seeing something different from me? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  11:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is the same on my side currently as what you're seeing now. I just provided the links from where I got the information. It looks like they have changed their privacy policy. My friend shared the link about her birthdate, so I thought I should share it here for verification. Thanks. Störm   (talk)  12:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While we're on this subject, I find it curious that Störm created Galaxy Racer eSports shortly after failed attempts to create the same article by a disclosed paid editor and a blocked UPE sockpuppeteer. Spicy (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 171 also seems interesting in that context. And those explanations ("I got help from my friend" and "given to me by my relative") sound like poor excuses to me. --Icodense (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'm trying to understand what led to these edits: . Could you explain what happened there? --Blablubbs&#124;talk 12:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am patient about this. They are continuously attacking me as they think I have damaged their Google Knowledge Panel profile. I think this IP should be blocked as they continuously removing alternate names from the article. Störm   (talk)  12:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Störm, why do they think that? And could you link me to the knowledge panel thing? I couldn't immediately see it in the IP's contributions. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 12:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at, , knowledge panel. They are vandalizing and doing nothing useful. Störm   (talk)  12:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Störm, sorry, missed the knowledge panel thing somehow. Here's the sequence of events that I can see: It appears that someone is attempting to spam (the living) Ramzi Najjar: On 11 May, Seraphimblade deletes a G11 version of that article. On 18 May, someone recreates the spammy article and it gets draftified. On 26 May, you create an article about him in mainspace. The same day, brings up sourcing concerns on your talk page. You then G7 the page and immediately recreate it; this time, it's about a different Ramzi Najjar. That article gets AfD'd. A Lebanese IP, possibly the subject of the previous iteration, then shows up at the AfD to complain that you hijacked "their" page, referring to the page about the living Ramzi Najjar that had previously existed in mainspace. Am I parsing this correctly? --Blablubbs&#124;talk 12:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , correct. I mixed two people because of their extensive paid publishing. As I found out my mistake, I requested the page deletion and created the article on notable one. Störm   (talk)  12:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So what prompted you to write about the living Ramzi Najjar in the first place? The timing here seems rather strange. I also note that something similar has happened in the past; mentioned Sebastien Lepinoy and the associated COIN thread – you created that page after it was put up on upwork, it got taken to AfD by  and you responded with a G7, essentially killing any further discussion about COI issues. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 12:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late reply. I was at the site busy with my job. Nothing special prompts me to write about any topic. I write about the topic when I consider it notable. I have written and edited many odd topics here and many many with COI notices which doesn't make a paid editor (infact, I am strictly against paid work and ensures quality of work on Wikipedia to best of my abilities, I've nominated and participated in over 2k AfDs, many with COIs). I believe in Wikimedia Foundation mission and regularly donate to support that mission. Wikipedia has added so much to my knowledge and I tried my best to give that back in last six years by spending my hundred of hours here, improving articles. I am in no position to decide whether I should continue or stop here for good. I am open to suggestions how to improve my editing. I want to end it at good note. Thanks. Störm   (talk)  10:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * your response just above doesn't explain anything, in fact, it makes this even worse. You wrote an entire article about a living person - sourced entirely to publications about someone who was not that person. So where did the information that you originally wrote even come from? BEACHIDICAE🌊  12:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * What is the exact title of this unpublished book? And how is it that you have so many "friends" who just happen to know the subjects you've chosen to write about? BEACHIDICAE🌊  14:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, without dilly-dallying there’s a clear conflict of interest here which they failed to disclose. It is impossible for a 6 year old experienced editor not to know to declare a COI. They simply are not not eligible to hold Autopatrol rights, and (IMO)the perm should not be reinstated indefinitely. It is one thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create an article which is not notable, and it is a whole other thing for an editor with Autopatrol to create promotional articles. I should also add that, generally, any explanation that has any statement along the lines of “a friend of a friend who knew a friend that knew the (add whatever falsehood) to be intentionally deceptive and fictional. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This thread was archived, but I think there are multiple issues still to be addressed. (I think that's the main participants - apologies if I've missed anyone).  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me
 * Thanks for unarchiving. I agree that there are outstanding issues here. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 13:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I just happened across this thread and find it rather disconcerting. If anything, I think perhaps a month-long volunteer t-ban from BLPs by Störm will provide adequate time for some introspection as well as time to re-read the relative WP:PAGs; consider it a type of refresher course. The actions by Prax were certainly justified. I am very disappointed to see the types of issues she brought to our attention about Störm's editing; a productive user with over 80k edits. From my perspective as a VRT member, we occasionally confirm published birth dates of notable people, but it involves highly confidential information that is characteristic of our work at OTRS - it's primarily about WP:V. VRT agents are completely neutral, so the chance of a COI is slim to none. Editors can certainly suggest that a BLP contact WMF if a DOB is that important, but you must be able to provide a published date, or conflicting date(s), even if archived (see Way Back machine). While it is certainly acceptable for an editor to corroborate a birth date with published material, it is not acceptable to create dates based on unpublished information; thus OR. In this particular case, I'm not convinced that a formal block or t-ban would create anything but bitterness, and we don't want that, especially considering that the behavior does not involve vandalism, incivility or 3RR style disruption that needs expedient intervention. However, I am of the mind that the community does need some form of convincing reassurance, which explains my opening proposal for a volunteer t-ban. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 13:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We're still awaiting a reply from Storm, not just for a volunteer t-ban, but the plethora of un-answered questions about (possible) COI and the lack of disclosing the EXACT source for the biography/biographies they have created.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A Clarification on an Ambiguous Situation
I will try to clarify one matter of ambiguity, in the Wikipedia sense that it would require disambiguation if they were notable. There are two run-of-the-mill authors with the same name. One is living, and one died last year. In my opinion, and it appears that User:Praxidicae agrees with me, neither of them is biographically notable. User:Störm wrote an article on the late author, and she nominated it for deletion, and I !voted to Delete. There is a draft on the living author, which Prax and I have both declined or rejected; Störm has no involvement with that. Whether the article on the deceased author should be kept is a valid content dispute being handled by AFD, and I concur with Prax's action in nominating it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

, and, I think störm is trying to attack praxidicae from his ip address see this [].113.21.66.71 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the only edit that 223.223.140.176 has ever made, and reporting it here is the only edit that 113.21.66.71 has ever made. Don't know what's going on there, but it's weird. And the message on Prax's talk page is absolutely loathsome. jp×g 03:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Both IPs are Kolkata-based. The message they left doesn't represent what I stand for. Shame they do such cowardly acts. Störm   (talk)  10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Unresolved issues
I believe the following issues are still unresolved:


 * Possible WP:COI with regards to Störm's creation of article(s) of living people.
 * Unwillingness from Störm to provide the exact source for article(s) they have created, with these mainly about BLPs.
 * Use of unreliable source(s) for articles created by Störm (see the "so a friend of a friend of the author shared a full copy of an unpublished work with you, someone who is known neither to the friend nor the subject, so that you could include the full date of birth in the Wikipedia article" by Blablubbs, above).
 * Störm being unwilling and/or evasive in answering concerns raised by community. This includes a voluntary t-ban offered by Atsme. Störm, a very regular editor did say they were "busy with my job", but that was the best part of ten days ago.

If I've missed or misrepresented anything in this section, please feel free to correct me. I will drop notes on the talkpages of the main contributors to this thread in a moment. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I genuinely have been busy with my job for the last few days, but reviewing this now, I agree with Lugnuts that there are too many coincidences for comfort in the diffs provided above, and the explanations that Störm has offered are not very convincing. The following bullets summarise the issues that have been raised in this thread:
 * At Tarryn Fisher, Störm added unsourced biographical details. He says that these came from an unpublished autobiography he got from a friend, who he was 'helping' by writing the article, and who is in contact with the author. Even leaving aside the obvious COI issues, an editor of Störm's tenure ought to know that unsourced biographical details in a BLP (and stuff that is coming from an unpublished autobiography is unsourced for our purposes) is unacceptable.
 * At Eric Kalala, Störm added unsourced biographical details. He says that these came from the subject's Facebook page, but the information in question is not currently visible on that page. Störm suggests that this is because the subject must have changed their privacy settings in the few weeks between him adding that information, and me looking at the page. I don't know enough about Facebook to know whether that's a plausible information, but it seems somewhat dubious to me.
 * Galaxy Racer eSports was created by Störm, a few months after a draft about the same organisation was declined and abandoned by, a declared paid editor.
 * This COI Noticeboard report is based on a suggestion that Störm created a page about Sebastien Lepinoy (now deleted) in response to an advert at upwork.com requesting an article about that subject.
 * There's also the very confusing situation around Ramzi Najjar, in which Störm seems somehow to have confused two completely different people, using sources that would support content about one of them to support content about the other. I don't understand how someone can make a mistake like that - if the information you are writing comes from the source you are citing, you can't mix up two different people in the way that he did. The only explanation Störm has offered is effectively 'I got confused', which doesn't really cut it for me; the only explanation I can come up that would explain a mistake like this is that the information came from a source which wasn't cited, and then some other sources, which had presumably been gathered from a Google search but had not actually been read, were cited in the article. That sort of editing would be entirely inappropriate, and the only reason I can think why someone would do that would be because they knew that the actual source of the information was unacceptable here. Perhaps it's another unpublished autobiography, perhaps it's another Facebook page, or perhaps it's an e-mail from the subject or an advert on Upwork - I have no way of knowing. If Störm can offer a better explanation I'd be willing to read it.
 * Störm has been unwilling to engage in anything but a very cursory manner to the concerns that have been raised here, and on his talk page, and at the COI noticeboard - indeed, he seems to have raised this thread to get off his back, when what she has been doing is properly trying to get him to comply with some of our most basic policies. That isn't OK with an editor of Störm's tenure, so I therefore make the following proposal.

Proposed Topic Ban for Störm
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposal: Störm is indefinitely topic banned from BLPs, and from articles about groups, companies and organisations (anything that would be covered by WP:NCORP), broadly construed. As usual, this would be appealable after six months of productive ad properly sourced editing in other areas. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Thank you Girth for spending time in summing up the pertinent points, and expanding on them. Certainly the 'I got confused' excuse seems weak, which I would attribute to a novice editor, or someone with WP:CIR issues. For someone with more experience, such as Störm, this raises more questions, esp. in light of the COI concerns.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I believe this is the only sensible option since Störm has failed to convincingly address the concerns surrounding their problematic edits to BLPs and possible promotional editing (which there is more evidence of than what has already been posted here, but what's already been shared is convincing enough IMO).As it wasn't mentioned in Girth Summit's comment, I'd like to reiterate that Störm created two articles on dewiki that were deleted as spam (in fact, they're now indeffed on dewiki for spamming), and when questioned on this, stated that the articles were "given to me by my relative to publish about their web portals" (making it not only spam but a copyvio).  While this didn't happen on enwiki, I consider this to be another demonstration of their repeated failure to understand policy - even if you believe the dubious relative story, it is deeply concerning that a user with 80,000 global edits and several advanced permissions on enwiki would think that it's perfectly fine to create spam pages because their relative asked them to.I would also question whether the TBAN should be broadened to include websites (which were what the dewiki creations were about) and perhaps everything currently included under the A7 criterion as these are frequent targets for promotional editing. Spicy (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The evidence presented by and others above, together with the lack of any convincing response from, seems compelling. Paul August &#9742; 10:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support — per rationale by . In fact, I would have supported even if it were an indef block proposal. Celestina007 (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I suggested a boomerang 18 days ago; better late than never, as Cheech might say. ——  Serial  12:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN with an explicit website restriction and/or indefinite block, mostly per Spicy. The sheer volume of problematic creations, insufficient explanations, sudden disappearance and frankly unconvincing denials push me over the edge; I believe this passes the duck test for, at the very least, insufficient COI disclosure, which is a very serious breach of trust. I also believe that Störm's creations, especially those made while he held the autopatrolled right, should be systematically reviewed for potential notability, due weight and BLP issues. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 12:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support There are too many concerns to allow Störm to continue to edit in these areas. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I just finished looking into Articles for deletion/Ramzi Najjar (see my cmt there). This is a total mess. Previous revisions talked about a different Ramzi, as can be seen here. Storm's edits hijacked that page and changed the article subject to a different Ramzi, who is declared as being dead. Apparently for some period of time Google declared that Ramzi as deceased (and it appears an IP on the AfD, presumably that article subject, is reasonably quite upset about that), but it seems Google now recognises them as two distinct individuals. In any case, hijacking articles is not how you write about a different individual sharing the same name, and this alone would make me want to support a TBAN. The other evidence suggests possible undisclosed paid editing and other BLP editing issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the admin log of this article suggests a different story. The issues on that article might just be a confusion due to admin action on this article. (as explained by Blablubbs above) it seems there were three separate article creations, one that was deleted by Seraphimblade as G11 (the one about the book author), a creation by Storm and deleted as G7 by GB fan, and then a recreation by Storm (the current article). But then it seems undeleted all previous revisions, including of the different pages, such that the history is now rather confusing. I don't understand why history would be restored like this, and it seems like an error. Can some admin delete those previous revisions from this article? (possibly after the conclusion of this ANI if necessary) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just adding a note to indicate that I support 's proposal that this be widened to include websites - obviously writing articles about commercial websites on behalf of family members who own them is just eye-poppingly inappropriate. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support though I will say, right now, that anybody who needs this severe and wide ranging a series of editing restrictions ought to be indefinitely blocked as they quite clearly lack both the trust and the competency needed to edit without further issue. I will, however, endorse any and all sanctions upto and including blocks or community bans. Nick (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the proposal is a good one while allowing Störm to edit in other areas to regain the trust of the general community. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 17:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support restrictions, for two reasons, concerns about paid editing, and concerns about respect for verifiability.
 * My initial involvement with this thread was about a dead person, but Störm's apparent lack of concern for significant coverage raise doubts as to their ability to originate BLPs. So does the way that they failed to distinguish a living person and a dead person with the same name.  (In Wikipedia, that is what disambiguation is for.)
 * That AFD is still a mess. It appears that some editors still either are confused or are trying to cause confusion about two people with the same name.
 * Update I see that yesterday Störm added the retired tag to their user page, stating they are gone for good. This along with their indef on DE.WP and other editors in this thread also suggesting/supporting an indef here too, maybe that would be the simpler outcome to apply. With the standard 6-month offer, of course.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, was thinking something similar - though there's consensus for editing restrictions and retirement must not provide a way to circumvent any editing restrictions, so close this discussion and log the editing restriction, formally notify Störm and remind them they can't clean start as they're subject to active editing restrictions. Nick (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Historical policy of the Law and Justice party
I am not entirely sure how this process works, and apologies if this is the wrong venue for raising this concern. There appears to be some form of content dispute on the above article which has descended into personal attacks across several of articles in the same broad topic, apparently the Holocaust in Poland. An admin intervention would be very much appreciated to prevent it from deteriorating still further. Thanks! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, a discussion that was started as an attack on Volunteer Marek by a sock of a globally banned editor, and I would be very surprised if one of the other participants was using their original account as well. Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually it started when indef-blocked editor removed legitimate content that I've added back in April. VM and the sock joined later and fought among themselves while I tried to settle it on Talk. When there was no reply for ten days I went ahead with my edit, but VM immediately reverted it and attacked me. This behavior recurred in other articles, leading another editor to file . François Robere (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As you well know Francois, this indef banned editor, Masdafizdo, was one of the two joe-job accounts that were used to file a false SPI against me. This SPI was filed by another sock globally banned editor, the one who attacked me on the page. You did not "try to settle it on talk". What happened is that I called out VikingDrummer, now banned as a sock of globally banned Icewhiz, as a sock, and you jumped in to defend that sock saying I was "casting ASPERSIONS". The sock was then banned. Which means my "aspersions" happened to be 100% correct.  Volunteer Marek   18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I actually don't know that, since I don't follow SPI. I also don't know what "joe-job" means, nor do I care. I alerted admins to that user while you restored their edit, attacked me and questioned another editor who reverted you, and now you're blaming someone else for your actions? François Robere (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You may not care, but a "joe job" is an account made specifically to look like someone else, so you get mad at the wrong person. On Wikipedia, it's usually an account created specifically to make you think one person is recruiting friends, socking, or forming a WP:CABAL to attack someone else. It's a smear campaign. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In other words, "false flag". I'm still not clear on what it has to do with VM reverting one blocked account to another, attacking me in an edit summary, repeating his accusations on Talk, then calling his response "adequate". François Robere (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have no opinion although Volunteer Marek's personal attacks on other editors certainly don't make me particularly sympathetic. The real point is that it's clear that the discussion will further deteriorate without some kind of outside intervention. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not make any personal attacks. I made accusations against an editor that was an obvious sock. SPI confirmed it and the sock was banned. I also expressed frustration at the fact that right after that sock was banned a few more accounts. either new ones or ones that have never edited this article, popped out of nowhere. You asked me to AGF, but AGF is not a suicide pact - the socking was obvious and that's the reason why the editor's comments were struck. Which you should have noticed.  Volunteer Marek   18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since his T-ban was lifted back in December, VM has insulted or attacked other editors numerous times, including at one time hosting a dedicated attack page against me. He was warned by admins at least three times, but no sanctions. Whatever else is happening in the TA, there's no reason VM would treat people like that. François Robere (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC) (Edited 22:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC))
 * You're right, . But what is the truth? (He was warned by admins at least three times, but no sanctions) - Volunteer has succesfully created a persona of a left/progressive user, which is why our mostly American liberal admins favour him, and also ofc. the connections (old users know each other and cliques tend to form). But what did Sandstein tell the community back in 2019 . Thus I quote a well-known Wikipedia figure:
 * "Setting aside the main issue for a moment, I find Volunteer Marek's conduct here worthy of interest. They note that casting aspersions is prohibited (-->Has it ever changed? - Potugin), and that accusations must be backed by 'actual diffs, not innuendo and bad faithed insinuations', and that if an editor 'can't back up that attack, then he deserves a ban'. I agree. But I intend to apply these principles to Volunteer Marek. In the same section, they write without providing evidence that 'this is an obvious 'payback report' for the fact that Icewhiz's partner in edit wars, Yanniv, recently got indef blocked', and accuse another editor of being part of a 'tag team', among other instances of vitriol and confrontative statements that have at best a remote bearing on the diffs that are the subject of this enforcement request. This is inacceptable and disruptive conduct. I note that Volunteer Marek has a relatively long record of AE sanctions going back to 2011, both in the Eastern Europe and in the US politics topic area. This has got to stop. I am topic-banning Volunteer Marek for six months from anything related to Eastern Europe. I am leaving the thread open to allow discussion of the original request." At times I really feel like tempted to publish something myself, and you suspect where. Isn't constructive criticism appreciated by Jimbo, right? Discovering hoaxes is a right thing to do? Why does the situation never change?  Where did I find Sandstein's estimation thereof? Simple! From a Wikipedia critics' forum! Why does this travesty have to go on? Because said user has been building up some kinda "fake lefty progressive" persona in topics apart from Poland with his lowest-effort (often mutually contradictionary!) posts such as here  (stop removing 'well sourced' material  - where were the sources then?),  (why was William F. Buckley, Jr. not a RS then?),  etc. etc. etc. There are quite a lot of them actually, this is why American "liberals" defend him. What we get is a picture of an Eastern European tribalist defending the absurdest myths (like this idiocy: have a look, folks: Gestapo–NKVD conferences ([cf. his defensive comment that everything is perfectly fine!), he cannot remove it now - I have screenshots of this as well as from the "KZ Warschau" where supposedly 200,000 Poles were gased, cf. Haaretz etc. ), hating on the neighbouring countries (pointing out the German 800 year old presence in modern day Western Poland is "German irredentialism", at the same time invested in Lviv's/Lwów's Polish connections). How long does this disgrace have to continue?Potugin (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

, not seeing the block took and they're persisting on their talk page.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above rant seems worthy of a WP:NOTHERE & WP:NPA block. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? Before you block me, could you at least point me out what was wrong there? Was I wrong about Sandstein's estimation? What about the hoaxes he's promoting }, and I pointed out? Make your case!Potugin (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have blocked User:Potugin indefintely per the above. Black Kite (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, not sure what happened there. But their reaction is enough to withdraw talkpage access. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Serious BLP issue with Hussan Naqvi
has been persistently creating invalid articles and adding unsourced material to articles after multiple final warnings, and efforts to engage on their talk page by multiple editors. Their latest edit is an extremely serious WP:BLP violation:. They are clearly not going to change their behavior. Request that they be indef blocked as they are unable to follow the most basic policies. Laplorfill (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked, with some guidance on what they need to read if they want to be unblocked. Adding content like that without sourcing is not on. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That BLP violation needs revdeling at the very least. Fram (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RD2'd. —Kusma (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway
IP keeps vandalising the DOB on the article. Govvy (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked by administrator Cryptic. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Diane Molly Handerson
Continues to add categories not supported by text, often religious categories added to biographies of living people. Numerous detailed warnings on user talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Like many new users, Diane Molly Handerson is possibly not aware of their talkpage, and may not have seen the warnings. I have blocked them for a month, in the hope that the log entry will help them find the page, and have written a note to them. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC).

MysterioRey619

 * Falsely claiming advanced user rights.
 * Blocked for vandalism on two other wikis.
 * Zero edit summary usage.
 * Repeatedly removing templates and references without explanation. (Just a tiny sample there)
 * Well aware of their talk page; just removes warnings without comment.

This was declined at AIV after being reported by another user. Admittedly this might be a CIR issue (though the false user rights claim suggests it's not their first rodeo), but the disruption has gone on long enough either way. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Another case of WP:NOTHERE. Since the editor has already been blocked on two other Wikipedia-related projects, the same should be done here. There's no need to drag this discussion any further. Jerm (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeffed.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Persistent original research and BLP violations on MP articles, unresponsive editor

 * -- xtools
 * Previous ANI, BLPN

Articles:
 * Lubov Chernukhin (pre-trimming revision) (history -- see broken down removal diffs)
 * Vladimir Chernukhin (revision)
 * Robert Courts (revision)
 * Brandon Lewis (revision)
 * Theresa Villiers (revision)
 * Lev Mikheev
 * Viktor Fedotov
 * Aigul Nuryieva (AfD)

Kendalandrew has persisted in writing negative BLPs relating to members of UK Parliament and their editing violates pretty much every core policy of Wikipedia. The account's sole purpose is dedicated to exaggerating Russian involvement in British politics. Usually this takes the form of doing original research using primary sources - specifically their interpretations of company accounts or charity reports (or often just no sources at all) - to introduce WP:UNDUE content into WP:BLP articles, They did not respond to concerns raised at ANI (archived without action), BLPN, on their user talk, or on article talk. Instead, they just revert without summary editors removing problematic content.

Frankly every other edit they've made is troubling. More broadly, see content at for example; almost none of the sources even mention the article subject. The editor is just copy-pasting the same boilerplate negative text across various articles of Members of Parliament and other BLPs. Even the parts of the prose that are validly sourced to reliable secondary sources - a very small portion of their edits overall - is written in an UNDUE fashion. In short, the editor is using the articles of BLPs as a soapbox. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * From looking at just one of the "Receipt and defence of donations associated with Russian influence" sections I can see we have a problem here. Issued them with a BLP discretionary sanctions notification, which will at least allow this matter to be dealt with at WP:AE (where there is less background noise) if things continue. I'm personally of the opinion that we shouldn't allow things to continue at all... FDW777 (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Before you consider this matter I would be grateful if you would review: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-53538224 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54228079 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/21/tory-donors-husband-given-8m-by-kremlin-linked-oligarch https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/27/lubov-chernukhin-tories-tennis-record-donor-uk-russia https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/22/enemy-of-democracy-oligarch-says-putin-wants-to-harm-uk https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/britain-eu-johnson-russian/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/revealed-electoral-commissions-private-concerns-about-russian-tory-donors/ https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2021-01-12/owner-of-tory-donor-company-chaired-firm-linked-to-russian-corruption-allegations https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lubov-chernukhin-and-alexander-temerko-big-spenders-who-made-friends-of-prime-minister-and-his-mps-j65fm0fvq

In essence this is a matter of importance to UK users of Wikipedia; that has previously been reported by credible journalists, and their work was cited in the articles and updates that I wrote. In addition, I referenced to the underlying sources that evidenced the payments (the Electoral Commission and register of Members Interest, both government websites). Companies House data is similarly statutory information provided by the Government. I did not interpret it - it is a fact that it shows a business connection between parties (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03820643/filing-history) in an entity that was loss making, controlled from Cyprus, and now dissolved (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03820643/filing-history).

The fact that several serving politicians have received funds meant that I updated those pages with similar content tailored for the quanta of funds and origin of those funds. As a new contributor I am open to being coached on how to be a better contributor.

ProcrastinatingReader is correct that the matter is concerning: Reuters, the Guardian, the BBC, The Times, OpenDemocracy and the Bureau of Investigative Journalists all agree. I think the issue is the documented receipt of funds, ProcrastinatingReader thinks the issue is that I have recorded it on Wikipedia. But because it is concerning it should be on Wikipedia so the aggregate of evidence and journalistic opinion is consolidated for UK readers who want somewhere where they can go and get a summary and follow the citation links to the underling high quality journalism so they can fully inform themselves.

Of course you can leave the piece about Robert Courts as it is now - a 'puff piece' of uncited work about his passion for blues guitar and which church he attends (I wonder where that came from) - but I think the documented fact that he accepted £18k from the wife of a former Russian Minister with issues pertaining to the source of funds is what belongs on Wikipedia.... think of the message if it is not. Deleting the text without attempting to edit it to get rid of the issues smacks more of censorship than an attempt to help me get it right. I hope that Wikipedians will consider the message they wish to send. Kendalandrew (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Companies House, Electoral Commission etc data are not acceptable at the sole sources for any information per WP:BLPPRIMARY. I'm not sure why we're even talking about it anyway. You claim Reuters, the Guardian, the BBC..... all agree on it, it shouldn't be hard to find such sources covering the details. Sources which do not mention the subject are not acceptable. Whatever problems with Russian influence on UK politicians that may or may not exist, whatever all those sources may have said about it, it's your responsibility to find reliable secondary sources which discuss such concerns in relation to the particular subject you are adding the information to. Not relying on Companies House data or EC data, nor on original research/synthesis using sources which don't mention the subject, nor any other crap like that. If there are no such sources, the information stays out. It does not matter if you believe the information is of interest to UK users, no sources no coverage in our articles. If general concerns about Russian influence on UK politicians have been raised by secondary sources, it may be acceptable to cover this in some article. But not in relation to any particular person if there's no secondary sources documenting it's a concern for that particular person. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. In the entry (now deleted) about Robert Courts I cited https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-53538224 (among others) which met all the needs you state above. The current article includes insights such as "Courts initiated and led a parliamentary debate on human rights in West Papua. This historic debate was the first time MPs had ever debated West Papua in the House of Commons" but now the article omits that he took money from Lubov Chernukhin and property developers, or (as a lawyer) supported proroguing parliament which the supreme court ruled unanimously against, or wrote an article in support of Dominic Cummings with respect to his breach of lock down regulations, all of which are highly relevant to his position as an MP. It does mention his church membership, children and blues guitar, which is not cited and which make no difference to his work as an MP. If you read my contributions you will see that they were all cited to high quality sources such as those listed above. The electoral commission links were put in so the reader could go straight to the donations referred to in the articles. So where do we go from here? Do I reinstate and modify? Kendalandrew (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment commenting here since I deleted most of their content. I assumed good faith at first, and found the edits by the user via recent changes. But upon inspection it looked like they created pages and large sections with several glaring guideline violations. All of the added sections of the articles contained content not connected with the subject of the particular article, and in some cases only referenced them once. The sections were tangential in nature. Here's what I have issue with:
 * WP:ATTACK - the created articles exist primarily to disparage or threaten its subject.
 * WP:UNDUE - borderline the entire articles were about recent political contributions, with negative connotations solely.
 * WP:CSECTION - sections created essentially titled "controversy"
 * WP:NOTE - the subjects are not notable outside of their political contributions (imo). If we create articles based on how much money individuals contributed, countless articles will need to be created... the user included an entire section with multiple paragraphs in Theresa Villiers regarding a £2000 contribution. Many people contribute that sum and more to many different individuals. Would create a notability slippery slope.
 * WP:NOTNEWS - WP is not a newspaper re: notability (holding a position in a government, then contributing to a political campaign happens very frequently--though I inherently disagree with the premise--doesn't seem notable).
 * WP:CITEKILL - more articles don't mean notability
 * In my opinion, this user came to WP with the intention of creating attack pages and sections. Lastly, some sections are almost entirely comprised of quotes from various sources (Wikipedia is not a list of quotes. The quotes are wholly cherrypicked to support their BLP attack pages and sections. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Other articles that were affected but not included in the list above: Suleyman Kerimov (prime edit) and Alexander Temerko (prime edit). --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have such sources we can consider including relevant details. I've now looked at an example and what you added was terrible and completely unacceptable. Most of the junk you added to the article had zero to do with the subjects. Unless you drastically change your behaviour and stop adding irrelevant crap to BLPs, you need to stay well away from them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

NPA from User:Hanoi Road
Previously blocked user, in an otherwise reasonable discussion about WP:VER, has suggested that he be banned for this series of attacks. It's not clear whether all are leveled at me, or some at for removing them. It's immaterial really. I see no reason why the user's suggestion, to "please get me a ban", shouldn't be honoured. It's a reasonable suggestion in the circumstance. Guliolopez (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Guilopez/Sean Lucy
Absolutely no reason for this citation request, since all poets names are listed as UCC English alumni during Lucy's tenure. Several of the articles name Lucy specifically. All attempts to mollify this Gulio have hit a brick wall. This isn't about "editing". Its about "winning". A glance through the article will confirm the request is bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanoi Road (talk • contribs)

I've blocked this editor indefinitely but other administrators should feel free to lift the block after an appropriate unblock request or community review. DrKay (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard ——  Serial  11:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Met immediately with block evasion, which isn't a particular surprise with this user. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive mass deletion behaviour
Jan Żaryn's bio article in question has been a subject of a rather heated discussion on what constitutes material inclusive which could be included in a BLP and which does not pass muster. These seem to be two sides, represented by (VM),  and  on the one hand, and me,,  and  on the other.

The article has already been subject of an apparent edit war (see history in late April and early this month), with the same change (being a translation of a "Criticism section" from Polish wiki, not ideal but mostly OK for inclusion in general) being reverted by VM six times, three of which in a 12-hour span. (see History, 2 June 18:50-3 June 06:05).

After that, an RfC on Jan Żaryn was started by a user which was later found to be a sock (discussion deleted, log), but he reposted content from the François Robere's proposal, which is in the archive, so for this one, I have no objections, the RfC was OK). Having determined that the proposal would stall until the article gets more scope on that person, I decided to do some expansion, noting that the RfC is pending so an NPOV template is there as a precaution. For various reasons, which I mostly dispute, however, I have seen wholesale deletion of article content for what I see are (mostly) spurious reasons and mere guises to delete content they don't like. To be clear, there has been some productive discussion, which means not all is lost, but I start to lose patience after further deliberation becomes more inflammatory and edit-war-provoking and less about moving forward. Please evaluate the following evidence and break the impasse.

1. Editors from the side of deletion misrepresent policy as regards consensus. They have tried to claim that since I (or other users) have not obtained their consensus before adding some info to the article, it is to be deleted until consensus is established. (first edit referencing an archived discussion on criticism section where only VM seemed to be a lone dissenter for most of the time, and it involved 3 active people).

However, that interpretation goes contrary to WP:BOLD and is nowhere to be found in WP:BLP; this also is almost exactly the phrasing of "Please do not make [any more] changes without my/their/our approval", which is indicative of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR (particularly as concerns VM). Such behaviour even has its own essay on Wikipedia. Some more context to this will be provided in the following points.

2. Editors have engaged in wholesale, and, in my view, mostly unjustified deletion of content. The users have raised several objections, but not everywhere and in such a way that they can hardly be interpreted as serious.
 * a. Reliability estimation against general consensus. GizzyCatBella and Volunteer Marek seemingly have a grudge against oko.press, which they said was unreliable in the discussion on RSN, but were in a minority. As the page says oko.press has "rough consensus for reliability in a February 2021 discussion". Despite my (and other users) pointing to that (or challenging their deletion) and my proposing that they start an RSN discussion if they want to relitigate it, the discussion was not started but they still insisted on deleting oko.press-sourced claims as late as 15 June. I will return to that comment. I also find troubling VM's comment about dismissing, without proof, the majority of Italian newspapers as yellow journalism.
 * b. Behaviour violations. Named editors have cast aspersions on the behalf of users of opposite viewpoints (see: calling advocates of using oko.press "Icewhiz socks", accusations of advocacy); have accused me (and probably other editors) of "dirt-digging"/"POV-pushing" without presenting evidence of my (or anyone else's) "frequently misrepresenting" sources (a frequently made accusation by opponents which I further explain below); overreached in their powers regulating the RfC (NB the user has only reminded me of 500/30 policy when I started to disagree with him (and even then he couldn't enforce it); and equating non-EC user's post in a 500/30 article to vandalism is far-fetched). Also, some of said editors made unproductive and snark comments against other users.
 * c. Mass deletions. While a revert itself is OK - not everyone is an ideal editor, I find the massive and repetitive deletion of claims/sources as disruptive. By Lembit Staan's own admission, applicable to VM too, both delete huge swaths of text and dismiss WP:PRESERVE, even as BLP does not explicitly, nor implicitly, overrule that guideline. They deleted whole paragraphs in a span of 3 minutes (see History, 7 June 5:00-5:03 and 10 June 3:54-3:57), during which no person is conceivably able to make a thorough and well-guided analysis of content to decide whether it should be axed out. The most egregious examples, though, were here (deletion of whole paragraphs with a vague "yeah, the sourcing is too weak" in one of the edits and making explanations for deletions vague or such contrary to general consensus, even as the sources in these paragraphs cited two scholars' opinions and had 3 sources to each claim); here (claiming being "false" and wasting my and their time on proving "falsehood" of the fragment even as the supporting quote and its translation (source could be found by diff of revert) was given from the very beginning), and here. Volunteer Marek was repetitiously claiming that either the added info is a BLPVIO, OR or misrepresented, though given his explanation that Semper fidelis is still appropriate to be used in the contexts of being "always faithful to Poland" even as the motto was no longer used for 70 years at the time and Lviv/Lwów is no longer Polish, and GizzyCatBella's assertion that it is not notable (despite being covered by two academic (!) sources), it might simply seem they want that info out because it might make the article's subject look bad (ditto for comments on Judas's beating in Pruchnik), widespread coverage of the events (including in academia) notwithstanding. One of the most recent edits about a largely irrelevant addition for the article's subject of description of for what Żaryn's parents became recognised by Yad Vashem, prove my point; this edit would make no concern were it made in the article of Jan's parents.
 * Also, they have claimed that I was making original research on the materials cited. It might have happened, but at least there was a dissection of the sources and some discussion, after which the section was reformulated. However, justifying deletions by making OR themselves or trying to argue the reliable sources to be wrong based on personal perceptions is a no-go.
 * I therefore believe there is substantial evidence that at least part of the reverts were made to conceal statements that the editors saw as controversial or potentially damning (however well sourced, agreed upon in RS/academia or pertinent to the article as e.g. views on foreign policy), not as legitimate, good-faith reverts, given behaviour that is repetitious, often made with no good explanation for the deletes (or with explanations that don't withstand even mild scrutiny). It is also reminded that any revert made must be clear of why it was made (WP:ONUS footnote 3), not just throwing vague "NPOV" or "V" or "OR" or whatever, as this is an insufficient explanation; or especially repeatedly claiming about poor sourcing and OR without clarification even if an obvious conclusion comes otherwise if actually perusing RSN and the sources (WP:YOUCANSEARCH).

3. Allegations of tendentious editing/addition of undue material. I have repeatedly been accused of making tendentious edits on the article's subject, so far that I was accused of conspiring to add more "defamatory" material and of making an attack page. Actually, my reason of expansion was exactly for the page not to be or sound like one, as I have noted in my RfC vote (though I did agree that the Polish version of criticism was pretty OK as it stood). The users have repeatedly deleted information I have provided as if it was violating neutral point of view. In fact, I have only reported sources in WP:PROPORTION to what I was aware was his coverage in reliable sources, with a particular focus on scholarly resources, and all of these were unanimous as far as my query went. The users in question have contributed NO additional material to his biography (other than the Szeligi house, which has nothing to do with Jan Żaryn personally at all), and instead mostly (apart from the productive discussions I've noted above) moaned about supposed BLPVIOs, UNDUEs etc., which more looked like WP:SEALIONing because they usually didn't offer any solution but to delete, nor did they offer any of their resources to show that indeed, there were RS sources casting him in positive light, even if I haven't found any in RS (because I haven't indeed). Finding more information (in proportion to the other side's coverage) is a way more productive way of rectifying any potential NPOV concerns than simply deleting ad nauseam. As a good illustration for that, they correctly found what I meant to write basing on the sources, which I couldn't formulate well (overexaggeration of szmalcownik claims about Jews, which is a point Libionka made in the work cited in the same sentence), but instead of correcting that, they chose to delete the whole sentence altogether.

4. It is not to say that my edits were perfect, though I tried my best. Some corrections by these users have not been contested as I saw them as an improvement to the article. Some of explanations of other edits, such as the one here, are certainly not appropriate justifications. However, there were many more reverts (including the more expansive ones) of questionable or outright negative value, which I ask editors to evaluate

I request experienced editors to analyse behaviour as presented above, preferably double-check the edits and make actions towards these users as deemed necessary.

PS. I have received objections from Volunteer Marek, accusing me of filing the request in bad faith, misrepresenting the case's facts and omitting what he considers to be important details. However, I consider none of these objections to be truthful or substantiated, as I show in the complaint (and in the answers) well. For instance, his remarks still show failure to acknowledge general consensus about oko.press (by mentioning two sources to the claims he deleted even as there originally were three, one of which was oko.press, which he also deleted, with the note that he considers it non-RS). Anyway, I hand over the evidence for evaluation and I am waiting for your response. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @all: To be clear, the dispute on the talk page has separated among the lines of editors willing to preserve information and editors who were deleting it. You may want to argue you are no-one's side but in plain terms, any editorial conflict has at least two, which can be grouped according to the behaviour exhibited. It doesn't mean I (or anyone else) should argue for each other. Which is why "we" are not "plaintiffs" (nor I am one) - this is my personal statement. I'm not "united" with someone in "prosecution" against anyone, though I believe that these actions of users are worthy of administrators' attention.
 * @Lembit Staan: that every single time there were misrepresentations of the sources cited, lack of knowledge of Polish issues... of which most of these "misrepresentations" were not discussed (probably because they were few of them after all), the perceived "lack of knowledge" of Polish issues serving as an excuse to justify exclusion of well-covered events and criticism because it was, in their opinion, totally appropriate behaviour (even as the sources I found said it wasn't), and the "outright original research" accusations which, if anything, seems to be a problem of a few editors, in fact. The difference is that allegations of misinterpreting sources can be discussed with no problem on the talk page (as was done in my case); while challenging one's political/religious views (as expressed in comments to edits) is something that goes beyond the scope of the talk page, and is anyway unproductive, therefore I haven't discussed that, not wanting to escalate the dispute.
 * As far as I understand, this ANI alleges a wrongdoing from the side of the "opposite party". Well, beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Well, actually, you were the one who got it. You said on 10 June that you were "more and more inclined to file a complaint for a ban of editing this article by some people" after accusing me of dirt-digging (even as you didn't mention me by name). The problem is, so was I (minus the ban option, which I included in the draft but then decided to drop it, as, after all, I don't like arguing to ban people in a dispute of which I am party unless in obvious cases), because I was unhappy not only with the mass deletions but with at least some aspects of the general behaviour too. I nevertheless decided to wait one week to see if the dispute subsides, making only minor additions unrelated to the disputed content (such as changing signature format) - it hasn't helped. Which is why the case is here. Since impartial review of edits and actions is badly needed, anyone, in fact, can and should submit evidence (and should expect it to be challenged). Go for it.
 * Whether this is the appropriate venue, as you say it is not - if we go into user misconduct/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry territory, we can't solve it by RfCs. At least not until we solve the -puppet issues and return to civility. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not a "side" in this dispute. I came to this page noticing the RFC via WPPoland. I had no previous interest in the subject of the article. In fact, I mostly tried to stay away from editing political articles. Szmenderowiecki cannot deny that I quite often worked hard to verify the additions made by the "opposite side", copyediting them, and to my dismay finding that every single time there were misrepresentations of the sources cited, lack of knowledge of Polish issues, and outright original research. Quite a few sources cited showed an outright bias against Zaryn (not surprizing and possibly justified: he is a conservative and Catholic, and the critique is from ...er... "non-conservatives and non-Catholics"). As a result these sources are spinning the news to present Zaryn in negative light and using biased language. I am not saying that Zaryn is a very "good guy"; he definitely deserves a lot of criticism. But this criticism must come from analytical neutral sources, rather than from the cherry-picking of his individual says and deeds, turning his page into a collection of negative WP:TRIVIA. Therefore I see the above as a persistent violation of WP:BLP.

Seeing a rather chaotic RFC, after dust settled a bit, I suggested and tried to implement the discussion of individual episodes in individual sections. Szmenderowiecki, if he believes the "other side" is wrong, is very free to start a separate RFC for each separate episode, to attract more independent people.

As far as I understand, this ANI alleges a wrongdoing from the side of the "opposite party". Well, beware of WP:BOOMERANG :-) Lembit Staan (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. What happening at this article smells hard of sock/meatpuppetry on the "complaining side", already duly noted in the article talk page. One of the tag team ("") is already blocked. In addition to the listed "plaintiffs", there are apparent "sleepers" , ; perennial revert warrior , as well as  , maybe more. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting to notice the filer separating editors into sides. I'm not a member of any side, dear filer. I don't have time to address this now, but I will present my analysis later today or early tomorrow. (to be continued) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, for now, I'm going to put my report on hold pending further developments here. I believe the matter should be attended to and continued at a different venue because of the involvement of globally banned Icewhiz aka "" throughout the discussion on BLP's talk page. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  03:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Please leave me out of this. I am nobody's sock or meat puppet. I voted once in an RfC that was linked to after a cursory review and I do not care about Jan Zaryn or this dispute. BSMRD (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm definitely nobody's sockpuppet (George Soros doesn't count, right?), although one time I've enthusiastically read through the whole saga of IceWhiz, which I've learned about thanks to User:GizzyCatBella. Regarding my role in all this: from my point of view, there's a problem with a certain editor's annoying habit of removing sourced content he doesn't agree with. However, my last streak of reverts of this kind of behaviour was, in retrospect, badly timed, and also quite silly. Also sorry for the delay in response; I took a few days off, so this silliness doesn't escalate.Trasz (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way that this is an incident, or that administrators will desire to wade through these long paragraphs. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I recommend instead taking a look at the much shorter statement by Lembit Staan above. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't want, then perhaps some admin who's less invested in supporting Volunteer Marek and his versions will? After all, that's what our admins are meant for? The evidence is damning. Volunteer Marek doesn't add any content in these cases, he's just hindering other editors from doing so. PS: - it's something quaint when I'm being named as someone's meat-puppet or a sockpuppet just after a couple of talk page comments that were not to your liking. It's not constructive at all. That's all I can say. Obviously I fully support this complaint, but I already know that it will end with "no action necessary" or - why not? - a 'boomerang' to VM's "adversaries". --Potugin (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC) <--blocked indefinitely for persistently making disruptive edits. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  12:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ”Drmies protects VM” - gee, where have I heard that piece of nonsense before? That was like a line on certain off Wiki forums... four years ago? And you’re a new account (sorry, “from February”)? And you know this history between myself and Drmies because.... oh right, cuz you’re a “lurker”. Lol.  Volunteer Marek   16:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Googleing something or someone('s usernames) (such as "Volunteer+Marek+Drmies") and reading a few Wiki-critical threads, verifying diffs provided there (you weant me to offer them?) and so on ain't a particularly challenging problem. Do the same query! What are the first several hits you'll get? Now focus on the gist of the complaint above which is your disruptive behaviour.Potugin (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC) <--blocked indefinitely for persistently making disruptive edits. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  12:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Potugin, that's all great and very exciting, but you'll have to admit that that diff of yours was pretty ridiculous. And, by the way, all this makes it even less likely that anything is going to come out of this thread. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol wow you’re not very good at this. If you are truly a new account (sorry, “from February”, I keep forgetting) *why in the world would you google that* in the first place? Afaict this is your first interaction with, ahem, “volunteer+marek+Drmies”. All you’re doing here is just providing more evidence that your whole “I know all these esoteric things about Wikipedia history because I’m just a lurker” cover story is bogus. Keep talking.
 * And my behavior isn’t disruptive (removing text which misrepresent sources in a BLP is constructive actually) and when I google that I just get link to Drmies’ archived talk (your search results reflect your past search history so that also says something about you).  Volunteer Marek   17:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you think this tiny little copyedit is somehow an endorsement of someone's version of the article--well, I won't finish that sentence. And admins are here to do certain things, yes, but part of being a productive Wikipedia editor is knowing what kind of dispute resolution to seek, and when, and in what forum, and how to phrase it. Posting an ARE type of complaint on ANI is not a good way, as this very thread proves. For starters, this is not an "incident". Drmies (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, but it's already a little too late for this particular complaint, and I thought ARE is a little too high a level for that. Anyway, I don't want to have x discussions running in parallel about the same topic, understanding that it is going to consume too much time for those whom the complaint may concern. Besides, I wasn't sure if that could be taken to the ARE because the only point that actually concerned ARE was the attempt of 500/30 enforcement while the problem as I see it is more general than that.
 * As for oko.press revert, at the time I originally posted the draft of the ANI request on my talk page, that is on 23:35, 17 June 2021, the WP:NPPSG as I saw it looked this way, and it said that oko.press was considered generally reliable. That is, until VM started messing with WP:NPPSG two hours later (of which I was not conscious), and I filed my complaint not even knowing that VM, or Rosguill, have changed something in the meantime. Besides, let's not apply retrospect here - VM could have challenged the consensus by the proposed ways on the talk page, or even by asking the long-time editors and admins to review discussions for socks/meatpuppets, which for some reason he has only done on 18 June (unilaterally) and not for four months that went after the discussion. It's certainly not because they have seen the draft at that time, as they haven't, but what matters here is the attitude towards consensus, which VM knew well when he was reminded of it and he didn't challenge my proposal.
 * As for SPI/(MPI) proceedings - go ahead with them, too. If the results of that RSN discussion were indeed illegally manipulated to the extent that it changed consensus, so be it, but ratings should not be changed based on mere suspicion of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, just like neither side should receive sanctions based on mere suspicion of illegal advocacy, even if the suspicion sounds plausible. As regards the "all these discussions are essentially an indef banned account + red linked account on one side and long term users on other side" (I also wonder where established editors like buidhe have gone from the description), WP:NAAC and WP:DBQ apply. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a second Szmenderowiecki... where do you see Buidhe participating in that BLP article you decided to edit extensively two months after your debut on Wikipedia? Anyway..look... the article has been created by Piotrus, a solid and well-established editor, on May 30, 2019, then VM makes few edits before and on June 3, 2021 and then immediately globbaly banned Icewhiz arrives  in assistance of brand new accounts,  to challenge VM. You joined them, you supported Icewhiz and vice versa,, then you brought this "case" here that in my opionion looks like is aimed at VM. Are you suprised that people might have questions? When did you register your account exactly? January 16, 2021 but you started editing 3 moths later on April 27, 2021 jumping almost inmediately into the most toxic area at the moment, many just desire to avoid. This is unfortunate, don't you think? I hope that you will learn from this experience and eventually become a trusted editor, but that takes some time.. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  12:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Just a second Szmenderowiecki... where do you see Buidhe participating in that BLP article..." I was not referring to buidhe's actions in that article, given they had none, but to the discussions made on RSN, because the edit summary (as VM has presented while editing WP:NPPSG) was clearly oversimplifying reality, to say the least, at least by omitting buidhe's voice out.
 * "Are you suprised that people might have questions?" I'm not - I welcome these - but again, I will have to set the record straight. First, the RfC template allows you to search for all RfCs pending in the given topic, which is how I found the one about Jan Żaryn. Not that I'm aware of it being illegal in some way. Second, I "supported Icewhiz"... no. The RfC would have been published by Francois Robere anyway, though I struggle to understand why VikingDrummer preempted him. As for VikingDrummer's/Icewhiz's comments under my posts - the first link actually shows an answer to something he did not read properly (and I'd hardly see it as an answer at all), the second one is a reply to Francois Robere (for a request for closure which you could just as well answer to), while I didn't care about the third one. As for presumptive socks, see below.
 * then you brought this "case" here that in my opionion looks like is aimed at VM Since they have done the most of what I believe to be disruptive actions among the three of you, naturally most space is consecrated to VM's actions. It is no indicator, however, of "aiming something against one specific editor" and certainly it was not filed to harass VM, as you appear to suggest in the reply. It also doesn't preclude any future fruitful cooperation.
 * This is unfortunate, don't you think? Probably. I don't pretend being an older account than I am. That said, it doesn't mean that only established editors have good sense of editing, and editors who disagree with you and happen to have opinions similar to Icewhiz are not automatically his sock/meatpuppets, which was the point of my previous post. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Piotrus, thank you--I read it, but it really is only an injunction for admins to maybe check for socking and to send this whole thing back to a talk page. I think 's comment makes sense--but again, there's nothing much actionable. And much of the original complaint is highly specific, content-oriented, and requires way too much digging for an incident. For instance, the filer argues that OKO press is reliable, or reliable enough, and cites "rough consensus" (but I don't know where from), but 's revert of VM here doesn't support that. So I'd have to figure out where that supposed discussion is in the RSN archives, whether it shows "rough consensus", as the filer claims, whether there's hanky panky going on, and whether that discussion was dominated by socks and brand-new accounts. And that's only the start of one of the points. Personally it's more relevant, I think, for whoever wants to do it to start an SPI if they really think there's socking going on--but I think we know there's a ton of meating as well, and that's always more difficult to prove and to do something about. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think I originally described the situation regarding OKO press as a rough consensus for reliability; VM objected to that characterization yesterday (Special:Diff/1029121994) on the basis that there were participants in the discussion that should not have been allowed to because of 500/30 restrictions for the subject matter. At the time that seemed like a reasonable objection to the categorization (even if removing it entirely, instead of recategorizing it, struck me as somewhat bad form), so when I restored the listing I moved it to no consensus. signed,Rosguill talk 16:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Rosguill--I wasn't even aware of that page, and I saw in the history that it's being curated by people I can have faith in. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Rosguill moving the source to “no consensus” after I raised objections. I do have some concerns about that project/page seemingly declaring itself unilaterally the arbiter of WP:RSN discussions (in essence effectively “closing” those discussions) but that’s unrelated to this dispute here (and yes, I agree with Drmies that the people currently active there are good editors, my concern is what could happen if OTHER editors became involved it and instrumentalized the project in their POV disputes).  Volunteer Marek   16:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this has three parts: first is the legitimate disagreements between the sides - there I put Lembit Staan, the OP and others. I would've liked to see more civility there, but I don't think admin involvement is necessary. The second part is a different matter: one editor who always assumes bad faith, repeatedly removes others' contributions, PAs constantly, and does little to promote compromise or improve articles on his own. This editor's behavior sours the discussion, leading to frustrated submissions like this. If that editor is removed from the TA (again), or preferably from everything Poland, it would reduce hostilities and allow everyone else to work through disagreements more civilly.

As for "socks" - they exist on all sides, and SPI has shown (surprising) effectiveness dealing with them. The "socks" are not the antecedent, they're the consequent; removing them may lower tensions, but will not resolve the problem. François Robere (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah. The socking is pretty much exclusively from one “side” (sic). Hell, that “side” (the Icewhiz and friends side) even went so far as to create a couple false flag accounts recently which pretended to be me precisely because they’re the only one socking (and then, an actual Icewhiz sock reported me to SPI, but it didn’t work and they got banned instead). You want me to run down the exhaustive list of all the socks and sketchy accounts which have popped up since the end of the ArbCom case? You want me to go through who the other editors involved in the sock-initiated-disputed are/were, and which editors seem to *always* defend the socks, agree with the socks and enable the socks? I’m not sure this is the right place for it, but we could most certainly look at if any active editors have WP:MEATPUPPETed for these socks. We’d look at “bothsides” of course.  Volunteer Marek   16:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "Icewhiz and friends"?
 * Regarding non-Icewhiz "socks", see comments by SarahSV and myself here and here. François Robere (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * SaraSV in that comment lists several accounts which were also Icewhiz, . That comment is fine and it agrees with what I said. It is NOT however about “non-Icewhiz” socks so I’m not sure what your point is. Your comment ... well, thanks for reminding everyone about that one and providing such a nice illustration of how long you’ve been going to bat for Icewhiz socks (again, no idea why you think this is about non-Icewhiz socks). There you defend the socks, and ask everyone to worry about “false positive” and outright dismiss the concerns about socking as not serious (even though ArbCom had to pass a special remedy for this topic given the sheer scale of the socking). You demand “99% certainty” or some such. And you accidentally reveal that you have knowledge of Icewhiz’s geographic location somehow (you’re trying to argue that these socks didn’t match his time zone). Not sure how you’d get that. And guess what? That SPI too ended with a bunch of socks - the very ones you were defending - getting blocked ,.
 * again, thanks for that. So... you got any more diffs of yourself defending and enabling Icewhiz socks you wanna shows us? It saves me the trouble of having to go back and look for them myself.  Volunteer Marek   22:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, SarahSV and I mentioned many more than just those three (in the AE alone I listed more than ten diffs). Second, I enthusiastically supported enforcing WP:ECP across the TA, which one would assume curtail "socking". Third, the problem with false positives and pushing away new editors has also been pointed out by SarahSV and Ealdgyth, IIRC, on several occasions. Fourth, you've been making the point for us that it's a real problem with how you've been treating legitimate new editors, including the OP. Fifth, you obviously misread my comment (as usual), since I didn't demand "99% certainty" or anything close; and sixth, I have no knowledge of "Icewhiz’s geographic location" beyond what was published in Haaretz seven months before that SPI. This kind of unsubstantiated attacks is exactly why I wrote that you always assumes bad faith... PAs constantly, and does little to promote compromise, and that your behavior sours the discussion, leading to frustrated submissions like this. François Robere (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if Volunteer Marek could actually address anything presented in here, rather than resorting to the classic claims about sock/meatpuppeting. To add to this, this isn't the only case of Volunteer Marek mass removing content with "vague" explanations, which I assume was a response to me participating in the talkpage of Jan Zaryn article. Perhaps you should consider that the reason people disagree with you is that you are in the wrong, and not that they are a sock/meatpuppet. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Void accusations. I looked at the first two links, they have short, but pretty clear edit summaries. For the fist link, the case is 100% clear: WP:SYNTH. If you do not know what it is, you better read the policy carefully. The second case is a bit trickier: the accusations of RFA by Burmese junta hardly belong to section "Criticism". General advise: If something is unclear, you have to ask for explanations in the talk page. "Edit summary" has only enough space for a brief statement of the reason and of course may seem "vague" for some. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion, but I was addressing Volunteer Marek. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

that every single time there were misrepresentations of the sources cited, lack of knowledge of Polish issues... - following is a comment by Szmenderowiecki: ...of which most of these "misrepresentations" were not discussed... - Why on Earth I have to discuss all sloppy/tendentious editing I see? I am not a wikilawyer. I just read the source and fix the article. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

! @ User:Rosguill and - I believe the spreadsheet presentation of all socking accounts popping up after the Icewhiz ban and a list of specific editors who consistently  show up supporting those socks (or vice versa) should be soon presented at the appropriate forum. That will illustrate the magnitude of the socking/meat puppeting problems Poland-related areas are facing now after the Icewhiz ban, and possibly some answers could be found. The harassment certain users such as Volunteer Marek suffer from it is enormous. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was here before the Icewhiz ban, and I can confirm that mass socking, harassment, impersonations of particular editors, or even death threats (!) posted on their talk pages started immediately after the ban. I'm honestly shocked. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think there is an SPI and that's where this should go, yes. From what I understand there's a lot of meating going around as well and that makes it even more difficult. I hate to say "ArbCom is that way" but that's the way it is. User:KrakatoaKatie ran CU on Icewhiz and maybe has records--but again, that type of data is probably of limited use. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * DrmiesTake a look at this rant ( later addition to my comment - Notice --> Icewhiz will never be forgotten ) of one involved in this conversation as well. Those are the people VM is facing all the time... :( -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * there is an SPI but there’s no MPI page, at least not that I’m aware of. And yes, meatpuppetry is very difficult to prove. Difficult but not impossible, when it’s very extensive. So what would be the proper venue for an “MPI”?  Volunteer Marek   22:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:GizzyCatBella, I was wondering about their state of mind after the BS they posted on Talk:Joe Biden, but this went beyond crazy very quickly., I am not sure. Does this fall under the "Antisemitism in Poland" case? If so, ARE, maybe. Or a discussion on AN, which is sometimes a bit more, eh, guided. And the SPI will tell you which admins placed blocks or ran CU; maybe you can ask them. I'm sorry, I'm not being very helpful here. Maybe , who just blocked that editor, has time and energy and know-how, or ideas--they're pretty smart. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz will never be forgotten this suggests that the sock/meat puppetry hostility will continue unfortunately..- GizzyCatBella  🍁  03:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:LTA is a thing :( <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know what else to add to the discussion. I can only report that my first contact with VM occurred with an accusation of being an Icewhiz sockpuppet (he was subsequently warned by an administrator.). He later joined a user who was trying to get me out of Wikipedia by pulling me into an SPI, simply because many users in an RFC quoted my answer to motivate their votes. And even in that SPI, VM continued to accuse me to take me out: "When I first encountered Mhorg I also flagged that account as not new. I don't know if they're the same as the other accounts listed here or just some independ socking going on. But it's the same story. Edit non controversialy for 500 edits, then immediately jump into Poland-related controversy once the threshold of the 500/30 restriction is met.". As for the mass removals of controversial and sourced content, it seems to me a practice also employed by other users (I made a - useless - AE request about this ), which I often consider "whitewashing". It seems to me that when you want to remove a certain controversial fact, some users have understood that the best way is to use the magic card "Undue weight", where the discussion is no longer shifted to sources and facts, but to subjective evaluations of users, and where therefore there are opportunities to remove content, in my opinion, often legitimate.--Mhorg (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

serious WP:HOUNDING by Ravensfire
For quick overview see this user interaction report and click on timeline for articles described below. (Stoopid Buddy Stoodios,List of massacres in Bihar,Rathore,Dabhi,Bhati,List of Gurjars)

Ravensfire is constantly following/WP: HOUNDING my edits reverting my edits on content disputes i have with other editors, with clear intention of harassing me and not letting me contribute by constantly reverting me on different articles i have interest in.
 * Today I edited List of Gurjars, Raven who usually follows my edits too edited it today.


 * I edited Stoopid Buddy Stoodios here, Raven followed me here only to revert me.


 * I edited Dabhi page they followed me here too only to revert me


 * My edit on Rathore page Raven followed me here and reverted me to ask me to build Consensus although they were never part of the content dispute


 * I edited List of massacres in Bihar here  Raven who never edited this page before hounded me here too and reverted my edit for no apparent reason.


 * I removed some content on Bhati page due to content dispute and Ravensfire followed me here too only to revert me for no reason at all


 * When i filed SPI for suspicious behaviour against some editor they followed me here too and commented check edit history

This is very serious WP:HOUNDING,admins please take action.<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#ba1e1e">Ratnahastin</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? Okay, this needs some WP:BOOMERANG attention. I'll put a more detailed response later, but let's look at the first point - the List of Gurjars article.  Evidently Ratnahastin isn't aware that people might have edited this article in the past and would rather assume bad faith.  Apparently they are also okay with having unsourced caste claims in articles, which every single name I removed was.  This isn't accidental, but a pattern with this user.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am withdrawing this report given your above response. I believe I had to discuss this issue with you before coming here.<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#ba1e1e">Ratnahastin</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look good when you try to remove stuff as soon as someone mentions WP:BOOMERANG, I'd suggest just letting it play out since it is already here and there is a discussion happening. zchrykng (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ratnahastin attempted to remove this section after I've responded. I've reverted that removal.  Given their attitude they've shown towards editors with opposing views, this is not something for my talk page, but here, so their behavior can also be reviewed.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , more often than not, you are not being intentionally targeted nor hounded. Think of it like this, @ might have included you to their watchlist, which in no means is hounding, or constitutes hounding, but you are merely in their watchlist and every now and again they check their watchlist, your name pops up, they observe you made a mistake, then they revert you, it’s not necessarily hounding, they may just be cleaning up after you. AGF is also pivotal here. Celestina007 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The core of this dispute is around India caste pushing, specifically Rajputisation. From everything I've read, the Rajput identity is somewhat recent (relative to India's long and rich history), but there is a strong effort to push that timeframe back centuries and cloud any history about the background that doesn't fit a certain narrative.  My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings).  They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles.  I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior. This isn't hounding, it's good WP:STEWARDSHIP.  It's certainly not ownership (which will probably be the next claim), but trying to keep out POV editing.
 * Their edit on Stoopid Buddy Stoodios was reverted because it put back obvious vandalism (that took me about 10 seconds of checking to verify
 * List of massacres in Bihar edit was a POV edit on an image caption, as very clearly noted in the edit summary . Ratnahastin ignores WP:BRD and reverts calling it censorship, I reverted again asking for discussion.  Nothing.  Shows Ratnahastin using loaded language towards those that disagree
 * The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives. Note that Ratnahastin has done this on multiple articles, ,  - and plenty more.
 * He's filed multiple SPI baseless and retalitory SPI reports, eventually being warned by Bishonen.
 * SPI against Heba Aisha, lots of back and forth, ultimately found "Unrelated"
 * SPI against Chariotrider555 declined by CU due to lack of evidence
 * His attitude towards other can be aggressive and hostile - removing warnings from experienced users as "harassment",
 * WP:ABF towards other editors - "that's a lie"  in response to a comment from an editor falsely accused of being a sock when a simple "I think you are mistaken" would have worked AND kept the overall tone calmer.  Instead, they chose incindiary language.
 * This last series of edits on List of Gurjars, where I've edited it in 2018 and 2019 so it's been on my watchlist for YEARS, I couldn't tell you what Ratnahastin edited on that page, I was focused on the more recent additions and checked those. Probably should double-check all of the names, but honestly was time-constrained.  I've pretty much disengaged from them at this point. Way more agressive and hostile than I want to deal with right now, this filing just exemplifies that view.  I've asked them to stay off my talk page, I plan on doing the same and will generally ignore them.  I think there needs to be some review of their behavior and tone as that makes collaboration in a difficult area nigh-impossible.  Anyone wonder why Sitush walked away from caste related articles?  Here's an example.  Apologies for the disjointed comment, 'tis late, I'm tired and available time sucks.  Ravensfire  (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Its funny that you're accusing me of not assuming good faith when you're constantly refering to my contributions as POV caste pushing and following my edits to revert my contributions.

My initial exposure to Ratnahastin was probably this revert that amounted to caste pushing by removing material that notes that some traditional views aren't based on facts (and sometimes are based on British Raj writings). They removed (and were reverted) similar phrasing from other articles.

Thats not first interaction the first interaction was here when i removed some content with well explained summary it was reverted by you to build the Consensus although you never participate in the dispute on the talkpage.

I've removed that content on rathore because of the sources dont support the claims the sources were actually WP: SYNTHESIS of multiple non WP:RELEVANT citations I have explained reason for removing almost 3times on the talkpage of talk:Rathore the others who dispute it dont have any answers to issues raised by me, but you never took part in the dispute on the talkpage, my edits were based on wiki guidelines but still You've accused me of POV and caste pushing isn't that lack of WP:ASG on your side from the very first interaction i had with you?

I started to watch their edits, seeing a possible POV caste warrior.

Thanks for accepting that you follow my edits from the very first interaction i had with you. because you consider my edits as pov pushing without any evidence or participation in those content disputes.

The reverts on Rathore were from Ratnahastin removing the same NPOV language used other places to push Rajput narratives.

Please participate in the relevant discussions about content disputes on the talkpage of Talk:Rathore, i've explained my removal many times as WP: SYNTHESIS of multiple citations if you bother to verify the citations intead of reverting you would have not refered those sources on Rathore as facts. And stop these WP: ASPERSIONS please, and how is that WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTHESIS of multiple citations WP:NPOV ? Since you have reverted me there the WP:BURDEN falls upon you to prove that those citations are not synthesis or violating any policies,but you haven't participated in those disputes, instead You're following my edits on multiple pages which, you yourself accepted, this proves that im being hounded, it appears that you have content disputes with my edits i request you instead of following my edits you participate in the content disputes please.<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#ba1e1e">Ratnahastin</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 06:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Disruptive edits and attack on established editors by 
 * This report is frivolous as were other against me and other editors like and . The reviewing admins please note, Ratnahastin had been involved in attacking caste editors of wikipedia, ever since they have joined in order to do their POV edits on Rajput caste related pages. I have been observing that using loopholes in wiki policies, they have opened various cases against established editors in past. I was drawn into a sockpuppet investigation case, and editors, whom i mentioned above were drawn respectively in WP:UAA and WP:SPI on frivolous ground. Interestingly, all cases were closed as they lacked solid proof. But,the user was successful in making this place unfavorable for us. This report more probably is motivated by same intent. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned by Ravensfire above, all such reports were baseless, but were problematic enough to send us to inactivity for some period of time. Recent report against also resulted in sending him to inactivity. As those who face it, gets exhausted by it naturally. After doing this tried to remove this content from Rajput, on the ground that it is repetition. Similar attempt were made to remove, what he considers "derogatory" from all Rajput caste related pages. On the talk page of Rajput, he often showed how non neutral point of view for Rajput caste through this comment. It is better to ban him from editing all Rajput related pages to stop wasting the forums for retaliatory actions against editors who donot share their view. This comment shows that they have some affiliation with Rajput caste and interestingly all the reports and dispute in which he is involved is related to Rajput related pages only. It is an issue of WP:COI, if you tell me to sum up my words explicitly. Heba Aisha (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Ratnahastin, formerly known as User:Sikandar khan67, has been filing reports here and there against established editors in the South Asian caste field. Back when the user was called Sikandar khan67, I did begin to worry about this user's caste promotion, but I went on a Wikibreak for unrelated reasons, and now that I've been partially awoken from my break, I see that I was rightly so concerned. From the edits I've seen and interacted with this user, Ratnahastin seems to be trying to promote the Rajput caste through various means, whether it be removing content that the user finds "derogatory", or going after editors with which he has content disputes with. This kind of behavior is common on South Asian caste articles, where users and ips try to promote castes on the daily. whether by hook or crook. This kind of constant aggressive behavior from caste-promoters in general requires daily reverts and constant vigilance. But coming back to User:Ratnahastin, this user seems to be trying to eliminate established editors in the field as well as promote the Rajput caste, and these kinds of frivolous reports are disruptive to an editor's state of mind. (Side note, while User:Ratnahastin has removed information that they find derogatory about Rajputs, they have no problem readding information about other castes that their own caste promoters have deleted on similar grounds as Ratnahastin .) I agree that some sort of action is needed by an admin against User:Rantahastin due to their disruptive behavior and attempts at caste promotion. Also I would like to remind ourselves that there is no cabal. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Glorification of Rajput caste by removal of sourced content: I have noticed one thing about edit of that, they will edit other articles and suddenly jump into any Rajput caste related article to remove that content they found derogatory like here and here This has happened with various castes. They have habit of engaging reverters on talk page with frivolous wiki policies that actually donot apply there and thereafter opening any case page against those editors who held opposite view. It is necessary to apply "topic ban" on them from all Rajput related pages, as serious WP:COI issue is out there. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have just checked the OP's most recent article which they created 3 days ago: Jadaun Rajputs. It is full of unreliable Raj-era sources and multiple other unacceptable sources. It also contains extreme claims, e.g. the God "Krishna was born in this clan"! There are a few acceptable sources, but they are mostly misrepresented. It is so bad that it should be TNT'd. If this is how they are contributing to the caste-related articles then we need to stop them. BTW, we use only modern, scholarly sources for history/caste-related articles – see WP:HISTRS and WP:RAJ for the relevant details and discussion links. Note that caste-related articles come under general sanctions: WP:GS/CASTE. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This caste-related edit was made by them today and it also cites the unreliable Raj-era sources from the 19th century. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't got a chance yet to look at their general pattern of sourcing and content addition. Please keep this thread open for at least a couple of days. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The use of James Tod as a source, especially without any attribution in the text or NPOV mention about the significant issues and concerns is highly troubling. Ratnahastin's use of him as a source when they know about those issues is beyond troubling.


 * Admins - there hasn't been a response on this yet. Ratnahastin has bee given notice of the General Sanctions relate to Caste and of the Discretionary sanctions around India.  This needs some review and attention from administrators.  Thank you.  Ravensfire  (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I have just glanced through their last 10 days of content additions at the caste-related articles:
 * Here they cited 4 unreliable Raj-era sources authored by an engineer, an army officer, etc., along with adding a massive unsourced or unreliably sourced list of rulers. They also misrepresented a modern source which mentions a legend in a footnote & questions its authenticity on multiple fronts. Practically, the whole massive edit is either unreliably sourced or misrepresentation of the sources.
 * Here they again dumped the massive mess (discussed by me in the previous point) to a different article.
 * Here they added a massive unsourced list of rulers from the 9th century onwards.
 * Here they cited the 19th-century physician Thomas Alexander Wise for Historical Vedic religion-related detail of Ancient India.
 * Here they cited the 19th-century physician Edward Balfour for Rajput-related claim of a 12th-century ruler.
 * And as I have already mentioned, Jadaun_Rajput is solely created by them and is full of issues: unreliable 19th-century sources (e.g., ref no. 1, 8, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, etc.); primary or unacceptable sources (e.g., ref no. 7, 9, 10 12, etc.); ref no. 4 is a self-published source of a non-scholar, etc. Not to mention that the ref. no. 18 is misrepresented again.


 * I finally, when I found a seemingly OK-sourced edit, I cross-checked the content to check its accuracy, as I have access to that source. To my surprise, the text which isn't directly quoted by them is copy-pasted from the source after making cosmetic changes, i.e. the edit is a copyvio. Here's the comparison of their text with that of the source:

a) Quote from the source: Bhoja I first consolidated his position locally (including against the feudatories holding Jalore, Mandore and Kalanagar), before turning his attention against the old ... enemies — the formidable Palas of Gauda. Their text: Mihira Bhoja first consolidated his territories locally by crushing the rebellious feudatories of Jalore, Mandore and Kalanagar, before turning his attention against the old enemies :Palas and Rastrakutas.

b) Quote from the source: Bhoja I then turned towards Central India, the Deccan and Gujarat. Stepping into a struggle for the throne of Gujarat between Dhruva II of the Gujarat Rashtrakuta dynasty and his younger brother, Bhoja led a cavalry raid into Gujarat ... The raid was repulsed by Dhruva II. ... Bhoja I was able to retain dominion over parts of Gujarat and Malwa ... Their text: Mihirbhoja then turned towards Malwa, Deccan and Gujarat. In Gujarat he Stepped into a war of succession for the throne of Gujarat between Dhruva II of the Gujarat Rashtrakuta dynasty and his younger brother, Bhoja led a cavalry raid into Gujarat ... the raid was repulsed by Dhruva II.Bhoja I was able to retain dominion over parts of Gujarat and Malwa.

c) Quote from the source: The enmity between the Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas smouldered on, however. ... Krishna II, along with the king of the Gujarat line of the Rashtrakutas ... jointly attacked Pratihara territories sometime before AD 888. A major battle between the Rashtrakutas and Pratiharas followed at Ujjayini. The Gurjara-Pratiharas were conclusively defeated. ... however, retribution followed on the part of the Pratiharas, ... towards the end of his reign Bhoja I exterminated the Gujarat line of the Rashtrakutas. Their text: The rivalry between the Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas continued on, however. ... Krishna II, along with the Rastrakuta king of the Gujarat jointly attacked Pratihara empire in AD 888, with a major battle between the Rashtrakutas and Pratiharas at Ujjayini. The Pratiharas were defeated. however, retribution followed on the part of the Pratiharas,towards the end of reign of Bhoja,he had successfully exterminated the Gujarat Rashtrakuta dynasty.

d) Quote from the source: ... this may refer to a successful expedition across the Thar Desert against Sindh and Multan ... Their text: This may be reference to a successful expedition across the Thar Desert against Sindh and Multan.

e) Quote from the source: Following the death of Bengal’s Devapala, Bhoja I expanded his boundaries eastwards ... into ... Pala-held lands ... Their text: Following the death of Bengal’s Devapala, Bhoja expanded his boundaries eastward into Pala-held territories.

f) Quote from the source: ... that many of the kings of India obeyed the powerful ‘Rai of Qinnauj’, whose mighty army had 150,000 horses and 800 elephants. Their text: ...that most of the kings of India acknowledged the supremacy of the powerful ‘Rai of Qinnauj’, ... whose mighty army had 150,000 strong cavalry and 800 war elephants.

Then I checked their other edit at that article. And it is also a copyvio: } a) Quote from the source: Bhoja’s coins at sites like Baghera (old Vyaghra; also Varahnagar), ... south-east of Ajmer. Bhoja’s ‘Adi-Varah’ type of coins remained prevalent in Rajasthan ... (Such coins are mentioned in the Kaman Inscription and in the thirteenth century text Dravya-Pariksha, by Thakkar Pheru, who served as mint-master etc. to Delhi’s Sultan Alauddin Khilji). Their text: The Bhoja’s coins ... at sites like	Baghera (Vyaghra or Varahnagar), southeast	of Ajmer. Bhoja’s ‘Adi-Varah’ coinage remained prevalent in Rajputana. ... Such coins are mentioned in	the	Kaman	Inscription	and	in the thirteenth century text	Dravya-Pariksha, by	Thakkar	Pheru,	who	served	as mint-master and economic adviser to Alauddin Khilji.

Here yet again, they copy-pasted from the source after making minor changes: } a) Quote from the source: ... led by King Dharmapala, faced Nagabhata’s forces, which included contingents led by his Rajasthan feudatories, at Mudgagiri (modern Mungher/ Monghyr in Bihar). Nagabhata II was victorious. The Chatsu Inscription of Baladitya of AD 813 states that Shankaragana, a Guhila chief fighting on behalf of Nagabhata II, fulfilled his vow by ... Their text: ... led by King Dharmapala himself,	faced Nagabhata’s forces,	which included contingents led by his Rajputana feudatories, at Mungar Bihar Nagabhata emerged victorious. The Chatsu Inscription of Guhila feudatory Baladitya ( 813 AD)	states that	Shankaragana Guhila, who fought on the behalf of Vatsaraja fulfilled his vow by ...

Note that I cross-checked their content additions of only 4 edits, as the rest of the text is mostly unreliably sourced. My today's time got wasted in cross-checking copyvios. So I will check their few more edits tomorrow. But is clear that they are creating problems left, right and centre at the caste-related articles. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I haven't edited in 4 days because I am allowing scrutiny of my edits. I acknowledge the issues you have raised including lack of compliance with WP:RAJ,WP:RS and copyright violation. I wasn't aware that Close paraphrasing is also a copyright violation. And likewise many other editors didn't noticed that i had paraphrased my additions thats why i have not received any such heads up or warnings on my talkpage yet.
 * Since I have joined only 2 months ago, I am still learning to use wikipedia and its enormous guidelines but I promise to do better on the pages, unless I am abiding by the guidelines that have been pointed above. RatnaHastin talk 03:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

In April, when you added this nasty stuff, which the cited page of the Raj-era source doesn't even support, you were reverted by an admin and were given the proper explanation in this edit: "colonial ethnographers are not acceptable sources - see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172". So you were made aware in April itself about the unreliability of the Raj-era sources. But you still continued adding that unreliable material in the main space.

I have glanced over your other content additions and pretty much all of them are at the caste-related articles and practically all of them are highly problematic. Here are the details: And here are some new copyvios:
 * here you added a WP:UGC, but even that doesn't mention Rajput anywhere
 * here you added an entry with fake refs, as none of the cited sources -, , - mention that the subject was a Rajput.
 * here you added another fake ref – it doesn't mention Rajput anywhere
 * here again there is no mention of his caste in the cited source – "1 Rajput" is the name of the battalion
 * here also the cited page has no mention of Rajput
 * here also the cited source doesn't mention that he is a Rajput and it is also a BLP violation. Note that mention of caste in BLPs requires self-identification – see here for details
 * here also you added a fake ref and created BLP violation
 * here you misrepresented the source which mentions the subject as Ravana Rajput, which is a separate caste
 * here you added multiple claims based on a tourist guide and a UGC, but neither of them are reliable for that detail. In fact, the tourist guide states that the canon is the largest in Asia, rather than the world. And your "small lake" claim is not even supported by these unacceptable sources.
 * here you added an unreliable UGC, but it neither supports the "Rathore" surname added by you nor the claim that he is the only soldier to get that award.
 * here you added an unsourced claim
 * here you added an unsourced "Rajaputra" claim
 * here you created an unsourced article
 * Edit:

a) Quote from the source: Nagabhata I (r. AD ?739-760?), ... was originally perhaps a feudatory of the Chapas of Bhillamala. ... He gained prominence after the downfall of the Chapa kingdom in the course of resisting the invading forces led by the Arabs who controlled Sindh. Their text: Nagabhata I (739-760),was originally perhaps a feudatory of the Chavdas of Bhillamala He gained prominence after the downfall of the Chavda kingdom in the course of resisting the invading forces led by the Arabs who controlled Sindh.

b) Quote from the source, (page no. 12 of this PDF): Nagabhata I extended his control east and south from Mandor, conquering Malwa as far as Gwalior and the port of Bharuch in Gujarat. He established his capital at Avanti in Malwa, and checked the expansion of the Arabs, who had established themselves in Sind. Their text: Nagabhata Pratihara I (730–756) later extended his control east and south from Mandor, conquering Malwa as far as Gwalior and the port of Bharuch in Gujarat. He established his capital at Avanti in Malwa, and checked the expansion of the Arabs, who had established themselves in Sind.

c) Quote from the source : In the battle of Rajasthan (738 CE) Nagabhatta led a confederacy of Rajput clans to defeat the Muslim Arabs who had till then been pressing on victorious through west Asia and Iran. Their text: In this battle (738 CE) Nagabhata led a confederacy of Pratiharas to defeat the Muslim Arabs who had till then been pressing on victorious through West Asia and Iran.

d) Quote from the source : Nagabhatta I was followed by two weak successors Their text: Nagabhata I was followed by two weak successors


 * Edit:, which they also copied to other articles: &

a) Quote from the source: According to ... Radhanpur Plate Inscription and the Prithviraj Vijaya ..., Vatsaraja even led an expedition against the distant eastern kingdom of Gauda (Bengal), then ruled by the Palas under King Dharamapala. ... As such Gauda ... came into conflict from time to time with the Imperial Pratiharas Their text: According to Radhanpur Plate Inscription and Prithviraj Vijaya, Vatsaraja led an expedition against the distant eastern kingdom of Bengal, ruled by the Palas under Dharamapala. as such palas came into conflict from time to time with the Imperial Pratiharas.

b) Quote from the source: Dharamapala ... was deprived of his two white royal umbrellas, and forced to flee, hotly pursued by the Pratihara forces ... The Prithviraj Vijaya describes Durlabhraj I as having ...The Baroda Inscription of AD 812 also refers to Nagabhata’s victory over the Gauda king Dharamapala. Their text: Dharamapala, was deprived of his two white Royal Umbrellas, and fled, pursued by the Pratihara forces ... The Prithviraj Vijaya describes Durlabhraj I as having ... The Baroda Inscription ( AD 812) also refers to Nagabhata's victory over the Gauda king Dharamapala.

c) Quote from the source: Through vigorous campaigning, Vatsaraja had extended his dominions to include a large part of northern India, ... from the Thar Desert in the west up to the frontiers of Gauda in the east Their text: Through vigorous campaigning, Vatsraj had extended his dominions to include a large part of northern India, from the Thar Desert in the west up to the frontiers of bengal in the east


 * This edit is copy-pasted from here, which in turn copy-pasted it from here on 12 August 2019

So practically every time they added content, they created problems like unreliable sourcing, fake refs, misrepresentations, copyvios, etc. Note that I have discussed those edits which weren't discussed by the other editors in this thread. In short, they should be topic-banned from the caste-related articles as they are here only for caste promotion. Even if they are allowed to edit other areas, someone should watch their edits as they may create copyvio problems again. - NitinMlk (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As pointed by, Ratnahastin is not only doing Copyvio edits and Pov edits on caste articles, but also targetting the editors in the area on being reverted. This report is part of that agressive behaviour towards fellow editors. In past , as i already explained that , and me, all were dragged into such cases. We have a provision of discretionary sanctions in the caste area. I do feel that to avoid further massive disruptive edits to Rajput related articles, there is a need to ban him in this topic area. Tagging  for quick response. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with NitinMlk, Heba Aisha and the other editors that Ratnahastin should be topic banned under WP:NOTHERE. There is another such editor Shinjoya but I will not discuss him in this section.LukeEmily (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Deb (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree that Ratnahastin should be topic banned from caste-related articles. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone who has agreed for the any sanction against me here are directly involved in the content disputes on the said pages. WP:CBAN states that the community may impose a time-limited or indefinite topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction(s) via a 'consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute."

I'm involved in heated content related dispute with Chariotrider Heba aisha, NitinMlk, and LukeEmily on :
 * Talk:Rathore.
 * Talk:Rajput ,
 * Talk:Rajput

They clearly aren't uninvolved editors ,it becomes apparent why they agree for sanction.

Secondly i acknowledge everysingle single issue with my edits as pointed out by nitin and im promising to do better, i have never received any warnings related to close paraphrasing yet thus i was not aware of it i have also reworded all the copy vios on Mihirbhoja,Pratihar page, im still learning to use wikipedia as i joined 2months ago. RatnaHastin talk 14:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , you stated that: "Everyone who has agreed for the any sanction against me here are directly involved in the content disputes". Did you notice that an admin has also agreed regarding the sanctions against you? Can you tell me how is he directly involved in content disputes with you? Also, when did I ever reply to your any comment outside this thread? I was pinged/mentioned at Talk:Rajput. When I noticed that thread, I made a comment about user Shinjoya, along with replying to him a couple of times. But I have never discussed anything with you outside this thread. So your claim that I am involved "in heated content related dispute" with you is not correct. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @: Actually, is right. You are directly engaged in content dispute with him at Talk:Rajput not only in Russia Rajpoot disusssion but also in another thread related to origin section. So, WP:CBAN applies here. You and  should have atleast tagged me when making my reference. Shinjoya (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

, no, I commented a total of four times in those two sections, and all of those comments were related to you, not him. In my first comment, I pointed out a comment by you where you were casting aspersions against an editor. In response to that comment, you pointed out an entirely different section to me with your this reply. Then I mentioned in my next two comment – i.e. this one & this one – that I will first comment on the other section mentioned by you, as I thought it would be better to have a discussion at WP:INB regarding the Raj-era pics. So I commented at the other section, where I discussed a non-HISTRS source, which you introduced in the main space, along with suggesting appropriate changes. But you never replied there.

So my all interactions were with you or in relation to you. And I have already mentioned that here. Finally, I didn't ping you as you aren't discussed here. - NitinMlk (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @: Whether your interactions were directed towards me or is immaterial here. You participated in two recent discussions in which he was pretty much involved. Both the discussion threads were filled with heated arguments from both sides and you supported the stance of  and  and opposed what  was proposing. Shinjoya (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

, this is the second time you have misrepresented my edits. I have already mentioned that I made a total of four comments/replies to those talk page sections. In the first section, I made three edits (see, , & ) and mentioned that I will open a discussion about Raj-era pics at WP:INB to develop an overall consensus, which will help in stopping the day-to-day edit wars over them. I didn't support "the stance of Heba Aisha and LukeEmily". In fact, I didn't support any stance in that section.

My last comment was at the other section pointed out by you. I guess Heba wanted to mention Satish Chandra's statement twice, whereas you and Ratnahastin wanted to remove the repetitive sentence. I checked the relevant three paragraphs of the Origins section and suggested the changes which would also help in removing the repeated sentence. So there again I didn't support "the stance of Heba Aisha and LukeEmily". In fact, the changes suggested by me weren't even mentioned in that thread earlier.

So, please stop misrepresenting my edits. And I will leave it to other observers to judge my those four edits. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Both Ratnahastin and Shinjoya are doing POV edits to glorify Rajput caste by removing images and content they found derogatory. Their edits basically revolves around Rajput related pages and clearly they have some WP:COI issue with the said caste. This statement proves this. The personal opinion that all Rajpoot were ruling class is motivating them to remove images and putting image of forts. The lead of article itself talk about origin from peasant and pastoralist. The topic ban proposal had been opened against Ratnahastin and there is a need for one such against too. As pointed by. Heba Aisha (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * False accusations, as usual. Btw, what was wrong in that comment that you are referring it as POV here? Shinjoya (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG topic ban proposal
From a cursory overview of this discussion, I am inclined to agree with the other participants that should be topic-banned from making edits related to caste — henceforth, I am formalizing it. It's clear that they have serious BLP and POV issues, like this sequence of edits where they repeatedly tried to, including changing a generic death toll to refer specifically to Rajputs, and then undid Ravensfire's attempt to remove undue emphasis on caste in a different section (although the latter broke a reference). Additionally, their conduct at SPI shows that a civility restriction and/or a topic ban from WP:SPI or accusations of sockpuppetry may be needed as well. I suspect that Ratnahastin should be banned from interacting with  as well, but don't have enough evidence yet outside of this ANI. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. A topic ban is appropriate. Deb (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Topic ban of Ratnahastin based on the evidence listed in this thread. — Ched (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: What I get from this thread is that users like, , and  are trying to do a WP:BOOMERANG on  just because "they don't like him". He is involved with them in various content disputes. So, they found it an easy way to get rid of him through a topic ban. On what grounds do ,  and  accuse  of being a "caste warrior" when all these three users have themselves been accused of POV editing by different users? A look at their recent edits in caste related articles like Rajput, Maratha, Khatri, Bhonsle, Rathore and their respective talk pages makes it clear that they work as a team for degradation of various Indian castes through POV editing. These users were engaged with  in various caste articles.

As far as is concerned, I found something wierd in his behaviour. After taking part in some content disputes in Talk:Rajput, he came up with a series of copyvio complaints against  in this thread. He never interacted with regarding the said issues, never discussed any policy and didn't even warn him for the said violations on his talk page. After putting these complaints, he starts demanding a topic ban on him. After that, Ratnahastin humbly admitted his copyvio mistakes on here and clarified that he is an inexperienced editor who wasn't fully aware of wikipidea's copyright policy and from next time, he would take care. But didn't stop there. He came up with a yet another series of reports. On checking these complaints, I found that they were very minute issues which were exaggerated in order to bring admin's attention. Interestingly, most of the incidents mentioned by aren't from caste articles but still, he desperately demands a topic ban on caste articles, which indicates a POV. When no admin paid heed to his nitpicking reports, and  came back again trying to "emphasize" the need for a topic ban. Its the duty of experienced editors like, and  to educate new editors about Wikipedia policies rather than trying to get them banned over content disputes. Users should discuss content disputes on relevant talk pages and if they are not reaching any agreement, they should try WP: Dispute Resolution. We should remember WP:Wikipedia is not a battleground. Imposing topic ban on an inexperienced editor who is ready to improve his editing style will be very discouraging for new editors. So, I oppose the proposed topic ban as its completely uncalled for. Shinjoya (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind there is no cabal, User:Shinjoya. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Shinjoya, this is getting disruptive. You are assuming bad faith and casting aspersions on me. I was totally unfamiliar with Ratnahastin when I was pinged/mentioned in that section. I am neither "trying to do a WP:BOOMERANG on Ratnahastin" nor I "don't like him". I just focused on their content additions, which are very typical of a caste promoter. And I have already explained them above. And unlike others, I didn't mention their content disputes because my concern was their main space content additions. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support Topic ban of Ratnahastin: The evidence clearly supports POV edits. Both he and Shinjoya are WP:NOTHERE in my opinion as they seem to be doing POV one sided edits. Shinjoya himself has been involved in deleting negative content from Rajput and Maratha pages and involved in WP:PUFFERY simply by removing long standing academic content that is sourced. And when editors add it back or revert the deletion, they are "supposed to be degrading the caste". When Cambridge University and Oxford University sources are quoted, they think it is degradation. Both Shinjoya and Ratnahastin are causing a lot of disruption on Rajput related pages as well as others like Maratha and even Shinjoya has been warned by multiple editors. The other pattern I have seen is pushing the negative content from main sections down below on an article (as very few readers read the entire article). For example, if you look at the Maratha article, the Kunbi origin has been completely removed by Shinjoya from the leading section although several scholars mention in the origin section. They generally tend to support each other on these pages and it is no wonder that Shinjoya opposes the ban. This is causing a lot of headache. LukeEmily (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CBAN. As you are involved in content dispute with him in many pages, you are not elligible to vote here.Shinjoya (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, is defending Ratnahastin as both of them are involved in edit warring at Rajput and related pages. It was due to this edit warring that they are coming in conflict with various established editors like, , ,  and me. The latest edit on Rajput made by user is also directed towards glorifying the caste by removing an image. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CBAN. As you are involved in content dispute with him in many pages, you are not elligible to vote here. Shinjoya (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, YOU read that. Nowhere in CBAN does it say that. That is for community bans, which has nothing to do with content disputes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support At this point, a topic ban is appropriate based on the evidence presented above.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support topic and interaction ban - appears to be plenty of evidence to support this as shown above. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 90 day TBAN and interaction ban for both and . I think it's a pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTHERE in both cases. If they spend that time figuring out what kind of conduct we expect of people on wikipedia, they may be able to contribute meaningfully after the TBAN expires.-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank u first of all, but 90 day ban would have sufficed, if they had been making errors due to lack of understanding of policies. This is the issue of Caste system of India. Both, these editors, Shinjoya and Ratnahastin belong to Rajput caste and you will definitely notice same behaviour after 90 days, once the topic ban expires. Infact the user name Ratnahastin, itself if a title used by a Rajput chieftain. This is a WP:COI issue and both these editors will again involve in removing those things from Rajput related article, which they think is insult to community. See the latest edits of both. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , on what basis are you taking my name? Have you seen my edits or are you just doing so because another user who has a content dispute with me wants me banned? Shinjoya (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Self Support and close I am accepting my 90day topic ban from caste pages until I can edit other subjects constructively as stated by Shibnolethink, it will give enough time read up policies and self introspection of my content addition and also will.admins are requested to close thread this now whose outcome is obvious. RatnaHastin talk 23:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not support close as Shinjoya is being discussed too by Shibboleth ink . In my opinion, his edits are more problematic than Ratnahastin's, more POV pushing and more aggressive. And he is NOT a new editor, he has been around since 2017! LukeEmily (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just a passing mention of me can't get me banned. You have to explain how my edits are disruptive citing examples. And remember, I have a lot of points against you too esp. your recent fabrication of sources at Khatri and WP:SYNTHESIS in Bhonsle, Maratha and Rathore. Shinjoya (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Shinjoya, another editor who is completely uninvolved explained why he supports your ban . He gave the reason but you accused him with a rhetorical question "what basis are you taking my name? Have you seen my edits or are you just doing so because another user who has a content dispute with me wants me banned?-User:Shinjoya|Shinjoya". Do you think he would make any statements without looking at your edits or simply because other editors want you banned? As he rightly mentioned, you are WP:NOTHERE. As for my edits, I tried to restore what you had deleted - whereas yours were removal of sourced material that you thought was negative. You can file as many frivolous counter complaints against me as you like. As I have said, the Maratha and Khatri and others need to be fixed as you have deleted sourced content or moved it away from the leading section. I have a number of points against you. And your attitude against other editors is obvious from this thread itself. And yes, I will show how your edits are disruptive and POV pushing.LukeEmily (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I would like to propose permanent topic ban from caste related pages for both Shinjoya and Ratnahastin. The user name Ratnahastin, which is a title used by a Rajput prince indicates that, they are somehow affiliated to the said caste. We need permanent topic ban as their edits can't be neutral to their own caste and if timelimit of topic ban expires, they will do disruptive edits once again. As of now, Shinjoya is involved in RoyalPuffery by editing Rajput article as per his preconceived thoughts regarding the community.He is also deliberately removing content from pages like Rajputization, Rathore, which are also Rajput related pages. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to propose permanent topic ban from caste-related articles on . She is certainly a WP:NOTHERE. She behaves as a gate keeper to caste articles and in most of her edits, she either reverts the work of other editors or restores to her preferred version. She violates WP:OWN very often and in her edits, we find a strong anti-Rajput, anti-Maratha and pro-Kushwaha, pro-Koeri POV which is not in line with our WP:NPOV policy. Shinjoya (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 90-day topic ban for Ratnahastin I don't think an indefinite ban is currently necessary for Ratnahastin as long as the user becomes aware of why this topic ban was imposed and how to edit constructively and not disruptively. I think we should provide some evidence before proposing to ban Shinjoya, as barely any evidence against the user has been presented yet. Also I would like to remind ourselves to remain WP:CALM before making statements proposing to ban editors in passion. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon further evidence, I believe a Permanent Topic Ban for User:Ratnahastin and User:Shinjoya is necessary. It is clear that the caste promotion has gone on for too long and into too many pages for such slaps on the wrists. It is time consuming for editors to constantly battle caste warriors and debate the same facts in content disputes over and over and over. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support 3 months (90 days) topic ban per above. I don't think that there is a need of any interaction ban as of yet because the root of the problem will be solved with the temporary topic ban. Any recurring disruption in the future can be simply reported here and then we can think of other sanctions. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN for 90 days against Ratnahastin. No evidence of significant concern have been presented against . TrangaBellam (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support a Permanent Topic Ban for both Ratnahastin and Shinjoya from caste-related articles broadly construed. I say this as the principal author of the FA India, the sole author of its history section, and co-author of the compact lead of Caste, which was based on a month-long RFC.  They, along with user:White Horserider have been engaging in caste boosterism, some of the worst I have seen in my 15 years on WP.  See my post on Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan on meatpuppetry.  See also here, here, and here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler is engaged with me and User:White Horserider in content dispute here. When he started losing debate, he began harrassing us with comments like this, this and this. Then, he did WP:HOUNDING and reverted my edits here. He also made false accusations on me for making POV edits without any due explanation. @Admins, please take a note of his behaviour and remove his vote from this thread. Shinjoya (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Shinjoya, there is a reason so many experienced editors are making the same statements about your editing style. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am also an experienced editor. I too spoke against three users including you. Why shouldn't my statement be given an equal weightage? Shinjoya (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes,, there is a reason. At the expense of sounding pompous, let me add that I've been editing South Asia-related pages for nearly 15 years. I am the principal author, not just of India and the two articles mentioned above, but also of more controversial and disputed pages: British Raj, Indian rebellion of 1857, History of Pakistan, Company rule in India, Indian mathematics, Kashmir, Indus Valley Civilisation, Partition of India, Subhas Chandra Bose, Death of Subhas Chandra Bose, V. S. Naipaul, ... all of which have remained relatively stable (see [|here]).  In addition, I have written the leads of a large number of even more controversial South Asia related topics including Sanskrit, 2020 Delhi riots, Bhagat Singh, ... all of which also became stable after my edits.  In other words, I have a halfway decent sense of what NPOV is. Why would I become party to a content dispute with editors I have never previously encountered, on articles I have never previously edited (e.g. Prithviraj Chauhan and Rajput, nor have expressed an interest in editing) unless POV abuse was brought to my notice?  In this instance, it was Rajput boosterism recently added in the lead of the Mughal Empire page, a lead I had written many years ago.  I then became aware of the vast spread of these edits (not only by that editor, a new one, user:White Horserider, but also user:Shinjoya and user:Ratnahastin, who were prolifically involved) Why would I end up in content disputes with these editors when I don't with more seasoned, more competent, editors unless I felt it was important for the NPOV status of Wikipedia?  The reason is that it wasn't a "content dispute," only a way of making sure that these editors were promoting a POV, which in this instance also positively correlates in ideology the revisionist histories favored by Hindu chauvinism in India.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , just leave aside caste boosterism for a while. Your last comment is full of self-boosterism. What do you want to prove by citing your 15 year old contributions to Wikipedia articles? As per WP:OWN, no wiki article belongs to a person, be it editor or even admin. Our content dispute discussion had turned out to be a bit aggressive with no editor trying to reach a consensus. In such cases, users are supposed to take to matter to RfC or Dispute Resolution Board. But instead, you made some personal comments to users on their respective talk pages and at last, you found this ANI. So you voted against those who disagreed with your views. Its as simple as that. Shinjoya (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have disagreed with dozens of editors, have engaged dozens of editors, have initiated dozens of RfCs, have gone to several dispute resolutions. My nearly 4000 edits on Talk:India] alone are a record of my engagement on WP, not counting the talk pages of the other pages listed above which together are another 10,000 edits. Please don't make silly accusations.  I have made very few appearances at ANI asking for topic bans, probably no more than half a dozen, if that.  I consider your POV that toxic.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing - User:Slake000 (continued)


There is a user by the name of User:Slake000 who has been messing around in some pages, and also has a poor command of English. His edits began on the Sylheti Nagri (a South Asian script) article, where he removed a lot of information and instead added pretty much the same information worded in a poorer manner with innumerable spelling mistakes. The point I am trying to make is that his edits have not really been contributory, rather they have downgraded the layout, format and structure. Other than myself, it appears that other users have also attempted to undo his edits on the stated article.

Putting that issue to the side, it seems that Slake000 has realised that the habitual contributors to the page are not keen on his edits so he created his own article titled Sylheti script. Realising that this constitutes the Wikipedian policy of CSD-A10, I marked his article for speedy deletion and notified him on his talk page. Instead of responding and notifying me, he continued to abuse Wikipedia by copy and pasting random excerpts from different pages. This includes copying infobox templates from biographical articles such as Sadeq Ali, tables from Syloti Nagri (Unicode block) and publishing illogical lists which make no sense at all.

Now, I understand this noticeboard does not deal with speedy deletions, but this sort of behaviour that is being shown is unacceptable. I urge you to penalise this disruptive user. UserNumber (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide the diffs of the alleged disruption. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 02:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , You've looked at this editor's work, and maybe you have some opinions on their edits on Chittagonian language. I don't yet know if there is validity to this, and to this being an ANI complaint, but I can see that there are some issues with these editors. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In Chittagonian language, it's a mix of everything (CIR, cherrypicking plus synth). The editor inserted big chunks of text without a source, and only provided a ref after I had placed an urs-tag. I have just noticed that the source is rather poor in quality: it's an article in a local academic journal, which cites WP and WP mirrors. I think we have to explain them the do's and dont's again (they've been welcomed) gently and cleary, including copyright policies. –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , User:Glennznl seems to be undoing the reversions to Slake000's edits on Sylheti Nagri and threatening to report people that undo Slake000's edits even though his edits are illogical. UserNumber (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I am unsure why this case was dismissed. The user Slake000 has now been causing major disruption in Wikipedia, and seems to be behaving like a troll. Several other editors have also expressed their concerns regarding him by either leaving a message on his talk page (such as myself and User:Chaipau), or by constantly deleting/redirecting his new articles. Examples of his articles include Sylheti script (issue solved by User:DGG), Sylheti alphabet (User:Uanfala tried to solve this), Sylara, Sylheti Braille, Category:Sylheti writing system among others.

These articles are mostly copies of existing articles but the difference is that his own POV is heavily exerted (perhaps he thinks that we will not notice) and there is too much unsourced OR. He has also redirected his page to Anonymous which really doesn't help his situation. He is not cooperating with any users, and is constantly edit warring. Other than those mentioned above, other users that I have noticed clashing with him (and I tag them if they want to input anything else) are User:SalamAlayka, User:Sphilbrick, and User:Shohure Jagoron. I would be highly grateful if you can look into this again, and perhaps prosecute him for his actions. UserNumber (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This thread is awfully quiet, so I've notified WikiProject Languages for more input. This user is not a member of WikiProject Languages, and the discussion is described using only generic details. Additional evidence would be halpful. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 09:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * More! At Chittagonian language yesterday, they advanced a fringe theory of the language being descended from the Pali language based on non-peer-reviewed sources and The Daily Star, a Bangladeshi newspaper. I confused that one with the infamous Daily Star in the UK, but another user had reverted a similar edit that same day on basis of being unreliable for this statement. Perhaps it was premature to push a formal TBAN proposal below, but it strengthens my case a bit. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks like doled out an RS warning about the user's persistent use of unreliable sources, such as in the above incident. So far there have been no new edits outside of the Sylheti Braille article and its associated AfD. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Pages created by Slake000
Below is a list of pages created by Slake000. Most of this seems to show disruption in the topic area of the Sylheti language. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 19:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Sylheti Braille has been PRODded by me. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Sylheti dialects is a subtopic of Sylheti language, which only should be split out if the main page is too large to accommodate detailed info, or if the subtopic can be expanded into more than a stub. Half of the current version of "Sylheti dialects" is a content fork of Sylheti language; only sections 1) to 3) contain information directly pertaining to the subtopic. Sections 4) to 6) contain redundant, cherry-picked, and quite messy info about the main article Sylheti language. Badly needs a clean-up. –Austronesier (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've gone ahead and just removed those sections as irrelevant or of dubious relevance (and sometimes unsourced!). Any more comments about the page, or diffs about this user's conduct outside of the pages they created? –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * UPDATE 2: On closer inspection, I have concluded that it is indeed WP:SYNTH and have sent it to AfD: Articles for deletion/Bilingual Sylheti Speakers. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * UPDATE 3: Sylheti Braille was deprodded by Slake000, who demanded "further review" despite that it was immediately obvious from search results that the topic fails WP:GNG. So I have opened another AfD, Articles for deletion/Sylheti Braille. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 23:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal
It's clear that this user is not listening, though at the same time nobody else is trying to act. Today they created a POV-fork article over the Sylheti dialect redirect. Given the disruption they've been making in this topic area, I propose that Slake000 be banned from editing about the Bengali–Assamese languages. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * " This includes copying infobox templates from biographical articles such as Sadeq Ali, tables from Syloti Nagri (Unicode block) and publishing illogical lists which make no sense at all.": If this is true then, irrespective of POV edits and poor writing, this seems clearly enough to be vandalism and, if the user received sufficient warning of it, it should have been possible to handle the situation through WP:AIV, no?. Largoplazo (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, here is the page I was devleloping, then he complained, I stopped editing that page, later another user redirected the page. User:UserNumber complained saying "it doesn't make sense". That page discontinued there Sylheti script Or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Sylheti_script.

Thanks, commented by user:Slake000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slake000 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Post by Slake000
Hi, I feel like User:UserNumber is editwaring and roll backing my reference work. And he believes Sylheti is a dialect of Bengali and don't letting us write anything about Sylheti Language.

Wikipedia should stay neutral about any subject and let everyone contribute. Specially Username is causing disruption in Sylheti language page claiming it a Bengali dialect and reverting all referenced edits.

At the same time in Sylheti Nagri page he is keeping only his narratives and nagative narratives from sources to discourage users.

I am just trying to contribute in this subject, which is missing. USERNUMBER hate Sylheti speakers and reporting me several times. Please look at his talk page (topics: van Schendel on Bengalis). Clearly a BENGALI Supremist and denying other communities and languages.

Here is the list of pages I have created with reference: Sylara, Sylheti dialects, Sylheti Braille, List of Books written in Sylara without disrupting any user. This pages need protection from Bangladeshi Nationalists who suppress our community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slake000 (talk • contribs)
 * I moved this from the bottom of ANI to this section.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe that Slake000 actually intended to report . Phil Bridger (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from WP:personal attacks such as USERNUMBER hate Sylheti speakers...Clearly a BENGALI Supremist and denying other communities and languages. Use the talk page of the respective articles if you disagree with User:UserNumber's reverts. –Austronesier (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This is rather humorous reading this as a Sylheti myself. There are other Sylheti editors on Wikipedia who think quite the opposite, and have awarded me several barnstars for my contributions to the History of Sylhet and several articles relating to Sylhet and Sylheti such as List of works written in Sylheti Nagri, Sadeq Ali among others. It is a shame that I get labelled the opposite of what I am for simply trying to suppress POV and maintain Wikipedia's guidelines. UserNumber (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi UserName even in that page List of works written in Sylheti Nagri you have removed all books written in Sylheti language in late 90's and kept onoy the list which you are forcefully relating to Bengali language and Dobhashi dialect. May I know the reason of this? When I am simply making lists of Sylheti languages or writing systems, why are you getting angry or upset on that. If any Wikipedia guidelines or quality issues, you could jus advise me to improve it, instead of removing Sylheti language related almost anything from Wikipedia. Comment by User:Slake000


 * This is to maintain Wikipedia's guidelines of notability. There is a big difference between historic manuscripts and recent self-published books. UserNumber (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Apparent threat at Category talk:Autism pseudoscience
I wanted to bring someone's attention to 's post at Category talk:Autism pseudoscience. It's hard to be sure exactly what this is, as it isn't entirely coherent, but it appears to be some sort of threat directed at Wikipedia. The IP states that "you harbour stuff on your wikimedia servers that is not PWDs online security eligible content" (whatever that is), then after a bit of a rant makes the veiled threat that "this will lead to acts of third parties such as governmental law enforcement crime charges or them having your servers DDoSsed later on", before a bit more ranting where they appear to accuse WP of child abuse and piracy. It's probably just some LTA or an internet rando, but better safe than sorry. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . I have reverted it and warned the user. It seemed to be childish vandalism, from a cursory glance at the rant. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can only assume PWD in this context means "people with disabilities" but if that is the case than the first half of the threat is literally incomprehensible. The latter half of it verges on word salad and is likewise incomprehensible. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If I had to guess, the editor likely is suffering from some type of mental illness. I hope they get the help they need. Reverted their disruptive comment on Talk:Plex (company). --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  01:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not make guesses like that. Elizium23 (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would second Elizium23's comment. I doubt that you would guess as to whether someone had a broken leg or had cancer, so please don't feel qualified to guess about a mental condition. Let's just base our actions on what people do here, rather than guesses about medical conditions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone's broken leg doesn't result in incomprehensible word salad; I don't think there's anything wrong about assuming that the etiology of these comments are the result of a mental illness. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  22:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone can assume what they wish, however it's inappropriate in the vast majority of instances to openly comment on the mental fitness of fellow editors, whether they be registered or anonymous. Even when no offense is meant by the comment, it's likely offense will be taken, so best to avoid such conjecture altogether. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. Hopefully the IP is OK.-- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  23:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Just do what I do, make such a guess and then keep it to myself. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 23:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 82.207.238.0 and 2001:16b8:57d9:4200:8bfb:66ca:dd82:7015 seem to be related to this. All of them are somewhat referring to Rotary International using wordings such as "Reatarion Internationalis", "antirotarian", "Rotary clubs" and "Rotary International". Their comments show a particular interest in German companies, German legislation or events in Germany. Likely the reason for that is their location: all three IPs are based in Saxony, Germany. No idea though what their agenda could be. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

User:BaxçeyêReş
I currently have an SPI case open @Sockpuppet investigations/CuriousGolden, and I suspect BaxçeyêReş to be a sock. In our discussion though at the SPI case, it seems the editor is not handling the matter well as the editor has just made a personal attack against me via "please find some critical thinking skills and basic knowledge about non-Americanocentric current affairs.". Jerm (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Jerm
I am currently being accused by Jerm, an established user on this platform, in an SPI case (see above); Jerm seems convinced that I am the sockpuppet of CuriousGolden, which makes little sense if one contemplates the investigation since CuriousGolden oftentimes had a pro-Azerbaijani bias, while I have been accused of serving the interests of the Armenian and Kurdish peoples. While I patiently attempted to explain while this baseless accusation makes no sense, Jerm used impolite language and further claimed that I "just gave [my]self away". After I tried anew to think of analogies to explain why a user wouldn't make a sockpuppet to revert the master's edits, Jerm didn't consider or respond to a single one of my arguments and instead opted for a more bellicose, inflammatory way of communication; in Jerm's words, "Anything you say doesn't matter". This is a wondrous example of an established Wikipedian belittling and cyberbullying a new user and their contributions. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Full sentence: "Anything you say doesn't matter. Determining if your IPs/network are similar to that of CuriousGolden is all that matters." which was in response to this:

"Let present to you a more simple analogy so that you can understand: If Donald Trump was banned and Joe Biden joined Wikipedia right thereafter, and if Joe Biden reversed all of Donald Trump's contributions, would you accuse Joe Biden of sockpuppetry as well because the timing seems "suspicious" to you? You seemingly have still not understood. My presence on here is the antithesis to the things CuriousGolden—and many of his like-minded peers—has done. But good luck in your "noble quest to eradicate Wikipedia of all bad things" regardless, I guess. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)"

The SPI case is linked above in my report. The discussion isn't large. Jerm (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My request for you to "think critically" was after explaining to you half a dozen times that a user reverting their own edits would be senseless and improbable. You seem to want to drag this discussion on for even longer, but I won't let myself be bullied and denigrated anymore. This is it from my end. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I already referenced that in my report above and it wasn't just "think critically" only. Jerm (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Potentially biased editor
I have an current dispute with an editor who I strongly believe has a bias against articles involving black subjects and promotes systematic racism through his actions. I have tried to make arguments why these articles he proposed to delete are notable but the editor is not able to communicate his reasons for deletion effectively, brushed me off and is continuously changing his reasoning for deletion. In addition, two of the articles were proposed for deletion or flagged within one minute of each other and I am not sure how someone can review properly sourced and written articles this fast. I have called out his behavior and he started having his friends try to silence me and now he is also threatening to report me to this board unless I apologize to him and take back all accusations. It is very common for individuals to be in denial when called out for being racist or when showing unconscious biases.

I am fairly new to wiki and I am interested to bring diversity, equity and inclusion of black creatives and academics to this platform and then find these kind of editors trying to block accomplished and notable black individuals. It is really disheartening but I don’t believe threats or racism should have a place on this platform so it would be good to resolve this dispute with your oversight if this forum is able to provide a fair and non bias environment.

Please advise on next steps. Thank you Soupmaker (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker


 * I don't see any posted evidence, or the name of the person you are talking about. I also don't see that you have notified the person as is required when discussing them here. It is not really reasonable for us to react to this because without being able to investigate the edits ourselves we can't really make a judgment. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 06:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) Okay I am seeing what you are probably talking about here: Articles for deletion/Emanuel Admassu. I think you had better support your accusations as they are serious accusations. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 06:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the next step if you want an administrator to intervene (which is the purpose of this page) is for you to identify the editor about whom you are speaking, and for you to notify that editor that you have submitted a request here, which is required. See the notice near the top of the page and a suggested template you can use to provide that notice. If you are looking for advice rather than intervention, and would prefer they not be notified at this stage, the WP:TEAHOUSE is probably a better place to inquire for general advice on dealing with this sort of issue. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 06:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The handle of the editor in question is Onel5969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupmaker (talk • contribs) 06:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Note I have given User:Soupmaker a final warning about personal attacks for saying "he reality is that this editor has a clear racial bias and we need to call out racism when we see it" when referring to User:Onel5969. I have also notified User:Onel5969 of this discussion. Short of very clear evidence that these accusations are true I will be treating them as actionable personal attacks going forward. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 06:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. But can you explain to me how this editor is able to review two articles within one minute? We are talking about the articles for Sean Canty and Emanuel Admassu. Please check the time when both were submitted for AfD.Soupmaker (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Soupmaker


 * This editor has made over 470,000 contributions to Wikipedia over 11 years without ever being blocked. They are good at what they do, that is how.


 * You have been asked to provide evidence. The fact that they have nominated a couple of articles for deletion is not enough. I suggest you show a concrete example of what you are talking about or withdraw these accusations. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 06:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The editor is able to rapidly review articles concerning academic subjects for notability because they are intimately familiar with the criteria set forth at WP:NACADEMIC, and have participated in many discussions concerning those criteria. You will need to provide evidence that the editor is not applying those criteria equally to academics of all races, or you will need to swiftly withdraw your accusations of racism. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 06:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that AFAICT there was no nominating of two articles for deletion anyway, and definitely not of those two articles. One was PRODed then sent to AFD. One was simply tagged with a notability concerns tag. The timing is also off as there was 56 minutes between the last edit and the PROD+notability tag. There was over 9.5 hours between the last edit and the AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - the editor who filed this did so after I requested that they apologize for their personal attacks and retract them, or I would be forced to bring the matter here. Initially, I attempted to ignore their behavior, they continued, another editor pointed it out to them, they continued. Finally I asked for an apology at the AfD, instead they escalated their behavior. I think their actions speak for themselves. In the end I hope these comments are not only redacted, (several of which already have), but revdel'd as well. I won't comment on what action should be taken on the editor, I'll leave that up to the admins.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Having examined 's actions in the volunteer role of WP:New Page Patroller in respect of the article Emanuel Admassu which has been repeatedly and disruptively pushed into mainspace by @ following draftications I find onel5969's actions of PRODing and then AfD for community review totally appropriate. Under these circumstances checking Soupmaker other actions is totally expected and the tagging of the article Sean Canty for notability concerns is reasonable, proportionate and expected. I find allegations against onel5969 presented here at best unfounded and lacking competency.  I suggest Soupmaker either presents some specific examples of the allegations or presented an owned apology and undertakes to improve behaviour.  Having skimmed over 1000 of onel5969's curation log I see a commendable spread of diversity with no outstanding bias obvious to me. I'm unclear if revdel's are appropriate but if not done and this case unproven (unfounded) then the personal attacks remaining in discussions are countered by the closer or an oversighter in those discussions. Thankyou.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment this is a non-issue, and should probably be closed. To echo HighInBC's comment above: Onel is good at what they do. I have never seen a hint of any kind of problem in their AFC or AFD work. They are a credit to the encyclopedia. I think the core of the issue here is that Soupmaker, who I have helped in the past, doesn't have the same high level understanding of our notability rules that more experienced editors (like Onel) have. They've come to my talk page multiple times to ask about whether one architect or another was notable. That's perfectly fine, and I am happy to help, but it reflects inexperience with our notability standards-- which, let's face it, take some time to learn. Anyway, this report should be closed a there is nothing to complain about.--- Possibly (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it should not be closed while Soupmaker remains unrepentant and unblocked for their personal attacks. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While I have given the user a warning, I have no objection if another admin feels this is already actionable. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 22:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in forcing Soupmaker to disavow the remarks they've previously made. I doubt that this will actually cause Soupmaker to change their beliefs on the subject. A forced apology isn't an apology at all and there'd be no real use to it.Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sanctions are not intended to change beliefs. They are intended to promote restraint and constrain misbehavior, in this case violations of three prime Wikipedia tenets: NPA, civility, and AGF. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 00:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Apologies need to be sincere rather than forced, but there is a very real use to one: it might help convince us that Soupmaker will stop this misbehavior voluntarily and save us having to block them to prevent it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also like to see some sort response from  here, with either a retraction of their accusations or compelling evidence of their truth. Paul August &#9742; 22:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is essential support is shown for NPP's. In my opinion  has raised the ANI and is expected to respond where necessary at intervals of not more than 48h (the fact it has WP:BOOMERANGed on them is irrelevant).  Depending on the nature of that response there may or may not be sanctions. If there is no response I would suggest Soupmaker is indef suspended pending a suitable appeal when they would be welcomed back, and I do think they could be a valuable contributor.  If no suitable response/action is forthcoming I will suggest to Onel they consider recuse from NPP work for a month or two or three to demonstrate the impact of not taking sanctions .... Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding why Onel should "recuse from NPP work for a month or two or three to demonstrate the impact of not taking sanctions". Are you suggesting that Onel do so as a protest against action not being taken against Soupmaker? Onel certainly has the right to do this if they feel it's appropriate or needed, but I'm wondering if the purpose of your suggestion is as unclear to others as it is or was initially to me, probably because of the multiple invocations of the term "response" in your comment, each with different meanings. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 00:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @: I suggest Onel considers that option if he feels insufficiently supported, though it is unlikely Onel was trained at Wallisdown like I was so the balance of probabilities is that they would not take that action. But given Onel's requesting revdel's seems like they feel well scummered and could walk if nothing done like you seem to suggest. I am inclined to say little more on the matter, we really need ANI raiser Soupmaker to follow through here. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I, for one, appreciate Onel's hard work, dedication and competent new-page patrolling. I can understand feeling discouraged and wanting to take a wikibreak after getting undeservedly abused by other editors (it happens to me sometimes, and I imagine to anyone else active in the project) but I hope that doesn't happen here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And I add my support for OneI's work. I work in the same area, and he's a thoroughly reliable patroller. I see no reason why he should be urged to recuse fro mNPP--they've done nothing wrong, and the best protest against unjustified accusations is going ahead knowing they have the support of the community. But workers are entitled to take a vacation, even volunteer workers.. False charges of prejudice are sometimes the last resort of someone trying to defend against well-merited deletions.  Carrying it as far as this, and making it against an editor of unblemished reputation--both seem rather foolhardy, and such actions are sometimes characteristic of UPEs who realize they are not going to get paid for their work.   DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

PBE thread decision time
It is now over 48 hours, that is since 06:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC), since last made a contribution to this thread, which was to request the community to explain some things to him, or any contribution at all to the English WikiPedia. I, and I hope we all, hope Soupmaker is well and we all know Real Life stuff happens outside WikiPedia and I have seen the community is always willing to be open to any reasonable excuse RL stuff has intervened (any we need only the briefest mention that has happened and we don't need to know any specific details whatsoever). But there is also a proportion of cases where people stay away from ANI discussion simply to avoid sanctions and immediately continue with repeat low-level behaviour when the ANI is closed. I am sure we very much want Soupmaker contributing to Wikipedia as his perspectives are important, though there needs to be an appreciation of WP:NPA and an undertaking not to disrupt. The one option is a significantly long block 3/6 months or indef. to ensure Soupmaker needs to appeal future troublesome behavior will cease; (and the admins should be really very open to unblocking if reasonable appeal is made that future troublesome behaviour will cease) - this sends a strong precedent to consequences of abuse of NPP patrollers. The other option is to hope Soupmaker has reflected on their behaviour and that further trouble will result in an immediate block ... in an ideal world and if it works well this can be the best ... but it can but at BOOMERANG risk any person who might bring Soupmaker for what others see as too trivial an offence. I am aware there is an ongoing AfD with regards to a Soupmaker article and other XfDs/redirects might follow on that outcome. On reflection I am minded and somewhat of the hope an admin finds Soupmaker's behaviour actionable but with being very open to any reasonable appeal. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the USA, which is where I would guess Soupmaker is located, it was a long weekend. Friday was first official federal holiday for Juneteenth, which was on Saturday June 19th. --- Possibly &#9742; 03:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'd suggest holding to 00:01 23 June 2021 (UTC).  If  sees this and wants a even little more time before making a full response they since have to ask for a small extension of a couple on days.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Owouwuowouwuowo


The Old Alton Bridge ‎article is indefinitely semi-protected to prevent certain people adding in that the bridge has an alternate name referring to people on Youtube. The talk page and archive is full of rejected edit requests to add this garbage. Owouwuowouwuowo is edit warring to include it, please block this editor (at least from editing that article). Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * has indefinitely partially blocked the reported user from the article for persistent additions of unsourced content. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

An accusation too far: PA from Fatlip producer
I'm in a slow-motion edit war with another user, and I'd appreciate one or more admins to take a look at our behavior.

At the article Fatlip, a user has been trying since April to add some information regarding the exciting news that Fatlip, a rapper, is rumored to be collaborating with some former colleagues (producers, rappers, whatever). The still nonexistent product is various named ''Sccit & Doggy Present.. Torpor: Tha Wake Up or Still Sleepin’'', depending on the edit/source. The claim was supported at first by one (IMO) unreliable source, then by a different (IMO) unreliable source.

My first reverts were on the basis of unreliable sourcing, plus the fact that the purported album isn't expected before 2022 (no wonder no RS's have written about it). My 1st, my 2nd, my 3rd reversion. I then made a few other edits, touching on table clean-up, MoS (straight quotes, commas) and tagging missing citations.

I next received a private e-mail from somebody called TorporProductions, who turns out to be User:TorporProductions and who claims in their mail that, "I am the producer of the new album". At the same time they reverted all of my edits back to their last exciting insertion.

My response was to post their mail on their talk page, with a lengthy explanation of why I reverted the additions (my 3 edit summaries apparently didn't suffice) as well as the problem with COI editing and how they could move forward.

I never received a response there, and the one reversion under TorporProductions is their only activity with that account (apart from e-mailing me). Since then, various IP addresses have reinstated their version, and I've reverted to "mine", pointing to the lengthy explanations on the TorporProductions talk page.

Their last reversion took a nasty turn which is well over the line for me. The edit summary reads, "John is deleting rightfully posted information the same way cops murder innocent black civilians, under the guise of “policing” wikipedia. He’s clearly doing too much." This offends me deeply and I consider it a personal attack.

I've made essentially the same edit 6 times since 27 May; they've reverted 7 times, but using 6 different accounts (I do not mean to suggest they are deliberately IP hopping.) The accounts involved are listed below, as extracted from the Fatlip revision history. All but two of the IPs resolve to Los Angeles (noted below).


 * 2600:1700:bbd0:7f80:c3a:e0d4:9fef:f26b latest
 * 2600:1700:bbd0:7f80:f865:6fb6:f3c9:4012
 * 2600:1700:bbd0:7f80:89e8:a2d9:85c5:6a38
 * TorporProductions
 * 2600:1012:b0e1:2854:2c56:2373:e20a:a4a4 – New York, NY
 * 2600:1700:bbd0:7f80:f52f:d7de:cc16:8f8d
 * 2600:1700:bbd0:7f80:995b:744f:4561:a260
 * 107.209.197.27 – Irvine, CA
 * 2600:1700:bbd0:7f80:b904:64a8:cddb:deea oldest

Neither of us has broken 3RR, but I still assume what we've been doing is edit warring. I'm grateful for any guidance or appropriate admonishments about my behavior. Perhaps somebody besides me could try to interact with the other user, somehow, particularly as regards the issues of NPA and COI. PP at Fatlip might be cool, at least for slowing down the IP variants, but naturally, it's currently at the WRONGVERSION. Thanks, &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have blocked that IP for making an egregious personal attack. That does not just cross the line, it long jumps over it. I have not looked into the edit warring. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 03:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * While the block against the IP is for 1 week, I am considering the block against the user behind that edit to be indefinite and have told them as much. If they come back please drop a note on my talk page. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 03:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do, many thanks. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it's clearly changing within the /64 range, I've blocked the /64 too. It's usually safe to do that, and for a pretty long time, so I've made it a month. Reviewing their other edits, it's clear that the same person's been editing from that range for a while now, without the egregiously obnoxious edit summaries.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am still a bit unconfident in myself when it comes to judging the scale of ipv6 range blocks. So many numbers! In my day IPs had 4 bytes! <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 03:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IPv6 is designed so that individual residential customers can be assigned a static /64 range by ISPs, and many auto-assignment mechanisms by design refuse to accept smaller ranges (I believe to try to prevent ISPs from giving out smaller ranges). Further, many IPv6 privacy extensions enabled by default by most popular OSes will automatically rotate IPs within a /64 range, which can look like deliberate IP-hopping if you don't know that OSes do this.  Therefore, I always block a /64 when I need to block an IPv6 address as the individual address will likely be automatically rotated off by the OS within an hour.  An IPv6 /64 is the closest analog we have to a single IPv4 address when it comes to residential customers. --Chris (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Excellent information, thank you. The More You Know! <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 04:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

User:RVE865Wiki: Repeated disruptive behaviour by editor related to disambiguation pages
Editor has been making repeated changes (see for example this one – and looking at the contribs page, they are all in a similar vein, and have largely been reverted by other editors) related to disambiguation pages, against guidance. This has been mentioned by others on their talk page, together with the possible consequences of disruptive patterns of editing, but they have not responded or acknowledged these messages. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted similar edits and attempted to engage in discussion. I did receive a response at User talk:Certes.  Certes (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , This is very puzzling. If I'm following, the edit made produces output that renders identically. It appears that the replaced template with the content the template would generate. Of course, while the output looks identical at the moment, the point of using the template is the possibility that the community might decide the wording should be different, and the use of the template means it could be fixed once and automatically changed everywhere, so the current identical rendering misses the concept of using the template. I look at the response to Certes, and it appears that the editor is literally objecting to the use of the word "disambiguation". This is also a potential ownership issue. While many of us might casually talk about our own edits, we all understand that once we click publish they no longer belong to us we have licensed them and they are free to be modified by others. I haven't yet figured out whether it's a general objection to anyone editing any of their edits or the more specific use of the word "disambiguation". The non-sympathetic response is "get over it". A somewhat more sympathetic response might be to drill down and find out whether it literally is that word that bothers them and what it is about the word that troubles them. Disambiguation is a word that almost never pops up outside Wikipedia but it's very, very common here.  S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems this editor has a very poor understanding of standard practice here, and what is more of a problem, seems unwilling to learn, as indicated by their failure to engage constructively with editors who have reverted these edits and tried to explain why they were inappropriate. The sole comment that I see in which they engage (with Certes, as mentioned above) is very cryptic. Regardless of the reason, this editor's confused judgement and poor communication skills would lead me to think they are not competent to contribute, at least not at present. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The output in that diff does indeed render identically - but this isn't a matter of aesthetics, that edit introduced a WP:INTDAB error. User:DPL bot finds and reports them; I may fix 5-10 of those a day. The majority are inadvertent; but ones like this where an editor has deliberately introduced such an error when the previous syntax was correct are annoying, to put it mildly. Narky Blert (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The guideline is so clear that we even approved a bot to fix simple cases like . Certes (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see similarities to the recent case of : persistently bypassing redirects when inappropriate, and now altering the ANI report to their preferred format ( vs ). Certes (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

User:KnowledgeHunter9090 engaging in disruptive poorly-sourced edits/edit warring at Indigenous Aryanism
User:KnowledgeHunter9090 is currently edit warring at Indigenous Aryanism. They added a large non-WP:RS section and were reverted by User:Austronesier (who explained the problem with their edit) whom they (KnowledgeHunter909) then reverted without explanation. I reverted them with further explanations and was reverted (also without explanation). This then happened one more time (after I have again tried to explain the issues and asked them not to edit war). I then posted a warning on their Talk page which led to a short discussion, and they did finally begin to engage, though they seem not to understand the issues I tried to explain relating to WP:RS, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and mainstream sources (and they kept insisting on posting on their and my personal Talk pages despite being told that the article's Talk page was the place for discussions). Then, instead of starting a topic open the article's Talk page (as I expected them to do and they led one to believe they intended) they simply again reverted me and reinstated their preferred (and disputed) edit into the article, again without explanation. The disputed edit was reverted by User:TrangaBellam (who asked them to use the talk page) and they/KnowledgeHunter909 then restored it yet again (thus continuing to edit war).

They then posted on my personal Talk page again (after repeatedly asked not to)

I then filed a report here, and soon after that, KnowledgeHunter9090 simply deleted my report from this board (see here: []. And so I filed this one again here.

They seem to be showing a disregard for wikipedia policies and have seemingly refused to WP:LISTEN. Despite attempts to explain the problems with their edits to them, they do not seem to have engaged with the issues raised and instead persist in accusing me of being one-sided and/or politically biased. I hope something can be done. Here is the article's edit history for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryanism&action=history Here is their Talk page (where a brief discussion took place): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KnowledgeHunter9090 And my Talk page (where they repeatedly posted after being asked to use the article's Talk page instead): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skllagyook#Biased_and_one_-sided. Any attention is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: KnowledgeHunter9090 has continued to edit war since my last edit to this page/topic, again, reverting two additional editors and reinstating their disputed edits two additional times (as before, without explanation).(The edit history of the article, linked above, of course, shows this). KnowledgeHunter9090's problematic/disputed edit has been reverted by five editors so far (including myself) and they have (as of now) repeatedly reinstated it a total of at least six times. Skllagyook (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have moved the following comments from where they were misplaced at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. I have just nested them in this section since they seem to have been left in response to this section being opened.


 * GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have placed a 24-hour edit warring block on the user, who was continuing the edit war after warnings and this report being opened. However looking at their past editing history, which shows a complete lack of knowledge for our NPOV policies and sourcing requirements at Padmasali (caste), I'm inclined to make this an indefinite block. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I (for my part) would not object to an indefinite block for them. They seemed unable (or unwilling) to listen as I tried to explain policies to them (and continued to repeat themselves/seemed not to be listening - and later claimed they they had not been the one edit warring despite having made six reverts reinstating the same disputed material against five editors). Skllagyook (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just going to point out the user in question has tried to delete this report twice . — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. The insularity of the user is quite extreme. Any attempt to reason with them would be quite pointless. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One doesn't have a second chance to make another first impression, and this new user left a remarkable first impression. People may initially may have wrong ideas about sources and weight (WP:false balance), but this editor right away started calling other editors who politely explain WP policies as "rude and promoting vandalism", picking up internal jargon ("edit war") to just to fire back, and deleting reports about themselves. Everyone should get a chance to prove that they can improve their behavior, but in this case, I agree with an indef block. The second chance then takes the shape of an unblock request. To provide this chance in mainspace editing would create unnecessary strain on the community. –Austronesier (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Block Evasion again
7 days ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4003:ED00:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for Block Evasion of User:Telvin21, now 7 days later that same person that created User:Tevin21 is using Multiple Ip's to Vandalize these articles - Hell in a Cell (2021) and WWE Hell in a Cell. Warnings are useless because the same person that created User:Tevin21 appears to ignore all warnings and continues to add false information to these Articles - Hell in a Cell (2021) and WWE Hell in a Cell, please see these edits- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_(2021)&oldid=1029805775 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_Hell_in_a_Cell&oldid=1029805887. As a result I had to revert the ip's edits 5 times on both Articles (Hell in a Cell 2021) and WWE Hell in a Cell. Ip's Here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4021:E900:3989:A435:CA66:7B74, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4021:E900:A0D5:DB12:6337:1862 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8800:4021:E900:58BF:FE40:E178:BED9. these three ip's are still block evasion of User:Tevin21 Chip3004 (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked, but you should use WP:SPI to report sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Imagine if all this editorial and emotional energy was spent on real encyclopedic topics, not scripted mass-entertainment events. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 123
Would an uninvolved administrator please take a look at the various allegations of improper behaviour (canvassing, personal attacks, gaslighting) made at Articles for deletion/London Buses route 123. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of an abundance of caution given the canvassing allegations, I've notified every participant at the AfD of this discussion although the allegations are all made by a single editor and concern only me and two others. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noting for the record that while I have participated in previous London Buses AfDs, I found them and this one via the main AfD list, which I browse semi-regularly. firefly  ( t · c ) 06:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment My concern at this AfD was that this represents a WP:CANVASS violation, since a partisan group of users have been pinged into an AfD discussion. All users pinged !voted the same way in a AfD discussion on a very similar topic. While I assume this was probably unintentional, the way the canvassed users failed to recuse themselves from the discussion to avoid any risk of WP:VOTESTACKING, instead choosing to double down and dig in against me claiming I am making "false accusations" for merely pointing it out and to stop whingeing (sic) is concerning. Especially as one of the users is an admin and should be able to interpret WP:CANVAS correctly. Notifying a partisan group of editors to a discussion fails Canvassing. Polyamorph (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Purely as a point of information (although not really being on either side of the debate), "whingeing" is a spelling accepted as standard by, for example, the Collins Online Dictionary ("If you say that someone is whingeing, you mean that they are complaining in an annoying way about something unimportant.") I'm assuming that your "(sic)" indicates thinking otherwise, and apologise for wasting your time if this was not the case. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I thought it should be spelt "whinging" and so thought it was a typo, but I can see now it can be spelt eitherway (spelling/grammar is not my strength!) Polyamorph (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We do still need that uninvolved view because the allegations are continuing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * univolved nac: From my POV no canvassing occurred everyone from a related afd was pinged who coincidentally all voted the same way it is impossible to ping an opposition that wasn't expressed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Can you provide diffs for personal attacks and gaslighting? As for canvassing, if all pinged editors were the ones who participated in the prior similar discussion, and nobody was omitted then it seems fine. If only one side was pinged then it would be bad. PS. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Except WP:CANVAS explicitly states In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an RFC, AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. (Note this was not reconsideration of a debate but a very similar debate about a very similar article). Also Canvassing explicitly states notifying a partisan audience is inappropriate. So I cannot see how you reconcile that. Surely if there is no opposition, the right thing to do would be to ping editors from a different AfD or notify editors at a wikiproject etc. Or simply not ping anyone! Nowhere does it say on WP:CANVAS does it say it is OK to notify users from a partisan group simply because no other opinion is expressed - why choose to select users from that discussion when opposing views have been expressed in other discussions?   Polyamorph (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This little exchange relates to the PA and gaslighting. My gaslighting comment refers to being told that someone who was pinged into the conversation to say nothing apart from telling me to stop whingeing somehow found the discussion by their own volition. But none of this warranted ANI. Regarding the "continuing allegations" they are referring to this. Note, the user who pinged participants from the previous AfD has acknowledged it could be interpreted both ways. Any further discussion on the matter is an exercise in frivolous pedantry, and it is really up to the uninvolved closing admin to comment on whether canvassing has any bearing on the discussion! Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no gaslighting just editors pointing out that no canvassing occuring and only you disagreeing with them, also telling someone to stop whingeing isn't really a personal attack, it may be considered uncivil but it is not a personal attack. 07:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalizard101 (talk • contribs)
 * Where am I complaining it was a PA? I did not bring it to ANI! So I don't consider it serious. But I've explained the gas lighting refers to a user who was pinged into the discussion to make an uncivil commment and then being told they arrived there not because they were pinged. But again, not something I consider important enough to be here at ANI. Polyamorph (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just realised I pinged you accidently, which explains the confusion. My ping was meant for (fixed now). Talk about incompetence! Sorry about that. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The tempers did get heated, but personally, I'd suggest WP:TROUTing people involved in it, then having them dring a cup of WP:Cup of tea and shake hands. There is nothing major going on there and it's best to de-scalate ASAP. Before things really get serious and admin intervention is needed. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I already made my peace with the user and was contemplating an apology on their talk page. I'd rather not have a trout, but a cup of tea would be nice! Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot provide diffs because I do not believe they occurred - I posted here because accusations of those behaviours were being made (diffs of the accusations available on request) and felt that it was better to get outside input as the editor making the accusations showed no apparent interest in doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I request this discussion be closed, since everyone seems to agree there is no requirement for administrator intervention. I went ahead with my apology. Polyamorph (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, (I replied on my talk page also), agreed and regarding canvassing I'm happy to drop this if others are too. I do find the guidelines a bit confusing, but I will be more careful and considerate in the future in deletion discussions. NemesisAT (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I hatted the subthreads for focus. There's probably nothing needing admin attention here IMO, and the issue appears to be resolved amicably. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t see any serious canvassing so that part can probably be resolved. A little concerned with the accusations of gas lighting. That is a serious complaint and should not be used lightly. Questioning a ping is not gas lighting and I see nothing there that even resembles gas lighting. Making such an accusations without evidence has a chilling effect. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Aircorn, the comment about gaslighting was made in the AfD discussion by the editor complaining about pings and has probably been discussed sufficiently above. TSventon (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes the comment was made, but that doesn't make it true. I wish that people would stop using the term "gaslighting", because it seems to have come to mean something that someone disagrees with rather than anything more specific. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Identified pattern of vandalism by User:Tatewftrp
I just noticed a colossal mess caused by User:Tatewftrp in September 2019 that will probably take over 100 hours to fix. An administrator needs to gets involved by permanently blocking the user and roll back all affected articles back to the last good versions before September 2019.

If you look at that user's edits, they started off by posting non-notable assertions that this or that company has a subsidiary in this or that tax haven. They then escalated to posting frivolous assertions that a company is incorporated in X jurisdiction, where X is actually the home of their principal place of business (and which is obvious from the face of the SEC filings to which they tend to cite). For example, I just caught this user's vandalism to the article on Chevron Corporation, which is incorporated in Delaware but whose principal place of business is in California. The user posted a false assertion that Chevron is incorporated in California.

It also looks like Wikipedia needs to permanently protect all articles covering all current members of the Fortune 500 from this type of vandalism. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please remember to notify users. I've done this for you. NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124; My hunts ) 22:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Hsjalizs
From the moment they joined the project, this editor has done nothing but blindly revert my edits on Fez (hat). My explanation with regard to their editorializing to give undue weight to a non specialist was simply ignored and so were my repeated attempts as getting them to explain why they keep adding a named ref that failed verification, introducing WP:OR, adding a cherry picked quote to a source that is used to support different claims and removing an inline tag. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no take on the substance of the question, but I will note that Hsjalizs's edit summaries show a surprisingly strong grasp of Wikijargon for a user who just joined and has only around 20 edits. Not many editors have a revert as their first edit, with the edit summary "RV OR", for example. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

M. BITTON keeps on removing academic sources and pushing his POV and does OR. The reference clearly states that the Fez does not originate in Greece according to historian Erkek Ekinci. Therefore, the removal of this academic statement shows immense bias. M. Bitton clearly comes from a point of view of Orientalist thinkers who can't stand contrary academic perspectives. Rather than accept the fact that a historian disputes the claim of an Ancient Greek origin he does not provide a reason for its removal but focuses on another point on the source which states that Svliya Celebi of the 17th century "wrote about" Algerians wearing the Fez. He does OR inventing the idea that Evliya Celebi never went to Algeria but in reality that does not matter as Erkek Ekinci referred to it in the source and a 17th century historian describing something even if he hasn't been there is still reason to keep it as the issue is not with him being there rather he described it and that is sufficient. M. BITTONS OR cannot be taken seriously. I hope Wikipedia let's go of this Western supremacist bias and allows for scholars like Erkek Ekinci's voice to be heard. Hsjalizs (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * None of what Hsjalizs says explains why they ignored my explanation with regard to their editorializing to give undue weight to a non specialist or why they keep adding a named ref that failed verification, introducing WP:OR, adding a cherry picked quote to a source that is used to support different claims and removing an inline tag while refusing to answer any of the questions that I asked them.
 * Another interesting fact about Hsjalizs's first edit that's also worth mentioning: reverting OR usually entails the removal of some content, but in their case, they added WP:OR (that they falsely attributed to a source), and thus violated the very policy that they cited in their edit summary. When I pointed out that to them and asked to justify it, they ignored my question. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * please refrain from such one sided edits. In reality the Daily Sabah is a legitimate source and Erkek Ekinci is a legitimate scholar. He even has his own Wikipedia page. Please stop such cherrypicking. Why do you want to silence Erkek Ekinci's legitimate and scholarly article that states the Fez hat cannot have a Greek origin and that it was wrote about by Evliya Celebi of the 17th century. Hsjalizs (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They just proved my point. I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not have a Wikipedia page on Erkek Ekinci. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They're referring to Ekrem Buğra Ekinci. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

After I left a detailed comment on the talk page asking them to explain their edit, they reverted my edit (again) and left this tangential answer (the ultimate proof that they have no intention in answering any of the questions and all they're interested in is edit warring). since you're the last admin who visited this page, would you mind having a look at this case? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not available to look into the behavioral concerns in detail at the moment, but I have briefly protected the page to put an end to the ongoing edit war. you need to come to a solid consensus before implementing the change to the page. Making an argument and then reverting to your preferred revision, only to have the other person respond and revert to theirs, is not consensus building. If you need help with the content dispute, please avail yourself of dispute resolution options like WP:RSN, WP:3O, or WP:RFC. If any admin wishes to impose any sanctions, etc., please be my guest; otherwise I will try to return to this later when I have more time. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response and for protecting the article. I totally agree with you and I tried my best to reason with them, but it's impossible and particularly frustrating to discuss anything with an editor who keeps coming back with the same comment regardless of your explanations and how many questions you asked them. If you look at my last attempt at getting them to explain their edit, you'll notice that I even arranged the questions one per line to make sure they don't miss them, yet, that didn't change a thing. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have returned to this, and have decided to leave it with just the protection for now. However, I would strongly encourage M.Bitton or Hsjalizs to begin a discussion (WP:RSP, WP:3O, or WP:RFC are good options) to get outside input on the content dispute. Continuance of the edit war after page protection expires will most likely result in a block—you need to come to consensus first, then update the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Opakoooooo
Got a new editor using their talk page for promotional content. I've already tried removing the content, but the editor keeps restoring it. Basically, Opakoooooo is not here to contribute to Wikipedia. Jerm (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an entirely accurate assessment, . I have indefinitely blocked this editor on that basis. This person is free to blog and conspiracy theorize elsewhere, but not on this encyclopedia. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

tendentious edit warring
mentioned user edit-warring with multiple editors on Van, Turkey article despite warning not to. Edits range between misguided to outright POV-pushing to genocide justication in the talk page. I've lost count of the reverts too. User seems WP:NOTHERE to me, with clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, appropriate administrative action needed. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Said user also feels confortable making rude ethnic-based remarks and generalisations:
 * An edit summary saying:We need some Greeks to join in the fun. Armenians eat too much delicious pastirma. LOL
 * They were exiled to Lebanon. Plenty of radical Armenians exist there. 21:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a little while. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Their edit summaries and other stuff on talk pages show WP:BATTLEGROUND. Plus they remind me of this LTA case Long-term abuse/KızılBörü1071 and some other sockmasters with similar nationalistic POV. I suggest indef block and checkuser.  Wario-Man  talk 08:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, older contrb. Show Armenian genocide denial language as well. WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and WP:NAZI mindset make a good recipe for an indeff block. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * update: user is edit-warring again in Van, Turkey and Removing (Armenian genocide) from Van province after the 31-hour block expired. Pinging as the previous blocking administrator. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7  (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Their new edit description just says it all: "Already mentioned above. Too much emphasis on the genocide card". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Before I saw this discussion I had already blocked for 3 days for edit-warring. If I had been aware of all the other issues I might have made it longer. It looks to me as though indef may be be a question of when rather than whether. JBW (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, giving the second chance does not work for this case.  Wario-Man  talk 09:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by IP 91.114.167.89
IP seems to be bent on Kurdifiying articles rather than improving them;

Changed Turcoman to Kurdish

Changed Turkmen to Kurdish

Added Kurdish as origin

Removed the possibility of the Zands being of Lori origin, insisting that they were Kurdish

Same here

Changed Arabic to Kurdish

Added Kurdish

Removed the link Albanians in Egypt, replacing it with Kurdish diaspora

At last but not least in the Kakuyids article, where he occasionally comes and tries to push a Kurdish origin, ignoring WP:UNDUE, WP:CONSENSUS and whatnot;





IP also has his fair share of edits where he alters/removes sourced information;









--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking at the compelling evidence, it appears said IP is solely involved in a) adding unsourced content b) changing sourced content c) engaging in edit-wars. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * . El_C 21:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu's concerns about Cautious
Advised against WP:CANVASSING at. They still persist at. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was called by tgeorgescu homophobe and it was suggested that wiki will decide not based on merit. I attempted to resolve a dispute on his talk page. No results, but escalation. --Cautious (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence that you have read that: . Afterwards you wrote . You have been alerted of discretionary sanctions at . tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You learned nothing from this discussion. Evidence: and  and . tgeorgescu (talk)  22:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

they just canvassed other users en masse.. I'm too lazy to add the diffs myself though. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The understand the message to me that merit doesn't matter, there will be no discussion about correctness, but you will label me and this is going to resolution. Is it so? I presented sources and merit points. You don't seem to matter. --Cautious (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Basically, all sources claim that the zones don't exists, they have no reality, except being a metaphor. Logically, they cannot exist if the resolution is passed on higher than commune level, so the map is misleading. Why shouldn't we correct the map and clearly state that the zones are a metaphor? --Cautious (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  comment : the issue with the reported editor isn't presented clearly, is POV-pushing on LGBT rights in Poland and LGBT-free zone trying to censor homophobic practices in Poland. Editor then started canvassing unrelated editors to come and defend his veiws,  dispite being wanted not to. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7  (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof on your claim? I contributed to LGBT Rights in Hungary, no POV just facts. I am pointing out to the fact that LGBT Free Zones is a metaphor and they do not exist in reality. Moreover, the map is mixing the 3 different levels of administrative division, so it is clearly wrong. Also, the article states that Pride Marches shall be banned in alleged "Zone". They are not, do you want a link? I have merit, you follow your POV wo merit. --Cautious (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Quote from the current source (fake “LGBT-free zone” sign outside), Do you know what fake means? --Cautious (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding LGBT Rights in Poland, the current article summary is clearly wrong, because being LGBT or no-LGBT doesn't Impact the fact that you have challenges. It is merit based. What is the answer? It is claimed that the summary is the same in other countries° (The article's first sentence is similar to other articles on LGBT rights in countries that aren't considered to fully protect them, such as LGBT rights in Romania or LGBT rights in Russia. (t · c) buidhe 21:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)). This is no merit point. --Cautious (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So, do you mean that the local authorities adopted fake resolutions? If not, the phenomenon of LGBT-free zones is real, whatever it might be. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Again problem with precision. The article says about zones and the source says clearly that zone sign is fake. There are no zones. Are you suggesting to rename the article into Family Rights Resolutions in Poland? --Cautious (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "There are no zones". "Inside Poland's LGBT-free zones" (BBC) "In Poland’s LGBT-free zones, existing is an act of defiance" (CNN) and many, many more.  I can only presume that you aren't comprehending that this is an art project and the artist is using fake signs to demonstrate the reality of the zones.  I also note that you are still canvassing, up to as little as 30 minutes ago.  You need to stop that. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source that supports your claim that the zone "has reality"? Moreover, one of the points is that the resolution is passed sometimes on the level of region and sometimes on the level of commune. The region has different competences.  --Cautious (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you could read the two links above, or indeed many of the 100+ sources in the LGBT-free zone article that you disrupted here. Do we have a WP:CIR problem here? Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your POV-pushing smacks of homophobic denialism. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am trying to do NPOV and you lost your points, so there remain only argumentam ad personam. I understand your point, you want to keep unprecise and false article, because it corresponds to your POV. I am going to propose some improvements to the article, hope it could be accepted, even for your bias. --Cautious (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You do have a WP:CIR problem: misbehaving while under scrutiny. Wikipedia Community will be the judge if you are a homophobic POV-pusher. Time for a topic ban? tgeorgescu (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are a dictator here? Ave! How many years of Gulag is considered? --Cautious (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are not even aware that you create problems and you're misbehaving. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we in 1938 and I am to be put on Show Trial, comerade Georgescu? I will be a martyr for truth.--Cautious (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the authors of these articles. Cautious is repeating a familiar semantic argument, but taking it to the extreme. The argument is "LGBT-free zones are symbolic, and have no practical meaning" (eg. LGBTs can't be fined for passing in such a zone). The first part is true (for now), but that does not mean the second is as well. Their other arguments are similarly semantic and not backed by RS. Unrelated to this, WP:BOTTOMPOST and WP:CANVASSING are also issues. François Robere (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me check this, I am having an idea, how we can improve the article. I am to be more precise. --Cautious (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * LGBT-free_zone My proposal, what to improve in the article to make it precise and true. --Cautious (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Kakubhai Shergill
Despite being told not to add unreferenced content, the user still continued.
 * Special:Diff/1029825989 changed the year of birth without RS. It was reverted and an RS was subsequently added by another editor.
 * Special:Diff/1029652782 changed the place of birth to present-day semantics. I have notified the user in the past about using the place names at-birth. No RS for citizenship and nationality that the user has added.
 * Special:Diff/1029983047, Special:Diff/1029810937 MOS: Occupation to have only the first letter capitalized. I have notified, in the past, the user of the template documentation about it.
 * Special:Diff/1029142846 Did a bold move for the page despite there being a discussion present on the talk page. The user's preferred new name does not seem to be used anymore, as said in the discussion. The user could have left a comment. (I've opened an RM later.)
 * User added [five] copyvio images in Commons and added them to articles here. All images are reported and deleted on Commons.

The user never acknowledged any messages on the talk page. I'd like to hear it and some sort of commitment for the WP guidelines. (Update: The user commented on my talk page in the past related to another edit. I've clarified why I reverted the edit. I forgot about this edit.) -- DaxServer (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "The user never acknowledged any messages on the talk page"—perhaps this is because they edit using a phone? Kleinpecan (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is now unfortunate. Any remedies? -- DaxServer (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They made this revert just earlier, so they seem to be aware of revision histories and edit summaries. If you have to revert one of their edits again, you can try using the edit summary to direct them to a section on their user talk page where you explain to them the problem with their edit, and how to communicate with other editors. – <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#e40303,#ff8c00,#ffed00,#008026,#004dff,#750787);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text;">Rummskartoffel 10:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While clarifying another edit, the user did on the nom's talk page, and this was via mobile phone. The one talk page edit among 364 edits.  Jay (Talk) 11:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * True, I totally forgot about it. I stand corrected. Thanks Jay. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Rhino83166 -- Plagiarism and Copyright issues
User:Rhino83166 has multiple instances of violating WP:PLAG and uploading non-free images to commons.

Two examples of WP:PLAG violations:
 * Special:Diff/1011216263 "A member of the Three Rivers Conference since the league's inception in 1975, Fulton is poised to make the move to the Northwest Upstate Illini Conference for the 2021-22 school year.", copied directly from the source referenced right after it
 * Special:Diff/891624174 "Built in 1939 as part of the Works Progress Administration project which also resulted in the construction of West, the basic design of both buildings was by Willis Hubbard, the exterior facade, however, was designed by Jesse Barloga in the Art Modeme style. West exterior façade, on the other hand, was designed by Gilbert Johnson. East was also considered an excellent example of Art Modeme architecture, and a focal point from the community from its beginning.", copied from a City of Rockford document without any attribution at all.

Alongside the copy & pastes, their talk page contains a ton of warnings (too many to list here) from other users about plagiarism, non-free image uploading, and not citing sources dating as far back as 2010, yet they continue to do it:


 * User_talk:Rhino83166 (Oct 2013) - Direct plagiarism
 * User_talk:Rhino83166 (Mar 2011) - User offering help regarding copyright
 * User_talk:Rhino83166 (from a bot abt plagiarism) (May 2010)
 * User_talk:Rhino83166 (Oct 2016) - Non-free File Upload
 * User_talk:Rhino83166 (Oct 2016) - Non-free File Upload
 * User_talk:Rhino83166 (Sept 2018) - Non-free File Upload
 * User_talk:Rhino83166 (Oct 2018) - Non-free File Upload
 * User_talk:Rhino83166 (Dec 2018) - Another user removed copyrighted content from article with warning that copyright violations will lead to block from editing

Thanks!

Mase268 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Fhshs12


Fhshs12 edited several other users' comments on their talk page here. I warned them here that this is unacceptable per WP:TPO. They immediately did so again here and I left a final warning here. You'll never guess what happened next.

In addition to this, a high proportion of their edits have been reverted for being unconstructive, e.g. here and here just in the last day. I do not believe this user is here to build an encyclopedia. Rublov (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that Just tried to delete this conversation. Definitely WP:NOTHERE, and warrants an indefinite block given this and the egregious personal attacks. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 18:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with a user please
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:No_Great_Shaker#Ann-Margret

Please review my comment above on his talk page in response to user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:No_Great_Shaker

...I was attempting to upload a replacement image for my client (the copyright holder) and noticed that the info said "deceased" so innocently thought I would be helping when I noticed it said "is" instead of "was" regards the person and changed it citing that they were deceased. On being picked up on this, I consulted the article and realise it was Ann-Margret's spouse who was deceased. I had made a genuine error. This user is having noe of it and accusing me of defamation and "you seriously breached WP:BLP" which I find extremely insulting as it is simply untrue. He also accuses me of having another account (and threaten to report me?!) as apparently theres no way i could know how to upload photos as a newbie, which i am. there is a way, i simply researched how to do it. I'm just very saddened that such bullying can take place when new contributors are encouraged by wikipedia. I donate yearly and use wiki every day. How dare he. So I just wanted to let you know about it. He doesnt shine a particularly positive light on the wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelphotofix (talk • contribs)


 * Please note that you're obligated to inform subjects of reports made here; I've done that for you now. Also please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~) . — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 21:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * That said, I do think has failed to assume good faith here, and has chosen to bite the newbie. OP's edits do not appear to be deliberately destructive, and I think reporting him to the vandalism noticeboard was unwarranted. Saying his edits "indicate a vandalism-only account" is needlessly harsh. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 21:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. What happens now? sorry about the missing tildes and not informing which i didnt know. Joelphotofix (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Best case scenario we talk about it a bit, you two make up, and we carry on editing Wikipedia. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 22:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Sigh, so rarely is it the best case scenario... <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask.  22:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, there has been a blatant breach of WP:BLP and it has been followed up by breaches of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL at my talk page and again above. The accusations of bullying are frankly ridiculous – I spotted a particularly bad BLP breach, issued a warning and reported it to AIV. Can a genuine WP:NEWBIE immediately upload and replace infobox images as was done at Jeanne Moreau, Anthony Quinn and Hank Aaron? Perhaps, but personally I doubt it. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems like a genuine error by OP; his explanation makes sense to me. Again, I don't think it was malice on his part. As for uploading images... well, it's not especially difficult to do -- there is an "images and media" button at the top of the editor, and from there there's a big "upload" button. It's pretty intuitive, and doesn't indicate a sock to me. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 22:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You weren't in the position of seeing the breach of BLP when it happened. You are using hindsight based on the protestations of the person responsible. Perhaps you need to assume good faith yourself and accept that I acted in good faith by protecting the integrity of the site. I'm taking no further part in this pointless discussion. What a waste of time. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Relax, dude. It’s good that you’re keen to protect BLP articles but I just think it’s useful to take a step back and ask yourself if OP was vandalising or if he just made an error. He explained himself, it seemed reasonable, so the best thing would’ve been to just accept it and move on. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 22:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I didn't really find it that hard to upload. Seriously though, why would I go to such efforts to defend myself if I was some sort of malicous vandal? An even if i was surely I could do worse than (mistakenly) changing an IS to a WAS. (Although I suppose a page reporting someone as dead when they're not isn't nice at all.) But anyway, my error, hands held up. It's awful when you genuinely think you are improving something to be accused of purposeful maliciousness instead. But there you go, it seems he's convinced.

In the spirit of moving on I'd like some help and guidance in uploading my client's copyrighted photographs (wshich is what I joined to do in the first place before editing the dreaeded "is"!). Is the general rule as I assume that the replacement should be a better "answer" relevancy and context wise to the existing? That being the case, what are the rules for adding photos to be additional to those already there (again, assuming they add to the page's usefulness of course). Is that ok? If so how does one go about it? Do you for example also need to add relevant paragraph of text to give the photo context and purpose? Thanks, Joel. Joelphotofix (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:RBut
Relevant pages:


 * The Game Changers
 * Talk:The Game Changers
 * Fringe theories/Noticeboard

I regret it has come to this, but the user in question appears to be a WP:SPA who has now decided that WP:OWN is the way to go on his preferred page. The account was apparently started to "rebut" a source on the page but now has turned into one that seems to engage almost entirely in WP:POVPUSHing. This is a shame because he does occasionally provide some sources that can help improve the article, but after some promising maneuvers today, the edit war recommenced.

I don't see how collaboration is possible given the insistent and acrimonious back-and-forth. At this point, the user has basically declared that they will not collaborate with myself or the other editor active at that page:. It's tiring and so third-party intervention would be nice.

jps (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * p-blocked 24 hours from article to get their attention. Ping me if that doesn't work. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that those are accusations. This person "ජපස" is the one acting like he owns the article. My edit has been fair, he does not think so so he reverts it. I do the same and suddenly I'm in violation while getting reported? Childish behavior.

There have been minimal issues in collaboration with editors and that is exactly what I continue doing. These are simply more accusations. If you review the talk page it will be evident that it is exactly what I have been doing and continue to do so. Doing so I have gathering information and made edits that I believe are fair. RBut (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @RBut, the point is to discuss on talk and reach consensus before trying to re-add the disputed content. Your edit summary when re-adding the disputed content is that Sure, but it can stay up while we debate as there is no POV. is not how we do things here. We don't leave disputed information in articles while we discuss; that could leave disputed information in articles for literally years in some places. The onus is on the person wanting to add the information to persuade their fellow editors, per policy you can find at WP:ONUS. —valereee (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Noted RBut (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Love Jihad talk page
The is indefinitely restricted to extended confirmed editors due to disruptive editing in the WP:ARBIPA area. However this just results in non-stop complaints at the article's talk page making the same tired points that have been refuted time and again. Today has seen numerous posts by an editor with a constantly changing IP, for example claiming they "found similar peer reviewed article", when all they found was this garbage which I refuted here. Could something be done about the flood of non-constructive posts on this talk page please? FDW777 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am going to make a suggestion at the talk page. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 23:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay I have left a suggestion there that is very similar to what was done at Talk:Muhammad to deal with the constant requests for image removal. It worked very well there and I think it could work here too. I hope this turns out to be helpful. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 23:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at what was done on Talk:Muhammad, would something similar benefit Adam's Bridge? A FAQ has already been written on why it's not going to be re-titled Rama Setu, but the talk page is constantly getting edit requests demands to change it. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but I have not looked at that talk page as deeply as I have Talk:Love Jihad. First step is to get consensus for the idea, second step is to get an admin who feels it is worth a discretionary sanction. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 00:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just took a look over there. Yes that is a great candidate for that sort of thing. In fact it can probably be done without a sanction there, be bold and just try it and see what happens. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 00:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Yemenii disruptively adding unsourced material and WP:OR to Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA)
User:Yemenii, which seems to be an WP:SPA with very few edits, is disruptively adding WP:OR and unsourced material to the Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA) page. On that page they have removed sourced material regarding the origins (and distributions) of certain DNA haplogroup branches and added in its place a large amount of material including multiple claims (regarding haplogroup origins etc.) that are not at all stated in the sources they have added (which consist of bare links) along with adding other unsourced claims elsewhere in the article. I reverted two unsourced edits of theirs, each time with edit summaries explaining the problems with their edits and the Wikipedia policies of WP:RS and WP:NOR (and warned them that unsourced edits are against policies and that if they continued they would be repirted), but they (Yemenii) then simply reverted me and reinstated their unsourced edits with no explanation.

Since they have ignored my explanations and restored unsourced edits (despite being told that this viokates Wikipedia policies), attempts at discussion with them seem unlikely to help. Any attention is appreciated.

Here is the article's edit history:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Haplogroup_E-M215_(Y-DNA)

Skllagyook (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see no warnings on the user's page? Edit summaries alone often don't cut it and the user may not have even seen them. In addition to this, within your edit summaries I see a lot of opaque acronyms, which often don't help new users all that much. In fact, I would be willing to posit that even templated warnings would be more useful than purely using opaque acronyms in edit summaries, as they, at the very least, signpost users to the appropriate policies using relatively simple and basic language. Patient Zerotalk 21:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence this new user was appropriately informed and warned about policies. Thinking ANI might be a bit overly aggressive at this point. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur - Skllagyook, I note that you've said, but you have yet to try... the worst that could happen is maybe they do not respond as well as we'd have hoped, and then perhaps we can escalate to, say, warnings (on the user's talk page). But communication is seldom unimportant or unuseful. Patient Zerotalk 21:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * and I did warn them in an edit summary in my second reversion here [] where I wrote "Making unsourced edits is against Wikipedia policy. Reliable sources are required (which explicitly say what you want to add, see WP:RS and WPOR). Please stop making unsourced edits or you will be reported."
 * In my previous edit summary, before that one, I had written "Restoring sourced material(from Trombetta) re haplogroup origins deleted in recent edit, and removing material not supported by newly added source (see WP:NOR)"
 * I'm not sure I would say that the acronyms were opaque, since in both edit summaries I gave Yemenii links to the policies they were in violation of and led them to read them (directing them to "see" the links I supplied) along with explanations stating that their edits were against Wikipedia policies and why. Since Yemenii most recently reverted my edit and reinstated theirs (presumably using the "Undo" button) they would have had to see the page's edit history and (I would think) would have easily seen my edit edits and edit summaries. Is seems likely that they ignored them. They have added a signifiant amount of unsourced material, in some cases changing and adding information, seemingly according to personal preference, as here [] and here []. At this stage, would you perhaps recommend posting a warning/notification to their talk page (about making unsourced edits) using one of the appropriate templates (such as these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-unsourced3)? What should I do if they do not respond?
 * Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, you are far more likely to get a response with talk page messages rather than edit summaries. And it creates a more easily followed paper trail for other people trying to fight potential vandalism and coming in after the fact to look at things. SamStrongTalks (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd say dial it back even further and use unsourced-1, not 3, as it's a little more comprehensive (not to mention you have yet to even warn them at all, so jumping straight to 3 is unadvisable). is also spot on with their comment - communication ought to be on talk pages. Patient Zerotalk 22:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. I will leave an alert on their Talk page then. Hopefully that will help resolve the issue. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, putting "user" in your pings stops them from working - just a heads-up! I wasn't notified of your mentioning of me. Best, Patient Zerotalk 22:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * and Understood. I will use unsourced-1 on their Talk page. I will also revert their edit for now, since the text of unsourced-1 (apparently) says that the unsourced edit has been "removed and archived in the page history" (I hope this is appropriate). In case they were to reinstate their edit again and/or not respond, what would be the best course of action? Skllagyook (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'd say you could probably skip to 3, then 4, then report to WP:AIV as they deal with users who repeatedly add unsourced content after a final warning (and chances are your report there will be seen quicker by an admin). My response only applies to the incident at hand though; most of the time you should really go through all of the warning stages. Patient Zerotalk 22:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * and I see. Thank you. I wasn't really familiar with the different numbered warning stages/levels and how they differed. Is there by any chance a Wikipedia page that would explain that in more detail? Skllagyook (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There certainly would be! Whilst this quote taken from WP:V relates to vandalism, it does ring true to most commonly spotted violations made by inexperienced users: . The "escalation procedure" for violations can be found here - you'll find all the templates you need right here, although I'd recommend getting Twinkle so you don't have to manually issue them. Best, Patient Zerotalk 23:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping, sorry! Patient Zerotalk 23:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of my experience is with recent change patrol and other anti-vandalism tasks. It can take a while to internalize all the various aspects of it, especially if it isn't what you focus on. SamStrongTalks (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:FIFIphilippe

 * Talk:Uyghur genocide
 * On the talk page for Uyghur genocide, added a long rant through a series of several edits which included comments about our wonderful politicians's view on colonization, appeared to assume the race of those who edited the page by writing that they are certainly not prone to be targeted by Anti-Asian violence, and appeared to be otherwise devoid of discussion around a proposal for what to do with the page. The user's rant also included references to their issues with France 2's coverage of police violence/riots and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... which is not used as a source in the Uyghur genocide article. I hatted the comment, seeing as it was off-topic and appeared to be more suited for a forum than for an article talk page ( later simply deleted the section). Following this, I posted a warning and relevant notices on their talk page.
 * User Talk:mikehawk10
 * More recently, created a new section on my talk page, saying that I was dishonest and falsely alleged that I am probably paid to do all of this.
 * More recently, created a new section on my talk page, saying that I was dishonest and falsely alleged that I am probably paid to do all of this.

The edits I have described above constitute their entire (brief) Wikipedia editing history. I believe that the above, especially through the violations of WP:NPA, shows that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I am respectfully requesting that they be blocked as such. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User: Owouwuowouwuowo, again
As a result of an ANI thread that closed June 22, I pageblocked this editor from Old Alton Bridge and Talk:Old Alton Bridge, for adding unreferenced content and disruptive editing. Since then, this editor has gone to two articles that I have edited recently. They vandalized a quotation at Ramón Mercader, and also removed content from the lead of Shay locomotive that I added, which summarized referenced content I had added to the body of the article. I can only conclude that this was retaliatory editing. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would look at this editor's contributions and determine whether or not they are here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is a perfect example of NOTHERE. Indeffed. Daniel (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Sirens, Sam, and Suzanne
Before you ask why I am here despite apparently retiring, please note that I will leave soon as soon as the SPIs are done.

I was looking into some siren-related articles (one of which is Federal Signal Corporation) and I discovered someone called Suzanne at Federal Signal adding some potentially promotional content (example: Special:Diff/913870901) which was later removed (Special:Diff/937693677). I have two questions about Suzanne and the siren pages in general:


 * 1) Would it be prudent to block Suzanne based on her promotional username and her contributions to the FSC page? The edits in question is around 1 or 2 years old.
 * 2) I believe that the FSC page and that of one of its products, the 3T22, are marred by sock puppets - see my SPIs (one running, another ended) at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SamBo198. User:SamBo198 was accused as being a paid editor (as seen on their block reasoning field), and they used to edit - to quote my own archived SPI - "American Signal Corporation and related articles, with a focus on the role of Biersach and Niedermeyer". Is it likely that there are more paid editing than previously thought, seeing that Sam and Suzanne, though most likely unrelated, are both likely to be paid editors for their respective corporations?

Thank you. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Charan311
This user has been "adding his POV" for months on various articles especially Lakshmi and Rukmini. Months ago, he started a baseless edit war on Lakshmi, where I reported him and admin warned him and asked me to report again if he continues. I have tried to explain Wikipedia policies on his talk page "multiple times", but each time he gives unacceptable reasons. You may check his POV on his talk page, especially the recent warnings. In short, he is violating WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:Edit warring, despite multiple warnings. Regards, . 245CMR . •👥📜 16:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , diffs please.  Sandstein   20:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I am giving diff of recent discussions, but the user is violating npov for months and had been warned multiple times by different users.

Warning by EdJohnston after the edit war on Lakshmi (this occured in Feb 21)
 * 
 * Charan's reply
 * My answer

Rest of Charan's replies are his OR POV.

Recent unsourced changes by Charan on the article Rukmini:







Sourced content removed from other articles:


 * Devi
 * Lakshmi
 * Lakshmi

After his recent vandalism, I and another user have tried to explain Wikipedia policies, but he is not listening. The following are his replies; he is accusing us that we hate Rukmini for reverting his edits and looks like that he is here to promote his POV rather than encyclopaedic development. After his latest reply, I have told him whate exactly is his problem.
 * His reply
 * 
 * 
 * 

Regards, . 245CMR . •👥📜 04:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect link on Main Page
Please see Main_Page/Errors. DuncanHill (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Date-changing vandalism from Long Island


Someone from Long Island is changing to wrong dates in music articles. For instance, this song was changed to May 2, but the cite source says May 20. Similarly, this date was changed to something wrong despite the cited source listing another date entirely. In another case, the person just picked a random date in the article references and changed it disruptively. They have been blocked twice before. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Has only edited articles (no talk). Blocked one year. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Username006 and Dominicana DC-9 air disaster
Editors involved other than myself

The article in question involves a 1970 plane crash. Between 2016 and 2018 this article was twice moved to Dominicana Flight 603. A discussion or two took place and the page was moved back because there isn't a reliable source for the Flight number.

On June 1st, User came along and moved the page again. His reason for the move- The television show Mayday had tweeted[here: https://twitter.com/aircrashmayday/status/831850589642485760?lang=en ] Mayday isn't considered a reliable source by the Aviation accident accident WikiProject I moved it back and Administrator Mjroots protected the page against further moves. A lengthy discussion followed.

The move request was closed because there was no consensus to move it. Near the end of the discussion, Username raised a blogspot page for the second time as possible proof for the flight number. I told him to drop the stick, as he had been told once already that particular source was not reliable and on two other occasions was told blogspot blogs were not reliable. I warned User that After that nothing more was heard and the discussion was closed 4 days later.

On June 22nd, Username wrote on his User page- "Can anyone help me find some sources or I should say 'reliable sources' to prove that the flight number was indeed 603? I've tried my best and I'm not going to give up so easily.

Username came back to Dominicana's talk page today. His latest try at proof for a 1970 plane crash is a 1967 timetable. How does a 1967 timetable prove something for 1970? He's been asked that not once but twice by me and hasn't given an answer. Username also claims things can be downloaded from this page, but they can't.

I think its time to block this User from further posts to Dominicana DC-9 air disaster....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure that a block from the article's talk page is the best way forward here. It just may be that 006 can find a source that meets RS. If the "disruption" is kept to the talk page, it's not doing that much harm. A better approach may be for WilliamJE to disengage and it to be made clear to 006 that he needs to find a contemporary (i.e. 1970) RS. As has been made clear, find the RS, and the article will be moved to the preferred title. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) Collecting arguments on the talk page seems a reasonable pursuit, even if they are insufficient arguments. Requirement for consensus has been made clear; if they move the page again w/o consensus after protection has expired, I'm sure Mjroots can be relied upon to do further necessaries. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The page is indefinitely move protected. Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit summary here says the page can't be moved only till June 30. Also pinging
 * This editor is clearly committing WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. They had to be asked the same question 3 times before answering. They also raised a blogspot post as a source for a second time even though they were told it was unacceptable. Plus two other times being told blogspot wasn't a reliable source. This is a timesink. How many more times are they going to be able to raise something again that has been discussed before....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The page is protected from editing until June 30th, but it is protected from being moved indefinitely, re: "[Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite)". Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I was aware of the page's move history (I certainly am not now) at the time I applied the temp semi. Not sure there's much more I'm able to add, at a glance. El_C 14:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I must have misread. Please accept my apology....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Legal threats and NOTHERE
is using their talk page to threaten editors with a lawsuit as retaliation for Articles for deletion/Yr. Robert Lalkovits – Axone.

They are mostly here to promote artists affiliated with their record label (We don’t know anyone here, but we’re working at the record label and we noticed that the article was deleted and debated by someone without any prior notice) and, if anyone is interested in a small bribe, they are also ready to discuss the financial implications of things.

All the relevant policies have been calmly explained to them by and I, and they have been properly warned about the consequences of legal threats. JBchrch  talk  17:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * They made the first legal threat in a now-deleted edit. When they made the second one on their talk page, I blocked them indefinitely for legal threats. —C.Fred (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Mew2king impersonation
The user has been making vandalism edits of Hungrybox over the past few days. I reached out to the real Mew2King on Twitter in his DMs and he said that it is not him. I advised him to email to info-en@wikimedia.org per WP:IMPERSONATE but he said he was too busy and asked if anything else could be done in the meantime. I can post screenshots of the DMs if necessary. Please advise the best way to resolve this issue. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for impersonation. They can change their name to something else, however not if they continue to vandalize. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Press TV has been deprecated. I'm requesting an edit filter/warning for users who attempt to newly use it in articles.
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior
Apart from the username, is gaming the autoconfirmed system by making obviously pointless edits on their userpage. See their edits. When combined with the username, it looks rather suspicious and should raise the sock alarm. aeschylus (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also poop vandalism. Blocked as not here to contribute constructively. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I do not think that any editor with "69420" as part of their username has ever proven to be a productive Wikipedia editor. The other part is just disgusting. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Bhumihar by IP user
Hi. Admins please review legal threat at Talk:Bhumihar and take necessary action. Mel ma nn  20:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed by another editor. See Special:PermanentLink/1030248077  Mel ma nn   20:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * /64 blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Block review
I have just blocked for a breach of 3RR on a page which I have edited heavily and with which I am involved. I am therefore posting here for independent review. I think the breach of 3RR is clear and therefore the block would count as a block that any administrator would reasonably perform. However, for transparency, I am involved in the article and so review is needed. Any administrator may undo the block without further reference to me. DrKay (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Appropriate block, but you probably want to get another administrator to perform the block next time. :) --Yamla (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Any administrator would have reasonably done that block. You're kinda involved a bit there, but the block was coming no matter who did it which is the differentiating factor. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 13:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can only echo what has been said by the prior two admins. When I am involved in a content dispute I find it best to go to the appropriate noticeboard and state that I cannot act as I am involved. It is frustrating but I do it to protect myself as well as meet the letter of the admin policy. Good move seeking a review afterwards. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 23:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive transit-related edits
Has vandalized various metro-related articles (see e.g., , , ). Several of their edits involve changing references to light metro to rapid transit and vice versa, and have removed various systems from list of metro systems with little explanation. Their edits have been repeatedly reverted by other editors (including myself) and they've made no attempt to respond to other editors despite multiple warnings on their talk page. Musashi1600 (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ummm, has a slight odour of User:UrbanNerd aka User:PhilthyBear. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them for 24 hours anyway for clear disruptive and unsourced editing and refusal to engage. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:TheMetalPedia and undisclosed automated spelling edits
User:TheMetalPedia has been copy-editing a wide variety of articles at a rate of one diff per minute, far above an unassisted human's ability. Either they are using a bot or they are assisted by some kind of tool, neither of which is acceptable without discussion. Many of their changesets have already been reverted for various reasons, such as not following wp:engvar:      etc. etc. They have also been warned on their talk page three times, without triggering any reply. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) The '013 edit (2nd in the list above) altered the spelling in a direct quote - not good. Narky Blert (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) I'm not convinced that this is automated, all of the diffs are on articles which are tagged for needing copyediting, it's conceivable that they could have found the articles that way. Is one diff a minute really that abnormal if one is just looking at articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit and quickly scanning them to fix anything obvious? Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do copyediting, mainly for clichés, by doing a search for a target phrase, opening each result in a separate tab, then editing in sequence. But I leave an edit summary behind me, so fellow editors can tell what I’m doing. This editor is doing nothing wrong that couldn’t be ameliorated by leaving an edit summary each time. ◦ Trey Maturin 20:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * An edit summary won't mitigate or reverse the damage they're doing.&#32;- Sumanuil (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is some attempt to cover up the creation of Draft:Phenomy. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, apparent personal attack

 * Does some live updates in 2021 Copa América Group A ( and earlier edits), then harasses my talk page after I reverted those changes . Does not respond to a related message in his/her talk page . Centaur271188 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This editor has had plenty of warnings and their responses don't seem to be particularly constructive. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ...not to mention two previous blocks. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the German WP he is currently blocked for a month for similar reasons, so this has a pettern.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The user is now blocked for 2 weeks.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Sucker for All's "I didn't hear that" attitude
User:Sucker for All, User:LOVI33 and I (User:Doggy54321) were involved in an edit war-turned-discussion at the end of April at Future Nostalgia. Sucker for All was removing Tainy as a producer from the Infobox, and LOVI33 and I were restoring it. This turned into a discussion (Talk:Future Nostalgia), but the edit war seemed to still be ongoing, as SFA kept removing and LOVI kept restoring. The discussion halted for a week, and it resumed in early May. Since we found that we weren't getting any closer to consensus, LOVI and I agreed to start an RfC, so uninvolved users could comment. That RfC happened at Talk:Future Nostalgia, which ended in User:Buidhe closing the discussion two weeks early with the note There's consensus that Tainy should be credited.

In the past couple of days, SFA has defied that consensus multiple times, even after being warned, which crosses into WP:DTS and WP:IDHT territory. SFA knew about this RfC, having commented multiple times after I notified them. They were also made aware of the consensus (if they had not been aware already) by LOVI in this edit summary (We had a unanimous rfc that Tainy should be credited.), and I also let them know in a talk page discussion ("consensus was made ... to include Tainy"). Since they were showing signs that they did not understand the consensus ("The consensus was that he should be credited for 'Un Dia'", which is false), I explained exactly what the consensus was and what page it affected, and yet, they continued to revert.

Two admin names, Bbb23 and Ponyo, were thrown around by SFA multiple times. SFA has held them and all other admins to an unreasonable standard, saying stuff like Do not revert without an admin or a mods' explicit consent and If an admin or mod insists that I not remove his name in that fashion, I will not. LOVI pinged them both, and Ponyo replied a couple hours ago, saying That being said, edit warring to add or remove content against the consensus established at a recent RfC is a behavioural issue and will likely result in a block for that account. If that's what's happening here then it can be reported at WP:ANI. Since SFA has been edit warring (see diffs above) to add or remove content against the consensus established at a recent RfC (repeatedly removing something that, per an almost-unanimous consensus at an RfC that was closed 23 days ago, should be included), this counts as a behavioural issue and should be reported at ANI, which is what I am doing.

Long story short: Sucker for All has continued to ignore consensus and edit disruptively, and, since they won't listen to anyone but admins, I am now bringing this issue here. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's SPA, not SFA. You probably should have filed at WP:ANEW, not ANI. That being said, should probably be facing a 72 hour block given they were warned on their talk page and at ANEW on 12 June (different article). Given they continued as of 21 June and the RFC consensus from 29 May, this is flagrant flouting of consensus and continued edit warring after warnings, mitigated by this being the first prospective block for the user.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 10:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion! When I said "SFA", I was referring to Sucker for All, not a single-purpose account. I thought typing out the entire username over and over would make the thread harder to follow. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 11:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Doggy's comment "Sucker for All has continued to ignore consensus and edit disruptively" couldn't ring more true. I've encountered SfA on a couple of articles and it looks like they're just here to pick fights and wiki-lawyer around the guidelines, surprising given they're only in the low hundreds of edits. They move the goalposts during articles, bludgeon their way through bad faith BRD interpretation, and absolutely fail to attempt to achieve or respect consensus. The goal-posting moving and sheer lies about the content of the source at The Vanguard Group and then making up an absurd strawman argument (and moving the goalposts repeatedly) about reliable sources at the 2021 New York City mayoral election page and its talk, though those two are older (and the election has a lot more chaff to get through to get to three weeks ago given its a current event). Just here to echo that this is beyond EW and I think the ANI is the correct place to report given it's a broader issue. JesseRafe (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Or not. In February this editor told My old account actually had more edits than you so I don't think we can make any assumptions on whether a lack of a block history mitigates anything. SfA, if you've got that level of experience, you should know how to avoid a user talk that looks like yours. —valereee (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, my edits at Vanguard, virtually identical to my edits at State Street and BCG, were clearly appropriate from the get go. Other editors consistently tried to add "dominant" language that was never supported by the sources. As far as Future Nostalgia, Tainy apparently recruited supporters to bolster his image. Despite appearing as the 2nd producer on "Un Día" and 0 other tracks, they want him listed as a producer for the album in addition to his 5 other appearances in the article for an album in which he didn't even appear. I asked the mod who closed the rfc whether my edits were inappropriate, and he did not tell me that they were appropriate or inappropriate (similar to Ponyo). This ANI's a farce. Sucker for All (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * SfA, you seem to be arguing that 1. your edits were good, whether or not the RfC supported them and 2. that the RfC closer didn't tell you they were bad so 3. you're going to go ahead and make them even though consensus was against you? —valereee (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also is this where you think the closer (who btw is female and not an admin) "did not tell me they were appropriate or inappropriate"? Because that's just funny. —valereee (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Sucker for All to make sure they've seen the questions. —valereee (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My edits were appropriate. Not a single admin warned me. Only users who were probably hired by Tainy himself. He appeared as support for a single track and was already listed 5 times. Sucker for All (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sucker for All, you are still misunderstanding what admins do. I believe you've been told multiple times that admins do not judge content. Admins deal with behavior. This discussion is about your behavior, not about the content dispute.
 * Here's the behavior I'm seeing. 1. Edit-warring against consensus, which is disruptive. 2. Refusal to accept, despite being told multiple times, that no admin can trump consensus, which is wasting other editors' time, which is disruptive. 3. Unsupported accusations of undisclosed paid editing because others disagree with you, which is a refusal to assume good faith. 4. Refusal to address the concerns here; instead you simply insist you're in the right on content, which again is wasting other editors' time. For me this is enough to block you from Future Nostalgia for disruptive editing. —valereee (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @LOVI33 and @Doggy54321, is Future Nostalgia the only place the disruption is taking place? When I went to place the partial I noticed there are multiple related articles. —valereee (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @JesseRafe, sorry, meant to ping you too but somehow it didn't insert. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Future Nostalgia is the only page (as far as I know of) that SfA is continuing to ignore consensus and edit disruptively. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * P-blocked from Future Nostalgia and Talk:Future Nostalgia. —valereee (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Tag team of SPAs at Henley Business School
There is a sudden rash of "updating" happening at Henley Business School, apparently by a tag-team of "disposable" SPAs. The editing activity includes removal of properly sourced history and replacing it with unsourced or self-sourced unencyclopedic promotional content. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Siremeowington obviously has a financial COI, and responding with "" when asked to follow WP:COI and WP:PAID is troubling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's still going on! When these users are confronted to declare their COI they "retire" instead and (I suspect) simply continue under a different username. The subject of the article is in fact a highly reputable business school, I wonder if the bosses would actually be embarrassed by the level of shenanigans going on in the article, possibly even at their behest. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I saw this on my talk page so thought I'd come to say that since the changes Siremeowington made, I've tried to improve the page with adding to the reputation section. I didn't agree with JBchrch undoing my changes as I had researched but added even more sources now so I hope that satisfies. I agree Dodger67 that it's a shame since a reputable school has this going on. Since Girth Summit made changes too, so much was removed which I didn't think was useful in the slightest. Hence me adding in more to the reputation as they do deserve this information on the page. Teeside42 (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have semiprotected the article for one month. Maybe somebody will actually use the talk page for the first time since 2009. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  14:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I blocked some confirmed socks, including Teeside42 above, who's obviously pretending to not be Siremeowington. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist's concerns about User:Jamesallain85
User:Jamesallain85 who has been inactive since 4 June 2020 returned to WP yesterday making a series of edits which I can only regard as WP:REVENGE attacks on me: reverting my deletion yesterday of non-notable former members of 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines ; AfDing George Jacobson and starting to AfD Leroy V. Grosshuesch. I believe this is being done as revenge for me AfDing several pages Jamesallain85 created. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Insofar that Allain's AfDs could be construed as revenge, I don't see it as such. Pages are judged on their merits rather than that of their editors, a lesson I dearly learnt back when I participated in some RfDs. Feel free to comment keep on the discussions, and refrain from listing any more of Allain's articles at AfD, like you did at Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree recently, or Articles for deletion/Alan B. Banister in January this year. Bannister has been kept, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Moreover, I would like to throw a boomerang in relation of your removal of Allain's content at 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines. For example, the numerous Minor Leaguers listed at Atlanta Braves minor league players would have a hard time standing on their own, yet they still remain in Wikipedia in list form. Seeing that the contentious section of the 3B5M article also involve a list, I would side with Allain (insofar that his understanding of notability might be wrong). Thank you. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So multiple edits aimed solely at me following a 1 year absence don't amount to revenge? Interesting perspective. WRT the "notable" members of 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, I apply the WP policies of what makes someone notable i.e. WP:BASIC, so if they don't have a page or SIGCOV they aren't notable just because one User adds them to a list. You omitted the rest of my edit summary which stated: "if pages are written about them they can be added back. Take it to Talk Page and don't edit war them." I have no interest in baseball but presumably WP:NSPORT applies and so if there are people listed on Atlanta Braves minor league players who don't meet those criteria they should be purged. Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification: The edit summary part is due to a now-edited comment of mine, Special:Diff/prev/1030141903. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Having just read WP:NSPORT it clearly states: "Some active minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article. In these cases, it may be appropriate to write a short, stub-length bio as a section within the article on the franchise's minor league players (for example, Minnesota Twins minor league players). Please note that such mini-bios should cite reliable sources and conform with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP." Mztourist (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted, thank you. Let's leave it aside lest it turn into a discussion of baseball articles (I turned an RfD into that once, thanks to an argument). --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 05:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that both you and Allain to consult each other (or a noticeboard) before taking "provocative" actions such as reversion and AfDs - not a sanction of any type, but a gentle(wo)men's agreement. I am convinced that both you and Allain look at the pages' own merit rather than each other, that is, neither of you are vengeful of the other. An interaction ban would do, too, if necessary. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 05:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If I felt that my pages were being considered on their merits I wouldn't have come here. Mztourist (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving me wrong about the "I am convinced" part above. I am looking at taking this to the ArbCom, to be honest, as I trust that they will examine the behaviours involved (including mine) more fairly. I have already written a draft for a potential case. As an involved party, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 15:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The REVENGE continues: Mztourist (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I am seeing you trying to delete his stuff and him trying to delete your stuff. How about we let the deletion debates sort this out? I don't see evidence of revenge. Just as you had innocent motives in finding 4 of his things to delete, why could not his motives be just as innocent? It is often the case that if someone writes something worthy of deletion that the other stuff is too. If this becomes a more clear pattern in the future it might be more actionable. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 09:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Because as I noted above he has been inactive for a year and then returned to WP yesterday only targeting my edits and pages I created. Nothing innocent about it. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * So? I was inactive for over a year. Is the first thing I do automatically suspect? Better question, have you tried asking why he nominated those articles? I am not seeing any conversation on their talk page. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 09:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If all your edits on your first day back targetted one User, then yes. Re your "better question", given the multiple different pages hit conversation didn't seem worthwhile, particularly as he claimed on the dePROD "Unsure of why it was listed for deletion and deleted, I was at the time unaware of the discussion" when a PROD notice had been duly posted on his Talk Page. Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am only attempting to hold Mztourist to the same standard he is holding me. He placed three of my pages up for discussion of deletion in January, all having received the Navy Cross on multiple occasions. When I looked at his pages he created, I felt multiple pages had notability below that of the pages he started deletion discussions about and he should be held to the same standard. The matter of fact is there should be a more clear and concise definition of notability concerning military biographical pages. Since January WP:Soldier is no longer used as a standard, and I feel WP:BIO is too vague when it comes to military biographical pages. Some editors run around and enjoy nominating pages for deletion or mass deletion edits while they don't hold themselves to the same standard. If you would look at the edits I made concerning the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines I undid an edit which was simply deleting more information, there were however a few instances in which I agreed that they were less notable and deleted them in agreement. However, again my edits were simply reverted, I hope an admin will look into the issue and edit the article correctly. There needs to be a clear definition as what is and isn't notable. In the case of edits on the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines page, I felt they were notable enough to be listed and many their own page. However, Mztourist deleted them saying if they didn't have their own page they weren't notable, period. My point, if you read my comment in the edits, was that just because they didn't have their own page didn't mean they weren't notable enough to have one, and listing a person as notable member with a citation supporting their notability should be sufficient. I hope this will again start a discussion concerning the notability of military biographical pages in general, because I am tired of having my work thrown in the trash because of opinions concerning notability. There needs to be a clear standard. Jamesallain85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesallain85 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay I guess I was wrong. I will leave this to another admin. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 09:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. seems to have the mistaken belief that either things should be notable enough to get the own page or they should not be here at all. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 15:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This does seem a little revenge-y, @Jamesallain85. You're saying you decided to go look at their work because they'd nom'd some of yours for deletion. —valereee (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone simply explain how Alan B. Banister or Alexander K. Tyree are not notable and the same person that nominated them for deletion believe John B. Selby is? Banister was a Rear Admiral with two Navy Crosses and Tyree a Naval Captain with two Navy Crosses, both of whom were successful sub captains in WWII. Selby is an Ace with only five kills. Mztourist argues Selby is notable simply by his Ace status, actually I believe none of these pages should be deleted, but I cannot understand Mztourist's motive in nominating pages for deletion while not holding the same standard for himself/herself. If Selby is considered notable then I would also like my page on Albert H. Clark to be undeleted. I am in general unsatisfied, not only with Mztourist, but also with this subjective standard where pages are arbitrarily deleted when they have historical importance and value just because someone has the opinion they lack notability. There needs to be a clear standard to follow so people do not waste time creating pages with the belief they are notable only to have question time and time again. Jamesallain85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesallain85 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, date your signatures. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 14:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow this is a good example of how ANI can make a mess of things. Mz's original complaint has been admitted-to by James, above. Revenge editing is a serious problem in my view; it's a form of harassment that neither Mz nor any other editor should have to face (not to mention a pointy disruption of mainspace); that needs resolution.Separately, whether a list item should be included is a content dispute and we have processes like BRD and RFC for that if needed (not ANI). Finally, NRS should heed the advice in the next section below. Levivich 14:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Interaction ban suggestion
Owing to the fact that Mztourist has rejected my suggestion at peace (Special:Diff/1030152638), and their attitude at me and Allain, I think that the necessary course of action is to either: Thank you. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 14:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let the proverbial boomerang hit by banning him from AfDing Allain's article, unless Mztourist went to his talk page first to ascertain their concerns.
 * If needed, extend a blanket interaction ban between the two users, with the special exception that they are allowed to comment on each other's articles to ascertain any concerns, such as those related to notability.


 * I think both of those suggestions are completely unnecessary. Mztourist has given detailed reasoning for their nominations, while Jamesallain has admitted that their actions are in revenge for Mztourist's nominations. I also think your proposed ArbCom case is a terribly bad idea that will be dismissed at a mere glance. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, ArbCom handles incidents that the community are unable to resolve. – 2 . O . Boxing  18:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, and I knew that the ArbCom thing is a last resort the moment I started drafting the case. However, from where did you get the impression that Allain admitted his vengeful motives? I only see his frustration with what he claimed as double and subjective standards. As for "Mztourist has given detailed reasoning for their nominations", their rationale for the Bannister and Tyree nominations has just 2 sentences each. While Allain's rationale was even shorter, I cannot see why 2 sentences could be seen as "detailed". --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 18:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Jamesallain's first comment is what gives me the impression that their actions are vengeful. They literally said that the only reason they looked at Mztourist's created articles and nominated them is because one of Mztourist's nominations resulted in deletion. I can understand the frustration, but it's revenge all the same. JA could have simply requested restoration then made their case in the subsequent AfD discussion, but instead, as they stated, they wanted to hold Mztourist to the same standard he is holding me. As for your second query, Mztourist gave more than a few words in their initial nomination and expanded upon their concerns in their later comments. – 2 . O . Boxing  19:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Jamesallain just told us he is acting out of revenge. The ideas you are putting forth (an IBAN, an ARBCOM case) are neither appropriate nor productive. Grandpallama (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * can you please explain why "the proverbial boomerang" would hit Mztourist? versacespace  leave a message!  22:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mztourist made it look like as if it was all Allain's fault. Without denying the possibility that he is vengeful, I think that Mztourist's behaviour must be examined as well. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 22:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * NotReallySoroka I really think that you should withdraw from this discussion. Jamesallain's comment above confirms these are REVENGE actions. Admin User:HighInBC confirms the same in their comments above. Mztourist (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would go further and suggest that NotReallySoroka withdraws from all administrative discussions for a long while. Their contributions in this thread are clearly unhelpful (with the ArbCom draft as icing on the cake), and their other admin-related actions recently are rather dubious as well, starting an SPI for editors who haven't edited in years, or another ANI section for edits from a year or more ago. Basically, you are creating more work and are confusing things instead of helping, and are acting offended when this is pointed out. The start of this section, where you want to have sanctions against Mztourist because of their perfectly understandable attitude towards you, is just laughable. Just leave this to others please. Fram (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, NRS. ANI isn't really a good place to hang out for editors at your experience level. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I found that arbitration request draft rather disturbing. Intothatdarkness 15:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think some of the facts have been thrown to the side, Mztourist nominated several articles of mine while WP:Soldier was still in effect, and even nominated one that had already passed a deletion nomination for a second nomination. One was deleted, and when I asked for it to be reinstated, immediately nominated it again. Is there not any rules concerning bully editing? I would also like to bring your attention to the fact, I mistakenly nominated one for deletion by mistake and redacted the nomination because it was up to standard, however the one that hasn't been discussed here was John B. Selby. It was a page created by Mztourist, that didn't meet WP:BIO and has led to a new standard that doesn't exist, that Aces are automatically notable. My subject has been WWII US Submarine commanders, and the pages he keeps nominating are higher ranking and more decorated than Selby. Another double standard, and when one person constantly threatens your work while the rest of the community is satisfied I don't think it hurts to hold a person to the same standard he holds others. It wasn't revenge as much as upholding a standard to a hypocrite. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jamesallain85, calling another editor a hypocrite is a personal attack. I'm going to ask you to strike that.
 * I'm sorry you're feeling bullied, but I just am not seeing it. Nominating articles for deletion can be upsetting to the person whose articles have been nominated, but it's not bullying. The preferred response is to participate at the AfD with well-reasoned arguments, to try to improve the sourcing, and to shrug and move on if the consensus goes against you. It's never to go hunting for articles by the other person to try to Gotcha! and somehow prove the other person is a hyprocrite.
 * Having articles nominated for deletion is part of our process here. It's nothing personal. It's something probably most editors experience with some of their first creations. —valereee (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you read the comments made at the places I listed? It is a lot more than just those deletion nominations going on here. I feel a general bias as we discuss the situation anyway. Read the comments before I responded to this inquiry, my edits were in good faith and other admins here agreed that my edits were correct. I haven't made as half as many edits or deletion nominations to Mz has he has me, but I am accused of revenge. I have taken the criticism to improve the article, and Mz continues to speak against every source regardless of it meeting WP:BIO. The fact he responded right away by nominating the page for deletion a second time in response isn't revenge? I am feeling another double standard. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, @Jamesallain85, I'll bite. Which article did MZ nom a second time? (In general it's helpful within reason to provide links/diffs so people can see what you're talking about when you make an accusation; it would be helpful if you'd provide a link to the request for undelete.) I'll stipulate right up front: No, nominating a second time is absolutely not evidence of revenge. In general AfDs have nothing to do with a double standard and everything to do with a sincere belief a subject hasn't been shown to be notable. Editors here are expected to do these kinds of things. Once again, nomination for deletion is a normal part of our process, and second nominations do happen and shouldn't be taken personally. It's how we work. —valereee (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * POV railroad Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that's something. While I understand why Mz would see you as vengeful (thus bringing the case here) and that I have caused more trouble than contribution, it is something that I agree with. Even if you are vengeful - a notion which I don't disagree with - I hope that it would stop.--NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 9STEPS we are almost to step two I suppose. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How? --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Has anyone taken a close look at how Mz conducts his edits and how he comments? Even now, I have added a ton of sources to my Alexander K. Tyree article amidst criticism, he continues to claim it doesn't meet notability despite numerous sources. I would actually point out at this point Mz's actions easily could be construed as revenge if mine were. Nobody seems to be interested in discussing that. My edits were made in good faith and I stand by my edits. Mz has continued to be hostile even after I have clearly met WP:BIO, which others have also affirmed. I would also like to point out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history discussion I started concerning WP:Soldier. Mz has been anything but civil, my main concern here was double and unclear standards. Jamesallain85 (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation and your quotation of a humorous essay, but not for your aspersions. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 17:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I admit that the ArbCom part is too harsh; ergo, I have submitted it to U1 speedy deletion. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, . I have come to realise that my ArbCom draft is more trouble than it's worth - the reason why I successfully asked for an U1 - I hope that you will not overly focus on my past act. Yes, the boomerang may strike me. However, if you are to talk about me, I hope that it would more often be about my role in this conflict, however detrimental it is. That being said, thank you be being civil and polite - I appreciate it.
 * The SPI and my ANI thread are because of the quite… unusual editing patterns going on in siren-related pages. There is one older SPI (that I started) where the (proven) sock returned to editing siren-related pages in around April, I think. Therefore, I think it makes sense to check for more sock puppets there, but let's not go discuss that here.
 * As for the sanctions, I am suggesting that for Mz and Allain, not me. I have retracted these comments - without retracting the underlying ideas yet - seeing that it is more trouble than it's worth.
 * Thank you. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @NotReallySoroka so I guess that's a "no" on taking the advice of more-experienced editors? —valereee (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Take my comment whichever way you would like. Thank you. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 18:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm forced to take it as evidence of someone resisting becoming clued-in. —valereee (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Take my comment whichever way you would like. Thank you. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 18:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm forced to take it as evidence of someone resisting becoming clued-in. —valereee (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I would propose a resolution, would it be possible to make a gentleman's agreement and just say that I will no longer edit any article or revert edits made by Mztourist and that in return he would do the same? Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Although somewhat admirable, I'd still say that's unnecessary. The best solution here would be to remind you to WP:Assume good faith when dealing with other editors, and let that be that. Unless there's some preexisting issue between you and Mz, there's no reason to assume Mz was acting maliciously. On the other hand, you did (whether you recognise it or not) strongly imply that you acted in revenge through frustration. That's not good, at all, but as it stands it's not really sanctionable. If Mz has a legitimate, policy-based concern with one of your articles then they're free to address that in an appropriate manner (as I believe they have done). The same goes for you. I think the best course of action for you is to raise your notability issues at a WikiProject/MOS talkpage which best suits your needs (I'm not sure which/where, maybe another editor will be able to point you in the right direction). – 2 . O . Boxing  19:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded. --NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion about my concerns, and Mz has just responded in an uncivil manner anyway. Mz will pick and choose parts of the conversation to make comments, while avoiding the overall issues, essentially just stirring the pot. I have relented on deleting Selby, because the article now meets WP:BIO, which it didn't before. However, Mz has done quite the opposite concerning Alexander K. Tyree, accusing newspaper articles from Newspapers.com being fluff because he cannot access them, and disregarding all other sources as well. I have continued to improve the article and sources without any hint of reconciliation. He continues to attack despite the improvements and is just doing so in retaliation, there is no merit in his accusations, and his motives are not in good faith as it currently appears. Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Jamesallain85, again, you're accusing MZ of being uncivil in a discussion, but you aren't giving us a clue where. You haven't responded to a similar request from me above. I'm trying to assess your concerns, but you've got to show me the evidence of what you're complaining about.  —valereee (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite, but from the tone of things I am sure you will just dismiss them as well. The truth of the matter is that at this point Mz is being uncivil and just perpetuating the issue. You can find the conversations at, Reevaluation of WP:Soldier Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree, and Articles for deletion/John B. Selby. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You're giving me multiple discussion to read and try to scavenge for the part where MZ has been uncivil? I am really trying to take into account your inexperience here, so I'm going to just warn you at your talk. —valereee (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * JA85 warned at their talk not to assume bad faith and not to AfD for revenge. I am not optimistic about this user's willingness to try to understand how Wikipedia works. —valereee (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

User: Br Ibrahim john
has consistently engaged in disruptive and tendentious editing.

In contradiction to WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, the user frequently questions the legitimacy of reliable sources. The sources in question are the only available in-depth English-language texts in relation to this subject, but are dismissed outright by the user due to their authors' religion. E.g.
 * "Is there a neutral source other than the partisan sources from Syriac Orthodox apologetics"
 * "you just upholding a biased way of observation. Ignatius Jacob III is not a reliable historian... He just wants to uphold his Church claims and jurisdiction"
 * "interpretations of Ignatius Jacob III and Ignatius Aphrem I can only be considered claims. They are not independent and neutral in this matter"
 * "Ignatius Jacob III and Ignatius Aphrem I are not neutral and independent historians"

The user also makes malicious accusations, e.g.
 * "you should first consider refraining from performing partisan edits"
 * "You are constantly removing sources and sourced content to maintain your biased manipulation. Remember, Wikipedia is not the official website of Syriac Orthodox Church"
 * "please refrain from biased partisan edits"
 * "You have your partisan desires to protect...You really believe that you can do all sorts of vandalism in favour of your Church once I get blocked, right? Do not behave like this, tomorrow someone else who understands your manipulation will remove your partisan edit"
 * "Does the Syriac Orthodox Church pay you?"

As per WP:REHASH, the user lauds a single source above all, quotes from it extensively, and repeats himself with zero effort in persuading other editors (see Talk:List of maphrians); the user accuses me of disregarding the source despite the fact that I had already referenced the source prior to his editing. Moreover, the user misrepresents the source to support his edits. Most importantly, the user has persisted in establishing his edit as the sole version of the article (List of maphrians) contrary to efforts by myself to compromise. As per WP:DAPE, the user has exhausted my patience despite my being the only editor to contribute meaningfully to this subject, please note I wrote the article, as well as all articles on heads of this church. I am aware I am not irreplaceable and I regret my temporary block for edit warring, but I would like to note that I have exerted significant effort into contributing towards Wikipedia in writing these articles, whereas the user only persists in asserting his own personal interpretation. The user has been frequently warned of his behaviour, either for copyright infringement, copy-paste edits, or for edit-warring. Mugsalot (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Although Br Ibrahim john 's behaviour in this dispute is not commendable, I gave a third opinion at the talk page that mostly supported his version, as did Elizium. The issue with Mugsalot's editing on this topic is that they are citing official Syriac Orthodox Church POV and trying to make it the wikivoice. I don't have an issue with presenting the Syriac Orthodox POV in the article as long as it's distinguished as such but we have to be careful to distinguish between church apologetics and independent sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * is continuously reverting back the content which is clearly supported by WP:RS. The user is trying to remove reliable sources and content and is adding his partisan versions. It is done inorder to uphold the Syriac Orthodox claims. Please see Talk:List of maphrians for the previous discussion on the topic. My opinion was clearly supported by the other users., If you are portraying the Syriac Orthodox claim, then you should have explicitly mentioned the term 'claim', so that others can differentiate between the neutral content and Syriac Orthodox apologetics.
 * First of all George A. Kiraz, Sebastian P. Brock and Aaron M. Butts are credible historians.
 * Secondly, I have not said that Marutha of Tikrit was called Maphrian. He was recognised as Catholicos of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Sassanid Empire by Emperor Khosrow II. The title Maphrian came into use much later. But the authority had been inaugurated in 628.
 * Thirdly, the interpretations of Ignatius Jacob III and Ignatius Aphrem I can only be considered claims. They are not independent and neutral in this matter.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , I disagree. I provided caveats such as "according to tradition" and "as recognised by the Syriac Orthodox Church" to ensure it was completely clear that the information provided was the Syriac Orthodox POV. Regardless, this is not an issue of content, but of behaviour, and the user has shown complete disregard for compromise or discussion through tirelessly restoring his version of the article and making baseless accusations against me. Mugsalot (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , How can the content that I have added be considered 'my own version' when it is clearly supported by WP:RS! You were hesitant to discuss your compromise (I don't know if you have provided any) in the talk page of the article. You should try to hear the voice of the majority and should have tried to convince the other users. However, you would first revert back to Syriac Orthodox POV and remove the reliable sources and content. Then you might comment about it in the discussion. Not just that, you have not even replied in the talk page for the last three weeks or even more. But in meantime you have reverted the article back to Syriac Orthodox POV version twice, if I may remind you. I do not oppose your adding of Syriac Orthodox POV in the article. However, we cannot consider Syriac Orthodox POV in the same footing and merit of reliable sources like https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Maphrian. Personally, I do not have any problem in your addition of Syriac Orthodox POV. My concern is when these are contradictory to reliable sources available.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Both users were previously blocked for nearly identical edit warring at the exact same article. I can't comment on any of their other edits since I know nothing about this topic. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 01:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-communicative editor edit-warring in clear violation of the Manual of Style (and good practice)
Can someone else please try having a word with Sloop101? He or she has been edit warring at Virginia Commonwealth University‎ to format images in ways that are in violation of our guidelines for images and make the article difficult to read. More importantly, he or she is refusing to communicate in any way: no edit summaries, no response to User Talk messages, and no participation in the article's Talk page. I'd be happy to discuss the layout of the article and its images but that's impossible when an editor refuses to communicate and only edits to revert back to his or her preferred version with no explanation. ElKevbo (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that the editor is a sock of blocked editor Bradford9. Their edits started shortly after the former was blocked and there is significant overlap, not the least of which is editing images on Virginia Commonwealth University‎. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Team of promotional refspammers
ZaniraM and AceUofT exclusively add refspam by Shafique N. Virani. AceUofT was warned about citing himself but he ignored it and added his cites to at least 10 more articles after that. I have reverted a great deal of them but this has been going on since at least mid-2020. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , while I share your concerns over AceUofT's edits bordering on citation spam (I tried to engage with them about this yesterday, ), I believe that all three edits you reverted and gave out warnings for did add something more or less valuable to the articles concerned (they do seem to be good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia). I have no experience at all with this, and I find it hard to decide what to think about it: there's clearly some problem with the fact that they exclusively add information based on one and the same author, but if the information is helpful, maybe it really isn't so problematic after all. I would at least like to hear what they have to say about it first. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 17:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think AceUofT is going to respond. They haven't so far. I also don't think changing a reference to his own is helpful as opposed to outright spamming. There is also Ahmed Omair who created Shafique Virani and then duplicated the article on their userpage and then never edited again. I also just found AreebaQ whose only edits have been to add Virani references to articles. There appears to be a good handful of SPAs who only promote Shafique N. Virani and make no other edits. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As I keep finding more SPAs adding these references I opened a sock report at Sockpuppet investigations/AreebaQ. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, that outright replacing of a ref you cite clearly is a violation. The Shafique Virani article also has some serious problems, including being largely based on the man's website, which itself is over-the-top promotional for an academic. I'm still hoping will respond, but we clearly have a promotional issue here. Thanks for the work you did on this, ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I just deleted about half of the Shafique Virani article because it was blatant copyright violations lifted from the U of T page, added by an IP user that traces back to the U of T. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 21:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Gree11
User was blocked today in the Spanish Wikipedia for removing referenced content and edit warring  after being warned at the very least five times in their talk page and not offering any explanation. After the block, moments afterwards Gree11 has now proceeded to repeat the same behavior in the same article in English, including but not limited to Carolina Herrera and Popular Will. Without admin intervention, this is only bound to continue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:HighInBC is on the case, saying what I would have said., you need to stop. We're way too busy to spend a lot of time on an editor who keeps removing verified content without explaining what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an editor who seems to be nothing but removing material, without edit summaries, from a mobile device, first on the Spanish Wikipedia and now on the English Wikipedia. It is hard to assume good faith to the point of trying to warn them.  The most obvious explanation is the most negative, which is that this is a form of cross-wiki vandalism.  I suggest a partial block from the pages that they have been subtracting from.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * While I have given a warning, I don't object to another admin taking action. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 01:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * They started right back up the next day. I have blocked them for edit warring. Since this is slow motion edit warring I have made the block for 2 weeks. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 05:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Bad-faith accusations by Dawit S Gondaria
Two days ago, Dawit S Gondaria posted a very long reply to a question I asked at Talk:Amhara people.

Before I had time to read this or to reply, they opened a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, accusing me of POV-pushing and misattributing quotes to the wrong sources. Despite me explaining that I wasn't responsible for adding some of the material concerned (I'd merely restored it pending discussion after it was removed without consensus) and demonstrating that the quotes hadn't been misattributed, the editor continues to make bad-faith accusations (e.g. here: (NB that, as  has pointed out, "unknown so-called scholar" is a reference to a peer-reviewed article by an established scholar).

Dawit S Gondaria has also edited comments after I've replied to them to point out that they contain mistaken accusations against me.

Could another admin look into this and warn the editor against continuing these bad-faith accusations against me, if that is deemed appropriate? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I called out @Cordless Larry for reverting fringe and then adding a statement from Gideon P.E Cohen based on Takelle Tadesse view, but altering in text in such a way(leaving out Takkele Tadesse, leaving out words, and adding According to) made it look like the view is from Gideon P.E Cohen [], I openend the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to have the fringe sections scrutinized, and the edits made. Takkele Tadesse fringe statements is what lead me to open the discussion.


 * I made some policy errors for being relatively new and i apologized for it: [] But fundamentally, it doesn't change what i saw from diffs, and source that Cordless Larry altered text in such a fashion it gave the appearance of broader support for the fringe views of Takkele Tadesse as is being discussed @the Noticeboard.  Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I added "According to" to attribute the quote to its author, Cohen. Anyone wanting to check can see the diff and source (I can supply a copy if necessary). Disagreeing with use of sources or suggesting new ones is fine and can happen on the article talk page, but the issue here is repeated bad-faith accusations and misrepresentations of my actions and intentions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The diff [] says: According to Gideon P. E. Cohen, there is some debate about "whether the Amhara can legitimately be regarded as an ethnic group...given their distribution throughout Ethiopia, and the incorporative capacity of the group that has led to the inclusion of individuals from a wide range of ethnic or linguistic backgrounds". The source says: The question of whether the Amhara can legitimately be regarded as an ethnic group has also been raised, given their distribution throughout Ethiopia, and the incorporative capacity of the group that has led to the inclusion of individuals from a wide range of ethnic or linguistic backgrounds (see Takkele 1994; Tegegne 1998) He removed: Has also been raised(which raises the question who?), and he removed Takelle(who Gideon drew his quote from, and is now the subject of scrutiny at the noticeboard), and he added: According to first time readers would think that it's Gideon P.E Cohen view, which is not, this is what i highlighted among others.

Takelle Tadesse meanwhile made WP:FRINGE statement belonging to a insignificant minority namely, statement: Amharas don't exist and made politically motivated statement about elite belonging to the Amhara people adhering to Herrenvolk nazi ideology. I called on the Noticeboard and invited other Noticeboard to bring more scrutiny at what happend at the Amhara people article. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * We've been over all this on the NPOVN - Cohen doesn't quote Takelle, just cites him as an example. But that's all beside the point here, which is your bad-faith accusations. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Cordless Larry Don't try to sow confusion, i just said above and he removed Takelle(who Gideon drew his quote from, and is now the subject of scrutiny at the noticeboard) Gideon drew his(Gideon own) quote based on Takelle, can't you read that? My bad faith towards you is justified. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As someone who observed (and sometimes participated in) this discussion, I want to affirm that Dawit S Gondaria's accusations against Cordless Larry are indeed unfounded. Reading through Cordless Larry's edits it becomes very clear that he has no personal interest in the actual subject matter of the dispute. He came into editing the page Amhara people being called in as an administrator, after there was already some significant edit warring by other editors. He reinstated some previously deleted material and looked for better sources. All this he explained patiently to Dawit S Gondaria, who continued to write long statements with bizarre accusations that are not born out by the facts. When it was shown to him that the accusations are based on faulty understanding of how sources are used in Wikipedia and in academia, and that sources he characterized as "extremist fringe" POV pushing are indeed peer-reviewed articles, he did nothing to tone down his rhetoric. Even his most recent edits (as seen above) leave little doubt that he sees Cordless Larry as personally guilty of maliciously pushing POV in this matter, which is rather bizarre in the given circumstances. LandLing 20:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @LandLing is not a neutral observer and tries to maintain Takelle Tadesse credibility and his fringe statements. WP:FRINGE i challenged @LandLing & Cordless Larry  to support Takelle's fringe statement that Amharas don't exist, prove it that it doesn't belong to a insignificant minority i called on other the wider Wikipedia community to scrutinize what happend on the Amhara people article, the edits made & the editors over the past months, and years. I rightly showed above what Cordless Larry left out from Gideon P.E Cohen quote, he left the question raising has also been raised he left out that it was based on Takelle view, he added According to, anyone with good faith reading that without checking the sources would assume that it's Gideon P.E Cohen's view is not, your good faith turns to bad faith after reading the source and seeing what CordlessLarry removed. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dawit S Gondaria stop immediately accusing anyone of bad faith or otherwise questioning their motives. We don't care whether you think it's true or not; discuss edits instead of attributing motives to other editors. This is important. If you don't stop, you're quite likely to get blocked until we believe you understand this and will stop. Please tell me that you understand this. Please also stop using typographics such as bold to emphasize, which is considered shouting. You were asked this at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard also, and you've continued to do it.

They may be incorrect, but is there evidence of past consensus other than the fact it had been previously included? —valereee (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC) I'm just going to take Woodroar's word for it. —valereee (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Support some sort of block or restriction on Dawit S Gondaria and canonization of Cordless Larry because he's got the patience of a saint. I'm completely uninvolved here and just read the article discussion and the NPOVN discussion in full. Cordless Larry is simply restoring or adding peer-reviewed sources by Gideon P. E. Cohen and Donald Levine, who appear to be experts—and who, as far as I can tell, Dawit S Gondaria has no problem with. (Dawit S Gondaria even calls Levine a "renowned scholar" at Talk:Amhara people.) But the issue is that Cohen and Levine cite or mention other scholars—Takkele, Tegegne, and Clapham—and Dawit S Gondaria has a problem with them. So we have Dawit S Gondaria complaining at length about Takkele/Tegegne/Clapham, calling them unreliable, POV, fringe, saying their claims are cherry-picked, associating at least one of them with Nazis, etc. (And little to none of that is supported by other reliable sources, by the way, just Dawit S Gondaria's own opinions.) And throughout those complaints, Dawit S Gondaria is accusing Cordless Larry of intentionally pushing those unreliable/POV/fringe positions. Examples include "pushed much of this fringe theory" and "pushing WP:Fringe theory", "is affecting the article WP:NPOV and the quality of the article in general", "Cordless Larry fringe contributions", "abused his admin privileges", "he doesn't cite specific pages which he based his fringe project on", and that's only 2 edits at Talk:Amhara people. Cordless Larry has repeatedly said that he's willing to discuss the reliability of any of the scholars, but Dawit S Gondaria won't stop with the accusations. I suggest a temporary IDHT block until Dawit S Gondaria is ready to listen to Cordless Larry, LandLing, and others. And beyond the IDHT issues, it doesn't help that Dawit S Gondaria's writing is difficult to understand. Those discussions are filled with cut-and-paste Talk page comments with no attribution, inconsistent punctuation (especially quotation marks) so it's unclear who is saying what, unnecessary bolding and italics, etc. I'm guessing there's a language barrier here, so you can probably throw CIR in as well, but that doesn't excuse the refusal to engage in a civil discussion without accusations. Woodroar (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear —valereee Fine, i will tell you i understand. Next time i see edits made, that indirectly cite someone with fringe views, but they are left out of the quote, and so are question raising words. Instead of calling the editor out, i will be editing and citing them instead, and now also highlighting which views are supported by which so-called scholar right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amhara_people#Nature_of_Amhara_ethnicity.


 * @Woodroar you can build an Temple for all i care. You can read up on the term Herrenvolk, but hey this is wikipedia it maybe inaccurate. At least they don't have the fringe minority views over @ https://www.britannica.com/topic/Amhara, it's only here on wikipedia you find fringe minority views saying how 20+ million people identify themselves don't exist. Clearify He doesn't cite specific pages he adds whole chapters, several pages for example P.E Gideon pages 189-206, i cite specific pages 191-192 where the quote is found.  Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'd like to give DSG a bit of rope to prove they do actually understand not to assume bad faith. Does that work for you? —valereee (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly hopeful given the grudging nature of the reply above and of this,, but in general I'm in favour of giving people a chance, so why not. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It would also be helpful if someone could explain the importance of WP:BRD to Dawit S Gondaria (see today's edits to Amhara people). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make a stab at it on their talk, thanks, @Cordless Larry! —valereee (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Cordless Larry what's wrong with my edits to Amhara people? I made a section of the ones claiming Amharas don't exist, i even mentioned it here above. Explain what the problem is? I I improved the section by categorizing the different views. Are you against that? I'm also making sure that Gideon P.E Cohen does cite Takkele & Tegegne, problem? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You made a bold edit, I reverted it, and then you reinstated it rather than continuing the discussion on the article talk page. No one is arguing that Amharas literally don't exist, so yes, I find your latest revision problematic. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Cordless Larry I literally edited that & explained here yesterday that i hihlighted the different views, i also made sure Gideon P.E Cohen cite Takkele & Tegegne with the specific page on the quote in the ref, it didn't in the previous version you reverted to []. Are you telling me i didn't improve the section, compared to what you reverted to? [] & after reading your summary why you didn't know the authors merit it's own section. [] Let's make it easier for readers, let's make it easier for people to find the quotes to specific pages. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On balance, no, I don't think your edits improve the article, but that's not the point here. The point is that when your changes to an article are challenged, you need to engage in discussion on its talk page rather than reinstating them on the grounds that you think you're in the right. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @WP:BRD also says revert only when necessary, only when it's not a improvement. What is stopping you from editing and refining? Policy also said you can could have also taken the iniative on the talkpage. Better yet, it would have been helpful if you put in discuss or WP:BRD in the summary. Cordless Larry Well given our recent dispute it maybe better to have a neutral uninvolved voice in this regarding which one is a improvement or not, maybe even third opinon or RFC, but before that lets discuss. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Disussion of content can move to article talk. I will take discussion of policy to DSG's talk. —valereee (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Got a troll
Seems intent on adding daft content to American Journal of Therapeutics‎ falsely citing me as an author in the author list. Recommend block and/or page protection. This is COVID related. Alexbrn (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sprayed some Troll-B-Gon. If they continue I'll apply to the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Super! Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Troll's back
See. Probably a range block needed next? Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Troll blocked, thank you. I am leaving it open so a range block can be figured out and considered. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 08:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually looking at the two IPs I don't think a range block would work. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 10:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Aaand, back again. Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * They've given us enough data points for another small rangeblock. I see they've been a pest at Talk:Ivermectin too on the other range.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban for Footwiks
has been around a long time, and they make some good edits - but competency remains an issue and today I noticed a serious issue involving copying & pasting categories, rather than moving them to a new name - see histories (now merged) of this and this amongst others. This is not a new issue - I raised the exact same thing with them back in December 2020, see this discussion - so there has been no change in disruptive editing pattern over the past 6 months.

There are also issues with them removing valid categories from articles, see e.g. this and this.

They have also been warned about moving pages without discussion - see this discussion from December 2020, yet today they moved a page which was under AFD discussion, see this.

So, in summary while some edits are good, there is a serious issue with category and page moves which cause a headache to clean up, and concerns about edits involving categories more generally.

I therefore propose the following topic bans:


 * 1) Footwiks is indefinitely topic banned from moving any mainspace page, including articles, categories and templates (broadly construed) without first starting a discussion at the relevant venue; and
 * 2) Footwiks is indefinitely topic banned from adding, removing, or changing the categories present on any mainspace page (broadly construed).

Thoughts? GiantSnowman 21:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I really apolozise for moving category without WP:CFDS and moving page on discussion.

But There has been a misunderstanding about the removing valid categories. Please check out my contriubtions.

Before editing Saigon FC Category:Football clubs in Vietnam Category:Football clubs in Ho Chi Minh City Category:2016 establishments in Vietnam Category:Works association football clubs in Vietnam => After editing (1)

Saigon FC Category:Saigon FC => Creating Category:Saigon FC then reclassified as belows (2)

Category:Saigon FC Category:Football clubs in Vietnam Category:Football clubs in Ho Chi Minh City Category:2016 establishments in Vietnam Category:Works association football clubs in Vietnam

In my defense,

Firstly

I just forgot the GS's instructions gave six months ago. I'm so forgetful these days. Sometimes I forgot my boss's instructions gave just one month ago.

Because of this, I think GS is very angry with me. I have absolutely no intention of ignoring it. Don't get me wrong.

Secondly,

About this issue Notice said that Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice.

I thought maybe title changing was included in article improvement. That's all.

Finally, I didn't edit that in a malign way. I moved category and pages just in order to clean up and arrange for wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you will take good care of it.

As you know, Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process. Because everybody don't receive money from wikipedia. Not full time job, Volunteer work.

I hope that administrators are generous to a faults and mistakes for ordinary wikipedia users.

I am confident that My 99% contributions about category and title changing was beneficial to wikipedia, 1% contributions are faults and mistakes.

Indefinitely - I thik it was too much for my unintentional faults and mistakes.

Anyway, Once more, I apologize for having caused trouble and espcially GiantSnowman.

I will be more cautious in the future. Footwiks (talk)


 * I don't mean to be a pain or rude in anyway, but all of this seems unnecessary,, the way I see it, you making a big deal out of a small issue which can easily be sorted out between the two of you. I hardly see an issue that requires an ANI response! Govvy (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We have an editor with a long history of disruptive edits, which he knows and admits are wrong (even if made in good faith), but which he "forgets" not to do?! No. It definitely needs wider views & comments. GiantSnowman 11:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do see some bad edits at times from Footwiks, but that's why we have talk pages, to discuss these issues. I don't see how a topic ban will accomplish anything. Footwiks has clearly show above he is willing to chat and compromise. Clearly starting a proper conversation on his talk page would be far more beneficial than template it. Govvy (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * He said that in December 2020 after I raise it with him then - and yet here we are, 6 months later, discussing the same problems, with no change in editing... GiantSnowman 11:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't see this as something requiring sanctions. Perhaps if it continues, but it seems to me as if this is a relatively minor mistake followed up by the same mistake several months later. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What about putting Footwiks on probation for some amount of time? I don't think it necessarily meets the definition given in :
 * But as GiantSnowman said, Footwiks make[s] some good edits despite the competency issue, so maybe they should take a break from that area for a bit, or have someone check their edits? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that, as something less serious in the hope it changes behaviour permanently. I definitely think something formal needs to be in place. GiantSnowman 21:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Once more, I apologize for forgetting GS's instruction. But I have something to tell administrators.
 * (1) Proportionality is a general principle in law. Of course, here is not the law court, But I want to take a appropriate penalty for faults and mistakes I made.
 * (2) In my humble opinion, Firstly I really appreciate administrators' hard work and dedication for wikipedia progress. But sometimes wikipedia administrators use straight out term - ban or block.


 * For example:


 * AFD Notice said that "Feel free to improve the article", Notice is misleading and this discussion is not about a title move. Just as part of article Improvement, I changed the title.
 * But GS said to me: "I have reverted the undiscussed move by @Footwiks:, which happened after the AFD was opened. '''If it happens again I will block Footwiks."


 * I could be wrong on that, but I felt bossy tone of voice. Administrators are not a boss of ordinary users, Administrators and ordinary users are companions for wikipedia progress.
 * I ask you carefully think and do it about ban or block. Ban or block should come as a last resort, not a first resort.Footwiks (talk)
 * You do understand that a topic ban is not the same as a ban or block, right? And that the point of a topic ban is to keep your editing in check so that you do not end up banned or blocked... GiantSnowman 19:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Chicora26 making legal threats on helpdesk << says it all
Chicora26 claiming to be a senator is threatening legal action on the Helpdesk []. I'm sure this isn't appropriate. Elemimele (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * follow-up, I went to the person's Talk-page to alert them to this complaint only to find it had been processed already (they're banned), sorry to have raised a false alert Elemimele (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Presidency of Jair Bolsonaro


I imagine that [|this] ("I think this guy deserves an encounter with the guillotine") and [|this] (he wrote: "the president currently ruining host country Brazil") are not acceptable behaviors for a user. He is unbelievably extolling his editorial bias, as if to say: "I'm here to attack Jair Bolsonaro". The user ir publicy preaching someone's murder on Wiki and need to be banned.2804:214:8286:F571:3D69:7E3D:7A46:F1EC (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This was previously posted at COIN. --- Possibly &#9742; 00:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Where the user was directed to seek another venue. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit summary is far more editorial commentary than active advocacy for murder. Should Igordebraga rein in the hyperbole? Maybe. But it's certainly nothing that would warrant a ban from articles on Brazilian politics. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The edit summary "adding the reason why I think this guy deserves an encounter with the guillotine" is not appropriate. I recommend a large trouting at their talk page and a warning that if this becomes a pattern it can result in blocking. I am seeing about 20k edits over 16 years with no block history so I am assuming this is not already part of a pattern but merely a lapse in judgement.


 * I will also point out that it is not appropriate to log out to make a complaint about an editor. It should be done from their primary account. In addition you failed to notify the editor you are making the complaint about as is required. I will do that now. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 00:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding words. Yes, that was just me letting my frustration (it's been well-documented how isolation is making people sadder and angrier) out loud in a lapse of judgment. And given this overreacting IP tries to condemn me based on a page both marked as humorous and downright signed to note it contains personal opinions: should all past contributors of the Top 25 Report be banned because they wrote their negative feelings on Trump, Boris Johnson and plenty other people? In short, no, I'm not on Wikipedia just to take shots at my country's government. And yes, I've been behaving well for very long, and don't want to change. igordebraga ≠ 00:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

New user gaming ECP to edit on Indian caste related articles
is a month and change old but didn't edit much early on. Starting a few days ago, they began to game WP:ECP permissions by adding wikilinks to random articles and mostly from trivial edits to their user page - Special:Contributions/Nobodyfornow. Once they had ECP, jumped headlong into the Rajput caste related articles. At a minimum, ECP needs to go, but a topic ban may also be in order given that area has been pretty ugly of late. I will also be warning them of the DS around India and GS around Caste, just to be complete.  Ravensfire  (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can people not insta-close reports at ANI? What exactly is the reason that this is being done?  Anyway, there's circumstantial evidence that this is User:MuslimKhstrana, and it's certainly User:Sharma666.  I removed extended confirmed and blocked the socks.  Someone should look over these discussions and tell me if there are more users that I should check because I don't understand what they're talking about.  Given that there's at least one sock from 2019 that appeared out of nowhere to agree with Nobodyfornow, there may be more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * NinjaRobotPirate, you may also want to look at Mufasa19995 - they were active in July 2019 on History of India trying to (big shock coming up) increase the Rajput coverage. Shortly after they posted on the talk page, Sharma666 is created and immediately posts their support.  Meat puppetry at best.  Mufasa hasn't edited in a while though, so wait and watch may be the only option.   Ravensfire  (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the account is too stale for CU. I blocked anyway, mostly because of this shared interest, where the accounts seem to be making the same points. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits by User:Mili977
Admins, this user has been making unconstructive edits to the article. He or she has been adding poorly sourced material. ,, , ,. At first, the user added original research and then he/she cited unreliable websites (their additions were removed by an admin, since it violated copyright). I have warned him/her multiple times—both on usertalk page (all the warnings) and edit summary box. Now, he/she doesn't even bother to reply or add WP:RS. Regards, . 245CMR . •👥📜 13:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mili977 was not notified of this discussion, a requirement that is mentioned at the top of this page. — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have notified. . 245CMR . •👥📜 07:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * see . . 245CMR . •👥📜 07:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The user is still not stopping, I have warned multiple times. Is no one going to check????? . 245CMR . •👥📜 09:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Wikipeda bleeding? no correct place to post this, but ...
Is Wikipedia bleeding? I've been noticing the last few weeks that CSDs and related activity, have dropped to almost zero. Same phenomenon at WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, CAT:AFD, and others. Summer vacations aside, I don't think it dropped like this during the summer 2020 Covid 19 panic. This is odd. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, no one could go anywhere last year, that might be part of the problem. If you're bored and stuck at home, might as well contribute to the sum of human knowledge -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  20:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I get that part. But I've been an admin through five summers now, and no summer has been this barren. To put it bluntly, it seems that some seem to devote their lives to rid Wikipedia of their particular perceived errors or articles they believe should never have been written, that kind of thing.  Someone once described WP:ERRORS (and I'm paraphrasing here) as nothing but a bunch of cranks and nitpickers.  This is strange. — Maile  (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Could also be the opposite effect. After a year and a half in the United States of almost complete lockdown, people are fleeing outdoors and on summer vacations as fast as possible. In other words, it's not so much that we had a massive influx that is now dying down as much as having a disproportionately large number of editors happy to be allowed to go out and away from computers than we might have (at least in the post-vaccination States) in a normal summer. Grandpallama (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

BabyKate1
I've received a rather weird email from this editor. They're currently blocked but seem to be spamming random wikipedia editors demanding they be unblocked.

I didn't know where else to bring this one but sounds like they need email access withdrawn. WCM email 23:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. All the best,  Mini  apolis  23:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Erennica doing PA on my talk page repeatedly
The user does PA on my talk page and re-adds it when I revert the edit.--V. E. (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Someone else did personal attacks on my talk page earlier this month. I'd appreciate it, if you could protect my talk page.--V. E. (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit in question was not a personal attack—at least, I don't see an obvious one. User has been advised that 3RR applies when re-adding messages or warnings to user talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks.--V. E. (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism and/or WP:CIR
in Template:2021 Copa América group tables. On 19 June (UTC time), removed the A note (meaning Brazil advanced to quarter-finals) without explanations. The A note was reinstated by with an explanation  on 20 June, only to be removed again, still unexplained. Later that day, I tried to reinstate the note (,, etc.) and discuss (in edit summaries and his/her talk page ),  also did. We received no replies by any means, but the reverting finally stopped in late 21 June. Then today, he/she adds a wrong A note for Peru, and the reverting continues, despite explanations by , 2 IPs ( and ), myself ( and in his/her talk page ) and. Centaur271188 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I just gave the user a level four warning and warning about 3RR (which I did not see on their talk page) for a further revert. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Ulises142 - When a user receives three final warnings, and yet continues vandalizing
has been vandalizing for several days at this point. Don't let their blank talk page confuse you, there have been multiple final warnings this month. Removal of speedy deletion tags: Ulises142info. Move vandalism:. Plain ol' vandalism:. More move vandalism:. This user is causing damage that others need to fix, and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. In total, three final warnings were left by, and myself. Curbon7 (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to clarify: the reason we didn't see the prior final warnings is cause the user blanked his talk page after every one, so RedWarn didn't detect the prior warnings. Curbon7 (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72 hours. I didn't realize RedWarn was so... (searches for polite word).. limited. Live and learn. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

User:WesternPenquin
The edit history speaks for itself: This account made 10 minor edits over 4 days to reach Autoconfirmed and then began repeatedly removing the same content from Tucker Carlson, narrowly skirting 3RR. Multiple userpage warnings (including one for edit warring ) were ignored. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Date-changing vandalism from Albania – possible rangeblock?

 * Jun 2021 –
 * Jun 2021 –
 * Jun 2021 –
 * Jun 2021 –
 * Jun 2021 –
 * Jun 2021 –
 * Jun 2021 –
 * May 2021 –

Someone from Albania has been using multiple IPs to change to wrong dates in music articles. The most recent seven IPs might be stopped by a rangeblock.

The disruption has been going on for a long time. In 2019, Special:Contributions/46.99.114.179, Special:Contributions/46.99.98.209, Special:Contributions/46.99.91.33 and Special:Contributions/46.99.116.157 were active, for example. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC) New block evasion! Now it's IP Special:Contributions/46.99.72.61. Previous activity on the /21 occurred earlier this month with Special:Contributions/46.99.72.136 and Special:Contributions/46.99.73.243. Looks like another rangeblock could help. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I blocked Special:Contributions/46.99.96.0/19 (which covers all IPs above except for the inactive 46.99.91.33) for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! We can close this thread. Binksternet (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The assigned CIDR block (and the range that would cover everything mentioned here) is . --Blablubbs&#124;talk 15:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I blocked Special:Contributions/46.99.64.0/18 for three months. Thanks for monitoring this nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Article section ban?
has had issues maintaining neutrality in their handling of contentious material on. The subject's conservatorship is a high-profile enduring event, and I've had concerns about whether the user's personal bias inhibits them from selecting appropriate material to include.

In this edit, Thelonggoneblues summarized their changes as balancing a bias between TMZ tipped sources vs non-corporate media tipped sources without adding any new citations on top of the (reliable) sources already cited. Here, they introduced undue content (and included statements that fail the BLP policy) per a New York Times article. In this discussion, the user said they support the notability of highlighting a grassroots movement that advocates for disability rights. No one is doing that. We're all supposed to document what is in reliable sources in a way that adheres to guidelines.

I was wondering whether there is a way to keep the user from editing the specific section where the conservatorship is discussed since their contributions in other sections seem to be constructive. If not, I would love advice on how to navigate this situation. Thank you! KyleJoan talk 04:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of a section ban. I know, however, that there are site bans, section bans and page bans. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure there isn't any policy that allows section bans. The logistics would be pretty difficult; the software doesn't set in stone sections, as they can be added, deleted or changed in a single edit, so defining it would be difficult. Better just to page ban if it comes down to it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me &#124; Contributions). 09:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your input. While I think a page ban would be a tad harsh, some of the user's statements suggest that their understanding of policies may be off. In the archived discussion linked above, they said: It was later identified by the Wikipedia as an malpractice evaluation, so this is not per Original research at all. It insinuated that anything that has been included at some point in time should be free from scrutiny. The subject's conservatorship is too contentious of a topic to be managed in this manner. KyleJoan talk 10:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking strictly about community-imposed editing restrictions in general: editors can be banned from editing about a topic, which can cover related sections in articles while still permitting edits to the rest of the article. isaacl (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably a topic ban for editing "Britney Spears conservatorship" would work? Not sure why @Thelonggoneblues is ignoring this, they've edited since. —valereee (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * —valereee (talk), I spoke to KyleJoan on their talk page, I'm not ignoring the topic. I assumed I was not welcome to discuss it here, as I was unsure whether I could defend myself, or let other editors decide on their own. I've agreed that any statements that come across biased can be corrected, removed, and I won't add or amend it. I am following that guidelines as best as I can. I've made many edits since then, and I believe only one was removed. I hoped to contribute more to the new article FreeBritney on its own, regarding some statements Jamie's lawyer had made in contrast to what Britney has said in court; whether one is telling the truth and one isn't is none of my business. Obviously it is a contentious case. I will try to contribute information that shows both sides of the issue, if I can. I definitely crossed the line initially a while ago, with some phrasing and assumptions/misreading, but I am past that. So if I'm making a case to defend myself, I will say that I should not be banned from the topic, but I am willing to accept it if I am, if anyone feels it keeps continuing. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't delight in saying this, but I do believe a topic ban would be appropriate. Thelonggoneblues's assertion that only one [edit] was removed is false, and one edit does not mean one statement (e.g., ). In addition, it's concerning that they said they would try to contribute information that shows both sides of the issue, as that would also be inappropriate if reliable sources happen to assign more weight to one side's perspective in the future. I'm also not sure that the user is past making assumptions and misreading because they included this unsourced bold claim only yesterday. KyleJoan talk 04:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, User talk:KyleJoan, this is not a bold claim. The subject in question's sister spoke in her testimony that her family "did nothing" while she endured "abuse" equivalent to "sex trafficking", and I did add a source but it was rejected (which I did not see) as per 'unreliable source claims' (and it was not TMZ, which I supported as being discarded, regardless of their information being pro-conservatorship or not), it was rather a UK media source. I added Huffington Post, and I will continue to add more sources. Whether others dispute this is up to them, feel free to remove the information I have added if you feel it is not good enough. It is also public knowledge that Jamie Lynn has garnered controversy and dismissed the situation for this for over two years, I was waiting until a statement by the public figure allegedly mistreated to have a legitimate party to back it up, because previously it was all dismissed as rumours by a grassroots movement to harass Jamie Lynn.--Thelonggoneblues (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 'that would also be inappropriate if reliable sources happen to assign more weight to one side's perspective in the future': This is not what I meant. Rather than create a confusing narrative, I meant that one perspective might have been displayed because the other party (Britney Spears) was either silenced, or misguided (by an inference). It is clear certain information is vital to discuss, such as: we were told in court documents Samuel Ingham said Britney had the authority to file for termination, but she said in the court hearing she was not previously informed of this. It is not up for me to decide whether Mr. Ingham lied, I would simply state Spears is contradicting that information/claim in court previously given by Ingham. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lastly, that statement ) you point out was prior to our discussion regarding all, or at least, much of this (I believe you came to my Talk Page as soon as that was contributed?). I did mean the Jamie Lynn Spears edit was the one edit, but actually another editor re-added it, not me, after it was removed (you can check that), and I simply replied back. If you choose to remove it again, by all means you have my support. I support whatever decision is made by multiple editors. If any others want to give their perspective, that's fine and welcome.--Thelonggoneblues (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also public knowledge that Jamie Lynn has garnered controversy... It's not. No reliable source has said this.
 * ...I would simply state Spears is contradicting that information/claim in court previously given by Ingham. That would be improper synthesis. No reliable source has said this.
 * Since our first discussion about this topic in September 2020, it is clear that Thelonggoneblues has not learned much about how to document this topic appropriately. Their obvious personal bias aside, the user has not exercised the discretion necessary, as they have repeatedly failed to differentiate information in reliable sources from their own conclusions based on information in reliable sources. Please topic ban them. KyleJoan talk 19:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is false, User talk:KyleJoan. 'SYNTH cautions against original research by synthesis, where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources.' My statement above was a hypothetic scenario of information given to the public I've found, not mentioned on the Wikipedia. My point is, a source saying those two things does not mean I'm granting a new conclusion. It is simply saying, two people live on Planet XYZ, and this person said the sky was grey and this person said the sky was blue on Planet XYZ, therefore disputing one another. This also falls under SYNTH is not a summary, SYNTH is not a rigid rule and SYNTH is not a catch-all. Thanks. I'd support the ban, but it is probably pointless as I will not be contributing to new material anyway, in the future most likely. But I respect your amendments made and the effort you've made on the page. If I contribute more, I will go to your Talk Page and ask if you can add information if I ever find something worth contributing to. Have a good day. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Point of order: if a topic ban is imposed, you will not be allowed to discuss the subject anywhere on Wikipedia. That includes asking other people to edit the page on your behalf. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Multiple anonymous vandalizing on Ken Willis page
I happened to come across some weird content on the Ken Willis page. Looking at the history, there were a number of IP-only edits from similar IPs. Since that former professional athlete is apparently a teacher now, my guess is that this is students (some of the content claims to be from students), possibly posting from school computers. Would it be reasonable to protect the page so that only logged-in users could edit it? He is retired from the NFL, so it seems unlikely that there would be a great need to edit the page. And of course if there is a need, someone could create an account. The big thing would seem to be to end the anonymous edits, as they seem overwhelmingly to be vandalism and the use of multiple IPs make warnings unlikely to be effective. I did not go past the first page of the history, but about a third of the edits seem to be anonymous and later reverted. At least logged-in users can be warned, suspended, etc. Mdfst13 (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The playing around with this article has been going on since last October, with only one (incomplete) revert before Mdfst13's. It's clear that no active editor has been watching the article, so I've semiprotected it for a year (and added it to my watchlist). If that seems too long, any admin is welcome to adjust the expiration date. Deor (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

NOTHERE use of Wikipedia to host fan fiction
all appear to be the same WP:NOTHERE user engaged in using Wikipedia to host fan fiction.

Six months of nothing but webhosting of fan fiction. RE WP:OUTING I won't link to the non-Wikipedia fan site where it appears the same user has been posting this same material, but this is nothing but descriptions of imaginary productions the writer would like to see happen. It's not immediately obvious from looking at the Wikipedia material how bogus this is until you look at the many bizarre pipes that make it look as if there are Wikipedia articles backing things up, or try to actually find any real sources that these things exist. See the edit histories of Draft:Justice Knight, Draft:JK, Draft:J/K, Draft:YHWH, User:Defesa777, and User:Amigos da Verdade  (some have been already been deleted as WEBHOSTING and will not be viewable by non-admins).

No response to pointing to WP:NOTWEBHOST and repeated attempts to communicate with user, other than the abandonment of user:Amigos da Verdade and the creation of user:Defesa777. (User seems to have created Defesa777 on May 21 just after the warning to Amigos da Verdade and largely switched to using the second account). Meters (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP has no edits other than to this group of articles, and first appeared on Draft:JK mere days after its creation by Amigos da Verdade. Meters (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Meters apart from a bizarre set of self indulgent edits, do you perceive this also to be sockpuppetry? Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 19:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All three are almost certainly the same person. Per NOTHERE, I have indeffed the two accounts and blocked the IP. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While not block evasion, it was WP:ILLEGIT. The second account was WP:SCRUTINY and the IP was WP:LOUTSOCK. Meters (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of games with FSR support
I added the AfD to the list yesterday, now I notice a few more comments on it. It was pretty clear the creator just logged out of his account to post from his IP. But now the other usernames, are they all the same person?? Can an admin have a look? I am not sure where to start or where to end, who is the puppet to the puppeteer. Govvy (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 's one singular edit is at that AfD, and uses the same choice of words (" it's an informative page") as 7Prefix7, which is a bit suspect. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 07:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there are no socks in that discussion. I am not really surprised that people are showing up in that discussion because the technology is kind of a big deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the technology is a 'big deal', maybe someone should write an article about it, demonstrating the notability of the topic via third-party coverage. Because as it stands, the list contains a redirect to an article that doesn't actually tell anyone what FSR is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * no socks? And what about Silvershot10, an account with one edit in 2012 to suddenly turn up again in 2021 directed straight to this AfD. I don't know about ducks, but it smells fishy to me! Not to mention being created just to post one comment at this AfD. :/ Govvy (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While not sockpuppetry, there might be canvassing involved, intentional or unintentional. The creator of the list page shared it on Reddit, which probably explains a lot of the sudden interest in it. --Veikk0.ma 04:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a ballot added to the discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That account made 2 small edits before he even commented to you he was also editing at the same time as me before. And as this admin has stated the accounts defending me are not alts. I dislike how you are accusing me of things with no evidence and also why you are emotionally involved in trying to get this page removed. Your behavior is very improper. 7Prefix7 (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * O, the evidence is obvious to me. Govvy (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not sock puppetry, it's unintentional canvassing from reddit. The creator of the article made a reddit post shortly before they started the article on a pc gaming subreddit asking people to help them write their new page and add missing entries to the list, which is why this day old orphaned article has been edited by about a dozen IP's and several brand new accounts. 16 hours after the reddit post it was sent to AFD. Clearly what's happened is that people reading the reddit post have ended up at the AFD discussion. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC

I'm the creator of the post on reddit, i just wanted a place where people could see all games FSR support, just like the DLSS wikipedia page/article. Badhunter0303 (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

User:RandomCanadian and Peter Daszak


Hello, I'd like to bring to the admin's atention the behaviour of in the article Peter Daszak.

For a quick summary, Peter Dazsak is the only US member of the WHO's investigation team into the origins of COVID-19. There's an extremely well-sourced link between Daszak and the Wuhan lab (I can provide a plethora of more sources like this, but I think you get the picture)

While I applaud RandomCanadian's effort into fighting misinformation, he reverted my WP:GOODFAITH addition including these aspects into Peter Daszak's article. When asked why, he reverted my addition to his talk page. When I tried reinstating my content, he reverted me again, and further reverted my second addition to his talk page without adressing my remarks. He cites WP:BLP. I've been a Wikipedia editor for 15 years, I know what WP:BLP entails. All my additions were properly sourced, none were contentious (never accusing him of anything in Wikipedia's voice) and quotes were properly attributed. In any case, most of the content I added stemmed from Dazsak's The Lancet letter which didn't disclose his association with the Wuhan lab. This was noted in extensive WP:RS as indicated above and as sourced in my edit, and led The Lancet to issue an addendum asking him to disclose this. Some of this content was already in the article but was missing a lot of recent coverage (and some not so recent). Daszcak right now is almost EXCLUSIVELY known for this potential conflict of interest in WP:RS, a fact that is missing in his article.

In my opinion RandomCanadian is showing signs of WP:OWN, with a grave potential of WP:BITE, in a battleground-like approach in what would otherwise be a noble intention of fighting misinformation. I don't bring this as an edit warring issue because I see this behaviour towards other editors, and similar content in other articles for example this weird wording without atribution that was deleted but reverted in an unpolite form by him, this unpolite behaviour is explicit in his User page, where he says "To those intent on complaining about how Wikipedia isn't presenting your favourite conspiracy theory in a favourable light: Fuck off." At the center of this issue, it seems RandomCanadian considers the so-called lab-leak theory as a conspiracy theory, just as Peter Daszak, contradicting what the WHO and extensive WP:RS say, that it is at least possible (although unlikely). In this fashion, he has reverted edits in the talk page suggesting these changes, this edit, while not properly sourced, brings the same arguments covered in most WP:RS now, and reverted and accused newbie editors of sockpuppets without any proof then unilaterally "decided" that "the controversy and misinformation about the lab leak is UNDUE and off-topic" in the Peter Daszak article , linking to a weird essay which could be misunderstood as policy, an essay which accuses anyone signaling these topics as meatpuppets.

I'm compltely uninvolved in COVID related articles, barely editing the Sputnik V article a year ago and maybe other minor edits. I'm certain well sourced assertions and properly attributed criticism is not and has never been WP:BLP. The bulk of this criticism has been discussed in the Talk Page (The entire talk page is about this issue, by multiple editors), despite the multiple reverts of WP:GOODFAITH additions by RandomCanadian. I have noted this behaviour is not exclusive to COVID articles. His misuse of the ROLLBACK tool is constant, with WP:ROLLBACKUSE saying Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool.. One has to be aware of good faith edits, not reverting when additions could be worked on per H:RV (Consider very carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?) and the essay WP:ONLYREVERT

Thanks for you time and I apologize for potential grammar mistakes, English is not my native language. Loganmac (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like you made a bold edit and were reverted with an explanation. You have since created a talk page discussion, though no one has responded. Things seem to be proceeding per WP:BRD. No one owes you a detailed explanation of their reasoning, and everyone has the right to remove posts on their own talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said this is less about the edit war and more about the general behaviour showcased which has potential ramifications for several users. My edit wasn't as WP:BOLD as it seems, I was already aware of the contents of the Talk Page, which like I said almost all mention what I added Loganmac (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the strength of the sources, reverting on BLP grounds is not correct. RandomCanadian tends to exhibit a bit of ownership on content relating to the lab leak theory, and should probably engage more in consensus building rather than imposition. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think a WP:Consensus required discretionary sanction would be appropriate for the Daszak article, as he is not only embroiled in the lab leak saga (WP:ARBCOVID) but is also a BLP.
 * Regarding the behavioral concerns, here is the timeline of events here, because I think it is illustrative:
 * 2:36–2:43: Loganmac introduces the content
 * 2:47: RandomCanadian reverts
 * 3:10: Loganmac leaves a message on RandomCanadian's talk page, asking them to not revert good faith edits or potentially be blocked, and suggesting WP:ONLYREVERT is required behavior
 * 3:15 RandomCanadian removes the talk page message, asking RandomCanadian to read a few P&Gs and discuss on the article talk page
 * 3:16: Loganmac reverts Peter Daszak to restore their content
 * 3:17: RandomCanadian reverts
 * 3:30: Loganmac leaves another message on RC's talk page
 * 3:46: RandomCanadian removes the talk page message, informing Loganmac that it's acceptable to remove comments from one's own talk page and again asking Loganmac to discuss at the article talk page
 * 4:51: Loganmac begins a talk page disussion at Talk:Peter Daszak
 * 5:31: Loganmac begins this ANI discussion, without waiting for RandomCanadian to contribute to the talk page message
 * RandomCanadian reverted Loganmac's edit with an explanation, and the next step should have been to begin a discussion on the article talk page, not re-revert to insert the contested content (and only after being reverted a second time, begin a talk page section). This whole issue could have been avoided if Loganmac had gone from step 4 to step 9, and waited for RC's input at the article talk page section. The immediate threat that RC might be blocked for reverting (with apparent misunderstandings of WP:ONLYREVERT) and the opening of this ANI discussion without waiting for RC to discuss on the talk page appears quite WP:BATTLEGROUNDy to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree on a consensus required DS for this BLP who is much-in-the-news being connected to a conspiracy theory. —valereee (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not quite an accurate description. There has been far too much conflation of this so called conspiracy theory with other, more grounded reporting from RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that RC's revert (which I agree with in principle, apart from not using WP:CIVIL language in the edit notes) appears to have been more about using non-neutral language to describe what was described in some otherwise good sources (along with a few non-neutral sources that I don't feel fit WP:BLPSTYLE, even with attribution, including a National Review opinion piece titled "China Apologist Peter Daszak Has Some Explaining to Do"), and possible WP:COATRACK additions which were purely about the origin investigations rather than Daszak's involvement. I think the revert matches policy of WP:BRD and WP:BLPBALANCE (The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.. Final policy point, I'm a bit surprised cited WP:ROLLBACKUSE, as it explicitly states The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. RC added comments to his rollbacks (and I've found him to be consistent in doing so), so I'm uncertain what to make of this apparent misuse of policy by the submitter.
 * On the content dispute, I was pinged, and subsequently [ made suggestions] for how to improve the edits for NPOV and BLP, eventually adding these edits once there were talk comments exhibiting some loose consensus. Submitter replied once to my initial suggestions, but not yet to my response (there was also no mention made of this ANI request on the talk page, which I have since added). I suspect the content dispute can be resolved easily (and most of the comments on the talk page and edits to the article have been productive since), but I have not found to be as engaged in building consensus or justifying edits from WP:PAG concerns as I'd like. They appear to be insistent their proposed edits were flawless and anyone who disagrees for whatever reason is "whitewashing" the article, which I feel is much more concerning behavior than the original complaint that an R in a WP:BRD is somehow unacceptable. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a basic content dispute that has been brought to ANI in lieu of actually waiting for discussion on the talk page to develop. If anyone here is WP:BATTLEGROUNDing or edit warring, I would argue that it is. should have been more civil, and criticism is fair for that. But I don't believe he's actually broken any WP:PAGs here. Loganmac, on the other hand, has repeatedly controverted the spirit of WP:BRD and brought a content dispute to ANI. Could be a WP:BOOMERANG situation. But the editor also seems inexperienced, so perhaps a simple warning is all that's necessary here.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not so inexperienced. I was thinking the name seemed familiar and finally looked to see why: it's because they were sanctioned in the 2014–15 GamerGate arbitration case for battleground conduct: Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah... I find their statement at the time to be interesting. Both for the similarities ('reverting good faith edits') and for what appears to be different (the perspective around neutral tone for topic on which there is criticism). Bakkster Man (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know who it is exactly who debunked this here, but the dubious claims about rollback abuse are not unprecedented - see (from a wee bit ago). As I said, I'm feeling suspicious, and yes, harassed, but there's nothing I can prove at this point so I'll just bear this out, hoping it eventually stops: whether that's likelier to come first because it stops being in the news cycle when COVID becomes irrelevant, or because of enforcement actions against tendentious editors here, I don't know. Anyway, I'm fed up with this and I probably should take a Wikibreak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  23:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That diff left is one of my contributions, but I wasn't notified that my name was being brought up here at AN/I, in a vague sense that I'm somehow up to no good. That's not cool, RC. You owe me either evidence of actual wrongdoing, or an apology. Otherwise, it's casting aspersions. Geogene (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The evidence is at the AE thread, where I've given a clear account of your BATTLEGROUND attitude (which also includes casting of aspersions), behaviour which extends even beyond the COVID area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have filed an AR/E request regarding a potential violation of Loganmac's gender controversy topic ban above. Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Noting here that I have gone ahead and imposed a consensus required restriction at Peter Daszak as a COVID-19 discretionary sanction. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * After looking at page Peter Daszak and sources, I should say that the revert by Random Canadian was fully justified. However bringing this complaint by Loganmac to ANI was not. My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A COI about a COI
, since this noticeboard is for editor conduct issues and since you are an editor with POV on the subject of edits, it would be better for you to leave this to an WP:UNINVOLVED admin. Thank you. CutePeach (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is nothing wrong with Firefangledfeathers or anyone else commenting here. It might be different if FFF was an admin, and if they were to take administrative action in a dispute with which they were involved, but for better or worse, there is no prohibition on making a comment in response to an editor with whom you have previously disagreed. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  10:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I didn't mean to imply that can't comment here and I apologise to them if they took it that way. I was retorting to their comment that the OP is not owed an explanation for a two time revert on a WP:DUE submission which met WP:BURDEN. I don’t agree with everything in OP's edit, but I wouldn’t have reverted them without explaining it, while citing WP:ONUS. There is a very close parallel to this case, which RandomCanadian already started cropping . Note that RandomCanadian below accuses OP of harassment for reaching out on their talk page.. CutePeach (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think most of what you've said here is wrong. I don't want to bog this section down with more conduct dispute unrelated to RC, so I ask you to start a user talk page discussion, post a new thread here, or strike your comments about me and drop it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:Only revert is an essay. WP:ONUS and more importantly WP:BLP are policy. Your edits have been reverted, and the reason why I reverted your posts on my talk page is because its the wrong venue to discuss article content. Now please, since you absolutely overreacted to this and went straight to the dramaboard, I'm asking both of you (CP and the OP) not come back to my talk page. I have smarter things to do than deal with PROFRINGE harassement and disruption (which involves mostly other editors). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't is it better to have a COI about a COI than to be coy about a COI?-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 11:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note also CP's canvassing (via ping and talk page messages), notably on Talk:Peter Daszak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that together with a well informed villager from Sumatra, Indonesia, RandomCanadian shares credit for bringing COVID-19 under Discretionary Sanctions , so this noticeboard may not be the right venue for further complaints of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Note also that the editors I pinged on Talk:Peter Daszak have widely varying POVs and have edited the article recently. The only two outside editors I pinged were  and  who are recognized for improving Wikipedia’s neutrality in this contentious topic area. CutePeach (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @CutePeach, apologies, but this could be read as some sort of accusation that something nefarious is going on here: Note that together with a well informed villager from Sumatra, Indonesia, RandomCanadian shares credit for bringing COVID-19 under Discretionary Sanctions. Can you clarify? —valereee (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Since this appears to be now moving towards a content dispute (and appears to be resolving on its own), could we perhaps consider closing this? BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 18:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no concerns with RandomCanadian's behavior, but I would like to continue the discussion above this subsection. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You have no concerns with RandomCanadian calling me PROFRINGE and accusing me of harassing him? Accusing people left and right of suckpuppets? Of his clear as daylight misuse of the revert/rollback tool reverting completely good faith and sourced additions? And that he called the venue you're writing on a "dramaboard"? This is the behaviour Wikipedia upholds? Loganmac (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone who pays attention to this place thinks it is a "dramaboard". Doesn't mean it isn't useful, but it generates a lot of drama, or is at least a place where a lot of drama collects. SamStrongTalks (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Dramaboard? Is that a redirect yet? :) <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 21:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it is :D — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  14:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure RC was actually referring to you, given they said "(which involves mostly other editors)", but I might feel harassed too after multiple talk page messages after being asked to discuss at the article talk, and then being dragged right to ANI. I don't see evidence of RC "accusing people left and right of [being] sockpuppets"—they did refer to Keepingitabuck as a "likely sock", but given the user's first edit was to show up and apparently continue some other conversation, that seems pretty obvious, and the user has since been NOTHERE blocked. Regarding rollback, please read the policy more closely and note the caveat The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. Regarding "dramaboard", that is an extremely common name for ANI, to the point that WP:Dramaboard directs here. So in sum, no, I am not concerned, and the rollback and "dramaboard" complaints makes it appear that you are now attempting to fling spaghetti at a wall and see what sticks. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was also referring to linking an essay that accuses editors of being meatpuppets. So now leaving "multiple" (aka two messages) on Talk pages can be harasssment, okay then. I see the utility of this board and what it is for now. Loganmac (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Loganmac, everyone calls ANI and other behavioral noticeboards "dramaboards." As in, "I strongly advise editors to avoid the dramaboards unless involuntarily dragged there by someone else." —valereee (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Dramaboard" is rather gentle ( Yes, it is a redirect -I think there's both a normal case and an all caps version of it, too). There's also WP:CESSPIT, and a fair few others listed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 25 (blame Softlavender). As for "harassment", yes, when politely asked to take it to the proper venue, which was the article talk page, repeating a very similar post on my talk page and then going right here (while most editors usually avoid ANI as much as possible) is suspicious. More on that later. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First, @CutePeach: you're walking a very fine line after the latest incident at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 - I also find it bizarre that you immediately jumped here to pile-on, despite having no previous involvement in the article in question.
 * Re. "suspicious" - I'm not one to parrot conspiracies (doing all my best to prevent them - while we're speaking of that, YES, even the mundane "accidental lab-leak", by the way it is being treated in the media, is described by some sources as a conspiracy - see Gorski, Science-Based Medicine: [speaking of the "respectable" variant] "Unfortunately, now the lab leak hypothesis has become, in essence, a conspiracy theory. It is weaponized uncertainty designed to frighten people for political purposes."). At least not usually, but this edit is hard to explain, given that none of these users seem to have any kind of significant on-wiki interaction together (Toolforge lists only a few pages. Both editors )Publius, Logan) added substantial sections about the controversy... What is the "suggestion" being referred to? If Loganmac is only referring to the existing talk page discussion (which he should have been aware of after I pointed him to discuss the subject on the talk page), Talk:Peter_Daszak contains no "suggestions" from Publius. So I must ask: is there something going on behind the scenes here? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Firefangledfeathers. No flagrant violation of WP:Ownership, in my opinion. BLP does require editors to go conservative, that is, tone down accusations as much as possible, so perhaps the possible tendentious (POV being a Dazsak defender) editing of RC with his edits and reverts is just him exerting WP:BLP.  Forich (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment on Publius' talk page was referring to his suggestion here . I don't know what you're getting at. Loganmac (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment for future reference, in case other admins might not be aware, RandomCanadian has repeatedly been involved in restricting discussions relative to lab-leak scenarios to the point that his persistence is unclear how much produces wp:NPOV results in the articles involved. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

User:FieldMarine creating alumni categories that go against long-standing practice
It has come to my attention that User:FieldMarine is creating school alumni categories that are unnecessary and duplicative, because he's simply using a modern university's old names as the basis for the new categories. For myriad years it's been the practice to merge alumni categories of historical institutions up into the modern name only. It makes literally zero difference what a school used to be called as far as alumni status – someone who graduated from "Western Maryland College", for example, has the exact same status as someone who graduated from "McDaniel College".

The creation of these historical-name-based categories is going against long-standing convention, is creating unnecessary layering of alumni cats (making the site less navigable for readers), and is frankly a slippery slope.

I have no clue how many unnecessary child categories are now out there because of FieldMarine but they need to be undone. I'm bringing this to ANI to get uninvolved administrators and misc. editors to weigh in. SportsGuy789 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What you describe as long-standing convention seems plainly crazy when subcategories could be used to prevent anachronism while preserving the basic information. —JBL (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * When you start an ANI case, make sure you send an ANI notice. I've gone ahead and sent one to FieldMarine. Jerm (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Jerm, thanks for the alert. I presume this discussion is about edits on cat structure for colleges that have been renamed. If not, please let me know so I’m not missing what I should be addressing.

As for the discussion above, if there is prior consensus about this cat structure or a policy about it, please post link here as I believe that would be helpful to inform this discussion. I believe it is good practice to base arguments on good reasons, and not, "That's the way it's always been" (with no prior discussion/consensus on the issue) or "I don't like it". If there is a policy, let's review and discuss. There are reasons why I believe it makes sense to have a cat using the old school name as a subcat of the new school. For example, a two-year technical or business college may change and become a university. In this case, the cat for the old school may include subcats related to the technical or business school, in addition to cat for the new school name, whereas the cat for alumni of the new school may not have those. In general though, I think it's an easy way to capture prior history of the school.

Here's a current discussion related to this topic.

Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you starting an AN/I thread over a content dispute with zero evidence? AN/I is for actually disruptive behaviour. If you actually look at FieldMarine's contribution history they've been creating these categories (there aren't that many of them) for years ever since Southampton College alumni back in May of 2019.  Nobody has ever brought this up on FieldMarine's talk page either. If FieldMarine has been going against some kind of consensus that they actually knew about or should have known about this might be a matter for AN/I but you've presented exactly no evidence of prior consensus. You've also shown no evidence that Fieldmarine should have or did know about that consensus. This thread is a complete waste of time and ANI is not for resolving content disputes. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 08:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Repeated additions of non-RS material to June 8
added non-RS material to June 8, which got reverted by. They then proceeded to add more poorly sourced info  (note the WP:IDHT behavior)   (my bad in the third diff, it was a mistake). They are currently at 3RR. --Firestar464 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

They then attempted to remove my report. --Firestar464 (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted a bunch of these date additions as not significant enough. The removal of the report from ANI is giving off strong NOTHERE vibes.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 10:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Is now also at AN3. Firestar464 (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

CapitolKing editing dispute
These are my evidence for being vandalized my talk page here, and to disrupt editing (even if unsourced) for the members of the British royal family. Locally, refrained a warning message, but they blanked in several times. --Frontman830 (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Frontman830, WP:BLANKING is allowed. I also don't see how the aggression exhibited in that one diff rises to the level of harassment. Finally, you are required to notify the subject of this complaint about it having been filed (a requirement highlighted prominently at the top of this page). I have done this for you. El_C 12:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you've since removed the harassment claim (diff). Well, so long as I didn't hallucinate it! El_C 12:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Forget it, but I have no good reason why this evidence if being threatened my talk page and DrKay's talk page, if CapitolKing placed the notice on my talk page and for DrKay's talk page. Conclusively, I trying to revert this talk page, and blanked it again. --Frontman830 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Frontman830, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're trying to say. El_C 12:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Frontman830, please stop editing your comments after they have been replied to. Use strikethrough ( text ), or note the change with a diff. Thanks. El_C 12:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ruedi33a and campaign boxes
has unilaterally decided there is a problem they are responsible for solving, and their actions in relation to this are becoming disruptive.

To briefly summarise, navboxes don't show in mobile view. Something to do with them not displaying properly on phones and taking an eternity to load, I don't really know. It's been known and discussed for years, see for example this Phabricator thread.

Ruedi33a decided to sidestep all this and implement their preferred solution, by creating a whole new series of "navboxes" (that were really infoboxes in disguise) and replacing the existing navboxes without any discussion. This resulted in a discussion that began at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 162, and then moved to the Village Pump at Village pump (technical)/Archive 190. As a result of the latter a discussion a TFD was started at Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 20 which was swiftly expanded to include all the templates they'd created. During the TFD Ruedi33a has doubled down on their position that this is a problem that must be solved and kept suggesting "solutions" (if it is deemed to ba a problem it's something that will need solving at a higher level than a single editor implementing it), including starting a parallel discussion on the exact same templates at Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 22 that was swiftly closed.

However, they've now started an attempt to sidestep the TFD. At (and at many other articles) they have removed French invasion of russia mobile from the previous version, and made an addition which effectively merges their soon to be deleted template with the pre-existing map. This appears to be a transparent end-run around the pending deletion of their templates. FDW777 (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am actually deleting my infoboxes out of every article as they do not comply with the wiki rules. At the same time I improve my existing OSM location maps. This change of the OSM map was improved by a suggestion of Nuevousuario1011 and by a suggestion of Urselius. In addition I add the old navigation boxes to help in the TFD process Ruedi33a (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As before and after show, you're not deleting the templates at all, you're coding them into the articles manually. FDW777 (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am looking into before: There is French invasion of russia mobile(TFD pending) and no Campaignbox Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Now I am looking into after: There is no French invasion of russia mobile(TFD pending) and a undefined. But the list of battles invisible for mobile users in Campaignbox Napoleon's invasion of Russia is now in the OSM location map as a caption. I am learning a lot and trying to follow wiki rules. Which rule do I not know? Ruedi33a (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Urgent attention needed
An old sectarian editor has started vandalizing articles of Sufi oriented subjects as he was doing in the past. He after suddenly waking up from sleep of two years, has once again created problem with sufi related articles. He removes content when Some movement calls themselves as Ahle sunnat. This is blatant POV pushing as many reliable sources have established and named the movement as Ahle Sunnat Movement, see the sources here at talk pages.

In Islamic world Ahle sunnah wal Jamaah is term used for all sunnis but movement of Sunni sufi scholars from south Asia including of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan is widely known as Ahle sunnat movement. They call themselves Sunnis or Ahle Sunnat. They don't use Barelvi term any where in their literature or organizations. The Barelvi is slur and is used pejoratively by the opposition movements. There is conflict between Sufis and their opposing groups. Such sectarian conflict is being done here by editors like him.

Other than it, he is removing well sourced content from multiple articles [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibn_Qayyim_al-Jawziyya&action=history] and Hadith of Najd. He is pushing his Salafi view point in all these articles. His modus operandi is to remove content from Sufi related articles to show them in poor light and add content to show Salafi related articles in good light.

This editor Mezzo Mezzo has conflict of interest (COI) as he has created all Salafi related articles in Islam category and has put Sufi related articles into bad light. He wants to continue pushing this sectarian POV in all articles. Hence, he need to be stopped from vandalizing these pages. Topic ban is required to deal with him. Pinging User:TheEagle107 and User:Obaid Raza in case they wants to comment. ScholarM (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So within two hours of my edits, rather than discuss them with me, User:ScholarM has chosen to:
 * accuse me of vandalism and being a sectarian on Administrator intervention against vandalism twice
 * accuse me of the same thing over on Requests for page protection, also twice
 * including articles unrelated to the main dispute, over on the Barelvi movement and its namesake Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, and asked for page protection and admin intervention on most of the articles I’ve edited since I returned to editing two days ago per my contributions
 * In addition, the user opened this ANI report without making any attempt to discuss matters with me on the on the relevant talk pages. Instead, he’s now systematically reverting every edit I’ve made on any article with only a few exceptions. I took a break from Wikipedia from 2019 until two days ago, and I’m now finding that I can’t even edit without being reverted. If there is disruption here, then it isn’t coming from me.
 * On top of that, I would like to mention here on ANI that problems with POV pushing on the Barelvi article [|go back many years] and have popped up here on ANI many times. I’ve been subject to personal insults and false accusations, just as I am now, by a number of users pushing the same exact POV as ScholarM is now. I don’t think this matter needs to be at ANI now since the user hasn’t attempted to discuss any matters with me, but I do want this said for the record: there’s nothing new here. User:Bbb23 and User:Jimfbleak might remember this back in the day, and nothing has really changed…just another user mass deleting sources from Cambridge University Press, Time (magazine), The Times of India, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, etc. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is worth noting that ScholarM is abusing forums by reqesting protection on pages edited by MezzoMezzo. NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124;  My hunts ) 14:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Close discussion per WP:BOOMERANG. The ANI initiator has not attempted to discuss the issue with MezzoMezzo and has made the situation worse by opening reports on multiple notice boards. Jerm (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have requested to stop one editor from editing in bad faith and from vandalizing pages of particular area of Islam. Here are the proofs that after two years of gap, following pages faced his ire and anger. He does not like editing of many editors at those pages so after two years of gap, when he saw some pages are not reflecting his views, he started removing sourced content and started adding partial content that too, without establishing consensus at talk pages. For example.
 * Bad faith editing 
 * At Hadith of Najd he removed sourced content because this Prophetic saying goes against his area of liking i.e Salafism.
 * At Ahmed Raza Khan page, he changed the name of a movement to a pejorative term. The point was well supported by Oxford reference and is explained in the same article here.
 * At Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, he removed the scholar's association with Sufism. and his insistence on removal of Mysticism section.
 * Removing this Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar scholar's name from this template despite his article speaking for itself.
 * At Ahle Sunnat Movement page, he dislike the term Ahle Sunnat which is being widely used by reputed sources/scholars like Prof. Usha Sanyal, Oxford Reference and Springer Science+Business Media and removed it, then he removed valid sourced content. These are bad faith edits. He did not start discussions. The purpose is to reduce the importance of certain movements with in Islam. ScholarM (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ScholarM makes a valid point. I don't know why you've been trying to remove sourced content, but that needs to stop and be discussed on the articles talk page. Likewise, use the article talk page, not the edit summary. Going to multiple notice boards doesn't help either, especially if you haven't attempted to discuss the issue. I still think this case should be closed with a warning to both of you not to keep edit warring and make an effort to resolve the issue first at the article talk page/s. Jerm (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree that ScholarM has a point for the following reasons:
 * At Hadith of Najd, I restored the version which was reached via consensus in 2018 based on representation of actual sources. I didn’t simply ‘remove sourced content’ because of my preference.
 * At Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, I simply wrote the actual name of the movement. This has been established again, and again, and again across a decade per multiple community discussions.
 * At Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, the sources which I removed are ones which had failed community verification checks on the article’s talk page almost a decade and a half ago, if I’m not mistaken.
 * At Ahle Sunnat Movement, the true name is the Barelvi movement as established by scholarly consensus again and again. Even the sources which ScholarM is quoting don’t support his claims that the common name in media and scholarship is somehow a slur.
 * I can accept if I should go about things different, and will simply go to talk and repeat points already made multiple times over the years, but I’ve never simply deleted sources, and even the diffs which ScholarM is posting prove that. I just want to make that very clear. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course you’re not going to accept it, but the evidence ScholarM provided is contrary to what you are saying. But what is expected from both of you at this point is using the article talk page to resolve this issue. Jerm (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Procedural Close by administrator at Talk:Radio Free Asia, per WP:GS/UYGHUR
At 21:00 UTC on 27 June 2021, an RfC was created on Radio Free Asia by. Multiple editors proceeded to respond, including myself, the RfC's creator, (diff), and  (diff). After these edits were made (at which time all !votes were in opposition to the proposal except that of the proposer), refactored the RfC and moved users' comments into a section that did not accurately reflect the question that users had responded to; this appears to be in response to a suggestion made by  to restructure/draftify the RfC. Paragon Deku left notes on user pages informing us that this had happened.

In general, it's bad form to refactor an RfC after it's been created, as noted on the page. It's also bad form to refactor user comments except under limited circumstances, and the particular refactoring of the RfC's survey section resulted in users' comments being framed as if they were answering a question that was not asked. The article, which is extended-confirmed protected under the Uyghur genocide discretionary sanctions, has experienced disruption in the past regarding, in particular, the very question the RfC appears to be trying to get community input on. Under the sanctions regime, any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict... reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.

In light of the RfC being refactored after multiple users had commented, user comments being re-categorized by the RfC's creator after they refactored the RfC, and the WP:GS/UYGHUR regime applying to this page, I'd respectfully request that an administrator procedurally close the RfC as invalid through the use of discretionary sanctions. This RfC appears to have been bungled, and while I think an RfC might be helpful, the refactoring may well have tainted the RfC. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * ( Non-administrator comment ) Hello! This is not the appropriate forum, try WP:ANRFC!  Heart  (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's appropriate here considering the request for discretionary sanctions to be applied. WP:CR is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia, and this isn't one of those sorts of requests. I'm willing to move it if others would see it more appropriate on the other noticeboard, and I understand that WP:CR is typically where closures occur, but I was thinking that this was a better place owing to the difference in scope. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to say in my suggestion I said I would suggest closing the RfC, making a draft of a better structured one, and then resubmitting that one. I probably should have been more clear on recommending that course of action (and still think it's the best way forward, as this is an RfC that needs to be had). BSMRD (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the RfC being closed, I do not like how you seem to be attributing malice to my actions. The question that was provided WAS asked initially and one of them was partially reworded to be more clear at the request of other editors. I understand this was sloppy but it was not done in an attempt to alter the results or obscure consensus. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The initial question asked was Should a reception section that details descriptions of the outlet as propaganda (and potential refutions of this allegation) by media analysts be included, and if it is, should the allegation of propaganda be mentioned in the lede of the page? I responded to that question. After refactoring, responses got moved into a section that corresponds to the question, Should the allegation of propaganda be mentioned in the lede of the page? They aren't materially the same, and as a result this restructuring substantially changed the scope of the oppose !vote left by, for example, . The reason I'm recommending that the remedy for this is for the RfC to be procedurally closed by an admin (rather than for an editor to be issued sanctions against them under the GS regime) is because the intent doesn't obviously appear malicious, but it was sloppy. Administrative action would be necessary and proper for the RfC to be closed, but it would probably be the only way to enable us to scrap the ongoing RfC and actually go through a drafting process before creating a better structured one. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, there's no need to procedurally close the RFC at this point, if all parties are currently in agreement that, if there was an initial malforming issue, it was in good faith. The only one who has responded to the RFC who hadn't already posted to the talk page numerous times already is Renat, so there isn't exactly a "tainted jury" at the moment, at least from where I'm sitting. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Administrative action would be necessary and proper for the RfC to be closed, but it would probably be the only way to enable us to scrap the ongoing RfC and actually go through a drafting process before creating a better structured one. Why is an administrator close necessary? The RFC opener is already aware of what the issue is and has stated that he is fine with the close happening. And what is "the only way to enable us to scrap the ongoing RfC" supposed to mean? We can just close / withdraw it as "invalid", a draft can be made and we can restart the discussion, I do not think any of the participants are in disagreement about this. Also, I do not mean to cast any aspersions, but one could get the impression that this is a deliberate attempt by you to get sanctions imposed for good-faith actions by another editor. (especially because you've had issues with them in the past) CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What does that last sentence mean? I've asked an admin to look over and procedurally close a bungled RfC, that we mostly recognize as bungled, with the rationale that it would be proper to have the project go smoothly. As notes below, it is probably better for an admin to invoke a procedural close than for an uninvolved editor to do so. As the admin notes, my request here probably could have (and should have) been more brief, but I still think this is the appropriate noticeboard for this discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It refers to the fact that instead of trying to discuss an obviously good-faith edit and asking the user to withdraw/close the RfC, as it was invalidated, you decided to instead create an WP:ANI section regarding the "incident". CPCEnjoyer (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As the admin who invoked the GS for applying WP:ECP to the page —an action which I wasn't confident in applying from the outset— I feel increasing concern about the GS being used as a blunt instrument (to gain an edge), Mikehawk10. Also, I personally feel that there are certain non-admins whom are better discussion closers than some admins. Regardless, even if the GS' topic area were to feature prominently in this RfC, I don't think it disqualifies non-admins from closing it. That said, in my view, this RfC needs to be re-drafted as a single question, clearly and cogently. Splitting it into two parts is quite confusing. El_C 11:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see that the request is for an admin to procedurally close the discussion (the section header should have given it away!). Indeed, if the discussion were to be procedurally closed, it probably would be better for an admin to do so. But, again, to me it looks like a voluntary re-drafting would be best here. El_C 12:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah ++, now I see what happened. I've closed the RfC as requested, see my closing summary for details (diff). Mikehawk10, in future, brevity something-something. El_C 12:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! But here is another poorly framed RfC in another DS area where people two times changed the questions after voting. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you file a separate report that includes evidence in the form of diffs. Speaking for myself, I'm not inclined to sift through the revision history in-the-blind again (once is enough for one day, for me). El_C 17:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at it again, Mikehawk10's report was more cogent than I gave it credit. My poor reading comprehension is on me. Struck. El_C 17:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Mark83
This person disagrees with my grammar but reverts on mass calling them errors, his language is snide and his attitude poor, I asked him to stop leaving me maessages he carried on. The rules of English grammar are comples and there is more then one possible intpretation him not agreeing does not make them wrong. I really don't need or want to interact with him till he gets and attitude change.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to note, this editor did not notify me of this discussion at they are required to do. For reference, this is the talk page conversation. .  I respectfully asked this editor to be more careful when copyediting as they are introducing errors.  The 'correction' of quotes is a significant concern for me. Mark83 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Kitchen Knife, Mark83's comments were perfectly civil, and his concerns are entirely valid. I would urge you to withdraw this report, as I can't see anything good coming of it for you.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I started looking at KK's edits, and their last three (to Offal, Transistor and Type 45 destroyer) all contain errors (and not all of them are grammar issues, either). Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Kitchen Knife, I was just about to say the same thing. And what is up with the your [sic] far too pompous (diff)? That's not appropriate. Now, I'm not a grammar prince or anything (more like a grammar serf), but the one example I looked at (diff), you changed ships (plural) from "were" to "was" — that doesn't seem right (mind you, that "For" does seem redundant). El_C 18:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at a random sampling of Kitchen Knife's edits, and I feel that many of the grammatical corrections being made are poor. This introduces nonsensical sentence structure ("Titanic collided with an iceberg on her maiden voyage and the sank in the North Atlantic" makes no sense), while this deletes words ("conducted to the and the rest of the Bishops"), changes meanings (e.g., "on site" is a prepositional phrase, whereas "onsite" is an adjective), and refactors quotes inappropriately. I'm not trying to be snide, but given that this editor repeatedly conflates "your" and "you're" in edit summaries and talk page messages, perhaps they should not be complaining about others' attitudes toward very legitimate grammar concerns. -- <strong style="color:blue">Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 20:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Bullied by Walter Görlitz
I am a new user - shocked and saddened by how I was treated during my first days with you. I have recently made some sourced edits on the page Bethel Church (Redding, California) that were reverted as the editors believed that CHANGED Movement (ex-gay ministry promoting conversion therapy) was not part of Bethel - I found sources describing it as Bethel's ministry. I decided to start a discussion on the talk page and immediately felt unwelcome and attacked. (I am not including other editors who were kind and respectfully pointed me to some guidelines and explained their points of view - I have learned something from them and I hope they have learned something from me too, regarding the sources I found).

Coming back to how I was bullied by Walter Görlitz:

1. After just a few edits Walter Görlitz accused me of being a "SPA". 2. He then started interrogating me why I am interested in the topic (which seems a bit unusual) 3. He then proceeded to interrogate me further: "why this topic, and why this particular article, and why now" 4. He then said he and the Wikipedia community are looking at me with suspicion 5. He then started accusing me of not reading the discussion, even though I have read everything before replying 6. He then said I was allegedly surprised that he assumed good faith of another editor which I never did. I said I did not, but he still insisted I somehow implied it which couldn't be further from the truth and my intentions ("While you did not state that you were surprised, you implied it"). 7. He then asked me to let him know when I leave Wikipedia ("Do not mention my name, link my account or ping me to this discussion again except to apologize for your implication that I was acting in bad faith, or to say you're leaving"). 8. He then started attacking my character and, dare I say, my cognitive abilities: "You do not bother to read anything", "I am simply baffled by your iunability to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Stop pushing your agenda on Wikipedia. Find a nice blog for yourself and until you learn the ropes, stop editing here. Good bye"

I am not sure if that's the standard how new users are treated - being berated and bullied, accused of not reading *anything*, being unable to be productive, and having some unspecified agenda (I asked what agenda could that possibly be - never received a reply). I am sad and hope that other new users will not experience similar behaviour from him or other editors. I am not sure if I am in the mental state to continue contributing in that atmosphere but I am thankful to all the other users who made me feel welcome and pointed me in the right direction.

Sending love and good vibes to all who need them in these difficult times, Rayknee (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're feeling bullied. I have no intention of bullying. I am tired of your poor approach of editing and clearly overreacted. I tried to discuss but you questioned the points and ignored the links I provided. I got tired of seeing your pings and links to my account that throw alerts on nearly every refresh of my watchlist this afternoon. Clearly, this is a learning opportunity for you not to generate alerts.
 * Please accept my apology. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look, and FWIW:
 * Walter Görlitz is closer than perhaps he might think to a page block from that article and it's talk page. I suppose any apology is better than no apology, but the "here once again is a list of all your faults btw I apologize" apology above is underwhelming.
 * , One small issue that a new editor probably doesn't know: it actually is a valid concern that you kept pinging WG (i.e. actually linking to his user page) several times after he asked you to stop. That's one of the many social mores that you'll gradually learn as you edit here; we generally try to comply with requests not to ping people, not to post to their talk page, etc., within reason.  As someone else on that talk page did, you can type "@Walter Görlitz:" in plain text if you want to make it clear who you're talking to, but linking it like so:   sends him a notification that he's said he doesn't want.  Rest assured that the number of people making this demand is relatively small, so it isn't that difficult to keep track. Other than that, I don't think you've really done anything to deserve the treatment you received, and from Cullen's note on the talk page, I think it's clear that it will stop one way or the other.
 * <li style="list-style:none">--Floquenbeam (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)</li>
 * Or the recipient can mute the sender without making a big hissy-stink about it. Especially where the sender is new and probably doesn't understand, this might be the better approach. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you mind pointing me to that and how it works? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I see in now on the notifications at Special:Preferences. Thanks. I had probably seen that before, but had completely forgotten about that. Somewhat moot since the editor has forgotten their password and had to create a new account, but has not pinged me since filing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have given Walter Görlitz a very firm warning and I will give them a long block if they ever harass a newbie like this again. The misconduct was quite egregious, in my assessment. I do not relish this type of conflict with a highly experienced long term editor like Walter Görlitz. On the other hand, I will not shy away from it. Perhaps Walter thought that the article was low profile enough that they could get away with it. Well, Redding, California is a city I love and have visited many times, and I pay attention to articles pertaining to Redding that are subject to disruption. It is deeply disappointing to see the disruption coming from such an experienced editor. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  04:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I recognize that I was very harsh on the new editor. The editor's behaviour contributed to my poor behaviour, but still, I should have not reacted in the way I did. I apologize for any actions on my part t hat may have been perceived as bullying. I did not intend to bully. I find bullying unacceptable and so I am truly sorry if I crossed that line. I was short on time and was trying to be firm, but not a bully. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No,, there was nothing whatsover in that new editor's contributions that justified what you said to them. I will not let you get away with blaming your misconduct on the newbie. That plane will not fly. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I respectfuly disagree. The editor has not responded to direct questions. The editor continued to ping me. That behaviour was frustrating. I should not have let my frustration get the better of me, and I have apologized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, I am not claiming my actions were justifiable and I am not looking to justify them, only trying to explain the trigger. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, an editor with your extensive and colorful history of blocks for all manner of offenses + comments that egregious shouldn't be tossing out explanations OR justifications. Abject, unconditional apologies shorn of any vestige of "I wuz provoked," combined with humble acceptance of any punishment meted out, is about right.   Ravenswing      22:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "noping|Walter Görlitz" serve the purpose of naming but not notifying? -- Otr500 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Naming and linking would happen if No ping were used, and clearly, no notification, but I don't think it is necessary, since I had been named and linked multiple times on the talk page at that point. Simply replying would have been enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was asking as an alternative to the two options above not your case in particular. Providing the "Naming and linking" seems better than @someone or muting. --  Otr500 (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I believe that linking would still post alert. No ping would still create a link, but no alert. Simply responding (without even the need to mention the other editor) is the usual course of action unless you expect the other editor to respond. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Alarming edits by User Wyk1ng
I am very alarmed by these edits by Wyk1ng, as they strongly suggest that this person is editing from a White Nationalist / Supremacist POV. The first is is explicitly phrased using terminology characteristic of Holocaust denialists (on an article directly related to the Holocaust, he talks about "Jewish victim propaganda"). I have not engaged with this user directly, as prior experience suggests to me that this is unlikely to help, and will just expose me to abuse. Moreover, this talk-page message does not fill me with confidence. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 115 edits in 9 years and I am seeing multiple warnings for spamming on multiple occasions, racist comments, and a rant about how they are superior and don't like how people disagree and that admins are dumb. I have blocked per WP:NOTHERE. If another admin thinks that I have overreacted I am happy to listen, but I am not seeing a net benefit to the project here. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 09:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It ill behoves someone who makes so many spelling mistakes to claim superiority. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Right decision by, also per WP:NONAZIS.<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 04:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Russia-Ukraine POV pushing


seems to be involved in POV pushing regarding Russia-Ukraine articles. Account has existed since 2013, but has seen little use until the past week:. Account has exclusively come into use to flag several articles related to Russia-Ukraine for deletion (an AfD for Russo-Ukrainian War, and a PROD and AfD for Russian-Ukrainian cyberwarfare), both of which are pretty obvious keeps. Additionally, the user removed a few Russia-Ukraine conflicts from List of wars involving Ukraine (removed mentions to Russian military intervention and Donbass and Crimea). This behavior, in addition to the username being Sputnik, suggests that this is a non-neutral editor regarding this area. Curbon7 (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Crimea concerning information is mentioned in the right part of the table, it was duplication. Just tell me what is not neutral in the proposals which I made concerning few other articles and let's discuss. --Sputnik13 (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Curbon7's report. Seems like a topic ban is in order.  starship .paint  (exalt) 05:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC Statement
An editor has accused me (multiple times) of violating WP:RFCNEUTRAL at Talk:Bongal_Kheda. Site administrators are requested to evaluate if the charges are correct and take necessary action. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Accusation" is a mischaracterization here. The RFC is this:.
 * This RFC has a 7,458 diff length, and includes a curated "sources" section, and even a leading discussion where the poster has "taken care" to state the positions, including the opposite ones. This is wrong on nearly all the criteria set down in WP:RFCNEUTRAL which states the opening statement should be "neutrally worded, short and simple".  The RFC is thus not neutrally worded, not short and not simple.
 * So effectively, this is no longer a request for comment but a leading question.
 * My first response was to point to TrangaBellam that:
 * his statement violated WP:RFCNEUTRAL and that he should to remove the sources section and other comments to fall in line with the policy, and
 * he should follow the endorsement earlier from  who was the WP:3O in the earlier phase of the dispute.
 * Then I went ahead and left a note after the TrangaBellam's leading discussion that this violated WP:RFCNEUTRAL.
 * No accusation was made against . Rather TrengaBellam has not made a good faith attempt at an RFC.  Now the statement in italics could be construed as an accusation!
 * Chaipau (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC) (edited) 23:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you not understand that Legobot transcludes the RFC from the beginning of the template to the first timestamp? And, that part alone is governed by RFCNEUTRAL?
 * Where do you encounter the first timestamp (inserted using 5 tildes) in the RfC section? Have you checked the pages where Legobot has transcluded the RfC?
 * So, the RfC has not got a 7,458 diff length. I have taken my stance in the discussion section, which is not in the RFC statement. You can, in the same section. Others will, too. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Legobot cannot judge an RfC statement for neutrality; it simply takes all of the content (text, lists, images etc.) from the tag (exclusive) until the next valid timestamp (inclusive) and pastes this into the RfC listing pages. If you amend the statement in the original RfC, Legobot will copy the amendments to the listing entries. So the fact that a listing entry exists does not mean that the statement is inviolate. As to brevity, the statement is 255 characters long, as I write this - it's certainly brief. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC is not in good faith. There is no point in asking for comments if a new editor is made to wade through a wall of text (leading question).  This could be WP:GAME. Chaipau (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can make my arguments after the first RFC timestamp. That's stated in RFCNEUTRAL.
 * And Redrose64 has found my RFC to be brief. How is it a leading question, because the rfc question has been agreed between us. Time for you to drop it. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , is there any that the editors who were originally in dispute cannot cast a reasoned !vote in the RfC? See this edit. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The rules are clear WP:RFCST. Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section  Your inclusion of another section adding your POV comments is against the policy and done in bad faith. Chaipau (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the RFC as it stands now, it's a brief statement, then a heading for discussion/!votes, then TrangaBellam added their position & !vote. There is no rule that the editor opening the RFC cannot participate in the discussion. Schazjmd   (talk)  06:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Chaipau is edit-warring with me to move my vote out of the RFC proposal. Please see page-history.TrangaBellam (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well now, quite a mess. I'd suggest that you simply copy your statement down to the new section. (I also recommend collapsing your long list of refs; other editors can expand to view it but collapsed will make for easier reading for everyone.) Schazjmd   (talk)  06:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, it is a messcreated out of bad faith. Please note that his TrengaBellam's vote includes a supposed paraphrase of the opposing position.  My opponent (Chaipau) has claimed that ....  TrengaBellam has not right to state my position.  This is in terrible bad faith.  TrengaBellam is trying to game the system.  Please read closely.  Chaipau (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think it's reasonable to ask that you modify your statement to just speak for your view, and let other editors speak for themselves, don't you? And, please stop repeatedly accusing TrangaBellam of bad faith. Schazjmd   (talk)  06:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the request is reasonable. An intrinsic part of argumentation lies in proving why the other party is wrong. I have now added diffs and if Chaipau believes that I am mischaracterising him, he is free to make his own argument. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's up to you. I don't see anything here that requires administrator intervention. Good luck to you both with your RFC.  Schazjmd   (talk)  07:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is OK to argue why Option B is not right. It is not OK to paraphrase me.  This is (I will not say it). Chaipau (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Feeling hounded and vulnerable to what to do?
I seem to be having a lot of editors now coming onto my page criticizing me, threatening to have me reported time and time again and blocked from editing/creating articles. I am getting sick of being accused of being "Inappropriate", "Disruptive", "Abusive" and "WP:Bullying" and "Trolling". I really am getting beyond offended and annoyed now with being targeted over small little edits or mistakes...I am seriously lost for ways to improve when being constantly targeted like I was on pages like the Shropshire (district), Batley, Listed buildings in Dewsbury etc...I have tried to work on them but keep getting told I am wrong and should not write articles if I cannot source them correctly...I am not perfect never have been, never will be...if I make mistakes I at least have the decency to ask unlike those assuming I leave it in a state to benefit laziness...I am getting tired of these minor "I don't know better" edits I keep getting...I am disabled and ask for help but others assume I am a troll without even seeing what I have contributed to help the site...It upsets me to feel like this...if it continues...what do I do? - I am only trying to contribute but others assume I am here to destroy this encyclopedia? RailwayJG (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Adding your sources to the article when you were making the edits instead of after you were reverted would probably help you get a better response. Because as far as the other editor could tell, you were just making it up, since you cited zero sourced until they reverted you. I'll note that you also just reverted their revert instead of discussing it on the talk page, which is generally not a good idea. Also, if you are going to talk about another editor's edits here you should give them notice of the conversation.
 * All that said, this doesn't seem specific to any editor, so I doubt this is the correct forum for it. SamStrongTalks (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just "this editor", there are others too who keep targeting me...if you look at my Talk page...you will see I am being threatened with having my edit privileges took off me...I also tried to write on the editors page but his page manually reverted the edit. I also found sources confirming my edit was accurate and have reverted it. Being told I assume it isn't something when I tend to find corrections like with Penkridge shows it was not looked into and assumed to be a Market town until I found two sources clarifying it was not a market town...as the village did not get a market charter to be called a town[[]...also a recent editor on Shropshire page here [] on the seperate article page used language which was imo very inappropriate...I am trying to contribute but it's not nice being accused of disruption...the link was an example more then it being at that one editor...this covers other editors on both my talk page and edits who have attacked me for my editsRailwayJG (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So... what exactly are you looking for out of this thread? If you aren't discussing the behavior of particular editors, I think you are at the wrong place. And if you do want to discuss particular editors, you need to notify them and provide more diffs. SamStrongTalks (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Guidance...really...I am feeling hounded and can't seem to find any help with what to do about the editors involved and how Wiki helps people like me with support in getting things better. Aside from one editor who helped to show me how to reference. Others have posted on my page with some debates on my edits...some on talk pages of articles calling me "bored" and "disruptive". What can I as an editor with learning difficulties do to get support for how I am feeling and how to improve. I know wiki is not a club or society but surely there are pages with help and guidance to help me get better at my editing? RailwayJG (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps try posting to talk pages first. Suggest the changes you think appropriate, and reference your sources.  I think you'll soon get a sense of what makes for an appropriate change and what doesn't.  After some time, when most of your suggestions are meeting with approval, go back to editing pages carefully and with references.  Just a thought.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will definite look at doing that thank you, Dumuzid. RailwayJG (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Learning Wikipedia's rules takes some time, and I certainly understand how it can seem scary. But people really do tend to be helpful; just make sure you're walking before you try to run, if you know what I mean.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also checkout the Teahouse if you have general questions about how to do things. It is specifically setup to help get people up to speed. I would also review the policies Notability, Reliable sources, and Citing sources. From skimming your talk page, it seems like getting familiar with those three would help you dramatically. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dumuzid and SamStrongTalks...appreciate you two helping me with some suggestions...will try to make better of my editing...thank you :) RailwayJG (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can close discussion if you wish too, think I have had my issues addressed :) thanks RailwayJG (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the future, you'd have better luck at the WP:TEAHOUSE. AN/I is the place to go when you want someone to be banned and have all the evidence already. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 05:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuous vandalism on Recreate Greece
QuaestorGaius has been involved in multiple reverts on Recreate Greece by claiming that they are either biased or distorting the truth. I tried to discuss it with him on the relevant discussion page but he has not responded sadly. The name of the party and its leader is clearly mentioned in all sources provided - some of them are from academic journals. The history of the page shows that he has done the same to other users, whilst he was recently blocked from Greek Wikipedia for using sockpuppets to do the same and after being involved in multiple reverts against other users on the same article. There might be a conflict of interest here for sure, but I will let administrators decide what to do next. Thank you! Mightberightorwrong (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For now I've cautioned the other user on edit warring., I would extend you the same caution irrespective of the other user.  331dot (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also as a courtesy informed the other user of the existence of this discussion, for future reference that's required when you discuss another user here(see the top of this page). 331dot (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. May I kindly ask you to revert the article back to the version I edited in order to start a discussion with the user? Or is it ok if I do it myself? Pretty sure that those reverts are considered vandalism as multiple sources have been erased without an explanation. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be that you not do so, to allow others to weigh in. I will not do so as a matter of fairness here. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

He even goes as far as to blatantly LIE here about the party being named in his sources even though in the article’s history he clearly states the sources only provide information on Thanos Tzimeros and not the party as a whole. I would also like to ask for intervention against his ad hominem attacks about this imaginable “conflict of interest” he claims. ←QuaestorGaius (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to report that user for source distortion in the article of the party “recreate Greece”. For example the Amadeo report he uses does not mention the party even once. It is a clear attempt to shift the article’s perspective towards his own POV. Moreover the way he formulates the article with the opening sentences being heavily loaded with  political accusations is clearly against wikipedia policy on article neutrality.


 * It's not a good policy to complain about ad hominem attacks and then launch one of your own.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Only I didn't, I merely said he was lying which he is as is proven by the source I cite further down. QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I reiterate, stop doing that.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

All of the sources clearly mention both the name of the party and Tzimeros. An administrator can have a look and verify that I am not lying. This is vandalism and should not be tolerated. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment An admin should put full article protection for at least a week until things get resolved on the article talk page. Jerm (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Now you again caught clearly lying. Here is an example. source This source does not mention the party even once. So here we have you lying about ALL the sources naming the party and I provide you evidence that they don't. Can anyone intervene. Btw ythe user reverted the article again claiming vandalism while the issue is still being discussed. Is such behaviour even acceptable any more QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Page 85 as 'Creation Again'. Translations vary. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You realise you are claiming clear references on a huge list of political accusations and no where is it directly stated that the party can be accused of those. That is just a board naming the leader of the party as influential in Social media, nowhere close the claims that you make. QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, the discussion is turning into a content dispute. That is not what ANI is for. &, use the article talk page. Jerm (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well he claimed vandalism, and this is clearly not vandalism since I have provided ample of reasons why this content is either distorted or heavily biased coming from left leaning NGOs like the above. But as this is discussed he reverted the article again. QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article and warned both warriors to stop attacking each other. They will have to go to the talkpage and work it out, and the first to attack the other, either in comments or edit summaries, should be blocked.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As much as I dislike to not completely agree with the one who isn't trying to remove the phrase "far-right" from an article on a far-right political party and isn't creepily mirroring the opening words of the other person's talk page comments, this obviously should have gone to the article talk page first. I endorse Jerm's solution. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy quadruple negative, Batman! --JBL (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically it's two similarly-structured triple negatives alongside each other, and I don't think anyone would say that I should have written as much as I like to completely agree with the one not trying to remove the phrase "far-right" from an article or that doing so would not have changed the meaning of my comment. :P Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I must have been counting "remove" as the fourth? I have given up on actually parsing either version, but after concentrated effort I think I understood your drift :). --JBL (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Chase and his fake band: block evasion by LowerAndSlower


Someone in Ohio has been putting a fake band into various music articles. They were previously blocked as SuperStarChase, with the blocking admin,, referring to LowerAndSlower. All of the contributions from the IPs and the registered users have the same thing in common: they claim that someone named Chase is a famous musical artist. Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * An admin recently blocked the first /64 above for six months, and I just did the same for the second. The two named users are CU indeffed. I guess that's all? Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a musical artist named Chase who may have been famous a few years ago: Chase Goehring appeared in The X Factor (American season 3) during 2013, and also in America's Got Talent (season 12) during 2017. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like a different person. The TV competitor was born in California but now calls Tennessee home, while the disruption described above comes from Ohio. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Constant MoS breaking edits
IP editor has, on a few occasions (amoug others potentally in their edit history) totally ignored the MoS when making edits. After being reverted by both and myself, and me adding a note to their talk page about why their edits were incorrect per various MoS guidance, they proceeded to add this edit just because I didn't mention it in the message to them... I'm no longer reverting them as 1. I would be in violation of WP:3RR on List of directors associated with art film and 2. Could probably been seen as edit warring. Could an mop have words? - <kbd style="color: Red;">Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 13:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just tell me what not to do and I will not do it, thanks.--77.126.68.137 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need mop-intervention quite yet. I posted on IP's talk, I'm sure we can guide them in the right direction. Sam Sailor 14:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done what you have asked, hope that it is fine now.--77.126.68.137 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

User gets unblocked and immediately starts being disruptive again


has been unblocked for literally like 10 minutes and is already being disruptive. They were blocked here by for 3 days. Their first edit after unblock was to disrupt 's talk page by spamming WikiLove templates and removing messages that other users left for 331dot. Their other series of edits since the unblocking was to move Draft:Randy Bishop from draftspace to mainspace. As I said a few days ago, this user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Curbon7 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * More bizarre page move disruption: Curbon7 (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. I've moved Randy Bishop back to draftspace (again). Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC).
 * PS: I've now undone the ExampleBot moves also. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC).

Likely UPE on Forest Trail
A new SPA editor,, has recently created this article: Forest Trail. A quick search of their name suggests that they are likely employed by an associated organisation. I have placed a COI query on the user's talk page, but there has been no disclosure or other response. Granted, it has only been a few days, but they have meanwhile been active on the site so should have seen the message.

IMHO, the article shouldn't exist in the first place, as it's quite promotional in nature, and probably better suited to Wikivoyage instead. It's also only supported by references to the organisation's own website, baltictrails.eu. I've tagged the article accordingly, but to little effect.

I don't want to hound the editor, and I don't necessarily want to take the article to AfD, but neither do I think things should be just left like that; at least the UPE question needs resolving. Could someone take a look? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) I have no opinion on the UPE issue; that is outside my expertise. However, I do question whether Forest Trail has the notability to support an article independent of E11 European long distance path, the last paragraph of whose lede reads "This article presents an encyclopedic overview of the trail. Detailed information about the routing is found in WikiVoyage. Links to detailed information about the townships along E11 are found in a special group of references at the bottom of this article." Narky Blert (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That article is a brochure for the trail. It is promotional, surgery is about to happen. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 07:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Heh, surgery indeed. Roughly the equivalent of amputating the body and leaving just a foot. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * probably better suited to Wikivoyage instead Embassy note before people start talking about transwikis at the AfD: Wikivoyage does not accept articles for individual tourist destinations. (This might be in scope as an itinerary, but as currently formatted it's as useless there as here.) <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 08:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, noted well; didn't realise that. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I redirected it to E11 European long distance path (the first Baltic in the E11 country). Besides being unclear whether the common terminlogy in Baltic countries forms a cohesive topic (as opposed to individual country segments), the created article simple doesn't expand on the existing E11 article whose Baltics sections are much longer.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 11:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Forest trail" is such a generic term, and, along with the dubious origin and the at best very tenuous notability, I'd suggest just getting rid of it, even as a redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think notability is tenuous as this is a major trail, more a question of merges/redirects and promotional editing. You do have a point on "Forest Trail" vs. "forest trail". Might be worthwhile having a DAB or redirecting elsewhere (e.g. to Trail).-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 04:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree that a redirect is pointless. Anyway, I'm going walkies now, along my forest trail. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 18:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, the thing about this article that first caught my attention was that I thought 'Forest Trail' was an awfully generic-sounding term, and I wanted to see which of the countless forest trails in the world had claimed ownership of that article name. I agree, FWIW, that having 'forest trail' redirect to this E11 route may not be sensible. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Note, I filed Sockpuppet investigations/Rūta Rulle.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 08:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia so I noticed the whole discussion only yesterday and now I have time to answer (we had a long national holiday last week, if that changes anything). So yes, we wanted to create a whole new page about E11 in the Baltic states (Baltic Forest Hiking Route). The name "Forest Trail" is how we call the route in the Baltic states, so we used it at the beginning. However, I agree that it could be misleading, the name "Baltic Forest Hiking Route" would be better. And yes, I work for an associated organization which is involved in several projects creating the long distance hiking routes in the Baltic states. That's why I tried to create this article. However, we didn't think about it as promoting the hiking trail, it was only meant for informational purposes for other hikers. Also, we are not the only organization involved in these projects, as you can see here: https://baltictrails.eu/en/forest/aboutus. But, of course, I understand that there are certain rules about what can and cannot be published, so if you think think this article is inappropriate and against the rules, we will not try to create it. Regarding the account of Anna-Sara Reinisch - she is an intern from Sweden in our organization. She is currently working with different apps and portals where to put the information about the Baltic Forest Hiking Route. Yesterday she saw that there is a conflict of interests here on Wiki, that's why she created an account for herself - we thought that from another account we could create the article. As I mentioned before, if the whole idea about this article is against the rules, we will stop with trying to create one. Sincerely, Rūta Rulle (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

E-960 community imposed TBAN
E-960 is subject to a "community imposed TBAN from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed" following this discussion. They were warned here about breaking the ban.

Today, E-960 blanked a large section of the The Holocaust article, which also contained references to churches:, and the Holocaust itself is related to secular politics in Europe. But this one instance may have been an oversight, a mistake.

However, E-960 made this edit two weeks ago which modifies a section on churches in Belarus, among other things adding: This can not be seen as a mere mistake.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * who closed those discussions.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * That's an umambiguous breach. Blocked for one week, the next will be substantially longer if they persist. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Girth Summit was quicker on the draw, so I'll just note that I agree with their assessment and response. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Troublesome Unlearning Editor
I was informed by the teahouse I can take this here. I have come across a user HariSinghw whom strikes me as a notably poor yet rather prolific editor whom well appears out of their depth and is ultimately creating significant mess on Wikipedia. Of note, they appear to have a poor command of English which has not improved over time which is certainly a contributing factor. I came across them last night when I submitted a speedy deletion (which has since become an AfD) for an article HariSinghw created. What grabbed my attention was after submitting the SD request I noticed they left a message on the talk page for the article and it was rather poorly articulated and argued. So much so that I decided to review HariSinghw's talk page. I noticed a multi-year banner of numerous AfD's, PROD's, SD's, article creation failures, attempts by others to kindly help the user that seemed ineffective, as well as a general demonstration of not learning and seeming disinterest in learning from past mistakes. It's possible there is more evidence (both positive and negative) in other locations past what is in the talk page and immediately linked on it. I found it rather striking that such a seemingly prolific editor has such a long track record of failures and yet has demonstrated almost no signs of improvement over this time. I would have though that the user would either be successfully helped/coached to improve, or some action be done to limit creating messes and straining bureaucratic machinery.

Based on what I saw, I thought it would be wasted effort to try and guide them (plus, I am relatively new at editing and am likely not the best choice to do so) and instead I made a post in the treehouse to ask what (if anything) could be done to alleviate this. That message can be seen here. One person provided a similar analysis to what I had observed. It was also suggested there that more guidance on their talk page might help, but I am extremely disinclined to think this will be helpful due to this long standing track record.

As I am rather new to editing wikipedia (I have had an account since 2018 but I didn't start involving myself in active editing until this month) and am still learning how things work, so I am unsure of what can be done and am mostly sharing this to gain the attention of administrators who might know more of what could be done (if anything). All things together, and most poignant it seems to me like HariSinghw's editing activity is messy to the point of straining the bureaucratic machinery due to volume and persistence, and is almost like vandalism without any intent (if that a thing or there is a different term for this).

Thanks for taking the time to have a look at this. I will post the requisite note on the user's talk page.

-- Tautomers (T C) 20:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I was just made aware of WP:Competence is required and after reviewing it, and considering the many years pattern the user has displayed I do still think this is worth review by administrators so it is on their radar and potential actions (whatever that may be) could be taken. -- Tautomers (T C) 02:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This guy meets the bare minimum of competency required to edit. Please read the section on "responding to a suspected lack of confidence" which suggests talking to the user beforehand. The person at the teahouse who directed you to ANI should probably be WP:TROUTED. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 02:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information here (and the larger comment below). I'll admit my threshold of whom I am willing to help/teach isn't that low and this person doesn't meet that. Certainly not opposed to others helping them though. It's also good to see this has been done by someone else and hopefully will set a trend in the future. Also, lolol at the trout (that's new to me). -- Tautomers (T C) 20:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of templates. I don't see a lot of help. Barely anyone has even tried to meaningfully engage with this editor. What is this guy even doing wrong, like specifically? If I can't tell from solely reading their talk page how are they supposed to tell? You're "of the opinion that guidance will have no effect whatsoever" but have you even bothered to try to give that guidance? WP:AGF is still something that exists. I count 4 threads where someone didn't just leave a generic template. They're actually doing a pretty good job considering how little help they've received. For instance, Date palm farming in India. This is not a high quality article by any means but it demonstrates a remarkable improvement over articles they've made in the past, so I doubt the idea that this editor can't improve. I'll also note that the article was created once somebody left a message on HariSingh's talk page letting them know a bunch of articles on date farming in different parts of India might be better off in a single article at first. There's also no rule against creating minimally referenced stubs.
 * My advice to is to focus on topics with clearer notability for the time being. People that have their own policy, such as those falling under WP:NPOLITICIAN are a good start. Stubs on broad topics can also be useful. Date farming in India was good; are there other major crops that don't have articles? Additionally, I think you might benefit from expanding existing articles. WikiProject India has a table of articles by importance and by size. There's 499 high importance articles to India that are still stubs.  You should consider focusing on those. It seems counterintuitive that I'm telling you to edit higher importance articles despite your inexperience but generally the more important a topic is the easier it is to find sources and write about it; especially when barely anything has been written about it on Wikipedia already. You should also try to avoid promotional language. Try reading other articles on related topics before writing your own article. You will learn the bland words that Wikipedia wants that way. You should also feel free to ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:Help desk for help on what you did wrong and how you can fix your editing. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 02:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I left a comment on HariSinghw's Talk page listing many examples of articles and drafts that in my opinion do not benefit Wikipedia because those are too short to be useful, inadequately referenced, etc. My recommendation was to focus on quality over quantity. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw this, and thanks. Will comment further elsewhere since this (I think) seems resolved. Thanks! -- Tautomers (T C) 20:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

From recent XfD !votes, it appears he's not familiar with notability criteria, which would be a great place to start. From this edit it's also not clear whether he's familiar with what type of content is encyclopedic. Star  Mississippi  23:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruption on BLPs
All month long, has disrupted BLPs, mainly by changing surnames to pronouns and writing Too much [insert surname here] to summarize these changes. The user has been warned about various forms of disruptive editing on their talk page, but they would simply thank those who posted the warnings and go on with their disruption. KyleJoan talk 19:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this user could benefit from a gentle schooling on Wikipedia policy, as they continue to make (I assume unintentionally) unconstructive edits. Here, for instance, they misunderstand MOS:SURNAME and misunderstand basic chronology. Sometimes, their edit summaries make little sense, such as this, which simply mimicks phrasing from watchlist script. They've also added unsourced information after a revert. Again, I assume these are inadvertent due to a lack of knowledge and could be benefited by some guidance or careful review of Wikipedia's policy and style guides. Their talk page is rife with warnings and second warnings, especially for disruptive editing, which they usually return with a thank-you and little subsequent action.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This user had been blocked many times on Thai Wikipedia due to his disruptive behavior. There, he had ignored all advice given to him and community consensus. He even broke his own promise to not cause disruptive editing once again. His conduct is still the same. --<font face="Aller" size="3" color="grey"> Just Sayori <font face="Riffic Free Medium" size="3" color="pink"> OK? <font face="Aller" size="2" color="scarlet">(have a chat)  04:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , being blocked from another Wikipedia site is not evidence of current disruption on this site. Please provide current evidence of continued disruptive editing on this site after the user was informed about this ANI? — Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now he's draftifying articles that are 4 months old and more, triggering the edit filters and using edit summaries such as 'Article is not good enough.' and 'is only a stub,' etc. Examples:, , and . He's also moving articles because the subject's name changed because of a marriage: .  User still seems "confused" about MOS:SURNAME.  Can't something more be done besides "... a gentle schooling?" — Johnnie Bob (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely. It seems like the several explanations left on their talk page have been insufficient. I think there also might be some difficulties with the English language at work here.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour
Ihohh added the category United States government propaganda organizations to the Polygraph.info article with this edit - diff and left no edit summary. I reverted their edit because there was no basis to add the category - diff. Ihohh reverted it again instead of trying to discuss it - diff. I politely asked to follow WP:BRD and asked to provide a reliable source for such allegation - diff. Ihohh reverted it once again - diff and left no edit summary. I started a discussion myself and invited the user to participate - diff. Ihohh was pinged each time I mentioned them. Now there is the ongoing discussion about this edit, but instead of trying to get a consensus, waiting till the discussion is over, Ihohh readded this category and the category is now still in the article. I asked them to self-revert because of the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, but the user refuses to do so. The user clearly thinks that it is okay to push their edits without getting a consensus. I explained my position on the article's talk page, but the user is acting with no respect to WP:CATVER and WP:OR. More than that, the user claims, that I need to prove something to them, so the user attempted to shift the burden of proof which is against WP:BURDEN. I would like to ask an administrator to remove the category from the article, because of the ongoing discussion and lack of consensus. -- Renat 22:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The situation is explained in the talk page. I just want to point out that all the sources for my edit (adding a category) were already present and were not added by me. User RenatUK simply chose to ignore them. His appeal to the OR issue is completely baseless. (He also deleted my messages from his personal talkpage, for what it's worth).--Ihohh (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

removed the category (diff), but Ihohh decided to start edit warring and reverted it once again - diff. He also used generally unreliable source to "prove" their point - diff. The user reverts and leaves no edit summaries. -- Renat 01:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ihohh's reverts: 1: diff. 2: diff. 3: diff. 4: diff. -- Renat 01:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:108.48.189.192
Vandalism-only account, focussed entirely on Moscow Metro line templates. Constantly adds unverified and fictitious information. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , have you reported them to WP:AIV? I cannot see the IP on the current list. Patient Zerotalk 01:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I report that IP to AIV. 180.242.42.109 (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No warning so not an matter for AIV.©Geni (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring user talk page warnings
has ignored over a year's worth of user talk page warnings about disruptive editing and providing edit summaries. The user has responded to an alert once before, so the disregard seems intentional. KyleJoan talk 02:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Could it be just that WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They have a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Asdfghjkl9658&namespace=1 handful of edits] on talk pages and have, as KyleJoan said, previously responded to a ping on one. At the very least, they must be aware that both talk pages and notifications are a thing. Of course, that doesn't mean they're actually looking at either. – <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#e40303,#ff8c00,#ffed00,#008026,#004dff,#750787);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text;">Rummskartoffel 16:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The disruption has continued. KyleJoan talk 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

67.80.249.131 again


This IP was blocked last month for making disruptive edits (the original ANI. Their block expired a few days ago. Now that they are unblocked, they are making the same exact disruptive edits. This is pretty frustrating. Curbon7 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh disregard they were literally just blocked. Curbon7 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

user:2601:5C2:300:62E:B5C3:7F1C:394F:748C
Edit warring on Danny Cevallos + talk page harassment Drill it (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note there is already a WP:ANEW thread about this, see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --   LuK3      (Talk)   15:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

TypographyFixer
I came across this user while looking through Special:WantedTemplates and noticing that a large number of broken templates were being transuded onto pages in this editors user space. Upon trying to open the page to see where the templates were being used my browser promptly froze, and once I opened the page history it became obvious why - their user space is full of absolutely enormous million byte plus sandboxes full of all sorts of broken stuff that seems to have no use whatsoever for improving the encyclopaedia. Looking at the users edit count something like 97% of their contributions are screwing around in user sandboxes - of their 2018 total edits 1941 of them are in user space. The user has made only 70 article space edits, the vast majority of which are trivial spelling fixes with bizarre and unhelpful edit summaries e.g.. Since this user has so few main space contributions and their edit count consists almost entirely of mucking about in sandboxes I feel that at a minimum they should not have extended confirmed rights, but reviewing their overall their contributions is giving off a distinct vibe that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia and are only here to screw around. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Page stalker here. I was curious and looked at TypographyFixer's sandbox. It's bizarre.  Besides making the bots remove page protection templates that were added to an unprotected page, thus creating more computing work, another issue that jumps out is that by making the pages so large, it's harder for other users to see what he (she?) is doing by scrolling through the revision history. There could be parked copyright material (or even worse - information used for criminal purposes) in the history that we'd never notice without a lot of time and effort spent. This encyclopedia thrives on openness and collaboration, none of which is present here.  Also, while drive space is cheap, if you make enough copies of a gigantic page, even Wikipedia servers have their limits. I'll be curious to hear TypographyFixer's thoughts - he/she was asked in November on their talk page to reduce the size of the sandbox, and gave a strangely capitalized answer. Definitely WP:NOTHERE. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With regards to copyright - at the minimum there's a ton of unattributed copying and pasting from other Wikipedia articles, mostly with weird modifications, e.g. This diff contains an entire copy of the Constructed script article, and this edit is a copy of the Upholstery article. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely blocked this editor as not here to improve the encyclopedia. They have produced a massive amount of gibberish. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Would their sandboxes fall under some combination of G1, G12 and U5? The reason I ask is that it would be significantly easier to just delete the things than to fix all the template transclusions cluttering up the special page and finding where everything has been copied and pasted from to provide proper attribution. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just about to mass-delete all of their sandboxes under U5 and G12 for being obvious unattributed copies of articles which they looked to be trying to modify into something they called "Kiwipedal, the expensive uncyclicalipedal", however I came across this old MfD where deleting these pages was already discussed, so I think speedy deletion cannot apply (it would not be uncontroversial). Personally I think they should all be deleted, they're clearly not serving any purpose to building Wikipedia and are also causing occasional technical issues for some editors. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I deleted some of them before realizing that there had been an MfD. If somebody really thinks that we should fill out paperwork to re-delete it after a discussion, I'll restore it, but it's clear that the sandboxes had nothing at all to do with Wikipedia's purpose, and that it's either conlang nonsense, or a whole lot of test pages.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a load of subpages of their sandbox full of more of the same stuff that could do with speedying/MFDing too. Some of them are full of articles that have been run through google translate which is what is flooding Special:WantedTemplates with broken transclusions. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think G12 overrides everything except BLP (and that would be under very unlikely circumstances), certainly an inconclusive MfD, so I'm going to go ahead and delete them all.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the problematic ones are gone, on the basis of G12, G1, G2, U5, IAR and disruption of Wikipedia technical processes in violation of the ToU.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Good block and deletion. Thanks. That MFD... well, crowdsourcing doesn't always work. But anyways, it was closed no consensus not keep, and this deletion is solidly supported by the global consensus of NOTBURO and IAR (IMO... which of course trumps consensus anyway). Levivich 16:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

99.107.157.94 again


I previously reported this IP back in April for edit warring at pages like 1998 and At the Codfish Ball (see archived thread). Just today, they've returned to their habits of making the edits at the latter page again, and are now starting edit wars on other pages as well (see their contribs). Also note that this IP also edited on enwiki under the IP range 2600:1700:CAD0:A390:0:0:0:0/64 before that range's block in 2019. Jalen Folf  (talk)  14:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've blocked them for three months. Ashley  yoursmile!  15:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:76.69.146.236 creating more talk pages without associated articles
76.69.146.236 has created Talk:Cast Actors (log), Talk:Hello Cell Phone (log), Talk:Crazy The Movie (log), and Talk:Campfire Marshmallow (log); all contain only the text TBA and do not have an associated article. 76.69.146.236 has already been warned twice about this behavior (including a level 4 warning) at User talk:76.69.146.236 and blocked (log) for disruptive editing (the block has since expired, and 76.69.146.236 has resumed editing). It's not quite vandalism, but it is disruptive editing by persisting in unconstructive behavior after being made aware and instructed to stop (and even blocked). Tol &#124; talk &#124; contribs 04:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikibot making changes to constructive edits of Layshia Clarendon's page
I have attempted to make constructive edits to the Clarendon page, but the bot keeps undermining my attempt to normalize progressive views of gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:3c84:3000:303a:8e09:8102:9ffc (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ClueBot is functioning properly. The IP's edits were not constructive. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Please ask this editor to stay off my talk page
Hello community, I want to start by saying that I really do appreciate the opportunity to edit Wikipedia these past 5 months seeing as it has easily become my new favourite pastime. However, I may have made a grave mistake by disclosing on my user page that I was previously blocked for Sockpuppetry as a Newbie editor back in January 2021. I evaded my block and upon realising that it was also an infringement, I made the disclosure to Arbcom, got unblocked and asked to continue with this account. What brings me here is that since she first came to my talk page in March has continued to unfairly cast veiled aspersions  , Outright accused me of paid editing   and went on a power trip and tried intimidating me. I have taken it all in stride because I understand that she is passionate about eliminating undisclosed paid editing and conflict of interest editing especially in the Nigeria-related space I however do not appreciate this continual harassment without proof or without reporting to appropriate quarters. More recently, She placed 4 warning messages     on my Talkpage because I removed the  maintenece template at Siene Allwell-Brown because the AfD closed as no consensus and the sourcing was enough to prove notability. I reverted the warnings placed on my talk page and politely asked that she should not post on my talk page any further. She ignored this and posted 2 more times.

I just want the community to ask this editor to stay off my talk page and stop inhibiting my work as these accusations, assumption of bad faith, snide remarks and witch-hunting/nitpicking (for want of a better word) have severely hampered my enjoyment of editing. Thank you!  Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  18:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let the record reflect that I have aided them severally in their endeavors. They have an unusual manner of archiving so digging out diffs are quite arduous. In AFC I have encountered them and accepted/published their submissions, an example is this this, this  I have never casted aspersions. I would have proposed a boomerang indefinite block on their account but I can’t do so because I have access to non public information of which I am not to disclose on-wiki, I am however willing to share this information to any sysop or functionary. Everything I have told them is factual hence do not fall under the scope of “casting aspersions” As aforementioned I am willing to share via email why I feel an indef block on them might be the best possible route. I wouldn’t tolerate anyone accusing me of Harassment, they are on my watchlist thus it is not unusual if I run into them every now and again. That isn’t harassment. I left a UPE warning template on their tp because of this: Draft:Uzor Arukwe. I declined the article on June 9 and told them specifically not to resubmit the article any time soon seehere. To my surprise barely 4 days after they resubmitted the article which was reject by . This appeared to be COI editing, thus the UPE warning template. I’m incapable of disclosing non public information if not they would have been indef blocked a long time ago. I am willing to point this out if any sysop wants to see for themselves. Yes! Sockpuppetry was what indeed got them in trouble because technical evidence substantiated or showed this, The sockpuppetry case is just one aspect. Infact after Arbcom gave them a new lease they began the same type of editing that got them in trouble in the first place. I feel horrible about this, It is very unfair that editors aren’t sysops or functionaries are restricted from viewing the evidence. Celestina007 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Accusing Princess of Ara of having history of running a UPE ring without evidence after they explicitly told them to stay away from their talk page as can be seen here and also accusing them of returning to sockpuppettery without evidence is uncalled for. Casting aspersions and possible civility issues. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Celestina007 has been asked politely not to post on Princess of Ara's talk page. We commonly expect editors to respect such requests, except when required to post by policy such as an ANI notification. Celestina007 should avoid posting on Princess of Ara's talk page. If there are violations of Wikipedia policies in Princess of Ara's editing, Celestina007 knows the proper avenues to pursue.  Schazjmd   (talk)  20:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Based on what Schazjmd stated above I wouldn't leave any personal messages on their TP. I respect Schazjmd Having said, let the record reflect that I do infact have proof if they do not want me to post on their talk page I wouldn’t. I can carry still carry out my anti UPE activities, I don’t see how interacting with them impedes my anti UPE work. So there you have it, your wish is granted I wouldn’t be leaving messages for you anymore.Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Accepting my articles at AfC and being able to inhibit my work by disturbing my peace are not mutually exclusive as is clearly demonstrated here. In our "first" interaction, Celestina007 told me that she had    that implied that I had been compensated to create an article for FK Abudu and said she was going to submit the evidence to functionaries. It actually beats me how an anti paid editing editor has hard evidence against a rogue editor but lets them run amok for months, putting the integrity of the collabourative project at risk.  Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  21:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , could you please read and comprehend before telling brazen lies? The two diffs you provided above where I mentioned that, were never targeted at you, but was targeted at FK Abudu. I said I had a mountain of evidence that they were trying all they could to get a biographical article on Wikipedia, it was a statement clearly targeted at them and not you, Anyone can read the diffs and confirm what I’m saying, so if I might ask, why were you being intentionally deceptive to the community? Why did you deem it fit to lie against me or did you think I wouldn't scrutinize the diffs? Lying is really bad faith editing. I wouldn’t be posting on your talk page, rather I’d let templates do the talking. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * followed by Outing who? This is simple deductive reasoning. Since Celestina has affirmed she won't be 100% staying off my talk page, I'll like to request a formal ban on interaction between myself and her. Thank you.   Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  05:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, rather than apologize for being intentionally deceptive to not just me, but the community as a whole, you are speaking of “deductive reasoning” meaning you just “guessed” By Outing, I was clearly referring to FK Abudu and not you. The diffs you yourself provided clearly show you weren’t telling the truth, its literally right there and anyone can read it. In any case, A formal iban is ineffective, you have asked me to stay off your page I have agreed to do so, so what’s the bone of contention here? An IBAN wouldn’t help you evade scrutiny, i can still very much template you if/when I observe you violating our TOU so like I said it doesn’t change nothing but you are welcome to try. Celestina007 (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you were referring to FK Abudu as you claim, pray tell, why was I the one in a Catch-22?
 * I'm requesting an interaction ban because I don't want you to template me either. Leave processes to other members of the community. It's that simple.  Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  07:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  12:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time Celestina007 is accusing other editors of bad faith editing without evidence and also displaying civility issues while casting further aspersions. The most recent one is accusing of sockpuppettery without evidence or creating a sockpuppet investigation as can be seen here. Horizonlove archived their talk page after answering them as can be seen here. Unhappy, they reverted Horizonlove brazenly as can be seen here. While all this was going on, they threatened Horizonlove with an indef block even without being an admin I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true and But I can assure you that an indefinite block is being arranged for you if you continue down this path, Its no threat but an eventuality I’d make sure happens if you don’t refrain from COI editing.  came to their talk page and warned them about threatening other editors with a block even without yet passing an RfA as can be seen here. It's true that this editor is fighting UPE, but their method is way too wayward. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █  08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with, They fight UPE with valiance but the methods are on the aggressive side. At the risk of outing myself, my "actual" first interaction with Celestina was on my account that got blocked. I came to Wikipedia as a die hard fan of Erica Nlewedim and tried to create a page for her because I felt she was deserving of one. I jumped right in without reading the rules because I felt I couldn't be wrong. Little did I know. I edited the preexisting draft article and went to the pages of editors      that !voted in the AfD to kindly review and publish. I didn't know about forumshopping at the time, some of whom offered constructive corrections relating to the promotional tone of the article  but I inadvertently got bitten   by Celestina and got my account blocked. It all happened so fast. The reason I got a check user block by  was because another fan of Nlewedim's gave me her login details after putting out this tweet thinking that having multiple people contribute to the page was going to help with the validity of Nlewedim's page. I created another account after getting blocked because I genuinely enjoyed contributing, any other new user may have gotten discouraged and not come back to the collaborative project.
 * I've definitely come across various instances of them ABF, biting new editors, badgering editors to admit COI/UPE and being generally aggressive. See some instances here:
 * They were corrected by to stop being aggressive.
 * - ABF
 * 
 * 
 * - Older users not spared
 * 
 * corrected again
 * 
 * - Untrue Assertion
 * - ABF
 * 
 * 
 * 2 Consecutive warnings
 * Considering that, as a result of a report filed here by Celestina007, User:Nnadigoodluck only a week ago was stripped of all their permissions and topic banned, I'm reserving a helluva lot of judgement on their opinion. I'm surprised they're not taking a vacation from ANI actually; it might be safer if they do. As for User:Princess of Ara, well; I'm not sure, on balance, that the general thrust of C007s allegations do not have a whiff of likelihood to them. ——  Serial  13:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , why should I take a vacation from ANI? — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 13:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Princess of Ara, I'm afraid you kind of undermine your arguments when the first thing I click on -- the "2 consecutive warnings" link -- are for being bitey 4 years ago toward a couple of accounts that turned out to be a sock and a vandal. When you provide diffs, provide your ~3 very best ones and say something like, "I have a dozen others if you want to see." No one is going to read 13 once the first one they click on is a nothingburger. —valereee (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted.  Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  21:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * While I understand that a previous block for sockpuppetry is grounds for additional scrutiny, I do not appreciate the still unsubstantiated veiled aspersions.  Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  14:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With the diffs shared, it shows that Celestina007 has been aggressive, uncivil and bitey to both new editors and old editors way back in 2017 and I'm surprised she's still exhibiting such behavior in 2021. In 2017, after  reverted them on OC Ukeje article because their edit did not conform with the WP:MOS, they approached them on their talk page as can be seen here, accusing the very much older editor of not understanding the English language because they are from Nigeria and offered to teach them because they attended an Ivy League institution. They said can I advice you do a course or two in English Language before proceeding to edit articles, I may be lacking the understanding of some Wikipedia policies, yes, but to not know well enough the English Language is worse still. However if you need tips on the Language i am readily available to offer it to you. I speak Spanish and Italian, and 9 other African Languages also, So please rather than 'try to be in the good books of Jamie' put your time to things more constructive and she continued I am not afraid of you unlike most Nigerian editors, so yes, I am very bold and would continue to be bold if that upsets you, you may as well retire now, and hey, a little spelling mistake does not take away the fact I have an IQ of 132 and speak over ten languages excluding english. In the end let us work together and produce better Wikipedia articles. Thank you sir. In 2020, after  commented on this AfD they nominated, they accused them of operating multiple accounts without evidence. In their words Perharps you may need to check which of your accounts you are currently logged in to.. They further accused the editor of having a poor command of English language Although your multiple grammatical errors & less than satisfactory command of the English language does remind of a certain Nigerian editor on this collaborative project from Nothern Nigeria. I believe the real reason why all these are still going on till today is because they were given a free hand and they believe that it's okay to harass other editors. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █  19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, All these diff digging because like stated I busted you here for possible undisclosed paid editing and had two-third of your possible UPE works deleted? You do know nothing is going to stop me from destabilizing UPE rings right? Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Celestina007, We're talking about your own issues that has been going on since the very day you joined this project, the aspersions, the personal attacks, the civility issues, the witch hunting, the interminable assumption of bad faith and the intimidation of other editors. So, defend yourself and stop ricocheting. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 10:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since this report was filed, between them twelve admins have made over 40 edits to this noticeboard... none of them touching this report. There are two reasons for this. One, they have glanced over the evidence provided and see either out-of-date diffs or minor issues that don't, in their view, warrant an ANI filing. Secondly, apart from the filer, the only editor who so far sees any value in the plaint is fully, as far as a non-admin can be, WP:INVOLVED. (To clarify: one who was recently topic banned and released of all permissions—discussion of which included two admins stating they would not have had a problem with the party being indefinitely blocked—as a direct result of a report filed by the editor complained about here: One who may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes...about which they have strong feelings). Both of these things degrade the original report even if they are not intended to. ——  Serial  13:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. I'm not even an administrator or acting purely in an administrative capacity in this discussion. This is purely an ongoing issue that should be solved so that it doesn't happen again. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 15:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was merely using the context of WP:INV to point out that your pretended neutrality wrt Celestina007 is just that—pretended. Cheers! ——  Serial  16:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Prior to all these + the ANI report they filed here, me and Celestina007 has disagreed and agreed in the past. See here, here and here. So, if I feel they're still doing something that is not really welcoming, especially to who I believe is a productive user who assumes good faith, I'm free to talk about it in the appropriate boards constructively and inferentially without picking a side. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █  16:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I wouldn’t take him too seriously, it’s a silly attempt to impede my anti UPE work. Celestina007 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nnadigoodluck, please stop bludgeoning this discussion. You've said your piece. —valereee (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * has asked me to keep off their TP good I wouldn’t post to them anymore and that settles that. This is a little bit long, but it’s worth the read to understand what is really going on here. Since they have outed themself here as being one and the same person as in which they were an spa for Erica Nlewedim, I believe this is no longer non public information. Now, what happened was The Pr manager/hype man/woman of Erica Nlewedim via Twitter tasked all her fans to ensure Erica Nlewedim gets a “Wikipedia Page” as they termed it. It irks me that I can’t access the app to show the community the diverse tweets because unfortunately Twitter has been banned in Nigeria. In any case, after the tweet the user “Kemmmii” (who is one and the same person as ) shows up and clearly were an spa for Erica Nlewedim see here,  here, here, Then they proceed to badger over a dozen editors, in-fact see their  contributions as it tells the whole tale of how they were an SPA promo account for Erica Nlewedim. In their comment above they claimed to be a NEWBIE in their previous account, but that is very much improbable. Having looked through the edits of  (their former account) you’d notice, their very first edit shows they are very much familiar with our modus operandi, see their first edit here, where they know how to use an edit summary and articulate properly what changes they made, (red flag) but that can definitely be overlooked, but on their 5th edit it invalidates their claim they were a NEWBIE then as the 5th edit was to the TP of a sysop to request undeletion. It is highly improbable that a new editor knows their way around to the point they know to meet the sysop that deleted an article and request for undeletion which means they operated an account prior that of  (possible block evasion). Now fast forward to their new account, they are still attempting to push the Erica Nlewedim article into mainspace. See here (trying to push the article into mainspace) & here (Requesting undeletion). There are many other diffs to substantiate that they are predominantly here to promote Erica Nlewedim. I believe this is enough to see that they a boomerang block be evoked. That a major COI between them and Erica Nlewedim exists is crystal clear and their is a possibility of covert upe also. Celestina007 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The diff for "they have outed themself here as being the one and the same person as Kemmiiii" doesn't appear to support that claim; perhaps you pasted the wrong diff? Schazjmd   (talk)  16:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, it’s the right diff, urgh diff digging whilst using a mobile phone is tough, but if you look for their entry that begins with “” they show all the diffs that point to their former account being that of . If you count via signatures it’s the 12th entry. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see; it's the diffs in this thread that establish that Kemmiiii is their previous account. The diff you posted to Seraphimblade's talk page is irrelevant. Thanks for explaining. Perhaps a topic ban on Nlewedim would be appropriate. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, probably, but it was an attempt to substantiate my claims, if it got you confused, sorry about that mate, but yes, topic banning from creating that very article is the first step into the right direction. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is salted. Are we saying Princess is shoehorning Nlewedim into other articles? Sorry if that's been made clear above, can't deal with the wall of text. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, I didn't realize Nlewedim had been salted; my topic ban suggestion isn't necessary then. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, I found out because I opened it up to see how often it had been AfC'd. :) And a t-ban still might be appropriate, if Princess is wasting other editors' time by trying to get that article created, or if they're trying to insert Nlewedim into other articles.@Celestina007, can you explain (in 100 words or fewer <g>) why you think a t-ban from Nlewedim is necessary? —valereee (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Surely I can, in their previous incarnation as, they came into the collaborative project with a premise that is in alignment with what Wikipedia is NOT, precisely; using Wikipedia as a tool for promotion. Their contribution clearly indicate that. They further optimized multiple accounts to achieve that aim and eventually that got them blocked. Now with their new account they are still exhibiting the same behavior. This is them just 1 day ago doing this. Celestina007 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for weighing in but per these here here   I don't think they can give a balanced opinion. Also, I'm surprised that we're not addressing Celestina incivility also.   Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  21:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * PoA, again you've shown me six diffs, and I've spent my limited time looking at them, and I'm not sure what you're seeking to prove.  —valereee (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Celestina007, you're clawing at straws here; does being someone's fan constitute a conflict of interest? If yes, I will make a declaration without fail. I posted the tweet I made on the same very day I requested review of the draft which you rejected. You have posted the revisionist history but now let me paint a picture. On January 24th 2021, fans of Nlewedim (including myself) were trending #GoogleEricaNlewedim as can be seen in my tweet and the replies therein. Naturally, I googled Nlewedim and noticed that there was no Wikipedia link in her Google knowledge box. I did a local wikipedia search which turned up a red link as expected. I clicked on it and was directed to a similar the page as shown in the image (You may not know this because you edit on mobile). Following the links easily leads to the preexisting draft and the deletion log. Wikipedia is not rocket science if you read.


 * The tweets you refer to were made by which you assert by yourself here that The multiple SPA you see started from an off wiki twitter canvassing by the fans of the subject of the article to get a biographical article on the subject so you know fully well that you can't bring any tweets here since they've been deleted. A cursory look at Justfrankeen's twitter page tells you that they're another rabid and debased fan (as we in BBnaija twitter refer to ourselves) of Nlewedim and not her management as you assert here. I joined before the tweets you now refer to were made.
 * An edit war and twitter war between Nlewedim's and Nengi's fans ensued based on my addition of Nlewedim's name to the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria article.(I can substantiate this with tweets) You yourself said Every year we face this same Bullshit, Alex vs CC, Mercy vs Tacha & now Nenegi vs Erica. It’s so fucking irritating.
 * Mind you, Nlewedim's fanbase is her PR machine as has been documented in reliable sources    Hypeman is about right though.
 * I already explained above that going to all the talk pages of the people involved in the AfD was forum shopping and I know better now. Saying they proceed to badger over a dozen editors is a dishonest exaggeration; except you're saying a dozen is no longer 12 seeing as 8 is barely a dozen. What I posted on the Admins talk page was this; I noted that you deleted the page last year because she did not meet the notability criteria at the time. I have however updated the page and will appreciate a review; it's right there in the diff you provided. How can I request for undeletion of a draft that was existing before I joined the project and even edited before I went to the Admin's talk page. This defies logic.
 * With my new found understanding that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, I tried to make a neutral as possible draft that was declined by you again because it was WP:TOOSOON despite the cited sources that were enough to meet WP:GNG. I personally requested for deletion under G7 but requested for an undelete yesterday because I envisaged that this conversation was still going to happen. So why not? I agree that I was an WP:SPA as however, I returned to Wikipedia with the aim of being a productive user.
 * For some reason (maybe a disdain for Nlewedim herself or BBNaija stars in general), you've gone around to ensure that the article and that of Nengi and Tacha never get accepted as seen in your untrue assertions here here   knowing fully well that the community depends on your opinion and even citing that did not win BBNaija as a reason amongst other things.
 * You have also failed to address the issue of your chronic intractable and unchecked incivility even in this discussion, amongst other things but hey, lets TBAN a rabid and debased BBNaija fan.   Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  21:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please be calm and civil, Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Very rich.  Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  00:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Irrespective of any proposed T-ban, I am deeply disturbed by Celestina's actions here. It is absolutely unacceptable to make such serious accusations against another editor, based on evidence that is claimed to exist, but that was gathered off-wiki, and that Celestina claims they cannot present.  While I accept that sometimes such evidence turns up, there are appropriate places to send such evidence, and making such accusations here meets the definition of casting aspersion, not to mention assuming bad faith (and worse Celestina is encouraging others to trust their "evidence" and assume bad faith about another editor).  I am also deeply disturbed by comments that they have posted on other user's talk pages that have been mentioned here, where they explicitly threatened that they would ban another editor even though they lack the ability to do so.  This may seem like a thin line, but there is a world of difference between if you continue to violate these rules, you could face consequences that include blocks or bans and saying If after this fair warning your edits are still worrisome, I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true and Its no threat but an eventuality I’d make sure happens if you don’t refrain from COI editing.  While I respect Celestina's desire to stop undisclosed paid editors, I believe that their actions are potentially far more disruptive than UPEs themselves, in much the same way that Joseph McCarthy's attempts at outing Soviet spies (and he did catch several real Soviet spies, remember) were much more disruptive and damaging to American democracy than anything that the Soviets could have done on their own.  A project based on collaborative volunteer effort cannot allow public accusations backed by "secret" evidence, as well as threats and intimidation from self-appointed vigilantes.  And I want to be explicitly clear about this, I do not care whether the people Celestina accuses are actually guilty or not.  I do not want an environment where someone can hide behind such odious actions by claiming that it's ok because they were right in the end, in the same way that I do not support denial of due process for criminal defendants even if we later find that they were guilty. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I responded below before seeing this comment you made above, yes I accept that I have been ferocious and I have taken responsibility for that. The evidence in question was non public in that time, which was Princess of Ara previous account was “Kemmiiii”. But yes, like I said I take responsibility for my less than civil approach, moving forward it wouldn’t be confrontational. Celestina007 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what you do is, you send that evidence to SPI. If SPI confirms it, let them deal with it.  It is not your place to harass people who are suspected of breaking rules.  But even worse, I worry that this looks as though you were threatening PoA with this info if her futute edits were not to your liking.  I mean, you said If after this fair warning your edits are still worrisome, I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true, did you mean that if she made certain edits, then you would take your knowledge of her previous account to SPI?  This is the problem with being too "confrontational".  Hyperion35 (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, no, not at all, my knowledge of them being one and the same person as Kemmiiii was an information I could never have used against them as it was still non public at that time. In the end you are correct, I have learnt that moving forward I should do things like you have suggested. This has been a learning curve for me & I do appreciate your input. Celestina007 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Whilst my methods of nabbing UPE are effective, they have been some time too harsh. Some comments have been raised, yes I do take responsibility for some of my harsh methods of dealing with UPE, very effective, I did infact not only nab UPE, I took down a whole ring two months ago. I do infact see where I erred and could have indeed done better, this thread has been a learning curve, I have seen the “cracks in the wall” and I’m going to correct them, moving forward i shall continue to tackle UPE but in a less confrontational manner. Having said still needs to be topic banned from creating the Erica Nlewedim article. A WP:FRESHSTART doesn’t invalidate the actions committed in their previous account that got them check user blocked for sockpuppetry where they tried to move the Erica Nlewedim article into mainspace using multiple accounts. Celestina007 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, (and I realize this may be straying into ATA slightly), I have always been impressed by Celestina007's judgement. Celestina strikes me as a careful and punctillious editor who has caught numerous UPEs, and rarely, if ever, makes unsubstantiated charges. I have always had excellent interactions with them, and so was surprised by claims of impropriety on their part. I for one, have the highest confidence in their contributions. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 18:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , indeed I’m hardly ever wrong and my body of work speaks for itself, for example see here where I single handedly took that UPE ring. This is me yet again taking down another UPE ring and those are the one I remember there are a plethora of others. My accuracy of nabbing UPE is near perfect. I know how UPE rings operate in Nigeria and I can tell UPE from a mile away, I know the stench of UPE on any given day. Even in instances where the community was skeptical about certain editors I called UPE editors in the long run I always turned out to be correct in the end, there’s an effort to incapacitate my work against UPE but isn’t going to happen. Several attempts have been made to hack my account but my strong password has always frustrated their efforts. There’s no universe in which anyone can stop me from exposing upe. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents worth, but if you tried to come across as less confrontational and less like you were keeping trophies of groups you had "taken down", you would probably get less push back. All editors of good will appreciate those who are fighting UPE and sock puppets. That said, it is very hard to read all of your many messages here without coming away with a negative impression, despite all the good work you do. Take this as you will. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed t-ban for Princess of Ara from Erica Nlewedim, broadly construed

 * Support as proposer. OMG. That wall of text all by itself is enough to make me think you need a t-ban from Nlewedim. Yes, being a fan can constitute a COI. Canvassing/being canvassed here, which you're admitting to, is not tolerated here. —valereee (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I did not admit to being canvassed. I'm also happy to declare a COI.  Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  21:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The excellent S'Nabou article shows that can be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, it's just necessary to avoid the subject of COI.  Schazjmd   (talk)  21:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support — Possible case of WP:NANE. Probably WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure that's fair, per Schazjmd's point above. I think this may be an editor who simply shouldn't edit in a certain area. —valereee (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, Hey Valereee, i say WP:NOTHERE because I believe they are being intentionally deceptive if they are claiming to be merely “die hard fans” Take a look at this conversation I had with them on their sock account & if memory serves me right, they had multiple professional photo shoots of Erica Nlewedim which I could not find anywhere on the Internet which is the M/O of a paid job. Now this would explain a whole lot. See here were Seraphimblade also states they suspect them of UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I get it, Celestina. I'm just saying she did create S'Nabou. That doesn't seem likely to have a paying client behind it. I'm not arguing there isn't a COI here, or that there isn't a UPE, just that we can't say flat out NOTHERE. —valereee (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I agree. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * These are the images you’re referring to . Uploaded by .   Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of those say they were the work of EN. Both are nominated for deletion. OrjiNedd seems to have tried to create the EN article, too, and their user page says they're a creative designer/content creator. PoA, honestly, you are hurting your own case. This looks like a UPE sockfarm. —valereee (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * it is very difficult to distinguish between fan editing and paid coi editing; the manner is almost identical. Neither is encyclopedic. And it is not at all unusual for paid editors to also write a few non-promotional articles.  But what I think makes it clear is  when one editor involved in promotional  editing supports another. I think the evidence of UPE is clear enough for both Princess and Nnadigoodluck. . I think we can start on the basis of the discussion here and previous discussions   by banning them both.  We'd need a thorough SPI to see who else is involved,   DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @ &, The textbook intelligent and very dangerous UPE editor is one who knows how to combine UPE and very decent work at the same time, this is the reason I’m unfazed/unimpressed with the S'Nabou article.  @, The fact that  is an undisclosed paid editor is crystal clear and that they are a spammer is factual, I mean there is real hard evidence of them spamming and using Wikipedia for promotionalism. The community indeffing them should be the next course of action. They ought to have been indeffed based on the last thread I opened that exposed their UPE. The possibility of both  and  being part of a larger UPE sock syndicate is very plausible, I would be opening an official SPI to see what pops up. @, erroneously outed themselves in this very thread & inadvertently has given me on a platter of pure fine gold what I need to know, in order to know where to commence my search. Celestina007 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Clearly this is a retaliatory proposal (How a "wall of text" is reason enough to TBAN someone is beyond me). I'm honestly dumbfounded that Celestina007's severe breach of WP:Civil towards PoA and other editors has been callously ignored. This is certainly not helped by the ludicrous hypocrisy exhibited by Celestina007 and i quote:


 * I think it best if we stick to PoA's request for an interaction ban between her and Celestina007. AryaTargaryen  21:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is in no way a retaliatory proposal as I didn’t initiate it an UN-INVOLVED did and my alleged breach of civility where from 2016, indeed, I was hot headed as a NEWBIE but that’s moot now. I have agreed to keep off their tp, An IBAN is only wasting our time seeing as I have agreed to keep off their tp as they have requested. Furthermore the proposal wasn’t made because of a “wall of text” it was made because  who admitted to being an spa for Erica Nlewedim and got Checkuser blocked for sock puppetry(trying to push Erica Nlewedim into mainspace under their previous account as  have continued to do so under their new account. A WP:FRESHSTART doesn’t invalidate the activities of the previous account. The proposal is very much plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I see multiple instances of incivility, including aspersions and outright threats, that you made on PoA's talk page in May 2021. I was going to post a diff for each comment, but it's easier to just put them all together here so that we get an idea of what you consider civil.  Because I see uncivil behavior, aspersions, a battleground mentality, inappropriate threats, and an assumption of bad faith. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me see, I leave a UPE warning template, not against policy, I ask them how they obtain an image, not still against policy, they themselves casted aspersions against me, I refute it, they eventually report me to ANI where they made false allegations that got them blocked and to prove my point they implied that Wikipedia (Its editors) were foolish. So if there’s a particular diff you have in mind pop it up. UPE templating is not considered uncivil. I don’t threaten anyone I tell them to stop a particular kind of behavior that violates our policy and if/when continued would get them blocked. That isn’t a threat I am merely stating a fact. However, I do agree that more often than not I tend to tackle what I believe to UPE ferociously, and moving forward I’m going to be a less confrontational but still as effective. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Kind regards.  Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  06:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I decided to stay away from this thread in order for the community decide without me bludgeoning the process but I noted that some facts may be misconstrued. I want to make some things clear and also make clarifications.
 * 1) Going by this post on her talk page, Celestina007 clearly did not have any evidence as stated above and was only casting aspersions. She only made the deductions/accusations above following my disclosure.
 * 2) Celestina007 has a longstanding history of incivility even after multiple warnings as can be seen in the diffs provided above and on this thread where she told me could you please read and comprehend before telling brazen lies?, (and is yet to respond to my counter question) among other accusations above. I believe this has gone unchecked and needs to be dealt with per policy. I'm actually not surprised her incivility has gone unchecked because she has done so well fighting UPE and has also self-styled herself the resident Nigeria 'expert' and gatekeeper. Sockophobia also applies here.
 * 3) I'll also like to know what is very egregious about submitting Nlewedim's biographical article at AfC on 2 occasions; The first time as a newbie that wrote a promotional article that got rejected by Celestina007, G11'd and me blocked for sockpuppetry.
 * 4) I understand that a checkuser block brings with it raised eyebrowsand additional scrutiny. Checkusers can however confirm that I only ever logged in to the other Nlewedim's fan account but didn't make an edit from it (This can be confirmed from the edit history from around the time I edited as Kemmiiii). I've read and understood policy and learnt that Wikipedia is not a soapbox hence I rewrote the draft with WP:NPOV in mind and even wrote a notability rationale on the Draft's talk page but it got declined again by Celestina007. I however believe Celestina007 is prejudiced against Nlewedim and BBNaija stars in general and went around poisoning the well as seen here where notes that BTW it looks like the subject is notable, and it's not a bad idea to clean it up, make it acceptable, and just go live with it, so we won't have to police two drafts and more editors will keep an eye on it to which Celestina007 responded I don’t believe the subject of the article is notable enough for a Wikipedia biographical piece because I honestly cannot see any notability criterion they meet, furthermore the sources discussing subject of the article are all centered on the subject of the article being a contestant on the Big brother Nigeria reality show of which she didn’t emerge successful, in any which way. I believe WP:ONEEVENT comes into play here.. Which is an untrue assertion. WP:DIDNOTWIN is an arguement to avoid
 * 5) Since our interaction here where (Celestina007 misrepresented the WP:ONEEVENT guideline BTW), I have been submitting all BLPs via AfC as can be seen here.
 * 6) Per me not being a new editor, Please see WP:NAAC where it says What about those huge, intricate, and exciting looking templates we throw on new user talk pages. The user may actually read that, yes it is possible! There are many ways a user can figure out Wikipedia before editing. and WP:BRANDNEW. Some people just have the aptitude for these things.
 * 7) Lastly, remember to judge edits and not editors.
 * I had decided to recuse myself from this argument just like you yourself said you would. You have accused me of having casting aspersions and poisoning the well, both of which you just did above by claiming I have a prejudice against Erica Nlewedim, which I clearly do not. I have accepted that I can be acerbic when dealing with possible COI and UPE as I have already stated above and have agreed to tackle with more civility moving forward.
 * My problem is, under your previous account, this are your entire contributions of which you were an spa(as confirmed by you) for the sole purpose of creating the Erica Nlewedim article where you optimized more than one account to try to move to mainspace. In here discovered you were part of a sock farm. You eventually get blocked by  for sockpuppetry, you were given a new lease and even under this account you have continued to try and push the article into mainspace. Right here a portion of  comment  had this to say about the article.
 * The fact that multiple sock farm has been trying to push the article into mainspace has been made clear, the topic ban proposal is because you have continued the same behavior of trying to push that article into mainspace. Furthermore, I do not appreciate the deflection, my abrasive tone towards UPE is one I have accepted and taken responsibility for and moving forward I have agreed to tone down whilst being just as effective talking about it over and again is not proving helpful. You wanted me to keep of your page and I have promised my self and the community to do so, that is settled why have you remained hell bent on trying to recreate the Erica Nlewedim article? Do you not see how you are engaging in the same behavior that got you in trouble the first time is in alignment with conflict of interest editing? I have told you this, has told you this, do you not see how you err? In the end I have agreed to tackle UPE with less ferocity, agreed not to post on your tp anymore, why have you not agreed to refrain from that very article? Celestina007 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not an aspersion when there are diffs to substantiate the claim. You said; About her notability status, she definitely isn’t notable, asides the big brother, there isn’t any other significant thing, the beauty pageant is negligible at best. Her case is very much similar to & mirrors that of Draft:Erica Nlewedim who both have their claim to notability chiefly as having participated in the Big brother reality Tv show and their inconsequential participation in beauty pageants, and winning non notable paid for awards. Tbh, anybody experienced Nigerian editor creating articles on both subjects are engaging in undisclosed paid editing AND Basically what’s happening here is every years there’s a Big brother reality Tv show where 20 contestants participate in, last year she partook in it & became instantaneously famous, but the problem is the Big brother Nigeria is done annually & this years Big Brother is about to commence which would mean she’d soon become irrelevant as the focus would be on the new participants & not on the previous participants anymore. So it’s literally a now or never situation she’s facing. Which is another WP:ATA knowing full well that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Also, introducing the draft to conversations it was uninvolved is classic poisoning the well.
 * MarioJump is not a CheckUser, Drmies the Checkuser linked Kemmiiii to Ehizodenoria here so quit trying to muddy the water by dwelling on the previous Sockpuppetry block like you want me wallow in it and wear it like a badge of shame. It's old and you know it. I have been nothing but productive since I came back to the encyclopaedia because I learnt from my mistakes. I've been productive and even you have attested to it saying Thanks for your new article creations pertaining to the Nigerian movie industry, I’m passionate about that and it’s good seeing another editor have the same passion. Atonement is ALLOWED as so aptly put it, We get so very many clueless new people every single day that misunderstand what Wikipedia is and want to use it to promote something. Some just keep spamming until they get blocked, some realize they are in the wrong place and leave, and a few of them actually try to understand what the problem is and correct it. That's good faith, not bad. That they make other edits that are compliant with policy is also a good thing...Reformed spammers and vandals are a real thing.
 * Being involved 4 times over At AfD and AfC  is also not a good look. Don't you think this further supports the prejudice claim?
 * I have since declared a COI as suggested by Valereeee and making TWO submissions via AfC  which is recommended by WP:COI in any case is hardly tendentious. WP:COI It says you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly which I have not disobeyed at any point.
 * Submitting via AfC is hardly trying to PUSH anything. PUSHING will be creating directly to main space which I have NOT done
 * Per your rationale for declining the draft on 30th May 2021, This source used in the article implies WP:TOOSOON and ELOY awards doesn’t meet #1 of WP:ANYBIO Can it also be implied that it is TOOSOON for Sharon Ooja, Idia Aisien, Sophie Alakija,Ini Dima-Okojie and Omowumi Dada to have biographical articles?
 * So why are you hell bent on Erica Nlewedim not getting a biographical article?  Princess of Ara <small style="color:pink">(talk)  20:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Valereee, I'm skipping over all this text here to say that I agree with you, that we should do this, and that we should just block the moment PoA touches anything Nlewedim related., you seem to have a better understanding than me of who is doing what likely for undeclared pay, and I urge you to act as you see fit--I appreciate it. Now, can we move on? Someone please close this? BTW nice work on [S'Nabou]]--we need more of that. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have accordingly blocked User:Nnadigoodluck indefinitely  for sockpupettry and undeclared paid editing.  I'm checking for further info about  PoA, but if any other admin awants to do a similar block, that's OK with me.  DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * After further discussion I'm unclosing to get clearer consensus. —valereee (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Drmies and my comments above; while PoA is not themselves yet a net-negative, their ability to neutrally edit this topic is fatally—and blatantly—flawed. ——  Serial  13:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not seeing what this TBAN is trying to achieve, since PoA has agreed to disclose a WP:COI as relates to the Nlewedim article and submit the article through the AfC process (the process they've been following in all the BLPs they've created). WP:COI states that Editors with a COI... are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content.... COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead.. They should be sanctioned if they violate it. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 20:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW PoA has on their user talk indicated an intent to declare a COI, recreate the article, and resubmit. I don't see any reason to believe they won't just keep resubmitting as many times as it gets rejected. This just seems like a waste of other editors' time. —valereee (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Per Nom (see comments below). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
 * Support per . ——  Serial  07:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * I now have a headache. I ended up here because I landed on a draft that was declined by . A first glance (two sources) and very clear promotionalism (see draft and talk page) was evident. Wikipedia should not be used for advertising in the guise of a BLP. Straight out of the box I saw what appeared to be fancruft. By-the-way, didn't win, place, play, or succeed has been favorably argued at AFD when sources do not support notability. In this case the promotional aspect (including sources) are enough to hamper publication.
 * Anyway, I made comments and clicked "Notify submitter". That appeared to be . I received three thanks from and one included The Sokks. When I looked at "Princess of Ara" there was nothing but my contributions link to TheSokks showed a redirect to Princess of Ara with the notice landing on TheSokks. I proceeded to Princess of Ara's talk page and found "Topic ban Erica Nlewedim" with no discussion link from —valereee. I went to that editor's contributions to find a link here. From the comments above I think the well is deeper than the reflection indicates.
 * I have no horse in the race. Baseless accusations should not be allowed from anyone ("Comment on content, not on the contributor") but just reading a few comments and diffs above give rise to valid concerns of too involved COI (too close to ever be objective and neutral), very likely sockpupettry and possible undeclared paid editing, that should include looking at.
 * Regardless of an editor's tone, I do not see evidence to support claims of prejudice which are serious accusations. Casting aspersions are a violation of multiple policies and guidelines. Further accusations that an editor has some ax to grind because they feel there are issues that they believe are reasons an article should not be published go beyond anything allowable. I see evidence of gaming the system (stir up enough stink and flies may congregate) and at the very least there should be a BOOMERANG somewhere. I fear to go any farther as I am getting thoughts (and chills) of possibly not being here to build an encyclopedia according to our standards to include our policies and guidelines on civility (WP:NPA) that ends up as a possible "net-negative" in disguise. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed t-ban for Celestina007 from WP:UPE, broadly construed

 * Support as proposer. There is no excuse for violating WP:civility no matter how effective doing so may be. 2601:5C2:200:46:C55F:7074:3F2C:3538 (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

MCRainbowSupernova8196 edit-warring over Carambolage versus Accident at Belgian Grand Prix
Hi, this probably belongs in the 3RR noticeboard but I can't work out how to show diffs. There seems to be a ridiculous edit war going on at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Belgian_Grand_Prix&action=history between who is determined to put a French word Carambolage into the article for no reason, versus SSSB who is (in my view quite reasonably) attempting to use plain English ("accident"). It's gone beyond 3 reversions with some fairly unhelpful edit summaries such as "What? Do long words scare ya?". I've also reverted it once and been reverted back, so I'm not getting involved further. I'll stick a note on relevant user talk pages that I'm passing it over to you the experts. Elemimele (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note the comments on User talk:MCRainbowSupernova8196 starting a discussion (Special:Permalink/1031224414) which involves myself, MCRainbowSupernova8196 and . SSSB (talk)12:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not one to get involved in this sort of thing but this seems like quite bizarre and very combative behaviour from MCRainbowSupernova8196. The MOS is fairly clear on this and it seems fairly intuitive to me that the English Wikipedia is written in English. Regardless of that, their behaviour in edit summaries and on their talk page seems to indicate no change from the previous incident. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 12:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is English Wikipedia, so we should be using words that English speakers understand. Most English speakers know what an accident is. "carambolage" is not an English word according to any reputable English dictionary e.g. Collins, Cambridge Dictionary, and shouldn't be used. needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK or they'll get themselves blocked again. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, almost every edit they've made in the last 2 days has been reverted. Are they actually here to improve the encyclopedia, or just cause pointless arguments that waste people's time? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note, you must notify the other editor when you start a thread about them here. I've gone ahead and done so. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Elemimele did, MCRainbowSupernova8196 removed the notification (diff). 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 13:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad, sorry . I checked the last few edits to their page and didn't see it. Should have looked further back. Thanks . SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They had been notified:, but chose to remove the notification: . <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm actually quite concerned about MCRainbowSupernova8196's behaviour and edits in general. They've been here about 3 months, been blocked twice, have a very clear combative editing style, and about half of their edits have been reverted in one manner or another. They seem to be throwing around, if not outright then on the line, personal attacks and aren't interested in editing in a collaborative manner. This may change, but we may wish to point out to them that people's patience is wearing thin and if they continue to approach editing Wikipedia in the manner they have been then they're going to end up with an indefinite block very soon. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Their talk page seems to be a case study in I didn't hear that behavior. SamStrongTalks (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that they're WP:NOTLISTENING- I don't think I could have made my point any clearer, and they're choosing to ignore it. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If nothing else happens, I think we can leave it. If they start up with changing "traffic jam" to embouteillage they'll need an indef, though.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And if they change it to confiture de véhicule they need a global ban. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Banana6cake. resumed inappropriate behavior and disruption after calls for topic ban
The participants from the following (now archived) discussion:, have proposed a Topic Ban for User:Banana6cake. due to their past persistent unconstructive behavior and disruption in the Turkey topic area. However no topic ban was applied and this encouraged the editor to keep going on with their inappropriate attitude and disruption in the Turkey topic area. Just had to revert them (again!): where they - against the WP:Consensus and Wikipedia's rules - had restored fake claims that the modern Turkish Navy was founded.... 1.000 years ago or so. Furthermore, they used the edit summary to make more racist WP:NPA attacks against the ethnicity of editors for no apparent reason:.

Something really has to be done about this editor. This behavior shouldn't be tolerated in Wikipedia.

Pinging as well as they were participants in previous discussion with Banana6cake..

EDIT: Oh and also pinging - just in case they would like to add more to it -  --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for topic ban per Silent and due to the disruptive editing of the user.--V. E. (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Add: Racist attack most likely warrant a block.--V. E. (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have also added a warning on their talk page for the attack.--V. E. (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban - my stance has not changed a whit. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a looksee at the diffs, I stand corrected. Indef site ban - nationalist and racist attacks, to me, is grounds for a site ban overtop the other issues. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i>  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * support site ban this has gone too far and he user doesn't seem to be a net possitive to the project anytime soon. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indef site ban The editor had their chance to correct themselves after the past week's call for ban, and apologize for their behavior, but it seems they simply dind't care. The latest edit shows the problem isn't really their edits in a topic area that would make a Tban sufficient; they are WP:NOTHERE. For this reason, I support Indef site ban.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 10:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support indef site ban. Those nationalist attacks are uncalled for and there's no reason to allow this user to continue editing here after that behavior. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support indef site ban. This person is here to right some great wrong. We need to show them the door, and then nail it shut. --AdamF in MO (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

A list of edits containing personal attacks
    --V. E. (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't notify them of this discussion.However, I have blocked them for 72 hours for a pattern of nationalist attacks.Discussion of a topic ban may continue here.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion
To the Admins: There is a solid consensus that User:Banana6cake. should be banned from Wikipedia. The particular user has not only violated Wikipedia's rules repeatedly but also has failed (clarification: never bothered, or are not interested) in convincing us that they would improve their attitude and behavior. All these days, they had their chance to remedy for their actions, but didn't even bother. For this reason, I do not believe we can expect anything positive from them; they should be banned from the site indefinitely. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism by UserNumber in "Sylheti Language" topics
Please kindly check the data, edits and rollback on Sylheti language topic by User:UserNumber. For any excuse he is removing valid sourced information for Sylheti language in many places. Protecting negative narratives on the topics to discourage users. Besides, he might issue with Sylheti language. Please check this users data on Sylheti Language. His edits and rollback on this topic is very negative and misusing rollback power to suppress Sylheti speakers and showing superiority of another language (Bengali), which is not supposed to be acceptable in Wikipedia's neutral policy.

Please note, a category Sylheti language was added for Sylheti language page in ANI discussion. Usernumber removed it intentionally. Slake000 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored the category, but I'm not convinced that UserNumber is acting in bad faith. It looks like there's a content dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Slake000 for violating a topic ban on Bengali–Assamese languages, a language family that the Sylheti language belongs to. signed,Rosguill talk 03:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Potential legal threat @ Talk:Rajputisation
Legal threat of 'penal action' issued by IP user. See Special:PermanentLink/1031153956. Section removed and user warned. Could an admin please review? Mel ma nn  09:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure exactly what "penal action" is, sounds spicy. However it is a clear attempt to influence a content dispute with a threat meant to have a chilling effect. I have blocked the IPv6/64 for 72 hours for making threats. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 09:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like a reference to incarceration. Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Penal action" in India generally is a threat to lodge a police complaint.  Java Hurricane  04:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits by User:Carl Francis
This user reverts some edits which he considered as unconstructive, but some are disruptive such as removing an existing link in an article to another article in Wikipedia. The user was given a warning in his user page by another user due to this issue. Please check the contributions of this user for more details. Despite of this, I don't want him to be blocked and banned from Wikipedia due to his editing behavior but just to remind him. Thank you. NewManila2000 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * NewManila2000, please add some diffs to illustrate the problem. The talk page warning also does not include diffs. TSventon (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This is one of the diffs that you want to see. . It appears that the said actress is a mainstay in a Filipino variety program and will appear in an upcoming Filipino TV series but the edits and links there were edited. The edit summary says, "fixed" but instead of fixing, the user removed some important edits there. It is okay to remove unsourced edits but not to remove other sufficient edits. NewManila2000 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I just wanted to help you make a case to any admin reviewing the page by reminding you that diffs are required as noted at the top of this page. Also, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. I have done this for you this time. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know, if you haven't seen it, here's the other diff: DavidCostell44 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that is the diff meant to link when they linked to an old version of Charlie Dizon at 14:23. More than one diff is needed to indicate a pattern of behaviour. TSventon (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone check if his edit in Jodi Sta. Maria is disruptive or not. Indicated there is the diff in the said article,. Also, in the article of Ivana Alawi,, and. NewManila2000 (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Likely a disgruntled sock. Also WP:SOLICIT. Carl Francis (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, we must respect and review the edits of other users before reverting it. I will now avoid myself from doing WP:SOLICIT if proven that I am doing it. Thank you. NewManila2000 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the diffs, it looks to me like Carl Francis removed some unsourced and trivial information on WP:BLP articles...in other words, nothing wrong in itself. Both Carl Francis and NewManila2000 appear to be engaged in a low-intensity long-term edit war at Charlie Dizon. In lieu of handing out edit warring blocks, can you two go hash the matter out on a talk page? signed,Rosguill talk 04:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

User:80.117.213.106
This editor is the Brescia LTA and needs to be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They just deleted this report. See also [. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And . Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just altered the title of this report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked by User:Crazycomputers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

SharqHabib
has been blocked by for 31 hours on 19 June for persistent addition of unsourced material in spite of repeated warnings (see also a previous ANI report posted by  on 1 June). Since their block, they have received three further warnings for adding unsourced material, and several other warnings (unconstructive editing, disruptive editing, copyright problem). A number of articles they created have been proposed for deletion, one of which is now at AfD. They seem well-intentioned, but they clearly have a serious competency issue that has been pointed out to them numerous times (the diffs above are coming from 7 different editors in 10 days time). Though they know about talk pages (see, e.g., here), they rarely make use of them and do not respond to the messages at their own talk. For example, I just warned them to cite sources and to make use of edit summaries, to which they responded by making unsourced changes without providing edit summaries. It may not be intended that way, but each and every of their edits that I have seen is doing damage to rather than improving the encyclopedia (I'm echoing Mosesheron in this). Not sure how much more rope they deserve, but I'm not seeing a willingness to learn and change on their part. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 23:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I see that I have done many wrong edits, and the Wiki administrators can ban me if they want, but on the other hand I have done many good edits too such as at Mehmet Bozdağ, The Establishment (Pakistan), Matiullah Jan, Day of Resurrection and thousands of more, the second point; yes my articles are proposed for deletion and all of these articles are proposed by the user Pepperbeast, I have also given reasons on why the page should not be deleted at AfD. 3; yes I do know about talk pages and I see them, but responding to them isn't neccessary? I have responded at at AFD and these discussions at ANI, 4; Yes, I did make bad edits at religious articles, now I am trying to stay away from religious articles and edit political articles, I hopefully won't make bad edits now, Regards  Sharq Habib    (talk)  23:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If you know all this, then why do you keep repeating the problems that result in warnings on your talk page? You give the impression that you ignore all warnings and advice you have been given, you failed to modify the behavior for which you were previously blocked, and you are not here to collaborate on an encyclopedia. You need to demonstrate that you are a net benefit to the Wikipedia project rather than a burden to others who must clean up after you. Other than your stated intent to "stay away from religious articles", you have given no indication whatsoever that you have read, acknowledged, or understood all the messages people have left on your talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I have tried to give some further pointers to SharqHabib at their talk page, but just for the readers here I will note that their edits at Day of Resurrection which they cite as an example of good editing (seen together in this diff) consist of adding and removing information without sources or explanation, of adding a section 'Fate of Muslims' based on unreliable sources, and of adding a section 'Fate of Non-Muslims' copied from Islamic eschatology without noting this in the edit summary. I'm not familiar with the subjects of the other articles they cite as examples of their good editing, but seems to have had some issues with their editing at Mehmet Bozdağ, and while I can't judge the sources used in their edits at The Establishment (Pakistan) (here) and at Matiullah Jan (here), I do see way too much unsourced and unexplained additions and removals (sometimes mixed up with copy-editing of varying quality). Again, intentions seem to be good, but the editing is pretty disastrous, and requires a ton of clean-up that is not even getting done, because it's in poorly watched articles, and because there's just too much of it. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 04:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * They seems to be sockpuppet of User:SajidMir2 which I think is the sockpuppet of User:SheryOfficial because most of their edits are link with them. User:SajidMir2 was also blocked for the same period of 31 hours time and User:SajidMir2 and User:SharqHabib has made edits to many same pages like some of them are KSI etc. which are related to professional boxing and User:SheryOfficial's sockpuppets had the intrest in professional boxinf related articles. Check their contributions and then you'll find out what I am talking about.119.152.232.222 (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * SPI report here. I believe it to be meritless as it stands, and recommend to ignore it here. We have a real 'civil CIR' issue to deal with, so let's focus on that. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 23:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I may have been wrong about this. I'm not sure about sockpuppetry (see, however, the updated SPI case, where I identified another possible sock), but there clearly has been some off-wiki coordination. For example, at the article on the Pakistani real-estate company Bahria Town, SharqHabib removed COI, Peacock and POV templates while adding promotional content to the lead and removing controversial content about the son of the founder of the company being listed in the Panama Papers, all without any explanation.  never edited that article, but they did upload a cropped version of the Bahria Town logo, a file which was edited 5 minutes later by SharqHabib (see here). Since SajidMir2 didn't add the file to any article (it is their last contribution to date), there was no other way to know about this for SharqHabib than off-wiki. Anyways, I believe SharqHabib's actual editing here (on the Bahria Town page) is most concerning. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

After a brief pause, is editing again. Entirely ignoring my advice at their talk page (which included pointers about copying within Wikipedia, using reliable sources, not changing text without sources, and avoiding the use of primary sources for evaluative statements), they are just continuing to do exactly what they did before. In this edit, they copied text from Christ (title) and a source from Messiah without noting this in the edit summary, added several unreliable sources, and made improper use of a primary source. In their next edit, they copied a whole paragraph as well as some further text and a source from Messiah without noting this in the edit summary. In their last edit, they arbitrarily removed and added information without explanation, and added several unreliable sources (a book by Adnan Oktar called The Prophet Jesus (as) and Hazrat Mahdi (as) Will Come This Century,, , , ). I believe they are under the impression that they will get done more by being entirely uncollaborative and unresponsive (a case of wp:idht if I've ever seen one). Could an admin please show them wrong, and give them an indefinitely block? They shouldn't be editing as long as they show neither any understanding of what they're doing wrong, nor any intention of doing better. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 01:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess thinks they can get away with whatever they're doing on Wikipedia. Their conviction, in my opinion, is well founded. Because, after making so many unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, all they have received is 31 hours of block. That’s is nothing compared to a “vandal” who oftentimes gets a block for months to years after making few unconstructive edits. I am saying this because I no longer believe this is an issue of competence. I have had an opportunity to look at their edits in the past and I do not think this user does not understand what they are doing. This is also evident from their own testimonies that they are fully aware of their “wrong edits”. I am sorry I am unable to assume good faith for this user. Mosesheron (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thought you might be interested to take a look. Mosesheron (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok ban me, can you guys even ban me? I don't even want to be on Wikipedia, pussyies getta the fuck outta here User:Sharq Habib, yea i dont give a fuck ban me now pussyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharqHabib (talk • contribs) 12:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can some admin make the ban already with the reason: "Disruptive editing and self-request"? Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE issue
So I think that may have some WP:COMPETENCE issues. To wit:


 * 1) Draft:Rebel Son (Band) is a zero-effort draft with no sources or content.
 * 2) Zero effort put into an album article; no sources or categories or even a track list
 * 3) Using Spotify as a source for music genres
 * 4) Unsourced genre changes
 * 5) Dubious genre changes
 * 6) Adding associated acts of dubious relevance
 * 7) Their user page is a random clutter of unrelated infoboxes that nave no connection to each other.
 * 8) No response to any inquiries on talk page
 * 9) Habit of self-reverting or restoring removed edits

In short, there doesn't seem to be any feedback from this particular user or any competence to their editing skills. What should be done? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor hasn’t been around that long. I think a 24 hour block should be implemented seeing that the editor doesn’t respond to notifications and doesn’t attempt to improve their articles. Jerm (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like a typical case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU to me. I'd say block them for a just long enough that they'll notice, and use the block message to direct them to their talk page, where a friendly message should be left to explain to them how to improve their editing. – <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#e40303,#ff8c00,#ffed00,#008026,#004dff,#750787);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text;">Rummskartoffel 09:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's still going on. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think much can be done here without admin intervention. One thing you might still try if you haven't yet would be to leave a comment in the wikitext in a location they keep coming back to (if there even is such a place), but I wouldn't get my hopes up. It'll probably take a block. The editor is using the mobile browser version, not one of the apps, so they should be able to see block messages. – <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#e40303,#ff8c00,#ffed00,#008026,#004dff,#750787);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text;">Rummskartoffel 10:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants: Incivility
The other day I made a post to WP:BLPN, and checking back on the noticeboard to make certain nobody had commented further I chanced upon another discussion on the noticeboard, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Here I noticed some rather incivil remarks by the above-linked user. "I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram," is a roundabout way of telling someone to fuck off: see Arkell v Pressdram. Asked in response to play nicely, they responded "Stop pinging me, for fuck's sake. I don't know where you got the notion that I owe you any explanation beyond "you're wrong", but I sure as hell don't."

I don't really want to get sucked into... whatever this is. So I'm posting it here in the hope somebody else is more willing to step in. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC) (added on behalf of IP, as report was blocked by edit filter false positive ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC))
 * May I refer you to the answer given in Arkell vs Pressdram? -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 13:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest this editor login to their registered account rather than logging out to file an anonymous complaint at ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, tell me which account you imagine I have. I assure you I do not. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Referring someone to the reply in Arkell v Pressdram is a famously civil circumlocution. I suggest a thicker skin and stop pinging people if they so request.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * and, feel free to open a SPI, rather than making vague accusations. I've never edited as an IP since opening my account two years ago. I would assume experienced editors would be more aware of this sort of typical behavior from vandals. , I also haven't pinged MjolnirPants once since they asked not to, so maybe you should reconsider that part of your comment as well. It really doesn't help to spread false information that is meant to disparage other editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * wallyfromdilbert, I didn't say it was you, nor do I think it was. But there is no IP from the past two weeks, from that IP geolocation, that has posted to BLPN. So my suggestion to the OP stands. Grandpallama (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, Grandpallama. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wallyfromdilbert, I honestly had no intention of making vague accusations; to be honest I am confused by your response. I made recommendations.  Feel free to ignore them if you like. Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Dumuzid, if you are going to make statements that are obviously about me ("stop pinging people if they so request"), then you really should be letting me know. Additionally, if you are making those statements about my actions when responding to an IP comment, then the obvious implication is that you are making an accusation of sockpuppetry, and you should instead take that comment to an SPI investigation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wallyfromdilbert--I can assure you, I was replying to what I thought was a random IP. Upon an overly quick reading, I thought the 'ping' comment was aimed at the IP.  I see now where my mistake lies, and I am sorry you got the wrong impression.  Dumuzid (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This really is peanuts compared to some of the incivility that flies through this board on a regular basis.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes at least he was oblique about it. And I learned something by looking it up, so win-win. I mean, all this was in the context that OP was making the argument that we should use the Wikipedia's power to bully private citizens by making a deliberate practice of not including BLP subjects' claim of innocence when we're reporting that they've been accused of some dreadful practice (on grounds of "well they would say that wouldn't they", and in contravention of specific policy), so of course people are going to get angry. If I were to deign to weigh in (heaven forfend), I might even have been moved to note that one might say that OP is not necessarily fully demonstrating the qualities expected of a gentleperson to a degree generally found satisfactory in refined company, which is lot worse than anything MjolnirPants said. Had I done so, OP would have been invited to include me in their complaint if they wished. Herostratus (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I was the person who expressed concerns about MjolnirPants's behavior on the original BLPN thread. While I think their behavior was unhelpful, especially on a noticeboard that already does not receive enough active participation, it clearly does not rise to the level of an ANI complaint. It is also concerning that neither the IP of the poster nor any similar ones have edited the BLPN. I would recommend that this thread be closed as quickly as possible. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm thoroughly unsurprised that you would like to avoid any admins looking into the incident that led me to refer you to that famous response. Here's some good reads to avoid similar situations in the future: WP:HOUND, WP:ASPERSIONS and Don't be a jerk. You might want to glance at WP:AGF, while you're at it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * MjolnirPants, I didn't think it was appropriate at the time, but given your repeatedly nasty responses starting from your initial response to me on your talk page, obviously there are issues with your behavior that others may want to consider, especially given your behavioral history. Attempting to accuse me of "casting aspersions" with no evidence seems pretty indicative that you have serious problems with interacting with others in an appropriate manner. This is not the type of behavior that is helpful to a collaborative project. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you think calmly and straightforwardly disagreeing with you is "nasty" but you don't have any problem with hounding someone over your apparently complete inability to distinguish between criticism of an argument and criticism of an editor.
 * I would point out that your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach of repeatedly coming after me after I explicitly told you that I wasn't interested in discussing this is much, much worse for a collaborative project that an editor pointing out weak arguments. In fact, one wonders how you expect us to discuss anything if we can't do the latter. It's mind boggling that someone would demonstrate such a complete lack of awareness of their own lack of civility in their pursuit of attacking another editor over such an obvious misunderstanding on your part, but here we are.
 * Have you read those page I linked you to? You'd really be doing yourself a favor in doing so. Might save you from being blocked the next time you decide to go on the offensive over someone daring to point out that you made a weak argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since there are some very obviously false accusations of puppetry flying right and left, I feel the need to point out claims my BLPN comment never happened are obviously false. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You may want to register an account. The original post of this section had your IP as 27.59.88.67. We had no way of connecting that with the IP you're currently using. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who that IP is, but it is not me, and I don't know why it is listed there. Good catch, though; I had missed it. It explains the bizarre accusations. As for an account, I can do everything I want to without one. (And being on this board is not on the list of things I particularly wan to be doing.) 92.24.242.202 (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed - the 27 IP is on a completely different continent, and neither IP is a proxy. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe an edit filter bug? Like, maybe it misread the four tildes and produced a signature from itself? I'm not technically minded but hopefully you can see where I'm going with that! :) 92.24.242.202 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Human error, I'm afraid. My tab management sucks; it seems I had the tab open for another IP at EFFP's contribs open at the time. For the record, abusefilter entry corresponding with this ANI comment is Special:AbuseLog/30309438 (visible to admins/EFM). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It should probably be added for the record that, even though the OP signature makes clear that the actual IP responsible for opening this thread was 27.59.88.67 (who seems to have no other noteworthy contributions to the project -- hence multiple people pointing out that it appears to be someone logging out to engage in tendentious behaviour), ProcrastinatingReader appears to have inadvertently misidentified the IP as 92.24.242.202 in their edit summary. This was very confusing to me until I checked just now. On an unrelated note, I would second Firefangledfeathers' advice to 92.24.242.202 to create an account. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

There are other editors who agree or have agreed that MjolnirPants does engage or has engaged in incivility. They are often dismissed when those on this page say that it doesn't rise to a level that he should be sanctioned for, but surely that has to have a limit too, right? 21:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * Here's a relevant question: At what point does you following me around, trying to get me sanctioned rise to the limit of sanctionable behavior? This is the fifth time, and as I recall, you only narrowly escaped being blocked yourself the first two times. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not "following you around". Pages such as this one are on my watchlist, and I participate in the discussion on them. 21:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * Ahh, so you just wait until you see my name, and then jump on to try and get me sanctioned because I reverted you a few months ago. Do you remember what you were told here and here, or do you need a reminder? I know for a fact that you were told to read WP:BATTLEGROUND more than once. Why haven't you done so? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You are currently casting aspersions. To be very clear, that discussion was not about the revert, but about the civility in the discussion on the talk page. 21:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * You might want to read WP:ASPERSIONS before you make another, similarly ridiculous statement. What I'm doing here is reminding you that two independent admins threatened you with a block over your behavior. Behavior which you're still engaging in. Are you sure this is what you want to do? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to reply to MjolnirPants, I will allow his replies to be the evidence for my original assertion. 02:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * I kinda feel like, at this point, we should have an edit filter that prevents non-EC editors from using the character-strings "MjolnirPants" or "MPants" in ANI posts. 90% of these reports seem to be filed by accounts/IPs that get blocked for sockpuppetry/harassment within a month, and the other 10% are mostly just those whose malfeasance couldn't be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On a related note, can someone look into this "The owner of all" account? This, this, and especially this are very concerning, and it wouldn't surprise me if this person's bizarre interest in MPants was related to WP:NONAZIS, and ... well, the almost-unused account emerged from the woodwork a few days before MPants came back, but some weeks after this and possibly some other buildup, if someone with more of an understanding of the background of MPants' revival wants to look into the matter. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88, maybe editors who are frequently uncivil to others should actually be held accountable for their behavior? I think this type of behavior by MjolnirPants has a negative impact on both long-term editors and new editors as well as those who are here to not make constructive edits, as acting that way towards those who are only here to harass others seems like a pretty guaranteed way to make them continue to come back, rather than leaving Wikipedia alone because they can't get the reactions they are seeking. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's circular reasoning. Saying that frequent victims of harassment should be civil to their harassers without demanding that the harassers stop or that the harassers should be held accountable for their harassment is NOT going to make Wikipedia a more cordial and friendly environment. Chinami ni, do you know exactly when, why, and how MPants returned from retirement? I said it was suspicious that the TOA account seemed to emerge right around the same time but that the specific timing of the unblock doesn't exactly line up, but there was at least one way TOA (or whatever his/her main account's name is) could have seen it coming, and possibly others. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You said that those editors usually get blocked within a month, what else can WP do to "hold them accountable"? 01:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * Also, stop casting aspersions and if you have a case that I am a sock, take it to WP:SPI, if not, then I respectfully request that you strike that statement. 01:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * Do you know anything about the IP that filed this report? If you do not, and you have such a beef with MPants that you have been chiming in every time his name is mentioned on the drahmaboards, why didn't you file your own report? (Yes, I'm aware of this.) Why, nine years after your account was blocked for vandalism, did you (a) remember the password, (b) request that the account be unblocked rather than, say, just creating a new account and not vandalizing with it or mentioning that you had been blocked for vandalism a decade earlier, and (c) not actually do a whole lot with your newly unblocked account until very recently, when you suddenly became active on Wikipedia again at exactly the same time that MPants returned from retirement? These factors, combined with the fact that you filed a similar bad-faith "civility" ANI thread about MPants two months ago that ended in multiple editors calling for you to be blocked, make me think it is very much possible that you filed essentially the same non-report again, doing so while logged out so that, when you showed up "in the flesh later", WP:BOOMERANG could no more apply to you than to the others who were calling for you to be blocked. SPI, however, cannot deal with this, since the evidence is all located within this one thread (therefore any admin willing to block you for "likely sockpuppetry" doesn't need me presenting the evidence) and the sock in question is an IP so checkuser can do nothing (something, it might be worth noting, that was already specifically pointed out to you elsewhere). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , you just said in response to me that I'm somehow claiming "frequent victims of harassment should be civil to their harassers without demanding that the harassers stop or that the harassers should be held accountable for their harassment". I am talking about this thread, where three editors have brought up concerns about MjolnirPants's behavior. If you claiming that all three of us, including the original IP poster and myself, have a history of harassing MjolnirPants, then I think you need to provide diffs supporting those WP:ASPERSIONS. Otherwise, you need to seriously rethink your argument here that is based on broad accusations of bad faith. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know you from Adam, I did not say anything about you, and I don't appreciate your insinuating otherwise. I know that the IP was almost certainly acting in bad faith (why else would they log out to file this ANI report?), I know that the multitude of sock-trolls that have been banned over the years were doing similar, and TOA did ... all the stuff he has done in this thread (see the collapsed section below). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , once again, you are accusing other editors of being sockpuppets with no evidence. What evidence do you have that the original poster logged out of an account? Similarly, what diffs support your accusations that The owner of all is a sockpuppet account? If you have evidence, then please provide it so that they can be dealt with properly, otherwise, those are clear WP:ASPERSIONS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which editor have I accused of "being a sockpuppet"? Are you talking about me pointing out that someone logged out to file this ANI report (as has happened multiple times in the past -- not sure if this was MPants' reason for leaving for several years)? If so, why have you not been haranguing Grandpallama for making the exact same point two days ago? Wait... you did... can someone please tell Wallyfromdilbert to stop making repeated bad-faith "you're calling me a sockpuppet[eer]" arguments?! (And no, it is not enough to say that I accused TOA of sockpuppetry with the above list of questions: said questions came after TOA made a similar bad-faith "you are accusing me of sockpuppetry" remark. Yes, I do suspect that TOA may have other accounts -- the TOA account's edit history looks like that of a sleeper account -- and it wouldn't surprise me if he was also the IP that filed this bad-faith report, especially considering the similar wording to his own logged-in report from May, but this was not a suspicion I expressed publicly until after TOA asked, without justification, why I was "accusing him of sockpuppetry". My sockpuppetry comments, until this bizarre string of non-sequiturs, were all very clearly directed at "whoever it is who logged out to file this report".) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , you literally just repeated your claims of The owner of all being a sockpuppet, as well as your claim that the original IP poster is a sockpuppet account, both without evidence. The IP editor also appears to have a fairly regular editing pattern on their IPs going back to at least April:, . Where is your evidence for these claims, and otherwise, how is that not a clear WP:ASPERSIONS violation? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I did not "repeat" anything. I did not say either you or TOA was a sockpuppeteer until after you started falsely accusing me of saying as much. When someone says "the OP is clearly logging out to cause trouble" and you (repeatedly!) respond by reading your own name into such comments, it's not a good look (why would your mind even go there?). Moreover, per the above back-and-forths (of which you are almost certainly aware, as you inserted yourself into one of them), the 92 IPs are not related to the OP (a 27 in a completely different range on a different continent, with no edits besides this one) -- why are you bringing them up? Anyway, please stop pinging me. I am aware that this thread exists, that you do not seem to like me, and that you are intent on undermining everything I say in this thread, so you don't need to keep specifically notifying me about it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , actually, you almost immediately started making accusations of sockpuppetry . Also, Dumuzid did accuse me and the original IP poster of being the same person (based on a mistaken reading of the BLPN thread), and they subsequently apologized for that . You obviously need to take more time reading the threads you are participating on, although your repeated claims of bad faith are a more serious problem. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Curious that Roxy's accusation of sockpuppetry goes unnoticed by you, and you readily accepted Grandpallama's explantion, but somehow, when Hijiri said the same thing, you find that to be a personal affront. Falsely interpreting disagreement with you as incivility seems to be a recognizable pattern here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , you should really include diffs for your accusations, because Roxy never made an accusation of sockpuppetry that I can see. Hijiri88, on the other hand, has repeatedly made those claims. If you are not aware that repeatedly making claims of sockpuppetry without evidence is considered a personal attack, then please review WP:ASPERSIONS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wallyfromdilbert, I never accused you of anything, for the basic reason that I had no clue you were in any way implicated in this thread when I made my first post. By all means, enjoy your Wikidrama, but leave me out of it.  Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dumuzid, I was referring specifically to your statement: "Upon an overly quick reading, I thought the 'ping' comment was aimed at the IP. I see now where my mistake lies, and I am sorry you got the wrong impression". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wallyfromdilbert, I know very well to what you were referring. I will try again.  I could not possibly have been accusing you of anything because I had no idea you were involved.  Do you see the logic of that proposition?  I apologized because I could see from my comment how you might have incorrectly assumed I was.  I made no accusations against you, and I will not be marshalled as a piece of evidence in whatever is happening here.  I hope I have made myself clear. Dumuzid (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dumuzid, your previous claim that a comment directed towards me was about the IP was a mistake, and I appreciated your previous apology. Not sure what you are saying now. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I am quite simply saying the comment was never directed at you in any way, shape, or form. I had no idea you were in any way implicated. My comment was directed at an IP whom I assumed the entire complaint was referencing. Then you showed up out of left field, as far as I was concerned, to bark about SPIs and bad faith. I apologized since I understood how you could believe my comment was intended in that way. But I did not accuse you of being a sockpuppet, and I don't appreciate being used as some sort rhetorical lever in your ongoing banter. I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU OF ANYTHING. Do we now understand one another? Dumuzid (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dumuzid, you did actually accuse me, even if it was mistaken and not intended. I merely brought up that fact in response to Hijiri88's question "why would your mind even go there" regarding my initial response to you and another editor. If you didn't want to be involved, you were under no obligation to leave these responses. I have nothing else to say to you though, so feel free to get the last word if you wish. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, well then, Wallyfromdilbert--let's make it official, shall we? Your bizarrely thin skin and overwrought reactions here certainly make me suspicious that you are up to something untoward.  With that, I bid you adieu. Dumuzid (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dumuzid originally said: There doesn't seem to be an accusation of anything here. All his other interventions were apologies and clarification that he wasn't referring to you in any way with that first statement. —El Millo (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't want to directly edit your comment but can you append a note or something to explain the error? Despite the clarification above, I am still facing obviously false accusations of sockpuppetry as a result, such as this one immediately above. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but are you claiming that you are the OP of this thread? I'm legitimately confused. I interpreted your I have no idea who that IP is, but it is not me as meaning that you didn't know who opened this thread, nor why you were being connected to it, but now I get the impression that the (amendable-but-somehow-never-amended) OP signature was wrong and the (unamendable) edit summary that named 92.24.242.202 as the OP of this thread was correct? If you are the OP and you are a long-term editor with no account, I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I will not apologize for making the generic statement that, during MPants' periods of Wikipedia activity, bad-faith "civility" threads get opened about him on the drama boards by suspicious IPs, burner accounts, and sometimes non-socks that are still clearly editing tendentiously, on a regular basis (which is true), and I would ask that you and your confederates apologize for (i) opening this bogus thread (92.24.242.202), (ii) voting against someone in RFA for being a former fascist (not for having once been a fascist -- specifically for no longer being a fascist) (TOA), (iii) posting ... everything you see below this (TOA and WFD), (iv) not backing down or admitting fault in any of this (92.24.242.202, TOA, and WFD). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, the collapse was clearly about people calling me a Nazi, not about people calling you a sock. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , why are you now referring to me as a "confederate" of other accounts? Stop your baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, and don't ask me to apologize for things I have nothing to do with. There is nothing bogus about complaining about the consistent bad faith assumptions by you or the incivility by MjolnirPants. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

User:聖やや also seems to be failing to WP:AGF. Interesting that they are trying to tie me to ""WP:NONAZIS", when their own username has 88 in it. 19:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * Now that's casting aspersions! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm done being coy. Someone should promptly and indefinitely block TOA for the above comment, even if nothing else. I am not sure why a vandal account emerged from the woodwork nine years later to ask for their vandal account to be unblocked, then did very little other than petition for some changes to ArbCom, then disappeared again for several years only to re-emerge around the same time as MPants, but the above comment about my username is beyond the pale. (I have now restored the statements on my user page regarding my own "racial" background in case anyone is curious while I don't think it really matters and my username, which is a reference to the year of my birth, as it is for probably 90% of Wikipedians who were born and raised in either [a] countries that were neutral during World War II or [b] largely non-white countries and therefore would have no reason to know what the number signifies to American neo-fascists like a large number of Donald Trump supporters.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, placing the burden on victims of attacks like the above to change their user page to accommodate the ones who are in very blatant violation of NPA is pretty absurd. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You do realize that all of your edits in reference to me are attacking me, while the same is not true in reverse (I am not attacking, but rather explaining why I perceive that there is some policy violation). 00:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * I did not call you a Nazi. Technically, I didn't even say you were defending far-right terrorists and saying they should not be called fascists: I linked to comments where you seemed to be saying that, and I said those comments were "very concerning". You did call me a Nazi, and actually forced me to modify my own user page to get you to stop, which you have not done. Moreover, you came here specifically to smear and harass a good Wikipedian who has done nothing wrong, something I have seen happen to this specific Wikipedian more times than I care to count, and I am well within my rights to speak up in said Wikipedian's defense and point out that this has happened more times than I care to count. Whether or not you personally are connected with the various sockpuppets, meatpuppets and trolls who have done this in the past is irrelevant -- I have told you that it is the case, and you did not cease your disruptive behaviour, but rather doubled down and called me a Nazi. Therefore, I think you should be blocked from editing until you can demonstrate to the community that you understand what you have done wrong and will make efforts to prevent it from happening again. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I said that your username has 88 in it. Your interpretation of my statement is inaccurate. 01:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * What other thing could you have meant by this statement? —El Millo (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS to try to cast aspersions regarding my intent. 01:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * There's not much interpretation one needs to do to assume you implied that the 88 in Hijiri's name is related to fascism or nazism in some way. If you weren't saying what Hijiri says you were saying, then what were you saying? If someone misinterprets something you said, the best way to defend yourself is to clarify what you meant. —El Millo (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the implied connection to Nazism was inappropriate in the comments by both Hijiri88 and The owner of all, but there are also repeated claims by Hijiri88 that The owner of all is a sockpuppet account without Hijiri88 providing any evidence whatsoever connecting the account to another. Why is it appropriate to make those types of WP:ASPERSIONS without providing evidence for them? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, why do you say "you did not cease your disruptive behaviour, but rather doubled down"? I have not done anything to you nor have I made any comments to you other than the ones above. Is discussion on talk pages, etc. counted as "disruptive behaviour" [sic] ? 01:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * Also, Japan is non-white but they were not neutral during WWII. So there's that. 01:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

To be clear, I am not a Trump supporter but rather an independent that generally agrees with Libertarians. However I believe it is a violation of WP:AGF to label all Trump supporters as terrorists (and/or defenders of terrorists), as some editors have done both here and elsewhere. 02:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * 88 means good luck in some cultures. Not "heil Hitler." That was some stunning cultural ignorance you displayed in suggesting "Hijiri 88" is a Nazi reference. Protip: there are not a lot of Asian Nazis out there. Levivich 02:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in making assumptions about the cultures of other editors. I have not encountered 聖やや prior to this thread, so I have no reason to believe that his user name does or does not have any particular meaning. 02:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️